Ok it was mentioned there is not a thread for Law Enforcement Officers (LEO for short)and other similar jobs for discussion.
This is for discussing the actual jobs, ranks, training, culture, relations to military bodies that exist, and any other variety of topics that can arise pertaining to the World of Policing.
I am wondering, what do you think on the idea that "There are no good cops" because I just met someone that really does believe that.
As a side note, wow, I guess that Non-white cops dont exist.
Watch me destroying my countryIt is an overt extremist view.
Who watches the watchmen?Said person also believe this
The criminal justice system is not some permanent, immutable feature of society; it is a modern product of imperialism.
The job of police is enforcing oppression. They shake down homeless people, bust black and brown kids for nonviolent crimes, evict poor families from their homes, disrupt peaceful protests, write tickets to people they know can't afford it (ensuring they become trapped in debt to the state), facilitate brutal deportation campaigns against undocumented workers, send people to jail where they can be forced into literal slave labor, and protect the private property of the wealthy. Even so-called "good" cops have to do those things or they get fired. As the right wing begins to enact its agenda in this country, they will probably be required to do even worse things.
You know, as a hispanic. I can laugh at the idea that crime is some sort of imperialist creation.
Also, USA cops are actually that dystopic level bad? Because while Policial Brutality is a serious issue, I doubt that every cop ever is beating minorities.
Edited by KazuyaProta on Jul 11th 2018 at 3:15:55 AM
Watch me destroying my countryThat text, I don't know where to being.
The US adopts a maximalist penal system, with with a lot of selectivity, and a focus on punitive rather than rehabilitative prison system. Which have their mass of issues.
Foucault would be calling that bullshit. That statement alone is a flanderized and cynic view of the issue, it isn't even a critical view of the problems regarding policing and sentencing issues in the US.
Inter arma enim silent legesThe first half of their post is completely right, our 'justice' system is a horrifying nightmare propelled by racism and classism. And the War on Drugs was/is a horrible tool to target minorities and other demographics the Republicans didn't like.
The other half about law enforcement is far too reductive for my tastes but it's not completely wrong in that local law enforcement have some massive issues that more or less manifest in everything that they're describing.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jul 11th 2018 at 5:48:36 AM
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -HylarnI kind of want to break this down and address the points individually.
Well said, the post isn't completely wrong or even mostly wrong but it is far too generalistic and reductive. Honestly there are far better ways to criticize our horrible justice system without playing into the hands of its defenders by being so extreme.
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -HylarnI am wondering. Why cops attract a Right Wing mindset?
Honestly, I think that is something that is kinda fault of the fact that most people seem to think that police is the job where you can be Good Is Dumb IRL which is quite bad because while you dont need to be a genius to be a cop or even be of average intelligence, it certainly helps...and of course, having emotional control which is something that is hardly show as especially important in American (and many others) cultures.
Edited by KazuyaProta on Jul 12th 2018 at 2:28:42 PM
Watch me destroying my countryAuthoritarian power trip, plain and simple.
Oh really when?So, Cops Are Evil plain and simple?
I think that it also goes deeper, not all cops are going to be violent trigger-happy assholes (they are just the ones that make good news) but the fact that Police is usually show as the job where the only requiriment is "know use a gun and shoot criminals" have to do with it, for good and ill.
Edited by KazuyaProta on Jul 12th 2018 at 2:31:36 PM
Watch me destroying my countryBesides, Law And Order is a quintessential right wing philosophy; it was one of Richard Nixon's selling points in the US. Makes sense that people who support an ideology will be more likely to aid in its inplementation by signing up for law enforcement than those who don't.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanYou're going about it backwards. Cops don't adopt right wing mindsets, people with right wing mindsets want to become cops.
Why? Because they wanna go on a power trip.
Oh really when?Basically Cops are Evil then.
So...what we are gonna do?
I have to admit that I also have somewhat of that Authoritarian Mindset but I am also smart enought to see that our European Overlords have managed to actually reduce crime without having issues with cops, so I go for what it works.
Which is always the Leftist choice (even by non-USA standards) for some reason.
Watch me destroying my countrySince police officers have a lot of authority some bad elements can be attracted. One of the reasons the process to become an LEO is so extensive is to weed people like that out, but obviously depending on the institutional culture of the agency in question that may not always be successful.
Also, Europe has plenty of issues with their police.
Edited by archonspeaks on Jul 12th 2018 at 3:10:25 AM
They should have sent a poet.A British man is serving as one of the last few officers recruited from abroad in the HKPF.
https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20180723_03/
Saitama Prefectural Police launched an internship for high school/university students who want to see if a LEO career is good for them.
Courtesy of our Canadian neighbours in Edmonton. A couple being apprehended by an officer attempt an escape. This kicks off with a guy pushing his girl at the cop while he tries to flee. As things spiral out of control into cuff and stuff before help arrives she tries an escape through the ceiling.
Who watches the watchmen?...What kind of Looney Tunes stuff was that?
Eating a Vanilluxe will give you frostbite.I know right? That was pretty special.
Who watches the watchmen?The only thing missing was the Benny Hill theme. Seriously, I thought the guy was stupid but then the woman tried to pull off a vent escape....
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Cross-posting from the Race thread, an article about Stand Your Ground laws in the wake of one being used in Florida, and why the Racist Right has pushed to get them on the books in as many states as possible.
This wasn’t the first time Drejka confronted someone over the parking space. “He basically threatened to shoot me that day, too,” said one regular customer to the store, who had a similar experience with the shooter. Police declined to arrest Drejka—who said he feared for his life—and on Monday, the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office said it would not press charges, citing Florida’s “stand your ground” law.
“He had to shoot to defend himself,” said Sheriff Bob Gualtieri. “And those are the facts and that’s the law.” He continued: “Markeis wouldn’t be dead if Markeis didn’t slam this guy to the ground. … So Markeis has got skin in this game, too.”
This is the world of “stand your ground,” where people can use deadly force, with no duty to retreat, if they fear “imminent death or great bodily harm.” While it’s impossible to say if race shaped this particular incident, it has undeniably shaped how the system responds. “Stand your ground” not only redistributes police power to ordinary citizens, it takes the usual impunity granted to police—who can essentially kill black people without consequence—and extends it to white citizens, and few others.
Florida passed the nation’s first “stand your ground” law in 2005. The logic is straightforward; the law treats your position at any point as your “castle,” and as with your actual home, you have no duty to retreat from that position. Since then, similar measures have passed in 21 other states, giving residents the right to use deadly force in almost any self-defense situation.
Florida’s law came to national prominence in 2012, after the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed teenager, by George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer. Zimmerman wasn’t initially charged, prompting questions of racial bias—Martin was black, Zimmerman is Hispanic—and was later acquitted by a Florida jury.* Those were unresolved, but later analysis of outcomes in “stand your ground” states uncovered significant evidence that white and black citizens are treated differently under the law. A 2013 study by the Urban Institute found “substantial racial disparities in the outcomes of cross-race homicides.” Homicides with a white perpetrator and black victim were 10 times more likely to be ruled justified than the reverse. Further examination affirmed the finding: in “stand your ground” states, whites who kill blacks were 354 percent more likely to be found justified versus whites who kill other whites.
A 2015 study of “stand your ground” cases in Florida found similar results. After examining 204 incidents where the law was citied—and controlling for multiple variables, including “whether the defendant could have retreated from the situation, whether the defendant pursued the victim, if the victim was unarmed, and who was the initiator of the confrontation”—researchers found that the “race of the victim” was a strong “predictor in the conviction of a suspect” and that “a suspect is twice as likely to be convicted of a crime if the victim is white, compared to when the victim is not white.” This, they note, is “similar to pre-civil rights era statistics, with strict enforcement for crimes when the victim was white and less-rigorous enforcement when the victim is nonwhite.”
The most recent study of “stand your ground,” published in 2017, confirms the view that the laws are racially biased. After reviewing 237 cases in Florida from 2005 to 2013, researchers found that the odds of conviction for a black defendant against a white victim were nearly 100 percent, with little margin of error, versus 90 percent with a modest margin of error for white defendants and white victims. The gender bias was even more pronounced, with low conviction rates for men in domestic violence cases. An infamous case was the prosecution of Marissa Alexander, a 29-year-old black woman who, facing deadly assault from her estranged husband, fired a warning shot to defend herself. She was arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon. Callie Adams, another black mother, shot and killed her husband while defending herself from assault. She was charged with second-degree murder.
We know the outcomes of “stand your ground” laws, but we can’t know the motives of the police and prosecutors in question. This might be racial prejudice, or it might be something we can’t see or measure. But we do know something about the logic of the “carceral state,” the term historians and social scientists use for the formal institutions of the criminal justice system—the courts, the prisons, and the police precincts; the judges, wardens, and beat officers; the web of people, places, policies, and procedures that govern citizens’ relationship to the law.
Embedded in these institutions are racist stigmas and ideas that reflect the origins of American criminal justice in the legacy of slavery, its relationship to efforts to preserve racial hierarchy, and its reliance on flawed but popular notions of black pathology and black criminality. “The United States did not face a crime problem that was racialized; it faced a race problem that was criminalized,” observes historian Naomi Murakawa in her study of federal crime politics in the 20th century. And despite the massive size of the American penal system, notes legal scholar Michelle Alexander, “the primary targets of its control can be defined largely by race.”
In the American racial imagination, “black” is a property of crime, and crime is a property of blackness. We see this in social science, and we see it in public discourse, where euphemism (“urban” and “Chicago”) hardly obscures the intended message. What this means for policy is that any expansion of the carceral state—or any application of the logic of state punishment—falls hardest on black Americans, regardless of actual rates of offense. Putting police officers in schools means black children in handcuffs, stop-and-frisk policies mean black neighborhoods under virtual occupation, and criminal punishments for drug use means black addicts in prison.
Here’s where “stand your ground” comes in. Legally an expansion of the “castle doctrine,” it can be understood as an extension of police prerogative—the right to use deadly force against any perceived threat. These laws deputize ordinary citizens as agents of state violence, and as with all such violence, the distribution is racial.
Those ordinary citizens could be anyone. Proponents of “stand your ground” laws don’t make racial or gender distinctions about beneficiaries. But disparities in how those laws are applied reveal embedded ideas and racist assumptions around who has a “castle,” who can claim the right of violence to defend it, and who can expect impunity. For most of American history, the idealized citizen was a white man, secure in his person and property, prepared to defend both from intruders and interlopers.
North and South, white men were called to demonstrate their commitment to this ideal, serving in militias and slave patrols. During Reconstruction, white men in the South reaffirmed their manhood through acts of violence against newly free black Americans, and later, would do so with rituals of communal violence, ostensibly in defense of white womanhood. Our pop culture, of course, is littered with examples of idealized white manhood: John Wayne and Clint Eastwood built careers as self-sufficient white men prepared to bring gun violence to bear on threats to the order of things, from Native Americans in John Ford’s Stagecoach to criminals and liberal decadence in Dirty Harry.
On the other side was hostility to black gun ownership, informed by ideas around citizenship, manhood, and who rightfully holds the prerogatives of both. Post–Civil War “Black Codes,” for example, restricted freed people’s ability to own and carry weapons. Indeed, the 2016 shooting of Philando Castile, a legal gun owner killed after announcing his handgun to a police officer, illustrates the continuing ambivalence around black gun ownership. Despite widespread outrage, the National Rifle Association was silent on this infringement of gun rights. For black Americans themselves, gun ownership was one way to assert full citizenship—it’s one reason “By Any Means Necessary” remains a popular and powerful image of self-assertion, and why one of the most iconic figures of black cinema is a gun-toting, hypermasculine black man.
“Stand your ground” taps into this history, as well as a conservative discourse around crime, safety, and gun rights that took root toward the end of the 20th century. In her study of American traditions of self-defense, historian Caroline Light notes how print advertisements for the NRA “highlighted dangerous streets and armed criminals breaking into middle-class households at night.” Even in the face of decreasing crime rates, she notes, “the NRA portrayed the law-abiding, white citizen at risk for violent crime, and armed self-defense as an urgent need.”
There is no evidence or indication that Michael Drejka killed Markeis Mc Glockton because he was black. Based on what we know, this was a case of aggression and escalation, made tragic by the presence of a gun. But we cannot understand the incident—why it matters, why it resonates, why it’s brought protest and outrage to yet another Florida town—without an understanding of the forces at work. Each action in this tragedy—Mc Glockton’s shove, Drejka’s shot, and the sheriff’s excusal—embodies a different but connected history of race, violence, and manhood. We see how our nation’s embrace of lethal self-defense has “always been selective and partial, upholding a selective right to kill for some, while posing others as legitimate targets.”
Contrarians may deny the weight of history and legacy, but it’s here whether we acknowledge it or not, bringing its burden to bear on the world we inhabit and the lives we live now.
Mind you, they got arrested because the whole thing got caught on camera. Their story was that he attacked them, naturally.
He started hitting their fists with his face, no doubt.
That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw
https://japantoday.com/category/crime/police-parents-renew-appeal-for-help-in-solving-disappearance-of-4-year-old-girl-in-1996
There's a cold case on a missing four-year old girl in 1996 and the police there are still looking for solid leads.