Ferguson Riots

[EvilMonkey]

So how about you apply that standard to whether or not a guy should be put in a chokehold for selling loose cigarettes?

NYC wants all those liberal benefits to flow to it's people, it has to pay for them somehow. Pick one. You need tax revenue to pay for your utopia. Selling loosies avoids that tax.

[Balta1701]

NYC wants all those liberal benefits to flow to it's people, it has to pay for them somehow. Pick one. You need tax revenue to pay for your utopia. Selling loosies avoids that tax.

Ok, I pick an income tax.

[Y2HH]

So how about you apply that standard to whether or not a guy should be put in a chokehold for selling loose cigarettes?

 

* For the record, before you read this, let it be known that I actually agree the officer(s) in question went above and beyond too quickly in the case you mentioned.

 

But allow me to play devils advocate, because it's a role I love to play...

 

Let me give you a scenario...if a person is loitering on your property and you call the police and want them removed, but said person doesn't want to be removed, the police you call MUST remove that person, whether said individual wants to leave or not. The police don't get to just say, oh well, he doesn't want to leave...sorry sir, and go on their merry way. They also don't get to stand there for 8 hours, getting none of their other work done (because I know, they have no other work to do), trying to convince this person to "pretty please with sugar on top" leave the premises in which they don't belong.

 

While you're busy putting all of the onus on the police in this SPECIFIC scenario (while ignoring the hundreds of thousands of scenarios where the police do an outstanding job), because THEY [the police] should be the only ones held to a higher standard, how about we start putting some responsibility on the citizens shoulders, too? How about we DON'T have citizens breaking the law by selling loose cigarettes in front of a f***ing store that sells cigarettes legitimately? Who, by the way, called the police WANTING that person removed from the premises. How about we start holding each other to the same high standard we want out of our solders and police officers? Oh, is that asking too much?

 

Now, all that being said, should a person have to die because of any of this? Of course not. And it's sad that happened, and it shouldn't have happened. But let's start recognizing life is a two way street and EVERYONE needs to be held to a higher standard, because -- and not to go all Batman on you here -- but these criminals, petty or otherwise, thrive on the indulgence of societies understanding.

 

I'm sick and tired of having to look over my shoulder while I walk my kids down the f***ing street because some f***wad may crack my skull for 5 dollars and rape my kids while they're at it. I'm sick of holding police to a higher standard, while holding the citizens they protect us from from to NO f***ing standards at all.

Edited January 3, 2015 by Y2HH

[Texsox]

While I agree with Balta on most of his posts in this thread, I do not believe it is hypocritical to also agree with this post.

[Balta1701]

Normally, I'd agree with your sarcasm here, being that I'm a law abiding citizen, but what they're doing with these cameras is very grey area. For starters, they lack due process, which we're supposed to be guaranteed. Secondly, they're tinkering with how long yellows last (it's supposed to be based on the area speed limit, but Rham has most -- if not all of them -- set to the lowest allowed 3 seconds. Then, they're often tinkering with the allowed speed limits (setting them artificially low, knowing people will speed out of exasperation or simply not realizing the speed limit dropped from 30 to 25 for a few blocks for no reason).

 

These cameras need to go away, as for all their bulls*** reasons, the only real reason is revenue without having to pay police or anyone else to write them tickets.

 

 

* For the record, before you read this, let it be known that I actually agree the officer(s) in question went above and beyond too quickly in the case you mentioned.

 

But allow me to play devils advocate, because it's a role I love to play...

 

Let me give you a scenario...if a person is loitering on your property and you call the police and want them removed, but said person doesn't want to be removed, the police you call MUST remove that person, whether said individual wants to leave or not. The police don't get to just say, oh well, he doesn't want to leave...sorry sir, and go on their merry way. They also don't get to stand there for 8 hours, getting none of their other work done (because I know, they have no other work to do), trying to convince this person to "pretty please with sugar on top" leave the premises in which they don't belong.

 

While you're busy putting all of the onus on the police in this SPECIFIC scenario (while ignoring the hundreds of thousands of scenarios where the police do an outstanding job), because THEY [the police] should be the only ones held to a higher standard, how about we start putting some responsibility on the citizens shoulders, too? How about we DON'T have citizens breaking the law by selling loose cigarettes in front of a f***ing store that sells cigarettes legitimately? Who, by the way, called the police WANTING that person removed from the premises. How about we start holding each other to the same high standard we want out of our solders and police officers? Oh, is that asking too much?

 

Now, all that being said, should a person have to die because of any of this? Of course not. And it's sad that happened, and it shouldn't have happened. But let's start recognizing life is a two way street and EVERYONE needs to be held to a higher standard, because -- and not to go all Batman on you here -- but these criminals, petty or otherwise, thrive on the indulgence of societies understanding.

 

I'm sick and tired of having to look over my shoulder while I walk my kids down the f***ing street because some f***wad may crack my skull for 5 dollars and rape my kids while they're at it. I'm sick of holding police to a higher standard, while holding the citizens they protect us from from to NO f***ing standards at all.

Of course, the true irony here is exposed in the comparison between these two posts. This is quite literally a fundamental example of why these communities feel they're being slighted.

 

In the first post, how terrible it is, how unfair it is, to constantly be caught and fined for actually breaking the law. Speed limits are supposed to be flexible right, cops are supposed to be flexible, how dare they figure out easy ways to enforce them.

 

In the second post....I'm sick of the cities being held to no f***ing standards at all.

 

This is exactly the problem. Some people are allowed to and just expect to be granted immunity from harassment because of their privilege. Speed limits are important sometimes but how dare they figure out ways to focus on me and use me as a source of revenue! This shouldn't matter to me, it's totally unfair to target me!

 

I know it's not going to happen, but try and take the experience of the first post and put it into the second. Imagine you've been ticketed for 2 mph over the speed limit 10 times in a year and stopped another 5 times just because they wanted to make sure you weren't thinking about speeding. Think there's any chance you might get mad? Think there's any chance that on any of those you might say something about how sick you are of being hassled? Maybe raise your arms if they try to grab you? After all, it's just a speeding ticket, right? Would that be worth being put in a choke hold? Or attacked by tear gas and MRAPs?

 

As was pointed out, the communities in Ferguson and surrounding areas pull in 25-50% of their funding from tickets and court fees. You've literally outlined how its BS for police to come up with ways to maneuver around the rules to come up with that funding...but that's your privilege. On the other hand, communities that have to actively deal with that kind of focus on a non-stop basis aren't allowed to complain. They can't get angry in reply. They can't act out. It's their own fault.

 

This is where the phrase "Check your privilege" comes from.

[Milkman delivers]

Of course, the true irony here is exposed in the comparison between these two posts. This is quite literally a fundamental example of why these communities feel they're being slighted.

 

In the first post, how terrible it is, how unfair it is, to constantly be caught and fined for actually breaking the law. Speed limits are supposed to be flexible right, cops are supposed to be flexible, how dare they figure out easy ways to enforce them.

 

In the second post....I'm sick of the cities being held to no f***ing standards at all.

 

This is exactly the problem. Some people are allowed to and just expect to be granted immunity from harassment because of their privilege. Speed limits are important sometimes but how dare they figure out ways to focus on me and use me as a source of revenue! This shouldn't matter to me, it's totally unfair to target me!

 

I know it's not going to happen, but try and take the experience of the first post and put it into the second. Imagine you've been ticketed for 2 mph over the speed limit 10 times in a year and stopped another 5 times just because they wanted to make sure you weren't thinking about speeding. Think there's any chance you might get mad? Think there's any chance that on any of those you might say something about how sick you are of being hassled? Maybe raise your arms if they try to grab you? After all, it's just a speeding ticket, right? Would that be worth being put in a choke hold? Or attacked by tear gas and MRAPs?

 

As was pointed out, the communities in Ferguson and surrounding areas pull in 25-50% of their funding from tickets and court fees. You've literally outlined how its BS for police to come up with ways to maneuver around the rules to come up with that funding...but that's your privilege. On the other hand, communities that have to actively deal with that kind of focus on a non-stop basis aren't allowed to complain. They can't get angry in reply. They can't act out. It's their own fault.

 

This is where the phrase "Check your privilege" comes from.

 

You must be talking about a suburban department. No city squads have radar, unless they're specifically the traffic unit. And they're not in the neighborhoods you're strongly hinting at them harassing. And you need a reason to pull someone over. Despite what you say, nobody gets pulled over because they look like they wanna speed. I know, I know. DWB blah blah blah. Traffic stop statistical studies constantly show no bias.

[Balta1701]

You must be talking about a suburban department. No city squads have radar, unless they're specifically the traffic unit. And they're not in the neighborhoods you're strongly hinting at them harassing. And you need a reason to pull someone over. Despite what you say, nobody gets pulled over because they look like they wanna speed. I know, I know. DWB blah blah blah. Traffic stop statistical studies constantly show no bias.

I'm glad you find that so objectionable and unreasonable because that was my attempt to put "Stop & Frisk" into a "check your privilege" context since it's something I don't have to deal with on an everyday basis. People stopped and searched with no probable cause because they happen to be in the wrong area and "look wrong" in some fashion. It seems crazy when applied to the daily life of driving in the suburbs, but that is a privilege we get. It's worth, therefore, pondering what kind of Hell it would be like if we didn't have that privilege.

 

Definitely the kind of thing that would get a person so sick of being targeted that they might say things like "I'm tired of it, it stops today, because every time you see me you want to harass me".

[Milkman delivers]

I'm glad you find that so objectionable and unreasonable because that was my attempt to put "Stop & Frisk" into a "check your privilege" context since it's something I don't have to deal with on an everyday basis. People stopped and searched with no probable cause because they happen to be in the wrong area and "look wrong" in some fashion. It seems crazy when applied to the daily life of driving in the suburbs, but that is a privilege we get. It's worth, therefore, pondering what kind of Hell it would be like if we didn't have that privilege.

 

Definitely the kind of thing that would get a person so sick of being targeted that they might say things like "I'm tired of it, it stops today, because every time you see me you want to harass me".

 

Didn't they get rid of stop and frisk in New York already? I don't really pay attention or even care. I just know that you need to be able to articulate a reason in Chicago.

[Balta1701]

Didn't they get rid of stop and frisk in New York already? I don't really pay attention or even care. I just know that you need to be able to articulate a reason in Chicago.

And his efforts to get rid of that is a big reason why the NYPD is turning their backs on this mayor. A solid part of the reason why he was elected was that people were tired of being subject to that.

[Milkman delivers]

And his efforts to get rid of that is a big reason why the NYPD is turning their backs on this mayor. A solid part of the reason why he was elected was that people were tired of being subject to that.

 

I think you're muddying that up just a tad, but there's really no point in arguing with you. You have your opinion on it, and you've made it clear.

[Balta1701]

I think you're muddying that up just a tad, but there's really no point in arguing with you. You have your opinion on it, and you've made it clear.

Well yeah, there are plenty of reasons, but that's on the list, and that's a slightly different subject than the one I was dealing with in that post anyway. He literally was elected in part because he pledged to get rid of that program. The police union actually led one lawsuit earlier this year to try to keep the program in place.

[Swingandalongonetoleft]

Meanwhile, the NYPD isn't exactly covering themselves in glory right now. From turning the funeral of a slain fellow officer into a petty protest to a work slowdown that's meant to demonstrate....something?, they're only making themselves look silly.

 

From the NYT

 

Turning the funerals of 2 murdered officers into a protest against the mayor is IMO a nice example of the mentality that is a part of the problem. This is just as petty as a lot of the s*** coming from the other side.

[Balta1701]

One of the Darren Wilson grand jurors has filed a lawsuit against the prosecutor requesting an injunction to be allowed to speak publicly about the case on the grounds that the prosecutor's public statements and document releases did not reflect the proceedings of the grand jury or that particular grand juror's opinion accurately.

[Jenksismyhero]

"I want my 15 minutes!"

[StrangeSox]

Quinnipiac poll finds majority of New Yorkers strongly against the NYPD's recent actions (turning their backs) and rhetoric ("blood on his hands")

 

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/...?ReleaseID=2124

 

New York City voters, black, white and Hispanic, disapprove 69 - 27 percent of police officers turning their backs on Mayor Bill de Blasio at funerals for two police officers, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

 

Police union leader Patrick Lynch's comments that the mayor's office had blood on its hands are "too extreme," voters say 77 - 17 percent, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe- ack) University Poll finds. There is no party, gender, racial, borough or age group which finds the comments "appropriate."

[StrangeSox]

Civil asset forfeiture abuse was brought up in one of these threads, but Eric Holder just took a significant step to curtail it.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigatio...3ddc_story.html

 

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Friday barred local and state police from using federal law to seize cash, cars and other property without evidence that a crime occurred.

 

Holder’s action represents the most sweeping check on police power to confiscate personal property since the seizures began three decades ago as part of the war on drugs.

 

Since 2008, thousands of local and state police agencies have made more than 55,000 seizures of cash and property worth $3 billion under a civil asset forfeiture program at the Justice Department called Equitable Sharing.

 

Holder’s decision follows a Washington Post investigation published in September that found that police have made cash seizures worth almost $2.5 billion from motorists and others without search warrants or indictments since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

 

The Post found that local and state police routinely pulled over drivers for minor traffic infractions, pressed them to agree to warrantless searches and seized large amounts of cash without evidence of wrongdoing. The law allows such seizures and forces the owners to prove their property was legally acquired in order to get it back.

[Jenksismyhero]

How does the AG of the DOJ stop state and local cops from applying existing federal law? He can't invalidate the law. And he has no jurisdiction over state and local cops.

[Jenksismyhero]

Ugh: "Bill Johnson, executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations, said, “There is some grave concern about the possible loss of significant funding while local police and state police are being asked to do more and more each year.”

 

It's literally stealing money from people you asshole. I don't give a s*** that the PD can't have a Margaritaville for its break room anymore.

[StrangeSox]

How does the AG of the DOJ stop state and local cops from applying existing federal law? He can't invalidate the law. And he has no jurisdiction over state and local cops.

Radley Balko explain:

 

The program won’t end civil asset forfeiture abuses entirely, but it will stop local police agencies from circumventing state laws aimed at reining them in. Many states, for example, have imposed stricter evidentiary standards police have to meet before they’re allowed to seize assets without a conviction. Other states have tried to eliminate the incentive problems that arise when police are allowed to keep the proceeds from asset forfeiture by requiring those proceeds to be sent to a general fund, or to a schools fund. Local police agencies have been able to get around those laws through the equitable sharing program, which basically federalizes investigations solely for the purpose of letting local police departments and prosecutors keep the bounties they collect in these cases. Holder’s policy change will end that.

 

The Equitable Sharing program was created by the DoJ, not by statute, so the DoJ is free to change this policy/program whenever it wants.

[StrangeSox]

Ugh: "Bill Johnson, executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations, said, “There is some grave concern about the possible loss of significant funding while local police and state police are being asked to do more and more each year.”

 

It's literally stealing money from people you asshole. I don't give a s*** that the PD can't have a Margaritaville for its break room anymore.

It's the same thing we're seeing with the NYPD and stopping enforcement of all sorts of low-level fines and what Radley Balko documented in St. Louis County. Most Americans are ideologically opposed to anything called a "tax," so we end up with all sorts of fees and fines and stuff like civil asset forfeiture in order to fund state and local governments.

[caulfield12]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/19/opinion/...top-span-region

 

How expensive it is to be poor.

 

The last 1/3rd of the story goes back to Ferguson, a city with a population of 21,135 where there were 33,000 non-violent (mostly traffic) violations in 2013 (roughly 90 per day) targeting mostly the African-American population...also mentions the high court fines and wide array of fees and penalties.

Edited January 20, 2015 by caulfield12

[Jenksismyhero]

It's the same thing we're seeing with the NYPD and stopping enforcement of all sorts of low-level fines and what Radley Balko documented in St. Louis County. Most Americans are ideologically opposed to anything called a "tax," so we end up with all sorts of fees and fines and stuff like civil asset forfeiture in order to fund state and local governments.

 

To be fair, civil forfeiture was a good idea in theory. It was meant to seize drug money. But obviously as with most laws, the enforcement became corrupted and abused by people.

 

We can thank John Oliver for this move. While people were fighting this stuff it didn't become widely known until his show did a whole segment on it.

[Y2HH]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/19/opinion/...top-span-region

 

How expensive it is to be poor.

 

The last 1/3rd of the story goes back to Ferguson, a city with a population of 21,135 where there were 33,000 non-violent (mostly traffic) violations in 2013 (roughly 90 per day) targeting mostly the African-American population...also mentions the high court fines and wide array of fees and penalties.

 

Keep in mind the police enforce the laws and the judges judge those in the eyes of those laws.

 

The politicians the people elect WRITE those laws.

[Balta1701]

The politicians the people elect WRITE those laws.

And then those politicians enact restrictions making it tougher to vote or moving people who vote against them out of their district so that they can write those laws while staying in office.

[StrangeSox]

To be fair, civil forfeiture was a good idea in theory. It was meant to seize drug money. But obviously as with most laws, the enforcement became corrupted and abused by people.

 

We can thank John Oliver for this move. While people were fighting this stuff it didn't become widely known until his show did a whole segment on it.

 

The Washington Post also did a fantastic series on it.