OT: Derek Chauvin Verdict Is In

[cgmw]

They were (1) more affluent voters, and (2) came from counties where Biden won.

I think most people, like me, just assumed they were low income white blue collar workers from rural America who believe that they’ve benn disaffected by the growth of minority population here. That would make some sense to me bc that group has been the target of propaganda from conservative media and they’re not as educated.

That’s what threw me off. That’s pretty deep.

Spend some time near any body of water in south Florida and you’ll never be surprised again at the bigoted stupidity of middle-aged white men with a little bit of money.

[HarthorneWingo]

They were (1) more affluent voters, and (2) came from counties where Biden won.

I think most people, like me, just assumed they were low income white blue collar workers from rural America who believe that they’ve benn disaffected by the growth of minority population here. That would make some sense to me bc that group has been the target of propaganda from conservative media and they’re not as educated.

That’s what threw me off. That’s pretty deep.

Spend some time near any body of water in south Florida and you’ll never be surprised again at the bigoted stupidity of middle-aged white men with a little bit of money.

Good point.

[Fat Kat]

Read on Twitter

[thebuzzardman]

Getting better qualified applicants is only one of the many things that need to be addressed. Many cops do serve in the military as reserves and I’m sure that many former military personnel enter law enforcement.

It’s all about properly vetting them, training the better and longer (3 months is not nearly enough), supervising them better, and holding them accountable in a transparent way so the public knows what’s going on.

I would also recommend that a civilian-run police disciplinary board - with subpoena power - be put into law.

Then there’s reallocating money from the police budget to other departments which are better equipped to respond to certain situations like mental health incident and domestic violence complaints.

I think having former military become police is just a terrible idea

Soldiers kind of need a shoot-first attitude, because their job by nature is to be in hostile environments where people are trying to kill them. Police having this mentality is a big part of the problem, because most of the time, they're not in that type of environment.

I agree, terrible idea unless the goal is to live in a military junta. Furthermore the military regularly kills civilians so even the premise is flawed

Sorry to bump an old-ish series of responses, but I see severall "off" replies here by K-DOT and Robillionaire. And even Wingo, to a degree.

First off, I don't necessarily think soldiers make better policeman than people without that experience. They also don't necessarily make worse ones.

Police departments are quasi military organizations, in that they are armed, have a structure and are supposed to adhere to certain rules, while they enforce the laws of their jurisdiction. Please note for the discussion I'm aware of the vast difference in how militaries are supposed to act - in general and not in occupation/peace keeping mode, and what the theoretical purpose of police departments is.

What MIGHT give prior military people some ability to be better police is that they've proven - to some degree - these are always generalizations - is to be able to function in an organization that requires some level of discipline, rule following and is fairly structured and ordered by rank - things that are somewhat present in police departments.

The statement that soldiers are trained to "shoot first/ask questions later" is false. Sure, violence of action for certain situations it taught, but so is restraint and discipline - especially soldiers who were getting tuned to fight in an occupation/counter insurgency environment.

Also, "prior military" is a VAST collection of people. Some have a LOT of combat experience. Some have a little. Some have none. Some have stressful jobs/hard jobs/combat arms jobs, others are desk jockeys with a funny outfit.

What might be an issue is PTSD veterans (undiagnosed) finding their way into departments. On the other hand, for insurance/safety reasons, if any solider has a PTSD file from their service, MANY departments will flag that and not hire them. I had a friend, a combat vet, a VERY reasonable guy, but who made the mistake of taking the military on their word it was "ok" to talk about having PTSD (which he must surely has) and it kept him from getting into a police department job he really wanted, so he could be close to his elderly parents.

Wingo in on base that most of it comes down to proper vetting and civilian oversight that is properly enabled.

Final points. A lot of knuckleheads become cops. A lot of cops are just fine. There are enough cops with various levels of racism, because I'm describing the entire country - they reflect it.

Most salient final point: While there are bad cops, what they are doing is enforcing the laws and policies the majority of people in the country have either signed up for, or let politicians convince them they want. Police ENFORCE laws, not make them. We should be looking more at the laws and less at the cops, though of course a discussion about how to get rid of bad cops is absolutely necessary.

[robillionaire]

I think having former military become police is just a terrible idea

Soldiers kind of need a shoot-first attitude, because their job by nature is to be in hostile environments where people are trying to kill them. Police having this mentality is a big part of the problem, because most of the time, they're not in that type of environment.

I agree, terrible idea unless the goal is to live in a military junta. Furthermore the military regularly kills civilians so even the premise is flawed

Sorry to bump an old-ish series of responses, but I see severall "off" replies here by K-DOT and Robillionaire. And even Wingo, to a degree.

First off, I don't necessarily think soldiers make better policeman than people without that experience. They also don't necessarily make worse ones.

Police departments are quasi military organizations, in that they are armed, have a structure and are supposed to adhere to certain rules, while they enforce the laws of their jurisdiction. Please note for the discussion I'm aware of the vast difference in how militaries are supposed to act - in general and not in occupation/peace keeping mode, and what the theoretical purpose of police departments is.

What MIGHT give prior military people some ability to be better police is that they've proven - to some degree - these are always generalizations - is to be able to function in an organization that requires some level of discipline, rule following and is fairly structured and ordered by rank - things that are somewhat present in police departments.

The statement that soldiers are trained to "shoot first/ask questions later" is false. Sure, violence of action for certain situations it taught, but so is restraint and discipline - especially soldiers who were getting tuned to fight in an occupation/counter insurgency environment.

Also, "prior military" is a VAST collection of people. Some have a LOT of combat experience. Some have a little. Some have none. Some have stressful jobs/hard jobs/combat arms jobs, others are desk jockeys with a funny outfit.

What might be an issue is PTSD veterans (undiagnosed) finding their way into departments. On the other hand, for insurance/safety reasons, if any solider has a PTSD file from their service, MANY departments will flag that and not hire them. I had a friend, a combat vet, a VERY reasonable guy, but who made the mistake of taking the military on their word it was "ok" to talk about having PTSD (which he must surely has) and it kept him from getting into a police department job he really wanted, so he could be close to his elderly parents.

Wingo in on base that most of it comes down to proper vetting and civilian oversight that is properly enabled.

Final points. A lot of knuckleheads become cops. A lot of cops are just fine. There are enough cops with various levels of racism, because I'm describing the entire country - they reflect it.

Most salient final point: While there are bad cops, what they are doing is enforcing the laws and policies the majority of people in the country have either signed up for, or let politicians convince them they want. Police ENFORCE laws, not make them. We should be looking more at the laws and less at the cops, though of course a discussion about how to get rid of bad cops is absolutely necessary.

Which kind of laws specifically are you talking about that you think need to be looked at? I agree with what you're saying somewhat as I agree I don't think specific "bad cops" is the primary issue nor do I think "more training" is the issue, and certainly not a lack of funding. So I agree, the issue is something more systemic. It doesn't matter who you put in these roles, the outcomes will ultimately be the same unless you make some fundamental changes to the system. You go on to mention cops ENFORCE laws, but I would also say the enforcement of laws is also part of the larger systemic issue that can't be separated from the whole. They are enforcing in targeted disproportionate and unnecessarily brutal ways and they are quick to kill people without showing proper restraint, and often have no accountability for it. Now maybe you're talking about looking at laws that pertain to the enforcement of laws and what they are permitted to do to while enforcing laws and in that case I'd still say that we're ultimately discussing enforcement (cops) in a roundabout way. For example when Eric Garner got strangled to death for being accused of selling cigarettes after he told them he couldn't breathe 11 times during a chokehold that was already prohibited by the NYPD, and the cop got off scot free and kept being a cop for 5 more years, my first reaction wasn't trying to tackle cigarette laws, because the cops were just enforcing the laws that we all signed up for. I don't think this is what you're suggesting either but I was unsure. They did eventually pass an anti-chokehold act that would make it a felony for police to injure or kill someone via chokehold, but again I would say a "law" like this specifically addresses the enforcement of laws. So I don't see how you can divorce "laws" vs. "enforcement" here, I would say they go hand in hand and both have problems.

As far as the rest of what you said I'm not sure exactly which part of my quoted comment you thought was off since you didn't address it (do you deny civilian casualties?) but my outlook is the police need to be less like an occupying military force, I would support de-militarization of the police, not making them further militarized. Not to say former military wouldn't be capable of doing the job on a person to person basis (your first point, which I agree with) but I don't think making the police effectively a branch of the military should be a goal

[thebuzzardman]

I agree, terrible idea unless the goal is to live in a military junta. Furthermore the military regularly kills civilians so even the premise is flawed

Sorry to bump an old-ish series of responses, but I see severall "off" replies here by K-DOT and Robillionaire. And even Wingo, to a degree.

First off, I don't necessarily think soldiers make better policeman than people without that experience. They also don't necessarily make worse ones.

Police departments are quasi military organizations, in that they are armed, have a structure and are supposed to adhere to certain rules, while they enforce the laws of their jurisdiction. Please note for the discussion I'm aware of the vast difference in how militaries are supposed to act - in general and not in occupation/peace keeping mode, and what the theoretical purpose of police departments is.

What MIGHT give prior military people some ability to be better police is that they've proven - to some degree - these are always generalizations - is to be able to function in an organization that requires some level of discipline, rule following and is fairly structured and ordered by rank - things that are somewhat present in police departments.

The statement that soldiers are trained to "shoot first/ask questions later" is false. Sure, violence of action for certain situations it taught, but so is restraint and discipline - especially soldiers who were getting tuned to fight in an occupation/counter insurgency environment.

Also, "prior military" is a VAST collection of people. Some have a LOT of combat experience. Some have a little. Some have none. Some have stressful jobs/hard jobs/combat arms jobs, others are desk jockeys with a funny outfit.

What might be an issue is PTSD veterans (undiagnosed) finding their way into departments. On the other hand, for insurance/safety reasons, if any solider has a PTSD file from their service, MANY departments will flag that and not hire them. I had a friend, a combat vet, a VERY reasonable guy, but who made the mistake of taking the military on their word it was "ok" to talk about having PTSD (which he must surely has) and it kept him from getting into a police department job he really wanted, so he could be close to his elderly parents.

Wingo in on base that most of it comes down to proper vetting and civilian oversight that is properly enabled.

Final points. A lot of knuckleheads become cops. A lot of cops are just fine. There are enough cops with various levels of racism, because I'm describing the entire country - they reflect it.

Most salient final point: While there are bad cops, what they are doing is enforcing the laws and policies the majority of people in the country have either signed up for, or let politicians convince them they want. Police ENFORCE laws, not make them. We should be looking more at the laws and less at the cops, though of course a discussion about how to get rid of bad cops is absolutely necessary.

Which kind of laws specifically are you talking about that you think need to be looked at? I agree with what you're saying somewhat as I agree I don't think specific "bad cops" is the primary issue nor do I think "more training" is the issue, and certainly not a lack of funding. So I agree, the issue is something more systemic. It doesn't matter who you put in these roles, the outcomes will ultimately be the same unless you make some fundamental changes to the system. You go on to mention cops ENFORCE laws, but I would also say the enforcement of laws is also part of the larger systemic issue that can't be separated from the whole. They are enforcing in targeted disproportionate and unnecessarily brutal ways and they are quick to kill people without showing proper restraint, and often have no accountability for it. Now maybe you're talking about looking at laws that pertain to the enforcement of laws and what they are permitted to do to while enforcing laws and in that case I'd still say that we're ultimately discussing enforcement (cops) in a roundabout way. For example when Eric Garner got strangled to death for being accused of selling cigarettes after he told them he couldn't breathe 11 times during a chokehold that was already prohibited by the NYPD, and the cop got off scot free and kept being a cop for 5 more years, my first reaction wasn't trying to tackle cigarette laws, because the cops were just enforcing the laws that we all signed up for. I don't think this is what you're suggesting either but I was unsure. They did eventually pass an anti-chokehold act that would make it a felony for police to injure or kill someone via chokehold, but again I would say a "law" like this specifically addresses the enforcement of laws. So I don't see how you can divorce "laws" vs. "enforcement" here, I would say they go hand in hand and both have problems.

As far as the rest of what you said I'm not sure exactly which part of my quoted comment you thought was off since you didn't address it (do you deny civilian casualties?) but my outlook is the police need to be less like an occupying military force, I would support de-militarization of the police, not making them further militarized. Not to say former military wouldn't be capable of doing the job on a person to person basis (your first point, which I agree with) but I don't think making the police effectively a branch of the military should be a goal

I think K-DOT's issue about military people in the police being the issue was my main issue.

I do think more training would help, but that's probably pretty low on the list Maybe even last.

How police are allowed to enforce laws I think might get covered over proper civilian review - that totally relates to the Garner thing. That would be one huge change to the system.

There's no one answer, because there are a number of things that need to be addressed. But the drug laws that create a lot of the incarceration state and the nuisance laws that municipalities use to fund themselves on the backs of the poor/minorities, if they were removed, would, I think, dis-incentivize a lot of the bad behavior. Changing those laws would be another huge change to the system.

Obviously, as has been covered in the BLM protests, the nature of how we police our citizens and what money goes where and to who are huge systemic changes that need to be addressed - more for mental health, rehab, less for "throw them in jail" etc.

Also, maybe I thought you stated something about the militarization of the police having to do with ex servicemen in it - I'm being a little lazy, because I don't want to re-read every comment. I think the militarization of the police is the result of some awful hybrid of post 9/11 paranoia and funding PLUS the "war on drugs". The departments are encouraged to "armor up" via money & equipment from the federal government and then, lets face it, most departments don't really have a use for that kind of gear.
So, they use that gear where they can - the so called "war on drugs", because there is 40 years of rhetoric demonizing drug users and also because they are AGAIN incentivized to seize assets, both under local laws and federal matching dollars, particularly when federal agents are involved. And the Feds get a cut there too.

I don't that the two things above totally solve the situation where a lot of Americans have been taught to look down on lower working class/poor Americans as "losers and criminals" which the the police then have that attitude X10, but I think they would go a long way.

I don't really have the time to write out all the causes and possible solutions - I mean, this stuff takes up multiple books, probably best covered in "New Jim Crow", "Chasing The Scream" and "Dog Whistle Politics", if I could take 3 books that captures a lot of the mess.

[HarthorneWingo]

I think having former military become police is just a terrible idea

Soldiers kind of need a shoot-first attitude, because their job by nature is to be in hostile environments where people are trying to kill them. Police having this mentality is a big part of the problem, because most of the time, they're not in that type of environment.

I agree, terrible idea unless the goal is to live in a military junta. Furthermore the military regularly kills civilians so even the premise is flawed

Sorry to bump an old-ish series of responses, but I see severall "off" replies here by K-DOT and Robillionaire. And even Wingo, to a degree.

First off, I don't necessarily think soldiers make better policeman than people without that experience. They also don't necessarily make worse ones.

Police departments are quasi military organizations, in that they are armed, have a structure and are supposed to adhere to certain rules, while they enforce the laws of their jurisdiction. Please note for the discussion I'm aware of the vast difference in how militaries are supposed to act - in general and not in occupation/peace keeping mode, and what the theoretical purpose of police departments is.

What MIGHT give prior military people some ability to be better police is that they've proven - to some degree - these are always generalizations - is to be able to function in an organization that requires some level of discipline, rule following and is fairly structured and ordered by rank - things that are somewhat present in police departments.

The statement that soldiers are trained to "shoot first/ask questions later" is false. Sure, violence of action for certain situations it taught, but so is restraint and discipline - especially soldiers who were getting tuned to fight in an occupation/counter insurgency environment.

Also, "prior military" is a VAST collection of people. Some have a LOT of combat experience. Some have a little. Some have none. Some have stressful jobs/hard jobs/combat arms jobs, others are desk jockeys with a funny outfit.

What might be an issue is PTSD veterans (undiagnosed) finding their way into departments. On the other hand, for insurance/safety reasons, if any solider has a PTSD file from their service, MANY departments will flag that and not hire them. I had a friend, a combat vet, a VERY reasonable guy, but who made the mistake of taking the military on their word it was "ok" to talk about having PTSD (which he must surely has) and it kept him from getting into a police department job he really wanted, so he could be close to his elderly parents.

Wingo in on base that most of it comes down to proper vetting and civilian oversight that is properly enabled.

Final points. A lot of knuckleheads become cops. A lot of cops are just fine. There are enough cops with various levels of racism, because I'm describing the entire country - they reflect it.

Most salient final point: While there are bad cops, what they are doing is enforcing the laws and policies the majority of people in the country have either signed up for, or let politicians convince them they want. Police ENFORCE laws, not make them. We should be looking more at the laws and less at the cops, though of course a discussion about how to get rid of bad cops is absolutely necessary.

I agree with everything you wrote about hiring former military personnel as cops.

I’d like to understand better your point about “looking at the laws” as opposed to the cops.” While I believe that we need to revamp how we use and dispatch police in response to certain incidents, such as most traffic, domestic violence and mental health cases, we need to address the culture in PDs. And that can’t change until we address the lack of training, oversight, transparency, and accountability.

Oh so my question to you is what role do unions play in the disciplining of military rank and file personnel and in establishing the process for bring and prosecuting disciplinary and/or criminal charges against them?

[thebuzzardman]

I agree, terrible idea unless the goal is to live in a military junta. Furthermore the military regularly kills civilians so even the premise is flawed

Sorry to bump an old-ish series of responses, but I see severall "off" replies here by K-DOT and Robillionaire. And even Wingo, to a degree.

First off, I don't necessarily think soldiers make better policeman than people without that experience. They also don't necessarily make worse ones.

Police departments are quasi military organizations, in that they are armed, have a structure and are supposed to adhere to certain rules, while they enforce the laws of their jurisdiction. Please note for the discussion I'm aware of the vast difference in how militaries are supposed to act - in general and not in occupation/peace keeping mode, and what the theoretical purpose of police departments is.

What MIGHT give prior military people some ability to be better police is that they've proven - to some degree - these are always generalizations - is to be able to function in an organization that requires some level of discipline, rule following and is fairly structured and ordered by rank - things that are somewhat present in police departments.

The statement that soldiers are trained to "shoot first/ask questions later" is false. Sure, violence of action for certain situations it taught, but so is restraint and discipline - especially soldiers who were getting tuned to fight in an occupation/counter insurgency environment.

Also, "prior military" is a VAST collection of people. Some have a LOT of combat experience. Some have a little. Some have none. Some have stressful jobs/hard jobs/combat arms jobs, others are desk jockeys with a funny outfit.

What might be an issue is PTSD veterans (undiagnosed) finding their way into departments. On the other hand, for insurance/safety reasons, if any solider has a PTSD file from their service, MANY departments will flag that and not hire them. I had a friend, a combat vet, a VERY reasonable guy, but who made the mistake of taking the military on their word it was "ok" to talk about having PTSD (which he must surely has) and it kept him from getting into a police department job he really wanted, so he could be close to his elderly parents.

Wingo in on base that most of it comes down to proper vetting and civilian oversight that is properly enabled.

Final points. A lot of knuckleheads become cops. A lot of cops are just fine. There are enough cops with various levels of racism, because I'm describing the entire country - they reflect it.

Most salient final point: While there are bad cops, what they are doing is enforcing the laws and policies the majority of people in the country have either signed up for, or let politicians convince them they want. Police ENFORCE laws, not make them. We should be looking more at the laws and less at the cops, though of course a discussion about how to get rid of bad cops is absolutely necessary.

I agree with everything you wrote about hiring former military personnel as cops.

I’d like to understand better your point about “looking at the laws” as opposed to the cops.” While I believe that we need to revamp how we use and dispatch police in response to certain incidents, such as most traffic, domestic violence and mental health cases, we need to address the culture in PDs. And that can’t change until we address the lack of training, oversight, transparency, and accountability.

Oh so my question to you is what role do unions play in the disciplining of military rank and file personnel and in establishing the process for bring and prosecuting disciplinary and/or criminal charges against them?

Hmm. I have a bit of multi part answer, I guess. Easier stuff first.

Culture change is vital for police forces, though I suspect some forces have worse cultures than others. I'll revisit culture in my last answer, though maybe not in way you'll suspect.

I think properly empowered civilian oversight of the departments can go a LONG way to altering the culture of the police, but it's probably not the only answer. I'm no expert here, at all.

I like to be pro union when I can. Unfortunately, some police unions operate as part of the problem, protecting "members" at all costs over any other consideration. I don't think the issue is unions per se.
Again, way out of my league, but lets take NYC police union. Notorious for always protecting the cops, no matter what, and the NYPD having "civilian oversight" but with no fangs, no ability to do anything except make noise.
My understanding of the evolution of this is that over the years, when contracts got renegotiated, the city didn't always want to come up the $ for raises, so expanded union power and shrunk civilian oversight instead. Others may be able to shine in on if this generalization is true.

Lets cover laws. I don't think there is any "chicken or egg" thing here. The laws don't exist in a vacuum. The country has a deeply ingrained racist history. That "past" either still exists outright and in other instances it's coded echoes exist all over the place. For various reasons of racism, fear, political expediency, a lot of the laws are written to keep things extra safe and orderly (and yeah, there are legit reasons for this and most people want that - when it's the real thing) but an awful lot of the drug and nuisance laws were specifically written to oppress minorities, even if some people don't realize that anymore. Just changing laws won't alter our entire culture, and cops are a byproduct of our culture - and also have their own, but real HONEST discussions about those laws, and getting rid of them, and altering our outlook on what we want to get policed FOR, I think would go a long way towards reducing bad behavior by cops themselves.

Like I said before, the answer is somewhat complicated, and the solution is several things, at least. Hopefully that last part clarifies what I meant around laws being possibly more of the issue than the police themselves, who have their own issues.

[HarthorneWingo]

Sorry to bump an old-ish series of responses, but I see severall "off" replies here by K-DOT and Robillionaire. And even Wingo, to a degree.

First off, I don't necessarily think soldiers make better policeman than people without that experience. They also don't necessarily make worse ones.

Police departments are quasi military organizations, in that they are armed, have a structure and are supposed to adhere to certain rules, while they enforce the laws of their jurisdiction. Please note for the discussion I'm aware of the vast difference in how militaries are supposed to act - in general and not in occupation/peace keeping mode, and what the theoretical purpose of police departments is.

What MIGHT give prior military people some ability to be better police is that they've proven - to some degree - these are always generalizations - is to be able to function in an organization that requires some level of discipline, rule following and is fairly structured and ordered by rank - things that are somewhat present in police departments.

The statement that soldiers are trained to "shoot first/ask questions later" is false. Sure, violence of action for certain situations it taught, but so is restraint and discipline - especially soldiers who were getting tuned to fight in an occupation/counter insurgency environment.

Also, "prior military" is a VAST collection of people. Some have a LOT of combat experience. Some have a little. Some have none. Some have stressful jobs/hard jobs/combat arms jobs, others are desk jockeys with a funny outfit.

What might be an issue is PTSD veterans (undiagnosed) finding their way into departments. On the other hand, for insurance/safety reasons, if any solider has a PTSD file from their service, MANY departments will flag that and not hire them. I had a friend, a combat vet, a VERY reasonable guy, but who made the mistake of taking the military on their word it was "ok" to talk about having PTSD (which he must surely has) and it kept him from getting into a police department job he really wanted, so he could be close to his elderly parents.

Wingo in on base that most of it comes down to proper vetting and civilian oversight that is properly enabled.

Final points. A lot of knuckleheads become cops. A lot of cops are just fine. There are enough cops with various levels of racism, because I'm describing the entire country - they reflect it.

Most salient final point: While there are bad cops, what they are doing is enforcing the laws and policies the majority of people in the country have either signed up for, or let politicians convince them they want. Police ENFORCE laws, not make them. We should be looking more at the laws and less at the cops, though of course a discussion about how to get rid of bad cops is absolutely necessary.

I agree with everything you wrote about hiring former military personnel as cops.

I’d like to understand better your point about “looking at the laws” as opposed to the cops.” While I believe that we need to revamp how we use and dispatch police in response to certain incidents, such as most traffic, domestic violence and mental health cases, we need to address the culture in PDs. And that can’t change until we address the lack of training, oversight, transparency, and accountability.

Oh so my question to you is what role do unions play in the disciplining of military rank and file personnel and in establishing the process for bring and prosecuting disciplinary and/or criminal charges against them?

Hmm. I have a bit of multi part answer, I guess. Easier stuff first.

Culture change is vital for police forces, though I suspect some forces have worse cultures than others. I'll revisit culture in my last answer, though maybe not in way you'll suspect.

I think properly empowered civilian oversight of the departments can go a LONG way to altering the culture of the police, but it's probably not the only answer. I'm no expert here, at all.

I like to be pro union when I can. Unfortunately, some police unions operate as part of the problem, protecting "members" at all costs over any other consideration. I don't think the issue is unions per se.
Again, way out of my league, but lets take NYC police union. Notorious for always protecting the cops, no matter what, and the NYPD having "civilian oversight" but with no fangs, no ability to do anything except make noise.

My understanding of the evolution of this is that over the years, when contracts got renegotiated, the city didn't always want to come up the $ for raises, so expanded union power and shrunk civilian oversight instead. Others may be able to shine in on if this generalization is true.

Lets cover laws. I don't think there is any "chicken or egg" thing here. The laws don't exist in a vacuum. The country has a deeply ingrained racist history. That "past" either still exists outright and in other instances it's coded echoes exist all over the place. For various reasons of racism, fear, political expediency, a lot of the laws are written to keep things extra safe and orderly (and yeah, there are legit reasons for this and most people want that - when it's the real thing) but an awful lot of the drug and nuisance laws were specifically written to oppress minorities, even if some people don't realize that anymore. Just changing laws won't alter our entire culture, and cops are a byproduct of our culture - and also have their own, but real HONEST discussions about those laws, and getting rid of them, and altering our outlook on what we want to get policed FOR, I think would go a long way towards reducing bad behavior by cops themselves.

Like I said before, the answer is somewhat complicated, and the solution is several things, at least. Hopefully that last part clarifies what I meant around laws being possibly more of the issue than the police themselves, who have their own issues.

I'll get to your other points later but I specifically want to learn whether the military had/has union representation that negotiates a CBA which contains provision concerning disciplinary actions, shifts, assignments, union oversight and approval over certain terms of employment/termination. Or are these issue addressed by federal regulations/statutues, etc.?

[thebuzzardman]

I agree with everything you wrote about hiring former military personnel as cops.

I’d like to understand better your point about “looking at the laws” as opposed to the cops.” While I believe that we need to revamp how we use and dispatch police in response to certain incidents, such as most traffic, domestic violence and mental health cases, we need to address the culture in PDs. And that can’t change until we address the lack of training, oversight, transparency, and accountability.

Oh so my question to you is what role do unions play in the disciplining of military rank and file personnel and in establishing the process for bring and prosecuting disciplinary and/or criminal charges against them?

Hmm. I have a bit of multi part answer, I guess. Easier stuff first.

Culture change is vital for police forces, though I suspect some forces have worse cultures than others. I'll revisit culture in my last answer, though maybe not in way you'll suspect.

I think properly empowered civilian oversight of the departments can go a LONG way to altering the culture of the police, but it's probably not the only answer. I'm no expert here, at all.

I like to be pro union when I can. Unfortunately, some police unions operate as part of the problem, protecting "members" at all costs over any other consideration. I don't think the issue is unions per se.
Again, way out of my league, but lets take NYC police union. Notorious for always protecting the cops, no matter what, and the NYPD having "civilian oversight" but with no fangs, no ability to do anything except make noise.

My understanding of the evolution of this is that over the years, when contracts got renegotiated, the city didn't always want to come up the $ for raises, so expanded union power and shrunk civilian oversight instead. Others may be able to shine in on if this generalization is true.

Lets cover laws. I don't think there is any "chicken or egg" thing here. The laws don't exist in a vacuum. The country has a deeply ingrained racist history. That "past" either still exists outright and in other instances it's coded echoes exist all over the place. For various reasons of racism, fear, political expediency, a lot of the laws are written to keep things extra safe and orderly (and yeah, there are legit reasons for this and most people want that - when it's the real thing) but an awful lot of the drug and nuisance laws were specifically written to oppress minorities, even if some people don't realize that anymore. Just changing laws won't alter our entire culture, and cops are a byproduct of our culture - and also have their own, but real HONEST discussions about those laws, and getting rid of them, and altering our outlook on what we want to get policed FOR, I think would go a long way towards reducing bad behavior by cops themselves.

Like I said before, the answer is somewhat complicated, and the solution is several things, at least. Hopefully that last part clarifies what I meant around laws being possibly more of the issue than the police themselves, who have their own issues.

I'll get to your other points later but I specifically want to learn whether the military had/has union representation that negotiates a CBA which contains provision concerning disciplinary actions, shifts, assignments, union oversight and approval over certain terms of employment/termination. Or are these issue addressed by federal regulations/statutues, etc.?

Uniform Code of Military Justice is what service members are under, though of course they are also subject to the laws of the state & federal laws.

No union etc. This isn't France in WW1, lol.

[HarthorneWingo]

Hmm. I have a bit of multi part answer, I guess. Easier stuff first.

Culture change is vital for police forces, though I suspect some forces have worse cultures than others. I'll revisit culture in my last answer, though maybe not in way you'll suspect.

I think properly empowered civilian oversight of the departments can go a LONG way to altering the culture of the police, but it's probably not the only answer. I'm no expert here, at all.

I like to be pro union when I can. Unfortunately, some police unions operate as part of the problem, protecting "members" at all costs over any other consideration. I don't think the issue is unions per se.
Again, way out of my league, but lets take NYC police union. Notorious for always protecting the cops, no matter what, and the NYPD having "civilian oversight" but with no fangs, no ability to do anything except make noise.

My understanding of the evolution of this is that over the years, when contracts got renegotiated, the city didn't always want to come up the $ for raises, so expanded union power and shrunk civilian oversight instead. Others may be able to shine in on if this generalization is true.

Lets cover laws. I don't think there is any "chicken or egg" thing here. The laws don't exist in a vacuum. The country has a deeply ingrained racist history. That "past" either still exists outright and in other instances it's coded echoes exist all over the place. For various reasons of racism, fear, political expediency, a lot of the laws are written to keep things extra safe and orderly (and yeah, there are legit reasons for this and most people want that - when it's the real thing) but an awful lot of the drug and nuisance laws were specifically written to oppress minorities, even if some people don't realize that anymore. Just changing laws won't alter our entire culture, and cops are a byproduct of our culture - and also have their own, but real HONEST discussions about those laws, and getting rid of them, and altering our outlook on what we want to get policed FOR, I think would go a long way towards reducing bad behavior by cops themselves.

Like I said before, the answer is somewhat complicated, and the solution is several things, at least. Hopefully that last part clarifies what I meant around laws being possibly more of the issue than the police themselves, who have their own issues.

I'll get to your other points later but I specifically want to learn whether the military had/has union representation that negotiates a CBA which contains provision concerning disciplinary actions, shifts, assignments, union oversight and approval over certain terms of employment/termination. Or are these issue addressed by federal regulations/statutues, etc.?

Uniform Code of Military Justice is what service members are under, though of course they are also subject to the laws of the state & federal laws.

No union etc. This isn't France in WW1, lol.

Exactamundo! This is the problem we have. Have you watched the docu-series "Philly DA" on PBS (you can also watch the full episodes for free on YouTube)? I know all the players - judges, attorneys, public defenders, etc. - bc that's where I practiced. The Local FOP union leader is this guy by the name of John McNesby (I call him "The Frog"). It's all about a power struggle for who runs the city. The Mayor/DA or the police union. I think this is where we have a big problem. The union throws monkey wrenches into everything management (i.e. military leadership) wants to do. We have the same problems here in NYC and on Long Island. It's bad out here.

[GIMME_DATT]

22 and half years....

[Futureisnow]

Read on Twitter

It's just remarkable how much (a significant percentage of) white people hate us. Putin really exposed just how effed this country is to the world. How dare we lecture any other country on civil rights abuses when the we have crap like this happening on the regular.

[3toheadmelo]

22 and half years....

Eligible for parole in 15 years too. Smfh

[HarthorneWingo]

22 and half years....

Eligible for parole in 15 years too. Smfh

15 years for a cop is a lifetime of Ugu. I saw that "experts" where thinking something in the 15 year range. So 22.5 isn't bad, man. This was a real important verdict because, for once, we had the police department supervisors, training officers, and officials all testifying against Chauvin at this trial. I can't remember too many times, if any, that's happened. Plus, it's a platform from which police reform can springboard from.

Anyhow, learn about Ugu. Maybe it'll make you feel better about Chauvin's sentence

Watch on YouTube

[HarthorneWingo]

I think what's most important is that George Floyd's family feels that justice was done. Of course, we all wanted the sentence to be higher. Some may have reasonably thought that this was M1 and demanding of a life in prison sentence. I can understand all of that.

[BKlutch]

22 and half years....

It’s about time.

[BKlutch]

I think what's most important is that George Floyd's family feels that justice was done. Of course, we all wanted the sentence to be higher. Some may have reasonably thought that this was M1 and demanding of a life in prison sentence. I can understand all of that.

They probably preferred Chauvin get Death by Ugu.

[ellobo]

I think what's most important is that George Floyd's family feels that justice was done. Of course, we all wanted the sentence to be higher. Some may have reasonably thought that this was M1 and demanding of a life in prison sentence. I can understand all of that.

They probably preferred Chauvin get Death by Ugu.

Is that entirely off the table, unofficially?

[BKlutch]

I think what's most important is that George Floyd's family feels that justice was done. Of course, we all wanted the sentence to be higher. Some may have reasonably thought that this was M1 and demanding of a life in prison sentence. I can understand all of that.

They probably preferred Chauvin get Death by Ugu.

Is that entirely off the table, unofficially?

In reality, no, it isn't off the table.

Prison can be a very dangerous environment for cops, where they are routinely abused by the other inmates (because they're cops). A special torment is reserved for prisoners who kill children and for infamous murderers, like Chauvin. He will struggle in prison and possible not make it out alive.

I recall the cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer, who was killed in prison. There was almost no investigation of what happened, and there was no outcry that there was no real investigation. Derek Chauvin should be thinking of this for the rest of his days on earth, as well as how he snuffed out a human life without any justification whatsoever.