BLM Begins "Campaign Zero"

a reply to: TheBulk

So you are going to be condescending and not bother to respond to these ideas even though they could largely benefit the ENTIRE public's relationship with the police and not just black people? Civil forfeiture laws don't just target blacks for instance. Good job celebrating the crappy status quo.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This guy doesn't respond to the point of the thread, he just trolls.

a reply to: TheAmazingYeti

Let me guess..

Step 1 of plan... Block all major freeways to piss off the people you're trying to get on your movement..

a reply to: TheAmazingYeti

11. End the use of combat veterans for most patrol and training functions. Combat
experience is generally a disqualifier for most police work.

a reply to: TheAmazingYeti

Why doesn't BLM initiate their own community police force?

Wouldn't that help solve a load of perceived issues?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It isn't a good idea to negotiate with terrorists like blm.

a reply to: Picklesneeze

The only people who classify them as terrorists are haters trying to discredit their message. So you I guess.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Their "message" is meaningless since they are the only ones that can stop themselves from committing crimes that get themselves killed by police.

They can stop it any time they feel like growing up.

a reply to: Picklesneeze

Crimes like reaching for your wallet during a traffic stop?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Picklesneeze

The only people who classify them as terrorists are haters trying to discredit their message. So you I guess.

I see a terrorist, don't you?

Some BLM people are haters. Quit being an apologist for violence.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Or the gun that's tucked underneath your shirt

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No-crimes like reaching for OTHER PEOPLE'S WALLETS during an armed robbery/mugging.

a reply to: UMayBRite!

Yay, somebody finally got it right!.

When I got out of the military, law enforcement was about all I was qualified for.

I didn't think it would be a very good idea though, knowing what I knew about myself, so I didn't go that route.

a reply to: In4ormant

Oh cool. The standard some to all false equivalence using anecdotes to try to prove that all of the members believe the same as a biased sampling of members shows. Standard discrediting propaganda.

4. Independently investigate and prosecute police misconduct.
Much like point two, BLM doesn’t want the police investigating crimes committed by the police since it’s proven to be a recipe for trouble. Instead, they want an independently run government body to investigate whether or not an officer has violated the law. The short version: if a cop shoots someone, someone other than the cops should look into the case to see if that shooting was lawful.

Oh, do they mean the Justice Department? Who also found no wrong doing in the high profile cases they investigated in recent years?

1. End “broken windows” policing, which aggressively polices minor crimes in an attempt to stop larger ones.

So minor crimes should be ignored? What is wrong with just obeying the law?

3. Make standards for reporting police use of deadly force.
A lot of reports of police using deadly force aren’t released to the public.

Shots fired calls are immediately known by the media on their police scanners. Maybe it is them who choose not to release certain shootings? Also, I am sure if you asked the police, they would tell you.

5. Have the racial makeup of police departments reflect the communities they serve.

If there aren't enough cops of a certain racial makeup, maybe go to school and become a police officer, instead of hating them? Police Depts. have no control on who volunteers to choose law enforcement as their career. Plus, demographics would say that since there is a larger percentage of whites in this country, won't most jobs have more of that percentage working there?

7. Provide more training for police officers.

Being that 99.5 % of shootings are justified, and they win 90%+ of their gunfights, i'd say they are trained well enough.

9. End the police use of military equipment.

This one depends. There are definitely situations that logically warrant an armored vehicle, as also a ballistic helmet, bodyarmor, etc. The potential though for abuse is there for sure, depending.



iTruthSeeker

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Or the gun that's tucked underneath your shirt

The gun that he was legally allowed and permitted to carry on his person? That gun tucked under his shirt?

originally posted by: Picklesneeze
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No-crimes like reaching for OTHER PEOPLE'S WALLETS during an armed robbery/mugging.

Question, do you honestly think that a mugging warrants someone to be shot dead for committing one?

1. End “broken windows” policing, which aggressively polices minor crimes in an attempt to stop larger ones. “Broken windows” policing is the idea that vigorously enforcing small crimes (like vandalism) will prevent larger crimes from happening. This law has allowed police to increase “stop and frisks”, which BLM claims enables racial stereotyping. They argue that Black men and women are unfairly targeted by police using this law as an excuse, and that this policy ultimately led to the death of Eric Garner (remember the guy that was choked to death after he was caught selling loose cigarettes). This is their first point in their plan, and probably the most controversial.

This makes no sense. It seems to say be less aggressive at stopping small crime? Very strange. I am yet to see the claim that police use stop and frisk to enable racism to be verified.

2. Use community oversight for misconduct rather than having the police department decide what consequences officers should face. Rather than the police deciding how an officer is punished after they’ve committed a crime (like when an officer who caused a death is ‘punished’ by being put on paid leave for six months), they want an independent group to review all cases and dole out the punishments. Since, you know, the police department might be a tad on biased.

How would the independent group be chosen? How can it be ensured that they are not also biased. With media coverage crying racist and unlawful killing regardless of the facts in each case, I can't see how this could work. It's the job of the police to investigate.

3. Make standards for reporting police use of deadly force. A lot of reports of police using deadly force aren’t released to the public. This skews the statistics when it comes down to who died by police hands and it leaves the public in the dark about how the police operate. BLM want to standardize the reporting methods and make the whole process more transparent.

This makes sense, if the allegation is true. Reports should be transparent.

4. Independently investigate and prosecute police misconduct. Much like point two, BLM doesn’t want the police investigating crimes committed by the police since it’s proven to be a recipe for trouble. Instead, they want an independently run government body to investigate whether or not an officer has violated the law. The short version: if a cop shoots someone, someone other than the cops should look into the case to see if that shooting was lawful.

Makes no sense - just like point 2.

5. Have the racial makeup of police departments reflect the communities they serve. This one is simple enough to ask for, harder to carry out in practice. BLM want the police force to be racially representative of the areas they protect. If a community is 50% Black, 30% Hispanic, and 20% White, they want to see a police force that reflects those demographics. Hypothetically, for every two White officers they’d hire, they’d also hire five Black officers and three Hispanic officers.

This is a racist proposal. It means that people will lose out based on the colour of their skin even if they are more suited to the job. Totally racist idea.

6. Require officers to wear body cameras. This policy has already been implemented in several different police forces across the country – and with great success in some cases. However, the debate starts when it comes down to when and why an officer can turn the camera off. For example, you wouldn’t want people watching you when you went for a piss, would you?

Completely unnecessary. We need less surveillance, not more.

7. Provide more training for police officers. More training is never a bad thing. Many supporters of BLM believe that a lot of the issues between police officers and citizens have been instigated by rookie cops that are a little too eager to prove themselves in the field, and they feel a little extra training could help that out.

Makes complete sense.

8. End for-profit policing practices. This is a biggie. As of now, the police can legally take any money or property that they “believe” is in some way linked to a crime, and they can use that money and property as they see fit, even if you’re never convicted of that crime. It’s called Civil Forfeiture and the police in many areas have used this “right” to fund their own agencies and precincts. This is a major issue, and many people from different walks of life see it as legalized robbery. For more information check out John Oliver’s take on it, as he explains it far more eloquently than I ever could.

I totally agree with this. Police depts should not be using policing to generate income. It's a conflict of interest.

9. End the police use of military equipment. BLM argues that the police should be working with the community to provide peaceful resolutions to society’s issues and that the use of military equipment shows an intent to abuse their power over citizens. It drives home the Us vs Them mentality. Big guns and body armour = scared citizens. Open dialogue and transparency = happy citizens.

No, no. no. This is no different to saying disarm civilians. The police should be given the very best equipment and they should be seen as a deterrent against crime.

10. Implement police union contracts that hold officers accountable for misconduct. So, police unions have a history of protecting police (shocking, I know). Police officers accused of misconduct are no exception, but other members are oftendiscouraged by their unions to speak out against those accused. This can delay convictions and stop valuable information or evidence from coming to light which prevents real justice. While the police need unions to protect their rights, BLM argue that the unions should play their part in weeding out the bad apples. If not, the abuse of power will continue because the bad officers know they can get away with it.

This is all conjecture. I agree that evidence should be released more quickly, but creating yet more bureaucracy sound slike a bad idea.

Overall this is a pretty pathetic set of recommendations. I can see why they called it Campaign Zero. It would have zero effect.

My suggestion would be to look at jobs and housing, then look to causes and solutions to the problem of broken homes in the black community.
Solve those two things and crime would drop, more families would stick together and less black people would get into trouble.

originally posted by: wheresthebody
a reply to: Krazysh0t

This guy doesn't respond to the point of the thread, he just trolls.

You're under the incorrect assumption that refuting your beliefs is "trolling".