• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

onyx

Member
Dec 25, 2017
2,523
There is no single solution to the problem. The body camera can help, more witnesses recording also can help. The entire system needs to fixed though. Holding police accountable can't fall on the DA office because there is clearly a conflict of interest there. There should be a separate oversight department with it's own prosecutor at the federal or state level.

Better training, hiring, and community oversight is also needed. Then there is taking away power from the police union.
 

RedMercury

Blue Venus
Member
Dec 24, 2017
17,648
Would like the OP to support their claim about bodycams...
This is the claim the OP made:
Body cams aren't acting as the deterrent to bad cops/policing that people were hoping for.
Here is your proof:


The police were able to turn off the cameras. Had a concerned citizen not been recording, they could have killed the woman and gotten away with it.

You can look to several such instances where camera's were turned off or footage was otherwise compromised.





If that can happen, that is proof they are not working as intended if the intention is oversight and accountability of police actions.
 

Bleu

Banned
Sep 21, 2018
1,599
anybody saying it would be better without cops, go live in any failed state on the planet for a month (if you survive that long) and come back.
that should be more than enough to purge your brains of such a stupid take.
The police went on strike in Montreal in 1969. for 16 hours, no police for just 16 hours, less than a day, it was enough to plunge the city into pure chaos. in CANADA
 

Parthenios

The Fallen
Oct 28, 2017
13,601
Remember how teachers organized and got elected in the midterms?

We need to get civil rights aligned prosecutors hired and elected as mayor's (to replace dirty/complacent chiefs). We've seen that most juries will acquit no matter the evidence, so the next step would be to bring as many criminal cases to trial as possible so that the total number of convictions start to go up.

Getting new chiefs in means that bad cops won't be protected and hiring processes (which intentionally look for individuals predisposed to being bad racist power tripping fucks) can be altered.

Also, body cam regulations need updating. Like, in many jurisdictions it's only required to have them on when an officer is interacting with the public (so they switch them off immediately when they're alone).
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
I think fundamentally whether you believe or not that deterrence is the primary method of crime prevention determines your idea of the necessity of police. If you do, then obviously you think cops are valuable and so are armed cops since an armed deterrent is better than an unarmed one. If you think, like I do, and some other people, that crime arises out of social/material conditions then the presence of cops matter only in so far as they affect these social/material conditions directly or indirectly.

Ironically, body cams were supposed to be kind of a soft deterrence against police abuse. Deterrence only works when everyone plays by the same rules. If there's a power imbalance, if power allows someone to override deterrence (turning off your camera, denying footage, covering up footage), then it become toothless.

There is currently no significant deterrence for abuse of power that is itself immune to being overridden by that power.
 

LordDraven

Banned
Jan 23, 2019
2,257
what is the hypothetical where you would need one? if they only existed to remove crazy people with guns from populated areas that would be ace, except in practice they're actually hanging out at the local convenience store, harassing random black and brown people who walk past, hoping to find a joint or a screwdriver.
isn't the old saying that the cops are always around...until that hypothetical where you could use their help, and depending on their mood they probably wouldn't find it as a part of their job description anyway
the next time you have a need for the police, just remember this post
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
The police went on strike in Montreal in 1969. for 16 hours, no police for just 16 hours, less than a day, it was enough to plunge the city into pure chaos. in CANADA
This is a bit of a one-sided portrayal. There was a massive, somewhat opportunistic, strike by taxi drivers trying to break a competing monopoly on airport pickups and it escalated from there. What the police strike enabled was this other worker strike.

If your stance is cops are good as strikebreakers then yeah, I mean technically that's true, but it doesn't put them in a good light.

  • A radical union of cab drivers, the Mouvement de libération du taxi (MLT), had long held a grievance against the Murray Hill limousine company. They were angry that Murray Hill's buses and cars had the exclusive right to pick up passengers at the city's Dorval airport.
  • About a year earlier, the MLT had protested in the airport's parking lot and set several Murray Hill vehicles on fire.
  • With the police off the job, the MLT took the opportunity to step up their grievance with Murray Hill. According to the Montreal Gazette, about 800 demonstrators - not all of them cabbies - descended on the Murray Hill garage. Gunfire erupted between armed protesters and security guards, and four buses were set on fire. As seen in this clip, one of those flaming buses ploughed through a garage door.
  • It was during this melee that a Quebec provincial police plainclothes corporal, Robert Dumas, was killed by an unknown shooter. Another 30 people were injured.
  • About 2,400 Montreal firefighters had also joined the walkout in support of the police.
  • Guy Marcil, president of the union, said the city refused to take the police demands seriously before the strike. He said the action was the impetus for the Montreal Urban Community (MUC), an amalgamation of urban municipalities with a greater tax base to pay the police.
  • Under the MUC, the island of Montreal's 24 police forces merged. By 1974 the average salary had doubled to $14,000 annually (about $67,000 in 2015 dollars).
  • A police commission report on the strike blamed it on the "deep frustration of members of the brotherhood, resulting from the imbroglio of management-union relations."
  • Murray Hill limousines no longer holds exclusive rights to pickups at Montreal airports.

Once you look past the whole "omg people are looting and rioting" thing, you'll find it's economic conditions driving people. Cops are useful here in so far as you don't want desperate people wanting a better wage and a better life getting too rowdy and chaotic.
 
Oct 27, 2017
10,660
anybody saying it would be better without cops, go live in any failed state on the planet for a month (if you survive that long) and come back.
that should be more than enough to purge your brains of such a stupid take.
The police went on strike in Montreal in 1969. for 16 hours, no police for just 16 hours, less than a day, it was enough to plunge the city into pure chaos. in CANADA
Oh for heaven's sake. It's not fucking Mad Max out there. Stop being so afraid.
 

Parthenios

The Fallen
Oct 28, 2017
13,601
"No police" is not a serious policy position and we'll never affect real change to the very serious issues with U.S. police if that's our starting place.
 

Ravensmash

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,797
"No police" is not a serious policy position and we'll never affect real change to the very serious issues with U.S. police if that's our starting place.

No police isn't a realistic position, because if no one is there to officially enforce laws, then someone will - and they won't have ANY standards to uphold.

That's not to say that the current standards are working, of course.
 

Gentlemen

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,505
Dismantle police unions.

Constitutionally mandated civilian oversight of every police and sheriff's department in the country.

Pay civil settlement claims out of police pension funds.

Require police to live in the neighborhoods they patrol.

De-militarize local pd/sheriff armament, restrict use of anything stronger than a shotgun or a patrol car to state police.

Mind you most of this is band-aid shit. The thing that really stops cops from clashing with people is to build a proper social safety net. For example, one of the highest lethality rates for police encounters is people having a mental health crisis, where 911 summons a jumpy, easily frightened guy with a gun to the scene instead of someone properly trained to de-escalate the situation so that nobody gets hurt. Actually care for vulnerable communities with thoughtful, trained professionals who value life, instead of pushing every unpleasant thing that happens in public on a cop. It's understood that you call cops in when you want people dead. There's probably no long-term solution to asking cops to do what society has always expected them to do.
 

Bleu

Banned
Sep 21, 2018
1,599
Once you look past the whole "omg people are looting and rioting" thing, you'll find it's economic conditions driving people
well many do in fact think the opposite.
Crimes, breaking the laws and social rules, like cheating, happen because of two things :
- opportunity
- the though that you won't get caught. (not fear of the punishment, that does not work, it's a different thing, really the though that you will get away with it)
needs come after that.
For some, the super rich are breaking the rules and laws much more easily than the poor.

Oh for heaven's sake. It's not fucking Mad Max out there. Stop being so afraid.
it's not about being afraid, it's about being grounded in reality, if you were to remove the police overnight, and even more in the US given the free availability of guns to civilians, it would indeed turn into chaos overnight because if there is no more legal usage of force and law enforcement, then there is no law and then some will replace that with a force of their own, it's mechanical.
Seriously, if you think you can remove police in the us and not having anything of value either ransacked instantly (a small group is enough to start this) or self defence militias shooting at people trying to protect what they have you are delusional.
heck, remove the police and the fear of having to face justice in the us right now and you will have people shooting at other people (or lynching, as they used to do) because they are a shade of brown they don't like the next hour. you know it is true.
 
Oct 27, 2017
10,660
People aren't not killing each other because the police exist, nor are they choosing to not kill one another because they do. Your idea of reality is not reality.
 
Oct 27, 2017
10,660
Why are some of you so afraid that you cower behind an institution that firstly is not there to protect you, secondly cannot protect you, and thirdly chooses to not protect you? The police are the legitimized violent arm of the power structure, not heroes saving the day. If you want to worship a public service, worship firefighters because they actually save people.
 

XMonkey

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,827
This is the claim the OP made:

Here is your proof:


The police were able to turn off the cameras. Had a concerned citizen not been recording, they could have killed the woman and gotten away with it.

You can look to several such instances where camera's were turned off or footage was otherwise compromised.





If that can happen, that is proof they are not working as intended if the intention is oversight and accountability of police actions.

Appreciate you doing more work than the OP could. There definitely needs to be more regulation around disabling these body cams, absolutely, but I'd also agree with the larger point being made in the thread that our justice system is still a root cause and just doesn't hold police accountable even in the face of clear video evidence. Most reports I've seen shows that the effectiveness of them is a mixed bag, not that they're overall useless, so I'd rather be in a place where we are implementing these cameras than not and working to improve the regulations around them.
 

EdibleKnife

Member
Oct 29, 2017
7,723
The best solution overall is simply making sure officers face consequences. We put these people in positions where they wield life and death yet we don't hold them to standards that match. Forget strikes. You fuck up like with Tamir Rice or Philando Castile, you lose the badge and should never be able to work law enforcement for the rest of your life let alone wield a gun. Body Camera conked out because of "the battery"? Then you should have remembered to charge it. Pack up your shit before the end of the day. We need to be that fucking strict because this isn't a game.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
lol

Edit: Oh wow, you're serious.

On a serious note, why do you think said idea would be any better for vulnerable groups/minorities?

Because I'd expect it to be far worse.
Why would it be "far worse"?

It'd be better, philosophically, because you don't have a legally protected class of minority murderers. You guys understand that's the point right?

Like your precious law enforcement enforce laws that protect themselves from accountability.

The laws you guys care so much about is what props up and protect police abuse.
 

Bleu

Banned
Sep 21, 2018
1,599
People aren't not killing each other because the police exist, nor are they choosing to not kill one another because they do. Your idea of reality is not reality.
heck, remove the police and the fear of having to face justice in the us right now and you will have people shooting at other people (or lynching, as they used to do) because they are a shade of brown they don't like the next hour. you know it is true.
please, dare say that the above is not true.
say it, go ahead.

What do you think "opportunity" is? It's having a satisfying life; for the vast majority of mentally typical people a good life is a place to sleep and food to eat, and then a certain amount of luxuries to make life worth living.
i was using that word in the sense of " having an opportunity to break a law, commit a crime to gain something out of it"
and you know it.
 
Oct 26, 2017
19,736
Appreciate you doing more work than the OP could. There definitely needs to be more regulation around disabling these body cams, absolutely, but I'd also agree with the larger point being made in the thread that our justice system is still a root cause and just doesn't hold police accountable even in the face of clear video evidence. Most reports I've seen shows that the effectiveness of them is a mixed bag, not that they're overall useless, so I'd rather be in a place where we are implementing these cameras than not and working to improve the regulations around them.
Not only our justice system, but the unions that blindly protect any of their own. Right and wrong mean little to them. Unions are important, so they can't just be done away with. But something has to change there.
 

Ravensmash

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,797
Why would it be "far worse"?

It'd be better, because you don't have a legally protected class of minority murderers. You guys understand that's the point right?

Like your precious law enforcement enforce laws that protect themselves from accountability.

Because you're proposing a randomised vigilante crew - and some bizarre idealised scenario where society polices itself without prejudice.
 
Oct 27, 2017
10,660
That doesn't mean you don't need someone to enforce laws/protect the victims of said criminal actions.

The cause of crime doesn't make it morally justified or acceptable.
The current institution of policing is unjust, racist, and on the whole harmful to society. We have the largest prison population in the entire world. And yet, here we have people still cowering in fear from the boogeyman of crime. Police are part of the problem.
 
Oct 27, 2017
10,660
please, dare say that the above is not true.
say it, go ahead.


i was using that word in the sense of " having an opportunity to break a law, commit a crime to gain something out of it"
and you know it.
You're off man. I don't know how to say it. You have an idea of reality that is false. Society isn't on the verge of collapse but not doing so because of police.
 

Bleu

Banned
Sep 21, 2018
1,599
You're off man. I don't know how to say it. You have an idea of reality that is false. Society isn't on the verge of collapse but not doing so because of police.
coward. assume the shit you say to the logical end of it.

If
People aren't not killing each other because the police exist, nor are they choosing to not kill one another because they do. Your idea of reality is not reality.
Then
heck, remove the police and the fear of having to face justice in the us right now and you will have people shooting at other people (or lynching, as they used to do) because they are a shade of brown they don't like the next hour. you know it is true.
is not true, that won't happen.

so go ahead, say it, say that it won't happen.
show who is off.
 

FaceHugger

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
13,949
USA
My personal opinion is that policing in the US is doomed until there is true civilian oversight. Until then they're just going to keep shooting and beating the shit out of brown people and get slaps on the wrist when they're caught.
 

Narroo

Banned
Feb 27, 2018
1,819
Fascinating. I do remember the protests and something about the aftermath but not a result like this.

It is often taken as a given by the general public that policing reduces crime because this is what we're always told and why would we be told this if it wasn't true? But it's one of those things that people accept as true without really figuring out why it's true, just that it's true because everyone else says it's true.
More of a common sense thing. For example:

Dude steals your TV and get's caught on your security camera, and by-golly you manage to identify him. As a result:

"Dear Anderson McThief:
You are being summoned to the greater Suffix Court in regards to robbery charges. Please arrive in court on Wednesday.
If convicted, please report to the local penitentiary."


Really now, how exactly are you planning on enforcing the law if you have no enforcement personnel? The Honor System?

Law Enforcement really isn't about deterrence in the sense that police can actively stop crimes. This isn't Minority Report. Rather, it's about justice; investigating crimes, apprehending criminals, and stopping crimes in progress if possible.

If you took away the police, most people would be helpless when they're victims of crimes. Whether it's armed robbers in your house, or being molested by your parents, there's no one going to come and arrest the bad guys. Unless...you know...money. If you have money, you could definitely pay for armed services, for bounty hunters and private I's to get justice for yourself. It'll be a great way to privatize the justice system. It'll be the ultimate form of capitalism. I just know how much people on this form would love this.

Really the issue is that the police system has been mismanaged for years due to a lack of public oversight. Issues have always been known, but most people haven't cared or have been apathetic. Police deal with Criminals -- or minorities -- and just as taxpayers don't want to fork the bill for improving prisons, they don't really care about the issues until the problems hit critical mass And once that does happen, everyone just takes a simplistic counter position of "We don't need it; let's just burn it all down!" Rather than the arduous task of fixing the issues. And they won't do a single thing until they can burn it all down. They let everything rot until there's no other option.

So, does the police system need a major overhaul? Yes. Would 'just not having police' be a good solution? No. God no. Like, have you ever read a history book or paid attention to global events? Simply not having law enforcement does not work.



 
Oct 27, 2017
10,660
The world is not teetering on the balance of the existence of police. Police are not saviors, they are merely a tool used by the power structure to maintain power. Simple as that. Law enforcement has never been, and never will be about justice. Only maintaining power.
 

Akira86

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,585
You're off man. I don't know how to say it. You have an idea of reality that is false. Society isn't on the verge of collapse but not doing so because of police.
this is what the blue backers believe and what they HAVE to believe, otherwise their actions would be ridiculous. the media enforces the ideas in entertainment and "news" that society is falling apart, the criminal element is taking over, and the thin blue line is the only thing protecting US ALL.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
heck, remove the police and the fear of having to face justice in the us right now and you will have people shooting at other people (or lynching, as they used to do)
Those historical lynchings were legal, and "police" existed back then to catch run away slaves.

This is where the American police comes from.


Law enforcement
Colonial times saw the emergence of local law enforcement squads. In the North, these were the watchmen, who were paid small fees by private citizens to police the streets and maintain order in small areas. The first groups in the south were slave patrols, which were made up of slave owners and non-slave owners, and were also paid by private citizens. However, the parcels of land in the south were much larger, and therefor much less easy to patrol. Groups that focused on slave hunting were most prevalent in the south, as the majority of slave owners resided there. Contrary to popular belief, slave patrols were not composed solely of men. Women who owned slaves also took part, but no cases of free blacks hunting slaves were recorded.[1] Nearly any prospecting individual could set out to be a slave hunter, but few were able to find much success.[2]

These southern law enforcement groups were created out of a need to maintain order among slaves and slave owners, rather than to protect the interests of the common, non-slaveholding people. Many southern slave owners were considered irresponsible if their charges were allowed to escape, and it was a fear that more slaves would upend the system if not met with retribution. It was in the general interest of all slaveholders to maintain discipline so that slaves did not have the chance to start an uprising.[3]

Mm love that law enforcement. The thin blue line that protects us god-fearing whitefolk from slave uprisings.
 

Bleu

Banned
Sep 21, 2018
1,599
I didn't actually. So you think people break the law simply because they have a chance to do it.
i do not think it, i do not know, but i've seen a few psych studies that seems to show that indeed, having a chance at it, coupled with the thought of impunity are a part of what is "allowing" the human brain to break the social rules for a short term gain. like the psychology of cheating with children. maybe it's bullshit, but it's certainly not a clean 'people commit crimes and break rules because they are poor' cut.
 

Bleu

Banned
Sep 21, 2018
1,599
Those historical lynchings were legal, and "police" existed back then to catch run away slaves.
i'm talking of now,
and you too, don't try to weasel out of it,
if you think that removing the police and law enforcement now won't cause your racist free speech ar15 loving neo nazis in the us start killing innocent people they don't like immediately, (or people being shot at the mexico border for instance), so say it.
go ahead, dare say it.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
The way I'd do it is probably split the police into two different institutions. General purpose emergency response (like firefighters but you'd call on these guys to break up a domestic fight, they would be crisis managers first and foremost) and neighborhood patrol, which would be localized neighborhood watches. Unfortunately the latter would only work for suburbia I'm at a loss for ideas for rural and urban places.
if you think that removing the police and law enforcement now won't cause your racist free speech ar15 loving neo nazis in the us start killing innocent people they don't like immediately, (or people being shot at the mexico border for instance), so say it.
go ahead, dare say it.

I do think they will but I also think the country is overdue for a civil war. You're not going to get through to me like that, I'm pretty radicalized.
 
Last edited:
Oct 27, 2017
10,660
I have a hypothesis about people that believe society hinges on a punishment factor to prevent negative behavior in that they themselves lack the altruistic part of being human that has allowed us to become more than a simple animal.
i'm talking of now,
and you too, don't try to weasel out of it,
if you think that removing the police and law enforcement now won't cause your racist free speech ar15 loving neo nazis in the us start killing innocent people they don't like immediately, (or people being shot at the mexico border for instance), so say it.
go ahead, dare say it.
I hope you do not own firearms.