Good thing we have the de-escalator in chief.
De-Escalation Keeps Protesters and Police Safer
401–410 of 799 posts
Re: De-Escalation Keeps Protesters and Police Safer
#402Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Don't let anyone become an officer. Raise officer pay and benefits. Also, give credit to the police have done well and are well intentioned, which must be throughout the majority of the population, otherwise the US would have become unlivable decades ago.
An SFPD officer involved in misconduct during the protests was cited as having a salary north of $200,000. How much do officers need to be paid not to shoot journalists in the eyes?
The job role itself will always attract such people.
Re: De-Escalation Keeps Protesters and Police Safer
#403Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Certainly, this system isn't perfect Well shit it isn't, it results every year in people being murdered in cold blood, nobody being arrested for it despite the perpetrators being known, and the majority of the population is apparently utterly fine with this - even you are merely saying that this situation "needs improvement", like you're marking homework. "The police only murdered one person in cold blood today rat…
Well shit it isn't, it results every year in people being murdered in cold blood, nobody being arrested for it despite the perpetrators being known After the George Floyd incident, everyone was in agreement that this should stop. What's happening with the violence and the vandalism is just muddying the waters. It's almost as if the purpose isn't to make things better, but to foment a race war to destabilize the USA.
> After the George Floyd incident, everyone was in agreement that this should stop.
No, they really weren't - or at least not in any way that might lead to actionable results, like building systems that do not give cops the power to murder people without accountability. The same as all the other times the police have murdered people. It's not like this is a new thing that people are just waking up to.
Re: De-Escalation Keeps Protesters and Police Safer
#404Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being a police officer isn't a dangerous job, it isn't even in the top 10 of most dangerous jobs in the US. No one thanks the 7-11 clerk for the danger they put themselves into so you can buy a Slurpee at 2AM in the morning. No one thanks the crab fisherman who risk their lives so you can enjoy "all you can eat" snow crab legs at Red Lobster. There's lots of extremely brutal jobs that are thankless. People who pick y…
From a quick Google search, this article lists sherriff/police officer at 14th most dangerous job: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/careers/2018/01/09/work... The most common cause is intentional injury by another person. The police, like everyone with power needs accountability. But I don't know if being overpaid is the core problem.
If anything better pay would attract better cops.
Re: De-Escalation Keeps Protesters and Police Safer
#405Earlier quoted context omitted.
Insightful reply. I marched yesterday and police fired rubber bullets into a peaceful crowd because we were blocking a non-essential intersection. On a Sunday. We refused to leave and fortunately they left and let us have a peaceful march. There doesn’t seem to be an interest in separating out the extreme minority that protest violently. There had been zero violence or destruction that day. A very well-behaved crowd…
Was everyone wearing masks and practicing social distancing of at least 6 feet? Weren’t we told that the reopen protesters were putting people at risk by protesting from their cars? I don’t disagree with the reason for protest, but if a church can’t be open, even outdoors, and an extended family picnic is illegal in a public park, then I am not sure the rationale for allowing protests now. The first amendment isn’t c…
Nobody likes that these protests are likely to lead to increased transmission. It's a truly terrible choice. People are making that choice because these protests get to such a fundamental problem in our society that they are still worth it, despite the cost. And, as has been mentioned, mask usage is high, and these protests are outside. It doesn't eliminate the risk, but many, many people are still trying to minimize the public health risk.
So, yes, context matters. I would absolutely argue the value in the being part of the strongest push against police brutality in decades, that just might result in systemic change, is incredibly more worthy than virtually any other activity. It does not mean there is no public health cost. It does mean it is a tragic choice to have to make.
Re: De-Escalation Keeps Protesters and Police Safer
#406Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please don't use LA as an example. Its not a city that can be compared to any other because of its weird patchwork nature and stupid geographic boundaries.
I studied Los Angeles history of city planning and urbanism in university, as a minor (not that makes me an expert by any means, of course, but I'm no stranger to LA, plus I've lived here for 6 years) – it's a special city, yes, but it's not fundamentally different from most other large cities in the US, including my hometown, Dallas, so much as just further along the same growth pattern (sprawl and then densificatio…
Oh My god those boundaries are so stupid
Re: De-Escalation Keeps Protesters and Police Safer
#407Earlier quoted context omitted.
would you prefer a country with no rule of law? there are plenty of those around to check out
You know as well as I do that there are alternatives to a contemporary legal system that are not a bunch of roving warlords. The current system is not the only system that can possibly work.
Can you elaborate on that? I can't really read the mind of either of you ("you know as well as I do"... what do you guys know?)
Re: De-Escalation Keeps Protesters and Police Safer
#408Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many cops seem to be very racist and very violent Citation needed. I think most cops are just normal people trying to earn a living.
You say “most” which implies that you agree that some police are racist and violent “bad apples.” Why, then, do the “good cops” not speak out against the bad cops? Surely they could use their overwhelming numbers to get rid of the racist and violent bad apples?
Why don't the "good protesters" speak out against the looters? Why do you demand the cops do what you wont do? (maybe you personally do but most protesters are not speaking against the looters). Often times it's dangerous to speak up or separate groups entirely. I'm sure the oakland police department is less racist than some random cop Jackson, Mississippi.
Re: De-Escalation Keeps Protesters and Police Safer
#409Why not make universal laws that apply to anyone that can be proven to injure another human being with economic deterrents?
For example, if you hit a man in the face, cause bruising, lets say that costs $1,000 across the board. $1,000 for any hematoma, $5000 or any broken bone. $25,000 for a GSW, $100,000 for a life-threatening injury, etc.
To take it further, if you discharge a weapon at another human being, the fine is something like $1,000 per bullet, etc.
Additionally, existing laws still apply.
Following the above guidelines, you don't need to prove mens rea. It is just the cost of doing business.
It would be a violence tax at the individual level.
Re: De-Escalation Keeps Protesters and Police Safer
#410Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now that being said, black lives matter in particular suffers from (in my opinion) a lack of leadership and organization. A universal problem with "leaderless movements" is that they quickly devolve to the lowest common denominator level. Anyone can put out their slate and call themselves an "activist" and it's inevitable that some dim person will come along and try to make a name for themselves by taking things fart…
> A universal problem with "leaderless movements" is that they quickly devolve to the lowest common denominator level. Anyone can put out their slate and call themselves an "activist"... I appreciate this part a lot. It helps me realize that movements also have brands they need to manage and have similar struggles to companies that are trying to manage brands at various levels of centralization—e.g., the challenge of…
This is definitely a known problem, and one which lots of people have spent lots of time thinking about.
As you say, social change movements face many of the same struggles as companies, including maintaining brand alignment and quality control across a network of distributed actors. For this reason, social change movements often adopt (and adapt) the same management tools and techniques that large companies have developed for their operations.
But there is a bunch of literature about managing these challenges specifically for social change movements. One reasonably concise and approachable example is: https://www.citizenshandbook.org/network-campaigns.pdf
>It seems as organizations and movements become less coordinated, less structured in how to resolve internal conflicts and align, that they would be more suited to attacking things or ideas, rather than building them.
I'm not sure this is true. Leaderless movements can be well coordinated and structured (it's just hard). And poorly coordinated and structured movements aren't really suited to doing anything well, even just attacking things and ideas.