Texsox Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 QUOTE (LDF @ May 3, 2015 -> 10:04 PM) i always thought there was no bail on murder. Depends on the situation. Remember the guide is still innocent until proven guilty. SO if the person doesn't have any prior issues with the law, not a flight risk, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 While it is easy, and probably appropriate to explore the racial angles, you also have the frustration of all cops over the assembly line of crimes, arrests, back on the street, crimes, arrests, . . . So who do they vent their frustrations on? Poor people without access to lawyers that could really build cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDF Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 QUOTE (Tex @ May 4, 2015 -> 02:21 PM) While it is easy, and probably appropriate to explore the racial angles, you also have the frustration of all cops over the assembly line of crimes, arrests, back on the street, crimes, arrests, . . . So who do they vent their frustrations on? Poor people without access to lawyers that could really build cases. they are venting their frustration along with those who are screaming the most about unlawful misdoings by the cops. that is all it takes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 (edited) Another NYC cop killed in his car Edited May 4, 2015 by ChiSox_Sonix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 (edited) This isn’t 1968. Baltimore isn’t Watts. And Hillary Clinton isn’t Michael Dukakis. An excellent article from Radly Balko, the same guy who wrote the article last September examining how munincipalities in St. Louis County profit from poverty. It starts out examining two columns critical of Clinton's new-found position on mass incarceration on mainly political grounds before really diving into the underlying issues. That pundits writing for prominent media outlets would characterize such middling, non-committal rhetoric as some sort of radical soft-on-crime agenda is more than anything a demonstration of the warped reality in which the political and chattering classes operate. (I suspect age is also a factor. There’s a marked generational split on many of these issues.) But let’s be clear: Hillary Clinton isn’t a radical reformer of criminal justice. She’s a Johnny-come-lately. That brings me to my main beef with these two columns: They’re just crassly political. They reduce very real questions about injustice, race, and systematic oppression to blunt political analysis. This is typical of punditry in general, and it’s particularly true as election season heats up. But it’s particularly callous with these issues because of what’s at stake. Cohen and Green’s chief criticism of Clinton is that her (superficial) nod to criminal justice reform is bad politics. That’s it. It will make her look like Dukakis. They’re not interested in exploring, say, the now well-documented history of police misconduct and excessive force in Baltimore, the city’s history of rewarding abusive cops, or the 2000s-era campaign of mass arrests for misdemeanor offenses, which saddled a wide swath of the city’s black population with a debilitating arrest record. Never mind all of that. Hillary Clinton talked about reform as riots were happening. Therefore, she’s Dukakis. If you read his previous article from last September, you'll remember the story of Antonio Morgan, the black guy who is endlessly harassed by the police and courts while running a legitimate auto repair business. I wonder how many people who rioted in Ferguson and Baltimore were carrying the same load Morgan was, but simply lacked his will to withstand it all. I also wonder what would have been said about Morgan if during one of his many arrests he had somehow died in the back of a police van as Freddie Gray did. Certainly we’d hear about all of those arrests. We’d probably hear about how he once abandoned his children in a parking lot. We’d definitely hear that police once had to Tase him, threatened to do so on another occasion, and that he had once been arrested for assaulting a cop. People like Morgan put the lie to blaming all of this on “black culture.” Morgan isn’t a drug pusher. He isn’t an absentee father. He isn’t in a gang. He’s a guy trying to do right by his family. Yet people like Morgan also show how the system feeds into the lie. Despite his biography, it would be very easy to portray Morgan as the very stereotype of “black culture” that law-and-order types rail against. And then he provides what I think is a pretty great examination of institutional racism: But this misses the point. Many white people hear “racism” and immediately think it’s a personal accusation. But a system can be racist without any racism from the people who operate within it. Look again at St. Louis County. Antonio Morgan’s business is located in the town of Pine Lawn. It’s one of the most egregious offenders in the county. But Pine Lawn is 96 percent black. Most of its city officials are and have been black. In fact, Anthony Gray, the attorney for Michael Brown’s family, is the town’s former police chief and current prosecutor. But Antonio Morgan is still a victim of racism. The reason black people in St. Louis County are unfairly and disproportionately targeted by police for minor offenses is due to the very structure of the county’s political and court system. When white people fled St. Louis in the early-to-mid-20th century, they took advantage of Missouri’s lenient incorporation laws to set up new towns to keep blacks away. As blacks began to move west, white people would move a little farther out, incorporate again, and set up new zoning laws to restrict black residency. The result is a county filled with dozens of tiny towns, nearly all of which have their own government and police force. The primary source of revenue for the local towns is sales tax. But the poorer (which means blacker) towns don’t generate enough income from sales taxes. So they turn to municipal fines to keep themselves from going under. The poorer the town and its residents, the more likely the town relies on fines for a greater percentage of its annual revenue. Which means that the blacker the town, the more likely its residents are getting treated like ATMs for the local government. The cops in these towns don’t deal with felony crimes. The county police investigate those. A local officer’s job is to administer fines. Most cops are drawn from whiter, wealthier areas, in part because so many people in the poorer areas have arrest records. That means you have cops patrolling areas they aren’t from who are charged with extracting fines from people with whom they have little in common, and for petty offenses. We did see a few examples of overt racism from city officials in the months after the Ferguson protests. But a system like this, one created by racism, will produce racist results even if none of the cops, prosecutors, or judges are racist themselves. As a number of outlets have reported over the last week, Baltimore’s history is similarly steeped in structural racism, although it manifests in different ways. The point is, this is how the city can have a justice system that disproportionately victimizes black people — a racist system — even as black people are running it. It’s how Freddie Gray could be the victim of a racist system, even though, as Lloyd Green points out, half of the cops who participated in Gray’s death are black. closes it out with some more criticism of the punditry and media coverage of these issues It’s much easier to demagogue riots to exploit white fear of black crime than it is to ask complicated questions about what caused this group of people to grow so desperate in the first place. Historically, that tact has also won elections, and deviating from it arguably has lost them. Green and Cohen seem to think this will always be the case. But 2015 isn’t 1968. In 2015, conscientious people from across the political spectrum are now questioning what a generation of “tough on crime” rhetoric and policies has wrought. Even some politicians — Rand Paul is a good example — have advocated reforms that don’t necessarily benefit them politically. Maybe, just maybe, the punditocracy will follow suit. Maybe they’ll stop asking, “What does this candidate’s criminal justice policy mean for the election?” and start asking, “What does this candidate’s criminal justice policy mean for the people who will be affected by it?” Edited May 7, 2015 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDF Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 7, 2015 -> 05:50 PM) good reading, i guess the majority of it, locks up the whole thing as bull s*** reporting. trying to paint everything into 1 color. i hate to hit and run, but i am thru. if no one can see the problems, then how do they expect it to get fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/f...8Wc/story01.htm What type a person fights on top of someone's car? This is craziness... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 I hope Cleveland doesn't get their own riot thread after that officer was found Not Guilty today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Why the bad guys are winning in Baltimore.... http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/10/us/baltimore...view/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 10, 2015 -> 11:12 AM) Why the bad guys are winning in Baltimore.... http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/10/us/baltimore...view/index.html Are you saying that sarcastically? Or do you think that's a legit reason crime is up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Neither. Just think it will be interesting to see the "counter reaction" from police across the country. Okay...well, if you're not happy with how we're doing our jobs, let's see how happy you are if we do the bare minimum or look the other way. Can't imagine it would be an easy thing to stomach for the best officers. It's the same argument as a local teacher's union, when they take such an action that works against the benefit of the students. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted June 11, 2015 Author Share Posted June 11, 2015 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 11, 2015 -> 12:44 AM) Neither. Just think it will be interesting to see the "counter reaction" from police across the country. Okay...well, if you're not happy with how we're doing our jobs, let's see how happy you are if we do the bare minimum or look the other way. Can't imagine it would be an easy thing to stomach for the best officers. It's the same argument as a local teacher's union, when they take such an action that works against the benefit of the students. Problem is cops can't do that. Don't they take a sworn oath to protect and serve? Also cities fund their police stations and pay their salaries. They are civil servants and if they look the other way the must be filmed and fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 11, 2015 -> 02:48 AM) Problem is cops can't do that. Don't they take a sworn oath to protect and serve? Also cities fund their police stations and pay their salaries. They are civil servants and if they look the other way the must be filmed and fired. I think the supreme court ruled that they do NOT have any duty to protect you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted June 11, 2015 Author Share Posted June 11, 2015 QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 11, 2015 -> 04:35 PM) I think the supreme court ruled that they do NOT have any duty to protect you. They don't want to pull this type s*** with cities who fund their police stations and pay their salaries. Cops need to realize they have caused this bulls*** to begin with. They need to calm the f*** down and serve and protect or go get a job at Wendy's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 11, 2015 -> 03:13 PM) They don't want to pull this type s*** with cities who fund their police stations and pay their salaries. Cops need to realize they have caused this bulls*** to begin with. They need to calm the f*** down and serve and protect or go get a job at Wendy's. greg775 Translator: Rabble, rabble, I'm the self-appointed voice of the anti-police generalization movement, rabble, generalization, rabble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted June 11, 2015 Author Share Posted June 11, 2015 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 11, 2015 -> 08:31 PM) greg775 Translator: Rabble, rabble, I'm the self-appointed voice of the anti-police generalization movement, rabble, generalization, rabble. These police incidents are causing riots which threatens my life and others. Wait til one of these hits in Chicago. Do you want looting all over downtown Chicago and Chicago itself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 11, 2015 -> 03:13 PM) They don't want to pull this type s*** with cities who fund their police stations and pay their salaries. Cops need to realize they have caused this bulls*** to begin with. They need to calm the f*** down and serve and protect or go get a job at Wendy's. Soon that might pay better than the police department... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 11, 2015 -> 03:50 PM) These police incidents are causing riots which threatens my life and others. Wait til one of these hits in Chicago. Do you want looting all over downtown Chicago and Chicago itself? Lol, Greg, the king of overreaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 11, 2015 -> 03:13 PM) They don't want to pull this type s*** with cities who fund their police stations and pay their salaries. Cops need to realize they have caused this bulls*** to begin with. They need to calm the f*** down and serve and protect or go get a job at Wendy's. http://nypost.com/2013/01/27/city-says-cop...subdued-killer/ Go ahead and read that Greg. But you might want to sit down first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 11, 2015 -> 04:45 PM) http://nypost.com/2013/01/27/city-says-cop...subdued-killer/ Go ahead and read that Greg. But you might want to sit down first. That's messed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 (edited) QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 11, 2015 -> 03:57 PM) That's messed up. By that utilitarian (the greatest good for the greatest number) type of argument, almost any cop can justify not intervening in any particular situation to save one specific individual. But what if the guy was threatening EVERYONE in the whole subway car with his presence? Or, by not intervening (allowing the suspect to kill the heroic guy), everyone else was consequently put in danger as a result? Sounds like something that a bunch of insurance companies and lawyers developed to protect cities from civil litigation. Edited June 11, 2015 by caulfield12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 11, 2015 -> 05:45 PM) http://nypost.com/2013/01/27/city-says-cop...subdued-killer/ Go ahead and read that Greg. But you might want to sit down first. I'm not sure if I understand the sequence of events. The madman enters the train after having been recognized by the cop, the cop hides, the madman tries to kill a man, once the man who was stabbed disarms the madman, the cop comes out of hiding? Or am I missing some nuance to the story? The city's defense that they can't simply take responsibility for every bad thing that happens of course makes sense, as does the argument that there could be times that the measures needed to protect a single person could jeopardize the safety of many others. But the way I'm reading it is that the cop just waited for the madman to finish his business before acting, which seems indefensible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 QUOTE (Jake @ Jun 11, 2015 -> 05:19 PM) I'm not sure if I understand the sequence of events. The madman enters the train after having been recognized by the cop, the cop hides, the madman tries to kill a man, once the man who was stabbed disarms the madman, the cop comes out of hiding? Or am I missing some nuance to the story? The city's defense that they can't simply take responsibility for every bad thing that happens of course makes sense, as does the argument that there could be times that the measures needed to protect a single person could jeopardize the safety of many others. But the way I'm reading it is that the cop just waited for the madman to finish his business before acting, which seems indefensible From other stories I read about it, that was the case. The cop hid and watched until it was over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 11, 2015 -> 09:07 PM) From other stories I read about it, that was the case. The cop hid and watched until it was over. The issue I see is what if a citizen makes some silly and ill-fated attempt to be the hero while the police are present. Are the police now obligated to intervene on this guy's behalf? I could see how this would be problematic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwritecode Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Reading the story, it sounds like the hero only tackled the guy AFTER he was stabbed in the face. It's not like he was trying to be a hero, it was mostly self-defense. All while the cop(s) sat and watched it happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts