• 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!

Philly Mayor: ‘You Have Some Police Officers Who Are Increasingly Afraid...."

Unitedwestand13 said:
One of those 9 was john Marshall, one of the founding fathers of the American government.
Click to expand...

That's nice, he's also the one who took the power for the court not provided in the Constitution. He's the one who raped states rights and grew the federal. But that's beside the point, the power you are looking for over local cops is not one of the implied powers of the federal either.
 
Goshin said:
Poverty, familiarity, fear of the unknown, ignorance that life is different elsewhere, family ties.
Click to expand...

I suppose those are powerful ties. If you compare how easy it is to get out of a third world slum in Mexico and come to the USA with the ease at which someone living in a US slum could simply move out, then it becomes a mystery why so many of the former do come here despite laws and other barriers, while the latter seem content to stay put.
 
Helix said:
this would be a federal regulation regarding the workplace for law enforcement officers. not exactly unprecedented.

either way, it needs to happen. enough is enough with this he said she said crap when it comes to police actions.
Click to expand...

And this is one of the main problems with the nanny types. You're more than willing to solve a problem by creating a worse one.
 
Henrin said:
Yes. The commerce clause was to keep trade regular, not to allow the federal government to regulate the workplace.
Click to expand...

ensuring basic labor rights is a valid government role. i'm with you on the commerce clause abuse stuff, but come on. the federal government can pass laws for the workplace.
 
clownboy said:
And this is one of the main problems with the nanny types. You're more than willing to solve a problem by creating a worse one.
Click to expand...

requiring cameras on officers creates a worse problem? how does that work?
 
Helix said:
ensuring basic labor rights is a valid government role. i'm with you on the commerce clause abuse stuff, but come on. the federal government can pass laws for the workplace.
Click to expand...

How can they pass laws on the workplace? They can pass laws to keep trade open between the states, but I don't see how that would lead to workplace safety or basic labor rights.
 
Erod said:
Philly Mayor: ‘You Have Some Police Officers Who are Increasingly Afraid of the Community’ « CBS St. Louis



This discussion hints at the REAL source of the problem, which CNN and the msm wouldn't dare touch with a 10-foot pole.

Is this an issue about trusting the police, or is this about resentment for repeatedly getting caught by the police? Do many of these folks want better police enforcement, or do they want no police enforcement? It smells of "my teacher hates me."

We're headed for a situation where cops will refuse to police these neighborhoods altogether for fear of being singled out like the Ferguson police officer. Rough areas will be left to fend for themselves.

That, or black officer will be assigned to black neighborhoods, and whites to white neighborhoods. How racially divided does that sound?
Click to expand...

Imagine the outrage when move police offices who are black end up dying because they are in the more dangerous areas. That will be pinned on the police as well rather than on the people who killed them. The whole premise of police departments being racist to begin with is a red herring. Minorities are not excluded simply for being minorities, it is that fewer minorities go for those positions. If we were to weight hiring to lean further toward minorities for window dressing it would stand to reason that race would overshadow ability and the outcome would be a lesser force.

Instead, we need to send Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson packing and address the real issue without flinching from the race baiters. While there is a percentage of law enforcement that behaves inappropriately the biggest part of the problem is black culture, and the biggest part of that is the dissolution of the black family. The government certainly bears some blame for that, but they are not going to fix it. The community has to do that.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Tell that to those living in Chicago:
Click to expand...
That infographic really steers in the wrong direction. It implies that the violence in Chicago is the result of gang-activity, which it isn't really. "Gangs" as you would traditional define them are your Latin Kings, Vice Lords, Gangster Disciples, etc., etc. The big groups of organized criminals that deal drugs, pimp or what have you. In Chicago that doesn't really exist anymore, because the CPD has been incredibly effective in cleaning it up. It's almost non-existent now to the levels that it used to be.

Instead what is driving crime and Chicago's homicides are teenagers (which the infographic does indicates) that have formed 'gangs' that are more resembling of high-school cliques than actual gangs. The fights aren't over who get to deal crack where, but rather it's over high school drama, relationships, petty crime and who's dissing each other on Twitter that ends up turning into shootings and revenge killings. The police aren't able to control that type of behavior like they were able to do with "big gangs."

Hamster Buddha said:
I've always been an advocate of getting the community more involved with some sort of neighborhood watch program that was designed to work in conjunction with the local citizens in giving them the equipment and training to defend their homes. Especially in Chicago where to get this under control, you have to have the community work with you. I'd actually be curious to hear what Chicago Blacks think of the police force there.
Click to expand...
It's not a video game.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
How can they pass laws on the workplace? They can pass laws to keep trade open between the states, but I don't see how that would lead to workplace safety or basic labor rights.
Click to expand...

well, like many laws, congress could present a bill that requires the ****ing cameras, and then the president could sign it. how about that?

i had forgotten how little i enjoy this libertarian "everything is unconstitutional" ****. i didn't enjoy it that much even when i was one. stick to rolling back the drug war and the war on terror, because no one is going to agree with you that there shouldn't be any workplace regulations. that's just ****ing nonsense.

anyway, i don't care. just require the ****ing cameras. it needs to be done, and it's going to be done. it will help the police and the people being arrested. if we leave it to the states, some of them will **** around and not pass it, and we'll have a hodgepodge of states where this **** is still going on. just get it done.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
But a lot of this has nothing to do what. I mean if you listen to people like Sharpton, they'll tell you it's about race, and that the cops are just racist. And when you have communities that believe such, their not willing to work with the police force. Hell, there's a lto of good white cops, but for the average black, just think of him as some racist white cop coming into the neighborhood.
Click to expand...

There certainly are race baitors out there that magnify the problem....absolutely. But I also don't think is fair to characterize the communities as "not willing to work with the police force". For many years I lived in the West Adams Area of Los Angeles, a historic area technically at the far nothern end of South Central. We had lots of crime issues, but by and large the community was extremely supportive of the police and didn't harbor criminals...and in my experience most have good relationships with the police and believe MOST of the police are good cops, not racists. But there are definitely cops in the area that manufacture "probable cause" on a daily basis to stop and frisk for no reason. This is what pisses people off. The cops can say that they are doing so for all the right reasons, but when you disrespect a community in the name of keep the community safer, you are going to have blowback.
 
Helix said:
well, like many laws, congress could present a bill that requires the ****ing cameras, and then the president could sign it. how about that?

i had forgotten how little i enjoy this libertarian "everything is unconstitutional" ****. i didn't enjoy it that much even when i was one. stick to rolling back the drug war and the war on terror, because no one is going to agree with you that there shouldn't be any workplace regulations. that's just ****ing nonsense.

anyway, i don't care. just require the ****ing cameras. it needs to be done, and it's going to be done. it will help the police and the people being arrested. if we leave it to the states, some of them will **** around and not pass it, and we'll have a hodgepodge of states where this **** is still going on. just get it done.
Click to expand...

Ah. Well, fortunately, other people (not least the states and localities that would have standing via the burden placed on them) do tend to care about things being Constitutional or not.

Even if something is a good idea, that doesn't mean that Congress has the right to mandate it. The closest they can come is tying federal streams of funding to police forces to it, similar to the drinking age and road funding.
 
cpwill said:
Ah. Well, fortunately, other people (not least the states and localities that would have standing via the burden placed on them) do tend to care about things being Constitutional or not.

Even if something is a good idea, that doesn't mean that Congress has the right to mandate it. The closest they can come is tying federal streams of funding to police forces to it, similar to the drinking age and road funding.
Click to expand...

whatever it takes. this problem is so solvable. solve it.
 
Helix said:
well, like many laws, congress could present a bill that requires the ****ing cameras, and then the president could sign it. how about that?
Click to expand...

That would be illegal. The police are a state matter that has nothing to do with the federal government.

i had forgotten how little i enjoy this libertarian "everything is unconstitutional" ****. i didn't enjoy it that much even when i was one. stick to rolling back the drug war and the war on terror, because no one is going to agree with you that there shouldn't be any workplace regulations. that's just ****ing nonsense.
Click to expand...

I didn't even make that argument. Our discussion is about federal authority, not the existence of workplace regulations in general. No one really agrees with libertarians on the drug war or the war on terror either. When was the last time a liberal argued for legalizing some drug without taxes, licensing, and government regulation? Was the last time liberals or conservatives for that matter agreed with non-intervention? Liberals support creating a legal channel of buying and selling pot, but they are still very much in agreement with busting people for buying and selling them in unapproved ways.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
That would illegal. The police are a state matter that has nothing to do with the federal government.



I didn't even make that argument. Our discussion is about federal authority, not the existence of workplace regulations in general. No one really agrees with libertarians on the drug war or the war on terror either. When was the last time a liberal argued for legalizing some drug without taxes? Was the last time liberals or conservatives for that matter agreed with non-intervention?
Click to expand...

here's the thing : i don't care if you think federal workplace regulations are unconstitutional. see, this kind of stuff is why you guys can never get a foothold. choose your battles better. there is a lot of real, actual unconstitutional **** going on that needs to be addressed, and you're whining about laws that prevent employers from putting their employees in danger? that's just a ridiculous waste of time.

either way, just put the ****ing cameras on the cops so that we can solve the problem.
 
Helix said:
here's the thing : i don't care if you think federal workplace regulations are unconstitutional. see, this kind of stuff is why you guys can never get a foothold. choose your battles better. there is a lot of real, actual unconstitutional **** going on that needs to be addressed, and you're whining about laws that prevent employers from putting their employees in danger? that's just a ridiculous waste of time.
Click to expand...

This is real unconstitutional **** that is going on. The government expanding the commerce clause to controlling the operations of business is unconstitutional, it is real, and it is ****.
 
disneydude said:
The reality is that they have brought a lot of that on themselves. People would have more respect for the police if the bad cops weren't ruining it for the good ones.
Click to expand...

What about the people? There are a lot of bad people who are ruining it for the good ones but nobody wants to talk about that. Michael Brown is a criminal who tried to grab a cop's gun and got exactly what he deserved, yet the black race-baiters in Ferguson refuse to even acknowledge that, all they can see is a white guy shot a black guy. If it was the exact same situation, except a white officer and a white criminal or a black officer and a black criminal, none of this would have happened. There's a whole lot of black liberal racists out there that the liberals refuse to even acknowledge.
 
Erod said:
Philly Mayor: ‘You Have Some Police Officers Who are Increasingly Afraid of the Community’ « CBS St. Louis



This discussion hints at the REAL source of the problem, which CNN and the msm wouldn't dare touch with a 10-foot pole.

Is this an issue about trusting the police, or is this about resentment for repeatedly getting caught by the police? Do many of these folks want better police enforcement, or do they want no police enforcement? It smells of "my teacher hates me."

We're headed for a situation where cops will refuse to police these neighborhoods altogether for fear of being singled out like the Ferguson police officer. Rough areas will be left to fend for themselves.

That, or black officer will be assigned to black neighborhoods, and whites to white neighborhoods. How racially divided does that sound?
Click to expand...

Race is a minor player - probably a very minor player. The causes of the problem are many but high up on the list I'd put

1. The war on drugs
2. The move away from beat cops to putting them in cars
3. The huge expansion in the number of laws that people are subject to
4. Hiring ex military in large numbers into police departments.


The simple fact is that the police aren't protectors. They never were and they never will be. The police role is to enforce the law. When someone deals with a cop it's usually in their official capacity which means the citizen is under the microscope. That generates an us-vs-them mindset on the part of both sides by default.
 
Helix said:
just put cameras on all of them. that will do a lot to solve the problem, and will protect both the cop and the person being arrested. the solution here is obvious.
Click to expand...

It won't stop the race-baiters like Sharpton, he doesn't care about the reality of the event, only how he can use it to push his agenda.
 
Helix said:
they can believe whatever they want. the evidence needs to be documented to protect both sides. it will solve a lot of problems.
Click to expand...

These people don't care about evidence. The people who riot couldn't care less what's true and we all know Sharpton doesn't care, he'll just twist the situation so it makes his side look good, regardless of the facts.
 
Goshin said:
We don't need more cops; we need better cops; and people being better citizens.
Click to expand...

I think we need better citizens before we need better cops. Unfortunately, the former is not likely to happen any time soon, especially not with all the liberal entitlement-happy nonsense that goes on in society.
 
Helix said:
whatever it takes. this problem is so solvable. solve it.
Click to expand...

:shrug: Then start a campaign at your state or local level. I hope you succeed. But Congress is not an Easy Button.
 
What needs to happen is that the government is not liable for the criminal actions of police officers. Because the government is liable for the massive lawsuits, there is equal massive economic incentive to defend the officer for obvious reason.

I see no reason why the government - meaning taxpayers - should be liable for criminal conduct of police officers UNLESS the government entity told the officer to commit the crime.

For example, in NYC that officer violated specific, known police policy. Therefore, why would NYC be liable in a civil suit over what that officer did?

With a threatened $75 million dollar lawsuit, NYC has a $75,000,000 reason to NOT indict or convict the officer - as guilt in a criminal case inherently proves guilt in the civil case.

So one of the problems is the sue-em lawyers - making such as Al Sharpston part of the cause and the problem. The lawyers having laws allowing them to go after deep pockets, when the NYPD and NYC had specifically told that officer to NEVER do a chockhold.

The civil liability should ONLY be against the officer. If it was, there would be no economic motive either way to protect or prosecute that officer.
 
Brilliant. And so typical of the media.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom