Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Response to the killing of George Floyd
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,279
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1785
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #441
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd
(06-29-2020 01:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Owl#s is about to come in and tell you how we can’t compare practices in the UK and Australia for some reasons I can’t quite remember. But it’s gonna happen.

Perhaps if you spent more time paying attention and less time working on snarky remarks, you might learn something. The reason why the UK and Australia experiences are of questionable relevance is because their subjects have never been armed. When you make a traffic stop or detain a person, it's about a 99.9% chance that such individual is not armed. That's not the case in the USA.

Quote:Welcome to the club of being on the end of people on the parliament telling you how problems are not solvable in any way, shape, or form.

And if this is intended as a backhanded comment toward me, kindly point out where I have ever said that any problem is not solvable in any way, shape, or form. Most of them are not solvable in the ways that the left wants to solve them, but that's very different from not solvable in any way, shape, or form.
(This post was last modified: 06-29-2020 02:51 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
06-29-2020 02:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,830
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #442
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd
(06-29-2020 02:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 01:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Owl#s is about to come in and tell you how we can’t compare practices in the UK and Australia for some reasons I can’t quite remember. But it’s gonna happen.

Perhaps if you spent more time paying attention and less time working on snarky remarks, you might learn something. The reason why the UK and Australia experiences are of questionable relevance is because their subjects have never been armed. When you make a traffic stop or detain a person, it's about a 99.9% chance that such individual is not armed. That's not the case in the USA.

Quote:Welcome to the club of being on the end of people on the parliament telling you how problems are not solvable in any way, shape, or form.

And if this is intended as a backhanded comment toward me, kindly point out where I have ever said that any problem is not solvable in any way, shape, or form. Most of them are not solvable in the ways that the left wants to solve them, but that's very different from not solvable in any way, shape, or form.

The latter wasn’t pointed at you - I find that when you criticize a potential solution you go past the current Republican talking point and stance of never offering a solution, and actually provide some solutions.
06-29-2020 03:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Online
Hooter
*

Posts: 33,812
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 879
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #443
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd
(06-29-2020 02:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The reason why the UK and Australia experiences are of questionable relevance is because their subjects have never been armed. When you make a traffic stop or detain a person, it's about a 99.9% chance that such individual is not armed. That's not the case in the USA.

Which explains why our force wouldn't be nearly 90% unarmed, but if our experience here is say 80% of people are unarmed, then perhaps 30%, or 20% or 50% of our force could be unarmed.

If it's not certain times of day or parts of town or types of stops, that's fine.
(This post was last modified: 06-29-2020 03:43 PM by Hambone10.)
06-29-2020 03:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,343
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #444
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd
(06-29-2020 03:42 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 02:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The reason why the UK and Australia experiences are of questionable relevance is because their subjects have never been armed. When you make a traffic stop or detain a person, it's about a 99.9% chance that such individual is not armed. That's not the case in the USA.

Which explains why our force wouldn't be nearly 90% unarmed, but if our experience here is say 80% of people are unarmed, then perhaps 30%, or 20% or 50% of our force could be unarmed.

If it's not certain times of day or parts of town or types of stops, that's fine.

Still doesnt note a solution to the issue of resisting arrest. And how that can escalate. As we are all very much aware of these days.

But let's take the British example --- I would hazard a guess from the rampant non-reports of issues with arrests there, that the British either use non-lethal means (tasers) far more than in the United States, and/or the idea that actually wrestling with the arresting officer to avoid arrest simply isnt as ingrained in the mindset of vast sections of the British populace as it is here.

Look, I am all for 'descalation' at an arrest. But, let's face it -- there are segments of our population for whom 'de-escalation' isnt in the works at an arrest.

As noted, Michael Brown, George Floyd, and Rayshard Brooks *all* initially escalated their respective stops and arrests. While the idea that armed officers should be 'backed off', that is *not* a good thing as a unilateral move.

It really appears that you are overlooking a very serious sociological issue in terms of actively resisting arrest and only concentrating on making those stops/detainers/arrests actually *far* more dangerous by the proposal to disarm only one side.

I mean, for heaven's sake, the officer in the Michael Brown case just *barely* escaped that episode of 'resisting a stop'. The officer(s) in the Floyd case had to use at *least* three people to put Floyd on the ground when *he* resisted arrest. It took two officers to get Brooks down *after* *he* resisted arrest, and even *then* Brooks broke free *and* pulled a weapon from one of the officers.

This doesn't even bring up the cases of the cops walking to a stopped car and being attacked by the occupants --- which mind you, is the leading cause of death on the job for the law enforcement profession.
(This post was last modified: 06-29-2020 04:07 PM by tanqtonic.)
06-29-2020 04:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,343
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #445
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd
So we have this rash of colleges rescinding admissions for students who they discovered had made insensitive (or worse) comments or behavior some time in their youthful past. (on the backside, and unconfirmed, is that the Rice football program has suspended a player for such actions in the past --- I hope this is not the case.....)

So, guess who the leader of the effort to topple the statue of Lincoln in Washington DC is? A Harvard student.

Should he face any disciplinary action from his school for an active role in criminal vandalism?

Question du jour: How do you think Harvard react if a non-liberal student advocated (or actually performed the act of) toppling or defacing the Martin Luther King memorial on the Capitol Mall?
06-29-2020 09:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,279
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1785
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #446
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd
(06-29-2020 03:42 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  [quote='Owl 69/70/75' pid='16882949' dateline='1593460273']The reason why the UK and Australia experiences are of questionable relevance is because their subjects have never been armed. When you make a traffic stop or detain a person, it's about a 99.9% chance that such individual is not armed. That's not the case in the USA.
[/quote
Which explains why our force wouldn't be nearly 90% unarmed, but if our experience here is say 80% of people are unarmed, then perhaps 30%, or 20% or 50% of our force could be unarmed.
If it's not certain times of day or parts of town or types of stops, that's fine.

I think you're going to end up either 1) being very limited in the number of situations where officers are willing to go in unarmed, or 2) coming up with ways to get backup there STAT (like matters of seconds) if ever needed for unarmed situations.
06-29-2020 10:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,279
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1785
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #447
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd
Are there any statistics on outcomes when the citizen complied versus outcomes when the citizen resisted? I'm guessing that is a very stark contrast.
06-29-2020 10:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,372
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 608
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #448
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd
police unions

It all builds up to form a picture of how police contracts – which, like other labor contracts, govern the working conditions under which officers operate – have rendered police departments’ disciplinary and oversight processes ineffective as officers are rarely held accountable for wrongdoing. That then encourages the police violence that sparked the massive nationwide protests in the wake of George Floyd’s killing by a white police officer in Minneapolis.
(This post was last modified: 06-30-2020 09:18 AM by OptimisticOwl.)
06-30-2020 09:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Online
Hooter
*

Posts: 33,812
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 879
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #449
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd
We're conflating arguments guys...

If you believe that what we're doing is 'the best idea' and just needs some tweaks then fine. I disagree. If you believe that this is entirely about the population, I know some highly educated and intelligent people of color who have felt victimized, while complying. As with gun registrations and even voter ID, I abhor the idea of placing restrictions/burdens on large swaths of 'regular' people in order to address a relatively small percentage of 'bad apples'. In the voter ID area, what I mean is forcing the rest of us to deal with the high risk of voter fraud because some infinitesimal portion of the potential electorate won't get an ID (and would otherwise be eligible to vote).

I had a single cop the other day come and do a well-check on my parents... who accidentally triggered, then turned off their alarm. He was alone... If there had been an ambush, he would have been dead and a weapon wouldn't have mattered. IMO, he would have been better served by better surveillance equipment and protective gear than a gun. His best and really only option would have been to run and hide and call for assistance. He wouldn't have 'shot his way out' of an ambush. If alternatively he had discovered that my father was 'out of it' and had a gun... unless my father were randomly shooting passers-by, shooting my father when all he really had to do was secure the area (which doesn't involve a gun) would have been a horrible outcome.....

and that nice young man, probably 27 years old with 18 months on the job wouldn't in any way be qualified as "James Bond' or 'Dr Phil' to address either of those issues directly... so why does he show up with probably 2 guns, a tazer, pepper spray and a baton... with 'hands at the ready' to do a well-check? And in addition to all of the 'what if's' with weapons, why do we think that this guy is somehow qualified to deal with all of the myriad of potential issues that could arise without exacerbating the problem?

MAYBE the solution is simply two people in every car... one trained in psychology, problem resolution or de-escalation... and another trained in weapons and defense.

If we're going to arrest someone, perhaps regardless of 'what for', then some measure of offensive weapon (tazer, some new tranq) or support (secondary armed officer) makes sense. If we're not, then it doesn't. I rarely see arrests made by one cop, there's normally 4-10 in my limited experience of witnessing it. Most often within moments, the cop on the scene is calling for assistance/support.

Tanq, as for resisting arrest... my solution is clear if poorly articulated. If someone is resisting and you aren't armed... you back away (de-escalate) and call for assistance. You do what you can (which may in some cases be nothing) to follow/contain the person until that help arrives.

I had a cop follow my son home from the corner Bucky's to home for a registration sticker that he had neglected to replace on his car. When he stopped and got out, she was aggressive towards him for no apparent reason. As far as I'm concerned, she didn't need to interact with him at all, and sure as hell didn't need a gun. All she had to do was somehow record/document the offense and mail a ticket to the registered owner of the vehicle. I suspect that she thought she'd catch a minor with beer or whatever (it was the 4th of July some years ago) although he was 21 and didn't have beer... so looking for one of those 'lucky' stops to get additional charges... but my son suffers from extreme anxiety... I could see him quite literally freaking out over those events... and doing something stupid and getting shot...

all because the registration came in the mail, but he was out of town... and when he came home, he didn't rush out to the car to scrape the windshield sticker off.... because the cop KNEW FOR A FACT that when she ran the plates, that the car was legally registered and renewed in the system... she just saw that he didn't have a sticker.

that wasn't racism... it might have been profiling (my son had long hair at the time)... but it certainly was systemic in that this is obviously what she'd been taught/encouraged to do. See some minor offense, rather than address it... if the guy looks 'suspicious' (with no real definition of that) see if you can get lucky
(This post was last modified: 06-30-2020 09:27 AM by Hambone10.)
06-30-2020 09:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,372
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 608
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #450
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd
(06-30-2020 09:23 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  ... so why does he show up with probably 2 guns, a tazer, pepper spray and a baton...

Why do hikers carry bear spray? Surely the best thing to do if you encounter a bear is to call the Park Service to send a bear expert.

the Boy Scout motto is "Be prepared". Your officer was prepared. Not just for the 99% of times when nothing happens, but for the 1% when something does.

If the best thing to do is to show dangerous people you are not prepared, then I agree with the BLM - abolish the police. WTH good are they if all they do is call somebody else? Let people protect themselves. And you check on your parent yourself.
(This post was last modified: 06-30-2020 09:47 AM by OptimisticOwl.)
06-30-2020 09:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgewebb Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,965
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 85
I Root For:
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #451
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd
More generally, many traffic offenses (expired registration is a clear example) should not be criminal offenses at all; they should be purely civil matters, like parking tickets or regulatory violations. If a store's elevator certificate is expired, you don't sent armed police in, or summon the storekeeper to criminal court. Traffic violations that are not immediate dangers to the public should be similar.
06-30-2020 09:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,372
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 608
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #452
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd
(06-30-2020 09:48 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  More generally, many traffic offenses (expired registration is a clear example) should not be criminal offenses at all; they should be purely civil matters, like parking tickets or regulatory violations. If a store's elevator certificate is expired, you don't sent armed police in, or summon the storekeeper to criminal court. Traffic violations that are not immediate dangers to the public should be similar.

BUT...those traffic offenses give the officer a chance to check license and registration, and other offenses not readily apparent to a drone or camera are found:

warrants
no DL
DWI
Drugs
minor in possession.
06-30-2020 10:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Online
Hooter
*

Posts: 33,812
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 879
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #453
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd
(06-30-2020 09:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(06-30-2020 09:23 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  ... so why does he show up with probably 2 guns, a tazer, pepper spray and a baton...

Why do hikers carry bear spray? Surely the best thing to do if you encounter a bear is to call the Park Service to send a bear expert.

the Boy Scout motto is "Be prepared". Your officer was prepared. Not just for the 99% of times when nothing happens, but for the 1% when something does.

If the best thing to do is to show dangerous people you are not prepared, then I agree with the BLM - abolish the police. WTH good are they if all they do is call somebody else? Let people protect themselves. And you check on your parent yourself.

So why don't boy scouts carry guns?

I do and did check on my parents. I was in the garage when he showed... I didn't know they'd accidentally set off their silent alarm.

I'm not trying to show dangerous people I'm prepared... I'm trying to show NOT dangerous people that I'm not dangerous. You don't send an unarmed cop out after 'dangerous' people.

If you're suggesting we should all open carry, okay. The hiker doesn't need bear spray to buy a soda at the corner store... just when he's in the woods. Why doesn't he wear a suit in case he comes across a businessman?

(06-30-2020 10:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(06-30-2020 09:48 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  More generally, many traffic offenses (expired registration is a clear example) should not be criminal offenses at all; they should be purely civil matters, like parking tickets or regulatory violations. If a store's elevator certificate is expired, you don't sent armed police in, or summon the storekeeper to criminal court. Traffic violations that are not immediate dangers to the public should be similar.

BUT...those traffic offenses give the officer a chance to check license and registration, and other offenses not readily apparent to a drone or camera are found:

warrants
no DL
DWI
Drugs
minor in possession.

Precisely what I'm suggesting may be part of the problem.

You can check registration without either party getting out of their cars... why the random stop and how do they decide who to stop and who not to? As to the warrants, why in 2020 do we need to 'get lucky' and randomly come across someone with multiple warrants who also happens to forget to put his sticker in his window to arrest him? I think you're touching on the precise point though... The police are trained to see every stop as the potential to get lucky and take a killer off the streets.... so why are we surprised that this leads to the feeling that someone simply driving home is going to be viewed as a possible killer by the police?
06-30-2020 11:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,372
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 608
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #454
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd
(06-30-2020 11:15 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(06-30-2020 09:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(06-30-2020 09:23 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  ... so why does he show up with probably 2 guns, a tazer, pepper spray and a baton...

Why do hikers carry bear spray? Surely the best thing to do if you encounter a bear is to call the Park Service to send a bear expert.

the Boy Scout motto is "Be prepared". Your officer was prepared. Not just for the 99% of times when nothing happens, but for the 1% when something does.

If the best thing to do is to show dangerous people you are not prepared, then I agree with the BLM - abolish the police. WTH good are they if all they do is call somebody else? Let people protect themselves. And you check on your parent yourself.

So why don't boy scouts carry guns?

I do and did check on my parents. I was in the garage when he showed... I didn't know they'd accidentally set off their silent alarm.

I'm not trying to show dangerous people I'm prepared... I'm trying to show NOT dangerous people that I'm not dangerous. You don't send an unarmed cop out after 'dangerous' people.

If you're suggesting we should all open carry, okay. The hiker doesn't need bear spray to buy a soda at the corner store... just when he's in the woods. Why doesn't he wear a suit in case he comes across a businessman?

(06-30-2020 10:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(06-30-2020 09:48 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  More generally, many traffic offenses (expired registration is a clear example) should not be criminal offenses at all; they should be purely civil matters, like parking tickets or regulatory violations. If a store's elevator certificate is expired, you don't sent armed police in, or summon the storekeeper to criminal court. Traffic violations that are not immediate dangers to the public should be similar.

BUT...those traffic offenses give the officer a chance to check license and registration, and other offenses not readily apparent to a drone or camera are found:

warrants
no DL
DWI
Drugs
minor in possession.

Precisely what I'm suggesting may be part of the problem.

You can check registration without either party getting out of their cars... why the random stop and how do they decide who to stop and who not to? As to the warrants, why in 2020 do we need to 'get lucky' and randomly come across someone with multiple warrants who also happens to forget to put his sticker in his window to arrest him? I think you're touching on the precise point though... The police are trained to see every stop as the potential to get lucky and take a killer off the streets.... so why are we surprised that this leads to the feeling that someone simply driving home is going to be viewed as a possible killer by the police?

So how does an unarmed "official" check for warrants? Most, of course, are for failure to appear, but others are for much more serious offenses. The alternative, AFAIK, is for armed police to make violent entries to houses to pick up the people on warrants.

If my car has an expired registration sticker, the police can tell it is my car. They cannot tell is if I am driving, at least not until we chip every driver.
06-30-2020 11:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Online
Hooter
*

Posts: 33,812
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 879
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #455
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd
(06-30-2020 11:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So how does an unarmed "official" check for warrants? Most, of course, are for failure to appear, but others are for much more serious offenses. The alternative, AFAIK, is for armed police to make violent entries to houses to pick up the people on warrants.

If my car has an expired registration sticker, the police can tell it is my car. They cannot tell is if I am driving, at least not until we chip every driver.

You're suggesting the exact opposite of what I am suggesting.... so I guess I'm not being clear.

An unarmed official isn't checking for warrants. He's writing a traffic ticket or more likely, taking a picture so that a computer mails the ticket. If the car registration has expired, he mails a ticket to the registered owner. It doesn't matter who is driving. Registration = parking ticket or toll tag violation as far as I'm concerned.... all done without speaking to the person. If, in the process of doing this, he learns that the car is registered to someone with warrants, you get some info and maybe tag the car somehow and send armed police after the car... regardless of who is driving. You're driving his car... you obviously should know where he is. If we're looking for a specific person for a specific reason (warrants) we can track cell phones as well, but you may not be the one carrying your phone.

Yes, I'm absolutely suggesting that if you are on the lookout for a dangerous person, that you take armed police and make violent entries (if necessary) to pick them up on warrants...

OR more likely, they send an armed policeman to target that specific person and pull them over and arrest them for the warrants as opposed to merely happening upon them by luck or by stopping 50 people, hoping you get him. That is precisely my point.

What I'm suggesting is that we target criminals as opposed to targeting people who merely look like criminals (because that's a judgement call) or just targeting randomly and hoping to get lucky.
(This post was last modified: 06-30-2020 12:32 PM by Hambone10.)
06-30-2020 12:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,279
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1785
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #456
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd
(06-30-2020 12:26 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  What I'm suggesting is that we target criminals as opposed to targeting people who merely look like criminals (because that's a judgement call) or just targeting randomly and hoping to get lucky.

Agree 100% with this concept. It's why I agree with use of cameras for speeding and toll violations and minor traffic violations. No, that's not very libertarian, I admit. But it eliminates the 1-on-1 officer-civilian traffic stop, which seems to be where an inordinate number of officers get killed. If the objective is to maintain compliance with traffic laws, then cameras can do a better--or at least more comprehensive--job than random officer patrols.

Now if we take routine traffic stops out of the duty profile for officers, than we can look at better and more appropriate ways of performing the other duties.

I do think the cases where you can send unarmed police and/or social workers will necessarily be extremely limited.
(This post was last modified: 06-30-2020 04:57 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
06-30-2020 04:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Online
Hooter
*

Posts: 33,812
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 879
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #457
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd
(06-30-2020 04:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(06-30-2020 12:26 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  What I'm suggesting is that we target criminals as opposed to targeting people who merely look like criminals (because that's a judgement call) or just targeting randomly and hoping to get lucky.

Agree 100% with this concept. It's why I agree with use of cameras for speeding and toll violations and minor traffic violations. No, that's not very libertarian, I admit. But it eliminates the 1-on-1 officer-civilian traffic stop, which seems to be where an inordinate number of officers get killed. If the objective is to maintain compliance with traffic laws, then cameras can do a better--or at least more comprehensive--job than random officer patrols.

Now if we take routine traffic stops out of the duty profile for officers, than we can look at better and more appropriate ways of performing the other duties.

I do think the cases where you can send unarmed police and/or social workers will necessarily be extremely limited.

You can address the libertarian aspect of cameras by not using them to identify violations, merely of collecting the information to deliver the violation.... i.e. someone still has to witness the violation in person. This way you still have your neighborhood cop... he's just not the guy that shot 'Billy' last week.

A to your last comment, maybe not immediately... but the whole point is (borrowing I think your comment) is that in the UK, 90% of cops aren't armed because so little of the population is. While we are much more armed here, it's still not anything like 1/3 of the population that is armed while driving their cars... and certainly not armed and thinking about 'pulling it' when stopped... so perhaps as people AND cops become less afraid of a traffic stop turning into a blood bath, that percentage can grow.

My primary issue is with expecting these cops to be 'all these things'. They're good at hand to hand combat, good with weapons, good at de-escalating, good at crowd control, good at being 'neighborly', good at dealing with domestic situations, good at dealing with people on (or off) medications, good at reading people, GREAT at handling stressful situations etc etc etc... and somehow NOT resorting to a position of absolute control and dominance in every situation such that people's lives could be at risk.

If the answer is 'people should just comply', that's a bigger libertarian issue for me than traffic cameras.

That's just too much IMO
07-01-2020 09:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,372
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 608
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #458
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd
Inclusion at the Oscars

The boldfaced phrase is a surprising one because it moves the Academy into an arena where it has rarely operated, using factors unrelated to the onscreen product to determine Oscar eligibility.

What could the representation and inclusion standards look like? Could they involve quotas

yet diversity and inclusion in Hollywood are as problematic now as they were in 2016. Cynthia Erivo was the only nonwhite acting nominee at the last Oscars, and the public protests that have rocked the country since the killing of George Floyd have cast a light on systemic racism that definitely includes Hollywood.
07-01-2020 10:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,343
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #459
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd
Let the movie industry go full force into this. I really cant remember the last film I went to go see. Even with the Wuhan thing.

If they want to make 'demographic data' a part of their industry circle-jerk -- let them go for it. It really wont affect whether I want to see a particular movie or not.

I stopped giving a rat's ass about the Oscars almost a score years ago.

And again, this is a group that has its mass mainly in one state. That state has now decided that the issue of:

Quote:(a) The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

is 'racist' and must be thrown to the wind.

Orwell's vision to language in '1984' is startlingly even more prescient. I am in awe of the people that deem the act of law that a "state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin" is "racist".

On a side note, I am still awaiting lad's response on whether he has read the Inhofe book he chirped up and flapped about on.
(This post was last modified: 07-01-2020 12:07 PM by tanqtonic.)
07-01-2020 12:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BSWBRice Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 212
Joined: Nov 2007
Reputation: 4
I Root For: Rice University
Location:
Post: #460
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd
Using something besides onscreen product to determine Oscar winners has been happening since the Oscars were invented.

Agree that with the level/amount of access the public has to movies, the Oscars are more irrelevant than ever.
07-01-2020 02:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: cr11owl, 3 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.