Like a matter of weeks ago!

Sigh

http://www.snopes.com/2016/09/27/man...in-california/

"No, no, no. Law enforcement is an entity, a culture, onto itself. It doesn’t love white people and hate black people. It hates everybody who isn’t a cop, and it fears black people more than white people. But nobody who isn’t a cop gets a free pass. There is a very real problem here, but you’ve got it very wrong when you try to align police with a rogue society. Whether or not society is perpetuating discrimination against blacks, cops present a very different issue."

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2016/09...es/#more-30139

Another link:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...nap-story.html

Chubby, dark skinned, shirtless, mentally ill man assumed a shooting stance and pointed his fingers at police in a simulation of a gun. The police shot him several times. This was in a suburb of San Diego.

That's the honors/AP class.

Our society got kicked down to the remedial class at some point during the last 8 years.

Greenfield says this:

But people constantly question this! In terms of our collective consciousness as a society, that's a regression.

I know where Greenfield is coming from and his words read like somebody not aware of this regression. He criticizes Blow's (melo?)dramatic words because he's operating under the premise that people are not questioning "the existence of systemic discrimination against blacks" and doesn't see how the words are necessary.

Yes, police brutality is where many socioeconomic and psychological factors intertwine but that's beyond the scope of the remedial class.

Did the police think that he could shoot bullets out of his fingers? I'm trying to understand the significance of your description

They just never watched Gran Torino

If changes aren't made fast no one is going to want to become a police officer and things will continue to get worse.

It's not like we're running out of barely-graduated-from-high school blockheads with limited career choices.

The whole camera thing is another of those nothing new, but increasingly more common police "issues". With the trouble in the past at English football grounds police have been accused many times of getting heavy-handed with people that don't deserve it. Funnily enough, quite a common theme of those types of arrests is for a person to find out that the CCTV wasn't functioning properly in that part of the ground that day, or the tape got lost or overwritten accidentally.

Now instead of failing CCTV we're hearing across the world about how body cameras and dash cams become dislodged at the first sign of a scuffle, become blocked, or cease functioning altogether at critical times.

One might find it odd that passers are finding it easier to capture incidents on their phone than police can on their made-for-purpose cameras, but I'm not easily led into conspiracies.

It goes hand-in-hand with how many people get charged with resisting arrest only to have it dropped at some point. It's almost like they charge people with the one thing that's always their word vs. yours automatically.

As we brushed on once before - we cannot take the attirude of having to prove the police/authorities abuse the system, we have to design the system to make abuse maximally difficult - one of the main way to do that in this case is to make recordings increasingly mandatory and to make it a criminal to obstruct, intefere with, inhibit the use of these recording devices and recordings.

I meant to write, no one decent is going to want to become a police officer.

Thanks Obama.

Good luck getting on the force with only that in many parts of the country.

I think it is going the opposite way. Police are not going to release body cameras. It will now be cell phone use from bystanders, which tend to be fuzzy at best. The people taking the videos are not professionals and are usually caught up in the moment of trying to film it as well as seeing what is happening.

Part of the reason it goes the other way is that people demand 'proof' of abuse from authorites rather than arguing from first principles that a requirement for granting authority over us is maximum practical accountability - that should be in the constitution.

It's must not up to the police although it is good for the police as well.

Behind this I think you can say a lot about the way certain ideas operate in society.

Perhaps even more than having to prove that it happens, what we need is to drop the duality in the way people think about these matters. As we're hearing about Hillsborough, and the miner's strikes, as we've heard for years in far lesser incidents on the individual level, and as we're hearing over in the US with their current tensions, we know what goes on. We might not be able to present the formal evidence to each other, but we've all heard enough anecdotes from people we trust, we've all seen enough news stories from the ones that get caught out. We all know that "resisting arrest" is a charge that allows people to leave custody a little bruised without any way to challenge. Yet we treat it as though these are all isolated and it's a respectable profession and the system functions well, and in a great many ways that's all true, but the faux surprise from people is largely an affectation. We all know how it works.

The police shootings in the US are a very extreme end of this, and abhorrent, but it's not news to anyone that the authorities don't always act within the strict confines of the law. It's a part of how the system functions. It might not be a rule on the books that officers will back each other up even if one's out of line, but it's a rule nonetheless. These are all symptoms of an ideology that society buys into.

well said

Hi, I've never been in harm's way but blah blah blah police are murdering people and lying about evidence because they are all racist psychopaths that just want to kill minorities.

Jfc do you realize how stupid you sound?

To: almost all posters itt.

Unexpectedly, stevey is a big 2A guy.

We need the 2nd amendment to fight against tyrannical government, I am assured, by people who also uncritically support the government when it kills unarmed fellow citizens.

Funny, huh?

Gun nuts: "My gun control opposition is absolutely not about racial paranoia or my tiny penis, it's a principled stance based on civil rights and the inalienable right to be free of oppression that all Americans share. In fact, my gun ownership acts as a check on oppression, as I would use my arsenal to defend the civil liberties of not just myself but others."

Black People: "Oh thank God, then. The government has been violently oppressing certain subgroups of Americans for centuries, denying them rights, and occaisionally murdering them outright. Please, help us."

Gun nuts: "#BlueLivesMatter, ******. I hope people run protesters over. We need to bring back the police with national stop and frisk."

lollllllllllll jfc

incorrect

yeah that is different than what you said though. not pulling over would actually be illegal.

hahaha ok

i wish i could say it was surprising that someone named "conlaw" has such a poor grasp on 4th amendment jurisprudence... but it's not surprising at all.

I haven't seen it either but I have it DVRed, am I missing anything?

Not really.