Louisiana passes "Blue Lives Matter" law

[Bucman 891]

Nothing more than thugs looking for an excuse to be one.

Edited August 17, 2016 by Bucman

[ATL_Predator+ 1,196]

Punks jump up to get beat down...

[Thanatos 2,847]

One of the leaders of BLM, a professor at Yale named Deray, is claiming that looting is a perfectly acceptable response to injustice and only "those in power" are harmed because it somehow affects their "narrative."

[Cherry 1,302]

For people who have degrees at some of the finest colleges in the world, or work at them, a lot of these professors and activists have no shred of common sense when it comes to the perception of BLM.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Awwwww yeah.

 

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2016/09/nopd_hate_crime_blue_lives_mat.html#incart_2box

[Thanatos 2,847]

More cops abusing authority, and no, this isn't even about a killing.

 

This is about 3 cops manufacturing charges because they didn't like a guy recording them- and likely only the sheer luck of his camera being on and recording without the cops knowing saved him from the charge- thought it still took a year for the case to be dismissed, despite the whole thing being record. The police refused to talk to the man if his lawyer was present as well. They discuss lying about the charge, and end up deciding to make up a story about several people stopping and protesting about a "gun-waving lunatic" but none of them wanting to give statements.

 

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/police-accidentally-record-themselves-conspiring-fabricate-criminal-charges-against

Edited September 20, 2016 by Thanatos

[blotsfan 2,112]

We have another blatant murder. This one is so bad that it looks like the cop will actually get in trouble for it.

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/20/494697359/after-police-killing-of-unarmed-man-tulsa-chief-promises-to-achieve-justice

[Cherry 1,302]

Tulsa mourns over a legitimate fuck-up and murder by police.

 

Charlotte beats up white people and tries to throw a photographer into a fire over an African-American cop shooting someone who was carrying a gun. Also, the dead guy's brother calling all white people the devil.

 

 

RACE WAR

 

Real talk violent rioters should be shot.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Tried to throw a photographer into a fire? Wtf?

[BwareDWare94 723]

In some places we have legitimate riots over legitimate instances of police brutality/murder/overreach, and in some places we have a bunch of bad people who just want an excuse to destroy shit.

[blotsfan 2,112]

In some places we have legitimate riots over legitimate instances of police brutality/murder/overreach, and in some places we have a bunch of bad people who just want an excuse to destroy shit.

And in some places we have the latter taking advantage of the former.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Tulsa officer gave her side of the story to ABC, makes things a bit more in the grey area. Still think she was in the wrong, but I understand why she thought he was on drugs now.

 

The original reporting implied she only thought so because he was a big black dude.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Thanatos

[Thanatos 2,847]

This Charlotte shooting is a he said she said thing atm. We need the video footage. The fact that the cops dont want to release it speaks volumes to me. Family says he had a book, cops say he had a gun. Either way, he was not their target, they were coming into that area to arrest someone else.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Thanatos

[BJORN 679]

Unfortunately, if she originally grabs her taser instead of her pistol, we probably wouldn't be talking about this. It is manslaughter at best though.

 

Some type of force was necessary. He looked to be drugged up, he was not complying, and his hands were definitely not up. So I'm not sure where all of the BS rhetoric of "He had his hands up", "he was complying", "his car broke down. he was innocent" is coming from. It's almost like people did not watch the video.

[Thanatos 2,847]

He definitely puts his hands up for a bit and then puts them back down. He was either distraught or on drugs or scared shitless, I agree.

 

But as someone else pointed out, the military- in a combat zone, mind you- has to go through multiple failsafes before they are allowed to use lethal force on someone who is not an active shooter. Why do the police jump straight to shooting the guy? Another officer did use a taser at the exact same time.

 

Thing is, he wasn't even a threat. He was just lumbering around, ignoring orders, yes, but he didn't show any aggressiveness whatsoever. Shooting him was flat out inexcusable.

[BJORN 679]

He definitely puts his hands up for a bit and then puts them back down. He was either distraught or on drugs or scared shitless, I agree.

 

But as someone else pointed out, the military- in a combat zone, mind you- has to go through multiple failsafes before they are allowed to use lethal force on someone who is not an active shooter. Why do the police jump straight to shooting the guy? Another officer did use a taser at the exact same time.

 

Thing is, he wasn't even a threat. He was just lumbering around, ignoring orders, yes, but he didn't show any aggressiveness whatsoever. Shooting him was flat out inexcusable.

Sounds like you're on to something.

 

However, I disagree, he was a threat. Acting weird and not complying is kind of....uh asking for trouble? At that moment, he is completely unpredictable and mind you...they did not know he was unarmed. So it's easy to say he is not a threat when we have all of the information. But if you have doubts, taze the man and call it a day. Mistakes were made on both sides.

[BwareDWare94 723]

"Whine whine whine whine whine WE DESERVE TO GO HOME TO OUR FAMILIES"

 

That's true, but "we deserve to go home to our families" does not directly translate to "I can shoot if I feel even remotely threatened.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Sounds like you're on to something.

 

However, I disagree, he was a threat. Acting weird and not complying is kind of....uh asking for trouble? At that moment, he is completely unpredictable and mind you...they did not know he was unarmed. So it's easy to say he is not a threat when we have all of the information. But if you have doubts, taze the man and call it a day. Mistakes were made on both sides.

 

This is an extremely dangerous point of view to hold. Now everyone is a threat if they don't follow a cop's orders? Mistakes were made on both sides, I agree. The "big black dude" made a mistake by calling the police in the first place, clearly.

[Cherry 1,302]

So I'm officially 100% for removing cops from patrolling poor urban communities, or patrolling in general. It would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to attempt to reeducate officers and prevent them from targeting blacks, and it wouldn't even work. As long as police are required to meet a certain quota for arrests, they will always pursue people who should not be pursued solely to meet that quota. We cannot continue to feed the cycle of poor blacks into prison over traffic stops that turn into gun charges or drug charges. Eliminate patrolling and quotas. Eliminate the amount of blacks in prison over drug and gun charges through unwarranted searches. Cut the taxes on the poor to encourage spending to local business or investment opportunities that could eventually spring new small businesses. When that boom happens we'll see a reduction in crime and gang violence because jobs that aren't shitty part time jobs that are tough to come by will be available. And just like that the need for such heavy policing is gone.

Edited September 28, 2016 by 2-14

[Sarge+ 3,436]

Police patrolling is an effective deterrent to crime. Study after study has been done to prove its effectiveness. In fact just the mere presence of police officers does a lot to reduce crime. This is one of the best crime prevention tools available to law enforcement.

 

http://whatworks.college.police.uk/Research/overview/Documents/WW_overview_Visible_patrol.pdf

 

I don´t know the answer to improving relations between the police and the public. I beleive there are many things we can do, but removing patrol wouldn´t be a good thing in any way. I think one answer is upping the requirements to be a police officer, along with an increase in pay. If we want police to be professional, we should also pay them as such. It´s only fair.

 

If you raise the pay AND the standards, you can be much more selective about who gets in and who doesn´t. I don´t see the harm in requiring police to have a 2 year degree in Criminal Justice, Sociology (probably more helpful than CJ) or whatever they want, really. Studying something they enjoy would be better than being forced into a certain path.

 

I feel like a big issue with police is that many of them don´t have good people skills. Specifically I am referring to communication skills. Any college program can help them improve their communication skills, and they can learn more about being social by interacting with other students. We´ve seen time and time again that an officer could have found a better way to handle a situation, but maybe they aren´´t good at reading body language or interpreting the tone of voice someone is using. A lot of times cops make situations a lot more dramatic and intense than they need to be. Sometimes they do this intentionally, sometimes not. Education can only help make things better.

[Cherry 1,302]

But the issue with that is that more patrolling always leads to more unnecessary targeting of minorities. Regardless of education you're still going to have quotas, except they're going to be even larger now due to having less cops to carry them out. Police patrolling is an effective deterrent to crime, but so is community watch and having the neighborhood come together to combat crime. The only difference is that community watches will be held accountable and are less likely to target fellow community members unfairly.

 

Police will go into certain areas specifically to meet their quotas and target people they believe could get hit with worse charges. You think someone is sketchy? Stop them for a traffic violation and send them to jail on gun or drug charges when you inevitably find something. They don't have something? Try to get them on misconduct towards police or some other BS charge of somehow fucking with the officer.

 

You have to cut the profit out of policing and jailing people to fix the treatment of poor citizens in areas like that. Officers should not be out on a mission of search & destroy to meet the quota.

[GA_Eagle 595]

You've given a real problem like 6 times in your posts but decided that patrolling was the issue. Quotas are by and large illegal and ineffective. They promote profiling and destroy police relations with the community. The very idea of arrest benchmarks or anything resembling a quota should be done away with.

 

Edit: there are some really good points elsewhere in your posts but I don't think patrolling should be done away with. Police departments should not be seen as a profit gathering point for any municipality or county. Tickets and seizures should not be figured into budgets, in fact seizures should be completely illegal.

 

Edit edit: also agree about unwarranted searches. nonviolent criminals make up a large part of our prison populations. We need to reform the war on drugs cause we suck at it. People have such a bias against addicts that we just throw them in jail. These people need help not jail.

 

Hell if you've read my posts over the years you've probably heard me say we should legalize drugs (and gambling and prostitution). Yes, it will be a weird thing to get used to and it won't be all rainbows and sunshine... well maybe for a particularly happy lsd user it will be. This will discourage illegal searches for items that are not illegal any more.

Edited September 30, 2016 by GA_Eagle

[Sarge+ 3,436]

^Right, I don´t think the answer is to take police off the streets. That´s the only way they can be useful. I think the answer is mainly a combination of getting better people in uniform and having less laws for them to enforce. There are probably a few other things that need done as well, but this should take care of the majority of problems we see right now.

[Cherry 1,302]

My argument would be that because you are expecting a government entity to properly regulate itself, you will lose. Regardless of what lawsuits or procedures are put into place, there will always be a bottom-line of quotas and arrests expected out of police officers who are actively patrolling communities.

 

http://www.npr.org/2015/04/04/395061810/despite-laws-and-lawsuits-quota-based-policing-lingers

 

Police departments will always push for what is best for the police department. High amounts of fines and arrests are good for police department, because it will lead to more federal funding, along with more money from locals in general through those fines. Police should not be chasing a profit or have incentives to make arrests or fines. The question is, how do we prevent that? I'd argue reduction in police along with no active patrolling would do more to prevent it than higher education would.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Well if you want to ruin your night, look up Alton Sterling. This happened in Louisiana so its especially relevant.

DOJ chooses not to file charges. Fuck the police.