I hear cries to defund police departments, but we do need police.


Instead, just have black cops deal with black criminals, to eliminate the potential for racism and brutality and murder.

Surely from the tragedies of recent years there are thousands of blacks trying to become cops.

I would be fine with hiring minorities only as cops - pay them whatever it takes.

Police departments will not go away. They are too corrupt to exist so they will be remade. First they must be defunded and those funds put into new departments. The whole barrel is rotten.

Perhaps we should have separate water fountains, too.

We already have separate police unions for black cops. It's deplorable !

But I do know of social and professional fellowships and social organizations. They may have input to their departments, but not with official standings. This may be different in other jurisdictions.

Check with Ferguson Missouri P.D. to decrease your ignorance.

You mean one for the good guys and one for the bad?

I mean exactly what azsteve is proposing: separate but equal.

What could possibly go wrong?





ETA: I hate adding signals to posts in which irony or sarcasm should be clearly evident, but I will in this case:

/Incredulous and angry SARCASM



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/10/2020 12:46AM by Lot's Wife.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps we should have separate water fountains,
> too.
Hahahahahhahahahahahaha.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/10/2020 10:55PM by saucie.

I wish it were funny, saucie. I really do.

:'(

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wish it were funny, saucie. I really do.
>
> :'(


I don't think its funny , I think simplistic thinking like

that is not realistic and pathetic.

I know. You and I are on the same page.

why stop there? Why not go back to full segregation?

Put all blacks into all black cities with black police departments and black schools and black governments.

Then people like Free Man won't even have to think about uncomfortable topics like racism.

/sarcasm - just in case anyone thinks I am serious.

Or convert them to Mormonism so that they become increasingly white and delightsome until dark skin is gone from the planet. Yup, Mormons really believe that.

Ending racism might end races. I'll slow down.

It doesn't matter who beats - or KILLS - whom. How about ask the victim where they're from and have a cop that's from there beat them, or from somewhere that doesn't like that place they're from, or someone that's the same religion or one that doesn't like that religion or SEX.

Will gay cops beat someone who is gay, and so on and so forth?

Should cops pick on someone their own size? Only on those similarly armed?

How about: have police (not police) solve crimes and leave traffic, pedestrians, neighborhoods, and the public at large FREE, and absent accusations, FORCED shake downs, unconstitutional violations, torture, terror, bullying, assaults, profiling & stereotyping, head/face-hunting, vandalism, planting illegal substances on unwitting citizens, lying, and plain ole' ill-will, racism, apathy and other wrongs completely unnecessary (in a Free Society).

Police don't bring the peace. The people do. And they'd/ we'd better bring it soon!

ufotofu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ending racism might end races. I'll slow down.
>
> It doesn't matter who beats - or KILLS - whom. How
> about ask the victim where they're from and have a
> cop that's from there beat them, or from somewhere
> that doesn't like that place they're from, or
> someone that's the same religion or one that
> doesn't like that religion or SEX.

A lady cop/dispatcher told me about a 911 call she got in "Happy Valley," Amherst/Northampton area of Massachusetts, an extremely liberal area. A woman called from a lesbian pool party, and reported somebody with a major head injury from a deck fall.

"Do you have an all-woman ambulance crew available?" asked the caller.
I asked, "What did you do?"
Dispatcher said "I'll send you what I got."
>
> How about: have police (not police) solve crimes
> and leave traffic, pedestrians, neighborhoods, and
> the public at large FREE, and absent accusations,
> FORCED shake downs, unconstitutional violations,
> torture, terror, bullying, assaults, profiling &
> stereotyping, head/face-hunting, vandalism,
> planting illegal substances on unwitting citizens,
> lying, and plain ole' ill-will, racism, apathy and
> other wrongs completely unnecessary (in a Free
> Society).

What, and deprive us of all our fun?

It takes years of training to become a social worker, clinical psychologist, or ordained minister. We expect police officers to fill all of these roles instead of investing in a functional social safety net. Yet the police academy is only about as long as boot camp. They apply a very limited skill set to complex and critically important problems. No wonder they need immunity. If your yard guy were performing appendectomies and delivering babies, he would need qualified immunity too.

A police officer's primary job is to stop harm and danger to persons and property, and then to safeguard a situation. This runs from apprehending a violent person to directing traffic around an accident, and may, or may not, involving bringing people into the judicial process.

Academies run from six months to a year, followed by some period of field training, probation, and close oversight. (Boot camp is 2-3 months.)

Consider the response to a domestic violence call. Oftentime, the officer may arrest the abuser (stop harm) and, depending upon resources and protocols, connect the victim with a shelter or social worker ("safeguard the situation"). Suppose there are children? The officer (at this point, probably a specialist, sergeant, or higher) will arrange for temporary care of the child(ren). It's not the police job to follow up on what happens to that child, only to make sure that the child is safe and cared for for the next 12-24 hours.

You're right: we're not social workers, but our paths do intersect.

Naming is important. The Red Team is usually very good at it. Pro Life. Death Tax - that one was especially good.

Meanwhile, the Blue Team comes up with stinkers like Abolish ICE, and Defund Police, neither of which means what they sound like, but they sound awful. Don't any of these idiots know somebody in advertising??

The red team is very good at this.

Only white people can fix this particular form of racism. I am one who wants to.

ditto

I, too, will sign up for this.

Free Man Wrote:
---------------------------------
> Instead, just have black cops deal with black
> criminals, to eliminate the potential for racism
> and brutality and murder.

South Africa already tried this, they were called Bantustans and no one but the white government wanted them.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bantustan

Rudy Gulliany (who has decades of experience in legal issues and government) gave a great assessment today on FOX for how to fix the police brutality. He said in New York (the best police units in the country) they have Men in White, these are the supervisors out on the beat, supervising the younger officers. They are actually out witnessing what's going on rather than sitting in some office doing nothing. Then they have training on deescalating using your voice. Bringing the emotions down.

We hear all this talk of defund the police, but when our house gets robbed no one is going to call a social worker or Dr. Phil to solve the problem.

LW, EOD, or anyone, does one of you want to take this on? I'm not even sure where to start.

He makes a good point. Giuliani is best known for his leadership role during the September 11 attacks. In the aftermath of the attacks, Giuliani was known as "America's Mayor" and was named Time Magazine Person of the Year in 2001. Giuliani was widely credited for making major improvements in the city's quality of life and lowering the rate of violent crimes.

I second this request.

scmd1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LW, EOD, or anyone, does one of you want to take
> this on? I'm not even sure where to start.

"... These are the supervisors out on the beat, supervising the younger officers. They are actually out witnessing what's going on rather than sitting in some office doing nothing. Then they have training on deescalating using your voice. Bringing the emotions down."

What part of this is causing you comprehension difficulties or giving you the flutters?

I never heard the "Men in White" term, though, unless it's referring to psych orderlies which it's not, so I don't know where that part comes from.


"when our house gets robbed no one is going to call a social worker or Dr. Phil to solve the problem."

Is this the part that was giving you the vapors?

In response to Ted, I didn't request that anyone take "him" on, but rather, to take "this" on,as in "the post."

In response to xxMoR, I'm not having flutters, vapors, or comprehension issues. I dispute any point of view touting Rudy Giuliani as a legitimate solution to anything. I'm neither wholly for nor against the concept of "de-funding the police" at this point, assuming what is actually meant by the term is understood. With regard to some police departments, perhaps things are working as presently funded. Regardless, no one with intelligence is seriously proposing that Dr. Phil be called in response to home burglaries.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/10/2020 02:17PM by scmd1.

Equivalent to a foreman.

Sergeants are, or should be, out on the street knowing where their officers are and what they're doing. Every personal radio ("walkie-talkie") in the Boston department has a GPS locator in it, so the Department knows where that is physically located, even off-duty. Ideally, a sergeant knows which officers need oversight, which are pulling their weight.

Sergeants come in all varieties of diligent to lackadaisical to underqualified--just like the real world. They should be on patrol, ready to come in on a moment's notice to backup and take charge if need be. They achieve rank on the basis of exam scores and personal evaluation and interviews conducted by superior officers from another city department (lieutenants and captains also). It's up to the department to determine assignments. Hopefully, street-savvy sergeant/officers are assigned to street-savvy districts, and administrative-types are given administrative positions.

But that's Boston. In smaller jurisdictions where the pool of sergeant applicants are smaller, you might get crony promotions, jerks with the right connections getting those three stripes on the sleeves. "Your mileage may vary."

Rudy Giulani has no credibility outside the Fox bubble. He recently had an epically unhinged interview with Piers Morgan.

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-deranged-rudy-giuliani-barking-mad-deranged-piers-morgan-20200605-l4ocntkqevdcpdfcmpdwfdghqa-story.html


As to these outstanding NYPD supervisors? Draw your own conclusions.

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/manhattan/nypd-pepper-sprayed-occupy-wall-street-protesters-retires-article-1.3282659

That's not entirely true. I lived in NYC for eight years. At the time I left in the early 90s, crime was completely out of control. I myself had been a crime victim on a number of occasions (burglary, theft, etc.) In my neighborhood, you could leave a car parked near a busy street in the morning and come home in the afternoon to see it completely stripped. In fact I sold my own car when I started to see it gradually picked apart because I knew it was just a matter of time. I left NYC over quality of life issues, and the escalating crime rate was definitely a part of that.

Giuliani turned that around, by using a strategy that at the time was considered highly unusual -- focusing on small crimes as a deterrent to bigger crimes. And it worked. The criminals saw that finally, someone was paying attention.

So regardless of what has happened since (and yes, I realize he is problematic in many ways,) a lot of people will remember him for that, and also for his leadership during 9/11.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/the-problem-with-broken-windows-policing/

Quote:

But a report released last week by the New York Police Department’s inspector general’s office found “no evidence” that the drop in felony crime during those six years was linked to the quality of life summonses or misdemeanor arrests, which also declined during that time.

“That’s basically what we’ve been finding for years — a lack of any evidence of an effect,” said Bernard Harcourt, a Columbia Law School professor who has conducted two major studies on the impact of Broken Windows in New York and other cities.

The NYPD, led by Police Commissioner William Bratton, an early supporter of Broken Windows, said in a statement that the inspector general’s study was “deeply flawed” because it only examined arrests and summonses, not the agency’s broader quality-of-life efforts. Kelling, who has used misdemeanor arrests to evaluate the theory, wouldn’t comment on the study, saying he’s still a consultant to the department.

The first person to throw a rock gets arrested. The second person to throw a rock also gets arrested. No third rock gets thrown. What could make better sense than that?

I can't speak to the policing advice, which sounds reasonable on its face, except for the implication that all other police supervisors are sitting in their office doing nothing. Cheap shot and absurd. I don't know if Giuliani said that or it was just macaRomney editorializing.

Rudy is well past his prime. After engineering the extortion attempt with Ukraine, Rudy assumed a very low profile for the last six months or so. Apparently someone finally decided it was safe to let him out again.

macaRomney Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
> We hear all this talk of defund the police, but
> when our house gets robbed no one is going to call
> a social worker or Dr. Phil to solve the problem.

The phrase "defund the police" unfortunately proves to be confusing to many people. As I understand it, except where entire departments are considered to be beyond repair, the call is not to demolish police departments. Rather, it is a cry to assess the current set-up and improve services across the board by re-distributing some funding to other community services. Then, when a situation doesn't strictly require armed officers other types of services will be dispatched instead.

Police themselves say that they are often called to situations where social workers or mental health experts are what is required.

Although there is (often understandable) animosity towards police, the calls for defunding are for most more about analyzing current procedures and re-allocating funds where needed to better serve communities. We have developed the habit of relying on police for so many social issues such as welfare checks. That is an example of an area that could be re-evaluated.

We have major issues in Canada with the relationship between police and First Nations/Indigenous populations. It is too often adversarial. I mention it to illustrate the widespread nature of this complicated issue. There are also calls in Canada to defund the police. It can be a positive move for all sides. It's too bad the "defund" phrase is confusing to some and inflammatory to others.

It's never a bad idea to re-evaluate how we do things.

Which can make this post entirely on topic for RfM. If the Mormon Church did a self-examination and a revamp they might end up with fewer very unhappy members. That could be a win-win.

As for calling police if you're a victim of crime, of course that is their reason for being. Who is saying we should abolish them?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/10/2020 01:21PM by Nightingale.

> Rudy Gulliany (who has decades of experience in
> legal issues and government)

Giuliani? The court jester who might soon find himself in jail? Who would take that man seriously?


-------------------
> gave a great
> assessment today on FOX for how to fix the police
> brutality.

Oh, I see. Fox takes him seriously.


--------------
> He said in New York (the best police
> units in the country)

Do you want to substantiate that assertion or are we to take it on faith?


-------------------
> they have Men in White,
> these are the supervisors out on the beat,
> supervising the younger officers. They are
> actually out witnessing what's going on rather
> than sitting in some office doing nothing. Then
> they have training on deescalating using your
> voice. Bringing the emotions down.

I'll bet that works brilliantly. There is no way, for instance, a Man in White would watch a regular cop knock over a 110 pound girl, who suffered a concussion, and then move to stand between that crooked cop and the press and walk away. No way Mr. White would protect such a thug, right?

Oh wait--let's look at a different case. There's no way that somewhere in the mid-West a supervisor--not one of the beat cops but a highly experienced and highly trained supervisor--would kneel on an arrested person's neck for 8.75 minutes, thereby killing him, and then file a report not mentioning the kneeling. Right?

Oops. Perhaps there is a better example. There's no way an experienced and highly trained Man in White or his equivalent in Philly would pull out a metal baton and hit a protestor in the head as the protestor was trying to disengage from a conflict. . .

Damn. Okay, I got one. There is no way a highly trained Man in White would ever order the police or the national guard or some other national force to attack peaceful protestors in the middle of a city before curfew. The highly trained supervisors would never condone such a measure let alone provoke it. Right, macaRomney?


-----------
But rest assured, all. The always-objective, always-sagacious macaRomney is invoking the always-credible and responsible Rudy Giuliani, formerly the boss of a police force that everyone agrees is the finest in the world and that has no problems with police brutality or false reporting, as an example of how to solve problems that never existed in NYC when Rudy was mayor.

Life is so easy when we listen to macaRomney. . . and Rudy Giuliani. . . and Fox.

I was reading an article in Fox news recently, where President Trump is getting behind some recent senate initiatives. Probably will end police brutality with better supervision as they do in NY (as another poster suggested), extending police training, better screening at hire, and revamping police procedure (e.g. eliminating certain holds). The big thing is technology...cell phones and body cams expose.

All of that sounds good. I think there needs to be a set of national standards for policing that *all* police departments are required to adhere to.

"I was reading an article in Fox news recently" ... Well there's your problem.

Ted Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was reading an article in Fox news recently,
> where President Trump is getting behind some
> recent senate initiatives. Probably will end
> police brutality with better supervision as they
> do in NY (as another poster suggested), extending
> police training, better screening at hire, and
> revamping police procedure (e.g. eliminating
> certain holds). The big thing is technology...cell
> phones and body cams expose.

You mean "faux news"? Excuse me but everyone I know

calls it that. Sorry.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/10/2020 11:15PM by saucie.

Oh goodness...

Sometimes when I open this site I can’t believe it’s 2020.

I hear you.

It's not, for those who post this type of stuff.

Maybe 2020 BCE. Though even then, the Babylonians probably knew the quadratic formula. Seriously. First written reference we know of was around 1850 BCE, but we don't know how long they knew about it before then, so could have been around in 2020 BCE.

Drones with facial recognition software, infrared cameras and non lethal weapons, tasers to stop any crime, and lasers to give free lasik lobotomy surgery to anybody threatenining anybody with a weapon, including cops.

How does this discussion help me recover from Mormonism?

thedesertrat1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How does this discussion help me recover from
> Mormonism?
Mormonism is institutionalized racism. End Mormonism, end racism/brutality.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> thedesertrat1 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > How does this discussion help me recover from
> > Mormonism?
> Mormonism is institutionalized racism. End
> Mormonism, end racism/brutality.


Ending mormonism will not end racism and brutality. Mormons

aren't the only people who are racist. Sorry to burst your

bubble.

Not everything helps everybody but can often help somebody.

I used to often say here that it's amazing how many issues can relate to Mormonism. That is not a compliment to CoJCoLDS.

Analysis, examination, drawing parallels and discussion can all be helpful when reviewing one's own experiences of Mormonism.

It's good to bear in mind that not everything on this site needs to engage every poster. So many readers. A great many topics. All of us with our own exit stories and struggles as well as our interested and supportive nevermo readers.

I am allergic to Math. Yet the recent focus on it here in several threads was riveting. And BoJ, a former Math prof, brought up quadratic equations again today (in this thread) - fascinating. Proves my long-held view that so many "off-topic" subjects relate to moism and highlighting them can bring light to someone's exmo journey. It can help to see things from a different angle.

Angle. I said angle. The misery-inducing Math lessons of my jr high school years. Considering angles in isolation made no sense to me. At all. I needed context. Funny how that goes.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 06/10/2020 04:58PM by Nightingale.

Actually the quadratic equation is not on topic to Mormonism, but very on topic to the poster I was responding to. He thinks knowing about the quadratic equation is a complete waste of time. The fact that knowledge of it goes clear back to the beginnings of human literacy should arouse some curiosity as to why that is.

I'll do a thread on that some day. Most people have no idea why most calculators have square root and reciprocal keys, though the Babylonians made use of both operation 4,000 years ago. I used to think math started with Pythagoras (600 BCE). Turns out the Babylonians even knew the Pythagorean theorem over a thousand years earlier. An early case of academic plagiarism by the Greeks. :)

Oh, and I taught CS, but stumbled into a math degree along the way.

Mathematics and mathematical logic are assuredly part of the recovery from Mormonism.

Mormonism is a form of racism. Mormonism is a form of patriarchy. Mormonism is a form of fuzzy cult thinking.

There are people here who reject Mormonism but continue to embrace the racism, the misogyny, and/or the fuzzy thinking. These people demonstrate that you can take the person out of the LDS church without taking the LDS epistemology out of the person.

Challenging the Mormonism that survives the departure from the Mormon church is absolutely relevant. It is Mormon thinking at least as much as the religion itself that is problematic.

Yes. That's what I was getting at. One concept leads to another. Often people gain insights from parallels when they don't see it straight on.

Exactly. Anyone who thinks the quadratic equation is bunk but still trumpets Manifest Destiny is still a Mormon. So too people who think the church and the BoM are racist but continue to draw lines, or walls, between people based on religion or ethnicity.

Recovery from Mormonism requires a LOT more than writing a letter to the COB.

It gives you a chance to learn to not be like those Utah County Mormons constantly harping about Cosmopolitan Magazine being visible in the grocery store racks.

I see that still needs work, but we're a patient bunch. We will provide other opportunities. Hang in there.

You're still pretending to be the thread police ?

DEFUND THE THREAD POLICE

I do not believe it is possible to end police brutality.
If you hand someone a badge and a gun and tell them it is ok to shoot somebody then you open the door wide to brutality.
An example would be Nazi Germany in the 1930's.

Hopefully, police recruits are taught that shooting and other deadly force are last resorts.

As for the example you mention, Nazism, some of the causes include intense nationalism, anti-intellectualism, considerating others as enemies, racial superiority, anti-Semitism, propaganda (especially due to defeat in WWI), inflation, state above individual, anti-democracy, obedience to leaders and, of course, Hitler and his extreme pathology. (Info from Encyclopedia Britannica online).

In other words, it's multi-faceted and complex.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/10/2020 07:40PM by Nightingale.

An officer has levels of control available to him. For starters, there are the levels of legal enforcement:

1) warning
2) order to vacate or disperse
3) non-criminal citation
4) summons
5) arrest

All those depend upon applicable law.In my state, a cop has no right of arrest for an unregistered vehicle--he'll issue a misdemeanor summons-- but with an unlicensed or suspended driver, he has a choice between summoning the violator into court or an arrest.

Yes, Nightingale, cops are (or should be) taught about using appropriate "use of force," with the firearm the last resort. How much force is used depends upon what is needed to protect life and property (his, the public, and yes, the suspect's), and to secure the situation (public order). In ascending order:

1) approach and personal presence
Coming in with lights and sirens will usually disperse a fight. The mere presence of an officer or cruiser can promote public order. (Well, it used to)
2) Verbal commands
More direct control of a situation. (Well, it used to. Now people get a kick out defying a lawful order.)
3) Open-hand involvement. This can be anything from hustling a noisy drunk to separating combatants to subduing a resisting suspect prior to handcuffing.
4) The intermediate weapons: handcuff, baton, Tazer, sprayless-than-lethal devices (e.g.beanbag gun) Obviously, an escalation. These are rarely used without an arrest following.
5) Lethal (NOT "deadly") force. Lethal force = the firearm, and means serious injury with the possibility of death. "Deadly force" is a military concept, and means the intention is to kill the adversary. Big difference, commonly confused.
m
Nightingale, officers ARE taught that lethal force is the last resort. It is applicable only when "exigent circumstances" indicate that HUMAN life is in danger. Some split-second decisions are wrong, others are not. Example: a man is bashing car windows with a bat--lethal force is not permissible, as that is property damage. His decision is whether to get close enough to use his intermediate weapons, or keep distance and hope that voice commands may suffice.. He bashes (or is about to bash) people--now lethal force is permissible.

The absolute minimum safe distance from an assailant with an open knife is 21 feet, even with the gun drawn and aimed. Some tacticians think even that is too small.

Last word on use of the firearm: a cop will aim for "center mass" and should fire until the threat is neutralized. He will not shoot for an extremity, or the head, or "the gun out of his hand." But in excitement, fear, confusion and adrenalen, most people (cops, military, and civilian) usually fire more rounds than are necessary. And most rounds will miss, even from ten feet.

I thought my idea would be better received.

I've never seen on the news a story of a black cop doing anything wrong, so obviously they would be a better choice. Only white cops are bad.

So why not have the best cops possible?

And since white cops are the problem, why wouldn't blacks and other minorities be fighting to become policemen or women?

Maybe we don't really care about police brutality and racism? Doesn't seem like we really want to solve the problem, but just blame and be victims.

We have now trained the country to see white cops as racist and killers, so they will have to avoid many situations. I read that is one reason the murder rate went up in Chicago in 2016 - the cops had to back off.

Which I understand. I have to be extra careful with what I say to black workers. We had a supervisor early this year tell a black worker he was late, and the supv was verbally attacked about being a racist, to the point he felt threatened and managed to get the guy outside and lock the door.

So much for equality. The goal of victimhood is to get preferential treatment and other benefits.

Anyway, statistically, for each encounter and for the same type of crime, blacks aren't harmed more by police, but we can't say that. We have to go with them being special victims.

In which case, the only solution is to have black police so there can be no accusations of racism and brutality. Even if a black cop was to do so, it would not be on the news, there would be no protests, there would be no congressional hearings, etc.

Everything would be fine. Problem solved.

Preferential treatment for special victims.

Riiiiiight. Got ya.

You are a malign presence, Free Man.

There are lots of black police. Troopers, FBI agents, Rangers, etc.

There are cops with integrity and competence who are both black and white. And many who are not. A facet of Community Policing is to create a department that demographically mirrors the community it serves. The first hiring slots typically go to veterans. After that, many departments try to get recruits who are ethnically diverse according to the jurisdiction's demographics. (Let's not shortchange the politically connected!)

Of course, in today's anti-cop hysteria, that will be increasingly difficult. Who wants to be the target of all that hatred? Be doxed so your children can be harassed, your property vandalized? Thus, your statement,

"And since white cops are the problem, why wouldn't blacks and other minorities be fighting to become policemen or women?"

is one of many irresponsible assertions that would bedevil even the saintly patience of Lot's Wife.

caffiend Wrote:
--------------------------------------------
> Of course, in today's anti-cop hysteria

It's loaded phrases like this that interfere with rational discussion.


Who wants to be the
> target of all that hatred?

Exactly correct. The answer is nobody. Of any colour.

Nightingale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> caffiend Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------
> > Of course, in today's anti-cop hysteria
>
> It's loaded phrases like this that interfere with
> rational discussion

I doubt we'll come to a meeting of the minds here, but google "anti-cop graffiti" and hit "images."

Officers I know on active duty report a great increase in negative attitude from a wide range of people. This will result in de-policing, as cops will be less inclined to initiate enforcement except when disengagement is unavoidable. Why pull over that speeder or check out that suspicious person if there's an increased chance of a confrontational situation that might lead to a complaint at Internal Affairs?

I don't think the word hysteria is extreme.

That's one possible solution.

Another is to do a better job of weeding out bad cops, and doing a better job as police. Not easy, but not impossible either.

>Anyway, statistically, for each encounter and for the same type of crime, blacks aren't harmed more by police, but we can't say that. We have to go with them being special victims.


https://thesocietypages.org/toolbox/police-killing-of-blacks/

"Blacks made up 12% of the population. However, from 2015 – 2019 they accounted for 26.4% of those that were killed by police under all circumstances. In other words, Blacks were the victims of the lethal use of force by police at nearly twice their rate in the general population. Whites make up the majority of victims of police use of lethal force (50.3%) from 2015 – 2019, BUT they also currently make up the majority of the population (61%). Asians make up about 5% of the US population but just 2% of the victims of the lethal use of force by police. Hispanics make up 18% of the US population and just over 18% of the victims of the use of lethal force by police. Native Americans make up 1% of the US population and 1.7% of the victims of the use of lethal force by police. "


https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793

"Black men are about 2.5 times more likely to be killed by police over the life course than are white men. Black women are about 1.4 times more likely to be killed by police than are white women.