It's as simple as, does he like this thing, or does he not like it? If he doesn't like it - because "it" is something the hated libs are doing - it's "conditioning", a bad thing that only happens to sheeple. If he does like it - for example, 3 Minnesota cops failing to stop their fearless veteran leader from murdering a guy - then it's just innate human behavior, can't do anything about it, terrible mob justice to suggest otherwise.

From the Atlantic: How to Actually Fix America’s Police

A lot more in the article.

Why would you work as police officer without qualified immunity? You would be risking your families livelihood everyday.

Works in the rest of the world

Qualified immunity is a court principle, not law. Laws should be passed that regulates clearer boundaries, instead of letting it by up to lawyers to argue in a byzantine network of court decisions and leave citizens with little clue as to what their legal rights are.

It would also make it better for police officers to have more clear regulations as to their role. I don't know if you have seen the news lately, but US law enforcement isn't peaking in popularity these days. And honestly, from a political viewpoint, this is an area were a responsible law-making assembly would seek a broad bi-partisan effort instead of engaging in a useless tug-of-war that only hurts both citizens and law enforcement alike.

I think the article is terrible, The article implies that all 18,000+ law enforcement agencies are corrupt and in need of substantial reform. If that indeed is not the case why would a well functioning, accountable law enforcement agency serving its community well have to change a ****ing thing.

To preempt the inevitable there is always room for improvement canard, how many people that support the ideas in this article rail against laws passed by Congress related to crime and incarceration that were implemented to improve law enforcement essentially.

didnt read the article. lol atlantic. but yes, just about all 18k law enforcement agencies are corrupt.

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar...=1&oi=scholart

Table 1 on page 316.

Table 2 on page 326.

DUI and "Liquor Laws" are the only crimes underrepresented (< 13.2%).

If you look up the stats for London (which has a very similar black population proportion) then the stats are remarkably similar, so it's not just a USA phenomenon.

(if you don't agree or think the study is too old - just Google for yourself and see if you can find some stats that show the opposite...)

IMO, it's not racist to point this out; at least without hypothesising on the underlying reasons for it, but IMO any comparisons about police/societal "fairness" can't be made without reference to these stats.

Juk

still waiting for your response. look above if you need a hand.

yeah pretty much this

make them carry malpractice insurance if you'd like. that would at least make them somewhat unemployable after they shoot unarmed people and you wouldn't have what happens now where they just move down the street and get another police job in the next county..

Jesus seriously? See #56, #61, #67, #78 that touch on this. It had been pointed out why your post was dumb before you even posted it, it's not my job to educate you when you're too lazy to even read the thread.

It is odd that some issues which are basically "solved problems" in every other 1st world country (see also - abortion, gun control, etc.) prove to be so intractable in USA #1.

I would be curious to know what the law is re immunity for police in other Western countries. If the U.S. is a true outlier on qualified immunity, that would be a meaningful data point for reform.

On the flip side, tort liability can be much more expansive and expensive in the U.S. than in other countries. The absence of qualified immunity may be less of a deterrent to being a police officer in other countries than it might in the U.S. if the legal exposure absent immunity is much lower.

I would be curious to see a cite for this. I am skeptical that police officers who are found to have wrongfully shot someone have an easy time finding jobs in other police departments.

Some stories in the U.S. are so crazy as to be almost unbelievable.

I have a friend who clerked for judge in Texas about twenty years ago. One of their cases was a civil action against a sheriff who executed a warrant at a highway bar that was frequently almost exclusively by African-Americans. I believe that the warrant related to drugs. In the process of executing the warrant, the sheriff and his deputies hog-tied and strip searched about two dozen bar patrons. The search turned up something like one small bag of weed and a pocketknife -- in other words, nothing.

The sheriff's main defense was that he was entitled to qualified immunity, essentially because he was following established department protocol. My friend said that, at one point during the bench trial, the judge (who was African-American himself), interrupted the cross examination of the sheriff and said, "Are you telling me that, if my car had broken down in front of the bar and I had walked in to use the pay phone just before you arrived, that you would have hog-tied and strip-searched me because that was department protocol?" When the sheriff answered affirmatively, the judge said, "you can be damn sure you would have regretted that decision."

The judge eventually found in favor of the plaintiffs (of course) and took the extraordinary step of ordering that the judgment be enforceable against the sheriff in his individual capacity.

i didn't say found wrongfully in a court of law.

but for evidence betty shelby the officer who shot unarmed terrence crutcher in oklahoma because she "feared for her life" despite there being several other officers in the vicinity who apparently had no such "fear" and was clearly unfit to be a policemen, was hired by the police department in a neighboring county almost immediately after the criminal case ended.

I'm sure that situations like the one you describe happen sometimes, but I remain doubtful that they are a common occurrence. Police departments have little reason to bend over backwards to hire cops who have a demonstrated history of bad shootings.

Well, you are making the assumption the current moral panic is about trying to correct inequality. I think the aims are more sinister, even if most of the participants sincerely believe that is what they are doing is positive.

Time will tell I guess.

LOL you cite the fact that blacks are shot by police at higher frequency than their overall population % as evidence of police bias - yet completely ignore the fact that they similarly commit crimes of all types save DUIs and such at MUCH higher frequencies as well. there is very clear and obvious correlation.

some of the posts you note cite specific examples of police agression against minorities that did not commit a crime, yet conveniently leave out various examples of whites that were innocently killed by police as well. it's one thing to rail against police aggression in general and that is obviously a valid stance, but another to make the case that blacks face disproportion police aggression. it simply is not supported by any statistic and in fact runs contrary to the obvious correlation between crime %, arrest % and thereby use of force %.

As I've repeatedly asked and no one has answered, and as you also do not answer in your post, what does the percent of violent crimes committed by black people have to do with anything?

What are you talking about? I've probably mentioned Daniel Shaver and Justine Damond more in this forum in the past week than anyone else.

The nonsense continues.

you argued that the fact that blacks are shot by police at a disproportionate frequency as compared to their general population is proof of police bias...

And I am telling you the very reason for that is because their demographic commits crime, both violent and non violent, at a far higher rate than the general population and are as a result far more likely to have a violent encounter with police as a result.

what exactly is so difficult for you to comprehend here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I didn't argue it was proof of anything. Your buddies were posting a bunch of very dumb statistics and I posted that sarcastically (hence: "Makes u think") as an example of why numbers on their own are meaningless without a damn good explanation of why they prove something.

I'm not overly interested in debating some supposed mysterious revolutionaries, you can find them and debate this with them. I'm interested in what people have said in this thread.

The people in this thread suggested law reforms, centralized standards,better oversight and tidying up the mess that is qualified immunity.

Police is by its very nature democratically problematic, a sub-set of community with more authority over others and the approval to use force against citizens who are not yet guilty from a legal viewpoint (and many who will be innocent from a factual standpoint). We accept it, because the alternative is even more problematic. It's societal chemo-therapy, the treatment is acceptable as long as it is better than the disease.

However, due to the powers invested in law enforcement we do need measures to ensure high integrity, good oversight and accountability. Anything else is naive and ultimately will only ruin trust in law enforcement.

Is your point that the context of police encounters don't affect outcomes?

If two police officers go to arrest a person for unpaid traffic tickets one day, and a person seen on video camera beating someone with a pipe outside a bar the next day, are you saying the probability of police using force is the same in those scenarios?

Eric Garner
Tamir Rice
Philando Castile
Laquan McDonald
Jordan Edwards
Stephon Clark
Botham Jean
Breonna Taylor
George Floyd

All of these people had encounters with the police that led to their deaths. For how many was that encounter caused by their committing of a violent crime? Bonus question, how many were committing no crime at all?

For people to get angry about these killings and conservatives to respond with "well actually if you look at the percent of violent crimes committed by African Americans" is so very lol