OT: Cops kill George Floyd

[Jkam31]

Read on Twitter

6 been gone most of the night, 5 (shoutout GSU) too.

Atlanta doesn't seem to be the purge yet. Wow thought cops were the only things keeping us safe from packs of rapists.

You think we’re safer without cops haha

[Jkam31]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/atlanta-officers-charged-arrests-college-students-dragged-from-car-hit-with-stun-guns


Apparently this DA is up for re-election I’m guessing that has nothing to do with it

[aq_ua]

Read on Twitter

6 been gone most of the night, 5 (shoutout GSU) too.

Atlanta doesn't seem to be the purge yet. Wow thought cops were the only things keeping us safe from packs of rapists.

You think we’re safer without cops haha

Would you allow for a world where there is something between a militarized police force trained to use lethal force as something less than a last resort, and no law enforcement at all?

I've lived in quite a few countries and most have gone to a system where policing doesn't even involve carrying a lethal weapon most of the time, and the police presence is meant to be less visible until they're called upon. That has not caused crime rates to sky rocket. Crime still happens of course, but the current system isn't stopping it either. This is a great opportunity to reimagine what policing really means - and whether that actually should include the concept of law enforcement. Law enforcement implies the responder is aware of the law and is able to act within the accordance of the law in any situation. Perhaps the problem is that this bar is too high for most people to begin with.

[Phish Tank]

Two thoughts:

1) I’m no lawyer, but glad they threw the book on Rolfe. Felony murder is a hard charge to convict on, but as long as this trial stays in Fulton and the DA is pressured to prosecute like his election is on the line (even tho it’ll probably commence shortly before or after the election), he should be able to do it. Even not, the aggravated assault charges (3 total) are up to 20 years each. I think he’d get 30-40 just on those. The rest of the charges are oaths of office violations which can also tick another 5-10 years if not more.

2) don’t know if this was discussed, but probation abolition has to be a serious discussion. From what I read, Brooks was on the verge of violating his probation again. He violated it before in the past due to bull technicalities, but ducked out of serious jail time. I’m guessing he knew he was in trouble once the cops came thru and was gonna end up in jail for a while... and he knew that his daughters birthday was that next day. Such a tragic situation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jkam31]

Two thoughts:

1) I’m no lawyer, but glad they threw the book on Rolfe. Felony murder is a hard charge to convict on, but as long as this trial stays in Fulton and the DA is pressured to prosecute like his election is on the line (even tho it’ll probably commence shortly before or after the election), he should be able to do it. Even not, the aggravated assault charges (3 total) are up to 20 years each. I think he’d get 30-40 just on those. The rest of the charges are oaths of office violations which can also tick another 5-10 years if not more.

2) don’t know if this was discussed, but probation abolition has to be a serious discussion. From what I read, Brooks was on the verge of violating his probation again. He violated it before in the past due to bull technicalities, but ducked out of serious jail time. I’m guessing he knew he was in trouble once the cops came thru and was gonna end up in jail for a while... and he knew that his daughters birthday was that next day. Such a tragic situation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

More excuses for attacking two cops he was fine with everything till he found out he was going to jail.

[robillionaire]

Read on Twitter

they do this like we're going to beg them to come back or something.

[HarthorneWingo]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/atlanta-officers-charged-arrests-college-students-dragged-from-car-hit-with-stun-guns


Apparently this DA is up for re-election I’m guessing that has nothing to do with it

Fox "news"?

[HarthorneWingo]

Read on Twitter

they do this like we're going to beg them to come back or something.

I love it. Let the love fest begin. People of Atlanta take care of your own. You don't need them like that. Time to teach these suckers a lesson in humility. Fire them all and make them re-apply.

[j4remi]

Speaking of Atlanta's staffing issue, I ran low on time but covered a story about the NYPD protesting Deblasio a while back by cutting their proactive policing. Crime complaints actually dropped rather than increasing in that case. Caveat being that this more or less focuses on Broken Windows policing, but that's also what a lot of defund proponents set as a key marker for the strategy. Here's the story

https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-proactive-policing-crime-20170925-story.html

When New York police officers temporarily reduced their “proactive policing” efforts on low-level offenses, major-crime reports in the city actually fell, according to a study based on New York Police Department crime statistics.

The findings, published in the journal Nature Human Behaviour, put a crack in the “broken windows” theory of policing that has become a mainstay of many urban police departments.

“Order maintenance policing,” a type of proactive policing, is informed by the ‘broken windows’ theory — the idea that by fighting smaller crimes, it’s possible to create a ‘lawful’ environment that helps deter the more serious crimes. It’s an idea that was put to use in the 1990s by former New York City Police Commissioner William Bratton (who also served as Los Angeles police chief from 2002 to 2009).

The idea has taken hold in police departments around the U.S. But some researchers have worried that this kind of policing can have a detrimental effect in the communities it targets.

“A serious concern is that proactive policing diverts finite resources and attention away from investigative units, including detectives working to track down serial offenders and break up criminal networks,” the authors point out. “Proactive policing also disrupts communal life, which can drain social control of group-level violence. Citizens are arrested, unauthorized markets are disrupted, and people lose their jobs, all of which create more localized stress on individuals already living on the edge. Such strains are imposed directly through proactive policing, and thus are independent from subsequent judgments of guilt or innocence.”

Either way, these arguments are hard to test, because the cause-and-effect of policing and crime are difficult to tease apart.

“Police officers target their efforts at areas where crime is anticipated and/or where they expect enforcement will be most effective,” they wrote. “Simultaneously, citizens decide to comply with the law or commit crime partly on the basis of police deployment and enforcement strategies. In other words, policing and crime are endogenous to unobservable strategic interaction, which frustrates causal analysis.”

That changed over the course of several weeks in late 2014 and early 2015. After a jury declined to indict the officers involved in the fatal chokehold of Eric Garner in Staten Island, the NYPD held a work “slowdown” for about seven weeks as political conflict between protesters, Mayor Bill de Blasio and the city’s police unions intensified.

Legally, police officers can’t strike. But they can “work-to-rule,” doing only the most necessary duties. They responded to calls only in pairs, left their squad cars only if they felt compelled, and did not perform certain proactive policing tactics, such as getting out of their vehicles to issue summonses or arrest people for petty crimes and misdemeanors. The officers were ultimately ordered to return to work by Jan. 16, 2015.

This sudden slowdown provided researchers an opportunity to answer the question: Did crime rates go up when proactive policing went down?

“This makes for a unique natural experiment to identify the causal effects of changing police practices,” the authors wrote.

The scientists filed Freedom of Information Act requests for a large set of NYPD CompStat reports from 2013 to 2016. These reports describe the weekly activity for each NYPD precinct, including: “Criminal summonses” for penal law violations such as public alcohol consumption and disorderly conduct; “Stop, question and frisks” or SQFs; “Non-major crime arrests,” the vast majority of which are misdemeanors; and “Major crime complaints,” such as murder, rape, robbery and felony assault.

During the slowdown, the researchers found that police dramatically reduced the number of criminal summonses and SQFs — a confirmation that, indeed, the low-level proactive policing activities had gone down. Non-major crime arrests also took a dip. So did narcotics arrests.

So, with the drop in relatively low-level police activity, what happened to serious crime in the city? The scientists found that civilian complaints of major crimes dropped by about 3% to 6% during the slowdown.

“The cessation of proactive policing corresponds roughly to the relative decline in crime that earlier research attributed to the effects of mass incarceration,” the authors noted.

The researchers ran the analysis under a couple other models, and the results still held. They examined whether crime underreporting could have biased the findings, and the results still held.

“While we cannot entirely rule out the effects of under-reporting,” the authors wrote, “our results show that crime complaints decreased, rather than increased, during a slowdown in proactive policing, contrary to deterrence theory.”

Each week during the slowdown saw civilians report an estimated 43 fewer felony assaults, 40 fewer burglaries and 40 fewer acts of grand larceny. And this slight suppression of major crime rates actually continued for seven to 14 weeks after those drops in proactive policing — which led the researchers to estimate that overall, the slowdown resulted in about 2,100 fewer major-crimes complaints.

The broken windows theory posits that fighting smaller crimes helps to prevent the larger ones. But in this case, it seems that the opposite may have been true.

“In their efforts to increase civilian compliance, certain policing tactics may inadvertently contribute to serious criminal activity,” the researchers wrote. “The implications for understanding policing in a democratic society should not be understated.”

The findings show that experts may need to reconsider their assumptions about what is and isn’t effective in law enforcement practices, the authors said.

“Our results imply not only that these tactics fail at their stated objective of reducing major legal violations, but also that the initial deployment of proactive policing can inspire additional crimes that later provide justification for further increasing police stops, summonses and so on,” the authors wrote.

The researchers also noted that proactive policing is often used disproportionately in communities with high poverty rates and large numbers of people of color.

“The vicious feedback between proactive policing and major crime can exacerbate political and economic inequality across communities,” they said. “In the absence of reliable evidence of the effectiveness of proactive policing, it is time to consider how proactive policing reform might reduce crime and increase well-being in the most heavily policed communities.”

In a commentary, David Weisburd of George Mason University pointed out that the study’s conclusions should be limited to a specific subset of proactive policing tactics.

“Certainly, this evidence should not be generalized across the broad array of proactive policing strategies,” said Weisburd, who was not involved in the paper. “It is limited to a very specific approach applied very broadly in a large urban area.

“But at the same time, as the authors note, they have capitalized on an interesting natural experiment that allows them to overcome the causal limitations of previous non-experimental work,” he added. “This is well-done social science, and in this context the results have strong weight.”

Still, he added, this isn’t a randomized experiment, and so the results aren’t entirely clear. Not every potential unknown could be nailed down in a “natural experiment” such as this. For example, even during the slowdown, did the police continue their practice of identifying and focusing on crime hot spots?

“My point is simply that we don’t know what the shock actually tells us because we don’t have a detailed understanding of what the police were doing,” Weisburd wrote. “This gap suggests that we need experimental evidence of the impacts of proactivity at the jurisdictional level. Non-experimental studies simply cannot overcome the myriad threats to the causal interpretation of the findings.”

Setting up large-scale policing experiments is a difficult and expensive operation, he said — but it’s increasingly looking like a necessary step to understand which practices really makes cities safer.

“The first law of treatment is ‘do no harm’,” Weisburd wrote. “[The authors] suggest that generalized enforcement of low-level offenses does just that. We have a moral imperative to carry out well-designed experimental studies that can give us unambiguous answers to this important policy question.”

To throw it in, Nature as a publisher puts out a lot of highly cited peer reviewed journal content. So the research made its way past a strong peer review and onto the pages of a good publication. The article alludes to the limitations of the study, but it's an interesting one especially during current "defund" discourse. It's fresh in my memory because I referenced it on the latest podcast episode .

[Fat Kat]

Read on Twitter

[Fat Kat]

Read on Twitter

[HarthorneWingo]

Read on Twitter

I do have to say that I am impressed with he number of caucasians I've seen getting smacked around in the name of the Black Lives Matter movement. We're earning our stripes!

[HarthorneWingo]

Speaking of Atlanta's staffing issue, I ran low on time but covered a story about the NYPD protesting Deblasio a while back by cutting their proactive policing. Crime complaints actually dropped rather than increasing in that case. Caveat being that this more or less focuses on Broken Windows policing, but that's also what a lot of defund proponents set as a key marker for the strategy. Here's the story

https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-proactive-policing-crime-20170925-story.html

When New York police officers temporarily reduced their “proactive policing” efforts on low-level offenses, major-crime reports in the city actually fell, according to a study based on New York Police Department crime statistics.

The findings, published in the journal Nature Human Behaviour, put a crack in the “broken windows” theory of policing that has become a mainstay of many urban police departments.

“Order maintenance policing,” a type of proactive policing, is informed by the ‘broken windows’ theory — the idea that by fighting smaller crimes, it’s possible to create a ‘lawful’ environment that helps deter the more serious crimes. It’s an idea that was put to use in the 1990s by former New York City Police Commissioner William Bratton (who also served as Los Angeles police chief from 2002 to 2009).

The idea has taken hold in police departments around the U.S. But some researchers have worried that this kind of policing can have a detrimental effect in the communities it targets.

“A serious concern is that proactive policing diverts finite resources and attention away from investigative units, including detectives working to track down serial offenders and break up criminal networks,” the authors point out. “Proactive policing also disrupts communal life, which can drain social control of group-level violence. Citizens are arrested, unauthorized markets are disrupted, and people lose their jobs, all of which create more localized stress on individuals already living on the edge. Such strains are imposed directly through proactive policing, and thus are independent from subsequent judgments of guilt or innocence.”

Either way, these arguments are hard to test, because the cause-and-effect of policing and crime are difficult to tease apart.

“Police officers target their efforts at areas where crime is anticipated and/or where they expect enforcement will be most effective,” they wrote. “Simultaneously, citizens decide to comply with the law or commit crime partly on the basis of police deployment and enforcement strategies. In other words, policing and crime are endogenous to unobservable strategic interaction, which frustrates causal analysis.”

That changed over the course of several weeks in late 2014 and early 2015. After a jury declined to indict the officers involved in the fatal chokehold of Eric Garner in Staten Island, the NYPD held a work “slowdown” for about seven weeks as political conflict between protesters, Mayor Bill de Blasio and the city’s police unions intensified.

Legally, police officers can’t strike. But they can “work-to-rule,” doing only the most necessary duties. They responded to calls only in pairs, left their squad cars only if they felt compelled, and did not perform certain proactive policing tactics, such as getting out of their vehicles to issue summonses or arrest people for petty crimes and misdemeanors. The officers were ultimately ordered to return to work by Jan. 16, 2015.

This sudden slowdown provided researchers an opportunity to answer the question: Did crime rates go up when proactive policing went down?

“This makes for a unique natural experiment to identify the causal effects of changing police practices,” the authors wrote.

The scientists filed Freedom of Information Act requests for a large set of NYPD CompStat reports from 2013 to 2016. These reports describe the weekly activity for each NYPD precinct, including: “Criminal summonses” for penal law violations such as public alcohol consumption and disorderly conduct; “Stop, question and frisks” or SQFs; “Non-major crime arrests,” the vast majority of which are misdemeanors; and “Major crime complaints,” such as murder, rape, robbery and felony assault.

During the slowdown, the researchers found that police dramatically reduced the number of criminal summonses and SQFs — a confirmation that, indeed, the low-level proactive policing activities had gone down. Non-major crime arrests also took a dip. So did narcotics arrests.

So, with the drop in relatively low-level police activity, what happened to serious crime in the city? The scientists found that civilian complaints of major crimes dropped by about 3% to 6% during the slowdown.

“The cessation of proactive policing corresponds roughly to the relative decline in crime that earlier research attributed to the effects of mass incarceration,” the authors noted.

The researchers ran the analysis under a couple other models, and the results still held. They examined whether crime underreporting could have biased the findings, and the results still held.

“While we cannot entirely rule out the effects of under-reporting,” the authors wrote, “our results show that crime complaints decreased, rather than increased, during a slowdown in proactive policing, contrary to deterrence theory.”

Each week during the slowdown saw civilians report an estimated 43 fewer felony assaults, 40 fewer burglaries and 40 fewer acts of grand larceny. And this slight suppression of major crime rates actually continued for seven to 14 weeks after those drops in proactive policing — which led the researchers to estimate that overall, the slowdown resulted in about 2,100 fewer major-crimes complaints.

The broken windows theory posits that fighting smaller crimes helps to prevent the larger ones. But in this case, it seems that the opposite may have been true.

“In their efforts to increase civilian compliance, certain policing tactics may inadvertently contribute to serious criminal activity,” the researchers wrote. “The implications for understanding policing in a democratic society should not be understated.”

The findings show that experts may need to reconsider their assumptions about what is and isn’t effective in law enforcement practices, the authors said.

“Our results imply not only that these tactics fail at their stated objective of reducing major legal violations, but also that the initial deployment of proactive policing can inspire additional crimes that later provide justification for further increasing police stops, summonses and so on,” the authors wrote.

The researchers also noted that proactive policing is often used disproportionately in communities with high poverty rates and large numbers of people of color.

“The vicious feedback between proactive policing and major crime can exacerbate political and economic inequality across communities,” they said. “In the absence of reliable evidence of the effectiveness of proactive policing, it is time to consider how proactive policing reform might reduce crime and increase well-being in the most heavily policed communities.”

In a commentary, David Weisburd of George Mason University pointed out that the study’s conclusions should be limited to a specific subset of proactive policing tactics.

“Certainly, this evidence should not be generalized across the broad array of proactive policing strategies,” said Weisburd, who was not involved in the paper. “It is limited to a very specific approach applied very broadly in a large urban area.

“But at the same time, as the authors note, they have capitalized on an interesting natural experiment that allows them to overcome the causal limitations of previous non-experimental work,” he added. “This is well-done social science, and in this context the results have strong weight.”

Still, he added, this isn’t a randomized experiment, and so the results aren’t entirely clear. Not every potential unknown could be nailed down in a “natural experiment” such as this. For example, even during the slowdown, did the police continue their practice of identifying and focusing on crime hot spots?

“My point is simply that we don’t know what the shock actually tells us because we don’t have a detailed understanding of what the police were doing,” Weisburd wrote. “This gap suggests that we need experimental evidence of the impacts of proactivity at the jurisdictional level. Non-experimental studies simply cannot overcome the myriad threats to the causal interpretation of the findings.”

Setting up large-scale policing experiments is a difficult and expensive operation, he said — but it’s increasingly looking like a necessary step to understand which practices really makes cities safer.

“The first law of treatment is ‘do no harm’,” Weisburd wrote. “[The authors] suggest that generalized enforcement of low-level offenses does just that. We have a moral imperative to carry out well-designed experimental studies that can give us unambiguous answers to this important policy question.”

To throw it in, Nature as a publisher puts out a lot of highly cited peer reviewed journal content. So the research made its way past a strong peer review and onto the pages of a good publication. The article alludes to the limitations of the study, but it's an interesting one especially during current "defund" discourse. It's fresh in my memory because I referenced it on the latest podcast episode .

Build it and they will come

[BallSacBounce]

Officer definitely should face serious consequences for shooting and killing him. But the guy definitely should have been arrested. Passed out drunk in the drive thru lane. Some family/person is lucky he wasn’t on the highway.

Drunk drivers have affected parts of my family multiple times. Feel bad the man was killed. Had no problem with the officers cuffing him tho

What serious consequences do you think he should face? The suspect fought the officers trying to arrest him, grabbed a taser, ran and then turned around to shoot it at the pursuing officer.

In Georgia apparently a taser is considered a deadly weapon, according to what the DA said two weeks ago and who was also the one who charged the officer. This reeks of political BS mob justice.

Hey, there could be details that turn it from being justified to unjustified but I've yet to hear them. Do you know of any?

There are a ton of things I'd like to see changed with policing. Qualified immunity, no-knock warrants, civil forfeiture and a greater emphasis on techniques recognizing that police are dealing with humans and not a something that needs to be handled.

In this case though I'm not seeing the problem legally for the officer.

[robillionaire]

Officer definitely should face serious consequences for shooting and killing him. But the guy definitely should have been arrested. Passed out drunk in the drive thru lane. Some family/person is lucky he wasn’t on the highway.

Drunk drivers have affected parts of my family multiple times. Feel bad the man was killed. Had no problem with the officers cuffing him tho

What serious consequences do you think he should face? The suspect fought the officers trying to arrest him, grabbed a taser, ran and then turned around to shoot it at the pursuing officer.

In Georgia apparently a taser is considered a deadly weapon, according to what the DA said two weeks ago and who was also the one who charged the officer. This reeks of political BS mob justice.

Hey, there could be details that turn it from being justified to unjustified but I've yet to hear them. Do you know of any?

There are a ton of things I'd like to see changed with policing. Qualified immunity, no-knock warrants, civil forfeiture and a greater emphasis on techniques recognizing that police are dealing with humans and not a something that needs to be handled.

In this case though I'm not seeing the problem legally for the officer.

We see the police use tasers on unarmed people who are posing no dangerous threat all the time but now the taser a lethal weapon. Well ok, if he gets off on the grounds that a taser is a lethal weapon they should be forced to treat it that way and ban their use on civilians by police unless there’s a deadly threat basically put it in the same category as a gun

[Jkam31]

Officer definitely should face serious consequences for shooting and killing him. But the guy definitely should have been arrested. Passed out drunk in the drive thru lane. Some family/person is lucky he wasn’t on the highway.

Drunk drivers have affected parts of my family multiple times. Feel bad the man was killed. Had no problem with the officers cuffing him tho

What serious consequences do you think he should face? The suspect fought the officers trying to arrest him, grabbed a taser, ran and then turned around to shoot it at the pursuing officer.

In Georgia apparently a taser is considered a deadly weapon, according to what the DA said two weeks ago and who was also the one who charged the officer. This reeks of political BS mob justice.

Hey, there could be details that turn it from being justified to unjustified but I've yet to hear them. Do you know of any?

There are a ton of things I'd like to see changed with policing. Qualified immunity, no-knock warrants, civil forfeiture and a greater emphasis on techniques recognizing that police are dealing with humans and not a something that needs to be handled.

In this case though I'm not seeing the problem legally for the officer.

Dudes trying to get re-elected by the time the officer is found not guilty the pressure on the DA will be long gone. People still fall for this ****, if someone is trying there case through the media they don’t have a strong case at all.

[ITGM]

Read on Twitter

It use to be said there were only a few bad apples. Apparently, there were only a few good apples.

#WeedThemOut

[BallSacBounce]

Officer definitely should face serious consequences for shooting and killing him. But the guy definitely should have been arrested. Passed out drunk in the drive thru lane. Some family/person is lucky he wasn’t on the highway.

Drunk drivers have affected parts of my family multiple times. Feel bad the man was killed. Had no problem with the officers cuffing him tho

What serious consequences do you think he should face? The suspect fought the officers trying to arrest him, grabbed a taser, ran and then turned around to shoot it at the pursuing officer.

In Georgia apparently a taser is considered a deadly weapon, according to what the DA said two weeks ago and who was also the one who charged the officer. This reeks of political BS mob justice.

Hey, there could be details that turn it from being justified to unjustified but I've yet to hear them. Do you know of any?

There are a ton of things I'd like to see changed with policing. Qualified immunity, no-knock warrants, civil forfeiture and a greater emphasis on techniques recognizing that police are dealing with humans and not a something that needs to be handled.

In this case though I'm not seeing the problem legally for the officer.

We see the police use tasers on unarmed people who are posing no dangerous threat all the time but now the taser a lethal weapon. Well ok, if he gets off on the grounds that a taser is a lethal weapon they should be forced to treat it that way and ban their use on civilians by police unless there’s a deadly threat basically put it in the same category as a gun

I'm fine with that. Don't happen to like teasers as I do consider them something that occasionally can cause a death and could easily cause great harm to an eye if a mistake is made.

What do you do then when he runs away, catch him later? I'd be ok with that if the officer does not have reason to believe he's been involved with a violent felony?

What about when he is fighting the officers on the ground? At what point do you think an officer should assume his life could be in danger?

[ny-n-md]

Officer definitely should face serious consequences for shooting and killing him. But the guy definitely should have been arrested. Passed out drunk in the drive thru lane. Some family/person is lucky he wasn’t on the highway.

Drunk drivers have affected parts of my family multiple times. Feel bad the man was killed. Had no problem with the officers cuffing him tho

What serious consequences do you think he should face? The suspect fought the officers trying to arrest him, grabbed a taser, ran and then turned around to shoot it at the pursuing officer.

In Georgia apparently a taser is considered a deadly weapon, according to what the DA said two weeks ago and who was also the one who charged the officer. This reeks of political BS mob justice.

Hey, there could be details that turn it from being justified to unjustified but I've yet to hear them. Do you know of any?

There are a ton of things I'd like to see changed with policing. Qualified immunity, no-knock warrants, civil forfeiture and a greater emphasis on techniques recognizing that police are dealing with humans and not a something that needs to be handled.

In this case though I'm not seeing the problem legally for the officer.

We see the police use tasers on unarmed people who are posing no dangerous threat all the time but now the taser a lethal weapon. Well ok, if he gets off on the grounds that a taser is a lethal weapon they should be forced to treat it that way and ban their use on civilians by police unless there’s a deadly threat basically put it in the same category as a gun

Dope post. It’s really sad that such police encounters escalate to the suspect ending up dead. I’ve read where the taser had already fired its only 2 rounds and the officer was aware of that which really means there was no threat from the taser.

[Knicksfan20]

So you guys don’t realize this whole thing was staged yet? Surprised the conspiracy thread isn’t active right now with all the evil that is and has been going on behind closed doors.