This is why "ACAB" takes hold. They 100% get behind their shittiest members, effectively taking collective responsibility for them. I am really not sure what else they expect, really.
From I'm a black ex-cop, and this is the real truth about race and policing http://www.vox.com/2015/5/28/8661977/race-police-officer
And also non-minorities. According to Scott Alexander the rate of killings per police encounter in the USA is similar for both black and white people.
It's more of a reaction to the idea of changing an institution from the inside.
Just really surprised they'd prioritise such low value items. I know I've heard in some cities like San Francisco, the police are so busy with everything else even cars being broken into or stolen isn't even a high priority. So the police are pretty much useless and only good for just to get it documented for the insurance company. Then, of course, you have to pay for a copy of the police report, and some or maybe even most places won't even accept credit, debit or even checks. Exact change only. Ideally, though no one should steal at all and in the ideal world, everyone who stolen would be caught.
My first iPod Touch was stolen in high school, and the police took a report. I even thought I knew who did it... The officer even asked me if I'm sure I didn't misplace it or lose it, trying to blame me I guess. I kinda feel like corporations are more protected than everyday citizens sadly. Maybe a Walmart in a city will bring more income than a single person though is the logic.
We tried again and again to get the phone back but they refused. We had to buy a new one. As far as I’m concerned, those cops stole my brother’s phone.
To answer my own questions, police do not care so much about the "value" of the target. Their behavior is much easier to explain once you realize that their job is to protect capital.
Also, the victims of wage theft are less likely to be "well connected" sponsors of political careers, while the victims of larceny are naturally more often business owners whom are more likely to have a "voice".
Furthermore, cops aren't exactly skilled at digging out such things. Wage theft is something for the department of labor, not the cops.
A petty thief who stole $50 worth of merchandise was armed with a gun. That's your problem and that's what led to the overreactions.
Cartels are billion dollar enterprises with shipping connections all around the world, to believe they're getting their LAW's and M249's from Billy Bob's Country Emporium is beyond ridiculous.
They don't. We've given it to them willingly.
It has been granted to them by every person who has chosen to "outsource" dealing with their problems to the police. Loud neighbor? Call the cops. Something doesn't look right at the house down the street? Call the cops. Someone breaking into your home? Call the cops.
As a society, many, many of us have forgotten how (or even why) we ought to fight, defend ourselves, or interact with society. So we call the cops and go back to our Netflix or whatever it is we are doing that we don't want to be bothered with.
I'm coming from the UK perspective, so our police are less trigger-happy and mostly unarmed but certainly have a very dark side. Historically was more likely that the black / Irish / gay / minority-du-jour person ended up lying at the bottom of the stairs in the police station than a straight white person. (Edit: originally phrased in present tense)
Maybe the dominant group would be less happy to outsource it if they or their parents had also been on the receiving end.
Do you have a source on this?
The idea that an arrested person is more likely to be injured in police custody if they are one of the listed minorities in the 21st century in the UK is very surprising to me.
That discusses deaths in custody. I would like to highlight a specific issue of shootings:
> BAME people have made up about one third of those shot by the police since 2004, according to a third set of figures from the Independent Police Complaints Commission. These suggest 8 people from black and minority ethnic communities died in police shootings from 2004/05 to 2015/16, out of a total of 27.
> About 14% of people in England and Wales identify as black or minority ethnic, as suggested by Kiri Kwankhende.
(Americans are invited to consider that figure of 27 deaths from police shootings over a decade...)
However, although I wasn't necessarily talking about the present day, we do have to look at the historical context. IMHO police forces such as the Met need to do a huge amount more to convince us that they've stopped.
And my point was really that whether someone was beaten up by the police or their parents were, they are much more likely to consider the downsides of getting on the wrong side of the police than someone who has never met anyone who was targeted.
You speak of loud neighbors? In my town a guy was just murdered a few weeks ago over a long running feud about a loud dog. The two homeowners had tried to settle it many times by fighting until one brought a gun.
Sure, call the cops if you need to interact with a violent person. A better solution with neighbors is usually to build a relationship with them when you aren't needing their dog to stop barking, so that when you ask for a favor (which is what that is) they are more likely to grant it. Sometimes, they don't. What do you want the cops to do about it? Shoot the dog? Fine them? You still have your neighbor.
And what do I want the cops to do about it? Issue a noise violation. Shockingly, laws are made to handle these sorts of things. We don't all have to take a baseball bat, or bake them cookies and suck up to our neighbors into taking care of their dogs.
I'm not really saying baking cookies and sucking up to your neighbors - that's pretty negative way to characterize my 'treat people with respect and try to be friends before you ask for a favor.'
Seems like you are saying you did just that, and it didn't work out. That sucks. You went through the exact process I'm advocating. It doesn't mean that rather than talk to your neighbors you should just call the cops the next time a dog is barking, though.
Right back at you. Do you seriously run away?
Is that your response to any situatuon that includes potential danger?
That being said, if your back is against the wall you have every right to defend yourself.
If you are in a life or death situation it might make sense to arm yourself and encroach, but if someone is breaking in your front door and you have access to an exit you are not yet in a life or death situation. Arm yourself and attempt to flee.
If you don't have homeowners/renters insurance, live alone, value your property over your life, and enjoy high risk life or death situations - then by all means charge on in. Just make sure you don't shoot your friend who you gave a key 8 months ago stumbling in from a night at the bar.
I'm not asking for advice.
The point is that if we were all better in "public relations" and de-escalation, we wouldn't need the cops at all. But if the default answer is just simply "call the cops" then people do feel attacked and they tend to get defensive.
What is fucked up is that there's no law that requires the government to compensate the homeowner.
Absolutely. And there is no reason they couldn't have cut utilities to the property, set up a perimeter, and waited him out.
One of the biggest problems with SWAT teams today is that they seem to feel that they have failed if they don't go in all-a-Rambo. Protocol should be just the opposite: the most successful missions are the ones where a cop never has to fire a gun.
When it is founded on hard evidence I think belief is not the right term to use.
Who's firing at the police officers and is in the same building as an innocent bystander, 9 year old boy. Seriously, this situation could've easily gone much uglier than property damage really fast.
A) The lives of bystanders
B) The property of bystanders
C) The cost of equipment
D) The aesthetics of equipment
Personally, say:
- Definitely A.
- B & C at some point if the cost/risk is above a certain amount...but what is that number?
- Never D.
The issue here is not one of giving the police protection, it is one of misuse (to put it mildly) of the equipment intended for that purpose.
Not to mention the safety issues of firing tear gas into the building, blowing out the windows and driving an APC into it if he wasn’t already out…
Yes, it could have. The cops could have shot the 9 year old boy.
I'm not sure how you can see a man with a gun shooting at people and think the solution is more men with guns shooting at people.
...
> The court noted that if police officers "willfully or wantonly" destroy property, they can be sued in a civil tort case. Lech tried to pursue that legal argument in Colorado state court, but he was not successful.
Here is the real problem. Eminent domain is clearly not the right strategy.
But when a police department is so out of control that they damage a home enough to get it condemned, over a single armed man, and they are not considered to have acted to wantonly destroy property, our society is seriously screwed up.
Every day, these sort of toxic over reactions and abuse of power are making people think less and less of police power. Even those that the police do not abuse are starting to believe the "ACAB" line.
Police need to start admitting to being able to make mistakes, because when they refuse to admit to any error when they have made obvious errors, they look morally weak and we stop thinking they deserve any of the massive amount of power we see them abuse.