The Relationship Between Police and Minorities

[WinePusher]

Michael Brown, an unarmed African American male, was shot and killed by a police officer in the town of Ferguson. Previously Travyon Martin, another unarmed African American male, was shot and killed by a neighborhood watchmen. In light of these two stories the public discussion has also been focused on the militarization of local police forces and the existence of white privilege.

In my opinion there are valid points on both sides of the ideological aisle, and I'll name a few:

Some valid conservative points include the fact that the primary culprit for most African American homicides are African Americans themselves, not the police and not white people. Some valid liberal points include the fact that African Americans are disproportionately singled out by police, and are disproportionately incarcerated for offenses that white people commit to a greater extent (pot usage for example). However, in the case of Ferguson no one knows what really happened, and no one will know until the investigation and trial have run their course.

Question: What do you make of the shooting of Michael Brown?

[WinePusher]

Darias put forth the claim that no mechanism exists to hold cops accountable, due to a lack of option in the funding of that system.

You responded by saying cops should be held accountable.

Guess you didn't actually read what I wrote. I clearly said that the cops should be held accountable if they are guilty of wrong doing, as determined by a court of law, in my response to DanieltheDragon, NOT Darias.

You also reprimanded his post for other reasons, though I'm now curious about the following:

What, in your opinion, would be an effective mechanism to hold cops accountable for transgressions?

The court system along with the criminal justice system. Do you think that cops are exempt from being prosecuted if they break a law? However, the real problem is how to properly and objectively determine whether or not a cops actions are legitimate or illegitimate. In everyday society the use of force against another individual is illegal, however cops are permitted to use force against others in certain cases and this is where the law becomes hazy.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 10 by Neatras]

Currently the local District Attorney's office is responsible for prosecuting crimes police infractions within the community. Naturally there is a conflict of interest as the local Prosecutors rely on the local police. Additionally there is a wall of silence from the local PD.

That needs to change. Perhaps a neighboring PD and DA investigate. Having an organization police itself rarely if ever works out the police should be no exception.

As far as a private police force you officially incentivise profits before the public welfare. Customer service gets thrown out the window when you take into account monopolization of communities. What pay structure do you envision happening here anyways? Is it subscription service and can I opt out? What if I disagree with a citation for drunk driving do I have to pay if I opt out? What authority does a private organization ave over me what oversight do they have. Sounds like a corporate totalitarian nightmare to me.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 11 by WinePusher]

That was a hasty post I made while glancing at various snippets. I do apologize for misleading or warping words. My intent was solely to gain an answer to the question, without seeming as if I was going in ignorantly. I suppose I ended up doing that anyway.

If the existing mechanism to prosecute cops who have done wrong isn't performing to satisfactory standards, or if it's being influenced and biased by internal affairs that aren't in the citizens' best interests, what do you think are methods of polishing these features? Daniel suggests taking the power of judgment away from the region where the cop's jurisdiction lies. Do you think this could be more effective in preventing corrupt cops from remaining in the system when they ought to be reprimanded or flushed out?

[Darias]

I really think we should hold our law enforcement more accountable.

There exists no mechanism to do so, as long as the fact remains that you cannot opt out of funding these organizations. These groups do not depend on customer service to get by, as their salaries are effectively guaranteed. In order to secure even more capital from the federal government, they must meet quotas enforcing irrational laws. This reality creates powerful behavioral incentives that do nothing to protect or serve the public -- which by the way is only a slogan, not a Constitutional guarantee (if Constitutional guarantees even had any substance to begin with).

Maybe you missed the fact that occupations in law enforcement are totally different from most other occupations. You aren't putting your life directly on the line when you show up for work in a comfortable little office.

Not really. There are plenty of high-risk occupations out there -- not to mention the fact that you risk your life every time you get into your car to go to work. But no matter how dangerous their jobs are, no one gives them a monopoly of force to have their way with society. That privilege is reserved for police only.

On the other hand, as a cop your safety and your life is almost always at risk.

Unless, like you said, you show up for work in a comfortable little office everyday.

So, how exactly would you like to hold these people accountable? Actually, what gives you the right to judge and second guess the police?

You can't judge something until you do it? What sort of buffoonery is this? I've never murdered a man either, I guess that means I can't really complain about it? Seriously?

You're asking the wrong question anyway. What should be asked here is why should one group of people be exempt from critical examination?

But at the end of the day, it doesn't change the fact that their profession exists because we have to pay for it whether we approve of their actions or not.

You see Darias, it's this kind of stuff that is killing the libertarian movement that you claim to support. You wanna know why their profession exists? It exists because society needs law and order, both of which would not exist without a government and without law enforcement. You really need to stop equating libertarianism with anarchism.

Imagine if Walmart worked that way -- it wouldn't matter how awesome their stuff was if you had to pay dues regardless. Would they care about low prices or customer service if their profits were assured? No.

Walmart and the police force aren't the same.

The biggest problem to this end is that people have an irrational idolization of men in uniform, combined with an entrenched, instilled fear of a world without them -- all thanks to indoctrination at home and in public schools. They assume that something out of The Purge would destroy civilization without public law enforcement. They do not understand basic economics like supply and demand; for example, security tends to be in very high demand, and letting criminals run amok is bad for business, even when the victims do not subscribe to your services.

Yes, economics provides useful analytical tools that shed light on this issue. For example, I hope you know what a public good is? I hope you know that in a pure market economy public goods would be non existent, and I hope you know that this is a bad thing. Literally no one, no economist no sociologist no public policy expert would support replacing the police with multiple, private protection agencies because such a proposal would be prima facie absurd. Seriously, if you think corruption and police brutality is a problem imagine how much worse it would get under your scheme.

When there is a free market and multiple security services are all fighting for your subscriptions, prices are lowered. Community watch is always an option for the poorest people, but it's not like our present system best "serves" them when feeding the homeless is a crime and when the poor tend to be subject to home invasions as they are now.

Uh, first of all prices aren't even a problem now because police services are funded by taxes. Second of all, having multiple private police forces is unworkable. Do I really need to explain why?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 9:

Sure, theoretically you have the right to do just about anything you want. But what you don't have is the knowledge, experience, wisdom and training to judge the actions taken by the police unless you yourself are or have been a police officer.

Such a condition would then require that all who support the police should become one first.

In the endeavors of humans, any human, under your rule here, has the right to judge other humans.

...
I'm not saying that we shouldn't hold cops accountable, cause we should.

How can we hold cops accountable, when we can only judge 'em if we are or have been one?

How's that work?

"You, cop, you hadn'ta shot that defenseless baby in it's crib!"

"I don't see no badge on you, so you can't hold me accountable!"

Police brutality is a real thing that needs to be dealt with. The problem is that in this case we have a group of people who have already convicted the officer who shot Michael Brown as a racist murderer simply because he's white and Brown was black. Additionally, they've attempted to smear the police department of Ferguson and how they handled the Ferguson riots.

While we have you ostensibly declaring the cops innocent, since the 'judger' ain't a cop, and so have no warrant to judge 'em on it.

I'm curious to know when you joined the force.

[Wordleymaster1]

Michael Brown, an unarmed African American male, was shot and killed by a police officer in the town of Ferguson. Previously Travyon Martin, another unarmed African American male, was shot and killed by a neighborhood watchmen. In light of these two stories the public discussion has also been focused on the militarization of local police forces and the existence of white privilege.

In my opinion there are valid points on both sides of the ideological aisle, and I'll name a few:

Some valid conservative points include the fact that the primary culprit for most African American homicides are African Americans themselves, not the police and not white people. Some valid liberal points include the fact that African Americans are disproportionately singled out by police, and are disproportionately incarcerated for offenses that white people commit to a greater extent (pot usage for example). However, in the case of Ferguson no one knows what really happened, and no one will know until the investigation and trial have run their course.

Question: What do you make of the shooting of Michael Brown?

At the risk of being banned:
(big breath) There are MANY idiots in the world that need to be killed & removed from this world. These include people who run from the police and endanger others, people who get jail time, get out and continue to commit crimes, people who prey on children, animals, the elderly or commit crimes against any other groups, etc.
This 'kid' was a thug based on what's been coming out as of late. He was a bully and confrontational. He picked on people who were different/smaller than him and he was involved in some legally questionable activities.
For me, his death was an improvement for society.
It doesn't matter if he was black, white, orange, purple, green, fat, thin, male, female.....if you're a looser that's a drain on society and or participates in illegal activities, you should be removed from this life by whatever means necessary. And society would be better for it.

The ONLY reason why this was a big deal in the news was because 1) the news likes to create headlines & 2) he was a black kid killed by a white dude.
Few were aware that, not so long after this happened, a white guy was attacked by a group of black kids leaving a grocery store ( a Krogers I think it was) and when a BLACK co-worker came to his aid, he was attacked also. They were beaten and kicked by a group of 2 dozen or so black kids for no known reason. Yet the news didn't seem to be concerned about that nor did the black community (or ANY community really) take notice and protest the treating of these two guys by a bunch of black kids.

People like Shaprton and Jackson don't care about the issue but their own need for notoriety

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to Wordleymaster1]

Whether Brown was a thug or not is irrelevant to the case. The kind of rhetoric you are eshewing is deeply troubling. Who decides who lives and who dies in your world view? Can you explain why they deserve death? Are there not other alternatives?

Honestly repeat offenders deserve death? People who run from the cops deserve death? It seems your threshold for death and life is not high at all. What makes this stance you are taking different from the worst of humanities dictators? There is a reason I disagree with the morality of the bible and it has a lot to do with what you just wrote. Death is a serious judgment that should only be reserved for the most serious of crimes, not casually handed out to those you see as a "drain".

The reason this is big news is because this was essentially an execution.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 15 by Wordleymaster1]




Teenager dealing weed tried to run then stopped, calmly stood still waiting for the cop to catch up. The officer punches him in the face the kid calmly puts his arms up to surrender, and then the officers go to town on him. Seems to me the only thugs are the officers in this video. There was no reason for the assault the suspect was trying to surrender in a calm and civil manner.

[Wordleymaster1]

[Replying to post 16 by DanieltheDragon]

Whether Brown was a thug or not is irrelevant to the case.

Not to the case, but it IS relevant to the fact he was likely a looser and worthles piece that society would be better without.

Who decides who lives and who dies in your world view?

Myself and people who think like me. I already outlined those that should be on the list

Can you explain why they deserve death?

Already did that

Honestly repeat offenders deserve death?

Depends on the crime but mostly YES. Repeat offenders are generally useless and a drain of society.

People who run from the cops deserve death?

Absolutely. As does anyone who pulls a weapon on a cop, shoots at a cop

It seems your threshold for death and life is not high at all.

It's high, but my threshold for stupidity, laziness and uselessness isn't.

What makes this stance you are taking different from the worst of humanities dictators?

Never said it was

There is a reason I disagree with the morality of the bible and it has a lot to do with what you just wrote.

That's fine

Death is a serious judgment that should only be reserved for the most serious of crimes, not casually handed out to those you see as a "drain".

I won't agree with that. Promote 'death for stupid crimes' enough and you may get a better society.

The reason this is big news is because this was essentially an execution.

No the reason why it was big news is because the media wanted to make it big news and the black community jumped at the chance to make it big news.
The black group beating the white grocery store worker wasn't big news because it wasn't in the media's or black community's best interest.

[Wordleymaster1]

[Replying to post 15 by Wordleymaster1]




Teenager dealing weed tried to run then stopped, calmly stood still waiting for the cop to catch up. The officer punches him in the face the kid calmly puts his arms up to surrender, and then the officers go to town on him. Seems to me the only thugs are the officers in this video. There was no reason for the assault the suspect was trying to surrender in a calm and civil manner.

There are bad apples in every bunch.
That shouldn't be a surprise