American Riots, Michael Brown....is it justified ?

[Hurlshort]

 

Hurlshot, on 21 Dec 2014 - 2:02 PM, said:

 

Wrath of Dagon, on 21 Dec 2014 - 12:44 PM, said:

So people who were laughing and clapping and people who called for the murder of policemen during demonstrations were all mentally unstable? http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/12/20/nypd-shooting-eyewitness-people-clapping-and-laughing-after-killings/ This is the atmosphere that Obola, Sharpton and De Blasio helped to create with their lies and incitement.

 

Edit: Oh, and this is for Hurlshot : http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/12/20/did-cop-killer-ishmael-brinsley-visit-terror-tied-brooklyn-mosque/

 

The guy might have visited a mosque in Brooklyn once?  *gasp*

 

Yeah, there is a terrorist mosque in Brooklyn after all, it's not all a product of my fevered xenophobic imagination as you think. But good reading comprehension, what does it take to be a California teacher exactly?

 

 

Everybody in the Brooklyn Mosque is a terrorist?  That would be super convenient for the FBI.

 

The teaching credential ceremony in California is fascinating.  We are all hooded and then led deep underground to a secret chamber, where we vow to keep the secrets of the illuminati and brainwash the young into thinking the world is a good place not filled with dark conspiracies.  Then we get a gift card to Staples.

[Gromnir]

I am suspicious of the report on people applauding as the cops were being shot. Source is some dude called Carlos.

 

The NYPD union head yelling that the mayor is responsible for this is laughable.

there is some incidents that ain't getting much press that makes such more likely. there were a seeming copycat traveling from tennessee (apprehended... thank goodness) whose social media suggested he were going to try and kill 2 more cops, and there were another seeming randomn ny shooter that were apprehended last night, though he were taken into custody without any injury to the shooting suspect or the arresting cops... apparently he emptied his weapon and did not have more ammo. also, there has been an increase in police-related vandalism... one example were that the lug nuts on one wheel from a cop's personal car were removed resulting in a crash. 

 

no doubt the vast majority o' folks find the recent shooting o' two cops to be abhorrent, but the recent protests has likely resulted in significant anti-cop sentiment. also, even back in july, we had similar stuff that national news did not cover.

 

http://www.northjersey.com/news/memorial-to-alleged-jersey-city-cop-killer-removed-1.1051421

 

the jersey city memorial for the cop killer were substantial larger than those for the dead cops. we live in strange times. 

 

as noted elsewhere, violent crime has gone down significantly in recent years, and that is a nationwide trend. unfortunately, the hard economic times brought a good amount o' general and misdirected anger to the surface, and while statistically more people is employed now than before the economic downturn, the black community has not recovered. many black jobs were cut and has not been replaced.

 

regardless, am sadly less suspicious than malcador o' reports such as this one:

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/20/sick-cheers-for-cop-killer-in-brooklyn.html

 

hopefully the numbers who see the killings as justified is insignificant, but we don't doubt there is a few such folks in many crowds.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited December 22, 2014 by Gromnir

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

 

Hurlshot, on 21 Dec 2014 - 2:02 PM, said:

 

The guy might have visited a mosque in Brooklyn once?  *gasp*

Yeah, there is a terrorist mosque in Brooklyn after all, it's not all a product of my fevered xenophobic imagination as you think. But good reading comprehension, what does it take to be a California teacher exactly?

 

 

Everybody in the Brooklyn Mosque is a terrorist?  That would be super convenient for the FBI.

 

I wonder if several high officials in a church were members of the KKK if you would defend that church as "not everybody in the church is a member of the KKK".

[Malcador]

Did get a slight chuckle out of a joke on how quickly medics and aid arrived for the two cops as they lay there dying versus Garner. Will be interesting to watch how the Mayor and police interact going forward, didn't know they turned their backs on him after he slighted them (cops are indeed tender people, it seems). I guess there's always tension between cops and their supposed elected masters, see it here, where of late the cops are in a tizzy over a board member being anti-NYPD w.r.t Garner. Is very strange.

[Hurlshort]

 

I wonder if several high officials in a church were members of the KKK if you would defend that church as "not everybody in the church is a member of the KKK".

 

 

I haven't defended this particular mosque in any way, I know little about it and don't live anywhere near Brooklyn.

 

 

Would you condemn all churches because one has members of the KKK?  You seem pretty quick to do that with Islam.

[Gromnir]

am gonna note, once again, that there needs to be a national dialogue on police relationship with the public. in spite o' less violent crime, distrust o' cops is higher today than we can ever recall. the President's proposed executive order that will do nothing more than alter the manner in which military-grade weapons reach local police departments, is a largely pointless measure that will, in light o' recent events, go over like a lead balloon with cop organizations everywhere. nyc felt compelled to take all their un-armed cops off the street following recent events. regardless, there is a near complete disconnect between the public and cops regarding what constitutes reasonable force and that issue is what we is thinking the President should use his influence to start a national debate concerning.

 

...

 

Gromnir works with attorneys. most is white. they is educated and they know law even if they don't have much experience with criminal law. virtual all such folks who saw the eric garner tape were appalled by what they saw as excessive force. on the other hand, Gromnir, who were trained in peace officer pain-compliance practices, saw the event different. the plausible improper cop behavior we saw in the video were tied to the lack o' alacrity with which the cops attempted to get aid for garner After he complained o' an inability to breathe.  possible police failure as we saw it occurred once they had mr. garner on the ground. we didn't see a chokehold, 'cause the guy resisting arrest could actual speak, which is largely impossible with a properly applied chokehold. the actual autopsy didn't find any damage to mr. garner's throat, which is what is the expected result from a chokehold. nevertheless, Gromnir and his largely conservative and white colleagues were on complete different planets regarding mr. garner. 

 

in the initial action to detain mr. garner, the cops were using the training they were given. we has seen literal hundreds of instances wherein restraining an individual who failed to comply with an officer were resulting in much more violent uses o' force. Gromnir himself has utilized much more violent means. a major outer reap throw is far more likely to see our target's head bounce on the ground-- arm breaks and dislocations is also possible with such a move.  such were our go-to move. we wrote up such incidents exactly as they happened and were never criticized for excessive use o' force. 

 

again, our extreme educated white colleagues saw garner video different... and we bet that the average American sees different than did Gromnir. the problem ain't that the force used on mr. garner were legally excessive, but perhaps the force were, from the perspective of a reasonable person, genuine excessive. our cops and peace officers is being trained in techniques that shock the conscience o' the public, which is not a good thing. the goal o' the officers in restraining a suspect is to do so as quickly as possible. priority #1 is to ensure the safety of the cop and any innocent bystanders. o' secondary concern is the safety o' the person being detained.  get the suspect immobilized on the ground as quick as freaking possible. reasonable force as has been decided by courts for many years is violent and dangerous. as for guns, cops is taught to shoot reflexively-- if you actual have time to think about proper force, you may be dead. the 21' foot rule is kinda a joke, but it is not necessarily wrong.  the time it takes to recognize a threat, un-holster a weapon, release the safety and accurately fire at an assailant is minuscule.  cops, right or wrong, is trained to react instinctive to threats given the reality that there ain't time to balance the pros and cons o' the appropriate force in a situation. but again, perhaps the training cops is getting is wrong. we need a serious looksee at the massive disconnect between what cops is being taught is reasonable, and what the public deems to be shocking and appalling when they is seeing videos o' such behavior.

 

 

btw, our white lawyer friends is more frightened o' cops than is Gromnir, and we is a minority. we were surprised to discover that our lawyer colleagues, for the most part, think that cops is a bunch o' poorly educated clowns who likely joined the police force 'cause they were looking forward to the possibility o' getting to play hero or maybe even 'cause the would-be cop were wanting an excuse to shoot people.  Gromnir is not frightened o' cops. yeah, if we get pulled over we immediately remove keys from the ignition and put them on the dashboard. we place our hands on  the steering wheel and wait patient for cop instructions... is not precautions our white colleagues think to take. even so, we is not genuine scared in most any cop situation. 

 

we need dialogue. we ain't seeing any such dialogue as Gromnir is suggesting.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[BruceVC]

 

 

I wonder if several high officials in a church were members of the KKK if you would defend that church as "not everybody in the church is a member of the KKK".

 

 

I haven't defended this particular mosque in any way, I know little about it and don't live anywhere near Brooklyn.

 

 

Would you condemn all churches because one has members of the KKK?  You seem pretty quick to do that with Islam.

 

 

Yeah I agree with Hurlshot on this one, we shouldn't generalize and say certain  mosques in the USA are breeding grounds for Islamic extremism even if we know that extremists have frequented some of them. Its doesn't seem reasonable ?

 

But I am appalled by the assassination of those two cops, I know people don't want to see it like this  but these deliberate killings are not the same as the Michael Brown or Eric Garner deaths. I just feel any society has a serious problem if people  think you can kill cops as a way to express frustration 

 

We see this South Africa where policemen are targeted  by criminals just because they are policemen 

[Hurlshort]

 

 

 

I wonder if several high officials in a church were members of the KKK if you would defend that church as "not everybody in the church is a member of the KKK".

 

 

I haven't defended this particular mosque in any way, I know little about it and don't live anywhere near Brooklyn.

 

 

Would you condemn all churches because one has members of the KKK?  You seem pretty quick to do that with Islam.

 

 

Yeah I agree with Hurlshot on this one, we shouldn't generalize and say certain  mosques in the USA are breeding grounds for Islamic extremism even if we know that extremists have frequented some of them. Its doesn't seem reasonable ?

 

 

That's not really what I said at all.  Certain mosques may be a breeding ground for extremism, just like certain Christian churches may be a breeding ground for intolerance and discrimination.  That doesn't mean we should paint every church and mosque with the same brush.  If there is evidence that a church or a mosque is encouraging violent behavior, then it should be investigated.  But without an investigation, I'm not going to infringe on the right to religious freedom.   

[aluminiumtrioxid]

again, our extreme educated white colleagues saw garner video different... and we bet that the average American sees different than did Gromnir. the problem ain't that the force used on mr. garner were legally excessive, but perhaps the force were, from the perspective of a reasonable person, genuine excessive. our cops and peace officers is being trained in techniques that shock the conscience o' the public, which is not a good thing. the goal o' the officers in restraining a suspect is to do so as quickly as possible. priority #1 is to ensure the safety of the cop and any innocent bystanders. o' secondary concern is the safety o' the person being detained.  get the suspect immobilized on the ground as quick as freaking possible. reasonable force as has been decided by courts for many years is violent and dangerous. as for guns, cops is taught to shoot reflexively-- if you actual have time to think about proper force, you may be dead. the 21' foot rule is kinda a joke, but it is not necessarily wrong.  the time it takes to recognize a threat, un-holster a weapon, release the safety and accurately fire at an assailant is minuscule.  cops, right or wrong, is trained to react instinctive to threats given the reality that there ain't time to balance the pros and cons o' the appropriate force in a situation. but again, perhaps the training cops is getting is wrong.

 

In my opinion, the problem isn't with the cops being trained to effectively neutralize threats, it's with the fact that no checks exists that ensure such training is indeed only used on actual threats.

[Drowsy Emperor]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUuajAwMhcQ

 

Sydney gets its own scandal. The first thought that crossed my mind when watching these videos is that women shouldn't be cops. They took way too long to get the job done, aggravating the crowd and making a scandal in the process. Notice the completely ineffectual beating with the stick (due to lack of strength and skill) that did nothing to subdue the woman. If a relatively thin woman gave them so much trouble how would they fare trying to restrain a fit man?

Edited December 22, 2014 by Drowsy Emperor

[213374U]

Sydney gets its own scandal. The first thought that crossed my mind when watching these videos is that women shouldn't be cops. They took way too long to get the job done, aggravating the crowd and making a scandal in the process. Notice the completely ineffectual beating with the stick (due to lack of strength and skill) that did nothing to subdue the woman. If a relatively thin woman gave them so much trouble how would they fare trying to restrain a fit man?

 

Unfit individuals shouldn't be cops, regardless of sex. Still, it's a 2v1 situation. When attempting to subdue violent and corpulent individuals, it's common to see 4 or 5v1. Wrestling is hard. Fitness helps, but training and numbers trump that by far.

 

My personal reaction to that is "meh", though. Two weeks ago we had a new "Public Security Law" passed that makes recording cops an offence with fines up to 30.000€, and insulting a cop now carries a penalty of 600€. Contempt of cop is finally in the letter of the law. There is no judicial review for any of that, and the word of a cop is evidence enough.

 

[Valsuelm]

Two weeks ago we had a new "Public Security Law" passed that makes recording cops an offence with fines up to 30.000€, and insulting a cop now carries a penalty of 600€. Contempt of cop is finally in the letter of the law. There is no judicial review for any of that, and the word of a cop is evidence enough.

 

Illegal to record the police? Where was this abhorred law passed?

[Gromnir]

 

again, our extreme educated white colleagues saw garner video different... and we bet that the average American sees different than did Gromnir. the problem ain't that the force used on mr. garner were legally excessive, but perhaps the force were, from the perspective of a reasonable person, genuine excessive. our cops and peace officers is being trained in techniques that shock the conscience o' the public, which is not a good thing. the goal o' the officers in restraining a suspect is to do so as quickly as possible. priority #1 is to ensure the safety of the cop and any innocent bystanders. o' secondary concern is the safety o' the person being detained.  get the suspect immobilized on the ground as quick as freaking possible. reasonable force as has been decided by courts for many years is violent and dangerous. as for guns, cops is taught to shoot reflexively-- if you actual have time to think about proper force, you may be dead. the 21' foot rule is kinda a joke, but it is not necessarily wrong.  the time it takes to recognize a threat, un-holster a weapon, release the safety and accurately fire at an assailant is minuscule.  cops, right or wrong, is trained to react instinctive to threats given the reality that there ain't time to balance the pros and cons o' the appropriate force in a situation. but again, perhaps the training cops is getting is wrong.

 

In my opinion, the problem isn't with the cops being trained to effectively neutralize threats, it's with the fact that no checks exists that ensure such training is indeed only used on actual threats.

 

the way the public reacted to the eric garner video makes that a suspect proposition, yes? eric garner were, according to training Gromnir and others received, a threat. he were resisting arrest and he were clearly agitated, but again, the average person didn't see the video the same way as did Gromnir, or cops or a grand jury that gets cop policy and procedure explained to them.  we thought universal body cams were a fantastic idea following the mike brown incident. we still believe universal body cams is a good idea. sadly, we now is certain that body cams will, initially, cause more negative backlash as public gets to see what is the ordinary procedure for "neutralizing threats." 

 

that being said, we has noted elsewhere that an organization that polices itself is always suspect. whether it is the ncaa or the bar association or cops, who work hand-in-hand with local district attorneys, having any organization checked only by itself always raises suspicion.  unfortunately, as far as cops is concerned, there ain't an easy solution. you gonna try and make every complaint against cops reviewed by...

 

well, who do you want to review?  the Fed? which fed? the fbi and doj? there already is fed review for civil rights cases, but am assuming that ain't what you want. if it ain't what you want, then why? because plaintiffs have a hard time winning civil rights cases against cops?  no offense, but fact that plaintiffs typical lose is not justification for changing the system. we keep mentioning this, but our criminal system is designed so that defendants get presumptions o' innocence and we would rather see ten (100 according to ben franklin)  guilty people go free rather than have one innocent suffer.  somehow prove that any individual use o' excessive force is racially motivated is Hard to prove. it should be hard to prove. 

 

so, civil rights ain't good enough. what is the alternative? Congress creates a new law to make any and all police cases reviewable by... somebody? under what authority would Congress do so? most folks forget their high school history and government lessons, but to have state and local cops get some kinda quasi-neutral review o' excessive force cases is gonna be more appropriate to state legislation. we s'pose Congress could tie funding of state and local police departments (am not sure how much that actual is, do you?) to only those departments that is subject to our theoretical neutral finder of fact.  dunno. more likely is that 50 different states is gonna need come up with 50 different solutions. that may be necessary, but am thinking you can recognize how difficult that would be.

 

also, while clearly most folks here is not concerned about justice for cops, the notion o' an insular and discreet investigative body and dispenser o' justice to handle excessive force cases  strikes us as being a bit akin to a star chamber mentality.  one will need to be extreme careful 'bout the creation o' such a a thing... if such is even legal in light o' due process and equal protection law.

 

*shrug*

 

the biggest problem we see is the socio-economic issues that we believe is ultimately the cause o' distrust o' cops. those problems ain't gonna be fixed anytime soon.

 

the most obvious fix is actual to hire cops with college degrees. this is not a snob thing on Gromnir's part. numerous studies has shown that cops with higher education is less likely to face disciplinary action. unfortunately, large, urban police departments has a particular problem hiring enough cops with such high educational standards. also, and am knowing this will annoy some to hear it, but creating a greater emphasis on getting cops with college degrees onto the streets will further decrease the percentage of black cops.

 

dunno. the eric garner situation made it obvious to us how much o' a disconnect there is between cop pov, a pov which is backed by law, and the perspective o' the public... and the law should represent the will o' the public. there is a problem.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[213374U]

 

Two weeks ago we had a new "Public Security Law" passed that makes recording cops an offence with fines up to 30.000€, and insulting a cop now carries a penalty of 600€. Contempt of cop is finally in the letter of the law. There is no judicial review for any of that, and the word of a cop is evidence enough.

 

Illegal to record the police? Where was this abhorred law passed?

 

 

Spain. At the vanguard of unemployment, social inequality, and retrograde, stupid-ass lawmaking. Yes, this is the EU (if only barely).

 

(for a less inflammatory perspective than Alex Jones')

[213374U]

unfortunately, large, urban police departments has a particular problem hiring enough cops with such high educational standards.

 

Er, call me naïve, but wouldn't this be solved by having cops earn more than a pittance? Encourage smart, hard-working, committed and motivated youths to pursue a career in law enforcement, instead of recruiting just about anyone that can pass a drug test. Societies have the police forces they pay for, like everything else.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

Sydney gets its own scandal. The first thought that crossed my mind when watching these videos is that women shouldn't be cops. They took way too long to get the job done, aggravating the crowd and making a scandal in the process. Notice the completely ineffectual beating with the stick (due to lack of strength and skill) that did nothing to subdue the woman. If a relatively thin woman gave them so much trouble how would they fare trying to restrain a fit man?

 

Unfit individuals shouldn't be cops, regardless of sex. Still, it's a 2v1 situation. When attempting to subdue violent and corpulent individuals, it's common to see 4 or 5v1. Wrestling is hard. Fitness helps, but training and numbers trump that by far.

 

My personal reaction to that is "meh", though. Two weeks ago we had a new "Public Security Law" passed that makes recording cops an offence with fines up to 30.000€, and insulting a cop now carries a penalty of 600€. Contempt of cop is finally in the letter of the law. There is no judicial review for any of that, and the word of a cop is evidence enough.

 

 

 

It doesn't really matter how fit a woman is, against a strong man she has literally no chance to subdue him. If he gets truly violent while she attempts to do it its a tragedy waiting to happen. I mean, if you literally can't perform one of the tasks the job demands  even at your hypothetical maximum performance then you aren't suited for it? 

I don't see it as a question of equality or inequality but common sense. I presume there are lots of other jobs within the police force that women can perform in all respects.

 

Anyway, regarding this case - yes wrestling is hard, but those two were damn poor at it.

 

Fines for recording cops are ridiculous. They're state employees, doing a public job so what plausible reason can there be for making it punishable by law.

[Gromnir]

 

unfortunately, large, urban police departments has a particular problem hiring enough cops with such high educational standards.

 

Er, call me naïve, but wouldn't this be solved by having cops earn more than a pittance? Encourage smart, hard-working, committed and motivated youths to pursue a career in law enforcement, instead of recruiting just about anyone that can pass a drug test. Societies have the police forces they pay for, like everything else.

 

cops actual get paid okie dokie... better than teachers. teachers need even more education than cops and can't get benefits o' near guaranteed overtime that cops get. 

 

http://www.joinlapd.com/salary.html

 

obvious the starting pay is gonna be different depending on the department, but cop pay is actual pretty darn good considering most don't require college education.

 

but again, keep in mind that one o' the most common complaints we heard during the mike brown incident were that while ferguson demographics has a ~67%  black population (am not certain of that number,) the police department employed ~6% black officers. folks will take offense at Gromnir's suggestion, but am thinking it is obvious that raising the educational requirements will make it even more difficult to increase the number o' black officers... and for legal reasons you ain't gonna be able to pay new black officers more than white.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited December 22, 2014 by Gromnir

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

unfortunately, large, urban police departments has a particular problem hiring enough cops with such high educational standards.

 

Er, call me naïve, but wouldn't this be solved by having cops earn more than a pittance? Encourage smart, hard-working, committed and motivated youths to pursue a career in law enforcement, instead of recruiting just about anyone that can pass a drug test. Societies have the police forces they pay for, like everything else.

 

 

Actually I read in an article that recruits scoring higher than a certain number in IQ tests in the US were undesirable for cops. Whether this was limited to a particular state I can't recall.

 

 

The policy became solidified as a concrete federal ruling almost a decade and a half ago with little fanfare from the mainstream media. Back in 1999, a Federal judge dismissed a lawsuit by a police applicant who was barred from the New London, Connecticut police force. The reason for the disqualification was literally because he had scored “too high” on an intelligence test. The department made it clear, they didn’t want the bottom of the barrel in terms of intelligence, but they didn’t want anyone “too smart” either.

The ruling made public in September of the same year, with the ruling  judge Peter C. Dorsey of the United States District Court in New Haven confirming that it was in fact the case that the plaintiff, Robert Jordan, 48, who has a bachelor’s degree in literature, was denied an opportunity to even interview for a job with the New London Police Department, solely because of his high test scores.

 

Judge Dorsey, however, ruled that Mr. Jordan that there was no protection offered to intelligent people from discriminatory hiring practices by individual police departments. Why? Because, Dorsey explained, it was proven that police departments held all to this same standard and thus rejected all applicants who scored high.

 

It does make sense. Thicker people tend to follow orders to the letter and are less likely to question them. 

Edited December 22, 2014 by Drowsy Emperor

[HoonDing]

It doesn't really matter how fit a woman is, against a strong man she has literally no chance to subdue him. If he gets truly violent while she attempts to do it its a tragedy waiting to happen. I mean, if you literally can't perform one of the tasks the job demands  even at your hypothetical maximum performance then you aren't suited for it? 

I don't see it as a question of equality or inequality but common sense. I presume there are lots of other jobs within the police force that women can perform in all respects.

 

Anyway, regarding this case - yes wrestling is hard, but those two were damn poor at it.

 

Fines for recording cops are ridiculous. They're state employees, doing a public job so what plausible reason can there be for making it punishable by law.

 

Female cops need more rigorous training before being accepted.

 

[Valsuelm]

 

Spain. At the vanguard of unemployment, social inequality, and retrograde, stupid-ass lawmaking. Yes, this is the EU (if only barely).

 

(for a less inflammatory perspective than Alex Jones')

 

 

Ah.. for some reason I had the impression you lived a little further east where there are a couple of nations with at least some semblance and appreciation for freedom. I was actually aware of Spain's oppression and the second article you linked, but I was unaware of anything new in the last couple of weeks. It was a sad day when your nation allowed Juan back on the throne. That family is involved in many an evil thing, and worldwide too, not just Spain. I hold no illusions as to the state of things in the EU. The EU itself (not the nations within it) is an organization that is anathema to individual liberty.

 

When you have a nation of people that accept a monarchy, one cannot expect much in the way of freedom, as it's populace has embraced serfdom. I feel for those there who actually truly appreciate liberty, and all those who sacrificed in order to try and achieve it for all Spaniards in the many struggles in the past. Unfortunately they didn't do what the French did and off some heads, so the local parasitic infection bloomed again. Beautiful country from all accounts I've ever heard though; one of these days I hope to make it there for a visit.

Edited December 22, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Drowsy Emperor]

Jesus Christ, where do you come up with these theories. The Spanish monarchy is more decorative than anything in their current political system.

[213374U]

cops actual get paid okie dokie... better than teachers. teachers need even more education than cops and can't get benefits o' near guaranteed overtime that cops get. 

 

 

http://www.joinlapd.com/salary.html

 

obvious the starting pay is gonna be different depending on the department, but cop pay is actual pretty darn good considering most don't require college education.

 

but again, keep in mind that one o' the most common complaints we heard during the mike brown incident were that while ferguson demographics has a ~67%  black population (am not certain of that number,) the police department employed ~6% black officers. folks will take offense at Gromnir's suggestion, but am thinking it is obvious that raising the educational requirements will make it even more difficult to increase the number o' black officers... and for legal reasons you ain't gonna be able to pay new black officers more than white.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Yeah, I checked and wages for cops are higher than the national average, and high in relative terms considering that there is no higher education requirement... but that's kind of the point. An increase in job requirements must entail an increase in wages.

 

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000

 

That doesn't solve the demand for more black cops in black neighborhoods though. Are there programs to help police officers get through college? Like in the military?

 

 

 

Jesus Christ, where do you come up with these theories. The Spanish monarchy is more decorative than anything in their current political system.

 

I really don't want to hijack this thread, but he's right. Formally the monarchy is powerless, but in reality the royal family is still very influential and their word carries a lot of weight, especially with business circles. A member of the family has been accused of money laundering and fiscal fraud in one of the many high-profile cases of corruption we have going on, and the whole process is a disgrace. The prosecutor acting as a defense attorney, pressure being applied on the judge by higher judiciary organs, etc. Consider that the previous king was appointed by Franco before his death and as such a lot of the social and political elite have seen a sort of continuity of power, that is evidenced by the fact that the party currently in power is the heir of Franco's single party, after some facelifting.

 

We really are a much more backward country than it would seem (if that's even possible).

Edited December 22, 2014 by 213374U

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

cops actual get paid okie dokie... better than teachers. teachers need even more education than cops and can't get benefits o' near guaranteed overtime that cops get. 

 

 

http://www.joinlapd.com/salary.html

 

obvious the starting pay is gonna be different depending on the department, but cop pay is actual pretty darn good considering most don't require college education.

 

but again, keep in mind that one o' the most common complaints we heard during the mike brown incident were that while ferguson demographics has a ~67%  black population (am not certain of that number,) the police department employed ~6% black officers. folks will take offense at Gromnir's suggestion, but am thinking it is obvious that raising the educational requirements will make it even more difficult to increase the number o' black officers... and for legal reasons you ain't gonna be able to pay new black officers more than white.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Yeah, I checked and wages for cops are higher than the national average, and high in relative terms considering that there is no higher education requirement... but that's kind of the point. An increase in job requirements must entail an increase in wages.

 

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000

 

That doesn't solve the demand for more black cops in black neighborhoods though. Are there programs to help police officers get through college? Like in the military?

 

 

 

Jesus Christ, where do you come up with these theories. The Spanish monarchy is more decorative than anything in their current political system.

 

I really don't want to hijack this thread, but he's right. Formally the monarchy is powerless, but in reality the royal family is still very influential and their word carries a lot of weight, especially with business circles. A member of the family has been accused of money laundering and fiscal fraud in one of the many high-profile cases of corruption we have going on, and the whole process is a disgrace. The prosecutor acting as a defense attorney, pressure being applied on the judge by higher judiciary organs, etc. Consider that the previous king was appointed by Franco before his death and as such a lot of the social and political elite have seen a sort of continuity of power, that is evidenced by the fact that the party currently in power is the heir of Franco's single party, after some facelifting.

 

We really are a much more backward country than it would seem (if that's even possible).

 

 

But surely you'd agree that the primary power holders are generally the major capitalists in the country and if the crown is among them its because of its economic power more than anything else. And the US ambassador of course.

 

Anyway, I've never heard of a parliamentary "democracy" that hasn't been steeped in corruption to the utmost degree. And completely divorced from the "people". And one in which elections matter or change anything substantial.

 

Frankly after years of studies and a course in comparative politics I see political labels such as "democracy" "autocracy" etc. as ideological products. In my eyes there is little difference between Kim Jong Un's North Korea, Obama's USA or Spain or Sweden therefore I can't relate to Valsuelm's nostalgic stories of liberty and freedom in any way.

 

Looking at USA's history, built on exterminating the natives, slave labor, aggressive expansion and wars of conquest I wonder where the the libery and freedom are... and for whom.

 

People tend to think their country is the worst merely because all the **** is in their faces for the better part of their lives and the "grass must be greener" somewhere else. But as I've lived abroad, it has been my experience that the grass isn't greener and that things are pretty much the same everywhere.

Edited December 22, 2014 by Drowsy Emperor

[Orogun01]

 

It doesn't really matter how fit a woman is, against a strong man she has literally no chance to subdue him. If he gets truly violent while she attempts to do it its a tragedy waiting to happen. I mean, if you literally can't perform one of the tasks the job demands  even at your hypothetical maximum performance then you aren't suited for it? 

I don't see it as a question of equality or inequality but common sense. I presume there are lots of other jobs within the police force that women can perform in all respects.

 

Anyway, regarding this case - yes wrestling is hard, but those two were damn poor at it.

 

Fines for recording cops are ridiculous. They're state employees, doing a public job so what plausible reason can there be for making it punishable by law.

 

Female cops need more rigorous training before being accepted.

 

snip

 

I'm going to call bull on that, I seen male officers that can't deal with a strong man.  Why is it only the women's performance that's under review? If the job requires you to look like Arnold and that you are able to subdue a gorilla then that should be the standard for both genders.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Goes without saying that fitness among men in the police should be enforced vigorously.