Outrage after police fatally shoot Jayland Walker in Ohio

[rjs330]

Actually we do, maybe not 100%, but their job is to protect, people make an awful lot of excuses for people that then get people killed when reckless or don't do their jobs right. They HAVE to be held to a higher standard because they have a job that can lead to so much death.

They are held to a higher standard. That's why it happens so infrequently.

Just exactly what is the accepted rate of mistakes in this area?

 

[rjs330]

True, it was legally voided. But it still shows how people were thinking back then and how some people might be thinking today. Maybe we are long over due for another amendment to address police brutality.

Why? We already have laws to address police brutality. What would an amendment do? Aren't police prosecuted for brutality?

 

[Juan777]

Why? We already have laws to address police brutality. What would an amendment do? Aren't police prosecuted for brutality?

Your Supreme Court came with two rulings. One is qualified immunity, where police officers are not directly responsible in civil claims but the city foots the bill/tab and even worst, some jurisdictions are now legally limiting the monetary amounts that can be claimed. There is also another ruling that says the police do not have a duty to serve and protect the public. It may not be as bad as the Dred Scott ruling which the modern self-righteous generations might thumb their nose at the past, but if you have these crazy legal precedents floating around that protect the police and indirectly encourage police misconduct, whether it is dereliction of duty, or brutality, then you need an amendment.

(ie Amendment 1: Police have a duty to serve and protect.
Amendment 2: Police are civilly responsible for their actions and people can sue them directly for any misconduct claim ).


Now, I'll grant in this political climate it's not likely you'll get that amendment, and the stakes are obviously much lower when talking about law enforcement compared to slavery so I don't think that would lead to a second civil war. An argument for more amendments for the modern era that includes massive police reform, raparations for slavery, Jim Crow, mass incarceration, is at least sound.

 

[Aldebaran]

True, it was legally voided. But it still shows how people were thinking back then and how some people might be thinking today. Maybe we are long over due for another amendment to address police brutality.

It only showed how some people were thinking back then. Just like today, we have people who think different ways.

 

[rjs330]

Your Supreme Court came with two rulings. One is qualified immunity, where police officers are not directly responsible in civil claims but the city foots the bill/tab and even worst, some jurisdictions are now legally limiting the monetary amounts that can be claimed. There is also another ruling that says the police do not have a duty to serve and protect the public. It may not be as bad as the Dred Scott ruling which the modern self-righteous generations might thumb their nose at the past, but if you have these crazy legal precedents floating around that protect the police and indirectly encourage police misconduct, whether it is dereliction of duty, or brutality, then you need an amendment.

(ie Amendment 1: Police have a duty to serve and protect.
Amendment 2: Police are civilly responsible for their actions and people can sue them directly for any misconduct claim ).


Now, I'll grant in this political climate it's not likely you'll get that amendment, and the stakes are obviously much lower when talking about law enforcement compared to slavery so I don't think that would lead to a second civil war. An argument for more amendments for the modern era that includes massive police reform, raparations for slavery, Jim Crow, mass incarceration, is at least sound.

This whole idea of taking away qualified immunity is one of the dumbest ideas I've heard in a long long time. You are not the first to put forth this idea and I'm not calling you dumb, but the idea has been floating around in liberal circles for a while. It's patently foolish. Here's the facts on the issue.

Police have qualified immunity for actions that fall within the confines of the law and the constitution.

Police do NOT have qualified immunity for actions that fall outside the perimeters of the law and the constitution.

You can take an officer to court and if you can show that they acted outside of these parameters they can be held personally, civilly liable for their actions.

You don't need a constitutional amendment.

Here's the consequences of removing qualified immunity.

1. Massive amounts of police leaving the profession.
2. Cities, towns and counties without enough police to provide services for the citizens. (We are seeing this now and they still have qualified immunity)
3. A large rise in crime due to the lack of police. Victimization of the citizenry will increase.
4. In order to stay a police officer, officer would have to purchase liability insurance similar to malpractice insurance. The cost would be prohibitive so the cities and towns would have to cover the costs. Probably at a time of anywhere from 2-5 grand an officer per month to start.
5. Lawsuits would go up due to the ease of getting money from the insurance companies even when the officer did not violate the law or the constitution. The city would have to pay more out for that officer even though he was totally innocent.
6. A couple of suits would cause an officer to be let go due to the cost of his insurance even if he never violated the constitution or the law. An innocent man or woman would lose their career.
7. The governments would raise taxes on the citizens to cover these costs including fines for tickets and crimes.

That's the reality of the situation. Completely foolish.

 

[rjs330]

An argument for more amendments for the modern era that includes massive police reform, raparations for slavery, Jim Crow, mass incarceration, is at least sound.

We don't need massive police reform. Where on earth do you get the idea that there is a massive problem in need of a constitutional amendment?

Reparations?

We don't have slaves anymore and all the slaves are dead and gone.

Jim Crow? Take it out of the Democratic coffers. They are the ones that instituted Jim Crow and give it the people who are still alive that lived under those laws.

Mass incarceration? Why are we giving money to criminals?

 

[Juan777]

We don't need massive police reform. Where on earth do you get the idea that there is a massive problem in need of a constitutional amendment?

That is debatable, and is being debated on this thread.

Reparations?

We don't have slaves anymore and all the slaves are dead and gone.

Obviously its referring to the descendants of the slaves.

Jim Crow? Take it out of the Democratic coffers. They are the ones that instituted Jim Crow and give it the people who are still alive that lived under those laws.

Mass incarceration? Why are we giving money to criminals?

Right, and criminals that didn't exist before mass incarceration, and the centuries before that? Sound rather arbitrary and inventive.

 

[rjs330]

That is debatable, and is being debated on this thread.

It hasn't just been debated in this thread. We've had whole threads on this very topic.

People will debate anything. That doesn't mean it's actually valid. And in this case it's not.

Where do you get the idea that there is a massive problem in need of a constitutional amendment?

Obviously its referring to the descendants of the slaves.

Why do they need reparations? They weren't slaves. They aren't even the children of slaves. They live free.

Right, and criminals that didn't exist before mass incarceration, and the centuries before that? Sound rather arbitrary and inventive.

Criminals have always been sent to prison or into forced labor. Why do we need to give money to criminals?

 

[Juan777]

It hasn't just been debated in this thread. We've had whole threads on this very topic.

People will debate anything. That doesn't mean it's actually valid. And in this case it's not.

Where do you get the idea that there is a massive problem in need of a constitutional amendment?

You are acting as though there is no other side to that debate by how you phrased that statement. I think there has been enough discussion about that issue on this thread (if you want to review my past posts on this thread) that I don't see the need to repeat points that I have already made in previous posts. There has been a solid back and forth discussion with @Ana the Ist, and the only ace in the hole she had would be the arguments that whites also suffer from police killings and brutality, but the principle there is generally a problem was not even up for debate.

Now I have to raise the question. Are you saying @Ana the Ist arguments are incorrect and that there is no massive problem with policing with the white community of America? After all you never had a "George Floyd" with the white community, or see white people shot 60 times by the police when they are running form them over a traffic stop? To say there is no issue with policing would defeat @Ana the Ist arguments that white people also suffer at the hands of police.

Why do they need reparations? They weren't slaves. They aren't even the children of slaves. They live free.

There is a huge wealth disparity gap between whites and blacks because of money stolen from forced unpaid labour. Therefore, they are suffering from the generational effects. This is not just limited to slavery as I had said earlier. It's not that difficult. Black own less than 0.1% of the nations wealth and that's immoral.

Criminals have always been sent to prison or into forced labor. Why do we need to give money to criminals?

The Bible says that "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God". Rom 3:23. (This is a Christian forum after all so I can quote the Bible where I feel its necessary and at certain times I may be lead by Holy Spirit to divert the topic to another one).

In the eyes of God, without the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross as payment for our sins to a just and holy God, you are a criminal deserving of going to hell for eternity, as would be me, and everyone else in this world. We a fallen race since Adam and Eve ate that evil fruit in the Garden of Eden, and everyone simply is a criminal. Who are you, me or anyone else, to say that there is anything good in us if Paul the Apostle couldn't even say that? (Rom 7:18)

 

[Aldebaran]

Now I have to raise the question. Are you saying @Ana the Ist arguments are incorrect and that there is no massive problem with policing with the white community of America? After all you never had a "George Floyd" with the white community, or see white people shot 60 times by the police when they are running form them over a traffic stop? To say there is no issue with policing would defeat @Ana the Ist arguments that white people also suffer at the hands of police.

How exactly do you define a "George Floyd" in the white community? If you're referring to a white person killed by police, there have been plenty. If you're referring to a white person killed by police that ended up resulting in a billion dollars in destruction and 25 other people killed who had nothing to do with it, then you are correct.

 

[Pommer]

How exactly do you define a "George Floyd" in the white community? If you're referring to a white person killed by police, there have been plenty. If you're referring to a white person killed by police that ended up resulting in a billion dollars in destruction and 25 other people killed who had nothing to do with it, then you are correct.

This begs the question: why don’t white folk get angry over injustices when committed by law enforcement?
Maybe a problem is white-community apathy?

 

[BPPLEE]

This begs the question: why don’t white folk get angry over injustices when committed by law enforcement?
Maybe a problem is white-community apathy?

You can get angry without destroying property, looting, arson and attacking the police.

 

[Juan777]

How exactly do you define a "George Floyd" in the white community? If you're referring to a white person killed by police, there have been plenty. If you're referring to a white person killed by police that ended up resulting in a billion dollars in destruction and 25 other people ki.

I mean the bold and egregious manner in which he was killed.

 

[BPPLEE]

I mean the bold and egregious manner in which he was killed.

Video shows dying LA DUI suspect pinned down after refusing to give blood

 

[Pommer]

You can get angry without destroying property, looting, arson and attacking the police.

So the nature of the protests are the “problem”?
What happens when these sort of things (people being unalived due to overzealous LEO’s actions for minor infractions) keep happening?
Are people to keep “peacefully protesting” which obviously changes nothing?
In 2020 a significant portion of our general population got out and protested after the George Floyd murder; later on a largely white-people protest movement grew over frustrations over [checks notes] “mask mandates”.
One side would like LEO’s to cease killing their compatriots.
Another faction doesn’t want to be inconvenienced in any way by any body.

 

[Aldebaran]

This begs the question: why don’t white folk get angry over injustices when committed by law enforcement?
Maybe a problem is white-community apathy?

Perhaps white folk understand that police shootings happen and don't get falsely enraged and look for excuses to go out and destroy property.

 

[Aldebaran]

I mean the bold and egregious manner in which he was killed.

Well, in my hometown not long ago a white person was tasered several times and ended up dying on the scene. That could be similar to what happened to George Floyd in that excessive force was used even though a gun was not. It only made local news, and there were no riots.

 

[Pommer]

Well, in my hometown not long ago a white person was tasered several times and ended up dying on the scene. That could be similar to what happened to George Floyd in that excessive force was used even though a gun was not. It only made local news, and there were no riots.

Did that case outrage you?

 

[Aldebaran]

Did that case outrage you?

Well, I did think that it was a bit excessive, but it didn't inspire me to go to the local Best Buy at midnight and get me a free big screen TV using my 100% off discount privilege.

 

[BPPLEE]

So the nature of the protests are the “problem”?
What happens when these sort of things (people being unalived due to overzealous LEO’s actions for minor infractions) keep happening?
Are people to keep “peacefully protesting” which obviously changes nothing?
In 2020 a significant portion of our general population got out and protested after the George Floyd murder; later on a largely white-people protest movement grew over frustrations over [checks notes] “mask mandates”.
One side would like LEO’s to cease killing their compatriots.
Another faction doesn’t want to be inconvenienced in any way by any body.

I don't remember billions of dollars of property damage or other people being killed in demonstrations over mask mandates