Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off-topic Political' started by phaed, Jul 13, 2016.
Can't say that I disagree with any of those, except for the fifth one.
Wording is slippery in many of them. You may THINK you know what is meant, but phrases like "military equipment" can legitimately mean things like tacticle webbing. While everyone is for more training, what training is really important. Cultural awareness and white guilt training is very different from training on issues of law and procedure for example.
They all sound pretty reasonable.
What happens when say a town that is 50%white and 50% black has many positions to fill but only gets 20% black applicants? Do they lower standards and hire all the blacks in lieu of better qualified whites? Do they only hire an even number of white and black, not filling all needed positions? What if an Eskimo applies for a position in jasper, there are no Eskimos in jasper so does that mean he cannot be hired?
I agree with most of these.
I'm against affirmative action if it discriminates against whites and Hispanics and Asians to put less-qualified individuals who are black on the force.
But police agencies should aggressively recruit good people of color and try to get them to join.
I totally support cameras, more legal training, and truly independent investigation of questionable shoots.
If you don't mind slippery wording in requirements.
seems straight forward to me....
Seriuosly? They seem straight forward. What is training? What constitutes "military equipment"? Are officers going to have to match the neighborhood they are patrolling or the entire city's population makeup? Eliminating policing of "minor" crimes has worked well for NYC over the past few years has it? Hmmm.
How about APCs? How about all the surplus military gear handed over to police departments all over the country?
By the way New York City's crime rate has been going down for years.
Sorry but NYC has seen its crime rates spike following the elimination of things like stop and frisk and other initiatives at policing "low level crimes" under the current administration. Again, YOU think you know what "military equipment" means but frankly its a black hole that I believe was thoughtfully, and intentionally, used to lure many into agreeing. Remember that the 223/556 carbines are "military" as are many other day-to-day items. The proposal DOES NOT say "APCs", it says "military equipment".
I think you misinterpreted my post. I said I DO NOT agree with bullet #5.
Unless the acronym stands for something else, APC's are military equipment: Armored Personal Carriers M-113's and Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicles
I think to enact the the above agenda would require "national standards" which would in essence Nationalize the police force led totally by the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. What could possibly go wrong with that?
Stop and frisk was unconstitutional. I do not care what its effect was on crime rates.
I would rather live in a free society with more crime than a totalitarian one with no crime whatsoever.
We could unleash the police from all restraint whatsoever, detention without even suspicion, just on a hunch, use of force entirely at the officer's discretion, searches and seizures whenever they feel like it and for no reason whatsoever . . . crime would almost certainly drop, but that is not a society in which I would wish to live.
Stop and frisk was a bad policy. It violated the Fourth Amendment.
"Broken Windows" policing is great as long as the crimes being policed are actual broken windows type crimes. Petty theft, minor assault, etc should be stomped hard. Stuff like open container for sitting on your own front steps or walking in the street where there is no sidewalk fall under "policing for profit". Stop and Frisk is blatantly unconstitutional, as is New York's Sullivan act and its descendants, but you don't see that stopping the NYPD from claiming ordinary utility knives are "gravity blades" to make arrest and citation quotas. Ending the "war on drugs" and its insane penalties for what should be ordinary commerce would go a long way towards defusing police-community tensions too.
Ben Shapiro speaking, as part of a panel discussion, on this issue.
I was agreeing with you on that one I was just expanding