Black lives matter vs. All lives matter is a false debate

I thought this piece was pretty good: http://fusion.net/story/170591/the-next-time-someone-says-all-lives-matter-show-them-these-5-paragraphs/

Maybe this is a microcosm of the overall race impasse in America. Blacks and minorities want equal treatment as guaranteed by our Constitution (not to mention human decency). They are not calling for special treatment. Even the arguments in support of slavery reparations are not excessive and have plenty of precedent.

However, I think some whites dislike the race debate because (1) no one likes feeling blamed as the bad guy, or enjoying an unfair latent advantage (especially in a nation of "self-made" individualistic success), and (2) they get turned off by what they view as blacks/minorities already getting special treatment (welfare, immigration amnesty, affirmative action, political correctness, etc.) and wanting more. Of course the evidence suggests that such an attitude is misguided, and ignores the obvious facts that some minorities have worse outcomes for health/wealth/edu/incarceration/etc. vs. whites even when you control for other variables.

So "black lives matter" can be misinterpreted as "blacks are more important." Which is of course not the point of the moment, and not what the supporters believe. The whole genesis of the moment is the fact that blacks are treated as second-class (or worse) by many measures in the US, are fed up about it, and want to raise awareness. I don't think that is unreasonable. But then you get the white privilege backlash (no, only "we" are allowed to be special!), and they criticize the movement by saying "shouldn't all lives matter?" Yes, they should! But you're not doing it, and the victims are disproportionately the poor and darker skinned. So when those lives get equal respect (validated by actions and data), then the "black lives" folks will gladly disband I think.

I guess it is related to whites' "fear of blacks" again. Fear of them getting more power (even equal power is a threat), uprising, and taking over (hence no traction on slavery reparations). Obama in the WH was bad enough. Why can't they be meek and respectful like the Charleston blacks after the shooting? Well some civil rights folks have criticized the Charleston response as conditioned by decades of southern blacks' fixation with needing to please whites and be accepted by them (even though they never will).

But here is another example of the empathy deficit. Would the critics of "black lives matter" just quietly accept it when their communities get raw deal after raw deal (or unpunished murder after murder)? Of course not. Obama gets elected and you get the Tea Party movement (sure other factors contributed like the Recession, but you know what I mean). You get armed standoffs like with the supporters of Cliven Bundy in NV (but the white cops didn't send in storm troopers and tanks to break them up). So why is it OK for "marginalized" whites to stand up for their rights (even violently), but not OK when blacks do it - and do it mostly peacefully (and they have way more legit grievances to protest about)?

I guess even the ability to assemble and protest in America is not equally guaranteed and free of bias.

----

Maybe you heard that FNC wants BLM classified as a hate group (after a couple recent high-profile attacks on cops that may have been linked to anger over Ferguson/Baltimore/etc.). I know FNC doesn't speak for all of White America, and they are intentionally provocative, but their hostile overreaction to BLM kind of validates American bias and why BLM is actually needed. Good job, Fox.

https://www.facebook.com/HuffingtonPost/videos/10153332388156130/

Let's remember that demographically, it's highly likely that more cop killers are white than minority, and not motivated by politics (I couldn't find data on cop killers' races though). And statistically, being a cop in the US is still safer than the average job. Being a cop in the US is still safer than being a young black man in the US. At least a cop can fight back against attackers, wears Kevlar, and is backed by the law.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/10/the-counted-500-people-killed-by-police-2015

How media unfairly report police killings, race, and crime

This was a good "On the Media" program about police killings and implicit bias in the media.

http://www.onthemedia.org/story/on-the-media-2015-06-05/

• It's a sad reality that the Guardian and Washington Post have decided to compile a public database of police killings, as no one in our gov't is willing to do the same.
• 
  
• Why do the media and law enforcement describe incidents as "officer involved shootings?" It sounds like the cop just innocently happened to be there when there was a shooting, when in actuality they pulled the trigger and deliberately killed someone. Fortunately the term is falling out of favor after the recent high-profile killings. A large # of killings by officers occurred as an unarmed victim was fleeing, yet ROE states that cops can only use deadly force when their lives are threatened. So what gives? With no video or unreliable witnesses, all a cop has to say is that the fleeing suspect reached for something or made an aggressive gesture. Then in the investigation, it's a peace officer's testimony vs. a dead man (who maybe had a rap sheet). No wonder there are few indictments.
• 
  
• In Harvard's implicit association test, even black subjects associated black faces with negative words. Maybe it's an effect of biased media crime coverage influencing America to think black = threat. Like compare the coverage of the Baltimore protests (mostly black folks) and the Texas biker gang fight (mostly whites/Latinos). The MSM would suggest that all hell broke loose in BAL, but it was a minor skirmish in TX. For sure BAL got out of hand at times, but there were no deaths. Whereas there were many shots fired and 9 deaths in TX. But America was more outraged over BAL. Why does this happen? Maybe it's for ratings (stoking fear), acting on their own prejudices, or to "give the people what they want". The vast majority of violent crime is black-on-black and white-on-white, and usually male victims. But the media oversample and preferentially report on black-on-white crimes, especially if the victim is a woman. This leads white people to assume an "under siege" victim mentality, and favor harsher punishments on criminals and more heavy-handed police tactics.

The MOVE bombing and police militarization/misconduct

Have you heard of the MOVE bombing in Philly in 1985? US gov't forces actually dropped a bomb on US civilians on US soil.

MOVE was a Panthers/Rasta-esque militant black group. They armed themselves and built a makeshift fortified compound in a residential part of West Philly. I don't know the group's history, but they probably came about in response to decades of abuse, racism, and neglect by the police and other city authorities. MOVE members allegedly killed a cop in 1978, thereby increasing hostilities.

I'm not sure what transpired in 1985, but it got to a point where the mayor (Wilson Goode, a black man) and police chief gave the OK to forcibly disarm and disband MOVE. About 500 cops descended on the compound vs. about 6 MOVE members who were barricaded inside. Like Waco, they had an ultimatum to give themselves up. Instead they opened fire on the cops, and the police returned the favor with about 10K rounds into the building. They discharged so much lead all day that they needed to call the police academy to get more ammo.

But the MOVE members remained behind their defenses. Eventually the city approved the police to drop an IED from a helicopter above the MOVE building, in the hope of creating a hole that the cops could use to enter the compound. Not making this up. The IED was some sort of gasoline/incendiary device, because it created a huge fire that eventually consumed 61 homes and 11 lives (5 kids). Only 2 people got out of the compound alive. Bystanders compared it to Vietnam. No one was fired or convicted over the decision.

And why have we not heard of this until now? There was no social media in the 1980s, and the MSM didn't want to discuss ugly race issues, police misconduct, and urban unrest (until Rodney King - which was captured on tape). This stuff can't happen in America, right? But the incident did motivate US cops to become more martial. They found that they were rendered ineffective by dug-in suspects, so that likely led to more powers for SWAT like armored vehicles with battering rams (and then 9/11-Iraq took that to another level, as we've seen in Ferguson).

---

Where was the effort at negotiations and deescalation? Is violence their only tool in the kit? Of course community policing and outreach aims to preempt such conflicts, but this was pre Rodney King.

Cops sometime remind me of Marty McFly - if you challenge their manhood, they will react very stupidly. MOVE attacked them, so now they need to be taught a lesson, regardless of the costs to the community. This is especially bad when they are authorized to use deadly force, often with little accountability.

---

Please watch the movie.  I believe it's very even handed since most of the news coverage was very biased toward the police.  MOVE, as a group, did not attack them.  This was collective punishment.  The police under Frank Rizzo's watch were notoriously racist. Philadelphia PD are still notoriously racist. 

SPOILER ALERT:

At one point, a little boy (between 3 and 5, I think) crawls out of the house as it fills with smoke.  He falls and one of the cops wanted to run and help the little boy.  The other cops told him not to do it that it was a trap.  the man's better nature got to him and he ran to save the little child.  That cop ended up losing his job in the Philadelphia PD within months after that incident.  The police wanted to leave the boy to die.  The punishment for death of one of theirs was collective-all MOVE family had to die, women and children.  Ramona Africa, the sole adult survivor of this brutal attack, was put in jail after losing her entire family.  If someone shot back from the house,(and, I'm not sure if there's any evidence of that)  was it Ramona? 

More police killings of black men

This stuff is literally happening EVERY WEEK in the US. Imagine if minority people were killing a white millionaire (or a cute Jonbenet Ramsey-ish white baby girl) every week - what would the public and gov't reaction be? All people are created equal with the same unalienable rights under the Constitution and our creator, right?

Senior citizen volunteer sheriff tries to taze suspect in cuffs (you guessed it, an unarmed urban African American male), but kills him with his sidearm instead (a la Oscar Grant). Pleads not guilty to manslaughter and judge grants him permission to leave the country for a Bahamas vacation. I am sure a Cripp accused of manslaughter would get similar treatment. How did the geezer become a deputy participating in a sting when he should have been playing bingo at the Senior Center instead? He donated vehicles to the Tulsa Sheriff's Office and is likely rich.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee0o4zZobZg
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/04/21/oklahoma-reserve-deputy-pleads-not-guilty-in-fatal-shooting/

6 Baltimore cops are suspended after they put an asthmatic suspect (and yes, another unarmed urban African American male) in their van to go to the station, and when he got out, he had a major spinal injury (cause unclear, and he died in the hospital a few days later). He told police that he was having trouble breathing, but they didn't call any medical staff. Like with Darren Wilson, the cops are now the only ones alive who know what really happened. No camera in the van.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/04/22/401436003/former-baltimore-police-head-sees-sliver-of-hope-in-freddie-gray-case

----

Economist has some data on police use of deadly force. The FBI reports that US cops kill over 400 people a year (justifiable cases, and it is on the rise since the '90s), but it is voluntary self-reporting, so the true # is probably higher. In comparison, usually less than 50 cops are killed by gunfire/year (less than the # cops killed in vehicle incidents). Cops in Japan+UK+Germany (cumulatively about the same pop. as the US) kill less than 20 people/year.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21636044-americas-police-kill-too-many-people-some-forces-are-showing-how-smarter-less?fsrc=scn/fb/te/pe/ed/dontshoot

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/30/nation/la-na-nn-police-deaths-20131230

----

The BAL DA is pressing charges (murder, manslaughter) against the 6 officers who were present when Gray suffered his lethal spinal injury. She also declared that Gray's arrest was illegal.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/05/01/403496063/freddie-gray-update-new-speculation-on-his-death-and-peaceful-protests?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20150501

---

Apparently, it's not just black/brown victims of police violence and stupidity. A fairly non-threatening drunk woman on St. Patrick's Day was taken into custody by BART police and taken to Santa Rita jail. There was footage of the cops slamming her to the floor (or letting her fall hard). They said that they were "guiding" her to the ground. The victim was seriously injured, and is a model so the damage to her face was significant and she is suing. But a review board cleared the officers.

http://abc7news.com/news/bart-officer-cleared-in-takedown-of-woman-at-east-bay-jail/684535/

Here are some conservative responses to the Baltimore unrest:

• Rush said the cops should be commended for the 18 times they arrested Gray in the past (for minor drug offenses) and DIDN'T KILL HIM. Yes, they deserve a medal for their restraint.
• Cruz said it's Obama's fault for inflaming racial tensions. Yeah, by being a successful half-black man who won't pretend racial injustice is over, he's more to blame than the cops that do the beating and shooting.
• A TX Congressman Flores blames Baltimore on gay marriage and the deterioration of family values.

As you can see, Baltimore is attributed to just about everything except police dysfunction and racial/economic injustice. The sad thing is, if you gave some conservatives truth serum, they would probably say that the BAL tragedy is due to the inherent faults of black people (maybe not in so many words).

More police-related killings of unarmed black men in custody

This stuff is literally happening EVERY WEEK in the US. Imagine if minority people were killing a white millionaire (or a cute Jonbenet Ramsey-ish white baby girl) every week - what would the public and gov't reaction be? All people are created equal with the same unalienable rights under the Constitution and our creator, right?

Senior citizen volunteer sheriff tries to taze suspect in cuffs (you guessed it, an unarmed urban African American male), but kills him with his sidearm instead (a la Oscar Grant). Pleads not guilty to manslaughter and judge grants him permission to leave the country for a Bahamas vacation. I am sure a Cripp accused of manslaughter would get similar treatment. How did the geezer become a deputy participating in a sting when he should have been playing bingo at the Senior Center instead? He donated vehicles to the Tulsa Sheriff's Office and is likely rich.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee0o4zZobZg
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/04/21/oklahoma-reserve-deputy-pleads-not-guilty-in-fatal-shooting/

6 Baltimore cops are suspended after they put an asthmatic suspect (and yes, another unarmed urban African American male) in their van to go to the station, and when he got out, he died of a spinal injury (cause unclear). He told police that he was having trouble breathing, but they didn't call any medical staff. Like with Darren Wilson, the cops are now the only ones alive who know what really happened. No camera in the van.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/04/22/401436003/former-baltimore-police-head-sees-sliver-of-hope-in-freddie-gray-case

FBI Director Comey calls out systemic bias and data suppression in US law enforcement

http://www.thenation.com/blog/198009/fbi-director-police-violence-everyones-little-bit-racist

Resurfacing this thread again, after dozens more questionable police killings since Ferguson. FBI Director Comey recently called out the lack of police accountability in deadly force incidents, as well as the undeniable racial element in policing. That seems to be a big deal, and Obama/Holder have not been that explicit. Most high ranking police leaders have failed to acknowledge public concerns/anger over alleged misconduct, preferring to look foolish pretending that the boys in blue can do no wrong.

As D said earlier, it's unacceptable (and likely deliberate) that there is very little data on police killings - especially on a national level. That has to change - data access in the hands of capable, ethical people never hurt a society, but the lack of it has. Only people who stand to lose or get punished are opposing transparency. This isn't about censorship of controversial information, this is hard data - a set of facts and testimonials as the historical record (or the closest we can get to it). So anyone who claims to be on the side of right can't justifiably argue against the sharing of data to enable analysis and insights that will likely lead to improvements. And what do we have to lose - it can't get any worse, right? Anyone who has reasons to oppose access by other people evaluate his/her performance on the job probably shouldn't hold that job.

Comey also raised the issue that law enforcement policies and actions can result in unjust and racially biased outcomes, yet the agents of those policies and actions (the officers) may not actually be "racists with a capital R". Some of them clearly are, but for the majority of officers, I doubt that they would be classified as virulent racists (people who actually hate another group and work toward their marginalization/persecution). It's more like unconscious bias and heuristics. Officers assigned to at-risk neighborhoods may not have much sensitivity, context, and psychology training. Week-in, week-out they get dirty looks (or worse) from mostly minority residents. The suspects they interact with (and in some cases physically confront) are all "stereotypical" black and brown young men, possibly engaged in the stereotypical bad behaviors. After a while, even a non-racist will start to associate black/brown man with negativity/crime/violence/

danger/etc. What can be done about this? Maybe suspicion and the rules of engagement have to be based on objective, scientific signals - not necessarily appearance and circumstances. But most of the beat cops out there are not qualified to do this effectively, if it's even possible.

The police's persecution complex

Oh for F sakes, the hits just keep on coming. Don't blame me for the spam, blame them. ;)

http://news.yahoo.com/police-union-pushes-for-cops-to-be-included-in-federal-hate-crimes-law-183729328.html

So now the cops want violence against them to be classified as hate crimes. And of course the violence that they perpetrate on others (who disproportionately happen to be brown/black) are not. I don't know the full history, but I think hate crimes laws were created (on top of regular criminal laws) as an extra deterrent against such bias-driven crimes.

But there is already a ton of deterrent to violent crimes against cops: (a) angry cops will kill you with great prejudice (remember Dorner), and may kill you first before you have the chance to shoot them, (b) cops have a lot of protection and weapons, (c) the justice system will already come down on you like a ton of bricks (and maybe your family too). So I don't think the extra risk of a hate crime conviction on top of that will affect anyone's behavior.

You know what will stop people from attacking cops? Cops behaving better. It's not the only way, but it's probably the most impactful one, and one that they can control without asking the Feds to change the laws (which is slow and uncertain).  

“Enough is enough! It’s time for Congress to do something to protect the men and women who protect us,” Chuck Canterbury, the president of the [police] union, said in a statement Monday. The group has long lobbied for harsher punishment for those who harm law enforcement officers.

Ah, so now the cops are the ones saying "enough is enough"? That's pretty insulting, since that slogan was recently used by the victims of cop violence (that greatly outnumber cop deaths)?

----

This is so dumb on so many levels I don't know where to begin. I did some cursory research on the typical punishment for killing a cop, and (correct me if I'm wrong) but it appears that in most states this is punish-able basically by only a life sentence or death penalty. Hate crime laws tend to "only" add 5-10 years to sentences, so I don't really get the point of this.

But this also speaks to what police/police apologists don't get about this whole conversation. If you kill a cop, you get punished. I know in the more recent case the guy shot himself, but people don't get to kill cops and walk away scot-free. Cops on the other hand, as we have seen, kill people in unjust situations and receive no punishment or even the slightest bit of accountability. The delicate flowers that cops have turned into when it comes to any sort of criticism is crazy.

Quick thing on hate crime laws: my understanding is that they are applied to crimes that affect communities, not just the person injured/murdered/whatever. For example, if it's determined that a gay person was murdered for being gay, that's classified as a hate crime because that sends a threatening message to the whole gay community, not just the person killed. So based on my understanding, it's even more than just an extra deterrent against bias driven crimes.

----

Some statistics from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics 2012.

Law Enforcement Workers:   97 deaths, 30 from homicide, the rest from roadway accidents and slips & trips

Supervisors, Sales workers: 100 deaths, 46 from homicide, the rest from roadway accidents and slips & trips

Police apparently kill at least ~400 people per year in the US.  About 100 of those black.  This is excluding justifiable homicide and unreported killings.  

Law enforcement is not in the top 10 most dangerous occupations.  And it is worse if you include compensation for the risk since police are relatively well compensated (compared to say, fisherman or agriculture workers).

---

Agreed with both of you.

Yeah being a cop is statistically a better-than-average job for fatality risk. And as you said, they get huge risk comp in the form of earlier retirement (after 15-20 years I think), generous pensions (except broke places like San Jose and Detroit), and a lot of time off (to "de-stress" - I guess that is good for public safety). I hate to sound so harsh, but they are acting like "cry babies" as D alluded to. It's sadly getting to be like the police are a separate society/class with their own interests and rules. In no job should you have to put up with being shot at, but cops were not conscripted into the force - they volunteered with eyes open. OTOH, the uneducated poor more-or-less have no choice but to join the armed forces.

As D said, try to kill a cop or actually kill a cop, you are finished. Get beaten or killed by a cop, he probably won't be affected much, or he might get "early retirement" if there is enough media attention.

This is probably too expensive and controversial to implement, but why should cops have a monopoly on law enforcement? Even in wars, the US hires allies and mercs. Should we be able to pay for private professional security to keep the peace, as well as protect us from and watch the cops? I guess the rich can and already do have that, but the most at-risk communities can't afford it.  

---

"Law Enforcement Workers:   97 deaths, 30 from homicide, the rest from roadway accidents and slips & trips

Supervisors, Sales workers: 100 deaths, 46 from homicide, the rest from roadway accidents and slips & trips

Police apparently kill at least ~400 people per year in the US.  About 100 of those black.  This is excluding justifiable homicide and unreported killings.  "

I want to emphasize that last part, because the more people look into it the more it seems that there is a significant number of unreported killings, the very idea of which is insane to me.

http://regressing.deadspin.com/were-compiling-every-police-involved-shooting-in-americ-1624180387

http://regressing.deadspin.com/deadspin-police-shooting-database-update-were-still-go-1627414202

http://gawker.com/what-ive-learned-from-two-years-collecting-data-on-poli-1625472836

Two separate sections from that last article:

"The biggest thing I've taken away from this project is something I'll never be able to prove, but I'm convinced to my core: The lack of such a database is intentional. No government—not the federal government, and not the thousands of municipalities that give their police forces license to use deadly force—wants you to know how many people it kills and why.

It's the only conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence. What evidence? In attempting to collect this information, I was lied to and delayed by the FBI, even when I was only trying to find out the addresses of police departments to make public records requests. The government collects millions of bits of data annually about law enforcement in its Uniform Crime Report, but it doesn't collect information about the most consequential act a law enforcer can do.

...

This is the most most heinous thing I've learned in my two years compiling Fatal Encounters. You know who dies in the most population-dense areas? Black men. You know who dies in the least population dense areas? Mentally ill men. It's not to say there aren't dangerous and desperate criminals killed across the line. But African-Americans and the mentally ill people make up a huge percentage of people killed by police.

And if you want to get down to nut-cuttin' time, across the board, it's poor people who are killed by police. (And by the way, around 96 percent of people killed by police are men.)"

----

Yeah I don't think it would work out well - look at the case of private prisons in the US:


https://www.aclu.org/prisoners-rights/private-prisons

I'm not sure what the answer is either. But overseas generally cops are a lot better behaved than in the US. Part of it I think is the training culture. They are trained as and are seen as a customer service job, not a paramilitary job where you occasionally have to talk to the plebs, and have much more oversight: http://www.quora.com/How-do-UK-police-compare-to-US-police

I know everyone is for states rights or whatever, but I honestly think they ought to federalize police or at least turn it over to the states and increase the professionalism of the police force.

Another aspect to look at is that if you give officers the option of deadly force, some will resort to it as a first resort rather than a last resort. They did a study where solo cops were much less likely to get into firefights with the bad guys and wait for backup than when cops went together, as one officer alone is more cautious. Likewise, when things get rough in the field (say a crazy guy that isn't listening to commands reaches into his pants), if you have a gun some will use it. Result: crazy guy dead because he was pulling a toothbrush out. A good cop would assess the situation, try to reason with him, and defuse it. Rambo cops will just shoot and claim they felt threatened (which is the bar for use of deadly force).

I'd think that increased professionalism, breaking down of old boy cop networks (in the UK they rotate police, for example), and tighter control over implements of deadly force would be really helpful here.

----

I guess when the public is dependent on some sort of paid entity with little oversight (whether it be for a ride home or law enforcement), corruption and abuse are bound to occur. For the more recent police killing in STL (of an armed black teen this time), I think the cop had a body cam but it wasn't on. I don't understand why the officer should have the ability to control the camera - that defeats the purpose.

That is a good initiative about compiling shooting data. If Waze & its users can track all the car accidents in the US, then the crowd should be able to do the same for shootings (that usually attract onlookers, unless it's a corrupt cover-up killing). I agree with you that the lack of transparency is likely deliberate. Just as the gun lobby has blocked most efforts to create a national gun registry/database/etc. Ironically the cops are against the gun lobby on that issue, but likely engage in the same practices when it suits them. 

----

I totally agree with you about the private prisons (and also mercs) - but remember that those "service providers" were hired because the gov't orgs were not equipped to do the job on their own. They were called in as spare capacity. But for the "private cops", they would be a hedge or alternative to the public cops. And since they would be hired by the community, they could be fired at any time. Of course all this sounds wonderful and perfectly smooth on paper, like libertarianism in general. :)

Ah - I forgot to make a joke about M's comments on mercs: Blackstone and Treadrock... "Treadstone" was the illegal CIA program in the "Bourne" movies, and BlackRock are the guys who have all our retirement cash. :) Blackwater are the corrupt mercs from Iraq, but they have been renamed to Xe, and then Academi (gotta love rebranding).

I agree about the rush to deadly force - when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Of course cops aren't shooting indiscriminately into crowds (usually), but they are empowered (and probably encouraged) to forgo de-escalation and end conflicts with guns. I guess a similar pathology to the stand-your-ground and mass-shootings phenomena in the US. So it comes back to the 2nd Amendment issue - fewer guns on the street and better regs will reduce the violence potential of the public. That in turn will likely make the cops less paranoid and trigger happy, or even justify patrolmen to be unarmed and backed up by armed specialists for hostile situations (like the UK). Maybe the gutting of public services and budget cuts are also contributing to this problem. Cops are the last ones to endure cuts, but they have had them. Now maybe more patrolmen have to go on duty solo. I would be curious to know what % of questionable cop shootings occurred when the cop was solo (but as we now know, stats are hard to come by).

A major reform is needed; I think the cop-first mentality and culture is too deeply ingrained that small changes won't help (esp. if they turn off their body cams). New training, hiring criteria, and oversight are needed - but who is going to write those laws? Any change-oriented candidate would get a lot of heat from the cop lobby, and his/her opponent would get their contributions.

I agree with you about federalizing the cops, since smaller police forces have poorer training/oversight, and likely contribute disproportionately to misconduct problems. Standardizing the police would create a lot of efficiencies (and sharing of best practices, etc.), but the states rights crowd would raise hell as you said.

Also agreed about changing the mentality from occupying army to service provider. Very few people complain about FDs, and there is much less misconduct. The PDs that have the best rep with the public (even among minorities), fewer violent incidents, and have shown the most reforms/improvements, all have robust community outreach programs. But currently they are recruiting and giving badges to macho/meathead/blindly loyal types, not empathetic/thoughtful/fair types.

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201412230900

---

It seems like somehow police have been lumped in with the military as a must support or no chance of political office entity.  On the radio this morning Ryan seacrest (don't judge me!) Was complaining that there was crazy pressure to wear some "I support the police" hat during his new years eve show.  And subsequent death threats when he didn't.  If even seacrest thinks it is overboard imagine what your everyday douchebag must think.

And if you were an app maker, Waze for cop shootings would be a great release about now.  Now we just need a catchy name.  Raze?  hYelp?  

I'm hopeful that mandatory body cameras help and Los Angeles is implementing them which might help on the national level.

----

That's an interesting observation. I think it's very offensive (and undemocratic) for special interest groups to "pressure" the general public to show support for them - lest we be labeled as unpatriotic, soft on crime, etc. "If you're not with us, you're against us." That is another form of intolerant bullying. If you are so great, you don't need to convince anyone with slogans and shirts. It reminds me of a dictator's thugs forcing the citizens at gunpoint to come out and cheer at the dictator's parade, when they all actually hate his guts.

Already the cops get disproportionate support, resources, and political power. They want our love and admiration too? During the War on Terror, I didn't like those bumper stickers that said something like "USMC, thank me for protecting your freedom." My freedom was in pretty good shape without you shooting and bombing anyone. I didn't ask you to go over there, and I do show my thanks by paying taxes and doing other civic duties (incl. protesting when some leaders want to send soldiers to fight unnecessarily).

Cops mostly take evidence after crimes occurred, harass suspicious looking people, and enforce traffic laws. They rarely "prevent crime", except for the deterrent effect of their presence. It's not like Batman swooping in to thwart a bank robbery. So for the cops to imply that they are heroes tirelessly watching over the helpless masses, and keeping the rapists/murderers at bay, is getting it twisted. Violent crime has been on the decline in the US for the past 60 years or more, and policing may not be even a top 3 driver of that (more like economics and other social forces). But still, our gun violence rates are much worse than the EU and east Asia, but as we've discussed, it's concentrated on mostly poor minorities and not the rich (or the cops). If the police go out of their way to protect those folks with the least power, and who are the most at risk, then I would give them props. But they mostly just leave those "animals" to their own devices, keep the riffraff caged in prisons/ghettos and away from the suburbs and malls.

Yeah for all of the LAPD's past sins (and they still have many lingering problems), they have shown a lot of leadership in reforms like community policing, hiring and promoting minorities/women, and the use of some technologies.

The psychology of police bias and violence

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/between-the-lines/201204/studies-unconscious-bias-racism-not-always-racists

http://rt.com/usa/217239-black-police-racial-profiling/

These were some interesting stories about detrimental police psychology and practices.

Phillip Goff from UCLA studied a sampling of police deadly force incidents (not sure the date range and selection criteria), and over 80% of those incidents involved the shooting victim making direct "threats to the officer's masculinity." So it wasn't just a disrespect for his authority ("F you, pig!"), but a challenge to his manhood. In the case of Ferguson, it was alleged that Brown told Wilson, "You're too much of a [pansy/fag/etc.] to shoot me." If true, obviously that was a bad move on Brown's part, but also reveals the dangerous attitude that some officers feel the need to demonstrate their toughness/masculinity/etc. to the public (like Marty McFly when he's called "chicken"). This is not Tombstone where gunfighters call each other out to defend their names and settle scores in the street. The bigger man is sometime the one who doesn't respond, and cooler heads need to prevail (not to mention cops are legally bound by certain restraints, though it's very hard to prosecute excessive force). Cadets and officers who display this inferiority complex, insecurity, and prideful behavior should never be permitted to have a badge and gun.

This part is a little fluffy - but this behavior could reflect the stereotypical white-black male tensions of more racist eras: white men may feel especially threatened by black strength, black genitalia, black revenge for slavery, black men taking their white women away, etc. Again, this is not evidence-based and mostly the domain of racial humor, but I think these fearful undercurrents may still be alive in the American psyche. How much of an effect they have on police actions is unclear.

Also, incidents of police-on-police violence were also studied. In cases where an on-duty officer shoots an off-duty plain-clothed officer, the victims are overwhelmingly black/brown and the shooters are overwhelmingly white. Sorry that is so vague; Reuters got the data from a police internal study, but did not provide the #s. So it's not just a cops vs. civilians thing - cops are killing each other and it seems that race is a major factor associated with the decision to shoot. Much more numerous than shootings are of course the racial profiling for routing traffic stops, stop-and-frisk, harassment, etc. Again, this is much more of a problem for plain-clothed minority officers than white officers. And these incidents may lead to tempers flaring and a violent incident.

The Horne case with Buffalo PD

Sorry to keep harping on this, but there's a lot of material out there. I guess this was going on all the time, but it's only reaching our eyeballs now due to the media attention and high-profile cases.

https://news.vice.com/article/buffalo-cop-loses-job-and-pension-after-she-intervenes-with-fellow-officer-choking-a-suspect?utm_source=vicenewsfb

I think this episode summarizes what is wrong with police accountability (or lack thereof). According to this Vice report, Cariol Horne, a female black officer with the Buffalo PD (19 years tenure) saw another white male officer striking and choking a suspect who was already in handcuffs. She told him to stop, and may have put her hands on the other officer. The other officer punched her in the face in the presence of 9 other officers. Sounds open and shut, right? She was charged with obstructing an arrest, was fired, and got her pension annulled. Meanwhile, the alleged abusive officer was unpunished.

He later was implicated in 2 violent incidents with other officers (which led to his "forced retirement"), and was recently indicted for past civil rights violations relation to treatment of black youths. Horne is still trying to recover her pension.

So let me get this straight, a violence-prone racist cop gets no discipline and full pension from his department, but the "whistleblower" cop who tried to look out for the rights of a suspect gets fired with no pension? Cops and crooks both seem to espouse the philosophy that "snitches get stitches." Some PDs seem more interested to root out disloyalty/threats rather than actual misconduct. It's a cop's "duty" to look out for each other and cover up crimes if necessary. If they don't, and if they dare go against the blue line, then their career is finished. For the benefit of doubt, there could be more to this story. But still, Horne must not have been that bad if she was on the job for 19 years. As a black female cop, she had a much smaller margin for error on the job. So I don't think this is a case of her just crying wolf.

Obviously, this is not how a public agency (or any org) should function.

What some ex-cops think about police violence

Some perspectives on this issue from ex-cops.

A black man from StLPD who basically felt that most of his peers were racist and quick to violence:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/06/i-was-a-st-louis-cop-my-peers-were-racist-and-violent-and-theres-only-one-fix/

His thesis is basically that training won't fix things; there is already a ton of training that officers don't take seriously - because they know there are above punishment (leave with pay is the worst it gets). There has to be independent oversight and real accountability. DAs won't really represent the best interests of the public to investigate and punish police misconduct, as we've seen from the Eric Garner grand jury. Same how the military won't really look into sexual assault within its ranks (so the Senate is trying to pass a law and create an independent investigation office).

A South Asian man from LAPD (who also has a PhD) on why it's the public's job to prevent police use of force:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/08/19/im-a-cop-if-you-dont-want-to-get-hurt-dont-challenge-me/

Heck, the title of his op-ed is "I'm a cop. If you don't want to get hurt, don't challenge me." That demonstrates the power trip, confrontational attitude pervasive in their ranks. I agree with a lot of what he was saying, but not his expectations for the public. Yes, it's true that people will be safer if they just do everything that the cop tells them to do. But what does that make us, slaves? Cops are not our overlords. And what if the cop asks us to take our clothes off, or steals our property (which has happened before in the US)? If we value our lives, we just let it happen and then seek redress later? Well that might work in theory, but the people most likely to be abused by the cops can't afford legal representation and likely don't have the ability to go through these protracted channels of justice (with no guarantee of success at the end). And frankly, "just do everything he says or you'll get hurt" sounds like terrorism to me. We have to be submissive and not provoke a guy with his finger literally on the trigger. And of course the author expects the communities that have the worst history of prejudice and injustice against them to behave like Gandhis through humiliation and aggression, right?

Yes, it's true that cops have to deal with a lot of hate, threats, and other crap too. It's not right, but they knew that coming into the job. If they have thin skins and short tempers, maybe they should have joined a monastery? And statistically these days, being a cop has less chance of death on the job than the average American worker (as we discussed in a previous email). So why are they freaking out? If the anxiety over bodily harm (from minorities) is making them unable to do their jobs and fulfill their obligations to society, then they should be deemed unfit for duty. I wonder if this is like the military - the job sucks so much that they need to relax hiring standards to fill the slots. Is it hard to become a cop? Well it should be a lot harder, obviously. Clearly we need more psych and behavioral exams. And maybe police need higher pay also to attract better candidates.

But all the shootings and beatings can't be just the public's fault.

----

I'm pretty tired of these police unions demanding apologies after pro athletes have made pregame statements about the wave of high profile police killing incidents. If you have such thin skins, don't become cops.

Do you want everyone to love you all the time? Then maybe treat people with respect. And what about all the victims of police misconduct? Apologize to and compensate them first, and then I am sure these athletes will say sorry a hundred times if you like. What's worse: hospitalizations and funerals, or getting your fragile feelings hurt over a t-shirt? These people have no clue, and yet we've given them guns, pensions, and the full power of the justice system behind them.

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2014/12/15/7397201/andrew-hawkins-browns-statement-shirt-police-demand-apology
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/rams-exec-denies-apology-to-police-chief-over--hands-up--gesture-044001777.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/sports/basketball/i-cant-breathe-tshirts-in-the-nba-how-jayz-lebron-james-and-others-made-them-happen.html

No indictment for Eric Garner's killer either

Unfortunately the NYC grand jury will not indict the white officer (and his accomplices) who choked the unarmed, nonthreatening Eric Garner to death. And they have video! "I can't breathe, I can't breathe!" What was his crime - being big and black and male and upset in NYC? Did he "deserve" it too, like Brown? Did the officer have no choice?

The officer probably didn't have intent to kill, but he was using a prohibited tactic (chokehold) and I have trouble believing that this was all by the book. No manslaughter, no negligence, nothing? Would the ruling be the same if the deceased was famous? And they wonder why people are upset - totally tone deaf and living in their bubble.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/nyregion/grand-jury-said-to-bring-no-charges-in-staten-island-chokehold-death-of-eric-garner.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1ka4oKu1jo

---

Why Commonwealth nations have done away with grand juries - they are ineffective for justice and too easily manipulated by the prosecutor

http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-12-04/england-abolished-grand-juries-decades-ago-because-they-didnt-work

The NY grand jury may have failed to indict the chokehold cop (because he got to defend himself for 2 hours in court and professed that it was an accident), but they have indicted the man who filmed the incident (on an unrelated weapons charge), plus his wife. Coincidence or petty cop retribution?

http://ringoffireradio.com/2014/12/grand-jury-indicted-the-man-who-filmed-eric-garners-killing/

The fascinating psychology behind bias, how it sometimes still gets the better of people who are actively trying to not be biased. This is good material for another thread, so let me know if you'd like to discuss.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/12/02/science-cops-shoot-young-black-men/

Police brutality greatest hits

Police brutality greatest hits: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u2gjGuwxIk&list=PLeE5ieq-30Chh8qRhezGpzOofiynUTshZ

If ISIS released video like this, we would rightly call them deranged barbarians. I know these incidents may be "taken out of context", but is there a reasonable explanation for all of them (each suspect unarmed and no imminent threat to anyone)? You can see the officers have a predatory/chase mentality - they are hunting prey and need to dominate their suspects (low-brain functions vs. higher reasoning/ethics). It's not about upholding the law and protecting public safety anymore. Heck, it's not even about their own safety, as they are engaging unnecessarily closely with the suspects.  

These people are the menaces to society, not the Oscar Grants and Trayvons of the world. It's also a shame that taxpayers have to fund their salary, equipment, and pension. We are clearly not getting our money's worth. How the laws are written, it's very hard to get an excessive force conviction.

You might say, "there are good cops out there." That is true, and I hope they would be pissed to see some of their comrades behaving like this and hurting the public. I would hope they clean out the rot from within their departments. But they don't, because "the brotherhood in blue" protects its own even when fault is clear (just like other corrupt, opaque orgs like the Catholic Church). And maybe they don't enact tough police conduct laws because they don't want to be the subject of an investigation some day.

----

A coworker who grew up in NYC told me that the NYPD acts like an occupying army at times. This could be a reflection of that.

https://news.vice.com/article/anger-grows-as-nypd-blasts-protesters-with-controversial-and-painful-noise-weapon?utm_source=vicenewsfb

The Pentagon previously commissioned research into "non lethal" mass urban pacification weapons, and I guess LRAD is one of the results. I think it was originally meant for Iraq, but now they are using it against US residents and citizens, some of whom are not breaking any laws and assembling peacefully. Supposedly there are longer-term effects of the weapon, such as headaches and head ringing for up to a week. Who knows if it contributes to mental illness, brain/ear damage, or worse? I suspect the vendor and Pentagon did not really do much safety testing. It reminds me of Agent Orange in Vietnam. The brass just told soldiers to use it, and didn't know about the health risks or didn't care.

"We want to know did they have training? Do they have a written formal policy? A Freedom of Information Law request was done in 2011 and we got the results in 2012. As of then the NYPD claimed not to have any written documents."

Cleveland child shooting by police

http://gawker.com/video-cops-shot-12-year-old-two-seconds-after-arriving-1663814827

Re: the Cleveland shooting - the video doesn't tell the whole story (at least there is a video though) and I am not familiar with all the facts, but...

The initial 911 caller told police that he/she thought the firearm was "probably fake", but that info never got to the officers on scene. The shooter was a rookie cop on the job less than a year (of all the officers in the area, why dispatch him to a potential firefight situation?). So lapses in police procedure seem to be contributing. If the officer killed the kid within 2 sec of the vehicle coming to a stop, when exactly did they ask the kid to put his hands up and observe that he didn't comply? Maybe they asked him from their loudspeaker before 0:21? Either way, to me it makes no sense for the other officer to drive the car into the park within 10 feet of the potentially dangerous suspect. Again, that is an act of escalation rather than diffusion that frankly is putting his partner on the driver's side at undue risk. What is the benefit of doing that? I don't mean to be a Monday morning QB, and I am ignorant on police rules-of-engagement, but it doesn't seem logical/effective. So is poor training/procedure also to blame (in addition to poor judgment)?

Why not use their loudspeaker at distance (handgun shooters generally have low accuracy beyond 25 yards) to ask any bystanders in the area to withdraw? Then from behind cover, they can have time to converse with the suspect, evaluate the risk, and discuss with HQ if needed. Why the need for such immediate violent response; the suspect was seated and not posing a threat to anyone at the time (i.e. there was no Hollywood style hostage standoff)? Shouldn't deadly force be the last resort? All of this seems to be circumstantial evidence supporting the theory that black life is not valued by some Americans (esp. in law enforcement). They wouldn't act this way if the suspect was a relative or friend, right? 

For perspective, the Richmond PD has not killed anyone in 7 years, despite the fairly dangerous climate in their city (but that PD is known for good community outreach). And they average  less than 1 officer shooting incident per year. So obviously there is a choice and violence is avoidable, unlike what Wilson claimed.

Ferguson grand jury decision and police use of force with blacks

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201411250900

This was a pretty good panel discussion about the Ferguson decision. To be clear, based on how our laws are written, what evidence was available, and how our justice system "works", Zimmerman and Mesherle were not guilty, and there was not enough here to indict Wilson. Whether that is right or acceptable is another story.

No one really expected an indictment of Wilson, however there was some concern about how the process unfolded: the prosecutor seemed to focus on the officer's perspective, the prosecutor's dad was a cop killed by a black suspect (and didn't recuse himself), Brown's family was not called to testify (but Wilson was - highly unusual), the convenience store crime footage was released, and AG Holder was indirectly involved. There is also the over-arching issue of the proximity between law enforcement and the DA's office, and whether impartial oversight of alleged police misconduct is possible. Was this g. jury just a "show trial" as justice theater, to go through the motions when no one really wanted to investigate Wilson. And maybe Wilson in fact broke no laws.

We've spoken about these issues before, but obviously if police were not armed (like in the UK, Norway, and many other places), that precludes the risk of violent altercations. We know that's not going to happen, so maybe police resources could be allocated to community outreach and rules-of-engagement/de-escalation policy analysis and training rather than ridiculous military exercises that they will never (or should never) use domestically. And instead of buying tanks and sniper rifles, maybe law enforcement could invest in officer and vehicle cameras - which have been shown to deter violence and misconduct from both officers and public. Convictions were possible in the Rodney King case because of footage, otherwise we all probably believe that the verdict would have been different.

There are "ambiguous" cases where an officer can rightfully shoot or not shoot - it's up to their discretion. The data show that when the suspect is black or brown, shooting is a lot more likely outcome. Assuming that minority suspects are no more dangerous than white suspects, this may be a manifestation of traditional racism, lack of sensitivity training, and/or unconscious fear (particularly of large black urban men). Ferguson's police force is under 10% black, yet the community is 2/3 black. Why was the actual white cop-killer in PA apprehended with little harm to him (and maybe no shots fired), but kids, mentally challenged, and unarmed/poorly armed minorities are beaten to a pulp or shot 10 times?

Would white America think it was OK if the tables were turned? Imagine if blacks were 60% of the population, had all the wealth/power (and Obama would still be president because he's half white), and most of the guns. Would they be OK with young white man after young white man (unarmed) killed by black cops or black neighborhood watchmen, with no convictions or even indictments? And all of this met the letter of the law?

----

Maybe there has been some sensationalism and race baiting by the media and others over Ferguson, but this crap isn't much better:

https://gma.yahoo.com/exclusive-police-officer-darren-wilson-explains-feared-life-233000976--abc-news-topstories.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/darren-wilson-testimony_n_6216620.html

I guess Wilson is on his PR tour, and lucky for him he's the only one left alive to tell the world what happened that day. He took a punch from Brown, and then "feared for his life". He is 6'4" 210 lbs, but he said he was like a boy vs. "Hulk Hogan" - that's how big that "man" was (Brown was 6'4" 292 lbs). Either Wilson's stupid or melodramatic, but it's pretty hard to die from one or two punches. He was in a motor vehicle. If he feared for his life, why not just hit the gas and escape (assuming the car was running)? Only when he went for his gun did it become a "life and death" struggle. During his grand jury testimony (when he was not subject to cross-examination), he said Brown was a "demon". Is that to evoke sympathy and/or an admission of his hysteria?

Wilson's recounting of the incident could be accurate, but it's quite peculiar. I don't know their stories, but I believe that Brown did not have a history of violence, erratic behavior, or aggression. I am not sure about Wilson's record on duty. But the way Wilson described Brown, the kid seemed to be crazy. I'm not saying it's impossible, but why would a teen, when ordered by a cop authority figure to get off the road and then approach the patrol car, suddenly attack the armed officer without provocation? It's like Trayvon - did he suddenly just decide to kill an adult stranger on a whim? Then instead of finishing Wilson off in close quarters, somehow the hulk-demon Brown ends up 35-40 feet away from the police car, turns around, and charges back at Wilson - ostensibly with intent to kill (even though the kid already passed up an easier opportunity to kill Wilson)? At that point, Wilson said that the thought in his mind was, "Legally can I shoot this guy? I have to." If he was attacked by a "demon" and fearing for his life before, it's not likely that Wilson could be so conscientious and analytical in that moment. This makes me really suspicious of his version of events.

Wilson repeated that he has a clear conscience because he followed his training to the letter and did nothing wrong. To me, that's like Bush saying that he can't think of a mistake he made as president. Honest people can always admit they could have done something better - it doesn't require deep introspection and intellect. And if you are truly in the right, that doesn't mean that you are not allowed to be sub-perfect. Any time someone kills someone else, something obviously went wrong. But for Wilson to be so sure and culpability-free, that suggests he is on the defensive and hiding something. Maybe he is (rightfully) worried that if he is open and contrite, his words will be twisted and turned against him. He is not out of the legal woods yet. However, I don't think it's very persuasive to neutrals or skeptics when you show very little to no empathy or remorse, and just keep maintaining that you did everything right and you are actually the victim.

Wilson is the professional peace officer with the firearm and the training. He has the power of life and death, not Brown. Maybe he wielded that power in accordance with the laws of the land, but don't tell us that all this was 100% unavoidable and 100% of the blame is on Brown. Is conflict ever so black and white?

"Is there anything you could have done differently that would have [avoided the killing]?"

"No."

"Nothing?"

"No."

----

When you speak of intellect and police, please keep this in mind:

http://www.mintpressnews.com/can-someone-be-too-smart-to-be-a-cop/192106/

Bottom line:  They're smart enough to know their own limits, which makes them feel inferior.  Give him a gun and that inferiority goes away.  The police are poorly trained and intellectually ill-equipped to do a job like policing.  Police (in a civilized society) need to read a situation and determine the way to de-escalate it to protect everyone, not just themselves.  Instead, they exacerbate and intimidate.

If Brown was a 'demon', a police officer should know how to deal with them.  You cannot tell me that Brown wouldn't understand that if he punched a cop in the face, he'd be killed.    Every black child is told that he is perceived as a threat in society just because the color of his/her skin.  It is the 'talk' black parents have to have with their kids in order to hope they might not land in jail or get killed. 

Once again, it's bullshit cop story and because the american society is so racist, they believe it.

How long ago did we watch Rodney King get beaten?  Same as it ever was.  

----

Yeah, "the talk" is a good point; most black American men know not to do anything remotely aggressive towards the cops. Yet Wilson admitted to firing his gun 12 times at the unarmed Brown. As you said, I am pretty sure Wilson did/said something offensive to provoke Brown, who responded like a testosterone-fueled teen might, and then Wilson probably escalated because he felt that his petty ego/authority was challenge and he wanted to put this punk in his place. Like Jack Reacher said, people join the armed forces either because they're legacy, unable to get a better job, or want to legally kill people. I think some people become cops because they have inferiority complexes and want to wave the gun/badge around and intimidate (like Denzel's depiction in Training Day).

Maybe I'm way off base about Wilson, but I know this applies to some cops over the years based on the long record of misconduct and corruption (and those are only the cases that saw the light of day). Teachers and gov't workers get blasted by the right all the time, but they always apologize for the cops. They are all supposed to be public servants, but yes, there are structural and psychological reasons why they may put their own interests over the public's at times. But when cops do that, people can get hurt and justice suffers.

The way Wilson, Zimmerman, and some in right-wing media/politics describe, young black men are a ticking time bomb of primal rage that can't be reasoned with. That is racism to me, with tragic effects. Same thing with some Muslims - they are accused of embracing a culture of martyrdom and death. "We love life and freedom, they hate it." They're barely human, so they need to be caged and killed like dogs. So sure, when a psychotic 300 lb black guy wants to tear you limb-from-limb, of course you regretfully have to protect yourself with deadly force. Poor Wilson. I acknowledge that some blacks and Muslims fit these descriptions, but the vast majority don't. And plenty of whites exhibit this behavior and worse (the majority of mass murderers in US history were white men, often educated and not that poor). So we're profiling all wrong. But maybe the error stems from, and is reinforcement of, the centuries-old stereotypes about white man's burden and black savages.

One thing I also wanted to comment on was the criticism over the rioting and looting in black neighborhoods in the wake of Ferguson, Rodney King, Watts, Katrina, etc. This is somehow validation for conservatives that blacks are the problem. I am not condoning the behavior, but when people are given no better outlets for redress, and day-after-day subject to mistreatment and negativity all around, they are going to react poorly during times of strife. It is not inherent to blacks - it is what happens when you marginalize people and leave them with no hope/future. The discrimination, harassment, and violence (economic violence too) that some black people face (often from non-blacks) are significant disadvantages that others often dismiss because they haven't experienced it themselves. I also think Obama was too dismissive and unsympathetic of the protesters' perspective in Ferguson (esp. compared to Trayvon), but I assume he is being extra cautious so as to not get blamed/associated with the racial anger/violence.

Cop killers

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/19/justice/pennsylvania-shooting/

I don't know why many US police officers are so hostile/scared of urban black men, when it's probably more likely they will be killed by a "white trash" man. The Obama admin. implemented some protective measures during their 1st term and police deaths fell sharply since 2011. Statistically, being a US cop is safer now than the overall workforce average. And many police deaths were self-inflicted due to not wearing seat belts or distracted driving.

Not so for being a black man (and you can't really quit that like a bad job). Supposedly a black person is killed in the US every 1-2 days by police. I'm pretty confident that a sizable % of those were unnecessary.

http://www.occupy.com/article/black-man-killed-us-every-28-hours-police

Re: cop shootings, I couldn't get stats on the races of the shooters. But considering US demographics, it's very unlikely that blacks are the majority of them, despite what gangsta rappers claim. So it is just racism/ignorance that explains police perceptions and treatment of blacks?

http://www.odmp.org/search/year?year=2014

Vets react to Ferguson police

http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-08-15/us-veteran-says-police-response-ferguson-isn-t-country-we-fought-protect (the tweets at the bottom are pretty good too)

This story is so idiotic and some of us discussed it already on FB, so I will try to be brief. I just thank heavens that the Ferguson cops didn't gravely injure and kill a lot of people in their frenzy. Apart from the actual shooting incident (details of which are still indeterminate), the police's "peacekeeping effort"s have been so off the deep end - almost rivaling Kent State territory, or the Occupied Territories.

This is similar to the gun issue, I think. some Americans may believe that tech/weapons/stuff can suffice as solutions to threats and problems (obviously the arms industry wants us to believe that). Maybe it's true that overwhelming force helps when you are trying to wipe out an enemy batallion or seize territory. But obviously the iron fist approach breaks down in occupations/insurgencies (too many examples to list), and should never be the goal of a police operation. Because unlike an army that can withdraw and go home after a victory (and the aftermath of their violence is not really a top concern), the next day the cops have to still live with the people they scared/harassed/hurt - and likely for many more days afterward. That's why managing relationships and de-escalating conflicts are better than "crushing your enemy", and no advanced weapons system can do that better than an intelligent, compassionate, well-trained peace officer (even if they're unarmed, like the UK and Norwegian cops). What happened to having a conversation, especially when many of the protesters were nonviolent and within their Constitutional rights?

As the vets who tweeted in that article said, a show of force can be counter-productive if the objective is to manage an angry population. Clearly the gear by itself is not enough to maintain order long-term, but such weaponry in the hands of undisciplined, untrained, and probably prejudiced/beligerent morons is even worse. "Petty force" by petty bullies, as David Brooks said recently. All that gear makes them feel like Rambo, and Rambo doesn't take no shit from no one (the whole SYG convo we had). If our occupying soldiers (with less gear and employing less heavy-handed tactics) could often coexist with Iraqis and Afghans, who were bigger threats and hated them more than black people may (justifiably) hate US cops, then what are police forces like Ferguson trying to achieve?

I thought the crackdowns on the WTO and OWS protesters were bad, but they look like Boy Scouts in comparison. I fear that episodes like Ferguson are going to happen again and again, because the underlying forces are unchanged or getting worse (us vs. them style policing, surplus wargear that someone wants to find a use for, community inequality/segregation, culture of fear/violence in America). What concerns me is who can/will step in if amateurish police depts like Ferguson go too far? Even with the media everywhere, they didn't care. The police were acting like fascists, as one vet said. I am pretty sure no one is going to lose their job over this though, which adds to the tragedy.

So in the future, if a dept. displays even worse judgment, who will step in to protect the citizenry? That is supposed to be the cops' job, but what happens when they become the threat? Will the governor deploy the National Guard in a timely manner? Courts and investigations happen after the dust has settled, but who will stand up to the cops in the moment? Unfortunately this may make citizens feel like they need to take matters into hands (a la Cliven Bundy and right-wing militias), which will only perpetuate the cycle of distrust/violence and feed the police's mania.

Other links:

Eric Garner case

Police misconduct costs communities hundreds of millions in lawsuits a year

Bill Maher even before Ferguson and Garner happened

Military compared to cops

Resistance Suppression and the IDF

A friend shared this video with me from a former IDF soldier (Eran Efrati) who was so troubled by his experiences in the Territories that he is now a spokesman for a group trying to spread the word to Israel proper and the outside world on the injustices and implications of the Occupation. It's 40 min, but worth it IMO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93hqlmrZKd8&sns=em

Some highlights:

-When Efrati was a boy, he remembered his grandma crying hysterically at night from PTSD from her Nazi death camp experience. It jarred him to the bone when he heard a Palestinian mother crying the same way after his unit killed her unarmed son.

-In Operation Cast Lead (the first Gaza invasion in 2008-9), the IDF ground troops were surprised with what they saw. They were pumped up to kick ass and do the urban fighting that they had been trained for, but by the time they set foot in Gaza, there was nothing left to fight. The navy and air force had already destroyed everything, and all they saw were rubble and corpses.

-While the US still gives Israel billions in aid (some of it military), Israel also has a billions-dollar war export industry. They have sold/currently sell resistance suppression tools/training to foreign governments - some of whom are terribly repressive and undemocratic (Pinochet's Chile, Mobutu's Congo/Zaire, Apartheid SA, the PRC). So they have a financial incentive to continue the Occupation, and even use the Territories as a "lab" to try out new innovations.

In the end, I think Efrati presented a good message for the US audience: we might not care about the Palestinians who are so far away, but we could be next - because US police are getting Israeli training to be more brutal and militaristic. If one day we have to protest our gov't, or we become the "enemy of the state", then we will be treated like the new Palestinians. Who in the world is going to help us, if we never bothered to help the Palestinians? I hope our laws and rights will protect us if that dark time comes, but clearly many people have had their rights violated by the cops (and gov't) during the War on Terror, OWS, and just crossing the street.

Bill Maher on the militarization of the US police (which seems to be enabled by resistance suppression training/tools tested in the Territories). Ironically, Maher spent the first half of the show crapping on the Palestinians and praising Israel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVywCqvmC0E

Glock's rise and gun control

http://www.npr.org/2013/02/01/170752391/how-the-glock-became-americas-weapon-of-choice

This is an older interview, but related to the gun control debate now. Technically speaking Glock is an excellent firearm vs. its early peers, but its marketing was leaps and bounds ahead:

- They fed on the negative press that Glocks were the weapon of choice of terrorists and bad people (if those hardened killers choose Glock, maybe I should too!).

- They made overtures to Hollywood armories to make sure Glocks got exposure in big time TV/movies like "Law and Order" (and unintentionally in many rap songs).

- Around the time the Glock was invented, cops were using old S&W revolvers and the military was using heavy Colt 1911-like automatics. The Glock was futuristic looking, with a sensitive trigger, made of plastic, and with no external safety. People were skeptical about using it. The genius of the Glock is that it is super-reliable, super-simple design, and made in a very efficient manufacturing process. Their original idea was to leverage that cost advantage to sell cheap and undercut rivals. But then they decided on a premium price, in order to signal to customers that it wasn't a flimsy plastic toy gun - it was in fact a premium, high-performance, superior gun. Though for hesitant police departments, Glock basically had a "name your price" + trade-in policy (subsidized by superior margins to the public). Cops were also motivated to get Glocks because they were tired of being outgunned by criminals with them. So this strategy got them impressive market share, and got the gun double exposure from the "good guy" cops and the "bad guy" crooks.

Here's the gun control side of the story. Glocks were made to accommodate a variety of magazines, some as high as 30 rounds. The gun control community were very opposed to Glocks, and looked foolish after they claimed that the plastic gun would get through airport security (half of the gun is still metal, and its outline would be obvious in an X-ray). But they got momentum after the Killeen, TX mass shooting (the worst in US history at the time) where the perpetrator used a Glock and other firearms. So capping magazine capacity was part of the assault weapons ban, though not retroactive (i.e. existing guns would be grandfathered). Legislation is slow and Glock anticipated this change, so for years prior their plants were pumping out a ton of Glocks and large mags. They sold like hotcakes leading up to the ban, in some cases at 3X higher prices than before Killeen. I guess like the AR-15 now. 

Glock was also the punching bag for many police departments, despite being their supplier. They employed a controversial practice of "trading in". In order to drive more sales, Glock reps would reach out to PDs and offer to buy their old guns in exchange for new, better Glocks (sometime every 1-2 years). PDs agreed, and then Glock would sell those used guns on the secondary market. Of course some of those guns got in the hands of criminals. Cops were blaming (and even suing) Glock for "flooding the streets" with guns, but where did those guns come from - the holsters of cops! If PDs resisted the urge to get the latest-and-greatest guns (subsidized by their current guns), then the problem could have been much reduced. They could have mandated that Glock melt down their old guns and sell them as scrap instead.

Oscar Grant murder trial: setting up for another Rodney King?

http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R201006040900
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmJukcFzEX4
http://cbs5.com/local/BART.shooting.trial.2.1681755.html

You probably remember the shooting of Oscar Grant on New Year's Eve by BART policeman Johannes Mehserle that was caught on a number of cell phone cameras. The cop is accused of murder, but the trial was moved from Alameda to LA County due to possible protests, a biased jury pool, and possible harm/tampering of the courtroom participants. Mehserle is defended by Attorney Michael Rains, who has defended the police often in his career, and has also represented Barry Bonds.

The jury selection process has begun, with about 250 LA residents (about 1/4 of them being black) filling out a paper questionnaire to tease out prejudice regarding race, crime, and law enforcement. Although both sides have agreed on the list of questions, there may not be much live questioning. The judge plans to select the jury in a matter of two days or so and then jump into opening statements, when jury selection for similar high-profile murder cases has taken weeks. The assigned judge, Superior Court Judge Robert Perry, has a reputation for expediency and keeping to a tight schedule. So that is raising some eyebrows. But each side is permitted to excuse one judge-selected juror for any reason other than possible bias.

In addition, the matter of admissible evidence is puzzling. The California evidence code states that "character evidence" is inadmissible for a trial of this nature. Some of you on this email list have JDs, so please chime in with more explanations and corrections if I misrepresent anything. Basically, the victim's past conduct during similar events as the night in question can't be used to explain his behavior/intent. Grant has had 3 felony convictions, and had resisted arrest during a prior altercation when he was being similarly cuffed on the ground, and was then tased. The judge felt that it would be a denial of Mehserle's Constitutional rights to bar this evidence that may cast doubt on his guilt, so he decided to supersede CA law, which is unusual.

On the other hand, Mehserle's questionable background will most likely be inadmissible. Apparently he has used a taser properly on duty before, which would cast some doubt on the accidental firearm discharge defense. Mehserle is also under investigation for physical contact with a black suspect, but since that litigation is pending, it is also inadmissible. It's also strange that if Mehserle was innocent, why would he refuse to participate in the BART police internal investigation and resign a week after the incident? Mehserle was mostly silent after the event, and during his first questioning by internal affairs, he never mentioned any taser. His "I thought I was using my taser" defense only emerged two days after the event, possibly after being coached by attorneys. And there are points such as a taser weighs about half as much as a loaded sidearm, and also has bright yellow markings on it that pistols lack. Plus there are the bystander cell phone videos, which seem to show Mehserle looking at his holster before reaching for his gun, suggesting cognizant use of deadly force.

Regarding the cell phone video footage, the judge's ruling is troubling. In general, jurors can evaluate impartial video evidence themselves and decide the facts based on their perceptions. But for the Mehserle trial, the judge granted the defense's request to have a video analysis expert testify on the video. They argue that the poor quality of the footage requires a video expert to "decipher" the events in question. So in this case, the expert opinion will be telling the jury what he thinks is going on in the video. Will the jury trust their own instincts, or defer to the views of an expert called by the defense?

So if Mehserle is acquitted or charged with a lesser manslaughter conviction, there will be probably be a lot of anger and some violence from the black and minority communities in the Bay Area (though the trial seems to be of very little interest to LA residents). Of course the trial hasn't even begun yet, and who knows what Mehserle will say on the stand, but already a couple judge rulings seem to be favoring the defendant.

BART police "execution"

I was out of town when this happened, but friggin' A...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKy-WSZMklc

That is some messed up NYPD shit there. Who the heck is in charge of training BART cops anyway? Are they even subject to oversight and IA like the other cops? I guess they're one step up from Blackwater. But the video clearly shows the 2 other officers had the young man pinned down, he wasn't struggling (at the time of the shooting), and didn't seem like a danger to anyone. But the third just takes out his weapon, aims, and fires point blank in the back - for no valid reason that I can discern. It doesn't appear accidental. What was he thinking with all the witnesses around? My coworkers said that the BART police confiscated as many cell phones/cameras as they could find on people in the vicinity, supposedly for "evidence" (or cover-up?). But moot point, since some leaked to the press anyway.

And we wonder why urban minorities don't really trust police.

--------

http://www.ktvu.com/video/18426902/index.html

Take a look at this video. I looks as if one officer was off to the side talking on the radio, while officer Mehserle (the shooter) and another officer pinned the young man down. It is evident that the officer pinning the young man near his head moved up and away before the shot was fired as if expecting a stun gun shot and moving clear so as not to be secondarily tased. You can see the stupid look on Mehserle's face immediately after the shot, as he looks up and down at what had just happened.

I agree there's no valid reason to shoot the guy, even stun gunning the guy seems excessive. I disagree with your assertion that this does not appear to be accidental.

Now I'm not gonna defend this in anyway shape or form aside from saying this looks accidental. It's poor judgment anyway you cut it. It's bad protocol to have officers have stun guns near their firearms... most departments have them place it opposite their pistol on their non dominant side facing the opposite direction. As far as taking cameras from witnesses... hell who knows what standard operating procedure is on that one, but it does look suspicious.

This incident certainly doesn't help police win over urban minorities, but this incident looks like officer incompetence, lack of training, and poor protocol rather then the "white cop kills urban/minority youth" reaction this is getting on the streets of Oakland.

--------

But as far as I know, isn't a stun gun much lighter than a handgun? It's like reaching for a wood pencil at your desk and accidentally picking up a Mont Blanc - you should know the difference. I guess in the "heat of the action", maybe he just got confused. But I'm not sure if that "excuse" makes it any better, since there is an ongoing controversy about police over-use of stun gun submission that actually turns out to be more lethal that the manufacturers or cops claim.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/06/11/national/a114135D39.DTL

-------

Yeah, I mean I agree with Juan that it was probably accidental and the cop wasn't looking to whack the kid. But you know in the navy how the officers repeat orders all along the chain of command to make sure that it was correct before executing? Isn't that to make sure the end result is proper and intentional? Captian: all ahead full, 2nd in command: all ahead full roger, helmsman: roger all ahead full, and then finally he puts the boat in gear. I believe surgical teams do similar stuff in hospitals, obviously because mistakes are too costly (and yet they still happen, but anything to reduce them is desirable). So would it have been so hard for Mehserle to tell his partners, "I am planning to tase the suspect, I am drawing my taser now, I am preparing to fire." And the onlooking cop could actually verify that he was holding his taser and not his Glock, instead of just looking away and hoping for the best.

I have no idea what the effed up "rules of engagement" are for cops (or BART rent-a-cops), but maybe there needs to be some major overhaul to verify the use of force before actually using it. I know if a perp draws a weapon on you or other emergency situation, your life comes first and you just have to react based on your training (seen "Burn After Reading"?), but if the officers are in no hurry and under no immediate threat, one person shouldn't unilaterally have the right to use his weapons when and how he/she wants. That is a violation of the public trust, because obviously we are unarmed and at their mercy.