Fixing the System - Systemic Racism, the CJ system, Profiting off of incarceration, etc thread - (facts & info for real discussion only)

[Hapless Bills Fan]

3 hours ago, LeviF91 said:

"Abolish police" is not "fixing the system."  "Abolish police" turns America into a series of checkpoints, like any place in Africa with natural resources that developing nations are interested in (South Africans and the French will be able to make big money consulting on this).  And we all know how well that's going.  "Abolish police" = rise in private security for the wealthy, cost shifted to the evaporating middle class (whose security will be eroded quicker than their wealth), and gang rule of the urban poor.  And people who say "abolish police" will accept nothing less than exactly that, making it impossible to discuss things with them.  Functionally these people are anarcho-capitalists, whether they realize that or not, so any crying about "corporations" is laughably disingenuous.  Considering all that, yeah I'll take the beating instead of "green zone" America.

 

If someone regularly uses terms like "institutional-" or "systemic racism" and believes law enforcement constitutes an omnipotent bloc distinct from other public institutions, they don't live in the real world.  Which means I'm never going to end up in the same neighborhood, idea-wise, as them.

 

Is policing in America currently the best it could be?  Not if you ask me.  Shoutbox denizens can testify to what ideal policing consists of, philosophically, in my mind.  But someone who wants to throw out the baby instead of the bathwater has no interest in discussing real solutions.  

 

I admit, when I hear "defund police" I'm very curious about just exactly what does that mean?  Does it mean "abolish police"?  I'm not lining up to vote for "let's ring up the local police station and tell all the officers to start packing", myself.  If my neighbor's car is broken into in the back alley or I have an odd hole in my front screen and an odd hole opposite it in the back wall of the house, I want to be able to ring up the police and talk to someone.

 

I do use the term systemic racism.  I think it's real.  I hesitated about it because I see the many of the same drivers in other low-income towns and communities, but I wound up being persuaded there truly is an extra layer slathered on.  I'll PM you a story about what swayed me if you want to know.

 

That saying, and maybe you could change my mind, I think a lot of the stuff the police do in municipalities around here is total BS.  They're not stopping dangerous drivers who run red lights or speed, or investigating traffic accidents or robberies or burglaries or rapes or murders.  They are bringing in revenue for their cities.  They're writing traffic tickets for minor offenses, tickets for infractions like jaywalking, sagging (really? isn't "looking like a fool with your pants on the ground" its own punishment?), loitering, having a broken tail light, and so forth. 

Maybe no one is telling the police officers in those municipalities "hey, go out and write this many tickets each week, it pays your salary" but I'm sure there are discussions of numbers of tickets in department meetings and the city budget is common knowledge so they "get the flick".

But anyway thank you for the response because I think these are the sort of conversations that need to be had and heard and not just from one side.

[LeviF]

33 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I admit, when I hear "defund police" I'm very curious about just exactly what does that mean?  Does it mean "abolish police"?  I'm not lining up to vote for "let's ring up the local police station and tell all the officers to start packing", myself.  If my neighbor's car is broken into in the back alley or I have an odd hole in my front screen and an odd hole opposite it in the back wall of the house, I want to be able to ring up the police and talk to someone.

 

Dontcha know that having the luxury of calling the police when someone shot up your house is a function of your white privilege?

 

37 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I do use the term systemic racism.  I think it's real.  I hesitated about it because I see the many of the same drivers in other low-income towns and communities, but I wound up being persuaded there truly is an extra layer slathered on.  I'll PM you a story about what swayed me if you want to know.

 

Assuming it is real, replacing police officers with social workers (who, by the way, want absolutely ***** nothing to do with showing up to a 3am mental health crisis in the hood without an armed cop standing next to them) BY DEFINITION will not solve the issue, it will only shift to social workers perpetuating the same systems.  This is why the "abolish police" crowd are anarcho-capitalists in function; NO government interaction is reasonable by their definitions of "systemic" and "racism."

 

43 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

That saying, and maybe you could change my mind, I think a lot of the stuff the police do in municipalities around here is total BS.  They're not stopping dangerous drivers who run red lights or speed, or investigating traffic accidents or robberies or burglaries or rapes or murders.  They are bringing in revenue for their cities.  They're writing traffic tickets for minor offenses, tickets for infractions like jaywalking, sagging (really? isn't "looking like a fool with your pants on the ground" its own punishment?), loitering, having a broken tail light, and so forth. 

Maybe no one is telling the police officers in those municipalities "hey, go out and write this many tickets each week, it pays your salary" but I'm sure there are discussions of numbers of tickets in department meetings and the city budget is common knowledge so they "get the flick".

But anyway thank you for the response because I think these are the sort of conversations that need to be had and heard and not just from one side.

 

Every municipality that I'm aware of has elected leaders who are accountable to the people.  They make budgets and laws and prescribe punishments for violating those laws.  If jaywalking and sagging are "BS" laws then tell your local government that.  Can't get a ticket for violating a law that doesn't exist.  Meanwhile every local cop I've met in NY hates writing tickets and only does it if they're specifically working a traffic detail (click it or ticket, work zone week, etc.) or the violation is particularly egregious.

 

Also you're gonna trigger troopers pretty hard if you insist that tickets for broken tail lights are BS.

[Marv's Neighbor]

On 6/7/2020 at 8:42 AM, Niagara Bill said:

I do not have the opinion that this should be anti police. Frankly it may mean a refocus.

1. Police need to be close to the community. All citizens need not fear the police. I am not smart enough to know how, but I do know the criminal element will replace the police if they do not fix the relationships. Example, the mafia developed in Sicily because the government was so untrustworthy the mafia created a protection and aid for those in need. Today the drug gangs are doing similar activities but with more intimidation. There was a time when cops did not carry guns...now today that is impossible but weapons create opportunities for violence, but cops should be problem solvers first, not force first, not tickets and not arrests first...

2. Law enforcement must stop the drug problem. Now I know it is not just the police, but society has a huge unspoken plague that is a root evil creating conflict and stereo types. The underprivileged see that business as a way out of their situation when racism is holding them down. This circumstance now creates systemic stereotypes...it has got to be fixed.

3. Education...good education, equal education, more education, a reason for education,  new methods of education, with opportunity not handouts.

4. Mandatory anti racism training for every employed person...there is a difference between overt racism and systemic...People must understand it.

I have been involved in helping develop and implement this type of initiative and helps people see how they contribute to the ongoing systemic problems. People do not need to be chastised, just educated. 200 years of racism is not my fault, the future is our responsibility.

5.There is nothing wrong with a global anti racism symbol, and kneeling seems to be catching on..why not.

6. Any public employee who demonstrates racism....termination, period.

 

Without a doubt I am part of the historic problem, I am listening and trying.

This list likely shows my built in prejudices, sorry for that, sincerely!

 

 

And many more initiatives...

 

 

RESPECT solves much of this.

[Capco]

I took the video from the OP of this thread and used it as a basis for discussion in the following post that I wrote in PPP.  I thought I'd share it here as well.  

=============

 

 

I believe the key to fixing black-on-black violence and crime in black communities is to fix black poverty.  

 

The poverty rate for the whole country is 11.8%.  For whites, the rate is 8.1%, and for blacks, the rate is a whopping 20.8%. http://federalsafetynet.com/us-poverty-statistics.html

 

Some might say "well the reason so many blacks are in poverty is because so many are committing crimes and spending time in jail" but in fact the opposite is true.  The reason so many blacks commit violent crime is because so many are trapped in poverty because of systemic, passive racism.  
 

Remember in our country that public school districts are locally funded.  If your community is dirt poor, your high school is almost certain to become a drop out factory.  This can affect Americans of all colors, but again due to decades of system racism in the economy, this ends up disproportionately affecting black economic outcomes in predominantly black communities. 

 

One thing I would like to see is to replace school taxes with a system of federal funding for all public school districts.  Each student in the country should be allotted the same amount of funding with respect to regional cost-of-living differences or Purchasing Power Parity.  There shouldn't be such massive public education outcome differences in an egalitarian country like our own.  

 

Otherwise, you are left in the situation we are currently in that is more akin to "quasi-public" schools.  Imagine there's an excellent school district in your locale with fantastic outcomes. It's public, which means it's free at the point of delivery to all those who attend.  But what's the caveat to attend?  Well, you have to live in the district... and in this case living in the district almost invariably means owning a +$1 million home.  Combine the property tax method with the value of those all those million dollar homes, and you might have several times the amount of money to spend per student than those districts that are dirt poor. 

 

The public school system in America as it stands today has financial barriers to entry, which runs counter to why public education was conceived in the first place (i.e. the Enlightenment philosophes believed that education was for everyone, not just the rich).  

 

tl;dr:  Poverty causes crime.  Education lifts people out of poverty.  Eliminating/reducing poverty lowers crime rates, increases tax revenues, lowers the need for lifelong public assistance, decreases the need for militarized police, and can help put an end to active racial discrimination.  And I didn't blame any one side or political party.  

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

27 minutes ago, Capco said:

I took the video from the OP of this thread and used it as a basis for discussion in the following post that I wrote in PPP.  I thought I'd share it here as well.  

=============

 

 

I believe the key to fixing black-on-black violence and crime in black communities is to fix black poverty.  

 

The poverty rate for the whole country is 11.8%.  For whites, the rate is 8.1%, and for blacks, the rate is a whopping 20.8%. http://federalsafetynet.com/us-poverty-statistics.html

 

Some might say "well the reason so many blacks are in poverty is because so many are committing crimes and spending time in jail" but in fact the opposite is true.  The reason so many blacks commit violent crime is because so many are trapped in poverty because of systemic, passive racism.  
 

Remember in our country that public school districts are locally funded.  If your community is dirt poor, your high school is almost certain to become a drop out factory.  This can affect Americans of all colors, but again due to decades of system racism in the economy, this ends up disproportionately affecting black economic outcomes in predominantly black communities. 

 

One thing I would like to see is to replace school taxes with a system of federal funding for all public school districts.  Each student in the country should be allotted the same amount of funding with respect to regional cost-of-living differences or Purchasing Power Parity.  There shouldn't be such massive public education outcome differences in an egalitarian country like our own.  

 

Otherwise, you are left in the situation we are currently in that is more akin to "quasi-public" schools.  Imagine there's an excellent school district in your locale with fantastic outcomes. It's public, which means it's free at the point of delivery to all those who attend.  But what's the caveat to attend?  Well, you have to live in the district... and in this case living in the district almost invariably means owning a +$1 million home.  Combine the property tax method with the value of those all those million dollar homes, and you might have several times the amount of money to spend per student than those districts that are dirt poor. 

 

The public school system in America as it stands today has financial barriers to entry, which runs counter to why public education was conceived in the first place (i.e. the Enlightenment philosophes believed that education was for everyone, not just the rich).  

 

tl;dr:  Poverty causes crime.  Education lifts people out of poverty.  Eliminating/reducing poverty lowers crime rates, increases tax revenues, lowers the need for lifelong public assistance, decreases the need for militarized police, and can help put an end to active racial discrimination.  And I didn't blame any one side or political party.  

 

I found the first 4 interesting.
 

Adults not working - 30%
Adults with a disability - 26%
Adults without a high school diploma - 26%
Single moms - 25%

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, LeviF91 said:

Assuming it is real, replacing police officers with social workers (who, by the way, want absolutely ***** nothing to do with showing up to a 3am mental health crisis in the hood without an armed cop standing next to them) BY DEFINITION will not solve the issue, it will only shift to social workers perpetuating the same systems.  This is why the "abolish police" crowd are anarcho-capitalists in function; NO government interaction is reasonable by their definitions of "systemic" and "racism."

 

I have no idea what an "anarcho-capitalist" is or what that means, and not sure I'm too interested in being enlightened.  It kind of sounds like you're making a "camel's head" argument here, though please excuse me if I'm mistaken as I acknowledge I'm not sure what you mean.  It seems to argue we can't take one step in reaction to current events because it would set off a cascade of steps?  But below, aren't you essentially arguing to the contrary - you're saying "hey, let the elected leaders handle change".  Wouldn't elected leaders keep the brakes on and not allow the cascade to continue?  Or write themselves out of a job?

 

Quote

Every municipality that I'm aware of has elected leaders who are accountable to the people.  They make budgets and laws and prescribe punishments for violating those laws.  If jaywalking and sagging are "BS" laws then tell your local government that.  Can't get a ticket for violating a law that doesn't exist.

 

You have a valid point about having accountable elected leaders.  As counterpoints, though, when people are at a point where accrued actions are bubbling over with them, I think it's reasonable for them to want change NOW, and not 2 or 4 or 10 years from now when enough of the city government has been "turned over" through legit elections to start listening to constituents.  Boards of elections are changing/closing polling places which makes it more difficult for residents to vote; to run a successful campaign for office even at the muni level takes money and time.  I think a case can be made for people wanting "change, now"

 

I can't see anything in favor of municipal infractions about dress, provided the parts and farts are covered and that private businesses can establish their own standards (no shoes, no shirt, no service; no mask, no service etc). 

Jaywalking is an interesting case, because in theory a ticket for jaywalking is a matter of public safety - people who jaywalk across busy streets or in dark clothes at night create a danger to themselves and to traffic.  But then when it turns to stopping groups of kids in some communities who are walking down the middle of a quiet street in the middle of the day - it seems pretty clear that's not exercising judgement and discretion.  Meanwhile in other communities, kids walking down the middle of a quiet street midday are left alone.  It becomes part of a community perception that police exist to "hassle and make life harder", not to "protect and serve"

So then that's a different question: how do you keep a law that serves public safety on the books, but stop it being enforced inequitably?
 

Quote

Meanwhile every local cop I've met in NY hates writing tickets and only does it if they're specifically working a traffic detail (click it or ticket, work zone week, etc.) or the violation is particularly egregious.

 

I have no idea if the same municipal funding dynamic that I know exists here in MO exists in NY.  Maybe it doesn't.  It wouldn't surprise me if every local cop around here hates it too, but if that's the mandate they'll do it.

 

Quote

Also you're gonna trigger troopers pretty hard if you insist that tickets for broken tail lights are BS.

 

Oh, I get it that tail lights have a safety function. 

I think stopping someone and asking if they know their tail light is broken is not BS.  But how does a ticket help them fix it?  It's like citations for poorly maintained property.  Communities have an interest in having properties maintained, but how does giving someone a citation and maybe they incur a couple thousand in fines and court costs help them fix their broken porch steps?

In this electronic age, maybe there could be a system like issuing a delayed ticket, asking the driver when they can fix it, and giving them alternatives to showing its fixed on that date - either show up at an auto inspection station and have them verify for a few buck fee then enter it into an online database, or upload a picture of their license plate and the functioning tail light themselves.  If they don't do so by the target date, then the ticket activates.

 

Because here's the reality.  I feel I'm relatively unlikely to get a ticket for a nonfunctioning tail light unless the officer is in a totally pissy mood.  I'm well spoken, I was drilled from childhood to treat all LEO with the utmost respect, my vehicles are maintained to the best of my abilities in the best mechanical state, and that's my expectation based on how LEO have always treated me.  But our black neighbor who's a better mechanic than I'll ever be, a well-spoken, Godly, and very respectful man, has a different expectation based on how he and his friends and kin have been treated.

[Augie]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I have no idea what an "anarcho-capitalist" is or what that means, and not sure I'm too interested in being enlightened.  It kind of sounds like you're making a "camel's head" argument here, though please excuse me if I'm mistaken as I acknowledge I'm not sure what you mean.  It seems to argue we can't take one step in reaction to current events because it would set off a cascade of steps?  But below, aren't you essentially arguing to the contrary - you're saying "hey, let the elected leaders handle change".  Wouldn't elected leaders keep the brakes on and not allow the cascade to continue?  Or write themselves out of a job?

 

 

You have a valid point about having accountable elected leaders.  As counterpoints, though, when people are at a point where accrued actions are bubbling over with them, I think it's reasonable for them to want change NOW, and not 2 or 4 or 10 years from now when enough of the city government has been "turned over" through legit elections to start listening to constituents.  Boards of elections are changing/closing polling places which makes it more difficult for residents to vote; to run a successful campaign for office even at the muni level takes money and time.  I think a case can be made for people wanting "change, now"

 

I can't see anything in favor of municipal infractions about dress, provided the parts and farts are covered and that private businesses can establish their own standards (no shoes, no shirt, no service; no mask, no service etc). 

Jaywalking is an interesting case, because in theory a ticket for jaywalking is a matter of public safety - people who jaywalk across busy streets or in dark clothes at night create a danger to themselves and to traffic.  But then when it turns to stopping groups of kids in some communities who are walking down the middle of a quiet street in the middle of the day - it seems pretty clear that's not exercising judgement and discretion.  Meanwhile in other communities, kids walking down the middle of a quiet street midday are left alone.  It becomes part of a community perception that police exist to "hassle and make life harder", not to "protect and serve"

So then that's a different question: how do you keep a law that serves public safety on the books, but stop it being enforced inequitably?
 

 

I have no idea if the same municipal funding dynamic that I know exists here in MO exists in NY.  Maybe it doesn't.  It wouldn't surprise me if every local cop around here hates it too, but if that's the mandate they'll do it.

 

 

Oh, I get it that tail lights have a safety function. 

I think stopping someone and asking if they know their tail light is broken is not BS.  But how does a ticket help them fix it?  It's like citations for poorly maintained property.  Communities have an interest in having properties maintained, but how does giving someone a citation and maybe they incur a couple thousand in fines and court costs help them fix their broken porch steps?

In this electronic age, maybe there could be a system like issuing a delayed ticket, asking the driver when they can fix it, and giving them alternatives to showing its fixed on that date - either show up at an auto inspection station and have them verify for a few buck fee then enter it into an online database, or upload a picture of their license plate and the functioning tail light themselves.  If they don't do so by the target date, then the ticket activates.

 

Because here's the reality.  I feel I'm relatively unlikely to get a ticket for a nonfunctioning tail light unless the officer is in a totally pissy mood.  I'm well spoken, I was drilled from childhood to treat all LEO with the utmost respect, my vehicles are maintained to the best of my abilities in the best mechanical state, and that's my expectation based on how LEO have always treated me.  But our black neighbor who's a better mechanic than I'll ever be, a well-spoken, Godly, and very respectful man, has a different expectation based on how he and his friends and kin have been treated.

 

I’ve told this here before, but I, as the only white guy at the park, was the only one who thought the new paint job on the cop cars was an important thing to notice. The rest of the crowd pays very close attention to the cops cars. They have a different life experience. 

 

If I need a cop, I want one to show up. I seriously appreciate that. That cop needs to be protected against claims of abuse, and body cams are one of the best inventions in recent memory. If yours is turned off during an “event”, I have to wonder why. However, guys with a long list of complaints who still have their jobs only because a union made it hard to discipline or remove them......that needs to change.

 

Almost all cops are good people and mean well. The guy in Minneapolis with two brand new guys (despite a long list of complaints) seemed to be showing them how tough he was, maybe even “showing off”?  Ignoring a plea to roll him over.  How does a guy with that record get to train new guys???  Bullies exist in all walks of life. A cop who is a bully is a horrible formula and ends like this. 

 

I have a lot of questions, but few answers. 

 

 

[Augie]

Unfortunately, recent events are not going to “fix” things. Not completely, or even adequately.  This has been ongoing for hundreds of years.

 

Eliminating systemic racism is like melting a large block of ice. We have currently moved the block out of the shade, and into a nice sunny spot where it can melt that much faster. That’s a good thing, but it won’t last. Time will pass, the shade will move, and the melt rate will decline. 

 

I hope for serious progress. This time. It will happen again, as we all know. That’s just how it works, sadly. No easy fixes, just keep hoping to make significant progress. I wish it were easier. 

 

 

.

 

 

.

Edited June 10, 2020 by Augie

[davefan66]

8 hours ago, KD in CA said:

 

Also, police unions are a popular target these days and rightly so.  Again, go further.  Why do we have public unions at all?  Their main purpose is to perpetuate the cycle of corrupt money flowing between entrenched government officials and giant organizations that put their own needs far ahead of the public.  I bring this up because, as noted above, the core issue here is deeper than just race, it's about poverty.  If you really want to reduce poverty, you must teach people how to overcome it.  Our education system doesn't make any attempt to do that.   If it did, financial literacy would be taught in every grade from Kindergarten through Senior year.  But no one wants that because an intelligent populous threatens entrenched powers.  So what will we do for poor people out of all this?  Probably give them a bigger child tax credit, which will lift no one out of poverty.  Another band-aid instead of a cure.

I want to comment on the systematic racism that has brought us to where we are today, but feel compelled to speak to the above comment also.
 

I work health care and work for my Union.  We can’t paint all Unions with the same brush as corrupt Unions.  My Union works very hard to educate about acceptance, racial and economic equality.  Why Unions?  Because “the little guy” need the ability to secure a good wage, good Health care, good benefits and a good retirement.  By definition, a Union is a group of people working together for a common goal.  We as a nation need to do the same.  Work for the common good of everyone, not the few.

I believe systematic racism/ racial inequality is a much worse symptom of economic inequality.  It has been the top rich people of this country, and Republican Party for that matter, to keep those below them in income where they are.  It’s a centuries old worldwide problem.  Those in “power” want to stay in power.  How do they do this?  Keep those below them fighting each other, and not fighting the status quo.  Those in the middle class, lower class and poverty level have more numbers than those in the upper/upper class.  Do they use those numbers for the collective good?  No.  The lower classes are divided and not using their numbers to exert their power.  

 

Part of this division is systematic racism, probably the most powerful (not in a good way) divisive control exerted on the lower classes.  How do you keep people fighting each other?  Give them a scapegoat who is to blame for all their own woes.  Blame others for why their taxes are too high.  Blame others living off of “entitlements”.  Blame others for not “pulling their weight”.  All of this, when in fact it is the rich and large tax breaks for themselves and corporations that cost more than social entitlements.  It’s the military machine who’s budget is many times more than entitlements.  Yes, we need the military to protect us, but not at that large cost.  It had become an industry of its own.

 

When we are too busy fighting each other, we don’t have the time or wherewithal to fight the status quo.  We let those in charge take our health care away.  We let those in control Force an alternate reality upon is with lies.  We let those in control rig the election system with gerrymandering and the lack of a coherent/safe/working voting system.  Mark my words.  By November the GOP will systematically deny mail in voting and will restrict the number of voting locations, especially in predominantly underprivileged/poverty stricken areas.  
 

Much like a Union, we need to band together and work for a common goal.  There is no reason that those in a lower socioeconomic status can’t receive help to make their situations better.  Improve schools, improve educational opportunities, improve health care, improve job opportunities for those in need.  Instead of walking away from our Brothers and Sisters, it’s time we embrace each other.  Enough of the behavior we have accepted for many years.  
 

I can’t say I understand what it is like to be a black person living in this country.  The years and years of oppression.  I believed I understood, and that I did my best to do better.  What I have learned is I have not done enough.  I can do better, and will do better.  We all need to.

 

 

 

Edited June 8, 2020 by davefan66

[Hapless Bills Fan]

So here's the summary of a bill just introduced into the US House of Representatives, "Justice in Policing" Acti

 

https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=6939207-Justice-in-Policing-Act-Summary

 

Thoughts?
 

17 hours ago, Jaraxxus said:

Numbers can be manipulated to promote any agenda. That's the problem with numbers. As to drugs, the government shouldn't have a say when it comes to what an adult chooses to use/abuse, imo.

 

I let this sit for a day because I didn't want to be testy about it.

 

Yes, numbers can be manipulated.  Do you think that means numbers should be disregarded?  When you look at the number of blacks in this country, and the number that earn below a certain (admittedly arbitrary)income, and compare to the same number for whites, it can be seen that while the absolute number is higher for whites, the per capita number is significantly higher for blacks. 

 

Do you think that number means something?  If not, why? 

 

It seems to me it means that a higher % of blacks live in poverty - closer to 20% vs 6% of whites

[Hapless Bills Fan]

8 hours ago, LeviF91 said:

Dontcha know that having the luxury of calling the police when someone shot up your house is a function of your white privilege?

 

Nah.  Anyone can call.  The "white privilege" bit comes in because I expect only neutral or good things to happen.

 

The older officer who was one of the two who came took a look at the hole, took a look at the screen, walked to the opposite side of the street and looked at the house, came back and said "did you happen to find a golf ball  in your dining room?"  I said puzzledly "well, yes, actually, I assumed the dog had found it and carried it in, here it is". 

 

He knocked on a few doors, found out a neighbor who had thrown a party had a friend who was boasting about hitting slices against the houses across the street.  Case solved.

 

Neighbor paid for our new window and drywall repairs.

 

Golf slices after the party.  I never.

 

 

 

[LeviF]

16 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I have no idea what an "anarcho-capitalist" is or what that means, and not sure I'm too interested in being enlightened.  It kind of sounds like you're making a "camel's head" argument here, though please excuse me if I'm mistaken as I acknowledge I'm not sure what you mean.  It seems to argue we can't take one step in reaction to current events because it would set off a cascade of steps?  But below, aren't you essentially arguing to the contrary - you're saying "hey, let the elected leaders handle change".  Wouldn't elected leaders keep the brakes on and not allow the cascade to continue?  Or write themselves out of a job?

 

 

I'm not sure what "camel's head" means but I think I get the gist - I'm not saying nothing should be done, I'm saying that it's not worth discussing with people whose cry is "abolish police" because they won't accept any sort of reform - only abolition.

 

16 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

You have a valid point about having accountable elected leaders.  As counterpoints, though, when people are at a point where accrued actions are bubbling over with them, I think it's reasonable for them to want change NOW, and not 2 or 4 or 10 years from now when enough of the city government has been "turned over" through legit elections to start listening to constituents.  Boards of elections are changing/closing polling places which makes it more difficult for residents to vote; to run a successful campaign for office even at the muni level takes money and time.  I think a case can be made for people wanting "change, now"

 

I can't see anything in favor of municipal infractions about dress, provided the parts and farts are covered and that private businesses can establish their own standards (no shoes, no shirt, no service; no mask, no service etc). 

Jaywalking is an interesting case, because in theory a ticket for jaywalking is a matter of public safety - people who jaywalk across busy streets or in dark clothes at night create a danger to themselves and to traffic.  But then when it turns to stopping groups of kids in some communities who are walking down the middle of a quiet street in the middle of the day - it seems pretty clear that's not exercising judgement and discretion.  Meanwhile in other communities, kids walking down the middle of a quiet street midday are left alone.  It becomes part of a community perception that police exist to "hassle and make life harder", not to "protect and serve"

So then that's a different question: how do you keep a law that serves public safety on the books, but stop it being enforced inequitably?

 

 

So people can vote their way into a mess, but g-d forbid we make them vote their way out of it?  We need unilateral executive action?  Is that the argument here?  Because, again, that's not how our government works - it being slow is a feature, not a bug.

 

And understand - the "abolish police" crowd is the same crowd that specifically does not want private business to establish their own standards.  They're the exact same people that were policing businesses - through naming and shaming - who dared defy the executive authorities when it came to masks, social distancing, etc not even a month ago.  See, this is what they really mean by "abolish police" - nobody is accountable except for anybody who stands in the way of their ideology.

 

As far as equitable enforcement of laws - this is where you get into discretion and the like.  Either you enforce a law by the letter across the board or you let police have discretion.  Should you allow race to be a determining factor in your discretion?  No, but understand that there are 350 million people in America and as long as police have discretion SOMEBODY is going to have a complaint about how they use that discretion, whether that complaint is based in reality or not.

 

16 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Oh, I get it that tail lights have a safety function. 

I think stopping someone and asking if they know their tail light is broken is not BS.  But how does a ticket help them fix it?  It's like citations for poorly maintained property.  Communities have an interest in having properties maintained, but how does giving someone a citation and maybe they incur a couple thousand in fines and court costs help them fix their broken porch steps?

In this electronic age, maybe there could be a system like issuing a delayed ticket, asking the driver when they can fix it, and giving them alternatives to showing its fixed on that date - either show up at an auto inspection station and have them verify for a few buck fee then enter it into an online database, or upload a picture of their license plate and the functioning tail light themselves.  If they don't do so by the target date, then the ticket activates.

 

I was really just making fun of troopers. 

 

We have "fix-it tickets" in NY where if you get cited for something like a broken tail light, you get until sundown the next day to fix it.  You can either take a receipt from an auto shop showing completed work to your court date or you can go to any police station and ask whoever is at the desk to inspect your vehicle and sign off on the ticket.

 

16 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Because here's the reality.  I feel I'm relatively unlikely to get a ticket for a nonfunctioning tail light unless the officer is in a totally pissy mood.  I'm well spoken, I was drilled from childhood to treat all LEO with the utmost respect, my vehicles are maintained to the best of my abilities in the best mechanical state, and that's my expectation based on how LEO have always treated me.  But our black neighbor who's a better mechanic than I'll ever be, a well-spoken, Godly, and very respectful man, has a different expectation based on how he and his friends and kin have been treated.

 

Look, I'm not going to deny that your neighbor or his friends or family have been treated poorly by a cop at one point or another.  But I will say that I've seen a lot of complaints and reviewed a lot of body cam footage and most claims are baseless on their face.  Perception and reality aren't two entirely different things but there can be big differences when you consider that few, if any, people can read minds.  And believe it or not, one's expectations can play a big role in how "respectful" they end up being.  That cuts both ways.

8 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

So here's the summary of a bill just introduced into the US House of Representatives, "Justice in Policing" Acti

 

https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=6939207-Justice-in-Policing-Act-Summary

 

Thoughts?

 

It'll never pass.

 

But if qualified immunity ever goes away you're going to see a lot of cops walk off the job the day it does.

[LeviF]

BTW - you want some "facts and info" for discussion?  EVERY felonious killing of a cop in this country is tracked and the data is kept from each one - making bias in "reporting" nonexistent for that particular set of crimes.  And the data is readily available on the FBI's website.  Tell me which "racist policy" caused the weirdness of those numbers.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

I expect this will be controversial to some here.  Medium article written by a former police officer:

 

https://medium.com/@OfcrACab/confessions-of-a-former-bastard-cop-bb14d17bc759

 

DO THE BASTARDS EVER HELP?

Reading the above, you may be tempted to ask whether cops ever do anything good. And the answer is, sure, sometimes. In fact, most officers I worked with thought they were usually helping the helpless and protecting the safety of innocent people.

During my tenure in law enforcement, I protected women from domestic abusers, arrested cold-blooded murderers and child molesters, and comforted families who lost children to car accidents and other tragedies. I helped connect struggling people in my community with local resources for food, shelter, and counseling. I deescalated situations that could have turned violent and talked a lot of people down from making the biggest mistake of their lives. I worked with plenty of officers who were individually kind, bought food for homeless residents, or otherwise showed care for their community.

The question is this: did I need a gun and sweeping police powers to help the average person on the average night? The answer is no. When I was doing my best work as a cop, I was doing mediocre work as a therapist or a social worker. My good deeds were listening to people failed by the system and trying to unite them with any crumbs of resources the structure was currently denying them.

It’s also important to note that well over 90% of the calls for service I handled were reactive, showing up well after a crime had taken place. We would arrive, take a statement, collect evidence (if any), file the report, and onto the next caper. Most “active” crimes we stopped were someone harmless possessing or selling a small amount of drugs. Very, very rarely would we stop something dangerous in progress or stop something from happening entirely.

 

 

 

14 hours ago, LeviF91 said:

BTW - you want some "facts and info" for discussion?  EVERY felonious killing of a cop in this country is tracked and the data is kept from each one - making bias in "reporting" nonexistent for that particular set of crimes.  And the data is readily available on the FBI's website.  Tell me which "racist policy" caused the weirdness of those numbers.

 

So @LeviF91: how is every killing by a police officer tracked and where is that data kept, Nationally?

 

(PS did you mean to include a link?)

[Cripple Creek]

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/court-issues-extraordinary-ruling-denying-immunity-to-w-va-cops-in-2013-shooting-of-wayne-jones-this-has-to-stop/

 

 

I wonder if the ruling would have been different if it came out a month ago?

 

 

https://gregolear.substack.com/p/on-race-and-atonement

Edited June 10, 2020 by Cripple Creek

[LeviF]

9 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

So @LeviF91: how is every killing by a police officer tracked and where is that data kept, Nationally?

 

(PS did you mean to include a link?)

It’s UCR data but a separate system from NIBRS which is the more familiar “crime stats” data capture program. https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2018/tables/table-42.xls

[DCOrange]

Just my .02 on police/public safety in general. For reference, I've worked directly on the budgets for police departments, fire departments, and pretty much every other form of public safety, courts, etc. so that's where most of my perspective is coming from.

 

Part of what I'm struggling with with the "Defund the Police" movement is the lack of clarity about what exactly it means. It seems to me that some factions of its supporters simply want to reduce police budgets and some want to get rid of the police entirely and replace it with multiple other organizations that would handle different sorts of scenarios. I think we're probably a very long way away from the latter group getting what they want. Recent polling has shown that the support even just for cutting funding is almost non-existent, though support for many attempts at police reform are overwhelmingly supported, even across party lines. So just getting to the point where we can reduce police budgets is going to be a very tough haul, much less actually abolishing it. At any rate, I think for this movement to have success, they need to figure out if they're really pushing for reducing budgets or getting rid of them entirely, and they should probably change their messaging accordingly, because "defunding" will be easily misconstrued for getting rid of the budget entirely and that will likely push people away that could theoretically get on board with simply making some cuts here and there.

 

To my personal feelings on the matter, police budgets (and public safety in general) most likely have a ton of fat that can be trimmed off their budgets. My personal experience was that in recent years, our city's projected revenues would increase by, let's say 5%. Cool. Since the city's budget must balance (i.e. can't be set up to run a deficit and also can't have a profit), this means that we get to take that 5% of revenue and spread it around to different priorities. Unfortunately though, wage increases, benefit rate changes, etc. increase by roughly 10%, so suddenly you don't have any additional revenue to spread around at all and you actually have to make cuts instead. Touching the schools or public safety has generally been treated as political suicide (which makes sense considering the polling referenced above), so ultimately, we end up needing to make cuts to social services, cuts to the internal departments that actually run the city, etc. Every department is asked to brainstorm ideas for how we can more efficiently run their respective departments. Since the other departments are actually at risk of losing funding, they oblige and come up with cheaper ways to do their current jobs. The public safety departments, however, don't need to worry about that; we could say we trimmed $100,000 off the police budget due to a budgeted position that hadn't been filled for a decade and all the public would see is that the police budget was reduced and freak out. At least from my personal experience, there is just so much that could be trimmed off of our police department's budget that wouldn't impact the services they provide at all.

 

As for the idea of abolishing the police altogether and replacing it with something new, that's a much more extreme idea. I would tend to lean towards not supporting it, but maybe there is some plan out there that could convince me. I do think there are plenty of services that officers provide today that aren't really necessary or should be provided by someone else. So introducing new roles to provide some of those services is something I could theoretically support, but I think it will be incredibly difficult to really accomplish. Assuming each jurisdiction handles things individually as they do here, cities that go this route will likely lose out on a ton of qualified candidates since they'll almost certainly be offering lower wages due to the reduced responsibilities. Likewise, the transition to whatever new system you put in place will be incredibly difficult. Announce that police officers are mostly going away or are getting hit with a significant paycut (which will almost certainly be required in order to fund the new positions you're likely replacing them with) and you'll probably see a mass exodus of police officers before you're in a position where you can absorb that level of attrition. As is, our city loses on average 3 officers per month almost solely due to paying a couple thousand dollars less than some neighboring jurisdictions. If you cut their wages by a significant amount, you will certainly be driving a lot of them away and they will get scooped up very quickly by jurisdictions that aren't reforming.

 

TLDR: I think reducing police budgets would (ignoring the political appearances) be very easy to do and would help a lot of cities around the country. Abolishing it entirely will be incredibly difficult and I would definitely still need to be convinced before I'd ever get on board with that.

 

Edited June 10, 2020 by DCOrange

[Warcodered]

6 hours ago, LeviF91 said:

It’s UCR data but a separate system from NIBRS which is the more familiar “crime stats” data capture program. https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2018/tables/table-42.xls

Is that link supposed to be it because it's not.

[LeviF]

6 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

Is that link supposed to be it because it's not.

 

What did I lead you to believe the link was supposed to show?  I'm not sure what you're asking.

[Warcodered]

7 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

 

What did I lead you to believe the link was supposed to show?  I'm not sure what you're asking.

 

16 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

So @LeviF91: how is every killing by a police officer tracked and where is that data kept, Nationally?

 

(PS did you mean to include a link?)

I guess you just meant the part about the link but you quoted this so I thought you were answering it.

Edited June 10, 2020 by Warcodered