War on Cops

[Rerun]

Just don't leave schools as a "soft target".  That way teachers could carry if they wanted to.  No extra training for the overworked already burdened teachers who are scared of guns.  But, those who want to can.  That leaves the mental case wondering .... hmmm they may be armed.

Alta you may want to read the topic of this... and then read the singled out post of mine again.    

[Simon Dog]

What screening the current Republican Congress won't even stop people on the Terrorist watch list from buying guns.  When the second admendment was written state of art of fire arms was a single shot mussel loader. It would average a shot a minute. Plenty of time to run between shots. Noe you can buy a weapon that sprays bullets.  This is insanity.

True, however, when the first amendment was written the state of art was movable type in a hand operated press.  Today we have TV, radio and the internet.   By your logic, this means the 1st amendment does not preclude the regulation of what kind of speech is allowed on the internet.

We also had only variants of Christian/Jewish sects when the first amendment was written. By your logic, this means that the government is free to ban any religions not established in the US at the time of the signing of the bill of rights (an argument Trump would find most convenient).

The real question is the 2nd amendment a "second class right" or one afforded all the protection of other rights?

Just don't leave schools as a "soft target".  That way teachers could carry if they wanted to.  No extra training for the overworked already burdened teachers who are scared of guns.  But, those who want to can.  That leaves the mental case wondering .... hmmm they may be armed.

Just try shooting up a school or day care in Israel and watch what happens.   Though, the US being what it is, I'm sure the union would demand extra pay for those teachers who chose to carry.   

Or, more practically, have AR15s in lockboxes accessible to trained school employees so they could run a counter force.    Include a bright colored vest with each gun so the police could recognize them as "good guys" and keep the color code highly confidential (sealed packets opened only in emergency so even the teachers don't now the code in advance) so the bad guys don't use it.  I'd even throw in a radio on the PD frequency.

Airline pilots already have secret "code words" that sound like normal conversation that are used to communicate messages like "commandos now!!!" when speaking with the tower at the point of a peaceful religious representative's gun, so the concept of pre-arranged signalling to LE is well established.

My wife noticed the irony of Hillary's running mate starting his diatribe about the gun problem with a story about when "my security detail told me that....".   In other words, "guns for me but not for thee"

What screening the current Republican Congress won't even stop people on the Terrorist watch list from buying guns

It makes sense to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, however, the removal of a constitutional right must be afforded due process.  This means that the accused must have the right to refute all evidence used against him/her; confront witnesses used against him/her; compel witnesses to testify under oath; have hearsay evidence excluded in all but very limited cases; have an advocate argue on their behalf and lose the right only after a decision by an impartial finder of fact.

Imagine of the local PD could compile a "bad driver list", and have those persons drivers licenses revoked - no hearing before a judge; no right to see why you are on the list; and appeal limited to asking the police to reconsider their secret evidence.   This is the standard those arguing the use of a secret list to remove a citizen's right are advocating.

Arming everyone is simply NOT the answer.

Agreed.   Disarming everyone is also simply NOT the answer.

[Charlie B53]

I have to admit that when I started this thread I had no idea of the responses it would bring.  It seems this subject touch a nerve with many.   There is no doubt that many of us agree that abuse of autority is a continuing problem.  That there are some Cops that simply should NOT be Cops.  Granted, Cops are human and humans make mistakes.  And some of those mistakes can be fatl.   What is disgraceful is the cover-up, ignoring the really abusive officers conduct, excusing outrageous behavior.   In many cases when a particular officer is pointed out the Department simply allows them to resign, and free to go ahead and join another force in another city and continue abusing citizens.

Those practices need to STOP.     The problem is getting Prosecutors and Judges to start doing their job and start charging and convicting those abusive officers.   Other Officers need to STOP covering up for their abusive fellows.

If the Police fail to police themselves they will NEVER be trusted by the public.

[Simon Dog]

If the Police fail to police themselves they will NEVER be trusted by the public.

This defines the problem.   Police should not be policed by themselves, but by their employers (members of the public).  The current system is rigged - the police investigate their buddies, and generally find no violation of law.  If the prosecutor gets involved, great deference is given to the police to the point where there is an assumption of lawfulness in use of force, whereas, with civilians the assumption is reversed.

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[MooseMom]

It depends upon the city/town whether or not the police police themselves.  Cities are, in fact, corporations, and as such they will have legal departments that handle police violations, knowing that residents can sue.

[kristina]

Through all my life I had many good experiences with police people... For example, when I first came to London and could not find my way
I often asked a policeman and they were always very sweet and helped me by either explaining or by bringing me by foot or by car to the address I needed to be ...
... I only ever had one bad experience with a policeman and that was when our car broke down in a very rough district in London and my husband went out to find a garage,
(that was before mobile telephones) whilst I stayed behind, sitting in our car, waiting.
... All of a sudden I was approached by two police people, one male and one female and both of them ordered me to open the car door.
... I refused because the male policeman appeared to be very showy and aggressive towards me and I did not approve of his behaviour
and adding to that he did not appear to be sober either and my instinct told me that I did not stand a chance against this unwanted aggeressive behaviour.
... So I stayed put and did not move in the locked car and adding to that I ignored all his aggressive attempts... At one point he even kicked his foot against the car door
and that was very frightening ... Fortunately the female police-member realized my distress about his overly showy aggression (no doubt he wanted to impress her)
and she kindly lured him away from our car and luckily my husband arrived shortly after and he had already arranged for our car to be towed away
by the AA (AA = The British motoring association founded in 1905 which provides car insurance, breakdown cover and many other services).
... I still believe I did the right thing by not opening our car door to this aggressive policeman because he was beyond the point
of conducting himself like a respectable police(gentle)man...

[willowtreewren]

Quote

    Arming everyone is simply NOT the answer.

Agreed.   Disarming everyone is also simply NOT the answer.

Agreed! I find it interesting that when the topic turns to reasonable controls on gun sales/ownership/types of weapons allowed, those against any of the former start the chant about "taking away our guns!"

Sigh. Can't we find some common ground?

Aleta

[Simon Dog]

Sigh. Can't we find some common ground?

Neither side seems to be willing to let it happen.

For example, gun control advocates never offer a true compromise that gives both sides something.  I'd start with a compromise like universal background checks on all sales in return for shall-issue concealed carry permit licensing, national reciprocity (like driver's licenses), and not allowing places like NYC to limit carry permits to the privileged and connected.   But, the gun control people always define compromise as "we won't take away as much as we wanted to....this time".

We just had the MA AG re-write the gun laws with a very creative re-interpretation, which means my legal team has work to do (yes, I really do have a legal team for this sort of thing, and it is rather well funded).

[Charlie B53]

The very first question that should be asked any new police recruit,

Would you testify against a fellow Officer that you witnessed committing a criminally aggressive act?

If ANY Officer is not willing to testify to help get rid of the few bad Cops, then that Officer isn't worth wearing the Badge either.

If he is not part of the solution he is part of the problem.

Until these attitude change there will NEVER be any public confidence in Police.

[Michael Murphy]

What do you mean no compromise. Recently a attempt was made to stop people on the terror watch list from buying guns.  The gun lobby and the republicans blocked the attempt because they seem to feel the 2 amendment allows terrorists to buy guns.  Romberg the second admendment was written during the time when mussel loaders were the guns around not assault weapons.  These weapons are designed to kill and maim large number of people.  Can't we at least stop terrorists from buying them.

[Simon Dog]

What do you mean no compromise. Recently a attempt was made to stop people on the terror watch list from buying guns.  The gun lobby and the republicans blocked the attempt because they seem to feel the 2 amendment allows terrorists to buy guns.  Romberg the second admendment was written during the time when mussel loaders were the guns around not assault weapons.  These weapons are designed to kill and maim large number of people.  Can't we at least stop terrorists from buying them.

I did not mean "no compromise" but "no unilateral surrender of rights".  If something is taken, something else must be given.  I'd start by adding more protections for the law-abiding when adding more restrictions.  In any compromise, both sides feel they got something they wanted.  One side only getting part of what it wants, and the other side getting nothing, it not a compromise.  (Give me $20?  No? Ok, give me $10 and we'll call it a compromise)

I favor banning terrorists from buying guns, but it should involve due process - specifically a court hearing before an impartial finder of fact where the alleged terrorist may confront evidence used against him, confront witnesses used against him, compel people to testify under oath via subpoena, have heresay evidence and rumor excluded, etc.   Imagine if the police could revoke the drivers licenses of known drunk drivers, based on secret criteria and the only appeal was asking the police to reconsider.

As to "not in use at the time" - that argument was rejected by SCOTUS.  If the argument were valid, it would be legal for congress to regulate speech on the internet because electronic communications did not exist when the 1st amendment was ratified.  I doubt the framers of the bill of rights anticipated freedom of religion being used to protect a religion that supplies the majority of terrorists (most Muslims are not terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims), but that does not exclude Islam from 1st amendment protection.  Of courses, these arguments do not hold if one accepts the fact that the 2nd amendment is a "second class right" to be afforded less protection than the other 9 items in the bill of rights.

[Michael Murphy]

All right say I live next to you and I have always liked the thought of atomic bombs, and I am a smart idiot and I start to build one.  It's a weapon and since it's not right to ban weapons of any type I build the damn thing.  Biggest problem is the triggering device,  so how do you feel with your neighbor going nuclear.  Why not just because no one new about atomic bombs why should I be punished and my bomb seized.  If not a atomic bomb say 2000'pounds of C4 want that next to you.  Well those weapons are banned quite rightly and I feel any weapon not in use during the 18th century should be equally controlled.  Allow mussel  loaders or single shot rifles.  Every thing else should be controled.  That or let any idiot store what ever weapon they choose.





sp mod Cas

[Charlie B53]

Fortunately fissionable material is very highly regulate, although there is far too much that is unaccounted for, missing, from too many locations in the world.

However, once upon a time, and this ain't no fairy tale, there was an enterprising young man living IIRC in a suburb of Chicago, had spent far too much time collecting watches, scraping off the 'glow in the dark' material on the watch faces.    When he was admitted to the local hospital extremely ill, bleeding gums, teeth and hair coming out, it was figured out that he was suffering from severe radiation poisoning.   The Feds were called.  Warrant obtaining, house and garage searched, a team was called in to contain the material and later admitted the lad had a nearly complete, working, bomb.    A High School kid.

I agree with Simon, rights can be curtailed only through due process and the accused given the right to present arguement and or evidence to the contrary.   

As a Nation founded on the principal of individuals having rights the Government can only limit those rights by following the laws already well laid out.   No Shortcutting.

Unless Obummer thinks he can declare martial law.

[Simon Dog]

The Feds were called.  Warrant obtaining, house and garage searched, a team was called in to contain the material and later admitted the lad had a nearly complete, working, bomb.    A High School kid.

He may have been close to a working "dirty bomb", but there is no way he would have been able to assemble a bomb that uses nuclear fission or fusion from those parts in his house.   

[Charlie B53]

I really don't remember, it was at least 40 years ago and the Feds released limited information.

[Charlie B53]

Another questionable Cop killing of an unarmed 18 year old.   Officers body cams were conveniently not working.

Why do the Cops use a gun when a tazer will do the job?    The usual 'I thought he had a gun. I feared for my life', will again get them off.

Many many years ago when dash cams first came out, many police departments reported lots of vandalism, claiming 'vandals' were breaking off the antennae for the dash cam radio system so they would not work.   Of course it was Officers doing the vandalization, they didn't want any record of their actions.    What do you want to bet the same thing is now happening with the body cams?

[Thesunwillshinetomorrow]

Black Lives Matter is certainly NOT BS. This is a good metaphor:

"My personal interpretation of Black Lives Matter vs. All Lives Matter. Bob is sitting at the dinner table. Everyone else gets a plate of food except Bob. Bob says 'Bob Deserves Food.' Everyone at the table responds with 'Everyone Deserves Food' and continues eating. Although Everyone Deserves Food is a true statement, it does nothing to actually rectify the fact that BOB HAS NO FOOD!!"

Data supports that police brutality toward blacks far outweighs that towards whites. White privilege is very real, so real that most of us whites aren't even aware of it.

I feel incredibly sad for the state of our country.

Aleta

This.

I love this analogy!!!

[Simon Dog]

The usual 'I thought he had a gun. I feared for my life', will again get them off.

The problem is the near total immunity cops enjoy.

We had a case in Framingham, MA where a cop shot a compliant subject (elderly man related to target of warrant, but completely innocent) through the neck with an AR15 while he was proned out in his home.  The PD withheld the officer's' name until required by legal process; the local paper cooperated fully (rather than working sources to find the name) and the DA was using the phrase "accident for which no charges are appropriate" before the body was cold.   The officer is now back on duty.

Then a while later we have a legal, licensed gun owner in the same town accidentally shoot himself in the hand.   Naturally, his license is pulled, his guns seized and he is criminally charged for discharging a firearm within 500 ft of an occupied dwelling.

It's hard to have confidence in the police when it's clear they will not be held to the same standard as normal, unimportant, unconnected plebians.

Data supports that police brutality toward blacks far outweighs that towards whites. White privilege is very real, so real that most of us whites aren't even aware of it.

No doubt true.     I don't think it stems from dislike for diverse people, but rather the perception (true or not) that a black male is more likely to be a safety threat than a white one.  Even with policies against profiling, the difference in perception can and does result in different assumptions by police.   I have been stopped by cops while armed, and the cops figured it out from the odor of gunpowder (we were coming from a match).  All I got was "don't move around" (there were three of us in an SUV) and a polite "I'll need to see your carry licenses", followed by the driver getting a talking to about the moving violations he was being let off on.   I absolutely, positively, do not believe we would have received that treatment if we were three black males.  It probably would have been more like "out of the car mofo" at gunpoint.

[MooseMom]

The problem is the near total immunity cops enjoy.

We had a case in Framingham, MA where a cop shot a compliant subject (elderly man related to target of warrant, but completely innocent) through the neck with an AR15 while he was proned out in his home.  The PD withheld the officer's' name until required by legal process; the local paper cooperated fully (rather than working sources to find the name) and the DA was using the phrase "accident for which no charges are appropriate" before the body was cold.   The officer is now back on duty.

It's hard to have confidence in the police when it's clear they will not be held to the same standard as normal, unimportant, unconnected plebians.

The genesis of that "near total immunity" is their union.  It is incredibly difficult to prosecute/discipline/fire a policeman or any "first responder".  Every year (depending upon the locality), city management enters into contract negotiations with the union, and every single provision is fought over, debated and finally written into their contract, and this includes provisions for discipline and termination.  And the genesis of THIS has always been the determination that the job of law enforcers/first responders essentially defines them as NOT "normal, unimportant and unconnected."

So no, they are not held to the same standard.

On a side note, the one person now waging a "War on Cops" is Donald Trump. 

[Simon Dog]

The genesis of that "near total immunity" is their union.

Only partially.   The union contract cannot protect a cop from criminal charges; only from having his/her pay stopped until there is a conviction.  The problem is the culture of the system being very reluctant to hold cops accountable for actions which are bad judgement, not criminal intent.

We did have a local prosecution of a Framingham cop who stole cash from the evidence room.  He got convicted, did time, and lost his pension.   I guess it was hard to say "just an accident for which no one should be punished" when he had the envelopes of evidence cash in his car.

[MooseMom]

The genesis of that "near total immunity" is their union.

Only partially.   The union contract cannot protect a cop from criminal charges; only from having his/her pay stopped until there is a conviction.  The problem is the culture of the system being very reluctant to hold cops accountable for actions which are bad judgement, not criminal intent.

We did have a local prosecution of a Framingham cop who stole cash from the evidence room.  He got convicted, did time, and lost his pension.   I guess it was hard to say "just an accident for which no one should be punished" when he had the envelopes of evidence cash in his car.

Of course the contract cannot protect a cop from criminal charges, but a lot will depend upon whether or not said cop was on-duty.  If the crime involved a weapon, a cop in uniform will be treated differently than a cop who was off-duty.  I'm not saying that's right, but that's the way it is, and THAT's where the union contract will provide a modicum of protection.

But city management has to walk a tightrope of sorts.  First responders are city employees, and we all know that said city will be sued if they are not seen to discipline a cop appropriately, but their hands are also bound by whatever union contract they agreed to.  Even roads to arbitration can be brutally negotiated.  That's why cities and police unions both have teams of lawyers employed

That said, you're right.  The cop culture is very real and is very insular, much in the same way that any culture is where members wear a uniform.  We could be having this same conversation about soldiers.

On the other hand, it could be said that we as a society do not like accusing our men in uniform of any wrongdoing or of any lack of judgment.

Every police department is gonna have some guy running a scam.

[Charlie B53]

I just heard an article yesterday.  A man robbed a bank, and was caught before he could get away.  He was taken to jail, charged, and FIRED from their local Police Force.  This was just a couple of hours before his shift was to begin.

Dumb Azz.   Union ain't got a leg on this one.

[Jean]

What on this earth makes you make a statement like " Donald Trump is waging a war on cops. He is pro military,pro police, to every thing I have seen. Dont know where you come up with this.

[MooseMom]

What on this earth makes you make a statement like " Donald Trump is waging a war on cops. He is pro military,pro police, to every thing I have seen. Dont know where you come up with this.

This thread was started way before Trump was elected and has nothing to do with him.  What makes you think it does?  A bit sensitive, are we?  LOL!

But since you have chosen to bring Trump into this discussion, Trump does seem to be pro-military but certainly isn't pro-veteran.  And he certainly isn't pro-justice the way he's undermining our intelligence community.  He thinks the FBI exists to serve him instead of serving the American people.

So, we will get to have a despotic, third world style military parade.  Our democracy is dead.  I hope you're happy.

[iolaire]

But since you have chosen to bring Trump into this discussion, Trump does seem to be pro-military but certainly isn't pro-veteran.  And he certainly isn't pro-justice the way he's undermining our intelligence community.  He thinks the FBI exists to serve him instead of serving the American people.

I've been wondering if this topic should have its own thread.  Or does his base just not care about his attacks on the intelligence community, FBI, judges and all the other patriotic institutions he attacks?  Sort of like how the religious conservatives don't have problems with his serial adultery...