CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Violent crime is way up and departments are struggling to hire and retain enough officers for their cities. Leftists across the country called for the defunding of police and a significant number of police have called their bluff. Now Dems are walking it back and pretending they never said it.
I said you would miss them when they are gone. You might not, but the significantly higher number of murder and assault victims sure do.
I love how it says "now that crime is sky rocketing, now is the time to support police." That means peoples' lives and property mean nothing to these psychos until they need votes.
My step dad was a police officer for 14 years. He let one of his cop friends molest me in a pool in our backyard while I was wasted. Same guy verbally attacks me on an opinion BLM post on my own personal page. My black fiance defended me, and called out the cop who did it. Then my mother and stepfather proceeded to verbally attack my fiance, and the conversation ended with my mother calling me on the phone and calling my fiance a stupid n*. And that is the last memory that resonates with me, as I remember the family that I used to be a part of. A family of white cops. What am I missing again? More importantly, what makes you think you know whether or not I will miss them?
Who cares if you'll miss them. Don't tell me these government institutions like the FDA, OSHA etc are all necessary to keep society together, then pretend the cops don't fit that same logic because some individual did or didn't touch you. Not to mention that the left considers him touching you as a sexual orientation rather than a crime.
There's definitely quite a bit of antagonism towards the cops and the police as an institution, and for damn good reason. People have every justified reason to hate the cops.
The main reason being that they believe this bullshit about police hunting down black men in the streets.
Washington Post has been tracking police shootings for 5 years. There's around 1000 people shot and killed each year and around 250 of them are black. Last year only 9 we're unarmed which does not mean they were not a lethal threat. Meanwhile, social justice studies are being published claiming that police killings are a leading cause of death for black people. A look at any relevant statistical database shows that this is bullshit, but people don't look at those
The main justification being that the United States has a significantly higher rate of killings by law enforcement than many other nations (sauce). You do not need to introduce racism into the equation for police brutality to be an objectionable condition, although that's in vogue right now.
Just as being unarmed does not automatically translate into being non-threatening, being armed does not automatically translate into being threatening (particularly when being armed is recognized as a constitutional right). In 2019, 17% of fatalities involved black people with firearms and 24% involved white people with firearms (Washington Post). In 2014 (most recent data I can find), blacks accounted for 19% of gun owners and whites for 41% (sauce). There is no obvious and compelling reason to presume that black gun owners are less responsible than white gun owners. Obviously, the conclusions we can draw from this are limited by the temporal spread and lack of controlled variables (e.g. income, neurodivergence, etc.). However, I think it's enough to say that the problem of police brutality may be compounded to some degree by racial bias. Minimally, it seems premature to suppose that racism does not intersect with police brutality.
Again, though, I think the distributions of the effects are a bit beside the point here. The United States is a carceral and militarized state order. That is not in the interest of anyone who values their liberty or general well-being. Incidentally, I think that actually includes many law enforcement officers (even in their capacity as agents of that order).
I take your point that being armed does not necessarily mean being a threat. However, police uses of force rarely arise randomly or causelessly. The typical scenario involves a subject resisting arrest or failing to comply with lawful orders. When a person is engaged in that activity, being armed is more likely to equate being a threat. An unarmed person engaged in the same can be a lethal threat as well.
I don't find gun ownership to be a particularly useful measure in this discussion. The data from gun ownership comes from surveys (and sometimes purchase rates). Criminals very often have their firearms illegally and purchase them covertly. Thus, the population who purchase guns properly and respond to gun surveys are significantly unrelated to those engaged in lethal interactions with the police.
As for the intersection of race with police brutality. Roland Fryer at Harvard found no racial disparity in lethal use of force, but he did find Blacks and Hispanics we're about 50% more likely to experience lesser uses of force at the hands of the police. I don't know of studies that manage to reasonably account for crime rate disparity and specific context.
I agree that the distribution should be beside the point. But in the current narrative it is central to the point. The impact of anecdote coupled with the social media viral phenomenon is enormous right now.
Can you expand on your comment on the carceral state? I would like to know specifically what you mean by carceral state, it's negative impact on liberty, and it's negative impact of police well being.
I'm inclined to agree that police brutality generally should be the issue. There are a number of reforms that I can see helping to solve the problem. But I don't think we should misrepresent or sensationalize the nature or extent of the issue. I find many of the loudest solutions to be presented are not solutions at all.
Knee jerk reactions and emotional narrative manipulation creates such a hostile environment for police, that calling it a war seems appropriate (some small groups feel this literally). There's going to be substantial de-policing across the country. A phenomenon that has been shown on smaller scales to lead to increased violent crime and death
However, police uses of force rarely arise randomly or causelessly. The typical scenario involves a subject resisting arrest or failing to comply with lawful orders.
Bullshit. That's simply the same narrative which the cops use every time they accidentally kill someone. Cops aren't some special subhuman robot division. If you annoy them (and I mean annoy them personally), then some of them will abuse their power, commit violence on you, then claim you were "resisting lawful orders" to justify it. Same applies to planting evidence to have people they don't like sent away.
The fact is that you like the cops because they protect slimeballs like you and the riches you have (legally) stolen from society.
I take your point that being armed does not necessarily mean being a threat. However, police uses of force rarely arise randomly or causelessly. The typical scenario involves a subject resisting arrest or failing to comply with lawful orders. When a person is engaged in that activity, being armed is more likely to equate being a threat. An unarmed person engaged in the same can be a lethal threat as well.
That begs the question; the immediate object of discussion is whether law enforcement officers use justified lethal force.
I don't find gun ownership to be a particularly useful measure in this discussion. The data from gun ownership comes from surveys (and sometimes purchase rates). Criminals very often have their firearms illegally and purchase them covertly. Thus, the population who purchase guns properly and respond to gun surveys are significantly unrelated to those engaged in lethal interactions with the police.
This is a non-unique concern, applied rather selectively to the data that inconveniences your position (i.e. none of the data here is very reliable). It is also not especially well founded. The data for gun ownership which I referenced is explicitly from a survey, and is not gathered from purchase records. Even if you could substantiate your assertion that "criminals very often have their firearms illegally and purchase them covertly", it does not follow that the survey excludes them because it is not based upon purchase records. As to self-reporting, your assertion that the people who respond to gun surveys are legal gun owners who do not have lethal interactions with police begs the question; the objects of contention include who the survey respondents are as well as who the people having the lethal interactions are.
As for the intersection of race with police brutality. Roland Fryer at Harvard found no racial disparity in lethal use of force, but he did find Blacks and Hispanics we're about 50% more likely to experience lesser uses of force at the hands of the police. I don't know of studies that manage to reasonably account for crime rate disparity and specific context.
Although Fryer has a position at Harvard, their expertise is in economics which makes invoking their professional position in an extra-economical context an appeal to authority. Their working paper has also been roundly criticized. (sauce).
You are correct that there is no really reliable data on the matter, though obviously that cuts both ways. I already allowed for the limitations of data on this issue. Nevertheless, I still maintain that the intersection of race and police brutality cannot be casually dismissed on the mere basis of uncertainty. Although we both prefer a position that targets police brutality broadly, my impression is that you also hold a position that denies the existence of that intersection. I think that this secondary position is potentially harmful, in a way that holding open the possibility that the intersection exists does not; specifically, we risk overlooking a violent inequity in liberty.
I agree that the distribution should be beside the point. But in the current narrative it is central to the point. The impact of anecdote coupled with the social media viral phenomenon is enormous right now.
If memory serves, we are more often separated by fine details than a significant difference in opinion. Although, I'm not sure why the current narrative is central to the point; whatever the populist narratives may be (and there is more than one), the facts and reason stand independent of it. That popular leftist rhetoric draws conclusions beyond the evidence does not make it reasonable to hold a reactionary and converse position that is also beyond the evidence. Though I agree with your stance against the former, I'm wary that you're leaning somewhat into the latter.
Can you expand on your comment on the carceral state? I would like to know specifically what you mean by carceral state, it's negative impact on liberty, and it's negative impact of police well being.
Certainly. 'Carceral state' alludes to the US having the highest rate of incarceration in the world. Comparisons aside, I disprefer any environment where incarceration is regularly used against individuals for trivial "offenses" (e.g. drugs, prostitution, breaking curfew, etc.). This is an immediate offense against individual liberty. It also diminishes our capacity for direct personal and interpersonal accountability by deferring that responsibility to a 'higher authority'. However, this 'authority' is just other individuals acting under the auspices of various political narratives; authority is just permission granted by a story when enough people believe in it. I do not recognize any person above myself, except in practical terms (i.e. if they are more powerful than me then I can hardly deny that, but I do not view their power as sacred).
The militarization of domestic law enforcement (i.e. access to and authorized use of military grade equipment) deepens the inequity of power which fundamentally exists between law enforcement officers and those subject to their authority. The covid shutdowns and federal occupation of local municipalities during the protests are both acute and odious demonstrations of that. This authority is used to coerce taxation (i.e. theft) in order to sustain the means of coercion, which makes it doubly intolerable insofar as we are not only oppressed but oppressed by the fruits of our own labor. Again, this diminishes our capacity for direct accountability; importantly, this is true not only for the subject of law enforcement but for the law enforcement officer as well (i.e. having power over and against someone precludes interpersonal respect and mutual accountability). To have one's capacity to form such relationships diminished is to have one's quality of existence diminished. Such is the value of liberty.
Additionally, law enforcement officers in a carceral and militarized state are routinely trained and expected to commit acts of aggression against other people. When this cuts against their conscience, the psychological harm can be considerable. Where these acts become intolerable to the subjects of law enforcement, the result will also be that law enforcement officers are placed at more risk of physical harm than they would be under a less authoritarian state. These are unique harms to law enforcement officers, although my sympathies are limited here given the elective nature of their position.
I'm inclined to agree that police brutality generally should be the issue. There are a number of reforms that I can see helping to solve the problem. But I don't think we should misrepresent or sensationalize the nature or extent of the issue. I find many of the loudest solutions to be presented are not solutions at all.
I'm curious to know what reforms you're sympathetic to. As well as what you consider to not be solutions.
Knee jerk reactions and emotional narrative manipulation creates such a hostile environment for police, that calling it a war seems appropriate (some small groups feel this literally).
Reactionary politics are objectionable regardless of the populist ethos they serve; the leftist narrative may create a more hostile environment for the police but by the same token the rightest narrative may create a more hostile environment for blacks or the average person in general.
There's going to be substantial de-policing across the country. A phenomenon that has been shown on smaller scales to lead to increased violent crime and death
Case in point; this seems like a knee jerk reaction based on an emotional narrative that invokes the necessity of a police state and defers interpersonal responsibility at the expense of liberty. Of course, I could be wrong; I'm not sure what you mean by "substantial de-policing" nor do I have any idea what "smaller scale" cases you're alluding to. Could you clarify?
That begs the question; the immediate object of discussion is whether law enforcement officers use justified lethal force.
I didn't take that to be the objective of discussion. I took the issue to be whether unjustified lethal force is used often enough to justify the current backlash. Also, whether unjustified lethal force is handled properly by the judicial system.
As to self-reporting, your assertion that the people who respond to gun surveys are legal gun owners who do not have lethal interactions with police begs the question; the objects of contention include who the survey respondents are as well as who the people having the lethal interactions are.
It's reasonable to assume that people who risk jail if their possession of a firearm is found out may not be inclined to volunteer that information to strangers. Thus my argument that illegal gun owners do not respond to such surveys.
When legal gun owners are killed by police under questionable circumstances, publicity is high and protests often follow. Since the majority of police shootings involve a suspect with a firearm and do not spark protests, and since a significant amount of violent criminal activity involves illegal firearms, it is reasonable to conclude that it is primarily not legal gun owners getting killed by the cops.
Nevertheless, I still maintain that the intersection of race and police brutality cannot be casually dismissed on the mere basis of uncertainty.
Agreed. It can neither be dismissed nor assumed. For that reason, police in general need to be much more transparent. Stats concerning complaints and action taken should be a matter of public record. There needs to be more standardization in reporting and record keeping.
I don't deny the existence of the intersection. I have read reports on the Chicago PD, I have heard too many anecdotes, and I know the ugly history of race relations in policing. It would be naive to assume it's all better now. I am also aware of the violent crime disparities for the black community, and that can't be discounted when considering police contact or use of force disparities. I am not willing to assume racism on the basis of race alone.
I agree that the distribution should be beside the point. But in the current narrative it is central to the point. The impact of anecdote coupled with the social media viral phenomenon is enormous right now.
That popular leftist rhetoric draws conclusions beyond the evidence does not make it reasonable to hold a reactionary and converse position that is also beyond the evidence. Though I agree with your stance against the former, I'm wary that you're leaning somewhat into the latter.
I probably am. We all have our biases derived from our personal relationship to an issue. It's not always easy to stay aware of one's own biases, but on very rare occasion, discussions on this site help with that.
I believe what often separates our opinion is difference in fundemental/foundational values. What keeps them similar is a fact and logic based approach. I expect our proximate values on this issue are fairly close.
Concerning the carceral state; of we removed all drug related offenses, leaving primarily crimes against property and persons, we would still have a very high relative prison population. Would this change your outlook?
The militarization of domestic law enforcement (i.e. access to and authorized use of military grade equipment) deepens the inequity of power which fundamentally existsn between law enforcement officers and those subject to their authority.
Most police operations appear to be unaffected by militarization. Patrol officers are still in cars with police patrol gear. Some riot control methods seem to be affected, is that what you are referring to?
The covid shutdowns and federal occupation of local municipalities during the protests are both acute and odious demonstrations of that.
What federal occupation?
Having power over and against someone precludes interpersonal respect and mutual accountability
This really depends on the personality and training of the officer.
These are unique harms to law enforcement officers, although my sympathies are limited here given the elective nature of their position.
Does your libertarian sense extend to anarchy? Or do you see an appropriate role for police? Of so, does that figure into your balance of sympathy and electivity?
I'm curious to know what reforms you're sympathetic to. As well as what you consider to not be solutions.
I referred above to transparency. That is necessary before there can be accountability. I would be in favor of making all complaints (and investigation details) a matter of public record once the issue is resolved. Complaints would be subject to review by a panel composed of both police supervisors and civilians. Since I believe most complaints would properly result in favor of the officer, I would have the citizens panel position rotate, lest they become to acquainted with the officers they review.
Police unions are too able to push for the retention of bad officers. Rules should be set that inhibit such retention. Possibly a forced removal after x founded complaints of y type.
The officers complaint record, being a matter of public record, should follow an officer to new departments.
Use of Force policy and procedure should be reviewed regularly and often. Minneapolis shouldn't have had the kind of policy it did for legs on necks. I know of other departments that are too quick, by policy, to unleash the hounds which sometimes maimes people.
Qualified immunity needs to have a different threshold.
No knock warrant executions should be restricted almost to the point of vanishing. Conditions wherein those are a good idea are very unlikely.
Could you clarify?
I'm going to refer again to a study done, in part, by Roland Fryer. Economics is at root the study of human action, particularly in response to incentive. This makes an economist perfectly suited to study the effects of policing on society and vice versa. I believe it is preferable to the softer sociology field, where this research may be more expected.
Anyway, Tanaya Devi and Roland Fryer have an upcoming study mentioned by National Review. The study found that most departments that are investigated for practices see improvements. That is except for the cases that are highly publicized and politicized. In those cases they see a dramatic drop in police interactions and a dramatic increase in homicide.
In very recent news, the Atlanta DA brought murder charges against an officer who used justified lethal force. The independent agency hadn't even concluded the investigation. A substantial number of police suddenly got sick and stayed home.
I didn't take that to be the objective of discussion. I took the issue to be whether unjustified lethal force is used often enough to justify the current backlash. Also, whether unjustified lethal force is handled properly by the judicial system.
If the issue is whether unjustified lethal force is used often enough to justify the current backlash, then your assertion that the typical scenario is justified still begs the question.
It's reasonable to assume that people who risk jail if their possession of a firearm is found out may not be inclined to volunteer that information to strangers. Thus my argument that illegal gun owners do not respond to such surveys.
That is not a reasonable assumption. Even if participation constituted an unreasonable risk, there is no reason to suppose that illegal gun owners would view it that way or act reasonably. People already risking illegal firearm possession are obviously not characterized by risk aversion, and there are a various reasons that they might participate - bravado, stupidity, etc.
When legal gun owners are killed by police under questionable circumstances, publicity is high and protests often follow. Since the majority of police shootings involve a suspect with a firearm and do not spark protests, and since a significant amount of violent criminal activity involves illegal firearms, it is reasonable to conclude that it is primarily not legal gun owners getting killed by the cops.
Your newfound faith in the general public is as striking as it is convenient. Just three days ago on this same debate you claimed that "we have a woefully naive public [and] activist media capitalizing on public ignorance". That being the case, you can hardly presume the reliability of either publicity or the public response.
Even if the media were reliable and the public both reasonable and civically oriented, neither would have access to the requisite information to determine whether the circumstances were questionable. You agree elsewhere that the requisite transparency does not exist.
Even if a significant amount of violent criminal activity involves illegal firearms, it does not follow that anyone in possession of a firearm when killed by police was involved in violent criminal activity or possessed an illegal firearm at that time. This is a repeated effort on your part to construe those killed as threatening on the mere basis of firearm possession (despite having conceded that this stance is not logically valid).
It is not reasonable to conclude that it is primarily not legal gun owners getting killed by the cops. Nor would this be a responsive counterpoint to my position if it were true; I'm not contending that most people killed by law enforcement are legal gun owners.
Agreed. It can neither be dismissed nor assumed. [...] I don't deny the existence of the intersection.
I find this difficult to reconcile with your consistent remarks to the contrary, denying not only the intersection but even the problem of police brutality itself; for instance:
"The main reason being that they believe this bullshit about police hunting down black men in the streets."
"As for the intersection of race with police brutality. Roland Fryer at Harvard found no racial disparity in lethal use of force [...]"
"If you don't want to die unnecessarily, don't fight the fucking cops."
"He brought this unnecessary death on himself. As is the case with almost all officer involved shootings. Seriously, the vast vast majority."
[...] It would be naive to assume it's all better now. I am also aware of the violent crime disparities for the black community, and that can't be discounted when considering police contact or use of force disparities. I am not willing to assume racism on the basis of race alone.
You explicitly recognize the history of racism in policing and acknowledge that it would be naive to assume it's all better now. That is a basis beyond race alone for believing that racism intersects with police brutality. Other information might cast reasonable doubt on the magnitude of the issue, but to not recognize the issue at all in nearly the same breath you recognize it is incoherent at best.
I am not sure what data you are referencing here, but I presume it is sourced by law enforcement and/or the criminal legal system; this immediately creates an issue in establishing whether the disparities are extant or the consequence of racist policing and prosecution leading to higher arrests, charges, and convictions.
I probably am. We all have our biases derived from our personal relationship to an issue. It's not always easy to stay aware of one's own biases, but on very rare occasion, discussions on this site help with that.
Fair enough.
I believe what often separates our opinion is difference in fundemental/foundational values. What keeps them similar is a fact and logic based approach. I expect our proximate values on this issue are fairly close.
That's probably correct; well put.
Concerning the carceral state; of we removed all drug related offenses, leaving primarily crimes against property and persons, we would still have a very high relative prison population. Would this change your outlook?
Given that the US would still have a very high relative and absolute prison population, this would do very little to change my outlook. Certainly, I would regard it as an improvement but only a modest one.
What federal occupation?
The deployment of thousands of national guard troops into numerous cities, which were used to hold and control those municipalities through militarized force. I really didn't expect that to need clarification...
This really depends on the personality and training of the officer.
It has nothing to do with the personality or training of the officer. By their nature, respect and mutual accountability require an equitable capacity between agents to negotiate their relationships with one another. Someone with power may be benevolent and they may be viewed as authoritative, but they cannot respect or be respected (and obviously cannot be held to account by someone with less power).
Does your libertarian sense extend to anarchy? Or do you see an appropriate role for police? Of so, does that figure into your balance of sympathy and electivity?
Sort of. I subscribe loosely to individualist anarchy owing to a nihilistic philosophy and have libertarian sympathies borne out of my distrust of others and a confidence in my own abilities. The end result is that I tend to disprefer authority and never respect it for its own sake, but I'll tolerate state institutions when it's in my interest to do so. I'm also not invested in annihilating the state, because I think that's theoretically incoherent and practically impossible besides.
With respect to the police, I don't think they have any 'appropriate' role but think they're probably tolerable in a seriously diminished capacity. I don't see the point in trying to eliminate them, since some other authority would rise up and it would be even less likely to answer to a narrative of accountability. Minimizing their influence over my life and increasing my opportunities for forming mutually respectful and accountable relationships with others is my ideal.
I don't understand how you think this might figure into my balance of sympathy and electivity. Regardless of my preferences or whether the officers serve my interest, their choice remains their own. I am not forcing them to assume their social position in any way; they do it for their own interest, because it suits them to do it. It's nothing to do with me.
I referred above to transparency. [...] No knock warrant executions should be restricted almost to the point of vanishing. Conditions wherein those are a good idea are very unlikely.
Your reforms seem generally reasonable and desirable to me.
The only thing I'm not entirely convinced of is the efficacy of the review panel; the retention of obviously partial parties as part of the investigatory body seems like an obvious conflict of interest, and if 'civilian' includes unqualified everyday people then I'm not sure they'd be very useful. (The city that bombed itself comes to mind as a demonstration of the limited efficacy of such panels; a finding of negligence with no material consequences, as I recall.)
I'm curious whether you would extend your views on use of force policy and procedure to include other revisions to policy and training. For instance, consistently providing good de-escalation training, requiring community residency of officers, training special response units or general forces in basic mental health contingency, etc.
I'm going to refer again to a study done, in part, by Roland Fryer. Economics is at root the study of human action, particularly in response to incentive. This makes an economist perfectly suited to study the effects of policing on society and vice versa. I believe it is preferable to the softer sociology field, where this research may be more expected.
As a field, economics is wildly disconnected from the fundamentals of human psychology. Most remarkably, it continues to center the profoundly unsound belief that humans are rational agents. It also lacks even a rudimentary framework for analyzing crime, which it persistently treats as an externality. To suggest that the economist is "perfectly suited" to study the social dynamics of policing borders on the comically absurd. There are numerous other fields which are so much more obviously suited to the task - criminology, neuro-psychology, legal studies, political science, history, etc.
Anyway, Tanaya Devi and Roland Fryer have an upcoming study mentioned by National Review. The study found that most departments that are investigated for practices see improvements. That is except for the cases that are highly publicized and politicized. In those cases they see a dramatic drop in police interactions and a dramatic increase in homicide.
The study is available in full here, I think. This work replicates some of the same methodology that was critiqued in the earlier Fryer paper; specifically, it draws upon data sourced by law enforcement agencies to evaluate those same agencies. Although they allude to drawing their data from these sources, I don't see that they specify their sources for their data (making verification and replication impossible). Additionally, their sample size is quite small (73), they decline to conduct a comparative analysis to control for variables, jump between scales repeatedly (pattern-or-practice civil investigations by department, crime rates by municipality, virality by discreet case), and etc. I'm dubious, to say the least.
The correlation drawn in this study and by yourself seems contrived. The notion that virality and/or protests against police brutality lead to higher crime skips over two critical points in the causal chain: (1) the casual influence of police brutality in producing virality and/or protests; and (2) the casual role of police abdicating their duties as officers of the peace during times of civil unrest. Treating resistance and increased crime as externalities to police misconduct is a fairly transparent effort to blame people resisting police brutality for increased crime without seriously considering the role police brutality plays. At best, this is an overly simplistic and deeply biased interpretation. Further, it calls into question whether any true value is being placed upon a lower crime rate or if it is invoked primarily to accomplish the true value of discouraging protesting.
If the issue is whether unjustified lethal force is used often enough to justify the current backlash, then your assertion that the typical scenario is justified still begs the question.
If the typical scenario is justified, then the stated cause of the protests, namely that black men are hunted down in the streets by racist white cops working for a white supremacist system, is in serious doubt.
That is not a reasonable assumption. [ ] there are a various reasons that they might participate - bravado, stupidity, etc.
It is not reasonable to assume that respondents to a survey about gun ownership includes guns that are not legally owned. It seems quite a stretch to imagine a man who knows he cannot be in possession of a gun, who then finds, alley purchases, or steals a gun, and then claims to strangers that he owns a gun.
Your newfound faith in the general public is as striking as it is convenient. Just three days ago on this same debate you claimed that "we have a woefully naive public [and] activist media capitalizing on public ignorance". That being the case, you can hardly presume the reliability of either publicity or the public response.
My supposition of public outcry at any questionable situation is not based on faith in any kind of reasonable judgement. Police in Atlanta shot a man who had just violently stolen a taser and was attempting to use it on them, and this caused a public outcry. I'm saying that there is such an eagerness of the public to be outraged at the police that if there is any way to construe the situation so that they can, they will. But in the vast majority of cases, they don't.
Even if the media were reliable and the public both reasonable and civically oriented, neither would have access to the requisite information to determine whether the circumstances were questionable. You agree elsewhere that the requisite transparency does not exist.
They don't have the requisite information to know if it is actually questionable. But they know when someone was died at the hands of police. Most large departments have body cameras, which is subject to the freedom of information act. While I advocate for greater transparency, there is certainly enough for public outrage, even when it's not actually justified by the facts.
Even if a significant amount of violent criminal activity involves illegal firearms, it does not follow that anyone in possession of a firearm when killed by police was involved in violent criminal activity or possessed an illegal firearm at that time. This is a repeated effort on your part to construe those killed as threatening on the mere basis of firearm possession (despite having conceded that this stance is not logically valid).
It's not a valid assumption when considering firearm possession alone. The other factors I have presented enable us to consider more than possession alone. Which is why I set out to provide those factors.
It is not reasonable to conclude that it is primarily not legal gun owners getting killed by the cops. Nor would this be a responsive counterpoint to my position if it were true; I'm not contending that most people killed by law enforcement are legal gun owners.
You're contending that a survey of gun ownership would include guns not legally owned, and thus survey data on gun ownership is relevant to the topic at hand. I don't believe it is.
Most people put in prison for gun crimes were in possession illegally. Police interact with the public on the grounds of reasonable suspicion, not mere randomness. That interaction does not escalate to force randomly, but as a police response. Same again with lethal force. Most lethal force encounters involve a gun that can be reasonably assumed to be illegal a large part of the time. And for reasons previously argued, a survey of gun ownership can not be assumed to include guns not legally owned.
I find this difficult to reconcile with your consistent remarks to the contrary, denying not only the intersection but even the problem of police brutality itself
I haven't denied the existence of the problem, I deny the extent and magnitude put forth by groups seeking to justify not only protests, but a dismantling of institutions they perceive as sick to the core. We don't have evidence of cops hunting down black men for their skin color. We don't have evidence of widespread reckless use of lethal force. In other words, the cause for which people tear down cities across the nation lacks evidence of their claim.
But civil unrest isn't born for no reason. We do have evidence of a need for transparency and a rethinking of legal standards concerning police prosecutions. We have evidence that police unions hold the ability to retain officers with a pattern of abuse. We have evidence of racial disparities within the system, but lack sufficient cause to lay it all at the feet of racism (though intuitively, some of it). That last issue necessitates changes beyond our institutions, which is an uncomfortable conversation that many won't hear right now.
You explicitly recognize the history of racism in policing and acknowledge that it would be naive to assume it's all better now. That is a basis beyond race alone for believing that racism intersects with police brutality. Other information might cast reasonable doubt on the magnitude of the issue [ ]
The magnitude is the issue. If an asshole cop pulls me over I think "what an asshole". If that same asshole cop pulls over my black colleague they think "what a racist asshole". The fact that they think this may be supported by the history, but it's not necessarily supported by the facts. That doesn't mean there is no issue. After all, being a racist and being an asshole are not exactly mutually exclusive. But it does mean that the solution is not in knee jerk cries of racism. The solution is in transparency and police accountability in general and for the sake of all. Race aside. History aside.
I am not sure what data you are referencing here, but I presume it is sourced by law enforcement and/or the criminal legal system; this immediately creates an issue in establishing whether the disparities are extant or the consequence of racist policing and prosecution leading to higher arrests, charges, and convictions.
Violent crime disparities are not only documented by the criminal justice system. The disparaty is also supported by victim survey data and CDC death and injury statistics (given the propensity of violent crime to be within rather than between races).
Given that the US would still have a very high relative and absolute prison population, this would do very little to change my outlook. Certainly, I would regard it as an improvement but only a modest one.
The reason I ask is because criticism of relative incarceration should include consideration of the reasons for it. If it were the case that most incarceration resulted from violent crimes and property crimes, and you still take issue, then I have to wonder what better alternative you have. Or do you consider incarceration for assault and theft to be unjustified with no alternative needed?
The deployment of thousands of national guard troops into numerous cities, which were used to hold and control those municipalities through militarized force. I really didn't expect that to need clarification...
Perhaps it makes little difference, but the National Guard operates by the authority of individual states, except when mobilized by the federal government. I am aware that Trump told governors to do something or else he would, but I am not aware that he did. In the LA riots, Marines were sent in, but not this time. Hence my question.
It has nothing to do with the personality or training of the officer. By their nature, respect and mutual accountability require an equitable capacity between agents to negotiate their relationships with one another. Someone with power may be benevolent and they may be viewed as authoritative, but they cannot respect or be respected (and obviously cannot be held to account by someone with less power).
An officer who understands their self to be a citizen working with citizens, understands that their job compels them to take certain action. Actions that are defined within the same legal framework that all citizens are beholden to. This puts the officer equal to the non-officer citizen, beholden to the same laws, but compelled be different responsibilities. If a citizen breaks the law and is completely complaint, then they have a responsibility to meet with a judge, while the officer has the responsibility to facilitate that meeting and document the process. If either citizen acts outside their responsibility, the other citizen seeks redress with a court.
I know this often does not reflect perception of those involved, but I believe it is an ideal that many officers strive for and often achieve. The country is not entirely bereft of equality before the law.
With respect to the police [ ] I don't understand how you think this might figure into my balance of sympathy and electivity. Regardless of my preferences or whether the officers serve my interest, their choice remains their own. I am not forcing them to assume their social position in any way; they do it for their own interest, because it suits them to do it. It's nothing to do with me.
Many people find a legal framework necessary to civilization, which most consider to be in their interest. Many also believe police are necessary to that legal framework. If policing is something that someone must do, and it is in people's general interest that they do it, then the fact that the role is filled voluntarily is not weighted as much as the fact that it is necessary. The necessary nature of a less than desirable role seems to elicit some sympathy or gratitude from those who find it necessary and undesirable.
The only thing I'm not entirely convinced of is the efficacy of the review panel; the retention of obviously partial parties as part of the investigatory body seems like an obvious conflict of interest, and if 'civilian' includes unqualified everyday people then I'm not sure they'd be very useful.
As it is now, only obviously partial parties review complaints. Outside agencies investigate major situations, but non-lethal use of force, or other complaints wouldn't be covered by that. So adding non-police public advocates would seem to help situation. They aren't experts, but that's why the obviously partial experts would be retained.
I'm curious whether you would extend your views on use of force policy and procedure to include other revisions to policy and training. For instance, consistently providing good de-escalation training, requiring community residency of officers, training special response units or general forces in basic mental health contingency, etc.
I'm in favor of more and better training, but that's something that's easy to demand and hard articulate specifically. We can all look at videos of extremely short tempered cops and know they approached the situation poorly. But that's different from knowing how to approach a dynamic, rapidly changing, or largely unknown situation properly. Again, as a general matter I am for training improvements. All cops that I know are as well.
As a field, economics is wildly disconnected from the fundamentals of human psychology.
But not disconnected from statistical analysis of large behavioral phenomenon. Which is the nature of the issue at hand.
Most remarkably, it continues to center the profoundly unsound belief that humans are rational agents.
A simplifying assumption that proves broadly functional, though not entirely.
It also lacks even a rudimentary framework for analyzing crime, which it persistently treats as an externality.
I disagree. The rudimentary framework for analyzing human action and response to incentives is appropriate for analyzing crime, which is a human action and/or response to incentives. There are all kinds of factors treated as externalities when they are not the focus of the analysis.
There are numerous other fields which are so much more obviously suited to the task - criminology, neuro-psychology, legal studies, political science, history, etc.
Neuro-psychology would be among various fields more suited to study individual relationships to crime. Other suitable foelds are variations of sociology, which I said was more expected, but in my view less suited. Legal studies relies on those sociological fields. I am not familiar enough with to comment on the application of an historical analysis, which may be why I don't see in it what you apparently do.
The correlation drawn in this study and by yourself seems contrived. The notion that virality and/or protests against police brutality lead to higher crime skips over two critical points in the causal chain: (1) the casual influence of police brutality in producing virality and/or protests; and (2) the casual role of police abdicating their duties as officers of the peace during times of civil unrest.
I believe the police abdication of duties (The Ferguson Effect) is what I was referring to.
Treating resistance and increased crime as externalities to police misconduct is a fairly transparent effort to blame people resisting police brutality for increased crime without seriously considering the role police brutality plays.
Perhaps. But when people in cities across the country protest and riot because of what they are seeing on the internet in other parts of the country, that outsized response will be to blame.
A city a few counties away from me just fired an officer for an incident from years ago that he was cleared of. He was fired at the demand of a mob that has rioted there in response to Floyd. What do you foresee the impact on law enforcement to be? What will that response (or lack thereof) do to crime in that city? This anecdote is from a small city. It can't be terribly unique.
I don't know if it is worth the effort to continue in this extensive back and forth. If you respond I will certainly read and consider your response regardless.
Either way, if you're interested I found that episode #207 of the Sam Harris "Making Sense" podcast very largely reflects my position on the matter. I just found it today.
I was just about to message my regrets that I don't think I'll be able to provide a response, though I did appreciate reading your latest. Things picked up offline for me, unfortunately.
I'll give #207 a listen if I find myself with downtime.
I don't know if it is worth the effort to continue in this extensive back and forth.
I appreciate that because I hate being confronted by your bizarrely long and incoherent posts. They never follow a progressive line of reasoning. You tend to just babble nonsense and it's quite annoying.
Most cops are hired by Democrats in giant Democrat cities. Maybe the problem is the quotas Democrat politicians are putting on their Democrat cops. But I'm all for you guys trying a copless society. Last time you guys made it about a month before screaming bloody murder over skyrocketing crime and violence.
Iipek gave a low effort idiotic partisan response to my non-partisan post. i responded w/ equal effort; so much for quality. and my pointing out that their reply to me was not relevant to my post seems as relevant as i could have made my reply to a non-relevant post. not sure what ur taking issue w/ tbh.
Your post showed in my alerts as a response to my post pointing out to lipek that most police officers are not Democrats, as was asserted. To that post, yours appeared irrelevant and needlessly insulting. Could be my mistake.
oh. weird. their post showed in my alerts as a response to my post. and my post was made in response to theirs, not to yours. i wouldn't respond that way to you.
There is not a war on cops, just a realization that the conduct of a small percentage of them needs to be better regulated.
The image of shooting people and eating doughnuts seems to be how the police are wrongly perceived today.
The average cop has dedicated his/her life to serving and protecting the general public and it must be recognised that it is a tiny minority of their number who behave in a totally unacceptable manner.
We still need to support the police in their on-going fight against crime and anarchy.
Before anyone knew anything about the shooting in Atlanta (which was totally justified), the officer was fired and the chief was running scared to keep.her pension. Police will stop doing the necessary work in case saving their own life means loosing their livelihood.
There wasn't much chance, if any, of a crazed man killing someone while wildly firing a non-lethal Taser at police while trying to escape arrest.
Unless there is clear evidence that a police officer's life, or anyone's life is in imminent danger there is no excuse whatsoever for using a deadly firearm.
The Atlanta incident is a prime example of what is causing most of the civil unrest in America today.
A tazer isn't non-lethal, neither are rubber bullets. They are less lethal.
A tazer will incapacitate you. If you're incapacitated, you can be disarmed of your gun. That's not a possibility an armed officer can reasonably be expected to accept. That's why officers are trained that if someone has disarmed them of their tazer, that person is now a lethal threat. Because they are.
"Clear evidence of imminent danger" to life is not the standard, nor should it be. "Reasonable belief of imminent danger in that moment" is the standard and for good reason. It saves officers lives.
I will agree that this incident is a prime example of our issues. We have a woefully naive public who is willing to side with offenders who actively fight police to the point of reasonable use of lethal force.
Early headlines said Brooks was unarmed and the officer was fired before anyone knew what had unfolded. No one even remembers that the "hands up don't shoot" scenario literally never happened in Ferguson. In other words, Atlanta is another example of an activist media capitalizing on public ignorance of police methods and reason.
"Clear evidence" isn't available to you when you're in a fight for your life, which is every fight for a cop since there is necessarily a gun involved. If we continue down this path, where reasonable use of lethal force is considered criminal, no one will be willing to do that job anymore.
You seem intent on justifying the deadly use of firearms by police under any circumstances.
This suspect was fleeing from the police who shot him in the back.
How, dear fool was that justified?
With idiots like you around the civil unrest throughout America will never end.
No one mentioned baton rounds which can be lethal but that is a straw man argument.
Many police forces around the world, such as in Britain, are unarmed but still they bravely manage to uphold the law by means of their well trained officers.
Time for neanderthals like you to grow up, wise up and shut to f--k up.
Not under any circumstances, under these circumstances. But only because it is clearly justified. The offender pointed the weapon at the officer and fired prior to being shot. He did that while running away, so yeah I would expect a round to get his back. By the way, we don't even know if the cop recognized that it was a tazer (which is still justified) rather than a gun.
By baton rounds I'm assuming you mean the rubber bullets I referred to. I mentioned them because, like tazers, ignorant people often think they are non-lethal. But like tazers, they are less lethal.
Many brave officers around the world are not dealing with the most armed population in the world.
Your quick to insult me and tell me to shut up, but that's only because you're ignorant of the matter at hand. You will notice that no officers defended the Floyd killing, while almost all officers defend this one. That's because they know what you are ignorant of. The reality on the ground.
By the way, we don't even know if the cop recognized that it was a tazer (which is still justified) rather than a gun.
Hello again, A:
Of course, the cop KNEW he didn't have a gun.. The public available video SHOWS the cop searching him. Certainly, if you know anything about the cops, which you claim you do, you'd KNOW the very FIRST thing they'd do is search him.
They murdering cop shot him in the back because he was embarrassed that the guy took his taser, and that would have gotten him ridiculed by his fellow murdering cop motherfuckers.
The first thing they do when they arrest you is search you. They were trying to arrest him. Did you see a search in the video prior to the attempted arrest?
The officer that shot him had his own tazer that he attempted to use first. Brooks had the other officers tazer. If they had searched him, seeing anything in his hand would be a surprise, especially when he points it at you and shoots it at you, as brooks did.
The first thing they do when they arrest you is search you.
Hello again, A:
I said NOTHING about arrest..
If I wasn't clear, lemme clean that up.. The FIRST thing a cop does when a suspect exits their car is pat them down. That happens ALL the time - EVERY time. It's called a Terry stop. It says the cops CAN pat a suspect down.. They cannot do a strip search.. I thought you knew shit about the law.
Lemme say AGAIN. I SAW the cop pat him down in the video.. I wasn't unclear about that. You should watch it before you comment on it..
Yeah, I was correcting you. Cops do not always search every suspect that they encounter, but they may for officer safety.
Now, you said that weapons pat down let the officer know the suspect had no gun. Did it let him know the suspect had no tazer? Did the officer know that Brooks took the other officer's tazer? Or gun?
If he patted him down and found no weapon, imagine his surprise when the man who just punched the shit out of them pointed something at him and fired it. Again, gun or tazer, the lethal force response is the correct one. But we don't even know what the officer perceived in that moment.
the fact that tazers bang is demonstrated in the first 10 seconds.
Hello again, A:
Bang???? Sounds more like a pop..
Nonetheless, I get that you think it's fine to shoot a suspect in the back who's running AWAY from you..
And, what if the cop thought it was a gun.. He clearly knew he wasn't hit.. Being shot at and missed doesn't give him the right to shoot the suspect IN the back while he was running AWAY from you.
Yes bang. Do you know why cops yell "taser" three times before shooting it? It's so that other cops don't think rounds are being fired. The suspect that was running away was also shooting a weapon AT the officer.
Being shot at and missed doesn't give him the right to shoot the suspect IN the back while he was running AWAY from you.
Why not? He turned toward him with a metal object in his hand that he stole from someone else. You would have shot him too. We both know you would have.
On what basis do you conclude that the average cop has dedicated their life to serving and protecting the general public? And on what basis do you side with law and order? I'm curious why you're so enthralled with the general welfare (an abstraction) and so divested from the direct responsibility of liberty ('anarchy').
No, unless one wishes to re-define the term ‘war’ in an attempt to demonstrate how unfair they think recent criticisms of the police force are in the US.
There is no doubt the police are collectively attempting to play the victim card in an attempt to get the public onside again which is a typical ruse of the bully boy and gladly the public have had enough
of the constant stream of BS excuses and attempted justifications by PR types throwing out terms like “reform “ , “retraining “ “ working for the public” etc , etc ,
I see the police in Chicago are now saying they are ‘to afraid ‘ to carry out their police work in case of a public ‘backlash’’ that translates to .....”Damn we cannot legally murder , maim and bully citizens anymore “
What’s truly remarkable is that in the recent death by strangulation fellow officers watched as did citizens and no one did fuck all.
A couple of days later after the death a peaceful protester was pushed to the ground forcefully by a thug in uniform and within minutes a police spokesman was on attempting to justify it followed by Trump doing likewise .
The police in the US seem to have this untouchable self entitled aura about them . 2 years ago on a trip to New York I was amazed to see nearly every cop was an obese tub of lard normally seen stuffing its face with a dozen doughnuts or a Burger , I asked one of these brutes directions to my destination and was greeted by a series of grunts and several waves of chubby hand ......This type of brute is placed on the streets to uphold the Law ......
Washington Post
Videos showed police officers in recent nights using batons, tear gas, pepper spray and rubber bullets on protesters, bystanders and journalists, often without warning or seemingly unprovoked. The footage, which has been shared widely online, highlighted the very complaints over police behavior that have drawn protests in at least 75 cities across the United States.
In Salt Lake City, officers in riot gear shoved a man with a cane to the ground.
In Brooklyn, two police S.U.V.s plowed into a crowd of protesters.
In Atlanta, police officers enforcing a curfew stopped two college students in a car, fired Tasers on them and dragged them out of it
And in Minneapolis, where there have been six consecutive nights of protests and clashes, a video appeared to show officers yelling at people on their porches to get inside and then firing paint canisters at them. “Light them up,” one officer said.
