Jump to content

The WOKE Thread (Merged from WTF?)


Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, FLEA said:

No man, I've had plenty of days partying extraordinarily hard. Even had altercations with cops after being drunk. But we don't excuse anything else based on consumption of alcohol (rape, assault, etc....) I'm certainly not going to excuse a person who goes beyond retarded when theyre drunk for escalating a situation. You are responsible for your actions. If you fuck up drunk, we expect said Colonel to discipline you for it. 

(Also definitely not a Colonel or even close haha) 

Are you implying that the shootings in referring to included aggressive behavior? Again, did you watch the video I posted? Is that "beyond retarded?" What about Philando Castille? How about the cop who shot someone because she walked into the wrong apartment? How about the 13 year old with autism? This one?:

 

These aren't even impaired people. Our cops are too jumpy. That's not their fault, but it still needs to be fixed. 

 

These shootings do not represent the average cop, but they represent a problem none the less.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Wokeness training is cancelled. Signed - POTUS.  https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/M-20-34.pdf   

With the benefit of hindsight, what should he have done differently?     whatever your answer is, imagine trying to implement that COA in the Feb 2020 environment with the other party calling y

Here’s a photo. It’s disturbing and I debated posting it here but I think it’s relevant and appropriate in response to your post: The photo appears to show a couple of Kyle Rittenhouse’s

Posted Images

1 minute ago, Lord Ratner said:

Are you implying that the shootings in referring to included aggressive behavior? Again, did you watch the video I posted? Is that "beyond retarded?" What about Philando Castille? How about the cop who shot someone because she walked into the wrong apartment? How about the 13 year old with autism? This one?:

 

These aren't even impaired people. Our cops are too jumpy. That's not their fault, but it still needs to be fixed. 

 

These shootings do not represent the average cop, but they represent a problem none the less.

You probably should go back to the first 5 pages of this thread or so and read some of my posts. I think you would be surprised. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, FLEA said:

You probably should go back to the first 5 pages of this thread or so and read some of my posts. I think you would be surprised. 

I don't see how your view of systemic racism (which I disagree with as racism, but completely agree with IRT the societal trap that is keeping certain black communities stuck in a cycle of crime and violence) relates to the idea that police training is too quick to kill someone (regardless of skin color) who does not posses a firearm.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

I don't see how your view of systemic racism (which I disagree with as racism, but completely agree with IRT the societal trap that is keeping certain black communities stuck in a cycle of crime and violence) relates to the idea that police training is too quick to kill someone (regardless of skin color) who does not posses a firearm.

I'll write a response in a few. Keep getting pulled away from my Zoom class. Lol. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
You probably should go back to the first 5 pages of this thread or so and read some of my posts. I think you would be surprised. 

Careful, there’s a kid on here who’ll call you out for not re-hashing EVERYTHING you’ve already said many times. You and I don’t agree on this topic, but I totally respect you and your position because I’ve read it many times. I wouldn’t further ask you to repost it all because I’m too lazy or stupid to have read it the first few times...

Was that too on the nose? I kind of apologize, it was also a little passive aggressive, but at least I recognize it right?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Guardian said:

Let’s hope with interpersonal skills, logic, and reasoning demonstrated that you have little to no impact on the AF your level. But Goldfien and Schwartz made it to the top. So there is probably hope for you.

Who's the troll now?

Link to post
Share on other sites
At best it was pouting.

And kind of funny too. Because you’ve asked me to repost my questions you didn’t answer in the past.

Everyone’s a critic and everyone’s a hypocrite.

Edit: except you of course......

Whatever garbage you say after this is my own fault for coming back to this stupidity...

Please explain to me why it is worth my time to go back and repost well thought out arguments, documented statistics, and reasoned arguments just so you can ignore them again? If we were arguing some new aspect, then by all means, call out the lack of facts. The facts are all here on everything that has been said by me today. Read the FCIF, son.

You've made some bold statements about the function of the AF with "people like me" and that would lead me to believe you're either not all that experienced, or you're one of those guys in the squadron people avoid because you're incredibly opinionated and just not fun to have these discussions with. Follow the example of some of the other hyper-conservatives on here that listen, respond with reason, rationality, and often, even logic. Don't immediately call someone a troll because you disagree.

Before you say I do the same, why don't you go back and look at (the only person I can think of) when I implied sim was a troll. See just how many garbage, angry, unsupported posts that cat has made before I said anything. FLEA, Lord Ratner, KA and others I can't think of are on your side, but they are head and shoulders above you in the how-to-argue-a-point department. Maybe ask them for some pointers.

I think it was Lord Ratner or FLEA who just said it, but we're (them and me, not you I guess) like 80% on the same page for most topics. The 20% we don't see eye to eye on are incredibly informative for me. They've helped me open the aperture quite a bit, helped me solidify my defense of other areas, and sometimes made me scratch my head.

Dudes/dudettes are legit. You don't seem like a troll, but you do come across like my 18 year old who is an inch deep in a lot of political topics, but gets super emotional super quick trying to come off as knowledgeable in all of those topics.. You can't wait to fight with anyone posting a dissenting opinion, make tons of unsubstantiated accusations, and then ignore when they provide you with well thought-out responses.

Seriously, I'm not sure (unless you are trolling me, then bravo, well done) how you're missing this. Go back and re-read the post I made where I asked you to repost questions. I also did my best to go back and find those questions and answer them. You never responded to any of those answers to my recollection. If you did, my apologies, I'm old...


Your hypocrisy comment is laughable on the surface. I have admitted my error in many posts, acknowledged where others had good points and thanked them even. If I make a hypocritical statement it is out of error, and I try to correct that. Nott perfect , or even in the ballpark, but I sure as heck ain't guilty of 90% of the stuff you say.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, slackline said:


Big, massive, enormous difference in what I said and calling that cop racist. Systemic racism doesn’t require racist people. The system has biases that say that POC are more dangerous than white people, so they’re more prone to reacting with violence quicker to POC than to white people.

I highly doubt that cop is racist.
 

You said a black man in THAT video would have been shot much earlier than THIS white guy. The system did not shoot the white guy, a cop did. To say that cop, whom you know nothing of, would have shot a black man sooner means means that cop decides when to pull the trigger based on race.

If you doubt that cop is racist, why do you believe he would have pulled the trigger sooner? How can you possibly stand by this argument?

Link to post
Share on other sites
You said a black man in THAT video would have been shot much earlier than THIS white guy. The system did not shoot the white guy, a cop did. To say that cop, whom you know nothing of, would have shot a black man sooner means means that cop decides when to pull the trigger based on race.
If you doubt that cop is racist, why do you believe he would have pulled the trigger sooner? How can you possibly stand by this argument?

You serious Clark? (Almost time for the best Christmas movie ever)

Let’s slowly step through this. I must be getting old because my frustration with people unwilling to do any mental exercise on their own is growing...

If, the system/training/historical trends teach police to fear POC more than white people, they are more willing to use force, earlier than they would otherwise.

That does not equate to a police officer being racist. He/she is acting on the guidance of said institution. That is made fairly obvious by the fact that there are plenty of police POC that are using force disproportionately against POC as well.

The facts don’t lie. I’ll tell you the same thing I told Guardian, go back and read it in this thread. More white people having force used against them does not equate to them being just as targeted. There are simply more white people, almost 9x more white people. There are countless cases (already cited in here) documenting the fact that white criminals are way more likely to have a weapon and use that weapon against the police than POC are.

Say whatever you want about POC being more violent, more likely to commit crimes, but you are simply ignoring the circumstances they find themselves in.

BY NO MEANS DOES THAT EXCUSE ANY CRIME THEY COMMIT, but it sure does make you understand it a whole lot better. And oh by the way, very few crimes should result in the death of a suspect.

INCREDIBLY EXTREME and apples to oranges example to illustrate my point: a wife is abused by her husband for years both physically and mentally. She’s been sent to the hospital many times by him. She finally loses it one day, and while he’s verbally abusing her, she walks up behind him in the kitchen and stabs him. Her crime is still 100% a crime, but it sure is more relatable and understandable.

Here are two new additions to the plethora of data found in this thread to back up these facts:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2330443X.2019.1704330
From the abstract:
“I present several approaches considering the shooting locations both as fixed and also as a random sample. In both cases, I find overwhelming evidence of a racial disparity in shooting victims with respect to local population demographics but substantially less disparity after accounting for local arrest demographics.”

https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3660&context=faculty_scholarship
From the abstract:
“We find that, across several circumstances of police killings and their objective reasonableness, Black suspects are more than twice as likely to be killed by police than are persons of other racial or ethnic groups; even when there are no other obvious circumstances during the encounter that would make the use of deadly force reasonable.”



I fail to see how my position that there are problems in the system, leading to racial disparities in the use of force by LEOs, makes me a bleeding heart liberal. Criminals should 100% pay for their crimes, but rarely, if ever with their lives unless actively in the process of trying to seriously injure/kill someone else.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, FLEA said:

In general, police are exposed to far more risk than people in the military

And less than landscapers, roofers, fishermen, and truck drivers. The risk is exaggerated to support overly aggressive policing policies and unjust sentencing laws. In my opinion there are too many civilians killed to justify the current rate of risk. There should not be more unarmed civilians killed by cops than cops killed in the line of duty. The balance is way off when there are cases of children being killed.  Training and policies need to change, even if that means an increase in risk of death/injury due to becoming a police officer.

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I acknowledge police officers by far don't have the MOST dangerous job in the United States but they do have a higher than normal rate of danger. There are some key differences in the instances of officer deaths. One important one is that when an officer is killed in the line of duty it is an assault on an institution (justice by law) that attacks the fabric of society. This makes it more reprehensible than others occupational deaths. There is also the caveat that police officers work largely an environment where people are attempting to undermine them, where as other occupations do not. Hence their danger is relative to their vigilance. We have to recognize that police officers do not take the same types of Hippocratic oaths, and therefore do not have the same moral obligations to accept increasingly higher amounts of risk like members of the military. Despite that, they already are accepting higher risk. 

People often say "officers need more training" to which I ask... ok? What kind of training? What are they not already getting that you think will solve this issue. Simply pointing to training is like say SAPR training is going to eliminate rapes in the military. Its more complex than that.

When this thread opened I left a page on meaningful police reforms. That was the post I was alluding to and I was hoping people would find it. Regardless, I'll recap some of them. By and large the largest hurdle the criminal justice system faces in the country is lack of focus and lack of funding. They've suffered in much the same way the military has where they continually succumb to mission creep of increasingly greedy political officials who seek reelection, yet their budget is often the first to suffer spending cuts when room needs made for a high priority item that makes the city look good. Seattle is a great example of how toxic the relationship between political officials and the police department are. The Seattle mayor is literally denigrating police officers on live TV telling them they don't uphold the cities standards yet she appointed and empowered every single one of them to include the ones drawing departmental policies. When the military suffers failure it is embarrassing for the POTUS. Somehow police departments do not carry the same weight of blame. Regarding meaningful reforms:

 

1.) Officer manning needs increased exponentially. Most people are surprised to learn officers are no longer partnered. The buddy system is integral to literally every other job in the emergency response industry to include the military and fire departments. We bemoan our police officers for being in  fear for their lives but we send them of into communities that are often very hostile to them, by themselves. When my wife worked her metropolitan district she patrolled an under privileged neighborhood on the outskirts of the city where her nearest response was 18 minutes away. 

 

2.) To add to officer manning, it has long been known that community policing is more effective but far less efficient than patrol cars. Techniques like walking patrols and police kiosks are instrumental to creating communities ties. Think of your relationship with your postman. You probably don't know him by name or much about his family but I bet you know his face and trust him because he drops the mail off to you every day without fail. Because of that, you have developed trust with him, and you would think to tell him if something was wrong with your mail delivery service. When police officers patrol in vehicles, they become unapproachable. Walking patrols are extraordinarily effective but come with less safety for the officer and a much larger task to efficiency. Hence back to my prior point about manning. 

 

3.) Standards for career field entry for police departments are extraordinarily high. Much higher than holding a TS/SCI. The background check is very rigorous. This is problematic though. It makes it hard to recruit people of adversity or difficult backgrounds. Some people screw up in life, but they turn out to be amazing people who would make amazing mentors and roll models. Policing is primarily a community focused roll and the people serving a community should come from within it. Yet in some of the worst neighborhoods we can't do this because the people that grow up in those climates are unlikely to make it to college with a completely clean record. A pathway needs to be created to get these people of excellent character into the field without expecting perfection in their background.

 

4.) End the war on drugs. I'm not sure this one is worth debating anymore. Very few people support the massive resource waste this is at the moment. I'm not saying crack parties for all, but lets be sensible and stop wasting massive resources on find people and arresting people who the only thing they've done was jay walked with heroine in their pocket. 

 

5.) Traffic camera enforcement: This one is unpopular but I've come to realize it has some major advantages. The first one is, it removes cops from pulling traffic which has largely become an industry to prop city revenues and it against waste police officers time and resources. That industry has stained the community perception of police officers and tarnished the reputation of their office. It creates thousands of negative interactions with cops every year. If people have a bad story about a cop its usually about how they were an ass hole for giving them a speeding ticket. Its also a waste of the above mentioned limited resources and manning. 

 

I think any conversation on how to reform criminal justice in the United States needs to begin with how do we increase public trust in the police department and make the work environment safer for cops. If you can start there you can probably start to find solutions. But the problem is, all of them cost money, and no one wants to hold political officials accountable for doing a terrible job of appropriating departments. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes I acknowledge police officers by far don't have the MOST dangerous job in the United States but they do have a higher than normal rate of danger. There are some key differences in the instances of officer deaths. One important one is that when an officer is killed in the line of duty it is an assault on an institution (justice by law) that attacks the fabric of society. This makes it more reprehensible than others occupational deaths. There is also the caveat that police officers work largely an environment where people are attempting to undermine them, where as other occupations do not. Hence their danger is relative to their vigilance. We have to recognize that police officers do not take the same types of Hippocratic oaths, and therefore do not have the same moral obligations to accept increasingly higher amounts of risk like members of the military. Despite that, they already are accepting higher risk. 
People often say "officers need more training" to which I ask... ok? What kind of training? What are they not already getting that you think will solve this issue. Simply pointing to training is like say SAPR training is going to eliminate rapes in the military. Its more complex than that.
When this thread opened I left a page on meaningful police reforms. That was the post I was alluding to and I was hoping people would find it. Regardless, I'll recap some of them. By and large the largest hurdle the criminal justice system faces in the country is lack of focus and lack of funding. They've suffered in much the same way the military has where they continually succumb to mission creep of increasingly greedy political officials who seek reelection, yet their budget is often the first to suffer spending cuts when room needs made for a high priority item that makes the city look good. Seattle is a great example of how toxic the relationship between political officials and the police department are. The Seattle mayor is literally denigrating police officers on live TV telling them they don't uphold the cities standards yet she appointed and empowered every single one of them to include the ones drawing departmental policies. When the military suffers failure it is embarrassing for the POTUS. Somehow police departments do not carry the same weight of blame. Regarding meaningful reforms:
 
1.) Officer manning needs increased exponentially. Most people are surprised to learn officers are no longer partnered. The buddy system is integral to literally every other job in the emergency response industry to include the military and fire departments. We bemoan our police officers for being in  fear for their lives but we send them of into communities that are often very hostile to them, by themselves. When my wife worked her metropolitan district she patrolled an under privileged neighborhood on the outskirts of the city where her nearest response was 18 minutes away. 
 
2.) To add to officer manning, it has long been known that community policing is more effective but far less efficient than patrol cars. Techniques like walking patrols and police kiosks are instrumental to creating communities ties. Think of your relationship with your postman. You probably don't know him by name or much about his family but I bet you know his face and trust him because he drops the mail off to you every day without fail. Because of that, you have developed trust with him, and you would think to tell him if something was wrong with your mail delivery service. When police officers patrol in vehicles, they become unapproachable. Walking patrols are extraordinarily effective but come with less safety for the officer and a much larger task to efficiency. Hence back to my prior point about manning. 
 
3.) Standards for career field entry for police departments are extraordinarily high. Much higher than holding a TS/SCI. The background check is very rigorous. This is problematic though. It makes it hard to recruit people of adversity or difficult backgrounds. Some people screw up in life, but they turn out to be amazing people who would make amazing mentors and roll models. Policing is primarily a community focused roll and the people serving a community should come from within it. Yet in some of the worst neighborhoods we can't do this because the people that grow up in those climates are unlikely to make it to college with a completely clean record. A pathway needs to be created to get these people of excellent character into the field without expecting perfection in their background.
 
4.) End the war on drugs. I'm not sure this one is worth debating anymore. Very few people support the massive resource waste this is at the moment. I'm not saying crack parties for all, but lets be sensible and stop wasting massive resources on find people and arresting people who the only thing they've done was jay walked with heroine in their pocket. 
 
5.) Traffic camera enforcement: This one is unpopular but I've come to realize it has some major advantages. The first one is, it removes cops from pulling traffic which has largely become an industry to prop city revenues and it against waste police officers time and resources. That industry has stained the community perception of police officers and tarnished the reputation of their office. It creates thousands of negative interactions with cops every year. If people have a bad story about a cop its usually about how they were an ass hole for giving them a speeding ticket. Its also a waste of the above mentioned limited resources and manning. 
 
I think any conversation on how to reform criminal justice in the United States needs to begin with how do we increase public trust in the police department and make the work environment safer for cops. If you can start there you can probably start to find solutions. But the problem is, all of them cost money, and no one wants to hold political officials accountable for doing a terrible job of appropriating departments. 

All great points, honestly. I think another great thing to discuss that runs parallel with every one of these points is upping manning/funding for mental health specialists so we can stop calling police to handle situations they have zero business being involved in.

I am curious where you get your data on standards for entry though because I know some huge mental rocks and people that don’t look to ever have seen the inside of a gym. Maybe they were in shape at one point, but they don’t belong in a uniform now... Maybe the criminal background is all you’re referring to, but I don’t think one has to be very intelligent to be a beat cop.

So, an unpopular point is redirecting funding away from the militarization and making of cops to “appear” more like a military force. More time spent on deescalation, legit training that is recurring to constantly ensure they know how to handle the stressors they’ll be facing, and a longer pipeline with actual standards required to be maintained throughout their career.

You redirect some of the funding you can up the manning and their pay. More numerous cops with higher pay equals less danger faced per individual.

Just thoughts I have on it...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, slackline said:


All great points, honestly. I think another great thing to discuss that runs parallel with every one of these points is upping manning/funding for mental health specialists so we can stop calling police to handle situations they have zero business being involved in.

I am curious where you get your data on standards for entry though because I know some huge mental rocks and people that don’t look to ever have seen the inside of a gym. Maybe they were in shape at one point, but they don’t belong in a uniform now... Maybe the criminal background is all you’re referring to, but I don’t think one has to be very intelligent to be a beat cop.

So, an unpopular point is redirecting funding away from the militarization and making of cops to “appear” more like a military force. More time spent on deescalation, legit training that is recurring to constantly ensure they know how to handle the stressors they’ll be facing, and a longer pipeline with actual standards required to be maintained throughout their career.

You redirect some of the funding you can up the manning and their pay. More numerous cops with higher pay equals less danger faced per individual.

Just thoughts I have on it...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I am talking specifically about the criminal background. You basically have to have never made a mistake in your life. Mental health background has to be squeaky clean as well. Bottom line is the city is going to give you a gun and they see it as a liability if youre ever involved in a shooting and someone can question your mental acumen. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll go out on a limb and say I'm probably the only forum member who has been both an active duty AF aircrew member and a full time street cop/detective. Its interesting to see professional aircrew members here citing anecdotes based on seconds-long video clips, with minimal context, in order to make generalized conclusions regarding policing in America. You guys are taxpaying Americans and entitled to make any judgements you want. But oblige me for a moment...

I was involved in a Class A mishap during my active duty AF time. I don't remember anyone taking partial/preliminary information or hearsay from that incident to diagnose the entire AF flying community as a bunch of f***-ups. I've always appreciated the way the aviation industry generally reserves judgement until an objective investigation has been completed. That investigation takes into account every possible environmental factor, human factor, the aircrew's training and experience, the unit culture and adherence to standards, etc, etc.

A lot of guys in this thread are posting anecdotal videos without the full context to supposedly prove a point. Anyone can use Google to find a few videos/anecdotes to fit their narrative in this debate. But the issues surrounding US policing today are so much more complex than that. Is policing in America broken? Yes, in my opinion. Is it because cops are systemically racist? No, in my opinion. 

I've read thread after thread on this site over the years...in which professional aircrew members warn of the cluster f*** that the AF flying community would become when all of the experience and talent decides to leave. Let's consider what the AF flying community would become if the starting pay was <$40K with shitty benefits, a few months of training before being put in harm's way, and a public perception that you were all a bunch of racist thugs.

Edited by VTguy
BODN doesn't like my curse words
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FLEA said:

Yes I acknowledge police officers by far don't have the MOST dangerous job in the United States but they do have a higher than normal rate of danger. There are some key differences in the instances of officer deaths. One important one is that when an officer is killed in the line of duty it is an assault on an institution (justice by law) that attacks the fabric of society. This makes it more reprehensible than others occupational deaths. There is also the caveat that police officers work largely an environment where people are attempting to undermine them, where as other occupations do not. Hence their danger is relative to their vigilance. We have to recognize that police officers do not take the same types of Hippocratic oaths, and therefore do not have the same moral obligations to accept increasingly higher amounts of risk like members of the military. Despite that, they already are accepting higher risk. 

People often say "officers need more training" to which I ask... ok? What kind of training? What are they not already getting that you think will solve this issue. Simply pointing to training is like say SAPR training is going to eliminate rapes in the military. Its more complex than that.

When this thread opened I left a page on meaningful police reforms. That was the post I was alluding to and I was hoping people would find it. Regardless, I'll recap some of them. By and large the largest hurdle the criminal justice system faces in the country is lack of focus and lack of funding. They've suffered in much the same way the military has where they continually succumb to mission creep of increasingly greedy political officials who seek reelection, yet their budget is often the first to suffer spending cuts when room needs made for a high priority item that makes the city look good. Seattle is a great example of how toxic the relationship between political officials and the police department are. The Seattle mayor is literally denigrating police officers on live TV telling them they don't uphold the cities standards yet she appointed and empowered every single one of them to include the ones drawing departmental policies. When the military suffers failure it is embarrassing for the POTUS. Somehow police departments do not carry the same weight of blame. Regarding meaningful reforms:

 

1.) Officer manning needs increased exponentially. Most people are surprised to learn officers are no longer partnered. The buddy system is integral to literally every other job in the emergency response industry to include the military and fire departments. We bemoan our police officers for being in  fear for their lives but we send them of into communities that are often very hostile to them, by themselves. When my wife worked her metropolitan district she patrolled an under privileged neighborhood on the outskirts of the city where her nearest response was 18 minutes away. 

 

2.) To add to officer manning, it has long been known that community policing is more effective but far less efficient than patrol cars. Techniques like walking patrols and police kiosks are instrumental to creating communities ties. Think of your relationship with your postman. You probably don't know him by name or much about his family but I bet you know his face and trust him because he drops the mail off to you every day without fail. Because of that, you have developed trust with him, and you would think to tell him if something was wrong with your mail delivery service. When police officers patrol in vehicles, they become unapproachable. Walking patrols are extraordinarily effective but come with less safety for the officer and a much larger task to efficiency. Hence back to my prior point about manning. 

 

3.) Standards for career field entry for police departments are extraordinarily high. Much higher than holding a TS/SCI. The background check is very rigorous. This is problematic though. It makes it hard to recruit people of adversity or difficult backgrounds. Some people screw up in life, but they turn out to be amazing people who would make amazing mentors and roll models. Policing is primarily a community focused roll and the people serving a community should come from within it. Yet in some of the worst neighborhoods we can't do this because the people that grow up in those climates are unlikely to make it to college with a completely clean record. A pathway needs to be created to get these people of excellent character into the field without expecting perfection in their background.

 

4.) End the war on drugs. I'm not sure this one is worth debating anymore. Very few people support the massive resource waste this is at the moment. I'm not saying crack parties for all, but lets be sensible and stop wasting massive resources on find people and arresting people who the only thing they've done was jay walked with heroine in their pocket. 

 

5.) Traffic camera enforcement: This one is unpopular but I've come to realize it has some major advantages. The first one is, it removes cops from pulling traffic which has largely become an industry to prop city revenues and it against waste police officers time and resources. That industry has stained the community perception of police officers and tarnished the reputation of their office. It creates thousands of negative interactions with cops every year. If people have a bad story about a cop its usually about how they were an ass hole for giving them a speeding ticket. Its also a waste of the above mentioned limited resources and manning. 

 

I think any conversation on how to reform criminal justice in the United States needs to begin with how do we increase public trust in the police department and make the work environment safer for cops. If you can start there you can probably start to find solutions. But the problem is, all of them cost money, and no one wants to hold political officials accountable for doing a terrible job of appropriating departments. 

1-4) Yup. Though I'll add, we can't legalize all drugs. And we can't ignore the use of certain drugs, like meth. America's "homelessness" problem is actual a drug abuse problem, and we are seeing the effects of a laissez faire approach to drug use and addiction. For the best summation of the problem I recommend watching "Seattle is Dying" by KOMO on YouTube. Should be required viewing.

 

5) Agreed but with a caveat: the private interests, if they are permitted (most cities don't run their cameras) must have absolutely no compensation based on the volume of infractions. Secondly, cities must establish a formula for yellow-light duration that is applied to all intersections that matches or exceeds pre-camera duration. 

 

You commentary on police partners is pretty much inline with my point. More cops = less need for fatal force in a given interaction. One on one, the point-of-no-return for a fatal interaction is much sooner. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, slackline said:

Agree mostly, but the risk most definitely is part of the job. If your own life is 100% your focus, I think “serving and protecting” is the wrong job for you. Should be very high on the list of priorities, but you do know what you are potentially signing up for. Maybe just arguing semantics here...

Gotta disagree with you completely on that one. Just because we have formalized/outsourced violence to an entity called the police does not make it their job (in any part) to get hurt while "serving and protecting" the rest of us. This is a "job" that has to be done by someone and is ultimately an extension of all of our most basic rights to not be harmed by other individuals - if we didn't have police is it my job to get a "little bit harmed" while defending my home because the robber has "rights" too? I don't think so. So the police who fulfill this role in society have zero duty to take even the smallest harm from those who are breaking laws - especially doing so violently.

The people who break the law and willfully conduct violence against others (including police officers) are 100% responsible because it is 100% their choice to take the actions that led to those outcomes.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

1-4) Yup. Though I'll add, we can't legalize all drugs. And we can't ignore the use of certain drugs, like meth. America's "homelessness" problem is actual a drug abuse problem, and we are seeing the effects of a laissez faire approach to drug use and addiction. For the best summation of the problem I recommend watching "Seattle is Dying" by KOMO on YouTube. Should be required viewing.

5) Agreed but with a caveat: the private interests, if they are permitted (most cities don't run their cameras) must have absolutely no compensation based on the volume of infractions. Secondly, cities must establish a formula for yellow-light duration that is applied to all intersections that matches or exceeds pre-camera duration. 

You commentary on police partners is pretty much inline with my point. More cops = less need for fatal force in a given interaction. One on one, the point-of-no-return for a fatal interaction is much sooner. 

Absolutely agree. Watched it a while ago and two things that stuck out to me were the fact that so many (almost all) of the homeless have either some sort of "debilitating" mental condition or are hopelessly addicted. One officer's quote stood out to me in particular: "Drug dealers selling crack, meth and heroin are evil people preying on the weakest part of society and belong in prison. We arrest them and nothing happens to them. They are back out on the street immediately. We need to acknowledge the disregard for human life inherent in selling life ending drugs and lock the dealers up for serious time."

There are elements in society that literally profit from people's death. I'm open (but skeptical) to the "legalization" argument. Weed has been legal in a lot of states now, and there is still a very strong illicit market for it, so I don't buy the argument that we can just tax it and it'll just all be ok.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, ViperMan said:

Absolutely agree. Watched it a while ago and two things that stuck out to me were the fact that so many (almost all) of the homeless have either some sort of "debilitating" mental condition or are hopelessly addicted. One officer's quote stood out to me in particular: "Drug dealers selling crack, meth and heroin are evil people preying on the weakest part of society and belong in prison. We arrest them and nothing happens to them. They are back out on the street immediately. We need to acknowledge the disregard for human life inherent in selling life ending drugs and lock the dealers up for serious time."

There are elements in society that literally profit from people's death. I'm open (but skeptical) to the "legalization" argument. Weed has been legal in a lot of states now, and there is still a very strong illicit market for it, so I don't buy the argument that we can just tax it and it'll just all be ok.

Local governments are super complicit in this as well, as you alluded to. In California taxpayer money goes to a program that allows homeless drug users to exchange dirty needles for clean ones. 
 

Just exacerbating the problems perpetually.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

A systematic review of 15 studies analyzing needle-syringe programs (NSP) found that NSP’s were associated with decreases in the prevalence of HIV and HCV and decreases in the incidence of HIV.[1] For example, a series of three-year longitudinal studies investigating the effect of New York’s legalization of syringe exchange programs between 1990 and 2002 found decreases in:

HIV prevalence from 50 percent to 17 percent (p<.001) [16]
Person-years at risk for HIV, from 3.55 to 0.77 per 100 person-years (p<.001)[16]
Another study that examined the effect of New York’s exchange program on the prevalence of HCV infection between 1990 and 2001 found that it was associated with a reduction in prevalence from 80 percent to 59 percent among HIV-negative intravenous drug users (p<0.034).[1, 17] An evaluation examining the District of Columbia’s lift of the Congressional ban on syringe exchange programs, which allowed the D.C. Department of Health to initiate an exchange program, showed a 70 percent decrease in new HIV cases among IDU and a total of 120 HIV cases averted in two years [18].

A cost-effectiveness analysis of a New York City needle syringe exchange estimated that the program would result in a baseline one year savings to the government of $1,300 to $3,000 per client. [19] Another cost-effectiveness analysis estimated that expanding access to clean syringes through an additional annual U.S. investment of $10 million would result in:

194 HIV infections averted in one year
A lifetime treatment cost savings of $75.8 million1A return on investment of $7.58 for every $1 spent (from the national perspective)[20]

https://www.cdc.gov/policy/hst/hi5/cleansyringes/index.html

The homelessness and drug abuse correlation is 100 percent true however CDC studies have shown that needle exchanges decrease overall government expenditure.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...