Police State Versus The Angry Mob

[SpankyMcFarland]

4 hours ago, Argus said:

That's against policy. Suppose they actually DO have a gun, a shotgun, a rifle, in a closet or somewhere? You leave them alone and they can go get it. Or they can do something else if in a state of rage, like set fire to the house, or try to blow it up.

They could at least have retreated within the house until reinforcements arrived. He was known to the police as a disturbed individual - just sending two cops over there was the wrong thing to do. They could have asked another family member present whether there was a gun in the house. The reality is that they got into a situation they weren’t prepared for, panicked and escalated to deadly force when it probably wasn’t required. It’s alleged he was already on the ground when he was shot. If body cameras weren’t worn (I believe it’s still being implemented there) we’ll probably never know the truth about that. 

Edited June 8, 2020 by SpankyMcFarland

[WestCanMan]

19 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

We have seen excesses at play from members and factions within the police authorities, kneeling on the neck of a subdued black man, hitting a 70 year-old white man in the face with a baton, shooting a twenty-something indigenous woman based on the police claim that she became aggressive with a knife.

***snip***

I’ll put forward a few policies that I think should immediately change:

This was a good idea for a topic, and a rational post with ideas/beliefs which are widely held and need to be fully understood without bias or prejudice in order for people to live peacefully. 

I really appreciate where you're coming from Zg.

Of course we will have differences of opinion here, as I'm a law and order guy and you're largely a "safe space" person, but I'll do my best to start a positive exchange.

Quote

-end all use of force against peaceful protesters

I agree that no "force" should be used on peaceful protestors. *However*

If you agree that rioting has to be stopped, then you must have noticed that peaceful protests morph into something else as the dusk approaches, and there are no "good protests" after dark.

If you're still with me, then you might agree that dispersing crowds an hour before dark is necessary because it's not an instantaneous process.

So mandatory curfews on protests are going to be needed if you want a guarantee of no force. Sad but unavoidable imo. 

Also, there needs to be some kind of a protocol for weeding aggressive protestors out of the situation. This is where it gets really messy. It just takes on or two agitators to turn a crowd into a mob, and it's just as easy for a crowd to turn into a mob when police move on disturbers like that. IMO this is the friction point, or the spark that ignites the flame. How od you deal with this specific scenario?

Quote

-end the criminalization and use of law enforcement against drug use (not including large scale drug dealing), prostitution (both in the provision and use of such services), drinking in public, and assembling in any sized group (including groups not practicing social distancing)-

Johann Hari's "Rat Park" Ted Talk should almost be mandatory viewing for people who want to weigh in on the topic of drugs. I'm no expert though, and this is a huge issue worthy of it's own thread.

Public drinking is allowed to some extent, but the right for people to enjoy their property (owners and tenants both) can easily be infringed on by the nuisances of public drinking. The laws against drinking in public aren't there so that cops can bash in the skulls of anyone they catch drinking, they're there so that police can use their discretion when necessary. If you take those laws away then police have to wait until "after there's a real problem" before they can nip the problem of public drunkenness in the bud. I've been a drinker myself and been in my share of situations, I've never had an issue with the police. I play ball in parks in BC and the cops know that every team there has a beer cooler and there are people smoking weed all over the place. They don't do jack. I had an RCMP officer on a team that I played on in Bolivar Park of all places. Even I don't go there any more. He'd have a beer, he just said "don't let me see the weed" because technically it was illegal then. 

If police come to a park and see a problem, current liquor laws give them good reason to "nip things in the bud" and that's what good community policing does. 

More later....

 

[Zeitgeist]

54 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

This was a good idea for a topic, and a rational post with ideas/beliefs which are widely held and need to be fully understood without bias or prejudice in order for people to live peacefully. 

I really appreciate where you're coming from Zg.

Of course we will have differences of opinion here, as I'm a law and order guy and you're largely a "safe space" person, but I'll do my best to start a positive exchange.

I agree that no "force" should be used on peaceful protestors. *However*

If you agree that rioting has to be stopped, then you must have noticed that peaceful protests morph into something else as the dusk approaches, and there are no "good protests" after dark.

If you're still with me, then you might agree that dispersing crowds an hour before dark is necessary because it's not an instantaneous process.

So mandatory curfews on protests are going to be needed if you want a guarantee of no force. Sad but unavoidable imo. 

Also, there needs to be some kind of a protocol for weeding aggressive protestors out of the situation. This is where it gets really messy. It just takes on or two agitators to turn a crowd into a mob, and it's just as easy for a crowd to turn into a mob when police move on disturbers like that. IMO this is the friction point, or the spark that ignites the flame. How od you deal with this specific scenario?

Johann Hari's "Rat Park" Ted Talk should almost be mandatory viewing for people who want to weigh in on the topic of drugs. I'm no expert though, and this is a huge issue worthy of it's own thread.

Public drinking is allowed to some extent, but the right for people to enjoy their property (owners and tenants both) can easily be infringed on by the nuisances of public drinking. The laws against drinking in public aren't there so that cops can bash in the skulls of anyone they catch drinking, they're there so that police can use their discretion when necessary. If you take those laws away then police have to wait until "after there's a real problem" before they can nip the problem of public drunkenness in the bud. I've been a drinker myself and been in my share of situations, I've never had an issue with the police. I play ball in parks in BC and the cops know that every team there has a beer cooler and there are people smoking weed all over the place. They don't do jack. I had an RCMP officer on a team that I played on in Bolivar Park of all places. Even I don't go there any more. He'd have a beer, he just said "don't let me see the weed" because technically it was illegal then. 

If police come to a park and see a problem, current liquor laws give them good reason to "nip things in the bud" and that's what good community policing does. 

More later....

 

I agree that public disturbances and disorderly conduct are worthy of attention from law enforcement.  It’s all in the how.  I’d rather put up with seeing the odd stumbling fool in a park carrying a bottle around but not hurting anyone than see people get ticketed or hauled off for drinking in the park.  It’s of a matter of degree, but certain laws seem to give keen zealots the green light to be assholes and shake people down who just want to socialize and relax in a park.  This is especially important when the bars are closed and there’s really nowhere else to meet friends.  

[SpankyMcFarland]

Obviously, nobody in law enforcement sets out to kill a person who has called for help. The best strategy is to try to minimise the incidence of this particular outcome. 

[Argus]

2 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

They could at least have retreated within the house until reinforcements arrived.

It doesn't matter if there's two cops or six. If a disturbed individual runs at hem with a knife they're going to open fire. That is what training says to do today. I agree that the training is wrong, but that's the training. I saw a video once of a man with a sword who had climbed over the white house fence. He was surrounded by secret service agents. Some had shields, and others had batons, and after some jostling and jumping around they managed to subdue him, though one agent was cut.

This is inconceivable today. It could not happen. The man would have been shot dead the moment he lunged at an agent or cop.

[Rue]

18 minutes ago, Argus said:

It doesn't matter if there's two cops or six. If a disturbed individual runs at hem with a knife they're going to open fire. That is what training says to do today. I agree that the training is wrong, but that's the training. I saw a video once of a man with a sword who had climbed over the white house fence. He was surrounded by secret service agents. Some had shields, and others had batons, and after some jostling and jumping around they managed to subdue him, though one agent was cut.

This is inconceivable today. It could not happen. The man would have been shot dead the moment he lunged at an agent or cop.

Its true. A lunge can happen in seconds with a crazed individual lunging. They can travel quickly.

You are right. The training says should when a man comes at you with a knife towards the largest part of his body the chest. Easier said than done. Its human nature to freeze especially for many cops who rarely use their gun.

[Army Guy]

45 minutes ago, Argus said:

It doesn't matter if there's two cops or six. If a disturbed individual runs at hem with a knife they're going to open fire. That is what training says to do today. I agree that the training is wrong, but that's the training. I saw a video once of a man with a sword who had climbed over the white house fence. He was surrounded by secret service agents. Some had shields, and others had batons, and after some jostling and jumping around they managed to subdue him, though one agent was cut.

This is inconceivable today. It could not happen. The man would have been shot dead the moment he lunged at an agent or cop.

If the officer is wearing a properly fitted ballistic vest just past the belt line then all his vitals are covered with exception of throat and head, the vest will stop all blades from a penetrating wound, sure you will have a nasty bruise, but will not need stiches...My  point is lethal force should  be a rare exception when dealing with a knife, once again non lethal force should be attempted first, like tazer,  pepper spray,  baton....not enough training done on de-escalation, or solving the issue with the minimum use of force. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

It doesn't matter if there's two cops or six. If a disturbed individual runs at hem with a knife they're going to open fire. That is what training says to do today. I agree that the training is wrong, but that's the training. I saw a video once of a man with a sword who had climbed over the white house fence. He was surrounded by secret service agents. Some had shields, and others had batons, and after some jostling and jumping around they managed to subdue him, though one agent was cut.

This is inconceivable today. It could not happen. The man would have been shot dead the moment he lunged at an agent or cop.

In the UK and Ireland, police find themselves in these situations and sometimes have to deal with them without guns. The cost is more risk to the police. Some UK police jackets are designed to be stab-proof. After a particularly unpleasant experience, a friend of mine used to bring an enormous flashlight in with him to any disturbance. He found it more effective than the small baton he was officially issued. I think police over there are more used to physically scrapping with people. You don’t run the risk of being killed with your own weapon. 

There are no easy answers but, where possible, I would prefer to see a mental health professional accompanying police on calls to those who are already known to be schizophrenic, and trying to keep the situation as calm as possible. Psychotic patients may not react rationally to threats of more force and louder commands. Apparently, Peel already has some sort of program like this.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2020/02/04/peel-police-and-crisis-workers-partner-on-rapid-response-team-for-mental-health-emergencies.html

This is a bit curious, though - five family members in the house, three of them witnessing the event. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/fifth-estate-d-andre-campbell-police-shooting-family-1.5602503

Edited June 8, 2020 by SpankyMcFarland

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I agree that public disturbances and disorderly conduct are worthy of attention from law enforcement.  It’s all in the how.  I’d rather put up with seeing the odd stumbling fool in a park carrying a bottle around but not hurting anyone than see people get ticketed or hauled off for drinking in the park.  It’s of a matter of degree, but certain laws seem to give keen zealots the green light to be assholes and shake people down who just want to socialize and relax in a park.  This is especially important when the bars are closed and there’s really nowhere else to meet friends.  

I've been drinking beer in public parks for 40-50 days a year since 2000 when I started playing softball here in BC. We've had beer coolers there at almost every game and I've never had a cop say boo to anyone on my teams about it. It's no big secret that it's there. 

I think this is more of a covid thing that you're talking about, or maybe it has to do with the province that you live in. 

I didn't even know that getting bothered by police for drinking in a park was a thing. In BC, at baseball games, it's not. 

Is this happening at night or during the day?

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

It doesn't matter if there's two cops or six. If a disturbed individual runs at hem with a knife they're going to open fire. That is what training says to do today. I agree that the training is wrong, but that's the training. I saw a video once of a man with a sword who had climbed over the white house fence. He was surrounded by secret service agents. Some had shields, and others had batons, and after some jostling and jumping around they managed to subdue him, though one agent was cut.

This is inconceivable today. It could not happen. The man would have been shot dead the moment he lunged at an agent or cop.

TBH I think the cops in the US might put up with a bit more than BC cops do.

About 5 - 10 years ago there was a guy in BC with a bicycle chain who was in a long standoff with police. There were a lot of cops surrounding him when they finally shot him. After he was crawling on the ground, shot once, with cops all around, a cop opened up and blasted him several more times. Some foreign visitor had it on camera, went home, and didn't release the video until after it had gone through the courts. Nothing happened to the cop who shot him iirc. I don't think he even lost his job.

A couple years later in Seattle there was a guy with a Samurai sword in a lengthy standoff with police, they eventually took him into custody. 

 

Vcr cop: "I'll take Samurai sword vs bicycle chain for $200 plz Alex"

Trebec: "If you had your choice, you'd much rather be attacked with this non-lethal weapon."

Vcr cop: "What is a Samurai sword?"

Alex: "Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck"

[Argus]

Black Lives Don't Matter

While everyone protests against the police and loot stores Chicago had its worst day of murder in 60 years with 18 murdered in 24 hours

“We’ve never seen anything like it, at all,” said Max Kapustin, the senior research director at the crime lab. “ ... I don’t even know how to put it into context. It’s beyond anything that we’ve ever seen before.”

The next highest murder total for a single day was on Aug. 4, 1991, when 13 people were killed in Chicago, according to the crime lab.

Mayor Lori Lightfoot said on May 31 alone, Chicago’s 911 emergency center received 65,000 calls for all types of service — 50,000 more than on a usual day.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2020/6/8/21281998/chicago-violence-murder-history-homicide-police-crime

[WestCanMan]

On 6/7/2020 at 3:38 PM, Zeitgeist said:

-redirect funding used to enforce laws against the above mentioned behaviour towards inner city economic development and mental health programs

IMO there's almost no money spent policing public parks re: alcohol, and a police presence is never a bad thing. 

Quote

-end carding of people who are not committing a crime

Pessimists see "cops harassing minorities".

Optimists see less guns on the street, less people killed, which will mainly be minorities.

If you're keeping score, the people who are in favour of carding and pro-life (GOP in the States, Conservatives in Canada) will save the lives of a lot of adult minorities, and the lives of a lot of minority babies. It's TOTALLY racist.

Quote

-ensure that all police are equipped with mini cams that must be active during all forms of law enforcement

I think that's the path we're on. 

Quote

-refocus law enforcement on protecting people from violence, theft, and other clear crimes intended to hurt people 

You really want to limit the police to the greatest extent possible, cut back their budget, tie their hands on the most badsic and effective measures known to law enforcement, and somehow have a positive outcome. 

Quote

What do you think must change?

I think that people need to chill out and understand that there are 1M police officers in the US. That's a lot of cops.

They get called to tens of millions of domestic disputes every year. Those are actually dangerous - people like to feel like they are in charge in their own homes. (I've seen stats that say 24 incidents of spousal abuse happen every minute in the US).

They interact with gangsters, drug dealers, murderers, violent criminals, child abusers, drunk drivers, and general violence as well. All together I'm just guessing that they have over a hundreds million of these incidents per year (10 per cop). Seems like it's probably on the low side, because I'm not talking about "arrests only". Just situations where they are involved with this kind of thing. Maybe it's 200 per cop? I dunno.  

There's an incident like this approximately once every two years involving a black person. 

So basically one in every 200 million interactions between the police and persons of interest ends up in something like this? One in 300M? I dunno, it's an extreme amount of highly-charged incidents with a one in 200-400 million chance of an incident like this. 

If it happened to blacks far more often than whites I'd say this was proof of racism. It happens to whites more often than blacks. 

Was this really worth all the accusations of racism? 

[SpankyMcFarland]

Two things:

1. COVID-19 is still very much on the loose. The sight of people crowding together in those demonstrations makes me nervous. 

2. We need the police. We need good people who want to work in police forces. The conversation should start there. They do work that is difficult and dangerous - for us, for our welfare. Of course, we should be open to suggestions for reform - there are lots of areas where improvement could occur - but not for the wholesale defunding of the guys who protect us. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

Does Camden NJ offer any lessons for reform? All I know is it’s getting some favourable coverage. 
 

https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/06/08/872416644/former-chief-of-reformed-camden-n-j-force-police-need-consent-of-the-people

Edited June 9, 2020 by SpankyMcFarland

[Army Guy]

Defunding the police, is one of the reasons why we have the issues we have now,  like any government if the can shave funding here and there they will, and when they do , it is the police that are forced to cut back in areas that are very much needed. Increase funding is what we should be screaming for , for things like better training, more repetitive training live with real actors, and in a sim....more police officers in uniform so they can tackle all aspects of law enforcement, and get the job done correctly.

Nothing is more frustrating when doing a job when there are no resources, proper funding , training , and lack of justice, adequate fines or detention, and when people get frustrated they start to not care or start doing short cuts...so much so that is now ingrained in their culture, spread across the chain of command....like the police officer that kill Floyd, he was reprimanded 18 times before he finally killed someone...in the military you screw up twice for the same infraction and there are grounds to get rid of you....you screw up 18 times there is a pattern that his chain of command must have known about...

More training focus on de-escalation, be it verbal, physical, and non lethal wpns.

Body cams do come with there own pros and cons, see below. and while they may be great for policing the police, there are concerns of individual rights of the people they are recording....plus costs meaning more funding, storage, how long can they be kept...

https://pointpulse.net/magazine/pros-and-cons-of-police-body-worn-cameras/

https://futureofworking.com/19-police-body-cameras-pros-and-cons-should-police-wear-them/

https://www.procon.org/headline.php?headlineID=005399

there has been a lot of other talk about using police funding to be used for economic development, not sure exactly what that means, maybe someone can explain it in greater detail....mental health programs , I'm all for this but right now where are we getting all this funding from, are we attaching this to Justins great spending spree, at one time we had institutions for people with severe mental health problems but they were scraped because of the untold abuse that was given to these people and the cost. 

Our own government has what could be considered racist hiring practices, labeling jobs for certain people, because some liberal has a pie chart in the office and it says , well margret government workers needs more women, more women of color, we need them in positions of authority, and all across the ranks....or you must speak French for most government jobs across the country.... so on the job applications they state those very requirements....they don't care who is the best qualified , but rather who skin color , or race matches the pie chart requirements...

Blaming peoples actions one where they sit on the social class is ridicules. It's bullshit really, and it does not work, take a look at first nations reserves for an example....here the government provides things like fresh water, access to food, shelter, and education, plus free access to higher education as well , how many first nations people attend university, collage, how many go on to high school ….. people make choices and many, many people have change their class through hard work and effort. another example is welfare, and unemployment....I know a  fishermen that makes over 6 figures during lobster season, and then regular fishing and every year he is on unemployment....my sister was on welfare with 3 children for over 10 years, they paid her to take courses to get a job, why should she work she was getting paid to stay home and take courses . I get it these social programs are there for people in hard times....but come on millions are taking advantage of it, and some have suggested increasing these programs or something new but handing out more money....

Stamping out racism is going to take boat loads of time and funding....and at the end will it be worth all this money....

Edited June 9, 2020 by Army Guy

[Argus]

18 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

In the UK and Ireland, police find themselves in these situations and sometimes have to deal with them without guns.

The UK do a very good job of being less aggressive, talking more, de-escalating, and using less-than lethal force. And the same mob that hates police here hates police there. Dozens of them were hurt in the latest "BLM" mob march in London the other day.

[Argus]

11 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Defunding the police, is one of the reasons why we have the issues we have now,  like any government if the can shave funding here and there they will, and when they do , it is the police that are forced to cut back in areas that are very much needed. Increase funding is what we should be screaming for , for things like better training, more repetitive training live with real actors, and in a sim....more police officers in uniform so they can tackle all aspects of law enforcement, and get the job done correctly.

Canada has among the lowest levels of police per population in the Western world. At 188 per 100k we're well below France at 340 and the UK at 270, well below the US at 298 and Germany at 381, let alone Italy at 456. Toronto has 180 police per 100k population. New York has 423.

[New World Disorder]

17 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Two things:

1. COVID-19 is still very much on the loose. The sight of people crowding together in those demonstrations makes me nervous. 

2. We need the police. We need good people who want to work in police forces. The conversation should start there. They do work that is difficult and dangerous - for us, for our welfare. Of course, we should be open to suggestions for reform - there are lots of areas where improvement could occur - but not for the wholesale defunding of the guys who protect us. 

Who are the police protecting us from?  Looters get the pass while the police focus their attention on peaceful protestors.

And during a crisis, the police wont be there to help. They will call up reserves , national guard and the military.

[New World Disorder]

4 hours ago, Argus said:

The UK do a very good job of being less aggressive, talking more, de-escalating, and using less-than lethal force.

Not from what I have seen on video.  You are screwed if you are not paying your TV license.

[SpankyMcFarland]

I think David Petraeus makes a reasonable point here about military bases in the US. None should still be named after Confederate generals: 

Quote

It is time to remove the names of traitors like Benning and Bragg from our country’s most important military installations.

...Fort Bragg and most of the other posts in question were established either during World War I, at one peak of the Lost Cause movement, or in the early 1940s, as the country was feverishly gearing up for World War II. Army leaders, to say nothing of political figures at the time, undoubtedly wanted to ingratiate themselves with the southern states in which the forts were located. They bowed to—and in many cases shared—the Lost Cause nostalgia that also sponsored so much civilian statuary, street naming, and memorial building from the end of Reconstruction through the 1930s, when the trend tapered off but did not end completely. In many cases, the Army’s sentiments simply mirrored those of the society it served.

For an organization designed to win wars to train for them at installations named for those who led a losing force is sufficiently peculiar, but when we consider the cause for which these officers fought, we begin to penetrate the confusion of Civil War memory. These bases are, after all, federal installations, home to soldiers who swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. The irony of training at bases named for those who took up arms against the United States, and for the right to enslave others, is inescapable to anyone paying attention. Now, belatedly, is the moment for us to pay such attention.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/take-confederate-names-off-our-army-bases/612832/

 

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 6/9/2020 at 1:50 PM, Argus said:

The UK do a very good job of being less aggressive, talking more, de-escalating, and using less-than lethal force. And the same mob that hates police here hates police there. Dozens of them were hurt in the latest "BLM" mob march in London the other day.

I have several relatives over there who were in the police but none that I know of who are. One way or another, my generation’s example persuaded the next to try something else. 

[OftenWrong]

On 6/10/2020 at 8:51 PM, SpankyMcFarland said:

I think David Petraeus makes a reasonable point here about military bases in the US. None should still be named after Confederate generals: 

 

Who cares what they are named after? I heard that people do not associate the bases with the history of civil war that much. Certainly I don't, never even knew that but I mean most Americans.

It would seem to me there are more important things to do than remove names or statues. I am not at all for this, as people in all walks of life are imperfect, controversial products of their times.

The purposeful and wanton destruction of historic icons is only part of a larger intent to erase people from history. It's an attempt to re-write history so that the USA is portrayed as an evil empire to its own citizens. But it's a false, one-sided narrative, so it must be fought against. We all know what happens in the US happens in Canada next. Why our own fools, politicians are slamming Canadian police forces right along with the mainstream media yuk-yuk-a-duck club, I have no idea. They have no legs to stand on. But the brainwashed, media-hypersensitized masses salivate and respond in kind with Trudeau leading the way wearing a facemask, on his knees.

Edited June 13, 2020 by OftenWrong

[SpankyMcFarland]

4 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Who cares what they are named after? I heard that people do not associate the bases with the history of civil war that much. Certainly I don't, never even knew that but I mean most Americans.

It would seem to me there are more important things to do than remove names or statues. I am not at all for this, as people in all walks of life are imperfect, controversial products of their times.

The purposeful and wanton destruction of historic icons is only part of a larger intent to erase people from history. It's an attempt to re-write history so that the USA is portrayed as an evil empire to its own citizens. But it's a false, one-sided narrative, so it must be fought against.

I think David Petraeus spells out perfectly well why these people should not be glorified. They betrayed their country for the cause of slavery. Most of this base-naming and statue-making occurred long after the Civil War and was an exercise in asserting racial supremacy. 

[OftenWrong]

26 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I think David Petraeus spells out perfectly well why these people should not be glorified. They betrayed their country for the cause of slavery. Most of this base-naming and statue-making occurred long after the Civil War and was an exercise in asserting racial supremacy. 

Big whup. Nobody knew that before he pointed it out in such a timely manner. In issues to do with actual racism certainly need to be more direct and impactful than that. Waste of time.

More importantly why are we today still so bad, and what should we do about it. Something active, not symbolic.

[SpankyMcFarland]

When one reads the words of Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens, there is no question what the Lost Cause was all about:

Quote

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. 

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/cornerstone-speech