Black Lives Matter protests

Post Reply New Topic

I'm not racist and I'm against racism but did you actually say we PRETEND they have a right to their opinion? Because they do have a right to their opinion, just like you do and I do and even SJWs and skinheads and Auburn fans all have a right to their opinions and to make choices for whatever reasons they have, right or wrong, within the confines of the law. You cannot legislate or force opinions

Personally, I don't think things will change all that much. Peaceful areas will be peaceful, violent areas will still be violent. Police won't be around to respond to calls as quickly, so people will need to take more steps to protect themselves; a call to a patrol car can be several minutes, but from a station, tens of minutes.

You'll have less fatal incidents with suspects and police due to less chances of escalation over minor crimes that patrols may witness/suspect (drugs, motor incidents, and such). Which would be what BLM wants.

You'll still have fatal incidents from call ups; people calling in unruly behavior, fights, domestics, robberies, hit and runs, and such.

Do police deter serious crimes by being nearby? I guess that's the question. I don't think they've got a certain answer last time I checked.

I'm also only looking at it from my perspective; I'm in a peaceful area with no police presence. Even though I did Justice and learnt the theories behind policing, I'm still bound to my cognition; I wouldn't rob, deal drugs, assault [without provocation], and whatnot, and I have zero care if the police are around or not. Perhaps people that do these things do.

BLM wants to remove proactive policing (criminal profiling by patrols and looking for minor crimes in the streets, in other words). They seem to be fine with reactive policing, as it's not on their demands. Community solutions is a part of it, which would be the community policing itself.

They want police to do their jobs, they just don't want them patrolling and pulling people over for minor crimes. Look it up.

Well, who's the victim here with your second point? By law, a police officer can only use force when they or someone else is threatened, the same as you and me. This is why you put the burden of proof on the aggressor, as to do otherwise is victim blaming. Of course, I don't doubt police might protect their own--that's what IA is for.

I think nobody disputes an aggressive or shifty behaving individual of any background deserves to be targeted for the safety of the general public. What BLM contend is that people are being stopped and then subject to harassment on the basis of how they look...there is a limit to proactive policing

I would be fine with the police acting like the fire department, and only responding to calls rather than roaming around looking for trouble.

http://www.joincampaignzero.org/brokenwindows

Your first example comes under their solutions of ending broken window policing (proactive policing). Unruly and disorderly conduct (which includes aggressive behavior and fighting), are to be decriminalized/ignored.

The second also does. Profiling based on race.

I think patrol helps to prevent crimes many times, but I also think that they need to chill about small, petty stuff. What's missing is common sense. there is a middle ground between all out by the book balls to the wall prosecution and ignoring something completely.

Way too many cops get away with excessive force, usually with the help of the police department they work for. In Spokane, there had been a mentally ill janitor named Otto Zehm, wrongly suspected of trying to break into an ATM machine, who had been bludgeoned then hogtied by an officer, but no one had cared to turn on the oxygen that was needed to keep him alive. He died a few days later. The official explanation was that Zehm had attacked the officer. But then it came out that the store where the incident had happened in had a security camera. The Spokane PD had kept this film footage under wraps, till they had been compelled to release it. The public, and the jury at the cop's trial, saw how this dick just walked up behind Zehm, and cracked him on the skull till he was unconscious. Luckily, that was enough to convict him, even though his defense had gotten the trial's venue changed.
Yes, justice was done in the Zehm murder case, but this whole mess revealed how a police department will go to the point of breaking the law by suppressing evidence. Throw in this notion that if there was no provable malice on the part of the police, then conviction is much less likely, making bringing bad cops to justice all the less likely.
Sorry for rambling till I got back to my main point, but I'm tired, and I have an appointment tomorrow with Firestone to patch a slow tire leak.

In our area, sometime back, a local police officer was chasing a car that had just left a bar at night. The car overturned onto it's side and the passenger was ejected and died soon after.

The driver was pulling himself up through the drivers side window with one hand on each side of the window.

From the footage of the officer's dash cam you see the officer exit his patrol car, draw his weapon (with his finger on the trigger) aim, and shoot the man in the throat, all in one smooth continuous motion...he never missed a step, a wound the driver eventually died from.

IN THIS COUNTY THE D.A. (county district attorney) SAID HE TALKED TO THE OFFICER WHO SAID HE MADE A MISTAKE AND WAS VERY SORRY AND SO THE D.A. CALLED IT A "GOOD SHOOTING", HE WAS NOT GOING TO PROSECUTE.

But many citizens were angry and protested consistently and here's what people found:

1. The cop was the nephew of a politician who put the D.A. in his job.
2. The officer never looked at the woman thrown from the vehicle and she died there on the ground without medical assistance. He was spending all his time trying to find the brass from his gun.
3. The man (who had fallen back down into his vehicle) told other officers he had been shot....but the shooter never told his fellow officers, so they just told the dying guy he wasn't shot (and naturally this slowed down his emergency treatment as well).

His trial continues. I wonder what kind of justice we'll see...I doubt we'll see any.

As you see the D.A. (who the police work for) in our area is the dirty politician that would have let this man walk and who, on many other occasions, ALWAYS FINDS FOR THE POLICE...."IT WAS A GOOD SHOOTING" is his mantra.

^^^
Who watches the watchers?

Supposedly, Horton, although Methos certainly gave it a hell of a try.

Bit too late for a one or two man job this late in history.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/sena ... or-n609516

I've been pulled over a couple of times. Of course it's annoying, but you know, at least the officers are vigilant. I'd rather have the inconvenience than know crimes are going on all over the place with no police to stop it.

Then, of course, being a Jain, I do practice Uttam Kshama - Supreme Forgiveness: harbor no anger, which is dangerous, by forgiving others.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/eri ... c3ee5031e9

Sounds like a plan....