• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Protests over Missouri teen's death turn violent[W:647,807]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, I guess they could fire some of the police officers... that bring down the ratio but it wouldn't exactly make the town safer though would it?

Going back to your OP that started all this, I understand the desire to have people of a similar background involved when going into a situation to relate to it. But I would argue that in the long term, it isn't going to make anything better, and maybe make things worse. The police deal is one of the last real vestiges of... supposed/inferred/implied (can't think of the right word, hope that gets across what I'm saying) racism? Is it better to risk someone's safety and wait for the black guy on duty to go to the area, or let the closest available get to the scene to deal with the situation? At some point, we need to move on from this idea that only the black cop will care about black people and stop assuming that whites don't care.

In many cases, not even the black cops really care about black people.
 
Well, I guess they could fire some of the police officers... that bring down the ratio but it wouldn't exactly make the town safer though would it?

From race induced riots against the cops it sure would.

Hamster Buddha said:
Going back to your OP that started all this, I understand the desire to have people of a similar background involved when going into a situation to relate to it. But I would argue that in the long term, it isn't going to make anything better, and maybe make things worse. The police deal is one of the last real vestiges of... supposed/inferred/implied (can't think of the right word, hope that gets across what I'm saying) racism? Is it better to risk someone's safety and wait for the black guy on duty to go to the area, or let the closest available get to the scene to deal with the situation? At some point, we need to move on from this idea that only the black cop will care about black people and stop assuming that whites don't care.

It simply eases tensions. If, as a police force, all you show up with is a race not of the region you are in, the assumptions of the populace, right or wrong, are going to light up race tensions.
 
In many cases, not even the black cops really care about black people.

Don't you think it would be more accurate to say that they don't care about those they believe are criminals or have acted in a criminal way?
 
From race induced riots against the cops it sure would.

It simply eases tensions. If, as a police force, all you show up with is a race not of the region you are in, the assumptions of the populace, right or wrong, are going to light up race tensions.

For how long though? If you don't have enough police out there to respond to violence, you're inevitably going to see an uptick in crime.

And I think it really boils down to age at this point. No matter what, if you grew up in the time of segregation, there's probably never going to be a time your going to give a white cop the benefit of the doubt... and that's understandable, if not correct. But for younger people though, who have been around whites a lot more often, I don't think they'd see it as the same. Of course, then you just have the problem of young cops with... as one poster put it... napoleon complexes. But that's another issue though.
 
They're demanding a 'murder charge' against the officer not a verdict. First things, first.

No that's not all they're demanding.

They're demanding a Murder Charge and then a Guilty verdict. That's " justice "...
 
Made so by the racialists.

Think about it: a town that is 67% black is run by a buncha racist white boys?

Remember South Africa in the 70's?
 
They're demanding a 'murder charge' against the officer not a verdict. First things, first.
No that's not all they're demanding.

They're demanding a Murder Charge and then a Guilty verdict. That's " justice "...

The Official demands were posted earlier so there would be no confusion over that and what mobs may demand.

The following is just so stupid.

BuxIMCNIcAA81qL.jpg:large
 
I think general a lot of cops don't care about a lot people.

Which is a division we must work on. It's why I'm so opposed to the militarizing of our police forces. Police need to be approachable. Not intimidating. It's already intimidating enough them just being authority.
 
For how long though? If you don't have enough police out there to respond to violence, you're inevitably going to see an uptick in crime.

And I think it really boils down to age at this point. No matter what, if you grew up in the time of segregation, there's probably never going to be a time your going to give a white cop the benefit of the doubt... and that's understandable, if not correct. But for younger people though, who have been around whites a lot more often, I don't think they'd see it as the same. Of course, then you just have the problem of young cops with... as one poster put it... napoleon complexes. But that's another issue though.

It's a fallacy to think that more cops = less crime. There is a balance for sure but that notion outright isn't really correct.
 
Don't you think it would be more accurate to say that they don't care about those they believe are criminals or have acted in a criminal way?

No, I would not.
 
It's a fallacy to think that more cops = less crime. There is a balance for sure but that notion outright isn't really correct.

I'm sure there are times when you have excess, and perhaps there are those that can do more with less but I'm not sure how you could argue with the idea that the more cops you have on patrol and that can respond to incidents... I don't know, I'd feel safer. Though if you have stats that show otherwise I'm open to it.
 
I'm sure there are times when you have excess, and perhaps there are those that can do more with less but I'm not sure how you could argue with the idea that the more cops you have on patrol and that can respond to incidents... I don't know, I'd feel safer. Though if you have stats that show otherwise I'm open to it.

The only aspect of it that is true is that more jobs tend to reduce crime. If we took the tact of putting up funds for jobs to reduce crime we'd do better if it weren't jobs of authority over the people because that often creates more friction in society.
 
Missouri police shooting of teen Michael Brown sparks protests, looting, vandalism - CBS News

The looting and violence is in response to the shooting of Michael Brown when, according to police, Brown and another man assaulted the police officer, there was a struggle and shots were fired, ultimately killing Brown. The two men in the alleged assault were not armed. However, a different account was provided by one Dorian Johnson, who says the struggle was initiated by the police officer, who assaulted Brown - Brown broke free and started to run when the police officer then shot Brown.

The point of this post is NOT justifying or dismissing the shooting which was the flashpoint of the violence (though I am resigned to the fact it will devolve into that at some point) but I'm more interested in why looting is the preferred method of showing distrust and dissatisfaction with police actions, when the owners of these stores which were broken into have absolutely NOTHING to do with the police shooting. Why is looting and destroying innocent people's livelihoods the preferred method of action in these circumstances? We see this time and time again - and I'm reminded of the 1992 So.Central LA riots.

1. Immaturity.
2. Opportunism.
 
Which is a division we must work on. It's why I'm so opposed to the militarizing of our police forces. Police need to be approachable. Not intimidating. It's already intimidating enough them just being authority.

Why would police not be approachable? It's not like there isn't an entire major subculture out there that sings about and celebrates killing them. I mean, what regular middle-class joe who brings home $45K a year for a dangerous and difficult job wouldn't find something like that just downright cuddly?




Now yeah, you need more cops out in troubled neighborhoods, and there needs to be regular person-to-person interaction, and you're right about that. I'm just pointing out that it's not exactly entirely the fault of the police that there is mutual distrust, here.
 
It's a fallacy to think that more cops = less crime. There is a balance for sure but that notion outright isn't really correct.

More cops correctly employed does. But you have to be out on the street.
 
1. Immaturity.
2. Opportunism.

I'd say its more the latter. Pretty important to separate those that are peacefully protesting with the opportunistic scumbags that tend to take advantage of situations like this. I hope the peaceful heed the warnings and shut it down at night. Too easy for the douches to intermingle with them and stir up s#*t.
 
Why would police not be approachable? It's not like there isn't an entire major subculture out there that sings about and celebrates killing them. I mean, what regular middle-class joe who brings home $45K a year for a dangerous and difficult job wouldn't find something like that just downright cuddly?




Now yeah, you need more cops out in troubled neighborhoods, and there needs to be regular person-to-person interaction, and you're right about that. I'm just pointing out that it's not exactly entirely the fault of the police that there is mutual distrust, here.

Well friction between cops and the public goes down when there is more interaction. Beat cops make more progress in neighborhoods than cops in cars driving through. If you are highly weaponized and decked out in all black military garb... you'd be much less approachable than say... an English Bobby

I mean, on the streets, especially where authority is viewed as suspect... honestly which would you think is more approachable?

bobby_gib.jpg

If there were problems in the neighborhood people would be more likely to be helpful to those they can approach and work with the police more often if they felt they could approach and trust them. What I'm saying is, you can't police a populace very well without public participation.

Dumbass sheriff Arpiao down in Phoenix would do well to understand this.
 
Well friction between cops and the public goes down when there is more interaction. Beat cops make more progress in neighborhoods than cops in cars driving through. If you are highly weaponized and decked out in all black military garb... you'd be much less approachable than say... an English Bobby

Agreed on both counts. But patrol cops aren't geared up in the riot suits. Those come out when there are, well, riots, or the legitimate threat of violence. When you are in a neighborhood where imminent violence is a very real possibility, you have to be ready for it, or you are only going to be a victim of it, and you'll be no help to anyone (quite the opposite, you'll only demonstrate the power and futility of opposing those who gunned you down).

If there were problems in the neighborhood people would be more likely to be helpful to those they can approach and work with the police more often if they felt they could approach and trust them. What I'm saying is, you can't police a populace very well without public participation.

Dumbass sheriff Arpiao down in Phoenix would do well to understand this.

Sheriff Arpiao keeps getting reelected, indicating he has a pretty good participation with his public, who appear to agree with him.
 
Sheriff Arpiao keeps getting reelected, indicating he has a pretty good participation with his public, who appear to agree with him.

He's got a bunch of Yosemite Sams for constituents.
 
He's got a bunch of Yosemite Sams for constituents.

:shrug: shall I bring out a bunch of derogatory slurs for the populaces that we are discussing the need to patrol in more?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom