Sandydragon wrote: There definitely has to be better training in the threat and response pyramid, including the use of non-lethal weapons and the best way to de-escalate a situation.
I've never been convinced that US police are interested in de-escalating anything; they always seem much more interested in escalating beyond the point that the "criminal" is willing to go to, safe in knowledge that the more the situation escalates the more the law favours them.
nydailynews wrote:Of the 1,200 people killed by American police in 2015, only seven cases resulted in charges — a ridiculously tiny number. Six other officers were charged this year for deaths that happened as far back as early 2013 — as police investigations into their own wrongdoing have a dubious way of dragging on not weeks or months, but years.
Here's where I drop the hammer:
Not one single police officer was convicted for an on-duty death in 2015.
BBC wrote:"Everybody knows policing is violent, and [jurors] don't want to second guess those decisions," says Philip Stinson, a researcher at Bowling Green State University in Ohio and former police officer.
...
Mr Stinson's own research found 41 police officers were charged with murder or manslaughter between 2005 and 2011. In the same time period, the FBI recorded several thousand justifiable homicides.
Which is part of the problem. The point of force within a policing context is that you use the minimum to achieve the aim and then reduce the tension. We don't always get that right in this country,but I think we are both agreeing that there is an element of gung ho in American policing which serves to create an escalation, almost regardless of the scenario.
The problem is, that whilst we could suggest training and more robust investigations, the issue is that US police are part of their own culture. Gung ho attitude and a love of firearms is widely accepted in society, with their attitude to firearms (or the more vocal parts of it anyway) they are getting the police force they deserve - one that is permanently pumped up and views the firearm as the go-to solution.
I would have thought the fact that the force seems attractive for violent pig-ignorant racist cunts as being an equally acute issue.
All told, the ESPYs are a nauseating affair -- an Excellence in Sports Performance Yearly awards show wherein the wealthiest sports media company endows itself with the authority to determine who played the best. The awards don't showcase the athletes so much as the outsized influence of the Worldwide Leader. The event happens because it can.
That subtext made the opening of last week's show all the more remarkable. Carmelo Anthony, Chris Paul, Dwayne Wade and LeBron James -- four of the NBA's best and most visible players -- transformed a vacuous event into a crucial one as they responded to the recent killings of Alton Sterling, Philando Castile and five Dallas police officers.
"The events of the past week have put a spotlight on the injustice, distrust and anger that plagues so many of us," said Anthony. The players went on to affirm the value of Black lives while acknowledging the important societal role police can play. Then, James addressed his colleagues: "Let's use this moment as a call to action for all professional athletes to educate ourselves, explore these issues, speak up, use our influence and renounce all violence," he implored.
Rejecting the vow of political silence by which superstars often abide, these players took a firm political stand on a national stage. Their address invoked activist athletes of yesteryear like Bill Russell, John Carlos and the late Muhammad Ali.
While this political stand may have seemed astonishing, or even groundbreaking in the minds of some, numerous Black athletes had previously laid the groundwork for this call to action.
Back in September 2015, Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman told ESPN, "As a Black man, I do understand that Black lives matter... I stand for that." And on July 9, 2016, the entirety of the Minnesota Lynx, a WNBA team, wore warmup shirts bearing the names of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile. The attire prompted four off-duty cops, working private security for the game, to walk off the job. Perhaps most notably, Serena Williams responded to the police killing of Philando Castile from across the ocean at Wimbledon. "In London I have to wake up to this," she tweeted. "When will something be done -- no REALLY be done?!?!"
All of these athletes, however, have something in common: they are Black. Perhaps James could've directed his admonition at white athletes in particular, who have largely remained quiet amid the violence. By my count, the only white athletes who have spoken out are former Oakland Athletics reliever Huston Street and Lindsay Whalen, a point guard for the Lynx.
The morning after the ESPYs, ESPN commentator Bomani Jones noted this absence of white voices during an appearance on the show First Take. "What would Tom Brady feel about this? What does Peyton Manning feel about this?" he wondered. "If they said something, I bet you'd see more people responsive to change. This can't be the exclusive responsibility of four really good basketball players."
Jones' cohost, Freddie Coleman, agreed: "When you bring in race, politics and religion things get really muddy. And a lot of people don't want to be in those muddy waters." It's time white athletes, especially prominent ones like Brady and Manning, risked sullying their apolitical public personas. Black athletes face mounting pressure in that regard. White athletes should be held to the same standard.
The need for white athletes to come forward reflects a growing national sentiment that racial issues like police brutality go beyond the identity of those most adversely affected. "This is not just a Black issue," said President Obama last week. "All fair-minded people should be concerned." In turn, a movement has sprung up demanding whites acknowledge the systemic racism that renders Black lives less valuable. Hashtags and testimonials to that effect have flooded social media, and at one of many recent rallies, over 100 people gathered to break white silence outside the Louisville, Kentucky police headquarters last week.
"Part of why this continues to happen is too many of us who are white are silent when it comes to police abuse of Black or Brown people," said Carla Wallace, an organizer of the event.
White athletes carry an even greater obligation to speak up than most, since they benefit from a workplace that is overwhelmingly Black. The National Basketball Association and National Football League are made up of 75 percent and 68 percent Black players, respectively. Though Major League Baseball trails far behind with just 8 percent representation for Black players, it's safe to say Black players make up a disproportionate number of professional athletes.
"Peyton Manning, Kevin Love, Tom Brady, Mike Trout, Aaron Rodgers: this is the culture that has made you famous," wrote The Nation sportswriter Dave Zirin. "It's time, white athletes: take some of the damn weight."
Living and working alongside Black peers, white athletes offer a unique vantage from which to criticize racial injustice. Such integration, after all, is hardly the norm. A recent Brookings Institution study found that many Americans, by virtue (or vice) of circumstance, carry on segregated lives. The study used zero as a measure for perfect integration and 100 as one of complete segregation, and found that most of the country's largest metropolitan areas have segregation levels of 50 to 70.
In the absence of interactions with Black neighbors, whites can succumb to biases steeped in history and reinforced by popular culture. "It's the perception of threat from an out-group, regardless of the actual presence of threat, that predicts prejudice," Kimberly Rios, a professor of psychology at Ohio University, told The New York Times. As high-profile members of the white community, white sports stars can help alleviate racial ills by acknowledging white supremacy and demonstrating solidarity with their Black teammates.
If white athletes step forward, then maybe a commitment to humanity and justice will come from the most powerful white people in sports: the team owners. Then we'd really be getting somewhere.
The news and analysis at Truthout go way beyond the talking points. You can contribute to the creation of independent, insightful journalism by making a donation today!
One would hope to see a combined approach of giving the police better/more rounded training so they're less likely to shoot, better training so they can hit what they aim for, and too they've got to start working on creating an environment that's less violent for the police to work in.
Trump has declared if he takes over there'll be a return to law and order, heaven knows what he means (if anything) as he sure didn't set out how that might be done.
Digby wrote:One would hope to see a combined approach of giving the police better/more rounded training so they're less likely to shoot, better training so they can hit what they aim for, and too they've got to start working on creating an environment that's less violent for the police to work in.
Trump has declared if he takes over there'll be a return to law and order, heaven knows what he means (if anything) as he sure didn't set out how that might be done.
It means heavier armed cops outside his apartment building on Park Ave. and carte blanche for rich white people with assault weapons.
Digby wrote:One would hope to see a combined approach of giving the police better/more rounded training so they're less likely to shoot, better training so they can hit what they aim for, and too they've got to start working on creating an environment that's less violent for the police to work in.
Trump has declared if he takes over there'll be a return to law and order, heaven knows what he means (if anything) as he sure didn't set out how that might be done.
It means heavier armed cops outside his apartment building on Park Ave. and carte blanche for rich white people with assault weapons.
I'd say he'd look an idiot if that's what he means, but he locked up looking an idiot a long time back.
Digby wrote:One would hope to see a combined approach of giving the police better/more rounded training so they're less likely to shoot, better training so they can hit what they aim for, and too they've got to start working on creating an environment that's less violent for the police to work in.
Trump has declared if he takes over there'll be a return to law and order, heaven knows what he means (if anything) as he sure didn't set out how that might be done.
It means heavier armed cops outside his apartment building on Park Ave. and carte blanche for rich white people with assault weapons.
I'd say he'd look an idiot if that's what he means, but he locked up looking an idiot a long time back.
That's what the crackers cheering him on are thinking. Including the good old ex-Grand Wizard of the KKK:
There is quite a fine line between "non-PC" and "fucking racist" and I really don't think the Trumpet is sophisticated enough to walk that particular tightrope.
There is quite a fine line between "non-PC" and "fucking racist" and I really don't think the Trumpet is sophisticated enough to walk that particular tightrope.
Interesting documentary on the othe right which I caught part of. In interview, some trump supporters were more than content with recent shootings and if anything wanted more black people shot.
Even allowing for tv to pick out the most obvious clowns for the sake of ratings, WTF?
There is quite a fine line between "non-PC" and "fucking racist" and I really don't think the Trumpet is sophisticated enough to walk that particular tightrope.
Interesting documentary on the othe right which I caught part of. In interview, some trump supporters were more than content with recent shootings and if anything wanted more black people shot.
Even allowing for tv to pick out the most obvious clowns for the sake of ratings, WTF?
Saw this in the comments of the caregiver shot story.
"Each police officer should be required to carry a million in liability insurance and pay for it themselves. The salary can reflect reasonable costs of insurance. Once the insurance company decides you are too big a risk one of two things will happen a) the officer can't afford his insurance and has to resign or b) the insurance policy is cancelled by the insurer and the officer is terminated. "
Seems a suitably American way of dealing with this sort of issue.
canta_brian wrote:Saw this in the comments of the caregiver shot story.
"Each police officer should be required to carry a million in liability insurance and pay for it themselves. The salary can reflect reasonable costs of insurance. Once the insurance company decides you are too big a risk one of two things will happen a) the officer can't afford his insurance and has to resign or b) the insurance policy is cancelled by the insurer and the officer is terminated. "
Seems a suitably American way of dealing with this sort of issue.
Only 1 million?
Otherwise I have to say - seems like a decent proposal.
canta_brian wrote:Saw this in the comments of the caregiver shot story.
"Each police officer should be required to carry a million in liability insurance and pay for it themselves. The salary can reflect reasonable costs of insurance. Once the insurance company decides you are too big a risk one of two things will happen a) the officer can't afford his insurance and has to resign or b) the insurance policy is cancelled by the insurer and the officer is terminated. "
Seems a suitably American way of dealing with this sort of issue.
Only 1 million?
Otherwise I have to say - seems like a decent proposal.
I think it sounds a horrible proposal, never mind the legal cases which would ensue the law of unintended consequences would have a field day
canta_brian wrote:Saw this in the comments of the caregiver shot story.
"Each police officer should be required to carry a million in liability insurance and pay for it themselves. The salary can reflect reasonable costs of insurance. Once the insurance company decides you are too big a risk one of two things will happen a) the officer can't afford his insurance and has to resign or b) the insurance policy is cancelled by the insurer and the officer is terminated. "
Seems a suitably American way of dealing with this sort of issue.
Only 1 million?
Otherwise I have to say - seems like a decent proposal.
I think it sounds a horrible proposal, never mind the legal cases which would ensue the law of unintended consequences would have a field day
I'd see a future where people who's job can lead to them causing accidental death have insurance to cover them in the event that they cause accidental death.
Just like any other job than can lead to accidental death.
I'm not a huge fan tbh, mostly because I like the idea f vicarious liability. If a police officer, I the pursuance of their duty, causes injury or death then sue the police force. There may be times when a officer acts in good faith and yet the subsequent court case isn't proven and the insurance company is now reviewing their cover.
The answer is to improve accountability in the police forces (and training) and perhaps have an j dependent review body that provides a consistent review of officer involved shootings and other uses of force.
Which Tyler wrote:I'd see a future where people who's job can lead to them causing accidental death have insurance to cover them in the event that they cause accidental death.
Just like any other job than can lead to accidental death.
Would it only be for accidental deaths? I'd assume the various US police forces already contend with more than 2 or 3 claims against them per annum, and I don't really see why the employer can't be responsible for the employee, and beyond that it'd impact how the police officers see their jobs and perhaps even what situations they'd put themselves into. If one observes where doctors have heir own malpractice insurance as in the US you'll find doctors declining a lot of elective surgeries, yes it might improve a quality of life, but if anything went wrong (and even if perhaps just as part of the normal risk of surgery) it can impact their insurance costs and chances of employment so the surgery doesn't take place.
Which Tyler wrote:I'd see a future where people who's job can lead to them causing accidental death have insurance to cover them in the event that they cause accidental death.
Just like any other job than can lead to accidental death.
Would it only be for accidental deaths? I'd assume the various US police forces already contend with more than 2 or 3 claims against them per annum, and I don't really see why the employer can't be responsible for the employee, and beyond that it'd impact how the police officers see their jobs and perhaps even what situations they'd put themselves into. If one observes where doctors have heir own malpractice insurance as in the US you'll find doctors declining a lot of elective surgeries, yes it might improve a quality of life, but if anything went wrong (and even if perhaps just as part of the normal risk of surgery) it can impact their insurance costs and chances of employment so the surgery doesn't take place.
I get your argument where doctors are concerned. But you said it with elective surgery. What is the policing equivalent? Elective shooting? I think that is what we are trying to avoid isn't it?
Which Tyler wrote:I'd see a future where people who's job can lead to them causing accidental death have insurance to cover them in the event that they cause accidental death.
Just like any other job than can lead to accidental death.
Would it only be for accidental deaths? I'd assume the various US police forces already contend with more than 2 or 3 claims against them per annum, and I don't really see why the employer can't be responsible for the employee, and beyond that it'd impact how the police officers see their jobs and perhaps even what situations they'd put themselves into. If one observes where doctors have heir own malpractice insurance as in the US you'll find doctors declining a lot of elective surgeries, yes it might improve a quality of life, but if anything went wrong (and even if perhaps just as part of the normal risk of surgery) it can impact their insurance costs and chances of employment so the surgery doesn't take place.
I get your argument where doctors are concerned. But you said it with elective surgery. What is the policing equivalent? Elective shooting? I think that is what we are trying to avoid isn't it?
Electing not to intervene. And if you bring in insurance for elective shooting it'll not hold just for that, and then what of officers who may withhold from shooting and are then in turn shot?
As is you can sue a department, and the department can discipline an officer. Those processes may need review but I wouldn't move toward individual insurance
UGagain wrote:In other words the status quo is fine. Let's propose a few tweeks which sound like doing something but in effect do nothing.
It's not like the rich are dying so why worry about it?
Sadly - that seems pretty accurate, and always has
That's a sad attitude to have at your age.
We can always do better and we don't need the rich.
Err... what?
I know you think you know everything about me - but how old am I? why is it a sad attitude to have at my age? and why are you offended that I agree with you?
Which Tyler wrote:
Sadly - that seems pretty accurate, and always has
That's a sad attitude to have at your age.
We can always do better and we don't need the rich.
Err... what?
I know you think you know everything about me - but how old am I? why is it a sad attitude to have at my age? and why are you offended that I agree with you?
16? 17?
I'm pretty sure you're not agreeing with me.
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths.
UGagain wrote:
That's a sad attitude to have at your age.
We can always do better and we don't need the rich.
Err... what?
I know you think you know everything about me - but how old am I? why is it a sad attitude to have at my age? and why are you offended that I agree with you?
16? 17?
I'm pretty sure you're not agreeing with me.
Then you have a stunning lack of reading comprehension.
Which Tyler wrote:
Err... what? I know you think you know everything about me - but how old am I?why is it a sad attitude to have at my age? and why are you offended that I agree with you?
16? 17?
I'm pretty sure you're not agreeing with me.
Then you have a stunning lack of reading comprehension.
Or you didn't get my point.
And I know F all about you other than that you keep making personal attacks on me.
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths.
