With supporting data for the rationale: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/the-myth-of-the-dangerous-traffic-stop-is-killing-black-men-in-america/ar-BB1fJkY3
Sounds good in some ways. But not in all ways. Let's say the police are aware of a missing 14 year old girl. They pull over a motorist for no functioning brake lights. They find out from his I.D. that he has done time for attempted kidnapping. Then they notice a fourteen year old girl passenger, and they notice the driver is not wearing a wedding band on his finger. Are they supposed to then say, 'well it's just a traffic stop' then remove his inspection sticker, replace it with a rejection sticker, and tell him to go straight home? Or do they get to ask who the girl is, and check it out?
Quote from: mahagonny on April 18, 2021, 07:06:00 AM
Sounds good in some ways. But not in all ways. Let's say the police are aware of a missing 14 year old girl. They pull over a motorist for no functioning brake lights. They find out from his I.D. that he has done time for attempted kidnapping. Then they notice a fourteen year old girl passenger, and they notice the driver is not wearing a wedding band on his finger. Are they supposed to then say, 'well it's just a traffic stop' then remove his inspection sticker, replace it with a rejection sticker, and tell him to go straight home? Or do they get to ask who the girl is, and check it out?
I think they shoot him first, and finesse those details later. He was a pretty shit parent, after all, and his divorce was acrimonious (or worse: the shiftless bugger never got it together enough to get married in the first place!). Also, I heard from his HS buddies he liked to smoke weed.
On topic: it seems to me that we should start accepting people "getting away". If someone is running, you can chase and tackle them, but shooting is dangerous to everyone in the vicinity. If a car is making a break for it, shooting is a danger to everyone in the vicinity, and chasing them leads to all kinds of reckless driving. Note the make, model, and colour, as well as the license plate, and nab them later on at their house instead. We don't need action heroes.
Especially not for traffic enforcement, as the article observes.
Just thinking probability. Everyone's talking about improving police work. Given the stress police are under now and the increased disincentive for sane people to choose policing as a career, i would estimate that the chances are just as good that we will get worse service from them in the future, as better.
So, that went well. I'll try once more.
What happens in these threads is that some of us almost always go straight to what I would characterize as exceptions. I get it, I'm a math prof, and we are used to doing that in our own work. But, that is also why I think math profs often stink at statistics and would make terrible public policy. These discussions should focus on Type 1 and Type 2 error, and what causes the most harm to society as a whole should be considered more in this type of situation.
'
There is a good article today at Politico focusing on traffic stops. Rather than link to it, I'll link to the study cited in the article. (There is also a link to a good study in the Slate article I linked to above).
https://5harad.com/papers/100M-stops.pdf
Quote from: mahagonny on April 18, 2021, 07:06:00 AM
Sounds good in some ways. But not in all ways. Let's say the police are aware of a missing 14 year old girl. They pull over a motorist for no functioning brake lights. They find out from his I.D. that he has done time for attempted kidnapping. Then they notice a fourteen year old girl passenger, and they notice the driver is not wearing a wedding band on his finger. Are they supposed to then say, 'well it's just a traffic stop' then remove his inspection sticker, replace it with a rejection sticker, and tell him to go straight home? Or do they get to ask who the girl is, and check it out?
Just because you can construct scenarios where routine traffic stops result in discovering a crime doesn't mean its a good idea. You could make that argument about anything. If armed police officers came to your house to issue you a ticket for not mowing your lawn enough, and then ran your information, perhaps they would find rarely happen to discover people in the process of committing serious crimes. However, this isn't a police job because we don't think its appropriate for armed agents of the state to show up at people's houses because their lawn is an eyesore. It would also Some city employee with a clipboard handles it.
Quote from: Caracal on April 18, 2021, 08:35:56 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on April 18, 2021, 07:06:00 AM
Sounds good in some ways. But not in all ways. Let's say the police are aware of a missing 14 year old girl. They pull over a motorist for no functioning brake lights. They find out from his I.D. that he has done time for attempted kidnapping. Then they notice a fourteen year old girl passenger, and they notice the driver is not wearing a wedding band on his finger. Are they supposed to then say, 'well it's just a traffic stop' then remove his inspection sticker, replace it with a rejection sticker, and tell him to go straight home? Or do they get to ask who the girl is, and check it out?
Just because you can construct scenarios where routine traffic stops result in discovering a crime doesn't mean its a good idea. You could make that argument about anything. If armed police officers came to your house to issue you a ticket for not mowing your lawn enough, and then ran your information, perhaps they would find rarely happen to discover people in the process of committing serious crimes. However, this isn't a police job because we don't think its appropriate for armed agents of the state to show up at people's houses because their lawn is an eyesore. It would also Some city employee with a clipboard handles it.
I'd be in favor of electronic equipment that can spot when a motorist is operating a car with missing required signal lights, or too loud a muffler, or bald tires, or is speeding, and them sends him an email or letter with a warning or penalty. Kind of like the way they read your license plate for tolls on the highway, In the meantime, no brake lights are a reason to get stopped, so I deal with it by only driving a car that passes inspection. And I expect him to have a gun and he's also on legitimate business so I don't act like a jerk.
I'll check the thread periodically to see when we all have this solved so all laws are enforced perfectly and no one ever gets hurt or feels harassed.
I think that the quote is "the only thing that keeps people honest is the fear of getting caught".
Put of cameras to catch red light cameras to send tickets to people that keep going through even after the light changes, or think "yellow means Speed UP", and people will behave at THOSE intersections but make up for the 'time lost complying' there, by speeding through the others!
Pulling people over, is a reminder to the rest of the public that there are consequences for bad driving behavior.
(Pulling people over for broken tail lights is a public safety issue, as well. Broken safety equipment is a danger to others, as well as the car owner/driver)
Quote from: jimbogumbo on April 18, 2021, 07:56:00 AM
So, that went well. I'll try once more.
What happens in these threads is that some of us almost always go straight to what I would characterize as exceptions. I get it, I'm a math prof, and we are used to doing that in our own work. But, that is also why I think math profs often stink at statistics and would make terrible public policy. These discussions should focus on Type 1 and Type 2 error, and what causes the most harm to society as a whole should be considered more in this type of situation.
'
There is a good article today at Politico focusing on traffic stops. Rather than link to it, I'll link to the study cited in the article. (There is also a link to a good study in the Slate article I linked to above).
https://5harad.com/papers/100M-stops.pdf
The article is indeed good and thorough.
Looks like there is discrimination. The question remains
why. Is this racial animus? Or is it statistical discrimination?
The answer determines what appropriate policy might be. If one got that wrong, there'd be hell to pay.
Quote from: clean on April 18, 2021, 10:37:16 AM
I think that the quote is "the only thing that keeps people honest is the fear of getting caught".
Put of cameras to catch red light cameras to send tickets to people that keep going through even after the light changes, or think "yellow means Speed UP", and people will behave at THOSE intersections but make up for the 'time lost complying' there, by speeding through the others!
Pulling people over, is a reminder to the rest of the public that there are consequences for bad driving behavior.
(Pulling people over for broken tail lights is a public safety issue, as well. Broken safety equipment is a danger to others, as well as the car owner/driver)
Sure, but there's no real reason an armed police officer needs to be doing it, which is the point that the guy is making in that article. If its true that attacks on police officers during traffic stops are really rare than routine traffic enforcement could be handled by trained and unarmed government employees who could issue tickets and would be able to call police officers in the rare situations in which it was actually necessary. This isn't really that strange an idea. Police officers don't issue parking tickets.
Quote from: Caracal on April 18, 2021, 02:12:24 PM
Sure, but there's no real reason an armed police officer needs to be doing it, which is the point that the guy is making in that article. If its true that attacks on police officers during traffic stops are really rare than routine traffic enforcement could be handled by trained and unarmed government employees who could issue tickets and would be able to call police officers in the rare situations in which it was actually necessary. This isn't really that strange an idea.
If these situations go badly, they do so within seconds, or minutes at most. That would be way too fast for a police response. If it were an attack, the employee would be injured or dead.
Quote
Police officers don't issue parking tickets.
Parking tickets are typically placed on
unoccupied cars.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 18, 2021, 02:21:53 PM
Quote from: Caracal on April 18, 2021, 02:12:24 PM
Sure, but there's no real reason an armed police officer needs to be doing it, which is the point that the guy is making in that article. If its true that attacks on police officers during traffic stops are really rare than routine traffic enforcement could be handled by trained and unarmed government employees who could issue tickets and would be able to call police officers in the rare situations in which it was actually necessary. This isn't really that strange an idea.
If these situations go badly, they do so within seconds, or minutes at most. That would be way too fast for a police response. If it were an attack, the employee would be injured or dead.
Quote
Police officers don't issue parking tickets.
Parking tickets are typically placed on unoccupied cars.
That's the point. Attacks are quite rare. Lots of people face relatively small amounts of risk of violence in their jobs and we still don't think its a good idea for them to be armed.
I'm pretty sure it isn't rare to have somebody come sprinting out while the people are writing the ticket and start arguing about it. A quick google search shows that parking enforcement officers do get attacked sometimes. Doesn't mean that it happens enough that the job should be handled by armed police officers.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on April 18, 2021, 07:50:12 AM
On topic: it seems to me that we should start accepting people "getting away". If someone is running, you can chase and tackle them, but shooting is dangerous to everyone in the vicinity. If a car is making a break for it, shooting is a danger to everyone in the vicinity, and chasing them leads to all kinds of reckless driving. Note the make, model, and colour, as well as the license plate, and nab them later on at their house instead. We don't need action heroes.
Especially not for traffic enforcement, as the article observes.
Well said
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on April 18, 2021, 07:42:59 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on April 18, 2021, 07:06:00 AM
Sounds good in some ways. But not in all ways. Let's say the police are aware of a missing 14 year old girl. They pull over a motorist for no functioning brake lights. They find out from his I.D. that he has done time for attempted kidnapping. Then they notice a fourteen year old girl passenger, and they notice the driver is not wearing a wedding band on his finger. Are they supposed to then say, 'well it's just a traffic stop' then remove his inspection sticker, replace it with a rejection sticker, and tell him to go straight home? Or do they get to ask who the girl is, and check it out?
I think they shoot him first, and finesse those details later. He was a pretty shit parent, after all, and his divorce was acrimonious (or worse: the shiftless bugger never got it together enough to get married in the first place!). Also, I heard from his HS buddies he liked to smoke weed.
Well, if he's white, at least you can be pretty sure there won't be any riots or news coverage beyond your locale.
Quote from: mahagonny on April 19, 2021, 05:14:48 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on April 18, 2021, 07:42:59 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on April 18, 2021, 07:06:00 AM
Sounds good in some ways. But not in all ways. Let's say the police are aware of a missing 14 year old girl. They pull over a motorist for no functioning brake lights. They find out from his I.D. that he has done time for attempted kidnapping. Then they notice a fourteen year old girl passenger, and they notice the driver is not wearing a wedding band on his finger. Are they supposed to then say, 'well it's just a traffic stop' then remove his inspection sticker, replace it with a rejection sticker, and tell him to go straight home? Or do they get to ask who the girl is, and check it out?
I think they shoot him first, and finesse those details later. He was a pretty shit parent, after all, and his divorce was acrimonious (or worse: the shiftless bugger never got it together enough to get married in the first place!). Also, I heard from his HS buddies he liked to smoke weed.
Well, if he's white, at least you can be pretty sure there won't be any riots or news coverage beyond your locale.
Like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Justine_Damond
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on April 18, 2021, 07:56:15 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on April 18, 2021, 07:50:12 AM
On topic: it seems to me that we should start accepting people "getting away". If someone is running, you can chase and tackle them, but shooting is dangerous to everyone in the vicinity. If a car is making a break for it, shooting is a danger to everyone in the vicinity, and chasing them leads to all kinds of reckless driving. Note the make, model, and colour, as well as the license plate, and nab them later on at their house instead. We don't need action heroes.
Especially not for traffic enforcement, as the article observes.
Well said
I think this is supposed to be standard procedure lots of places, although I don't know how much its actually followed. Police chases are really dangerous, both for police officers and everyone else. Unless you have good reason to think someone is an imminent danger to others, you really don't want cops engaged in a high speed chase.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on April 19, 2021, 05:53:50 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on April 19, 2021, 05:14:48 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on April 18, 2021, 07:42:59 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on April 18, 2021, 07:06:00 AM
Sounds good in some ways. But not in all ways. Let's say the police are aware of a missing 14 year old girl. They pull over a motorist for no functioning brake lights. They find out from his I.D. that he has done time for attempted kidnapping. Then they notice a fourteen year old girl passenger, and they notice the driver is not wearing a wedding band on his finger. Are they supposed to then say, 'well it's just a traffic stop' then remove his inspection sticker, replace it with a rejection sticker, and tell him to go straight home? Or do they get to ask who the girl is, and check it out?
I think they shoot him first, and finesse those details later. He was a pretty shit parent, after all, and his divorce was acrimonious (or worse: the shiftless bugger never got it together enough to get married in the first place!). Also, I heard from his HS buddies he liked to smoke weed.
Well, if he's white, at least you can be pretty sure there won't be any riots or news coverage beyond your locale.
Like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Justine_Damond
From the article:
Quote
Following the deadly shooting, the Star Tribune reported Noor's police training had been "fast tracked", making reference to the seven-month immersive training program for cadets; some suburban police departments see the cadet programs as a way to quickly diversify their police forces.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 19, 2021, 06:13:49 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on April 19, 2021, 05:53:50 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on April 19, 2021, 05:14:48 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on April 18, 2021, 07:42:59 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on April 18, 2021, 07:06:00 AM
Sounds good in some ways. But not in all ways. Let's say the police are aware of a missing 14 year old girl. They pull over a motorist for no functioning brake lights. They find out from his I.D. that he has done time for attempted kidnapping. Then they notice a fourteen year old girl passenger, and they notice the driver is not wearing a wedding band on his finger. Are they supposed to then say, 'well it's just a traffic stop' then remove his inspection sticker, replace it with a rejection sticker, and tell him to go straight home? Or do they get to ask who the girl is, and check it out?
I think they shoot him first, and finesse those details later. He was a pretty shit parent, after all, and his divorce was acrimonious (or worse: the shiftless bugger never got it together enough to get married in the first place!). Also, I heard from his HS buddies he liked to smoke weed.
Well, if he's white, at least you can be pretty sure there won't be any riots or news coverage beyond your locale.
Like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Justine_Damond
From the article:
Quote
Following the deadly shooting, the Star Tribune reported Noor's police training had been "fast tracked", making reference to the seven-month immersive training program for cadets; some suburban police departments see the cadet programs as a way to quickly diversify their police forces.
There's a lot of evidence that race of officers doesn't make any difference in how likely they are to kill people.
You're making disingenuous arguments. It certainly sounds like Noor shouldn't have been a police officer based on his actions before the shooting, but its hard to make a serious argument that this is about his race when problems with police officers are routinely ignored. Derek Chauvin was also involved in multiple troubling incidents.
Honestly, if you look at the details of the Justine Damond shooting, it is about policing and race even though the police officer was black and the victim was white. Noor's defense attorneys tried to argue that when he was startled in his patrol car, he feared an ambush because of anti police sentiment. When you have militarized police forces who are trained to think of themselves as keeping order in dangerous areas, rather than protecting people, it makes sense that people of all races end up getting shot and killed.
Noor's partner also drew his gun when he was startled. That's actually an important detail. You have police officers responding to a call that wasn't particularly alarming. The response to being started in that situation really shouldn't be to draw a gun. Yet we think of that as normal. Sure, the guy who then shoots someone obviously shouldn't be a police officer, but at that point you're just relying on the temperament and good judgement of people.
Quote from: Caracal on April 19, 2021, 07:08:07 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 19, 2021, 06:13:49 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on April 19, 2021, 05:53:50 AM
Like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Justine_Damond
From the article:
Quote
Following the deadly shooting, the Star Tribune reported Noor's police training had been "fast tracked", making reference to the seven-month immersive training program for cadets; some suburban police departments see the cadet programs as a way to quickly diversify their police forces.
There's a lot of evidence that race of officers doesn't make any difference in how likely they are to kill people.
You're making disingenuous arguments. It certainly sounds like Noor shouldn't have been a police officer based on his actions before the shooting, but its hard to make a serious argument that this is about his race when problems with police officers are routinely ignored. Derek Chauvin was also involved in multiple troubling incidents.
So how is the Derek Chauvin case
specifically about race?
Wow, you can't fire a taser at police. When did they start that? Soon we will have no rights left.
Quote from: mahagonny on April 19, 2021, 05:14:48 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on April 18, 2021, 07:42:59 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on April 18, 2021, 07:06:00 AM
Sounds good in some ways. But not in all ways. Let's say the police are aware of a missing 14 year old girl. They pull over a motorist for no functioning brake lights. They find out from his I.D. that he has done time for attempted kidnapping. Then they notice a fourteen year old girl passenger, and they notice the driver is not wearing a wedding band on his finger. Are they supposed to then say, 'well it's just a traffic stop' then remove his inspection sticker, replace it with a rejection sticker, and tell him to go straight home? Or do they get to ask who the girl is, and check it out?
I think they shoot him first, and finesse those details later. He was a pretty shit parent, after all, and his divorce was acrimonious (or worse: the shiftless bugger never got it together enough to get married in the first place!). Also, I heard from his HS buddies he liked to smoke weed.
Well, if he's white, at least you can be pretty sure there won't be any riots or news coverage beyond your locale.
Right, whites only riot when their team wins or loses a football game
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 19, 2021, 07:23:52 AM
Quote from: Caracal on April 19, 2021, 07:08:07 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 19, 2021, 06:13:49 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on April 19, 2021, 05:53:50 AM
Like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Justine_Damond
From the article:
Quote
Following the deadly shooting, the Star Tribune reported Noor's police training had been "fast tracked", making reference to the seven-month immersive training program for cadets; some suburban police departments see the cadet programs as a way to quickly diversify their police forces.
There's a lot of evidence that race of officers doesn't make any difference in how likely they are to kill people.
You're making disingenuous arguments. It certainly sounds like Noor shouldn't have been a police officer based on his actions before the shooting, but its hard to make a serious argument that this is about his race when problems with police officers are routinely ignored. Derek Chauvin was also involved in multiple troubling incidents.
So how is the Derek Chauvin case specifically about race?
What makes you think that it isn't about race?
Quote from: lightning on April 19, 2021, 09:54:43 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 19, 2021, 07:23:52 AM
Quote from: Caracal on April 19, 2021, 07:08:07 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 19, 2021, 06:13:49 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on April 19, 2021, 05:53:50 AM
Like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Justine_Damond
From the article:
Quote
Following the deadly shooting, the Star Tribune reported Noor's police training had been "fast tracked", making reference to the seven-month immersive training program for cadets; some suburban police departments see the cadet programs as a way to quickly diversify their police forces.
There's a lot of evidence that race of officers doesn't make any difference in how likely they are to kill people.
You're making disingenuous arguments. It certainly sounds like Noor shouldn't have been a police officer based on his actions before the shooting, but its hard to make a serious argument that this is about his race when problems with police officers are routinely ignored. Derek Chauvin was also involved in multiple troubling incidents.
So how is the Derek Chauvin case specifically about race?
What makes you think that it isn't about race?
In the quote above, of a black officer killing a white woman, Caracal said, (as I highlighted), "its hard to make a serious argument that this is about his race". So apparently a black officer killing a white person is NOT about race but a white officer killing a black person IS. I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind that.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 19, 2021, 10:29:49 AM
Quote from: lightning on April 19, 2021, 09:54:43 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 19, 2021, 07:23:52 AM
Quote from: Caracal on April 19, 2021, 07:08:07 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 19, 2021, 06:13:49 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on April 19, 2021, 05:53:50 AM
Like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Justine_Damond
From the article:
Quote
Following the deadly shooting, the Star Tribune reported Noor's police training had been "fast tracked", making reference to the seven-month immersive training program for cadets; some suburban police departments see the cadet programs as a way to quickly diversify their police forces.
There's a lot of evidence that race of officers doesn't make any difference in how likely they are to kill people.
You're making disingenuous arguments. It certainly sounds like Noor shouldn't have been a police officer based on his actions before the shooting, but its hard to make a serious argument that this is about his race when problems with police officers are routinely ignored. Derek Chauvin was also involved in multiple troubling incidents.
So how is the Derek Chauvin case specifically about race?
What makes you think that it isn't about race?
In the quote above, of a black officer killing a white woman, Caracal said, (as I highlighted), "its hard to make a serious argument that this is about his race". So apparently a black officer killing a white person is NOT about race but a white officer killing a black person IS. I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind that.
I can't speak for Caracal, but to me the cases are apples and oranges. The officers using handguns all seem to have been frightened or at least startled. I don't think a reasonable case that Derek Chauvin was either.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on April 19, 2021, 10:36:40 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 19, 2021, 10:29:49 AM
Quote from: lightning on April 19, 2021, 09:54:43 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 19, 2021, 07:23:52 AM
Quote from: Caracal on April 19, 2021, 07:08:07 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 19, 2021, 06:13:49 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on April 19, 2021, 05:53:50 AM
Like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Justine_Damond
From the article:
Quote
Following the deadly shooting, the Star Tribune reported Noor's police training had been "fast tracked", making reference to the seven-month immersive training program for cadets; some suburban police departments see the cadet programs as a way to quickly diversify their police forces.
There's a lot of evidence that race of officers doesn't make any difference in how likely they are to kill people.
You're making disingenuous arguments. It certainly sounds like Noor shouldn't have been a police officer based on his actions before the shooting, but its hard to make a serious argument that this is about his race when problems with police officers are routinely ignored. Derek Chauvin was also involved in multiple troubling incidents.
So how is the Derek Chauvin case specifically about race?
What makes you think that it isn't about race?
In the quote above, of a black officer killing a white woman, Caracal said, (as I highlighted), "its hard to make a serious argument that this is about his race". So apparently a black officer killing a white person is NOT about race but a white officer killing a black person IS. I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind that.
I can't speak for Caracal, but to me the cases are apples and oranges. The officers using handguns all seem to have been frightened or at least startled. I don't think a reasonable case that Derek Chauvin was either.
Are you truly suggesting that if Chauvin had used a gun, this would be
less explosive????
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 19, 2021, 10:29:49 AM
Quote from: lightning on April 19, 2021, 09:54:43 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 19, 2021, 07:23:52 AM
Quote from: Caracal on April 19, 2021, 07:08:07 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 19, 2021, 06:13:49 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on April 19, 2021, 05:53:50 AM
Like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Justine_Damond
From the article:
Quote
Following the deadly shooting, the Star Tribune reported Noor's police training had been "fast tracked", making reference to the seven-month immersive training program for cadets; some suburban police departments see the cadet programs as a way to quickly diversify their police forces.
There's a lot of evidence that race of officers doesn't make any difference in how likely they are to kill people.
You're making disingenuous arguments. It certainly sounds like Noor shouldn't have been a police officer based on his actions before the shooting, but its hard to make a serious argument that this is about his race when problems with police officers are routinely ignored. Derek Chauvin was also involved in multiple troubling incidents.
So how is the Derek Chauvin case specifically about race?
What makes you think that it isn't about race?
In the quote above, of a black officer killing a white woman, Caracal said, (as I highlighted), "its hard to make a serious argument that this is about his race". So apparently a black officer killing a white person is NOT about race but a white officer killing a black person IS. I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind that.
Its kind of pointless to try to have a discussion when you can't seem to manage to actually read posts. You took that quote totally out of context.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 19, 2021, 10:38:27 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on April 19, 2021, 10:36:40 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 19, 2021, 10:29:49 AM
Quote from: lightning on April 19, 2021, 09:54:43 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 19, 2021, 07:23:52 AM
Quote from: Caracal on April 19, 2021, 07:08:07 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 19, 2021, 06:13:49 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on April 19, 2021, 05:53:50 AM
Like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Justine_Damond
From the article:
Quote
Following the deadly shooting, the Star Tribune reported Noor's police training had been "fast tracked", making reference to the seven-month immersive training program for cadets; some suburban police departments see the cadet programs as a way to quickly diversify their police forces.
There's a lot of evidence that race of officers doesn't make any difference in how likely they are to kill people.
You're making disingenuous arguments. It certainly sounds like Noor shouldn't have been a police officer based on his actions before the shooting, but its hard to make a serious argument that this is about his race when problems with police officers are routinely ignored. Derek Chauvin was also involved in multiple troubling incidents.
So how is the Derek Chauvin case specifically about race?
What makes you think that it isn't about race?
In the quote above, of a black officer killing a white woman, Caracal said, (as I highlighted), "its hard to make a serious argument that this is about his race". So apparently a black officer killing a white person is NOT about race but a white officer killing a black person IS. I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind that.
I can't speak for Caracal, but to me the cases are apples and oranges. The officers using handguns all seem to have been frightened or at least startled. I don't think a reasonable case that Derek Chauvin was either.
Are you truly suggesting that if Chauvin had used a gun, this would be less explosive????
Don't be silly. I'm referring to the danger of armed officers conducting traffic stops and such. I am saying that the nature of what Chauvin did sets this apart for many people who often are more sympathetic to police killings, and rightly so.
As (I'm only guessing here) one of the few forum members who has been through a police academy and has worked in law enforcement, I offer the following thoughts:
I CAN imagine a way to make a serious try of putting traffic enforcement in the hands of unarmed people. First, I would launch a major PR campaign that lets everyone know that the traffic enforcement people have no arrest power, no ability to see warrants or wants, and no interest in anything beyond traffic. Then I would design their cars to not look like local police cars and put green and white lights on them. The law, of course, would have to be changed to make green and white lights have the same effect as red and blue, and you would be obligated to stop for them. It would be a crime, chargeable later, to not stop (however, identification would be an issue. It's likely not constitutional to say "the registered owner will be charged regardless of who was driving.")
I would then place these employees in uniforms that look nothing like police; they would maybe wear khaki pants and bright yellow polo shirts that say "DMV Employee" in large letters. When they stop you, there would be no haggling and little discussion. They would say "Hand me your license please," then scan it through a ticket printer. A ticket would appear and they would simply instruct you that "you can pay this within 30 days at the address shown or proceed to the nearest BMV office to request an administrative hearing. Have a better day."
I could imagine trying all of the above as a serious possible solution, akin to parking enforcement as others have mentioned.
The thing is, I do think there will be unintended consequences that would possibly make things worse for several reasons:
1. Police still need to make traffic stops for crimes (Imagine someone who calls 911 and says "My husband just beat me and threatened to come back with a gun. He left driving his white dodge pickup truck.") The police would need to stop that car. Now, under the new system, when someone would see red and blue lights, they would immediately think "DAMN that's not traffic enforcement, that's POLICE, I'm going to jail." They would be likely to escalate immediately based upon that. Either way, there will be a greater amount of violence on police stops because by definition police will only be dealing with criminals.
2. The new system would not likely have stopped the latest one in MN. Even under the new system, we can't allow people to simply say "No, I'm leaving" and opt out of a stop. If they refuse to show ID or try to drive away, the police would need to be called (unless as a society we decide we will simply let people with warrants or no license go if they want to and not pursue it. I'm not in favor of that.) Thus, the confrontation will still happen - just at the suspect's house, or further down the road.
3. I think the new system would be profoundly unpopular with the public. Traffic enforcement for it's own sake is incredibly unpopular. People defend it or put up with it under the guise of finding more serious crimes. With civilians it would be explicitly JUST about traffic enforcement (read: tickets.) That won't fly. If you don't believe me, I could show you how my state tried to ban speed and red light cameras and a number of cities made laws making them impossible to use. It's technically legal to use them in my state, but a lot of places don't bother because of how difficult to comply with the law it is. One of the biggest talking points was "I want a police officer stopping people, not just an automated money grab."
----
Although I think a conversation can at least be had about civilian traffic enforcement, I think the truth remains unpopular: in many or even most of the traffic stop deaths, the whole thing would have been avoided by complying and not resisting or running. Another unpopular truth: The Brooklyn Center guy was not some otherwise law abiding citizen. The shooting was an accident and shouldn't have happened, but at the end of the day this guy resisted and set all of it into motion. Why did he resist? He had a warrant out of Minneapolis for a gun offense. This guy didn't die over air freshener or a suspended license. He died resisting arrest on a warrant for a gun charge. Should he have died? No, and clearly the officer didn't even intend to shoot him. Am I going to sit here getting all upset that a violent criminal died resisting? Also no. Retire the officer, tell her she's done because there's no room for that kind of mistake, apologize to the family because he still shouldn't have died (even though he created the situation) and be done with it.
Quote from: Descartes on April 19, 2021, 12:46:47 PM
I CAN imagine a way to make a serious try of putting traffic enforcement in the hands of unarmed people. First, I would launch a major PR campaign that lets everyone know that the traffic enforcement people have no arrest power, no ability to see warrants or wants, and no interest in anything beyond traffic. Then I would design their cars to not look like local police cars and put green and white lights on them.
Just a question:
Since they would not be EMS of any kind, would they be allowed to exceed the speed limit, and if so, *when? (Even if the're only going to try to flag someone down to give them a ticket, in principle if someone blows by them over the limit they'd try to get close enough to at least flash the lights.)
*I have no idea who can be authorized to break speed limits, or by whom.
Quote from: Descartes on April 19, 2021, 12:46:47 PM
As (I'm only guessing here) one of the few forum members who has been through a police academy and has worked in law enforcement, I offer the following thoughts:
I CAN imagine a way to make a serious try of putting traffic enforcement in the hands of unarmed people. First, I would launch a major PR campaign that lets everyone know that the traffic enforcement people have no arrest power, no ability to see warrants or wants, and no interest in anything beyond traffic. Then I would design their cars to not look like local police cars and put green and white lights on them. The law, of course, would have to be changed to make green and white lights have the same effect as red and blue, and you would be obligated to stop for them. It would be a crime, chargeable later, to not stop (however, identification would be an issue. It's likely not constitutional to say "the registered owner will be charged regardless of who was driving.")
I would then place these employees in uniforms that look nothing like police; they would maybe wear khaki pants and bright yellow polo shirts that say "DMV Employee" in large letters. When they stop you, there would be no haggling and little discussion. They would say "Hand me your license please," then scan it through a ticket printer. A ticket would appear and they would simply instruct you that "you can pay this within 30 days at the address shown or proceed to the nearest BMV office to request an administrative hearing. Have a better day."
I could imagine trying all of the above as a serious possible solution, akin to parking enforcement as others have mentioned.
The thing is, I do think there will be unintended consequences that would possibly make things worse for several reasons:
1. Police still need to make traffic stops for crimes (Imagine someone who calls 911 and says "My husband just beat me and threatened to come back with a gun. He left driving his white dodge pickup truck.") The police would need to stop that car. Now, under the new system, when someone would see red and blue lights, they would immediately think "DAMN that's not traffic enforcement, that's POLICE, I'm going to jail." They would be likely to escalate immediately based upon that. Either way, there will be a greater amount of violence on police stops because by definition police will only be dealing with criminals.
2. The new system would not likely have stopped the latest one in MN. Even under the new system, we can't allow people to simply say "No, I'm leaving" and opt out of a stop. If they refuse to show ID or try to drive away, the police would need to be called (unless as a society we decide we will simply let people with warrants or no license go if they want to and not pursue it. I'm not in favor of that.) Thus, the confrontation will still happen - just at the suspect's house, or further down the road.
3. I think the new system would be profoundly unpopular with the public. Traffic enforcement for it's own sake is incredibly unpopular. People defend it or put up with it under the guise of finding more serious crimes. With civilians it would be explicitly JUST about traffic enforcement (read: tickets.) That won't fly. If you don't believe me, I could show you how my state tried to ban speed and red light cameras and a number of cities made laws making them impossible to use. It's technically legal to use them in my state, but a lot of places don't bother because of how difficult to comply with the law it is. One of the biggest talking points was "I want a police officer stopping people, not just an automated money grab."
----
Although I think a conversation can at least be had about civilian traffic enforcement, I think the truth remains unpopular: in many or even most of the traffic stop deaths, the whole thing would have been avoided by complying and not resisting or running. Another unpopular truth: The Brooklyn Center guy was not some otherwise law abiding citizen. The shooting was an accident and shouldn't have happened, but at the end of the day this guy resisted and set all of it into motion. Why did he resist? He had a warrant out of Minneapolis for a gun offense. This guy didn't die over air freshener or a suspended license. He died resisting arrest on a warrant for a gun charge. Should he have died? No, and clearly the officer didn't even intend to shoot him. Am I going to sit here getting all upset that a violent criminal died resisting? Also no. Retire the officer, tell her she's done because there's no room for that kind of mistake, apologize to the family because he still shouldn't have died (even though he created the situation) and be done with it.
But as a matter of logic one could do the opposite! Launch a major PR campaign that lets everyone know that the traffic enforcement people will taser you, or mistake their gun for their taser, if you so much as bat an eyelash.
Stopped motorists will adjust their behavior, even if they are wanted criminals!
This way, there are fewer deaths at traffic stops. Criminals will stop driving.
At one point several months ago I was expecting the prosecution to come out with testimony saying that Derek Chauvin had been heard using racist language while talking about black and brown people. You know, like they did to the police, in the O. J. Simpson case, Mark Furman. And it paid off big time, reinforcing suspicion that evidence had been irresponsibly handled and convincing the jury of reasonable doubt. An antisocial attitude directed at blacks in Derek Chauvin would have been the feather in the hat of the defense. Motive.
I think of this sometimes: when police confront a suspect, they know that although black people are only 13% of the population they are 53% per cent of homicide convictions, compared to 44 per cent for white (who are 73 per cent of the population). So in terms of your workday and its risks, as a police officer on the beat, it's almost certain that white face signifies a lower chance that that person has killed someone or is capable of doing so. How much each officer thinks about something like that is our guess.
I continue to suspect that Chauvin was mightily surprised that George Floyd died and would give anything to live that day over and roll Floyd over on his side for better breathing, even in the event that he is acquitted. I suspect Chauvin thought to himself 'this guy is big and strong as a bull; he can take it and he's putting on an act of being traumatized' and of course would have no way of knowing about his significantly compromised health.
If you say someone is racist I want evidence. The burden is on you. If you don't have evidence, it is your attitudes that invite suspicion.
Quote from: Descartes on April 19, 2021, 12:46:47 PM
As (I'm only guessing here) one of the few forum members who has been through a police academy and has worked in law enforcement, I offer the following thoughts:
I CAN imagine a way to make a serious try of putting traffic enforcement in the hands of unarmed people. First, I would launch a major PR campaign that lets everyone know that the traffic enforcement people have no arrest power, no ability to see warrants or wants, and no interest in anything beyond traffic. Then I would design their cars to not look like local police cars and put green and white lights on them. The law, of course, would have to be changed to make green and white lights have the same effect as red and blue, and you would be obligated to stop for them. It would be a crime, chargeable later, to not stop (however, identification would be an issue. It's likely not constitutional to say "the registered owner will be charged regardless of who was driving.")
I would then place these employees in uniforms that look nothing like police; they would maybe wear khaki pants and bright yellow polo shirts that say "DMV Employee" in large letters. When they stop you, there would be no haggling and little discussion. They would say "Hand me your license please," then scan it through a ticket printer. A ticket would appear and they would simply instruct you that "you can pay this within 30 days at the address shown or proceed to the nearest BMV office to request an administrative hearing. Have a better day."
I could imagine trying all of the above as a serious possible solution, akin to parking enforcement as others have mentioned.
The thing is, I do think there will be unintended consequences that would possibly make things worse for several reasons:
1. Police still need to make traffic stops for crimes (Imagine someone who calls 911 and says "My husband just beat me and threatened to come back with a gun. He left driving his white dodge pickup truck.") The police would need to stop that car. Now, under the new system, when someone would see red and blue lights, they would immediately think "DAMN that's not traffic enforcement, that's POLICE, I'm going to jail." They would be likely to escalate immediately based upon that. Either way, there will be a greater amount of violence on police stops because by definition police will only be dealing with criminals.
2. The new system would not likely have stopped the latest one in MN. Even under the new system, we can't allow people to simply say "No, I'm leaving" and opt out of a stop. If they refuse to show ID or try to drive away, the police would need to be called (unless as a society we decide we will simply let people with warrants or no license go if they want to and not pursue it. I'm not in favor of that.) Thus, the confrontation will still happen - just at the suspect's house, or further down the road.
3. I think the new system would be profoundly unpopular with the public. Traffic enforcement for it's own sake is incredibly unpopular. People defend it or put up with it under the guise of finding more serious crimes. With civilians it would be explicitly JUST about traffic enforcement (read: tickets.) That won't fly. If you don't believe me, I could show you how my state tried to ban speed and red light cameras and a number of cities made laws making them impossible to use. It's technically legal to use them in my state, but a lot of places don't bother because of how difficult to comply with the law it is. One of the biggest talking points was "I want a police officer stopping people, not just an automated money grab."
----
Although I think a conversation can at least be had about civilian traffic enforcement, I think the truth remains unpopular: in many or even most of the traffic stop deaths, the whole thing would have been avoided by complying and not resisting or running. Another unpopular truth: The Brooklyn Center guy was not some otherwise law abiding citizen. The shooting was an accident and shouldn't have happened, but at the end of the day this guy resisted and set all of it into motion. Why did he resist? He had a warrant out of Minneapolis for a gun offense. This guy didn't die over air freshener or a suspended license. He died resisting arrest on a warrant for a gun charge. Should he have died? No, and clearly the officer didn't even intend to shoot him. Am I going to sit here getting all upset that a violent criminal died resisting? Also no. Retire the officer, tell her she's done because there's no room for that kind of mistake, apologize to the family because he still shouldn't have died (even though he created the situation) and be done with it.
Some good points. However.
1. I don't really buy this. To the extent that people do behave violently when they are stopped, isn't it often the other way around? They get stopped because their tail light is out, but actually they have a warrant out for their arrest. If we believe the guy who wrote the original article this kind of thing doesn't happen that much, but to the extent that it does, it seems like it makes things more dangerous for officers who then transfer that risk to the people they pull over. Presumably, if a person just committed a crime and they get pulled over by the cops, they are going to assume it has something to do with that and not a tail light.
2. Why exactly would you necessarily have to involve the police if the person drove away? I agree that you would need to in some cases. If a person was driving extremely recklessly and/or they were believed to be under the influence, or something else was going on that posed an immediate danger, then you would need to call the police. However, if the person was just going 20 mph over the speed limit or went too late through a yellow, why can't that just be a civil matter that doesn't involve the cops? As far as issues over who the car owner is, don't we already do this with ez pass systems? If you go through the fast lane without a pass, you just get a ticket mailed to you.
3. I'm sure it wouldn't be popular, but getting pulled over by the cops for speeding is already not popular. It's also a kind of scary experience, even if you are, like me, a white dude without a criminal record. I wouldn't be excited about getting the ticket, but the whole thing would be a lot less traumatic if it doesn't involve a person carrying a gun.
It is solutions or partial solutions that are not popular. The superstars of the racism business won't like them. We're hearing from one of them today. Ibram Kendi is obviously worried that Larry Elder's advice, 'comply and you won't die' is getting some attention.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/compliance-will-not-save-my-body/618637/
Quote from: mahagonny on April 19, 2021, 02:37:53 PM
At one point several months ago I was expecting the prosecution to come out with testimony saying that Derek Chauvin had been heard using racist language while talking about black and brown people. You know, like they did to the police, in the O. J. Simpson case, Mark Furman. And it paid off big time, reinforcing suspicion that evidence had been irresponsibly handled and convincing the jury of reasonable doubt. An antisocial attitude directed at blacks in Derek Chauvin would have been the feather in the hat of the defense. Motive.
I think of this sometimes: when police confront a suspect, they know that although black people are only 13% of the population they are 53% per cent of homicide convictions, compared to 44 per cent for white (who are 73 per cent of the population). So in terms of your workday and its risks, as a police officer on the beat, it's almost certain that white face signifies a lower chance that that person has killed someone or is capable of doing so. How much each officer thinks about something like that is our guess.
I continue to suspect that Chauvin was mightily surprised that George Floyd died and would give anything to live that day over and roll Floyd over on his side for better breathing, even in the event that he is acquitted. I suspect Chauvin thought to himself 'this guy is big and strong as a bull; he can take it and he's putting on an act of being traumatized' and of course would have no way of knowing about his significantly compromised health.
If you say someone is racist I want evidence. The burden is on you. If you don't have evidence, it is your attitudes that invite suspicion.
You are certainly entitled to believe this. In this case, none of the charges presume that Chauvin is racist. I'd guess that is one significant reason the Prosecution did not use that as an argument.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on April 19, 2021, 03:36:48 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on April 19, 2021, 02:37:53 PM
At one point several months ago I was expecting the prosecution to come out with testimony saying that Derek Chauvin had been heard using racist language while talking about black and brown people. You know, like they did to the police, in the O. J. Simpson case, Mark Furman. And it paid off big time, reinforcing suspicion that evidence had been irresponsibly handled and convincing the jury of reasonable doubt. An antisocial attitude directed at blacks in Derek Chauvin would have been the feather in the hat of the defense. Motive.
I think of this sometimes: when police confront a suspect, they know that although black people are only 13% of the population they are 53% per cent of homicide convictions, compared to 44 per cent for white (who are 73 per cent of the population). So in terms of your workday and its risks, as a police officer on the beat, it's almost certain that white face signifies a lower chance that that person has killed someone or is capable of doing so. How much each officer thinks about something like that is our guess.
I continue to suspect that Chauvin was mightily surprised that George Floyd died and would give anything to live that day over and roll Floyd over on his side for better breathing, even in the event that he is acquitted. I suspect Chauvin thought to himself 'this guy is big and strong as a bull; he can take it and he's putting on an act of being traumatized' and of course would have no way of knowing about his significantly compromised health.
If you say someone is racist I want evidence. The burden is on you. If you don't have evidence, it is your attitudes that invite suspicion.
You are certainly entitled to believe this. In this case, none of the charges presume that Chauvin is racist. I'd guess that is one significant reason the Prosecution did not use that as an argument.
In my workplace, my opinion would get you ostracized. Perhaps that's why I post here so often.
What's missing in today's discussion of race is an expectation of evidence when somebody says a white person is racist and a consequence for not having evidence. Character assassination for free.
Quote from: mahagonny on April 19, 2021, 03:22:22 PM
It is solutions or partial solutions that are not popular. The superstars of the racism business won't like them. We're hearing from one of them today. Ibram Kendi is obviously worried that Larry Elder's advice, 'comply and you won't die' is getting some attention.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/compliance-will-not-save-my-body/618637/
Hard to decide if this is more racist or more fascist. Probably about equally both.
Quote from: mahagonny on April 19, 2021, 02:37:53 PM
I continue to suspect that Chauvin was mightily surprised that George Floyd died and would give anything to live that day over and roll Floyd over on his side for better breathing, even in the event that he is acquitted. I suspect Chauvin thought to himself 'this guy is big and strong as a bull; he can take it and he's putting on an act of being traumatized' and of course would have no way of knowing about his significantly compromised health.
If you say someone is racist I want evidence. The burden is on you. If you don't have evidence, it is your attitudes that invite suspicion.
Ok, I say describing black men as strong as bulls is racist.
Let's forget Chauvin and return to traffic stops, shall we?
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on April 19, 2021, 04:46:10 PM
Let's forget Chauvin and return to traffic stops, shall we?
Indeed, sorry, this kind of stuff threatens to make it hard to have an actual conversation around here.
I'm trying to figure out why someone told me 'you certainly have a right to believe this.' Seems like a non-sequitur or it implies a special authority held by that poster, or maybe a group with whom they are identified.