Defund the police

[GMDino]

(07-18-2020, 04:46 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Everyone get's that.  Now ask yourself what is so hard about complying with "You are under arrest" or "stop resisting"?  Many of these cases are the result of perpetrators fighting with the police, in an attempt to not be taken into custody.  What are the police to do, just allow them to run away?

Oh!  We're gonna go with "just do what the officer says and you won't get killed" line?

Okay.

(07-18-2020, 04:46 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I'm sure that you'll already be prepared to steer the question away from the behavior that I'm pointing to, with something about racial profiling or being arrested for non crimes, etc.

2.0

(07-18-2020, 04:46 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: But, just humor me for a moment, and address the behavior of the criminal that often leads to the use of force to subdue or apprehend.  How about we ask our criminals to simply obey the directives of the officers?

No. You want to go off on offenders who resist and I will stick to the point that this (latest) attempt at police reform was specifically started because the police murdered a man who was not resisting using a chokehold. The GOP wanted a bill that didn't even address that. So no, I won't "humor you" I will stick to the point that it wasn't the Democrats that didn't want reform.

[GMDino]

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/16/877527974/how-decades-of-bans-on-police-chokeholds-have-fallen-short#:~:text=The%20Los%20Angeles%20Police%20Department,officer's%20life%20is%20in%20danger.

Quote:Some of the biggest police departments in the country have already instituted bans on chokeholds. The Los Angeles Police Department banned what's called the "bar-arm chokehold" in 1982. The New York Police Department banned chokeholds in November 1993 — except when an officer's life is in danger. And the Chicago Police Department did the same in May 2012. Philadelphia and Houston have similar policies.


Las Vegas police Undersheriff Kevin McMahill speaks in Las Vegas on May 17, 2017, after the death of Tashii S. Brown, known as Tashii Farmer-Brown. Police had used a stun gun and a chokehold on him. In a change announced in September 2017, Las Vegas police officers can no longer routinely use neck restraints to render combative people unconscious.
John Locher/AP
And yet over the past two decades there have been multiple people who have died when neck restraints were used in their arrest.


Eric Garner, who died after being put in a chokehold by New York City police officer Daniel Pantaleo, remains one of the most high-profile deaths.


But there are many others: James Thompson in Chicago. Allen Simpson in Dallas. Rodney Lynch in Gallup, N.M. Dustin Boone in Las Vegas. Roger Owensby Jr. in Cincinnati. Carl Glen Wheat in Amarillo, Texas. Gerald Arthur in New Orleans. Torris Harris in Chattanooga, Tenn.


In Minneapolis, where Floyd was killed and where chokeholds had been permitted until this month, the police used neck restraints at least 237 times since 2015 and rendered 44 people unconscious through the technique, according to a report by NBC.


Paul Butler, a former federal prosecutor and author of the book Chokehold: Policing Black Men, says part of the problem is a lack of accountability.


"If we look at the ban in New York City, it's kind of like a rule in an employee handbook: 'Don't use a chokehold.' We shouldn't expect those kinds of light bans to work," he says.


In fact, when the city's Civilian Complaint Review Board studied its use in 2014, it found hundreds of complaints a year alleging that police officers used the technique — and even concluded that the use of chokeholds at the time appeared to be rising despite a decades-long ban.


"There is an enormous bias inside the police department when the police department is disciplining its own people to avoid diluting the power of any particular officer to use or employ a chokehold," says Richard Emery, who served as the chair of the Civilian Complaint Review Board when it reviewed the use of chokeholds in New York City.

The article goes on to say that if it was a federal mandate maybe there could be some actual repercussions for officers, you know, killing people.

[*bfine32*]

(07-18-2020, 04:25 PM)GMDino Wrote: bfine that the GOP didn't even have it in the bill to begin with says more about them than the Democrats not "debating" whether it should be there or not.

You made a lot of assumptions in that post but they have nothing to do with the fact (not assumption) that the GOP didn't care and just wanted to post something that said "reform" on it.

Sure let's both stop making assumptions. We can both agree an African American Senator wrote a bill that used a lot of language he got from talking with folks across the aisle and the Dems wouldn't even debate it. Now if they had opened debate with. This bill must include National banning of choke holds as their opening amendment and the GOP balked, then you'd have a point.

Other than that I cannot understand how eveeryone cannot see it for exactly what it was. 

[SunsetBengal]

(07-18-2020, 05:10 PM)GMDino Wrote: Oh!  We're gonna go with "just do what the officer says and you won't get killed" line?

Okay.



 2.0


No.  You want to go off on offenders who resist and I will stick to the  point that this (latest) attempt at police reform was specifically started because the police murdered a man who was not resisting using a chokehold. The GOP wanted a bill that didn't even address that.  So no, I won't "humor you" I will stick to the point that it wasn't the Democrats that didn't want reform.

Is resisting arrest not another violation of the law?

If you want to do away from restraint by headlock, then perhaps you have to contemplate allowing expanded use of the baton?

[*bfine32*]

(07-18-2020, 05:10 PM)GMDino Wrote: Oh!  We're gonna go with "just do what the officer says and you won't get killed" line?

Okay.



 2.0


No.  You want to go off on offenders who resist and I will stick to the  point that this (latest) attempt at police reform was specifically started because the police murdered a man who was not resisting using a chokehold. The GOP wanted a bill that didn't even address that.  So no, I won't "humor you" I will stick to the point that it wasn't the Democrats that didn't want reform.

I'd say following an Officer's instructions would decrease you changes, but apparently, we differ

Of couse the Dems want reform and they'll get hot on starting November 4th

[samhain]

I don't get the chokehold thing. I understand that cops have killed detainees with them, but in most of those cases those particular cops were doing a shitty job of applying the technique.

Long ago when I was a young Sam, I was into martial arts for about 5 years, mostly jiu-jitsu. I wasn't particularly great at it, but I learned enough for it to be useful to me if need be. I rolled a lot in practices, sometimes 6 days a week and have been choked probably hundreds of times. I've applied chokehold to dozens of sparring partners. Never once did anyone suffer any kind of real injury. People passed out on rare occasions, but this was brief and not much of a big deal.

On the other hand, I've been hit in the head and face with everything from fists to beer bottles. I've been knocked the F out and cut badly. I've had my head rammed into tables and brick walls, and slammed on the ground. I've had more than one concussion. I'd take a chokehold over any of these things all day long.

Police need to get better at applying chokeholds, or at least some of them apparently. They are useful and relatively safe if the person applying knows what they are doing and is calm enough to keep it together while doing it.

I really don't want to see people getting hit in the head with batons or shot because cops can't use chokeholds. Both are IMO much more potentially lethal (obviously in one case). I feel like the answer is to teach officers more and maintain the training to confirm that they are capable of using the technique without killing someone.

[*bfine32*]

(07-18-2020, 07:35 PM)samhain Wrote: I don't get the chokehold thing.  I understand that cops have killed detainees with them, but in most of those cases those particular cops were doing a shitty job of applying the technique.  

Long ago when I was a young Sam, I was into martial arts for about 5 years, mostly jiu-jitsu.  I wasn't particularly great at it, but I learned enough for it to be useful to me if need be.  I rolled a lot in practices, sometimes 6 days a week and have been choked probably hundreds of times.  I've applied chokehold to dozens of sparring partners.  Never once did anyone suffer any kind of real injury.  People passed out on rare occasions, but this was brief and not much of a big deal.  

On the other hand, I've been hit in the head and face with everything from fists to beer bottles.  I've been knocked the F out and cut badly.  I've had my head rammed into tables and brick walls, and slammed on the ground.  I've had more than one concussion.  I'd take a chokehold over any of these things all day long.  

Police need to get better at applying chokeholds, or at least some of them apparently.  They are useful and relatively safe if the person applying knows what they are doing and is calm enough to keep it together while doing it.  

I really don't want to see people getting hit in the head with batons or shot because cops can't use chokeholds.  Both are IMO much more potentially lethal (obviously in one case).  I feel like the answer is to teach officers more and maintain the training to confirm that they are capable of using the technique without killing someone.

Outstanding post.

The "bar choke holds" is just folks looking at the effects instead of the cause. 

[samhain]

(07-18-2020, 08:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Outstanding post.

The "bar choke holds" is just folks looking at the effects instead of the cause. 

100%.  All you have to do is watch the George Floyd or Eric Garner killings to see that what those officers were doing was just flat-out dumb and dangerous, probably due to a lack of training/panic in the moment.  This shouldn't disqualify the use of correct/effective chokeholds as a means of subduing someone who isn't cooperating/is a threat.  If you detain somebody with a chokehold and know how to do it, you can much more easily prevent them from hurting themselves or others than you can by swinging a stick/fist, or firing non-lethal projectiles.  

If you hit somebody hard enough to subdue them, they are going down hard.  They could land funny and break something, or even hit their head in a way that causes death.  I remember this happening a long time ago in Cincinnati outside of the Clifton B-Dubs to a prominent high school football player.  He clocked a dude that hit his sister, the dude fell, hit the curb, and died.  

IMO it doesn't favor any party involved to eliminate chokeholds.

[BmorePat87]

(07-18-2020, 04:46 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Everyone get's that.  Now ask yourself what is so hard about complying with "You are under arrest" or "stop resisting"?  

I think the hard part is when a guy knees on your neck for 8 minutes, or when you are shot for reaching for your registration after saying you are, or when you're a medic or journalist and you get a baton across the face for legally standing somewhere. 

When you're told that the protests are about these instances, what purpose does it serve to try to say "what about"? I guess because it's easy to discount actual injustice by suggesting it's just a bunch of "criminals" "resisting", but you either have to be intentionally dishonest in hopes that you can steer away from the point being contended or you have to have your head buried under a lot of sand to think that describes the problem. 

[BmorePat87]

(07-18-2020, 01:30 PM)Dill Wrote: Well if you heard it in this very forum then it has to be true. 

I would say that that Biden's proposals do line up, somewhat, with this definition of "defund the police."

"Defunding the police means shrinking the scope of police responsibilities and shifting most of what government does to keep us safe to entities that are better equipped to meet that need." https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/06/08/what-does-defund-police-mean-george-floyd-black-lives-matter/5317240002/

https://joebiden.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/UNITY-TASK-FORCE-RECOMMENDATIONS.pdf
Non-Police Responses:Federal funding to create a civilian corps of unarmed first responders such as social workers, EMTs, and trained mental health professionals, who can handle non-violent emergencies including order maintenanceviolations, mental health emergencies, and low-level conflicts outside the criminal justice system, freeing police officers to concentrate on the most serious crimes. Fund initiatives to partner mental health professionals, substance use disorder experts,social workers, and disability advocates with police departments to respond to calls with police officers to better de-escalate interactions with citizens and when appropriate, to divert individuals to the social services they need.

But I don't think they line up with Trump's definition, if he means get rid of police departments. Cuz with Biden the depts. are all still there. Just deployed differently.

He's also calling for more funding for the police in addition to moving responsibility and funds for things like mental health and other community services away from being handled by the police. 

[SunsetBengal]

(07-18-2020, 09:25 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I think the hard part is when a guy knees on your neck for 8 minutes, or when you are shot for reaching for your registration after saying you are, or when you're a medic or journalist and you get a baton across the face for legally standing somewhere. 

When you're told that the protests are about these instances, what purpose does it serve to try to say "what about"? I guess because it's easy to discount actual injustice by suggesting it's just a bunch of "criminals" "resisting", but you either have to be intentionally dishonest in hopes that you can steer away from the point being contended or you have to have your head buried under a lot of sand to think that describes the problem. 

I'm pretty sure that the entire populous has admitted that example is wrong, and not the way to do it.  That is the anomaly to the regular.  

Now, this isn't about protests.  Please answer my question of "Why won't the criminals submit to being arrested?"  It's not that tough to follow directives.  As an educator, you should know full and well how tough it is to do one's job, when your target audience refuses to cooperate..

[*bfine32*]

(07-18-2020, 09:05 PM)samhain Wrote: 100%.  All you have to do is watch the George Floyd or Eric Garner killings to see that what those officers were doing was just flat-out dumb and dangerous, probably due to a lack of training/panic in the moment.  This shouldn't disqualify the use of correct/effective chokeholds as a means of subduing someone who isn't cooperating/is a threat.  If you detain somebody with a chokehold and know how to do it, you can much more easily prevent them from hurting themselves or others than you can by swinging a stick/fist, or firing non-lethal projectiles.  

If you hit somebody hard enough to subdue them, they are going down hard.  They could land funny and break something, or even hit their head in a way that causes death.  I remember this happening a long time ago in Cincinnati outside of the Clifton B-Dubs to a prominent high school football player.  He clocked a dude that hit his sister, the dude fell, hit the curb, and died.  

IMO it doesn't favor any party involved to eliminate chokeholds.

Seems a movement to educate on how to use the choke hold correctly. could be more beneficial than eliminating it. I get the knee flex reaction, , but let's look at things with an unbiased eye. 

[GMDino]

(07-18-2020, 09:47 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I'm pretty sure that the entire populous has admitted that example is wrong, and not the way to do it.  That is the anomaly to the regular.  

Now, this isn't about protests.  Please answer my question of "Why won't the criminals submit to being arrested?"  It's not that tough to follow directives.  As an educator, you should know full and well how tough it is to do one's job, when your target audience refuses to cooperate..

There are many examples, some Pat listed, of people who complied and were still killed.

"Resisting" is easy to charge.  Police cuff someone "for their safety" before ever telling them why and the guy turns to ask what is going on...resisting.  

Just because a cop stops you or wants to talk to you doesn't mean you have to immediately do everything they say...and even if you do we hav seen you can still get killed.

It's a red herring.

[SunsetBengal]

(07-19-2020, 12:06 AM)GMDino Wrote: There are many examples, some Pat listed, of people who complied and were still killed.

"Resisting" is easy to charge.  Police cuff someone "for their safety" before ever telling them why and the guy turns to ask what is going on...resisting.  

Just because a cop stops you or wants to talk to you doesn't mean you have to immediately do everything they say...and even if you do we hav seen you can still get killed.

It's a red herring.

Nah, the real "red herring" is the line of thinking that you can simply break the law, and not be subject to any retribution.

[samhain]

(07-19-2020, 12:17 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Nah, the real "red herring" is the line of thinking that you can simply break the law, and not be subject to any retribution.

The determination of whether or not a law has been broken occurs long after the point of arrest in court.  If you don't feel like or flat out know that you haven't broken a law, perhaps you're more inclined to be a bit difficult.  

Police at street level are in no way responsible or authorized to determine guilt before trial.  Ideally, everyone cooperates and the appropriate outcome comes to bear through the process.  Some have more faith in that process than others, obviously.  

[samhain]

(07-18-2020, 11:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Seems a movement to educate on how to use the choke hold correctly. could be more beneficial than eliminating it. I get the knee flex reaction, , but let's look at things with an unbiased eye. 

I can't claim the argument as my own, as I basically adopted it from Jocko Willink, an ex-SEAL team commander and regular on Fox and multiple podcasts.  I've seen others mention it elsewhere.  He's hardly a leftist or anti-cop.  He more or less thinks cops need more combat training on a repetitive basis to enable them to make better decisions under duress.  He wants to apply combat concepts to the idea of policing.  You can't let your emotions get the better of you in any potentially violent situation, as it endangers both you and whoever else is involved.  You obviously are more aquainted with that in real life than I am.  The goal is not to allow things to escalate, and if they do, it shouldn't be because of something the authorities did.

I'm all in favor of BLM itself, as I see it as a genuine, organic movement with goals outside of just politics for the sake of politics.  They weren't looking for a cause, because the cause itself became needed.  They believe that they are fighting for their lives, and in many cases they just may be.  They aren't fakes.  I also don't portend to tell black people how they should or shouldn't obtain what they want.  I've just come to the conclusion since all of this started that the change needed has more to do with police training than defunding or banning things.

[BmorePat87]

[fredtoast]

(07-19-2020, 12:17 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Nah, the real "red herring" is the line of thinking that you can simply break the law, and not be subject to any retribution.

Okay.  I'll give you the fact that some people resist.

Now what about all the other cases where police abuse people who do not resist?  Are we supposed to just ignore them?

Maybe this will help you understand the real meaning of a "red herring".  We have a problem with police abusing their power.  Instead of talking about police abusing their power you claim the probelm is that people resist arrest.  That is a classic "red herring".  It is an argument that does not really address the problem of police abusing their power because we have so many examples of police abusing their power against people who do not resist.

[SunsetBengal]

(07-19-2020, 09:11 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Okay.  I'll give you the fact that some people resist.

Now what about all the other cases where police abuse people who do not resist?  Are we supposed to just ignore them?

Maybe this will help you understand the real meaning of a "red herring".  We have a problem with police abusing their power.  Instead of talking about police abusing their power you claim the probelm is that people resist arrest.  That is a classic "red herring".  It is an argument that does not really address the problem of police abusing their power because we have so many examples of police abusing their power against people who do not resist.

No, we absolutely should not ignore.  Abuse of power, specifically by anyone chosen to work for the Government to protect the citizens, is something that cannot be overlooked.  Something needs to be changed, perhaps in the selection process for Law Enforcement personnel?  If the problem is White officers murdering/mistreating minority suspects, perhaps they should have a more diversified police force, specifically in locations where instances happen the most?  Are there any stats on the diversity of police forces in the cities where these events are occurring?  

However, simply choosing to defund, which Joe Biden stated he is in favor of, would put the rest of the law abiding citizens at risk.  At risk for what?  Protecting the rights and lives of a relative few law breakers?  

To second bolded:  How can one determine what the cause of any problem is, without fully looking into all of the factors that may be involved?  While no citizen should be killed or mistreated before they have a chance to be proven guilty in a court of law;  It is also quite relevant to wonder why an innocent person is acting violent or combative toward an officer of the law?  

[*bfine32*]

(07-19-2020, 12:43 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote:

What a shame Joe Biden's not in favor of that.