Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Estebonrober, May 28, 2020.
So the president of the United States is threatening a massacre of civilians, nice.
No, he's a person, just with political beliefs and biases different from mine.
He's just been seduced by something evil, praying the ends justify the means. And then will have to deal with the sunk cost fallacy.
He knew Trump was a bad pick when Trump lied about Cruz's coordination with his PAC.
And he's doubly sure Trump was a bad pick after doing nothing for 3 years about PACs power.
But there's some small component of Trump's promises that he hopes were sincere.
Not everyone who has a casual dominance behaviour is a bully.
And how do you prevent bullies ?
You should know from your youth
Rule one is to prevent them getting minions.
Giving a proto-bully one straight between his eyes (in words or deeds) is most effective when his proto-minions see that.
It is all about visibility
Treating this issue from the incidental angle is a very huge effort when most cops are already infected to some degree with their in-group hiearchy re-confirmed every time incidents like this are discussed among them.
Why do so many people who join as new cop leave again in a rather short time ?
Because the in-group consensus and unspoken repression was too big when they had the nerve to speak out on something ?
Exit-interviews are fundamental tools for a proper HR management.
Hiring people with the"right" profile is a fundamental tool of HR management.
Change the setting.
Exit interviews indicating that "right profile" people leave means already an internal investigation.
Not legal investigation, although info of that kinf could arise, but the normal HR stuff: how do you develop... do you feel comfortable... what is the effect on that from people above and among you.
Deciding that is a policy decision. Is pro-active. Is not mobbing the floor with the water tap still running.
Let the "old guard" hate that HR and let them shiver when investigations take place.
And that HR reports all the way and directly to the very top ofc. Otherwise no backing and no teeth.
Reforming policies must be visible in place and functioning to everyone
He's claimed in the past that pedophiles and LGBTQ people are similar enough. It goes beyond simple political differences.
Don't go down this road of humanizing a person whose stance is corrosive and harmful to minorities, all you'll end up doing is putting distance between those you claim to care about (minorities) and finding yourself ever close to those that seek to do them harm (bigots)
This case seems like a very good argument for the death penalty. This Nazi skinhead in blue doesn't deserve to draw another breath.
The first step will be to throw the motherf... er... the bums out of the White House. Among those 22 "pattern or practice" investigations I mentioned, many of them resulted in a "consent decree", a court-enforceable agreement to begin practice and oversight reform. One of the things Jeff Sessions did as Attorney General was to limit the scope of consent decrees so that they were not systemic, and to put those signed by his predecessors on hold, pending review (and I don't know if the reviews ever took place). In at least one instance, might've been Baltimore, the police commissioner, the mayor, and the district attorney of one of the cities found to be rife with civil rights violations actually asked Mr. Sessions not to alter or delay their agreement with the Justice Dept. They wanted the help reforming their department. iirc, he turned them down.
EDIT: There's a Baltimore Sun article about the death of George Floyd that notes that BPD is under a consent decree following the death of Freddie Gray. So it must not have been Baltimore I was thinking of.
The problem is there are currently no incentives for the powers-that-be to implement any reforms. This is because they believe we, the people, are powerless to actually do anything to force those reforms. The only way to get them to stop thinking that way is to shift the balance of power so heavily in favor of the people that politicians and police would be absolutely terrified to take any action that could even be remotely construed as an abuse of authority.
Okay, there's 'humanizing' where I try to figure out 'human reasons' that explain behavior. There's a further step of trying to figure out the actual thought processes. And the final step of trying to explain that thought process.
And there's 'humanzing', where you push back against statements like "they're a member of a different species".
I did the last one. There's a pretty stark difference between the two.
In traditional Wild West western movies it is only about replacing the corrupt sheriff alligned with that big ranch or mining company.
Do cops not report to their sheriff ?
Or is that only in rural areas ?
And are sheriffs not chosen by a people's election ?
The murderer has been arrested.
I agree, I just don't think armed insurrection is (a) necessary yet, (b) as efficacious as you seem to think it would be, or (c) sufficient, in the end, even if it proves both necessary and effective. At best, it's a means to an end, and a necessary evil that carries an enormous cost. We haven't exhausted the better alternatives yet, and the things we've tried have proven fairly effective (and have drawn a lot of pushback from the people who don't want things to change, which is a kind of an endorsement of the reforms, in a loopy way). The proliferation of cellphones with video cameras has proven far superior to the proliferation of guns in holding law enforcement to account. I forget who said it first, but the famous quote that came out of the aftermath of the lynching of Amaud Arbery was something like "They didn't do something because they saw the video; they did something because we did." It was a cell-phone video that brought down Michael Slager for murdering Walter Scott and then planting a gun on him, and it was a journalist, employing the Freedom of Information Act, who uncovered the videos that exposed the Chicago Police Department's coverup of the murder of Laquan MacDonald (which, it's believed, extended all the way to City Hall). Michael Slager is serving 20 years. Jason Van Dyke's trial was less than a stellar victory; he got only 6 years, the senior officers were allowed to resign, and the mayor simply decided not to run for reelection and slipped away. So that's a mixed record. I forget how many states are looking into or enacting bail reform. It's more than a couple but less than all of them. I just saw an article, I don't have it now, about the consent decree in Baltimore: Police officers there are complaining that it restricts their ability to "stop & frisk" based on their gut instincts. Well, good. It's been proven that their gut instincts are for [crap], so if they're being a little more circumspect and reigning themselves in more than they used it, I'd say the consent decree is working. (I don't have it handy, but I seem to remember that a study of the NYPD found that their "stop & frisk" policy produced no greater number of weapons or drug seizures. Setting aside the practice's constitutionality and ethical considerations, it didn't [flipping] work. "What a bunch of maroons", as Bugs Bunny used to say. Anyway, yeah, we've got a lot of stuff to try and do before reaching for our irons.
EDIT: Yikes. Lotta typos.
Here it is in full:
Attention - this is another Tory Brexiter anecdote.
Sheriffs is generally for county-level police departments, and are generally elected.
For city departments is Chief of Police ? Captain, not sure of titles in city departments, and if appointed by mayor or what.
Got tired of getting besieged, I suppose.
He has been charged with both murder and manslaughter.
Generally Chief of Police. Sometimes elected, usually appointed by the mayor. Sheriffs are sometimes appointed by the county board of supervisors, but usually elected.
And how is a sheriff fired before the end of his elected term ?
Only kinda. They're also pardoned by Presidents who tweet moronic racial crime statistics.
Well... if the responsibility for a sheriff, endorsing-pardoning & firing, is too often grabbed by too high ups like the POTUS, you have not really a working feedback loop for the people who have to live with the consequences.
Separate names with a comma.