In USA#1, I don't know if there are any actually laws that make murdering a cop worse than murdering a non-cop, but my understanding is that cop killers are prosecuted far more zealously than murderers of random citizens.

I assume a large part of the effect is that in cases like these the victim is someone that the people involved in serving justice (cops, prosecutor, etc) often had a personal connection with. So even if there is no actual law making it worse (and there may be, I just don't know of one of the top of my head), it is de facto much worse to commit a crime against a cop than against a random citizen.

"Mandate better training" and "hire better cops" aren't actual solutions they are just wishes that a child would make. In your opinion how should we fix our educational system? Hire better teachers, get parents more involved? You may as well just say "make thing better!" It's essentially synonymous.

What are you talking about?

Screening cops for violent tendencies and low emotional control not hiring the worst and training then properly to defuse situations and use less lethal strategies and low risk tactics is super ridiculously simple. Its done to some degree in parts of America and the rest is done outside of America.

These are simple to implement solutions. Just screening properly is the easiest fix ever.

The Tamir Rice murderer was rejected from one police force before he was hired by the one that let him murder a child and get away with it. One PD gave a gun and a badge and almost no training to some random guy cos he donated money and he ended up shooting a suspect on the floor.

#1 change should be making it much much easier to get ****canned for misbehavior. A lot of people just shouldn't be cops, and it should be possible to identify and get rid of them based on little stuff before they do something horrific.

Yep.

Whenever you're proposing something, just as a thought experiment take the other side. Is there someone for "worse teachers"? Worse... anything?

No, of course not. Well, then, why do you need to propose it? Why hasn't it already happened?

See, again, this misses the point. What you think of as "little stuff" that should put a cop on the road to getting canned, plenty of people think of as fine. That's the issue here. The idea that cops regularly get away with an untold number of minor offenses is CW for liberals and libertarians, but there's a big ass chunk of America that completely disagrees.

Google "Ferguson effect", dude, a big demo thinks we're too harsh on cops and need to take the shackles off a criminal justice system that is too soft on thugs and gang bangers.

Yea there was an article in the Washington Post about how a UBI would be less demeaning to welfare recipients than strictly regulated food stamps that require drug testing, pointless job searching etc, but it got pointed out that demeaning welfare recipients is the point of all the restrictions, it's not some incidental byproduct that people are ashamed to admit to and want to get rid of. They're pretty proud of it.

A
No doubt but don't see it happening in most cities. The politicians and the unions are too rightly entwined.

This is true. But this other idea that you supported is not any less like a wish a child would make:

Sort of true except the view of the layperson towards cops IS changing slowly and in part because of the media coverage of issues like this. Police abuse is becoming the "hip new topic" and the hearts and minds are slowly being won.

It's a bit of a chicken and egg thing. In order to enact more humane and non racist policies you need a more humane and non racist electorate, otherwise your policies aren't going to have the political will to get off the ground.

The problem some commentators have is they have the base assumption that the electorate has the same high ideals they have and the negatives are unintentional problems that we can get rid of. The issue is, "What if the negatives aren't unintended but what the electorate actually wants".

Unsurprisingly, Coates explains it better:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...licing/422094/

That's a pretty anarchist thing to say. I thought it was the role of the government to lead us to morality and humanity and to protect the weak. You are suggesting that the government is just a late adopter once the people are ALREADY not racist and not thugs.

Maybe if we just elected the right people, or hired the right cops, or had better training, or any of the other fantasies those who think the government is the answer tell themselves.

And this is where the lovefest between me and fly ends haha

Coates is a fantastic writer and voice. It's too bad that those who need to read him most probably never will but that's obviously not a unique problem.

This doesn't make sense, surely. The less the community is apt to respect the rights of the downtrodden, the less anarchy is a solution. For instance, the First Amendment is much more useful in a country where people are not inclined to respect free speech rights.

Not to derail the thread but it's always amusing when an ACist accuses others of succumbing to fantasy. We have plenty of examples of countries that don't have America's problems with police, so at the very least government isn't the problem.

wat

please read what you just wrote and think for just a second.

If "the community" doesn't respect the rights of the downtrodden then the government that community puts in place isn't going to either. That's EXACTLY what you're seeing RIGHT NOW play out in the US. And the government serves as a MULTIPLIER for that disrespect.

You're right, though, government isn't "the problem," it's just a huge aggravating factor.

It seems pretty clear to me that the closer the community gets to direct control of law and order, the more of a disaster it becomes. Direct election of sheriffs, judges etc is a massive problem in many areas of the US.

Is it really your position that the problem in say, TN or KY or MS or whatever ****hole is that the citizenry don't have enough direct control of policing? What do you think would happen to law and order if all decisions were made by plebiscite?

By "the government" I don't mean merely the legislature. The judiciary have been a hugely liberalising force over the last 60 years or so.

His point was the opposite of yours, that the FA would only really be useful if people already respected free speech. Or rather, that if people didn't then the FA would never be enacted in the first place.

And your last paragraph is a non sequitur. It does not follow that simply because other countries don't have our police problems that government isn't a problem. As always I'm skeptical of anyone who uses phrases like "the problem" since rarely is anything "the problem." And just because "if we just elect the right people" is a COMMON fantasy, doesn't mean it's any less of a lol one.

The idea that a government, if it's representative, is going to broadly reflect the wants and wishes, both noble or ignoble, of its constituents isn't a radical or anarchist idea.

Now its happened here in Vegas

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/of...lved-shootings

Are you seriously arguing that higher quality employees do not produce a higher quality product and/or that organizations are completely helpless in their ability to attract quality employees? You work for a living (if I recall), is there not some tangible reward you receive in exchange for your time/production?

A Federal judge overturned a jury verdict in favor of Chicago that found that two officers killing an allegedly armed black guy were justified because the City Attorney withheld evidence. The attorney also resigned today. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...104-story.html

So the GJ in the Rice case didn't vote on charges. I'm reading that's really abnormal. Anyone know for sure?

I read that once they'd decided nothing criminal took place (which they did vote on) that there was no need to have a separate vote in whether to indict the police.

Cleveland seems to have discovered a pretty slick/ morally reprehensible way of dealing with the cost of police brutality lawsuits. There are apparently a few cases where thd city refused to indemnify the cops, but then did pay the fees and costs for the cops to file bankruptcy.

So, (a) the city doesn't have to mount a full defense to the underlying brutality case (b) the cop gets legal advice on how to be as judgment proof as possible and (c) the victim doesn't get to collect a full judgment. This outcome seems... less than ideal to me

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-police-abuse/