State of Emergency: Baltimore Edition

[chamber-music]

What is walking aggressively?

Power walking?

Law enforcement officers all over the world subdue suspects without killing them everyday. No good officer wants to be forced into a situation in which someone loses their life regardless of if they are suspect or bystander. Killing someone should be a last resort. I've got friends who are police officers and of course they get scared in certain situations but that fear doesn't get out of control leading them to make bad or unprofessional decisions that may unnecessarily cost someone their life.

The day you start being too scared that you can't handle these situations the way you are supposed to is the day you might want to think about a different line of work.

I'm not sure the exact details of this case but six officers having handcuffed and disarmed a suspect should be in control of the situation. If not they are either poorly trained or in the wrong line of work.

 

[The Question]

So if someone is being aggressive and making threatening statements or gestures toward other people in the vicinity, and is walking aggressively toward a police officer....what are they supposed to do, if they're not allowed to subdue them?

There you go, twisting my words again.

1: When were we ever talking about someone who was actively threatening people? We weren't.

2: When did I ever say that law enforcement officials should never be allowed to subdue someone?

This is what keeps happening. People criticize the police for being too aggressive. Defenders of the police try to dismiss that by A) only talking about specific scenarios where some measure of force might be required, and B) acting ass if police critics were saying that police should never try to end potentially dangerous situations, instead of what they were actually saying which is that oftentimes, when police try to end potentially dangerous situations, they behave in an inappropriately aggressive manner that only escalates things, and oftentimes, they behave this way when there is no reasonable suspicion of danger.

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

Here is where I am at currently. My opinion can be affected based on evidence and official statements on the case. For example, I think people who protested in the Mike Brown case on day one without knowing facts were flat out ridiculous. When evidence came to light, they flat out refused to acknowledge it.

With that said I would say at this point, I'm feeling more like the cops did do something wrong. I'm thinking the evidence at least indicates police negligence at some point by the police. If Gray was even injuring himself and being rowdy, the cops still have a responsibility to get him help.

We don't know exactly what happened on every stop. A cop may have never physically attacked. The driver may never have been intending to drive in a way to injure. A lot of speculation can be made on all sides here.

The fact is that Gray is dead. The cops are alive. We have to judge on a case by case basis. I've always said this. Just like I felt Trayvon was wrongly killed and even if by law Zimmerman judgment was correct, in hindsight the idea of a neighborhood watch guy following a young man just doesn't feel right to me. He bares more responsibility for that situation than he got ultimately.

I'm not saying my views are 100% correct, but I wish people of all sides could consider altering views based on evidence that comes out.

I also wish that every time I (and others) ask that people would not rush to judgement, or offer a view in support of law enforcement that certain people wouldn't label that ideology as racist. I see legit attempts at being objective and basing cases on evidence condemned. Like we are to fall in line every time there is a protest, and not wait on facts. That is idiotic to me.

Hope that made sense!

 

[The Question]

Your twisting of my words also sidesteps my larger point: Yes, there are possible scenarios, which have happened in the past, where an aggressive response is necessary to ensure public safety, but the problem is that our law enforcement agencies and our government use aggressive action as their first response and only tool in combating danger and crime. Law enforcement is built upon a paramilitary mindset, and so force and dominance are seen as absolutely necessary and the only option available in combating criminal and dangerous behavior.

Let me put it in perspective:

In America, 388 people have been killed by police officers since the beginning of 2015.

In Iceland, only one person has been killed by police officers since 1944.

We're doing it wrong.

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

So if someone is being aggressive and making threatening statements or gestures toward other people in the vicinity, and is walking aggressively toward a police officer....what are they supposed to do, if they're not allowed to subdue them?

I honestly think there would be far too many inner city thugs that would take advantage of cops, if they felt no element of forceful opposition from an officer. If they just believe they can run, crime is going to get worse. If they believe that they can get away with mouthing off/resisting/interfering with an arrest while a cop is trying to detain them for legitimate circumstances... Lawlessness.

 

[The Question]

I honestly think there would be far too many inner city thugs that would take advantage of cops, if they felt no element of forceful opposition from an officer. If they just believe they can run, crime is going to get worse. If they believe that they can get away with mouthing off/resisting/interfering with an arrest while a cop is trying to detain them for legitimate circumstances... Lawlessness.

Why should "mouthing off" be responded to with violence? American citizens have a right to free speech. And how would being allowed to "mouth off" without fear of a violent response result in lawlessness?

 

[chamber-music]

I also wish that every time I (and others) ask that people would not rush to judgement, or offer a view in support of law enforcement that certain people wouldn't label that ideology as racist. I see legit attempts at being objective and basing cases on evidence condemned. Like we are to fall in line every time there is a protest, and not wait on facts. That is idiotic to me.

Hope that made sense!

I think that is fine but it would also be great if in these situations people don't rush to paint every dead person as a thug who had it coming and speculate that they must of done something to deserve dying.

Innocent until proven guilty cuts both ways. The officers and the suspects should not be rushed to be judged as guilty.

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

Your twisting of my words also sidesteps my larger point: Yes, there are possible scenarios, which have happened in the past, where an aggressive response is necessary to ensure public safety, but the problem is that our law enforcement agencies and our government use aggressive action as their first response and only tool in combating danger and crime. Law enforcement is built upon a paramilitary mindset, and so force and dominance are seen as absolutely necessary and the only option available in combating criminal and dangerous behavior.

Let me put it in perspective:

In America, 388 people have been killed by police officers since the beginning of 2015.

In Iceland, only one person has been killed by police officers since 1944.

We're doing it wrong.

Iceland is a poor comparison. Less criminals = less arrests = less confrontation = less cases of cop on suspect force. It's a poor example as a template. I also think you are appearing to be at a point where you can not change any position in your mind regardless of facts or evidence. You appear to view all cases in one broad stroke. Cops all have evil intent and black suspects are always abused. You will surely disagree with that assessment, but that is how it is coming across sometimes.

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

I think that is fine but it would also be great if in these situations people don't rush to paint every dead person as a thug who had it coming and speculate that they must of done something to deserve dying.

Innocent until proven guilty cuts both ways. The officers and the suspects should not be rushed to be judged as guilty.

Even if a wrongful death, a thug is still a thug. A guy (not even talking about Gray) has a rap sheet for drugs, theft, battery, etc... they are a thug. A guy just robs a store, tries to take a cop gun and fights with him... thug. A wrongful act of a cop doesn't change that.

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

Why should "mouthing off" be responded to with violence? American citizens have a right to free speech. And how would being allowed to "mouth off" without fear of a violent response result in lawlessness?

Backslash indicating grouped together

 

[The Question]

Iceland is a poor comparison. Less criminals = less arrests = less confrontation = less cases of cop on suspect force. It's a poor example as a template.

No, it's actually a perfect example.

Ask yourself: Why does Iceland have fewer criminals?

You acknowledge that they do, but I'm asking you to think about why that is the case.

Crime doesn't come out of nowhere. America doesn't have a higher crime rate than Iceland just because. Crime has root causes. Poverty, racial discrimination, inadequate healthcare services, poor education, these are the major contributing factors to the crime rate. Nations that have these problems in abundance have high crime rates. Nations that do not have these problems, or have them to a much lesser extent, have low crime rates.

Iceland has fewer criminals because, unlike the United States, it actually addresses the root causes of crime. Instead of using aggressive, pro-active law enforcement as the primary means of combating crime, Iceland puts their resources into a strong social safety net, high quality public education, and a corrections system that is based on a rehabilitation model instead of a punitive model. Instead of allowing a problem to fester and then reacting aggressively because they "had no choice" like we do, they solve the problems before they start and use their police agencies solely for dealing with those few that slip through the cracks.

Furthermore, even in situations where force is required, they still use far more restraint than our law enforcement agencies do, because even with our higher crime rate (which is, as I said, our own fault for relying entirely on law enforcement instead of prevention), we still rely on force far more than is necessary. The long list of SWAT teams serving no-knock warrants on minor drug charges and injuring or killing children or grandmothers in the process is proof of that. Because our law enforcement agencies are so aggressive in squashing any potential danger to themselves, they end up escalating the violence and greatly increasing the danger for the civilians around them. The police in Iceland, on the other hand, accept a little extra risk on their part to ensure that the risk on the part of the civilian population is minimized.

They are doing it right.

We are doing it wrong.

I also think you are appearing to be at a point where you can not change any position in your mind regardless of facts or evidence. You appear to view all cases in one broad stroke. Cops all have evil intent and black suspects are always abused. You will surely disagree with that assessment, but that is how it is coming across sometimes.

That's because you're not really listening to what I have to say. I am not speaking to the moral character of any individual law enforcement officials, because that's not the problem. The problem is bigger than that. The problem is the result of systemic cultural and institutional trends that these officers and the people of this country are all just swept up in.

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Here is where I am at currently. My opinion can be affected based on evidence and official statements on the case. For example, I think people who protested in the Mike Brown case on day one without knowing facts were flat out ridiculous. When evidence came to light, they flat out refused to acknowledge it.

With that said I would say at this point, I'm feeling more like the cops did do something wrong. I'm thinking the evidence at least indicates police negligence at some point by the police. If Gray was even injuring himself and being rowdy, the cops still have a responsibility to get him help.

We don't know exactly what happened on every stop. A cop may have never physically attacked. The driver may never have been intending to drive in a way to injure. A lot of speculation can be made on all sides here.

The fact is that Gray is dead. The cops are alive. We have to judge on a case by case basis. I've always said this. Just like I felt Trayvon was wrongly killed and even if by law Zimmerman judgment was correct, in hindsight the idea of a neighborhood watch guy following a young man just doesn't feel right to me. He bares more responsibility for that situation than he got ultimately.

I'm not saying my views are 100% correct, but I wish people of all sides could consider altering views based on evidence that comes out.

I also wish that every time I (and others) ask that people would not rush to judgement, or offer a view in support of law enforcement that certain people wouldn't label that ideology as racist. I see legit attempts at being objective and basing cases on evidence condemned. Like we are to fall in line every time there is a protest, and not wait on facts. That is idiotic to me.

Hope that made sense!

The problem is those who have a strong bias and cannot change views on case by case basis.

 

[Shikamaru]

Just at the start of April, a police officer was charged with murder for shooting an unarmed black man to death while he was running away. I remember reading the article and thinking to myself "Wow, a dishonest law official actually getting his due for once. Maybe this is progress t:!" Flash forward to the end of the month at all this **** goes down. Silly me for jumping to such conclusions; seems I got too happy too soon.

What mainly bothers me the most is the lack of any nuance that comes with this situation. I fail to see how bringing up the underlying cause of the riot in the first place means people are justifying the violence that comes with the riot. That's just simpleton logic. No one here is defending such actions, but they're ultimately the symptoms to a larger underlying cause.

You push anyone enough, eventually they'll get fed up and reach their limit. For some that limit is more civil, for others it's more violent. Some reach it faster, others not as much.

 

[The Question]

Backslash indicating grouped together

But if an individual poses an actual physical threat, whether or not they're "mouthing off" is entirely irrelevant. Why bring it up?

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Iceland has a population of 317,351. America has a population of 318,892,103. It's a silly comparison to attempt to make.

 

[The Question]

Iceland has a population of 317,351. America has a population of 318,892,103. It's a silly comparison to attempt to make.

Except that even when you adjust for the differences in population, our rate of deaths-by-cop are still outrageously high than theirs, because we have had 388 in the past five months and they have had one since 1944.

The only way their rate would be at pace with ours, even if you take population difference into account, is if they had 3 deaths-by-cop in the past five months. Not one since 1944.

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Except that even when you adjust for the differences in population, our rate of deaths-by-cop are still outrageously high than theirs, because we have had 388 in the past five months and they have had one since 1944.

The only way their rate would be at pace with ours, even if you take population difference into account, is if they had 3 deaths-by-cop in the past five months. Not one since 1944.

I would search for a better comparative angle to support your agenda. Iceland compared to America? Such great demographic differences and small population size.

 

[The Question]

I would search for a better comparative angle to support your agenda. Iceland compared to America? Such great demographic differences and small population size.

The small population size isn't relevant. Population size doesn't determine crime rate. I'm also not sure how demographic differences matter either.

Especially since all of the ways that they're better at dealing with crime than we are can be traced directly to policies that they have instituted.

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

The small population size isn't relevant. Population size doesn't determine crime rate. I'm also not sure how demographic differences matter either.

The comparison isn't relevant to me. You can keep reposting it, but it isn't resonating for a reason. That's like comparing one state to the entire country. Even if you did that with a smaller state like Ohio... it still has a population of 11,594,163. If you want to keep reposting it, that's up to you. I'm just trying to help you understand why that example doesn't resonate well.

 

[Shikamaru]

^ Even when you compare the US with countries like Canada, the UK, Australia and Germany - all with large diverse populations of their own - their police brutality rates are still way lower (in those countries) by comparison.

This article about sums it up. It also provides different links to other articles and studies that are brought up:
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/police-kill-citizens-70-times-rate-first-world-nations/

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

Comparing just over 300,000 population from a small country to that of over 300,000,000 in a large country.

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

^ Even when you compare the US with countries like Canada, the UK, Australia and Germany - all with large diverse populations of their own - their police brutality rates are still way lower by comparison.

This article about sums it up. It also provides different links to other articles and studies that are brought up:
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/police-kill-citizens-70-times-rate-first-world-nations/

Which would be a more substantive way to go about making a point than just "Iceland vs America"

 

[The Question]

The comparison isn't relevant to me. You can keep reposting it, but it isn't resonating for a reason. That's like comparing one state to the entire country. Even if you did that with a smaller state like Ohio... it still has a population of 11,594,163. If you want to keep reposting it, that's up to you. I'm just trying to help you understand why that example doesn't resonate well.

But there's no reason why it shouldn't resonate well. The population difference is a completely arbitrary reason to dismiss the comparison. They have vastly different policies regarding social welfare and law enforcement that are the direct causes of their low crime rate and low rate of police-on-civilian violence. Their population size has nothing to do with it.

Again, even if you multiply the number of civilian deaths-by-police in Iceland by 100, to simulate if Iceland were the size of the United States, that would still be 100 deaths-by-police in 69 years compared to 388 deaths-by-police in the last five months.

Also, comparing one state to the entire country is done all the time. That's how polling samples and statistics work.

 

[The Question]

Comparing just over 300,000 population from a small country to that of over 300,000,000 in a large country.

Would you care to explain why that's crazy instead of just using emoticons?

Which would be a more substantive way to go about making a point than just "Iceland vs America"

Why are you focusing on what you perceive as a flawed argument instead of the number that were just provided?

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

But there's no reason why it shouldn't resonate well. The population difference is a completely arbitrary reason to dismiss the comparison. They have vastly different policies regarding social welfare and law enforcement that are the direct causes of their low crime rate and low rate of police-on-civilian violence. Their population size has nothing to do with it.

Again, even if you multiply the number of civilian deaths-by-police in Iceland by 100, to simulate if Iceland were the size of the United States, that would still be 100 deaths-by-police in 69 years compared to 388 deaths-by-police in the last five months.

Also, comparing one state to the entire country is done all the time. That's how polling samples and statistics work.

Far too many variables to make that a plausible side by side comparison.