I don't have a smart phone, so I don't know how this all works. It sounds like a good thing: besides recording, you can set it to text an SOS to a chosen contact, so someone knows what's going on. Some people who are stalked use that feature. There's also a link to apps from the ACLU, etc.
AS I have said somewhere else, I have no knowledge of events in the USA
But, you had enough knowledge to consider it worthwhile to chip in on a thread where the OP was explicitly asking about policing the police in the USA, and to do that before the thread developed tangents relating to policing in the UK.
I see nothing in the first amendment about the right to riot and loot. If a protest is peaceful, the Police have nothing to respond to.
See, you're already a (self-declared) expert on the proper parameters of crowd control in American policing and First Amendment jurisprudence. It should be noted that your comment about peaceful protest came five days after American police used tear gas and rubber bullets to clear peaceful protesters out of Lafayette Square across from the White House.
It is not Police policy to arrest those who are well behaved.
That was quick. From presumption of innocence to presumption of guilt in less than 24 hours.
I have no idea how you come to that conclusion.
Your claim that you presume the police only arrest the innocent compares poorly with your claim that the police only arrest those who aren't "well behaved".
What defines "well behaved?" Tugging ones forelock to the nice bobby in blue?
If you don't know, you may have a problem.
In any case, are they still allowed to be called Bobbies ?
Well, it does beg the question. Does "well behaved" cover crimes that are conducted in a well-mannered way, like fraud? You're not allowed to arrest Jack Abramoff because he's so polite?
I see no confusion. If a person is well behaved, the Police would not be focusing on them. The more a person badly behaves, the more likely it is that they will be arrested. It's all common sense.
Common sense? Probably.
Reality? All too often, no.
Common sense isn't that common. Anyway what is it and who defines it?
Quite true enough. In an effort to make the point that what is “common sense” isn’t the reality we live in, I was thinking of a meaning more like “how things should be” as opposed to “how things are,” which maybe misses the mark. Your point is well taken.
AS I have said somewhere else, I have no knowledge of events in the USA
No. Just no. You don't get to argue that the Minneapolis Police Department, specifically and particularly, does not need any kind of systematic reform and then claim to have never heard of this strange, far-off land called "America". If you know nothing about America, much less American policing, you wouldn't be issuing such definitive statements. Things like your claim that the peaceful Lafayette Square protesters must have been violent or the police wouldn't have tear gassed them. For reference, the blocks around the White House are the some of the most heavily surveilled real estate in America. If any of the Lafayette Square protesters were violent we would have seen footage by now. Instead we get Trump supporters engaging in semantic quibbles about what constitutes "tear gas" and whether or not pepper spray counts as a "chemical irritant".
So having people like you issue blanket exculpations of American policing followed by statements that "I have no knowledge of events in the USA" is downright offensive. If you know nothing about America, say nothing about America. If you make a specific policy analysis about a particular American police department be prepared to defend it rather that hiding behind the cowardly pronouncement that you don't know what you're talking about.
The USA is a foreign country. Why would I need to know about everything that goes on in all foreign countries?
Common sense says police will be abusive. The distribution of good people and bad people is going to be the same in the police as outside the police, if no other factors are present. Add in power and authority with insufficient accountability and the odds of malfeasance are increased. The question then becomes not will police act badly, but how many and how often.
To get to your portrayal, police would need to be exemplary beyond human capacity.
It is very sad that you have such a low opinion of the average UK bobby
AS I have said somewhere else, I have no knowledge of events in the USA
But, you had enough knowledge to consider it worthwhile to chip in on a thread where the OP was explicitly asking about policing the police in the USA, and to do that before the thread developed tangents relating to policing in the UK.
In respect of your last statement I am going to say that you are totally wrong. Go back through the thread and you will see that you are wrong.
Policing is one of a number of high-stress professions where physical harm to yourself is a possibility.
Yes and no. Very much depends on where one is a copper. Most American police will never draw their weapons except at a firing range. Despite shows like d The Wire, most police do not face extreme danger all the time.
To me, the Bernie Sanders call for good pay, good resourcing and good training is critical.
Good pay, Yes. Somewhere near the median income, not the double, triple or more that some US coppers get.
Sewer workers save more lives than the police. And yet, few of them receive what cops do in the same locations. (American salaries in reference here)
AS I have said somewhere else, I have no knowledge of events in the USA
But, you had enough knowledge to consider it worthwhile to chip in on a thread where the OP was explicitly asking about policing the police in the USA, and to do that before the thread developed tangents relating to policing in the UK.
In respect of your last statement I am going to say that you are totally wrong. Go back through the thread and you will see that you are wrong.
Your first post to this thread about 2/3 the way down the first page. At that point the thread was discussing US policing, with some comparisons to policing elsewhere. At the bottom of page 1 @Ruth introduced the use of horses in the crowd control in the UK, which subsequently galloped off with a life of it's own leading to your revisionist interpretations of the policing of the miners strike of the 1980s. I stand by my observation that you started to post on this thread before it headed off onto a tangent about UK policing and the use of horses.
As I understand it, taxi drivers in the US have a higher rate of being killed on the job than police officers. Possibly small store workers too, though I'm not sure about that.
As I understand it, taxi drivers in the US have a higher rate of being killed on the job than police officers. Possibly small store workers too, though I'm not sure about that.
Cops don't make the top ten. Landscape supervisors do. Hmmm....
Homicide
Workplace homicides in 2000 were the third leading cause of job-related deaths. The leading motive for workplace homicide is robbery. Job-related homicides in the retail industry account for almost half of all workplace homicides. Of the 3,829 workplace homicides in 1996-2000, the industries with the highest numbers of homicides are: retail - 1,693, services - 659, and government - 415. The occupations with the highest risk of fatal injury are taxicab drivers, police, private guards, and managers of food-serving and lodging establishments. In 1998 taxicab drivers' risk of dying on the job was 36 times that of the national average. Overall, however, work-related homicides decreased 34% from 1994 to 1998 (4).
So police are up there, but dwarfed by taxi cab drivers.
Of course those figures are old now, but I doubt they've changed that much, of you include Uber and Lyft drivers with taxi drivers.
Homicide
Workplace homicides in 2000 were the third leading cause of job-related deaths. The leading motive for workplace homicide is robbery. Job-related homicides in the retail industry account for almost half of all workplace homicides. Of the 3,829 workplace homicides in 1996-2000, the industries with the highest numbers of homicides are: retail - 1,693, services - 659, and government - 415. The occupations with the highest risk of fatal injury are taxicab drivers, police, private guards, and managers of food-serving and lodging establishments. In 1998 taxicab drivers' risk of dying on the job was 36 times that of the national average. Overall, however, work-related homicides decreased 34% from 1994 to 1998 (4).
So police are up there, but dwarfed by taxi cab drivers.
Of course those figures are old now, but I doubt they've changed that much, of you include Uber and Lyft drivers with taxi drivers.
Okay could you provide the link? They way you presented the info kinda mixes things up. The chief cause of death of Landscape supervisors is traffic accidents. I'm going to assume that a significant number of police deaths are as well.
AS I have said somewhere else, I have no knowledge of events in the USA
But, you had enough knowledge to consider it worthwhile to chip in on a thread where the OP was explicitly asking about policing the police in the USA, and to do that before the thread developed tangents relating to policing in the UK.
In respect of your last statement I am going to say that you are totally wrong. Go back through the thread and you will see that you are wrong.
Your first post to this thread about 2/3 the way down the first page. At that point the thread was discussing US policing, with some comparisons to policing elsewhere. At the bottom of page 1 @Ruth introduced the use of horses in the crowd control in the UK, which subsequently galloped off with a life of it's own leading to your revisionist interpretations of the policing of the miners strike of the 1980s. I stand by my observation that you started to post on this thread before it headed off onto a tangent about UK policing and the use of horses.
So I didn't start it then. My post in page 1 did not mention the UK.
AS I have said somewhere else, I have no knowledge of events in the USA
But, you had enough knowledge to consider it worthwhile to chip in on a thread where the OP was explicitly asking about policing the police in the USA, and to do that before the thread developed tangents relating to policing in the UK.
In respect of your last statement I am going to say that you are totally wrong. Go back through the thread and you will see that you are wrong.
Your first post to this thread about 2/3 the way down the first page. At that point the thread was discussing US policing, with some comparisons to policing elsewhere. At the bottom of page 1 @Ruth introduced the use of horses in the crowd control in the UK, which subsequently galloped off with a life of it's own leading to your revisionist interpretations of the policing of the miners strike of the 1980s. I stand by my observation that you started to post on this thread before it headed off onto a tangent about UK policing and the use of horses.
So I didn't start it then. My post in page 1 did not mention the UK.
I suggest that you read what I said. Because, there's no point in responding to you until your posts are responses to what's actually been said.
The USA is a foreign country. Why would I need to know about everything that goes on in all foreign countries?
Because if you're going to be lecturing Americans about what an awesome job their police are doing you should know what the fuck you're talking about. If you're going to say that American police are great and doing a terrific job (see previous link) you don't get to later claim you know nothing about America without also admitting that you're just some petulant blowhard arguing from pro-authoritarian prejudice rather than any actual knowledge to back up what you're saying.
So no, you don't need to know what's going on in America, unless you are arrogant enough to start lecturing Americans about what America is really like. Then you'd better know what you're talking about.
AS I have said somewhere else, I have no knowledge of events in the USA
But, you had enough knowledge to consider it worthwhile to chip in on a thread where the OP was explicitly asking about policing the police in the USA, and to do that before the thread developed tangents relating to policing in the UK.
In respect of your last statement I am going to say that you are totally wrong. Go back through the thread and you will see that you are wrong.
Your first post to this thread about 2/3 the way down the first page. At that point the thread was discussing US policing, with some comparisons to policing elsewhere. At the bottom of page 1 @Ruth introduced the use of horses in the crowd control in the UK, which subsequently galloped off with a life of it's own leading to your revisionist interpretations of the policing of the miners strike of the 1980s. I stand by my observation that you started to post on this thread before it headed off onto a tangent about UK policing and the use of horses.
So I didn't start it then. My post in page 1 did not mention the UK.
I suggest that you read what I said. Because, there's no point in responding to you until your posts are responses to what's actually been said.
You said
I stand by my observation that you started to post on this thread before it headed off onto a tangent about UK policing and the use of horses.
Have you had a go at Ruth for intoduicing policing in the UK ?
The USA is a foreign country. Why would I need to know about everything that goes on in all foreign countries?
Because if you're going to be lecturing Americans about what an awesome job their police are doing you should know what the fuck you're talking about. If you're going to say that American police are great and doing a terrific job (see previous link) you don't get to later claim you know nothing about America without also admitting that you're just some petulant blowhard arguing from pro-authoritarian prejudice rather than any actual knowledge to back up what you're saying.
So no, you don't need to know what's going on in America, unless you are arrogant enough to start lecturing Americans about what America is really like. Then you'd better know what you're talking about.
In which post did I say or even infere that the American Police were great and doing a terrific job?
The King County District Court (where Seattle is located) has ruled that the Seattle police can no longer use tear gas for crowd control. Their reasoning was simple: it is banned under the Geneva Conventions for military use in warfare: therefore, it should be banned from civilian use as well.
Meanwhile, the French police in Paris used it against a peaceful demonstration today.
Having been exposed to it a couple of times in my lifetime, I would fully support its elimination from police use--worldwide, if possible.
In other news, Atlanta policemen shot and killed a man who was reportedly sleeping in the parking lot of a Wendy's restaurant. The Atlanta chief of police has resigned over it.
Yep, the American Police Forces are out of control.
Host hat on
Personal attack by implication, and personal attack by snark both belong in Hell, not here. In a high temperature thread posts which fall short of personal attack, but don’t advance the discussion at all are unhelpful
Please don’t make me name names.
Discussion does mean actually reading and responding to what others say, otherwise it’s just a shouting match or a dialogue of the deaf. Host hat off
BroJames Purgatory Host
Because if you're going to be lecturing Americans about what an awesome job their police are doing you should know what the fuck you're talking about. If you're going to say that American police are great and doing a terrific job (see previous link) you don't get to later claim you know nothing about America without also admitting that you're just some petulant blowhard arguing from pro-authoritarian prejudice rather than any actual knowledge to back up what you're saying.
So no, you don't need to know what's going on in America, unless you are arrogant enough to start lecturing Americans about what America is really like. Then you'd better know what you're talking about.
In which post did I say or even infere that the American Police were great and doing a terrific job?
Please quote what I actually said.
What, a link to the post isn't good enough for you?
Okay, but only because it's (relatively) short. The hosts already reviewed this post once. Making them check it over a second time seems gratuitous but since you seem unable to work a hyperlink I'll indulge you.
Police represent the upholding of the law for society. If this was an isolated example of police brutality directed at black people, you might argue over reaction, two wrongs don't make a right, respect the law etc.
But it isn't. It's just the latest in a long line of violent criminal behaviour by white police officers against black people. They believe the judicial system is stacked against them. That brutal police officers get protected by society, while their civil rights are abused by those employed to uphold the law. The ex police officers will get due process. George Floyd didn't. Just the latest in a heartbreakingly long line of those who didn't.
Putting it as moderately as I can, this situation requires a more nuanced approach than 'lock them up'.
Barnabas.
The sacked Police officers have been charged and will certainly go to prison. What else should the authorities do? The fact that this poor man was murdered does not excuse riots which only achieve more deaths, more destruction and more mayhem. When you make excuses for them it only encourages more lawbreaking
So here you are, responding to @Barnabas62's point about the systematic problems inherent in American policing and you feel yourself enough of an expert to completely blow off everything he said. There's no problem in American policing beyond the presence of one (or a few) bad officers and once they're removed the problem is solved, according to you. There's nothing else the authorities should do because everything else in the American system of policing is working just great! You're even expert enough in the American criminal justice system to predict that the officers charged "will certainly go to prison", despite the long list of American police caught on video killing citizens in their custody without suffering any kind of criminal penalty. (Try Googling "Philando Castile" or "Eric Garner", if your hyperlink-deficient internet skills can manage the task, for reasons why a lot of us felt this expressed way too much optimism in American willingness to imprison police officers for killing black men.)
So no, you don't get to make a lot of high-handed pronouncements about American policing, dismissing everyone else's concerns, and then claim you don't know anything about American policing.
So no, you don't get to make a lot of high-handed pronouncements about American policing, dismissing everyone else's concerns, and then claim you don't know anything about American policing.
Allow me to come to Telford's defense. It is clear to me that he knows nothing about American policing. Indeed, that appears to be just the tip of the iceberg.
So no, you don't get to make a lot of high-handed pronouncements about American policing, dismissing everyone else's concerns, and then claim you don't know anything about American policing.
Allow me to come to Telford's defense. It is clear to me that he knows nothing about American policing. Indeed, that appears to be just the tip of the iceberg.
He knows not much more about UK policing either. But he has opined on both.
This is well worth a read. A former US cop who admits to behaving like a bastard (that's the title of the essay): harassing people as a game, being indoctrinated in police culture, how the 'good cops' are never going to stop the 'bad cops'. It's all there. Everything we've been discussing.
It is, honestly, depressing to read, but it might help some folk here.
This is well worth a read. A former US cop who admits to behaving like a bastard (that's the title of the essay): harassing people as a game, being indoctrinated in police culture, how the 'good cops' are never going to stop the 'bad cops'. It's all there. Everything we've been discussing.
It is, honestly, depressing to read, but it might help some folk here.
This very much confirms exactly the conclusions I have drawn from observation of the facts.
Because if you're going to be lecturing Americans about what an awesome job their police are doing you should know what the fuck you're talking about. If you're going to say that American police are great and doing a terrific job (see previous link) you don't get to later claim you know nothing about America without also admitting that you're just some petulant blowhard arguing from pro-authoritarian prejudice rather than any actual knowledge to back up what you're saying.
So no, you don't need to know what's going on in America, unless you are arrogant enough to start lecturing Americans about what America is really like. Then you'd better know what you're talking about.
In which post did I say or even infere that the American Police were great and doing a terrific job?
Please quote what I actually said.
What, a link to the post isn't good enough for you?
Okay, but only because it's (relatively) short. The hosts already reviewed this post once. Making them check it over a second time seems gratuitous but since you seem unable to work a hyperlink I'll indulge you.
Police represent the upholding of the law for society. If this was an isolated example of police brutality directed at black people, you might argue over reaction, two wrongs don't make a right, respect the law etc.
But it isn't. It's just the latest in a long line of violent criminal behaviour by white police officers against black people. They believe the judicial system is stacked against them. That brutal police officers get protected by society, while their civil rights are abused by those employed to uphold the law. The ex police officers will get due process. George Floyd didn't. Just the latest in a heartbreakingly long line of those who didn't.
Putting it as moderately as I can, this situation requires a more nuanced approach than 'lock them up'.
Barnabas.
The sacked Police officers have been charged and will certainly go to prison. What else should the authorities do? The fact that this poor man was murdered does not excuse riots which only achieve more deaths, more destruction and more mayhem. When you make excuses for them it only encourages more lawbreaking
So here you are, responding to @Barnabas62's point about the systematic problems inherent in American policing and you feel yourself enough of an expert to completely blow off everything he said. There's no problem in American policing beyond the presence of one (or a few) bad officers and once they're removed the problem is solved, according to you. There's nothing else the authorities should do because everything else in the American system of policing is working just great! You're even expert enough in the American criminal justice system to predict that the officers charged "will certainly go to prison", despite the long list of American police caught on video killing citizens in their custody without suffering any kind of criminal penalty. (Try Googling "Philando Castile" or "Eric Garner", if your hyperlink-deficient internet skills can manage the task, for reasons why a lot of us felt this expressed way too much optimism in American willingness to imprison police officers for killing black men.)
So no, you don't get to make a lot of high-handed pronouncements about American policing, dismissing everyone else's concerns, and then claim you don't know anything about American policing.
So no, you don't get to make a lot of high-handed pronouncements about American policing, dismissing everyone else's concerns, and then claim you don't know anything about American policing.
Allow me to come to Telford's defense. It is clear to me that he knows nothing about American policing. Indeed, that appears to be just the tip of the iceberg.
He knows not much more about UK policing either. But he has opined on both.
And purely on a point of fact (for any who have been trying to trace them) my post and Telford's reply are to be found on page 1 (May 30 date) of the "It's Minneapolis This Time" thread. You may find it helpful to read them in the original context. In my opinion, Croesos' point stands.
Maybe the police should have standards for reccruitment, training and behaviour (not set by themselves but by an external body approved by government and accepted by the public.
Maybe the police should have standards for reccruitment, training and behaviour (not set by themselves but by an external body approved by government and accepted by the public.
Approval by the government and acceptance by the public are part of why they are like they are.
Mind you this is the same Cressida Dick who was implicated in the murder of an innocent man on the tube. In the UK we don't just overlook Police brutality we promote them and put them on the honours list. What a statement about the sickness pervading our culture.
Comments
"'Siri, I'm getting pulled over': A shortcut for iPhones can automatically record the police" (Business Insider).
I don't have a smart phone, so I don't know how this all works. It sounds like a good thing: besides recording, you can set it to text an SOS to a chosen contact, so someone knows what's going on. Some people who are stalked use that feature. There's also a link to apps from the ACLU, etc.
YMMV.
Or even how Harwood - having retired on medical grounds to avoid a disciplinary hearing - was able to then rejoin the same force in an active role.
The USA is a foreign country. Why would I need to know about everything that goes on in all foreign countries?
It is very sad that you have such a low opinion of the average UK bobby
In respect of your last statement I am going to say that you are totally wrong. Go back through the thread and you will see that you are wrong.
Sewer workers save more lives than the police. And yet, few of them receive what cops do in the same locations. (American salaries in reference here)
Though what I was talking about was the risk of being killed by another person, not just the risk of dying from an accident.
Homicide
Workplace homicides in 2000 were the third leading cause of job-related deaths. The leading motive for workplace homicide is robbery. Job-related homicides in the retail industry account for almost half of all workplace homicides. Of the 3,829 workplace homicides in 1996-2000, the industries with the highest numbers of homicides are: retail - 1,693, services - 659, and government - 415. The occupations with the highest risk of fatal injury are taxicab drivers, police, private guards, and managers of food-serving and lodging establishments. In 1998 taxicab drivers' risk of dying on the job was 36 times that of the national average. Overall, however, work-related homicides decreased 34% from 1994 to 1998 (4).
So police are up there, but dwarfed by taxi cab drivers.
Of course those figures are old now, but I doubt they've changed that much, of you include Uber and Lyft drivers with taxi drivers.
Because if you're going to be lecturing Americans about what an awesome job their police are doing you should know what the fuck you're talking about. If you're going to say that American police are great and doing a terrific job (see previous link) you don't get to later claim you know nothing about America without also admitting that you're just some petulant blowhard arguing from pro-authoritarian prejudice rather than any actual knowledge to back up what you're saying.
So no, you don't need to know what's going on in America, unless you are arrogant enough to start lecturing Americans about what America is really like. Then you'd better know what you're talking about.
Have you had a go at Ruth for intoduicing policing in the UK ?
In which post did I say or even infere that the American Police were great and doing a terrific job?
Please quote what I actually said.
No need. I'm already beating myself up for giving you the opportunity to completely derail this thread.
Meanwhile, the French police in Paris used it against a peaceful demonstration today.
Having been exposed to it a couple of times in my lifetime, I would fully support its elimination from police use--worldwide, if possible.
In other news, Atlanta policemen shot and killed a man who was reportedly sleeping in the parking lot of a Wendy's restaurant. The Atlanta chief of police has resigned over it.
Yep, the American Police Forces are out of control.
I guess that you are above criticism.
Personal attack by implication, and personal attack by snark both belong in Hell, not here. In a high temperature thread posts which fall short of personal attack, but don’t advance the discussion at all are unhelpful
Please don’t make me name names.
Discussion does mean actually reading and responding to what others say, otherwise it’s just a shouting match or a dialogue of the deaf.
Host hat off
BroJames Purgatory Host
What, a link to the post isn't good enough for you?
Okay, but only because it's (relatively) short. The hosts already reviewed this post once. Making them check it over a second time seems gratuitous but since you seem unable to work a hyperlink I'll indulge you.
So here you are, responding to @Barnabas62's point about the systematic problems inherent in American policing and you feel yourself enough of an expert to completely blow off everything he said. There's no problem in American policing beyond the presence of one (or a few) bad officers and once they're removed the problem is solved, according to you. There's nothing else the authorities should do because everything else in the American system of policing is working just great! You're even expert enough in the American criminal justice system to predict that the officers charged "will certainly go to prison", despite the long list of American police caught on video killing citizens in their custody without suffering any kind of criminal penalty. (Try Googling "Philando Castile" or "Eric Garner", if your hyperlink-deficient internet skills can manage the task, for reasons why a lot of us felt this expressed way too much optimism in American willingness to imprison police officers for killing black men.)
So no, you don't get to make a lot of high-handed pronouncements about American policing, dismissing everyone else's concerns, and then claim you don't know anything about American policing.
Allow me to come to Telford's defense. It is clear to me that he knows nothing about American policing. Indeed, that appears to be just the tip of the iceberg.
It is, honestly, depressing to read, but it might help some folk here.
Link https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uWbBNA-0rCAC&pg=PA294&lpg=PA294&dq=criminology+contempt+of+cop&source=bl&ots=wyqY0cLNf1&sig=ACfU3U3h-N9PxNbMIOVSD81Bk5wG3szRRw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjt2Nvgm4TqAhWTN8AKHTdIB7oQ6AEwDXoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=criminology contempt of cop&f=false
This very much confirms exactly the conclusions I have drawn from observation of the facts.
Knock it off @tclune
See my previous post, only two posts before yours.
Host hat off
BroJames Purgatory Host
I apologise for offending you.
Now this I have have nothing to apologise for.
fuck
Nothing will come of it. Bets? Anyone want to take me up on this?
Mind you this is the same Cressida Dick who was implicated in the murder of an innocent man on the tube. In the UK we don't just overlook Police brutality we promote them and put them on the honours list. What a statement about the sickness pervading our culture.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/feb/17/de-menezes-family-call-cressida-dick-barred-from-leading-met
Cops are often blue before they are black. And blue, unfortunately, is a shade of white.