Law and Order in America

[Scotty]

Moreover, a majority of people will not tolerate anarchy. Most Americans (and Canadians) manage to live their entire lives without running afoul of the criminal justice system, and resent the perps who won't get with the program. That's why we watch Cops for entertainment.

To some degree you are correct. However, while people are somewhat tolerant of police zealousness towards violent criminals they are much less so towards the innocent, be it a boy walking down the street, a woman buying water, or people peacefully protesting something.

[Michael Hardner]

I suppose this is what's called trolling right? Trying to provoke me into calling you names now so you can then whine about it to the moderator? I'll just put you on my ignore list instead.

Not at all. From the beginning of the thread, it seemed that you were saying these incidents were significant of a larger trend. Some others jumped in and helped you out, but then the thread went full circle to just talking about individual incidents and the requisite pleas for outrage.

For the record, I'm against police brutality.

[GostHacked]

Not at all. From the beginning of the thread, it seemed that you were saying these incidents were significant of a larger trend. Some others jumped in and helped you out, but then the thread went full circle to just talking about individual incidents and the requisite pleas for outrage.

For the record, I'm against police brutality.

Not sure if I'd argue that, only that you are more likely to die by a police firearm than a terrorist.

[Michael Hardner]

Not sure if I'd argue that, only that you are more likely to die by a police firearm than a terrorist.

That can't be argued against either.

The OP seemed to say that things are different today, and I'm only asking for clarity and evidence, if that indeed is what Scotty is saying.

[bush_cheney2004]

The security is only perceived, as well.

No..."security" as measured by crime rates and industry services is improving, while privacy has recently taken a very large perception hit.

[Guest Derek L]

Those factors are reciprocal. It's not one or the other, it's both, simultaneously as outcomes and predictors. One influences the other which influences the one again and so on as a downward spiral. This is why interventions are developed, despite the cries about reverse discrimination.

So, how does one actually stop it? Have these empowerment interventions made any measurable progress? It appears, to myself, a layman, that it’s a continual, circular problem….What is the endgame?

[Guest Derek L]

I imagine both of those factors play a part. Blacks and Hispanics generally have lower incomes and you basically get the outcome in the judicial system that you can afford to pay for... I would bet thats a factor as well. If we punished fraud, financial crimes, etc with prison time like we should you would probably see the numbers even out a little.

But do they? Not to drift too far, but take for example South Africa. During Apartheid, one could easily point to both, in that there was legislated Judicial bigotry, coupled with all the above mentioned social & economic factors that contribute to crime….Now look at Post Apartheid South Africa, no legislated bigotry in the Rainbow Nation, but the remaining equation has not changed…….

As such, one could deduce that social & economic health is a perquisite for crime and that real or perceived bigotry within the legal system plays little to no effect on both an individual’s or a segment of societies (criminal) actions.

[dre]

But do they? Not to drift too far, but take for example South Africa. During Apartheid, one could easily point to both, in that there was legislated Judicial bigotry, coupled with all the above mentioned social & economic factors that contribute to crime….Now look at Post Apartheid South Africa, no legislated bigotry in the Rainbow Nation, but the remaining equation has not changed…….

As such, one could deduce that social & economic health is a perquisite for crime and that real or perceived bigotry within the legal system plays little to no effect on both an individual’s or a segment of societies (criminal) actions.

I dont know. I honestly dont know what prisons would look like if we treated white collar crime the same way we treat conventional crimes. I do know however that in general the judicial system is a capitalist endeavor.... you get the kind of result you can pay for. I have a buddy whos a criminal defense attorney and I asked him to ballpark the ammount of real time he spends on a legal aid case VS a paying criminal case... his best guess was that he spends 20 times as much time for paying clients. When it comes to legal aid he will manage 100 cases at once and basically just push them along and plead them out. And this is totally normal.

So one can only really guess at what the numbers would look like in some sort of honest justice system. To be fair I DO think that underprivileged minoritries probably DO commit more conventional crimes... so they should be in prison at higher rates. But again... we have the PAY FOR PLAY system so its impossible to say really.

[kimmy]

It seems apparent that some amongst the police would prefer to find ways of suppressing cell-phone video than improve their behavior.

Or perhaps some amongst the police would just prefer people not to be videotaping them as they are trying to do their job.

Such people are perfectly free to find another profession.

Actually, they are perfectly free to stay in their profession and express their opinion and lobby for what they believe is best.

If the officer in the video had simply expressed his opinion and lobbied for what he believes is best, that would have been fine.

However, the officer in the video confiscates the cell phone under false pretenses. That's not fine. That's an abuse of authority. So are other tactics police have used to suppress cell-phone videos, like charging people with bogus offenses to justify taking their phones or preventing them from filming.

Courts all over America have ruled repeatedly that citizens have the right to film police in public places. That's a fact that police will have to live with, whether they "prefer" it or not.

So, as Scotty said, policemen who don't wish to be filmed while on the job should either learn to deal with it or find a new job.

-k

Edited July 4, 2013 by kimmy

[bush_cheney2004]

So, as Scotty said, policemen who don't wish to be filmed while on the job should either learn to deal with it or find a new job.

...but the usual perps can keep doing the same "job".

[GostHacked]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/05/3-officers-go-off-street-duty-after-shooting-dog/?test=latestnews

Pretaining to the dog incident.

Three police officers have been pulled from street duty for their safety in Southern California after a widely circulated video showed an officer fatally shooting a Rottweiler and drew numerous death threats.

Hawthorne police spokesman Lt. Scott Swain told the Daily Breeze the decision is for the officers' safety after the uniformed officer shot the dog four times on Sunday.

A cellphone video that had more than 3.7 million views on YouTube by Thursday morning shows the dog, named Max, being shot after scrambling out of a car's back seat through a window and lunging at officers who had handcuffed its master.

Dogs protect their masters, plain and simple.

"I understand that people have been affected by this video. Anyone would be," Swain told the Breeze. "The police officers involved are affected by this incident and having to kill a dog.

"I don't understand how it translates into an eye for an eye: `We are going to kill you and your family because of this incident,"' he said of the threats to the officers.

Eye for an eye? I'd take these guys off duty not for their saftey but for the citizens saftey. The cop showed no restraint with shooting the dog. Would tazing work?

[cybercoma]

Cops in America shoot first and ask questions later. In Germany they discharged their firearms 85 times in total in an entire year. In the United States the cops shot one man 90 times in Brooklyn. This incident with the dog is just another in a long list of police incidents where they show absolutely no restraint or judgment.

[Guest American Woman]

Cops in America shoot first and ask questions later. In Germany they discharged their firearms 85 times in total in an entire year. In the United States the cops shot one man 90 times in Brooklyn. This incident with the dog is just another in a long list of police incidents where they show absolutely no restraint or judgment.

There are 683,396 full time state, city, university and college, metropolitan and non-metropolitan county, and other law enforcement officers in the United States, and they all, being "cops in America," according to you, "shoot first and ask questions later." Considering all of the encounters that these cops have in a given day, and considering there are 365 days in a year, the number of American's who were shot must be in the multi-millions through the years, eh?

As for that man in Brooklyn who was shot 90 times - do you have a link for that?

Edited July 5, 2013 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

Cops in America shoot first and ask questions later. In Germany they discharged their firearms 85 times in total in an entire year. In the United States the cops shot one man 90 times in Brooklyn.

.....and the largest ethnic group in America is....wait for it....GERMAN !

[GostHacked]

.....and the largest ethnic group in America is....wait for it....GERMAN !

Sure that is not Latino? Mexicans?

[Guest American Woman]

Sure that is not Latino? Mexicans?

I would wager that he's sure. Amid the surge of Hispanics, the largest ethnic group in the U.S. is still German-Americans

Americans of German-descent top the list of U.S. ethnic groups, followed by Irish, 35.8 million; Mexican, 31.8 million; English, 27.4 million; and Italian, 17.6 million

[waldo]

I would wager that he's sure. Amid the surge of Hispanics, the largest ethnic group in the U.S. is still German-Americans

Americans of German-descent top the list of U.S. ethnic groups, followed by Irish, 35.8 million; Mexican, 31.8 million; English, 27.4 million; and Italian, 17.6 million

oh my! Are you quoting a source that solely categorizes Hispanics as "Mexican"? Really? Of course, your linked article is only drawing reference to a survey, not the census proper... notwithstanding that, wadda bout Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and the numerous other countries that associate back to the classical Hispanic definition that includes association to/with Spanish/Portuguese ancestry?

waldo factoid:

oh wait... it appears the U.S. Congress actually passed a law defining "Hispanicity" to include: Americans of Spanish origin or descent... describing this group as "Americans who identify themselves as being of Spanish-speaking background and trace their origin or descent from Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Central and South America and other Spanish-speaking countries." ..... so much for those of Portuguese ancestry!

oh, double wait... it appears the U.S. Census bureau ignores the U.S. law and allows self-declaration as the determiner of Hispanic ancestry - "if you think, if you say, you're Hispanic... you're Hispanic"! In any case, per the latest U.S. Census release, it would appear the number of those with Hispanic ancestry trumps those (the number) claiming German ancestry:

[Guest American Woman]

oh my! Are you quoting a source that solely categorizes Hispanics as "Mexican"? Really?

Nope. I'm quoting a source that categorizes Mexicans as Mexicans, not Hispanics.

[waldo]

Nope. I'm quoting a source that categorizes Mexicans as Mexicans, not Hispanics.

just admit your source is failed... that your source, solely, identifies Hispanics as Mexican only.

[Guest American Woman]

just admit your source is failed... that your source, solely, identifies Hispanics as Mexican only.

No, it doesn't. Repeating. It identifies Mexicans as Mexicans, not Hispanics.

Note thaqt Mexicans and Hispanics are identified separately here, too: http://names.mongabay.com/ancestry/ancestry-population.html

Edited July 6, 2013 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

No, it doesn't. Repeating. It identifies Mexicans as Mexicans, not Hispanics.

I love it when Canadians argue with Americans about Mexicans.

[Guest American Woman]

I love it when Canadians argue with Americans about Mexicans.

I was thinking the same thing. It would appear that he's arguing with Mexicans, too.

[bush_cheney2004]

I was thinking the same thing. It would appear that he's arguing with Mexicans, too.

Its just so funny at times....trying so hard to out American...Americans.

[waldo]

No, it doesn't. Repeating. It identifies Mexicans as Mexicans, not Hispanics.

I can't hold your hand any more than already done. I gave you a screen shot from the U.S. Census bureau identifying the count associated to Hispanics. If you really want to hold to your failed source... then provide its accounting for what constitutes Hispanics. Your latest reply is even more laughable if you now suggest that Mexicans are not a part of the Hispanic makeup... is that what you are now claiming.

[Guest American Woman]

I gave you a screen shot from the U.S. Census bureau identifying the count associated to Hispanics.

And I gave you a link to the U.S. Census Bureau identifying Mexicans and Hispanics separately.

Your latest reply is even more laughable if you now suggest that Mexicans are not a part of the Hispanic makeup... is that what you are now claiming.

That wasn't me in the video I provided for you.