• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

F is for Fascism (Ferguson MO)

palmab03 said:
And yet their presence reduces violent crime substantially. Since it serves as a deterrence, you'll have to show that removing police officers won't increase the violent crime rate significantly. Probably have to take all the guns from the citizens before you defund the police.
Click to expand...

While significantly reducing the number of guns in society would be a great step and should be done as part of this process, it isn't the only option. What about having a small, specialized department that specifically responds to active violent crime? Kind of like a SWAT team. Then you don't have the regular officers respond to those calls, only the specialists. I understand that this works better in cities and maybe not as well in rural areas, but this is still probably a better option than the status quo.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
It is jumping to a conclusion to conclude that a certain level of violent crime is going to take place that is wholly unrelated to police brutality? To me that seems like common sense and an understanding of humanity outside of a theoretical bubble. So in this scenario, it is basically a gunfight at a block party. Cops show up with sirens blaring and the threat of law enforcement, the shooters flee the scene, at least minimizing their carnage.

Let's play out the defunding scenario. Sammy the Social Worker shows up in his Prius while guns are blazing to speak his magic words of inclusion to the shooters. The shooters have no fear of being caught, so do they leave the scene or keep shooting? How many more people get killed in that scenario?
Click to expand...

Yeah nobody is planning to send social workers alone to active shooter events, but thanks for the stupid straw man. NEXT
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Yeah nobody is planning to send social workers alone to active shooter events, but thanks for the stupid straw man. NEXT
Click to expand...

Yeah, that would be a bad idea. Police officers had to pull people off of the EMT responders who were trying to tend to the dead and injured.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Click to expand...

EbJaeC7XYAAj4GL.png
 
Fuck that’s heartbreaking. We just need more implicit bias training.
 
A piece from a Harvard economist (who happens to be black and grew up in the South) on his research into police violence.
It's probably paywalled, so the TLDR is his research does not show racial disparities in police shootings, but does show pretty massive disparities in use of nonlethal force. He also found that even when civilians comply with police, black citizens are 21% more likely to experience violence than white citizens. https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-the-data-say-about-police-11592845959?mod=hp_opin_pos_2

• There are large racial differences in police use of nonlethal force. My research team analyzed nearly five million police encounters from New York City. We found that when police reported the incidents, they were 53% more likely to use physical force on a black civilian than a white one. In a separate, nationally representative dataset asking civilians about their experiences with police, we found the use of physical force on blacks to be 350% as likely. This is true of every level of nonlethal force, from officers putting their hands on civilians to striking them with batons. We controlled for every variable available in myriad ways. That reduced the racial disparities by 66%, but blacks were still significantly more likely to endure police force.

• Compliance by civilians doesn’t eliminate racial differences in police use of force. Black civilians who were recorded as compliant by police were 21% more likely to suffer police aggression than compliant whites. We also found that the benefits of compliance differed significantly by race. This was perhaps our most upsetting result, for two reasons: The inequity in spite of compliance clashed with the notion that the difference in police treatment of blacks and whites was a rational response to danger. And it complicates what we tell our kids: Compliance does make you less likely to endure a beat-down—but the benefit is larger if you are white.
Click to expand...

Here's the part where I expect conservative and liberal posters will draw directly opposing conclusions: when there is a viral video of police violence, followed by a justice department investigation, the police stop policing and crime goes up.
• Investigating police departments can have unintended consequences. Following the brutal beating of Rodney King by Los Angeles police officers in 1991, the U.S. attorney general was given the power to investigate and litigate cases involving a “pattern or practice” of conduct by law-enforcement officers that violates the Constitution or federal rights. Many argue that the answer to police reform in America must include more of these types of investigations.

We conducted the first empirical examination of pattern-or-practice investigations. We found that investigations not preceded by viral incidents of deadly force, on average, reduced homicides and total felony crime. But for the five investigations that were preceded by a viral incident of deadly force, there was a stark increase in crime—893 more homicides and 33,472 more felonies than would have been expected with no investigation. The increases in crime coincide with an abrupt change in the quantity of policing activity. In Chicago alone after the killing of Laquan McDonald, the number of police-civilian interactions decreased by 90% in the month the investigation was announced.

Importantly, in the eight cities that had a viral incident but no investigation, there was no subsequent increase in crime. Investigations are crucial, but we need to find ways of holding police accountable without sacrificing more black lives.
Click to expand...

This last piece is challenging to a lot of narratives. It challenges the abolishment narrative that less policing will not result in more crime. It doesn't paint the police in a very good light, either - it strongly implies that when they are caught on video abusing or killing someone and are held to account publicly, the response of these police forces was to stop doing their jobs at all.
 
I don't know of a correct word to describe the feeling, every day, of learning about another person, or multiple people, that were killed by the police. At this point I expect to learn another name and see another face of a dead black man or woman or trans person every time I get on twitter. Usually I don't even learn about them until 6 months or a year after they died. The officers responsible are always free and working, their departments having cleared them of wrong doing. The state killed these people.
 
birdman said:
Fuck the notion that they just need to have “the talk” their kids to be respectful to police officers. Fuck the police.
Click to expand...

palma would say asking the bear "Why are you attacking me?" just makes the bear more angry.
 
Deacon923 said:
This last piece is challenging to a lot of narratives. It challenges the abolishment narrative that less policing will not result in more crime.
Click to expand...

Before I directly address this point, thanks for posting, some good food for thought throughout.

Still, I'd color this by saying the abolition theories shouldn't be judged on today's police stats about when police strike or stop policing. Most abolitionist theories also call for massive overhauls of the carceral state, boosts to welfare and education and drug rehabilitation, and re-thinking how we do address crime and criminal justice. The idea isn't and has never been "get rid of police, get rid of crime" in a vacuum, much less in today's American context.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
I don't know of a correct word to describe the feeling, every day, of learning about another person, or multiple people, that were killed by the police. At this point I expect to learn another name and see another face of a dead black man or woman or trans person every time I get on twitter. Usually I don't even learn about them until 6 months or a year after they died. The officers responsible are always free and working, their departments having cleared them of wrong doing. The state killed these people.
Click to expand...

"I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired."
 
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
EbJaeC7XYAAj4GL.png
Click to expand...

This made me feel physically ill to read. Wearing a ski mask walking home from a convenience store when it's cold in Colorado (and you're anemic) should not be cause for being physically detained.

Signed the petition to re-open that (and a few other) investigations. Need to figure out how to do more.
 
TownieDeac said:
Before I directly address this point, thanks for posting, some good food for thought throughout.

Still, I'd color this by saying the abolition theories shouldn't be judged on today's police stats about when police strike or stop policing. Most abolitionist theories also call for massive overhauls of the carceral state, boosts to welfare and education and drug rehabilitation, and re-thinking how we do address crime and criminal justice. The idea isn't and has never been "get rid of police, get rid of crime" in a vacuum, much less in today's American context.
Click to expand...

But we do have decades and trillions of dollars of corresponding Democrat social welfare programs purported to meet those goals that go alongside those stats. Thinking that one of those programs is actually and suddenly going to work at the exact same time the abolition program kicks in is pure insanity. The programs simply don't work, and you can go round and round with the chicken and egg on if it is the poverty or the police state that is causing the failure, but whatever the conclusion isn't going to suddenly make any of those programs work. So pulling out the police leg of the chair is going to cause the collapse the same way as if you pulled the welfare funding leg or the education funding leg.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top