+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: AACbbs (/forum-460.html)
+---- Forum: Members (/forum-401.html)
+----- Forum: Rice (/forum-444.html)
+------ Forum: Kent Rowald Memorial Quad (/forum-660.html)
+------ Thread: Response to the killing of George Floyd (/thread-900334.html)
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - OptimisticOwl - 06-24-2020 04:59 PM
(06-24-2020 03:20 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: Who puts themselves at risk first?
It is the cops, in traffic situations. They have no idea what they are walking into. Most cops killed are in traffic stops.
I had a traffic stop once in which the cop reached for his gun. He had it halfway out when I raised my hands.
I asked a cop friend once what I could do to not have that happen again.
1. Sit quietly in the car until he comes to you. Do not exit the car.
2. Keep hands visible, preferably on the steering wheel.
3. Do not go into the glove box or any other compartment without first telling the cop what you doing. No sudden moves. Even if your insurance is in the glove box, WAIT to get it out.
4. Follow instructions.
I wonder if these are similar to the advice black parents give their children.
I nearly got shot because I violated #3. I was white, and the cop was white. Nothing to do with race.
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - Hambone10 - 06-24-2020 05:58 PM
(06-24-2020 04:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:Quote:Who puts themselves at risk first? That's the real problem, because while I personally think it needs to be the cops... I also know that 'bad guys' will try and take advantage of this.
I'm going to disagree here. I don't think the burden should always be on police to take the risk. All you're going to get from that is a bunch of dead cops. Of course, I suppose that's exactly what BLM wanted when they were chanting, "What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want it? Now."
I said this because
1) It would be the job. If we can't get qualified people to do it for the price, then we need to change the price. I'd rather pay more to protect unarmed cops than to pay for riot police and clean-up, much less lawsuits over wrongful deaths.
2) the other things we talked about like essentially eliminating traffic stops reduce the incidence of unarmed (or under-armed) cops being in these situations.
Quote:[quote]
It's been a long time, but I recall suggesting on this forum the creation of multiple levels of police... I think we need to go back to that.
1) purely defensive police. No weapons, but protected. Cameras, tracking devices, drones, remote policing (like traffic cams). I'd turn MOST policing into this. Cop sees a speeder, he (or a camera) gets close enough to get a picture of the driver and plate and that's it. No personal contact.
I'd turn traffic police into radars and cameras, like in a number of other countries. No reason for an officer even to pursue a speeder to get a photo. That kind of thing will end badly more than not. We really don't need 1-on-1 officer-citizen confrontations on the side of the road.
[/quote]
I didn't mean to imply that he would give chase. What came into my mind was out of sci-fi... drones that could be deployed or just to use motorola (or just traffic cameras) to get in front of them and snap a picture. I think we generally agree here.
Quote:[quote]
Domestic disturbance, starts with what is essentially a social worker or mental health professional.... starts with a call or video chat or something.
2) 'non-lethal' police. They might go with a social worker with tazer or rubber bullets or some other non-lethal means.... including perhaps some version of a tranquilizer dart. There are some health risks here, but we should be able to come up with something.
I'd move domestic disturbances into your 'non-lethal police' category. An officer with a social worker is probably the right combination to deal with a lot of these. Now if the perp is armed, move that to your category 3.[/quote]
Sure...
Quote:[quote]
3) armed police. Respond to armed or aggressively non-compliant and unknown if armed assailants deemed not to be mental health issues. This is basically SWAT, but without the military hardware
4) swat... for confrontations with heavily armed people, and this could be part of the national guard or something rather than police.
I kind like the National Guard idea conceptually, something like the Carabinieri in Italy or the Gendarmerie in France, although the problem I see is that the NG is not on duty 24/7/365. That's one reason why I proposed repurposing them as an emergency response team; we only have to pay them when they are training or actually responding. Adding this would require greater repurposing of the NG than I had proposed. One thing we could do with the NG is that in the Coast Guard every officer and petty officer E-5 and above is designated a federal marshal. I could see designating Guardsmen E-5 and above as state police.
or we simply move SWAT under NG and make that portion 24/7. If they need more (say some siege somewhere) then they call in the 'regular' guard as before.
Quote:[quote]
Just spit-balling here on my computer... hadn't really thought about the details in some time.
Quote:I haven't thought about this particular idea in great detail, although I do like the idea of radars and cameras for traffic policing. Free up officers to do other things. It might make the profession less attractive to those who just want to wear a gun and drive fast, but getting rid of them wouldn't be a bad thing to my way of thinking.
What I'm thinking is traffic violations done electronically, then three levels of police:
1) Unarmed accompanied by social workers for minor domestic disputes, the objective is to defuse them
2) Armed for most situations
3) Heavily armed for SWAT situations
Funny story about speed cameras. They have them randomly along Sheikh Zayed Road, the main drag in Dubai. They move them from day to day. My driver on one trip there loved to drive well faster than the limit. She knew most of the spots, so she would speed along until she got close to a possible camera location, then slam on brakes to slow down, then speed back up when we were past the camera. The last morning, on the way to the airport, I think one of them caught her. I was flying out, so I don't know how that ended up, but she let out a stream of profanity when she thought it got her.
It seems I only differ from you in the 'armed for most situations' as opposed to having lethal, and non-lethal arming. I'd probably have to see stats on the calls that officers are dispatched to.... but for me the idea is that you take the decision about whether or not to use lethal force away from many officers. They don't do it because they can't... and then you put extra burden (and pay of course) on those who have that authority... and again, you take away their guess work as well.
I think it a lot easier to give someone two choices... than multiples... Tell non-lethal cops.... if you think you could die, get more people. Tell lethal cops... if you're shooting, you better be sure.
I'd have to see how often it's a single cop who could or could not save someone by shooting someone else.... Most often it seems there are multiple cops around when that happens.
(06-24-2020 04:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [quote='Hambone10' pid='16876401' dateline='1593030025']
Who puts themselves at risk first?
It is the cops, in traffic situations. They have no idea what they are walking into. Most cops killed are in traffic stops.
I had a traffic stop once in which the cop reached for his gun. He had it halfway out when I raised my hands.
I asked a cop friend once what I could do to not have that happen again.
1. Sit quietly in the car until he comes to you. Do not exit the car.
2. Keep hands visible, preferably on the steering wheel.
3. Do not go into the glove box or any other compartment without first telling the cop what you doing. No sudden moves. Even if your insurance is in the glove box, WAIT to get it out.
4. Follow instructions.
I wonder if these are similar to the advice black parents give their children.
I nearly got shot because I violated #3. I was white, and the cop was white. Nothing to do with race.
[/quote]
I should have asked... who SHOULD take the risk. I know the cops do, but that's why i suggested basically ending most such things. Probably require a massive increase in traffic cams which won't set well with lots of people... so it probably results in a major decrease in traffic enforcement, outside of accidents.
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - Owl 69/70/75 - 06-24-2020 06:54 PM
I think the BLM people want a situation where the police take ALL the risks ALL the time. Kind of like the ROEs we use in "limited" wars--you can't shoot back until you're dead.
I don't think that's reasonable or viable. I can't imagine quality, intelligent human beings taking on that kind of risk. That would mean either 1) we don't have nearly enough police, or 2) the ones we have are basically people who couldn't get a job doing anything else. I don't think we want that. I know I don't.
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - illiniowl - 06-24-2020 08:44 PM
Geez, some of you need to turn in your libertarian cards if you're all hot to have Big Brother cameras and drones saturate the landscape. Yeah, that's not the answer, especially with ever more money-hungry liberal politicians inexorably increasing the parameters for their use, not to mention the inherent due process conflicts of interest that accompany private, for-profit contractors operating these systems.
Making the police into a revenue source is bad enough even with just human cops -- you all may recall that Ferguson, Missouri, relied on tickets and fines and such for the majority of its budget -- it always ends up being terribly regressive in addition to fundamentally undemocratic. If the government thinks it needs money, it needs to, as much as practicable, get it across the board from general taxes, which requires justifying it to the voters.
I understand the impulse -- reduce cop interactions with citizens. Well, the fact of the matter is that an incredible amount of important law enforcement (violent criminals apprehended, contraband interdicted, etc.) flows from traffic stops; eliminating that tool simply throws the baby out with the bathwater.
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - Jonathan Sadow - 06-24-2020 10:10 PM
(06-24-2020 04:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: As a son of the Southland, I do feel compelled to note that of the three, the two worst offenders were deep in Yankeeland, so maybe us southerners aren't nearly as racist as some want to portray us.
The writer Mark Mathabane, a Vendan who grew up in South Africa under the apartheid regime, came to the United States via a tennis scholarship to Limestone College in North Carolina and eventually settled in the state for a number of years. The East Coast liberal types he would associate with as a best-selling author would ask him why, as a black man, would he want to live in a southern state. His answer was that white Southerners never had treated him unkindly. The only whites who had treated him poorly were Northerners, who were often patronizing and displayed subtle racial undertones in their conversations with him.
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - OptimisticOwl - 06-24-2020 10:19 PM
More peaceful protesters throwing bricks, burning cars, and shooting people.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/3-shot-house-set-on-fire-at-scene-of-investigation-into-missing-milwaukee-girls/ar-BB15TdBu?li=BBnbfcL
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - GoodOwl - 06-25-2020 02:03 AM
(06-24-2020 08:44 PM)illiniowl Wrote: Geez, some of you need to turn in your libertarian cards if you're all hot to have Big Brother cameras and drones saturate the landscape. Yeah, that's not the answer, especially with ever more money-hungry liberal politicians inexorably increasing the parameters for their use, not to mention the inherent due process conflicts of interest that accompany private, for-profit contractors operating these systems.
Making the police into a revenue source is bad enough even with just human cops -- you all may recall that Ferguson, Missouri, relied on tickets and fines and such for the majority of its budget -- it always ends up being terribly regressive in addition to fundamentally undemocratic. If the government thinks it needs money, it needs to, as much as practicable, get it across the board from general taxes, which requires justifying it to the voters.
I understand the impulse -- reduce cop interactions with citizens. Well, the fact of the matter is that an incredible amount of important law enforcement (violent criminals apprehended, contraband interdicted, etc.) flows from traffic stops; eliminating that tool simply throws the baby out with the bathwater.
I also disagree with more camera-itis and minute-by-minute surveillance of everyone's lives. That smacks of giving up too many Constitutional rights, and that ain't America. George Orwell was right- we don't need no stinking cameras everywhere in our world--they dehumanize and can be abused to do bad even with the best of intentions more often that used for any real good that couldn't be accomplished with respect, good values and common sense, which we have so little of these days.
Most every "solution" I've seen proposed costs more and requires expanded government, which is too darn big by several magnitudes as it is.
Here's a simple solution that costs less, saves money, and is simple and effective: Everybody just behave your dang selves.
I teach my kids and those I am around to do this every opportunity I get. It requires: parenting, which means actually being physically present with your own kids (electronics , texting and cameras and phones don't count) turning OFF technology completely to do things like read, fish, hunt, play ball together--stuff that many parents don't do today either because they aren't there in the first place (see: breakdown of the nuclear family unit) or because they don;t desire to spend real time with their kids facing life's difficult questions and moments.
I laugh but cry at those tv commercials that show the message that "fun" and "the good life" is sitting on a beach somewhere or speeding down a deserted road in a new car alone or playing video games or getting the latest phone or other technology. They are the opposite of fun or the good life. What's good is spending time talking with a kid without any electronic distractions. Buying a Sunday paper and reading the funnies together and explaining to each other why they are or aren't funny and getting to know eachother after church in the morning.
Yeah, church, there's that evil word, but our nation was founded by people who, although they differed on the expression, by and large agreed on a concept of objective truth and equal rights granted by a superior being which put-near everyone agreed existed and was to be obeyed to ensure their happiness. Whatever church you want, get to know it and hang out with people who try to live it. I guarantee you they aren't burning down buildings, rioting, killing eachother, getting drunk or smoking weed or doing other drugs. Maybe that's not such a bad thing, going to church to try to find a way to be better. Not perfect--there was only one perfect guy and He died about 2,000 years ago, just try to be a bit better each day. Put God and Family back in the equation and you suddenly have a more peaceful, less violent and more productive America again. Not perfect--we can never achieve perfection. B ut many folks getting killed today are only acting outn the results of lack of a real family or any sort of moral upbringing--that's what's really killing these people, not the police, or any ism other than atheism and relativism. We should be protesting relativism and atheism as the real culprits that kill our citizens.
I watched the Floyd video, read about the circumstances. MAde me sick to my stomach. It was revolting, wrong, and it was by all accountsd a personal vendetta by one cop while 3 others stood by and did not speak up as they should have. But even Floyd was no choir boy, and to portray him and merrily dancing along picking flowers before he was apparentl7y and sickeningly murdered is counterproductive as well. To burn down neighborhoods and destroy property, especially in areas that need every store and are struggling to get ion their feet is just as evil and wrongheaded.
And I agree with Ham on one thing, there are good and bad in everyone and in every group. I, like OO apparently, teach my kids to respect and comply with police, and if they feel wronged, wait to take it up with the court and an attorney, not out on the street with the cop. he has a very tough and dangerous job; he carries a gun for a reason, and every cop should carry and be ready to use it if needed, and trying to act tough or brazen, well, play your kid "Don't Take Your Guns To Town" by Johnny Cash when they're young and discuss the song with them instead of te4xting on yer stupid slave-phone for a change.
When my kids was 4 I had them hand write out the ten commandments and we spent about 6 hours that afternoon discussing them in a way they could understand. It came in quite handy many, many times growing up and maturing and was a great basis for teaching how to act in difficult or seemingly ambiguous situations. I've got a deal: tear down any statue or monument you wish and replace each one with a large monument of the ten commandments. Not that anyone would actually deign to read static letters that weren't flashing rapidly by on a stupid screen anymore, but if folks did this, kept their kids and families intact, kind of like Dr. King suggested and just behaved themselves instead of shirking responsibility for their own actions and choices constantly, things would cost a whole lot less and less of all folks would be in jail or be killed by anyone. But then, we'd only need a government that was less than 25% of the size we have now, and all good lefties (and many righties as well) don't want that.
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - MerseyOwl - 06-25-2020 04:29 AM
(06-24-2020 04:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(06-24-2020 03:20 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: Who puts themselves at risk first?
It is the cops, in traffic situations. They have no idea what they are walking into. Most cops killed are in traffic stops.
I had a traffic stop once in which the cop reached for his gun. He had it halfway out when I raised my hands.
I asked a cop friend once what I could do to not have that happen again.
1. Sit quietly in the car until he comes to you. Do not exit the car.
2. Keep hands visible, preferably on the steering wheel.
3. Do not go into the glove box or any other compartment without first telling the cop what you doing. No sudden moves. Even if your insurance is in the glove box, WAIT to get it out.
4. Follow instructions.
I wonder if these are similar to the advice black parents give their children.
I nearly got shot because I violated #3. I was white, and the cop was white. Nothing to do with race.
I was out driving around in the middle of nowhere with a buddy of mine late one night drinking a few beers. The sins of youth. We stopped to "shoot the sh!t" and a few minutes later John Law appears. Well the first thing we did was to turn on the dome light so the police officer could see the two of us. The second was to put our hands on the dashboard and wait. The officer never confronted us. He (or she or they) just drove away.
My nephew was cutting class up in east Texas and was apprehended by the local deputy sheriff. He was taken in, but they couldn't find anything to charge him with. My brother had to go pick him up. The officers apologized for the inconvenience they caused. My brother paused for a second and took a deep breath. "Look, if you ever spot him anywhere he shouldn't be you drag his ass in here no questions asked. I apologize for the inconvenience he caused."
I was raised to respect my elders and the police. If you're stopped you wait and listen. Your responses will generally be "Yes sir" or "No sir". This approach has served me well. I understand and appreciate that the police have a job I don't want. IMHO I think you'll find that the push back on authority begins much earlier. Some kid cuts up in class. They're sent to the Principal's office and a parent is summoned. All to often it's,"What have you done to my child!?!" and not "Wait till I get you home."
I believe this is where the problem starts. Blindly defending bad behaviour and creating the sense of "victimhood".
I remember a few years ago when HISD had a problem of students bringing firearms into school. "My child feels threatened. They need to defend themselves. What can I do?" Thinking laterally someone decided they would fine the parents when their child was found in possession of a firearm. Firearm possession fell precipitously overnight.
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - MerseyOwl - 06-25-2020 05:26 AM
I keep reading about having the a specific responder for a specific situation.
How would this work? Any triage process is going to add an additional layer or step and result in a delayed response without any real assurance of being accurate
I was recently sent to the emergency room as my GP thought I might be having a mini-stroke. I was told to request to see a "stroke nurse" immediately upon my arrival.
I sat for 23 minutes waiting to see the Triage Nurse who confirmed my personal details and after another hour finally saw a doctor. Thankfully it's only Bell's Palsy.
Who would like to wait (an additional) 23 minutes or an hour and 23 minutes for an initial responder?
This appears to be some corollary (ww?) of Hayek's "knowledge problem"?
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - Hambone10 - 06-25-2020 10:03 AM
(06-24-2020 08:44 PM)illiniowl Wrote: Geez, some of you need to turn in your libertarian cards if you're all hot to have Big Brother cameras and drones saturate the landscape. Yeah, that's not the answer, especially with ever more money-hungry liberal politicians inexorably increasing the parameters for their use, not to mention the inherent due process conflicts of interest that accompany private, for-profit contractors operating these systems.
Making the police into a revenue source is bad enough even with just human cops -- you all may recall that Ferguson, Missouri, relied on tickets and fines and such for the majority of its budget -- it always ends up being terribly regressive in addition to fundamentally undemocratic. If the government thinks it needs money, it needs to, as much as practicable, get it across the board from general taxes, which requires justifying it to the voters.
I understand the impulse -- reduce cop interactions with citizens. Well, the fact of the matter is that an incredible amount of important law enforcement (violent criminals apprehended, contraband interdicted, etc.) flows from traffic stops; eliminating that tool simply throws the baby out with the bathwater.
I think you're taking an 'inside the box' view of the possibilities to reach this conclusion.
What is the difference between a cop seeing someone run a red light... rushing through traffic to catch them and pull them over... and just hitting a button on his cruiser that takes a picture of the license plate and mail him a summons that could be adjudicated in a video-chat? If someone is seen doing 100 on the freeway, I'd much rather have a cop report the time and general description and task a traffic cam down the road to 'capture' them on camera than I would have that cop do 120 to try and catch up to him. No different from how anyone else uses their cellphone. That's entirely different from using/monitoring cameras to capture crimes. You still have to 'catch' them in the act, just as you do today... you just don't have to chase them down. Speeders in many places are already tracked by planes... I'm just suggesting we take pictures and mail tickets rather than have traffic stops.
As far as the baby:bathwater, the entire point being made is that profiling for traffic stops is racial in nature... you see a 'shady' looking person and they fairly often ARE shady... but often too they are just people (often of color) just heading home. If you're puling over someone (an individual... a specific person) you suspect being involved in suspicious activity, using 'traffic stop' as a pretense... that's not profiling... In my quick example, that wouldn't be done by an unarmed traffic cop.
While it does have some positive effects as a tool, it is also the #1 source of police fatalities and the #1 complaint by minorities.
When I lived in Bellaire, I had an artist friend who was a bartender at night, who then came over at like 3am to paint murals for my kids rooms. The police pulled him over for suspiciously driving slowly (28 in a 35) though our neighborhood. He was driving slowly because he smelled like beer (spilled, not drunk), was 25 with a little bit of a 'hippie' look, and drove a beater. They harassed him a bit about the smell, gave him a breathalyzer despite no evidence of intoxication etc etc... it COULD have gotten ugly if he had chosen to not cooperate, which would have been his right. They had zero probable cause to stop him. Car was registered, licensed, inspected etc etc etc. If their goal was simply to discourage thieves from casing the neighborhood, they could have just as easily made their presence known to him without a stop, and even taken a picture of the car or even him as he drove by if they were really concerned. Cameras today are incredibly detailed. They had no reason to suspect intoxication, until they pulled him over.
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - OptimisticOwl - 06-25-2020 10:09 AM
(06-25-2020 10:03 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: What is the difference between a cop seeing someone run a red light... rushing through traffic to catch them and pull them over... and just hitting a button on his cruiser that takes a picture of the license plate and mail him a summons that could be adjudicated in a video-chat?
I think there is a big difference in just mailing a summons and pulling somebody over.
Suppose that driver is doing 100 because he is drunk? Suppose he has a backseat full of drugs and/or guns? Suppose he is on a suspend license. Suppose he has warrants out and is wanted in 7 states.
A lot of law enforcement starts with traffic stops.
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - Hambone10 - 06-25-2020 10:23 AM
(06-25-2020 10:09 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: I think there is a big difference in just mailing a summons and pulling somebody over.
Suppose that driver is doing 100 because he is drunk? Suppose he has a backseat full of drugs and/or guns? Suppose he is on a suspend license. Suppose he has warrants out and is wanted in 7 states.
A lot of law enforcement starts with traffic stops.
If he's doing 100 because he's drunk, then you have a different situation. If you run the plates and it's reported stolen, you have a different situation. If you run the plates and it's registered to someone with warrants wanted in 7 states, that's a different situation. If his license is suspended, I probably don't want him chased down for that. You can arrest him later.
If you KNOW or have reason to think he has ILLEGAL guns or drugs in the car... that's one thing.
If it's just a... let me randomly stop this guy who is speeding and see if I get lucky... then I'm pretty much okay with ending that to save cops lives, to save citizens lives.. and to reduce the risk of bad outcomes from the tension created.
The fact that it reduces the effectiveness of the same tool that increases the risk and tension means to me that we need a better tool.
Let me ask this... If the guy is doing 100 and gets in an accident and kills someone, does it matter to you if he was drunk or not? Maybe I should have said 80 in a 70? I suppose I could see where the simple act of doing 100 (depending on where it is... I was imagining rural parts of west Texas) could warrant a stop for safety's sake. I STILL wouldn't want cops doing 120 to catch him... but I'd prefer that they get in front of him by other means.
ETA: Ideally, I'd like to see (especially) some high crime jurisdiction try some of these measures to vet them. Of course some crimes would go down simply because of lesser enforcement... but the question would be, does it improve the quality of life/safety?
I just think our police forces were designed around a different time... and we have many other tools now. Police are asked to be the F/A-35 joint strike/attack fighter and most people don't do as well with lots of options. I'd like to look at having more 'specific purpose' officers... which would be more expensive on some levels, but if it saves lives and costs from riots and protests and lawsuits??
I'm betting there are all sorts of philosophy majors working at Starbucks who wouldn't mind being 'case workers' for homeless people, some with mental issues accused of truancy/vagrancy/squatting etc etc etc
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - OptimisticOwl - 06-25-2020 12:08 PM
(06-25-2020 10:23 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:(06-25-2020 10:09 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: I think there is a big difference in just mailing a summons and pulling somebody over.
Suppose that driver is doing 100 because he is drunk? Suppose he has a backseat full of drugs and/or guns? Suppose he is on a suspend license. Suppose he has warrants out and is wanted in 7 states.
A lot of law enforcement starts with traffic stops.
If he's doing 100 because he's drunk, then you have a different situation. If you run the plates and it's reported stolen, you have a different situation. If you run the plates and it's registered to someone with warrants wanted in 7 states, that's a different situation. If his license is suspended, I probably don't want him chased down for that. You can arrest him later.
If you KNOW or have reason to think he has ILLEGAL guns or drugs in the car... that's one thing.
If it's just a... let me randomly stop this guy who is speeding and see if I get lucky... then I'm pretty much okay with ending that to save cops lives, to save citizens lives.. and to reduce the risk of bad outcomes from the tension created.
The fact that it reduces the effectiveness of the same tool that increases the risk and tension means to me that we need a better tool.
Let me ask this... If the guy is doing 100 and gets in an accident and kills someone, does it matter to you if he was drunk or not? Maybe I should have said 80 in a 70? I suppose I could see where the simple act of doing 100 (depending on where it is... I was imagining rural parts of west Texas) could warrant a stop for safety's sake. I STILL wouldn't want cops doing 120 to catch him... but I'd prefer that they get in front of him by other means.
ETA: Ideally, I'd like to see (especially) some high crime jurisdiction try some of these measures to vet them. Of course some crimes would go down simply because of lesser enforcement... but the question would be, does it improve the quality of life/safety?
I just think our police forces were designed around a different time... and we have many other tools now. Police are asked to be the F/A-35 joint strike/attack fighter and most people don't do as well with lots of options. I'd like to look at having more 'specific purpose' officers... which would be more expensive on some levels, but if it saves lives and costs from riots and protests and lawsuits??
I'm betting there are all sorts of philosophy majors working at Starbucks who wouldn't mind being 'case workers' for homeless people, some with mental issues accused of truancy/vagrancy/squatting etc etc etc
And if you run the plates and the car is registered to a law abiding person who is NOT the person behind the wheel, mailing him a summons does not result in greater public safety.
I don't know how it can be determined from a drone that a driver is drunk. I have been stopped and checked out for possible DWI, but after the cop smells my breath and talks to me a few minutes, no problem, other than a friendly admonition to pay more attention when I change lanes. Not sure what a drone would do in that situation.
So, do the drones call for humans to come check me out or what?
Watch Alaska State Troopers or some other reality law show. Maybe they pull over somebody for weaving, but they always check the DL and registration, they look through the windows to see if there is anything suspicious in plain sight, they ask if there are firearms in the car - a lot of things that could lead to charges but were not the reason for the stop.
But I like the idea to employ philosophy majors.
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - OptimisticOwl - 06-25-2020 01:31 PM
Chop zone lawsuit
"The plaintiffs allege that city leaders provided the demonstrators with barriers, public restrooms and medical supplies – in effect supporting the occupation of the neighborhood and hindering the efforts of local businesspeople, employees and residents to reach their buildings, receive deliveries and provide services, the Seattle Times reported.
The CHOP zone has also worsened conditions for elderly and disabled people in the area, the lawsuit asserts, according to the newspaper."
Sorry, Big, could not find a MSM source for this story.
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - OptimisticOwl - 06-25-2020 01:34 PM
(06-25-2020 12:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(06-25-2020 10:23 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:(06-25-2020 10:09 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: I think there is a big difference in just mailing a summons and pulling somebody over.
Suppose that driver is doing 100 because he is drunk? Suppose he has a backseat full of drugs and/or guns? Suppose he is on a suspend license. Suppose he has warrants out and is wanted in 7 states.
A lot of law enforcement starts with traffic stops.
If he's doing 100 because he's drunk, then you have a different situation. If you run the plates and it's reported stolen, you have a different situation. If you run the plates and it's registered to someone with warrants wanted in 7 states, that's a different situation. If his license is suspended, I probably don't want him chased down for that. You can arrest him later.
If you KNOW or have reason to think he has ILLEGAL guns or drugs in the car... that's one thing.
If it's just a... let me randomly stop this guy who is speeding and see if I get lucky... then I'm pretty much okay with ending that to save cops lives, to save citizens lives.. and to reduce the risk of bad outcomes from the tension created.
The fact that it reduces the effectiveness of the same tool that increases the risk and tension means to me that we need a better tool.
Let me ask this... If the guy is doing 100 and gets in an accident and kills someone, does it matter to you if he was drunk or not? Maybe I should have said 80 in a 70? I suppose I could see where the simple act of doing 100 (depending on where it is... I was imagining rural parts of west Texas) could warrant a stop for safety's sake. I STILL wouldn't want cops doing 120 to catch him... but I'd prefer that they get in front of him by other means.
ETA: Ideally, I'd like to see (especially) some high crime jurisdiction try some of these measures to vet them. Of course some crimes would go down simply because of lesser enforcement... but the question would be, does it improve the quality of life/safety?
I just think our police forces were designed around a different time... and we have many other tools now. Police are asked to be the F/A-35 joint strike/attack fighter and most people don't do as well with lots of options. I'd like to look at having more 'specific purpose' officers... which would be more expensive on some levels, but if it saves lives and costs from riots and protests and lawsuits??
I'm betting there are all sorts of philosophy majors working at Starbucks who wouldn't mind being 'case workers' for homeless people, some with mental issues accused of truancy/vagrancy/squatting etc etc etc
And if you run the plates and the car is registered to a law abiding person who is NOT the person behind the wheel, mailing him a summons does not result in greater public safety.
I don't know how it can be determined from a drone that a driver is drunk. I have been stopped and checked out for possible DWI, but after the cop smells my breath and talks to me a few minutes, no problem, other than a friendly admonition to pay more attention when I change lanes. Not sure what a drone would do in that situation.
So, do the drones call for humans to come check me out or what?
Watch Alaska State Troopers or some other reality law show. Maybe they pull over somebody for weaving, but they always check the DL and registration, they look through the windows to see if there is anything suspicious in plain sight, they ask if there are firearms in the car - a lot of things that could lead to charges but were not the reason for the stop.
But I like the idea to employ philosophy majors.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/woman-allegedly-stabbed-plano-officer-another-driver-before-being-fatally-shot-officials-say/ar-BB15XMOW?ocid=hplocalnews
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - Hambone10 - 06-25-2020 02:05 PM
(06-25-2020 12:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: And if you run the plates and the car is registered to a law abiding person who is NOT the person behind the wheel, mailing him a summons does not result in greater public safety.
We've spent a lot of energy discussing one relatively minor aspect of my 'off-the-cuff' suggestion. If you lend your car to someone and he gets a toll tag violation or parking ticket, it comes back on you just the same.
Quote:I don't know how it can be determined from a drone that a driver is drunk. I have been stopped and checked out for possible DWI, but after the cop smells my breath and talks to me a few minutes, no problem, other than a friendly admonition to pay more attention when I change lanes. Not sure what a drone would do in that situation.
This sort of misses the point. What did you do that created the 'possible dwi'? If it was doing 85 in a 70, that's not probable cause to think someone is drunk, or has guns or drugs in his back seat... and that's the complaint I'm trying to address. If you believe something else is going on based on evidence, then that can be reported and addressed by a different cop with different tools and training. A drone could certainly video the speeding car and see if it is also weaving, driving erratically... and if so, you dispatch police.
Quote:So, do the drones call for humans to come check me out or what?
Sure. Why not?
Quote:Watch Alaska State Troopers or some other reality law show. Maybe they pull over somebody for weaving, but they always check the DL and registration, they look through the windows to see if there is anything suspicious in plain sight, they ask if there are firearms in the car - a lot of things that could lead to charges but were not the reason for the stop.
That's my point. This is specifically what I'm addressing and YOU noted that it was the most dangerous time for a police officer... probably mostly dangerous for that very reason... BECAUSE they're hiding a larger crime.
I'm trying to reduce the frequency of those incidents, and by extension that means ending 'stop and get lucky' enforcement.
If you don't think we need to do anything, that's fine... and I get it and don't totally disagree with you... but obviously we're not in the 'in' crowd right now. I'd certainly rather do this than 'defund the police' or remove any historical reference to anyone who might have in any way done anything that could by extension be perceived in a negative light by modern standards, regardless of what other good they also did...
I don't think 'stop and get lucky' is good policing... and I'm betting that statistically, it only rarely does anything more than give a guy a ticket for misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia on top of the 'rolling stop' ticket.
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - Hambone10 - 06-25-2020 02:10 PM
(06-25-2020 01:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/woman-allegedly-stabbed-plano-officer-another-driver-before-being-fatally-shot-officials-say/ar-BB15XMOW?ocid=hplocalnews
I think I get the point you're making, but I guess I'm saying 'so what'?
The presence of an armed officer didn't stop her from attacking. It just made sure she died.
If stats show that such violence happens often enough such that cops responding to such calls need to have guns, okay... but I'm betting it's not. This certainly sounds like someone with mental issues, who is now dead.
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - tanqtonic - 06-25-2020 02:28 PM
(06-24-2020 11:17 AM)Rice93 Wrote:(06-24-2020 11:12 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:Quote:On the night of June 12, during a more than 40-minute interaction with two Atlanta police officers, Brooks told them he had been with a Girlfriend whom he identified as Natalie White, according to police video footage.
We must protect drunk guys with prior records sleeping with their Girlfriends behind their wives' backs on their 2 year old daughter's birthdays so the Girlfriends can freely burn down Wendy's. That's the American Dream after all (oh, wait, wuz that Dr. King's Dream?) Ask a Progressive--they know it's all good while they smoke their weed and drink their gin'n'juice 'cause that's the American dream of the Left.
Ummm... OK.
re: Brooks. Nothing that you have posted makes me think that he should have been shot in the back by police. I haven't heard many police officers suggest that what happened was good policing either. Does the suggestion that he was not faithful to his wife sway you on this point?
Funny, I heard and saw him wrassle a policeman, pull the taser, and shoot the taser at the cop. I guess that is pretty run of the mill stuff.
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - OptimisticOwl - 06-25-2020 02:39 PM
(06-25-2020 02:05 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:(06-25-2020 12:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: And if you run the plates and the car is registered to a law abiding person who is NOT the person behind the wheel, mailing him a summons does not result in greater public safety.
We've spent a lot of energy discussing one relatively minor aspect of my 'off-the-cuff' suggestion. If you lend your car to someone and he gets a toll tag violation or parking ticket, it comes back on you just the same.
Quote:I don't know how it can be determined from a drone that a driver is drunk. I have been stopped and checked out for possible DWI, but after the cop smells my breath and talks to me a few minutes, no problem, other than a friendly admonition to pay more attention when I change lanes. Not sure what a drone would do in that situation.
This sort of misses the point. What did you do that created the 'possible dwi'? If it was doing 85 in a 70, that's not probable cause to think someone is drunk, or has guns or drugs in his back seat... and that's the complaint I'm trying to address. If you believe something else is going on based on evidence, then that can be reported and addressed by a different cop with different tools and training. A drone could certainly video the speeding car and see if it is also weaving, driving erratically... and if so, you dispatch police.
Quote:So, do the drones call for humans to come check me out or what?
Sure. Why not?
Quote:Watch Alaska State Troopers or some other reality law show. Maybe they pull over somebody for weaving, but they always check the DL and registration, they look through the windows to see if there is anything suspicious in plain sight, they ask if there are firearms in the car - a lot of things that could lead to charges but were not the reason for the stop.
That's my point. This is specifically what I'm addressing and YOU noted that it was the most dangerous time for a police officer... probably mostly dangerous for that very reason... BECAUSE they're hiding a larger crime.
I'm trying to reduce the frequency of those incidents, and by extension that means ending 'stop and get lucky' enforcement.
If you don't think we need to do anything, that's fine... and I get it and don't totally disagree with you... but obviously we're not in the 'in' crowd right now. I'd certainly rather do this than 'defund the police' or remove any historical reference to anyone who might have in any way done anything that could by extension be perceived in a negative light by modern standards, regardless of what other good they also did...
I don't think 'stop and get lucky' is good policing... and I'm betting that statistically, it only rarely does anything more than give a guy a ticket for misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia on top of the 'rolling stop' ticket.
i was changing lanes frequently in a manner they found suspicious.
I guess it could have some time if a drone just took my picture, but it saved me a traffic fine to be judged by a human.
I think we disagree more on details of how this could, should, would work.
OTOH, my ex's second husband, a two time felon with a history of violence, was stopped on a taillight charge, and ended up with a federal firearms rap. Got that dangerous man off the streets for 13 years (he threatened to kill me more than once). Maybe that taillight saved my life.
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - tanqtonic - 06-25-2020 02:40 PM
(06-24-2020 12:14 PM)Rice93 Wrote: That seems to be the move from what other police officers are saying. He had a Taser which (wording carefully here to not make the 2Aers freak out on me) has a limited amount of rounds? Two rounds? Which may have already been spent?
Couple of points ---
are you aware that the unexempted use of a taser under Ga law is assault with a deadly weapon?
Using any deadly weapon, the question of any number of rounds or charges is immaterial. Think of this -- lets say he wrassled a 2 shot 44 magnum from the cop. Also assume that the cop is not entirely aware of how many shots have been expended. I would hope that in any world, the mere fact that a deadly weapon is being pointed, and that the number of rounds in the chamber is decidedly not part of the calculus when that weapon is being pointed.
In my world (having done a defensive shooting course for the first time in the early 90s), the mere fact that a deadly weapon is being pointed at you is the trigger --- not uncertainty of whether 1, 2, 5, 6, 14, or 15 have been previously fired.
From the law enforcement people I know, that is still the same analysis.
Rule 1: (the Michael Brown rule, mind you) never wrassle a policeman.
Rule 1a: never make an attempt to grab an officer's weapon.
Rule 2: never point a dangerous weapon at another.
Rule 2a: never point a dangerous weapon at a cop, in particular.
Rule 3: never use a weapon of any sort at or on a cop.
Seems like all of the above were broken here.
Quote:It is another questionable (I think we can agree on that?) police decision
Only if somehow you find a way around the 5 maxims above. Somehow you do?
Which of the 5 above do you find questionable?