This is the first time I have read an article of yours and felt it was actually bad. While you seem to want to take a nuanced viewpoint of racism and white supremacy among police, what you are actually doing is saying that police suck.
They don’t.
If you are unarmed and don’t fight with police, regardless of your race, you may get bad treatment but you will NOT be shot. If you attack police officers, shoot them, try to steal their weapon, flee the scene, you will probably get shot, regardless of race. And that’s 100% on you.
Exactly. Not enough is said about the real reason anyone is killed by Police; they resist arrest. Anytime you resist arrest you’re playing the odds. Fight the case later. The media lost all credibility last year when they pretended there were thousands of unarmed killings of blacks.
John McWhorter had a blogpost this week about how 'badly' the cops talk to blacks, never considering the aggressive, unhelpful and often violent language used by blacks on police. Doesn't every kid growing up learn respect authority AND not to ' talk back' when in the hands of the authorities (or parents for that matter). No matter, we see video after video of police in traffic violation stops where many blacks, male & female just shoot off at the mouth only aggravating the situation from the get-go. Aggression never gets you anywhere, but calmness & reason do.
More good advice - for good, well-behaved peasants. We aren't supposed to be that here.
Nor does it work: remember the guy who was shot in his car for PROPERLY informing the cop that he was legally armed? Some people just shouldn't be cops.
Philando Castile. Appalling case. (I stress here that my understanding of it is limited strictly to media reports.) Dude was carrying legally, informed the cop truthfully when asked, complied with directions, and got shot by the cop anyway. Clearly his mistake -- as with so many other situations in the USA -- was telling the truth in the first place.
NRA-adjacent lawyers should have been swarming all over this one, but... crickets.
Potentially yes. If you resist arrest or escalate a situation, you never know where it could lead. It’s so strange that people think they can just resist arrest and not have anything bad happen.
The cop overreacted. He seemed to have gotten scared. He was tried but acquitted and fired. Castile’s family got a $2 million settlement from the city.
Grisha, i'd be ok if I got shot on the street and my family got $2m. Just saying. True, my life would be over, but i'll probably die of something else and not get the $2m deposited in my wife's bank account.
Your point about the NRA is taken, however, i've found that the NRA itself is more a PAC. They barely pay much attention to their former bread and butter - gun training and publications. Just send out begs for funding by inventing new ranks in their lifetime membership system. If you want a modicum of protection for legal gun ownership/carry/use, you need something like US Law Shield, which isn't free either.
It's interesting the way the NRA has fluctuated on this throughout the years.
In the 1990's the NRA was still defending individual gun owners from government abuse. In 1992, Wayne LaPierre famously referred to the agents that shot and killed Randy Weaver wife at Ruby Ridge as "Jack booted thugs," but the NRA has since become just another cop shop conspicuously quiet on the gun rights of people threatened by home invasion by the police and black home owners in particular.
They have also formed a lobby group that works the Prosecutor and Police Unions to push for more draconian punishments around all crimes, but especially guns.
<<In 1992, Wayne LaPierre famously referred to the agents that shot and killed Randy Weaver wife at Ruby Ridge as "Jack booted thugs," but the NRA has since become just another cop shop conspicuously quiet on the gun rights of people threatened by home invasion by the police and black home owners in particular.>>
Oh man. I wish somebody would do a deep dive on this stuff. George H. W. Bush (at the time, President) notoriously resigned his NRA Life membership after LaPierre's "jackbooted thugs" remark on the principle that all federal agents were fine, upstanding people incapable of error.
What would the Founders think of the pathetic slaves many Americans have become? They risked everything to fight for their freedom. Now we have citizens who think being a good American is all about supporting their slave masters over the Constitution that was put in place to prevent America from becoming the police state it now is. At least in 1984 Winston had to be broken before he learned to love big brother.
I call them citizens, because it's only through an accident of history and geography that they occupy the same actual land once occupied by the proud independent men they have nothing in common with. Most of the 2.5 million Americans we hold in prison each year are more free than they are because at least a prisoner is not in denial about his relationship with the State barring those few who suffer from Stockholm syndrome.
Could you imagine George Washington showing up to Valley Forge and giving the troops a rousing speech along the lines of:
"Well if you stop resisting the British and accept their authority, then we won't have so many problems!
They write posts on how to be a good peasant without ever questionaing why a free man should need to bow down to the police like a peasant in their own country.
It's odd because they recognize freedom in other countries and people. They make a big showing of supporting the students in Tienanmen Square. They are with the Students in Hong Kong and those who want freedom on Cuba, but when it comes to their own country they always support the violence of their slave masters.
It would be fine with that if their slavish need for State Authority only ruined their own life. What sucks is that they are going to take the rest of us still willing to fight for freedom with them.
A few months back there was a news story about some black guy in Florida out jogging who was stopped by police. They put him on the ground and interrogated him. Given the national mood and the human anxiety most of us would feel if that happend to us, he understandably thought he was going to die. But he had the presence of mind to cooperate politely. There’d been a burglary and he met the perp’s description. The police satisfied themselves it wasn’t him and thanked him for his cooperation. They were so happy with how he handled the situation they offered him a job on the force as a community relations outreach liaison. That’s where he works today. True story.
What does it mean? We all have our own answer I suppose.
Back in the 20th century aggressive ticketing by police at certain times in certain places was a cliche. It rarely led to anything but an angry motorist a few bucks poorer.
The common denominator in who gets shot (with some rare exceptions) is who fights the police. For some subset of the youth population, There may be cultural stigma in not fighting back, you’re not a man or something, letting the police push you around. And that makes the police more aggressive. It’s a chicken and an egg problem.
Better community relations efforts seem a step in the right direction.
I think this ignores that many police officers intentionally escalate situations in order to charge the person with resisting arrest, which is a felony.
We watched this play out in Florida. The city council passed a law making it a simply misdemeanor to not wear a helmet while biking. The police enforced this almost exclusively among youth in poor neighborhoods and more than once were caught escalating the situation to get a felony for resisting arrest.
I'm restricting my comment on this Post to "how to avoid getting shot in a police encounter". In most cases, it's fairly easy to avoid -- cooperate politely. There does not appear to be a racial factor in the data in the few instances where unarmed people not resisting arrest do end up shot -- contrary to last year's agit-prop that many media channels and democrat politicians stoked to get elected and that caused riots in cities across the US.
That rhetoric was every bit as ugly as the iconic early 20th century southern politician stoking up race hate among poor whites.
I never thought I'd see this in my life in the USA coming out of mainstream democrats and their mouthpieces. Silly me. Lesson learned.
Some of the stuff people are getting shot and killed over is just ridiculous. And then the cop keeps his job or maybe goes and gets another job -as a cop. C’mon, man.
The question i always have, in the instances where the suspect isn't actually aiming a gun at anyone, is why couldn't these cops just aim for the leg, instead of for the kill?
“There’d been a burglary and he met the perp’s description,”? What was the description? Black dude? The go-to excuse for every single unwarranted stop-and-frisk that I was subject to when I lived in Florida was ALWAYS,”There’s been some reports of burglaries in the neighborhood.” Even though I’d be walking down the street empty-handed, no “burglary tools” on me, no stereos or televisions, no nothing. I was walking to the store to get some groceries or some beer. Minding my own business.
“Oh, I guess if the cops say there were some reports of burglaries in the neighborhood, they can do whatever…” Do y’all even hear yourselves? You’re advocating for a police state, the same shit you cry about when you talk about “Google” and “Facebook,” but when actual human beings are victims of police state tactics, stopped and searched for non-existent reasons, you’re like,”Just lay down and take it.” Get off the internet. Because that ain’t real life.
I know all about being angry and pissy about a cop-stop. LA cops were notorious for being aggressive. About 20 years ago, I got ticketed $15 for jaywalking on a crowded street crossing - I was chatting with a friend and admittedly wasn't really paying attention to the lines. I'm a white chick and at the time (lol) kinda cute. By the time, we had crossed the street, a cop was in our faces. I thought he was joking when he told us we made a 'violation'. What a douche bag. I guess he was having a slow and boring evening. Yes, those types of cops are out there.
I should add that the first night i moved to LA, my new roommate (friend of a friend, whom i had never met before) picked me up at the airport. He was driving us back to the apartment in Hollywood, and we got pulled over by cops into a gas station, car searched, luggage searched, patted down, etc. He was a white guy, i'm a white girl, we were both kind of preppy looking, and were like, wtf? Turns out he was wearing a blue baseball cap, and the cops said they thought we might have been gang members. Right.
Any cop should be trained to deal with that aspect of things, letting it slide off their backs, and not needlessly escalate any potentially fraught situation. Seriously. If you can't keep your cool when you are going to be being yelled at a lot, you're in trouble, and better off finding another career.
Esp since a lot of the people who become cops are exactly the kind of people who want to be obeyed and being a cop is an easy way to get that kind of authority.
Impunity virtually guarantees abuse, from some if not all, and attracts the worst. We all know that, but apparently not those who write the laws and policies protecting police.
The big demonstrations in 2020 have had one useful effect: there are now more prosecutions of abusive cops, and more reporting of them. Long term, that might help, though the first effect seems to have been doubling down by abusive cops.
I'm not BLM and I'm not Antifa, but I marched in Portland when the Feds showed up because they had no business being in my city. No question there have been some stupid people playing stupid games with the police and you can always find some click bait jackass to tell the media he wants the entire White Supremacist American government overthrown to the delight of the Ben Shapiro's out there who never met an idiot on the street they did not portray as speaking for every protester out there and a threat to America.
Here's what we accomplished, however:
The current police union contract is being directly challenge by the city council for the first time ever in areas like police impunity when they violate the law.
We are setting up a meaningful civilian oversight board with the power to punish bad actors within the police. Also a first.
After 30 years of never charging a single police officer with violence regardless of circumstances, 3 officers have been charged for violent crimes for the first time ever in the last 12 months.
Hopefully there will be more changes, but these alone justifies some graffiti and silly people with a silly agenda.
OK, I get that, but if that were the definitive case we would hear about fuck all except the bad cases. How many GOOD cases vs bad cases are we walking about here? Seriously.
In the general human populace? I mean, are you trying to insinuate that no police officers can de-escalate a situation? Seriously? Think about yourself. Never had a time when you knew that responding to shouting would not aid matters? What a joke.
True DAT ! ;-D I have four cops in my family (hey, we're Irish, what else are the kids gonna do ?) but you should HEAR THEM (after being carefully coached at the beginning of every shift on the "Talking points of the day") trying to defend videos like - A cop shooting an unarmed black man in the back, *while the victim was RUNNING AWAY FROM THE COP ! The justification ? "The cop feared for his life". The video of cops who shoot and kill a black man whom they do not know, who has no visible weapon, and who is SLEEPING in his own car. "The cops feared for their lives ......"
Cops who shoot and kill an 8 year old boy with an air gun ...... the cops who shoot and kill a 12 year-old boy in an alley because he has a gun in his hand ...... ooops, gun turns out to be the boy's cell phone. This is the result of a SCREWY training program. The wealthy have *always paid cops to "keep the riff-raff out of the wealthy neighborhoods." The way cops define "riff-raff" has changed very little since the beginning of the U.S.
"Qualified Immunity" has morphed into an equivalent of the 007 License To Kill.
And before we start playing violins for "good cops", my family members ARE
good cops. But they are *also members of a twisted System trying their best
to *remain "good cops", in *spite of the System they work for. Three quarters of them (total of four, three male, one female working in different "cop shops" around the West) would be the first to *agree that the System is in dire need of some HUGE changes. CHANGE ? Yes. DEFUND ? Don't talk like a silly child.
One of my badge-wearing relatives is with LAPD, and is now in his mid-fifties.
You should hear HIM trying to justify the video of the beating of Rodney King !
So, indeed, as Mr. Warrick remarks above, it is all about the way your biases (even those loaded into your head this morning at cop roll call) lead you to view the video.
Error "cops who shoot an 8 year old boy who is *carrying an air gun" is correct. The cops did not shoot the boy *with an air gun ..... we might only wish.
You know, I almost mentioned that blogpost, but because McWhorter has been so good on attacking idiotic CRT a lot of right wingers who think the police can do no wrong (with the exception of Jan. 6 of course) have embraced him. He is black too, which in a twisted example of "but my best friend is black!" think supporting him gives them street cred even when they go on to refer to other black people as thugs. (see post above).
They have so few heroes that are the right color. It seemed cruel to steal him away from them with that blog post.
McWhorter cited a study that took into account the demeanor of the people the cops were talking to. Besides, what is your evidence that blacks are less respectful toward cops in an encounter? I know that’s the stereotype, but is it substantiated empirically?
Blacks are not necessarily less respectful but they can be culpable, unlike today's narrative that they can seemingly do no wrong or are not responsible for their bad deeds. George Floyd didn't deserve to die, but his behavior was hardly stellar; He was found to have been involved in 6 burglaries, 3 car thefts, 2 violent home invasions, 3 armed robberies, the beating of 4 victims senseless, passing counterfeit money, and was arrested 23 times since 1998. Yet, Floyd is revered as a saint - statues are raised to honor him, his family has been awarded millions.
Wow, this is not what this article is saying at all. This piece is actually exploring how different aspects of our society inform one another without the current common caveman theme of “Police Bad,” or its counterpoint caveman story, “Police Good.” These things are incredibly complicated.
There are problems in our society with over-policing and bad policing that should be addressed, but people have instead attacked working class police as if they’re practicing ancient witchcraft without looking at the issues that lead to bad policing, and how dumb sloganeering has replaced any constructive change.
This is the kind of reporting we need on these issues.
I completely disagree with you. We have communities which are in crisis because the rule of law has been undermined by the ongoing attacks on policing. Police have a very specific role in communities and it's a vital role. Stop undermining them and let them protect our children.
This is the issue: I absolutely agree that police are vital to communities. I am not undermining police, and neither is this piece. I think "abolish the police" and "ACAB" and "defund the police" were ridiculous, daft slogans.
As this piece recognizes — and many liberals, leftists, conservatives, and libertarians recognize — there are issues in communities that have been done a disservice by over-policing and crooked policing.
Justin Amash, the republican-voting libertarian in congress tweeted during last summer's protests and riots:
"End qualified immunity. End civil asset forfeiture. End the drug war. End overcriminalization. End no-knock warrants. End militarization of police. End mandatory minimums."
I don't agree with Amash on much, but I agree with him on all of this. Dim activists attacked this line of thinking, saying "defund" is the only solution so conversations went absolutely nowhere.
Reactionaries bitterly attacking reactionaries is no way to run a society.
If you end qualified immunity, and let people sue police officers personally, there will be a flood of biblical proportions of nuisance lawsuits and we will no longer have police. During last summer, while brick-throwing arsonist cop attacking rioters were destroying 2 billion in property and killing 30 people, a lot of politicians reflexively said a lot of irresponsible things. Whether it's rioters on January 6th or rioters in Lafayette Park trying to breach the barriers to the White House and forcing the President's family to be moved to a bunker, that is not what should inform out decisions about what is best for the community. What remains true is that we need a highly functioning police force. YES, if an officer is incompetent or breaks the law, they need to be removed from that job. And they should not be able to work in policing again. But that is a tiny fraction of cases. What we are seeing is police are being criticized for their actions when dealing with people who are actively attacking them, sometimes with weapons, sometimes not. But if you attack the police, I have sympathy for you, but you are going to be shot and possibly killed. If you are unarmed and not attacking them, they you won't except for an extremely tiny number of instances.
«If you end qualified immunity, and let people sue police officers personally, there will be a flood of biblical proportions of nuisance lawsuits and we will no longer have police.»
Those are two separate thing. In any case as to "qualified immunity" there are two typical cases:
* In civilized countries the police have fairly *limited* qualified immunity and abuses of that limited qualified immunity are investigated and punished severely as a counterpart to the privilege of that immunity.
* In third world countries with fascist governments with colonial attitude to the populace the police have pretty wide qualified immunity, and abuses are not investigated or or punished very lightly, as long as the police treat with the "shoot to kill" iron fist only the peasants (of any color or type), not the masters; the logic is keep the colonial population cowed and scared.
I guess many people would like the philipino, turkish, congolese or uzbek approach to policing in the USA, and indeed it has mostly like that in many places for a long time.
Before you judge, go for a ride-along. I did, and it completely changed my perspective. If you're not willing to experience it, please don't judge the cops from a standpoint of ignorance.
Even the best cops end up jaded because they predominantly deal with victims of crime and perpetrators of crime. When that is your daily grind, it's going to warp your view of people. Not a gig I would choose, but it is one that society needs filled.
The problem is we don't have a system to hold the bad ones accountable, and ideally weed them the hell out of the job (instead of cycling them between agencies).
No but we have a system for NOT holding them to account and not weeding them out. It’s called police unions, in conjunction with a court-created law called qualified immunity.
And the cops find themselves running after the same dopes and former convicts on the street days after they just arrested them the last time. That's the burnout; it's a revolving door of justice or perhaps, more accurately injustice.
Internal affairs is not a system, it is a charade. At the very best, it removes a problem from one department, but does not stop that problem from attaching itself to another agency. And that is on the rare occasions when the cops in IA don't serve the interests of the police union first.
Now why don't you regale us all with how narrow a protection qualified immunity is.
It was pretty obvious that when he said "we don't have a system", he was implicitly saying "we don't have a system that actually works", which is effectively the same thing as not having a system.
In fact, you could argue that it's even worse than not having a system, since what you actually have is a facade that fools people into thinking there is something effective in place, so they don't push for change the same way they would if there was nothing there at all.
Unfortunately it always elicits a comment from the dumbest person in the thread, who can’t wrap his head around the difference between someone with a pseudonym who LARPs fake physical bravado, and someone with a pseudonym who doesnt.
Physical bravado? You do realize he was being hyperbolic and not physically threatening?
One of the more disappointing changes I have seen in America is an entire new group of people unable to distinguish between upsetting language and actual physical violence.
"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is not democracy.
Jesus Christ, Dude! Your comments are some of the most naive I've read in this forum! You sound exactly like people, especially cops, DA's, etc, that say with regard to our justice system things like, "If you haven't done anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about." That is complete bullshit! Once law enforcement sets it's eyes on you, you got A LOT to worry about, regardless. You are probably another person that has never had any interaction with law enforcement in your life, because those are the ONLY people that believe what you believe.
Dave - Do be clear. We had a President that bragged about breaking tax laws thus stealing millions from tax payers. And these same people that say "If you haven't done anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about" defend him stealing millions from tax payers out of one side of their mouth while defending cops for beating someone selling cigarettes on the street...
CNN: I guess you don't listen to Trump himself. I dont know about you but i had to pay rent with after tax money. I had to pay for my kids tuition with after tax money... But Trump thinks he did not have to?
“They go after good, hard-working people for not paying taxes on a company car,” he said at a rally in Sarasota, Fla. “You didn't pay tax on the car or a company apartment. You used an apartment because you need an apartment because you have to travel too far where your house is. You didn't pay tax. Or education for your grandchildren. I don't even know. Do you have to? Does anybody know the answer to that stuff?”
Adam - "Cheating" on your taxes is breaking the law. Giving a bank documents that value property at one value and government that value it at a different value is fraud.
Nothing wrong with minimizing your taxes.
Trump's team is not being indicted for minimizing his taxes. They are bing investigated for fraud.
Sure, if he actually cheated on his taxes, that's obviously breaking the law. But you said "We had a President that bragged about breaking tax laws thus stealing millions from tax payers." This never happened. Trump never said he broke tax laws. He may well have done so, but he only "bragged" about using legal methods to minimize his tax.
Adam - He has been convicted of breaking tax laws with his Charity. He is under investigation for breaking tax laws and his accountant has been indicted.
He is no more or less guilty of breaking the law than the guy the police kicked the door in on and ended up shooting his girlfriend dead...
My point is that the crimes Trump is being investigated for involve far more theft than the crimes the accused "petty" drug dealer was being accused of. But Trump or his attorney Cohen, his 2 Campaign Chairmans and his CPA did not get their doors kicked in with no knock warrents.
My point in drawing the comparison aligns with Matt's. This is coming down to stupid leadership of the police. My additional observation is that the stupidity leans to the poor and away from the rich and my example validates that.
There are lots and lots more examples of rich having a far different justice system than the poor and middle class.
Nah not really. Once your pulled over, that’s it; can’t argue and then resist arrest. If you get an asshole cop fight it later. Why is that so difficult to understand?
For him - "fight it later". Good idea. The average person of color, with less than $400 in their bank account, rent due and a shitty job who is beaten for no good reason by a cop is going to "fight it later" and it will all be good,,,
Actually I did that once, purely for humor, and also to annoy the cop by making him show up in court. I had been given a speeding ticket basically for speeding up to let a police car get by a line of trucks, but it was me the cop wanted. He lied thoroughly about the whole incident. I had written up a description of it which the magistrate didn't even look at before finding me guilty; all as expected, except the cop lied so extravagantly that he got a case of nerves and was shaking before he got done. I hung around for the next few cases. One was someone who had six witnesses on his side -- ignored. The next one was a blonde bombshell the cop had obviously pulled over just to get a closer ogle and chat her up a bit. Guilty, but later the presiding magistrate instructed the cop and how to do the bombshell thing without having to go to court. It was all pretty funny. I appealed, of course, just to run up their costs, and add to the waste paper supply. But the real payoff occurred a month or two later, when the magistrate himself was arrested for selling dismissals. By the way, everyone was just as White as all get-out. Couldn't've been Whiter. I can imagine what would have happened if I had gone in there improperly pigmented.
Not sure what pigmentation has to do with it; plenty of blacks and whites have been convicted for being corrupt. The wheels of justice move slowly but they do move.
I'm not advocating resisting arrest. I don't know where you got that, but your statement is just as naive. It assumes you and the cop are equally considered in the eyes of the court. That is NOT how it works. You must be another one that's had few if any interactions with our justice system.
What are you reading?!?! Where in the world are you getting the idea that I'm advocating resisting arrest, or "fighting a guy with a gun"?!?! OF COURSE if you're pulled over, just take the ticket! You'd have to be a moron to do otherwise! What's going on in your head, man?
He will learn. Or he won't. Though he is probably going to be lucky enough to get to live to so do. You think any of the people under discussion thought they were going to die that day when they left the house? Nope. There is a REASON why black people in America don't call the police.
The founder's knew what they were doing when the wrote the 5th.
It should surprise no one that in the rare event the police, prosecutors or judges are arrested they ALWAYS ask for a lawyer first and say nothing.
These are the people who actually understand how the system works and can expect some sympathy from those they talk to. If they need a lawyer, you can be damn sure you do also.
I hate it when I read articles where the journo makes some idiotic statement like "he was hiding behind the fifth,' or "he was coaching him to "play it cool" when he told him to get a lawyer and not talk."
With so many authoritarians in the media, it's amazing we have any Constitution left at all.
"preposterous reason that she’d failed to signal before changing lanes"...
...this to me is a valid (not preposterous) reason to pull someone over. A lady who failed to signal almost killed me and my 2 children, a couple of decades back.
The escalation is the issue. Almost do what the cops tell you on the spot, and deal with the issue in court, later, if necessary. Least that's what I always told my kids.
If someone that didn't signal their intentions almost killed you and your kids, then YOU were not paying attention, and/or you assumed something you shouldn't have.
I have seen cars, on countless occasions, unknowingly speeding down the highway with an indicator flashing. If you trust an automobile indicator, whether on or off, you're an idiot.
2. Yes, cars and motorcycles often incorrectly use their indicators. If you think that this can't contribute to an accident even if you're paying attention, then quite frankly you haven't driven enough.
Diallo fled and reached into his jacket. It turned out that he was pulling out his wallet but that is still a foolish move.
The Castille situation is less clear, as far as I can tell as it is based only on what the shooting officer could or could not see in a dark automobile. (he believed that Castille was pulling out his gun, despite being ordered not to). A jury (including people of color) decided they believed the officer and acquitted him (the officers in the Diallo case were also acquitted by a multiracial jury).
In both cases, people who saw and heard a great deal more information than you came to the conclusion that both men behaved in a way that made the police reaction "reasonable."
There have unquestionably been cases where police have been completely wrong (and even malevolent) but the reality is that we, as citizens, require LE to confront life threatening situations on a daily basis and errors will occur. Statistically, these are rare but unfortunately we have an unethical media that misrepresent these tragedies and a large segment of the population that is so innumerate that they cannot grasp the statistics.
Skeptic.com conducted a survey that showed that vast numbers of Americans believe that more than 1000 unarmed black men are killed by police every year and a mindboggling number believe it is 10 thousand or more! Every stripe of political belief has the ratio of blacks (to others) killed wrong but liberals, as a group, put the percentage at about 60% (versus the actual of around 25%). Generally speaking, the more conservative you are the more likely you are to have the numbers right.
Does this make unnecessary deaths caused by police "acceptable"? Of course not. It does, however, make it clear that the problem is not pervasive (which, in turn, makes the presumption of a wildly violent and/or racist police force even more absurd).
"Diallo fled and reached into his jacket" Diallo was standing in the entry to his own apartment building when the gang of police accosted him. He pulled out his wallet when they demanded ID.
In other words, you're being deliberately deceptive.
No, you are being deliberately obtuse. Testimony that a jury believed was that he fled and reached into his jacket. You have a problem with that, take it up with them.
Prosecutors control all the evidence and judges defer to them on all court decisions.
When you have prosecutors acting as an additional defense attorney on behalf of the police officer it's not hard to arrive at a reasonable doubt. It's why there was so much outrage over the Taylor grand jury and why the DA tried to suppress the information from the public. DA's are in no position to hold the police they work with every day accountable.
Yawn - the "they are all dirty" defense. Getting back to the real point, are you suggesting the juries were in on the "dirty dealings" of the two cases I referenced????
Similarly, violent crime is a smaller cause of death than people think. Way more people die from medical malpractice. Not a reason to not to address violent crime.
Bingo - and thanks for the names. The Castillo killing was lame-brained panic, but Diallo's looked exactly like a mob rubout, and there've been others, similar.
«If you are unarmed and don’t fight with police, regardless of your race, you may get bad treatment but you will NOT be shot. If you attack police officers, shoot them, try to steal their weapon, flee the scene, you will probably get shot»
That seem to be an extraordinary claim that the police have a right to self defence that includes shooting to kill people who flee and thus pose no threat to them, shoot to kill unarmed people, shoot to kill armed people who don't draw or use their weapons, and that of course usually sooner or lated includes shoot to kill pretty much in any case in which they can claim they felt threatened by the possibility of any such action.
I guess that "proportionate response" only applies to the peasants, not to the enforcers or their masters.
"police have a right to self defence that includes shooting to kill people who flee and thus pose no threat to them, shoot to kill unarmed people, shoot to kill armed people who don't draw or use their weapons" First off, I did not say police have the right to shoot people who flee. I said, if you do the listed things, you are likely to be shot. Draw their weapons? Is this is old west? If you attack the police, armed or not, you are asking to be shot. But the instances of police shooting people who were unarmed are few and far between compared to 61 million interactions with the public. "As of the June 22 update, the Washington Post’s database of fatal police shootings showed 14 unarmed Black victims and 25 unarmed white victims in 2019."
«First off, I did not say police have the right to shoot people who flee. I said, if you do the listed things, you are likely to be shot.»
But you did write that “If you [...] flee the scene, you will probably get shot, regardless of race. And that’s 100% on you”: if it is “100% on you” obviously the police have done nothing wrong in shooting to kill well beyond legitimate defense.
In civilized countries the extent of police immunity is to presumptively believe them when they say "he started shooting", not a licence to start shooting first.
«If you attack the police, armed or not, you are asking to be shot.»
Not in civilized countries; resisting arrest is not a capital offense, and even if were police agents are not empowered to prosecute, convict and execute capital punishments on the spot, straight away, as in "shoot to kill".
Saying "Shoot to kill" shows you do not understand how this works. Police are not trained to shoot people in the hand or the foot or the leg. They are aiming at the body.
I think you're smart enough to know the difference between what I said and what you're saying I said. I said if you do the things listed that you are likely to get shot and that is on you. That doesn't not say that police have the right to shoot unarmed suspects who are fleeing. I find your comment to be extremely disingenuous.
If you attack police, try to take their weapon, or otherwise fight with them, you should know the risks you are taking. The type of felon who would attack police are a very dangerous group of individuals. I have sympathy for them, but they are putting themselves at risk of death. It is they who is putting themselves in that situation. That is not to say that I condone police shooting unarmed people. I have specifically said that police shooting an unarmed person is a crime.
I have also made a distinction between armed citizens shot by police and unarmed. The reason is that if you are armed and in conflict with the police, you are automatically in a situation of high risk, and you have put yourself in that situation. Putting yourself in that situation or attacking police is 100% on that person who has undertaken that.
Civilized countries, in your view, would allow armed criminals to attack police without the police having the right to shoot back. I don't know what countries those might be, but I suspect you are wrong.
Regarding unarmed people, yes, there are vanishingly rare cases where police shoot unarmed people, and those are crimes.
There seems to be this assumption in posts like this that if the police do anything other than shoot you they are justified.
You're welcome to make that your standard of acceptable conduct, but I consider the routine domestic violence, rape, theft, assault, planting evidence and general police corruption problematic even if no one is shot in the process.
The fact they didn't shoot them doesn't make everything else OK.
Yeah Bill, and a lot more times Americans themselves suck. What if it were your job to impose order on millions of selfish, maladjusted assholes whose “parent” just couldn’t be bothered to teach their demon spawn to respect authority? We’ve got a serious problem in this country alright, but it’s not with the police.
What if your view of society was a group of "selfish, maladjusted assholes whose “parent” just couldn’t be bothered to teach their demon spawn to respect authority"
I would argue that view should disqualify you from law enforcement. Instead, it appears to be a requirement.
That's not how I read it at all. I read it as "bad treatment" appears to be positively correlated with "contact" and "contact" is higher in lower income areas that are positively correlated with racial minorities. Which certainly seems to be more nuanced than "police suck".
Same. Matt doesn’t day it, but ditching the futile and unjust War on Drugs would go a long way. We learned that well enough to end Prohibition, but need to learn it again.
You're up top, so you're the example. There's an ongoing discussion - probably here - of whether modern "conservatives" are authoritarian. Speaking from experience, they certainly aren't the anti-authoritarians that Goldwater exemplified. Anybody remember him?
The perfect example of "authoritarian" is the kneejerk support of police, the essence of government authority, and repeating all their propaganda. Granted, nobody wants to live in a lawless society; the real issue is whether contemporary police are really enforcing the law, or just acting like well-armed gangsters. Their case-solved rate, notably on the crimes of theft we all object to, is very poor. Instead, they're out there gratuitously throwing their weight around and, on bad days, killing people. About half the people they kill are white, as far as anyone can tell, so this isn't just a race problem. If you meet the wrong cop, your white privilege won't save you - but whites often fail to make the huge stink that blacks know they have to do.
So, cop-supporting conservatives: you're the perfect example of what we mean by "authoritarian."
First off, I've been in the GREEN PARTY since the 90's after Biden's Crime Bill, the Credit Card Bill, and Welfare Reform were passed by the Democrats -- Something the GOP could never have pulled off. I just want my kids, and everyone else's, to live in safe communities.
Second, it is not authoritarian to want safe communities. So your premise is just wrong.
Third, saying police are not "enforcing the law" but are "well-armed gangstars" is "repeating all their propaganda". I have repeated no one's propaganda.
"gratuitously throwing their weight around and, on bad days, killing people. About half the people they kill are white" This is not born out by the data. In 2019 when 61 million people had interactions with the police, under 40 unarmed people were shot by police.
Overall, I think your comment is out of perspective and you should rethink. The fact that you classified me as an authoritarian conservative, when you know nothing about me, demonstrates that you are out of perspective.
It isn’t “authoritarian” to want safe communities. But advocating for authoritarian tactics makes you, literally, an authoritarian. “The children! What about the children?!?” Gimme a fucking break, dude… You sound like the people in the 50’s who said Elvis was the devil’s music or the people in the 60’s who said television would melt people’s brains.
My point is that if people want to fight with police, they are risking death. But my point is not that police have the right to kill whoever they like. Unarmed people who die at the hands of police are both a tragedy and a crime. But if you are armed and you fight with police, or even if you are unarmed and you fight with police, you are putting yourself in a situation where you will probably get shot. YOU ARE PUTTING YOURSELF IN THAT SITUATION. Not the cop.
You get a lot of credit from me for being a Green. Apparently I mischaracterized you - as I wrote, you were the defender who was at the top.
On the other hand, I think you might want to re-examine your position on the police in particular.
I actually agree with Taibbi that the root of the problem is very poor management - police chiefs that refuse to supervise their employees, compounded by the excessive power of the unions - and very poor laws. Impunity is an open invitation to abuse. One thing it does is attract the worst possible candidates for the job. Then the training turns them into bullies and sociopaths.
Incidentally, my personal experiences with the local police are good, partly because I'm an old white guy and mainly because I live in a town (not Portland or Eugene) where the police are properly managed. Not perfect, but offenders are held to account. A town that usually has Greens on the city council, incidentally.
Also: you really should provide links for the numbers you're quoting; they aren't altogether plausible. The Guardian's numbers are higher, for one thing. And they don't match the news coverage - which could be distorted, I admit. For one thing, I don't think cops have much excuse for killing people armed just with a knife; if they can't disarm someone like that, they shouldn't be in the job. Or the guy with a pipe; or, of course, the ubiquitous cell-phone "guns." And despite supporting labor, I think police are one group who should NOT have a union; they have too much power without that.
"Americans want too much security at the expense of individual rights."
So, should Trump Supporters be allowed to share their beliefs on election fraud? Should people who are against masks and school closure and don't want the vaccinations be able to share their views online?
Very well-put, dude. It’s the same thing as the whole,”America! No matter what!” attitude. “Love it or leave it”? Fuck you. What actually shocks me about right-wingers’ entire attitude is that they’ll scream holy hell about something getting banned on Facebook or wherever, but when somebody gets stopped-and-frisked for no reason and then points out that their civil rights were violated, right-wingers’ first (and only) response is,”Well if you’re not doing anything wrong, there’s nothing to worry about!” They scream about “Police state! Police state!” on the internet, but when actual police state tactics are utilized, in the form of searching people (and much worse) for zero reason, they’re like,”Whatever. He should’ve just sat still. She shouldn’t have asked why she was pulled over.”
That is maybe the worst analysis of an article I have ever read. It is as if you didn't read it at all. the point he is making is that simple minded thinking is the problem. Your simple minded analysis is proof of his point.
You are entitled to your opinion. I think Taibbi added to the negative assertions about police and policing which have pervaded the discussion for a decade. And that does severe harm to policing, which does extreme harm to communities and puts more and more people at risk.
You know Matt wrote an entire in depth book about Eric Garner and the police system in America don't you? He did not do some simple drive by of the American criminal system. He performed a deep dive analysis and found serious systemic problems both with policing and those institutions that lead to bad policing (the primary topic of this article).
Matt did not do any harm to the police that they did not do to themselves. If anything, he gave them too much credit and went too easy on them.
You are the most pro-statist authoritarian member of the greens I have ever read. You don't belong in the same category by a long shot, but I guess Hitler was a vegetarian.
I accidentally tapped the heart. I meant to comment as Ron Warwick did. Sometimes police kill unarmed people who are doing nothing wrong. Sometimes police fear for their lives, or say they did, when the police were not actually in any danger at all. Oops moments happen.
“Data from The Washington Post shows that 23 “unarmed” black suspects were fatally shot by the police in 2018, while even fewer, 12, were shot in 2019.”
"Unarmed' doesn't necessarily mean you aren't violent or didn't exhibit violent behavior. In our family, my Uncle Hans, a 6'5" Latvian, had hands so big that he literally killed soldiers with them in WW2.
How many examples? Very few in comparison to the number of interactions between police officers and the public. Don't be hysterical. Please be reasonable.
If you’re unarmed and don’t resist arrest, you won’t be shot? Are you fucking serious? There’s been dozens and dozens of cases over the last decade of unarmed people being shot by the police before they even had a chance to resist arrest. Not to mention, if you weren’t doing anything wrong and the cops rolled up on you, questioned you and then and tried to take you into custody anyway (as in the case of Eric Garner), you would absolutely “resist arrest.” I know I would. I would not go willingly into a police cruiser if I hadn’t done anything wrong.
Talking about Eric Garner specifically, he wasn’t even doing anything that warranted being stopped and questioned in the first place. When I lived in Florida, that shit used to happen to me all the time. And it irritated the fuck out of me, every single time. Walking down the street and a cop car pulls up and asks me what I’m doing, where I’m going, where do I live… Fuck you. None of your business. And when I told them it was none of their business, I’d get shoved up against their car and searched. If they’d tried to take me into custody, I absolutely would’ve resisted, because I wasn’t doing anything wrong in the first place. You’d do the same thing. If not, I really admire your “passive resistance” and your “live to fight another day” mentality. Not all of us can afford to hire a lawyer or have the time and money to fight it in court later. Which is exactly what the police are counting on.
Also, Eric Garner wasn’t shot, he was strangled. So there’s that…
Haha! There it is! The “provide me with links” response. How predictable. If you’re genuinely interested, you can go find them yourself. Also, cops can call anything besides “total acquiescence” resisting arrest. If you ask them why they pulled you over in the first place, they’ll call that “resisting arrest.” After one of my (legitimate) arrests, when I actually was breaking the law, they tried to tack on a “resisting arrest” charge, which was later dropped. I absolutely did not resist. But after you’re booked and during your bond hearing, that extra charge increases your bail. Which, again, is by design.
And you’ll be waiting, guy. I’m not trying to “win the internet” so I don’t have lists of links at the ready. These are stories I’ve seen over the years. If you’re truly interested, all you have to do is Google “unarmed man shot by police.” There’ll be dozens of stories that you can peruse. Like I said, Google “Philando Castile,” who was a registered gun owner and told the cops he had a gun in his glove compartment when they pulled him over. They shot him anyway. If googling that is too difficult for you, then you’re clearly just a simple little troll who isn’t here to actually talk about anything.
Exactly. You have nothing to back up your false bullshit claim because it’s false and bullshit.
As I told you- don’t resist arrest and cop an attitude. If you’re subject to a bullshit stop, take the ticket and fight it in Court. That’s the only way.
"Also, Eric Garner wasn’t shot, he was strangled. So there’s that…"
And there's the rub of the game they continually play to excuse bad policing.
They take those the police report as shot (which the police routinely undercount). Then they take those who were actually killed. Then they take a subset within a subset (black people the police admit to killing with a gun who did not have a weapon at the time) and come up with a predictably ridiculous low number by excluding all the Eric Garner's, the George Floyds, and even the Castille's in Minnesota who was not actually reaching for a gun, but had one is the car so he is not counted in the black unarmed category.
It's such a silly and transparent ploy, and yet they keep repeating it over, and over and over.
"Hey look, the number of unarmed one eyed black rabbi's confined to a wheelchair on a Tuesday that the police shot and killed is like one. Clearly we have no problem with police violence in America!"
You are entitled to your opinion. Your use of profanity makes you sound uneducated. Just letting you know. Are there instances of abuses? Yes. Are they vanishingly rare compared to the number of interactions between police and citizens? Yes. Are they out of proportion racially? No.
Are they out of proportion racially? Are you really asking that question? There’s tons and tons of data that says yes, they are. This isn’t my opinion, these are facts. And the reason instances of “abuses” are “vanishingly rare” is because a light is being shined on them and people have had enough. What rock have you been living under? As far as my use of words like “fuck” and “shit” in my posts are concerned, sorry to upset your delicate sensibilities.
What I love about these people who complain about the US becoming a “police state” because of Google and YouTube and shit is that when they’re actually confronted with real cases of police state-type goings on, like stop-and-frisk etc, they’re like,”Well, there’s nothing wrong with that. If you’re not doing anything wrong, you’ve got nothing to be worried about!” Cops rolling up on you, fucking with you and searching you without probable cause is the very definition of Police State. But they’re fine with that, because its never happened to them. They’re morons.
I think this may be Steve’s first fucking time on the internet. Or maybe it’s his first time on a fucking non-Christian website. Which has gotta be a really shitty experience for somebody as fucking “educated” as his sorry-ass. Or something… I dunno.
The data does not support that shooting over unarmed citizens demonstrates a racial bias. "As of the June 22 update, the Washington Post’s database of fatal police shootings showed 14 unarmed Black victims and 25 unarmed white victims in 2019." However, in terms of being abusive at traffic stops, yes, there is data that suggests a racial bias.
Regarding the rudeness, profanity and personal attacks. That is your personal issue to solve for yourself.
Blacks are only about 10% of the population, so 14 to 25 is grossly disproportionate - your own numbers. And I suspect those numbers are being manipulated; for one thing, they exclude people who could and should have been disarmed by any competent cop.
"As of the June 22 update, the Washington Post’s database of fatal police shootings showed 14 unarmed Black victims and 25 unarmed white victims in 2019."
You asked,”Are there instances of abuses?” not “unarmed shootings.” You asked if the instances of “abuses” were disproportionately racial. They are. All of the data bears that out. Also, I didn’t say anything about “unarmed BLACK people being shot” in my initial post; I said “unarmed PEOPLE.” You’re boring, dude. And predictable. I’m done with your sorry-ass.
I answered my own questions that there is evidence there is a racial component to abuses. But not to shootings of unarmed citizens. Not sure why you are carrying on about it. Your level of discourse is also quite rude and uneducated.
When you don’t really have anything to say, I guess you say,”Gosh, when you said ‘fuck’ in your post, I really thought that sounded uneducated.” Because only really dumb people cuss? I guess?
I find it ironic that people who say the police are bad, speak to people they don't know in this fashion. I think the police are far better people than you, my friend.
The tale of Michael Brown and Ferguson, MO is mentioned in passing. The true story has nothing to do with Ferguson’s revenue needs and a lot to do with Michael Brown’s (mis)conduct.
MB was walking down the center of a street when first approached by Darren Wilson (the police officer). He attacked DW and tried to grab his gun. He then charged DW and ended up dead as a consequence. It turns out the MB robbed a store shortly before his confrontation with DW.
The encounter between MB and DW has been subject to numerous investigations. All of them have concluded that MB was entirely guilty and DW was entirely innocent.
The first investigation was by the Grand Jury in MO. Of course, it concluded that DW had committed no crime The second investigation was by the Obama administration. Of course, this was actual Eric Holder’s Justice Department. You can find the report online at “Justice Department Announces Findings of Two Civil Rights Investigations in Ferguson, Missouri” (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-findings-two-civil-rights-investigations-ferguson-missouri)
““On March 4, 2015, the federal investigation cleared Wilson of civil rights violations in the shooting. The investigation concluded there was no evidence upon which prosecutors could rely to disprove Wilson's asserted belief that he feared for his safety, that witnesses who contradicted Wilson were not credible, that forensic evidence and credible witnesses corroborated Wilson's account, and that the facts did not support the filing of criminal charges against Wilson.[13][50][51] Credible witnesses did not support accounts that Brown had his hands up in surrender. He was not shot in the back. Forensic evidence showed he was moving toward Wilson. Numerous witnesses were found to have given accounts of actions they were unable to see from their vantage points, or to be recounting others' accounts.[13][50][51]””
So what did Obama do about this? He baldly lied and got away with it. Here is a quote from Obama
“The finding that was made [by the Department of Justice] was that it was not unreasonable to determine that there was not sufficient evidence to charge Officer [Darren] Wilson. That was an objective, thorough, independent federal investigation”
That’s not true either. Obama could have told the truth, that Wilson was innocent and Brown was guilty, but choose not to.
Why did Obama lie about Ferguson? Because he could. Had Obama thought there was any chance that MSNBC/CNN/CBS/the NYT would call him a ‘liar’ he would have shown more caution. However, he knew that MSNBC/CNN/CBS/the NYT would cover for him and protect him and he was right.
He could have said “I had the Department of Justice investigate this case and we found that the Wilson was innocent’. But of course, he didn’t. Instead he relied on Al Sharpton as one of his principal advisers.
The original DA who didn’t indict Darren Wilson, lost his bid for reelection. His opponent promised to ‘right the historic wrong’ by finally indicting Darren Wilson (the police officer). The new DA then managed to reach the same conclusion as every other party that has investigated the case (Michael Brown was a dangerous violent criminal and Darren Wilson acted properly). No indictment was forthcoming. Now the ‘activists’ are rather predictably attacking the new DA.
Thanks for your research and well-thought-out argument. Another is Breonna Taylor. She was literally holed up with a drug dealer who shot at the cops instead of answering the door. Of course police are going to shoot back. All of the stories of what a perfect citizen she was were also just more bullshit, like with George Floyd (who would have died anyway given he gulped down a fatal dose of fentanyl before being knelt on). Floyd was a career criminal and D list porn star, who robbed a pregnant woman's house and held a gun to her stomach. But now he's a saint. Even though he died whacked out of his mind on drugs after passing funny money. Liberal/Dems are crazy. They make icons out of the lowest criminal element. It's just freakish.
Ms. Taylor's boyfriend was cleared of shooting charges and had no criminal record. Ms. Taylor's FORMER boyfriend was the drug dealer of interest to the police. Get your own shit straight before you run down other people.
Hahaha - you're believing the lying cops, who were fired and did NOT have their bodycams running during the operation. Funny how they turned them on AFTER it.
There's a gun on the floor in the house and it was fired at the cops, this is undisputed. Sorry, that gets you dead. You can continue with the white guilt idea that no black people ever commit a crime, but that's flawed thinking. These two were drug dealer low-lives. You play the game, you pay the price.
Vida - This is the worst beat down i have ever seen on these boards. You are so laughably misinformed i feel sorry for you because you know as i know you do not care about truth or logic at this point. You just want to be right.... So you want change your mind any more than Trump supporters that think he won the election wont change their mind, just because the FACTS prove them wrong.
Vida - Got it. So if you are sleeping with someone who is breaking the law, using your logic, the cops should not be stopped from shooting you.
Lets see, Trump was convicted of breaking the law with his Charity. Using your logic if the cops kicked in his door and shot Melania it would be fine, right?
Oh... that's right... It's only law breakers that you pick that you can be shot for being with, is that how your logic works. Perhaps the cops should all consult with you first
You really should read up on the incident before making such a fool of yourself. I see you're another one who can't get through a comment without mentioning Trump. So weird.
Except when it's the Capital. Then these same people describe rioters as god fearing proud American's holding a peaceful demonstration and wrongly mistreated by a corrupt DC police force that apparently only exist in DC. Everywhere else, the cops are always right.
No, she was there in the room with a guy who opened fire on the cops. Essentially her boyfriend drug dealer got her killed. Racism had nothing to do with it.
Vida - Why did the cops bang down the door with guns blazing? I guess you never thought to ask that question did you. Blame the VICTIM at all costs. I get it.
Because the boyfriend shot first. As I said, he got her killed. Please read up on the case (not from the lying MSM) so you will stop making a fool of yourself.
Vida - Your narrative has already fallen apart. Her Boyfriend shot at strangers who kicked his door in.
Who's fault was it that cops kicked the door in of a armed drug dealer. What did they expect a warm greeting and muffins?
I am not saying the cops should or should not be convicted. What i am saying is that it is TERRIBLE policing for cops to be kicking in the door of "suspected" drug dealers in the middle of the night and not expect to be shot at.
Trump is a "suspected" tax cheat. If his door was kicked in and Melenia shot and killed you would be protesting.
That is my point... Your argument is weak and one sided.
It's a fair question "So if you are sleeping with someone who is breaking the law," but in this case neither Taylor, nor her boyfriend in the room with her had ever been accused of dealing drugs or breaking the law. In fact, even the prior boyfriend Jamarcus Glover, who she was no longer dating for some time who was previously arrested for dealing drugs never said he had drugs at Taylor's place, but he did make the mistake of telling the police he had stashed $8000 cash there, which was the real purpose of the raid that killed Breonna Taylor.
In fact, the police were caught knowingly lying in the warrant for the no knock raid to get the cash by claiming they needed the no knock to recover drugs when they knew there were no drugs involved, then tried to charge Breonna's current boyfriend with murder to cover their own tracks.
The entire thing is sickening and once again highlights how asset forfeiture and the effect of private profiteering in policing has warped the legal system beyond any meaningful recognition. There is a reason on 3rd world countries allow the police to steal money from the crime scene. This practice has helped turn our police force into what you would find in a 3rd rate banana republic.
Something I can't reconcile is that the same people who now describe the riot on capital Jan.6 and describe those who pulled that stunt as a group of all American freedom fighters thinking nothing of calling the Capital Police thugs, but then turn around and claim that Breonna Taylor deserved what she got.
I understand authoritarians who always suck cop dick and I understand those who think police abuse is a real problem, but I will never understand those who simultaneously lick the boots of one set of police officers while condemning a separate group of cops all at the same time. The cognitive dissonance must be deafening.
I'm not sure all of that means that "the true story has nothing to do with Ferguson's revenue needs". As I understand it, the mass, unncecessary targeting of African-Americans for ticky-tack, revenue-generating citations contributed to a general hostility and mistrust between black people and the Ferguson Police Department.
Define "unnecessary" then define "targeting. Laws and regulations are, for the most part, reasonable requirements for health, sanitation, safety, etc. Someone has to enforce them.
As for targeting, less than a quarter of Ferguson is white and they are significantly older than the other ethnic groups in the community. Those over 50 rarely speed, over tint their windows, fail to care for their lawns and driveways, etc, etc, etc, regardless of race. As is often the case, disparate outcomes are utterly meaningless
Not sure we're operating with the same set of facts. As I understand it, the DOJ found that officers were specifically tasked with raising additional revenue for the city by focusing on revenue-generating enforcement of ticky-tack type infractions. I have zero issue with the enforcement of quality of life laws in order to protect and enhance quality of life in a community. But raising revenue is not a proper function of law enforcement.
Happy to review anything you can link to that supports your position but I am quite confident that "ticky-tack" is a non-objective opinion versus a fact. If the law is on the books, it needs to be enforced. If it should not be on the books, pay the fine and harangue your councilman, representative, etc.
I would prefer that municipalities not be so dependent on citation revenue but it is legal and has a long precedent. Just recently, Lori Lightfoot changed the rules for stoplight cameras in Chicago that generated a tenfold increase in citations - from your viewpoint, is that "ticky-tack", racist, or targeting? All three?
I am reminded of a friend of mine (transparency alert, I concede your right to reject any personal anecdote) who, despite many other redeeming qualities, was convinced that the police "just like to bust people" and felt they just picked on him because of the color of his car (candy apple red). Of the 4 tickets I was aware of him receiving, only one was for less than 100 miles an hour. That was for 85 in a residential area. He thought these were "ticky-tack"
Well the DOJ report: "found that the combination of Ferguson’s focus on generating revenue over public safety, along with racial bias, has a profound effect on the FPD’s police and court practices, resulting in conduct that routinely violates the Constitution and federal law. The department also found that these patterns created a lack of trust between the FPD and significant portions of Ferguson’s residents, especially African Americans." https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-findings-two-civil-rights-investigations-ferguson-missouri.
By the way, this is the same DOJ investigation that found that "the evidence examined in its independent, federal investigation into the fatal shooting of Michael Brown does not support federal civil rights charges against Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson." So I give them a certain degree of credit for "faith and fair dealing".
I don't disagree that the proper response to police abuse is to pay the fine, do the time, whatever, and then go through the proper channels to address changes in policies or practice that need to be made. And yes, often people who complain about police "abuse" are just people who can't be bothered to follow basic rules of conduct in a modern society.
However, I would also say that my general philosophical vantage point is that in general fewer rules that are more reliably enforced would be better for all parties concerned.
Pretty much what I expected. Vague accusations without any action.
"...conduct that routinely violates the Constitution and federal law..."
How many arrests did Holder make in reference to this statement? How many were charged? Imprisoned? Fined? Hmmm...
Oh wait, the Chief of Police resigned. Of course, his contract was to expire that month anyway and his resignation guaranteed him one year of pay and one year's continuation of his paid health insurance.
Do you really believe that if the Obama administration with Eric Holder as Attorney General could have pressed charges or otherwise penalized the Ferguson PD that they would not? If it was actionable, they would have taken action.
PS - we do have common ground in your last paragraph.
The trouble with "if the law is on the books, it needs to be enforced" is that, as this data shows, it is only enforces some of the time against some people and not at all against others, which mostly describes the American criminal system.
That and as the book :Three Felonies a Day" highlights, literally everything is against the law and we would all be in prison if every law was enforced. We can argue it should not be that way, but as long as it is they police are simply incapable of enforcing all laws so must choose where they will use their resources. That means most resources are used to fight things like drug use and prostitution with almost no enforcement against the Bernie Madoff's of the world, he being the extremely rare exception.
1) Your link points to a significant problem with court debt - which is not the same as enforcing the law. BTW, I think it is absurd to charge $$ to someone for being tried or incarcerated. Its just not what I referenced.
2) Silvergate's book, despite its popularity with a certain set, is not a reliable source. It is heavily driven by anecdote rather than data. Moreover, it focuses on the professional class and has almost nothing to do with the poor. If you truly believe there is not enough enforcement of white-collar crime, you really don't have an ally in Silvergate. His claims are similar to the info I provided in a previous post noting that vast numbers of people "know" that 10000+ unarmed black men are shot by the police annually (sadly, I suppose I must post that this belief is ridiculously wrong and utterly contradicted by the data)
3) Enforcing the law does not require prosecuting every single instance of lawbreaking. In all probability, we never know about all transgressions. Moreover, a lot of laws are subject to discretion (i.e. how long can you lean up against a wall in an alley before you are a loiterer) where enforcement can be in the form of warnings and reminders. Merriam-Webster's first definition of enforce is simply "to give force to"
Acting on obvious and egregious lawbreaking acts as a deterrent to others. A squad car on the side of the road enforces speeding laws without any arrests. Getting hookers and panhandlers off the streets reduces other crime in the area.
Your belief that there is "almost no enforcement" of white collar crime is another claim you make with no supporting data. I'd be happy to look at anything you would care to link to but I will tell you now what will likely be an issue; there are far fewer people in a position to commit white collar crime than there are people who can commit common crimes like drug use, drug dealing, prostitution, shoplifting, etc., etc, etc, . The numbers cannot be and should not be similar.
RR - Policing for Profits. Gladwell's book is filled with real world examples. "Define Unnecessary and targeting" is just your excuse for ignoring that the core problem, as Matt points out, always starts with stupidly written laws...
Its like if a gang sent a member into a store to rob it. And the clerk got in a fight with the gang member and got himself killed. The CORE problem is that gang sent it gang member into the store to rob it in the first place. Indeed the clerk should not have faugh back but the store getting robbed is not the CLERKS fault. No one is going ask to "define fighting back".
Give me a break, you are just looking to blame the victim you know it and i know it
A bizarre comparison of the enforcement of the law to gangs committing armed robbery show us exactly where your indefensible bigotry lies. Your position is specious, I know it and you will, when you look up the definition.
If you read the rest of Pikety's posts, you will realize that was exactly what he meant.
How is asset forfeiture different from extortion? Seriously?
1) Legally sanctioned.
2) Does not inure to the direct benefit of those seizing the assets.
3) Has a means of seeking recourse through the courts.
Again, the false equivalency of comparing police to a violent gang is at the heart of your 'argument". Moreover, I note from your article that the average seizure is around $40,000 in cash. If you had $40k seized (and you are the type of person to whom holding $40k in cash LEGALLY) would your really not go to court to get it back?
If some seizures were not handled properly (and I am sure there were), that reflects on the management, not the morality, of the program.
Police telling a guy to get out of the street and onto the sidewalk is not about generating revenue, especially after the guy just robbed a convenience store. IIRC, Wilson was not even trying to arrest him at the initial contact.
Bill - The problem is the according to the Justice Department Ferguson IS a police department that is selectively enforcing the law to maximize revenue not to ensure justice....
Wilson may not have broken Garners Civil Rights, as the justice department also found, but that does not change the fact that there are lots of 'suspected' criminals in Fergeson and they are not treated the way this one was. That is the issue.
The ticky-tack revenue generating was going on for numerous governmental entities in the greater St. Louis area, and I believe many were run by black officials. I think the Post-Dispatch had a story on that sometime later.
2020 - But, but you are supposed to IGNORE that fact that the Ferguson cops were "Policing for Profit". That MUST be ignored and you have to focus on any possible excuse to blame the victim, right?
Peter - Wrong.... The Obama Justice Department investigated if Browns Civil Rights were violated. They did not find 'find him innocent" as you claim and expected Obama to state publicly. Only Trump lies about shit like that .
They found his civil rights were not violated.
What you IGNORED was the root problem, which the Justice Department did not investigate and that is Fergusen "Policing for Profit".
That is the core problem and the results are a public that don't get justice and COPS who are put in a terrible position because those in Charge are as Matt says "LAZY"
Your copious research of "Obama's Justice Department" missed this.... Bad Policy is the problem.
"What it found included routine violations of black residents’ civil rights. For example, the DOJ found that black drivers were more than twice as likely as white drivers to be searched during traffic stops, but 26 percent less likely to be found with contraband. Even so, black drivers were more likely to be cited and arrested during a traffic stop.
The report also found that 88 percent of documented police use-of-force cases involved blacks, and in particular juveniles and people with mental health problems or cognitive disabilities."
Piketty, you are just making stuff up. The DOJ report is online anyone (ever you) can read it. Let me offer a few quotes
“The Department has determined that the evidence does not support charging a violation of federal law”
No references to Browns ‘Rights’, but a clear statement that a crime (by the police officer) did not occur. That’s what people call ‘innocent’.
“Based on this investigation, the Department has concluded that Darren Wilson’s actions do not constitute prosecutable violations under the applicable federal criminal civil rights statute, 18 U.S.C. § 242, which prohibits uses of deadly force that are “objectively unreasonable,” as defined by the United States Supreme Court.”
Wow. The DOJ folks are so lame that they spell Michael Brown as Darren Wilson.
“As discussed above, Darren Wilson has stated his intent in shooting Michael Brown was in response to a perceived deadly threat. The only possible basis for prosecuting Wilson under section 242 would therefore be if the government could prove that his account is not true – i.e., that Brown never assaulted Wilson at the SUV, never attempted to gain control of Wilson’s gun, and thereafter clearly surrendered in a way that no reasonable officer could have failed to perceive. Given that Wilson’s account is corroborated by physical evidence and that his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other eyewitnesses, to include aspects of the testimony of Witness 101, there is no credible evidence that Wilson willfully shot Brown as he was attempting to surrender or was otherwise not posing a threat. Even if Wilson was mistaken in his interpretation of Brown’s conduct, the fact that others interpreted that conduct the same way as Wilson precludes a determination that he acted with a bad purpose to disobey the law.”
In other words, innocent.
Finally we have.
“For the reasons set forth above, this matter lacks prosecutive merit and should be closed.”
You wrote “What you IGNORED was the root problem, which the Justice Department did not investigate and that is Fergusen "Policing for Profit".”
Once again, you are just making stuff up.
Let me quote from Eric Holder (remember him?).
“I would like to take the next few moments to address the two investigations that the Justice Department has been conducting in Ferguson, Missouri, these last several months. The matter that we are here to discuss is significant not only because of the conclusions the Department of Justice is announcing today, but also because of the broader conversations and the initiatives that those conversations have inspired across the country on the local and national level. Those initiatives have included extensive and vital efforts to examine the causes of misunderstanding and mistrust between law enforcement officers and the communities they serve; to support and strengthen our public safety institutions as a whole; and to rebuild confidence wherever it has eroded.”
And
“A community where local authorities consistently approached law enforcement not as a means for protecting public safety, but as a way to generate revenue. A community where both policing and municipal court practices were found to disproportionately harm African American residents. A community where this harm frequently appears to stem, at least in part, from racial bias – both implicit and explicit. And a community where all of these conditions, unlawful practices, and constitutional violations have not only severely undermined the public trust, eroded police legitimacy, and made local residents less safe – but created an intensely charged atmosphere where people feel under assault and under siege by those charged to serve and protect them.”
I guess Eric Holder is a ‘Trumpian Liar’. You can learn so much reading online.
Peter - <<.Piketty, you are just making stuff up. The DOJ report is online anyone (ever you) can read it...... No references to Browns ‘Rights’, >>
Ummmm.... let me quote from the quote you have listed above " ..Darren Wilson’s actions do not constitute prosecutable violations under the applicable federal criminal civil rights..."
So you are clearly confused. The DOJ investigated if the victims CIVIL RIGHTS were broken which is exactly what i said.
You are clearly confused...
Again, Matt's point here, as is mine, is that situations like this one should be avoided if we have BETTER people leading the police. Regardless of what you think of Taylor personally, she was shot by the cops and is dead. That is a bad outcome and it could have been avoided had they simply arrested her boyfriend in a manner different than kicking a door down of a person that legally had a gun in his posession
Sorry, but you are still making stuff up (there is another word for that I think). Let's try the very first sentence of the DOJ report.
"At approximately noon on Saturday, August 9, 2014, Officer Darren Wilson of the Ferguson Police Department (“FPD”) shot and killed Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old. The Criminal Section of the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Missouri, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) (collectively, “The Department”) subsequently opened a criminal investigation into whether the shooting violated federal law."
So it was a criminal investigation (not a civil rights investigation) of someone. Who would that person be? A clue. Probably not Michael Brown. Go read the entire report. It is a striking vindication of Darren Wilson and (de facto) indictment of Michael Brown.
Even Eric Holder (a 'Trumpian Liar') recognized this. Quote
"This morning, the Justice Department announced the conclusion of our investigation and released a comprehensive, 87-page report documenting our findings and conclusions that the facts do not support the filing of criminal charges against Officer Darren Wilson in this case. Michael Brown’s death, though a tragedy, did not involve prosecutable conduct on the part of Officer Wilson. "
Note the explicit reference to 'prosecutable conduct' (of Darren Wilson) and not the 'civil rights' (of Michael Brown).
So I guess Eric Holder is/was just lying again. So sad. So much like Trump.
I see you are trying to change the subject to Breonna Taylor. I would too if I was caught trying to justify the conduct of a violent thug.
There's a great documentary by the black conservative father/son team of Shelby and Eli Steele called "What Killed Michael Brown?" that everyone should probably see and actually pay attention to. It will certainly be controversial — and I certainly don't agree with every word — but it does certainly debunk some of the mistruths and simplistic sloganeering rather than facts or reason of our current moment.
This piece is dealing with another important aspect of our moment and should likewise be considered. There are serious problems with our policing and prison systems, often enacted by bad politicians, rich NIMBYs and a million other factors. The same simplistic forces try to explain this away as with phony sloganeering that falsely identifies the police as the sole bad factor in our society.
To move forward from our current morass, politicians and media and activists and everyone, need to be able to discuss these issues with candor, and not reactionary screeds and finger pointing.
PS - If you twist the facts just enough you will get racists to ignore that FACT that the problem in Ferguson started and ended with "Policing for Profit"
ITs like sending a gang member to rob a story and then complaining because the clerk faugh back when being robbed. Sure it was the violent clerks fault, not the fact that the gang member was robbing the store in the first place.
The ONE WAY logic of people that don't seek truth never ceases to amaze me. Okay now go back to twisting the truth just enough to show how Trump is not lying about losing the election and how tax cuts to the rich really do trickle down to everyone else.
I guess when Michael Brown assaulted a clerk (the owner?), he was just engaging in ‘policing for profit’. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkOfqIXkBRE for a video of the attack. Clearly, ‘policing for profit’ by Michael Brown.
After robbing the convenience store and assaulting the clerk, MB walked down the center of a street rather than use the sidewalk. Clearly, ‘policing for profit’. Darren Wilson told MB to use the sidewalk, not the street. Clearly, ‘policing for profit’.
MB then tried to take the police officer’s gun. Has a clearer case of ‘policing for profit’ ever existed?
Eventually, MB charged DW and the police officer shot him. Obviously, ‘policing for profit’.
So I guess that robbing a convenience store, assaulting a clerk, walking down the center of street, attempting to steal a police officer’s gun, and charging a police officer are really ‘policing for profit’. Good to know.
Peter - I don't think you understand what Policing for Profit is. Michael Brown is NOT a police officer. Policing for profit involves those that control the police requiring them to make arrests and write tickets to anyone they can that will generate revenue for the city.
It would be like if the police come up behind your car with their lights flashing and you move lanes to let them get by and they then pull you over for not using your signal, that is one of the examples Matt used.
Interesting how you have strong opinions on terms you clearly do not know the meaning of... Sort of like me having a strong opinion on brain surgery techniques. Don't you agree?
I guess if you rob convenience stores, assault store employees, walk in the street, try to take a police officer's gun and then charge the police officer, you are really a 'victim'. So good to know.
I am confused. You wrote "PS - If you twist the facts just enough you will get racists to ignore that FACT that the problem in Ferguson started and ended with "Policing for Profit"". That means that robbing a convenience store must either be part of 'Policing for Profit' or not actually a problem at all. So good to know. Only foolish racists would think that robbing a convenience store, assaulting the staff, walking in the street, trying to steal a police officer's gun and charging the police officer are actually problems.
“Bill - The problem is the according to the Justice Department Ferguson IS a police department that is selectively enforcing the law to maximize revenue not to ensure justice....”
Wow, that never happened according to you. Let me quote from you “What you IGNORED was the root problem, which the Justice Department did not investigate and that is Fergusen "Policing for Profit".”
Here are some quotes from you.
“RR - Policing for Profits. Gladwell's book is filled with real world examples.”
“2020 - But, but you are supposed to IGNORE that fact that the Ferguson cops were "Policing for Profit". That MUST be ignored and you have to focus on any possible excuse to blame the victim, right?”
“PS - If you twist the facts just enough you will get racists to ignore that FACT that the problem in Ferguson started and ended with "Policing for Profit"”
Robbing convenience stores, assaulting store employees, walking in the street, trying to take a police officer’s gun and charging a police officer are just excuses for ignoring the ‘real’ problem witch is ‘Policing for Profit’.
That’s so good to know. I guess Michael Brown was just a model citizen.
Here is the real problem. ‘Hands up, don’t shoot’ was a lie. BLM was founded on a lie. Lots of people aren’t willing to face those facts.
Folks I'll save you some trouble here. Policing For Profit is 1) yet another leftist grievance having to do with asset forfeiture laws being unjustly applied to those who least deserve it and 2) yet another supposedly sound rationale for "reimagining law enforcement". What Policing For Profit has to do with the Michael Brown incident is anybody's guess.
Policing for profit is a major problem, as is incarceration for profit, especially when slave labor incentives are part of the profit.
As the article points out it isn't just the police who get paid, its DA's, City managers, Mayors etc. who profit; and who sometimes otherwise incentivize police to carry out these policies, and if it goes wrong those who incentivize aren't worried if patrol personnel take the fall.
"Who profits?" There are bail industry motives, private incarceration motives, and a raft of other industries who profit handsomely off of commissaries, "food", communications , and, of course, sometimes the biggest prize - civil forfeiture. There is a lot to unpack on this issue and it is complex. Perhaps the authors point concerning complexity and is a good starting point to talk honestly about this.
Frank - I agree, pretty much. P4P and I4P were cynically structured by greedy and opportunistic politicians to launder tax dollars into political contributions in the name of public safety. There are many Establishment fingers in the pie. And, as I said elsewhere, I find that practice abhorrent. I don't believe that individual cops are among those that benefit unless you want to make the case that they wouldn't be on the job but for P4P. The Micheal Brown narrative has been leveraged by the likes of Piketty to compel drastic reductions in policing oftentimes to the detriment of communities that need it (and want it) the most.
I've always wanted to see what the call was that Wilson was on before the Brown incident. I thought somewhere I read it involved a child; don't know if that is true. If he did something involving a child, was that child white, black? None of that matters because a local incident could be used by Sharpton,, Obama, et al. to nationalize the anger. And raise money.
The Brown/police contact occurred because a store owner reported a robbery. The police were responding to that, is my understanding. Brown was not stopped for jaywalking. Honest reporting of the facts of that case doesn't mean anything other than, those are the facts. When national media descended on Ferguson and made it a national incident, there was never any story except racism being the explanation for what happened. Of course, policing for profit is wrong, but based on the facts, that was not the case in this instance and never the angle by the media. Following Ferguson the Post-Dispatch did some reporting on how many small governmental units there were in St. Louis County and their reliance on revenue generated by tickets. Don't bother asking me to verify this with a link. I am one of those copy machine challenged people the Veep worries about.
While I do have a healthy respect for the police as an old man, when I was young I had my share of run-ins with them. I was arrested 4 times. Once for B&E, once for loitering, once for underage drinking & once for something I don't remember, most likely drinking.
The police never beat my ass but they were pretty much dicks, although I don't hold that against them.
But I do remember one night when 2 friends and I were sitting in a park smoking a joint. About 150 yards away 4-5 guys that we knew were sharing a case of beer & listening to music. A cop car entered the park and rolled right up on them. They scattered. Except the guy with the radio, and I'm talking big boom box, carry on your shoulder radio, made the mistake of just sneaking through the bushes with his radio and nonchalantly hopping up on a park bench like nothing had happened.
Instead the cop car rolled up on him. A big burly copper got out of his cruiser, billy club in hand, and smashed the kid in the face with it. He then grabbed the kid by his fluffy white boy afro, pulled him to the ground & started beating and kicking him. I can still almost still hear the kid's shrieks. At one point, his partner bear hugged him & tried to pull him off the kid but he shrugged off his partner & continued the ass kicking. He then scooped the kid up & tossed him in the back of the cruiser, got in & then rolled up on us. He said, "Do you motherfuckers need an engraved fucking invitation to get the fuck out of my park?"
All 3 of us stood there just staring at him and I know we were all thinking, 'Just take the badge & gun off & we'll show you whose park this is bitch." But of course he didn't. So we just dispersed.
My loitering arrest came about because we were typical inner city teens hanging on a street corner. The cops wanted us to disperse. I said 'No, I'm not bothering anybody." Cuffs & paddy wagon quickly followed that dumb statement. But there was also a young girl about 15, we were 19 or so, who followed us around like a puppy dog. She stayed with me & they grabbed her also. She immediately started bawling. Bawled all the way the station. Bawled the entire time she was in the station. At one point I said to the cop, "Y'know cop I understand you arresting me but why didn't you leave her alone?" He came over the desk at me. His partner grabbed him & pulled him back before he could hit me. Again, I thought the same thing, "Copper take the cuffs, badge & gun off & let's step outside. I ain't afraid of you." Luckily I only thought it.
The B&E arrest is probably most relevant. I won't detail the crime but I will say it was amazingly stupid. I was 15 & drunk, so there's that. Anyway, I was sitting in a holding cell, waiting for my older brother to show up & spring me when a bunch of cops carried in this burly black pimp. I say "pimp" because he had the gaudy super wide bell bottomed suit on with the platform shoes, although one shoe was missing, as was the pimp hat. I don't think he minded much since he was out cold. His face looked like bloody hamburger & his shirt was soaked with blood from his chin to his navel. The cops carried him into an empty holding cell & dumped him on the bench. No ER for you ya mofo. As one cop walked by the holding cell next to me the guy inside said, "What happened to him?" The cop said, "He slipped & fell." I heard the guy mutter, "Yeah he slipped & fell right on your fists."
Having said all of that I still think their job is incredibly difficult. We hire them as society's garbage men so they can keep the peace while we watch Ru Paul's Drag Race or some endlessly pointless sporting event or jerk off to internet porn. When they fuck up, and fucking up is literally an inevitability in their job, critics descend on them with their fangs out. In most cases the critics don't have the balls to last one day in that job.
I remember CNN during the Floyd riots. During the day the reporters were diligently criticizing as they collected anecdotal evidence of the horror called policemen. But at night, when the violence started, they hugged that Maginot Line of cops like the terrified bunnies that they were.
One thing I've noticed about liberals is that they love to criticize from a nice safe distance. They love to ramble on about their high minded moral principles from the comfort of their couch while not once offering to put their candy asses on the line.
On the other hand, the people that blindly defend cops are equally full of shit. My wife's brother is a 30 year veteran. A few weeks ago we discussed this same issue. I tried to use the "few bad apples" argument. He was having none of it. He said that it's more than a few bad apples. In some case all they hire are bad apples because they're the only ones willing to do the job. Wow, imagine that? No one wants to put their life on the line for shit pay & constant criticism.
In conclusion, in my opinion, the people who expect saintlike tolerance from cops are as equally full of shit as the people who try to paint them as saints. The issues are way more complex & I think Matt did a fair job in trying to highlight that.
Right on. Especially: "In some case all they hire are bad apples because they're the only ones willing to do the job. Wow, imagine that? No one wants to put their life on the line for shit pay & constant criticism."
I like your writing style you’re a good storyteller.
You were describing a time when it was a police force. We fixed a lot of that I think, the police service ethos is well entrenched. I think they mostly do a good job but they are not pleasant, most of my interactions with them range from cold impersonal to complete assholes . Make no mistake doing that job turns you into an asshole.
The only interaction I've had with cops since I've been married have been traffic stops.
The last one occurred in the fall before Covid hit. I was running late picking my youngest son up at high school & I rolled through a stop sign. Cop was right there and pulled me over. He was young. Pretty pleasant. Seemed a bit wet behind the ears. At the end he told me that, since I was cooperative, I should plead not guilty on the ticket so I'd get a court date where he'd tell the judge I had cooperated & they'd remove the points.
Then he said, "Oh, and sir, I'd like to thank you for not filming me."
I guess I can see your point. But any way I slice it we were all juvenile delinquents up to no good. Heroin was everywhere as were pretty much every other drug. I lost friends to it. My cousin did a 7 year stretch in a federal facility for dealing smack.
The guy I bought hash off of was out hitching with his subnormal buddy one night and they eventually knifed to death the poor slob who picked them up. Knifed him & kept his car as if murder comes with an instant vehicle title change.
Their story was that they were hitching, the dead guy picked them up and then propositioned them so they killed him. True Einsteins. I think they actually believed that was a good defense.
When I was 21 I used to date this woman who was a few years older. One night we were idly walking through the city when we passed a gay bar. She dared me to go inside. I never understood why she thought I'd be reluctant to go in & she never explained. Only bar where I actually got hit on. 2 guys offered to buy me a drink. I politely said "No thanks. I'm good." They were both very polite about accepting my refusal. At no time did I feel like knifing either one of them.
A few years later I was working and the evening news led off with a story about a local jailbreak. Hash dealing murderer's picture was on the screen. He was one of the four men who made a break for the wire. I blurted out "Hey, I used to buy hash off of that guy." Since my coworkers were more suburb than street, one of them said, "What did you say?" I replied "Nothing," and walked out of the room.
On another occasion we were having a huge party which eventually broke up. When it was over 2 guys went up to a local park. In the park that night a young mentally retarded teenager was sleeping on one of the park benches. He lived across the street from the park with his parents. It was a hot oppressive night so he snuck out to sleep in the park. Whatever happened that night eventually led to the 2 of them beating that retarded teen to death. Literally beating him to death. I remember being awakened the next morning by my buddy's fist pounding on my apartment door. We both ran up to park. I could see the blood trail where they dragged the kid around the park. Up & down steps.(Pittsburgh is a hilly city).
In court they both wept & blamed the alcohol. Privately they were proud of themselves. Thought it made them important.
That stuck in my craw so much that years later I started working with mentally challenged folk. Still do it as a 2nd job.
"The fact that problem officers like this almost never get seriously disciplined stinks of institutional malevolence."
This is true in education as well. Public school teachers often interact with their students in prejudiced ways that stink of laziness and stupidity, more than racism, even if their behavior might be construed as such. There is institutional malevolence everywhere, sadly. I was a teacher for ten years in charter, public, and private environments. My student teaching was in DC. All of my students then were black and poor. I am white, male, and relatively well-off by comparison.
When I first walked into that classroom, I could feel their hate and resentment, practically seething over my race and possibly my gender (but mostly my race) - when people have a racist response to you, you can feel it immediately; it is quite overwhelming. I had more experience interacting with people not of my race than they did, but I also walked into the room with a very guarded attitude, if not demonstrable hate.
Quickly, I realized that a confrontational attitude was a mode of communication, not nearly as aggressive as it appeared. Middle to upper-middle class people don't talk to each other that way and so, at first, I took internal offense. But once I saw through it, I started to be more confrontational and ironically was then able to express my care and concern in a way I could not have done without that mode.
These kids went from belligerent to pretty damn awesome. Not all of them were angels, but all of them had a personality that was strikingly different from the one they initially had presented. As did I. Their true intelligence came out. They eagerly asked questions and for help. Some of the young men started coming in early to ask me how they might make their lives better. It was an eye-opening experience.
Perhaps teacher and police training should involve organized meetings with the communities they intend to serve before they become licensed? That doesn't fix everything, and, sure, I still had behavioral issues that were extreme and deleterious to a productive classroom. I continued to make mistakes, as did they. But we pushed through it. These kids needed a lot of help, encouragement, knowledge, skills, etc., and there were some days that were great.
There is no simple answer except to say that people - Americans - of all colors, backgrounds, classes (whatever the differentiating factor) need to stop giving in so quickly to their knee-jerk prejudices.
The education parallel is important. Unmentioned during outrage about police limited immunity is that it doesn't just apply to police. The greatest number of people with the same limited immunity is teachers. In the thirty years following unionization of public schoolteachers, a total of thirty were dismissed for cause. Out of a nationwide workforce of three million. Anyone who believes all 800,000 sworn police officers are hopelessly criminally stupid racist bigots, but only one in three million schoolteachers is less than perfect, is an ass.
According to the 2004 study “the most accurate data available at this time” indicates that “nearly 9.6 percent of students are targets of educator sexual misconduct sometime during their school career.”
A teacher who instructs her students to hate people of other races has attempted to kill a student's soul. A teacher who is illiterate has killed the student's drive to learn. A teacher who holds lowered expectations for minority group members condemns them to a life of low achievements.
I agree 100% with this post-people-students, neighborhood residents, jail inmates-can smell fear and weakness and will react badly. The kicker is that the reaction is not just increased aggression, idiocy, goofiness from the % of the population that is inclined to rule breaking, but a lack of support from the majority of the same population who are NOT inclined to such behavior. If the majority doesn’t respect you, they will not use their collective influence in your favor if the minority starts to get stupid. Conversely, the supportive majority will collectively keep the idiots somewhat in check if they respect the authority figure, due to the authority figure earning it by demonstrating respect/positive interactions.
Some individuals-Pantaleo, Chauvin-should never have been allowed out on patrol but public sector unions had their back, and the inevitable happened.
This was not the case with Michael Brown-Brown attacked Officer Wilson while being investigated for a violent theft and got exactly what he deserved. Lumping his death in with Garner, Floyd, Philando Castile or Walter Scott-shot in the back in N. Charleston, does no one any good, imo.
I'm a retired librarian, and I would add that, whatever the police department's daycare tasks are, public libraries are the default daycare centers in most communities, as well as being the default homeless shelters. Both functions are outside the mission of the library, and both result from the same reason Matt exposes in this post, namely, politicians' unwillingness to fund proper social services in their communities.
My parents (both working) used to drop my off at the main downtown library and leave me there for hours just like you describe, it was great actually! Sadly I would never do that with my own kids as downtown has deteriorated considerably since those days.
You were obviously a well-behaved child who loved the library.😉 I won't expound at length on this subject in the limited space of this forum, but I would point out that most libraries have policies on unattended children, and I recommend that you and our fellow Substack readers read them.
I'm saddened to learn that you had that frightening experience. If it's any consolation, most of today's libraries have security personnel to protect all patrons. And I must also give a shout-out to the police, as in my decades of working in libraries, the police were unfailingly good partners in aiding us in protecting both staff and patrons.
Appreciated. This was (counting quickly) roughly 40 years ago, so not everything available today was available then. The interesting part was that the library was right next to the courthouse and there were cops swarming the area, relatively. This dude was smooth.
"The fact that problem officers like this almost never get seriously disciplined stinks of institutional malevolence."
Try cop union contracts with the municipal govt for a start. Add to that the absurd doctrine of qualified immunity that has now reached truly Kafka-esque application. Throw in state legislatures that have passed peace officer bills of rights.
No one should be shocked when any person is given power and absolved of accountability - a priori - in the use of that power. You simply can't write a more concise formula for producing abuse.
My stepfather was a paramedic for 25 years. Because police would routinely respond to calls with medics, over his career he had several hundred, if not thousands, of instances where he was a 3rd party observer of interactions between law enforcement and civilians.
I asked him the other day what he estimated the percentage of cops to be who, while technically not breaking the law, would routinely do everything possible to escalate interactions with citizens to try and trigger bad behavior (and mistakes) on the side of the citizen. The cops that jump at the opportunity to 'flex' so to speak and become extremely aggressive at any perceived slight. The ones that maybe shouldn't be in that line of work. Keep in mind that my stepfather has a black sticker with a thin blue line on the back of his truck.
Needless to say I was very surprised to hear him say 60%+ fell into that category. 3 out of 5. A guy that has multiple blue lives matter t-shirts and is very, very, pro-cop, admitted that over half of the police he interacted with during his 25 year career probably shouldn't be on the force. To be clear, this is not a commentary on those that resist arrest. Rather, I found it illuminating that someone who 'backs the blue' admit that, anecdotally, more often than not he saw police treat the public like shit.
I would have gone with 50%+ myself. Having a few in the family. I'm sure your stepfather saw more than I did. I'm very much not anti-cop, but trying to attract better people to the police force is not what is going on right now.
This is the rub with Matt’s work. One day he is a genius and the next a bumbler. While I’m sure Gladwell has a brilliant point to make to people with the depth of an ice cube, most of TK readers have hopefully fully thought out these issues and understand when it’s obvious an officer is wrong or worse a criminal and when simply complying would save the life of a scumbag. Why do I feel Matt thinks we need to be spoon fed by overhyped authors in order to better illustrate his leftest credentials. Eric Garner and Michael Brown are not in anyway similar cases. Garner was killed for no reason other then being a large man that rightly didn’t want to be pushed around for selling a fucking cigarette. Brown robbed a store, pushed the Asian owner over a rack of food and tried to take a cops weapon. Conflating the two is mind boggling. In fact Brown is a big part of the hands up don’t shoot bullshit that plagues us today.
There are many cases that illustrate where bad cops deserve to be put away. Floyd and Garner are two good ones. But acting as if this article is in any way novel or light shedding is why Matt is not getting any more $ from me. I can’t get the time I wasted reading the article back so I will continue to support better writers on Substack like Greenwald and Weiss who do t treat me like a moron every other article.
I'm not really sure you read the article. This is the only sentence I found Michael Brown's name in: "Gladwell notes that the period that began with the deaths of people like Garner and Michael Brown and ended roughly with the suicide of Bland was 'when a civil rights movement, Black Lives Matter, was born.'”
There's no "conflation" of Garner and Brown. Matt mentions his name in passing, apparently because Gladwell used their deaths to mark the beginning of a period of time he wishes to discuss.
This isn't article about putting away bad cops. The subtitle gives you a hint: "Cops take most of the blame, often deservedly, but the single-minded media furor of the last year has let other bad actors off the hook." It's more about bad policing policy and bad public policy.
You’re not wrong that it wasn’t the focus of the article but I do think it’s only put in there for the reasons I stated. I was making a larger point on the inconsistency and the dumbing down for political sake but you are right it wasn’t the articles point.
I subscribe to Matt's blog because he's one of the only left leaning writers that I trust to provide the liberal perspective while not subjecting his readers to the wonky bullshit that tends to emanate from the left these days. And I vote republican.
Same. I just get tired of the laziness and condescension sometimes. Otherwise I’m grateful for what he is. Don’t know how I vote anymore since there isn’t anyone helping anymore. Maybe you can start a new party DW.
Here is one. Without giving any written consideration to whether the following was true or not about crime demographics:
"One whistleblower officer named Pedro Serrano recorded a precinct superior instructing the troops in how to choose targets for stops, saying, “The problem is what…? I have no problem telling you this, male blacks, fourteen to twenty, , twenty one.”"
If it was a true or dishonest quote...we don't know because the author is simply virtue signaling through a quote out of context.
Uh, how about the context in which the quote was spoken? Was he warning someone of a valid safety concern, for instance? Or was this during a cadet training exercise and the statistics don't back up the claim? Nobody knows without context.
Homicides are serious, and Black Lives Matter, but it’s a cop out to point to Black people killing Black people, to try to shift the focus away from police killing people.
It's not part of a cop's job to deal with the 400,000 deaths from heart failure, but it is part of the job to deal with the 10,000 killings of blacks by blacks. That means they are perforce in a situation where their own lives are at risk in a way that would not be at all true if they were dealing with heart failures. I'm not impressed with your argument.
Perhaps I was unclear. I don’t think it’s a cop out to introduce facts about homicides.
I think it’s a cop out to introduce some facts about homicides in order to distract from discussion of other facts about homicides.
I think all of these lives matter. So far, I’m not convinced that the more Blacks killed by police, the fewer Blacks killed by other Blacks. So, currently, I think these are two separate subjects. Both are important to consider, but neither excuses the other.
Maybe I wasn’t clear. I agreed with you on the first point.
As to your second point, I don’t recall saying that or even implying it.
I do think it is natural for a person who is primarily interested in harm reduction to wonder at the lack of attention to the rate at which Blacks kill other Blacks, relative to the attention to Blacks killed by cops
'Gladwell makes it capital-E Easy for the medicine of thought to go down, a talent I once grumbled at, almost surely out of jealousy. I now see it’s a blessing in the United States, a country where a fair portion of the mass audience is capable of losing at tic-tac-toe.' Christ, what condescension! Learned nothing from the backlash to the old "basket of deplorables" comment, eh, Matt? And that's just what your book Hate Inc. was based on, that media-fed division. Irony klaxon hoot and squawk alert. Didn't anybody ever tell you in journalism school there is far more of a compressive communicative art to writing for a tabloid than there is for a broadsheet? This guy Gladwell sounds like he has it down.
Maybe some of those people are capable at losing at tic-tac-toe, but they can also mend (y)our car when you can't, or bag (y)our groceries, or deliver (y)our food, or give mass Covid jags in extremely dangerous circumstances, or...why go on? I'm not even trying to be fake outraged here. This condescension drives people (who probably aren't reading this) further away from intelligence and the potentially healing truth. Try hanging out with working class people, occasionally, Matt, it might broaden your horizons. Shit, a few weeks ago a guy who was delivering a carpet to my house over his shoulder marvelled over my JG Ballard and William S Burroughs books! You never, ever know who's who.
I have worked with people over the last few years, be they pizza delivery drivers, or security guards, or supermarket workers, or cleaners, or roofers, who may not be literate (which is fast becoming a 20th century conceit anyway) per se, but who are a great laugh, or caring, or exhibit other kinds of intelligence. I confess, this is a lifelong bugbear of mine. One thing I have always hated about the so-called 'literary' crowd - and I can hold my own with any of them, and have been edited and published at top levels - is them supposedly being 'above' 'the common herd' for reading a few books here and there.
In general, these are the kind of sniffy cunts who spout intersectionalist shite and make out they're doing us all a favour with their 'advanced' views, the 'educated' (beyond their intelligence levels) ones. And I would often rather hang out with tic-tac-toe losers than writers, for the most part. Least they don't look down their nose at bookish snobs - their sense of noblesse oblige would not allow them to. ;)
'This book about all the different ways in which strangers misunderstand one another feels like it was written as a way to nudge an increasingly polarized country to consider how things might look from another’s perspective.' Indeed.
He's trying to disarm the anti-Gladwell hipster crowd. At one time, Gladwell was liked by most everyone, but then he wrote a piece that agitated the teachers' unions. After that he got the hypercritical treatment. Then a couple of "serious thinkers" went after him to the cheers of the Good People.
I wouldn't have gone the tic-tac-toe route Matt did, but even I -- a huge Gladwell fan -- would have probably put in a similar disclaimer. Doing so preempts a lot of the "Gladwell's a lightweight" nonsense it's mandatory for the Bernie Forever crowd (and similar cool kids) to regurgitate. An author might feel compelled to insert such a line in the same way he might if he were to examine melody and harmony in the works of Nickelback. Although there's no real reason except to defuse the parroting masses.
Anyway, Gladwell was great in the early days and he remains so. I think he's a little gunshy in these days of cancel culture, and it showed a little in the book Matt reviewed (I felt). What's funny/sad is that most of his best pieces are completely apolitical.
Bottom line: Yeah, Matt took a cheap shot, but he reviewed the book, didn't he? That speaks louder than the cheap shot. So that's my take, and I certainly don't speak for Matt or Gladwell or deplorable tic-tac-toe players.
Why would you try to 'disarm' anybody by playing to their sniffy wanky prejudices? "OK guys, I get where you're coming from about the populist nature of this writer, disgustingly easily understandable by the average sub-literate on the street. But really, I don't like those tic-tac-toe losers either. See? We're sympatico!"
You gave a very long and convoluted and presumptious answer to my observation. Thanks! Chuckling. :)
I got it. I just thought it was genuinely funny, in the post-lengthy-reply context of: "So that's my take, and I certainly don't speak for Matt or Gladwell..." Laughing, but not maliciously
I suppose I was redundant there, but my objective was -- seeing as this is Matt's home base -- to nip in the bud any reply along the lines of, "That's not at all what I was thinking, you idiot! Let me speak for myself!"
As for length and writing style... glass house, stones, etc.
I hate to admit it because that tic tac toe line annoys me BUT I read Matt & even pay to do so because he is usually not the woke narrative. He is a bit too snooty for me most of the time but so many writers are these days. Like you I prefer the carpet guy or a taxi driver for company. These working class folks never fail to amaze. They are the best of what the USA tic (tack toe)
Which begs the question, where did Matt say he was referring to service workers as the stupid? There are a shitload of really stupid people in this country. Right now I think the ones acting the most ignorant and stupid are the professional over-educated. So you leapt to an assumption that Matt was putting down the blue-collar, working class, without him saying it. I guess we know what that says about you.
Laughing. Yes, we often think of the 'educated' middle-cum-upper-middle-class wankstain strata as tic-tac-toe illiterate losers. I am actually finding the excuses being made for the man, who can surely talk for himself, now, to be hilarious.
Aye, noted. Ho-hum. Upper class Taibbi, whose writing I respect enough to have paid to read - this far - pissed on large sections of the populace as illiterate. What more do you want me to say?
And he didn't even say illiterate - that's your word. Stupid can be educated, I know some real idiots with law degrees or PhDs. They have no common sense and would die in a day if they weren't in the ivory towers.
"a fair portion of the mass audience is capable of losing at tic-tac-toe",
I'd not be shocked, if he were referring as much to those Under the Table (incl. from coke), after a full day on (the quite literate) Wall St., as to anyone else.
Most of the populace IS illiterate. How is it possible you don't know this? Ever watch man on the street interviews? Worked for a big company? Got out in the world?
Laughing. What does 'noblesse oblige' mean, especially in an inverted sense, where the tic-tac-toe losers have become the intelligent ones bestowing their blessings on annoying wannabe-smart cunts? I am beyond such linguistic and ratiocination subtleties. :)
I get your point, I really do, but there is also hilarity in these words: Gladwell makes it capital-E Easy for the medicine of thought to go down, a talent I once grumbled at, almost surely out of jealousy. I now see it’s a blessing in the United States, a country where a fair portion of the mass audience is capable of losing at tic-tac-toe.
I must be especially fucking stupid, and probably don't even know how to set up the tic tac toe grid. Because i read The Tipping Point and it made no sense to me whatsoever.
I think that's what it called 'knowing your audience and writing for it' on Gladwell's part. It's the reason why a Western audience will wolf down a Marvel pile of shite film and not a Fellini or Bergman film.
Sorry-I’ll be a literacy snob. While not being an avid reader should never be a cause for moral contempt, a willful refusal of reading, imo, demonstrates that you don’t have the capacity or inclination for a deeper understanding of ideas and events, and that will affect your public perception. Limiting your reading to 60 characters at a time is like limiting your physical activity to that of someone on My 600 Pound Life. The results show…..
Oh calm down, snowflake. Go read some Mencken if you want to see some real vitriol towards the American booboisie. Never underestimate the stupidity of the American people--and that, by the way, is a different matter than assuming we are all stupid all the time. We're not. Only in a truly clueless country about ideas, though--Americans are impressively can-do, I agree, but mostly inexperienced in thinking--would an empty-minded charlatan like Gladwell be a best-selling author. I am bookish and no snob but that is truly embarrassing.
Okay. I have to respond to bookish. First, yes folks are ah, not smart. The average IQ is 100 and half the people on the planet fall below this and boy, you can see this when you encounter it. So what, though? They are not reading this or Gladwell. Second point: Gladwell is a wonderful writer, one who definitely deserves his success. You only have to read any of his books to understand this: the accessibility, his iconoclasm (his original take on the subject) and the writing itself. I am a voracious reader, which among other things means I can spot a jealous wanna be writer. It becomes very clear upon reading cheap insults against Mr. Gladwell.
Mencken makes George Carlin look like Rick Santorum! Anyone who received a public condemnation by the Arkansas State Legislature in the 1920s is my kind of writer!
Now that is a very serious juxtaposition; but considering this sampling of some of ol' H.L.'s journalistic prose when countering the arguments for Anglo-Saxon superiority prevalent in his time in a 1923 essay entitled "The Anglo-Saxon," which argued that if there was such a thing as a pure "Anglo-Saxon" race, it was defined by its inferiority and cowardice. "The normal American of the 'pure-blooded' majority goes to rest every night with an uneasy feeling that there is a burglar under the bed and he gets up every morning with a sickening fear that his underwear has been stolen.", one must ponder just how Alan Sleet, the hippy dippy weatherman might respond.
I was waiting for this reply. You just called me a snowflake. That is genuinely the first time anybody ever called me that. Thanks! I feel anointed! Off now to melt in a corner, laughing.
Sigh. Matt: Instead of writing a review of a book written by a non-expert which has no useful policy recommendations and will save zero lives, why not read and review UC Berkeley professor of law and internationally feted criminologist Franklin Zimring's 2017 book "When Police Kill"? It details how by banning police from using lethal force if a suspect does not have a gun, and instead requiring officers to call for backup and form a cordon around the suspect, we could see about a 40% drop in the number of people killed by police every year. A link to a video elaborating on his research can be found below.
Criminologist Lawrence Sherman has also advocated for requiring police officers to apply battlefield-grade hemostatic bandages to suspects they've shot, and for requiring police officers to transport suspects they've shot to the hospital in their patrol cars rather than wasting critical minutes waiting for EMTs. A study of the Philadelphia Police Department, which implemented the latter policy beginning in the 1990s, indicated that this policy could reduce officer-involved-shooting fatalities by about 30%. A link to Sherman's white paper can also be found below.
The most crucial point to realize about U.S. police violence is that about 57% of people killed by U.S. police every year are armed with a gun, and about 97.5% of U.S. police officers killed in the line of duty every year are killed by a gun. Until we get federal comprehensive gun control, the U.S. is not going to experience the low officer-involved-shooting rates and the low rates of homicide in all categories enjoyed in the rest of the high-income world.
One of the things I most lament about contemporary culture is that very few books are read anymore, and the few that are read are mainly flashy mediocrities written by media stars. Academic experts have the answers to so many of our current problems, but they are unsexy and underpublicized, so nobody reads them. And so the limitable suffering continues.
What a brain dead comment. Criminals don’t follow gun laws and never will. Gun control is about eliminating the civil rights of law abiding citizens so we are helpless to defend ourselves and our families from the savages terrorizing society and corrupt politicians that want unchecked control over everyone. It’s sad people care more about the lives of criminals that have no respect for the lives of others instead of the lives of your fellow law abiding citizens. It is a sick and twisted fetish at this point and a sign of a failing society. For example, judging from the comments, people know the multiple names of media/politically driven criminal deaths at the hands of police and none of the names of thousands of law abiding victims of criminals or the cops that have been assassinated by racist blacks this year alone. What is wrong with you people?
Thank you so much for this comment. I'm delighted to be able to disabuse you of the misconception that gun control legislation simply doesn't work to prevent criminals from getting guns!
The National Firearms Act of 1934 was wonderfully successful in reducing the rate by which fully automatic weapons were used in crimes, as shown by the fact that today fully automatic weapons account for just 0.3% of crime guns submitted for tracing by law enforcement agencies. The Gun Control Act of 1968 made modest improvements to national gun policy by restricting federal gun sales only to licensed dealers and barring dealers from selling to out-of-state buyers. However, there is still a pattern in the U.S. of guns in states with minimal regulation flowing to states with stringent restrictions on gun sales; this is evidenced by the fact that 90% of all crime guns in New York City come from out of state, disproportionately from Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia and Florida.
Current federal regulation disqualifies people who have been convicted of a felony from owning a gun. This should be expanded to anyone who has been convicted of a violent misdemeanor. A study of adult murder defendants in Chicago found that only 43% of them had a felony conviction, and another study found that of criminals sentenced to prison for a firearm-related felony, most of them were not disqualified by any federal background check requirements.
Additionally, anyone convicted of several DUIs should be barred from owning a gun, as about half of all homicides are committed by someone under the influence of alcohol.
Another excellent potential federal regulation would be to empower every police department in the country to do what Indiana police are permitted to do by state law: Seize a weapon without a warrant from individuals they deem to be dangerous to themselves or others.
In re the NICS background check, the 2007 Virginia Tech shooter, who killed 33 people including himself, passed a NICS background check. So did Elliot Rodger, the perpetrator of the 2014 Isla Vista mass shooting. A way to improve NICS and keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill is to improve upon the federal ban on firearm possession by a mentally person who has been involuntarily hospitalized for mental illness and extend it to everyone who has been hospitalized for mental illness, both voluntarily and involuntarily.
Another excellent regulation which could prevent guns from falling into the hands of people to whom they were not originally registered is to require all guns to have a fingerprint signature. Gun manufacturers are already using such signatures widely. A 2004 study showed that for inmates who used a gun in a crime that landed them in prison, 41% got the gun from a friend or family member, 32% got the gun from off the street, from a drug dealer or from a fence or black market dealer, and just 12% got the gun from a gun shop or pawn shop (presumably licensed).
As you can see, the federal government has hardly exhausted all its regulatory options, and these policies would work wonderfully to reduce the rate at which violent individuals are able to perpetrate homicides and other violent crimes. Yay!
South Africa, Mexico, Afghanistan and India are perfect examples of guns being banned and yet criminals running around with guns. Chicago (Illinois) has strict gun laws even to the point where:
1. Even the hyper liberal anti-gun Gifford Law Center gives their second highest score of A- to Illinois and A to New Jersey.
Texas gets an “F” from Gifford Law Center, yet Houston and Dallas have murder rates that are half of that in Chicago. The rates in Austin and El Paso are tiny when compared to Chicago. All this despite Texas having neighbours with cartels south of border.
2. The age for purchasing handguns (pistols and revolvers) in Illinois is 21 years old. Vast majority of the gang violence and shootings happen using handguns.
3. The state requires gun owners to obtain licenses and face background checks as well as imposing waiting periods on firearms purchases. They also have red flag laws.
In 2021, as of July 13:
US Population: 330 million
US total guns: 420+ million
US Total non-suicide shootings so far: 21305 - 12804 = 8501
US non-suicide deaths so far: 10788
Chicago population: 2.7 million (0.8 %)
Chicago non-suicide shootings so far: 2195 (25.8%)
Chicago non-suicide deaths so far: 405 (3.8%)
Aka 25.8% shootings from a 0.8% population. Must be all the guns and white supremacy problem....
Aren't we all racist, if you are going to be honest with yourself? I know this isn't considered constructive given the current narrative, but I would prefer to be logically consistent and not have to regret later writing some politically motivated lie.
Statesments of the form 'All X are Z' are basically meaningless because Z is not a distinguishing feature on X. However, if you use the older meaning of _racism_, which is a political theory, not mere prejudice or preference, you have a chance of distinguishing some persons, opinions and actions from others and thus make reducing or countering or even eliminating racism possible.
In a world where specificity and definitions don't mean a whole hell of a lot, i'm sticking with the basic meaning of being xenophobic or prejudiced against others not of your race. I've failed to find anyone who doesn't have this living within themselves and you'll never get rid of it.
You're talking about bigotry or somesuch, which is another matter entirely. You _could_ get rid of bigotry, though what we are doing right now is not useful in this regard.
Actually, specificity and definitions do mean something if you're trying to think -- logically, anyway. I define _racism_ as a theory with the following components:
(1) There are (physical) races.
(2) Race affects behavior; in other words, some races are better than others.
(3) It is correct and proper for the good races to control or eliminate the bad races by whatever means is necessary.
If someone just dislikes persons who appear to have different attributes, such as appearance, language, customs, and so on, but doesn't do anything about it, I don't think that's proper racism; it's a personal preference.
However, I recognize that past or present preferences may add up to a kind of anonymous, hidden racist practice in certain contexts. In that case I assume all non-racists could agree that such practices should be discouraged even if they don't particularly like the appearance, language, etc. etc., of some kinds of people.
The issue is made someone more difficult because race is a social construction rather than a physical fact.
I am taking about the multiple blacks that have assassinated police and admitted to doing it because they wanted to kill white people because they hate white people(whipped up hatred by the media/Democrats). It never makes national news but I see local news reports nation wide. This is the literal definition of racism. No different than the handful of white supremacists that do the same thing.
Your point can stand on its own. I'll just try to articulate my own beliefs.
I don't think it's legitimately my job, or anyone else's job, to police terminology in the public square (increasingly, these days, the internet).
I don't think using "race" as a political football is helpful for any sincerely democratic project. I think that so many vested interests seem to be pressing the general populace to do so is very telling.
I don’t disagree with that statement. I only used the word racist because they are legitimate racists through their actions and admitted it.
A couple of decades ago their actions would have had national political ramifications for the politicians and media that incited them. But because the perps were black and just doing what they had been told to do by the media/Dems, the stories get buried. I would say “got buried” but it is happening every week now so there is a full blown national media cover up to preserve the narrative so it lasts as long as possible and does as much damage as possible.
I don’t know how anyone could expect this kind of thing to not occur when it is being incited to occur.
How many of those people were being aggressive with deadly weapons toward the police? That's what I'd want to know. Now, BLM is protesting against deaths of people with a 2-mile-long rap sheet who literally pulled a weapon on cops while on probation or parole. IMHO, that's suicide by cop. Not a victim.
1) I infer from your argument that you believe cops and no one else should be allowed to possess firearms. If that's a hyperbolic inference, my bust, but you're not being terrifically specific.
2) What form ought this further "federal comprehensive gun control" to take? Federal gun control laws have existed for nearly a century -- public firearms ownership in the USA has been incrementally restricted from the NFA of 1934 to the GCA of 1968 to the Crime Bill of 1994. It's not as if there are no laws. Everyone legally purchasing a firearm from a credentialed dealer has to undergo a NICS background check.
3) The number of privately possessed firearms in the USA is vaguely estimated by a variety of sources as upwards of 400 million. Nobody knows for sure. Suppose that Congress passes mandated registration. How many will comply with it?
That DC v. Heller Supreme Court decision is gonna be a beast to get around, too.
1) The U.S. should have as few guns as possible. If the U.S. gets the restrictive gun control laws enacted in Germany and England, it may then be feasible to disarm police, thereby plummeting homicide rates across the board.
2) The National Firearms Act of 1934 was wonderfully successful in reducing the rate by which fully automatic weapons were used in crimes, as shown by the fact that today fully automatic weapons account for just 0.3% of crime guns submitted for tracing by law enforcement agencies. The Gun Control Act of 1968 made modest improvements to national gun policy by restricting federal gun sales only to licensed dealers and barring dealers from selling to out-of-state buyers. However, there is still a pattern in the U.S. of guns in states with minimal regulation flowing to states with stringent restrictions on gun sales; this is evidenced by the fact that 90% of all crime guns in New York City come from out of state, disproportionately from Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia and Florida.
Current federal regulation disqualifies people who have been convicted of a felony from owning a gun. This should be expanded to anyone who has been convicted of a violent misdemeanor. A study of adult murder defendants in Chicago found that only 43% of them had a felony conviction, and another study found that of criminals sentenced to prison for a firearm-related felony, most of them were not disqualified by any federal background check requirements.
Additionally, anyone convicted of several DUIs should be barred from owning a gun, as about half of all homicides are committed by someone under the influence of alcohol.
Another excellent potential federal regulation would be to empower every police department in the country to do what Indiana police are permitted to do by state law: Seize a weapon without a warrant from individuals they deem to be dangerous to themselves or others.
In re the NICS background check, the 2007 Virginia Tech shooter, who killed 33 people including himself, passed a NICS background check. So did Elliot Rodger, the perpetrator of the 2014 Isla Vista mass shooting. A way to improve NICS and keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill is to improve upon the federal ban on firearm possession by a mentally person who has been involuntarily hospitalized for mental illness and extend it to everyone who has been hospitalized for mental illness, both voluntarily and involuntarily.
3) I don't know how many will comply with registration. Another excellent regulation which could prevent guns from falling into the hands of people to whom they were not originally registered is to require all guns to have a fingerprint signature. Gun manufacturers are already using such signatures widely. A 2004 study showed that for inmates who used a gun in a crime that landed them in prison, 41% got the gun from a friend or family member, 32% got the gun from off the street, from a drug dealer or from a fence or black market dealer, and just 12% got the gun from a gun shop or pawn shop (presumably licensed).
As you can see, the federal government has hardly exhausted all its regulatory options.
Make it ten! Studies show you could have a thousand guns in your home and none of them would make you safer from an invader. But I wish you all the best in enjoying your delusional heterocosm!
That's just, like, your opinion, man. I say the more the merrier. Guess we have to hash that one out by voting for representatives and court judgments and stuff. The legal process and our democracy.
"If the U.S. gets the restrictive gun control laws enacted in Germany and England"
[guffaws] That'll be the day. You seen the balance of power in Congress lately?
"This should be expanded to anyone who has been convicted of a violent misdemeanor."
"anyone convicted of several DUIs should be barred from owning a gun"
Your "shoulds" are doing some heavy lifting here. One could be forgiven for thinking that you are a person who believes yourself to have the authority to tell others what they "should" and "should not" do.
"another study found that of criminals sentenced to prison for a firearm-related felony, most of them were not disqualified by any federal background check requirements."
It's almost as if the increasingly restrictive federal background requirements... have been ineffective? So your argument is that they need to become *more* restrictive?
"Another excellent potential federal regulation would be to empower every police department in the country to... seize a weapon without a warrant"
You don't seem to be too big on the Bill of Rights. 2nd Amendment? 4th Amendment? Fuggedabaht'em.
"require all guns to have a fingerprint signature. Gun manufacturers are already using such signatures widely."
Please cite a source. Like, name one gun manufacturer who is doing this. (If it's some boutique manufacturer I've never heard of, I will gracefully concede the point.) The old "smart gun" canard has been around in one form or another since the 1990s. It has never proven practicable for both technological and financial reasons.
"As you can see, the federal government has hardly exhausted all its regulatory options."
Thank God. The question you have been dancing around here is one of implementation. The federal government can legislatively regulate out the wazoo. What measures should it take to effectively implement these putative regulations? I see few options beyond active violence against its own populace, and that's a case of the cure being worse than the disease.
I don't see any advanced countries engaging in greater violence against its civilian population than we have in the U.S. -- and no, I'm not referring to Cuba or China as advanced countries. I hate communism and all communists, so that lazy ad hominem ain't gonna work.
The fingerprint signature suggestion is taken from "The Gun Debate: What Everyone Needs To Know" (2014) by Philip J. Cook and Kristin A. Goss.
You're right: I don't give a fart in space about the Second Amendment. I want it completely watered down. I do think the government has the right to take measures to ensure public safety that I understand you find too nanny-state-ish. Evidence from around the world, especially from Australia and the bans it instituted after the grisly 1996 Port Arthur Massacre, shows these measures save lives, but admittedly they would infringe on the Bill of Rights. Bring it on, I say!
I'm sorry you thought I engaged in ad hominem. I thought I was being quite polite.
"The fingerprint signature suggestion is taken from "The Gun Debate: What Everyone Needs To Know" (2014) by Philip J. Cook and Kristin A. Goss."
That's not an answer to the question I asked. Your claim was "Gun manufacturers are *ALREADY* using such signatures *WIDELY* (emphases mine)." My response was "name one gun manufacturer who is doing this." If you are leaning on Cook & Goss's work here, and if it is a serious, scholarly one, they should have been able to provide examples of gun manufacturers *widely* employing fingerprint-signature technology. I note you used the word "suggestion."
"You're right: I don't give a fart in space about the Second Amendment. I want it completely watered down. I do think the government has the right to take measures to ensure public safety that I understand you find too nanny-state-ish. Evidence from around the world, especially from Australia and the bans it instituted after the grisly 1996 Port Arthur Massacre, shows these measures save lives, but admittedly they would infringe on the Bill of Rights. Bring it on, I say!"
Well, at least we each know who the other is dealing with. It seems there is far too much daylight between our respective positions for us to resolve anything by reasoned debate.
Final note: Brits and Australians aren't Americans. The US is a much larger country with far more firearms and a stronger tradition of not knuckling under to feudalistic control by a centralized hierarchy. The Canadians joke about their guns "falling off the boat" after mandatory registration was passed.
I hate guns. Absolutely hate them. Would be delighted if they banned them all tomorrow. But, the booger we hit up hard against is ok, so what are we going to do with all of the guns already out there? I've only heard crickets for an answer.
97.5% of American police killed in the line of duty every year are killed by guns, overwhelmingly handguns. English police, who work in a country with stringent gun control laws, are killed in the line of duty at 4% the rate of their American counterparts; German police, who also enjoy working in a gun-controlled society, are killed in the line of duty at 2.5% the rate of their American counterparts. English civilians, who are infinitely less likely to have a gun when confronted by police, are killed by police at less than 1% the rate of American civilians; German civilians, 2.5%.
Isn't in wonderful to know there are solutions which could save so many lives? I'm sure thrilled.
Ah, beautiful UK and Germany where you can be arrested for offending someone on the internet or having a butter knife in a drawer at home. Clown world intensified.
The U.K. and Germany do admittedly have a huge problem with free speech rights and would benefit immensely from a constitutional amendment similar to our First Amendment. None of that, however, has any bearing on their wonderfully effective gun control legislation.
So your remedy for authoritarianism in the UK and Germany is a constitutional amendment just like the one you are arguing should be subverted in the US. Brilliant! You should check yourself for injuries after that logic.
Ian Jameson: Government is so corrupt, incompetent and bloated! They don't care about us people!!!!
Ian Jameson: I agree! Lets give them more power over our lives, give them more of our taxes, health care and let them decide who gets to own guns and who gets to speak what!
I appreciate the reply but what you're talking about is impractical and, as far as your references to Germany and England go, not on point. The rights of gun ownership is in our founding documents for reasons that have proven to be crucial to preserving our rights as American citizens.
I don't give a damn about your or my Second Amendment rights: I care about saving lives. Nothing about what I've proposed is impractical, as demonstrated by the fact that you immediately went to saying such reforms are un-American rather than expanding upon the idea that they wouldn't work.
Oh, how right you must be! You have never met me and you've paid no attention to the lengthy explanations I've given for my positions, but because you are clairvoyant, imbued with divine powers of mind-reading, you're absolutely right: I must just want control. There couldn't possibly be any altruistic urge on my part not to see Americans mowed down by bullets every year at rates unexampled in the rest of the high-income world. A+ for clear, logical argumentation, my dear friend.
I don't like firearms, I don't own firearms, none are permitted in my home. You should care about Second Amendment rights for the same reason I do: ignore this Amendment and the rest are invalidated. If you don't want firearms possession to be a constitutional right, amend the constitution. If you can't manage that, then compromise. If you cared about saving lives, you'd abolish beds. More people are killed in the US every year from falling out of bed than unarmed blacks are killed by police.
No you don't. Because if you did, you would not be spouting such virtue signalling nonsense.
Couple years ago, one of my friends here in Canada was being followed back home by someone. Unfortunately, even pepper sprays aren't allowed in Canada. So in case she gets attacked, she would be defenceless. Same with if you have a wife/daughter/elderly/handicapped person in your household. The best way to defend yourself in such situations is to get a firearm and train often. Delays in obtaining one doesn't help. And based on CDC's own data from a decade ago, there's over 500K defensive use of guns (doesn't even have to be shot - simply displaying it gets criminals to run away).
That's what every evil person says to disarm the population before they run them over with tanks or send them off to the camps. And I am sure you totally can't imagine that ever happening from the administration which is already censoring half the population and from people like AOC actively asking to make lists of Trump supporters to get them banned from social media.
First, label your political opponents as nazis, extremists, conspiracy theorists etc. Then get the top military general to cry about the white rage boogeyman. Next force companies to ban said "extremists" and "conspiracy theorists" from every platform. Lastly, get that military general to use the military on these "extremists". Oh and take away their guns so they can't defend themselves.
I am Canadian so I wish people in America actually appreciated how good they have it there when it comes to freedoms. You can't ban somebody into being a good person. If they can't get a gun they will find something else.
“Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins.” - Sammy Gravano, gangster, served 20 years, involvement in 19 murders
In the US, UK, and Germany, who wields the guns used to kill police? What, if anything, do those people have in common other than wielding a gun? Are the commonalities cross cultural?
There are countless ways to reduce homicide rates across countries -- it's very important not to take a monocausal view of the matter. Expanding social insurance, increasing a country's average life expectancy, raising taxes on alcohol, making the country more gender equal, and making the number of men as equal to the number of women as possible have all been shown to be correlated with reduced homicides of all descriptions.
The single most significant policy for reducing homicides that the U.S. has not instituted that the rest of the advanced world has, however, is gun control. Thank you for your excellent question.
If those tactics are feasible, they’ll propagate out to the 10k police departments nationwide eventually. Academics have their own problems overstating their findings so I wouldn’t get too attached to those expected improvements. Nobody needs wonks rolling out nationwide social science experiments.
I can understand why local departments don’t find reducing suspect fatalities to be the most important policy decision. Very few of those 1000 people/year will spark much sympathy from their communities because the suspects are engaging in pretty unsympathetic behavior. Communities care a lot more about protecting victims than protecting the rights of asshats. Both deserve protection, but, priorities.
None of the academic work I cited is social science. There are actually about 18,000 police departments in the U.S. The public outcry against police shootings is deafening; use-of-force reform is almost nowhere to be seen, however.
Saving lives is the paramount priority. These reforms would be extremely easy to implement, as shown by the fact that New Jersey and Philadelphia police have already implemented them with minimal burden to departments and no increase in risk to the lives of officers.
My point about gun control is not a non sequitur: 97.5% of American police killed in the line of duty every year are killed by guns, overwhelmingly handguns. English police, who work in a country with stringent gun control laws, are killed in the line of duty at 4% the rate of their American counterparts; German police, who also enjoy working in a gun-controlled society, are killed in the line of duty at 2.5% the rate of their American counterparts. English civilians, who are infinitely less likely to have a gun when confronted by police, are killed by police at less than 1% the rate of American civilians; German civilians, 2.5%.
Isn't in wonderful to know there are solutions which could save so many lives? I'm sure thrilled.
Sorry, I thought you said social psychology. I despise social psychology.
You're not presenting a compelling counterargument for why all the reforms the rest of the high-income world has implemented simply can't work here. Argument by assertion.
I didn't say we were going to get rid of 400 million guns -- total strawman fallacy on your part. We can reduce that number through the myriad reforms I point to elsewhere in the comments.
Your earlier suggestions could be implemented locally. It’s a pragmatic approach.
Your gun control suggestions are deeply unpractical. They’ve been tried here in DC and NYC. They’re also knowingly inflammatory to half of the population. So it’s not only a bad idea but a bad faith argument meant to piss off opponents.
The local gun control measures you cite have failed specifically because they were not enforced federally, as I explained in previous comments:
The National Firearms Act of 1934 was wonderfully successful in reducing the rate by which fully automatic weapons were used in crimes, as shown by the fact that today fully automatic weapons account for just 0.3% of crime guns submitted for tracing by law enforcement agencies. The Gun Control Act of 1968 made modest improvements to national gun policy by restricting federal gun sales only to licensed dealers and barring dealers from selling to out-of-state buyers. However, there is still a pattern in the U.S. of guns in states with minimal regulation flowing to states with stringent restrictions on gun sales; this is evidenced by the fact that 90% of all crime guns in New York City come from out of state, disproportionately from Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia and Florida.
While the suggestions above are good in themselves, they fall short: 40% isn't enough, and effective after treatment doesn't prevent unjustified shootings in the first place.
Furthermore, "57% of people killed by U.S. police every year are armed with a gun" is absolutely damning. That means approximately 43% of police killings are unjustified - absolutely horrifying, and far worse than I thought. Police should be able to subdue a person with a knife; if they can't, they're incompetent.
Plus: "banning police from using lethal force if a suspect does not have a gun" would require holding police responsible for whether there was a gun - or not. That is, they would have to be at least fired and preferably prosecuted for getting it wrong - none of this "I thought he had a gun." They're well paid; they can behave professionally, or suffer the consequences.
If you want to see more police officers fired for misconduct, support use-of-force reform, because it is the fact that officers who make lethal mistakes do not usually violate use-of-force policy that keeps them employed and shields them from being convicted of wrongdoing.
Police are not incompetent; use-of-force policy is incompetent. We are not going to magically raise police officers' IQ's; we can instantly train them to be less lethal, however.
I think the fundamental point is that nothing as a simple as it is presented in the media, especially in this time of hard core tribal camps. I am not sure how we lost the ability to analyze problems cooperatively and agree on some basic steps to remediate the issue we face. I do know that the drive for revenue driven outrage clicks is not helping the matter. I get the sense that opposing groups are talking past each other instead of seeking to understand the concerns and arguments of the other side. If we don't regain the ability to discuss and reach compromise we will be forever locked in this whipsaw of federal rule where every 4-8 years sides switch and the first order of business is to eliminate what the previous office holder did just because they did it, regardless of effectiveness of the policy.
One of the problems is that people on both sides today see people on the other side as not merely having bad ideas but actually being “bad people”. While there has always been a strain of this, Trump’s election brought it to the fore where all of a sudden anyone who didn’t visibly toe the progressive line was now a NaZi!!!11!! — and what’s the point in having a discussion with a Nazi? This is of course completely stupid, but sadly it is where we find ourselves. The only hope for a pluralist democracy is genuine tolerance (not the fake progressive version of “oh we believe in free speech — just not hate speech!”), where all are free to speak and the discussion is around the content of the ideas and not the identity of the speaker.
I've read some of Matt's published works and generally enjoyed it. I'm not 100% aligned politically but that's ok. But this line is what finally got me to subscribe. "I now see it’s a blessing in the United States, a country where a fair portion of the mass audience is capable of losing at tic-tac-toe."
That line is the arrogance and insipid analysis that made Taibbi a hero to legions of Rilling Stone readers. It’s nonsense, it’s meaningless, is the analysis of an intellectual lightweight.
Having read all of Malcolm Gladwells books and all of yours Matt including "I can't breathe" combined with my life experiences in Canada, the USA and the Bahamas I don't expect much change in the future. The "underclass" and the criminal classes are just too big in many western societies. The police are there to protect the ruling classes from us, the working classes and they do a credible job. They are secondarily there to protect the working classes from the underclass and the criminal classes and that's not much fun, crappy hours, crappy pay and the chance to deal with what most of us "middle classes", actually lower working classes. Like surgery and the abbitoir; we really don't want to see what's being done, just look after it officer. Our brutal capitalism system will always have the underclass and the ruling rentier classes like it the way it is and we seem to have bought into it. Hell, the USA still doesn't have universal public health care or paid maternity leave, quite brutal if you've ever lived in any other western countries. The Hood and The Holler are way too big to fix. The system is basically " inverted totalitarianism" and it works well for the 1% and the 10% officer classes; for the rest of us who produce the wealth and perform most useful services of all races "actually a social concept, we are all Homo sapiens"and ethnicities we depend on the cop's to keep a lid on it. Notice how the "defund the Police" politicians sure want their security on your nickel... hypocrisy... you bet.
Gladwell has been captured by the Woke so I view his books post 2016 with deep skepticism unfortunately.
That said, Im open to evidence of “Broken Windows” being inherently ineffective. Incomplete picture here. Go to LA, Chicago, NYC now and compare it to 2015 when these cities were cleaner and had historically low quality of life crimes being committed. Something was working. Cities are a mess now.
So perhaps Broken Windows policing can be adjusted in some way. The answer can’t just be to let every minor low level crime go unanswered. Maybe there will emerge a different approach.
You make some really good points, Matt. I totally agree about the patrol cars looking for people to harass. That's the real problem. It's frustrating to see the tremendous level of energy over George Floyd's death being squandered over "Defund the Police". Such a huge opportunity missed. It makes me wonder who injected "defund the police" into the conversation in the first place. Was it meant to prevent any real change from happening? I often thought that it would have been better to focus on qualified immunity for Police officers. At least that's a concrete policy argument that could make a difference. I live in Portland, OR and we have Black Lives Matter signs everywhere, but what has changed? I think people mean well, but it's just a bunch of platitudes at this point. We have strangers coming into our neighborhood weekly with their megaphones yelling at people walking by and asking for money. The movement has become more of a money-making machine for scam artists than anything else. It's really sad.
Thank you. I don't for a second think the "Defund the Police" was grassroots. When it first started, I saw VERY professionally printed and designed signs being posted all over my neighborhood. I think defunding = leaving criminals to do what they want. Hell, California lets shoplifters of under $900 go free no questions asked. They are encouraging criminality. So next we need to ask why? BLM was astro-turfed within a couple years of its inception. There are no movements that aren't controlled by the PTB.
This is the first time I have read an article of yours and felt it was actually bad. While you seem to want to take a nuanced viewpoint of racism and white supremacy among police, what you are actually doing is saying that police suck.
They don’t.
If you are unarmed and don’t fight with police, regardless of your race, you may get bad treatment but you will NOT be shot. If you attack police officers, shoot them, try to steal their weapon, flee the scene, you will probably get shot, regardless of race. And that’s 100% on you.
Exactly. Not enough is said about the real reason anyone is killed by Police; they resist arrest. Anytime you resist arrest you’re playing the odds. Fight the case later. The media lost all credibility last year when they pretended there were thousands of unarmed killings of blacks.
Thanks for the cop-shop propaganda.
I’ll just cut right to the endgame here.
When I’m being loaded in a box car, should I resist? Or should I pin my hopes on later fighting the case from the gas chamber?
Grow up.
I guess you're pulling for prison guard, right?
Only if you can by one of the inmates.
Don’t resist. Fight it later.
Gunning for train conductor, are you?
John McWhorter had a blogpost this week about how 'badly' the cops talk to blacks, never considering the aggressive, unhelpful and often violent language used by blacks on police. Doesn't every kid growing up learn respect authority AND not to ' talk back' when in the hands of the authorities (or parents for that matter). No matter, we see video after video of police in traffic violation stops where many blacks, male & female just shoot off at the mouth only aggravating the situation from the get-go. Aggression never gets you anywhere, but calmness & reason do.
More good advice - for good, well-behaved peasants. We aren't supposed to be that here.
Nor does it work: remember the guy who was shot in his car for PROPERLY informing the cop that he was legally armed? Some people just shouldn't be cops.
Philando Castile. Appalling case. (I stress here that my understanding of it is limited strictly to media reports.) Dude was carrying legally, informed the cop truthfully when asked, complied with directions, and got shot by the cop anyway. Clearly his mistake -- as with so many other situations in the USA -- was telling the truth in the first place.
NRA-adjacent lawyers should have been swarming all over this one, but... crickets.
Extremely rare that someone complies exactly with instructions and gets killed. Almost never.
So "failing to comply" with a cop carries the death sentence. You want to show us law on that?
Potentially yes. If you resist arrest or escalate a situation, you never know where it could lead. It’s so strange that people think they can just resist arrest and not have anything bad happen.
This way to the gas chambers, ladies and gentlemen.
I call bullshit
In denial, huh?
Not at all. If you’re pulled over- comply. Comply. Comply. Comply.
Fight it later if it was a bullshit stop. In Blands case, seems to have been a bullshit stop.
The cop overreacted. He seemed to have gotten scared. He was tried but acquitted and fired. Castile’s family got a $2 million settlement from the city.
Good for Castile's family. Sucks to be Castile.
Grisha, i'd be ok if I got shot on the street and my family got $2m. Just saying. True, my life would be over, but i'll probably die of something else and not get the $2m deposited in my wife's bank account.
Your point about the NRA is taken, however, i've found that the NRA itself is more a PAC. They barely pay much attention to their former bread and butter - gun training and publications. Just send out begs for funding by inventing new ranks in their lifetime membership system. If you want a modicum of protection for legal gun ownership/carry/use, you need something like US Law Shield, which isn't free either.
Well, of course. I think that officer was probably tragically undertrained. He should have walked away. Castile was no threat to him.
It's interesting the way the NRA has fluctuated on this throughout the years.
In the 1990's the NRA was still defending individual gun owners from government abuse. In 1992, Wayne LaPierre famously referred to the agents that shot and killed Randy Weaver wife at Ruby Ridge as "Jack booted thugs," but the NRA has since become just another cop shop conspicuously quiet on the gun rights of people threatened by home invasion by the police and black home owners in particular.
They have also formed a lobby group that works the Prosecutor and Police Unions to push for more draconian punishments around all crimes, but especially guns.
<<In 1992, Wayne LaPierre famously referred to the agents that shot and killed Randy Weaver wife at Ruby Ridge as "Jack booted thugs," but the NRA has since become just another cop shop conspicuously quiet on the gun rights of people threatened by home invasion by the police and black home owners in particular.>>
Oh man. I wish somebody would do a deep dive on this stuff. George H. W. Bush (at the time, President) notoriously resigned his NRA Life membership after LaPierre's "jackbooted thugs" remark on the principle that all federal agents were fine, upstanding people incapable of error.
Ya, and they tell me he was a "good" Bush.
Sheesh, like such a thing exists.
You nailed in OC
What would the Founders think of the pathetic slaves many Americans have become? They risked everything to fight for their freedom. Now we have citizens who think being a good American is all about supporting their slave masters over the Constitution that was put in place to prevent America from becoming the police state it now is. At least in 1984 Winston had to be broken before he learned to love big brother.
I call them citizens, because it's only through an accident of history and geography that they occupy the same actual land once occupied by the proud independent men they have nothing in common with. Most of the 2.5 million Americans we hold in prison each year are more free than they are because at least a prisoner is not in denial about his relationship with the State barring those few who suffer from Stockholm syndrome.
Could you imagine George Washington showing up to Valley Forge and giving the troops a rousing speech along the lines of:
"Well if you stop resisting the British and accept their authority, then we won't have so many problems!
They write posts on how to be a good peasant without ever questionaing why a free man should need to bow down to the police like a peasant in their own country.
It's odd because they recognize freedom in other countries and people. They make a big showing of supporting the students in Tienanmen Square. They are with the Students in Hong Kong and those who want freedom on Cuba, but when it comes to their own country they always support the violence of their slave masters.
It would be fine with that if their slavish need for State Authority only ruined their own life. What sucks is that they are going to take the rest of us still willing to fight for freedom with them.
An anecdote here, an anecdote there... it only takes a few to construct a narrative! Nicely done, Charles!
Or the pregnant woman who was pit maneuvered for not pulling over fast enough?
We are supposed to be shitheads either.
A few months back there was a news story about some black guy in Florida out jogging who was stopped by police. They put him on the ground and interrogated him. Given the national mood and the human anxiety most of us would feel if that happend to us, he understandably thought he was going to die. But he had the presence of mind to cooperate politely. There’d been a burglary and he met the perp’s description. The police satisfied themselves it wasn’t him and thanked him for his cooperation. They were so happy with how he handled the situation they offered him a job on the force as a community relations outreach liaison. That’s where he works today. True story.
What does it mean? We all have our own answer I suppose.
Back in the 20th century aggressive ticketing by police at certain times in certain places was a cliche. It rarely led to anything but an angry motorist a few bucks poorer.
So maybe if they printed the good news and ignored the bad stuff like they used to, these problems would go away.
The common denominator in who gets shot (with some rare exceptions) is who fights the police. For some subset of the youth population, There may be cultural stigma in not fighting back, you’re not a man or something, letting the police push you around. And that makes the police more aggressive. It’s a chicken and an egg problem.
Better community relations efforts seem a step in the right direction.
I think this ignores that many police officers intentionally escalate situations in order to charge the person with resisting arrest, which is a felony.
We watched this play out in Florida. The city council passed a law making it a simply misdemeanor to not wear a helmet while biking. The police enforced this almost exclusively among youth in poor neighborhoods and more than once were caught escalating the situation to get a felony for resisting arrest.
https://bostonreview.net/race-law-justice/lisa-cacho-jodi-melamed-how-police-abuse-charge-resisting-arrest
I'm restricting my comment on this Post to "how to avoid getting shot in a police encounter". In most cases, it's fairly easy to avoid -- cooperate politely. There does not appear to be a racial factor in the data in the few instances where unarmed people not resisting arrest do end up shot -- contrary to last year's agit-prop that many media channels and democrat politicians stoked to get elected and that caused riots in cities across the US.
That rhetoric was every bit as ugly as the iconic early 20th century southern politician stoking up race hate among poor whites.
I never thought I'd see this in my life in the USA coming out of mainstream democrats and their mouthpieces. Silly me. Lesson learned.
Some of the stuff people are getting shot and killed over is just ridiculous. And then the cop keeps his job or maybe goes and gets another job -as a cop. C’mon, man.
The question i always have, in the instances where the suspect isn't actually aiming a gun at anyone, is why couldn't these cops just aim for the leg, instead of for the kill?
“There’d been a burglary and he met the perp’s description,”? What was the description? Black dude? The go-to excuse for every single unwarranted stop-and-frisk that I was subject to when I lived in Florida was ALWAYS,”There’s been some reports of burglaries in the neighborhood.” Even though I’d be walking down the street empty-handed, no “burglary tools” on me, no stereos or televisions, no nothing. I was walking to the store to get some groceries or some beer. Minding my own business.
“Oh, I guess if the cops say there were some reports of burglaries in the neighborhood, they can do whatever…” Do y’all even hear yourselves? You’re advocating for a police state, the same shit you cry about when you talk about “Google” and “Facebook,” but when actual human beings are victims of police state tactics, stopped and searched for non-existent reasons, you’re like,”Just lay down and take it.” Get off the internet. Because that ain’t real life.
I know all about being angry and pissy about a cop-stop. LA cops were notorious for being aggressive. About 20 years ago, I got ticketed $15 for jaywalking on a crowded street crossing - I was chatting with a friend and admittedly wasn't really paying attention to the lines. I'm a white chick and at the time (lol) kinda cute. By the time, we had crossed the street, a cop was in our faces. I thought he was joking when he told us we made a 'violation'. What a douche bag. I guess he was having a slow and boring evening. Yes, those types of cops are out there.
Don't feel bad, i got a $100 jaywalking ticket in LA. They hated New Yorkers, apparently.
Your mistake was walking in LA. Nobody walks. You drive. And, yes, everyone hates New Yorkers.
Cut me slack, it was in Westwood Village. But, New York doesn't have jaywalking, we cross when we can. That must piss of LA cops.
I should add that the first night i moved to LA, my new roommate (friend of a friend, whom i had never met before) picked me up at the airport. He was driving us back to the apartment in Hollywood, and we got pulled over by cops into a gas station, car searched, luggage searched, patted down, etc. He was a white guy, i'm a white girl, we were both kind of preppy looking, and were like, wtf? Turns out he was wearing a blue baseball cap, and the cops said they thought we might have been gang members. Right.
Any cop should be trained to deal with that aspect of things, letting it slide off their backs, and not needlessly escalate any potentially fraught situation. Seriously. If you can't keep your cool when you are going to be being yelled at a lot, you're in trouble, and better off finding another career.
And where do you find these people?
Esp since a lot of the people who become cops are exactly the kind of people who want to be obeyed and being a cop is an easy way to get that kind of authority.
Impunity virtually guarantees abuse, from some if not all, and attracts the worst. We all know that, but apparently not those who write the laws and policies protecting police.
The big demonstrations in 2020 have had one useful effect: there are now more prosecutions of abusive cops, and more reporting of them. Long term, that might help, though the first effect seems to have been doubling down by abusive cops.
I think this is right.
I'm not BLM and I'm not Antifa, but I marched in Portland when the Feds showed up because they had no business being in my city. No question there have been some stupid people playing stupid games with the police and you can always find some click bait jackass to tell the media he wants the entire White Supremacist American government overthrown to the delight of the Ben Shapiro's out there who never met an idiot on the street they did not portray as speaking for every protester out there and a threat to America.
Here's what we accomplished, however:
The current police union contract is being directly challenge by the city council for the first time ever in areas like police impunity when they violate the law.
We are setting up a meaningful civilian oversight board with the power to punish bad actors within the police. Also a first.
After 30 years of never charging a single police officer with violence regardless of circumstances, 3 officers have been charged for violent crimes for the first time ever in the last 12 months.
Hopefully there will be more changes, but these alone justifies some graffiti and silly people with a silly agenda.
OK, I get that, but if that were the definitive case we would hear about fuck all except the bad cases. How many GOOD cases vs bad cases are we walking about here? Seriously.
If they were actually good, they'd report the bad ones that make them look bad. But they don't.
In the general human populace? I mean, are you trying to insinuate that no police officers can de-escalate a situation? Seriously? Think about yourself. Never had a time when you knew that responding to shouting would not aid matters? What a joke.
I see a lot of"Karens" popin' of with nothing but an embarrassing video to apologize for.
Depends where you get your videos.
@Ron Warrick
True DAT ! ;-D I have four cops in my family (hey, we're Irish, what else are the kids gonna do ?) but you should HEAR THEM (after being carefully coached at the beginning of every shift on the "Talking points of the day") trying to defend videos like - A cop shooting an unarmed black man in the back, *while the victim was RUNNING AWAY FROM THE COP ! The justification ? "The cop feared for his life". The video of cops who shoot and kill a black man whom they do not know, who has no visible weapon, and who is SLEEPING in his own car. "The cops feared for their lives ......"
Cops who shoot and kill an 8 year old boy with an air gun ...... the cops who shoot and kill a 12 year-old boy in an alley because he has a gun in his hand ...... ooops, gun turns out to be the boy's cell phone. This is the result of a SCREWY training program. The wealthy have *always paid cops to "keep the riff-raff out of the wealthy neighborhoods." The way cops define "riff-raff" has changed very little since the beginning of the U.S.
"Qualified Immunity" has morphed into an equivalent of the 007 License To Kill.
And before we start playing violins for "good cops", my family members ARE
good cops. But they are *also members of a twisted System trying their best
to *remain "good cops", in *spite of the System they work for. Three quarters of them (total of four, three male, one female working in different "cop shops" around the West) would be the first to *agree that the System is in dire need of some HUGE changes. CHANGE ? Yes. DEFUND ? Don't talk like a silly child.
One of my badge-wearing relatives is with LAPD, and is now in his mid-fifties.
You should hear HIM trying to justify the video of the beating of Rodney King !
So, indeed, as Mr. Warrick remarks above, it is all about the way your biases (even those loaded into your head this morning at cop roll call) lead you to view the video.
Error "cops who shoot an 8 year old boy who is *carrying an air gun" is correct. The cops did not shoot the boy *with an air gun ..... we might only wish.
You know, I almost mentioned that blogpost, but because McWhorter has been so good on attacking idiotic CRT a lot of right wingers who think the police can do no wrong (with the exception of Jan. 6 of course) have embraced him. He is black too, which in a twisted example of "but my best friend is black!" think supporting him gives them street cred even when they go on to refer to other black people as thugs. (see post above).
They have so few heroes that are the right color. It seemed cruel to steal him away from them with that blog post.
McWhorter cited a study that took into account the demeanor of the people the cops were talking to. Besides, what is your evidence that blacks are less respectful toward cops in an encounter? I know that’s the stereotype, but is it substantiated empirically?
Blacks are not necessarily less respectful but they can be culpable, unlike today's narrative that they can seemingly do no wrong or are not responsible for their bad deeds. George Floyd didn't deserve to die, but his behavior was hardly stellar; He was found to have been involved in 6 burglaries, 3 car thefts, 2 violent home invasions, 3 armed robberies, the beating of 4 victims senseless, passing counterfeit money, and was arrested 23 times since 1998. Yet, Floyd is revered as a saint - statues are raised to honor him, his family has been awarded millions.
One poor example is the best you can do? I could do better than that myself.
I suggest a (careful) walk around your local city.
Done that. Harlem. When crime rates were a lot higher than they are now. It wasn’t like it’s shown in the news, I can tell you that.
Wow, this is not what this article is saying at all. This piece is actually exploring how different aspects of our society inform one another without the current common caveman theme of “Police Bad,” or its counterpoint caveman story, “Police Good.” These things are incredibly complicated.
There are problems in our society with over-policing and bad policing that should be addressed, but people have instead attacked working class police as if they’re practicing ancient witchcraft without looking at the issues that lead to bad policing, and how dumb sloganeering has replaced any constructive change.
This is the kind of reporting we need on these issues.
I completely disagree with you. We have communities which are in crisis because the rule of law has been undermined by the ongoing attacks on policing. Police have a very specific role in communities and it's a vital role. Stop undermining them and let them protect our children.
This is the issue: I absolutely agree that police are vital to communities. I am not undermining police, and neither is this piece. I think "abolish the police" and "ACAB" and "defund the police" were ridiculous, daft slogans.
As this piece recognizes — and many liberals, leftists, conservatives, and libertarians recognize — there are issues in communities that have been done a disservice by over-policing and crooked policing.
Justin Amash, the republican-voting libertarian in congress tweeted during last summer's protests and riots:
"End qualified immunity. End civil asset forfeiture. End the drug war. End overcriminalization. End no-knock warrants. End militarization of police. End mandatory minimums."
I don't agree with Amash on much, but I agree with him on all of this. Dim activists attacked this line of thinking, saying "defund" is the only solution so conversations went absolutely nowhere.
Reactionaries bitterly attacking reactionaries is no way to run a society.
If you end qualified immunity, and let people sue police officers personally, there will be a flood of biblical proportions of nuisance lawsuits and we will no longer have police. During last summer, while brick-throwing arsonist cop attacking rioters were destroying 2 billion in property and killing 30 people, a lot of politicians reflexively said a lot of irresponsible things. Whether it's rioters on January 6th or rioters in Lafayette Park trying to breach the barriers to the White House and forcing the President's family to be moved to a bunker, that is not what should inform out decisions about what is best for the community. What remains true is that we need a highly functioning police force. YES, if an officer is incompetent or breaks the law, they need to be removed from that job. And they should not be able to work in policing again. But that is a tiny fraction of cases. What we are seeing is police are being criticized for their actions when dealing with people who are actively attacking them, sometimes with weapons, sometimes not. But if you attack the police, I have sympathy for you, but you are going to be shot and possibly killed. If you are unarmed and not attacking them, they you won't except for an extremely tiny number of instances.
«If you end qualified immunity, and let people sue police officers personally, there will be a flood of biblical proportions of nuisance lawsuits and we will no longer have police.»
Those are two separate thing. In any case as to "qualified immunity" there are two typical cases:
* In civilized countries the police have fairly *limited* qualified immunity and abuses of that limited qualified immunity are investigated and punished severely as a counterpart to the privilege of that immunity.
* In third world countries with fascist governments with colonial attitude to the populace the police have pretty wide qualified immunity, and abuses are not investigated or or punished very lightly, as long as the police treat with the "shoot to kill" iron fist only the peasants (of any color or type), not the masters; the logic is keep the colonial population cowed and scared.
I guess many people would like the philipino, turkish, congolese or uzbek approach to policing in the USA, and indeed it has mostly like that in many places for a long time.
Have you bothered asking why someone feels the need to throw Molotov’s instead of talking?
Maybe the problem is your “community,” boyo.
And maybe you can explain how using that Molotov to burn down the corner bodega, and the Auto Zone, is going to bring justice.
And if you could do so without calling me any names, or attaching any labels, that would be a plus.
How many of you would be wiling to do the job police officers do?
Before you judge, go for a ride-along. I did, and it completely changed my perspective. If you're not willing to experience it, please don't judge the cops from a standpoint of ignorance.
Even the best cops end up jaded because they predominantly deal with victims of crime and perpetrators of crime. When that is your daily grind, it's going to warp your view of people. Not a gig I would choose, but it is one that society needs filled.
The problem is we don't have a system to hold the bad ones accountable, and ideally weed them the hell out of the job (instead of cycling them between agencies).
No but we have a system for NOT holding them to account and not weeding them out. It’s called police unions, in conjunction with a court-created law called qualified immunity.
And the cops find themselves running after the same dopes and former convicts on the street days after they just arrested them the last time. That's the burnout; it's a revolving door of justice or perhaps, more accurately injustice.
Speedy trials are a big missing piece of the puzzle for sure. And shorter, surer sentences would help, too.
Ever heard of this thing call “internal affairs”?
Ah yes, the rat squad. Well, we see how effective having the foxes guard the henhouse is, don't we?
So you admit you lied and that there IS a system in place. You just think they are all liars.
Internal affairs is not a system, it is a charade. At the very best, it removes a problem from one department, but does not stop that problem from attaching itself to another agency. And that is on the rare occasions when the cops in IA don't serve the interests of the police union first.
Now why don't you regale us all with how narrow a protection qualified immunity is.
It was pretty obvious that when he said "we don't have a system", he was implicitly saying "we don't have a system that actually works", which is effectively the same thing as not having a system.
In fact, you could argue that it's even worse than not having a system, since what you actually have is a facade that fools people into thinking there is something effective in place, so they don't push for change the same way they would if there was nothing there at all.
Ever heard of a thing called a fig leaf?
If you can’t do the job right, get out.
So you'll get off this board, then. Excellent.
You should get help.
Take it up the ass from the state for a paycheck?
Have to say I'm good, brother.
Your Internet courage behind a pseudonym has ovaries throbbing.
I've always been curious about people who use a pseudonym, accusing other people of being cowards for hiding behind a pseudonym.
How exactly does that work?
Unfortunately it always elicits a comment from the dumbest person in the thread, who can’t wrap his head around the difference between someone with a pseudonym who LARPs fake physical bravado, and someone with a pseudonym who doesnt.
Physical bravado? You do realize he was being hyperbolic and not physically threatening?
One of the more disappointing changes I have seen in America is an entire new group of people unable to distinguish between upsetting language and actual physical violence.
The only physical motion I'm making toward you is with my hand.
Spoiler: it's the jerking off motion.
Your Mom named you that?
"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is not democracy.
-Lincoln
Jesus Christ, Dude! Your comments are some of the most naive I've read in this forum! You sound exactly like people, especially cops, DA's, etc, that say with regard to our justice system things like, "If you haven't done anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about." That is complete bullshit! Once law enforcement sets it's eyes on you, you got A LOT to worry about, regardless. You are probably another person that has never had any interaction with law enforcement in your life, because those are the ONLY people that believe what you believe.
Dave - Do be clear. We had a President that bragged about breaking tax laws thus stealing millions from tax payers. And these same people that say "If you haven't done anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about" defend him stealing millions from tax payers out of one side of their mouth while defending cops for beating someone selling cigarettes on the street...
That is the logic you are dealing with here
> We had a President that bragged about breaking tax laws
You are so full of shit.
CNN: I guess you don't listen to Trump himself. I dont know about you but i had to pay rent with after tax money. I had to pay for my kids tuition with after tax money... But Trump thinks he did not have to?
“They go after good, hard-working people for not paying taxes on a company car,” he said at a rally in Sarasota, Fla. “You didn't pay tax on the car or a company apartment. You used an apartment because you need an apartment because you have to travel too far where your house is. You didn't pay tax. Or education for your grandchildren. I don't even know. Do you have to? Does anybody know the answer to that stuff?”
Following tax laws to minimize your tax is not breaking tax laws. And it's not stealing anything from tax payers.
You may want to hold off on criticizing others on their use of logic.
Adam - "Cheating" on your taxes is breaking the law. Giving a bank documents that value property at one value and government that value it at a different value is fraud.
Nothing wrong with minimizing your taxes.
Trump's team is not being indicted for minimizing his taxes. They are bing investigated for fraud.
Sure, if he actually cheated on his taxes, that's obviously breaking the law. But you said "We had a President that bragged about breaking tax laws thus stealing millions from tax payers." This never happened. Trump never said he broke tax laws. He may well have done so, but he only "bragged" about using legal methods to minimize his tax.
Adam - He has been convicted of breaking tax laws with his Charity. He is under investigation for breaking tax laws and his accountant has been indicted.
He is no more or less guilty of breaking the law than the guy the police kicked the door in on and ended up shooting his girlfriend dead...
My point is that the crimes Trump is being investigated for involve far more theft than the crimes the accused "petty" drug dealer was being accused of. But Trump or his attorney Cohen, his 2 Campaign Chairmans and his CPA did not get their doors kicked in with no knock warrents.
My point in drawing the comparison aligns with Matt's. This is coming down to stupid leadership of the police. My additional observation is that the stupidity leans to the poor and away from the rich and my example validates that.
There are lots and lots more examples of rich having a far different justice system than the poor and middle class.
Nah not really. Once your pulled over, that’s it; can’t argue and then resist arrest. If you get an asshole cop fight it later. Why is that so difficult to understand?
For him - "fight it later". Good idea. The average person of color, with less than $400 in their bank account, rent due and a shitty job who is beaten for no good reason by a cop is going to "fight it later" and it will all be good,,,
Seriously... your empathy is stunning
People aren’t quite as stupid and helpless as you think they are. There is zero point in resisting arrest and having a shit attitude with the cop.
If its a bullshit stop keep your cool and fight it later.
Actually I did that once, purely for humor, and also to annoy the cop by making him show up in court. I had been given a speeding ticket basically for speeding up to let a police car get by a line of trucks, but it was me the cop wanted. He lied thoroughly about the whole incident. I had written up a description of it which the magistrate didn't even look at before finding me guilty; all as expected, except the cop lied so extravagantly that he got a case of nerves and was shaking before he got done. I hung around for the next few cases. One was someone who had six witnesses on his side -- ignored. The next one was a blonde bombshell the cop had obviously pulled over just to get a closer ogle and chat her up a bit. Guilty, but later the presiding magistrate instructed the cop and how to do the bombshell thing without having to go to court. It was all pretty funny. I appealed, of course, just to run up their costs, and add to the waste paper supply. But the real payoff occurred a month or two later, when the magistrate himself was arrested for selling dismissals. By the way, everyone was just as White as all get-out. Couldn't've been Whiter. I can imagine what would have happened if I had gone in there improperly pigmented.
Not sure what pigmentation has to do with it; plenty of blacks and whites have been convicted for being corrupt. The wheels of justice move slowly but they do move.
I'm not advocating resisting arrest. I don't know where you got that, but your statement is just as naive. It assumes you and the cop are equally considered in the eyes of the court. That is NOT how it works. You must be another one that's had few if any interactions with our justice system.
Irrelevant and incorrect. You will never win a fight against a guy with a gun.
If an asshole pulls you over- take the ticket and fight it later.
What are you reading?!?! Where in the world are you getting the idea that I'm advocating resisting arrest, or "fighting a guy with a gun"?!?! OF COURSE if you're pulled over, just take the ticket! You'd have to be a moron to do otherwise! What's going on in your head, man?
Do not resist arrest. Comply with officer commands. Fight it later if necessary.
Don’t resist arrest, you can’t win. That was my only point. Fight it later.
He will learn. Or he won't. Though he is probably going to be lucky enough to get to live to so do. You think any of the people under discussion thought they were going to die that day when they left the house? Nope. There is a REASON why black people in America don't call the police.
There’s a reason lawyers say never talk to a cop who wants to talk to you. Nothing good is likely to come of reasoning with them.
Here's what I was told by a lawyer - when a cop is talking to you, he's gathering evidence against you.
The founder's knew what they were doing when the wrote the 5th.
It should surprise no one that in the rare event the police, prosecutors or judges are arrested they ALWAYS ask for a lawyer first and say nothing.
These are the people who actually understand how the system works and can expect some sympathy from those they talk to. If they need a lawyer, you can be damn sure you do also.
I hate it when I read articles where the journo makes some idiotic statement like "he was hiding behind the fifth,' or "he was coaching him to "play it cool" when he told him to get a lawyer and not talk."
With so many authoritarians in the media, it's amazing we have any Constitution left at all.
"preposterous reason that she’d failed to signal before changing lanes"...
...this to me is a valid (not preposterous) reason to pull someone over. A lady who failed to signal almost killed me and my 2 children, a couple of decades back.
The escalation is the issue. Almost do what the cops tell you on the spot, and deal with the issue in court, later, if necessary. Least that's what I always told my kids.
Oh, give me a break. There were no other cars around. He just liked to give people tickets. And the following escalation was horrendous.
So is your argument that if this guy had just followed the officers directions, he would be alive today?
https://invidious-us.kavin.rocks/watch?v=OflGwyWcft8
If someone that didn't signal their intentions almost killed you and your kids, then YOU were not paying attention, and/or you assumed something you shouldn't have.
If that was true then we wouldn't require cars to have indicators. Do you think they're just decorative?
I have seen cars, on countless occasions, unknowingly speeding down the highway with an indicator flashing. If you trust an automobile indicator, whether on or off, you're an idiot.
1. You didn't answer the question.
2. Yes, cars and motorcycles often incorrectly use their indicators. If you think that this can't contribute to an accident even if you're paying attention, then quite frankly you haven't driven enough.
Ask a cop. See what they tell you.
Look at why she hurredly changed lanes.
He forced her over, looking for a pretext. Driving While Black, I'd say.
Driving while stupid fits better
Which of these did Philandro Castille or Amadou Diallo do?
Diallo fled and reached into his jacket. It turned out that he was pulling out his wallet but that is still a foolish move.
The Castille situation is less clear, as far as I can tell as it is based only on what the shooting officer could or could not see in a dark automobile. (he believed that Castille was pulling out his gun, despite being ordered not to). A jury (including people of color) decided they believed the officer and acquitted him (the officers in the Diallo case were also acquitted by a multiracial jury).
In both cases, people who saw and heard a great deal more information than you came to the conclusion that both men behaved in a way that made the police reaction "reasonable."
There have unquestionably been cases where police have been completely wrong (and even malevolent) but the reality is that we, as citizens, require LE to confront life threatening situations on a daily basis and errors will occur. Statistically, these are rare but unfortunately we have an unethical media that misrepresent these tragedies and a large segment of the population that is so innumerate that they cannot grasp the statistics.
Skeptic.com conducted a survey that showed that vast numbers of Americans believe that more than 1000 unarmed black men are killed by police every year and a mindboggling number believe it is 10 thousand or more! Every stripe of political belief has the ratio of blacks (to others) killed wrong but liberals, as a group, put the percentage at about 60% (versus the actual of around 25%). Generally speaking, the more conservative you are the more likely you are to have the numbers right.
Does this make unnecessary deaths caused by police "acceptable"? Of course not. It does, however, make it clear that the problem is not pervasive (which, in turn, makes the presumption of a wildly violent and/or racist police force even more absurd).
"Diallo fled and reached into his jacket" Diallo was standing in the entry to his own apartment building when the gang of police accosted him. He pulled out his wallet when they demanded ID.
In other words, you're being deliberately deceptive.
No, you are being deliberately obtuse. Testimony that a jury believed was that he fled and reached into his jacket. You have a problem with that, take it up with them.
Prosecutors control all the evidence and judges defer to them on all court decisions.
When you have prosecutors acting as an additional defense attorney on behalf of the police officer it's not hard to arrive at a reasonable doubt. It's why there was so much outrage over the Taylor grand jury and why the DA tried to suppress the information from the public. DA's are in no position to hold the police they work with every day accountable.
Yawn - the "they are all dirty" defense. Getting back to the real point, are you suggesting the juries were in on the "dirty dealings" of the two cases I referenced????
Similarly, violent crime is a smaller cause of death than people think. Way more people die from medical malpractice. Not a reason to not to address violent crime.
Well, in addition to being a straw man, your post demonstrates that you do not see any distinction between intentional and unintentional.
Bingo - and thanks for the names. The Castillo killing was lame-brained panic, but Diallo's looked exactly like a mob rubout, and there've been others, similar.
«If you are unarmed and don’t fight with police, regardless of your race, you may get bad treatment but you will NOT be shot. If you attack police officers, shoot them, try to steal their weapon, flee the scene, you will probably get shot»
That seem to be an extraordinary claim that the police have a right to self defence that includes shooting to kill people who flee and thus pose no threat to them, shoot to kill unarmed people, shoot to kill armed people who don't draw or use their weapons, and that of course usually sooner or lated includes shoot to kill pretty much in any case in which they can claim they felt threatened by the possibility of any such action.
I guess that "proportionate response" only applies to the peasants, not to the enforcers or their masters.
"police have a right to self defence that includes shooting to kill people who flee and thus pose no threat to them, shoot to kill unarmed people, shoot to kill armed people who don't draw or use their weapons" First off, I did not say police have the right to shoot people who flee. I said, if you do the listed things, you are likely to be shot. Draw their weapons? Is this is old west? If you attack the police, armed or not, you are asking to be shot. But the instances of police shooting people who were unarmed are few and far between compared to 61 million interactions with the public. "As of the June 22 update, the Washington Post’s database of fatal police shootings showed 14 unarmed Black victims and 25 unarmed white victims in 2019."
«First off, I did not say police have the right to shoot people who flee. I said, if you do the listed things, you are likely to be shot.»
But you did write that “If you [...] flee the scene, you will probably get shot, regardless of race. And that’s 100% on you”: if it is “100% on you” obviously the police have done nothing wrong in shooting to kill well beyond legitimate defense.
In civilized countries the extent of police immunity is to presumptively believe them when they say "he started shooting", not a licence to start shooting first.
«If you attack the police, armed or not, you are asking to be shot.»
Not in civilized countries; resisting arrest is not a capital offense, and even if were police agents are not empowered to prosecute, convict and execute capital punishments on the spot, straight away, as in "shoot to kill".
Saying "Shoot to kill" shows you do not understand how this works. Police are not trained to shoot people in the hand or the foot or the leg. They are aiming at the body.
If you're shooting at someone's torso, what else could you be trying to do? Shoot to snuggle?
Ladies and gentlemen, we've reached peak Steve.
We keep some pretty important organs in our torsos, you dumb fucking bag of retarded cunts.
I think you're smart enough to know the difference between what I said and what you're saying I said. I said if you do the things listed that you are likely to get shot and that is on you. That doesn't not say that police have the right to shoot unarmed suspects who are fleeing. I find your comment to be extremely disingenuous.
If you attack police, try to take their weapon, or otherwise fight with them, you should know the risks you are taking. The type of felon who would attack police are a very dangerous group of individuals. I have sympathy for them, but they are putting themselves at risk of death. It is they who is putting themselves in that situation. That is not to say that I condone police shooting unarmed people. I have specifically said that police shooting an unarmed person is a crime.
I have also made a distinction between armed citizens shot by police and unarmed. The reason is that if you are armed and in conflict with the police, you are automatically in a situation of high risk, and you have put yourself in that situation. Putting yourself in that situation or attacking police is 100% on that person who has undertaken that.
Civilized countries, in your view, would allow armed criminals to attack police without the police having the right to shoot back. I don't know what countries those might be, but I suspect you are wrong.
Regarding unarmed people, yes, there are vanishingly rare cases where police shoot unarmed people, and those are crimes.
You mean I didn't win a smart prize AFTER I played a stupid game?
Yeah, it's a tough concept to grasp.
But won’t you think of the children?
There seems to be this assumption in posts like this that if the police do anything other than shoot you they are justified.
You're welcome to make that your standard of acceptable conduct, but I consider the routine domestic violence, rape, theft, assault, planting evidence and general police corruption problematic even if no one is shot in the process.
The fact they didn't shoot them doesn't make everything else OK.
A lot of times police do suck. A lot of times our laws suck, too.
Yeah Bill, and a lot more times Americans themselves suck. What if it were your job to impose order on millions of selfish, maladjusted assholes whose “parent” just couldn’t be bothered to teach their demon spawn to respect authority? We’ve got a serious problem in this country alright, but it’s not with the police.
What if your view of society was a group of "selfish, maladjusted assholes whose “parent” just couldn’t be bothered to teach their demon spawn to respect authority"
I would argue that view should disqualify you from law enforcement. Instead, it appears to be a requirement.
Yeah, it's fucks like you.
That's not how I read it at all. I read it as "bad treatment" appears to be positively correlated with "contact" and "contact" is higher in lower income areas that are positively correlated with racial minorities. Which certainly seems to be more nuanced than "police suck".
Same. Matt doesn’t day it, but ditching the futile and unjust War on Drugs would go a long way. We learned that well enough to end Prohibition, but need to learn it again.
And this is a comment that completely misses the point
You're up top, so you're the example. There's an ongoing discussion - probably here - of whether modern "conservatives" are authoritarian. Speaking from experience, they certainly aren't the anti-authoritarians that Goldwater exemplified. Anybody remember him?
The perfect example of "authoritarian" is the kneejerk support of police, the essence of government authority, and repeating all their propaganda. Granted, nobody wants to live in a lawless society; the real issue is whether contemporary police are really enforcing the law, or just acting like well-armed gangsters. Their case-solved rate, notably on the crimes of theft we all object to, is very poor. Instead, they're out there gratuitously throwing their weight around and, on bad days, killing people. About half the people they kill are white, as far as anyone can tell, so this isn't just a race problem. If you meet the wrong cop, your white privilege won't save you - but whites often fail to make the huge stink that blacks know they have to do.
So, cop-supporting conservatives: you're the perfect example of what we mean by "authoritarian."
First off, I've been in the GREEN PARTY since the 90's after Biden's Crime Bill, the Credit Card Bill, and Welfare Reform were passed by the Democrats -- Something the GOP could never have pulled off. I just want my kids, and everyone else's, to live in safe communities.
Second, it is not authoritarian to want safe communities. So your premise is just wrong.
Third, saying police are not "enforcing the law" but are "well-armed gangstars" is "repeating all their propaganda". I have repeated no one's propaganda.
"gratuitously throwing their weight around and, on bad days, killing people. About half the people they kill are white" This is not born out by the data. In 2019 when 61 million people had interactions with the police, under 40 unarmed people were shot by police.
Overall, I think your comment is out of perspective and you should rethink. The fact that you classified me as an authoritarian conservative, when you know nothing about me, demonstrates that you are out of perspective.
It isn’t “authoritarian” to want safe communities. But advocating for authoritarian tactics makes you, literally, an authoritarian. “The children! What about the children?!?” Gimme a fucking break, dude… You sound like the people in the 50’s who said Elvis was the devil’s music or the people in the 60’s who said television would melt people’s brains.
I have not advocated for authoritarian tactics. You guys make things up.
Your advocacy has been quite clear.
Resist and risk death.
My point is that if people want to fight with police, they are risking death. But my point is not that police have the right to kill whoever they like. Unarmed people who die at the hands of police are both a tragedy and a crime. But if you are armed and you fight with police, or even if you are unarmed and you fight with police, you are putting yourself in a situation where you will probably get shot. YOU ARE PUTTING YOURSELF IN THAT SITUATION. Not the cop.
You get a lot of credit from me for being a Green. Apparently I mischaracterized you - as I wrote, you were the defender who was at the top.
On the other hand, I think you might want to re-examine your position on the police in particular.
I actually agree with Taibbi that the root of the problem is very poor management - police chiefs that refuse to supervise their employees, compounded by the excessive power of the unions - and very poor laws. Impunity is an open invitation to abuse. One thing it does is attract the worst possible candidates for the job. Then the training turns them into bullies and sociopaths.
Incidentally, my personal experiences with the local police are good, partly because I'm an old white guy and mainly because I live in a town (not Portland or Eugene) where the police are properly managed. Not perfect, but offenders are held to account. A town that usually has Greens on the city council, incidentally.
Also: you really should provide links for the numbers you're quoting; they aren't altogether plausible. The Guardian's numbers are higher, for one thing. And they don't match the news coverage - which could be distorted, I admit. For one thing, I don't think cops have much excuse for killing people armed just with a knife; if they can't disarm someone like that, they shouldn't be in the job. Or the guy with a pipe; or, of course, the ubiquitous cell-phone "guns." And despite supporting labor, I think police are one group who should NOT have a union; they have too much power without that.
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/police-black-killings-homicide-rates-race-injustice
Do you believe black people being shot is the only sign of corruption and if you make that looks small than no other corruption exists?
Also, on the accuracy of the killed-by-police body count:
Health department: More than twice as many police-related deaths than previously reported
https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2020/06/24/health-department-more-than-twice-as-many-police-related-deaths-than-previously-reported-1294342
I like Chris hedges.
"Americans want too much security at the expense of individual rights."
So, should Trump Supporters be allowed to share their beliefs on election fraud? Should people who are against masks and school closure and don't want the vaccinations be able to share their views online?
I suspect Hedges' answer to your questions might be, "Yes."
Very well-put, dude. It’s the same thing as the whole,”America! No matter what!” attitude. “Love it or leave it”? Fuck you. What actually shocks me about right-wingers’ entire attitude is that they’ll scream holy hell about something getting banned on Facebook or wherever, but when somebody gets stopped-and-frisked for no reason and then points out that their civil rights were violated, right-wingers’ first (and only) response is,”Well if you’re not doing anything wrong, there’s nothing to worry about!” They scream about “Police state! Police state!” on the internet, but when actual police state tactics are utilized, in the form of searching people (and much worse) for zero reason, they’re like,”Whatever. He should’ve just sat still. She shouldn’t have asked why she was pulled over.”
I’ll take the cops over this guy any day
How many people have his words killed?
At best you’ve got a clutched pearl or two.
The cops are being abused and the people who abuse them fail to understand what it takes to run a city. The anti-cop critique is grossly exaggerated
It takes butchering people to run a city?
Sorry, not good enough.
Why do they have to? What benefit derives from that?
That's ridiculous and stupid. You don't know what you're talking about.
You are entitled to your opinion. But you should be aware that how you express yourself impacts whether or not people pay attention to you.
That is maybe the worst analysis of an article I have ever read. It is as if you didn't read it at all. the point he is making is that simple minded thinking is the problem. Your simple minded analysis is proof of his point.
You are entitled to your opinion. I think Taibbi added to the negative assertions about police and policing which have pervaded the discussion for a decade. And that does severe harm to policing, which does extreme harm to communities and puts more and more people at risk.
You know Matt wrote an entire in depth book about Eric Garner and the police system in America don't you? He did not do some simple drive by of the American criminal system. He performed a deep dive analysis and found serious systemic problems both with policing and those institutions that lead to bad policing (the primary topic of this article).
Matt did not do any harm to the police that they did not do to themselves. If anything, he gave them too much credit and went too easy on them.
You are the most pro-statist authoritarian member of the greens I have ever read. You don't belong in the same category by a long shot, but I guess Hitler was a vegetarian.
You just never know.
I accidentally tapped the heart. I meant to comment as Ron Warwick did. Sometimes police kill unarmed people who are doing nothing wrong. Sometimes police fear for their lives, or say they did, when the police were not actually in any danger at all. Oops moments happen.
“Data from The Washington Post shows that 23 “unarmed” black suspects were fatally shot by the police in 2018, while even fewer, 12, were shot in 2019.”
"Unarmed' doesn't necessarily mean you aren't violent or didn't exhibit violent behavior. In our family, my Uncle Hans, a 6'5" Latvian, had hands so big that he literally killed soldiers with them in WW2.
Some of the unarmed individuals in Steve Pesce's reference were trying to run over cops with their cars, actually.
The point was that "oops" moments with respect to police killings don't happen often.
There is absolutely NOT an "epidemic" of police killings of unarmed black people. The idea is laughable on its face.
Heather MacDonald's, an expert in police stats, research outlines this fact clearly.
"If you are unarmed and don’t fight with police, regardless of your race, you may get bad treatment but you will NOT be shot."
How many examples proving you to be completely ignorant would you need to change your mind? Tamir Rice comes to mind immediately.
Then too, Taibbi didn't say that "Police Suck". He didn't come close to saying that.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cbpp18st.pdf
How many examples? Very few in comparison to the number of interactions between police officers and the public. Don't be hysterical. Please be reasonable.
If you’re unarmed and don’t resist arrest, you won’t be shot? Are you fucking serious? There’s been dozens and dozens of cases over the last decade of unarmed people being shot by the police before they even had a chance to resist arrest. Not to mention, if you weren’t doing anything wrong and the cops rolled up on you, questioned you and then and tried to take you into custody anyway (as in the case of Eric Garner), you would absolutely “resist arrest.” I know I would. I would not go willingly into a police cruiser if I hadn’t done anything wrong.
Talking about Eric Garner specifically, he wasn’t even doing anything that warranted being stopped and questioned in the first place. When I lived in Florida, that shit used to happen to me all the time. And it irritated the fuck out of me, every single time. Walking down the street and a cop car pulls up and asks me what I’m doing, where I’m going, where do I live… Fuck you. None of your business. And when I told them it was none of their business, I’d get shoved up against their car and searched. If they’d tried to take me into custody, I absolutely would’ve resisted, because I wasn’t doing anything wrong in the first place. You’d do the same thing. If not, I really admire your “passive resistance” and your “live to fight another day” mentality. Not all of us can afford to hire a lawyer or have the time and money to fight it in court later. Which is exactly what the police are counting on.
Also, Eric Garner wasn’t shot, he was strangled. So there’s that…
Name the cases then genius. Cases where there was NO RESISTANCE and the person ended up dead.
I’ll stand by for your list.
Haha! There it is! The “provide me with links” response. How predictable. If you’re genuinely interested, you can go find them yourself. Also, cops can call anything besides “total acquiescence” resisting arrest. If you ask them why they pulled you over in the first place, they’ll call that “resisting arrest.” After one of my (legitimate) arrests, when I actually was breaking the law, they tried to tack on a “resisting arrest” charge, which was later dropped. I absolutely did not resist. But after you’re booked and during your bond hearing, that extra charge increases your bail. Which, again, is by design.
Still waiting. I’ll be waiting awhile because you don’t have a list do you?
And you’ll be waiting, guy. I’m not trying to “win the internet” so I don’t have lists of links at the ready. These are stories I’ve seen over the years. If you’re truly interested, all you have to do is Google “unarmed man shot by police.” There’ll be dozens of stories that you can peruse. Like I said, Google “Philando Castile,” who was a registered gun owner and told the cops he had a gun in his glove compartment when they pulled him over. They shot him anyway. If googling that is too difficult for you, then you’re clearly just a simple little troll who isn’t here to actually talk about anything.
Exactly. You have nothing to back up your false bullshit claim because it’s false and bullshit.
As I told you- don’t resist arrest and cop an attitude. If you’re subject to a bullshit stop, take the ticket and fight it in Court. That’s the only way.
One of many. A favorite because it exposes what a bunch of sociopaths the police really are:
"Disturbing video shows unarmed man begging before fatal police shooting"
https://invidious-us.kavin.rocks/watch?v=OflGwyWcft8
Would you like more? I've got a whole lot of them!
Just to help you out, Google “Philando Castile.” You can do the rest of the work. If you’re interested. But you’re really not, so…
"Also, Eric Garner wasn’t shot, he was strangled. So there’s that…"
And there's the rub of the game they continually play to excuse bad policing.
They take those the police report as shot (which the police routinely undercount). Then they take those who were actually killed. Then they take a subset within a subset (black people the police admit to killing with a gun who did not have a weapon at the time) and come up with a predictably ridiculous low number by excluding all the Eric Garner's, the George Floyds, and even the Castille's in Minnesota who was not actually reaching for a gun, but had one is the car so he is not counted in the black unarmed category.
It's such a silly and transparent ploy, and yet they keep repeating it over, and over and over.
"Hey look, the number of unarmed one eyed black rabbi's confined to a wheelchair on a Tuesday that the police shot and killed is like one. Clearly we have no problem with police violence in America!"
You are entitled to your opinion. Your use of profanity makes you sound uneducated. Just letting you know. Are there instances of abuses? Yes. Are they vanishingly rare compared to the number of interactions between police and citizens? Yes. Are they out of proportion racially? No.
Use of profanity is a clear sign of higher intelligence. It is known.
Are they out of proportion racially? Are you really asking that question? There’s tons and tons of data that says yes, they are. This isn’t my opinion, these are facts. And the reason instances of “abuses” are “vanishingly rare” is because a light is being shined on them and people have had enough. What rock have you been living under? As far as my use of words like “fuck” and “shit” in my posts are concerned, sorry to upset your delicate sensibilities.
I’d prefer cops pulling out cusses than guns, to be honest.
What I love about these people who complain about the US becoming a “police state” because of Google and YouTube and shit is that when they’re actually confronted with real cases of police state-type goings on, like stop-and-frisk etc, they’re like,”Well, there’s nothing wrong with that. If you’re not doing anything wrong, you’ve got nothing to be worried about!” Cops rolling up on you, fucking with you and searching you without probable cause is the very definition of Police State. But they’re fine with that, because its never happened to them. They’re morons.
I think this may be Steve’s first fucking time on the internet. Or maybe it’s his first time on a fucking non-Christian website. Which has gotta be a really shitty experience for somebody as fucking “educated” as his sorry-ass. Or something… I dunno.
“Non-Christian website” lmao
Goddamn I wish I would’ve realized that first.
The data does not support that shooting over unarmed citizens demonstrates a racial bias. "As of the June 22 update, the Washington Post’s database of fatal police shootings showed 14 unarmed Black victims and 25 unarmed white victims in 2019." However, in terms of being abusive at traffic stops, yes, there is data that suggests a racial bias.
Regarding the rudeness, profanity and personal attacks. That is your personal issue to solve for yourself.
Blacks are only about 10% of the population, so 14 to 25 is grossly disproportionate - your own numbers. And I suspect those numbers are being manipulated; for one thing, they exclude people who could and should have been disarmed by any competent cop.
Blacks are 13.4% of US Population.
"As of the June 22 update, the Washington Post’s database of fatal police shootings showed 14 unarmed Black victims and 25 unarmed white victims in 2019."
You asked,”Are there instances of abuses?” not “unarmed shootings.” You asked if the instances of “abuses” were disproportionately racial. They are. All of the data bears that out. Also, I didn’t say anything about “unarmed BLACK people being shot” in my initial post; I said “unarmed PEOPLE.” You’re boring, dude. And predictable. I’m done with your sorry-ass.
I answered my own questions that there is evidence there is a racial component to abuses. But not to shootings of unarmed citizens. Not sure why you are carrying on about it. Your level of discourse is also quite rude and uneducated.
39 too many.
But it’s protecting your children, amirite?
Hey Steve. Fuck you.
Gotta love people absolutely fine with tyranny getting upset over some naughty words.
Seems to be a feature of the type.
When you don’t really have anything to say, I guess you say,”Gosh, when you said ‘fuck’ in your post, I really thought that sounded uneducated.” Because only really dumb people cuss? I guess?
You shouldn’t trust anyone that doesn’t cuss. Slang is language rolling up it’s sleeve and getting to work.
But that is it: they think only dumb people cuss - or perhaps such a view will play well with their intended audience.
Probably the latter. Gods know these guys are hypocritical liars.
He’s a stupid moron, nothing can be done about him its too late.
I find it ironic that people who say the police are bad, speak to people they don't know in this fashion. I think the police are far better people than you, my friend.
I've never killed anyone. Does that get me any points?
The tale of Michael Brown and Ferguson, MO is mentioned in passing. The true story has nothing to do with Ferguson’s revenue needs and a lot to do with Michael Brown’s (mis)conduct.
MB was walking down the center of a street when first approached by Darren Wilson (the police officer). He attacked DW and tried to grab his gun. He then charged DW and ended up dead as a consequence. It turns out the MB robbed a store shortly before his confrontation with DW.
The encounter between MB and DW has been subject to numerous investigations. All of them have concluded that MB was entirely guilty and DW was entirely innocent.
The first investigation was by the Grand Jury in MO. Of course, it concluded that DW had committed no crime The second investigation was by the Obama administration. Of course, this was actual Eric Holder’s Justice Department. You can find the report online at “Justice Department Announces Findings of Two Civil Rights Investigations in Ferguson, Missouri” (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-findings-two-civil-rights-investigations-ferguson-missouri)
From “Shooting of Michael Brown” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#DOJ_investigation_into_the_Ferguson_Police_Department)
““On March 4, 2015, the federal investigation cleared Wilson of civil rights violations in the shooting. The investigation concluded there was no evidence upon which prosecutors could rely to disprove Wilson's asserted belief that he feared for his safety, that witnesses who contradicted Wilson were not credible, that forensic evidence and credible witnesses corroborated Wilson's account, and that the facts did not support the filing of criminal charges against Wilson.[13][50][51] Credible witnesses did not support accounts that Brown had his hands up in surrender. He was not shot in the back. Forensic evidence showed he was moving toward Wilson. Numerous witnesses were found to have given accounts of actions they were unable to see from their vantage points, or to be recounting others' accounts.[13][50][51]””
So what did Obama do about this? He baldly lied and got away with it. Here is a quote from Obama
“The finding that was made [by the Department of Justice] was that it was not unreasonable to determine that there was not sufficient evidence to charge Officer [Darren] Wilson. That was an objective, thorough, independent federal investigation”
That’s not true either. Obama could have told the truth, that Wilson was innocent and Brown was guilty, but choose not to.
Why did Obama lie about Ferguson? Because he could. Had Obama thought there was any chance that MSNBC/CNN/CBS/the NYT would call him a ‘liar’ he would have shown more caution. However, he knew that MSNBC/CNN/CBS/the NYT would cover for him and protect him and he was right.
He could have said “I had the Department of Justice investigate this case and we found that the Wilson was innocent’. But of course, he didn’t. Instead he relied on Al Sharpton as one of his principal advisers.
Of course, the lying never stops. Kamala Harris is still talking about the ‘murder’ of MB. See “Harris, Warren Wrong About Brown Shooting” (https://www.factcheck.org/2019/08/harris-warren-wrong-about-brown-shooting/)
The original DA who didn’t indict Darren Wilson, lost his bid for reelection. His opponent promised to ‘right the historic wrong’ by finally indicting Darren Wilson (the police officer). The new DA then managed to reach the same conclusion as every other party that has investigated the case (Michael Brown was a dangerous violent criminal and Darren Wilson acted properly). No indictment was forthcoming. Now the ‘activists’ are rather predictably attacking the new DA.
Thanks for your research and well-thought-out argument. Another is Breonna Taylor. She was literally holed up with a drug dealer who shot at the cops instead of answering the door. Of course police are going to shoot back. All of the stories of what a perfect citizen she was were also just more bullshit, like with George Floyd (who would have died anyway given he gulped down a fatal dose of fentanyl before being knelt on). Floyd was a career criminal and D list porn star, who robbed a pregnant woman's house and held a gun to her stomach. But now he's a saint. Even though he died whacked out of his mind on drugs after passing funny money. Liberal/Dems are crazy. They make icons out of the lowest criminal element. It's just freakish.
Ms. Taylor's boyfriend was cleared of shooting charges and had no criminal record. Ms. Taylor's FORMER boyfriend was the drug dealer of interest to the police. Get your own shit straight before you run down other people.
The BF said she shot at them: https://youtu.be/pdnrUSwbFn8. The "she was shot as she slept in her bed" is bullshit.
Hahaha - you're believing the lying cops, who were fired and did NOT have their bodycams running during the operation. Funny how they turned them on AFTER it.
There's a gun on the floor in the house and it was fired at the cops, this is undisputed. Sorry, that gets you dead. You can continue with the white guilt idea that no black people ever commit a crime, but that's flawed thinking. These two were drug dealer low-lives. You play the game, you pay the price.
Vida - This is the worst beat down i have ever seen on these boards. You are so laughably misinformed i feel sorry for you because you know as i know you do not care about truth or logic at this point. You just want to be right.... So you want change your mind any more than Trump supporters that think he won the election wont change their mind, just because the FACTS prove them wrong.
AM i correct?
No one even alleged she was shot in bed, dumbass.
Neither did I. That seems to be a figment of Vida's imagination. Dumbass.
Yeah right. Sorry, that's not what happened.
https://www.wdrb.com/in-depth/update-judge-rules-charges-cant-be-brought-again-against-breonna-taylors-boyfriend-kenneth-walker-in/article_ece9b39a-7d34-11eb-a444-f31c7c566ed1.html
It would be a lot simpler to admit you were wrong.
Yes it would be a lot simpler for you to admit she was not innocent and just slaughtered for no reason: https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/grand-jury-breonna-taylors-boyfriend-told-cops-she-shot-at-them-first/
FFS, you "roll your eyes" at BBC and then roll out a cop website. Just wow.
Vida - Got it. So if you are sleeping with someone who is breaking the law, using your logic, the cops should not be stopped from shooting you.
Lets see, Trump was convicted of breaking the law with his Charity. Using your logic if the cops kicked in his door and shot Melania it would be fine, right?
Oh... that's right... It's only law breakers that you pick that you can be shot for being with, is that how your logic works. Perhaps the cops should all consult with you first
You really should read up on the incident before making such a fool of yourself. I see you're another one who can't get through a comment without mentioning Trump. So weird.
Vida - There is a direct correlation between people that believe or rationalize Trumps lies and people that blame the victim when cops are involved.
Matt has shown people on the left that do it to...
I enjoy pointing out what fools people can be when they use ONE SIDED thinking....
Nice projection. You just made an ass out of yourself in public.
Except when it's the Capital. Then these same people describe rioters as god fearing proud American's holding a peaceful demonstration and wrongly mistreated by a corrupt DC police force that apparently only exist in DC. Everywhere else, the cops are always right.
Funny how that works.
Who are these people? Are they Mr and Mrs Strawman who live in the straw cottage by any chance?
No, she was there in the room with a guy who opened fire on the cops. Essentially her boyfriend drug dealer got her killed. Racism had nothing to do with it.
Oops.
https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-56331483#:~:text=Breonna%20Taylor's%20boyfriend%20Kenneth%20Walker%20cleared%20of%20shooting%20police%20officer,-9%20March&text=Kenneth%20Walker%20said%20he%20thought,police%20officer%20at%20his%20home.
BBC. Excuse me while I roll my eyes for awhile.
Try opening them instead. Then use them to read.
Vida - Why did the cops bang down the door with guns blazing? I guess you never thought to ask that question did you. Blame the VICTIM at all costs. I get it.
Because the boyfriend shot first. As I said, he got her killed. Please read up on the case (not from the lying MSM) so you will stop making a fool of yourself.
The boyfriend was defending himself. He thought intruders were breaking in to murder him and his girlfriend, he was only half right
Lying MSM media - but you can trust a cop website. HAHAHAHA
Vida - Your narrative has already fallen apart. Her Boyfriend shot at strangers who kicked his door in.
Who's fault was it that cops kicked the door in of a armed drug dealer. What did they expect a warm greeting and muffins?
I am not saying the cops should or should not be convicted. What i am saying is that it is TERRIBLE policing for cops to be kicking in the door of "suspected" drug dealers in the middle of the night and not expect to be shot at.
Trump is a "suspected" tax cheat. If his door was kicked in and Melenia shot and killed you would be protesting.
That is my point... Your argument is weak and one sided.
It's a fair question "So if you are sleeping with someone who is breaking the law," but in this case neither Taylor, nor her boyfriend in the room with her had ever been accused of dealing drugs or breaking the law. In fact, even the prior boyfriend Jamarcus Glover, who she was no longer dating for some time who was previously arrested for dealing drugs never said he had drugs at Taylor's place, but he did make the mistake of telling the police he had stashed $8000 cash there, which was the real purpose of the raid that killed Breonna Taylor.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/09/04/report-details-why-louisville-police-wanted-search-breanna-taylors-home/5706161002/
"Glover tells his girlfriend Kiera Bradley that Taylor was holding $8,000 for him and she had been "handling all my money."
Taylor was also not the first innocent women to be murdered by the police in this manner:
https://nitter.net/radleybalko/status/1293181816740786178#m
In fact, the police were caught knowingly lying in the warrant for the no knock raid to get the cash by claiming they needed the no knock to recover drugs when they knew there were no drugs involved, then tried to charge Breonna's current boyfriend with murder to cover their own tracks.
The entire thing is sickening and once again highlights how asset forfeiture and the effect of private profiteering in policing has warped the legal system beyond any meaningful recognition. There is a reason on 3rd world countries allow the police to steal money from the crime scene. This practice has helped turn our police force into what you would find in a 3rd rate banana republic.
Something I can't reconcile is that the same people who now describe the riot on capital Jan.6 and describe those who pulled that stunt as a group of all American freedom fighters thinking nothing of calling the Capital Police thugs, but then turn around and claim that Breonna Taylor deserved what she got.
I understand authoritarians who always suck cop dick and I understand those who think police abuse is a real problem, but I will never understand those who simultaneously lick the boots of one set of police officers while condemning a separate group of cops all at the same time. The cognitive dissonance must be deafening.
I'm not sure all of that means that "the true story has nothing to do with Ferguson's revenue needs". As I understand it, the mass, unncecessary targeting of African-Americans for ticky-tack, revenue-generating citations contributed to a general hostility and mistrust between black people and the Ferguson Police Department.
Define "unnecessary" then define "targeting. Laws and regulations are, for the most part, reasonable requirements for health, sanitation, safety, etc. Someone has to enforce them.
As for targeting, less than a quarter of Ferguson is white and they are significantly older than the other ethnic groups in the community. Those over 50 rarely speed, over tint their windows, fail to care for their lawns and driveways, etc, etc, etc, regardless of race. As is often the case, disparate outcomes are utterly meaningless
Not sure we're operating with the same set of facts. As I understand it, the DOJ found that officers were specifically tasked with raising additional revenue for the city by focusing on revenue-generating enforcement of ticky-tack type infractions. I have zero issue with the enforcement of quality of life laws in order to protect and enhance quality of life in a community. But raising revenue is not a proper function of law enforcement.
Happy to review anything you can link to that supports your position but I am quite confident that "ticky-tack" is a non-objective opinion versus a fact. If the law is on the books, it needs to be enforced. If it should not be on the books, pay the fine and harangue your councilman, representative, etc.
I would prefer that municipalities not be so dependent on citation revenue but it is legal and has a long precedent. Just recently, Lori Lightfoot changed the rules for stoplight cameras in Chicago that generated a tenfold increase in citations - from your viewpoint, is that "ticky-tack", racist, or targeting? All three?
I am reminded of a friend of mine (transparency alert, I concede your right to reject any personal anecdote) who, despite many other redeeming qualities, was convinced that the police "just like to bust people" and felt they just picked on him because of the color of his car (candy apple red). Of the 4 tickets I was aware of him receiving, only one was for less than 100 miles an hour. That was for 85 in a residential area. He thought these were "ticky-tack"
Well the DOJ report: "found that the combination of Ferguson’s focus on generating revenue over public safety, along with racial bias, has a profound effect on the FPD’s police and court practices, resulting in conduct that routinely violates the Constitution and federal law. The department also found that these patterns created a lack of trust between the FPD and significant portions of Ferguson’s residents, especially African Americans." https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-findings-two-civil-rights-investigations-ferguson-missouri.
By the way, this is the same DOJ investigation that found that "the evidence examined in its independent, federal investigation into the fatal shooting of Michael Brown does not support federal civil rights charges against Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson." So I give them a certain degree of credit for "faith and fair dealing".
I don't disagree that the proper response to police abuse is to pay the fine, do the time, whatever, and then go through the proper channels to address changes in policies or practice that need to be made. And yes, often people who complain about police "abuse" are just people who can't be bothered to follow basic rules of conduct in a modern society.
However, I would also say that my general philosophical vantage point is that in general fewer rules that are more reliably enforced would be better for all parties concerned.
Pretty much what I expected. Vague accusations without any action.
"...conduct that routinely violates the Constitution and federal law..."
How many arrests did Holder make in reference to this statement? How many were charged? Imprisoned? Fined? Hmmm...
Oh wait, the Chief of Police resigned. Of course, his contract was to expire that month anyway and his resignation guaranteed him one year of pay and one year's continuation of his paid health insurance.
Do you really believe that if the Obama administration with Eric Holder as Attorney General could have pressed charges or otherwise penalized the Ferguson PD that they would not? If it was actionable, they would have taken action.
PS - we do have common ground in your last paragraph.
Here's an excellent overview of the process along with how the poor are used to balance bloated city and county budgets:
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/steep-costs-criminal-justice-fees-and-fines
The trouble with "if the law is on the books, it needs to be enforced" is that, as this data shows, it is only enforces some of the time against some people and not at all against others, which mostly describes the American criminal system.
That and as the book :Three Felonies a Day" highlights, literally everything is against the law and we would all be in prison if every law was enforced. We can argue it should not be that way, but as long as it is they police are simply incapable of enforcing all laws so must choose where they will use their resources. That means most resources are used to fight things like drug use and prostitution with almost no enforcement against the Bernie Madoff's of the world, he being the extremely rare exception.
1) Your link points to a significant problem with court debt - which is not the same as enforcing the law. BTW, I think it is absurd to charge $$ to someone for being tried or incarcerated. Its just not what I referenced.
2) Silvergate's book, despite its popularity with a certain set, is not a reliable source. It is heavily driven by anecdote rather than data. Moreover, it focuses on the professional class and has almost nothing to do with the poor. If you truly believe there is not enough enforcement of white-collar crime, you really don't have an ally in Silvergate. His claims are similar to the info I provided in a previous post noting that vast numbers of people "know" that 10000+ unarmed black men are shot by the police annually (sadly, I suppose I must post that this belief is ridiculously wrong and utterly contradicted by the data)
3) Enforcing the law does not require prosecuting every single instance of lawbreaking. In all probability, we never know about all transgressions. Moreover, a lot of laws are subject to discretion (i.e. how long can you lean up against a wall in an alley before you are a loiterer) where enforcement can be in the form of warnings and reminders. Merriam-Webster's first definition of enforce is simply "to give force to"
Acting on obvious and egregious lawbreaking acts as a deterrent to others. A squad car on the side of the road enforces speeding laws without any arrests. Getting hookers and panhandlers off the streets reduces other crime in the area.
Your belief that there is "almost no enforcement" of white collar crime is another claim you make with no supporting data. I'd be happy to look at anything you would care to link to but I will tell you now what will likely be an issue; there are far fewer people in a position to commit white collar crime than there are people who can commit common crimes like drug use, drug dealing, prostitution, shoplifting, etc., etc, etc, . The numbers cannot be and should not be similar.
RR - Policing for Profits. Gladwell's book is filled with real world examples. "Define Unnecessary and targeting" is just your excuse for ignoring that the core problem, as Matt points out, always starts with stupidly written laws...
Its like if a gang sent a member into a store to rob it. And the clerk got in a fight with the gang member and got himself killed. The CORE problem is that gang sent it gang member into the store to rob it in the first place. Indeed the clerk should not have faugh back but the store getting robbed is not the CLERKS fault. No one is going ask to "define fighting back".
Give me a break, you are just looking to blame the victim you know it and i know it
A bizarre comparison of the enforcement of the law to gangs committing armed robbery show us exactly where your indefensible bigotry lies. Your position is specious, I know it and you will, when you look up the definition.
I don't think that was his point, but how is Asset forfeiture morally different than a violent gang collecting money through extortion?
"Stop and seize
Aggressive police take hundreds of millions of dollars from motorists not charged with crimes"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/
If you read the rest of Pikety's posts, you will realize that was exactly what he meant.
How is asset forfeiture different from extortion? Seriously?
1) Legally sanctioned.
2) Does not inure to the direct benefit of those seizing the assets.
3) Has a means of seeking recourse through the courts.
Again, the false equivalency of comparing police to a violent gang is at the heart of your 'argument". Moreover, I note from your article that the average seizure is around $40,000 in cash. If you had $40k seized (and you are the type of person to whom holding $40k in cash LEGALLY) would your really not go to court to get it back?
If some seizures were not handled properly (and I am sure there were), that reflects on the management, not the morality, of the program.
Police telling a guy to get out of the street and onto the sidewalk is not about generating revenue, especially after the guy just robbed a convenience store. IIRC, Wilson was not even trying to arrest him at the initial contact.
Bill - The problem is the according to the Justice Department Ferguson IS a police department that is selectively enforcing the law to maximize revenue not to ensure justice....
https://www.marketplace.org/2015/03/05/ferguson-operates-police-department-profit-center/
Wilson may not have broken Garners Civil Rights, as the justice department also found, but that does not change the fact that there are lots of 'suspected' criminals in Fergeson and they are not treated the way this one was. That is the issue.
The ticky-tack revenue generating was going on for numerous governmental entities in the greater St. Louis area, and I believe many were run by black officials. I think the Post-Dispatch had a story on that sometime later.
Yes, I don't have to believe that it was motivated by racism to think that raising revenue is not the right reason to enforce the law.
Dark - NO doubt true... As Matt said, it was STUPID policy
2020 - But, but you are supposed to IGNORE that fact that the Ferguson cops were "Policing for Profit". That MUST be ignored and you have to focus on any possible excuse to blame the victim, right?
Peter - Wrong.... The Obama Justice Department investigated if Browns Civil Rights were violated. They did not find 'find him innocent" as you claim and expected Obama to state publicly. Only Trump lies about shit like that .
They found his civil rights were not violated.
What you IGNORED was the root problem, which the Justice Department did not investigate and that is Fergusen "Policing for Profit".
That is the core problem and the results are a public that don't get justice and COPS who are put in a terrible position because those in Charge are as Matt says "LAZY"
Your copious research of "Obama's Justice Department" missed this.... Bad Policy is the problem.
"What it found included routine violations of black residents’ civil rights. For example, the DOJ found that black drivers were more than twice as likely as white drivers to be searched during traffic stops, but 26 percent less likely to be found with contraband. Even so, black drivers were more likely to be cited and arrested during a traffic stop.
The report also found that 88 percent of documented police use-of-force cases involved blacks, and in particular juveniles and people with mental health problems or cognitive disabilities."
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-the-doj-reforms-a-police-department-like-ferguson/
Piketty, you are just making stuff up. The DOJ report is online anyone (ever you) can read it. Let me offer a few quotes
“The Department has determined that the evidence does not support charging a violation of federal law”
No references to Browns ‘Rights’, but a clear statement that a crime (by the police officer) did not occur. That’s what people call ‘innocent’.
“Based on this investigation, the Department has concluded that Darren Wilson’s actions do not constitute prosecutable violations under the applicable federal criminal civil rights statute, 18 U.S.C. § 242, which prohibits uses of deadly force that are “objectively unreasonable,” as defined by the United States Supreme Court.”
Wow. The DOJ folks are so lame that they spell Michael Brown as Darren Wilson.
“As discussed above, Darren Wilson has stated his intent in shooting Michael Brown was in response to a perceived deadly threat. The only possible basis for prosecuting Wilson under section 242 would therefore be if the government could prove that his account is not true – i.e., that Brown never assaulted Wilson at the SUV, never attempted to gain control of Wilson’s gun, and thereafter clearly surrendered in a way that no reasonable officer could have failed to perceive. Given that Wilson’s account is corroborated by physical evidence and that his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other eyewitnesses, to include aspects of the testimony of Witness 101, there is no credible evidence that Wilson willfully shot Brown as he was attempting to surrender or was otherwise not posing a threat. Even if Wilson was mistaken in his interpretation of Brown’s conduct, the fact that others interpreted that conduct the same way as Wilson precludes a determination that he acted with a bad purpose to disobey the law.”
In other words, innocent.
Finally we have.
“For the reasons set forth above, this matter lacks prosecutive merit and should be closed.”
You wrote “What you IGNORED was the root problem, which the Justice Department did not investigate and that is Fergusen "Policing for Profit".”
Once again, you are just making stuff up.
Let me quote from Eric Holder (remember him?).
“I would like to take the next few moments to address the two investigations that the Justice Department has been conducting in Ferguson, Missouri, these last several months. The matter that we are here to discuss is significant not only because of the conclusions the Department of Justice is announcing today, but also because of the broader conversations and the initiatives that those conversations have inspired across the country on the local and national level. Those initiatives have included extensive and vital efforts to examine the causes of misunderstanding and mistrust between law enforcement officers and the communities they serve; to support and strengthen our public safety institutions as a whole; and to rebuild confidence wherever it has eroded.”
And
“A community where local authorities consistently approached law enforcement not as a means for protecting public safety, but as a way to generate revenue. A community where both policing and municipal court practices were found to disproportionately harm African American residents. A community where this harm frequently appears to stem, at least in part, from racial bias – both implicit and explicit. And a community where all of these conditions, unlawful practices, and constitutional violations have not only severely undermined the public trust, eroded police legitimacy, and made local residents less safe – but created an intensely charged atmosphere where people feel under assault and under siege by those charged to serve and protect them.”
I guess Eric Holder is a ‘Trumpian Liar’. You can learn so much reading online.
Peter - <<.Piketty, you are just making stuff up. The DOJ report is online anyone (ever you) can read it...... No references to Browns ‘Rights’, >>
Ummmm.... let me quote from the quote you have listed above " ..Darren Wilson’s actions do not constitute prosecutable violations under the applicable federal criminal civil rights..."
So you are clearly confused. The DOJ investigated if the victims CIVIL RIGHTS were broken which is exactly what i said.
You are clearly confused...
Again, Matt's point here, as is mine, is that situations like this one should be avoided if we have BETTER people leading the police. Regardless of what you think of Taylor personally, she was shot by the cops and is dead. That is a bad outcome and it could have been avoided had they simply arrested her boyfriend in a manner different than kicking a door down of a person that legally had a gun in his posession
Sorry, but you are still making stuff up (there is another word for that I think). Let's try the very first sentence of the DOJ report.
"At approximately noon on Saturday, August 9, 2014, Officer Darren Wilson of the Ferguson Police Department (“FPD”) shot and killed Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old. The Criminal Section of the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Missouri, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) (collectively, “The Department”) subsequently opened a criminal investigation into whether the shooting violated federal law."
So it was a criminal investigation (not a civil rights investigation) of someone. Who would that person be? A clue. Probably not Michael Brown. Go read the entire report. It is a striking vindication of Darren Wilson and (de facto) indictment of Michael Brown.
Even Eric Holder (a 'Trumpian Liar') recognized this. Quote
"This morning, the Justice Department announced the conclusion of our investigation and released a comprehensive, 87-page report documenting our findings and conclusions that the facts do not support the filing of criminal charges against Officer Darren Wilson in this case. Michael Brown’s death, though a tragedy, did not involve prosecutable conduct on the part of Officer Wilson. "
Note the explicit reference to 'prosecutable conduct' (of Darren Wilson) and not the 'civil rights' (of Michael Brown).
So I guess Eric Holder is/was just lying again. So sad. So much like Trump.
I see you are trying to change the subject to Breonna Taylor. I would too if I was caught trying to justify the conduct of a violent thug.
There's a great documentary by the black conservative father/son team of Shelby and Eli Steele called "What Killed Michael Brown?" that everyone should probably see and actually pay attention to. It will certainly be controversial — and I certainly don't agree with every word — but it does certainly debunk some of the mistruths and simplistic sloganeering rather than facts or reason of our current moment.
This piece is dealing with another important aspect of our moment and should likewise be considered. There are serious problems with our policing and prison systems, often enacted by bad politicians, rich NIMBYs and a million other factors. The same simplistic forces try to explain this away as with phony sloganeering that falsely identifies the police as the sole bad factor in our society.
To move forward from our current morass, politicians and media and activists and everyone, need to be able to discuss these issues with candor, and not reactionary screeds and finger pointing.
I am a fan of Shelby Steele after his 2002 essay in Harper's about CRT and where it was going (talk about prescient).
PS - If you twist the facts just enough you will get racists to ignore that FACT that the problem in Ferguson started and ended with "Policing for Profit"
ITs like sending a gang member to rob a story and then complaining because the clerk faugh back when being robbed. Sure it was the violent clerks fault, not the fact that the gang member was robbing the store in the first place.
The ONE WAY logic of people that don't seek truth never ceases to amaze me. Okay now go back to twisting the truth just enough to show how Trump is not lying about losing the election and how tax cuts to the rich really do trickle down to everyone else.
I guess when Michael Brown robbed the convenience store, he was just engaging in ‘policing for profit’. Videos of the robbery have been released and we are obviously watching ‘policing for profit’. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_ErCzbXOxU and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-YuDsaJ40w&t=105s
I guess when Michael Brown assaulted a clerk (the owner?), he was just engaging in ‘policing for profit’. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkOfqIXkBRE for a video of the attack. Clearly, ‘policing for profit’ by Michael Brown.
After robbing the convenience store and assaulting the clerk, MB walked down the center of a street rather than use the sidewalk. Clearly, ‘policing for profit’. Darren Wilson told MB to use the sidewalk, not the street. Clearly, ‘policing for profit’.
MB then tried to take the police officer’s gun. Has a clearer case of ‘policing for profit’ ever existed?
Eventually, MB charged DW and the police officer shot him. Obviously, ‘policing for profit’.
So I guess that robbing a convenience store, assaulting a clerk, walking down the center of street, attempting to steal a police officer’s gun, and charging a police officer are really ‘policing for profit’. Good to know.
You can learn so much online.
Peter - I don't think you understand what Policing for Profit is. Michael Brown is NOT a police officer. Policing for profit involves those that control the police requiring them to make arrests and write tickets to anyone they can that will generate revenue for the city.
It would be like if the police come up behind your car with their lights flashing and you move lanes to let them get by and they then pull you over for not using your signal, that is one of the examples Matt used.
Interesting how you have strong opinions on terms you clearly do not know the meaning of... Sort of like me having a strong opinion on brain surgery techniques. Don't you agree?
Wow, I think robbing convenience stores is not 'policing for profit'. How silly of me. Clearly it is.
Peter - Robbing convenience stores is not "policing for profit". To Police for profit you must first be in the Police. Was the robber in the POLICE?
IF not then your statement shows a stunning level of IGNORANCE on your part for what the term even means.
But ignorance wont change your opinion will it?
I guess if you rob convenience stores, assault store employees, walk in the street, try to take a police officer's gun and then charge the police officer, you are really a 'victim'. So good to know.
I am confused. You wrote "PS - If you twist the facts just enough you will get racists to ignore that FACT that the problem in Ferguson started and ended with "Policing for Profit"". That means that robbing a convenience store must either be part of 'Policing for Profit' or not actually a problem at all. So good to know. Only foolish racists would think that robbing a convenience store, assaulting the staff, walking in the street, trying to steal a police officer's gun and charging the police officer are actually problems.
“Bill - The problem is the according to the Justice Department Ferguson IS a police department that is selectively enforcing the law to maximize revenue not to ensure justice....”
Wow, that never happened according to you. Let me quote from you “What you IGNORED was the root problem, which the Justice Department did not investigate and that is Fergusen "Policing for Profit".”
Here are some quotes from you.
“RR - Policing for Profits. Gladwell's book is filled with real world examples.”
“2020 - But, but you are supposed to IGNORE that fact that the Ferguson cops were "Policing for Profit". That MUST be ignored and you have to focus on any possible excuse to blame the victim, right?”
“PS - If you twist the facts just enough you will get racists to ignore that FACT that the problem in Ferguson started and ended with "Policing for Profit"”
Robbing convenience stores, assaulting store employees, walking in the street, trying to take a police officer’s gun and charging a police officer are just excuses for ignoring the ‘real’ problem witch is ‘Policing for Profit’.
That’s so good to know. I guess Michael Brown was just a model citizen.
Here is the real problem. ‘Hands up, don’t shoot’ was a lie. BLM was founded on a lie. Lots of people aren’t willing to face those facts.
Folks I'll save you some trouble here. Policing For Profit is 1) yet another leftist grievance having to do with asset forfeiture laws being unjustly applied to those who least deserve it and 2) yet another supposedly sound rationale for "reimagining law enforcement". What Policing For Profit has to do with the Michael Brown incident is anybody's guess.
Policing for profit is a major problem, as is incarceration for profit, especially when slave labor incentives are part of the profit.
As the article points out it isn't just the police who get paid, its DA's, City managers, Mayors etc. who profit; and who sometimes otherwise incentivize police to carry out these policies, and if it goes wrong those who incentivize aren't worried if patrol personnel take the fall.
"Who profits?" There are bail industry motives, private incarceration motives, and a raft of other industries who profit handsomely off of commissaries, "food", communications , and, of course, sometimes the biggest prize - civil forfeiture. There is a lot to unpack on this issue and it is complex. Perhaps the authors point concerning complexity and is a good starting point to talk honestly about this.
Frank - I agree, pretty much. P4P and I4P were cynically structured by greedy and opportunistic politicians to launder tax dollars into political contributions in the name of public safety. There are many Establishment fingers in the pie. And, as I said elsewhere, I find that practice abhorrent. I don't believe that individual cops are among those that benefit unless you want to make the case that they wouldn't be on the job but for P4P. The Micheal Brown narrative has been leveraged by the likes of Piketty to compel drastic reductions in policing oftentimes to the detriment of communities that need it (and want it) the most.
Frank - Youa re missing RAH's point. Anything the police do is GOOD. Period. Does not matter why.
Once you can accept that logic the whole thing comes together, right?
Rah - Are you saying that Policing for Profit is fine. Just focus on blaming the victim and you are CORRECT?
I find P4P, if it exists as an objective or end result of law enforcement, abhorrent.
The True Story will set you free. Amen. Thank you for setting us free with your fighting on behalf of the True Story.
I've always wanted to see what the call was that Wilson was on before the Brown incident. I thought somewhere I read it involved a child; don't know if that is true. If he did something involving a child, was that child white, black? None of that matters because a local incident could be used by Sharpton,, Obama, et al. to nationalize the anger. And raise money.
Dark - Yes that is it. The fact that the cops are "Policing for Profit" can't possibly be the core problems here. It must be the victims fault.
The day you start arguing as passionatly about Policing for Profit is the day i will think you actually give a shit about Justice for All.
The Brown/police contact occurred because a store owner reported a robbery. The police were responding to that, is my understanding. Brown was not stopped for jaywalking. Honest reporting of the facts of that case doesn't mean anything other than, those are the facts. When national media descended on Ferguson and made it a national incident, there was never any story except racism being the explanation for what happened. Of course, policing for profit is wrong, but based on the facts, that was not the case in this instance and never the angle by the media. Following Ferguson the Post-Dispatch did some reporting on how many small governmental units there were in St. Louis County and their reliance on revenue generated by tickets. Don't bother asking me to verify this with a link. I am one of those copy machine challenged people the Veep worries about.
While I do have a healthy respect for the police as an old man, when I was young I had my share of run-ins with them. I was arrested 4 times. Once for B&E, once for loitering, once for underage drinking & once for something I don't remember, most likely drinking.
The police never beat my ass but they were pretty much dicks, although I don't hold that against them.
But I do remember one night when 2 friends and I were sitting in a park smoking a joint. About 150 yards away 4-5 guys that we knew were sharing a case of beer & listening to music. A cop car entered the park and rolled right up on them. They scattered. Except the guy with the radio, and I'm talking big boom box, carry on your shoulder radio, made the mistake of just sneaking through the bushes with his radio and nonchalantly hopping up on a park bench like nothing had happened.
Instead the cop car rolled up on him. A big burly copper got out of his cruiser, billy club in hand, and smashed the kid in the face with it. He then grabbed the kid by his fluffy white boy afro, pulled him to the ground & started beating and kicking him. I can still almost still hear the kid's shrieks. At one point, his partner bear hugged him & tried to pull him off the kid but he shrugged off his partner & continued the ass kicking. He then scooped the kid up & tossed him in the back of the cruiser, got in & then rolled up on us. He said, "Do you motherfuckers need an engraved fucking invitation to get the fuck out of my park?"
All 3 of us stood there just staring at him and I know we were all thinking, 'Just take the badge & gun off & we'll show you whose park this is bitch." But of course he didn't. So we just dispersed.
My loitering arrest came about because we were typical inner city teens hanging on a street corner. The cops wanted us to disperse. I said 'No, I'm not bothering anybody." Cuffs & paddy wagon quickly followed that dumb statement. But there was also a young girl about 15, we were 19 or so, who followed us around like a puppy dog. She stayed with me & they grabbed her also. She immediately started bawling. Bawled all the way the station. Bawled the entire time she was in the station. At one point I said to the cop, "Y'know cop I understand you arresting me but why didn't you leave her alone?" He came over the desk at me. His partner grabbed him & pulled him back before he could hit me. Again, I thought the same thing, "Copper take the cuffs, badge & gun off & let's step outside. I ain't afraid of you." Luckily I only thought it.
The B&E arrest is probably most relevant. I won't detail the crime but I will say it was amazingly stupid. I was 15 & drunk, so there's that. Anyway, I was sitting in a holding cell, waiting for my older brother to show up & spring me when a bunch of cops carried in this burly black pimp. I say "pimp" because he had the gaudy super wide bell bottomed suit on with the platform shoes, although one shoe was missing, as was the pimp hat. I don't think he minded much since he was out cold. His face looked like bloody hamburger & his shirt was soaked with blood from his chin to his navel. The cops carried him into an empty holding cell & dumped him on the bench. No ER for you ya mofo. As one cop walked by the holding cell next to me the guy inside said, "What happened to him?" The cop said, "He slipped & fell." I heard the guy mutter, "Yeah he slipped & fell right on your fists."
Having said all of that I still think their job is incredibly difficult. We hire them as society's garbage men so they can keep the peace while we watch Ru Paul's Drag Race or some endlessly pointless sporting event or jerk off to internet porn. When they fuck up, and fucking up is literally an inevitability in their job, critics descend on them with their fangs out. In most cases the critics don't have the balls to last one day in that job.
I remember CNN during the Floyd riots. During the day the reporters were diligently criticizing as they collected anecdotal evidence of the horror called policemen. But at night, when the violence started, they hugged that Maginot Line of cops like the terrified bunnies that they were.
One thing I've noticed about liberals is that they love to criticize from a nice safe distance. They love to ramble on about their high minded moral principles from the comfort of their couch while not once offering to put their candy asses on the line.
On the other hand, the people that blindly defend cops are equally full of shit. My wife's brother is a 30 year veteran. A few weeks ago we discussed this same issue. I tried to use the "few bad apples" argument. He was having none of it. He said that it's more than a few bad apples. In some case all they hire are bad apples because they're the only ones willing to do the job. Wow, imagine that? No one wants to put their life on the line for shit pay & constant criticism.
In conclusion, in my opinion, the people who expect saintlike tolerance from cops are as equally full of shit as the people who try to paint them as saints. The issues are way more complex & I think Matt did a fair job in trying to highlight that.
Right on. Especially: "In some case all they hire are bad apples because they're the only ones willing to do the job. Wow, imagine that? No one wants to put their life on the line for shit pay & constant criticism."
Big city cops are paid about $100 grand a year - not shit pay. And they're the worst.
Toronto cops make 100 K, so that’s good money but they deserve it.
I like your writing style you’re a good storyteller.
You were describing a time when it was a police force. We fixed a lot of that I think, the police service ethos is well entrenched. I think they mostly do a good job but they are not pleasant, most of my interactions with them range from cold impersonal to complete assholes . Make no mistake doing that job turns you into an asshole.
The only interaction I've had with cops since I've been married have been traffic stops.
The last one occurred in the fall before Covid hit. I was running late picking my youngest son up at high school & I rolled through a stop sign. Cop was right there and pulled me over. He was young. Pretty pleasant. Seemed a bit wet behind the ears. At the end he told me that, since I was cooperative, I should plead not guilty on the ticket so I'd get a court date where he'd tell the judge I had cooperated & they'd remove the points.
Then he said, "Oh, and sir, I'd like to thank you for not filming me."
That made me laugh out loud.
I sure as hell would not wanna be a cop, the absolute worst job imaginable: damned if you do damned if you don’t.
Judging by your youthful stories, "dicks" hardly covers it. Sounds mor elike torture and systemic abuse of power.
I guess I can see your point. But any way I slice it we were all juvenile delinquents up to no good. Heroin was everywhere as were pretty much every other drug. I lost friends to it. My cousin did a 7 year stretch in a federal facility for dealing smack.
The guy I bought hash off of was out hitching with his subnormal buddy one night and they eventually knifed to death the poor slob who picked them up. Knifed him & kept his car as if murder comes with an instant vehicle title change.
Their story was that they were hitching, the dead guy picked them up and then propositioned them so they killed him. True Einsteins. I think they actually believed that was a good defense.
When I was 21 I used to date this woman who was a few years older. One night we were idly walking through the city when we passed a gay bar. She dared me to go inside. I never understood why she thought I'd be reluctant to go in & she never explained. Only bar where I actually got hit on. 2 guys offered to buy me a drink. I politely said "No thanks. I'm good." They were both very polite about accepting my refusal. At no time did I feel like knifing either one of them.
A few years later I was working and the evening news led off with a story about a local jailbreak. Hash dealing murderer's picture was on the screen. He was one of the four men who made a break for the wire. I blurted out "Hey, I used to buy hash off of that guy." Since my coworkers were more suburb than street, one of them said, "What did you say?" I replied "Nothing," and walked out of the room.
On another occasion we were having a huge party which eventually broke up. When it was over 2 guys went up to a local park. In the park that night a young mentally retarded teenager was sleeping on one of the park benches. He lived across the street from the park with his parents. It was a hot oppressive night so he snuck out to sleep in the park. Whatever happened that night eventually led to the 2 of them beating that retarded teen to death. Literally beating him to death. I remember being awakened the next morning by my buddy's fist pounding on my apartment door. We both ran up to park. I could see the blood trail where they dragged the kid around the park. Up & down steps.(Pittsburgh is a hilly city).
In court they both wept & blamed the alcohol. Privately they were proud of themselves. Thought it made them important.
That stuck in my craw so much that years later I started working with mentally challenged folk. Still do it as a 2nd job.
Thanks. You've got a great memoir started, there.
"The fact that problem officers like this almost never get seriously disciplined stinks of institutional malevolence."
This is true in education as well. Public school teachers often interact with their students in prejudiced ways that stink of laziness and stupidity, more than racism, even if their behavior might be construed as such. There is institutional malevolence everywhere, sadly. I was a teacher for ten years in charter, public, and private environments. My student teaching was in DC. All of my students then were black and poor. I am white, male, and relatively well-off by comparison.
When I first walked into that classroom, I could feel their hate and resentment, practically seething over my race and possibly my gender (but mostly my race) - when people have a racist response to you, you can feel it immediately; it is quite overwhelming. I had more experience interacting with people not of my race than they did, but I also walked into the room with a very guarded attitude, if not demonstrable hate.
Quickly, I realized that a confrontational attitude was a mode of communication, not nearly as aggressive as it appeared. Middle to upper-middle class people don't talk to each other that way and so, at first, I took internal offense. But once I saw through it, I started to be more confrontational and ironically was then able to express my care and concern in a way I could not have done without that mode.
These kids went from belligerent to pretty damn awesome. Not all of them were angels, but all of them had a personality that was strikingly different from the one they initially had presented. As did I. Their true intelligence came out. They eagerly asked questions and for help. Some of the young men started coming in early to ask me how they might make their lives better. It was an eye-opening experience.
Perhaps teacher and police training should involve organized meetings with the communities they intend to serve before they become licensed? That doesn't fix everything, and, sure, I still had behavioral issues that were extreme and deleterious to a productive classroom. I continued to make mistakes, as did they. But we pushed through it. These kids needed a lot of help, encouragement, knowledge, skills, etc., and there were some days that were great.
There is no simple answer except to say that people - Americans - of all colors, backgrounds, classes (whatever the differentiating factor) need to stop giving in so quickly to their knee-jerk prejudices.
The education parallel is important. Unmentioned during outrage about police limited immunity is that it doesn't just apply to police. The greatest number of people with the same limited immunity is teachers. In the thirty years following unionization of public schoolteachers, a total of thirty were dismissed for cause. Out of a nationwide workforce of three million. Anyone who believes all 800,000 sworn police officers are hopelessly criminally stupid racist bigots, but only one in three million schoolteachers is less than perfect, is an ass.
How many teachers have killed a student?
According to the 2004 study “the most accurate data available at this time” indicates that “nearly 9.6 percent of students are targets of educator sexual misconduct sometime during their school career.”
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/forgotten-study-abuse-in-school-100-times-worse-than-by-priests
A teacher who instructs her students to hate people of other races has attempted to kill a student's soul. A teacher who is illiterate has killed the student's drive to learn. A teacher who holds lowered expectations for minority group members condemns them to a life of low achievements.
Where else do you think are kids being indoctrinated to hate each other based on "critical race theory" nonsense?
I agree 100% with this post-people-students, neighborhood residents, jail inmates-can smell fear and weakness and will react badly. The kicker is that the reaction is not just increased aggression, idiocy, goofiness from the % of the population that is inclined to rule breaking, but a lack of support from the majority of the same population who are NOT inclined to such behavior. If the majority doesn’t respect you, they will not use their collective influence in your favor if the minority starts to get stupid. Conversely, the supportive majority will collectively keep the idiots somewhat in check if they respect the authority figure, due to the authority figure earning it by demonstrating respect/positive interactions.
Some individuals-Pantaleo, Chauvin-should never have been allowed out on patrol but public sector unions had their back, and the inevitable happened.
This was not the case with Michael Brown-Brown attacked Officer Wilson while being investigated for a violent theft and got exactly what he deserved. Lumping his death in with Garner, Floyd, Philando Castile or Walter Scott-shot in the back in N. Charleston, does no one any good, imo.
We're tribal, but that doesn't mean we can't get along with other tribes.
Excellent comment.
I'm a retired librarian, and I would add that, whatever the police department's daycare tasks are, public libraries are the default daycare centers in most communities, as well as being the default homeless shelters. Both functions are outside the mission of the library, and both result from the same reason Matt exposes in this post, namely, politicians' unwillingness to fund proper social services in their communities.
My parents (both working) used to drop my off at the main downtown library and leave me there for hours just like you describe, it was great actually! Sadly I would never do that with my own kids as downtown has deteriorated considerably since those days.
You were obviously a well-behaved child who loved the library.😉 I won't expound at length on this subject in the limited space of this forum, but I would point out that most libraries have policies on unattended children, and I recommend that you and our fellow Substack readers read them.
Yeah, libraries are a place predators frequent also. I ran into one of those one day when I was about 12, weirded me the hell out.
I'm saddened to learn that you had that frightening experience. If it's any consolation, most of today's libraries have security personnel to protect all patrons. And I must also give a shout-out to the police, as in my decades of working in libraries, the police were unfailingly good partners in aiding us in protecting both staff and patrons.
Appreciated. This was (counting quickly) roughly 40 years ago, so not everything available today was available then. The interesting part was that the library was right next to the courthouse and there were cops swarming the area, relatively. This dude was smooth.
"The fact that problem officers like this almost never get seriously disciplined stinks of institutional malevolence."
Try cop union contracts with the municipal govt for a start. Add to that the absurd doctrine of qualified immunity that has now reached truly Kafka-esque application. Throw in state legislatures that have passed peace officer bills of rights.
No one should be shocked when any person is given power and absolved of accountability - a priori - in the use of that power. You simply can't write a more concise formula for producing abuse.
Same with perps who are absolved of accountability.
My stepfather was a paramedic for 25 years. Because police would routinely respond to calls with medics, over his career he had several hundred, if not thousands, of instances where he was a 3rd party observer of interactions between law enforcement and civilians.
I asked him the other day what he estimated the percentage of cops to be who, while technically not breaking the law, would routinely do everything possible to escalate interactions with citizens to try and trigger bad behavior (and mistakes) on the side of the citizen. The cops that jump at the opportunity to 'flex' so to speak and become extremely aggressive at any perceived slight. The ones that maybe shouldn't be in that line of work. Keep in mind that my stepfather has a black sticker with a thin blue line on the back of his truck.
Needless to say I was very surprised to hear him say 60%+ fell into that category. 3 out of 5. A guy that has multiple blue lives matter t-shirts and is very, very, pro-cop, admitted that over half of the police he interacted with during his 25 year career probably shouldn't be on the force. To be clear, this is not a commentary on those that resist arrest. Rather, I found it illuminating that someone who 'backs the blue' admit that, anecdotally, more often than not he saw police treat the public like shit.
Disappointing to hear this. Thank you for sharing.
I would have gone with 50%+ myself. Having a few in the family. I'm sure your stepfather saw more than I did. I'm very much not anti-cop, but trying to attract better people to the police force is not what is going on right now.
This is the rub with Matt’s work. One day he is a genius and the next a bumbler. While I’m sure Gladwell has a brilliant point to make to people with the depth of an ice cube, most of TK readers have hopefully fully thought out these issues and understand when it’s obvious an officer is wrong or worse a criminal and when simply complying would save the life of a scumbag. Why do I feel Matt thinks we need to be spoon fed by overhyped authors in order to better illustrate his leftest credentials. Eric Garner and Michael Brown are not in anyway similar cases. Garner was killed for no reason other then being a large man that rightly didn’t want to be pushed around for selling a fucking cigarette. Brown robbed a store, pushed the Asian owner over a rack of food and tried to take a cops weapon. Conflating the two is mind boggling. In fact Brown is a big part of the hands up don’t shoot bullshit that plagues us today.
There are many cases that illustrate where bad cops deserve to be put away. Floyd and Garner are two good ones. But acting as if this article is in any way novel or light shedding is why Matt is not getting any more $ from me. I can’t get the time I wasted reading the article back so I will continue to support better writers on Substack like Greenwald and Weiss who do t treat me like a moron every other article.
I'm not really sure you read the article. This is the only sentence I found Michael Brown's name in: "Gladwell notes that the period that began with the deaths of people like Garner and Michael Brown and ended roughly with the suicide of Bland was 'when a civil rights movement, Black Lives Matter, was born.'”
There's no "conflation" of Garner and Brown. Matt mentions his name in passing, apparently because Gladwell used their deaths to mark the beginning of a period of time he wishes to discuss.
This isn't article about putting away bad cops. The subtitle gives you a hint: "Cops take most of the blame, often deservedly, but the single-minded media furor of the last year has let other bad actors off the hook." It's more about bad policing policy and bad public policy.
You’re not wrong that it wasn’t the focus of the article but I do think it’s only put in there for the reasons I stated. I was making a larger point on the inconsistency and the dumbing down for political sake but you are right it wasn’t the articles point.
I subscribe to Matt's blog because he's one of the only left leaning writers that I trust to provide the liberal perspective while not subjecting his readers to the wonky bullshit that tends to emanate from the left these days. And I vote republican.
Same. I just get tired of the laziness and condescension sometimes. Otherwise I’m grateful for what he is. Don’t know how I vote anymore since there isn’t anyone helping anymore. Maybe you can start a new party DW.
So I guess he’s a bumbler when he doesn’t agree with you?
"Virtue signalling is a public expression of a moral viewpoint with the intent of communicating one's own good character."
There's literally nothing like that anywhere in this article.
I agree. I don't know what article these folks think they read.
Here is one. Without giving any written consideration to whether the following was true or not about crime demographics:
"One whistleblower officer named Pedro Serrano recorded a precinct superior instructing the troops in how to choose targets for stops, saying, “The problem is what…? I have no problem telling you this, male blacks, fourteen to twenty, , twenty one.”"
If it was a true or dishonest quote...we don't know because the author is simply virtue signaling through a quote out of context.
What's the proper context?
Uh, how about the context in which the quote was spoken? Was he warning someone of a valid safety concern, for instance? Or was this during a cadet training exercise and the statistics don't back up the claim? Nobody knows without context.
"Pedro Serrano recorded a precinct superior instructing the troops in how to choose targets for stops" - this is the context.
The single most overlooked factor in police abuse is that blacks are on track to kill 10,000 other blacks this year.
Actually, that’s a separate issue.
Heart failure was mentioned in nearly 400,000 deaths in 2018.
https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/heart_failure.htm
But that’s irrelevant to this discussion, right?
About 2,000 people are killed by their spouses each year, and most of those killed were female.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/domestic-violence-murders-rising_n_5cae0d92e4b03ab9f24f2e6d
Again, that’s not relevant to this discussion.
Homicides are serious, and Black Lives Matter, but it’s a cop out to point to Black people killing Black people, to try to shift the focus away from police killing people.
It's not part of a cop's job to deal with the 400,000 deaths from heart failure, but it is part of the job to deal with the 10,000 killings of blacks by blacks. That means they are perforce in a situation where their own lives are at risk in a way that would not be at all true if they were dealing with heart failures. I'm not impressed with your argument.
I'm having a chuckle at the idea of a cop with paddles and digitalis in his holster.
It's a cop out to "shift focus" from 10,000 dead people to 19.
LMAO.
The irony is thick, innit.
It’s a cop out for some people, but it is not irrelevant that there is a lot more crime in the Black community, including homicide.
Perhaps I was unclear. I don’t think it’s a cop out to introduce facts about homicides.
I think it’s a cop out to introduce some facts about homicides in order to distract from discussion of other facts about homicides.
I think all of these lives matter. So far, I’m not convinced that the more Blacks killed by police, the fewer Blacks killed by other Blacks. So, currently, I think these are two separate subjects. Both are important to consider, but neither excuses the other.
> So far, I’m not convinced that the more Blacks killed by police, the fewer Blacks killed by other Blacks.
What does this mean?
Maybe I wasn’t clear. I agreed with you on the first point.
As to your second point, I don’t recall saying that or even implying it.
I do think it is natural for a person who is primarily interested in harm reduction to wonder at the lack of attention to the rate at which Blacks kill other Blacks, relative to the attention to Blacks killed by cops
And more of the same policing is going to accomplish what about that?
This figure is rising this year with a decrease in policing and prosecutions.
Carry on blaming everyone else. Hey, aliens are on the scene now, so don't overlook intergalactic systems of oppression.
Again: a pandemic and economic collapse have nothing to do with it? In reality, policing probably has nothing to do with it.
But S. can still identify 'Blacks', whoever they are, as the bad people. Some things don't change.
What decrease in policing?
'Gladwell makes it capital-E Easy for the medicine of thought to go down, a talent I once grumbled at, almost surely out of jealousy. I now see it’s a blessing in the United States, a country where a fair portion of the mass audience is capable of losing at tic-tac-toe.' Christ, what condescension! Learned nothing from the backlash to the old "basket of deplorables" comment, eh, Matt? And that's just what your book Hate Inc. was based on, that media-fed division. Irony klaxon hoot and squawk alert. Didn't anybody ever tell you in journalism school there is far more of a compressive communicative art to writing for a tabloid than there is for a broadsheet? This guy Gladwell sounds like he has it down.
Maybe some of those people are capable at losing at tic-tac-toe, but they can also mend (y)our car when you can't, or bag (y)our groceries, or deliver (y)our food, or give mass Covid jags in extremely dangerous circumstances, or...why go on? I'm not even trying to be fake outraged here. This condescension drives people (who probably aren't reading this) further away from intelligence and the potentially healing truth. Try hanging out with working class people, occasionally, Matt, it might broaden your horizons. Shit, a few weeks ago a guy who was delivering a carpet to my house over his shoulder marvelled over my JG Ballard and William S Burroughs books! You never, ever know who's who.
I have worked with people over the last few years, be they pizza delivery drivers, or security guards, or supermarket workers, or cleaners, or roofers, who may not be literate (which is fast becoming a 20th century conceit anyway) per se, but who are a great laugh, or caring, or exhibit other kinds of intelligence. I confess, this is a lifelong bugbear of mine. One thing I have always hated about the so-called 'literary' crowd - and I can hold my own with any of them, and have been edited and published at top levels - is them supposedly being 'above' 'the common herd' for reading a few books here and there.
In general, these are the kind of sniffy cunts who spout intersectionalist shite and make out they're doing us all a favour with their 'advanced' views, the 'educated' (beyond their intelligence levels) ones. And I would often rather hang out with tic-tac-toe losers than writers, for the most part. Least they don't look down their nose at bookish snobs - their sense of noblesse oblige would not allow them to. ;)
'This book about all the different ways in which strangers misunderstand one another feels like it was written as a way to nudge an increasingly polarized country to consider how things might look from another’s perspective.' Indeed.
I'll be the apologist for that line...
He's trying to disarm the anti-Gladwell hipster crowd. At one time, Gladwell was liked by most everyone, but then he wrote a piece that agitated the teachers' unions. After that he got the hypercritical treatment. Then a couple of "serious thinkers" went after him to the cheers of the Good People.
I wouldn't have gone the tic-tac-toe route Matt did, but even I -- a huge Gladwell fan -- would have probably put in a similar disclaimer. Doing so preempts a lot of the "Gladwell's a lightweight" nonsense it's mandatory for the Bernie Forever crowd (and similar cool kids) to regurgitate. An author might feel compelled to insert such a line in the same way he might if he were to examine melody and harmony in the works of Nickelback. Although there's no real reason except to defuse the parroting masses.
Anyway, Gladwell was great in the early days and he remains so. I think he's a little gunshy in these days of cancel culture, and it showed a little in the book Matt reviewed (I felt). What's funny/sad is that most of his best pieces are completely apolitical.
Bottom line: Yeah, Matt took a cheap shot, but he reviewed the book, didn't he? That speaks louder than the cheap shot. So that's my take, and I certainly don't speak for Matt or Gladwell or deplorable tic-tac-toe players.
Why would you try to 'disarm' anybody by playing to their sniffy wanky prejudices? "OK guys, I get where you're coming from about the populist nature of this writer, disgustingly easily understandable by the average sub-literate on the street. But really, I don't like those tic-tac-toe losers either. See? We're sympatico!"
You gave a very long and convoluted and presumptious answer to my observation. Thanks! Chuckling. :)
I thought I answered that question in my comment. No? Oh, here it is:
"Doing so preempts a lot of the 'Gladwell's a lightweight' nonsense"
I got it. I just thought it was genuinely funny, in the post-lengthy-reply context of: "So that's my take, and I certainly don't speak for Matt or Gladwell..." Laughing, but not maliciously
I suppose I was redundant there, but my objective was -- seeing as this is Matt's home base -- to nip in the bud any reply along the lines of, "That's not at all what I was thinking, you idiot! Let me speak for myself!"
As for length and writing style... glass house, stones, etc.
I hate to admit it because that tic tac toe line annoys me BUT I read Matt & even pay to do so because he is usually not the woke narrative. He is a bit too snooty for me most of the time but so many writers are these days. Like you I prefer the carpet guy or a taxi driver for company. These working class folks never fail to amaze. They are the best of what the USA tic (tack toe)
Which begs the question, where did Matt say he was referring to service workers as the stupid? There are a shitload of really stupid people in this country. Right now I think the ones acting the most ignorant and stupid are the professional over-educated. So you leapt to an assumption that Matt was putting down the blue-collar, working class, without him saying it. I guess we know what that says about you.
Laughing. Yes, we often think of the 'educated' middle-cum-upper-middle-class wankstain strata as tic-tac-toe illiterate losers. I am actually finding the excuses being made for the man, who can surely talk for himself, now, to be hilarious.
Still laughing.
You leapt to a wrong-headed conclusion that wasn't there, but won't admit it. Noted.
Aye, noted. Ho-hum. Upper class Taibbi, whose writing I respect enough to have paid to read - this far - pissed on large sections of the populace as illiterate. What more do you want me to say?
And he didn't even say illiterate - that's your word. Stupid can be educated, I know some real idiots with law degrees or PhDs. They have no common sense and would die in a day if they weren't in the ivory towers.
Look, goan jist fuck off, cunt. No interestit in this pish.
Please specify *exactly* where he "pissed on large sections of the populace as illiterate".
If you're referring to the stuff about
"a fair portion of the mass audience is capable of losing at tic-tac-toe",
I'd not be shocked, if he were referring as much to those Under the Table (incl. from coke), after a full day on (the quite literate) Wall St., as to anyone else.
Most of the populace IS illiterate. How is it possible you don't know this? Ever watch man on the street interviews? Worked for a big company? Got out in the world?
What does 'illiterate' mean? Seriously. Don't read books? Don't read the net? Don't adhere to 20th century ideas of what being 'literate' meant?
Be honest though, didn’t you learn how to tie (not lose) at Tic Tac Toe before you hit puberty?
I’m all about the working class egalitarianism but it’s a funny line.
What does 'egalitarianism' mean?
Your working vocabulary includes words like “condescension”, “conceit”, and “noblesse oblige” from your post above.
I’m sure you’ll find a way to look it up between learning how to tie in TicTacToe.
Laughing. What does 'noblesse oblige' mean, especially in an inverted sense, where the tic-tac-toe losers have become the intelligent ones bestowing their blessings on annoying wannabe-smart cunts? I am beyond such linguistic and ratiocination subtleties. :)
I get your point, I really do, but there is also hilarity in these words: Gladwell makes it capital-E Easy for the medicine of thought to go down, a talent I once grumbled at, almost surely out of jealousy. I now see it’s a blessing in the United States, a country where a fair portion of the mass audience is capable of losing at tic-tac-toe.
I must be especially fucking stupid, and probably don't even know how to set up the tic tac toe grid. Because i read The Tipping Point and it made no sense to me whatsoever.
I think that's what it called 'knowing your audience and writing for it' on Gladwell's part. It's the reason why a Western audience will wolf down a Marvel pile of shite film and not a Fellini or Bergman film.
Sorry-I’ll be a literacy snob. While not being an avid reader should never be a cause for moral contempt, a willful refusal of reading, imo, demonstrates that you don’t have the capacity or inclination for a deeper understanding of ideas and events, and that will affect your public perception. Limiting your reading to 60 characters at a time is like limiting your physical activity to that of someone on My 600 Pound Life. The results show…..
Some of the stupidest people I have met have been intelligent readers. Still, nice snobbery, keep it up. :)
Oh calm down, snowflake. Go read some Mencken if you want to see some real vitriol towards the American booboisie. Never underestimate the stupidity of the American people--and that, by the way, is a different matter than assuming we are all stupid all the time. We're not. Only in a truly clueless country about ideas, though--Americans are impressively can-do, I agree, but mostly inexperienced in thinking--would an empty-minded charlatan like Gladwell be a best-selling author. I am bookish and no snob but that is truly embarrassing.
Okay. I have to respond to bookish. First, yes folks are ah, not smart. The average IQ is 100 and half the people on the planet fall below this and boy, you can see this when you encounter it. So what, though? They are not reading this or Gladwell. Second point: Gladwell is a wonderful writer, one who definitely deserves his success. You only have to read any of his books to understand this: the accessibility, his iconoclasm (his original take on the subject) and the writing itself. I am a voracious reader, which among other things means I can spot a jealous wanna be writer. It becomes very clear upon reading cheap insults against Mr. Gladwell.
Mencken makes George Carlin look like Rick Santorum! Anyone who received a public condemnation by the Arkansas State Legislature in the 1920s is my kind of writer!
Now that is a very serious juxtaposition; but considering this sampling of some of ol' H.L.'s journalistic prose when countering the arguments for Anglo-Saxon superiority prevalent in his time in a 1923 essay entitled "The Anglo-Saxon," which argued that if there was such a thing as a pure "Anglo-Saxon" race, it was defined by its inferiority and cowardice. "The normal American of the 'pure-blooded' majority goes to rest every night with an uneasy feeling that there is a burglar under the bed and he gets up every morning with a sickening fear that his underwear has been stolen.", one must ponder just how Alan Sleet, the hippy dippy weatherman might respond.
As Usual,
EA
I was waiting for this reply. You just called me a snowflake. That is genuinely the first time anybody ever called me that. Thanks! I feel anointed! Off now to melt in a corner, laughing.
Sigh. Matt: Instead of writing a review of a book written by a non-expert which has no useful policy recommendations and will save zero lives, why not read and review UC Berkeley professor of law and internationally feted criminologist Franklin Zimring's 2017 book "When Police Kill"? It details how by banning police from using lethal force if a suspect does not have a gun, and instead requiring officers to call for backup and form a cordon around the suspect, we could see about a 40% drop in the number of people killed by police every year. A link to a video elaborating on his research can be found below.
Criminologist Lawrence Sherman has also advocated for requiring police officers to apply battlefield-grade hemostatic bandages to suspects they've shot, and for requiring police officers to transport suspects they've shot to the hospital in their patrol cars rather than wasting critical minutes waiting for EMTs. A study of the Philadelphia Police Department, which implemented the latter policy beginning in the 1990s, indicated that this policy could reduce officer-involved-shooting fatalities by about 30%. A link to Sherman's white paper can also be found below.
The most crucial point to realize about U.S. police violence is that about 57% of people killed by U.S. police every year are armed with a gun, and about 97.5% of U.S. police officers killed in the line of duty every year are killed by a gun. Until we get federal comprehensive gun control, the U.S. is not going to experience the low officer-involved-shooting rates and the low rates of homicide in all categories enjoyed in the rest of the high-income world.
One of the things I most lament about contemporary culture is that very few books are read anymore, and the few that are read are mainly flashy mediocrities written by media stars. Academic experts have the answers to so many of our current problems, but they are unsexy and underpublicized, so nobody reads them. And so the limitable suffering continues.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAl-b0wBbeM
http://tld-documents.llnassets.com.s3.amazonaws.com/0006000/6263/annurev-criminol-032317-092409.pdf
What a brain dead comment. Criminals don’t follow gun laws and never will. Gun control is about eliminating the civil rights of law abiding citizens so we are helpless to defend ourselves and our families from the savages terrorizing society and corrupt politicians that want unchecked control over everyone. It’s sad people care more about the lives of criminals that have no respect for the lives of others instead of the lives of your fellow law abiding citizens. It is a sick and twisted fetish at this point and a sign of a failing society. For example, judging from the comments, people know the multiple names of media/politically driven criminal deaths at the hands of police and none of the names of thousands of law abiding victims of criminals or the cops that have been assassinated by racist blacks this year alone. What is wrong with you people?
Thank you so much for this comment. I'm delighted to be able to disabuse you of the misconception that gun control legislation simply doesn't work to prevent criminals from getting guns!
The National Firearms Act of 1934 was wonderfully successful in reducing the rate by which fully automatic weapons were used in crimes, as shown by the fact that today fully automatic weapons account for just 0.3% of crime guns submitted for tracing by law enforcement agencies. The Gun Control Act of 1968 made modest improvements to national gun policy by restricting federal gun sales only to licensed dealers and barring dealers from selling to out-of-state buyers. However, there is still a pattern in the U.S. of guns in states with minimal regulation flowing to states with stringent restrictions on gun sales; this is evidenced by the fact that 90% of all crime guns in New York City come from out of state, disproportionately from Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia and Florida.
Current federal regulation disqualifies people who have been convicted of a felony from owning a gun. This should be expanded to anyone who has been convicted of a violent misdemeanor. A study of adult murder defendants in Chicago found that only 43% of them had a felony conviction, and another study found that of criminals sentenced to prison for a firearm-related felony, most of them were not disqualified by any federal background check requirements.
Additionally, anyone convicted of several DUIs should be barred from owning a gun, as about half of all homicides are committed by someone under the influence of alcohol.
Another excellent potential federal regulation would be to empower every police department in the country to do what Indiana police are permitted to do by state law: Seize a weapon without a warrant from individuals they deem to be dangerous to themselves or others.
In re the NICS background check, the 2007 Virginia Tech shooter, who killed 33 people including himself, passed a NICS background check. So did Elliot Rodger, the perpetrator of the 2014 Isla Vista mass shooting. A way to improve NICS and keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill is to improve upon the federal ban on firearm possession by a mentally person who has been involuntarily hospitalized for mental illness and extend it to everyone who has been hospitalized for mental illness, both voluntarily and involuntarily.
Another excellent regulation which could prevent guns from falling into the hands of people to whom they were not originally registered is to require all guns to have a fingerprint signature. Gun manufacturers are already using such signatures widely. A 2004 study showed that for inmates who used a gun in a crime that landed them in prison, 41% got the gun from a friend or family member, 32% got the gun from off the street, from a drug dealer or from a fence or black market dealer, and just 12% got the gun from a gun shop or pawn shop (presumably licensed).
As you can see, the federal government has hardly exhausted all its regulatory options, and these policies would work wonderfully to reduce the rate at which violent individuals are able to perpetrate homicides and other violent crimes. Yay!
South Africa, Mexico, Afghanistan and India are perfect examples of guns being banned and yet criminals running around with guns. Chicago (Illinois) has strict gun laws even to the point where:
1. Even the hyper liberal anti-gun Gifford Law Center gives their second highest score of A- to Illinois and A to New Jersey.
https://giffords.org/lawcenter/resources/scorecard/
Texas gets an “F” from Gifford Law Center, yet Houston and Dallas have murder rates that are half of that in Chicago. The rates in Austin and El Paso are tiny when compared to Chicago. All this despite Texas having neighbours with cartels south of border.
2. The age for purchasing handguns (pistols and revolvers) in Illinois is 21 years old. Vast majority of the gang violence and shootings happen using handguns.
3. The state requires gun owners to obtain licenses and face background checks as well as imposing waiting periods on firearms purchases. They also have red flag laws.
In 2021, as of July 13:
US Population: 330 million
US total guns: 420+ million
US Total non-suicide shootings so far: 21305 - 12804 = 8501
US non-suicide deaths so far: 10788
Chicago population: 2.7 million (0.8 %)
Chicago non-suicide shootings so far: 2195 (25.8%)
Chicago non-suicide deaths so far: 405 (3.8%)
Aka 25.8% shootings from a 0.8% population. Must be all the guns and white supremacy problem....
The wonderful thing about the second amendment is the way it equips its defenders to bring arguments against it to a forceful conclusion.
War on drugs has gone amazingly well! So lets do that with guns too!
"none of the names of thousands of law abiding victims of criminals or the cops that have been assassinated by racist blacks this year alone."
I was pretty much with you here until "racist blacks."
Trying to define "racist" as a category of human being is an ideological bear trap. When you step into it -- ouch.
Just because this garbage is floating around in the internet mediasphere doesn't mean anyone has to participate in it.
Aren't we all racist, if you are going to be honest with yourself? I know this isn't considered constructive given the current narrative, but I would prefer to be logically consistent and not have to regret later writing some politically motivated lie.
Statesments of the form 'All X are Z' are basically meaningless because Z is not a distinguishing feature on X. However, if you use the older meaning of _racism_, which is a political theory, not mere prejudice or preference, you have a chance of distinguishing some persons, opinions and actions from others and thus make reducing or countering or even eliminating racism possible.
In a world where specificity and definitions don't mean a whole hell of a lot, i'm sticking with the basic meaning of being xenophobic or prejudiced against others not of your race. I've failed to find anyone who doesn't have this living within themselves and you'll never get rid of it.
You're talking about bigotry or somesuch, which is another matter entirely. You _could_ get rid of bigotry, though what we are doing right now is not useful in this regard.
Actually, specificity and definitions do mean something if you're trying to think -- logically, anyway. I define _racism_ as a theory with the following components:
(1) There are (physical) races.
(2) Race affects behavior; in other words, some races are better than others.
(3) It is correct and proper for the good races to control or eliminate the bad races by whatever means is necessary.
If someone just dislikes persons who appear to have different attributes, such as appearance, language, customs, and so on, but doesn't do anything about it, I don't think that's proper racism; it's a personal preference.
However, I recognize that past or present preferences may add up to a kind of anonymous, hidden racist practice in certain contexts. In that case I assume all non-racists could agree that such practices should be discouraged even if they don't particularly like the appearance, language, etc. etc., of some kinds of people.
The issue is made someone more difficult because race is a social construction rather than a physical fact.
I am taking about the multiple blacks that have assassinated police and admitted to doing it because they wanted to kill white people because they hate white people(whipped up hatred by the media/Democrats). It never makes national news but I see local news reports nation wide. This is the literal definition of racism. No different than the handful of white supremacists that do the same thing.
Your point can stand on its own. I'll just try to articulate my own beliefs.
I don't think it's legitimately my job, or anyone else's job, to police terminology in the public square (increasingly, these days, the internet).
I don't think using "race" as a political football is helpful for any sincerely democratic project. I think that so many vested interests seem to be pressing the general populace to do so is very telling.
I don’t disagree with that statement. I only used the word racist because they are legitimate racists through their actions and admitted it.
A couple of decades ago their actions would have had national political ramifications for the politicians and media that incited them. But because the perps were black and just doing what they had been told to do by the media/Dems, the stories get buried. I would say “got buried” but it is happening every week now so there is a full blown national media cover up to preserve the narrative so it lasts as long as possible and does as much damage as possible.
I don’t know how anyone could expect this kind of thing to not occur when it is being incited to occur.
A lot of work to save the lives of 9 people nationwide.
Officer-involved shootings account for about 8% of homicides in the U.S. Your nihilism is as disturbing as it is dumb.
No they don’t. Get a remotely accurate grip on reality.
Between 1,000 and 1,100 people are killed by police every year.
And 20 are unarmed.
Hyperbole much? Why make up hysterical hyperbole if the data were on your side?
Data doesn't agree with your narrative:
For 2019:
12 unarmed blacks were shot and killed.
26 unarmed whites were shot and killed.
11 unarmed hispanics were shot and killed.
For 2020:
18 unarmed blacks were shot and killed.
26 unarmed whites were shot and killed.
10 unarmed hispanics were shot and killed.
For 2021:
4 unarmed blacks were shot and killed.
7 unarmed whites were shot and killed.
2 unarmed hispanics were shot and killed.
I shared my sources (left leaning sources) here:
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-overlooked-factors-in-police/comments#comment-2418613
You'd be right if his numbers had been even remotely close to reality.
Get help.
How many of those people were being aggressive with deadly weapons toward the police? That's what I'd want to know. Now, BLM is protesting against deaths of people with a 2-mile-long rap sheet who literally pulled a weapon on cops while on probation or parole. IMHO, that's suicide by cop. Not a victim.
Numbers don't agree with your narrative.
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-overlooked-factors-in-police/comments#comment-2418613
"Until we get federal comprehensive gun control"
Well, that's a hell of a handwave.
1) I infer from your argument that you believe cops and no one else should be allowed to possess firearms. If that's a hyperbolic inference, my bust, but you're not being terrifically specific.
2) What form ought this further "federal comprehensive gun control" to take? Federal gun control laws have existed for nearly a century -- public firearms ownership in the USA has been incrementally restricted from the NFA of 1934 to the GCA of 1968 to the Crime Bill of 1994. It's not as if there are no laws. Everyone legally purchasing a firearm from a credentialed dealer has to undergo a NICS background check.
3) The number of privately possessed firearms in the USA is vaguely estimated by a variety of sources as upwards of 400 million. Nobody knows for sure. Suppose that Congress passes mandated registration. How many will comply with it?
That DC v. Heller Supreme Court decision is gonna be a beast to get around, too.
That's not happening now for sure. In fact gun sales are soaring, given our government's push toward a police state.
In the 10 million gun sales from last year, 58% of new gun owners are Blacks, and 40% women.
Interesting.
1) The U.S. should have as few guns as possible. If the U.S. gets the restrictive gun control laws enacted in Germany and England, it may then be feasible to disarm police, thereby plummeting homicide rates across the board.
2) The National Firearms Act of 1934 was wonderfully successful in reducing the rate by which fully automatic weapons were used in crimes, as shown by the fact that today fully automatic weapons account for just 0.3% of crime guns submitted for tracing by law enforcement agencies. The Gun Control Act of 1968 made modest improvements to national gun policy by restricting federal gun sales only to licensed dealers and barring dealers from selling to out-of-state buyers. However, there is still a pattern in the U.S. of guns in states with minimal regulation flowing to states with stringent restrictions on gun sales; this is evidenced by the fact that 90% of all crime guns in New York City come from out of state, disproportionately from Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia and Florida.
Current federal regulation disqualifies people who have been convicted of a felony from owning a gun. This should be expanded to anyone who has been convicted of a violent misdemeanor. A study of adult murder defendants in Chicago found that only 43% of them had a felony conviction, and another study found that of criminals sentenced to prison for a firearm-related felony, most of them were not disqualified by any federal background check requirements.
Additionally, anyone convicted of several DUIs should be barred from owning a gun, as about half of all homicides are committed by someone under the influence of alcohol.
Another excellent potential federal regulation would be to empower every police department in the country to do what Indiana police are permitted to do by state law: Seize a weapon without a warrant from individuals they deem to be dangerous to themselves or others.
In re the NICS background check, the 2007 Virginia Tech shooter, who killed 33 people including himself, passed a NICS background check. So did Elliot Rodger, the perpetrator of the 2014 Isla Vista mass shooting. A way to improve NICS and keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill is to improve upon the federal ban on firearm possession by a mentally person who has been involuntarily hospitalized for mental illness and extend it to everyone who has been hospitalized for mental illness, both voluntarily and involuntarily.
3) I don't know how many will comply with registration. Another excellent regulation which could prevent guns from falling into the hands of people to whom they were not originally registered is to require all guns to have a fingerprint signature. Gun manufacturers are already using such signatures widely. A 2004 study showed that for inmates who used a gun in a crime that landed them in prison, 41% got the gun from a friend or family member, 32% got the gun from off the street, from a drug dealer or from a fence or black market dealer, and just 12% got the gun from a gun shop or pawn shop (presumably licensed).
As you can see, the federal government has hardly exhausted all its regulatory options.
I am going to buy another gun tomorrow just because of this comment.
That's soooo sensible. Good for you, friend!
Make that two guns now.
Make it ten! Studies show you could have a thousand guns in your home and none of them would make you safer from an invader. But I wish you all the best in enjoying your delusional heterocosm!
"The U.S. should have as few guns as possible."
That's just, like, your opinion, man. I say the more the merrier. Guess we have to hash that one out by voting for representatives and court judgments and stuff. The legal process and our democracy.
"If the U.S. gets the restrictive gun control laws enacted in Germany and England"
[guffaws] That'll be the day. You seen the balance of power in Congress lately?
"This should be expanded to anyone who has been convicted of a violent misdemeanor."
"anyone convicted of several DUIs should be barred from owning a gun"
Your "shoulds" are doing some heavy lifting here. One could be forgiven for thinking that you are a person who believes yourself to have the authority to tell others what they "should" and "should not" do.
"another study found that of criminals sentenced to prison for a firearm-related felony, most of them were not disqualified by any federal background check requirements."
It's almost as if the increasingly restrictive federal background requirements... have been ineffective? So your argument is that they need to become *more* restrictive?
"Another excellent potential federal regulation would be to empower every police department in the country to... seize a weapon without a warrant"
You don't seem to be too big on the Bill of Rights. 2nd Amendment? 4th Amendment? Fuggedabaht'em.
"require all guns to have a fingerprint signature. Gun manufacturers are already using such signatures widely."
Please cite a source. Like, name one gun manufacturer who is doing this. (If it's some boutique manufacturer I've never heard of, I will gracefully concede the point.) The old "smart gun" canard has been around in one form or another since the 1990s. It has never proven practicable for both technological and financial reasons.
"As you can see, the federal government has hardly exhausted all its regulatory options."
Thank God. The question you have been dancing around here is one of implementation. The federal government can legislatively regulate out the wazoo. What measures should it take to effectively implement these putative regulations? I see few options beyond active violence against its own populace, and that's a case of the cure being worse than the disease.
I don't see any advanced countries engaging in greater violence against its civilian population than we have in the U.S. -- and no, I'm not referring to Cuba or China as advanced countries. I hate communism and all communists, so that lazy ad hominem ain't gonna work.
The fingerprint signature suggestion is taken from "The Gun Debate: What Everyone Needs To Know" (2014) by Philip J. Cook and Kristin A. Goss.
You're right: I don't give a fart in space about the Second Amendment. I want it completely watered down. I do think the government has the right to take measures to ensure public safety that I understand you find too nanny-state-ish. Evidence from around the world, especially from Australia and the bans it instituted after the grisly 1996 Port Arthur Massacre, shows these measures save lives, but admittedly they would infringe on the Bill of Rights. Bring it on, I say!
I'm sorry you thought I engaged in ad hominem. I thought I was being quite polite.
"The fingerprint signature suggestion is taken from "The Gun Debate: What Everyone Needs To Know" (2014) by Philip J. Cook and Kristin A. Goss."
That's not an answer to the question I asked. Your claim was "Gun manufacturers are *ALREADY* using such signatures *WIDELY* (emphases mine)." My response was "name one gun manufacturer who is doing this." If you are leaning on Cook & Goss's work here, and if it is a serious, scholarly one, they should have been able to provide examples of gun manufacturers *widely* employing fingerprint-signature technology. I note you used the word "suggestion."
"You're right: I don't give a fart in space about the Second Amendment. I want it completely watered down. I do think the government has the right to take measures to ensure public safety that I understand you find too nanny-state-ish. Evidence from around the world, especially from Australia and the bans it instituted after the grisly 1996 Port Arthur Massacre, shows these measures save lives, but admittedly they would infringe on the Bill of Rights. Bring it on, I say!"
Well, at least we each know who the other is dealing with. It seems there is far too much daylight between our respective positions for us to resolve anything by reasoned debate.
Final note: Brits and Australians aren't Americans. The US is a much larger country with far more firearms and a stronger tradition of not knuckling under to feudalistic control by a centralized hierarchy. The Canadians joke about their guns "falling off the boat" after mandatory registration was passed.
Broad-sweep sordid details for any interested party here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry
I hate guns. Absolutely hate them. Would be delighted if they banned them all tomorrow. But, the booger we hit up hard against is ok, so what are we going to do with all of the guns already out there? I've only heard crickets for an answer.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA Good luck buddy.
In the 10 million gun sales from last year, 58% of new gun owners are Blacks, and 40% women. Why do you want to disarm minorities and women?
And federal gun control helps us how exactly?
97.5% of American police killed in the line of duty every year are killed by guns, overwhelmingly handguns. English police, who work in a country with stringent gun control laws, are killed in the line of duty at 4% the rate of their American counterparts; German police, who also enjoy working in a gun-controlled society, are killed in the line of duty at 2.5% the rate of their American counterparts. English civilians, who are infinitely less likely to have a gun when confronted by police, are killed by police at less than 1% the rate of American civilians; German civilians, 2.5%.
Isn't in wonderful to know there are solutions which could save so many lives? I'm sure thrilled.
Ah, beautiful UK and Germany where you can be arrested for offending someone on the internet or having a butter knife in a drawer at home. Clown world intensified.
https://www.theawl.com/tag/knifecrime-island/
The U.K. and Germany do admittedly have a huge problem with free speech rights and would benefit immensely from a constitutional amendment similar to our First Amendment. None of that, however, has any bearing on their wonderfully effective gun control legislation.
Another bleeding heart who secretly loves totalitarianism.
First Amendment good, Second Amendment bad.
Four legs good, two legs better!
You see it too!
Common ground. <3
So your remedy for authoritarianism in the UK and Germany is a constitutional amendment just like the one you are arguing should be subverted in the US. Brilliant! You should check yourself for injuries after that logic.
Ian Jameson: Government is so corrupt, incompetent and bloated! They don't care about us people!!!!
Ian Jameson: I agree! Lets give them more power over our lives, give them more of our taxes, health care and let them decide who gets to own guns and who gets to speak what!
I appreciate the reply but what you're talking about is impractical and, as far as your references to Germany and England go, not on point. The rights of gun ownership is in our founding documents for reasons that have proven to be crucial to preserving our rights as American citizens.
I don't give a damn about your or my Second Amendment rights: I care about saving lives. Nothing about what I've proposed is impractical, as demonstrated by the fact that you immediately went to saying such reforms are un-American rather than expanding upon the idea that they wouldn't work.
Horseshit.
You don’t give a fuck about saving lives. You’re interested in control, and nothing more.
Oh, how right you must be! You have never met me and you've paid no attention to the lengthy explanations I've given for my positions, but because you are clairvoyant, imbued with divine powers of mind-reading, you're absolutely right: I must just want control. There couldn't possibly be any altruistic urge on my part not to see Americans mowed down by bullets every year at rates unexampled in the rest of the high-income world. A+ for clear, logical argumentation, my dear friend.
I don't like firearms, I don't own firearms, none are permitted in my home. You should care about Second Amendment rights for the same reason I do: ignore this Amendment and the rest are invalidated. If you don't want firearms possession to be a constitutional right, amend the constitution. If you can't manage that, then compromise. If you cared about saving lives, you'd abolish beds. More people are killed in the US every year from falling out of bed than unarmed blacks are killed by police.
Frankly, I'm shocked Ian hasn't called for the abolition of death. Clearly that's the only reasonable course of action here.
"I care about saving lives"
No you don't. Because if you did, you would not be spouting such virtue signalling nonsense.
Couple years ago, one of my friends here in Canada was being followed back home by someone. Unfortunately, even pepper sprays aren't allowed in Canada. So in case she gets attacked, she would be defenceless. Same with if you have a wife/daughter/elderly/handicapped person in your household. The best way to defend yourself in such situations is to get a firearm and train often. Delays in obtaining one doesn't help. And based on CDC's own data from a decade ago, there's over 500K defensive use of guns (doesn't even have to be shot - simply displaying it gets criminals to run away).
That's what every evil person says to disarm the population before they run them over with tanks or send them off to the camps. And I am sure you totally can't imagine that ever happening from the administration which is already censoring half the population and from people like AOC actively asking to make lists of Trump supporters to get them banned from social media.
First, label your political opponents as nazis, extremists, conspiracy theorists etc. Then get the top military general to cry about the white rage boogeyman. Next force companies to ban said "extremists" and "conspiracy theorists" from every platform. Lastly, get that military general to use the military on these "extremists". Oh and take away their guns so they can't defend themselves.
2012: "Venezuela bans private gun ownership"
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-18288430
2017: Venezuela: Video Shows Armored Vehicle Rolling Over Protesters
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/venezuela-video-shows-armored-vehicle-rolling-over-protesters-n754891
2019: "MSNBC Admits: Because Venezuelans Were Disarmed, They Have No Power Against the Government"
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2019/05/01/msnbc-admits-because-venezuelans-were-disarmed-they-have-no-power-against-the-government-n2545639
I am Canadian so I wish people in America actually appreciated how good they have it there when it comes to freedoms. You can't ban somebody into being a good person. If they can't get a gun they will find something else.
“Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins.” - Sammy Gravano, gangster, served 20 years, involvement in 19 murders
In the US, UK, and Germany, who wields the guns used to kill police? What, if anything, do those people have in common other than wielding a gun? Are the commonalities cross cultural?
There are countless ways to reduce homicide rates across countries -- it's very important not to take a monocausal view of the matter. Expanding social insurance, increasing a country's average life expectancy, raising taxes on alcohol, making the country more gender equal, and making the number of men as equal to the number of women as possible have all been shown to be correlated with reduced homicides of all descriptions.
The single most significant policy for reducing homicides that the U.S. has not instituted that the rest of the advanced world has, however, is gun control. Thank you for your excellent question.
In all parties, reduce impulsiveness and build trust. Also, end "war on drugs."
Also, create heaven on earth and arbitrarily assign blame for failures to a scapegoat who will be sacrificed annually.
I think more people are killed by cars than guns, so one would think more advanced car control would reduce homicides more effectively.
Another measure which would reduced world-wide homicide tremendously would be disarming the U.S. Federal government.
If those tactics are feasible, they’ll propagate out to the 10k police departments nationwide eventually. Academics have their own problems overstating their findings so I wouldn’t get too attached to those expected improvements. Nobody needs wonks rolling out nationwide social science experiments.
I can understand why local departments don’t find reducing suspect fatalities to be the most important policy decision. Very few of those 1000 people/year will spark much sympathy from their communities because the suspects are engaging in pretty unsympathetic behavior. Communities care a lot more about protecting victims than protecting the rights of asshats. Both deserve protection, but, priorities.
Your point about gun control is a non sequitur.
None of the academic work I cited is social science. There are actually about 18,000 police departments in the U.S. The public outcry against police shootings is deafening; use-of-force reform is almost nowhere to be seen, however.
Saving lives is the paramount priority. These reforms would be extremely easy to implement, as shown by the fact that New Jersey and Philadelphia police have already implemented them with minimal burden to departments and no increase in risk to the lives of officers.
My point about gun control is not a non sequitur: 97.5% of American police killed in the line of duty every year are killed by guns, overwhelmingly handguns. English police, who work in a country with stringent gun control laws, are killed in the line of duty at 4% the rate of their American counterparts; German police, who also enjoy working in a gun-controlled society, are killed in the line of duty at 2.5% the rate of their American counterparts. English civilians, who are infinitely less likely to have a gun when confronted by police, are killed by police at less than 1% the rate of American civilians; German civilians, 2.5%.
Isn't in wonderful to know there are solutions which could save so many lives? I'm sure thrilled.
Criminology is social science.
Some academic has some ideas but you’re being far too hyperbolic to be taken seriously.
Getting rid of 400M guns isn’t a solution. It’s a handwave.
Sorry, I thought you said social psychology. I despise social psychology.
You're not presenting a compelling counterargument for why all the reforms the rest of the high-income world has implemented simply can't work here. Argument by assertion.
I didn't say we were going to get rid of 400 million guns -- total strawman fallacy on your part. We can reduce that number through the myriad reforms I point to elsewhere in the comments.
Your earlier suggestions could be implemented locally. It’s a pragmatic approach.
Your gun control suggestions are deeply unpractical. They’ve been tried here in DC and NYC. They’re also knowingly inflammatory to half of the population. So it’s not only a bad idea but a bad faith argument meant to piss off opponents.
The local gun control measures you cite have failed specifically because they were not enforced federally, as I explained in previous comments:
The National Firearms Act of 1934 was wonderfully successful in reducing the rate by which fully automatic weapons were used in crimes, as shown by the fact that today fully automatic weapons account for just 0.3% of crime guns submitted for tracing by law enforcement agencies. The Gun Control Act of 1968 made modest improvements to national gun policy by restricting federal gun sales only to licensed dealers and barring dealers from selling to out-of-state buyers. However, there is still a pattern in the U.S. of guns in states with minimal regulation flowing to states with stringent restrictions on gun sales; this is evidenced by the fact that 90% of all crime guns in New York City come from out of state, disproportionately from Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia and Florida.
While the suggestions above are good in themselves, they fall short: 40% isn't enough, and effective after treatment doesn't prevent unjustified shootings in the first place.
Furthermore, "57% of people killed by U.S. police every year are armed with a gun" is absolutely damning. That means approximately 43% of police killings are unjustified - absolutely horrifying, and far worse than I thought. Police should be able to subdue a person with a knife; if they can't, they're incompetent.
Plus: "banning police from using lethal force if a suspect does not have a gun" would require holding police responsible for whether there was a gun - or not. That is, they would have to be at least fired and preferably prosecuted for getting it wrong - none of this "I thought he had a gun." They're well paid; they can behave professionally, or suffer the consequences.
"That means approximately 43% of police killings are unjustified"
That's simply false and not even remotely true.
For 2019:
12 unarmed blacks were shot and killed.
26 unarmed whites were shot and killed.
11 unarmed hispanics were shot and killed.
For 2020:
18 unarmed blacks were shot and killed.
26 unarmed whites were shot and killed.
10 unarmed hispanics were shot and killed.
For 2021:
4 unarmed blacks were shot and killed.
7 unarmed whites were shot and killed.
2 unarmed hispanics were shot and killed.
Also unarmed does not always mean non-threatening.
I shared my sources (left leaning sources) here:
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-overlooked-factors-in-police/comments#comment-2418613
If you want to see more police officers fired for misconduct, support use-of-force reform, because it is the fact that officers who make lethal mistakes do not usually violate use-of-force policy that keeps them employed and shields them from being convicted of wrongdoing.
Police are not incompetent; use-of-force policy is incompetent. We are not going to magically raise police officers' IQ's; we can instantly train them to be less lethal, however.
IF there are serious consequences. Otherwise, cop culture just makes a joke of "training."
I think the fundamental point is that nothing as a simple as it is presented in the media, especially in this time of hard core tribal camps. I am not sure how we lost the ability to analyze problems cooperatively and agree on some basic steps to remediate the issue we face. I do know that the drive for revenue driven outrage clicks is not helping the matter. I get the sense that opposing groups are talking past each other instead of seeking to understand the concerns and arguments of the other side. If we don't regain the ability to discuss and reach compromise we will be forever locked in this whipsaw of federal rule where every 4-8 years sides switch and the first order of business is to eliminate what the previous office holder did just because they did it, regardless of effectiveness of the policy.
One of the problems is that people on both sides today see people on the other side as not merely having bad ideas but actually being “bad people”. While there has always been a strain of this, Trump’s election brought it to the fore where all of a sudden anyone who didn’t visibly toe the progressive line was now a NaZi!!!11!! — and what’s the point in having a discussion with a Nazi? This is of course completely stupid, but sadly it is where we find ourselves. The only hope for a pluralist democracy is genuine tolerance (not the fake progressive version of “oh we believe in free speech — just not hate speech!”), where all are free to speak and the discussion is around the content of the ideas and not the identity of the speaker.
I've read some of Matt's published works and generally enjoyed it. I'm not 100% aligned politically but that's ok. But this line is what finally got me to subscribe. "I now see it’s a blessing in the United States, a country where a fair portion of the mass audience is capable of losing at tic-tac-toe."
That line is the arrogance and insipid analysis that made Taibbi a hero to legions of Rilling Stone readers. It’s nonsense, it’s meaningless, is the analysis of an intellectual lightweight.
So you're a snob, eh?
I love how butthurt the not-so-obvious wokies got over it. LOL!
Having read all of Malcolm Gladwells books and all of yours Matt including "I can't breathe" combined with my life experiences in Canada, the USA and the Bahamas I don't expect much change in the future. The "underclass" and the criminal classes are just too big in many western societies. The police are there to protect the ruling classes from us, the working classes and they do a credible job. They are secondarily there to protect the working classes from the underclass and the criminal classes and that's not much fun, crappy hours, crappy pay and the chance to deal with what most of us "middle classes", actually lower working classes. Like surgery and the abbitoir; we really don't want to see what's being done, just look after it officer. Our brutal capitalism system will always have the underclass and the ruling rentier classes like it the way it is and we seem to have bought into it. Hell, the USA still doesn't have universal public health care or paid maternity leave, quite brutal if you've ever lived in any other western countries. The Hood and The Holler are way too big to fix. The system is basically " inverted totalitarianism" and it works well for the 1% and the 10% officer classes; for the rest of us who produce the wealth and perform most useful services of all races "actually a social concept, we are all Homo sapiens"and ethnicities we depend on the cop's to keep a lid on it. Notice how the "defund the Police" politicians sure want their security on your nickel... hypocrisy... you bet.
"The Hood and the Holler" would be a great Netflix original series.
Gladwell has been captured by the Woke so I view his books post 2016 with deep skepticism unfortunately.
That said, Im open to evidence of “Broken Windows” being inherently ineffective. Incomplete picture here. Go to LA, Chicago, NYC now and compare it to 2015 when these cities were cleaner and had historically low quality of life crimes being committed. Something was working. Cities are a mess now.
So perhaps Broken Windows policing can be adjusted in some way. The answer can’t just be to let every minor low level crime go unanswered. Maybe there will emerge a different approach.
You don't suppose a pandemic and the recession that wen twith it have anything to do with it, do you?
You make some really good points, Matt. I totally agree about the patrol cars looking for people to harass. That's the real problem. It's frustrating to see the tremendous level of energy over George Floyd's death being squandered over "Defund the Police". Such a huge opportunity missed. It makes me wonder who injected "defund the police" into the conversation in the first place. Was it meant to prevent any real change from happening? I often thought that it would have been better to focus on qualified immunity for Police officers. At least that's a concrete policy argument that could make a difference. I live in Portland, OR and we have Black Lives Matter signs everywhere, but what has changed? I think people mean well, but it's just a bunch of platitudes at this point. We have strangers coming into our neighborhood weekly with their megaphones yelling at people walking by and asking for money. The movement has become more of a money-making machine for scam artists than anything else. It's really sad.
Thank you. I don't for a second think the "Defund the Police" was grassroots. When it first started, I saw VERY professionally printed and designed signs being posted all over my neighborhood. I think defunding = leaving criminals to do what they want. Hell, California lets shoplifters of under $900 go free no questions asked. They are encouraging criminality. So next we need to ask why? BLM was astro-turfed within a couple years of its inception. There are no movements that aren't controlled by the PTB.