The WOKE Thread (Merged from WTF?)

[Homestar]

23 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Well, not too long ago (see below) you were able to make a comment on the likelihood of race and physical encounter with me enforcement...and now you don’t seem to be able to do so when I ask you in my post above.

6 hours ago, Homestar said:

Assuming he's white, he likely won't.

In every one of these cases de-escalation techniques might have prevented the need for force altogether, which I think we all agree is the desired goal.

Dude, you're being pedantic. It was a flippant, off-hand remark. You win.

[Lawman]

Are you asking me these questions or Homestar?

I’d honestly say we as a society need to be asking these questions but hell wherever anybody stands in this jump in. Answer the question in dollars and let’s say % of current deaths reduced.

It would be good to get a wide array of answers out in the forum only to show just how far apart (and in some cases backward) opinions are on a way forward.

Having been both in the academic and physical ends of this discussion it’s always amazing to see people demand change, only to immediately withdraw any actual motivation or funding that would result in any.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Lawman]

Sure, if I were writing a masters thesis on the topic.

So no....

You just want to be mad at a number you don’t understand then, but luckily you can find no lack of people telling your with little/no Context that it’s a bad number and you should be mad.

While we are at it, I can’t believe there were over 300 fatal plane crashes in this country. Year after year we do nothing to change that... we should be doing more.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[busdriver]

36 minutes ago, Lawman said:

Mandatory 2 officer patrol units, and more hours spent doing hand to hand combative/retention/ground drills. 

They also suck at shooting.

 

ETA:  Roland Fryer did a pretty exhaustive econometric deep dive into the racial disparities in police encounter outcomes.  The short version is there isn't a significant disparity between races in fatality rates that isn't explainable by non racist means.  There is a disparity in the rate at which officers use force below the lethal threshold.

Edited February 19, 2021 by busdriver

[HeloDude]

30 minutes ago, Lawman said:

I’d honestly say we as a society need to be asking these questions but hell wherever anybody stands in this jump in. Answer the question in dollars and let’s say % of current deaths reduced.

It would be good to get a wide array of answers out in the forum only to show just how far apart (and in some cases backward) opinions are on a way forward.

Having been both in the academic and physical ends of this discussion it’s always amazing to see people demand change, only to immediately withdraw any actual motivation or funding that would result in any.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

For starters, get rid of victimless crime laws.  I’m not saying that this does/does not have a specific racial element to it, but rather, why have any law enforcement action if there is no victim?  Remember Eric Garner being originally confronted for selling loose cigarettes?  Confrontation should have never occurred...

[Lawman]

For starters, get rid of victimless crime laws.  I’m not saying that this does/does not have a specific racial element to it, but rather, why have any law enforcement action if there is no victim?  Remember Eric Garner being originally confronted for selling loose cigarettes?  Confrontation should have never occurred...

There are plenty of people that would argue the actual act of prostitution is without violence (or even with if it’s agreed upon) a “victimless crime.” Now any dive into the world looking at it from the point of exploitation and all the little resultant negatives that come with it would see there is a whole lot of 2nd/3rd order effects that would definitely equal victimization.

Likewise when I lived in Washington a whole lot of vocal people wanted to get rid of the victimless act of drug use... forget all the property crime and other issues that resulted from it. Who is that junky hurting but themselves.... just ignore all those other issues.


There is very little in the typically referenced events that would be actual “victimless crimes.”


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[busdriver]

4 minutes ago, Lawman said:

There is very little in the typically referenced events that would be actual “victimless crimes.”

The crime itself is still victimless and the result of a consenting adult being a consenting adult, the secondary effects are typically already crimes themselves.

As a society we've waged war on the supply side of the drug question for decades, zero impact, shitloads of money spent, and the cartels have literal armies.  Our solution to the demand side is to just lock people up once their lives get shitty enough that they self destruct.  At what point do we stop doing the same thing over and over expecting a better outcome?

If for no other reason than taking money and power away from cartels and stop throwing money away trying to outspend them.

[Lord Ratner]

13 hours ago, Buddy Spike said:

 

 

He told the kid to put his hands up and the kid reached into his waistband in response.  Would you rather him wait to find out it's a real gun and get shot?

 

It seems insane that I have to say this, but YES.

It's a fucking kid. If we don't even expect the cops to take that level of risk, then we have no standards at all.

[pawnman]

7 hours ago, Lawman said:

How many hours of training are you willing to fund as a taxpayer? What qualitative impact in fatalities do we need to see to call it a good ROI? These are the two immediate questions that come to mind with people screaming we have to do something about the “epidemic of improper police violence” as som have called it.

You know what would actually translate better than most to immediately alleviating fear and stressors going into an encounter which will likely result to an officer employing greater force to include deadly force? Mandatory 2 officer patrol units, and more hours spent doing hand to hand combative/retention/ground drills. Both those are dead concepts the second you suggest them because while they do have an impact, they cost way more than anybody is willing to pay for a solution.

Again, this is stuff that requires more and wider funding/Manning to achieve actual downstream results (more arrests/less fatal encounters), but that’s not what the mob is shouting for now is it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

A lot more than we currently have.  When cosmetologists need twice as many hours of training as cops, it really shows where we are putting our effort.

[pawnman]

17 hours ago, Buddy Spike said:

 

He told the kid to put his hands up and the kid reached into his waistband in response.  Would you rather him wait to find out it's a real gun and get shot?

 

1. Lohman had previously been fired as a cop in a different city after being found "emotionally unstable and unfit for duty".

2. The 911 call detailed it was a kid, but that was never passed to responding officers.

3. From arrival to shooting was 2 seconds.  How much instruction do you think they gave Rice in 2 seconds?

So, for accountability...maybe cops need a nationwide database like pilots or doctors.  If you're unfit to be a cop in Chicago or Dallas, you're probably not going to be a good cop in Cleveland or LA.

[jazzdude]

Having been both in the academic and physical ends of this discussion it’s always amazing to see people demand change, only to immediately withdraw any actual motivation or funding that would result in any.

This is probably one of the most important points that gets missed or glossed over, not just in the police debate, but elsewhere in our society as well.

If something is important to our society, we have to be willing to pay for it (through taxes). Otherwise, it's not really important...

The only way to make it cheaper is through social norms we all abide by (whether it's written down in law, or just "understood"). Essentially, using social shame and embarrassment to discourage certain actions. But that requires everyone within a society to agree to and follow those norms.

So then the question becomes what duty does an individual have to the society they live in (an by extension, the government)? Is a person required to obey the law because it's the law, or to comply with the law because the penalty for not complying is a price they aren't willing to pay? (Coincidentally, the richer you get, the less you have to comply with laws, especially if the punishment is only a fine, unless there are progressive fines based on income or net worth. This creates an upper class that is removed from many of society's rules).

Our general ethos as Americans creates conflict: follow the law, unless the law is wrong or immoral, then your duty is to not follow the law. So it's unlikely we'd get everyone to follow the same norms, especially being a diverse nation and generally open society (which brings in differing values, which is a source of both greatness and conflict).

Since we have diverse communities, it helps if the police see themselves as *part* of the community they are policing, and not something external to the community that is there to establish order (I'm not a fan of the thin blue line movement because they subscribe to the latter notion). Being part of the community, and having officers from different subcommunities (race, gender, religion, etc) helps police understand the norms and values of the community, and build/foster a relationship with the community. That's not to say they won't have to enforce laws, or that they won't face dangerous situations that may require lethal force, but understanding how the community (or subcommunities) acts in different situations can help lower a patrolman's assessment of the threat, and using a "more appropriate" level of force.

[FLEA]

5 hours ago, pawnman said:

A lot more than we currently have.  When cosmetologists need twice as many hours of training as cops, it really shows where we are putting our effort.

Not sure you are right or have a point here. So google told me cosmology usually takes 40 weeks to get a certificate. This was the same period it took my wife to get qualified. (Not half of it as you claim) 20 weeks academy, 6 weeks additional academy (department specific training) and 14 weeks of Field Training (OJT with assigned training officer.) Additionally, you can say that pilots on the AF today under some of the new syllabuses are only getting 40 weeks or a bit more of training. 

 

So was your point here LEOs don't get enough training or that cosmology was surprisingly more complicated than you underestimated it for? 

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

Not sure you are right or have a point here. So google told me cosmology usually takes 40 weeks to get a certificate. This was the same period it took my wife to get qualified. (Not half of it as you claim) 20 weeks academy, 6 weeks additional academy (department specific training) and 14 weeks of Field Training (OJT with assigned training officer.) Additionally, you can say that pilots on the AF today under some of the new syllabuses are only getting 40 weeks or a bit more of training. 

 

So was your point here LEOs don't get enough training or that cosmology was surprisingly more complicated than you underestimated it for? 

National average for cosmetologists to be certified is 1300 hours. 

National average for police is 670 hours. 

https://www.insider.com/some-police-academies-require-fewer-hours-of-training-plumbing-2020-6

[FLEA]

49 minutes ago, pawnman said:

National average for cosmetologists to be certified is 1300 hours. 

National average for police is 670 hours. 

https://www.insider.com/some-police-academies-require-fewer-hours-of-training-plumbing-2020-6

For their basic training..... The article even tells you this. 

[pawnman]

15 minutes ago, FLEA said:

For their basic training..... The article even tells you this. 

How much of it do they have to complete before they give them a gun and send them on calls?

Also from the article: 

Quote

 The organization found that 36 states allow officers to start working for the force before attending basic training.

I didn't see anything in the article that talked about them doing another 600 hours of training before they were allowed to work, though.  Do you have some data on how much training police get, on average, before they are given a gun and put on the beat?  It's not in this article.

Edited February 19, 2021 by pawnman

[jazzdude]

Does a new cop get a gun if they are working before training?

What kind of work are they doing? Ride alongs? Office tasks? Getting coffee and stocking the snack bar? You know, typical AF casual LT type stuff. All of that is good, and even though it may not be loggable training, introduces the new officer to the office and work environment. If you don't think it's good or value added, well, write your congressman and point out the F/W/A of the AF paying casual LTs waiting to start UPT.

A spot check on the site you linked to for barber licensing was missing information. It missed that my current state accepts either 1300 hours of school, *or* 2000 hours of apprenticeship under a licensed master barber. Someone doing the latter path could be working on customers on day 1 as an apprentice working under someone else's license.

That's not to say that more upfront training, or an apprenticeship type approach (buddy system while out working in public, especially early on) couldn't be helpful in creating a better police force.

But again, it comes down to money. If that's something we want as the public, we need to pay for it through taxes (and ensure that the government uses those taxes for the intended purpose).

[jazzdude]

Speaking of money, the whole refund the police movement got pretty twisted.

It worked for Camden, NJ.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/09/us/disband-police-camden-new-jersey-trnd/index.html
But that was not just cutting funding (which did come back), it was a complete reset of their police force, to include firing many police officers (due to corruption in the force) and a new philosophy in community relations (being part of the community, rather than seeing the community as bad or the enemy).

I think we'd get much more traction in positive police and community relations and trust taking the approach Camden did, than from more police training etc.

[FLEA]

59 minutes ago, pawnman said:

How much of it do they have to complete before they give them a gun and send them on calls?

Also from the article: 

I didn't see anything in the article that talked about them doing another 600 hours of training before they were allowed to work, though.  Do you have some data on how much training police get, on average, before they are given a gun and put on the beat?  It's not in this article.

It's going to vary by department. Remember, police officers very on everything from Park Rangers to Native Reservation constables. Based on their jursdiction, type of crime interest, level of government, etc... It's going to vary. As I said, my wife, who worked for major metropolitan area, had 6 months of academy training (of which she carried a gun through near all of it technically, as firearms safety is a large part of their training) 

After 6 months, she was in field training, where she was exposed to the public but under extreme supervision and with 0 authority to make a decision or direct a scene. Only after she demonstrated her competence through several weeks of that was she fully credentialized through her agency to work autonomously. 

Also, researching cosmotology school a bit more, it would seem that's a bit of a false comparison. While it's true a full cosmotology program is nearly 40 weeks, this includes multiple occupations. Hair dresser, nails, skin, waxing, eyebrows, makeup, etc... Very few people are actually going to go through a full cosmotology program to be licensed. They will do 1 or 2 programs and build their career around that. 

 

 

[ViperMan]

19 hours ago, Homestar said:

I'm simply suggesting that the evidence shows that blacks are disproportionatly more likely to die from a police encounter than whites.

Do you acknowledge that police officers are much more likely to be involved in a violent confrontations with minorities as opposed to whites?

[ViperMan]

18 hours ago, HeloDude said:

For starters, get rid of victimless crime laws.  I’m not saying that this does/does not have a specific racial element to it, but rather, why have any law enforcement action if there is no victim?  Remember Eric Garner being originally confronted for selling loose cigarettes?  Confrontation should have never occurred...

I agree with your general sentiment, but honestly, what is a victimless crime? If I don't pay my taxes, that's victimless, right? I mean, I should be allowed to not pay a dime in property taxes but keep my house, right?

Likewise I should be allowed to sell an otherwise regulated product (cigarettes) whilst others abide the rules, thereby taking advantage of those who do, right?

I'm in favor of the libertarian sentiment that I should be basically allowed to do whatever I want, but that's not our society. There are rules (this isn't 'Nam). If rules are going to be enforced selectively, that's a massive problem. And if we're being real, the only reason Eric Garner was even able to sell cigarettes is because other people were following the rules, which is the definition of wrong, and decidedly not why our laws exist.

Edited February 19, 2021 by ViperMan
clarity

[ViperMan]

12 hours ago, pawnman said:

A lot more than we currently have.  When cosmetologists need twice as many hours of training as cops, it really shows where we are putting our effort.

 

5 hours ago, pawnman said:

National average for cosmetologists to be certified is 1300 hours. 

National average for police is 670 hours. 

https://www.insider.com/some-police-academies-require-fewer-hours-of-training-plumbing-2020-6

Comparing required, necessary governmental functions (police) to not-required, unnecessary commercial functions (cosmetology) is apples to oranges and is a red herring.

Much (most) of the ridiculous training, certification, and licensure that is attendant of certain professions is protectionism and regulatory capture - implemented in order to prevent others from entering a given market - and thus has little to do with the actually achieving proficiency in a given profession. Or do you actually think the 1300-2000 hours of training required to be "certified" to cut hair or paint nails is necessary? I'm sure each of the CBTs about hair-curlers are just bursting with new information and that if you miss a bullet point it's gone forever. It's ridiculous on it's face to license someone to cut hair. It's even more ridiculous that these licenses need to be "renewed." Please.

So let's not draw invalid conclusions comparing "trainings" that serve wildly different purposes.

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, ViperMan said:

 

Comparing required, necessary governmental functions (police) to not-required, unnecessary commercial functions (cosmetology) is apples to oranges and is a red herring.

Much (most) of the ridiculous training, certification, and licensure that is attendant of certain professions is protectionism and regulatory capture - implemented in order to prevent others from entering a given market - and thus has little to do with the actually achieving proficiency in a given profession. Or do you actually think the 1300-2000 hours of training required to be "certified" to cut hair or paint nails is necessary? I'm sure each of the CBTs about hair-curlers are just bursting with new information and that if you miss a bullet point it's gone forever. It's ridiculous on it's face to license someone to cut hair. It's even more ridiculous that these licenses need to be "renewed." Please.

So let's not draw invalid conclusions comparing "trainings" that serve wildly different purposes.

Maybe it is overblown for cosmetologists...but I think it shows where the priorities are for state and city governments. 

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, ViperMan said:

I agree with your general sentiment, but honestly, what is a victimless crime? If I don't pay my taxes, that's victimless, right? I mean, I should be allowed to not pay a dime in property taxes but keep my house, right?

Likewise I should be allowed to sell an otherwise regulated product (cigarettes) whilst others abide the rules, thereby taking advantage of those who do, right?

I'm in favor of the libertarian sentiment that I should be basically allowed to do whatever I want, but that's not our society. There are rules (this isn't 'Nam). If rules are going to be enforced selectively, that's a massive problem. And if we're being real, the only reason Eric Garner was even able to sell cigarettes is because other people were following the rules, which is the definition of wrong, and decidedly not why our laws exist.

Could have been a simple ticket and a fine. 

[ViperMan]

38 minutes ago, pawnman said:

Maybe it is overblown for cosmetologists...but I think it shows where the priorities are for state and city governments. 

Right. Money.

36 minutes ago, pawnman said:

Could have been a simple ticket and a fine. 

I agree, and it probably would have been had he not already been repeatedly arrested for the same crime (https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-city-police-officer-wont-face-criminal-charges-in-eric-garner-death-1417635275). Something tells me he's not getting the message? I don't know, but I get the feeling this guy decided he doesn't care about certain laws or consequences. Want to change a law? Awesome, there are ways to do that in our society, but continual and open disregard for the enforcement arm of our government is not one of them.

"He has a criminal record that includes more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980 on charges such as assault, resisting arrest and grand larceny. An official said the charges include several incidents in which he was arrested for selling unlicensed cigarettes."

How many posting on this message board can relate to the type of life this guy leads? Has any of us been arrested 30 times? For the same crime? Would any of us resist arrest? Or would you rather just have your day in court?

Here's video with as much context as I could find. The first minute has all the context required to establish the type of interaction it was. The officers attempted reasoning with him first. Attempted/offered a gentle arrest, which was rejected, and then escalated. I'm not saying that he deserved to die. I'm saying that this is yet another instance where circumstances are vital to understanding the whole picture. Here, this has been intentionally misrepresented in order to help paint a picture and establish a narrative that just simply isn't true.

 

[17D_guy]

31 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

Right. Money.

I agree, and it probably would have been had he not already been repeatedly arrested for the same crime (https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-city-police-officer-wont-face-criminal-charges-in-eric-garner-death-1417635275). Something tells me he's not getting the message? I don't know, but I get the feeling this guy decided he doesn't care about certain laws or consequences. Want to change a law? Awesome, there are ways to do that in our society, but continual and open disregard for the enforcement arm of our government is not one of them.

"He has a criminal record that includes more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980 on charges such as assault, resisting arrest and grand larceny. An official said the charges include several incidents in which he was arrested for selling unlicensed cigarettes."

How many posting on this message board can relate to the type of life this guy leads? Has any of us been arrested 30 times? For the same crime? Would any of us resist arrest? Or would you rather just have your day in court?

Here's video with as much context as I could find. The first minute has all the context required to establish the type of interaction it was. The officers attempted reasoning with him first. Attempted/offered a gentle arrest, which was rejected, and then escalated. I'm not saying that he deserved to die. I'm saying that this is yet another instance where circumstances are vital to understanding the whole picture. Here, this has been intentionally misrepresented in order to help paint a picture and establish a narrative that just simply isn't true.

 

Quote

I'm not saying that he deserved to die

You sure?  Pretty sure you spent most of that post showing reasons he should die, and 1 line saying he shouldn't.

Quote

Here, this has been intentionally misrepresented in order to help paint a picture and establish a narrative that just simply isn't true.

I've watched the whole video before it was removed from everywhere. I disagree with your assessment of "truth."