181–190 of 430 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm generally on board with everything you've said, but >like to see most beat cops completely disarmed seems absolutely crazy to me as long as the general public has such easy access to guns.
Why?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"See, people with power understand exactly one thing: violence." - Noam Chomsky.
I've been pretty happy that pretty much everyone (left, right, white, black, etc) agrees that the rioting and looting are just opportunistic violence and not actually part of the protest or "sending a message to people with power". Defending or promoting violence of any kind is repugnant, doubly so when it's directed toward impoverished communities.
Turns out when you do this endlessly, as many Police departments have done for our entire lifetimes, people eventually get desperate and resorts to more "loud" means to get their point across.
If you want it to stop, listen. If you create an environment where extrajudicial murder is simply looked at as "the cost of doing business" you're going to get a world where riots become "the cost of doing business"
What are some actual laws we can pass from this situation? I was thinking at the very least to get a citizen right where you can request to have any encounter with the police recorded. ‘Officer I request my right to have this encounter recorded’.
1. Body cams mandatory for all police inside & outside of the station, and they stay on 100% of the time and batteries should last the whole shift. No ifs/buts/maybes. If the need arises, bathroom breaks can be edited out after the fact.
2. National ID card, in all states and mandatory for everyone over 13/16. Put all biometric, facial and possibly DNA data on file, encrypted and only available for searches. Be creative.
3. Remove the need to arrest people for any non-violent crimes. People are positively ID'd via some tech (insert something wild here if you want). Cop files a report, includes evidence of positive ID, person needs to appear in court as they will be notified by SMS/Email/letter/lawyer-visit because that stuff should all be on-file and up to date. Send them warnings if they don't appear in court, meanwhile block their access to everything like cell-phones, bank accounts, etc. Start pro-actively messaging their family, or them, and let them know about the additional time/fines they are racking up by missing court dates. 3.a) Assume they're guilty if they don't show up for court and don't have a valid reason.
4. Disallow police from forcibly cuffing people for arrest. Procedure should be to throw two pairs of cuffs at the person while they're being pointed at with gun/taser, and they have to put it on themselves. Procedure allows for x minutes of that, then by default they have to taze this individual into submission and just arrest them. Once they're cuffed, just carry them in a car/van, or wait for support.
5. Punishment for disobeying orders by a policeman to do the above.
6. Very strict guidelines and sets of laws being broken that justify physical arrest. The default should be to just tag the person and tell them to appear in court. If it's a grey-area, just block their cellphone, bank-accounts, cards, etc.
7. Track all cell-phone locations, strongly-linked and verified to individual identities, and store permanently. Store it securely and allow court-orders to open for case investigations. Allow anonymized access to information-based researches that are told to investigate crimes. This one alone could solve so many crimes in my view that I am saddened to no end that people prevent it from happening safely at the recurring expense of innocent lives.
One could go on and on. But guaranteed the above sets of actions/laws are very unpalatable for the majority of people, and it would cause "human rights lawyers" to salivate at the potential for litigation and for "human rights activists" to salivate in protestual anger.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
and the problem there is that the system is designed to present only 2 imperfect choices, so that the 2 parties can seize and hold power. they'd rather begrudgingly share power with each other than let any others join them in the sandbox. and both parties have been co-opted to serve the wealthy, not the people, hence their imperfection.
I think that level of disillusionment is a bit dangerous, because I've seen people starting to support the Chinese way of governance because they say the American one is broken.
but that argument is presumptuous and fallacious as well. being disillusioned doesn't lead most peole to support single-party, state-controlled communism. being insulated and comfortable does lead to complacency and being out-of-touch however.
I agree with almost everything Mr. Obama wrote. But... I feel the complete opposite of “hopeful” when I see these riots, when I see people so angry they will destroy their own cities. Because it accomplishes the exact opposite of they hope it will accomplish: 1. Those who side with heavy-handed police tactics feel vindicated for their prejudices. 2. The communities of those who feel unheard and left out are torn down…
I am confident that this reality check for people who are somewhat blindly supporting their ideologies will benefit everyone. Beginning with the wealthier people who supported these protests and are now seeing their gated communities burn and their "progressive" newspapers destroyed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
and the problem there is that the system is designed to present only 2 imperfect choices, so that the 2 parties can seize and hold power. they'd rather begrudgingly share power with each other than let any others join them in the sandbox. and both parties have been co-opted to serve the wealthy, not the people, hence their imperfection.
I think that level of disillusionment is a bit dangerous, because I've seen people starting to support the Chinese way of governance because they say the American one is broken.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can we not make comparisons between revolutions against oppressive monarchies for the right to representation and opportunistic looting and rioting? People's homes and livelihoods are literally going up in smoke and these riots aren't even over yet--can we hold off on the vague defenses of political violence?
"Political violence" is when police murder unarmed American citizens without due process. Property damage is not violence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Political violence" is when police murder unarmed American citizens without due process. Property damage is not violence.
Burning and looting homes and businesses is absolutely violence, but there are plenty of assaults and murders if you're not convinced. This is an abhorrent take.
I need evidence here.
> and businesses
Businesses like Target, who come into small communities, push out the mom-and-pops, then raise prices?
> there are plenty of assaults and murders if you're not convinced
I'm not convinced, and I need evidence that a) the shootings that you're about to link to are in fact linked to the protests (because in one case it seems like a drive-by) and b) the assaults were not self-defense from e.g., someone pointing a weapon at a crowd of people or e.g., a truck driver attempting to plow through a crowd of peaceful protestors.
"I’ve heard some suggest that the recurrent problem of racial bias in our criminal justice system proves that only protests and direct action can bring about change, and that voting and participation in electoral politics is a waste of time. I couldn’t disagree more. The point of protest is to raise public awareness... But eventually, aspirations have to be translated into specific laws and institutional practices —…
https://www.crmvet.org/docs/otheram.htm
See the bit starting with: "Now there's another notion that gets out, it's around everywhere. It's in the South, it's in the North, it's In California, and all over our nation. It's the notion that legislation can't solve the problem, it can't do anything in this area. And those who project this argument contend that you've got to change the heart and that you can't change the heart through legislation."
To summarize it, he disagrees with you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand, the french revolution, the american revolution, and the civil war could be argued to be violent protests for reform that did some good. I think slow erosion of rights and safety nets through quiet periods of apathy does more harm to more people, and becomes harder to reverse in the long run.
Can we not make comparisons between revolutions against oppressive monarchies for the right to representation and opportunistic looting and rioting? People's homes and livelihoods are literally going up in smoke and these riots aren't even over yet--can we hold off on the vague defenses of political violence?
While the ideologues of the American Revolution were arguing for lofty Enlightenment-era ideals, on the ground things were much more opportunistic, with people joining the secessionist movement in order to plunder those Tory households, or to earn some money as a soldier or mercenary.