A New Message for Police: If You See Something, Say Something

[muichimotsu]

A problem you can't identify.

You try this again? Come on, you haven't taken the time to even challenge yourself remotely here. You think there isn't a problem or you just think it's not systemic (a concept I'm not sure you understand)?

Push what onto the public? We haven't gotten to step 1 in solving a problem.

Responsibility to address problems that police supposedly are some panacea to (thin blue line and all). Could swear that was implied, but fine, let's spell it out

And the like? I don't think a sociologist could look at your posts and have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Pretty sure you're NOT a sociologist and I never claimed to be, so we're both up a creek without a paddle in that respect

Oh ok...so you do want perfection.

You think if a cop makes a mistake....that's a crime. If the cops commit a crime, it should be reported and prosecuted accordingly.

And therefore any cop who ever makes a mistake should be treated as criminal.

So...you don't see anything wrong with that? You think that would work?

Mistake in policy can also be a criminal act, you're conflating the two and claiming I do the same, which I didn't.

Not all mistakes are crimes, because a mistake in judgment and a mistake in action are technically distinct, even if the former can easily lead to the latter when you have a gun to tout as your "authority"

Most mistakes are handled in the department I would imagine. There's been instances where the records of entire departments have been made public and the average cop makes multiple mistakes over their careers.

Because THAT means there's never cover ups, because you can find anecdotes that support this idea that cops are more good than bad or even outright corrupt(not the same thing)

No...I'm pretty sure the problem is that a group of people hate the police because they aren't perfect, will always complain about them, and should excluded from any further conversation about the police

Enjoy your field of scarecrows, because none of that is remotely representative here. Calling out bad cops doesn't mean you disavow or refuse to acknowledge good ones, like those that will call out corruption within their department. Or do you think that sergeant who choked his subordinate for intervening when he was using excessive force was justified?

And yeah, you're the person that should be involved with the conversation about policing when you seem to think that because someone doesn't explicitly commit corrupt acts that they aren't still potentially enabling by inaction. I guess all those battered women don't have a leg to stand on, because they insisted their husbands "loved them".

 

[Ana the Ist]

Of course he did, they took the cuffs off, let him keep his gun on him, and let his friends from his precinct come to pick him up after processing.

Ok.

And to your other question, no he wasn't fired.

He was given a 30 day suspension, and given work driving privileges. (despite the fact that he was driving a work vehicle at the time of getting busted passed out behind the wheel)

If I got pulled over drunk with my concealed carry Glock 27 on me, you think they would take the cuffs off and let me keep my gun during processing? And then let some of my coworkers come pick me up without having to pay any money to bail me out? (Hint: the answer is "No"...I'd be going to jail for 6 months and getting hit with heavy fines because that's the penalty in Ohio for carrying a firearm while intoxicated...and they certainly wouldn't let me keep my gun on me while I was drunk in a police station as a "professional courtesy")

Ok...for starters, that's probably not his gun, that's the department's gun. It's issued to him....but he doesn't own it.

Secondly, he was on the job. That's not really the same as him driving down the street off duty. They know he's a cop.

Thirdly, yeah, I think he got off pretty light. However, that's an issue to take up with the judge....the police arrested and charged him. He went to court. That's really where the police step out of the picture.

Do you have any reason to believe that the attitudes of the 3,000 cops surveyed differs greatly from the profession as a whole? Or did they just get unlucky with the 3,000 particular officers they picked to survey?

Some of those cops said they would ticket the officer...a majority did according to the graph.

But yeah, I would imagine that police on a police discussion board are more into the whole comradere of policing than the average cop.

There are 700,000 police officers in the US (give or take), even if it's only those survey respondents having those concerning attitudes (which we know obviously isn't the case, there have to be others), that's still way outside the acceptable window.

Obviously every profession has bad actors, no reasonable person would expect there to be 0 bad cops.

To overlay that kind of ratio on another profession that's given elevated levels of public trust and has roughly the same amount:

Doctors - there are just under 700,000 MDs in the US. If we surveyed 3,000 random doctors, and of them surveyed, > 35% thought it was okay to cover for their co-workers if they knowingly violated best practices, people would see it as a much bigger issue.

Oh boy....you have no idea...

Report Finds Most Errors at Hospitals Go Unreported (Published 2012)

Cover for someone? They don't even care about the majority of mistakes.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cn...-third-leading-cause-of-death-in-america.html

Third leading cause of death!

What do you think needs more accountability?

Well guess what....no one cares....because honestly, people don't seem to understand the reality of these jobs at all.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Ok...for starters, that's probably not his gun, that's the department's gun. It's issued to him....but he doesn't own it.

Secondly, he was on the job. That's not really the same as him driving down the street off duty. They know he's a cop.

Thirdly, yeah, I think he got off pretty light. However, that's an issue to take up with the judge....the police arrested and charged him. He went to court. That's really where the police step out of the picture.

...whether it's his or belongs to the department is irrelevant, you shouldn't let a clearly intoxicated person be in possession of it, correct? Why didn't the arresting department take it away from him and give it to his co-workers when they came to pick him up?

Even if the gun belonged to East Cleveland PD, you don't let a drunk cop wear it on his person. Alcohol and guns don't mix.

And court isn't where police step out of the picture, it's where his supervisor steps out of the picture, and the police union lawyers step into the picture (and guarantee he gets the most absolute lenient sentence anyone has ever gotten for being drunk (to the point of passing out) with a gun on their hip, and a fully automatic H&K MP7 on their back seat)

 

[Ana the Ist]

You try this again? Come on, you haven't taken the time to even challenge yourself remotely here. You think there isn't a problem or you just think it's not systemic (a concept I'm not sure you understand)?

Given how often the problem has shifted....I genuinely doubt it's existence.

No....your beliefs appear dogmatic

Responsibility to address problems that police supposedly are some panacea to (thin blue line and all). Could swear that was implied, but fine, let's spell it out

Ok....

Pretty sure you're NOT a sociologist and I never claimed to be, so we're both up a creek without a paddle in that respect

No but I can review a sociology paper.

Mistake in policy can also be a criminal act, you're conflating the two and claiming I do the same, which I didn't.

Ok.

Not all mistakes are crimes, because a mistake in judgment and a mistake in action are technically distinct, even if the former can easily lead to the latter when you have a gun to tout as your "authority"




Because THAT means there's never cover ups, because you can find anecdotes that support this idea that cops are more good than bad or even outright corrupt(not the same thing)

Enjoy your field of scarecrows, because none of that is remotely representative here. Calling out bad cops doesn't mean you disavow or refuse to acknowledge good ones, like those that will call out corruption within their department. Or do you think that sergeant who choked his subordinate for intervening when he was using excessive force was justified?

And yeah, you're the person that should be involved with the conversation about policing when you seem to think that because someone doesn't explicitly commit corrupt acts that they aren't still potentially enabling by inaction. I guess all those battered women don't have a leg to stand on, because they insisted their husbands "loved them".

What are you talking about?

Look, the reason why you can't describe the problem is the same reason why you spend your replies trying to characterize my position as something negative.

I don't have any position.

Why? Because I don't know what the problem is. You can't tell me the problem and it's not obvious. I don't hold any position on the "problem" because the problem never gets explained. I can't possibly hold a position on a problem that is never made even remotely clear.

So how did we get here?

I would guess that at some point. a group of people told you there's a problem. Without ever actually understanding the problem...you agreed with them because they seemed pretty worked up about it.

After awhile ...other people began to question the problem. That's when it got assigned a moral value. You were told "good people" acknowledge the problem...."bad people" deny the problem.

You want to be in the good people group....so anytime the problem is mentioned, you agree it's the problem.

Meanwhile, I'm sitting here wondering when someone is going to explain the problem....or at the very least, question why none of the solutions ever solve it....or ask what the police would look like if it were solved at all?

Nobody knows.

What I am certain of....is the repeated attempts to fix this "problem" have messed up the police.

In places like Seattle, they don't even show up....the cops left Seattle. A once beautiful city is now rampant with drugs and crime. That's all that's happened. Police who used to be quite effective and seemed to have few problems....are now devastated.

As for me...I'd love to discuss the problem, examine the problem, consider solutions to the problem....but nobody complaining about the problem can explain it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

...whether it's his or belongs to the department is irrelevant, you shouldn't let a clearly intoxicated person be in possession of it, correct? Why didn't the arresting department take it away from him and give it to his co-workers when they came to pick him up?

I can't say to any certainty how drunk he was when his processing was finished.

That's not really my point though....it's not his gun, it's the department's. If he's from another department they might simply be avoiding unnecessary paperwork because they don't intend to charge him with any gun related crimes. He was on duty after all.

Even if the gun belonged to East Cleveland PD, you don't let a drunk cop wear it on his person. Alcohol and guns don't mix.

I'm sure if you send them an email or something they'll consider a policy change.

And court isn't where police step out of the picture, it's where his supervisor steps out of the picture, and the police union lawyers step into the picture (and guarantee he gets the most absolute lenient sentence anyone has ever gotten for being drunk (to the point of passing out) with a gun on their hip, and a fully automatic H&K MP7 on their back seat)

A police union lawyer....is a lawyer. He just happens to work for the police union. He's not a cop.

If you want to hold this up as an example of a bad judge, or bad lawyer, or someone other than the cops...I can see that.

But you didn't. You held it up as an example of something wrong with the police.

 

[muichimotsu]

I can't say to any certainty how drunk he was when his processing was finished.

That's not really my point though....it's not his gun, it's the department's. If he's from another department they might simply be avoiding unnecessary paperwork because they don't intend to charge him with any gun related crimes. He was on duty after all.



I'm sure if you send them an email or something they'll consider a policy change.

Being on duty doesn't mean you can't violate the law or even simple policy, which very likely would include not being intoxicated while on duty. You keep making excuses of technicality and pedantry which suggests you like the taste of boots, if you get my drift. Authority given is also authority that can be taken away when the situation is appropriate for it (like showing you don't take your duties seriously)

How do you know for certain it isn't in their policy? Doing a lot of heavy lifting with the "if" there.

A police union lawyer....is a lawyer. He just happens to work for the police union. He's not a cop.

If you want to hold this up as an example of a bad judge, or bad lawyer, or someone other than the cops...I can see that.

But you didn't. You held it up as an example of something wrong with the police

So there's no chance whatsoever of bias involved towards cops as a whole even if we're not considering collusion or such with the lawyer associated with the police union? Did you just forget my example in terms of how we'd be hard pressed even today to convict (as opposed to merely charge) cops with murder unless it's blatantly in our face, which is only possible with modern technology?

 

[muichimotsu]

Given how often the problem has shifted....I genuinely doubt it's existence.

No....your beliefs appear dogmatic

Only if you could show where I blatantly admitted I couldn't be wrong, which I'm preetty sure isn't a statement I've made

No but I can review a sociology paper.

But can you understand it methodologically? Anyone can "read" a science paper, but I doubt many people can understand or apply the information to reach a rational conclusion and sociology is also a science with data involved, so the same principle applies of giving a dog a math book and expecting them to do multiplication.

What are you talking about?

Look, the reason why you can't describe the problem is the same reason why you spend your replies trying to characterize my position as something negative.

I don't have any position.

Why? Because I don't know what the problem is. You can't tell me the problem and it's not obvious. I don't hold any position on the "problem" because the problem never gets explained. I can't possibly hold a position on a problem that is never made even remotely clear.

To say you have no position is patently bunk, you lean towards the police being in the right moreso than any underlying corruption that can affect even well meaning cops, which is not the same as hating the cops (nuance!)

If you can't even take a provisional position, you're being intellectually lazy to not meaningfully engage with the broader discussion of need for police reform by acting like some problems don't exist through your lens that wants to excuse them as the exception rather than indicative of problems that don't just go away because they get "disciplined" (because that's not the same as having actual consequences or accountability that shows them that they don't get away with violating citizens' rights because they have a badge and a gun)

So how did we get here?

I would guess that at some point. a group of people told you there's a problem. Without ever actually understanding the problem...you agreed with them because they seemed pretty worked up about it.

After awhile ...other people began to question the problem. That's when it got assigned a moral value. You were told "good people" acknowledge the problem...."bad people" deny the problem.

You want to be in the good people group....so anytime the problem is mentioned, you agree it's the problem.

I took a stance that was provisional and LISTENED, which involves actually having a shred of empathy and humility to a position being challenged, both of which you seem to lack in spades

"Bad people" don't have to deny the problem, they can just as easily ENABLE it, something you seem to keep glossing over as a problem of near equal value. Someone who turns a blind eye to injustice is not innocent in capitulating implicitly.

I don't have this knee jerk reaction you think, because you cannot possibly know my reaction to any situation absolutely.

Meanwhile, I'm sitting here wondering when someone is going to explain the problem....or at the very least, question why none of the solutions ever solve it....or ask what the police would look like if it were solved at all?

Nobody knows.

What I am certain of....is the repeated attempts to fix this "problem" have messed up the police.

In places like Seattle, they don't even show up....the cops left Seattle. A once beautiful city is now rampant with drugs and crime. That's all that's happened. Police who used to be quite effective and seemed to have few problems....are now devastated.

No one is claiming solutions will be immediate or perfect and you act like we have to be 100% certain or we shouldn't even try. When you take a step back and consider that people needlessly suffer because of this issue you want to act is just urban culture or the like and that it's somehow a "black" problem that they magnify (am I getting close? The "gang" culture, the "disrespect for the police", not "complying"?), then you can't just act like we need to take all relative speed in this anymore than we should've just sat around and waited for the justice system to work in regards to civil rights for black/Hispanic/Asian or LGBTQ communities.

As for me...I'd love to discuss the problem, examine the problem, consider solutions to the problem....but nobody complaining about the problem can explain it.

What do you find so confusing here? Maybe instead of passing the responsibility solely to one side, show where they're lacking, make constructive criticism in terms of what you think needs to be done to sufficiently explain the problem. Otherwise you're doing passive armchair activism, if even that.

It's almost like the problem might be broader than a simple, "more cops means less crime" correlative fallacy. When the state fails in its most basic duties to the citizens, the cops aren't going to fix it, because you're putting a band aid on a gaping gangrenous wound.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Being on duty doesn't mean you can't violate the law *snip*

Right, that's why he was arrested and charged and went to court before a judge to answer those charges.

All things which I fully support.

You're still trying to frame my position as something it isn't and you should stop. It looks desperate.

So there's no chance whatsoever of bias involved towards cops as a whole even if we're not considering collusion or such with the lawyer associated with the police union?

I never said that. That's not what the topic was though. It was about how police treat police.

This is you sliding the goalposts around trying to find fault anywhere....through pure speculation....without any evidence.

Again, it looks desperate.

Did you just forget my example in terms of how we'd be hard pressed even today to convict (as opposed to merely charge) cops with murder unless it's blatantly in our face, which is only possible with modern technology?

He was convicted. He paid a penalty.

Now is the part where you start complaining about that too.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Only if you could show where I blatantly admitted I couldn't be wrong, which I'm preetty sure isn't a statement I've made

Wrong about what? You don't have a problem....you have a belief in a problem and an endless amount of anecdotal evidence that feed your confirmation bias.

Are we talking about racist police shooting completely innocent and compliant black men in blatantly racist situations? That's where this whole thing started....

Or are we talking about whatever this vague problem is? Something like "police should also intervene in the actions of other police whenever they personally perceive a mistake or crime or wrongdoing "?

Or was it one of the many other complaints in between?

I don't know what you can even be wrong about....pick something, let's discuss it.

These complaints are a constantly moving target because the people complaining don't like the police. I have no reason to assume that any of these problems are even significant enough to merit concern....including the one in the OP. Nor do I think the people suggesting solutions have any clue how to solve problems.

All I really can be sure of is the sooner we start ignoring the people complaining, the less damage will be done to the police.

But can you understand it methodologically?

Yes, absolutely. My degree in political science included the same exact kinds of statistical analyses of large groups using many similar methods. I spent a year pursuing a sociology degree before switching. I'm fully aware of it's limitations and why they exist. I can go on bragging about my meager intellectual achievements....or if you doubt me, pick any sociological research paper which has been peer reviewed and l
I'll give you an explanation of how strong it is and why, including...

1. Possible mistakes in premise/hypothesis.
2. Methodological mistakes/limitations.
3. Variables unaccounted for, why, and how to account for them...if possible.
4. The value of the conclusion.

Any peer reviewed paper.

Anyone can "read" a science paper, but I doubt many people can understand or apply the information to reach a rational conclusion and sociology is also a science with data involved, so the same principle applies of giving a dog a math book and expecting them to do multiplication.

I tend to not worry about the mathematics because if the paper survives peer review, that much should be reliable. The problems of sociology lie elsewhere.

To say you have no position is patently bunk, you lean towards the police being in the right moreso than any underlying corruption that can affect even well meaning cops, which is not the same as hating the cops (nuance!)

Not assuming corruption is not the same as assuming innocence.

Given how you are completely unwilling to consider the slightest possibility of any cause of the "problem" resulting from anyone other than the police....you don't really have a leg to stand on when accusing me of bias.

After all, there are multiple incidents in the past 7 years where I sided against the police.

Do you have 1 where you sided with them?

If you can't even take a provisional position, you're being intellectually lazy to not meaningfully engage with the broader discussion of need for police reform by acting like some problems don't exist through your lens that wants to excuse them as the exception rather than indicative of problems that don't just go away because they get "disciplined" (because that's not the same as having actual consequences or accountability that shows them that they don't get away with violating citizens' rights because they have a badge and a gun)

There is no broader discussion of police reform.

That would require a problem to begin the discussion.

You have failed to provide anything remotely approaching an actual description of a problem. You want it in purely logical terms? Here...

A therefore B solved by C.

B is the problem.
A is the cause or causes.
C is a solution, one of possibly many.

You're sitting there getting upset with me not jumping on board with C.....when you can't even tell me what B is, and you're only willing to blame A on the police.

And I understand that rational thinking is hard. It's hard because we are inherently irrational in a lot of ways. I'm not blaming anyone for jumping to C without identifying B or considering A.

But it's an actual problem now. It's actually hurting the very communities it's claiming to want to help. It's hurting them because anytime C is implemented without knowing A and B....there's a real chance of not just failing to solve a problem, but creating a new one.

Won't you be a good ally and stop trying to help these communities? You can't even identify the problem.

I took a stance that was provisional and LISTENED, which involves actually having a shred of empathy and humility to a position being challenged, both of which you seem to lack in spades

I'm not loaded with empathy. I am rational though...and that makes the problems of any community in my society worth considering.

There's some rather obvious signs that the problem wasn't what people claimed it was....and their motives were disingenuous.

Still....it was worth considering. I'm pretty much done with that now, and absent of any new information, I've reached some conclusions.

"Bad people" don't have to deny the problem, they can just as easily ENABLE it, something you seem to keep glossing over as a problem of near equal value. Someone who turns a blind eye to injustice is not innocent in capitulating implicitly.

I disagree. I think that is a philosophically bad argument.

Somewhere someone is selling crack to teenagers and I've done nothing to stop it. Does that mean I've enabled it? It's an "injustice".

Somewhere a pregnant woman decided she doesn't need prenatal care and I haven't tried to convince her otherwise. Have I enabled that? It's an "injustice".

There an endless number of people committing injustices of all kinds.

How dumb would it be to hold me responsible for not having total control over the actions of everyone....everywhere?

I can't possibly be obligated to do what cannot be done....nor can I be responsible for anyone's actions other than my own.

I understand that people can be intellectually and morally bullied into such beliefs....but I can't. I'm too smart and my opinion of anyone who attempts to engage with me that way is far too low.

I don't have this knee jerk reaction you think, because you cannot possibly know my reaction to any situation absolutely.

And yet somehow....I knew you wouldn't be able to tell me what the problem is.

How did I know that?

Am I magic lol?

Can I read minds lol?

I literally wrote it in a post....and you have proven me correct every reply since.

I'm not magic, I'm not able to read minds, but I am able to recognize dogmatic thinking rather easily.

It comes from years of being an atheist around Christians.

No one is claiming solutions will be immediate or perfect and you act like we have to be 100% certain or we shouldn't even try.

No no no no noooooooo....you aren't getting it.

We are talking about complex interactions between large groups of people.

It's not just a matter of possibily making things a little better or failing to make things better.

There's also the possibility that you can make things worse.....or much worse.

Do you understand that? Do you understand that even if you have good intentions....your solution can have vastly negative, even profoundly negative consequences?

If you don't understand that....then yes, you should be ignored.

What do you find so confusing here?

Nothing. I'm pretty certain that you're engaged in dogmatic thinking. Your views on responsibility are not only bizzare but untenable.

At present, your suggestions about solutions should be completely disregarded.

 

[rjs330]

Accountability /=/ expecting perfection. I don't expect any job to be done perfectly, I expect the institutions to be able to hold an honest mirror to themselves and admit a problem that THEY have a primary responsibility to solve, not push that onto the public, something you seem keen to do, as if sociologists and the like haven't adequately explained the problem.

And what exactly IS the problem? And how do you define it as a problem? Is it a big problem or a small problem?

 

[rjs330]

I'm not sure if you want the police to actually hold their officers accountable when they consistently make "mistakes" (which are still crimes, even if you do them out of ignorance, that isn't ever a valid excuse) instead of protecting them, moving them to other townships and the like in the vein of pedophile priests in the Catholic Church, and generally treating them with kid gloves because of...you guessed it, the blue wall of silence

Just how often is this happening?

 

[rjs330]

not so pessimistic to think they can't handle it in a way that doesn't have to involve treating them like a child, or worse, a rabid animal. If you think cops can handle ALL situations, the one who's out of their depth is YOU, because I'm not naive enough to think a cop should be the one to address something that social workers are far better equipped for.

Do you know any social workers? They are most definitely not equipped to deal with out if control and violent people who are mentally ill. That is not part of their training. You know what happens when they encounter that? They call the police.

 

[lismore]

Do you think those three cops standing next to Chauvin should be convicted of something serious? I haven't looked at it in awhile...I imagine they're being charged with felonies.

In some professions people have to make rapid decisions, the consequences of which can be life changing. These decisions made then can be analyzed and scrutinized for years by people who weren't present at the scene and who might not understand the pressures involved.

The only solution I have is that awareness of corporate responsibility should be encouraged and taught, even enforced.

The guy who died, terrible situation, awful for him and his family. But the situation began due to his attempt at fraud. A planned attempt. If he hadn't tried to pull a fast one in a store he'd still be alive. The police officers action was dreadful, but they didn't wake up that morning and plan to kill. But the gentleman Floyd, did wake up and plan to steal. Not saying in any sense that the death was justified, but the whole train of events was started by an illegal act by him. Remove the underlying cause and none of this would have happened. Kind Regards to All

 

[muichimotsu]

Right, that's why he was arrested and charged and went to court before a judge to answer those charges.

All things which I fully support.

You're still trying to frame my position as something it isn't and you should stop. It looks desperate.

Take your own advice and stop assuming I hate police then. Good faith discussion goes BOTH ways.

I never said that. That's not what the topic was though. It was about how police treat police.

This is you sliding the goalposts around trying to find fault anywhere....through pure speculation....without any evidence.

Again, it looks desperate.

And again, you totally do the same thing to avoid any culpability for police that isn't bashed over the head with how bluntly illegal it is.

If police will more often than not treat cops with partiality that is a problem to address, because it's little different than witnesses at a trial needing to be in witness protection because they're seen as snitches

He was convicted. He paid a penalty.

Now is the part where you start complaining about that too

.
Paying a penalty is not something to complain about when you blatantly break the law, you're suggesting, in an idiotic fashion, I don't think people should be punished when they do wrong. Problem is in the purely retributive style of justice we see in America, no goal of rehabilitation that's genuine or counters recidivism effectively. Or is that not a problem worthy of addressing, since it keeps cops in business to have repeat offenders?

 

[muichimotsu]

In some professions people have to make rapid decisions, the consequences of which can be life changing. These decisions made then can be analyzed and scrutinized for years by people who weren't present at the scene and who might not understand the pressures involved.

The only solution I have is that awareness of corporate responsibility should be encouraged and taught, even enforced.

The guy who died, terrible situation, awful for him and his family. But the situation began due to his attempt at fraud. A planned attempt. If he hadn't tried to pull a fast one in a store he'd still be alive. The police officers action was dreadful, but they didn't wake up that morning and plan to kill. But the gentleman Floyd, did wake up and plan to steal. Not saying in any sense that the death was justified, but the whole train of events was started by an illegal act by him. Remove the underlying cause and none of this would have happened. Kind Regards to All

So what, pray tell, is the underlying cause? So many want to blame some culture as if that just springs out of nowhere.

 

[Ana the Ist]

In some professions people have to make rapid decisions, the consequences of which can be life changing. These decisions made then can be analyzed and scrutinized for years by people who weren't present at the scene and who might not understand the pressures involved.

The only solution I have is that awareness of corporate responsibility should be encouraged and taught, even enforced.

The guy who died, terrible situation, awful for him and his family. But the situation began due to his attempt at fraud. A planned attempt. If he hadn't tried to pull a fast one in a store he'd still be alive. The police officers action was dreadful, but they didn't wake up that morning and plan to kill. But the gentleman Floyd, did wake up and plan to steal. Not saying in any sense that the death was justified, but the whole train of events was started by an illegal act by him. Remove the underlying cause and none of this would have happened. Kind Regards to All

I don't disagree with anything you said here, and I'm glad you said it....even though some people are likely going to be offended at the merest suggestion that Floyds actions in any way, had a role in his death.

I see threads like this and start to get a genuine sense of dread because I don't think the people advocating for whatever they want are even giving a tiny consideration for any likely, or even possible, negative consequences of the changes they want.

I can understand why people want to hold those 3 trainees guilty for not acting in a way that they would prefer.

I can't really think of a good solution for that.

You can potentially end up with police departments deciding to only send 1 cop at a time to any scene....because even just two cops could end up arguing against each other over the correct way to do everything. After all, if you're going to be held responsible for the other cop's actions....wouldn't you prefer to do things your way?

Of course you would. If your partner wrongly kills someone, you can go to jail for it.

So in that situation if I were a cop....I'm rolling solo. I'm also not going to respond to dangerous situations the same way I would normally as if I had a partner. In fact, I may choose to not show up at all....and if asked to justify my inaction, I'll explain it was too dangerous and unclear and backup was too far away.

If cops don't do this....we'll probably get a lot more dead cops.

It's not just stuff like this either. The Breonna Taylor case is where I basically concluded these people protesting should be treated as if they had no clue what they were talking about. What exactly is the problem?

In every step of the case, cops did exactly what they're supposed to do. I understand that later there may have been something fishy about the warrant....but the cops executing the warrant had nothing to do with that. If there was nothing wrong with the warrant....I can only imagine that it would have played out the same way.

Cops kick in the door. They either announced themselves or they didn't (it doesn't really matter), they were fired upon....they fired back. The girl who lived there got hit and died.

When people say it's a problem I get the sense that they want a different outcome....but it's not clear. Do they want the cops locked up in jail for killing someone? How do we write that law? They were fired upon first....a detail that neither side disputed. If we tell cops they can't shoot back....we have 0 police in the US by the end of the week.

Do we want cops to not execute no knock warrants? There's probably a few things we should find out like how many are executed, how many are successful, how many go bad, and what likely effect do they have on crime. If it turns out that they are overwhelmingly successful...and put many of the most dangerous criminals safely in jail....then I'm not sure that's a good trade off.

That's not to say we can't end them....but frankly, I think we still want cops to arrest those criminals and they will inevitably try to do so while mitigating risk to themselves. They can ambush the suspect in plain clothes, in daytime, in public, and hope to apprehend him before he realizes what is happening....that's a likely result because that's what they did before no knock warrants.

They went to no knock warrants because when those ambushes go bad....it's basically a public bullet festival with innocent bystanders dying. I don't see that as preferable at all.

If what we really meant by calling it a "problem" is that we want it to happen less....how much less? It appears to be a very rare event now. There's still ways to do that....but we would have to examine the entire situation, all aspects.....and the people complaining clearly don't want that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Take your own advice and stop assuming I hate police then. Good faith discussion goes BOTH ways.

We aren't having a good faith discussion. We're having a discussion about your dogmatic beliefs.

That's really all it is. I can't magically compel myself into believing that you genuinely want to discuss a problem and it's solutions.

That's where any conversation like this has to start....in good faith.

Maybe you do have a description of the problem but you aren't sharing it. Why not? Is it a generalized assumption about a group of people based on anecdotal evidence?

We can still have that discussion but there's a catch if we're going to have it in "good faith". You'll have accept that the problem is mainly one of perspective....not evidence....and you'll have to accept that any anecdotal evidence that I present as a counter narrative to yours is just as valid. You'll have to consider that any narrative I construct out of anecdotal evidence is just as valid as yours.

That's a pretty bad way to go around identifying and solving problems.

And again, you totally do the same thing to avoid any culpability for police that isn't bashed over the head with how bluntly illegal it is.

He was convicted. I don't think they took away his license because he was innocent. He may have retained his job and got privileges to drive to work....but they typically don't have to give you driving privileges unless they convict you and take your driver's license.

If police will more often than not treat cops with partiality that is a problem to address,

I'm sure you imagine it is. I don't know what exactly you're talking about though. If two cops leave the station at the same time...and the first one goes 1mph over the speed limit, do you want the second to pull him over and issue a ticket?

Can you drop the cryptic and vague accusations against the police and describe an actual problem?

because it's little different than witnesses at a trial needing to be in witness protection because they're seen as snitches

I can't think of any real instances of cops murdering cops to cover for their own crimes. It's pretty hard for a cop to hide that.

It may have happened before....but I don't think it's a major incentive for cops to collude, or not rat on each other, or whatever it is you are trying to say.

Paying a penalty is not something to complain about when you blatantly break the law, you're suggesting, in an idiotic fashion, I don't think people should be punished when they do wrong.

I never said that.

But to clarify my position....

By the very nature of the job police are asked to do, and the difficulties of the job, and the fact that we're all human and make mistakes....we have to allow a certain degree of mistakes to happen, even if they are tragic or have dire consequences.

What I'm not saying is that a cop planting drugs on a suspect should be ignored or covered up...or anything but punished by his fellow cops. I would also take a hard look at any department where that is anything other than extremely rare.

However, if a suspect in a car is shooting at a cop....and the cop shoots back, killing the suspect, his 6yo son in the back seat, and a 1yo baby in the back next to the son....I'm going to ask why? If he says he didn't see them because window tint and bullets flying at him....I'm fine with that. It's no less tragic....but he shouldn't be punished.

Those are more or less the margins of "criminal behavior" and "honest mistakes" in police work. The vast majority of incidents I see people getting worked up over fall well between those margins. The reason why they get worked up....is because they are people who think they can magically read minds and find malice of some sort in the actions of the cop.

Problem is in the purely retributive style of justice we see in America,

That's the problem?

no goal of rehabilitation that's genuine or counters recidivism effectively. Or is that not a problem worthy of addressing, since it keeps cops in business to have repeat offenders?

What would you like to do instead of punishment? Give them a full ride to Harvard?

I sentence you to a 4 year degree in social justice! Lol.

I understand that when a society becomes as wealthy and successful as ours...and people are so far removed from actual oppression and state imposed hardship....it's difficult to recognize what a legitimate complaint actually is.

Getting sent to jail for several years if someone committed a violent crime, or one that harms your entire community, or otherwise poses a significant problem for society.....I think it's fair to punish that person.

I don't see why we would reward it.

The reality is that even when we just raise the dollar amount on a crime like shoplifting....and decide not to prosecute anyone who steals less than the dollar amount....the result is a literal storm of shoplifters now engaging in a crime for no reason other than personal gain. They aren't stealing bread.

Your ideas of criminals as innocent victims of circumstances shows an almost unbelievable failure to understand criminals.

 

[muichimotsu]

Wrong about what? You don't have a problem....you have a belief in a problem and an endless amount of anecdotal evidence that feed your confirmation bias.

Are we talking about racist police shooting completely innocent and compliant black men in blatantly racist situations? That's where this whole thing started....

Or are we talking about whatever this vague problem is? Something like "police should also intervene in the actions of other police whenever they personally perceive a mistake or crime or wrongdoing "?

Or was it one of the many other complaints in between?

I don't know what you can even be wrong about....pick something, let's discuss it.

These complaints are a constantly moving target because the people complaining don't like the police. I have no reason to assume that any of these problems are even significant enough to merit concern....including the one in the OP. Nor do I think the people suggesting solutions have any clue how to solve problems.

All I really can be sure of is the sooner we start ignoring the people complaining, the less damage will be done to the police.

And you don't invoke anecdotal evidence or even the worse offender, generalizations, to prove your point? Case by case is my methodology, if there's a pattern, even with exceptions we can point out, it isn't a minor thing.

So we can't address multiple problems? Seems like you're so entitled and lazy you can't put in the effort to consider society has problems, merely because you don't experience disenfranchisement in society in any meaningful way. Or you think that complaining automatically means you want a handout and are just "tearing down the country"

Oh, poor police, they're such an underappreciated group, heaven forbid they be put down a peg. You're treating them with kid gloves based on some perception that they're essentially beyond reproach, at least the "good" ones, which you can't really identify in any consistent manner, due to the basic problem of enabling you don't want to acknowledge.

Yes, absolutely. My degree in political science included the same exact kinds of statistical analyses of large groups using many similar methods. I spent a year pursuing a sociology degree before switching. I'm fully aware of it's limitations and why they exist. I can go on bragging about my meager intellectual achievements....or if you doubt me, pick any sociological research paper which has been peer reviewed and l
I'll give you an explanation of how strong it is and why, including...

1. Possible mistakes in premise/hypothesis.
2. Methodological mistakes/limitations.
3. Variables unaccounted for, why, and how to account for them...if possible.
4. The value of the conclusion.

Any peer reviewed paper.

Ah, because political science is so much more rigorous, is it now? The fact that you just pivot like this and throw unnecessary shade at sociology tells me you're not discussing in good faith to begin with and already are working with massive preconceptions, yet try to claim you're "neutral".

I tend to not worry about the mathematics because if the paper survives peer review, that much should be reliable. The problems of sociology lie elsewhere.

Eh, pretty sure peer review isn't 100% or beyond other methodological limits. Maybe you could actually just explain the problems instead of trying to sound wise and cryptic. Also, ever heard the saying, "Figures don't lie, but liars may figure,"? Math has to be accurate, you're taking my example too literally, most laypeople don't have the capacity to understand methodology, you have to admit that, rhetorical spin applies to that saying I just quoted, because trying to act like they have a solution is how they keep getting money to continue funding the police, who have gotten more money versus any other institution in its history in America. That doesn't sound like a problem in that we STILL have inordinate amounts of crime, yet more police is supposed to solve those problems?

Not assuming corruption is not the same as assuming innocence.

Given how you are completely unwilling to consider the slightest possibility of any cause of the "problem" resulting from anyone other than the police....you don't really have a leg to stand on when accusing me of bias.

After all, there are multiple incidents in the past 7 years where I sided against the police.

Do you have 1 where you sided with them?

I didn't say it lay squarely and exclusively with the police, you're mischaracterizing again. Societal norms don't START with one institution, they're reinforced by their persistence in following them, society encourages those norms initially.

If you're that obsessed with showing off the likely far smaller amount of incidents where you criticize the police, you're only proving my point of cognitive dissonance, because you still inordinately give them the benefit of the doubt, especially as concerns racial bias and prejudices, which is not the same as racism in the explicit sense.

There is no broader discussion of police reform.

That would require a problem to begin the discussion.

You have failed to provide anything remotely approaching an actual description of a problem. You want it in purely logical terms? Here...

A therefore B solved by C.

B is the problem.
A is the cause or causes.
C is a solution, one of possibly many.

You're sitting there getting upset with me not jumping on board with C.....when you can't even tell me what B is, and you're only willing to blame A on the police.

And I understand that rational thinking is hard. It's hard because we are inherently irrational in a lot of ways. I'm not blaming anyone for jumping to C without identifying B or considering A.

But it's an actual problem now. It's actually hurting the very communities it's claiming to want to help. It's hurting them because anytime C is implemented without knowing A and B....there's a real chance of not just failing to solve a problem, but creating a new one.

Won't you be a good ally and stop trying to help these communities? You can't even identify the problem.

"Stop trying to help?" Do you hear yourself? The phrasing there suggests you don't think there's any injustices to begin with and can just ignore all the injustice as the exception and not reflective of a pattern at all.

Can you claim with absolute certainty you know a way to solve the issues that isn't regurgitating the idea that cops are the only solution to societal ills? Because you haven't proposed anything that isn't just, "More cops, more guns, more militarization, more authoritarian enforcement, more fascism!" You don't have to say it for it to be implied by this thread of thought where it's never about reforming the police in a radical way, it's always something conventional because you're threatened by anything that might challenge police authority as it stands

I'm not loaded with empathy. I am rational though...and that makes the problems of any community in my society worth considering.

There's some rather obvious signs that the problem wasn't what people claimed it was....and their motives were disingenuous.

Still....it was worth considering. I'm pretty much done with that now, and absent of any new information, I've reached some conclusions.

Rational and rationalizing aren't the same thing. You cannot claim to be fully rational when you admitted we tend towards irrationality in the last quoted section.

And what "obvious signs" are those? What made them disingenuous?

What conclusions HAVE you reached? And are you open to changing them? Wouldn't want to be accused of being "dogmatic", now would we?

I disagree. I think that is a philosophically bad argument.

Somewhere someone is selling crack to teenagers and I've done nothing to stop it. Does that mean I've enabled it? It's an "injustice".

Somewhere a pregnant woman decided she doesn't need prenatal care and I haven't tried to convince her otherwise. Have I enabled that? It's an "injustice".

There an endless number of people committing injustices of all kinds.

How dumb would it be to hold me responsible for not having total control over the actions of everyone....everywhere?

I can't possibly be obligated to do what cannot be done....nor can I be responsible for anyone's actions other than my own.

I understand that people can be intellectually and morally bullied into such beliefs....but I can't. I'm too smart and my opinion of anyone who attempts to engage with me that way is far too low.

No one is saying that, because that isn't the same scenario as something that you are linked to. Inaction in a situation where you have the opportunity is not the same as a situation you aren't even aware of period or have any immediate influence.

This isn't about total control, don't paint me or others as authoritarians because you don't want to have mirror held up to show that you are more than willing to throw police and their threats of enforcement via needless violence at societal problems you haven't even considered as a possibility because you think you're too smart (your words, not mine, that makes it more palpable)

I don't think we need to engage more if you're going to take this intellectually condescending tone here and mischaracterize me as "bullying" you

And yet somehow....I knew you wouldn't be able to tell me what the problem is.

How did I know that?

Am I magic lol?

Can I read minds lol?

I literally wrote it in a post....and you have proven me correct every reply since.

I'm not magic, I'm not able to read minds, but I am able to recognize dogmatic thinking rather easily.

It comes from years of being an atheist around Christians.

Except we have demonstrable incidents, you want to just throw them out the window because you think it's never the cops' fault, or so little that it might as well not matter. It's always the black peoples' fault, they just didn't comply, they have no reason to be paranoid about the police...spoken as a privileged white guy, I'm 99% sure. Empathy is not innately a weakness, you treating it as such is indicative of how hollow a person you are.

No no no no noooooooo....you aren't getting it.

We are talking about complex interactions between large groups of people.

It's not just a matter of possibily making things a little better or failing to make things better.

There's also the possibility that you can make things worse.....or much worse.

Do you understand that? Do you understand that even if you have good intentions....your solution can have vastly negative, even profoundly negative consequences?

If you don't understand that....then yes, you should be ignored.

So just don't do anything because it might make things worse even if there is an equal chance it could make things better? I'd use the word cowardly, but this is craven with the pretense that you actually care about people and then push the accusations onto me and others that we're reckless for demanding any kind of action instead of twiddling our thumbs

Nothing. I'm pretty certain that you're engaged in dogmatic thinking. Your views on responsibility are not only bizzare but untenable.

At present, your suggestions about solutions should be completely disregarded.

And what are my views on responsibility? Enumerate and elaborate, don't generalize because that helps nothing. Specific points should be addressed and not strawmanned into making me the fool while you can play neutral. Criminals can be held accountable, it doesn't mean the criminal justice system is always equitable in how it treats people, that's one of the fundamental misconceptions you appear to have, like justice being absolutely blind (it's not, we're people)

 

[muichimotsu]

We aren't having a good faith discussion. We're having a discussion about your dogmatic beliefs.

That's really all it is. I can't magically compel myself into believing that you genuinely want to discuss a problem and it's solutions.

That's where any conversation like this has to start....in good faith.

Maybe you do have a description of the problem but you aren't sharing it. Why not? Is it a generalized assumption about a group of people based on anecdotal evidence?

We can still have that discussion but there's a catch if we're going to have it in "good faith". You'll have accept that the problem is mainly one of perspective....not evidence....and you'll have to accept that any anecdotal evidence that I present as a counter narrative to yours is just as valid. You'll have to consider that any narrative I construct out of anecdotal evidence is just as valid as yours.

That's a pretty bad way to go around identifying and solving problems.

Maybe identify what these dogmatic beliefs are and show that they're held instead of just your characterization to fit a preconception

Evidence in terms of these discussions starts as anecdotal and then becomes reflective of a pattern when the situations are comparable in nature and outcome. Don't patronize me with this notion that you have it all figured out, you don't, especially if you just keep parroting the same accusations and offer nothing of substance to help, just cheap shots

He was convicted. I don't think they took away his license because he was innocent. He may have retained his job and got privileges to drive to work....but they typically don't have to give you driving privileges unless they convict you and take your driver's license.

So it's okay to give cops special privileges even when they blatantly violated the law instead of having them actually get rehabilitation for a problem they clearly have with drinking and driving?

I'm sure you imagine it is. I don't know what exactly you're talking about though. If two cops leave the station at the same time...and the first one goes 1mph over the speed limit, do you want the second to pull him over and issue a ticket?

Can you drop the cryptic and vague accusations against the police and describe an actual problem?

Going 1mph over the speed limit is not generally considered that serious, I'm almost certain, so you might want to use a less ridiculous example and stop being a petulant juvenile in your "arguments"

How's this? Police culture encourages implicit biases against non white people in treating them as more serious threats and will resort to deadly force quicker than with white people in the same situation, particularly drug related crimes, but the list goes on

I can't think of any real instances of cops murdering cops to cover for their own crimes. It's pretty hard for a cop to hide that.

It may have happened before....but I don't think it's a major incentive for cops to collude, or not rat on each other, or whatever it is you are trying to say.

Wow, pretty sure I didn't say anything resembling that, you're reaching in the idea of what collusion means. I didn't say they were the mafia, I said they had gang tendencies, particularly in demonstrable contexts like LA. Banditos, etc, ring a bell? They don't have to kill cops, only their career potential

I never said that.

But to clarify my position....

By the very nature of the job police are asked to do, and the difficulties of the job, and the fact that we're all human and make mistakes....we have to allow a certain degree of mistakes to happen, even if they are tragic or have dire consequences.

What I'm not saying is that a cop planting drugs on a suspect should be ignored or covered up...or anything but punished by his fellow cops. I would also take a hard look at any department where that is anything other than extremely rare.

However, if a suspect in a car is shooting at a cop....and the cop shoots back, killing the suspect, his 6yo son in the back seat, and a 1yo baby in the back next to the son....I'm going to ask why? If he says he didn't see them because window tint and bullets flying at him....I'm fine with that. It's no less tragic....but he shouldn't be punished.

Those are more or less the margins of "criminal behavior" and "honest mistakes" in police work. The vast majority of incidents I see people getting worked up over fall well between those margins. The reason why they get worked up....is because they are people who think they can magically read minds and find malice of some sort in the actions of the cop.

When the mistakes are that fatal, you think we should just keep letting civilians suffer and cops get off like they're just "tragic heroes"? Is it not possible there's considerations that lead to cops using violent force needlessly because of how they're trained or even just how the culture encourages this mentality of power and enforcement?

The degree of punishment is going to be different in misuse of force versus outright corruption. But acting like you can just teach this out of the policing institution is naive to say the least. Civilians are essentially just expendable in your view because apparently police can make mistakes, just like the military can "make mistakes" and there's just acceptable losses to "maintain freedom". But freedom apparently means no real sense of safety, because at any moment, you could be a victim because the cops have all the responsibility put on them to address crime instead of maybe having policies that don't [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] them as the be all end all.

Where is it damaging to redirect some amount of police funding to other desperately needed social benefits and institutions? That person shooting at the cops could've been nipped in the bud without the need to kill them if they had better access to mental healthcare, to social services, etc. Does that just not register to you?

That's the problem?

The fact that you act so incredulous is telling with the idea that you think America must be the best damn country in the world...which we are, but not at what you think.

What would you like to do instead of punishment? Give them a full ride to Harvard?

I sentence you to a 4 year degree in social justice! Lol.

I understand that when a society becomes as wealthy and successful as ours...and people are so far removed from actual oppression and state imposed hardship....it's difficult to recognize what a legitimate complaint actually is.

Getting sent to jail for several years if someone committed a violent crime, or one that harms your entire community, or otherwise poses a significant problem for society.....I think it's fair to punish that person.

I don't see why we would reward it.

The reality is that even when we just raise the dollar amount on a crime like shoplifting....and decide not to prosecute anyone who steals less than the dollar amount....the result is a literal storm of shoplifters now engaging in a crime for no reason other than personal gain. They aren't stealing bread.

Your ideas of criminals as innocent victims of circumstances shows an almost unbelievable failure to understand criminals.

Wow, you just want to keep making a joke of this? Rehabilitative justice is not coddling people, you couldn't be further from the truth in your absurd characterizations of how to help criminals. You apparently just think all criminals deserve absolute disenfranchisement from society and can never reincorporate at all.

Rehabilitative justice is not REWARDING the crime, that's not even a strawman at this point, that's a fundamental misunderstanding of what rehabilitative justice is. Punishment should be proportional to the crime and with a goal in mind of helping the criminal reincorporate into society

When a society based on corporatist capitalism thinks people can just all work hard and have success, the naivete is on stans like you who think criminals are all just lazy dependents who want everything handed to them rather than desperate for something so their families don't starve or become homeless. You're part of the problem by acting like the issues are always individual responsibility rather than a society that forces ones' hand if they're not born into relative affluence or privilege.

A black family is not always going to be the same as a white family even if they have the SAME job and work the same amount: acting like that's how America works is insulting to an ostrich sticking their head in the sand (which apparently is for adjusting the eggs, not the myth of hiding, but that's anthropocentric perspectives for you, like our stupid notion that cats are giving us "kisses" when they don't have human lips or express affection that way at all, let alone understand that)

 

[Ana the Ist]

And you don't invoke anecdotal evidence or even the worse offender, generalizations, to prove your point? Case by case is my methodology, if there's a pattern, even with exceptions we can point out, it isn't a minor thing.

Yeah I pointed out there's an endless number of anecdotes that will support your confirmation bias.

The police aren't perfect, so as long as you look hard enough, and you're willing to imagine malice, you'll be complaining.

I'm fully aware of your "methodology".

So we can't address multiple problems?

I don't think you can address 1. I've seen nothing but failure. Every idea that the left tried to solve whatever problems they had with police failed.

Seems like you're so entitled and lazy you can't put in the effort to consider society has problems

You think pointing out that society has problems is some noble calling? Do you imagine this is righteous behavior?

Wow.

Oh, poor police, they're such an underappreciated group, heaven forbid they be put down a peg. You're treating them with kid gloves based on some perception that they're essentially beyond reproach, at least the "good" ones, which you can't really identify in any consistent manner, due to the basic problem of enabling you don't want to acknowledge.

Reproach? Is that what it's called when they burn down a police station?

Ah, because political science is so much more rigorous, is it now? The fact that you just pivot like this and throw unnecessary shade at sociology tells me you're not discussing in good faith to begin with and already are working with massive preconceptions, yet try to claim you're "neutral".

Discussing what?

You can't identify a problem.

Eh, pretty sure peer review isn't 100% or beyond other methodological limits. Maybe you could actually just explain the problems instead of trying to sound wise and cryptic.

Ok...

Sociology's main limitation is that there are too many variables and no way to isolate them. Many can't even be measured.

That ultimately means sociology can tell you what is happening, but it can't really say why. It's not able to establish causality.

Also, ever heard the saying, "Figures don't lie, but liars may figure,"? Math has to be accurate, you're taking my example too literally, most laypeople don't have the capacity to understand methodology, you have to admit that, rhetorical spin applies to that saying I just quoted, because trying to act like they have a solution is how they keep getting money to continue funding the police, who have gotten more money versus any other institution in its history in America. That doesn't sound like a problem in that we STILL have inordinate amounts of crime, yet more police is supposed to solve those problems?

Inordinate amount of crime? Compared to what?

I didn't say it lay squarely and exclusively with the police, you're mischaracterizing again. Societal norms don't START with one institution, they're reinforced by their persistence in following them, society encourages those norms initially.

What's the norm here that is the problem?

I'd expect an answer....but since I already asked you this and got nothing, I don't.

If you're that obsessed with showing off the likely far smaller amount of incidents where you criticize the police,

Ok....so you've never sided with the police.

We're done with your accusations of bias. You're biased.

"Stop trying to help?" Do you hear yourself?

Yes, please stop.

The phrasing there suggests you don't think there's any injustices to begin with and can just ignore all the injustice as the exception and not reflective of a pattern at all.

No....I'm certain there's problems and injustices and all that.

You can't identify them or their solutions though.

If you can't do that...anytime we follow your suggestions will just make things worse, and you'll just imagine the "problem" is hidden another layer down like inside "norms".

It's not a new dogma. It's old, it's been tried, it's remarkable in its complete lack of understanding.

It's disaster to implement. I don't want to get into all that....but let's just say that it's better if you just stop trying to help.

Can you claim with absolute certainty you know a way to solve the issues

No I don't.

that isn't regurgitating the idea that cops are the only solution to societal ills? Because you haven't proposed anything that isn't just, "More cops, more guns, more militarization, more authoritarian enforcement, more fascism!"

Sure sure sure....cops=fascism.

Meanwhile you think the problem lies deep within social norms and at the same time, the left is super cool with indoctrinating children into the same oppressor/oppressed dynamic that you believe.

If you just look around you can see your ideas fail in real time.

Please stop trying to help. You can't even identify problems, you'll never identify solutions.

You don't have to say it for it to be implied by this thread of thought where it's never about reforming the police in a radical way, it's always something conventional because you're threatened by anything that might challenge police authority as it stands

Radical changes? No kidding....

So you want to tear it down and rebuild something else (we'll ignore what that looks like and how it works, I already know you don't know).

And what can we expect from the new system? Perfection?

Rational and rationalizing aren't the same thing. You cannot claim to be fully rational when you admitted we tend towards irrationality in the last quoted section.

I don't...just because I don't act on my empathy doesn't mean I don't feel it.

And what "obvious signs" are those? What made them disingenuous?

You really want to know???

How about when they demanded you look at the problem a certain way? That's not critical thinking. You have to try and examine every possible angle.

It's not a dead giveaway....but that's not a person who knows how to solve a problem.

How about when the insisted they had the right to focus on whatever problems they wanted....but later blamed others for "enabling" like you tried to do to me earlier.

Am I free to do as I wish? Or am I the enemy if I don't support the cause?

How about the fact that as far as activist movements go....it never had any goals. What were they trying to achieve? No police shootings of black men....ever? How? Particularly when they make it clear they aren't evenly slightly interested in dealing with crime in the black community.

Or how about despite every time a politician tried to follow a suggestion....or a problem was examined...the problem changed? That's a rather big clue, isn't it? That implicit bias training didn't magically make the police shoot less people? I'm shocked. I guess that's easily explained by shuffling around where the racism is hiding. It was hidden in the unconscious....now it's hiding in systems!

By golly if we ever get a look inside the minds of these systems....it's probably gonna go somewhere else!

You didn't think it was odd they sold t-shirts? I don't recall MLK selling t-shirts and it was pretty clear what he wanted, ending segregation, equal rights and access, making racial discrimination illegal....

I can get why anyone and I mean anyone can be duped by a large group of people....

But as time went on....it was clearer and clearer that these weren't really problems. A few unfortunate incidents maybe, a few criminal cops, a few quick mistakes, but nothing systemic or even frequent.

What conclusions HAVE you reached? And are you open to changing them? Wouldn't want to be accused of being "dogmatic", now would we?

Well someone would have to be telling me what to believe in order for me to hold dogmatic beliefs. These aren't beliefs that I would be allowed to investigate or question.

Typically, when that happens....there's a crowd that sounds just like me on everything.

I don't think I even hear anyone saying what I think lol so I'm not worried about it.

The main conclusion is that you can't possibly help anyone with the current way you see things. It's not just you....anyone following the same dogma will sound oddly similar and respond as you did. It's a lot of talk about unfair power dynamics and tearing down hierarchies and systems that create oppression and separating people into victims and those who victimize them.

That comes with a lot of talk of radical change and liberation and ending the status quo....

Sounds good to anyone not thinking about it very hard. After all....there's problems!

Things aren't perfect!

There's absolutely no explanation or consideration of what to change into....or how it will work. That requires a lot of thinking about how things work and that's not good for the Ideology. Just keep trying to silence opposition and tear down the existing structures of power!

I'm sure that nobody has ever tried this before and you're definitely onto something new.

No one is saying that, because that isn't the same scenario as something that you are linked to.

I'm not in the police. I'm not responsible for what they do.

Inaction in a situation where you have the opportunity

What opportunity?

is not the same as a situation you aren't even aware of period or have any immediate influence.

You're not aware of stuff that isn't right in front of your eyes?

I don't actually have to meet or know the pedophiles around my city to be 100% certain that they are there....you don't either.

Now go stop em....or your inaction means you support pedophiles.

This isn't about total control, don't paint me or others as authoritarians

You are though. The right isn't pushing it's political doctrine onto children without any debate. I can't even think of a person the right has successfully "canceled".

The people who police our thoughts and speech are all on the left.

because you don't want to have mirror held up to show that you are more than willing to throw police and their threats of enforcement via needless violence at societal problems you haven't even considered as a possibility because you think you're too smart (your words, not mine, that makes it more palpable)

WHAT PROBLEMS!!???

Every time you mention how I supposedly react to problems you give yourself away.

How many posts has it been now? You haven't named a single problem.

I don't think we need to engage more if you're going to take this intellectually condescending tone here and mischaracterize me as "bullying" you

If I said that you had to support my cause, join my fight, and see it the way I told you to....or you're part of the problem.....how would you see me?

Keep in mind, I'm not actually able to explain the problem. I'm basically just morally shaming you for....not being on my side.

Literally go back and read what you wrote. You think I'm enabling "something" because I don't take the "opportunity" to....?

.....

You really don't think you're engaged in ideological dogma?

Except we have demonstrable incidents,

Of?

you want to just throw them out the window because you think it's never the cops' fault,

You're biased here. Not me.

or so little that it might as well not matter. It's always the black peoples' fault, they just didn't comply, they have no reason to be paranoid about the police...spoken as a privileged white guy, I'm 99% sure.

Oh ok...it's a problem with the police and black people. Not just the police. It's only police and black people.

What is the problem between police and black people?

Empathy is not innately a weakness, you treating it as such is indicative of how hollow a person you are.

It's not innately anything. You can empathize your way into committing genocide.

All you need to do is see one group as victims of another and eventually....you can justify killing the other.

So just don't do anything because it might make things worse even if there is an equal chance it could make things better? I'd use the word cowardly, but this is craven with the pretense that you actually care about people and then push the accusations onto me and others that we're reckless for demanding any kind of action instead of twiddling our thumbs

No....you shouldn't help.

There's vastly more ways a social system can go wrong than ways it can go right. Open your eyes. Do you see a bunch of nations that look like paradise? Or do you see a few doing really well, and they're all doing variations of the same thing, and a bunch of horrible places you'd never want to live?