The Great Police Work Thread

[townsend]

Hannity has interviewed everyone from a cop who says he knows the others to Freddie Gray's bondman. While he does have an affinity for police he does present sides CNN, MSNBC and others don't. But someone has to with people like you seem to be who already have their minds made up. These cops may well be bad and Baltimore may well be a cesspool, but it will all come out in the trial. But the black lives matter and hands up don't shoot crowd would rather these cops got hung straight away.
As typical in these circumstance you are arguing form the stance that they are already guilty. Towns says Baltimore is a a shit hole so naturally every cop there is bad in that crowds mind. And with this case, it isn't just "whitey kills a black kid, it's cops in general" because 3 of them are black.

Frankly I think white vs. black is an oversimplification of the issue. I think the most prominent issue is the disenfranchisement of the poor. Which, thanks to 200 years of institutionalized racism, disproportionately affects blacks.

Obviously institutionalized racism still affects how everyone (cops included) perceives young black men. But I think there are probably more (percentage wise) poor whites that have been assaulted by officers than rich blacks. The difference is that rich whites don't give a shit what happens to poor whites. Now admittedly solidarity among poor blacks has probably done plenty to entrench hard feelings between themselves and cops as well.

 

[fortsbest]

See, I don't like how you worded this. Again the assumption that cops just go out and want to assault folk either black or white. I'm not now nor have I ever said there aren't bad cops that do bad things, but ...
I would however agree that cops generally have more dealings with poor whites than blacks it just gets far more media attention if a black person has a run in or gets shoot by police. Even if the officer or officers did nothing wrong.

 

[Jiggyfly]

Hannity has interviewed everyone from a cop who says he knows the others to Freddie Gray's bondman. While he does have an affinity for police he does present sides CNN, MSNBC and others don't. But someone has to with people like you seem to be who already have their minds made up. These cops may well be bad and Baltimore may well be a cesspool, but it will all come out in the trial. But the black lives matter and hands up don't shoot crowd would rather these cops got hung straight away.
As typical in these circumstance you are arguing form the stance that they are already guilty. Towns says Baltimore is a a shit hole so naturally every cop there is bad in that crowds mind. And with this case, it isn't just "whitey kills a black kid, it's cops in general" because 3 of them are black.

Hannity is a joke.

 

[townsend]

See, I don't like how you worded this. Again the assumption that cops just go out and want to assault folk either black or white. I'm not now nor have I ever said there aren't bad cops that do bad things, but ...
I would however agree that cops generally have more dealings with poor whites than blacks it just gets far more media attention if a black person has a run in or gets shoot by police. Even if the officer or officers did nothing wrong.

To an extent they have. You can chicken or egg this as to where the cycle of abuse started, but law enforcement has abused the poor for as long as both institutions have existed. Easy to say "well a few bad cops" but the history of policing is pretty horrific. It's steadily improved over the last 70 years, but that rivalry between the oppressed community and the people specifically hired and trained to control them has been an ongoing one. No one ever beefed up a police force, or got tough on crime with rich people in mind.

I think, looking at Ferguson, Baltimore, Cleveland, and everywhere else that "Might makes right" seems to have become the unofficial slogan of inner city policing. We see parallels to the old Stanford prison experiment. Forcing people, even the best people into a situation where the frequent use of physical force over someone, cultivates abusive tendencies.

Human beings have cruelty hard wired into them, allowing them to take positions of absolute authority like that makes them bad people. This can't be applied to all cops by any means. Many, many, many police departments function as a part of the community. But I think more than the moral fabric of the individual officer, the culture of the dept is the deciding factor.

 

[L.T. Fan]

To an extent they have. You can chicken or egg this as to where the cycle of abuse started, but law enforcement has abused the poor for as long as both institutions have existed. Easy to say "well a few bad cops" but the history of policing is pretty horrific. It's steadily improved over the last 70 years, but that rivalry between the oppressed community and the people specifically hired and trained to control them has been an ongoing one. No one ever beefed up a police force, or got tough on crime with rich people in mind.

I think, looking at Ferguson, Baltimore, Cleveland, and everywhere else that "Might makes right" seems to have become the unofficial slogan of inner city policing. We see parallels to the old Stanford prison experiment. Forcing people, even the best people into a situation where the frequent use of physical force over someone, cultivates abusive tendencies.

Human beings have cruelty hard wired into them, allowing them to take positions of absolute authority like that makes them bad people. This can't be applied to all cops by any means. Many, many, many police departments function as a part of the community. But I think more than the moral fabric of the individual officer, the culture of the dept is the deciding factor.

Maybe one element of your hypothesis that should be included is police officers spend the majority of their time dealing with people who either are breaking the law or intend to break the law. This element , regardless of race cannot expect to be approached as if they were old maid school teachers. There is already an atmosphere of tension existing before a word is spoken. The offending (or potential) should be aware that there is an existing adversarial condition in play and attempt to neutrilize it by listening and obeying until a clarification is in place. Instead, some fuel the fire by becoming belligerent and moving the tension several degrees higher. The best advise I would give anyone who is being approached by a policemen is do what they instruct you to do and find out what is creating the reason for being approached.

 

[townsend]

Maybe one element of your hypothesis that should be included is police officers spend the majority of their time dealing with people who either are breaking the law or intend to break the law. This element , regardless of race cannot expect to be approached as if they were old maid school teachers. There is already an atmosphere of tension existing before a word is spoken. The offending (or potential) should be aware that there is an existing adversarial condition in play and attempt to neutrilize it by listening and obeying until a clarification is in place. Instead, some fuel the fire by becoming belligerent and moving the tension several degrees higher. The best advise I would give anyone who is being approached by a policemen is do what they instruct you to do and find out what is creating the reason for being approached.

Good points. I think that's the biggest difference between poorer areas, as opposed to well to do areas. Poor areas see cops more as menaces than peacemakers. Perhaps that becomes a self fulfilling prophesy.
I think criminals on both sides of the law have made it difficult for cops to trust the community and vice verse in those areas.
I think officers training is a big problem too. I think they're instructed to see threats everywhere. In the area I live in, the cops seem very much a part of the community, but an officer still shot an unarmed Hispanic man. In that case the man was approaching an officer because he couldn't hear him over the highway noise, and was shot dead for it. That is a clear indication of how overly paranoid officers are encouraged to be.

 

[Cotton]

Maybe one element of your hypothesis that should be included is police officers spend the majority of their time dealing with people who either are breaking the law or intend to break the law. This element , regardless of race cannot expect to be approached as if they were old maid school teachers. There is already an atmosphere of tension existing before a word is spoken. The offending (or potential) should be aware that there is an existing adversarial condition in play and attempt to neutrilize it by listening and obeying until a clarification is in place. Instead, some fuel the fire by becoming belligerent and moving the tension several degrees higher. The best advise I would give anyone who is being approached by a policemen is do what they instruct you to do and find out what is creating the reason for being approached.

This pretty much nails it.

 

[Kbrown]

Good points. I think that's the biggest difference between poorer areas, as opposed to well to do areas. Poor areas see cops more as menaces than peacemakers. Perhaps that becomes a self fulfilling prophesy.
I think criminals on both sides of the law have made it difficult for cops to trust the community and vice verse in those areas.
I think officers training is a big problem too. I think they're instructed to see threats everywhere. In the area I live in, the cops seem very much a part of the community, but an officer still shot an unarmed Hispanic man. In that case the man was approaching an officer because he couldn't hear him over the highway noise, and was shot dead for it. That is a clear indication of how overly paranoid officers are encouraged to be.

I am pro-cop generally, but I do find the over-emphasis on military experience in the hiring process for departments problematic. I applied to a couple departments years ago when I was in a transition phase. One department declined me because I got mixed up when I declared some dates I smoked pot like a decade prior, but I know for a fact a guy I took the PAT with was told by a recruiter his very recent DUI was no problem because he'd been a Marine.

In the other department, I came in second place among candidates who hadn't been to a private academy to a guy with military experience. Incidentally, the officers who interviewed me there spent most of my oral interview making fun of how I used too many big words. Probably dodged a bullet on that one.

My point is, I don't know that it's a good thing that departments are putting such high emphasis on hiring people just because they have experience with command structure, when those same guys' prior experience is in a context where literally every man, woman and child is a potential deadly threat. Some other departments state right on the recruitment site that they add bonus points to the reading comprehension exam for former military members. You'd think they'd want people who represent a cross-section of the people they are policing, rather than sending the message that, "We'll take people who can't read or write very well, if they have military experience."

This in no way comes from a place of bitterness. Just my take on what could be different.

 

[townsend]

I am pro-cop generally, but I do find the over-emphasis on military experience in the hiring process for departments problematic. I applied to a couple departments years ago when I was in a transition phase. One department declined me because I got mixed up when I declared some dates I smoked pot like a decade prior, but I know for a fact a guy I took the PAT with was told by a recruiter his very recent DUI was no problem because he'd been a Marine.

In the other department, I came in second place among candidates who hadn't been to a private academy to a guy with military experience. Incidentally, the officers who interviewed me there spent most of my oral interview making fun of how I used too many big words. Probably dodged a bullet on that one.

My point is, I don't know that it's a good thing that departments are putting such high emphasis on hiring people just because they have experience with command structure, when those same guys' prior experience is in a context where literally every man, woman and child is a potential deadly threat. Some other departments state right on the recruitment site that they add bonus points to the reading comprehension exam for former military members. You'd think they'd want people who represent a cross-section of the people they are policing, rather than sending the message that, "We'll take people who can't read or write very well, if they have military experience."

This in no way comes from a place of bitterness. Just my take on what could be different.

Speaking as a veteran, some of us are dumb as shit, and I wouldn't trust a majority of the ones I've worked with (whom I consider great friends and coworkers) to act as peacemakers. It's a difficult job that I'd be hesitant to ever look into. I think push ups and following the CoC is way less important than ability to communicate effectively. I'd be especially hesitant to hire people with excessive combat experience, Mayberry ain't Kabul, we don't need warriors on the streets.

 

[fortsbest]

Hannity is a joke.

Of course he is. Because his politics and opinions don't agree with yours he has nothing of value at all to offer. Typical.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Of course he is. Because his politics and opinions don't agree with yours he has nothing of value at all to offer. Typical.

He is a joke. I remember him hating Romney's guts until he was the R nominee, then he wanted to give the guy a daily blowjob. He has no personal convictions, he's just a shill, playing whatever angle Fox News' version of Vince McMahon (Murdoch) tells him to act out.

 

[fortsbest]

All of the R commentators I listened to during the election said that he was not their candidate of choice. But....that if he were the nominee, they would support him whole-heartedly because any of them would have been better than another term of President Obama. So his and the others support was predicable. Just as it was when Obama was chosen over Hillary. All the Hillary lovers did whatever they could to bring Obama down until he was the nominee, then they in turn bowed to the altar. That's the way party politics is nowadays. It isn't whether or not a candidate is qualified, and Romney was and still is better qualified than Obama, it's whomever the party nominee is that will get the support.
That said, if that is the criticism, you have your explanation for the turn of opinion. He at least will tell you where he stands on an issue and why he makes a choice that he does. dislike him personally if you will and disagree with him if you must, but he uses his position to support many of the same things I do, he does far more to support causes I consider worthy (wounded vets and police etc and the military in general) than most of the hosts on either side of politics, and he is successful at what he does. You may not like him, but he is definitely not a joke.

 

[Jiggyfly]

All of the R commentators I listened to during the election said that he was not their candidate of choice. But....that if he were the nominee, they would support him whole-heartedly because any of them would have been better than another term of President Obama. So his and the others support was predicable. Just as it was when Obama was chosen over Hillary. All the Hillary lovers did whatever they could to bring Obama down until he was the nominee, then they in turn bowed to the altar. That's the way party politics is nowadays. It isn't whether or not a candidate is qualified, and Romney was and still is better qualified than Obama, it's whomever the party nominee is that will get the support.
That said, if that is the criticism, you have your explanation for the turn of opinion. He at least will tell you where he stands on an issue and why he makes a choice that he does. dislike him personally if you will and disagree with him if you must, but he uses his position to support many of the same things I do, he does far more to support causes I consider worthy (wounded vets and police etc and the military in general) than most of the hosts on either side of politics, and he is successful at what he does. You may not like him, but he is definitely not a joke.

And you know this how?

Hannity is a joke because he panders to a specific audience and viewpoint there is no nuance to his rhetoric.

I don't agree with O'Reily 90% of the time but he does try and have a actual argument sometimes and will go against the company talking points on obvious issues.

Hannity has went from wait and see on evidence to running with anything a police officer says as gospel and regurgitating it as the most important "fact" that should be considered.

Unlike you I call the jokers out as I see them both Sharpton and Schultz are jokes as well.

Just because he supports your position does not make him or you right, its ok to look at things from a different perspective and that's why I watch Fox from time to time especially when a hot button issue arises.

 

[E_D_Guapo]

My point is, I don't know that it's a good thing that departments are putting such high emphasis on hiring people just because they have experience with command structure, when those same guys' prior experience is in a context where literally every man, woman and child is a potential deadly threat.

Excellent point.

 

[L.T. Fan]

And you know this how?

Hannity is a joke because he panders to a specific audience and viewpoint there is no nuance to his rhetoric.

I don't agree with O'Reily 90% of the time but he does try and have a actual argument sometimes and will go against the company talking points on obvious issues.

Hannity has went from wait and see on evidence to running with anything a police officer says as gospel and regurgitating it as the most important "fact" that should be considered.

Unlike you I call the jokers out as I see them both Sharpton and Schultz are jokes as well.

Just because he supports your position does not make him or you right, its ok to look at things from a different perspective and that's why I watch Fox from time to time especially when a hot button issue arises.

I thought you didn't watch Fox News.

 

[Jiggyfly]

I thought you didn't watch Fox News.

You thought wrong, I have stated many times that I give them a view from time to time.

 

[L.T. Fan]

You thought wrong, I have stated many times that I give them a view from time to time.

That's a pretty in depth analysis for a time to time view.

 

[Jiggyfly]

That's a pretty in-depth analysis for a time to time view.

Really?

I watch all news from time to time should I not have any opinion at all?

And what about that is actually in-depth I can do a quick youtube search and show how hypocritical Hannity has been concerning police shootings.

What's your real point are you questioning if I have a grasp of what Fox news reports or Hannity?

 

[L.T. Fan]

Really?

I watch all news from time to time should I not have any opinion at all?

And what about that is actually in-depth I can do a quick youtube search and show how hypocritical Hannity has been concerning police shootings.

What's your real point are you questioning if I have a grasp of what Fox news reports or Hannity?

Just messing with you. I enjoy the reaction.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Watching the Fort Worth police in a "chase" except it is going about 2 mph. This has been going on for over an hour. Why are the staying behind like this? Fortsbest can address this hopefully.