RugbyRebels

Wait, I am brokering peace between Palestine and Israel. Then I will have a better shot at the Nobel (Noble?) prize.

Give me a couple of hours.

Jeez America sure is having some bad luck at the moment.
It's almost like much of it was built on old Indian burial sites.

Just a little acknowledgment of 9/11. I remember that surreal day very well and am compelled to point out the sane and compassionate response of the public to this, at least here in Philly, that was really humbling for this then recent immigrant. I had no Telly in my shyte little apartment then so got my feed straight from the community. That probably helped as well as relatively less bile spewed forth on fledgling social media platforms. Such a contrast to right now.

morepork wrote:Just a little acknowledgment of 9/11. I remember that surreal day very well and am compelled to point out the sane and compassionate response of the public to this, at least here in Philly, that was really humbling for this then recent immigrant. I had no Telly in my shyte little apartment then so got my feed straight from the community. That probably helped as well as relatively less bile spewed forth on fledgling social media platforms. Such a contrast to right now.

Yeah. Remember it well. I think most people could put some of the politics to one side and acknowledge the human loss. Those who can’t aren’t worth the effort.

It was one of those points in history where you can just remember so clearly where you were and what you were doing. And It also felt like an era defining moment.

Sandydragon wrote:

morepork wrote:Just a little acknowledgment of 9/11. I remember that surreal day very well and am compelled to point out the sane and compassionate response of the public to this, at least here in Philly, that was really humbling for this then recent immigrant. I had no Telly in my shyte little apartment then so got my feed straight from the community. That probably helped as well as relatively less bile spewed forth on fledgling social media platforms. Such a contrast to right now.

Yeah. Remember it well. I think most people could put some of the politics to one side and acknowledge the human loss. Those who can’t aren’t worth the effort.

It was one of those points in history where you can just remember so clearly where you were and what you were doing. And It also felt like an era defining moment.

Yeah, it was the big moment I can remember exactly where I was etc (like the JFK assassination, so we are told). The world has quietly (and not-so-quietly) gone to shit since then, starting with Bush and Blair's less than sane and compassionate response.

Ugh. The verdict over Breonna Taylor's death is not going to go down well. It's hard to imagine Trump isn't already planning how he can capitalise on any unrest, following this enormous massive slap in the face to anyone expecting some sort of justice.

I am just reading about this now. Nothing about the whole thing, from the ridiculous no-knock "warrant" to the decisions made by cops on the night seems justified. More qualified immunity bullshit.

It’s like they want a civil war

It’s quite an insane situation. Paramilitary groups illegally working with the police...

Crowds across the country breaking curfew.

Top story: 2 policemen shot!

You have to open up the story to see they weren’t shot dead, just injured, and that it might not even be related to the protests!

Doesn’t stop the press from misrepresenting it.

Fucking hell.

ACAB

Clearly qualified immunity needs to be looked at, so too no knock warrants. But the qualified immunity in particular is not an easy situation to address, it's easy to have the sense something is wrong but a change needs to be considered detail without more negative unintended consequences.

None of that is going to be looked at whilst President Prump considers if there's life on Nars

Digby wrote:Clearly qualified immunity needs to be looked at, so too no knock warrants. But the qualified immunity in particular is not an easy situation to address, it's easy to have the sense something is wrong but a change needs to be considered detail without more negative unintended consequences.

None of that is going to be looked at whilst President Prump considers if there's life on Nars

Better to just simply get rid of the police organizations in their current form and replace them with new organizations with stricter rules and non-racist leadership who sees it as their job to protect the people, not the police.

Mikey Brown wrote:Ugh. The verdict over Breonna Taylor's death is not going to go down well. It's hard to imagine Trump isn't already planning how he can capitalise on any unrest, following this enormous massive slap in the face to anyone expecting some sort of justice.

It's incredible, isn't it? They shot dead an innocent black woman asleep in her bed, and the only charges brought are for the fact that the bullets that missed her might have endangered the white neighbours. It's like they're intentionally on the wind-up.

Puja

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:Clearly qualified immunity needs to be looked at, so too no knock warrants. But the qualified immunity in particular is not an easy situation to address, it's easy to have the sense something is wrong but a change needs to be considered detail without more negative unintended consequences.

None of that is going to be looked at whilst President Prump considers if there's life on Nars

Better to just simply get rid of the police organizations in their current form and replace them with new organizations with stricter rules and non-racist leadership who sees it as their job to protect the people, not the police.

That does not strike me as a simple thing one can just do.

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:Clearly qualified immunity needs to be looked at, so too no knock warrants. But the qualified immunity in particular is not an easy situation to address, it's easy to have the sense something is wrong but a change needs to be considered detail without more negative unintended consequences.

None of that is going to be looked at whilst President Prump considers if there's life on Nars

Better to just simply get rid of the police organizations in their current form and replace them with new organizations with stricter rules and non-racist leadership who sees it as their job to protect the people, not the police.

That does not strike me as a simple thing one can just do.

Who cares if it’s simple, it’s what’s needed.

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:
Better to just simply get rid of the police organizations in their current form and replace them with new organizations with stricter rules and non-racist leadership who sees it as their job to protect the people, not the police.

That does not strike me as a simple thing one can just do.

Who cares if it’s simple, it’s what’s needed.

I agree change is needed, I only noted it was complex to address the issue. 'tis your observation it'd be be best to 'just simply get rid of the police organizations [sic]'

No country in the world could simply unwind the number of agencies involved working across communities and across governmental bodies with maybe a million direct employees, hive off their salaries, pensions and other obligations, rewrite a large chunk of laws, rewrite departmental procedures, bring in wholly new management, train a million new employees and get to work with nothing going wrong during such attempt.

Change is going to take time, practically there is nothing to be done about that unless someone has a magic button that will fix things they've not told anyone about and suddenly wants to use it. And a lot of changes aren't even directly areas of police operations so it's not even a situation wherein one can look at the police in isolation.

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:
That does not strike me as a simple thing one can just do.

Who cares if it’s simple, it’s what’s needed.

I agree change is needed, I only noted it was complex to address the issue. 'tis your observation it'd be be best to 'just simply get rid of the police organizations [sic]'

No country in the world could simply unwind the number of agencies involved working across communities and across governmental bodies with maybe a million direct employees, hive off their salaries, pensions and other obligations, rewrite a large chunk of laws, rewrite departmental procedures, bring in wholly new management, train a million new employees and get to work with nothing going wrong during such attempt.

Change is going to take time, practically there is nothing to be done about that unless someone has a magic button that will fix things they've not told anyone about and suddenly wants to use it. And a lot of changes aren't even directly areas of police operations so it's not even a situation wherein one can look at the police in isolation.

Short of total reorganisation I'd suggest the following:
Dramatically expand internal affairs and embed them (cameras running 24-7) within the police force, particularly at higher levels. All police officers to have 2 cameras and microphones recording constantly, should be disciplined if no recording is made while on duty (without some fantastic excuse). These devices should be like black boxes as far as is practical.

A live example:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:
Who cares if it’s simple, it’s what’s needed.

I agree change is needed, I only noted it was complex to address the issue. 'tis your observation it'd be be best to 'just simply get rid of the police organizations [sic]'

No country in the world could simply unwind the number of agencies involved working across communities and across governmental bodies with maybe a million direct employees, hive off their salaries, pensions and other obligations, rewrite a large chunk of laws, rewrite departmental procedures, bring in wholly new management, train a million new employees and get to work with nothing going wrong during such attempt.

Change is going to take time, practically there is nothing to be done about that unless someone has a magic button that will fix things they've not told anyone about and suddenly wants to use it. And a lot of changes aren't even directly areas of police operations so it's not even a situation wherein one can look at the police in isolation.

Short of total reorganisation I'd suggest the following:
Dramatically expand internal affairs and embed them (cameras running 24-7) within the police force, particularly at higher levels. All police officers to have 2 cameras and microphones recording constantly, should be disciplined if no recording is made while on duty (without some fantastic excuse). These devices should be like black boxes as far as is practical.

I'm not against the use of cameras, but I think we'd want more than just that. Especially given the cost to acquire them

To date cameras where being used, and there is vast usage of cameras now even if there are also worrying instances of camera failures, they're not leading to a change in behaviour within law enforcement, and they're not changing how local communities view the police. So there is a fair question around are they value for money. Where they have shifted opinion is within police circles when it comes to gathering incriminating evidence, and that's not perhaps quite what they're intended to do, and might too be be why groups like the ACLU have started pushing back against cameras.

If we're going to have the cameras there still has to be an awful lot more training, and there has to be ongoing training that includes use/feedback of cameras, and there has to be use of the cameras in officer reports that the officers have to sign off on having watched their behaviour back. And that's going to cost a lot more money than even just all the cameras, and the cameras will not come cheap. And finding money for anything is a problem normally, now with a pandemic there'll be even more pressure. Also the people on camera need much clearer rights to access footage they're in, and that's going to need a lot of legislation going state by state, and that being written by the kind of people who can't get into federal government because they lack the smarts.

Yeah, better video documentation of incidents only goes so far if people aren't actually inclined to do anything about what they see.

Right now I suspect almost no one is signing off on their video reviews, then again who has the manpower to give people the time to do that. Plenty of departments will even be wondering why they'd pay for any cameras when they're struggling along with part-time officers covering some huge areas, whether geographically or the level of services.

And it's not cheap to run the cameras. Ideally I'd put cameras on vests and guns in addition to dashboards, ideally at quite a high definition but obviously that adds to storage space and thus cost. And then on storage they need to know how long they hold the data for, on what grounds and when do they destroy it (or do the costs go up and up?), how do they access it, how do they share it, what security protcols apply to the security of some private/confidential materials?

And then still there are problems across society. The cameras have in quite a few instances now shown law enforcement to be using deadly force when it's simply not warranted but it often isn't seeing guilty verdicts returned, juries can throw out some off not-guilty or the almost as bad mistrial for failing to come to a verdict (and this sort of problem feeds into the public not trusting the police more just because of cameras).

There are some big gains to be made with cameras, but they're not a panacea, and many of the same problems around trying to provide services on the cheap are bound to hinder what's being done right now

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:
I agree change is needed, I only noted it was complex to address the issue. 'tis your observation it'd be be best to 'just simply get rid of the police organizations [sic]'

No country in the world could simply unwind the number of agencies involved working across communities and across governmental bodies with maybe a million direct employees, hive off their salaries, pensions and other obligations, rewrite a large chunk of laws, rewrite departmental procedures, bring in wholly new management, train a million new employees and get to work with nothing going wrong during such attempt.

Change is going to take time, practically there is nothing to be done about that unless someone has a magic button that will fix things they've not told anyone about and suddenly wants to use it. And a lot of changes aren't even directly areas of police operations so it's not even a situation wherein one can look at the police in isolation.

Short of total reorganisation I'd suggest the following:
Dramatically expand internal affairs and embed them (cameras running 24-7) within the police force, particularly at higher levels. All police officers to have 2 cameras and microphones recording constantly, should be disciplined if no recording is made while on duty (without some fantastic excuse). These devices should be like black boxes as far as is practical.

I'm not against the use of cameras, but I think we'd want more than just that. Especially given the cost to acquire them

To date cameras where being used, and there is vast usage of cameras now even if there are also worrying instances of camera failures, they're not leading to a change in behaviour within law enforcement, and they're not changing how local communities view the police. So there is a fair question around are they value for money. Where they have shifted opinion is within police circles when it comes to gathering incriminating evidence, and that's not perhaps quite what they're intended to do, and might too be be why groups like the ACLU have started pushing back against cameras.

If we're going to have the cameras there still has to be an awful lot more training, and there has to be ongoing training that includes use/feedback of cameras, and there has to be use of the cameras in officer reports that the officers have to sign off on having watched their behaviour back. And that's going to cost a lot more money than even just all the cameras, and the cameras will not come cheap. And finding money for anything is a problem normally, now with a pandemic there'll be even more pressure. Also the people on camera need much clearer rights to access footage they're in, and that's going to need a lot of legislation going state by state, and that being written by the kind of people who can't get into federal government because they lack the smarts.

True, cameras are no panacea, that's why I said internal affairs officers should be embedded into police departments. If the police can't be trusted and it's too expensive to reboot their entire organisation, then they need to be chaperoned.

What they can do, right now, is prosecute those people responsible for the deaths of civilians. That is entirely within practical reason here and now. What complete cunts.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Short of total reorganisation I'd suggest the following:
Dramatically expand internal affairs and embed them (cameras running 24-7) within the police force, particularly at higher levels. All police officers to have 2 cameras and microphones recording constantly, should be disciplined if no recording is made while on duty (without some fantastic excuse). These devices should be like black boxes as far as is practical.

I'm not against the use of cameras, but I think we'd want more than just that. Especially given the cost to acquire them

To date cameras where being used, and there is vast usage of cameras now even if there are also worrying instances of camera failures, they're not leading to a change in behaviour within law enforcement, and they're not changing how local communities view the police. So there is a fair question around are they value for money. Where they have shifted opinion is within police circles when it comes to gathering incriminating evidence, and that's not perhaps quite what they're intended to do, and might too be be why groups like the ACLU have started pushing back against cameras.

If we're going to have the cameras there still has to be an awful lot more training, and there has to be ongoing training that includes use/feedback of cameras, and there has to be use of the cameras in officer reports that the officers have to sign off on having watched their behaviour back. And that's going to cost a lot more money than even just all the cameras, and the cameras will not come cheap. And finding money for anything is a problem normally, now with a pandemic there'll be even more pressure. Also the people on camera need much clearer rights to access footage they're in, and that's going to need a lot of legislation going state by state, and that being written by the kind of people who can't get into federal government because they lack the smarts.

True, cameras are no panacea, that's why I said internal affairs officers should be embedded into police departments. If the police can't be trusted and it's too expensive to reboot their entire organisation, then they need to be chaperoned.

That too would need funding. And it mayn't deliver what we'd like, and we might like different things

And we'd still want to revisit the entire delivery of services and how law enforcement joins up with other agencies. Just there's no way of doing that in 1 day, nor really in 1 year. And in truth I doubt you ever get the police service you want, it should always be in review. The problem now though seems stalled with many points of decision making in denial they even need to consider a review

morepork wrote:What they can do, right now, is prosecute those people responsible for the deaths of civilians. That is entirely within practical reason here and now. What complete cunts.

I noted above some of the cases where the police have been shown to have acted with deadly force even with no threat to themselves haven't found juries willing to return guilty verdicts, so there's a problem.

I don't like the no knock warrant, certainly not as standard procedure, but if the boyfriend has a legal defence to shoot against perceived intruders and the police have a right to return fire once under fire it does start to be a problem if you want to charge them with something you can get a prosecution for. There was the case involving Officer Tensing who shot Samuel DuBose for no particular reason and I think that petered out as regards a prosecution after 1 or 2 mistrials because some members of the public simply don't want to find against the police, and there are safety concerns the police can cite around their jobs, so once they're being shot at what do you take to trial? You could ask it simply be taken to trial because that's still important, even if you thought it'd go nowhere, but that could just piss people off at a different point in the process and should prosecutions work like that anyway?

There's too much violence in America, too many guns, too many drugs (though I'd certainly legalise the weed if it's not too strong), the educational system is weak and horrendously underfunded, there's far too much disparity in wealth. Which isn't to say one should never prosecute the fruit of these failings, but we need to think of the roots too.

We certainly can't turn around after something has happened that we don't like and prosecute people for something that's not in the law and deny them a defence that is in the law.