The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Keep Tha Police
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Or how over-policing is a problem over there, but not over here. Congress is bad but my congress critter is good. The police state is bad but don’t take the police out of my state.

From YouGov back in 2017, percentages who would “prefer to see in your local area” “a larger police presence”, “no change”, or “a smaller police presence”, by selected demographics. “Don’t know” responses, constituting 11% of the total, are excluded:

Anarcho-X has few friends. Order precedes liberty, especially where population densities are high. De-policing kills.

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Ideology 
Hide 58 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Did you leave twitter voluntarily or involuntarily? If the latter what over? I’m a devoted reader but I don’t recall reading anything about this.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Voluntarily. I never received any sort of admonishment on the platform.

    Steve Sailer's characterization of twitter as the intellectual equivalent of being bombarded by ping pong balls is apt. It's a huge time sink and it is strikingly self-contained. My most 'viral' tweet, which included a link to a post and an accompanying graphic, had half a million impressions and was shared by Ann Coulter and Jordan Peterson, among others--and it drove a whopping 5% of the blog's traffic in the week it occurred. On average, less than 2% came in from twitter and Gab (which I also used to use) combined.

    Given the tedious and toxic nature of the social media environment, it's not worth it. The future, I hope, will see a return to the more serious, thoughtful, longer form places like TUR. Instead of just hoping for that return, I decided over a year ago to do my small part in trying to make it a reality.

    There are some accounts I follow now but it's in lieu of their having a platform like this blog.

  2. I’m wondering what our existing police will do as marijuana gets decriminalized, cars can compensate for impaired or incompetent drivers and retail stores are cut back and hardened against shoplifting?

    Drones can monitor traffic and stoplight cameras already cite drivers without the need of a traffic cop. Even many murders and violent crime will be surveilled by video cameras that can track all foot and vehicle traffic in real time. Police will be more about forensics than questioning suspects so I don’t think we will employ anywhere like today’s police headcount in the future. Look at the FBI. These clowns couldn’t track down Nikolas Cruz or apprehend Omar Marteen before both went on mass murder sprees but had unlimited manpower to frame General Flynn and Roger Stone. Idle hands make for the Devil’s work so I hope we cull our police forces before they all become mini FBIs

    • Replies: @Not My Economy
    They'll just arrest innocent people.

    Overall, de-policing just means anarcho-tyranny. They aren't going to let us handle things on our own. The system will still function to protect criminals.

  3. The police state is bad but don’t take the police out of my state.

    Here is another thing that is sort of hidden in plain, but that never gets mentioned because it goes too far against the grain of contemporary intellectual tropes. There really is no police state. Everybody talks about it as if it exists, but if you look for it, it just isn’t there.

    That does not stop it from being a part of everyone’s mental furniture, however. The 9/11 Truthers will tell you that the faked [sic] attacks were a pretext for the rollout of the police state (as if a real police state would need a pretext), but we’re going on 20 years on now, and nothing has happened. Devotees of Edward Snowden will tell you that all your data is being stored and analyzed by the NSA. I have yet to see any evidence that this makes any difference whatsoever. With all that data it should be easy to catch ordinary criminals, who are surely leaving cell phone location pings and cubist Ring doorbell mosaics all along the course of their dastardly deeds; and yet petty flouting of the law is probably less dangerous now than at any point in living memory. If the police state is such an omnipresent threat, where is it?

    The answer is that the police state is an entirely virtual phenomenon. It exists in the imagination, where it acts like a quantum field which threatens to localize and materialize at any point, and meanwhile seems to warp all surrounding space according to its own lines of force, but which, once coerced into actuality, expends itself in a single puff of smoke. There is a police state of sorts as long as people believe in it and act as if they’re being controlled, but there is little substance to this belief once it is challenged.

    • Replies: @greengoose
    It's virtual in one's imagination if one chooses not to see it. The social media are the the de facto public square. Tens of thousands of videos are being deleted from YouTube, Amazon bans certain books. Why does a financial payment acceptance company feel entitled to cut off funding for any cause they feel like? Pay Pal does that.
    Yes, this is part of a police state because there are direct links to governments and law enforcement, even foreign ones. The Mossad has a lot of influence on all of these platforms, and more. That's not an open, free-speech society.
    Intelligence agencies are always wanting access to all data without warrant. They get it, as do corporations willing to pay for it
    The modern surveillance/police state is a lot more than cops in battle gear. It includes social media, Deep State, control of MSM and entertainment (Hollyweed is swarming with military personnel "helping" producers with script approvals).
    , @Willem
    ‘ The answer is that the police state is an entirely virtual phenomenon.’

    Not entirely. We pay a lot of taxes for the police and other ‘intelligence’. But most of that probably does not lead to more police and intelligence as these taxes are needed money to run another scam.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Your points are well taken.

    Like in genetics at the moment, there is far, far more data available than there is the ability to effectively utilize and analyze it. Just because that is the case now, though, doesn't mean it will be the case indefinitely.
    , @Mr. Rational

    The answer is that the police state is an entirely virtual phenomenon.
     
    Wrong.  The police state is very real, but goes after wrongthinkers; it ignores wrongdoers.
  4. @Intelligent Dasein

    The police state is bad but don’t take the police out of my state.
     
    Here is another thing that is sort of hidden in plain, but that never gets mentioned because it goes too far against the grain of contemporary intellectual tropes. There really is no police state. Everybody talks about it as if it exists, but if you look for it, it just isn't there.

    That does not stop it from being a part of everyone's mental furniture, however. The 9/11 Truthers will tell you that the faked [sic] attacks were a pretext for the rollout of the police state (as if a real police state would need a pretext), but we're going on 20 years on now, and nothing has happened. Devotees of Edward Snowden will tell you that all your data is being stored and analyzed by the NSA. I have yet to see any evidence that this makes any difference whatsoever. With all that data it should be easy to catch ordinary criminals, who are surely leaving cell phone location pings and cubist Ring doorbell mosaics all along the course of their dastardly deeds; and yet petty flouting of the law is probably less dangerous now than at any point in living memory. If the police state is such an omnipresent threat, where is it?

    The answer is that the police state is an entirely virtual phenomenon. It exists in the imagination, where it acts like a quantum field which threatens to localize and materialize at any point, and meanwhile seems to warp all surrounding space according to its own lines of force, but which, once coerced into actuality, expends itself in a single puff of smoke. There is a police state of sorts as long as people believe in it and act as if they're being controlled, but there is little substance to this belief once it is challenged.

    It’s virtual in one’s imagination if one chooses not to see it. The social media are the the de facto public square. Tens of thousands of videos are being deleted from YouTube, Amazon bans certain books. Why does a financial payment acceptance company feel entitled to cut off funding for any cause they feel like? Pay Pal does that.
    Yes, this is part of a police state because there are direct links to governments and law enforcement, even foreign ones. The Mossad has a lot of influence on all of these platforms, and more. That’s not an open, free-speech society.
    Intelligence agencies are always wanting access to all data without warrant. They get it, as do corporations willing to pay for it
    The modern surveillance/police state is a lot more than cops in battle gear. It includes social media, Deep State, control of MSM and entertainment (Hollyweed is swarming with military personnel “helping” producers with script approvals).

    • Agree: anarchyst
  5. @Intelligent Dasein

    The police state is bad but don’t take the police out of my state.
     
    Here is another thing that is sort of hidden in plain, but that never gets mentioned because it goes too far against the grain of contemporary intellectual tropes. There really is no police state. Everybody talks about it as if it exists, but if you look for it, it just isn't there.

    That does not stop it from being a part of everyone's mental furniture, however. The 9/11 Truthers will tell you that the faked [sic] attacks were a pretext for the rollout of the police state (as if a real police state would need a pretext), but we're going on 20 years on now, and nothing has happened. Devotees of Edward Snowden will tell you that all your data is being stored and analyzed by the NSA. I have yet to see any evidence that this makes any difference whatsoever. With all that data it should be easy to catch ordinary criminals, who are surely leaving cell phone location pings and cubist Ring doorbell mosaics all along the course of their dastardly deeds; and yet petty flouting of the law is probably less dangerous now than at any point in living memory. If the police state is such an omnipresent threat, where is it?

    The answer is that the police state is an entirely virtual phenomenon. It exists in the imagination, where it acts like a quantum field which threatens to localize and materialize at any point, and meanwhile seems to warp all surrounding space according to its own lines of force, but which, once coerced into actuality, expends itself in a single puff of smoke. There is a police state of sorts as long as people believe in it and act as if they're being controlled, but there is little substance to this belief once it is challenged.

    ‘ The answer is that the police state is an entirely virtual phenomenon.’

    Not entirely. We pay a lot of taxes for the police and other ‘intelligence’. But most of that probably does not lead to more police and intelligence as these taxes are needed money to run another scam.

  6. Back in my gentrifier days I moved into an almost entirely black neighborhood that in the 80s and 90s had been one of the most violent in the city. By the time I moved things were not nearly as bad but it was still a place you didn’t go walking around at night.

    Although there were certainly some neighbors that were overtly unhappy to see whites moving in, I had multiple old timers tell me it was a good thing because when we called the cops they actually showed up.

    If the de-policing movement actually gets implemented in some large cities, lefties will be shocked to find that all those young white hipsters and families will not stick around and the urban progress of the last 20 years isn’t necessarily a permanent state of affairs.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    NYC, unsurprisingly, seems to be the ground zero for testing this (again). The more things change, the more they stay the same!
  7. Anarcho-X has few friends. Order precedes liberty, especially where population densities are high. De-policing kills.

    The Sailer Strategy blog guy has been banging on like a bastard about how the crime rate in mostly Black areas like Baltimore went through the roof after Obama and the Democrat Party and the corporate media started up with their crazy attacks on the cops and law enforcement.

    The idea I guess was that Obama and the Democrat Party and the corporate media wanted to massively increase the Black vote or something by excusing Black criminality and attacking law enforcement, but what they ended up doing was getting a lot of Black males killed because the cops pulled back — not at the cops instinct or sense of duty but by the procedural hobbles their superiors were putting them in — and the Blacks started blasting away at each other with wild abandon.

    Meanwhile, Vermont and New Hampshire and parts of Michigan and other White areas are armed to the teeth with every kind of firearm imaginable and the Whites seem to growl at each other and bark at each other without going that extra bit to full on blasting the Hell out of each other. This is good because Whites have higher IQs than Blacks, on average, and they are better able to maintain composure so as to blast away with a much higher accuracy rate than do Blacks.

    Doctors in the US military were learning about gun shot wounds by going to areas of high Black population concentration so the doctors could achieve greater proficiency in fixing gun shot wounds. A lot of Blacks are saved that way.

    POLITICALLY INCORRECT TWEET ALERT

    This Tweet is racially charged but statistically accurate.

    Tweet from 2015:

    • Replies: @No Jack london
    Those states are planning a two-fold approach to this situation: import more blacks and restrict Whites from having access to the Second Amendment.
  8. I sympathize with the police, but I’m going take the opposite position and say that they are probable not a great thing. They facilitate multiculturalism and replacement migration.

    Firstly, they empower the cosmopolitan/traitor class who like living in the city, and support open borders, but are counting on property values (and the police) to act as a separation mechanism.

    In the same way, they empower corporations that count on people commuting into the city to be functional. It is a horror to contemplate all the wasted hours of people’s lives, spent in such commutes – the time away from family, as well as people forgoing children since they can’t afford a neighborhood with a “good school.”

    It would be better if every major city became like Detroit, and we had to actually deal with the consequences.

    • Replies: @216
    In Detroit, after the collapse the effective governance of the city was removed from the Mayor and Council, and placed in the hands of Gilbert, Illitch and other economic elites. The city even elected, and re-elected, a white mayor.
    , @dfordoom

    I sympathize with the police, but I’m going take the opposite position and say that they are probable not a great thing. They facilitate multiculturalism and replacement migration.
     
    The police facilitate whatever the people paying them want facilitated. Thinking that the police can ever be trusted is childish.
  9. @Anon
    Did you leave twitter voluntarily or involuntarily? If the latter what over? I'm a devoted reader but I don't recall reading anything about this.

    Voluntarily. I never received any sort of admonishment on the platform.

    Steve Sailer’s characterization of twitter as the intellectual equivalent of being bombarded by ping pong balls is apt. It’s a huge time sink and it is strikingly self-contained. My most ‘viral’ tweet, which included a link to a post and an accompanying graphic, had half a million impressions and was shared by Ann Coulter and Jordan Peterson, among others–and it drove a whopping 5% of the blog’s traffic in the week it occurred. On average, less than 2% came in from twitter and Gab (which I also used to use) combined.

    Given the tedious and toxic nature of the social media environment, it’s not worth it. The future, I hope, will see a return to the more serious, thoughtful, longer form places like TUR. Instead of just hoping for that return, I decided over a year ago to do my small part in trying to make it a reality.

    There are some accounts I follow now but it’s in lieu of their having a platform like this blog.

    • Agree: 216
  10. @Intelligent Dasein

    The police state is bad but don’t take the police out of my state.
     
    Here is another thing that is sort of hidden in plain, but that never gets mentioned because it goes too far against the grain of contemporary intellectual tropes. There really is no police state. Everybody talks about it as if it exists, but if you look for it, it just isn't there.

    That does not stop it from being a part of everyone's mental furniture, however. The 9/11 Truthers will tell you that the faked [sic] attacks were a pretext for the rollout of the police state (as if a real police state would need a pretext), but we're going on 20 years on now, and nothing has happened. Devotees of Edward Snowden will tell you that all your data is being stored and analyzed by the NSA. I have yet to see any evidence that this makes any difference whatsoever. With all that data it should be easy to catch ordinary criminals, who are surely leaving cell phone location pings and cubist Ring doorbell mosaics all along the course of their dastardly deeds; and yet petty flouting of the law is probably less dangerous now than at any point in living memory. If the police state is such an omnipresent threat, where is it?

    The answer is that the police state is an entirely virtual phenomenon. It exists in the imagination, where it acts like a quantum field which threatens to localize and materialize at any point, and meanwhile seems to warp all surrounding space according to its own lines of force, but which, once coerced into actuality, expends itself in a single puff of smoke. There is a police state of sorts as long as people believe in it and act as if they're being controlled, but there is little substance to this belief once it is challenged.

    Your points are well taken.

    Like in genetics at the moment, there is far, far more data available than there is the ability to effectively utilize and analyze it. Just because that is the case now, though, doesn’t mean it will be the case indefinitely.

    • Replies: @res

    Like in genetics at the moment, there is far, far more data available than there is the ability to effectively utilize and analyze it. Just because that is the case now, though, doesn’t mean it will be the case indefinitely.
     
    Right now it makes the Eye of Sauron metaphor apt. The data is there, if they choose to focus on you.

    Jussie Smollett and his Google data make an interesting case study. It looks like he may have lost his get out of jail free card. I would love having more insight into the political maneuvering behind the scenes on that one.
  11. @Arclight
    Back in my gentrifier days I moved into an almost entirely black neighborhood that in the 80s and 90s had been one of the most violent in the city. By the time I moved things were not nearly as bad but it was still a place you didn't go walking around at night.

    Although there were certainly some neighbors that were overtly unhappy to see whites moving in, I had multiple old timers tell me it was a good thing because when we called the cops they actually showed up.

    If the de-policing movement actually gets implemented in some large cities, lefties will be shocked to find that all those young white hipsters and families will not stick around and the urban progress of the last 20 years isn't necessarily a permanent state of affairs.

    NYC, unsurprisingly, seems to be the ground zero for testing this (again). The more things change, the more they stay the same!

    • Replies: @Arclight
    True, but NYC has the advantage of being the country's most important city and there is always going to be a couple million people there with money that won't leave because they have the means to avoid most of the unpleasantness.

    Now Chicago is a different story - its real estate market and local economy are more sensitive to increases in crime, which it already has more of per capita than NYC. Let that go up a notch or two and all the hipsters populating recently revived neighborhoods will pull up stakes to the suburbs where they can still catch a train into town if they want, but where the schools are dominated by other people like them and the neighborhoods lack the vibrancy that leads to more crime. That will drag down restaurants, boutiques, and theaters that have sprung up to serve the newcomers, and will not easily be replaced, if at all.

    Even more precarious are places like Philadelphia, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Detroit - they don't have any where near the cultural or economic importance of an NYC or Chicago, and the lower population size means it's a lot easier to live in the suburbs and commute to work or entertainment as necessary and bug out when you are done.
  12. @unit472
    I'm wondering what our existing police will do as marijuana gets decriminalized, cars can compensate for impaired or incompetent drivers and retail stores are cut back and hardened against shoplifting?

    Drones can monitor traffic and stoplight cameras already cite drivers without the need of a traffic cop. Even many murders and violent crime will be surveilled by video cameras that can track all foot and vehicle traffic in real time. Police will be more about forensics than questioning suspects so I don't think we will employ anywhere like today's police headcount in the future. Look at the FBI. These clowns couldn't track down Nikolas Cruz or apprehend Omar Marteen before both went on mass murder sprees but had unlimited manpower to frame General Flynn and Roger Stone. Idle hands make for the Devil's work so I hope we cull our police forces before they all become mini FBIs

    They’ll just arrest innocent people.

    Overall, de-policing just means anarcho-tyranny. They aren’t going to let us handle things on our own. The system will still function to protect criminals.

  13. @songbird
    I sympathize with the police, but I'm going take the opposite position and say that they are probable not a great thing. They facilitate multiculturalism and replacement migration.

    Firstly, they empower the cosmopolitan/traitor class who like living in the city, and support open borders, but are counting on property values (and the police) to act as a separation mechanism.

    In the same way, they empower corporations that count on people commuting into the city to be functional. It is a horror to contemplate all the wasted hours of people's lives, spent in such commutes - the time away from family, as well as people forgoing children since they can't afford a neighborhood with a "good school."

    It would be better if every major city became like Detroit, and we had to actually deal with the consequences.

    In Detroit, after the collapse the effective governance of the city was removed from the Mayor and Council, and placed in the hands of Gilbert, Illitch and other economic elites. The city even elected, and re-elected, a white mayor.

    • Replies: @songbird
    Yes, it is funny how Detroit has a white mayor again

    I suppose it is an open question how much private security could handle urban security, as it is a major factor in South Africa.
    , @Mr. Rational

    The city even elected, and re-elected, a white mayor.
     
    Look how many decades and how much mayhem and destruction it took to do that, though.
  14. “De-policing kills.”

    In the Chicago neighborhoods of Englewood or Lawndale, yes. In Mayberry, no.

    In a country that has been shifted into a clandestine multi-cultural battlefield, yes. In a high trust homogeneous country, no.

    I wonder what the pattern here is?

  15. Everybody wants more cops until they’re on the receiving end of policy enforcement. Gotta pay for those pensions, pet project, and patronage jobs somehow!

  16. This was an interesting poll, but I am unaware of a press to get rid of the police. Better policing methods, but I am not aware of any large push to get rid of the police.

    However, the biggest deterrent to crime is effective parenting coupled with effective neighborhoods that reinforce sound practices of “good behavior” for lack of a better word.

    • Replies: @216
    There's a major push by the left from AOC to Pope Francis, to push the criminal justic system to be "restorative" rather than "punitive".

    Seen from this perspective, the police are an occupying gang that engages in rent seeking of poor PeeOhCee.

    "Where you put the police, you will find crime". Is something they say alot. It's a vehicle to undermine the "13/50" argument. White crime is ignored, reclassified, covered up, or escaped via lawyers. Leftists simply don't believe that there are statistical differences with race and crime; and if they do acknowledge it they blame poverty.
    , @MBlanc46
    Aldermanic candidates in Chicago were campaigning on it. I don’t know whether any were elected.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    There are DSA candidates running on exactly that--abolishing the police. Not just ICE--the entire thing, the POLICE!
  17. “Everybody wants more cops until they’re on the receiving end of policy enforcement. Gotta pay for those pensions, pet project, and patronage jobs somehow!

    You here Miss Coulter complaining about the power of police unions.

  18. @216
    In Detroit, after the collapse the effective governance of the city was removed from the Mayor and Council, and placed in the hands of Gilbert, Illitch and other economic elites. The city even elected, and re-elected, a white mayor.

    Yes, it is funny how Detroit has a white mayor again

    I suppose it is an open question how much private security could handle urban security, as it is a major factor in South Africa.

  19. @EliteCommInc.
    This was an interesting poll, but I am unaware of a press to get rid of the police. Better policing methods, but I am not aware of any large push to get rid of the police.


    However, the biggest deterrent to crime is effective parenting coupled with effective neighborhoods that reinforce sound practices of "good behavior" for lack of a better word.

    There’s a major push by the left from AOC to Pope Francis, to push the criminal justic system to be “restorative” rather than “punitive”.

    Seen from this perspective, the police are an occupying gang that engages in rent seeking of poor PeeOhCee.

    “Where you put the police, you will find crime”. Is something they say alot. It’s a vehicle to undermine the “13/50” argument. White crime is ignored, reclassified, covered up, or escaped via lawyers. Leftists simply don’t believe that there are statistical differences with race and crime; and if they do acknowledge it they blame poverty.

  20. “Leftists simply don’t believe that there are statistical differences with race and crime; and if they do acknowledge it they blame poverty.”

    Well clearly there are statistical differences. My position here is repeatedly stated. But skin color is not really the play. Because if one reads the news articles when blacks were largely slaves, the same argument were made concerning whites in similar conditions.

    There is no genetic disposition to criminal activity to blacks than there are to whites. So its absolutely correct that barring blacks from entering into the main created an class of people relegated to the worst conditions that also contribute or create environments for criminal conduct.

    That doesn’t require a degree in woke anything, just a grasp of data sets as they apply to specific populations and some historical perspective.

    The analysis that blacks are statistically more likely to do X based on a stats assessment of a particular neighborhood would be a misapplication of the data and from where it was derived.

    I think the penal system should be penal — however, there’s good reason to invest in preventing recividist behavior.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Well clearly there are statistical differences. My position here is repeatedly stated. But skin color is not really the play. Because if one reads the news articles when blacks were largely slaves, the same argument were made concerning whites in similar conditions.
     
    Interestingly, the things that promote demographic collapse are also the things that encourage crime. Urbanisation, consumerism, short-term thinking, greed, the destruction of genuine organic communities, the decline of the family, drugs, the collapse of organised religion, hedonism and the entirety of modern pop culture.

    For the ten thousandth time, not everything is about race. And not everything is about the Jews. We have real problems that need to be faced.
  21. @songbird
    I sympathize with the police, but I'm going take the opposite position and say that they are probable not a great thing. They facilitate multiculturalism and replacement migration.

    Firstly, they empower the cosmopolitan/traitor class who like living in the city, and support open borders, but are counting on property values (and the police) to act as a separation mechanism.

    In the same way, they empower corporations that count on people commuting into the city to be functional. It is a horror to contemplate all the wasted hours of people's lives, spent in such commutes - the time away from family, as well as people forgoing children since they can't afford a neighborhood with a "good school."

    It would be better if every major city became like Detroit, and we had to actually deal with the consequences.

    I sympathize with the police, but I’m going take the opposite position and say that they are probable not a great thing. They facilitate multiculturalism and replacement migration.

    The police facilitate whatever the people paying them want facilitated. Thinking that the police can ever be trusted is childish.

  22. @EliteCommInc.
    "Leftists simply don’t believe that there are statistical differences with race and crime; and if they do acknowledge it they blame poverty."


    Well clearly there are statistical differences. My position here is repeatedly stated. But skin color is not really the play. Because if one reads the news articles when blacks were largely slaves, the same argument were made concerning whites in similar conditions.


    There is no genetic disposition to criminal activity to blacks than there are to whites. So its absolutely correct that barring blacks from entering into the main created an class of people relegated to the worst conditions that also contribute or create environments for criminal conduct.

    That doesn't require a degree in woke anything, just a grasp of data sets as they apply to specific populations and some historical perspective.


    The analysis that blacks are statistically more likely to do X based on a stats assessment of a particular neighborhood would be a misapplication of the data and from where it was derived.

    I think the penal system should be penal -- however, there's good reason to invest in preventing recividist behavior.

    Well clearly there are statistical differences. My position here is repeatedly stated. But skin color is not really the play. Because if one reads the news articles when blacks were largely slaves, the same argument were made concerning whites in similar conditions.

    Interestingly, the things that promote demographic collapse are also the things that encourage crime. Urbanisation, consumerism, short-term thinking, greed, the destruction of genuine organic communities, the decline of the family, drugs, the collapse of organised religion, hedonism and the entirety of modern pop culture.

    For the ten thousandth time, not everything is about race. And not everything is about the Jews. We have real problems that need to be faced.

    • Replies: @JohnPlywood

    Interestingly, the things that promote demographic collapse are also the things that encourage crime. Urbanisation, consumerism, short-term thinking, greed, the destruction of genuine organic communities, the decline of the family, drugs, the collapse of organised religion, hedonism and the entirety of modern pop culture.
     
    Crime in America has been decreasing for the past 45 years though. Police presence is also decreasing.
  23. My Congress-critter is a cucaracha.

  24. @EliteCommInc.
    This was an interesting poll, but I am unaware of a press to get rid of the police. Better policing methods, but I am not aware of any large push to get rid of the police.


    However, the biggest deterrent to crime is effective parenting coupled with effective neighborhoods that reinforce sound practices of "good behavior" for lack of a better word.

    Aldermanic candidates in Chicago were campaigning on it. I don’t know whether any were elected.

  25. @dfordoom

    Well clearly there are statistical differences. My position here is repeatedly stated. But skin color is not really the play. Because if one reads the news articles when blacks were largely slaves, the same argument were made concerning whites in similar conditions.
     
    Interestingly, the things that promote demographic collapse are also the things that encourage crime. Urbanisation, consumerism, short-term thinking, greed, the destruction of genuine organic communities, the decline of the family, drugs, the collapse of organised religion, hedonism and the entirety of modern pop culture.

    For the ten thousandth time, not everything is about race. And not everything is about the Jews. We have real problems that need to be faced.

    Interestingly, the things that promote demographic collapse are also the things that encourage crime. Urbanisation, consumerism, short-term thinking, greed, the destruction of genuine organic communities, the decline of the family, drugs, the collapse of organised religion, hedonism and the entirety of modern pop culture.

    Crime in America has been decreasing for the past 45 years though. Police presence is also decreasing.

    • Replies: @res

    Crime in America has been decreasing for the past 45 years though.
     
    45 years is an odd period to make that claim. The trend is clear for the past 30 years (well, until the last few), but the 15 years before that were mixed. And before that there was a steady increase in crime rate from a low around 1960.

    Some data from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Homicide_rates1900-2001.jpg

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-aGokZQuNc_U/VVyNw2XviEI/AAAAAAAAW2E/RY-qS8aHyNo/s320/500px-Property_Crime_Rates_in_the_United_States.svg-761614.png


    Police presence is also decreasing.
     
    What makes you say that? This document has data on police numbers reported to the FBI UCR from 1992-2012:
    https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/nsleed.pdf

    Some sample total full time officers per 1,000 US residents data from Table 1. Years selected to match presidential election years because I think that makes some interesting points. I would like to see the 2013-2019 data for comparison.

    1992 3.05
    1996 3.32
    2000 3.46
    2004 3.55
    2008 3.62
    2012 3.43

    That hardly looks like a decrease to me. Interesting how the ramp up in police seems to coincide with the big decrease in crime from 1990 to 2012.

    P.S. 2017 data available at https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/police-employee-data


    Nationwide, the rate of sworn officers was 2.4 per 1,000 inhabitants. The rate of full-time law enforcement employees (civilian and sworn) per 1,000 inhabitants was 3.4. (Based on Table 74.)
     
    So essentially the same (3.43 vs. 3.4) as in 2012. Interesting that the depolicing happened during Obama's first term (not the second). I guess they focused on getting the remaining police to back off during the second.

    2016 was similar: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/police-employees

  26. I would be remiss if i did not mention alcohol . . .

  27. “Aldermanic candidates in Chicago were campaigning on it. I don’t know whether any were elected.”

    Excuse me, I did not take a look at their campaigns, but I bet if you got into the details, one would find that the relations between the community and the police are such that in their view fewer police would be environmentally positive.

    ———————————-

    “Interestingly, the things that promote demographic collapse are also the things that encourage crime. Urbanisation, consumerism, short-term thinking, greed, the destruction of genuine . . .”

    I agree with some aspects of the above.

    “Crime in America has been decreasing for the past 45 years though. Police presence is also decreasing.”

    I think the data sets on crime trends is accurate. I have not checked whether the number of officers on the street are in decline. Granted it’s a very very tough job. people policing on behalf of people. It is in my view an incredible personal and professional burden. I am not sure there is any way to redress that, even with pay and benefits. Which is one reason we give law enforcement a some breathing room and honor their service. How much breathing and how much honor to the deficit is always going to be an issue —

    We send a twenty year old through two months of training, hand him a weapon and most of empower him to take a life, if need be —- that’s an awful lot of power and there’s an awful lot of power that gets exercised even before a time when a lethal weapon is required. M ost police officers ever fire their weapons outside of training.

    ———————-

    About prisons, in my view no on one in prison should be released without knowing how to read or write and in some cases a HS diploma and even in some cases a degree . . .

    This should not be an option. No pornography, violent films (save for military war films) should ever cross a prison threshhold – ever. If I am in prison, that time is for investing how to to stay out and if that means only Bambi, The Learning Tree and Leave It to Beaver, king of kings, father Knows Best and Marie and Donnie Osmand is all the programming they get — then so be it. I do think some reading material is best prevented.

    Usually people just look at me crossed eyed when i say these things, but prison is meant to punish to an end and that end is not punishment, the end in an improved life and if Leave It to Beaver is painful but creates the right tone — then so be it. As fun as it is to watch, Oceans 11 — 1,2,3,4 . . . are out “The Family” is in.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    I think the data sets on crime trends is accurate.
     
    Long term statistics on crime have to be approached with extreme caution. Definitions of particular offences can change over time. For example definitions of sexual assault have in some countries changed quite radically.

    Policing approaches to certain crimes change over time - the police can simply stop enforcing laws, as they stopped enforcing the drug laws in Australia in the 70s. Or the police can start taking a much more zealous approach to crimes that they previously often ignored.

    You also have to make sure that your data sets are consistent - are they counting reported offences, or only those that resulted in prosecutions, or only those that resulted in convictions?

    The courts also change their approach radically over time, sometimes simply dismissing cases that a few decades earlier would have led to serious prison time.

    And of course governments can deliberately manipulate the statistics (by making use of any of the methods listed above) to make the statistics look more favourable.

    I'm not suggesting that the fall in crime rates isn't necessarily real, it probably is real, but it's always wise to be a bit sceptical about any official statistics.
  28. @Audacious Epigone
    NYC, unsurprisingly, seems to be the ground zero for testing this (again). The more things change, the more they stay the same!

    True, but NYC has the advantage of being the country’s most important city and there is always going to be a couple million people there with money that won’t leave because they have the means to avoid most of the unpleasantness.

    Now Chicago is a different story – its real estate market and local economy are more sensitive to increases in crime, which it already has more of per capita than NYC. Let that go up a notch or two and all the hipsters populating recently revived neighborhoods will pull up stakes to the suburbs where they can still catch a train into town if they want, but where the schools are dominated by other people like them and the neighborhoods lack the vibrancy that leads to more crime. That will drag down restaurants, boutiques, and theaters that have sprung up to serve the newcomers, and will not easily be replaced, if at all.

    Even more precarious are places like Philadelphia, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Detroit – they don’t have any where near the cultural or economic importance of an NYC or Chicago, and the lower population size means it’s a lot easier to live in the suburbs and commute to work or entertainment as necessary and bug out when you are done.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
    "True, but NYC has the advantage of being the country’s most important city and there is always going to be a couple million people there with money that won’t leave because they have the means to avoid most of the unpleasantness."
    As far as your statement about New York City's "importance", your statement is demonstrably false.
    Yes, there are those (ordinary people) who live in New York City, but the fact of the matter is that they don't own anything. They live in run-down tenements owned by jews, that should have been demolished in the 1930s, but are still massive moneymakers for their owners.
    They are beholden to the jewish oligarchs that run the city, own the banks and most of the real estate.
    You could never get me to live in such a place...
  29. @Audacious Epigone
    Your points are well taken.

    Like in genetics at the moment, there is far, far more data available than there is the ability to effectively utilize and analyze it. Just because that is the case now, though, doesn't mean it will be the case indefinitely.

    Like in genetics at the moment, there is far, far more data available than there is the ability to effectively utilize and analyze it. Just because that is the case now, though, doesn’t mean it will be the case indefinitely.

    Right now it makes the Eye of Sauron metaphor apt. The data is there, if they choose to focus on you.

    Jussie Smollett and his Google data make an interesting case study. It looks like he may have lost his get out of jail free card. I would love having more insight into the political maneuvering behind the scenes on that one.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  30. @JohnPlywood

    Interestingly, the things that promote demographic collapse are also the things that encourage crime. Urbanisation, consumerism, short-term thinking, greed, the destruction of genuine organic communities, the decline of the family, drugs, the collapse of organised religion, hedonism and the entirety of modern pop culture.
     
    Crime in America has been decreasing for the past 45 years though. Police presence is also decreasing.

    Crime in America has been decreasing for the past 45 years though.

    45 years is an odd period to make that claim. The trend is clear for the past 30 years (well, until the last few), but the 15 years before that were mixed. And before that there was a steady increase in crime rate from a low around 1960.

    Some data from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

    Police presence is also decreasing.

    What makes you say that? This document has data on police numbers reported to the FBI UCR from 1992-2012:
    https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/nsleed.pdf

    Some sample total full time officers per 1,000 US residents data from Table 1. Years selected to match presidential election years because I think that makes some interesting points. I would like to see the 2013-2019 data for comparison.

    1992 3.05
    1996 3.32
    2000 3.46
    2004 3.55
    2008 3.62
    2012 3.43

    That hardly looks like a decrease to me. Interesting how the ramp up in police seems to coincide with the big decrease in crime from 1990 to 2012.

    P.S. 2017 data available at https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/police-employee-data

    Nationwide, the rate of sworn officers was 2.4 per 1,000 inhabitants. The rate of full-time law enforcement employees (civilian and sworn) per 1,000 inhabitants was 3.4. (Based on Table 74.)

    So essentially the same (3.43 vs. 3.4) as in 2012. Interesting that the depolicing happened during Obama’s first term (not the second). I guess they focused on getting the remaining police to back off during the second.

    2016 was similar: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/police-employees

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @JohnPlywood
    You mean 3.43 vs 2.4. Civilian LE employees aren't cops.

    Census resident data doesn't count most illegal aliens, either.

  31. @Arclight
    True, but NYC has the advantage of being the country's most important city and there is always going to be a couple million people there with money that won't leave because they have the means to avoid most of the unpleasantness.

    Now Chicago is a different story - its real estate market and local economy are more sensitive to increases in crime, which it already has more of per capita than NYC. Let that go up a notch or two and all the hipsters populating recently revived neighborhoods will pull up stakes to the suburbs where they can still catch a train into town if they want, but where the schools are dominated by other people like them and the neighborhoods lack the vibrancy that leads to more crime. That will drag down restaurants, boutiques, and theaters that have sprung up to serve the newcomers, and will not easily be replaced, if at all.

    Even more precarious are places like Philadelphia, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Detroit - they don't have any where near the cultural or economic importance of an NYC or Chicago, and the lower population size means it's a lot easier to live in the suburbs and commute to work or entertainment as necessary and bug out when you are done.

    “True, but NYC has the advantage of being the country’s most important city and there is always going to be a couple million people there with money that won’t leave because they have the means to avoid most of the unpleasantness.”
    As far as your statement about New York City’s “importance“, your statement is demonstrably false.
    Yes, there are those (ordinary people) who live in New York City, but the fact of the matter is that they don’t own anything. They live in run-down tenements owned by jews, that should have been demolished in the 1930s, but are still massive moneymakers for their owners.
    They are beholden to the jewish oligarchs that run the city, own the banks and most of the real estate.
    You could never get me to live in such a place…

  32. Without police, who will make homeless people lick toilets?

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/police-officer-admits-he-told-homeless-man-lick-public-urinal-n1103146

    Without police, who will throw flash bangs into cribs?

    Without police, who will kill the dogs?

    Without police, who will rape women during traffic stops?

    https://reason.com/2014/09/29/anti-rape-tips-for-women-in-oklahoma/

    https://theintercept.com/2019/08/30/nypd-anna-chambers-rape-probation/

    Without police, who will pepper spray the students?

    Without police, who will destroy houses to catch a suspected shoplifter?

    https://www.gq.com/story/police-explode-innocent-mans-home

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20191030/15530543295/appeals-court-says-ok-cops-to-destroy-someone-elses-house-to-apprehend-criminal-suspect.shtml

    Without police, who will destroy the cannabis?

    Without police, who will put dangerous cannabis users in cages?

    Without police, who will protect us from illegal window tint?

    • Replies: @anarchyst
    Ever notice that police unions are "fraternal"? This should tell you something. The "thin-blue-line" is a gang, little different than street gangs--at least when it comes to "covering-up" their questionable and quite often, illegal and criminal behavior.
    In today's day and age, "officer safety" trumps de-escalation of force. This, in part, is due to the militarization of the police along with training in Israeli police tactics. This becomes a problem, with the "us vs. them" attitude that is fosters, along with the fact that Israel is a very different place, being on a constant "war footing", its police tactics are very different.
    There are too many instances of police being "given a pass", even when incontrovertible video and audio evidence is presented. Grand juries, guided by police-friendly prosecutors, quite often refuse to charge those police officers who abuse their authority.
    Police officers, who want to do the right thing, are quite often marginalized and put into harms way, by their own brethren...When a police officer is beating on someone that is already restrained while yelling, "stop resisting" THAT is but one reason police have a "bad name" in many instances...this makes the "good cops" who are standing around, witnessing their "brethren in blue" beating on a restrained suspect, culpable as well...
    Here are changes that can help reduce police-induced violence:
    1. Get rid of police unions. Police unions (fraternities) protect the guilty, and are responsible for the massive whitewashing of questionable police behavior that is presently being committed.
    2. Eliminate both "absolute" and "qualified" immunity for all public officials. This includes, prosecutors and judges, police and firefighters, code enforcement and child protective services officials, and others who deal with the citizenry. The threat of being sued personally would encourage them to behave themselves. Require police officers to be "bonded" by an insurance company, with their own funds. No bond= no job.
    3. Any public funds disbursed to citizens as a result of police misconduct should come out of police pension funds--NOT from the taxpayers.
    4. Regular drug-testing of police officers as well as incident-based drug testing should take place whenever an officer is involved in a violent situation with a citizen--no exceptions.
    5. Testing for steroid use should be a part of the drug testing program. You know damn well, many police officers "bulk up" with the "help" of steroids. Steroids also affect users mentally as well, making them more aggressive. The potential for abuse of citizens increases greatly with steroid use.
    6. Internal affairs should only be used for disagreements between individual officers--NOT for investigations involving citizen abuse. State-level investigations should be mandatory for all suspected abuses involving citizens.
    7. Prosecutors should be charged with malfeasance IF any evidence implicating police officer misconduct is not presented to the grand jury.
    8. A national or state-by-state database of abusive individuals who should NEVER be allowed to perform police work should be established--a "blacklist" of abusive (former) police officers.
    9. Most people are unaware that police have special "rules" that prohibit them from being questioned for 48 hours. This allows them to "get their stories straight" and makes it easier to "cover up" bad police behavior. Police must be subject to the same laws as civilians.
    10. All police should be required to wear bodycams and utilize dashcams that cannot be turned off. Any police officers who causes a dash or body cam to be turned off should be summarily fired--no excuses. Today's body and dash cams are reliable enough to withstand harsh treatment. Body and dashcam footage should be uploaded to a public channel "on the cloud" for public perusal.
    11. All interrogations must be video and audio recorded. Police should be prohibited from lying or fabricating stories in order to get suspects to confess. False confessions ARE a problem in many departments. Unknown to most people, police can lie with impunity while civilians can be charged with lying to police...fair? I think not...
    12. Any legislation passed that restricts the rights of ordinary citizens, such as firearms magazine capacity limits, types of weapons allowed, or restrictive concealed-carry laws should apply equally to police. No special exemptions to be given to police. Laws must be equally applied.
    Police work is not inherently dangerous...there are many other professions that are much more dangerous.
    A little "Andy Taylor" could go a long way in allaying fears that citizens have of police.
    That being said, I have no problem with police officers who do their job in a fair, conscientious manner...however, it is time to call to task those police officers who only "protect and serve" themselves.
  33. @EliteCommInc.
    "Aldermanic candidates in Chicago were campaigning on it. I don’t know whether any were elected."

    Excuse me, I did not take a look at their campaigns, but I bet if you got into the details, one would find that the relations between the community and the police are such that in their view fewer police would be environmentally positive.

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

    "Interestingly, the things that promote demographic collapse are also the things that encourage crime. Urbanisation, consumerism, short-term thinking, greed, the destruction of genuine . . ."

    I agree with some aspects of the above.

    "Crime in America has been decreasing for the past 45 years though. Police presence is also decreasing."

    I think the data sets on crime trends is accurate. I have not checked whether the number of officers on the street are in decline. Granted it's a very very tough job. people policing on behalf of people. It is in my view an incredible personal and professional burden. I am not sure there is any way to redress that, even with pay and benefits. Which is one reason we give law enforcement a some breathing room and honor their service. How much breathing and how much honor to the deficit is always going to be an issue --

    We send a twenty year old through two months of training, hand him a weapon and most of empower him to take a life, if need be ---- that's an awful lot of power and there's an awful lot of power that gets exercised even before a time when a lethal weapon is required. M ost police officers ever fire their weapons outside of training.

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

    About prisons, in my view no on one in prison should be released without knowing how to read or write and in some cases a HS diploma and even in some cases a degree . . .

    This should not be an option. No pornography, violent films (save for military war films) should ever cross a prison threshhold - ever. If I am in prison, that time is for investing how to to stay out and if that means only Bambi, The Learning Tree and Leave It to Beaver, king of kings, father Knows Best and Marie and Donnie Osmand is all the programming they get -- then so be it. I do think some reading material is best prevented.

    Usually people just look at me crossed eyed when i say these things, but prison is meant to punish to an end and that end is not punishment, the end in an improved life and if Leave It to Beaver is painful but creates the right tone -- then so be it. As fun as it is to watch, Oceans 11 -- 1,2,3,4 . . . are out "The Family" is in.

    I think the data sets on crime trends is accurate.

    Long term statistics on crime have to be approached with extreme caution. Definitions of particular offences can change over time. For example definitions of sexual assault have in some countries changed quite radically.

    Policing approaches to certain crimes change over time – the police can simply stop enforcing laws, as they stopped enforcing the drug laws in Australia in the 70s. Or the police can start taking a much more zealous approach to crimes that they previously often ignored.

    You also have to make sure that your data sets are consistent – are they counting reported offences, or only those that resulted in prosecutions, or only those that resulted in convictions?

    The courts also change their approach radically over time, sometimes simply dismissing cases that a few decades earlier would have led to serious prison time.

    And of course governments can deliberately manipulate the statistics (by making use of any of the methods listed above) to make the statistics look more favourable.

    I’m not suggesting that the fall in crime rates isn’t necessarily real, it probably is real, but it’s always wise to be a bit sceptical about any official statistics.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Homicides are the the most reliable indicator of violent crime rates over time. It's hard to hide dead bodies.
  34. “I’m not suggesting that the fall in crime rates isn’t necessarily real, it probably is real, but it’s always wise to be a bit sceptical about any official statistics.”

    I think the trend via ten interval says something about the nature of crime. And I don’t attribute that necessarily to policing alone.

    And while there are spikes up and down I think the original commenter has it correct when talking about the overall crime rate. But the last ten years that trend is down.

    That does not mean there will not be periods of up trends in some areas of crime or sporadic data sets

    But overall . . . the rate is down. In the area of homicide for the last tens years the Overall trend also appears headed down — that’s real.

    There is no war oin police — there is a desire for more accountability, but that is not the same thing or even close to what Drs. Mr. and Mrs. McDonald suggest.

  35. @Adam Smith
    Without police, who will make homeless people lick toilets?

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/police-officer-admits-he-told-homeless-man-lick-public-urinal-n1103146

    Without police, who will throw flash bangs into cribs?

    https://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2015_50/1338536/140530-wxia-baby1-2238_b2d4967e5b95fe4b489b4da5c8c8050f-nbcnews-ux-600-700_6d750051b088fec7df47ca8709863def.fit-760w.jpg

    Without police, who will kill the dogs?

    https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/img.puppycidedb.com/aftermath.jpg

    Without police, who will rape women during traffic stops?

    https://reason.com/2014/09/29/anti-rape-tips-for-women-in-oklahoma/

    https://theintercept.com/2019/08/30/nypd-anna-chambers-rape-probation/

    Without police, who will pepper spray the students?

    https://www.todaysgeneralcounsel.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Pepper-Spray-Cop.jpg

    Without police, who will destroy houses to catch a suspected shoplifter?

    https://i1.wp.com/cms.sofrep.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/swat.jpg

    https://www.gq.com/story/police-explode-innocent-mans-home

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20191030/15530543295/appeals-court-says-ok-cops-to-destroy-someone-elses-house-to-apprehend-criminal-suspect.shtml

    Without police, who will destroy the cannabis?

    https://www.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.4039615.1533311177!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_960/image.jpg

    Without police, who will put dangerous cannabis users in cages?

    https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/11/f1/3f/cc/jail-cell.jpg

    Without police, who will protect us from illegal window tint?

    https://www.krmg.com/rf/image_lowres/Pub/p3/KRMG/2012/09/25/Images/photos.medleyphoto.2724155.jpg

    https://images1.miaminewtimes.com/imager/u/original/9267397/lakecountysheriff.jpg

    https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/5c30119fe749403acada5ae7/1547061297708-XNUYYYIHBBVDZ41KOD30/image-asset.png

    Ever notice that police unions are “fraternal”? This should tell you something. The “thin-blue-line” is a gang, little different than street gangs–at least when it comes to “covering-up” their questionable and quite often, illegal and criminal behavior.
    In today’s day and age, “officer safety” trumps de-escalation of force. This, in part, is due to the militarization of the police along with training in Israeli police tactics. This becomes a problem, with the “us vs. them” attitude that is fosters, along with the fact that Israel is a very different place, being on a constant “war footing”, its police tactics are very different.
    There are too many instances of police being “given a pass”, even when incontrovertible video and audio evidence is presented. Grand juries, guided by police-friendly prosecutors, quite often refuse to charge those police officers who abuse their authority.
    Police officers, who want to do the right thing, are quite often marginalized and put into harms way, by their own brethren…When a police officer is beating on someone that is already restrained while yelling, “stop resisting” THAT is but one reason police have a “bad name” in many instances…this makes the “good cops” who are standing around, witnessing their “brethren in blue” beating on a restrained suspect, culpable as well…
    Here are changes that can help reduce police-induced violence:
    1. Get rid of police unions. Police unions (fraternities) protect the guilty, and are responsible for the massive whitewashing of questionable police behavior that is presently being committed.
    2. Eliminate both “absolute” and “qualified” immunity for all public officials. This includes, prosecutors and judges, police and firefighters, code enforcement and child protective services officials, and others who deal with the citizenry. The threat of being sued personally would encourage them to behave themselves. Require police officers to be “bonded” by an insurance company, with their own funds. No bond= no job.
    3. Any public funds disbursed to citizens as a result of police misconduct should come out of police pension funds–NOT from the taxpayers.
    4. Regular drug-testing of police officers as well as incident-based drug testing should take place whenever an officer is involved in a violent situation with a citizen–no exceptions.
    5. Testing for steroid use should be a part of the drug testing program. You know damn well, many police officers “bulk up” with the “help” of steroids. Steroids also affect users mentally as well, making them more aggressive. The potential for abuse of citizens increases greatly with steroid use.
    6. Internal affairs should only be used for disagreements between individual officers–NOT for investigations involving citizen abuse. State-level investigations should be mandatory for all suspected abuses involving citizens.
    7. Prosecutors should be charged with malfeasance IF any evidence implicating police officer misconduct is not presented to the grand jury.
    8. A national or state-by-state database of abusive individuals who should NEVER be allowed to perform police work should be established–a “blacklist” of abusive (former) police officers.
    9. Most people are unaware that police have special “rules” that prohibit them from being questioned for 48 hours. This allows them to “get their stories straight” and makes it easier to “cover up” bad police behavior. Police must be subject to the same laws as civilians.
    10. All police should be required to wear bodycams and utilize dashcams that cannot be turned off. Any police officers who causes a dash or body cam to be turned off should be summarily fired–no excuses. Today’s body and dash cams are reliable enough to withstand harsh treatment. Body and dashcam footage should be uploaded to a public channel “on the cloud” for public perusal.
    11. All interrogations must be video and audio recorded. Police should be prohibited from lying or fabricating stories in order to get suspects to confess. False confessions ARE a problem in many departments. Unknown to most people, police can lie with impunity while civilians can be charged with lying to police…fair? I think not…
    12. Any legislation passed that restricts the rights of ordinary citizens, such as firearms magazine capacity limits, types of weapons allowed, or restrictive concealed-carry laws should apply equally to police. No special exemptions to be given to police. Laws must be equally applied.
    Police work is not inherently dangerous…there are many other professions that are much more dangerous.
    A little “Andy Taylor” could go a long way in allaying fears that citizens have of police.
    That being said, I have no problem with police officers who do their job in a fair, conscientious manner…however, it is time to call to task those police officers who only “protect and serve” themselves.

    • Agree: Adam Smith
    • Replies: @Adam Smith
    I agree whole heartedly with you. Thin Blue Isis is the most dangerous and heavily armed gang in America. I blame much of the police brutality and lawlessness on the Israelification of American society and American police after September of 2001. There was a dramatic shift in their demeanor and tactics. Us vs Them. They are a standing army separate and isolated from the rest of America, with special privileges. Their main function is to extract revenue from the people. It's time to put an end to that. No victim = No crime.

    You have many good ideas that if implemented would go a long way towards fixing the police lawlessness problem. I too would eliminate all forms of immunity for all police, prosecutors, judges and anyone else working for the state. Immunity shields them from responsibility and encourages lawlessness. I would hold them to a higher standard. If a cop, prosecutor or judge breaks the law I would make the penalty much harsher for them than for a citizen. If a prosecutor is found to have sent an innocent to prison, they can go to prison themselves. They can be held personally liable, not the taxpayer. No more immunity.

    No bond= no job. No more steroids. No more investigating themselves. They have proven to be dishonest and incapable of policing themselves. No more allowing police to lie or to extract false confessions. Again, I would make the penalty for a cop lying much greater than for a citizen lying.

    No more policing for profit. No more asset forfeiture. End prohibition and the drug war. No more caging Americans for violations of commerce like vehicle registration, license violations, selling lemonade or possessing a plant. It is time they started acting like peace officers instead of thugs and revenuers.

    No more swat teams kicking in doors. No more no knock raids. These are the tactics of terrorists. These tactics have no place in a free society.

    Police work is not dangerous. It's time we stopped pampering them. No more groveling and bootlicking. They are not special snowflakes. No more thin blue line.

    There are too many low IQ, authoritarian cops who do not know the codes they're supposed to be enforcing. They should know the difference between law and commerce. It's time to screen for smarter, more honest, less authoritarian people who know how to de-escalate a situation instead of barking commands at people. Their low IQ thug mentality and Israeli brutality training makes them a danger to us all.

    If they cannot or will not reform, then they should be abolished. Police in their current form have no place in a free society.

    Thank you for your excellent comment.
  36. @Charles Pewitt

    Anarcho-X has few friends. Order precedes liberty, especially where population densities are high. De-policing kills.

     

    The Sailer Strategy blog guy has been banging on like a bastard about how the crime rate in mostly Black areas like Baltimore went through the roof after Obama and the Democrat Party and the corporate media started up with their crazy attacks on the cops and law enforcement.

    The idea I guess was that Obama and the Democrat Party and the corporate media wanted to massively increase the Black vote or something by excusing Black criminality and attacking law enforcement, but what they ended up doing was getting a lot of Black males killed because the cops pulled back -- not at the cops instinct or sense of duty but by the procedural hobbles their superiors were putting them in -- and the Blacks started blasting away at each other with wild abandon.

    Meanwhile, Vermont and New Hampshire and parts of Michigan and other White areas are armed to the teeth with every kind of firearm imaginable and the Whites seem to growl at each other and bark at each other without going that extra bit to full on blasting the Hell out of each other. This is good because Whites have higher IQs than Blacks, on average, and they are better able to maintain composure so as to blast away with a much higher accuracy rate than do Blacks.

    Doctors in the US military were learning about gun shot wounds by going to areas of high Black population concentration so the doctors could achieve greater proficiency in fixing gun shot wounds. A lot of Blacks are saved that way.

    POLITICALLY INCORRECT TWEET ALERT

    This Tweet is racially charged but statistically accurate.

    Tweet from 2015:

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/661179728972423169?s=20

    Those states are planning a two-fold approach to this situation: import more blacks and restrict Whites from having access to the Second Amendment.

  37. @Intelligent Dasein

    The police state is bad but don’t take the police out of my state.
     
    Here is another thing that is sort of hidden in plain, but that never gets mentioned because it goes too far against the grain of contemporary intellectual tropes. There really is no police state. Everybody talks about it as if it exists, but if you look for it, it just isn't there.

    That does not stop it from being a part of everyone's mental furniture, however. The 9/11 Truthers will tell you that the faked [sic] attacks were a pretext for the rollout of the police state (as if a real police state would need a pretext), but we're going on 20 years on now, and nothing has happened. Devotees of Edward Snowden will tell you that all your data is being stored and analyzed by the NSA. I have yet to see any evidence that this makes any difference whatsoever. With all that data it should be easy to catch ordinary criminals, who are surely leaving cell phone location pings and cubist Ring doorbell mosaics all along the course of their dastardly deeds; and yet petty flouting of the law is probably less dangerous now than at any point in living memory. If the police state is such an omnipresent threat, where is it?

    The answer is that the police state is an entirely virtual phenomenon. It exists in the imagination, where it acts like a quantum field which threatens to localize and materialize at any point, and meanwhile seems to warp all surrounding space according to its own lines of force, but which, once coerced into actuality, expends itself in a single puff of smoke. There is a police state of sorts as long as people believe in it and act as if they're being controlled, but there is little substance to this belief once it is challenged.

    The answer is that the police state is an entirely virtual phenomenon.

    Wrong.  The police state is very real, but goes after wrongthinkers; it ignores wrongdoers.

  38. @216
    In Detroit, after the collapse the effective governance of the city was removed from the Mayor and Council, and placed in the hands of Gilbert, Illitch and other economic elites. The city even elected, and re-elected, a white mayor.

    The city even elected, and re-elected, a white mayor.

    Look how many decades and how much mayhem and destruction it took to do that, though.

  39. @anarchyst
    Ever notice that police unions are "fraternal"? This should tell you something. The "thin-blue-line" is a gang, little different than street gangs--at least when it comes to "covering-up" their questionable and quite often, illegal and criminal behavior.
    In today's day and age, "officer safety" trumps de-escalation of force. This, in part, is due to the militarization of the police along with training in Israeli police tactics. This becomes a problem, with the "us vs. them" attitude that is fosters, along with the fact that Israel is a very different place, being on a constant "war footing", its police tactics are very different.
    There are too many instances of police being "given a pass", even when incontrovertible video and audio evidence is presented. Grand juries, guided by police-friendly prosecutors, quite often refuse to charge those police officers who abuse their authority.
    Police officers, who want to do the right thing, are quite often marginalized and put into harms way, by their own brethren...When a police officer is beating on someone that is already restrained while yelling, "stop resisting" THAT is but one reason police have a "bad name" in many instances...this makes the "good cops" who are standing around, witnessing their "brethren in blue" beating on a restrained suspect, culpable as well...
    Here are changes that can help reduce police-induced violence:
    1. Get rid of police unions. Police unions (fraternities) protect the guilty, and are responsible for the massive whitewashing of questionable police behavior that is presently being committed.
    2. Eliminate both "absolute" and "qualified" immunity for all public officials. This includes, prosecutors and judges, police and firefighters, code enforcement and child protective services officials, and others who deal with the citizenry. The threat of being sued personally would encourage them to behave themselves. Require police officers to be "bonded" by an insurance company, with their own funds. No bond= no job.
    3. Any public funds disbursed to citizens as a result of police misconduct should come out of police pension funds--NOT from the taxpayers.
    4. Regular drug-testing of police officers as well as incident-based drug testing should take place whenever an officer is involved in a violent situation with a citizen--no exceptions.
    5. Testing for steroid use should be a part of the drug testing program. You know damn well, many police officers "bulk up" with the "help" of steroids. Steroids also affect users mentally as well, making them more aggressive. The potential for abuse of citizens increases greatly with steroid use.
    6. Internal affairs should only be used for disagreements between individual officers--NOT for investigations involving citizen abuse. State-level investigations should be mandatory for all suspected abuses involving citizens.
    7. Prosecutors should be charged with malfeasance IF any evidence implicating police officer misconduct is not presented to the grand jury.
    8. A national or state-by-state database of abusive individuals who should NEVER be allowed to perform police work should be established--a "blacklist" of abusive (former) police officers.
    9. Most people are unaware that police have special "rules" that prohibit them from being questioned for 48 hours. This allows them to "get their stories straight" and makes it easier to "cover up" bad police behavior. Police must be subject to the same laws as civilians.
    10. All police should be required to wear bodycams and utilize dashcams that cannot be turned off. Any police officers who causes a dash or body cam to be turned off should be summarily fired--no excuses. Today's body and dash cams are reliable enough to withstand harsh treatment. Body and dashcam footage should be uploaded to a public channel "on the cloud" for public perusal.
    11. All interrogations must be video and audio recorded. Police should be prohibited from lying or fabricating stories in order to get suspects to confess. False confessions ARE a problem in many departments. Unknown to most people, police can lie with impunity while civilians can be charged with lying to police...fair? I think not...
    12. Any legislation passed that restricts the rights of ordinary citizens, such as firearms magazine capacity limits, types of weapons allowed, or restrictive concealed-carry laws should apply equally to police. No special exemptions to be given to police. Laws must be equally applied.
    Police work is not inherently dangerous...there are many other professions that are much more dangerous.
    A little "Andy Taylor" could go a long way in allaying fears that citizens have of police.
    That being said, I have no problem with police officers who do their job in a fair, conscientious manner...however, it is time to call to task those police officers who only "protect and serve" themselves.

    I agree whole heartedly with you. Thin Blue Isis is the most dangerous and heavily armed gang in America. I blame much of the police brutality and lawlessness on the Israelification of American society and American police after September of 2001. There was a dramatic shift in their demeanor and tactics. Us vs Them. They are a standing army separate and isolated from the rest of America, with special privileges. Their main function is to extract revenue from the people. It’s time to put an end to that. No victim = No crime.

    You have many good ideas that if implemented would go a long way towards fixing the police lawlessness problem. I too would eliminate all forms of immunity for all police, prosecutors, judges and anyone else working for the state. Immunity shields them from responsibility and encourages lawlessness. I would hold them to a higher standard. If a cop, prosecutor or judge breaks the law I would make the penalty much harsher for them than for a citizen. If a prosecutor is found to have sent an innocent to prison, they can go to prison themselves. They can be held personally liable, not the taxpayer. No more immunity.

    No bond= no job. No more steroids. No more investigating themselves. They have proven to be dishonest and incapable of policing themselves. No more allowing police to lie or to extract false confessions. Again, I would make the penalty for a cop lying much greater than for a citizen lying.

    No more policing for profit. No more asset forfeiture. End prohibition and the drug war. No more caging Americans for violations of commerce like vehicle registration, license violations, selling lemonade or possessing a plant. It is time they started acting like peace officers instead of thugs and revenuers.

    No more swat teams kicking in doors. No more no knock raids. These are the tactics of terrorists. These tactics have no place in a free society.

    Police work is not dangerous. It’s time we stopped pampering them. No more groveling and bootlicking. They are not special snowflakes. No more thin blue line.

    There are too many low IQ, authoritarian cops who do not know the codes they’re supposed to be enforcing. They should know the difference between law and commerce. It’s time to screen for smarter, more honest, less authoritarian people who know how to de-escalate a situation instead of barking commands at people. Their low IQ thug mentality and Israeli brutality training makes them a danger to us all.

    If they cannot or will not reform, then they should be abolished. Police in their current form have no place in a free society.

    Thank you for your excellent comment.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
    Here's more...

    Here is a guest article that deserves the light of day:

    No One Cares If You Go Home Safe At The End Of Your Shift
    Jan 02, 201812:50AM
    Category: Politics
    Posted by: Michael Z. Williamson

    Here at the house, I have a couple of decades plus of military experience. I have tools to dig in or out of natural disasters. I have extinguishers and hoses. I have a field trauma kit and bandages. I have weapons both melee and firearm. I know how to use them. I know how to trench, support and revet. I understand the fire triangle and appropriate approaches. I understand breathing, bleeding and shock. I know how to detain, restrain and control. I have done all of these at least occasionally, professionally. I've stood on top of a collapsing levee in a flood. I've fought a structure fire from inside so we could get everyone out before the fire department showed up, which only took two minutes, but people can die that fast. I've had structures collapse while I was working on them. I've been in an aircraft that had a "mechanical" on approach and had to be repaired in-flight before landing. I've helped control a brush fire. I've hauled disabled vehicles out of ditches in sub-zero weather.

    My ex wife has over a decade of service and some of the same training.

    We have trained our young adult children.

    My wife is a rancher who knows her way around a shotgun, livestock, sutures and tools, hurricanes and floods, and works in investigations professionally.

    Our current house guest is another veteran.

    This means if anything happens at the house, and last year we had a lightning strike, a tornado and a flood within 10 days' we're pretty well prepared.

    Now, we're probably better off than 95% of the households out there. The level of disaster that necessitates backup varies.

    If we find it necessary to call 911, it means the party is in progress and it's bad.

    You will probably not be going home safe at the end of your shift.

    And you know what? If it gets to that point, I really don't give a shit. I don't give a shit if you get smoked. I don't give a shit if you fall under a tree. I don't give a shit if you get shot at.

    Because at that point, I've done everything I can with that same circumstance, and run out of resources.

    If my concern was "you going home safe," then I'd just fucking hunker down and die. Because I wouldn't want that poor responder to endanger himself.

    Except, that's what I pay taxes for, and that's what you signed up for. Just like I signed up to walk into a potential nuke war in Germany and hold off the Soviets, and did walk into the Middle East and prepare to take fire while keeping expensive equipment functioning so our shooters could keep shooting.

    There's not a single set of orders I got that said my primary job was to "Come home safe." They said it was to "support the mission" or "complete the objective." Coming home safe was the ideal outcome, but entirely secondary to "supporting" or "completing." Nor, once that started, did I get a choice to quit. Once in, all in.

    When that 80 year old lady smells smoke or hears a noise outside her first floor bedroom in the ghetto, she doesn't care if you go home safe, either. She's afraid she or the kids next door won't wake up in the morning.

    If I call, I expect your ass to show up, sober, trained, professional. I expect you to wade in with me or in place of me, and drag a child out of a hole, or out from a burning room, or actually stand up and block bullets from hitting said child, because by the time you get there, I'll have already done all that. And there will be field dressings, chainsawed trees, buckets and empty brass scattered about.

    I don't want to hear some drunk and confused guy squirming on the ground playing "Simon Says" terrified you so much you had to blow him away. I don't want to hear that some random guy 35 yards away who you had no actual information on , may have reached toward his waist band. Or that "the tree might fall any moment" or that "the smoke makes it hard to see."

    Near as I can tell, I don't hear the smokejumpers, or the firefighters, or the disaster rescue people say such things.

    But it's all I ever hear from the cops. If you and your five girlfriends in body armor, with rifles, are that terrified of actually risking your life for the theoretically dangerous job you volunteered for and can quit any time, then please do quit.

    You can get a job doing pest control and go home safe every night.

    Until a bunch of fucking pussies with big tattoos, small dicks, body armor and guns blow you away for minding your own business.

    Because what you're telling me with that statement is, your only concern is cashing a check. That's fine. But if that's your concern, don't pretend you're serving the public. If you wanted to help people at risk of life, you would be a firefighter, running into buildings, dragging people out, getting scorched regularly.

    If you're cool with writing tickets, then there's jobs where you can do just that.

    If you want to tangle with bad guys and blow them away, fair enough. But understand: That means they get to shoot first to prove their intent, just as happens with the military these days. Our ROE these days are usually "only if fired upon and no civilians are at risk."

    If your plan is "shoot first, shoot later, shoot some more, then if anyone is still alive try to ask questions," and bleat, "But I was afeard fer mah lahf!" you're absolutely no better than the thugs you claim to oppose. All you are is another combatant in a turf war I don't care about.

    Since I know your primary concern is "being safe," then I'll do you the favor of not calling. Cash your welfare check, and try not to shoot me at a "courtesy" sobriety checkpoint for "twitching my eye "in a way that suggested range estimation.

    If you're one of the vanishingly few cops who isn't like that, then what the hell are you doing about it? If there's going to be a lawsuit costing the city millions, isn't it better that it be a labor suit from the union over the clown you fired, than a wrongful death suit over the poor bastard the clown shot? Both are expensive, but one has a dead victim you enabled. So how much do you actually care about that life?

    How is the training so bad that it's not clear who is the scene commander who gives the orders?

    How is it that trigger happy bozos who, out of costume, look no different from the gangbangers you claim to oppose, get sent up front to fulfill their wish of hosing someone down because "I was afraid for my life!"?

    Why does the rot exist in your department?

    If you can't do anything about it, why are you still in that department?

    At some point, collective guilt is a thing.

    You've probably not been a good cop for a long time.

    And I still don't care if you go home safe. I care that everyone you purport to "serve and protect" goes home safe.
    , @anarchyst
    At the risk of alienating some police officers and their supporters, the "Black Lives Matter" movement DOES have a point, although some of the examples of police brutality that they promote as unjustified actually were justifiable.

    Blacks and Whites have totally different attitudes toward police.

    Blacks look at police as occupiers and oppressors while Whites look at police as protectors, despite the fact that MORE Whites are unjustifiably murdered by police than Blacks.

    Add to the fact, that innocent Blacks ARE rousted by police with much greater frequency, utilizing unconstitutional "stop and frisk" procedures, which are allowed in many jurisdictions; one can easily see that their resentment is justified.

    The problem arises when a "critical mass" of citizens starts to act against what they see as police brutality. It will not help the situation when "good" police officers are attacked, as those who are aggrieved will see only the uniform, and not the police officer wearing it.

    "Blowback" is something that ALL police departments should be concerned about as it will affect ALL of their police officers, as well as all of us citizens, not just the "bad apples".

    TRUST of the community toward police officers must be EARNED, not demanded, as some police departments expect. Demanding instant and immediate "compliance" (utilizing israeli training and military tactics) based on fear NEVER works, is counterproductive, and is responsible for the unnecessary, unjustified murders of citizens by police officers.

    Blaming police shootings on an "adrenaline rush" is never an excuse. "Poor training" is also never an excuse.

    What is needed is a "Bill of Rights" that police officers will adhere to, when interacting with citizens, as police power is extensive, and is easily abused:

    1. We will treat all citizens with respect; we expect to receive the same respect in return.

    2. We will not enforce blatantly unconstitutional laws and statutes.

    3. We will not abide by department and political citation "ticket quotas" when enforcing traffic laws.

    4. We will not execute unconstitutional "asset forfeiture" warrants or practices

    5. We will not execute warrants at night or with SWAT teams unless immediate loss of life is evident.

    6. We will not enforce CPS and building code violations as they are administrative in nature.

    7. We will treat mentally challenged citizens with care utilizing specially trained officers.

    8. We will adhere to and abide by ALL laws that are expected of ordinary citizens-no police "carve outs" or "special treatment".

    9. We will not use "professional courtesy" to avoid sanctions for unlawful behavior by police officers.

    10. We will utilize and require the use of body and dash cams 100% of the time.

    11. We consider ourselves to be a part of the community; there is no place for an "us vs. them" attitude.

    12. You are our employer; we will take all complaints seriously and act on them honestly with all deliberate speed.

    Of course, there are police departments and officers that will object to some of the suggestions in the "Bill of Rights", but that is to be expected.

    Please feel free to disseminate this "Bill of Rights"...

  40. @Adam Smith
    I agree whole heartedly with you. Thin Blue Isis is the most dangerous and heavily armed gang in America. I blame much of the police brutality and lawlessness on the Israelification of American society and American police after September of 2001. There was a dramatic shift in their demeanor and tactics. Us vs Them. They are a standing army separate and isolated from the rest of America, with special privileges. Their main function is to extract revenue from the people. It's time to put an end to that. No victim = No crime.

    You have many good ideas that if implemented would go a long way towards fixing the police lawlessness problem. I too would eliminate all forms of immunity for all police, prosecutors, judges and anyone else working for the state. Immunity shields them from responsibility and encourages lawlessness. I would hold them to a higher standard. If a cop, prosecutor or judge breaks the law I would make the penalty much harsher for them than for a citizen. If a prosecutor is found to have sent an innocent to prison, they can go to prison themselves. They can be held personally liable, not the taxpayer. No more immunity.

    No bond= no job. No more steroids. No more investigating themselves. They have proven to be dishonest and incapable of policing themselves. No more allowing police to lie or to extract false confessions. Again, I would make the penalty for a cop lying much greater than for a citizen lying.

    No more policing for profit. No more asset forfeiture. End prohibition and the drug war. No more caging Americans for violations of commerce like vehicle registration, license violations, selling lemonade or possessing a plant. It is time they started acting like peace officers instead of thugs and revenuers.

    No more swat teams kicking in doors. No more no knock raids. These are the tactics of terrorists. These tactics have no place in a free society.

    Police work is not dangerous. It's time we stopped pampering them. No more groveling and bootlicking. They are not special snowflakes. No more thin blue line.

    There are too many low IQ, authoritarian cops who do not know the codes they're supposed to be enforcing. They should know the difference between law and commerce. It's time to screen for smarter, more honest, less authoritarian people who know how to de-escalate a situation instead of barking commands at people. Their low IQ thug mentality and Israeli brutality training makes them a danger to us all.

    If they cannot or will not reform, then they should be abolished. Police in their current form have no place in a free society.

    Thank you for your excellent comment.

    Here’s more…

    Here is a guest article that deserves the light of day:

    No One Cares If You Go Home Safe At The End Of Your Shift
    Jan 02, 201812:50AM
    Category: Politics
    Posted by: Michael Z. Williamson

    Here at the house, I have a couple of decades plus of military experience. I have tools to dig in or out of natural disasters. I have extinguishers and hoses. I have a field trauma kit and bandages. I have weapons both melee and firearm. I know how to use them. I know how to trench, support and revet. I understand the fire triangle and appropriate approaches. I understand breathing, bleeding and shock. I know how to detain, restrain and control. I have done all of these at least occasionally, professionally. I’ve stood on top of a collapsing levee in a flood. I’ve fought a structure fire from inside so we could get everyone out before the fire department showed up, which only took two minutes, but people can die that fast. I’ve had structures collapse while I was working on them. I’ve been in an aircraft that had a “mechanical” on approach and had to be repaired in-flight before landing. I’ve helped control a brush fire. I’ve hauled disabled vehicles out of ditches in sub-zero weather.

    My ex wife has over a decade of service and some of the same training.

    We have trained our young adult children.

    My wife is a rancher who knows her way around a shotgun, livestock, sutures and tools, hurricanes and floods, and works in investigations professionally.

    Our current house guest is another veteran.

    This means if anything happens at the house, and last year we had a lightning strike, a tornado and a flood within 10 days’ we’re pretty well prepared.

    Now, we’re probably better off than 95% of the households out there. The level of disaster that necessitates backup varies.

    If we find it necessary to call 911, it means the party is in progress and it’s bad.

    You will probably not be going home safe at the end of your shift.

    And you know what? If it gets to that point, I really don’t give a shit. I don’t give a shit if you get smoked. I don’t give a shit if you fall under a tree. I don’t give a shit if you get shot at.

    Because at that point, I’ve done everything I can with that same circumstance, and run out of resources.

    If my concern was “you going home safe,” then I’d just fucking hunker down and die. Because I wouldn’t want that poor responder to endanger himself.

    Except, that’s what I pay taxes for, and that’s what you signed up for. Just like I signed up to walk into a potential nuke war in Germany and hold off the Soviets, and did walk into the Middle East and prepare to take fire while keeping expensive equipment functioning so our shooters could keep shooting.

    There’s not a single set of orders I got that said my primary job was to “Come home safe.” They said it was to “support the mission” or “complete the objective.” Coming home safe was the ideal outcome, but entirely secondary to “supporting” or “completing.” Nor, once that started, did I get a choice to quit. Once in, all in.

    When that 80 year old lady smells smoke or hears a noise outside her first floor bedroom in the ghetto, she doesn’t care if you go home safe, either. She’s afraid she or the kids next door won’t wake up in the morning.

    If I call, I expect your ass to show up, sober, trained, professional. I expect you to wade in with me or in place of me, and drag a child out of a hole, or out from a burning room, or actually stand up and block bullets from hitting said child, because by the time you get there, I’ll have already done all that. And there will be field dressings, chainsawed trees, buckets and empty brass scattered about.

    I don’t want to hear some drunk and confused guy squirming on the ground playing “Simon Says” terrified you so much you had to blow him away. I don’t want to hear that some random guy 35 yards away who you had no actual information on , may have reached toward his waist band. Or that “the tree might fall any moment” or that “the smoke makes it hard to see.”

    Near as I can tell, I don’t hear the smokejumpers, or the firefighters, or the disaster rescue people say such things.

    But it’s all I ever hear from the cops. If you and your five girlfriends in body armor, with rifles, are that terrified of actually risking your life for the theoretically dangerous job you volunteered for and can quit any time, then please do quit.

    You can get a job doing pest control and go home safe every night.

    Until a bunch of fucking pussies with big tattoos, small dicks, body armor and guns blow you away for minding your own business.

    Because what you’re telling me with that statement is, your only concern is cashing a check. That’s fine. But if that’s your concern, don’t pretend you’re serving the public. If you wanted to help people at risk of life, you would be a firefighter, running into buildings, dragging people out, getting scorched regularly.

    If you’re cool with writing tickets, then there’s jobs where you can do just that.

    If you want to tangle with bad guys and blow them away, fair enough. But understand: That means they get to shoot first to prove their intent, just as happens with the military these days. Our ROE these days are usually “only if fired upon and no civilians are at risk.”

    If your plan is “shoot first, shoot later, shoot some more, then if anyone is still alive try to ask questions,” and bleat, “But I was afeard fer mah lahf!” you’re absolutely no better than the thugs you claim to oppose. All you are is another combatant in a turf war I don’t care about.

    Since I know your primary concern is “being safe,” then I’ll do you the favor of not calling. Cash your welfare check, and try not to shoot me at a “courtesy” sobriety checkpoint for “twitching my eye “in a way that suggested range estimation.

    If you’re one of the vanishingly few cops who isn’t like that, then what the hell are you doing about it? If there’s going to be a lawsuit costing the city millions, isn’t it better that it be a labor suit from the union over the clown you fired, than a wrongful death suit over the poor bastard the clown shot? Both are expensive, but one has a dead victim you enabled. So how much do you actually care about that life?

    How is the training so bad that it’s not clear who is the scene commander who gives the orders?

    How is it that trigger happy bozos who, out of costume, look no different from the gangbangers you claim to oppose, get sent up front to fulfill their wish of hosing someone down because “I was afraid for my life!”?

    Why does the rot exist in your department?

    If you can’t do anything about it, why are you still in that department?

    At some point, collective guilt is a thing.

    You’ve probably not been a good cop for a long time.

    And I still don’t care if you go home safe. I care that everyone you purport to “serve and protect” goes home safe.

    • Replies: @Adam Smith
    I read that a while back. Fun stuff.

    It gets to the point of the "we go home safe at night, even if you don't" attitude most cops have.

    Bark commands and escalate the violence.

    Don't make any sudden movements and do exactly as your told and you might not get hurt or killed.

    I think some of it is poor training. They really pump the fear into them. Cops are taught to fear everyone. No wonders they are such twitchy cowards. We are all suspects and potential cops killers in their jaded view. I think some of it is low IQ. I think some of it is authoritarian personality disorder. They expect everyone to obey when they start barking orders. It's a toxic mix and I'm surprised that more people don't get killed by Thin Blue Isis.

    I live in a sleepy little mountain town. The population of the county is about 25,000. Much like where you live we have produce stands with honor system payment. Very safe here. 99% white.

    I thought we were pretty well insulated from police violence. But alas, in the last few months we had two different comply or die style cop killings. Failure to obey.

    On the first one they sent a rookie cop to a domestic violence situation and the man had a knife. Six seconds later, no joke, we know from the bodycam that the whole encounter took six seconds, the kid pulls his gun and kills him. Failure to obey.

    The Sheriff asked the community for thoughts and prayers.

    The second man killed by cops encounter involved a drunk guy the cops ambushed because he had a warrant in the next county. They saw his car parked in town and decided to wait for him. He was drinking at a local bar. When he got back to his car about a dozen cops confronted him, and unfortunately for him he didn't obey fast enough.

    All the cops went home to their families that night.

    Never call the cops. That's how people get killed.
  41. @Adam Smith
    I agree whole heartedly with you. Thin Blue Isis is the most dangerous and heavily armed gang in America. I blame much of the police brutality and lawlessness on the Israelification of American society and American police after September of 2001. There was a dramatic shift in their demeanor and tactics. Us vs Them. They are a standing army separate and isolated from the rest of America, with special privileges. Their main function is to extract revenue from the people. It's time to put an end to that. No victim = No crime.

    You have many good ideas that if implemented would go a long way towards fixing the police lawlessness problem. I too would eliminate all forms of immunity for all police, prosecutors, judges and anyone else working for the state. Immunity shields them from responsibility and encourages lawlessness. I would hold them to a higher standard. If a cop, prosecutor or judge breaks the law I would make the penalty much harsher for them than for a citizen. If a prosecutor is found to have sent an innocent to prison, they can go to prison themselves. They can be held personally liable, not the taxpayer. No more immunity.

    No bond= no job. No more steroids. No more investigating themselves. They have proven to be dishonest and incapable of policing themselves. No more allowing police to lie or to extract false confessions. Again, I would make the penalty for a cop lying much greater than for a citizen lying.

    No more policing for profit. No more asset forfeiture. End prohibition and the drug war. No more caging Americans for violations of commerce like vehicle registration, license violations, selling lemonade or possessing a plant. It is time they started acting like peace officers instead of thugs and revenuers.

    No more swat teams kicking in doors. No more no knock raids. These are the tactics of terrorists. These tactics have no place in a free society.

    Police work is not dangerous. It's time we stopped pampering them. No more groveling and bootlicking. They are not special snowflakes. No more thin blue line.

    There are too many low IQ, authoritarian cops who do not know the codes they're supposed to be enforcing. They should know the difference between law and commerce. It's time to screen for smarter, more honest, less authoritarian people who know how to de-escalate a situation instead of barking commands at people. Their low IQ thug mentality and Israeli brutality training makes them a danger to us all.

    If they cannot or will not reform, then they should be abolished. Police in their current form have no place in a free society.

    Thank you for your excellent comment.

    At the risk of alienating some police officers and their supporters, the “Black Lives Matter” movement DOES have a point, although some of the examples of police brutality that they promote as unjustified actually were justifiable.

    Blacks and Whites have totally different attitudes toward police.

    Blacks look at police as occupiers and oppressors while Whites look at police as protectors, despite the fact that MORE Whites are unjustifiably murdered by police than Blacks.

    Add to the fact, that innocent Blacks ARE rousted by police with much greater frequency, utilizing unconstitutional “stop and frisk” procedures, which are allowed in many jurisdictions; one can easily see that their resentment is justified.

    The problem arises when a “critical mass” of citizens starts to act against what they see as police brutality. It will not help the situation when “good” police officers are attacked, as those who are aggrieved will see only the uniform, and not the police officer wearing it.

    “Blowback” is something that ALL police departments should be concerned about as it will affect ALL of their police officers, as well as all of us citizens, not just the “bad apples”.

    TRUST of the community toward police officers must be EARNED, not demanded, as some police departments expect. Demanding instant and immediate “compliance” (utilizing israeli training and military tactics) based on fear NEVER works, is counterproductive, and is responsible for the unnecessary, unjustified murders of citizens by police officers.

    Blaming police shootings on an “adrenaline rush” is never an excuse. “Poor training” is also never an excuse.

    What is needed is a “Bill of Rights” that police officers will adhere to, when interacting with citizens, as police power is extensive, and is easily abused:

    1. We will treat all citizens with respect; we expect to receive the same respect in return.

    2. We will not enforce blatantly unconstitutional laws and statutes.

    3. We will not abide by department and political citation “ticket quotas” when enforcing traffic laws.

    4. We will not execute unconstitutional “asset forfeiture” warrants or practices

    5. We will not execute warrants at night or with SWAT teams unless immediate loss of life is evident.

    6. We will not enforce CPS and building code violations as they are administrative in nature.

    7. We will treat mentally challenged citizens with care utilizing specially trained officers.

    8. We will adhere to and abide by ALL laws that are expected of ordinary citizens-no police “carve outs” or “special treatment”.

    9. We will not use “professional courtesy” to avoid sanctions for unlawful behavior by police officers.

    10. We will utilize and require the use of body and dash cams 100% of the time.

    11. We consider ourselves to be a part of the community; there is no place for an “us vs. them” attitude.

    12. You are our employer; we will take all complaints seriously and act on them honestly with all deliberate speed.

    Of course, there are police departments and officers that will object to some of the suggestions in the “Bill of Rights”, but that is to be expected.

    Please feel free to disseminate this “Bill of Rights”…

    • Replies: @Adam Smith

    Blacks look at police as occupiers and oppressors while Whites look at police as protectors, despite the fact that MORE Whites are unjustifiably murdered by police than Blacks.
     
    I read some stats awhile back that said blacks are more likely to have police encounters because their neighborhoods tend to have more police presence. However, once an interaction with police happens, it doesn't matter if you're black or white, the risk of violence from the cop is about the same. It's true that per capita they kill more blacks, but in sheer numbers they kill more whites.

    A study, conducted by a team of researchers from Rutgers University, the University of Michigan, and Washington University in St. Louis found that fatal police violence is a leading cause of death for young men in America.

    Another startling statistic few notice is how many people are hospitalized by police. Admittedly it is less sensational than being killed by police, thus less likely to make headlines.

    About 55,000 Americans are hospitalized by police each year. It's getting so out of hand that the American Academy of Family Physicians voted to accept a resolution stating that excessive use of force by police is a public health threat in 2015. In November of 2018 The American Public Health Association overwhelmingly approved a statement recognizing law enforcement violence as a public health issue. These are not radical groups.

    It would be great if they would adopt a "Bill of Rights" like the one you propose.

    Unfortunately they have their own "Bill of Rights" and it is very different than yours.
  42. @EliteCommInc.
    This was an interesting poll, but I am unaware of a press to get rid of the police. Better policing methods, but I am not aware of any large push to get rid of the police.


    However, the biggest deterrent to crime is effective parenting coupled with effective neighborhoods that reinforce sound practices of "good behavior" for lack of a better word.

    There are DSA candidates running on exactly that–abolishing the police. Not just ICE–the entire thing, the POLICE!

  43. @dfordoom

    I think the data sets on crime trends is accurate.
     
    Long term statistics on crime have to be approached with extreme caution. Definitions of particular offences can change over time. For example definitions of sexual assault have in some countries changed quite radically.

    Policing approaches to certain crimes change over time - the police can simply stop enforcing laws, as they stopped enforcing the drug laws in Australia in the 70s. Or the police can start taking a much more zealous approach to crimes that they previously often ignored.

    You also have to make sure that your data sets are consistent - are they counting reported offences, or only those that resulted in prosecutions, or only those that resulted in convictions?

    The courts also change their approach radically over time, sometimes simply dismissing cases that a few decades earlier would have led to serious prison time.

    And of course governments can deliberately manipulate the statistics (by making use of any of the methods listed above) to make the statistics look more favourable.

    I'm not suggesting that the fall in crime rates isn't necessarily real, it probably is real, but it's always wise to be a bit sceptical about any official statistics.

    Homicides are the the most reliable indicator of violent crime rates over time. It’s hard to hide dead bodies.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Homicides are the the most reliable indicator of violent crime rates over time. It’s hard to hide dead bodies.
     
    Not necessarily. These days lots of people survive gunshot wounds that would have been guaranteed fatal half a century ago. So today these crimes are not murder because the victim survives, even though in the past they would have been homicides. That's one reason homicide rates have declined.

    You also have to ensure that homicide rates are calculated in the same way. Are all reported homicides being counted, or only those that result in prosecutions or convictions? In some cases it's easier to get a conviction today due to things like DNA evidence.

    You also need to be sure that there haven't been changes in the classification of killings from murder to manslaughter.

    Do the figures include only wilful murder (or first degree murder for Americans) or do they include manslaughter? How many killings by cops don't get counted as murder because when cops kill someone they almost never get charged with murder even when they have clearly committed murder.

    Do the figures include vehicular homicide? Have the figures always included that category?

    Look I agree that crime rates have probably declined but statistics are very slippery things. They can be made to say the exact opposite of the truth, either intentionally or by sloppy or inconsistent statistical methods. Governments have a massive vested interest in convincing us that crime rates have plummeted. Maybe they have plummeted. But don't put too much faith in official statistics.
  44. @Audacious Epigone
    Homicides are the the most reliable indicator of violent crime rates over time. It's hard to hide dead bodies.

    Homicides are the the most reliable indicator of violent crime rates over time. It’s hard to hide dead bodies.

    Not necessarily. These days lots of people survive gunshot wounds that would have been guaranteed fatal half a century ago. So today these crimes are not murder because the victim survives, even though in the past they would have been homicides. That’s one reason homicide rates have declined.

    You also have to ensure that homicide rates are calculated in the same way. Are all reported homicides being counted, or only those that result in prosecutions or convictions? In some cases it’s easier to get a conviction today due to things like DNA evidence.

    You also need to be sure that there haven’t been changes in the classification of killings from murder to manslaughter.

    Do the figures include only wilful murder (or first degree murder for Americans) or do they include manslaughter? How many killings by cops don’t get counted as murder because when cops kill someone they almost never get charged with murder even when they have clearly committed murder.

    Do the figures include vehicular homicide? Have the figures always included that category?

    Look I agree that crime rates have probably declined but statistics are very slippery things. They can be made to say the exact opposite of the truth, either intentionally or by sloppy or inconsistent statistical methods. Governments have a massive vested interest in convincing us that crime rates have plummeted. Maybe they have plummeted. But don’t put too much faith in official statistics.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  45. @res

    Crime in America has been decreasing for the past 45 years though.
     
    45 years is an odd period to make that claim. The trend is clear for the past 30 years (well, until the last few), but the 15 years before that were mixed. And before that there was a steady increase in crime rate from a low around 1960.

    Some data from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Homicide_rates1900-2001.jpg

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-aGokZQuNc_U/VVyNw2XviEI/AAAAAAAAW2E/RY-qS8aHyNo/s320/500px-Property_Crime_Rates_in_the_United_States.svg-761614.png


    Police presence is also decreasing.
     
    What makes you say that? This document has data on police numbers reported to the FBI UCR from 1992-2012:
    https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/nsleed.pdf

    Some sample total full time officers per 1,000 US residents data from Table 1. Years selected to match presidential election years because I think that makes some interesting points. I would like to see the 2013-2019 data for comparison.

    1992 3.05
    1996 3.32
    2000 3.46
    2004 3.55
    2008 3.62
    2012 3.43

    That hardly looks like a decrease to me. Interesting how the ramp up in police seems to coincide with the big decrease in crime from 1990 to 2012.

    P.S. 2017 data available at https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/police-employee-data


    Nationwide, the rate of sworn officers was 2.4 per 1,000 inhabitants. The rate of full-time law enforcement employees (civilian and sworn) per 1,000 inhabitants was 3.4. (Based on Table 74.)
     
    So essentially the same (3.43 vs. 3.4) as in 2012. Interesting that the depolicing happened during Obama's first term (not the second). I guess they focused on getting the remaining police to back off during the second.

    2016 was similar: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/police-employees

    You mean 3.43 vs 2.4. Civilian LE employees aren’t cops.

    Census resident data doesn’t count most illegal aliens, either.

    • Replies: @res

    You mean 3.43 vs 2.4. Civilian LE employees aren’t cops.
     
    You are comparing apples and oranges (maybe work on your reading comprehension?). Look at the data for the same category across the years.

    So let's look at sworn officers. The article and graph I linked include civilians which is why I used those numbers, but the PDF and FBI data break out sworn officers as well.

    1992 2.23
    1996 2.38
    2000 2.45
    2004 2.48
    2008 2.51
    2012 2.39

    So an increase there as well until Obama. Don't you get tired of being wrong?

    Census resident data doesn’t count most illegal aliens, either.
     
    "most" is an interesting word choice. Do you have any actual numbers? Because they try to:
    https://www.census.gov/population/apportionment/about/faq.html#Q16
    https://cis.org/Report/Impact-Legal-and-Illegal-Immigration-Apportionment-Seats-US-House-Representatives-2020
  46. @anarchyst
    Here's more...

    Here is a guest article that deserves the light of day:

    No One Cares If You Go Home Safe At The End Of Your Shift
    Jan 02, 201812:50AM
    Category: Politics
    Posted by: Michael Z. Williamson

    Here at the house, I have a couple of decades plus of military experience. I have tools to dig in or out of natural disasters. I have extinguishers and hoses. I have a field trauma kit and bandages. I have weapons both melee and firearm. I know how to use them. I know how to trench, support and revet. I understand the fire triangle and appropriate approaches. I understand breathing, bleeding and shock. I know how to detain, restrain and control. I have done all of these at least occasionally, professionally. I've stood on top of a collapsing levee in a flood. I've fought a structure fire from inside so we could get everyone out before the fire department showed up, which only took two minutes, but people can die that fast. I've had structures collapse while I was working on them. I've been in an aircraft that had a "mechanical" on approach and had to be repaired in-flight before landing. I've helped control a brush fire. I've hauled disabled vehicles out of ditches in sub-zero weather.

    My ex wife has over a decade of service and some of the same training.

    We have trained our young adult children.

    My wife is a rancher who knows her way around a shotgun, livestock, sutures and tools, hurricanes and floods, and works in investigations professionally.

    Our current house guest is another veteran.

    This means if anything happens at the house, and last year we had a lightning strike, a tornado and a flood within 10 days' we're pretty well prepared.

    Now, we're probably better off than 95% of the households out there. The level of disaster that necessitates backup varies.

    If we find it necessary to call 911, it means the party is in progress and it's bad.

    You will probably not be going home safe at the end of your shift.

    And you know what? If it gets to that point, I really don't give a shit. I don't give a shit if you get smoked. I don't give a shit if you fall under a tree. I don't give a shit if you get shot at.

    Because at that point, I've done everything I can with that same circumstance, and run out of resources.

    If my concern was "you going home safe," then I'd just fucking hunker down and die. Because I wouldn't want that poor responder to endanger himself.

    Except, that's what I pay taxes for, and that's what you signed up for. Just like I signed up to walk into a potential nuke war in Germany and hold off the Soviets, and did walk into the Middle East and prepare to take fire while keeping expensive equipment functioning so our shooters could keep shooting.

    There's not a single set of orders I got that said my primary job was to "Come home safe." They said it was to "support the mission" or "complete the objective." Coming home safe was the ideal outcome, but entirely secondary to "supporting" or "completing." Nor, once that started, did I get a choice to quit. Once in, all in.

    When that 80 year old lady smells smoke or hears a noise outside her first floor bedroom in the ghetto, she doesn't care if you go home safe, either. She's afraid she or the kids next door won't wake up in the morning.

    If I call, I expect your ass to show up, sober, trained, professional. I expect you to wade in with me or in place of me, and drag a child out of a hole, or out from a burning room, or actually stand up and block bullets from hitting said child, because by the time you get there, I'll have already done all that. And there will be field dressings, chainsawed trees, buckets and empty brass scattered about.

    I don't want to hear some drunk and confused guy squirming on the ground playing "Simon Says" terrified you so much you had to blow him away. I don't want to hear that some random guy 35 yards away who you had no actual information on , may have reached toward his waist band. Or that "the tree might fall any moment" or that "the smoke makes it hard to see."

    Near as I can tell, I don't hear the smokejumpers, or the firefighters, or the disaster rescue people say such things.

    But it's all I ever hear from the cops. If you and your five girlfriends in body armor, with rifles, are that terrified of actually risking your life for the theoretically dangerous job you volunteered for and can quit any time, then please do quit.

    You can get a job doing pest control and go home safe every night.

    Until a bunch of fucking pussies with big tattoos, small dicks, body armor and guns blow you away for minding your own business.

    Because what you're telling me with that statement is, your only concern is cashing a check. That's fine. But if that's your concern, don't pretend you're serving the public. If you wanted to help people at risk of life, you would be a firefighter, running into buildings, dragging people out, getting scorched regularly.

    If you're cool with writing tickets, then there's jobs where you can do just that.

    If you want to tangle with bad guys and blow them away, fair enough. But understand: That means they get to shoot first to prove their intent, just as happens with the military these days. Our ROE these days are usually "only if fired upon and no civilians are at risk."

    If your plan is "shoot first, shoot later, shoot some more, then if anyone is still alive try to ask questions," and bleat, "But I was afeard fer mah lahf!" you're absolutely no better than the thugs you claim to oppose. All you are is another combatant in a turf war I don't care about.

    Since I know your primary concern is "being safe," then I'll do you the favor of not calling. Cash your welfare check, and try not to shoot me at a "courtesy" sobriety checkpoint for "twitching my eye "in a way that suggested range estimation.

    If you're one of the vanishingly few cops who isn't like that, then what the hell are you doing about it? If there's going to be a lawsuit costing the city millions, isn't it better that it be a labor suit from the union over the clown you fired, than a wrongful death suit over the poor bastard the clown shot? Both are expensive, but one has a dead victim you enabled. So how much do you actually care about that life?

    How is the training so bad that it's not clear who is the scene commander who gives the orders?

    How is it that trigger happy bozos who, out of costume, look no different from the gangbangers you claim to oppose, get sent up front to fulfill their wish of hosing someone down because "I was afraid for my life!"?

    Why does the rot exist in your department?

    If you can't do anything about it, why are you still in that department?

    At some point, collective guilt is a thing.

    You've probably not been a good cop for a long time.

    And I still don't care if you go home safe. I care that everyone you purport to "serve and protect" goes home safe.

    I read that a while back. Fun stuff.

    It gets to the point of the “we go home safe at night, even if you don’t” attitude most cops have.

    Bark commands and escalate the violence.

    Don’t make any sudden movements and do exactly as your told and you might not get hurt or killed.

    I think some of it is poor training. They really pump the fear into them. Cops are taught to fear everyone. No wonders they are such twitchy cowards. We are all suspects and potential cops killers in their jaded view. I think some of it is low IQ. I think some of it is authoritarian personality disorder. They expect everyone to obey when they start barking orders. It’s a toxic mix and I’m surprised that more people don’t get killed by Thin Blue Isis.

    I live in a sleepy little mountain town. The population of the county is about 25,000. Much like where you live we have produce stands with honor system payment. Very safe here. 99% white.

    I thought we were pretty well insulated from police violence. But alas, in the last few months we had two different comply or die style cop killings. Failure to obey.

    On the first one they sent a rookie cop to a domestic violence situation and the man had a knife. Six seconds later, no joke, we know from the bodycam that the whole encounter took six seconds, the kid pulls his gun and kills him. Failure to obey.

    The Sheriff asked the community for thoughts and prayers.

    The second man killed by cops encounter involved a drunk guy the cops ambushed because he had a warrant in the next county. They saw his car parked in town and decided to wait for him. He was drinking at a local bar. When he got back to his car about a dozen cops confronted him, and unfortunately for him he didn’t obey fast enough.

    All the cops went home to their families that night.

    Never call the cops. That’s how people get killed.

  47. @anarchyst
    At the risk of alienating some police officers and their supporters, the "Black Lives Matter" movement DOES have a point, although some of the examples of police brutality that they promote as unjustified actually were justifiable.

    Blacks and Whites have totally different attitudes toward police.

    Blacks look at police as occupiers and oppressors while Whites look at police as protectors, despite the fact that MORE Whites are unjustifiably murdered by police than Blacks.

    Add to the fact, that innocent Blacks ARE rousted by police with much greater frequency, utilizing unconstitutional "stop and frisk" procedures, which are allowed in many jurisdictions; one can easily see that their resentment is justified.

    The problem arises when a "critical mass" of citizens starts to act against what they see as police brutality. It will not help the situation when "good" police officers are attacked, as those who are aggrieved will see only the uniform, and not the police officer wearing it.

    "Blowback" is something that ALL police departments should be concerned about as it will affect ALL of their police officers, as well as all of us citizens, not just the "bad apples".

    TRUST of the community toward police officers must be EARNED, not demanded, as some police departments expect. Demanding instant and immediate "compliance" (utilizing israeli training and military tactics) based on fear NEVER works, is counterproductive, and is responsible for the unnecessary, unjustified murders of citizens by police officers.

    Blaming police shootings on an "adrenaline rush" is never an excuse. "Poor training" is also never an excuse.

    What is needed is a "Bill of Rights" that police officers will adhere to, when interacting with citizens, as police power is extensive, and is easily abused:

    1. We will treat all citizens with respect; we expect to receive the same respect in return.

    2. We will not enforce blatantly unconstitutional laws and statutes.

    3. We will not abide by department and political citation "ticket quotas" when enforcing traffic laws.

    4. We will not execute unconstitutional "asset forfeiture" warrants or practices

    5. We will not execute warrants at night or with SWAT teams unless immediate loss of life is evident.

    6. We will not enforce CPS and building code violations as they are administrative in nature.

    7. We will treat mentally challenged citizens with care utilizing specially trained officers.

    8. We will adhere to and abide by ALL laws that are expected of ordinary citizens-no police "carve outs" or "special treatment".

    9. We will not use "professional courtesy" to avoid sanctions for unlawful behavior by police officers.

    10. We will utilize and require the use of body and dash cams 100% of the time.

    11. We consider ourselves to be a part of the community; there is no place for an "us vs. them" attitude.

    12. You are our employer; we will take all complaints seriously and act on them honestly with all deliberate speed.

    Of course, there are police departments and officers that will object to some of the suggestions in the "Bill of Rights", but that is to be expected.

    Please feel free to disseminate this "Bill of Rights"...

    Blacks look at police as occupiers and oppressors while Whites look at police as protectors, despite the fact that MORE Whites are unjustifiably murdered by police than Blacks.

    I read some stats awhile back that said blacks are more likely to have police encounters because their neighborhoods tend to have more police presence. However, once an interaction with police happens, it doesn’t matter if you’re black or white, the risk of violence from the cop is about the same. It’s true that per capita they kill more blacks, but in sheer numbers they kill more whites.

    A study, conducted by a team of researchers from Rutgers University, the University of Michigan, and Washington University in St. Louis found that fatal police violence is a leading cause of death for young men in America.

    Another startling statistic few notice is how many people are hospitalized by police. Admittedly it is less sensational than being killed by police, thus less likely to make headlines.

    About 55,000 Americans are hospitalized by police each year. It’s getting so out of hand that the American Academy of Family Physicians voted to accept a resolution stating that excessive use of force by police is a public health threat in 2015. In November of 2018 The American Public Health Association overwhelmingly approved a statement recognizing law enforcement violence as a public health issue. These are not radical groups.

    It would be great if they would adopt a “Bill of Rights” like the one you propose.

    Unfortunately they have their own “Bill of Rights” and it is very different than yours.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Deaths from police a leading cause of death?

    I'm incredulous. Do you have a source for that?
  48. “However, once an interaction with police happens, it doesn’t matter if you’re black or white, the risk of violence from the cop is about the same.”

    This seems a dubious press.

  49. “There are DSA candidates running on exactly that–abolishing the police. Not just ICE–the entire thing, the POLICE!”

    Hmmmm . . .

    I did not dispute the previous reference to this when it was put forward concerning the candidates in Chicago. And nothing has changed that would cause me to challenge the claim regarding candidates in Detroit.

    What I stated was that the likely reason for such advocacy, is that police presence incites more problems than it solves. That the mere presence of police causes tensions that lead to needless conflict. Again I have not looked at the candidacies of those in Detroit anymore than i looked at those in Chicago. I am going to continue to refrain from looking at those candidates arguments. In time I might just to see if I my analysis about why is correct.

    I did not state that the said candidates were not making that case against police presence. My comment was to why that might be the case.

    ——————————–

    When I was a kid my mom would tell me to stop looking at brother and get outside. She knew doggone well an d good that my presemnce was designed to incite an issue. And even when it wasn’t — she knew that it could — so her solution was

    “Get outside and play.” “Go to your own room” And lo and behold . . . said tensions were deescalated. Whether that will yield worse consequences is an issue for those communities.

    Laugh. Maybe they are onto something.

  50. @Adam Smith

    Blacks look at police as occupiers and oppressors while Whites look at police as protectors, despite the fact that MORE Whites are unjustifiably murdered by police than Blacks.
     
    I read some stats awhile back that said blacks are more likely to have police encounters because their neighborhoods tend to have more police presence. However, once an interaction with police happens, it doesn't matter if you're black or white, the risk of violence from the cop is about the same. It's true that per capita they kill more blacks, but in sheer numbers they kill more whites.

    A study, conducted by a team of researchers from Rutgers University, the University of Michigan, and Washington University in St. Louis found that fatal police violence is a leading cause of death for young men in America.

    Another startling statistic few notice is how many people are hospitalized by police. Admittedly it is less sensational than being killed by police, thus less likely to make headlines.

    About 55,000 Americans are hospitalized by police each year. It's getting so out of hand that the American Academy of Family Physicians voted to accept a resolution stating that excessive use of force by police is a public health threat in 2015. In November of 2018 The American Public Health Association overwhelmingly approved a statement recognizing law enforcement violence as a public health issue. These are not radical groups.

    It would be great if they would adopt a "Bill of Rights" like the one you propose.

    Unfortunately they have their own "Bill of Rights" and it is very different than yours.

    Deaths from police a leading cause of death?

    I’m incredulous. Do you have a source for that?

    • Replies: @res
    Remember that he specifically said for young men. I wouldn't take this source at face value, but it should make a decent starting point.
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/study-police-shootings-are-a-leading-cause-of-death-for-young-men

    Looking around some more, they are referring specifically to young black men--an important clarification.
    https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2019-08-15/police-shootings-are-a-leading-cause-of-death-for-black-men

    Here is a link to the underlying study: https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793
    , @Adam Smith
    Looks like @res already covered it...

    "A leading cause of death" not "The leading cause of death"

    1 in 1000 black men and 1 in 2000 men will be killed by police in their lifetime. 1 in 572 Americans will die in a car crash and 1 in 218,000 Americans will be killed by lightning in their lifetime.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/police-killings-are-sixth-leading-cause-death-among-young-men-n1041526

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/police-brutality-killing-shooting-death-us-study-rutgers-university-a9047066.html

    https://news.rutgers.edu/news/police-use-fatal-force-identified-leading-cause-death-young-men/20190729

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-police-killed-or-injured-more-than-55000-people-in-one-year-a7157321.html
  51. @JohnPlywood
    You mean 3.43 vs 2.4. Civilian LE employees aren't cops.

    Census resident data doesn't count most illegal aliens, either.

    You mean 3.43 vs 2.4. Civilian LE employees aren’t cops.

    You are comparing apples and oranges (maybe work on your reading comprehension?). Look at the data for the same category across the years.

    So let’s look at sworn officers. The article and graph I linked include civilians which is why I used those numbers, but the PDF and FBI data break out sworn officers as well.

    1992 2.23
    1996 2.38
    2000 2.45
    2004 2.48
    2008 2.51
    2012 2.39

    So an increase there as well until Obama. Don’t you get tired of being wrong?

    Census resident data doesn’t count most illegal aliens, either.

    “most” is an interesting word choice. Do you have any actual numbers? Because they try to:
    https://www.census.gov/population/apportionment/about/faq.html#Q16
    https://cis.org/Report/Impact-Legal-and-Illegal-Immigration-Apportionment-Seats-US-House-Representatives-2020

    • Replies: @JohnPlywood

    1992 2.23
    1996 2.38
    2000 2.45
    2004 2.48
    2008 2.51
    2012 2.39

    So an increase there as well until Obama. Don’t you get tired of being wrong?
     

    In what alternate reality does this represent an "increase" in hires?

    You do realize this tiny bump is insignificant in the face of the 50-year trend of decline in officer mortality, right?

    http://www.fau.edu/newsdesk/articles/police-deaths-study.php

    The fact of the matter is that we have less officers than ever before, regardless of whatever it is you think caused the decline. Your own data bears that out. This doesn't even take in tonl account illegal aliens and the increasing professionalization of law enforcement (more "sworn officers" are not street cops than ever before).


    “most” is an interesting word choice. Do you have any actual numbers? Because they try to:
     
    And miserably failed.

    https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?type=printable&id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201193

    You're done here, my battered son.

  52. @Audacious Epigone
    Deaths from police a leading cause of death?

    I'm incredulous. Do you have a source for that?

    Remember that he specifically said for young men. I wouldn’t take this source at face value, but it should make a decent starting point.
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/study-police-shootings-are-a-leading-cause-of-death-for-young-men

    Looking around some more, they are referring specifically to young black men–an important clarification.
    https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2019-08-15/police-shootings-are-a-leading-cause-of-death-for-black-men

    Here is a link to the underlying study: https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793

  53. @Audacious Epigone
    Deaths from police a leading cause of death?

    I'm incredulous. Do you have a source for that?
    • Replies: @res

    1 in 1000 black men and 1 in 2000 men will be killed by police in their lifetime.
     
    I think it is better to back black men out of that all men calculation (did they do that in your references?).

    Say we start with 100,000 Americans. About 13,000 of them will be black accounting for 13 deaths. That leaves 37 deaths unaccounted for in the expected 50 deaths for 100,000 men. So we have a rate of 37 deaths / 87,000 men or 1 death per 2351 non-black men (obviously, that precision is not justified).

    So it only makes about a 15% difference in the number. Perhaps not worth worrying about after all.

    More data and some study links at this article:
    https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019/08/police-officer-shootings-gun-violence-racial-bias-crime-data/595528/

    This graphic does a better job of analyzing the point I was making (note the total bar).

    https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2019/08/police_shooting_race/d61c8d07c.png
    , @Audacious Epigone
    I balked because deaths from other young men (who are not police) are a greater source of their deaths.
  54. @Adam Smith
    Looks like @res already covered it...

    "A leading cause of death" not "The leading cause of death"

    1 in 1000 black men and 1 in 2000 men will be killed by police in their lifetime. 1 in 572 Americans will die in a car crash and 1 in 218,000 Americans will be killed by lightning in their lifetime.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/police-killings-are-sixth-leading-cause-death-among-young-men-n1041526

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/police-brutality-killing-shooting-death-us-study-rutgers-university-a9047066.html

    https://news.rutgers.edu/news/police-use-fatal-force-identified-leading-cause-death-young-men/20190729

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-police-killed-or-injured-more-than-55000-people-in-one-year-a7157321.html

    1 in 1000 black men and 1 in 2000 men will be killed by police in their lifetime.

    I think it is better to back black men out of that all men calculation (did they do that in your references?).

    Say we start with 100,000 Americans. About 13,000 of them will be black accounting for 13 deaths. That leaves 37 deaths unaccounted for in the expected 50 deaths for 100,000 men. So we have a rate of 37 deaths / 87,000 men or 1 death per 2351 non-black men (obviously, that precision is not justified).

    So it only makes about a 15% difference in the number. Perhaps not worth worrying about after all.

    More data and some study links at this article:
    https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019/08/police-officer-shootings-gun-violence-racial-bias-crime-data/595528/

    This graphic does a better job of analyzing the point I was making (note the total bar).

  55. @res

    You mean 3.43 vs 2.4. Civilian LE employees aren’t cops.
     
    You are comparing apples and oranges (maybe work on your reading comprehension?). Look at the data for the same category across the years.

    So let's look at sworn officers. The article and graph I linked include civilians which is why I used those numbers, but the PDF and FBI data break out sworn officers as well.

    1992 2.23
    1996 2.38
    2000 2.45
    2004 2.48
    2008 2.51
    2012 2.39

    So an increase there as well until Obama. Don't you get tired of being wrong?

    Census resident data doesn’t count most illegal aliens, either.
     
    "most" is an interesting word choice. Do you have any actual numbers? Because they try to:
    https://www.census.gov/population/apportionment/about/faq.html#Q16
    https://cis.org/Report/Impact-Legal-and-Illegal-Immigration-Apportionment-Seats-US-House-Representatives-2020

    1992 2.23
    1996 2.38
    2000 2.45
    2004 2.48
    2008 2.51
    2012 2.39

    So an increase there as well until Obama. Don’t you get tired of being wrong?

    In what alternate reality does this represent an “increase” in hires?

    You do realize this tiny bump is insignificant in the face of the 50-year trend of decline in officer mortality, right?

    http://www.fau.edu/newsdesk/articles/police-deaths-study.php

    The fact of the matter is that we have less officers than ever before, regardless of whatever it is you think caused the decline. Your own data bears that out. This doesn’t even take in tonl account illegal aliens and the increasing professionalization of law enforcement (more “sworn officers” are not street cops than ever before).

    “most” is an interesting word choice. Do you have any actual numbers? Because they try to:

    And miserably failed.

    https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?type=printable&id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201193

    You’re done here, my battered son.

    • Replies: @res

    In what alternate reality does this represent an “increase” in hires?
     
    1992 - 2008 was an increase of 13% per capita. Over the same time period US population increased (millions cancel)
    (304.1 - 256.5) / 256.5 = 19%
    https://www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table/by-year

    So from 1992 to 2008 not only was there a per capita increase in sworn police officers of 13%, after accounting for the population increase the total number of sworn police officers increased by 34%. Or just more than a third! So much for "tiny bump."

    I guess you just don't understand math.

    You do realize this tiny bump is insignificant in the face of the 50-year trend of decline in officer mortality, right?
     
    When all else fails, change the subject. We were talking about employment numbers.

    The fact of the matter is that we have less officers than ever before, regardless of whatever it is you think caused the decline. Your own data bears that out.
     
    How on earth do you come to that conclusion? Did you mean to say fewer (use fewer not less with people and other countable nouns) officers dying?

    And miserably failed.

    https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?type=printable&id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201193
     
    Thanks for the link. They are claiming an undercount of about 10 million. That is 3% of the current US population. Significantly smaller than the increase in police officers discussed above.

    You’re done here, my battered son.
     
    You are living in a fantasy world. But thanks for trying. And actually including a useful reference for once.
  56. @JohnPlywood

    1992 2.23
    1996 2.38
    2000 2.45
    2004 2.48
    2008 2.51
    2012 2.39

    So an increase there as well until Obama. Don’t you get tired of being wrong?
     

    In what alternate reality does this represent an "increase" in hires?

    You do realize this tiny bump is insignificant in the face of the 50-year trend of decline in officer mortality, right?

    http://www.fau.edu/newsdesk/articles/police-deaths-study.php

    The fact of the matter is that we have less officers than ever before, regardless of whatever it is you think caused the decline. Your own data bears that out. This doesn't even take in tonl account illegal aliens and the increasing professionalization of law enforcement (more "sworn officers" are not street cops than ever before).


    “most” is an interesting word choice. Do you have any actual numbers? Because they try to:
     
    And miserably failed.

    https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?type=printable&id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201193

    You're done here, my battered son.

    In what alternate reality does this represent an “increase” in hires?

    1992 – 2008 was an increase of 13% per capita. Over the same time period US population increased (millions cancel)
    (304.1 – 256.5) / 256.5 = 19%
    https://www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table/by-year

    So from 1992 to 2008 not only was there a per capita increase in sworn police officers of 13%, after accounting for the population increase the total number of sworn police officers increased by 34%. Or just more than a third! So much for “tiny bump.”

    I guess you just don’t understand math.

    You do realize this tiny bump is insignificant in the face of the 50-year trend of decline in officer mortality, right?

    When all else fails, change the subject. We were talking about employment numbers.

    The fact of the matter is that we have less officers than ever before, regardless of whatever it is you think caused the decline. Your own data bears that out.

    How on earth do you come to that conclusion? Did you mean to say fewer (use fewer not less with people and other countable nouns) officers dying?

    And miserably failed.

    https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?type=printable&id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201193

    Thanks for the link. They are claiming an undercount of about 10 million. That is 3% of the current US population. Significantly smaller than the increase in police officers discussed above.

    You’re done here, my battered son.

    You are living in a fantasy world. But thanks for trying. And actually including a useful reference for once.

  57. @Adam Smith
    Looks like @res already covered it...

    "A leading cause of death" not "The leading cause of death"

    1 in 1000 black men and 1 in 2000 men will be killed by police in their lifetime. 1 in 572 Americans will die in a car crash and 1 in 218,000 Americans will be killed by lightning in their lifetime.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/police-killings-are-sixth-leading-cause-death-among-young-men-n1041526

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/police-brutality-killing-shooting-death-us-study-rutgers-university-a9047066.html

    https://news.rutgers.edu/news/police-use-fatal-force-identified-leading-cause-death-young-men/20190729

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-police-killed-or-injured-more-than-55000-people-in-one-year-a7157321.html

    I balked because deaths from other young men (who are not police) are a greater source of their deaths.

    • Replies: @Adam Smith
    You are correct. Most gun homicide is not committed by police. (I suspect most of it is gang violence, and much of it happens in places like Chicago or Baltimore.)

    However, a disproportionate amount of gun homicide is committed by police.

    According to this...

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/191694/number-of-law-enforcement-officers-in-the-us/

    There were 686,665 full-time law enforcement officers in the United States in 2018.

    According to this study...

    https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304559

    Police kill, on average, 2.8 men per day. Police were responsible for about 8% of all homicides with adult male victims between 2012 and 2018.

    Police homicide risk is higher than suggested by official data.

    And from this...

    https://www.theatlantavoice.com/articles/new-study-finds-eight-percent-of-male-homicides-in-the-u-s-are-committed-by-police-officers/

    Location is a factor in some of these numbers. Black men are 4.3 times more likely to be killed if they live in a metropolitan area.

    This is not surprising to me. I grew up in a city. I don't care for urban life. Too many people living too close together. I fled for the hills and the sunshine. I live on 80 acres. I work on a 300 acre farm. I like more space than a city can provide.

    You're more of a statistician than I am, so these numbers will likely mean something different to you than they do to me.

    But...

    It looks to me that we have approximately 700,000 people, or about .2% of the population, committing 8% of the gun homicides involving males between 2012 and 2018.

    This leads me to believe that the people who are drawn to police work tend to be more violent than members of the general population.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/09/police-officers-who-hit-their-wives-or-girlfriends/380329/

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/oct/20/domestic-abuse-within-police-force-to-be-investigated

    It's a well known fact that police officers are more likely to be domestic abusers. Numbers are a little hard to come by because police officers who beat their wives are often extended professional courtesy. It seems police are 2x to 4x more likely to be wife beaters than the general population.

    This also fits my hypothesis.

    Police tend to be more violent than members of the general population.

    We all know that people with lower IQ tend to be more impulsive, and most cops tend to be low IQ. We also know that psychopaths are over-represented in America's police forces. But these facts alone cannot account for such glaring discrepancy. There must be other factors contributing to the police violence problem. It's almost like being an agent of a violent "government" makes one more violent themselves.

    Anyway... Have a nice day. 🙂

    https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/better-financially-kill-suspects-wound-sheriff-article-1.3925449

    https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-kern-county-sheriff-tape-20180410-story.html

    https://reason.com/2019/09/27/no-charges-for-off-duty-cop-who-killed-man-in-a-california-costco/

  58. @Audacious Epigone
    I balked because deaths from other young men (who are not police) are a greater source of their deaths.

    You are correct. Most gun homicide is not committed by police. (I suspect most of it is gang violence, and much of it happens in places like Chicago or Baltimore.)

    However, a disproportionate amount of gun homicide is committed by police.

    According to this…

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/191694/number-of-law-enforcement-officers-in-the-us/

    There were 686,665 full-time law enforcement officers in the United States in 2018.

    According to this study…

    https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304559

    Police kill, on average, 2.8 men per day. Police were responsible for about 8% of all homicides with adult male victims between 2012 and 2018.

    Police homicide risk is higher than suggested by official data.

    And from this…

    https://www.theatlantavoice.com/articles/new-study-finds-eight-percent-of-male-homicides-in-the-u-s-are-committed-by-police-officers/

    Location is a factor in some of these numbers. Black men are 4.3 times more likely to be killed if they live in a metropolitan area.

    This is not surprising to me. I grew up in a city. I don’t care for urban life. Too many people living too close together. I fled for the hills and the sunshine. I live on 80 acres. I work on a 300 acre farm. I like more space than a city can provide.

    You’re more of a statistician than I am, so these numbers will likely mean something different to you than they do to me.

    But…

    It looks to me that we have approximately 700,000 people, or about .2% of the population, committing 8% of the gun homicides involving males between 2012 and 2018.

    This leads me to believe that the people who are drawn to police work tend to be more violent than members of the general population.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/09/police-officers-who-hit-their-wives-or-girlfriends/380329/

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/oct/20/domestic-abuse-within-police-force-to-be-investigated

    It’s a well known fact that police officers are more likely to be domestic abusers. Numbers are a little hard to come by because police officers who beat their wives are often extended professional courtesy. It seems police are 2x to 4x more likely to be wife beaters than the general population.

    This also fits my hypothesis.

    Police tend to be more violent than members of the general population.

    We all know that people with lower IQ tend to be more impulsive, and most cops tend to be low IQ. We also know that psychopaths are over-represented in America’s police forces. But these facts alone cannot account for such glaring discrepancy. There must be other factors contributing to the police violence problem. It’s almost like being an agent of a violent “government” makes one more violent themselves.

    Anyway… Have a nice day. 🙂

    https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/better-financially-kill-suspects-wound-sheriff-article-1.3925449

    https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-kern-county-sheriff-tape-20180410-story.html

    https://reason.com/2019/09/27/no-charges-for-off-duty-cop-who-killed-man-in-a-california-costco/

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS