1. Ban chokeholds/strangleholds: Definitely agree, with a possible cavaet that in cases where deadly force is warranted. 2. Require de-escalation. Not sure what that means. There are some situations that simply can't be de-escalated. 3. Require a warning before shooting. Disagree. The Constitution does not require this, and in at least some situations, there is not time. Not sure it would prevent a shooting to make some sort of requirement to say "Stop or I'll shoot" before shooting. 4. Exhaust all alternatives. Opposed to this as well. There again is not necessarily time, and if the situation warrants deadly force, there is no patticular reason why an officer could or should have to first see if pepper spray works, then a nightstick, then a taser... 5. Duty to intervene. As far as I know that's already there. Not sure what more is meant here. 6. Ban shooting at moving vehicles. Not sure it is a good idea tactically or will really affect the number of unjust shootings. 7. Establish use of force continuum. Not sure what the info graphic has in mind for this. 8. Require all force to be reported. Again, not sure what the infographic has in mind. I would imagine that any force is supposed to be reported already.
If the Chairman came straight out and told the military that they were not to get involved, then Trump would most likely have him removed before the Chairman could finish hitting "send." The next guy to be tapped to be Chairman might not have any qualms about obeying Trump, regardless of the Constitutionality of his orders. So you carefully craft a letter that you hope those with a military mindset will understand means, "We ain't backing this horse" without it being obvious to the Dotard that you're undercutting him. Because, ultimately, it comes down to what the military does, if Trump refuses to leave office when the time comes. The courts can rule him staying in office is unconstitutional, but that doesn't carry much weight when compared to the US military dropping bombs on your ass.
The thing is that yes, deeply racist cops are going to be racist. But if you pare their power to a minimum, they will have dramatically less opportunity to be so. And enforcing every single thing on the books also has a feedback loop that might cause some cops that start off as fair-minded or maybe just a little racist to become more racist. If traffic laws were confined to actual things that were threats to health and safety (DUIs and speeding) for example, instead of being a voluminous set of rules that pretty much everyone violates on a regular basis that effectively mean cops can pull anyone over that they choose to, there would be a lot less cases of people pulled over for DWB. And it might have them approach the stops that they do with a different mindset. Cops generally have to be cautious when they do traffic stops because you don't know who might have a gun, who might want to run you over, etc. Pull over 1,000 people as if they are a threat is probably going to make you jaded about people in general. Pull over only 10 people especially when you have reason to suspect something serious, and your attitude to the people ou pull over will change, the attitude towards people towards cops will change, etc. Now the counterarguments include that having those laws means that not as many people get to ther really dangerous behaviors, and that in catching minor violations cops can and do get things that we want them to get like dealer-levels of drugs or guns. I should add: part of the issue (at least from a libertarian perspective) is that because governments are bloated bureaucracies, they depend on things like ticket revenue and asset forfeiture to stay afloat. This means that cops are going to be having quotas, which means that they are going to be incentivized to bedoing more stops and have more opportunities to be abusive.
It also doesn't line up well with the attitude of Lanzmans post, because when it comes to things like ending the drug war you would find strong agreement amongst most of those he targets his big government criticisms at.
Silly question, but don't LEOs in major metropolitan areas have Tasers? Chokeholds and strangleholds would seem to be unnecessary unless it's some sort of macho "I showed that muthafucka a thing or two!" kind of thing.
In case anyone had any doubt what the federal endgame is here, I invite you to remember Trump's words in 1990, 2014, and 2015: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ous-response-protesters-he-once-hailed-china/ Hopefully this ends like Kent State, instead of Tiananmen Square. I'm extremely pessimistic of it ending any better.
Remind us again how that's relevant to the point he's making? Especially given that people like him (and me) have worked for the government and are, or were, in a position to know?
This would be hilarious, if not for the fact that they will be using things like finding water purifiers on the ground as an excuse to attack protesters.
Cops in Boise carry guns, nightsticks and tasers and who knows what else. It's nice to have options, but hesitating whilst trying to decide which tool to use could be fatal. Oh by the way, the SecDef is showing that he really is a major league chickenshit.
Because one would think that if big government was really for the problem, working for one of the largest government jobs programs in the history of the planet might be a bit of a problem. Instead it's always some Ron Swanson bringing the whole thing down from the inside bs.
Cops with tasers will literally taser people to death, and the medical examiners will call it "excited delirium" and let the cops off the hook.
Not a silly question. Not every patrol cop even in the biggest, most well-equipped department is likely going to have a Taser as standard equipment. A. Tasers costs money, so the biggest departments are not going to have them for every officer. (At least locally, every LEO owns their own gun(s), but Tasers are departmentally issued. I would imagine that differs from place to place. B. Tasers require certification. Presumably, not every cop wants to go through that hoop, and some might not be smart enough to. C. Tasers don't always work. In theory, what a taser hit is supposed to do is lock up the target's muscles for 5ish seconds so that the LEO has time to handcuff. You might not have time to draw and fire before you're in a hands-on situation. Also if the person's got too much in the way of clothes, if the prongs from the taser aren't spread far enough apart, if the prongs don't stay in, or some other things don't go right, then the person doesn't freeze up. And even if the person does freeze up, the 5ish seconds may not be enough to get control over the person.
So it's looking like the New York Times is going to be running a send in the troops to deal with protestors op-ed by Tom Cotton on the anniversary of Tiananmen Square.
yes because nobody will snitch on who killed him. That's why in Baltimore (for example, other cities may be similar) 65 percent of murders go unsolved. Those that are "solved" don't always end in a conviction for various reasons. Bottom line if you commit murder in Baltimore there is only a 20 percent chance of seeing the inside of a prison cell. Sleep tight Baltimorians!
about the 8 CAN'T WAIT ideas: sound policy however "ban shooting at moving vehicles" isn't an absolute and here is why (at least here in the U.S.): sometimes a suspect will use a vehicle as a weapon. For example here in Augusta quite a few years back a drug dealer (car full of drugs, money, weapons, etc) and overall career criminal decided that he wasn't going to jail quietly, and tried to run a cop over and make it from the narrow driveway between buildings of the housing project to the main street ultimately to get away. The cop had nowhere to jump out of the way and had no choice but to shoot and kill the suspect or get ran over. Also if this suspect would have made it to the main street (busy traffic with multiple lanes) hauling ass to get away he could have harmed or killed people.
Coronapalooza has a lot to do with that. Many cities were already refusing to jail people, and just issuing a summons to appear at a later date. Many already have outstanding warrants so the odds of them making it to their court date are close to zero. What a fucking joke! Between coronapalooza and now civil unrest it's a great time to be a criminal!
I don't think cops should be able to murder and get away with it. If you aren't as lazy as you are brain damaged, please try to find any statement where I condone what happened to George Floyd. Take your time, I'll wait.
Let me use small words. No one is talking about what Biden may do if he is elected in November. What we grown ups are talking about is what the current President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, is doing about the current situation. This President has been, is, and will likely continue to be an entire, complete, whole, full, comprehensive, aggregate, gross, overall, complete, utter, absolute, thorough, perfect, downright, out-and-out, outright, thoroughgoing, all-out, sheer, rank, pure failure. We're talking about the guy that currently sits behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office, located at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington D.C., 20500. Get it? Can you comprehend that?
