The Killing of George Floyd: The Last Straw?

[DrmDoc]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

I am aware of the redistribution schemes for police funding to social services and support workers that are more qualified to de-escalate and educate.
I come from a town ( Canadian ) of 130 000 people but we are 30 min away from Hamilton, and 1 hour from Toronto. Four border crossing bridges to Lewiston, Niagara Falls NY, and Buffalo are within 20 min drive. From the few cops I know I've gleaned that most of their calls are domestic disturbances, followed at some distance, by drunk and disorderly ( we are a university and college town ). I would hate to think that the next time a husband ( enraged or intoxicated ) is beating on his wife or kids, there are no police on call, to separate him from his vulnerable family.

Education, and even de-escalation, takes time, and sometimes the situation needs to be remedied immediately, sometimes even using force ( or even killing to save an innocent's life ). If anything, I would like to see INCREASED police funding and presence, but in a way that they are among the people, and interacting, with the people they are sworn to serve and protect. Police ARE ( or are supposed to be ) a social service already.
It is partly a vicious circle. People ( especially minorities ) distrust police, so they tend to be un-cooperative, so police think they are automatically guilty of something, and rough them up ( or much worse ), and so people become even more distrusting of police.
This is in regards to police forces in general.
There is no excuse for the criminal treatment G Floyd was given  by D Chauvin, a 19 year veteran who should have known better, but seemed indifferent to human life or death.

 

 

4 hours ago, iNow said:

Of course if one focuses solely on the bumper sticker version of this point it’s hard to disagree. But there’s a deeper meaning to this simplistic chant and a far more rational desire. 

Summarized: Like the US military, funding for police departments bloated and excessive. Money is used to buy former combat and heavy equipment from the department of defense and to continue the “dominate the streets” mentality. 

The ROI would be higher, however, if we focused those same tax dollars k stead into public schools and mental health clinics, and even increasing availability of social workers dealing with the mental health problems police seem so often to be on the front lines of.

Putting a person with mental health issues into jail (or into a grave as so often happens after interactions with police) wastes money and that money can be spent far more intelligently... but that doesn’t package itself well when walking among crowds in the streets to improve justice so it gets distilled to “defund the police.”

Cory Booker was on Meet the Press this morning and laid it out well (the entire 8 minute interview is worth the watch, the defund the police comments begin at 4:50):

Although I agree that services to a community might benefit from redirected funds, I think there's a danger to promoting this idea of defunding the police.  In our society, I think most people have a tendency to consider only the bumper sticker version of an issue rather than read the fine print as Booker eloquently provides.  Just today, Minneapolis protesters ejected their mayor from their peaceful action when he refused to support defunding and, specifically, removing police from their community.  When the protests are done and the police are gone, crime in America remains.  We are an uncivil and uncivilized society that require policing and the slogan "Defund the Police" sends our communities, citizens, police, and, particularly, our criminals the wrong message. A message that we are a reformed society, which we aren't, and that we do not require protection, which we do.  I think "Defund Bloat and Waste, Fund Public Schools and Mental Health Clinics" would send a clearer more effective message.  

[iNow]

Unfortunately, you’ve just slipped us back into a conversation about HOW they’re protesting instead of WHY.

When you find yourself leading a social movement or advocating for one trying to gain traction, then you can choose any techniques and strategies you want to operationalize it and maximize your chances of success. 

Until then, despite your good intentions, every time you speak of HOW they’re conveying their message, you’re doing little more than distracting us from it... or reaching that next step of doing anything to address it or improve the situation underlying it. 

[MigL]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

People are protesting police violence. More police violence isn’t going to solve it. 

To be honest, I don't think protests are going to solve it either.

Just today I read how Snoop Dogg is planning to vote, for the first time ever, this coming November, because he's upset with the way the President is handling the protests. NOW, he's finally upset enough ? Where has he been till now ?
A little too little, too late. We are already out of the frying pan and into the fire, with this Government.
The best, easiest, way to change things is to get out and vote.
If people didn't shirk their responsibilities the US ( actually, the world ) wouldn't be in such a mess.

It would be interesting to ask protesters if they plan on voting this November ( and if they actually do )

 

[CharonY]

!

Moderator Note

Off-topic discussion on statues have been split into an existing thread 

 

 

[StringJunky]

Quote

A majority of Minneapolis City Council has pledged to dismantle the local police department, a significant move amid nationwide protests sparked by George Floyd's death last month.

Nine of the 13 councillors said a "new model of public safety" would be created in a city where law enforcement has been accused of racism.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52960227

 

[Strange]

6 hours ago, MigL said:

To be honest, I don't think protests are going to solve it either.

Just today I read how Snoop Dogg is planning to vote,

So the protests are helping.

6 hours ago, MigL said:

It would be interesting to ask protesters if they plan on voting this November ( and if they actually do )

There is an incredibly powerful video of a young black women telling protestors who were looting that they are damaging the property and livelihoods of the local people; the very people the protests were intended to protect. She said "every one of you had better be registered to vote." You could hear them all muttering "yes we are", "yes we will" (all sounding rather like embarrassed school kids).

Hopefully, many more people will be motivated to register and vote.

[DrmDoc]

18 hours ago, iNow said:

Unfortunately, you’ve just slipped us back into a conversation about HOW they’re protesting instead of WHY.

When you find yourself leading a social movement or advocating for one trying to gain traction, then you can choose any techniques and strategies you want to operationalize it and maximize your chances of success. 

Until then, despite your good intentions, every time you speak of HOW they’re conveying their message, you’re doing little more than distracting us from it... or reaching that next step of doing anything to address it or improve the situation underlying it. 

I agree, discussions centering on defunding the police is a shameful distraction from this history making movement gripping our nations conscience and the world....yet it remains a distraction arising from the movement itself and it is quickly becoming a significant part of it's message and call to action.  I fervently agree and believe that "WHY" is profoundly important and should remain at the forefront of our nation's discussion but I also believe that "HOW" should remain as equally important if our goal is to remedy our country's inequities and create a nation more securely rooted in freedom, justice and true equality for our citizenry.  What happened to Mr. Floyd is indeed the "Last Straw."  The moment for action is now.  This movement is a call to action and the HOW in its message should inform and direct our actions with resounding clarity if we want it to prevail. 

 

[iNow]

Just to clarify, is it possible you’re thinking about this in terms of abolishing the police instead of defunding them / reducing the funding they receive?

One of the things I do like about the current rhetorical framing is how it shocks the system a bit. Most often, those with privilege think of the police as an inarguable good... fine servants making us safe and keeping our families protected. However, for non-whites the police are too often a source of danger and commonly increase their likelihood of death. 

When I get pulled over, I think, “oh man. This sucks. I don’t want to get a ticket. This is super inconvenient. I hope this dude hurries up so I can get on with my day and that I can mail in the fine instead of showing up in person.” When my black friends and family get pulled over, they think, “oh shit. This is how I’m gonna die.” Then they call their wife or mom to listen in on the interaction in case things go sideways and they wind up with a bullet in them.

By framing the conversation as “defund the police,” it jars the system a bit... it’s not something we normally even conceive of... we think, “wait, wtf?!?” and reframes the normally implicit framing of police as an inarguable good. It’s not a policy proposing we abolish the police (tho in sure those calls are out there, too).  It’s a conversation starter.

Finally, I tend to agree with you that it distracts from the issue. I’m just trying to lead by example here and keep us focused on the WHY. I’m clearly failing at that.

Edited June 8, 2020 by iNow

[iNow]

5 hours ago, iNow said:

Finally, I tend to agree with you that it distracts from the issue.

“Demilitarize the police” might be more effective at achieving the end we equally desire, but let’s please remain focused on the end and not the various paths people pursue to achieve it. 

[MigL]

Its happening, INow.

"The Minneapolis City Council on Sunday announced plans to disband its police department and invest in community-based public safety programs following calls from activists to ‘defund the police,’ in the wake of George Floyd’s death at the hands of a Minneapolis police officer."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/06/07/minneapolis-votes-to-disband-police-department/#2be203145274

I sincerely hope they've thought this through.
I would hate to see a mental health provider, or social worker, show up at an event like the 1997 North Hollywood shootout.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

( because a 'mob' of people always make thoughtful decisions )

Edited June 11, 2020 by MigL

[iNow]

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

sincerely hope they've thought this through.
I would hate to see a mental health provider, or social worker, show up at an event like the 1997 North Hollywood shootout.

Why couldn’t the bulk of the force be social services and de-escalation teams and rehabilitation specialists with a separate SWAT style tactical unit of 10-20 for those special more “kinetic” circumstances?

[MigL]

You could, but SWAT units use military gear.
I thought you were opposed to that ?

But what about a simple domestic disturbance, where the husband is drunk and beating on his wife ?
Have you ever tried to talk to a violent drunk ?
The only thing you can do is forcefully remove them, until they've slept it off.

This is just a proposal so far, and hasn't been voted on yet.
If it does go through, I can see all the affluent whites moving to privately protected neighborhoods, while blacks are left in the disadvantaged, unprotected areas, and the situation will get even worse, not better.
And if enough cities decide to follow suit, I can see fear, and need for protection, driving white voters to choose voting for D Trump again this November, as the self-billed 'law and order' candidate, and the world is stuck with D Trump another 4 years.
( hope he's too stupid to take advantage of the situation, in that case )

[iNow]

17 minutes ago, MigL said:

You could, but SWAT units use military gear.
I thought you were opposed to that ?

I’m opposed to 100% of the force using it. The beat cops. The guys who drive around in patrol cars. The ones interacting with neighborhood kids or helping abused women transition to safety. The ones issue it traffic citations.

They don’t need guns or vests. They don’t need equipment from the Pentagon that was used in Iraq or Afghanistan to go chat with a guy who MIGHT have used a fake $20 bill. 

But a handful of “last resort” special ops team members? That’s justified. It should be a last resort, though... Not option 1 for initial engagement as they’re so often used today. 
 

17 minutes ago, MigL said:

hope he's too stupid to take advantage of the situation, in that case

My read on this as of today is he’s running on the deepest core of his base right now: racism. His first campaign rally is in Tulsa Oklahoma where hundreds of innocent black men, women, and children were brutalized and massacred by the police themselves. He’s doing this amidst the current protests against police violence, he’s dog whistling himself as the “law and order” candidate, and he’s chosen to schedule this first rally on June 19th... aka Juneteenth... the day the black community celebrates slavery’s end across the US south. He’s speaking the quiet parts out loud and too many people STILL can’t seem to hear him (or simply don’t care).

But this isn’t a thread about Cheeto Mussolini. Let’s not let his blackhole of “mommy and daddy didn’t love me enough” derail yet another thread or interesting conversation. 

Edited June 11, 2020 by iNow

[MigL]

And while we are picking on police forces ( well, D Chauvin, the murderer, was a policeman ), why are politicians, legislators and DAs getting a free pass  ?
They set up the system and laws, that allow for the treatment and prosecution of people, based on their skin color.
Seems very hypocritical that they now jump on the other bandwagon, and blame police forces for enforcing systems/rules they themselves created.

Typical political maneuver, blame someone else, and cover your ass so you can get re-elected.

[iNow]

You don’t think they’ll be next? Focus first on the ones putting knees on throats. Focus next on the ones looking away when they do, then those who lock up for life the ones lucky enough to survive 

[MigL]

I don't know.
They've gotten really good at covering their asses.

By the way, this past weekend in Chicago, 85 shot, 24 dead, mostly young black males, but a few middle aged and a few women.
Meanwhile the police were keeping an eye on the protesters, or even marching along.
Just an example of what happens when no-one is 'minding the store', or the police is defunded.

I have to wonder if a simpler answer, like getting rid of police unions, which protect the repeat offenders like D Chauvin, might be enough to rid police forces of the 'bad' cops. Might make the rest not feel obliged to protect the bad ones, and 'police' themselves.

[iNow]

Protests help with that, too. Millions of pissed off people tend to have more power than hundreds of armed authoritarian ones. 

Protest and social unrest is at the heart of essentially every single civil liberty we enjoy and celebrate today 

[MigL]

11 hours ago, iNow said:

Protest and social unrest is at the heart of essentially every single civil liberty we enjoy and celebrate today 

One could make the argument that protest and social unrest, such as the 1848, European protests/uprisings, or the French Revolution which consumed its offspring, did little to bring about social change. It was subsequent wars ( Italian unification and German unification ) that allowed for self-governance after the failure of the French revolution, Napoleonic empire and the re-distribution of power at the 1815 Vienna Congress.
Similarly it was war that brought about the end of slavery ( such as it was ) in the American south.

Then again, I suppose you could call civil war, extreme social unrest.

[CharonY]

13 hours ago, MigL said:

I have to wonder if a simpler answer, like getting rid of police unions, which protect the repeat offenders like D Chauvin, might be enough to rid police forces of the 'bad' cops. Might make the rest not feel obliged to protect the bad ones, and 'police' themselves.

As mentioned before there is legislation in play to increase police accountability see text here.

Quote

Specifically, the Justice in Policing Act of 2020 would:

Hold police accountable in our courts by:

• Amending the mens rea requirement in 18 U.S.C. Section 242, the federal criminal statute to prosecute police misconduct, from “willfulness” to a “recklessness” standard;
• Reforming qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that as currently interpreted shields law enforcement officers from being held legally liable for violating an individual’s constitutional rights.
• Improving the use of pattern and practice investigations at the federal level by granting the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division subpoena power and incentivizing state attorneys general to conduct pattern and practice investigations;
• Incentivizing states to create independent investigative structures for police involved deaths through grants; and
• Creating best practices recommendations based on President Obama’s 21st Century Policing Task Force.

Improve transparency into policing by collecting better and more accurate data of police misconduct and use-of-force by:

• Creating a National Police Misconduct Registry to prevent problem-officers from changing jurisdictions to avoid accountability; and
• Mandating state and local law enforcement agencies report use of force data, disaggregated by race, sex, disability, religion, age.

Improve police training and practices by:

• Ending racial and religious profiling;
• Mandating training on racial bias and the duty to intervene;
• Banning no-knock warrants in drug cases;Banning chokeholds and carotid holds;
• Changing the standard to evaluate whether law enforcement use of force was justified from whether the force was reasonable to whether the force was necessary;
• Limiting the transfer of military-grade equipment to state and local law enforcement;
• Requiring federal uniformed police officers to wear body cameras; and
• Requiring state and local law enforcement to use existing federal funds to ensure the use of police body cameras

Make lynching a federal crime by:

• Making it a federal crime to conspire to violate existing federal hate crimes laws.

But to the broader point of funding: the fact that the US spends much more on policing rather than on social programs compared to other economically advanced nations but has worse outcomes in terms of criminality points to an issue with funding priorities. Policing is basically the reactive band-aid for a range of social issues, but does little for prevention these issues to crop up. More importantly, it also leads to mission creep, where police now also have to take on roles which are better fulfilled by health care providers or social workers. The basic idea is then, to increase funding to fight the root of the issue plaguing the US rather than further investing into a system that intrinsically is not working.

I think there are different schools of thoughts at play here. One that sees that the roots of crime are social in nature and require deeper adjustments of structural issues. The other is more focused on combating symptoms. Most literature indicate that social measures as a whole are more effective to create large-scale changes and while a balance needs to be found, it at least appears that the US is performing less well than their counterparts. 

[iNow]

The authenticity and passion is notable. People we love all across the world are feeling this way

 

[Alex_Krycek]

When I was 24, a black coworker of mine told me a troubling story about an encounter he had with the police.  It had happened 4 weeks prior at our warehouse facility in North Carolina.  The police were investigating a burglary, and two beat cops showed up to our work to ask my black coworker questions about what he might have seen the night before in relation to the crime.  He said he hadn't seen anything. 

The cops pressed him for information, but my coworker repeated that he had no knowledge of the burglary, because, well, he had no knowledge of the burglary.  As the conversation was coming to a close, one of the officers said straight to my coworker's face: "You n-words are all the same."  And then he and his partner walked off.

Now, my coworker wasn't fabricating these events.  He had two witnesses on site when it happened, (other coworkers: 1 black and 1 white) who heard the officer make the comment.  It was enough evidence for him to sue the local police department and eventually get awarded a hefty settlement.  He ended up quitting his job and starting his own business in his twenties. 

It goes to show how entrenched these behaviors are in many police departments.    These weren't "good ole boy" cops in their late fifties.  These were young officers in their late twenties / early thirties who saw fit to make such a racist comment right out in the open. 

[iNow]

Your friend is lucky. He’s still alive and got a settlement. These things happen every day. Most get nothing or get dead. 

[Alex_Krycek]

12 minutes ago, iNow said:

Your friend is lucky. He’s still alive and got a settlement. These things happen every day. Most get nothing or get dead. 

Yes, obviously.  

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, bryozoa said:

The manner of his death appears to have obscured the fact this person was a violent offender and habitual criminal. Politically correct leftists are always quick to defend such persons from a safe distance but I doubt they would tolerate living in close proximity to them for long. Far safer for the liberal elite to champion black thugs from the safety of their gated communities. Well if I had my way I'd force liberals to adopt criminal degenerate scum and accept them into their homes.

I imagine you'll be gone soon, so my answer is moot...

[zapatos]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

I imagine you'll be gone soon, so my answer is moot...

LOL! I just said essentially the same thing in another thread he is polluting. 😃