Anime cosplayer shot dead while being black.

[Denzark]

Can't see vids at work unfortunately Gotty.

However if no successful prosecution was brought against them then that does not automatically mean all police in whatever country it happened in are brutal and corrupt.

It might mean the whole legal system is not what you may wish for in your ideal society because of inate flaws - but it doesn't make it fair to character assassinate the whole.

And in fact if you provided stats of successful interventions in that country with police using weapons legally or the suspect not being killed, to be compared against when it did go wrong, that would bear out what I have been saying all the way along.

[40kGamer]

And similarly, neither are all rank and file Police corrupt, brutal or white supremacists. Even not in the states.

there certainly will be a proportion getting away with all the things that a large proportion of people in this thread seem to attribute to the whole. But the fact they DO get away with it cannot be attributed to the 'Police Force' as a whole (even if such a thing was to exist inthe US).

This is because decisions to prosecute is not just down to the Police. To see a copper found guilty of these things takes lawyers - to start the case, judges to rule on it and juries to consider the evidence.

Even if you argue the first 2 are part of the system thus part of the problem, you still have the jury of non-involved citizens to rule on the facts.

I know a lot of police officers. Some are friends and really good people doing what I consider to be a horrible job for low pay... others are complete pricks riding a power trip and all too happy to abuse the authority they have been given to compensate for whatever it is that makes them feel small.

The problem is there is no meaningful mechanism to screen out the psychopaths before giving them a badge and a gun, and there is absolutely no meaningful way to deal with them after they kill someone. Investigations are internal to the police and prosecution is severely limited. Excessive use of deadly force is virtually impossible to prosecute.

Selection of US Supreme court rulings:

1985 Tennessee v. Garner
1989 Graham v. Connor
2014 Plumhoff v. Rickard

Article:
[url]http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-supreme-court-police-shooting-20140527-story.html[/url]

And we can't forget qualified immunity applies to police as well as other government officials.

[url]http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity[/url]

So do not count on the legal system to do anything with wrongful death at the hands of police. They are not held to the same standard as civilians where one must have "reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm or death" to justify deadly force.

Wrapping up this officer involved homicide occurred near where I live. This poor guy never turned to face police and never pointed the BB gun he picked up off the shelf to buy from the store in their direction. He was just shopping. This case actually highlights another troubling problem in the US as nothing really happens to the people who make these crank calls to the 911 police emergency line.



- - - Updated - - -

I am also not a fan of the police getting military grade equipment or having them respond with SWAT teams so often.

Over 5000 civilians killed by police since 9/11 (and this is an old article)

[url]http://www.mintpressnews.com/us-police-murdered-5000-innocent-civilians-since-911/172029/[/url]

increased use of SWAT raids for basically anything... 80% are to execute search warrants for investigations where someone is only suspected of committing a crime.

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/06/24/new-aclu-report-takes-a-snapshot-of-police-militarization-in-the-united-states/[/url]

Leave the military work to the army, it's not the job of the police force.

[Eldar_Atog]

In the case of the Down Syndrome man above, it is undeniably tragic, but a grand jury was convened - wiki states that is 16-23 citizens in the states, even more than normal. And they considered the witness evidence and found no case to answer.

Where Gotthammer is in error is saying the man did 'literally nothing wrong' - except act in such a way which would probably have constituted a theft. Thus resulting in the security trying to eject him, he kicked off and was restrained.

Now I don't say someone deserves to die for trying to see a $12 film for free - of course not. But he did merit ejection, this can legally be done with reasonable force, and when he kicked off, he was restrained. The autopsy ruled that he was more liable to sudden death from restraint in that way - so it is just tragic it happened. 16-23 citizens considered the evidence and found that there was no criminality involved in the actions of those involved. How can anyone complain about that?

Grand juries are closer to military tribunals than jury trials. The prosecution has near absolute control in those situations. The prosecution gets whatever decision it wants as they are the only ones allowed to question witnesses or present evidence. For me, this is just proof of corruption because the prosecution could have gotten charges if they had wanted them.

Do I believe the police intentionally killed him? No I do not. They applied overwhelming force because their authority was questioned and kept applying it till he ceased to move.

Do I believe that the cops criminally killed him? Yes, I do. If any other group had taken the same action against that down syndrome man, they would have been charged. So why should I give a group of policemen special treatment? They are supposed to be trained to know how to apply force wisely. Instead they took a scared person that did not understand the situation and applied overwhelming force until he couldn't breathe. The police knew the proper way to control the situation and chose not to use it.

[YorkNecromancer]

However if no successful prosecution was brought against them then that does not automatically mean all police in whatever country it happened in are brutal and corrupt.

We're not talking about individuals. We're talking about systems.

Individual police are not corrupt. The systems which employ them are.

A corrupt system tends to employ corrupted people. When it doesn't, it tends to favour corrupted people, because that is its nature. The drive for quick and easy arrests, for quick confessions, for easy answers... These are all manifestations of that corruption.

Who is worse? The mugger, or the white collar criminal? One is easy to see, easy to prosecute. The other is not. The system is set up to chase easy catches, and thus one group is disproportionately allowed to go free and unpunished.

In Iceland, their prisons have 85 people, of whom 36 are bankers. That's because their system looked at who caused the 2008 credit crunch, stripped them of their assets, put them on trial for fraud, and sent them to prison.

America did not. England did not. Our systems are not set up to prosecute bankers with the same expedience, because our politicians are in hock to money in a way the Icelandic government is not. Their system is not perfect, but it is less corrupt.

This thread is about systems, but you want to make it about individuals.

I am a teacher. I know many good teachers. But that does not mean the educational system is not broken. We unfairly favour the children of the rich, whilst simultaneously disempowering the children of the poor. Is that my personal fault? No. Does that mean it doesn't happen?

When I encounter a system that doesn't work, I try to change it. To put this in nerd terms: imagine that there is only one kind of computer in all the world. We all have to use it in our everyday lives. But it's been rushed out cheaply, nd every now and then, the bad microchips inside catch fire and people die when it burns their house down. Now, you seem to be arguing because a some microchips (the police) haven't burned out ('good' police), the computer (the police force) is still fine, because you were lucky enough to inherit a really good replacement motherboard (the whiteness of your skin) which means it will almost never catch fire and kill you. Which is great for you.

But what about the people who didn't inherit that motherboard (people of colour)? The prescense of one or two good microchips isn't going to keep them safe indefinitely. Eventually, on a long enough timeline, that computer is going to catch, and maybe they'll put it out in time and maybe they won't. But that day is always coming. Because even if they survive one fire, there's always another bad microchip.

Are they going to experience the same service from that computer as you? Are they going to trust it like you do?

Could it be that your life experiences are colouring your perceptions?

Sure, maybe if they learn some IT skills they can keep it going. Maybe if they work hard enough, they can eventually buy their way to a good motherboard of their own (higher social status)... but when that thing eventually bursts into flames, all the IT skills in the world won't stop them dying in a fire.

The arguments against police racism remind me of an old episode of 'Fresh Prince', where Carlton Banks finally discovers one of the ugly truths of the world:



Also, John Oliver did a great segment on Ferguson:

[Denzark]

Your argument in nerd terms Yorkie, though eloquent, is subject to flaws in its use of example.

Firstly is the legal concept of 'Mens Rea' - the intent of a perpetrator. This is entriely missing. You don't differentiate between bad microchips that burn because the system was dropped or knocked, or was programmed wrong, either by mistake or on purpose, or because the user overclocked the system. Was there a power surge?

The reason for an incident in real life - why the microchips caught fire - is key. Because your initial assumption seemed to be that the real life incident was due to the colour of the victim's skin. I am saying that even if is found to be the case it is deeply unfair to assume that from the outset.

Secondly, your metaphor (or is it simile?) gives no role to the rest of the system that would prevent such abuses - where are the courts, lawyers and juries in your tale? You've atributed the colour of one's skin to a key component but not bothered to account for the checks and balances that prevent corrupt police officers acting with impunity.

The comment about favouring the children of the rich in the education system - that is an argument for elsewhere - I'm not sure how that applies to the state sector or how the children of the poor are disempowered there. But in terms of is it your personal fault, that directly links to this debate. If the school system is broken but it is not your fault, then it is deeply unfair to blame you, an individual teacher, for the ills of the whole or an incidet symptomatic - without direct uncontrovertible proof that you are trying to maintain that broken system for your own benefit.

Transferred across to this scenario, it is equally unfair to blame an individual police officer for the ills of the whole justice system - unless you have direct proof that that individual is trying to maintain it for their own benefit. I can see nothing which leads me to that conclusion in this instance from all the information at links people have provided.

[40kGamer]

We're not talking about individuals. We're talking about systems.

Individual police are not corrupt. The systems which employ them are.

A corrupt system tends to employ corrupted people. When it doesn't, it tends to favour corrupted people, because that is its nature. The drive for quick and easy arrests, for quick confessions, for easy answers... These are all manifestations of that corruption.

Who is worse? The mugger, or the white collar criminal? One is easy to see, easy to prosecute. The other is not. The system is set up to chase easy catches, and thus one group is disproportionately allowed to go free and unpunished.

In Iceland, their prisons have 85 people, of whom 36 are bankers. That's because their system looked at who caused the 2008 credit crunch, stripped them of their assets, put them on trial for fraud, and sent them to prison.

America did not. England did not. Our systems are not set up to prosecute bankers with the same expedience, because our politicians are in hock to money in a way the Icelandic government is not. Their system is not perfect, but it is less corrupt.

This thread is about systems, but you want to make it about individuals.

Excellent point mate. The systems truly are the problem. IMO wealth inequality is "the issue" and if one wants a picture of the endgame for this type of society you can cast your eyes to other parts of the world.

I believe it is the responsibility of those who have wealth to create 'opportunity' for those who do not. This means that there needs to be a way for those who wish to work hard to achieve some measure of success within society. It also means that people truly understand that these opportunities exist and are well supported in accessing them. Will it stop everyone from being lazy bums? No. There are those who will not work to better themselves under any circumstances. Unfortunately wealth = political power so those who have it are in no way motivated to share it.

I am a teacher. I know many good teachers. But that does not mean the educational system is not broken. We unfairly favour the children of the rich, whilst simultaneously disempowering the children of the poor. Is that my personal fault? No. Does that mean it doesn't happen?

Please don't get me started on the education or healthcare systems... I may have a full on heart attack.

[bfmusashi]

The state I was raised in, Virginia, the seal is Virtue standing over a (dead?) tyrant. 'Sic semper tyrannis' is the motto and I think is the only state motto yelled during an assassination. I was never raised to view the police as anything better than neutral and certainly not friends. My father was a police officer and there were no illusions as to what the police were, coercive agents for the protection of the state, not the public. Point is, I have trouble understanding views that value the officer over the accosted, because cops are a thing to be occasionally tolerated.

[40kGamer]

The state I was raised in, Virginia, the seal is Virtue standing over a (dead?) tyrant. 'Sic semper tyrannis' is the motto and I think is the only state motto yelled during an assassination. I was never raised to view the police as anything better than neutral and certainly not friends. My father was a police officer and there were no illusions as to what the police were, coercive agents for the protection of the state, not the public. Point is, I have trouble understanding views that value the officer over the accosted, because cops are a thing to be occasionally tolerated.

Every state in the union has a unique "feel" to it. Right or wrong VA "feels" like a police state... which is the main reason it always gets marked off my potential places to live map.

[eldargal]

We're not talking about individuals. We're talking about systems.

Individual police are not corrupt. The systems which employ them are.

THIS.

This is why #notallmen and the equivalent #notallcops are such a problem, it answers an accusation no one is making and shifts the focus away from the genuine problem to the ****ing hurt feelings of a bunch of privileged ****s.. Most American police are probably not corrupt, but a lot are and the system protects them the consequences of their actions. The majority of good cops also benefit from that system even if they don't abuse it in the same way.

[Denzark]

The American police forces are corrupt, and brutal.

The US police are by and large militarised, white supremacist thugs and they have a deeply ingrained culture of cover up and croynism.

EG - your statement just there and the quote from York are a far cry from your posts above.

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.