I just don't get the left's argument on this at all. The police aren't going anywhere. The enforcement of laws and court orders aren't going to be just turned over to some community watch group. The painting of this rampant excessive force (and may I add corruption) would probably account for less than 1% of the entire police force (obv this number fluctuates between cities where this would be higher or lower which would correlate most likely with the level of crime in each city but 1% is an average we can say across the country) so it isn't anywhere near indicative of what the vast majority of the police out there do which is to comply with whatever regulations or codes of conduct that underpin their roles and responsibilities. Any police that are found to breach the regulations or codes should be firstly disciplined if not removed and even prosecuted but what we need is reform to reduce or stamp out any of these instances of excessive force. And we aren't going to get to that point if the public don't see reform as the answer and continue on bickering about whether a police force performs a benefit overall to the public.

This seems like a massive underestimate, not to mention that the use of excessive force is only part of the issue. Over the GF thread we were talking about a municipality was 7% Black, but Black people accounted for 44% of the traffic stops. Police don't just harm the Black communities with clubs and guns. It's also tickets and the drug war.

This just doesn't happen. Right now, the police are responsible for policing the police, and they don't want that to happen, to the point where officers caught on camera murdering people are uncertain to face prison at all. There's basically no way to change that without a massive overhaul of the entire system, not mere reforms.

Are you against stats based policing? If police gather stats from number of arrests or being prosecuted are from a certain area that the police shouldn't devote more resources to that area to check for any criminal activity including using any powers they have to stop cars in those areas if they reasonably suspect that they may be carrying illegal substances?

How do you reasonably suspect a car is carrying drugs, outside of rare edge cases where you literally see someone shooting up in a car? And, uh, basing the amount of policing on arrests just makes for positive feedback loops, DUCY?

Again all comes back to this premise that the vast majority of police are doing their jobs so you have to expect that they are exercising their powers in good faith when deciding something should be checked because they reasonably suspect them to be carrying something. For example, if a car came from a known house to police as it is housing people who are on parole who have prior convictions for drug related offences then I would think you would have reasonable suspicion of pulling that car over if the people driving the car also fit that suspicious bill. It is never going to be black and white as to what constitutes reasonable suspicion as it will depend on the circumstances which would be the basic underpinning rule told to the police as prevention of crime never fits into a nice box but they would have helpful criteria that they would look at in deciding whether they have met that threshold.

We know that's not the case, though.

Yeah and in those minority of cases what happens to the police. I assume you think nothing and a pat on the back for being as intrusive as possible?

Yes. That is the structure of American policing. Welcome to the party.

What are your thoughts on the proposition that if one or two out of 100 fall through the cracks of meeting that reasonable suspicion threshold but it is better that it be interpreted as broadly as possible (that is to have that suspicion) if it improves the chances of keeping drugs of the street and particularly from children or having an effect on children as drug use does in families where parents are drug users?

Uhhhh you just described like the entire anti-crime history of the 80s/90s/00s and there's now sizable bipartisan agreement it was a terrible idea to go hard on that stuff.

Jesus bundy, you've been posting about this **** for years and years and years and you're still so goddamn uneducated on the basics.

Actually for stop and checks I've said hardly anything so thanks for the generalisation.

If there is sizeable bi-partisan agreement why all the negative police talk?

I think you just came through a time warp from the 80s, because that's where your drug policy is coming from. When you have some time to read a book about the intervening years, you'll find that it didn't work!

Mostly because of the cult of Donald Trump. You could go back 10 years, around the time of the Tea Party, and find a large libertarian streak in the conservative movement that was skeptical of government force and by extension police, and growing agreement that we as a country were putting way too many people in prison over stupid **** like drug offenses.

That part of the movement died. Donald Trump killed it (to the extent it was ever legitimate and not just a pretense conservatives used to pretend their opposition to Obama was rooted in any kind of principles) and replaced it with racism and Blue Lives Matter.

But trump hasn't got any control of the police doing these stops and using the excessive force from my understanding so are you just saying that it is from his persona and that of his supporters that it is somehow having an influence on the state police and how they do their jobs? And so by extension of that if Biden gets in I assume that give it maybe 6 months we'll be ok again?

Saved from the poo thread.

I think this is probably the main issue wrt inappropriate use of force and dirty cops. I also think there is a definite cultural 'us vs. them' within the various police forces that causes the police to view the people of their community as the enemy.

I don't know what the solution to this problem is, however I think getting rid of qualified immunity is probably a huge step in the right direction. Anything that makes a cop pause for a second and consider his actions has to be a good thing? SCOTUS unfortunately, does not seem to want to re-visit this.

The drawback to getting rid of QI, is that most likely municipalities get absolutely crushed by civil suits.

What a terrible statistic to latch onto. What municipality is this? Why are they being stopped? Driving while black isn't an actual violation that someone can get stopped for, though you certainly seem to infer that.

Some days it feels like 10% of the cars on the road in Milwaukee don't even have plates, and every day it feels like traffic laws are entirely optional.

Frankly, I wish more of the insane people I have to drive alongside every day would get pulled over and have their unregistered cars impounded.


Unintended negative consequences is mandatory criteria #1, 2, and 3 for any new idea from the left, so this seems fine. Take the settlement funds out of the public education budget.

We also had the study posted in here where Black people were much more likely to be pulled over when it was day time, but after dark, Black people and white people were equally likely to be pulled over.

Qualified immunity is based on good faith isn't it? This would be pretty standard across the whole of the public sector throughout the world. And definitely one area where police would be more likely than not to not be covered by such immunity as if what you are accused of is a chargeable offence then obviously you wouldn't be deemed to be acting in good faith.

The left, as least the ones on the left you are talking about, think of the system as being irrevocably corrupt.


I don't know for certain how they reach the conclusion about it being irrevocable, but I have my suspicions. As far as the corrupt part, all they have to do is watch the G. Floyd video to validate their belief it's corrupt system. It's odd really. They are intolerable of evil, as if it shouldn't exist. If it does exist, it means something is corrupt. However, you can't eradicate evil.


They will tacitly acknowledge the last point, but when you talk about what's a tolerable amount of evil, they always say zero, or don't respond.


Statistically speaking, what should be the expected number of officer involved shootings per x police interactions?

Statistically speaking, what should be the expected number of officer involved shootings per x police interactions where the the person resisted?

Statistically speaking, what should be the expected number of officer involved shootings per x police interactions where the person resisted and was armed?

Statistically speaking, what should be the expected number of officer involved shootings per x police interactions where the person resisted, was armed, and approached bystanders?

Statistically speaking, what should be the expected number of murder committed by cops per police interactions?


None of those will ever get answered honestly (they will say zero, and that explains there rational, they want an impossible utopia), and any system they put in place will have x shootings/murders per police interactions, and they will point to the next G. Floyd as proof the system is irrevocably corrupt.

People should be pulled over merely for being on parole? What a wild fascist fantasyland you've dreamed up for yourself.

This is, of course, a verbose strawman. Even while no police killings is an admirable goal, one killing is not necessarily proof of an corrupt, unfixable system. You know what is proof of a corrupt, irredeemable system? The fact that Chauvin, who was caught on video murdering a man, didn't get arrested for days. That Chauvin, rather than his fellow officers arresting him for murder, stood guard for him outside his house.

Philando Castille's killer was acquitted and got a nearly $50k severance. package.
Breonna Taylor's killers walk free to this day and have never even faced charges.
Walter Scott's killer got a hung jury after shooting him in the back and planting a weapon on him so as to help him get away with it. Fortunately, the feds stepped in and got him nailed.

So no, you're being deliberately obtuse. Not only are there too many unjustifaible killings of Black people by the police, the police get off far more easily and get light treatment, as they are in charge of policing their own. They don't want to police their own. They protect their own. That is a the corrupt system.

This is completely wrong. I assume you think that I am part of "the left". I don't know exactly where the tolerance point should be, and I don't even know that "tolerance" is the right word, but it is obviously correct that bad shootings cannot be reduced to zero. There are too many police interactions for that to be a reasonable expectation. And it is certainly correct that occasional bad shootings are not compelling evidence of a failed or corrupt system.

That said, there should be damn close to zero tolerance for disparate policing based on race. As I have said before, I don't think myopic focus on police shootings is the best way to assess whether there is an ongoing problem with disparate policing.

This too. Feather soft treatment of killer cops is only part of the corruption.

You of course are correct that itshot's post was a verbose strawman. But focusing on the passage of time between a police incident and an arrest or indictment is misguided imo. Cases against police officers are inherently difficult. If you are building a case against a police officer, it is critically important to do your work carefully. Foot dragging is not acceptable. But speed is not, and should not be, the number one priority. The number one goal should be charging correctly and getting a conviction. If that takes longer than the public would like, well, that's a hell of a lot better than an acquittal.

That's a pretty poor philosophical argument against trying to improve flawed systems. We can always strive to be better.

Ideally, imo, the amount of money already earmarked annually for police case settlements would be added directly to the police budget, and the police would have to pay out settlements out of their own money. If they go over, tough luck.

IIRC, this approach has been shown to drastically reduce police misconduct suits. Could probably track down the article if you are really inclined to read it.

Note that I am against defunding the police in general. This would not work in tandem with defunding, I don't believe.

No, qualified immunity is a more stringent standard than good faith.

Bascially, as it stands cops cannot be held personally liable for doing stupid/dangerous **** unless there is a law prohibiting said stupid/dangerous thing.

However, through Monell, municipalities can still be held liable for the cops doing dumb ****, if said dumb **** was within the parameters of existing department policy.

So we get this terrible convoluted system wherein municipalities are on the hook for bad police behavior, while individual bad cops bear no personal liability and are shielded/nearly unfireable due to the strong police unions.

IANAL, take above layman's commentary with many grains of salt.