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/

What happens when you pay teachers $125K?

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/10/27/teacher-salary-study

Kids learn more and good teachers don't quit, of course! A NYC charter school (TEP) tried it out and saw impressive improvements. After the 4-year pilot, TEP students' test scores were about +1.6 years ahead of peers in math, and +0.4 years ahead in English. And this was not a posh suburban academy, it was an >90% low-income and minority school. 

Granted it was just 1 case, but the results were promising enough that I hope others will try to replicate and scale it up. The school got no additional funding, so the learning gains were basically free. It was able to pay teachers six-figs because they increased avg. class size from 27 to 31, and ran leaner without as many wasteful administrators (middle managers). Everyone employed at that school did both teaching work and leadership/admin stuff, which probably made them feel more empowered and autonomous (key drivers of job satisfaction).

Poor performers did not get the high salary for long; contracts were not renewed for about 1/3 of teachers, and fresh talent was brought in. This motivated teachers to give high effort and maximize their skills/career development. In other words, the ones that could... they earned their pay. And students benefited in the process. Obviously this was only possible at a non-union charter school. Such a program may not "fix" bad inner-city teachers, but at least it has a better chance to retain the good ones (teacher turnover is abysmal in high-needs schools for obvious reasons), and provide motivation for those in between. If we want professional performance, it's not a huge stretch to start treating teachers like professionals. This is especially impactful in high-cost-of-living areas like NYC.

Eccentric Chinese rich guy tries to give out money and make headlines in New York City

Maybe you heard about the eccentric Chinese industrialist who pulled a charity stunt in NYC?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDH4C0B956Y
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/25/world/asia/chen-guangbiao-profile/

While it was a generous action, instead of one posh NYC lunch for 200 needy folks (assuming $30/pers), a scalable, efficient charity like Second Harvest could have delivered 12K meals (60X impact). A businessman should know better, but I guess there are no headlines in that. Chen says his "wealth is limited" and he wants to inspire other rich people to give. For the record, his net worth is above $700M, so if that is limited, I think the rest of us are in deep trouble. Also, I don't think he needs to waste a plane ride over to NYC to preach to the choir - Americans are WAY more charitable on average than Chinese (US #5 in the World Giving Index vs. China #141 on par with Rwanda). Well China considers HK (#19) and Taiwan (#52) its territory too, so in that case their aggregate giving score would be a bit higher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Giving_Index#2012_rankings

In 2009, 27% of China lived on less than $2/day (roughly the population of the US), so I don't think Chen has to go overseas to seek out the needy. And China now has 3/4 as many billionaires as the US (~300 vs. ~400), so their domestic pool of potential philanthropists is large too. No need to bring your antics here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentage_of_population_living_in_poverty#Countries
http://www.scribd.com/doc/131764299/Average-Net-Worth-of-Billionaires-by-Country-The-2013-Hurun-Rich-List

Hurricane Sandy and climate change

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/29/hurricane-sandy-cable-news-climate-change_n_2041434.html

Few people are talking about it. This presidential campaign is the first since the 1980's where the major candidates did not directly address climate change during the debates. It's not like the problem is any better now vs. Reagan's time. In fact it's terribly worse. But after Solyndra and the weak recovery, climate change is out of favor. Imagine all the debt associated with cleaning up after mega-storms like Katrina and Sandy. I'm not saying that smarter climate policy since the 1980's could have prevented those storms, but maybe it will prevent an even worse storm in 2050 (and mega-droughts in key farming/ranching areas, and capstone species loss, and sea level rise wiping out vital coastal real estate). At least spend more money on better storm protections, climate change response research, and emergency resources, instead of gutting funding so you can give tax breaks to hedge fund managers and big energy. Maybe then Cuba and Iran won't have to offer us assistance after a storm.

I feel bad for the damage and suffering in the northeast, but I think the media attention is disproportionate (as usual). Sandy = category 1 (75-90 mph winds), Katrina = category 5 (>157 mph). Sandy has killed 33 so far out of 50M affected residents. Katrina killed 1,800+ out of about 1M residents in the area. 5+ years later New Orleans still hasn't returned to pre-storm condition. They will clean up NYC in a month or less. But of course Katrina hit poor, backwards New Orleans, and Sandy hit the big cities "where things actually matter" (Arnold Rothstein, Boardwalk Empire) and where the media/money are located. Of course the loss of power to 8M households is a big deal, and the cost of Sandy's cleanup may eclipse that of Katrina, just because it affected a much larger area. Bottom line - both are terrible tragedies but the responses are different.