Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teilhard:
But, no … Ordinary citizens are not allowed to do some things that the police are allowed to do ...

---

If you mean by "slack", you think that police officers should be held to a different, lower standard of behaviour than the people they purportedly serve, then you deserve every moment of your Hell call.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teilhard:
I'm here … I'm posting to the topics …

---

Well, sort of.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teilhard:

The fact is that I don't just join harmoniously in the chorus of anti-police songs, and that seems to be a problem for some …

---

Absolutely incorrect. It is that you are ignoring real problems and the fact that the police are not neutral in judging police behaviour. Or neutral in who they target.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teilhard:

I do post out of my own life experience and long reflection on it ...

---

White man in a white man's world. You can, much more easily, ignore the very real culture of racism which still infects society. Not saying everyone is racist, but that there exist inequities and the impetus to fix them is not the same for those not affected. Or even to notice them.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teilhard:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Who is investing? At least 37 states have legalized the contracting of prison labor by private corporations that mount their operations inside state prisons. The list of such companies contains the cream of U.S. corporate society: IBM, Boeing, Motorola, Microsoft, AT&T, Wireless, Texas Instrument, Dell, Compaq, Honeywell, Hewlett-Packard, Nortel, Lucent Technologies, 3Com, Intel, Northern Telecom, TWA, Nordstrom’s, Revlon, Macy’s, Pierre Cardin, Target Stores, and many more. All of these businesses are excited about the economic boom generation by prison labor. Just between 1980 and 1994, profits went up from $392 million to $1.31 billion. Inmates in state penitentiaries generally receive the minimum wage for their work, but not all; in Colorado, they get about $2 per hour, well under the minimum. And in privately-run prisons, they receive as little as 17 cents per hour for a maximum of six hours a day, the equivalent of $20 per month. The highest-paying private prison is CCA in Tennessee, where prisoners receive 50 cents per hour for what they call “highly skilled positions.” At those rates, it is no surprise that inmates find the pay in federal prisons to be very generous. There, they can earn $1.25 an hour and work eight hours a day, and sometimes overtime. They can send home $200-$300 per month.

---

---

Do the math …
The annual cost of jails and prisons in the USA is around $75,000,000,000 … (that's 75 BILLION dollars) ...

---

Which makes it an interesting example of "lemon socialism": privatized profits, socialized losses/costs. I don't think it serves discussion well to pretend that this isn't an example of government providing a massive subsidy to private business in the form of a sub-minimum wage work force with no ability to unionize and extremely limited ability to do anything about unsafe work conditions or predatory management practices. You can argue (and have, sort of, argued) that labor is beneficial to the imprisoned, but pretending such labor isn't competing with free laborers doing the same jobs is a fatuous denial of reality.

Very little of what most governments do generates a profit. In fact, most of the problems people try to resolve via the state are things that aren't easily amenable to market-based solutions. But the argument that the best possible activity for prisoners is as workers for profit-making enterprises, training for jobs that by definition are under threat due to competition from a subsidized prison labor system, is one that should be made without hand-waving away the larger (and fairly obvious) economic considerations. Given the realities of prison labor, why isn't it accurate to see the system as a massive $75 billion subsidy the U.S. government is paying to private enterprise? Again, it may be possible to argue that this kind of subsidy is justified, but that argument should be made explicitly in its own terms, not by pretending it's something else.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teilhard:
I do tend to give extra "slack" to the police unless I have good reason otherwise

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teilhard:
Or, alternatively … I suppose we could send convicted violent offenders to live in YOUR basement apartment for a couple of years ...

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

But, while I am indeed a *white*guy* my own world is NOT exclusively either "white" or all "guy" …

But, yes … EVERY person -- of every race and ethnic identity and gender and age and social/economic circumstance -- is influenced by her/his own history and life experiences …
This is true for EVERY person -- not just *white*guys* (or even, *black*guys*) … nor just "crooks" and "cops" ...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teilhard:
I do tend to give extra "slack" to the police unless I have good reason otherwise

---

We're no nearer understanding what you actually mean by this.

"Giving extra slack" to police does not imply, as you suggest, allowing them to run stop signs and so forth, since these are things which in certain circumstances they are allowed, by law, to do (as indeed they are permitted to use lethal force in certain circumstances).

It implies being more indulgent with police than with the general public when they do things they are not allowed, by law, to do.

That's the clear implication of "giving extra slack to police". If that's not what you mean by that comment, you have some explaining to do.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teilhard:
I tend to give the police "extra slack" in their work precisely because some of the things they do -- are EXPECTED to do !!! -- are by their nature *dicey* at best (use of force, including deadly force)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teilhard:
I tend to give the police "extra slack" in their work precisely because some of the things they do -- are EXPECTED to do !!! -- are by their nature *dicey* at best (use of force, including deadly force)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I'd guess that the result of the investigation will be either "cop reacted reasonably to perceived threat" or "cop screwed up and will face the following punishment / re-education / whatever".

---

quote:

---

I suspect it will not consider the question of whether the police department's training is at fault. I suspect this to be the real answer.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teilhard:
I tend to give the police "extra slack" in their work precisely because some of the things they do -- are EXPECTED to do !!! -- are by their nature *dicey* at best (use of force, including deadly force)

---

The trouble with people these days is they expect to have rights (use of force including deadly force) without responsibilities (being held to higher standards with less slack).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by Teilhard:

quote:

---

But, while I am indeed a *white*guy* my own world is NOT exclusively either "white" or all "guy" …

But, yes … EVERY person -- of every race and ethnic identity and gender and age and social/economic circumstance -- is influenced by her/his own history and life experiences …
This is true for EVERY person -- not just *white*guys* (or even, *black*guys*) … nor just "crooks" and "cops" ...

---

Every person is affected by their identity, yes. But they are not equal experiences.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
So we can only have opinions about what we've lived through?

That's going to make it tough to recruit juries. "I say, Mr. Jones, have you ever committed a B&E? No? Then m'lud / your honor (pick whatever applies your side of the pond), I challenge the seating of this juror, as he has no idea what the charge against my client is all about."

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teilhard:
I do tend to give extra "slack" to the police unless I have good reason otherwise

---

We're no nearer understanding what you actually mean by this.

"Giving extra slack" to police does not imply, as you suggest, allowing them to run stop signs and so forth, since these are things which in certain circumstances they are allowed, by law, to do (as indeed they are permitted to use lethal force in certain circumstances).

It implies being more indulgent with police than with the general public when they do things they are not allowed, by law, to do.

That's the clear implication of "giving extra slack to police". If that's not what you mean by that comment, you have some explaining to do.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teilhard:
I do tend to give extra "slack" to the police unless I have good reason otherwise

---

We're no nearer understanding what you actually mean by this.

"Giving extra slack" to police does not imply, as you suggest, allowing them to run stop signs and so forth, since these are things which in certain circumstances they are allowed, by law, to do (as indeed they are permitted to use lethal force in certain circumstances).

It implies being more indulgent with police than with the general public when they do things they are not allowed, by law, to do.

That's the clear implication of "giving extra slack to police". If that's not what you mean by that comment, you have some explaining to do.

---

This may actually be a contributing factor to police misconduct; the knowledge that a large segment of the general population will either automatically disbelieve such incidents or hand-wave them away. Given this, calls for changes in police training are likely to fall on deaf ears since the system already 'works' for those with the most ability to implement such changes.

Take the Scott shooting, for example. Why did Patrolman Slager feel so confident that he could get away with planting evidence and filing a fraudulent report? Most likely because he knew that, in the absence of overwhelming outside evidence, no one would question anything he did. Or that if anyone did ask questions they'd be derided as cop-haters. A system that is geared to only apply accountability in instances where blatant abuses are caught on video as they occur in real time is a system that invites abuses.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
So what do you mean by "giving them extra slack"?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teilhard:
Increased and better training is always a good idea, for sure ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teilhard:
. . . sometimes a citizen is injured or dies while foolishly resisting arrest (the guy on the street corner in New York comes to mind); etc. …

For such kind of mistakes, I tend to favor not necessarily firing or charging the officer ...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teilhard:
Increased and better training is always a good idea, for sure ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teilhard:
. . . sometimes a citizen is injured or dies while foolishly resisting arrest (the guy on the street corner in New York comes to mind); etc. …

For such kind of mistakes, I tend to favor not necessarily firing or charging the officer ...

---

This is kind of the perfect illustration of why changes in training are doomed in the current context. Despite the NYPD having an established policy against using choke holds Officer Pantaleo was perfectly comfortable using one, knowing that if anything went wrong a large segment of the population would consider Eric Garner's struggles to breathe "resisting arrest" and think he got what he deserved. Interestingly enough, struggling when unable to breathe is instinctive, not voluntary, in most mammals (including humans).

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teilhard:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
This is kind of the perfect illustration of why changes in training are doomed in the current context. Despite the NYPD having an established policy against using choke holds . . .

---

Certainly, in retrospect, a taser would have been a better choice … But the guy was huge -- ca. 300 pounds -- and was resisting before the "choke hold" was applied ..

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teilhard:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
This is kind of the perfect illustration of why changes in training are doomed in the current context. Despite the NYPD having an established policy against using choke holds . . .

---

Certainly, in retrospect, a taser would have been a better choice … But the guy was huge -- ca. 300 pounds -- and was resisting before the "choke hold" was applied ..

---

Yet again illustrating why changes in training are futile in the current context. The policy against choke holds is considered an irrelevancy, something officers have the "choice" to ignore, and should suffer no consequences even when their use of the forbidden practice leads to the exact thing the practice was forbidden to prevent.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teilhard:
Certainly, in retrospect, a taser would have been a better choice … But the guy was huge -- ca. 300 pounds -- and was resisting before the "choke hold" was applied ..

---

I think Crœsos is trying to make the point that if department policy is "no chokeholds", then by definition, a choke hold is the WRONG choice... always ... every time ...regardless of what happened before or what other choices were available. This policy is in place precisely because experience has shown that chokeholds (also sometimes called a sleeper hold) can easily go fatally wrong. Properly applied, the chokehold is supposed to reduce blood circulation to the brain and induce lightheadedness or unconsciousness. When it is mis-applied, it cuts off the airway (trachea) instead. So not only was the chokehold the wrong choice, it was also performed incorrectly. So there's just one simple question to answer: why the hell wouldn't we hold police officers accountable when they deliberately violate policy, do it incorrectly, and cause the death of a citizen?


Or do we jut "cut them some slack"? And if this "slack" is because they have to make split-second, life-or-death decisions, why don't other professionals making the same kinds of decisions get "slack"? You know, professionals like pilots or air traffic controllers...? how about EMTs...? or truck and taxi drivers...?

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teilhard:
By nature of the real world, cops (and indeed, all professional persons) at least on occasion are "flying by the seat of their pants" ...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teilhard:
Certainly, in retrospect, a taser would have been a better choice … But the guy was huge -- ca. 300 pounds -- and was resisting before the "choke hold" was applied ..

---

I think Crœsos is trying to make the point that if department policy is "no chokeholds", then by definition, a choke hold is the WRONG choice... always ... every time ...regardless of what happened before or what other choices were available. This policy is in place precisely because experience has shown that chokeholds (also sometimes called a sleeper hold) can easily go fatally wrong. Properly applied, the chokehold is supposed to reduce blood circulation to the brain and induce lightheadedness or unconsciousness. When it is mis-applied, it cuts off the airway (trachea) instead. So not only was the chokehold the wrong choice, it was also performed incorrectly. So there's just one simple question to answer: why the hell wouldn't we hold police officers accountable when they deliberately violate policy, do it incorrectly, and cause the death of a citizen?


Or do we jut "cut them some slack"? And if this "slack" is because they have to make split-second, life-or-death decisions, why don't other professionals making the same kinds of decisions get "slack"? You know, professionals like pilots or air traffic controllers...? how about EMTs...? or truck and taxi drivers...?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teilhard:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
So what do you mean by "giving them extra slack"?

---

When a police officer is exceeding the speed limit (lights and siren on), running stop signs and red lights, on occasion a tragic crash occurs, in which an innocent person is injured or killed; on occasion, a person is shot by an officer in a *dicey*iffy* situation that called for a split second decision by the officer (the Ferguson case comes to mind); sometimes a citizen is injured or dies while foolishly resisting arrest (the guy on the street corner in New York comes to mind); etc. …

For such kind of mistakes, I tend to favor not necessarily firing or charging the officer ...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teilhard:
By nature of the real world, cops (and indeed, all professional persons) at least on occasion are "flying by the seat of their pants" ...

---

Is that the spirit in which you conducted your prison chaplaincy?

Professionals may sometimes fly by the seat of their pants, but they do so in full knowledge of the rules and the law, and aware of the consequences if they flout them. Or they aren't worthy of being called professionals.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teilhard:
one must sometimes make a decision to act (or not) without being able to say, "Excuse me for just a moment will you, please, while I consult with my superior (or Manual of Procedures)"

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teilhard:
one must sometimes make a decision to act (or not) without being able to say, "Excuse me for just a moment will you, please, while I consult with my superior (or Manual of Procedures)"

---

You mean you don't know the law before you start out? Oh dear.

And the issue is not one of making judgement calls, it is one of facing the consequences if you make a judgement call that takes you way outside the law. All the more so if it involves taking a life.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teilhard:
In the real world, "life" doesn't always go "by the book," so, yes on occasion, one does what one has to do …

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teilhard:
In the real world, "life" doesn't always go "by the book," so, yes on occasion, one does what one has to do …

---

Why doesn't this principle apply to the Scott shooting? It's the one bit of controversial policing you've gone out of your way to pointedly not endorse. Why doesn't Patrolman Slager get a pass with "he was 'flying by the seat of his pants' and didn't have time to go 'by the book', so sometimes you just decide to shoot someone eight* times in the back, plant evidence, and file a false report about it"?


--------------------
*Patrolman Slager reportedly fired his weapon eight times. I've not seen anything so far on how many of those shots hit Mr. Scott, and the assertion of "eight times" is meant to reflect Patrolman Slager's decision that that was the proper number of shots to fire, not an evaluation of his accuracy as a marksman.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teilhard:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
]Why doesn't this principle apply to the Scott shooting? . . .

---

Well, everyday real life in the every day real world is not always clearly a simple matter of *either/or* or "all or nothing," is it … ???
Again -- and again, and again -- every case is its own case ...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teilhard:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
]Why doesn't this principle apply to the Scott shooting? . . .

---

Well, everyday real life in the every day real world is not always clearly a simple matter of *either/or* or "all or nothing," is it … ???
Again -- and again, and again -- every case is its own case ...

---

That doesn't so much answer the question as evade it. We understand you're not cutting Patrolman Slager the "slack" you're otherwise so generous with when it comes to cops killing civilians. The question is why? Is it simply that he was caught on video? The generalities you've offered as mitigating in other cases ("life doesn't always go 'by the book'", "all professional persons at least on occasion are 'flying by the seat of their pants'", "there are ALWAYS occasional situations that require a 'judgment call'") would seem to be just as applicable to the Scott shooting.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
If you focus on just individual trees/cases, you may miss the trend happening in the forest/police system as a whole.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Teilhard--

Yes, each case is its own case, but that's not all it is.

Let's say there's a big, ancient oak forest where you like to walk. One day, you notice that your favorite ancient tree seems sick. You sadly walk through the forest, and discover other sick trees here and there. You begin to realize that it's not just ancient oaks that are sick, maybe dying from old age--you encountered sick trees from all stages of their life cycle.

Sitting in a quiet cafe later, drinking coffee to warm up, you chat with a barista. She says she knows an arborist, and gives you his number. You thank her, and head home.

Vegging out on the couch, watching "Law & Order", you wonder whether you should bother to call. Just trees, right? Trees die, just like any other living thing. But what if it's not just individual trees? What if it's Sudden Oak Death Syndrome (real thing), or toxic dumping, or intentional poisoning, or some new problem? If whatever it is is systemic, then it might wipe out the whole forest.

So do you call the arborist, and ask him if there might be a systemic problem? Or do you say you saw a tree that might be sick? Or do you just grab a pint of Ben & Jerry's ice cream, and finish watching your show?

Short version: If you focus on just individual trees/cases, you may miss the trend happening in the forest/police system as a whole.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Teilhard--

They can be symptoms of a wider problem. And, in the case of Sudden Oak Death Syndrome, the disease can *spread*--even through something as simple as moving firewood.

It does seem that there are systemic problems of police brutality and police racism that have been going on for a long, long time--and not just the stuff that makes big headlines.

Whether that's due to society, police training and culture, individual officers, or misunderstandings, ISTM that it's wise to look at both the forest and the trees, and figure out what's going on, so it can be treated and managed.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teilhard:
No doubt, "racism" is a widespread malignant problem in society … It's not confined to "cops" ...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teilhard:
No doubt, "racism" is a widespread malignant problem in society … It's not confined to "cops" ...

---

This statement is peculiarly tin-eared. In which world would we be arming racists and giving them 'slack' when they shoot black people?

As opposed to the other thing, which is to try and make the police force less racist, and less likely to abuse their authority.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teilhard:
BINGO … The solution to this widespread longstanding problem is not to disarm all the cops, but to address "racism" …

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teilhard:
BINGO … The solution to this widespread longstanding problem is not to disarm all the cops, but to address "racism" …

---

I'm sorry. This is a complete non-sequitur. No one has argued that US police officers should be disarmed. Everyone has argued you shouldn't hire racist cops.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teilhard:
But, see, I don't think that THE problem is "racist cops"

---

So we go from "BINGO!" to "well, it's not THE problem."

Given that racism is pervasive, but not endemic, do you think it's possible to hire non-racist cops? If so, then why not do that? It might even turn out that the non-racist cops are also better at being decent, responsible law officers who don't shoot white people either.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teilhard:
But, see, I don't think that THE problem is "racist cops"

---

So we go from "BINGO!" to "well, it's not THE problem."

Given that racism is pervasive, but not endemic, do you think it's possible to hire non-racist cops? If so, then why not do that? It might even turn out that the non-racist cops are also better at being decent, responsible law officers who don't shoot white people either.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teilhard:

Is it "possible to hire non-racist" public school teachers, social workers, nurses and physicians, building contractors, retail clerks, realtors and bankers, etc. … ???

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teilhard:

Is it "possible to hire non-racist" public school teachers, social workers, nurses and physicians, building contractors, retail clerks, realtors and bankers, etc. … ???

---

It's possible to change organisations to make certain types of behaviour less acceptable and in doing so change the mix of people who are generally interested in joining and staying in those organisations.

Some organisations have done this much better than others.

---