General US Politics

[TheArchsage]

I suppose the political context of the situation at hand is on aspect of it. But ultimately it's the social narrative that's really the key thing here.

In one sense, we can look at the facts, examine the charges and see if the verdicts are fair given the charge of the alleged crime. And if everything checks out, and the verdict was correct, then there's really nothing else to speak on.

But the social narrative is what is truly at play. Is law enforcement a racist institution keenly structured to destroy the lives of Black Americans? Is that true statistically, or only in sentimentality? Or is there merely some racists who still exist, and therefore corrupt an otherwise normal system? Is there a way to create an incorruptible (or at least less corruptible system)? What are the proposals? etc, etc.

There are so many questions and concerns revolving the issue, and unfortunately the political climate is much too polarized (and is getting increasingly polarized) that actual discussion and debate on navigating and solving the issues seems impossible.

Not to mention the current political power is ruthlessly partisan in many respects, and that nearly all major institutions of power (presidency, congress, the press/media, hollywood, academia) are all on trend towards a polarized side.

I wonder what, if any good can truly come out of this climate in the future...

[Armchair General]

1 hour ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Hope the public doesn't have high hopes for a jail sentence on the cop for this one.

Well, I certainly don't.

 

If he actually gets convicted, it would certainly expose a double standard.

50 minutes ago, TheArchsage said:

I wonder what, if any good can truly come out of this climate in the future.

An call for a racial diverse police force, but that's an hurdle for a quite a few reasons. Or the ensuring social reforms would leave us with a police force like this.

 

Edited April 21, 2021 by Armchair General

[Clear World]

This might be slightly off-topic, but I'm thinking about Minority Report and the ethical question about: "Would knowing the future justify penalizing future crimes?"

One side argues: Knowing the future DOES justify penalizing future crimes

The other side argues: Knowing the future DOES NOT justify penalizing future crimes

I bring this up because in both the book and the movie, neither seems to acknowledge that there are other options than merely punishment (i.e, jail, death). This isn't about finding a middle ground between two options, but rather, questioning assumed notions & if those are the only options. A large section of the America populist seems to have this belief that the only course for a crime is punishment.

----------------------

Anyways. I also came across this satire of a Newsletter headline, and I couldn't help be both amused & sad: Murderer Who Got Caught Committing Murder On Video Found Guilty Of Murder

[Armchair General]

23 minutes ago, Clear World said:

This might be slightly off-topic, but I'm thinking about Minority Report and the ethical question about: "Would knowing the future justify penalizing future crimes?"

One side argues: Knowing the future DOES justify penalizing future crimes

The other side argues: Knowing the future DOES NOT justify penalizing future crimes

I bring this up because in both the book and the movie, neither seems to acknowledge that there are other options than merely punishment (i.e, jail, death). This isn't about finding a middle ground between two options, but rather, questioning assumed notions & if those are the only options. A large section of the America populist seems to have this belief that the only course for a crime is punishment.

----------------------

Anyways. I also came across this satire of a Newsletter headline, and I couldn't help be both amused & sad: Murderer Who Got Caught Committing Murder On Video Found Guilty Of Murder

Well, it wouldn't be a punishment if you didn't commit the crime.

[eclipse]

4 hours ago, TheArchsage said:

I suppose the political context of the situation at hand is on aspect of it. But ultimately it's the social narrative that's really the key thing here.

In one sense, we can look at the facts, examine the charges and see if the verdicts are fair given the charge of the alleged crime. And if everything checks out, and the verdict was correct, then there's really nothing else to speak on.

But the social narrative is what is truly at play. Is law enforcement a racist institution keenly structured to destroy the lives of Black Americans? Is that true statistically, or only in sentimentality? Or is there merely some racists who still exist, and therefore corrupt an otherwise normal system? Is there a way to create an incorruptible (or at least less corruptible system)? What are the proposals? etc, etc.

There are so many questions and concerns revolving the issue, and unfortunately the political climate is much too polarized (and is getting increasingly polarized) that actual discussion and debate on navigating and solving the issues seems impossible.

Not to mention the current political power is ruthlessly partisan in many respects, and that nearly all major institutions of power (presidency, congress, the press/media, hollywood, academia) are all on trend towards a polarized side.

I wonder what, if any good can truly come out of this climate in the future...

Do you have an angle that you want to share, or are you just speaking vaguely for the sake of speaking vaguely?  Because if it's the latter, then having an unclear stance isn't helping.

[Crysta]

It's just a whole lot of "oh my god we're so partisan" bellyaching.

If you really want to see if the stats back up the claims of systemic racism you could, like, try to look it up. There are studies: you are not the first person to ask the question.

This was a pretty solid case, with a mountain of video evidence depicting the crime. The defense threw everything they had against the wall (even blaming aliens lol?) and it was pretty unconvincing: there being other contributing factors in Floyd's death doesn't mean shit. It's like punching someone, having them hit their head on the way down and dying, then blaming the cement for being too hard.

Edited April 22, 2021 by Crysta

[Excellen Browning]

19 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Hope the public doesn't have high hopes for a jail sentence on the cop for this one.

I was told the prosecution is looking for an upward departure from the normal sentencing guidelines, so we'll see. I think that a jury that's willing to convict is willing to sentence to a long sentence (if that's the jury's job and not the judge's, I don't really know)

[Interdimensional Observer]

54 minutes ago, Excellen Browning said:

I think that a jury that's willing to convict is willing to sentence to a long sentence (if that's the jury's job and not the judge's, I don't really know)

CNN said it several times that the judge will determine the sentence, which they said pleased the defense if he was convicted.

[Jotari]

10 hours ago, Crysta said:

It's just a whole lot of "oh my god we're so partisan" bellyaching.

If you really want to see if the stats back up the claims of systemic racism you could, like, try to look it up. There are studies: you are not the first person to ask the question.

This was a pretty solid case, with a mountain of video evidence depicting the crime. The defense threw everything they had against the wall (even blaming aliens lol?) and it was pretty unconvincing: there being other contributing factors in Floyd's death doesn't mean shit. It's like punching someone, having them hit their head on the way down and dying, then blaming the cement for being too hard.

Wait really!? Is there a link to that?

[Armchair General]

58 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Wait really!? Is there a link to that?

Well, @eclipse was certainly on to something when she said that courtrooms can be interesting.

 

 

[Armchair General]

Apparently, there's a push to legalize prostitution across the nation and NYC has recently legalized it. Or in this case, stop prosecuting them. Hopefully it doesn't leads to a uptick in STDs, but you never know.

Edited April 25, 2021 by Armchair General

[XRay]

7 hours ago, Armchair General said:

Apparently, there's a push to legalize prostitution across the nation and NYC has recently legalized it. Or in this case, stop prosecuting them. Hopefully it doesn't leads to a uptick in STDs, but you never know.

Nice. Less stigmatization and more tax revenue is always good in my opinion, plus with legalization, you can better regulate the industry and encourage and enforce better health standards and protection.

Personally, I would also eliminate the recognition of any kind of marriage and legalize all drugs since those are private personal matters that I do not think the government should have much say in, similar to religion and alcohol. Who you sleep with having an impact on your taxes is pretty stupid in my opinion, and legalizing more recreational drugs opens up more tax revenue.

[Armchair General]

12 hours ago, XRay said:

I do not think the government should have much say in, similar to religion and alcohol

You know, certain states have restrictions on how strong a can of beer right? Along with when it can be sold.

[XRay]

29 minutes ago, Armchair General said:

You know, certain states have restrictions on how strong a can of beer right? Along with when it can be sold.

Yeah, I am not a fan of those. In California, I think bars cannot serve alcohol past a certain time.

[Shoblongoo]

21 hours ago, Armchair General said:

Apparently, there's a push to legalize prostitution across the nation and NYC has recently legalized it. Or in this case, stop prosecuting them. Hopefully it doesn't leads to a uptick in STDs, but you never know.

This has always been the obvious answer to the question:  "how do you defund and demilitarize the police + reduce over-policing, without reducing protection against violent crime"

-take them off of the work of setting up speed traps and harassing motorists for ticketing revenue
-take them off the work of locking up sex workers
-take them off the work of prosecuting the war on drugs

Narrow the scope of police work to actually policing for + arresting dangerous criminals. (i.e. murderers, robbers, burglars, kidnappers, arsonists, rapists, child-abusers, fraudsters and racketeers; i.e. people who actually threaten the peace and safety of their communities with their criminal conduct)     

...if that's where you focus all police manpower, and you cut out the frivolous nonsense... 

Then you can have smaller police departments. Fewer cops on the streets. Less policing. Fewer opportunities for abuse and excessive use of force in law enforcement. 

And you can do it all without leaving less-policed communities more vulnerable to criminals or being 'soft on crime.' 

 

[Armchair General]

1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

This has always been the obvious answer to the question:  "how do you defund and demilitarize the police + reduce over-policing, without reducing protection against violent crime"

-take them off of the work of setting up speed traps and harassing motorists for ticketing revenue
-take them off the work of locking up sex workers
-take them off the work of prosecuting the war on drugs

Narrow the scope of police work to actually policing for + arresting dangerous criminals. (i.e. murderers, robbers, burglars, kidnappers, arsonists, rapists, child-abusers, fraudsters and racketeers; i.e. people who actually threaten the peace and safety of their communities with their criminal conduct)     

...if that's where you focus all police manpower, and you cut out the frivolous nonsense... 

Then you can have smaller police departments. Fewer cops on the streets. Less policing. Fewer opportunities for abuse and excessive use of force in law enforcement. 

And you can do it all without leaving less-policed communities more vulnerable to criminals or being 'soft on crime.' 

 

It could work, but it there's kind of an limit on how much manpower you can reduce before you start having problems. Like if someone pulls a gun and starts firing, you have at least two or three officers on scene.

 

Otherwise you'll get incidents like this.

 

Granted, this is from New Mexico's State Police as opposed to being from an major city.

Edited April 26, 2021 by Armchair General

[XRay]

Fucking damn. Just a few days after the George Floyd trial, here in California we just got our own George Floyd a few days ago. Here is the article on it, and his name is Mario Gonzalez and he died in Alameda county, which is in the Bay Area near San Francisco. I have not watched the video yet, but based on what I read, seems like the same thing happened and he was forced on to the ground face down and got choked out by the cops. Hope his family finds justice and find it soon. With George Floyd being national news, you would think that cops should know better, and this is California too.

[NinjaMonkey]

On 4/26/2021 at 8:29 PM, Shoblongoo said:

Then you can have smaller police departments. Fewer cops on the streets. Less policing. Fewer opportunities for abuse and excessive use of force in law enforcement. 

And have more people comitting crime, due to a smaller police presence (and presumably more clients - and money - for a lawyer such as yourself).

Edited April 28, 2021 by NinjaMonkey

[Zanarkin]

58 minutes ago, NinjaMonkey said:

And have more people comitting crime, due to a smaller police presence (and presumably more clients - and money - for a lawyer such as yourself).

What crime exactly are we talking about here? Cause when people talk about defunding the police, at least in the most common way I've heard it before, is that you take the money you took from police departments and make new departments and enforcement that are meant to deal with petty crime (minor theft, trespassing, traffic violations, etc.) as well as mental health crises.

When it comes to murders, rampages, and other seriously dangerous activities being committed, the police you know will still be there to take care of it. The idea here is that you don't need a bloated police department armed to their teeth and full of idiots to be handing out speeding tickets, dealing with trespassing, and other minor crimes. Will there be cases were petty crimes turn into serious crimes? Yes. Just like it does now. Even now, with the ridiculous budgets police departments get, most crimes they stop are being stopped while they are in progress. Armed police should be reactionary. They should never be the first response.

Edited April 28, 2021 by Zanarkin

[Eltosian Kadath]

There is an event I would like to share that only came to my attention recently, but feels relevant to the discussion at hand, as it involves a look into a key part of the problem with police in America, and an attempt to address that part through reform.

In 2006 in Buffalo city New York, police responded to a domestic disturbance, and after handcuffing, and remove a suspect from the premises, one of the officers started choking the suspect. One of the other officers on the scene, officer Cariol, tried to get the other officer to stop, and after the strangler failed to respond to Cariol's words, she pulled the strangler off of the suspect, and for doing so she was fired from the force, only 2 months before earning her pension. She would try to have her termination appealed, but was denied at the time. It should be noted that there were already allegations of excessive force from the strangler (repeated bashing the head of a suspect into the car they were restrained against), and would remain on the force after the incident, getting more allegations of excessive force, until he was fired, and incarcerated after being involved in an incident where multiple black teenagers were held down and shooting point blank with a BB gun. Also of note the suspect that was strangled to this day says that officer Cariol is the only reason he survived that encounter. Here we have a moment that could have become another citizen death at police hands; the one whom prevented it is punished, and the one who perpetrated the violence allowed to continue until his actions were so egregious that could no longer be covered up.

After the protested that were sparked off by Floyd, the injustice of this incident was so illustrative of an issue with the city's police force that they added Cariol's Law as a way to address it. Cariol's Law adds a duty to police to intervene when other officers pose an imminent threat to citizens, consequence to police that fail to do so, added protections from reprisal to police who do intervene, harsher consequences for police falsifying reports, impacts the funding and termination policy of the police, and finally those whom faced retaliation for preventing, or whistle blowing about police abuse against citizens can receive restorative justice. This all came to my attention after hearing about Officer Cariol seeking the restorative justice from the law that bears her name, and having the pension she was denied granted her, as as well back pay for the pension, and the two month period she needed and would have worked to earn it, if not for her retaliatory firing. It is still too soon to see if this legislation will have a noticeable impact on the horrifying problems involving America's police, and I don't think it is addressing all of the problems, but I think its something to keep an eye on, and a place to start looking about the kind of reform we might be seeing...

[Excellen Browning]

19 hours ago, NinjaMonkey said:

And have more people comitting crime, due to a smaller police presence (and presumably more clients - and money - for a lawyer such as yourself).

You sure are flashing those tory colours

[NinjaMonkey]

18 hours ago, Zanarkin said:

Armed police should be reactionary. They should never be the first response.

In a country where the general public doesn't have access to firearms, sure. However, in a country like the US where roughly half the population has access to firearms, I don't agree in the slightest, when even a common burglar could be carrying a gun.

59 minutes ago, Excellen Browning said:

You sure are flashing those tory colours

Someone has to provide an alternative view in the liberal echochamber that is this thread.

[Zanarkin]

4 hours ago, NinjaMonkey said:

In a country where the general public doesn't have access to firearms, sure. However, in a country like the US where roughly half the population has access to firearms, I don't agree in the slightest, when even a common burglar could be carrying a gun.

In all fairness, a burglar could be armed in any country. Even if it is illegal. Weapons are an effective threat and likely to force people into doing what you want. Still i think it is something that comes as a risk to the job. You are a cop that stops illegal activity, you might get shot. Having a weapon doesn't really always help as you can see from that video Armchair posted earlier. Should the situation escalate to shots fired, there should be a armed police standing by ready to react. I'm just saying the first assumption shouldn't be that petty criminal will turn into a bloodbath. 

Given that most humans aren't vicious killers, I don't know why we'd expect speeding people or thieves to be so. It isn't easy to escape law enforcement, and killing a cop is bound to get you far more trouble than simply giving in or attempting to flee without causing harm to a human.

[Etrurian emperor]

5 hours ago, NinjaMonkey said:

In a country where the general public doesn't have access to firearms, sure. However, in a country like the US where roughly half the population has access to firearms, I don't agree in the slightest, when even a common burglar could be carrying a gun.

I think that's an argument against the public having guns. If everyone the police can potentially interact with can carry a gun which they can kill the police with, and if the police are shown to be so spooked by this that they freak out and kill people at the slightest suspicion then the whole situation has gone terribly wrong. 

Edited April 29, 2021 by Etrurian emperor

[Jotari]

53 minutes ago, Zanarkin said:

In all fairness, a burglar could be armed in any country. Even if it is illegal. Weapons are an effective threat and likely to force people into doing what you want. Still i think it is something that comes as a risk to the job. You are a cop that stops illegal activity, you might get shot. Having a weapon doesn't really always help as you can see from that video Armchair posted earlier. Should the situation escalate to shots fired, there should be a armed police standing by ready to react. I'm just saying the first assumption shouldn't be that petty criminal will turn into a bloodbath. 

Given that most humans aren't vicious killers, I don't know why we'd expect speeding people or thieves to be so. It isn't easy to escape law enforcement, and killing a cop is bound to get you far more trouble than simply giving in or attempting to flee without causing harm to a human.

It makes for something of a feedback loop too. As in countries with mostly unarmed police officers, a thief or even a murderer who is cornered by the police will generally surrender, as killing a cop will put them in way more trouble. But if the police are armed, and they're coming after you on the assumption that you are armed, and you actually are armed, well then it's suddenly a fire fight for survival. Killing your way out becomes a more valid option versus immediate execution. And as more criminals take that option, the more aggressive the police become about trying to subdue armed criminals, the more likely getting shot for the criminal is. Until criminals are carrying armour piercing rounds and the police are getting full on military level weaponry.

I would say tazers are a good option for trying to deescalate the situation while still providing a means of disabling people for the police, but if tasers did become standard issue then I know there'd be a slew of police killing people by liberally using them on people with heart conditions. As while tasers are certainly less lethal than guns, they're more powerful than they appear.