Above the Law: The Data Are In on Police, Killing, and Race

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Boadicea

Of course, we would need British-style lack of general firearms availability too.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never suggested, much less stated, that we should adopt Britain's gun-free policing style. I only stated that we could and should study and learn from the strengths and weaknesses of other policing models, and cited one related anecdote regarding Britain.

We have this thing called the "Southern Border" which is really more like a Southern Suggestion where firearms are trafficked freely along with every other manner of illegal substance ... oh and people, let's not forget them. Even if we generally controlled firearms availability like the British go, our police would have a difficult time policing like the British do.

Save your condescension. There's nothing you can teach me about the border situation.

originally posted by: Psilocyborg
One of 2 things will happen if your militarized wet dream comes true:

More like my nightmare ... but, it's not people from my lane that are pouring high-test fuel into the engines of the Boogaloos.

Or this, ... Shooting down civilians in the streets, fires and destruction of infrastructure.

You ever heard of Charles Whitman? Imagine seven of him (way better than him, actually, and better armed). And, imagine 7 top-notch security teams defending them from approach.

... a return to wild west days of bounties, locally elected sheriffs and street posses to fight gangs may be better than this.

Ya got that right.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Gothmog

The militarization of the police is not a new phenomena but one that has steadily increased over the decades. The 1981 Military Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies Act, under Reagan, allowed police access to military equipment. The 1033 program, that was initiated in 1990 under Bush, has been used to transfer billions of dollars military equipment from the Pentagon to local law enforcement.

While every President has had their hand in militarizing the police, it's the two pieces of legislation that have really facilitated the process.

Worth noting:

When that 1981 law passed, Democrats controlled the House and Republicans controlled the Senate.

For the passage of the 1990 and 1991 NDAAs that contained the 1033 program, Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress.

This is one of my biggest complaints against Republicans (which I primarily vote for), is the constant attack on Unions and Pension funds. I’m not a big Union guy, all fireman are in an association as well as most Police. We are always referred to as a Union, but we are NOT. We can’t go on strike is a really big difference.
Police and Fire must stay working, and rightfully so.
Anybody remember when the air traffic controllers tried it?

They (R’s) always want into our pension funds because they can’t stand all that money (our money) sitting there, and most unions back the D’s, which I can’t freaking stand. They don’t give 2 turds about us, but it’s all about the funding and PAC campaigns.

a reply to: network dude

I mean...cops can bust down your door, kill your dog, tear your furniture to shreds and walk away with no recompense to you from anyone. If you try to stop them, they'll kill you.

Tell me that doesn't lead to a system of terrorism.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

As I understand it, the militarization of the police happened because of an evolution in arms sales. Why limit the sale of weapons only to the military when one can also sell to law enforcement agencies...?

Seriously,

People are treating it like marriage council where only one person is wrong

The people they patrol need fixed and the cop shooting will come down

Why would a police get out of his car in a poop neighborhood if they cannot defend themself. They will like the animals act like animals, so more humans will become animals not more animals will become human.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Xcalibur254

I do wonder what might happen if we open up cops to being sued by random people. Will there still be lots of cops willing to do that job, or will most of them decide that assuming that much risk for such a meager pay check just isn't worth it.

But since the soup de jour today is defund them and remove them (what is really said and meant when you clear out the politics), perhaps a bit of no police is what's needed. let everyone see if we can police ourselves and keep from killing each other.

I have an idea how it will go, but it's not up to me, and nobody actually asked.

Why don’t the police agree to only patrol and answer calls to non gated communities.
Declare open season on every enclave of toffs in the land of the free.
Encourage the people to shake the chains back at the policy makers.
Remove the police union. Fine. Surround those ivory towered bastards and let nobody out. Only citizens in. Really stand shoulder to shoulder with the populace. The rich are patriots as well, let THEM shed THEIR blood to nurture the new growth on the tree of liberty. For once.

a reply to: ErEhWoN

That's great. Now all we need to do is get the GOP to agree and we would all be in agreement.

It was the policies of Democrat lead cities that caused this. Soooooo.......don't ya think the blame should be placed on the one's that caused it?

originally posted by: Dalamax

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Xcalibur254

I do wonder what might happen if we open up cops to being sued by random people. Will there still be lots of cops willing to do that job, or will most of them decide that assuming that much risk for such a meager pay check just isn't worth it.

But since the soup de jour today is defund them and remove them (what is really said and meant when you clear out the politics), perhaps a bit of no police is what's needed. let everyone see if we can police ourselves and keep from killing each other.

I have an idea how it will go, but it's not up to me, and nobody actually asked.

Why don’t the police agree to only patrol and answer calls to non gated communities.
Declare open season on every enclave of toffs in the land of the free.
Encourage the people to shake the chains back at the policy makers.
Remove the police union. Fine. Surround those ivory towered bastards and let nobody out. Only citizens in. Really stand shoulder to shoulder with the populace. The rich are patriots as well, let THEM shed THEIR blood to nurture the new growth on the tree of liberty. For once.

Not that simple. The police answer to the elected officials, who are all beholden to those unions. It's a vicious circle.

nvm

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
Source

Figure 1 shows Police killings increasing starting in the mid 90s.

Figure 3 shows police deaths at the hands of felons dropping dramatically starting in the mid 90s.

The author uses this disparity to claim that the increase in Police killings isn't justified by the idea that officers are facing more violence over that same time period.

But is he failing to connect that the rise in Police killings after the mid 90s may be the result of Police deaths prior to the mid 90s? And that the reason Police deaths have declined after the mid 90s is because they have been taking less risks with their own lives and that it is working from their perspective?

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
Source

Figure 1 shows Police killings increasing starting in the mid 90s.

Figure 3 shows police deaths at the hands of felons dropping dramatically starting in the mid 90s.

The author uses this disparity to claim that the increase in Police killings isn't justified by the idea that officers are facing more violence over that same time period.

But is he failing to connect that the rise in Police killings after the mid 90s may be the result of Police deaths prior to the mid 90s? And that the reason Police deaths have declined after the mid 90s is because they have been taking less risks with their own lives and that it is working from their perspective?

Hey, hey, easy on the logic. There's a narrative to push here.