Jump to content


Police Reform


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, BIGREDIOWAN said:

As soon as it said warning shot I wasn't reading anymore. That's not a possibility due to every round you shoot goes somewhere and has liability attached to it. Those rounds don't just disappear. 

 

 

I thought it meant announcing they're shooting, which is still dumb. It doesn't mean the rest of the ideas are dumb though. Do you think any of them are good?

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

1 hour ago, BIGREDIOWAN said:

As soon as it said warning shot I wasn't reading anymore. That's not a possibility due to every round you shoot goes somewhere and has liability attached to it. Those rounds don't just disappear. 

 

I'm not sure what you're replying to because I've missed a few posts/pages in this thread, but I've heard about what you're saying, and what I think you're saying is that every round issued to an active duty officer has to be accounted for, right?

 

So a warning shot, no matter how well-intentioned, can't necessarily be accounted for. Right? (because a "warning shot" from the movies, as most of us understand it, is just a round fired into the air with no "findable" destination, right?)

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
7 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

I'm not sure what you're replying to because I've missed a few posts/pages in this thread, but I've heard about what you're saying, and what I think you're saying is that every round issued to an active duty officer has to be accounted for, right?

 

So a warning shot, no matter how well-intentioned, can't necessarily be accounted for. Right? (because a "warning shot" from the movies, as most of us understand it, is just a round fired into the air with no "findable" destination, right?)

I read it as if the “warning shot” bounces off the street and hits a 5-year old in the background, the police officer is responsible....

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

2 hours ago, funhusker said:

I read it as if the “warning shot” bounces off the street and hits a 5-year old in the background, the police officer is responsible....

Yeah, I don't think "warning shot" is a thing.

 

I feel like that is something that was sort of made up over time.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

Quite a few linked sources in there, but carry on.

Okay I've read it, she uses stats and skews them into her narrative. Same s#!t can be done on both sides - I could find 100 articles that use similar stats and paint the opposite picture. At the end of the day, it's an opinion piece written by someone on record (for years) saying there is no racism within police departments and being an advocate for things such as the stop and frisk. I've absorbed the info, and my opinion differs from that of MacDonald. She's entitled to it, but I strongly disagree. 

 

PS: Go Pack Go :D

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

People who say there’s no such thing as systematic racism and it’s a culture problem are racists. They are simultaneously ignoring facts, calling Black people liars, and saying the reason Black people aren’t as successful is because there’s something wrong with Black people. 

  • Plus1 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment

47 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

Can't read the article because of the paywall, but the first sentence is just a race-baiting gem:  "George Floyd’s death in Minneapolis has revived the Obama-era narrative that law enforcement is endemically racist." The first paragraph goes on with the dog-whistle narrative that the concept of systemic police racism is largely an Obama-driven concept.

 

Of course, it isn't, and the issue of racial bias in our police forces dates back more than a century.  But leading with Obama gets the right in the correct frame of mind, so there you go.

 

Unfortunately, I can't rebut the article itself because I don't have a WSJ subscription.

 

What I can do is show other, well-researched pieces that show there is, in fact, a systemic issue in our judicial system, from the cops to the courts.

 

Quote

 

There’s overwhelming evidence that the criminal-justice system is racist. Here’s the proof.

A couple years ago, Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) gave a powerful speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Scott talked about how he had been repeatedly pulled over by police officers who seemed to be suspicious of a black man driving a nice car. He added that a black senior-level staffer had experienced the same thing and had even downgraded his car in the hope of avoiding the problem. Given that Scott otherwise has pretty conservative politics, there was little objection or protest from the right. No one rose up to say that he was lying about getting pulled over.

The thing is, most people of color have a similar story or know someone who does. Yet, there’s a deep skepticism on the right of any assertion that the criminal-justice system is racially biased.

Of particular concern to some on the right is the term “systemic racism,” often wrongly interpreted as an accusation that everyone in the system is racist. In fact, systemic racism means almost the opposite. It means that we have systems and institutions that produce racially disparate outcomes, regardless of the intentions of the people who work within them. When you consider that much of the criminal-justice system was built, honed and firmly established during the Jim Crow era — an era almost everyone, conservatives included, will concede rife with racism — this is pretty intuitive. The modern criminal-justice system helped preserve racial order — it kept black people in their place. For much of the early 20th century, in some parts of the country, that was its primary function. That it might retain some of those proclivities today shouldn’t be all that surprising.

 

 

 

Quote

 

Inside 100 million police traffic stops: New evidence of racial bias

Stanford researchers found that black and Latino drivers were stopped more often than white drivers, based on less evidence of wrongdoing.

Stanford University researchers have compiled the most comprehensive evidence to date suggesting there is a pattern of racial disparities in traffic stops. The researchers provided NBC News with the traffic-stop data — the largest such dataset ever collected — which points to pervasive inequality in how police decide to stop and search white and minority drivers.

Using information obtained through public record requests, the Stanford Open Policing Project examined almost 100 million traffic stops conducted from 2011 to 2017 across 21 state patrol agencies, including California, Illinois, New York and Texas, and 29 municipal police departments, including New Orleans, Philadelphia, San Francisco and St. Paul, Minnesota.

The results show that police stopped and searched black and Latino drivers on the basis of less evidence than used in stopping white drivers, who are searched less often but are more likely to be found with illegal items. The study does not set out to conclude whether officers knowingly engaged in racial discrimination, but uses a more nuanced analysis of traffic stop data to infer that race is a factor when people are pulled over — and that it's occuring across the country.

"Because of this analysis, we're able to get to that anecdotal story to say this is really happening," said Sharad Goel, an assistant professor in management science and engineering at Stanford and a co-author of the study.

 

 

I can go on and on.

 

 

  • Plus1 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
13 hours ago, BIGREDIOWAN said:

As soon as it said warning shot I wasn't reading anymore. That's not a possibility due to every round you shoot goes somewhere and has liability attached to it. Those rounds don't just disappear. 

It doesn't say "warning shot", it says "require warning before shooting". If you go to the 8cantwait.org website, the description says, "Require officers to give a verbal warning, when possible, before shooting at a civilian."

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

It doesn't say "warning shot", it says "require warning before shooting". If you go to the 8cantwait.org website, the description says, "Require officers to give a verbal warning, when possible, before shooting at a civilian."

I feel like the "warning" should be the fact that the gun is out.  

 

Don't most cops never even draw their weapon over the life of their career?  

 

With that said, years ago I did have a game warden put his hand on his gun while questioning us and he said "Whoooaa, slow down, there are 3 of you and only one of me" while we were trying to show him our fishing license.   

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, teachercd said:

I feel like the "warning" should be the fact that the gun is out.  

 

Don't most cops never even draw their weapon over the life of their career?  

The whole point is that the officer is establishing clear intent before shooting. Assuming that the other person knows what you're about to do is a recipe for disaster. The officer can even make the warning before drawing the gun.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

The whole point is that the officer is establishing clear intent before shooting. Assuming that the other person knows what you're about to do is a recipe for disaster. The officer can even make the warning before drawing the gun.

But...if "actions speak louder than words" what good is a verbal warning as opposed to just drawing your gun :)

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...