Anime cosplayer shot dead while being black.

[CoffeeGrunt]

"Watch out for that snake buddy, they're poisonous."

"Oh my God you insensitive sod, don't you know this snake had his fangs removed! Gosh, #NotAllSnakesArePoisonous!"

[40kGamer]

The system defines acceptable behavior for those performing the task. Leadership chooses how to operate within the framework of this system creating a culture which then attracts people with personality traits that match well with the defined environment. These traits aggregate and are statistically significant allowing you to reasonably predict the type of people performing any given task.

At some point it becomes totally irrelevant if you are discussing the system or the individuals as statistically speaking they are essentially one and the same. However it is arguably easier to change the system from the top down then it is to successfully change things from the ground up.

[DWest]

I personally took 'police force' to refer to all the individuals and also your use of 'US police' to refer to the same. If you had stated at the start 'SOME of the American Police Forces are corrupt...' or even 'MOST of...' if you believe that - then that would have been fairer IMO. Just some caveat/quantifier to show you are not making a blanket sweeping statement.

Here is the part I believe you're not understanding; there's a difference between the police as a collective entity and individual police officers. It doesn't matter if 51% of the force is corrupt, 66%, or 100%. Those numbers are all equal, because a citizen won't learn if the individual officer is corrupt until after an incident has occurred.

Furthermore, the systemic corruption means that even a good cop can effectively be a bad one; if an individual patrol officer is clean, but a number of other officers in the station are not, then even when the other officers do something wrong (such as an unjustified shooting), the clean officer has no way to make a positive effect, because the other officers will present the situation as being right and just, when it isn't. This is also why the idea of a jury trial bringing justice in the case of a bad shooting is laughable in the US; even if the prosecuting attorney is inclined to go after the police, a fact made unlikely by the nature of the relationship between those entities, the prosecutor can only use the evidence that is available. If the cops all say "yeah, it was a justified kill", there's literally nothing for the prosecutor to go on. As show in [URL="http://abcnews.go.com/US/TheLaw/videotaping-cops-arrest/story?id=11179076"]this article[/URL], US police are openly hostile to being recorded by citizens, which makes it difficult to bring forth evidence contradicting the story the police give in regards to an incident.

In summation, the majority makes the rules, and if the majority is corrupt, the minority doesn't have a method to counteract the corruption.

[40kGamer]

US police are openly hostile to being recorded by citizens, which makes it difficult to bring forth evidence contradicting the story the police give in regards to an incident.

Obviously the US police know how to apply the principle of "history is written by the victors" to their operations. There is no reason for them to disallow public recordings of their behavior unless they have something to hide... Isn't that the line of crap the NSA is feeding everyone regarding them recording every possible aspect of our digital lives?

[40kGamer]

Here in the UK, there is an inquest into every incident involving Police opening fire - every single one.

Granted, the general lack of dakka in our country helps make this feasible. But it is something the US should be doing.

An interesting piece of the US puzzle is that Congress instructed the Attorney General in 1994 to compile and publish annual statistics on police use of excessive force but this was never carried out (the FBI doesn't collect this data either). So no one at the Federal level is even attempting to track the data... makes a person wonder why not. Could be cost, although spending money on anything and everything is a way of life for politicians so I doubt that is the reason.

[bfmusashi]

There's always stories like this: [url]http://www.cracked.com/article_21830_cops-wont-help-you-7-things-i-saw-as-real-slasher-victim.html[/url]
And there's some good stuff from people doing the job: [url]http://www.cracked.com/article_20841_5-things-i-learned-as-cop-that-movies-wont-show-you.html[/url]
[url]http://www.cracked.com/article_21181_5-things-i-learned-as-cop-movies-wont-show-you-part-2.html[/url]
Because Cracked is a better source of anthropological data than most journals

[Denzark]

Here is the part I believe you're not understanding; there's a difference between the police as a collective entity and individual police officers. It doesn't matter if 51% of the force is corrupt, 66%, or 100%. Those numbers are all equal, because a citizen won't learn if the individual officer is corrupt until after an incident has occurred.


In summation, the majority makes the rules, and if the majority is corrupt, the minority doesn't have a method to counteract the corruption.

Hmm. I entirely understand the distinction and therein lies my point, which possibly you and others don't grasp.

I contend 2 key points. Firstly, that I consider it deeply unfair to automatically assume all the police is corrupt or criminal or whatever negative you want to add, because of the actions of a few - I consider this unfair to any group or section of society no matter which demographic you apply, not just to police.

Secondly, that in doing so is a form of prejudice. As to the latter, instantly assuming the police officers in this case are corrupt or killed the man because of his colour, based on the accounts of the incident in the links to it in this thread (I have not consulted wider.) I submit, is unreasonable because the available facts don't fit that. If the bias to assume this is based on a corporate and not an individual basis, then I contend the act of doing so matches the dictionary definition of prejudice as found in any credible dictionary. There is an irony or even hypocrisy there because the officers are being accused without definitive proof, of acting on the basis of their prejudices.

As to your comment that the majority makes the rules, that is how I understand it. The law is the basis in which society wants its members to behave. In the US, some states allow ganja. Some states kill criminals. Those laws are defined by presumably judges, who I doubt spring fully formed from the foreheads of their predecessors. I expect someone within the elected government at some level, has a part in their appointment. And that means if an elected official is at anyway involved in their appointment, the populace who elected the official, has some influence on the appointment of judges. therefore some influence on the law. Yes, the majority effects the law hence toke up in Colorado, kill Murderers in Texas.

This is important because the law is what judges a Policeman guilty of corruption, excessive force, whatever.

I think that before coming to a judgement on the corruption levels of any policing agency, you need to look at how many times they have acted corruptly against how many times they have performed their duties within the law. This equally applies to excessive force.

I think that a citizen who does not know what percentage of officer involved shooting deaths are illegal, who goes on to judge an individual officer before the outcome of a court case, based on a force-wide statistic they don't have to hand, is jumping the gun and acting unfairly.

In counter to that people will still say the system is weighted in favour of the police. They investigate their own or whatever. The law doesn't find them guilty. Even though the law has juries of citizens in it- what are they all corrupt too? If you don't like the system change it. Don't elect officials who choose judges who create systems of oversight that are prejudiced to get police off, if you genuinely believe the police are corrupt.

Unacceptable legal or government systems that cause death and hardship to the citizens can be changed - I recall the US did it in the 1770s and Russia managed in 1917. People who merely watch and haven't even tried to change the system lack credibility arguing against it. I would be genuinely impressed if someone here had written a letter to their senator complaining about law enforcement corruption.

If the NRA can mobilise such support for gun ownership, where is the comparable sized group protesting about police corruption?


Irrespective of all that my initial point is key - I think it unfair to instantly assume the guilt of individuals based on the perceived lackings of their demographic. And that is what I think the OP did and that is certainly how Eldargal's posts appeared although she may not have intended that.

Beyond that my opinions are based on he legitimacy of statistics and without any stats being provided showing the amount of armed interventions that were reasonable and legal against those that weren't, I can neither reach the same conclusions as others on here have reached, nor logically empathise with how they were reached by others.

To that end I will opt out here and agree to disagree.

[40kGamer]

I consider it deeply unfair to automatically assume all the police is corrupt or criminal or whatever negative you want to add, because of the actions of a few - I consider this unfair to any group or section of society no matter which demographic you apply, not just to police.

Completely agree with this point.

This is important because the law is what judges a Policeman guilty of corruption, excessive force, whatever.

I think that before coming to a judgement on the corruption levels of any policing agency, you need to look at how many times they have acted corruptly against how many times they have performed their duties within the law. This equally applies to excessive force.

I think that a citizen who does not know what percentage of officer involved shooting deaths are illegal, who goes on to judge an individual officer before the outcome of a court case, based on a force-wide statistic they don't have to hand, is jumping the gun and acting unfairly.

This one becomes problematic in the US as these statistics are not aggregated although since 1994 they should have been. A lack of transparency is the reigning Achilles Heel of every political system. No one in authority wants transparency because no one wants to have their actions questioned.

In counter to that people will still say the system is weighted in favour of the police. They investigate their own or whatever. The law doesn't find them guilty. Even though the law has juries of citizens in it- what are they all corrupt too? If you don't like the system change it. Don't elect officials who choose judges who create systems of oversight that are prejudiced to get police off, if you genuinely believe the police are corrupt.

A fair point, although a flawed system can't be relied on to address public concerns. However at some level the system has to favour the police given the dumb ***** they deal with on a daily basis. Not having a reliable self checking mechanism is the real problem.

Cameras could and should record a policeman's interactions with the public. No way these tapes should be made publicly available but they should be available for use in a court of law to provide better unbiased evidence then the typical he said she said arguments. If police are doing their job these tapes would protect them from frivolous claims and alleviate public concerns about misconduct.

If the NRA can mobilise such support for gun ownership, where is the comparable sized group protesting about police corruption?

Police corruption doesn't touch that many people where any challenge to gun ownership in the US manages to piss off a very large group!

[YorkNecromancer]

If the NRA can mobilise such support for gun ownership, where is the comparable sized group protesting about police corruption?

The NRA is backed by the gun industry, which has money. Lots and lots of it. The lobbying industry buys the government.

There are many, many groups of people protesting police corruption... They just don't have a multi-billion dollar industry supporting their groups, because there's no money to be made in civil liberties, but there's a lot of money to be made from prisons (and what is effectively the slave labour force they contain).

This is the real world. Popularity means nothing without money. Money is the only kind of power there truly is. Anyone who believes otherwise is a fool.

I entirely understand the distinction and therein lies my point, which possibly you and others don't grasp.

Oh no, I do grasp your point. I just think you're as completely wrong as you think I am.

I've read your arguments, processed your ideas, and found them wanting for a complex variety of reasons, including those I have already given, and those given by others. You and I are coming at this from two completely different angles, and that's all there is to this.

What it boils down to, for me, is this:

I believe the data shows that people of colour suffer disproportionately at the hands of the law compared to white people. I believe all the data shows this, both historically, currently, and anecdotally. Nothing you have said could ever convince me otherwise.

Oh, and to everyone who also believes that there is a serious race problem with the police in the US and UK, I strongly recommend you watch this film:



Absolutely fascinating, and chilling. The interviews with high court judges, police and prison guards are amazingly eye-opening - especially the right wing ones. Their opinions on incarceration and criminalisation were not remotely what I was expecting.

[DWest]

Hmm. I entirely understand the distinction and therein lies my point, which possibly you and others don't grasp.

I contend 2 key points. Firstly, that I consider it deeply unfair to automatically assume all the police is corrupt or criminal or whatever negative you want to add, because of the actions of a few - I consider this unfair to any group or section of society no matter which demographic you apply, not just to police.

This proves that you do not, in fact, understand my point at all. The point has nothing to do with prejudice or racism against a self-selected group or however you want to spin it. The point is, when you encounter an individual from a group known to have corrupt members, the only safe assumption you can make is that the individual before you is one of the corrupt ones. If the individual is not corrupt, but you have still defended yourself appropriately, nothing is lost; however, if the individual *is* corrupt, and you have *not* defended yourself, everything is lost.

In counter to that people will still say the system is weighted in favour of the police. They investigate their own or whatever. The law doesn't find them guilty. Even though the law has juries of citizens in it- what are they all corrupt too? If you don't like the system change it. Don't elect officials who choose judges who create systems of oversight that are prejudiced to get police off, if you genuinely believe the police are corrupt.

Much easier said than done, especially when it's not simply a matter of voting people in or out, but rather re-writing large chunks of the legal code to re-weight things in favor of the citizenry over the police.

Unacceptable legal or government systems that cause death and hardship to the citizens can be changed - I recall the US did it in the 1770s and Russia managed in 1917. People who merely watch and haven't even tried to change the system lack credibility arguing against it. I would be genuinely impressed if someone here had written a letter to their senator complaining about law enforcement corruption.

Here, again, is where the racism problem comes in: The majority of people don't see the actions of the police as a problem, because they're acting against blacks. This majority isn't being directly, blatantly "keep the PoC down" racist; rather, they're making assumptions that "well, black people have caused more crime in the past, ergo the police probably felt in danger, ergo it was their right to shoot the guy to death even though the situation didn't strictly warrant it". It isn't an intentionally evil system so much as it is stuck in an unfair mode of action through cultural inertia.

Beyond that my opinions are based on he legitimacy of statistics and without any stats being provided showing the amount of armed interventions that were reasonable and legal against those that weren't, I can neither reach the same conclusions as others on here have reached, nor logically empathise with how they were reached by others.

And you will not find these statistics, because they are not kept. Even if you don't buy the notion that US police forces are corrupt, the only way to gather these statistics would be from the police themselves, and we could no more trust those statistics tell an accurate, unbiased account of the situation than the police could trust criminals to simply turn themselves in when asked.