The Ongoing State of Ferguson/Systemic Racial Prejudice in the USA

[BigRedBuster]

 

Really good article someone shared with me yesterday:

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/the-myth-of-police-reform/390057/?utm_source=btn-facebook-control

 

 

 

 

There are many problems with expecting people trained in crime-fighting to be social workers. In the black community, there is a problem of legitimacy. In his 1953 book The Quest For Community, conservative Robert Nisbet distinguishes between "power" and "authority." Authority, claims Nisbet, is a matter of relationships, allegiances, and association and is "based ultimately upon the consent of those under it." Power, on the other hand, is "external" and "based upon force." Power exists where allegiances have decayed or never existed at all. "Power arises," writes Nesbit, "only when authority breaks down."

African Americans, for most of our history, have lived under the power of the criminal-justice system, not its authority. The dominant feature in the relationship between African Americans and their country is plunder, and plunder has made police authority an impossibility, and police power a necessity. The skepticism of Officer Darren Wilson's account in the shooting of Michael Brown, for instance, emerges out of lack of police authority—which is to say it comes from a belief that the police are as likely to lie as any other citizen. When African American parents give their children "The Talk," they do not urge them to make no sudden movements in the presence of police out of a profound respect for the democratic ideal, but out of the knowledge that police can, and will, kill them.

 

Decent article.

 

Here is the problem (I believe) police find themselves in. As spelled out in the article, using police as social workers doesn't work. I think everyone knows that. But, who is called when something happens. Nobody has a 911 (type) number for the local social worker. So, when someone is whacked out on drugs, who do they call? Another reason why they call the police is that the person whacked out can become violent and they are scared. Who is trained in dealing with violence physically and detaining someone who is trying to hurt someone else? Who has the ability to deal with the whacked out person if he all of a sudden ends up with a weapon where he could actually harm or kill someone very quickly? It's the police.

 

So, I don't see how police can't be called in these situations.

 

Also, who are the types of people who are attracted to and willing to do police work? It's usually someone who goes into it to try to do public service and are perfectly fine with doing it with force if necessary. That isn't bad because the DO have to deal with it with force from time to time. They also have to be able to go INTO dangerous situations when everyone else wants to run away. This takes a very special type of person. Not a bad person. Just a different type of person than most of us.

 

And, now getting back to your article. I personally see where a police officer doing his job 95% of the time should be doing it with authority. However, I believe there are situations where it needs to be done with power. The trick is (that we are failing at) is at what point does that switch?

 

Let's say there is a local football game against rivals and the student sections really doesn't like each other and there is a chance a big fight is going to break out between them. So....a few police officers show up and just mull around. If they are doing their jobs, they might stop by and talk to the students on a very casual basis and try to get to know each other. The fight doesn't break out because the show of authority there lets the kids know they will be in big trouble if that happens. That is authority.

 

Now, let's say the police are called to a grocery store robbery and the guy has a gun. He is shooting when they show up. They are going to use power to take control of the situation.

 

If a riot breaks out and they are looting a store and the public expects them to stop it. They are going to do that with power. They MUST go into the situation with everything they need to a) be safe to themselves. and b) make darn sure the person/people causing the problems understand who is in control. That's power and there is a place for it.

 

Being an effective police officer you need to know when to use both.

[knapplc]

Good stuff, BRB. Agree on all of that.

 

I think there's a small minority of people who go into police work so they can have power, though. It's those few who give cops a bad name. Occasionally even a good cop does something bad, but mostly you've got the bad guys out there who were bad before they put on a badge, and the screening process doesn't weed them all out. Those guys, the 1% of the force, are who we hear about most.

[Bigred_inSD]

He was in the police van, and moving around trying to hurt himself. I guess my question is this. What kind of restraints are in these police vans? And if so why wasn't he properly restrained in them? Isn't that one of the allegations facing the Baltimore PD?

[knapplc]

I'd take that "trying to hurt himself" with a HUUUUUUUUGE grain of salt.

[BigRedBuster]

Very simple question that I would like answered.

 

Were there any police in the back of the van with him when he was injured. If there wasn't, then police brutality causing the injury can be ruled out.

 

Now, we can discuss if he deserved to be in the van in the first place. But, if he is back there with nothing but other criminals, then I don't see how you can say the police caused the injury. (That is, if there were no police in the back of the van).

[BigRedBuster]

Good stuff, BRB. Agree on all of that.

 

I think there's a small minority of people who go into police work so they can have power, though. It's those few who give cops a bad name. Occasionally even a good cop does something bad, but mostly you've got the bad guys out there who were bad before they put on a badge, and the screening process doesn't weed them all out. Those guys, the 1% of the force, are who we hear about most.

I know enough police officers or ex police officers to believe that the vast majority go into it not being a bad buy prior to joining the force. However, I think once in, some become jaded and numb to the issues they have to deal with on a day to day basis. They literally deal with everyone's crap and the problem people in every community they work. I think that work environment lends itself to lose touch with the feeling of treating people with the respect they deserve.

 

I am at a total loss as to how to deal with that and improve it.

[Bigred_inSD]

I'd take that "trying to hurt himself" with a HUUUUUUUUGE grain of salt.

Me too, I have a relative who is super conservative and shared something on Facebook about his injuries also being preexisting to some extent.

 

And the whole deal with his wrap sheet. You get busted once, the cops know to keep an eye out for you. They patrol your area more often increasing your chances of being busted again amd again.

[knapplc]

Here's a simple run-down of what happened with Gray and where it happened.

 

 

 

Here's a description of how he could have been injured:

 

 

Two weeks ago, when Gray was arrested on a Baltimore street, for reasons that remain murky, he was handcuffed and - as captured on a cellphone video - dragged and tossed into the back of the van. Inside, it was later reported, he was shackled after officers reported that Gray became "irate." However, he was not buckled in for the ride - a serious breach of regulations.

 

"We know he was not buckled in the transportation wagon as he should have been," Baltimore Police Commissioner Anthony Batts said. "No excuses for that, period."

 

The commissioner also noted that the officers "failed to get him medical attention in a timely manner multiple times."

 

Incredibly, this has happened multiple times in Baltimore - including a "rough ride" 10 years ago that injured the spine and killed an arrestee named Dondi Johnson - as well as several multi-million-dollar civil judgments and settlements.

 

Ditto in Philadelphia. In 2001, the Inquirer documented 20 cases of arrestees who were injured during apparent "nickel rides" that critics said provided cops a "hands-free" method to dole out street justice - including three who suffered spinal cord injuries, two of them permanently paralyzed.

 

 

Prior to reading that article, I had never heard of a "rough ride" or "nickel ride."

 

Here's info on Dondi Johnson.

 

So, this isn't the first time a person has died after a ride in the back of a police van. And oddly enough, Dondi Johnson suffered a neck injury.

[BigRedBuster]

Knapp, I've only heard of something similar once. I have a friend who is an alcoholic and has been dry now for over 30 years. The stories he tells me about his drinking leave me speechless. Years ago he told me about a story of being at a small town street dance in central Nebraska. He was obviously drunk and the local police picked him up. Instead of putting him in the back of a cop car, they put him in the back of a horse trailer while handcuffed. They then drove around town with him back there rolling around in fresh horse crap.

 

If that happened over 30 years ago in small town Nebraska, it doesn't surprise me it happens in inner city in these situations.

 

What DOES surprise me and absolutely blows my mind is that after all of the publicity that police brutality has had over the last few years, that these idiots would do something like this. (if that is actually what happened).

 

Here is an interview with the other prisoner.

 

LINK

 

If this guy can be trusted on what he is saying (and that's a big IF), Grey was obviously already injured before this guy was put in the back of the van. I wonder why they would have done this with Grey but they didn't do it with this guy.

 

At this point, I have one question and if I were a reporter, I would DEMAND an answer. Why were either of these two men arrested? To my knowledge, that has never been answered. This guy (in this interview) claims all he did was go into a store to buy a six pack and cigarettes. He stepped outside to smoke one and was arrested.

 

That needs to be answered.

[knapplc]

Charges to be filed against all six officers. State Attorney feels there's probable cause to arrest them, and that there was no probable cause to arrest Gray.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/baltimore-unrest/freddie-gray-n351881

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is a situation where there are no winners. Even if the officers are found guilty and punished, we all lose. The citizens lose trust in the police, the good cops lose their reputation, and ultimately Freddie Gray lost his life for no reason whatsoever.

[TGHusker]

Yes, I agree Knapp. Even here is Tulsa we have a controversy brewing. A 72 year old 'reserve' sheriff is being charged in the death of run away criminal (in this case he was a criminal - caught selling illegal stuff) he ran right towards the reserve cop. The cop thought he pulled out his tazer but pulled out the gun instead and bang. On top of that another cop got on top of the guy and held his head down with his knee (2nd cop didn't know he was shot). He is being looked at for using excessive force. Cop # 1 - the shooting may very well end up being judged as an accident. However the plot thickens with evidence of record tamping on his prior training and favoritism towards him because of his many donations to the dept (he's a wealthy local insurance agent wanting to play cop) and his friendship wt the county sheriff.

 

As BRB said, you'd think the cops would understand that they are under a microscope after Fergeson and so many other similar cases. It seems we are starting to get that 1967-68 feeling again - riots are easily ignited by these issues.

[BigRedBuster]

I believe the charges are appropriate with the information we have at least.

[Street Novelist]

interesting read...

 

http://freebeacon.com/issues/baltimore-received-1-8-billion-from-obamas-stimulus-law/

[BigRedBuster]

interesting read...

 

http://freebeacon.com/issues/baltimore-received-1-8-billion-from-obamas-stimulus-law/

If that is all true, it's very interesting.

 

Here is something else about all of this that leaves me banging my head.

 

During the Clinton administration, Clinton made a HUGE deal about how there isn't enough funding for police officers in the US. So, he put through a bill to put 100,000 new police officers on the streets. This was needed because crime was horrible in so many communities that the police that were there, didn't have enough help to actually do anything about it. So...the bill goes through and we have more police. At least Clinton and Gore claim it did what it was supposed to do in lowering the crime rate.

 

LINK

 

The Clinton Presidency:

Lowest Crime Rates in a Generation

 

America's families and communities faced serious crime problems in 1992. More violent crimes were reported in 1992 than ever before, with nearly two million murders, rapes, robberies and aggravated assaults occurring in the United States. Gun crime had skyrocketed to the highest point in 20 years with more than half a million total gun crimes reported. Parents fought a daily battle to keep their children away from drugs and gangs, as more young people than ever were involved in violent crimes. In 1992 alone, more than 850,000 children were victims of violent crime, and guns killed 5,379 children — an average of nearly fifteen every day. Communities struggled to fight crime, but the federal response remained bogged down in partisan differences.

 

President Clinton and Vice President Gore enacted policies that imposed tougher penalties and enforcement along with smart crime prevention measures, funded more than 100,000 new police officers on America's streets, provided the leadership to pass common sense gun safety legislation including the Brady Bill and assault weapons ban, and implemented a comprehensive anti-drug strategy.

 

 

Sooo...now, fast forward to today.

 

All these politicians are lining up and crying and whaling about how horrible the police are. Yes, I completely agree they have done some things that are horrible and they need to stop it and the ones doing those things need punished. However, the Dems at least, are now distancing themselves from the Clinton bill as far as they can.

 

LINK

 

Calling for an "end to the era of mass incarceration," Clinton endorsed body cameras for police nationwide to record interactions between officers and potential suspects. Making her most specific policy proposals since launching her campaign earlier this month, Clinton said it's time for a nationwide overhaul of what she called misguided and failed policing and prison strategies.

In effect, she was saying that policies put in place when her husband Bill Clinton was president have not worked. Clinton did not mention her husband or identify exactly which laws and sentencing policies she thought had gone wrong. But many of those policies grew out of the crackdown on drug crimes and other nonviolent offenses that took place before and during Bill Clinton's presidency 20 years ago.

 

So, let me get this straight. We have a very very bad crime problem with violent crime destroying communities. So, we put more police on the streets and the crime rate goes WAY down. Then, because those police are extremely poorly managed and trained, now we want to gut the bill that lowered the crime rate?

 

I also find something about all the statistics in this issue odd. Crime rate goes WAY down because we have police there to crack down on crime and longer sentences. It is claimed to be a policy of "mass incarceration". Ok.....if crime is going way down by putting these people in jail, doesn't it stand to reason that at least to a certain extent we are putting the right people in jail?

 

Now, we need to look at individual cases and make sure people aren't being arrested that shouldn't be arrested and make sure they aren't being abused once in custody. But, I fail to see how incarcerating more people than prior to the Bill Clinton administration has been a bad thing. It lowered the crime rate between citizens of those communities. Now, we need to lower the crime rate between police against the citizens. Fix that and I don't see the major problem with the original bill.

It takes better training, better management and holding people accountable. Stay aggressive on crime but make sure it is being done the way it's supposed to be.

 

 

Here is what I predict is going to happen. If a Dem gets in office, they will work to repeal Bill Clinton's bill. There will be less crime prevention on the streets. Crime will go up. A couple election cycles from now, the Dems will claim it's all conservative's fault that Crime happens in these poor inner cities.

[BigRedBuster]

And people wonder why I hate politicians.