Race riots in the US

Icewolf

Est. Contributor
Messages
461
Age
35
Role
Babyfur, Carer
Dylan,
Find out more about the POV of POC before you post a lot more on these types of topics.
I thank you for this, and offer this in return, when dealing with others that appear to be only one way/one sided, see if the side they are defending is all they have information on, or at least information that is set and available to all with ease.

I have seen far too many think their side is the one everyone knows and accepts. or come down on others for not knowing everything that they should about issues. In order to really make a difference in what is going on, we need those who are willing to teach, and learn, to be able to reach each other.

I too am decently versed in U.S. history, or at least the history that is taught in some states, but too much of it never made it to books or anything where it could be learned from. Near and Caterpillar likely have different takes because they come from different areas then I do.

know movies are only ersatz versions of history, but it does bring POV to life better than other media. For the experience of African American Union soldiers, the 1989 movie 'Glory' with Matthew Broderick and Denzel Washington is very good (on the 54th Massacheusetts Regt at the 2nd Battle of Fort Wagner). It shows the racism on the Union side as well.
Not just movies but older TV shows as well, Murder She Wrote has a TV movies called "The Last Free man" or similar, it involves the Main Character researching her family history and having to deal with a stubborn professor who wants to defend the idea of Southern Heritage, The professor means no harm but it does show the effect his words can have on others. M.A.S.H had an episode dealing with a bigot officer, one that gave his African-American Troops dangerous missions so they got their points and rotated home faster.

Also keep in mind, for those of us in rural areas, unless we are in the states things are happening in, we can only get news or 3rd+ hand accounts for most if these things. That affects our views terribly and can just lead to more issues when we try to get information.
 
Last edited:

DylanLewis

Est. Contributor
Messages
250
Role
Adult Baby
Dylan,


I thank you for this, and offer this in return, when dealing with others that appear to be only one way/one sided, see if the side they are defending is all they have information on, or at least information that is set and available to all with ease.

I have seen far too many think their side is the one everyone knows and accepts. or come down on others for not knowing everything that they should about issues. In order to really make a difference in what is going on, we need those who are willing to teach, and learn, to be able to reach each other.

I too am decently versed in U.S. history, or at least the history that is taught in some states, but too much of it never made it to books or anything where it could be learned from. Near and Caterpillar likely have different takes because they come from different areas then I do.


Not just movies but older TV shows as well, Murder She Wrote has a TV movies called "The Last Free man" or similar, it involves the Main Character researching her family history and having to deal with a stubborn professor who wants to defend the idea of Southern Heritage, The professor means no harm but it does show the effect his words can have on others. M.A.S.H had an episode dealing with a bigot officer, one that gave his African-American Troops dangerous missions so they got their points and rotated home faster.

Also keep in mind, for those of us in rural areas, unless we are in the states things are happening in, we can only get news or 3rd+ hand accounts for most if these things. That affects our views terribly and can just lead to more issues when we try to get information.
Icewolf

I agree, that many of the differences in our perspectives are likely to reflect that we are accessing different information sources. I suspect for contemporary events like the protests etc we don't share a common set of facts. Your information sources are Fox/conservative related and mine are CNN/progressive related. (I've heard Fox news proper is conservative but credible, but I can't stomach the Fox opinion commentators. I guess you might say the same about CNN/MSNBC). Its probably gets better, in terms of common information/facts, when we go further back into history.

It's very unfortunate and a problem that must get in the way of people of goodwill on both side of politics finding common ground. I don't know what the solution is.

Regards

Dylan
 

Drifter

Contributor
Messages
3,035
Role
Private
We are at a point in our history where the federal government is moving beyond just talking about racism, and preparing to take another step in addressing our racial problems. The main obstacle right now is Republican resistance to change. Ever since the Clinton administration, when Republicans publically proclaimed they would automatically oppose any legislation proposed by Democrats, Republicans have been in obstructionist mode. That attitude hasn't been doing the country any good.

As I understand it, changes Democrats are drawing up for law enforcement are: a ban on choke holds, tighter restrictions on no-knock forced entries, civil accountability for individual acts of police brutality, personal responsibility on the part of law enforcement officers for reporting police brutality, and a system for tracking offenders to insure they can't just simply move to another location and repeat their offenses. All of these things are common sense measures to deal directly with a few of the more serious problems. Some of them will be subject to political debate; not about whether we should do them, since they are all reasonable, but about how to implement them without compromising their effectiveness or interfering with acceptable law enforcement.
 

Icewolf

Est. Contributor
Messages
461
Age
35
Role
Babyfur, Carer
As I understand it, changes Democrats are drawing up for law enforcement are: a ban on choke holds, tighter restrictions on no-knock forced entries, civil accountability for individual acts of police brutality, personal responsibility on the part of law enforcement officers for reporting police brutality, and a system for tracking offenders to insure they can't just simply move to another location and repeat their offenses.
On the Republican bill/proposal, the choke holds are not banned, but it will withhold federal funds from departments that continue the practice. It would also increase funding for police body cams and create a national database to record police use of force incidents and create incentive for police to report use of force incidents that result in serious injury or death to the FBI. One sticking point is Qualified Immunity, democrats want it, Republicans, at least, want it taken on a case by case basis, like they only get it IF it was done in the course of their duty. Nancy Pelosi has rejected the Republican Bill, claiming that the GOP is trying to get away with the Murder of George Floyd. Keep in mind, this bill was at least co-sponsored, if not written, by the only Black Republican in the Senate, Tim Scott of South Carolina, who urged Democrats to vote in favor of starting debate even if they disagreed with elements of the measure.Here are 2 articles on everything I have said here so people can at least start checking for themselves:


Once again, we are at a case where one side says the other is going too far/not going far enough. Due to my views, mainly of we need reform but not to inhibit police in the course of their lawful duty, I side more with the Republicans, but even I see where adjustments can be made to the republican bill.
 

DylanLewis

Est. Contributor
Messages
250
Role
Adult Baby
An article from the Australian public broadcaster (US bureau) on US BLM protests and extremism (from right and left).

 
Last edited:

DylanLewis

Est. Contributor
Messages
250
Role
Adult Baby
Icewolf

I would be interested in your thoughts on this article on recent events in Idaho.


Regards. Dylan
 

Icewolf

Est. Contributor
Messages
461
Age
35
Role
Babyfur, Carer
Icewolf

I would be interested in your thoughts on this article on recent events in Idaho.


Regards. Dylan
Dylan,

Articles like this are reason why groups like BLM and ANTIFA need to keep an eye on things being connected to them through the news reported. The only reason they come to be is due to fear. Fear that the violence and everything will come to our backyards, and fear of the groups that are having that same violence connected to them. In essence, articles like this are what might answer TB333's question on why Blacks need to prove themselves harmless.

I will note however, that Northern Idaho has had a history of Klan activity, but it was not uncommon for them to be pushed out, either by federal troops or the locals. With that in mind, the reports or whatever may be coming from Klan members trying to stir the pot, but the only way they are able to do so is because the ones here, once again, lack information about what is going on in the eastern US outside of the negative news reports, the ones about the damage done or violence committed.

Here is another article from Idaho, this one more from the Capital City, Boise, about how some, even here, are working against the racism: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-window-Confederate-General-Robert-E-Lee.html
 
Last edited:

DylanLewis

Est. Contributor
Messages
250
Role
Adult Baby
Dylan,

Articles like this are reason why groups like BLM and ANTIFA need to keep an eye on things being connected to them through the news reported. The only reason they come to be is due to fear. Fear that the violence and everything will come to our backyards, and fear of the groups that are having that same violence connected to them. In essence, articles like this are what might answer TB333's question on why Blacks need to prove themselves harmless.

I will note however, that Northern Idaho has had a history of Klan activity, but it was not uncommon for them to be pushed out, either by federal troops or the locals. With that in mind, the reports or whatever may be coming from Klan members trying to stir the pot, but the only way they are able to do so is because the ones here, once again, lack information about what is going on in the eastern US outside of the negative news reports, the ones about the damage done or violence committed.

Here is another article from Idaho, this one more from the Capital City, Boise, about how some, even here, are working against the racism: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-window-Confederate-General-Robert-E-Lee.html
Icewolf

Thanks for your reply. It was good to read the article on the church in Boise, in terms of presenting a balanced view of matters in Idaho.

Re your view that there is an onus on African-Americans and BLM to prove their goodwill. Based on the article I don't see why that onus doesn't extend equally or more to the 'good old boys' of rural Idaho who, on the basis of a false rumour, indulged their teenage Rambo/video game fantasies by turning up in company, heavily armed, and intimidated at least some of those who did not share their political views. Out of interest, how are the latter to distinguish the genuinely uninformed from the KKK amongst the vigilantes? No point in arc-ing up again, but it does look like an asymmetrical set of expectations.

Regards. Dylan.
 

tiny

Est. Contributor
Messages
5,440
Role
Little
You very clearly seem to have painted BLM, Antifa, the left as your enemys. I dont think that is the case. I would evaluate were this thinking comes from.
Aside from a few flashpoints, the BLM protests have been remarkably calm. The worst violence has come from the police and right-wing protestors. In the US, a number of white supremacists attacked protestors by running their vehicle through/over crowds. Right-wing police officers have resigned in protest at the idea that there's something wrong in them being judge, jury and executioner. It's incredible to see that anyone has protested in favour of police killings, yet even the president is openly promoting white supremacy.

The first amendment is dead. Trump and his white supremacist fans support violent suppression of people's first amendment rights. It's alarming how quickly fascism has become so acceptable. In the US, domestic right-wing terrorism is now a serious problem:


There is no excuse for mindless vandalism, but disordered mobs are disordered... It's inevitable when people lose faith in the system and need to express their desire for change. You can't judge a people by its most delinquent members. Especially when there are no membership requirements for that group.

The police, on the other hand, do have entry requirements and professional standards. We can't tolerate a "bad apple" in the police in the same way as we can in general society. The police must be held to higher standards. The current situation where US police are permitted to murder and violently attack even innocent people and escape democratic justice has to change.

Meanwhile, far-right white supremacists dream up stories about an imaginary "antifa" to justify their messed-up ideology. Fear and violence are the tools that the far-right use to gain and maintain power. And, after the broadly peaceful BLM protests, we all saw the excessive violence and disorder when right-wing mobs decided to hold their own "protests" in London.
 
Last edited:

Icewolf

Est. Contributor
Messages
461
Age
35
Role
Babyfur, Carer
Dylan,
ased on the article I don't see why that onus doesn't extend equally or more to the 'good old boys' of rural Idaho who, on the basis of a false rumour, indulged their teenage Rambo/video game fantasies by turning up in company, heavily armed, and intimidated at least some of those who did not share their political views.
I actually agree here, the issue is for some of us, these are our friends and neighbors, people we might feel like we know or grew up with, so there is likely some asymmetrical expectations, but part of the attitude in small towns, at least here in the states, is everyone knows each other, strangers (regardless of race) will get odd looks and POC might feel like there is some racism due to such. With this in mind, might it not be better to let the rural areas handle these things themselves without outside interference unless such is asked for?

Out of interest, how are the latter to distinguish the genuinely uninformed from the KKK amongst the vigilantes?
Unfortunately, there is no way aside from the actions they take, and by then it may already be too late. Using the article, protesters were standing with the militia/armed men without issue, but if something happened, like a riot, those armed men might have started firing in order to defend their homes. By that same token, are are the "good old boys" supposed to tell the peaceful protesters from the agitators mixed in, until the violence starts?

Fear and violence are the tools that the far-right use to gain and maintain power.
Fear can be countered with teaching, and showing what the movements are really like. One of the issues I see is instead of doing such, far too many on the left seem to be too willing to dismiss these fears outright, often labeling them as things like "right wing propaganda" or similar though some do at least try to dispel/disprove the effects of said propaganda. I know the Right does it as well with what they find as propaganda from the far-left, but this is why mutual respect, discussion, etc need to be done.
 
Last edited:

OldeHoss

Est. Contributor
Messages
132
Role
Incontinent
On the Republican bill/proposal, the choke holds are not banned, but it will withhold federal funds from departments that continue the practice. It would also increase funding for police body cams and create a national database to record police use of force incidents and create incentive for police to report use of force incidents that result in serious injury or death to the FBI. One sticking point is Qualified Immunity, democrats want it, Republicans, at least, want it taken on a case by case basis, like they only get it IF it was done in the course of their duty. Nancy Pelosi has rejected the Republican Bill, claiming that the GOP is trying to get away with the Murder of George Floyd. Keep in mind, this bill was at least co-sponsored, if not written, by the only Black Republican in the Senate, Tim Scott of South Carolina, who urged Democrats to vote in favor of starting debate even if they disagreed with elements of the measure.Here are 2 articles on everything I have said here so people can at least start checking for themselves:


Once again, we are at a case where one side says the other is going too far/not going far enough. Due to my views, mainly of we need reform but not to inhibit police in the course of their lawful duty, I side more with the Republicans, but even I see where adjustments can be made to the republican bill.
I wonder how many of these politicians and members of our judicial system know the first damned thing about hand-to-hand combat and ways to end a violent engagement with minimal damage to the enemy/opponent/suspect? My guess is far too few. Isn't this such a surprise.
A choke hold is perhaps the safest, least damaging technique in stopping a violent or uncontrollable person's attack. Done correctly, they're going to sleep in mere seconds, and there is no permanent harm done. You're not crushing tracheas, breaking or fracturing bones, causing severe soft tissue damage. There's time to restrain them in cuffs, hog-tie as needed, and when they wake up they're in no further danger to themselves or others. Easy peezy, lemon squeezy!
But no. We can't have that, can we? We'll just keep using severe wrist/arm locks, chemical weaponry, batons, tazers, and of course everyone's favorite option- firearms. (that was heavy sarcasm folks, in case anyone didn't get the sentiment?)
The problem is not with the choke hold. The problem is and continues to be poor training, lack of supervision, and lack of repercussions to any LEO that doesn't follow proper technique or policy. How many LEOs are physically fit? How many hours do they train, per week/month/year? How often are they reviewed, their arrest record, compliments and complaints taken in to account? All of this varies widely from department to department, but the overall answer is 'Not good enough.' So that's what we get. Trouble in how LEO's engage with the citizenry. As the levels of frustration rise into distrust and anger, we find ourselves with cities on fire and people hurt/killed.
I'm not hearing much of anything from anyone who is supposed to actually be in charge (politicians/judges), addressing any of these issues in a meaningful way.
The entire 'Defund the police' mantra is sheer stupidity, IMHO.
It's equally foolish to pretend things will magically get better on their own, just because this incident happened. We've been operating under that assumption for far too long.
I'm all for every single officer having a body camera on and operating every second they're on the job. I'm behind them not having control over turning them on/off, or having anything to do with downloading/storing the information. Take them out of that equation, and watch how things suddenly begin to improve from that alone. Once everyone knows everything they say/do is being recorded and filed for future review? It isn't the sole cure to these problems, but it's an easy and very effective start.
Training is the single greatest lack from my experience and thoughts. It isn't good enough to merely graduate from the Academy and hit the streets, only to add 100 pounds of fat and lose your fine motor skills and real life scenario training to keep all of your senses and abilities at their finest. Watching those two LEO's get themselves pounded into the asphalt by one suspect, and still lose control of him and one of their weapons? That's the exact 'Bad example' of police not capable of doing the job society expects. That's one of too many stories that we usually never hear about, unless someone is killed. Even then it seems the MSM only focuses on the 'Race' incidents, and I have to wonder why that is? Seems instigating rage in society is their goal. They're succeeding.
 

DylanLewis

Est. Contributor
Messages
250
Role
Adult Baby
Dylan,


I actually agree here, the issue is for some of us, these are our friends and neighbors, people we might feel like we know or grew up with, so there is likely some asymmetrical expectations, but part of the attitude in small towns, at least here in the states, is everyone knows each other, strangers (regardless of race) will get odd looks and POC might feel like there is some racism due to such. With this in mind, might it not be better to let the rural areas handle these things themselves without outside interference unless such is asked for?


Unfortunately, there is no way aside from the actions they take, and by then it may already be too late. Using the article, protesters were standing with the militia/armed men without issue, but if something happened, like a riot, those armed men might have started firing in order to defend their homes. By that same token, are are the "good old boys" supposed to tell the peaceful protesters from the agitators mixed in, until the violence starts?



Fear can be countered with teaching, and showing what the movements are really like. One of the issues I see is instead of doing such, far too many on the left seem to be too willing to dismiss these fears outright, often labeling them as things like "right wing propaganda" or similar though some do at least try to dispel/disprove the effects of said propaganda. I know the Right does it as well with what they find as propaganda from the far-left, but this is why mutual respect, discussion, etc need to be done.
Icewolf

Thanks for your reply. I disagree with some of your points, but I'm learning to trust your goodwill, and hear your points which reach for common ground before I respond to the points I disagree with.

For the record, I believe that looting and arson are criminal acts, offensive physical action (as opposed to defensive actions) towards others is wrong, there is no place (ever) for recourse to arms (or the implied threat of same) to settle domestic political conflicts, and the protestors who attacked the CNN building in Atlanta and forcibly took down statutes of abolitionists or others who fought against slavery in the ACW committed stupid, stupid, counter-productive mistakes. Equally for the record, none of the foregoing by a minority invalidates the genuine need, and genuine mass support for, dismantling systemic racism in law enforcement practices and all other walks of life.

I would like to take up your point about leaving rural areas to their own devices. I don't wholly agree, but one might argue the same principle could be applied to the largely urban areas which have seen some of the worst racist abuses by law enforcement against communities of colour and disadvantage. As some of the latter have Democratic mayors and police chiefs, I sometimes wonder why the right/Republicans don't have the smarts to stay out of much of the issue. They could see and represent it as the need for cleaning-house in the practices of often Democratic run States and cities. I think the right's knee-jerk response to anything that looks like an attack on uniformed authority has in these circumstances (as in many others) dragged them into the wrong side of the issue. And there is the Orange Buffoon who cultivated the fears of many of the right for his own advantage, again dragging conservatives/Republicans into the wrong side of the issue.

As we have seen many Democratic run States and cities have not sufficiently prioritised making their own law enforcement agencies accountable to the communities they serve, or reversing the pernicious trend to militarize the police. Either past efforts at reform didn't go far enough, or were not pushed through, presumably because of lack of political will based on the then prevailing view about policing and systemic racism. Hopefully the change in popular opinion will now provide the political will to see through reforms that will abolish systemic racism in law enforcement. (I am not exempting Republican run States and cities from the need to vigorously pursue the same reforms, just saying that Democrats/progessives need to own our share).

Regards. Dylan.
 
Last edited:

Icewolf

Est. Contributor
Messages
461
Age
35
Role
Babyfur, Carer
Dylan,
Equally for the record, none of the foregoing by a minority invalidates the genuine need, and genuine mass support for, dismantling systemic racism in law enforcement practices and all other walks of life.
You and others have brought this up before, and I agree, my main issue is in the face of these actions, the message that needs to be heard is lost as these actions become the focus. So we need a way to take the focus off of these actions and put it back where it belongs.

As some of the latter have Democratic mayors and police chiefs, I sometimes wonder why the right/Republicans don't have the smarts to stay out of much of the issue. They could see and represent it as the need for cleaning-house in the practices of often Democratic run States and cities.
I am one that uses, or tries to use, such as an example of why the Left/Democrats need to clean their house instead of trying to tell the right/Republican run areas how to do things (Biblical principle of removing the plank from your own eye before trying to remove the spec from your brother's). However, I have seen Democrats either ignore or try to pin the blame on Republicans instead (Minneapolis is one of those Democratically run areas, yet Pelosi, the speaker of the house, accused Republicans of trying to get away with Floyd's Murder). Though both sides do it, I tend to see more of it from the left, but the general attitude seems to be never take responsibility for your actions and if you can pin it on the other side. I know the right/Republicans have their own issues, but it might be worth looking at how many of these cases happened in Democratic areas compared to Republican ones, as that might shed some light on why those of us on the right are not as gun-ho on some of these reforms.

Keep in mind, though I am on the right/Republican side, I was raised to take responsibility for my actions, to mind what I say (If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all). I also got into trouble for fighting in school because other kids were not raised that way, so when they opened their mouths and spewed insults on other negative things, well, volcano going off would be close to the explosion of temper I had.

I thank you for learning to trust my goodwill, just remember I am also human and can easily slip up again and again and again. Feel free to verbally knock some sense into me if it happens
 
Last edited:

DylanLewis

Est. Contributor
Messages
250
Role
Adult Baby
Dylan,


You and others have brought this up before, and I agree, my main issue is in the face of these actions, the message that needs to be heard is lost as these actions become the focus. So we need a way to take the focus off of these actions and put it back where it belongs.



I am one that uses, or tries to use, such as an example of why the Left/Democrats need to clean their house instead of trying to tell the right/Republican run areas how to do things (Biblical principle of removing the plank from your own eye before trying to remove the spec from your brother's). However, I have seen Democrats either ignore or try to pin the blame on Republicans instead (Minneapolis is one of those Democratically run areas, yet Pelosi, the speaker of the house, accused Republicans of trying to get away with Floyd's Murder). Though both sides do it, I tend to see more of it from the left, but the general attitude seems to be never take responsibility for your actions and if you can pin it on the other side. I know the right/Republicans have their own issues, but it might be worth looking at how many of these cases happened in Democratic areas compared to Republican ones, as that might shed some light on why those of us on the right are not as gun-ho on some of these reforms.

Keep in mind, though I am on the right/Republican side, I was raised to take responsibility for my actions, to mind what I say (If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all). I also got into trouble for fighting in school because other kids were not raised that way, so when they opened their mouths and spewed insults on other negative things, well, volcano going off would be close to the explosion of temper I had.

I thank you for learning to trust my goodwill, just remember I am also human and can easily slip up again and again and again. Feel free to verbally knock some sense into me if it happens
Icewolf

I fully concur that if you are a Democratic elected or public official in Minneapolis/Minnesota (where George Floyd was murdered) or Buffalo, NY (where Martin Gugino was assaulted), where the City and the State are Democrat then you have an untrammelled responsibility and authority to get on and clean-house in terms of the accountability of law enforcement to their communities, irrespective of whatever happens at the national level or other jurisdictions. (I'm presuming a City would need the backing of the State in terms of legislation and funding to see through the systemic reforms of law enforcement required).

Louisville, Kentucky (where Breonna Taylor was murdered), Glyn County, Georgia (where Ahmaud Arbery was murdered), and Atlanta, Georgia (where Rayshard Brooks was murdered) have Republicans at the State or sometimes city/country level. They too have an equal onus to clean-house in terms of the accountability of law enforcement.

The geographic spread of just these few cited cases does indicate that this is a systemic, national issue and it is valid to see the need for a national perspective/action, alongside action at the State/City level. For example, the federal government needs to stop fostering the militarization of law enforcement by supplying local law enforcement with bargain price military weaponry.

Regards. Dylan.
 
Last edited:

Icewolf

Est. Contributor
Messages
461
Age
35
Role
Babyfur, Carer
Dylan,

Louisville, Kentucky (where Breonna Taylor was murdered), Glyn County, Georgia (where Ahmaud Arbery was murdered), and Atlanta, Georgia (where Rayshard Brooks was murdered) have Republicans at the State or sometimes city/country level. They too have an equal onus to clean-house in terms of the accountability of law enforcement.
Agreed, just keep in mind, that the republican states listed are in the South (confederate states) or maybe, at best, the states that made up the boundary between the North and South during the civil war, and still far from most of those of us in the west so it could be a challenge getting some states on board. Mainly, if the US was split in 1/2, with no state getting divided (Aside from ones like Texas which would be allowed to split due to a clause in their constitution or something) one of the resulting countries could all too easily claim they did not have such in their own borders.

The geographic spread of just these few cited cases does indicate that this is a systemic, national issue and it is valid to see the need for a national perspective/action, alongside action at the State/City level.
Ideally, we would want the federal to be the least strict, outside of things only they control (like the bargain price military weapons) with the states being the medium and the cities/counties being the harshest but only to the point needed.Usually in the US the fed sets the minimum standards for the nation, the state sets the minimum for the cities/counties in them and the cities set their own limits all of them as long as the minimums set at the previous level/s are met.

For example, the federal government needs to stop fostering the militarization of law enforcement by supplying local law enforcement with bargain price military weaponry.
Not quite fully agreed, SWAT teams, and other similar set ups, should still be allowed such, but only after EXTENSIVE training and they don't get to keep such in working order after they leave those teams. The common officer? for cities, nothing more then what would be needed to subdue, a hand gun at best. For county/Sharif maybe a shot gun/rifle to put down wild animals hit by cars. Neither military grade outside SWAT or special task forces.

It is starting to seem that even with our differences, we agree on quite a bit.
 

howiebabe

Est. Contributor
Messages
409
Age
76
Role
Adult Baby
I'm confused. Other than a national database for police-related violence, everything else mentioned in proposed federal legislation is well within the purview of the state and local governments. They want to ban choke holds, they can do it. They want to increase police training and add martial-arts training to lower the chances of deadly conflict, they can do it. They want to try using more health and mental professionals to handle mental and domestic disturbance, they can do it. They want to get more BOC officers, they control the recruiting rules and the pay. They want to have more oversight of the results after a confrontation, they can do it. They want to create a web site with a database covering any complaints about police action, they can do it. They want to mandate that police cameras be always on, they can do it.

So again, other than making the database of police interactions national, why are any of the states or localities waiting for federal action?

They could have done any or all of these (except body-cams) decades ago and they body-cams have been readily available for at least five years. So the question is, what were the local and state governments waiting for?
 
Last edited:

Drifter

Contributor
Messages
3,035
Role
Private
On the Republican bill/proposal, the choke holds are not banned, but it will withhold federal funds from departments that continue the practice. It would also increase funding for police body cams and create a national database to record police use of force incidents and create incentive for police to report use of force incidents that result in serious injury or death to the FBI. One sticking point is Qualified Immunity, democrats want it, Republicans, at least, want it taken on a case by case basis, like they only get it IF it was done in the course of their duty. Nancy Pelosi has rejected the Republican Bill, claiming that the GOP is trying to get away with the Murder of George Floyd. Keep in mind, this bill was at least co-sponsored, if not written, by the only Black Republican in the Senate, Tim Scott of South Carolina, who urged Democrats to vote in favor of starting debate even if they disagreed with elements of the measure.

Once again, we are at a case where one side says the other is going too far/not going far enough. Due to my views, mainly of we need reform but not to inhibit police in the course of their lawful duty, I side more with the Republicans, but even I see where adjustments can be made to the republican bill.
It seems kind of racist to suggest I "keep in mind" that the bill was at least partly written by a black Republican, as if skin color should be a determining factor in deciding the merits of the bill.

Democrats obviously disagree with some components in the bill, and also components the bill may be missing, but it's a little dishonest to suggest the problems in the bill can be corrected if the Democrats would agree to debate. It's a Republican bill and Republicans are a majority in the senate, which gives them the power to vote to pass this bill exactly as written, if that's what they want, and no amount of debate, short of a filibuster, can change that. A filibuster can only kill the bill, not correct it. A filibuster could indefinitely postpone any federal action in response to the public's demand to address police brutality. At that point it would be politics as usual. Republicans would blame Democrats for killing the bill, and Democrats would blame Republicans for trying to force a vote on a worthless bill. Both sides would be telling the truth. The public could then choose whichever side they want, but the underlying problem could continue forever, and most of us don't want that.

The Democrats' desire to draft a bipartisan bill, instead of voting on a Republican only bill, is the only thing that makes sense.
 
Last edited:

DylanLewis

Est. Contributor
Messages
250
Role
Adult Baby
On the Republican bill/proposal, the choke holds are not banned, but it will withhold federal funds from departments that continue the practice. It would also increase funding for police body cams and create a national database to record police use of force incidents and create incentive for police to report use of force incidents that result in serious injury or death to the FBI. One sticking point is Qualified Immunity, democrats want it, Republicans, at least, want it taken on a case by case basis, like they only get it IF it was done in the course of their duty. Nancy Pelosi has rejected the Republican Bill, claiming that the GOP is trying to get away with the Murder of George Floyd. Keep in mind, this bill was at least co-sponsored, if not written, by the only Black Republican in the Senate, Tim Scott of South Carolina, who urged Democrats to vote in favor of starting debate even if they disagreed with elements of the measure.Here are 2 articles on everything I have said here so people can at least start checking for themselves:


Once again, we are at a case where one side says the other is going too far/not going far enough. Due to my views, mainly of we need reform but not to inhibit police in the course of their lawful duty, I side more with the Republicans, but even I see where adjustments can be made to the republican bill.
Icewolf

I don't fully understand the negotiating position and tactics of the House and Senate Democrats and Republicans on the police reform legislation. I want to find out more before providing a more informed response. I have a good opinion of Nancy Pelosi but her comment re the GOP trying get away with the murder of George Floyd does not appear to be a constructive contribution to the situation (given that Floyd was murdered in a Democrat run City and State - recognizing that some of the other murders of POC by law enforcement are in Republican jurisdictions). As a progressive I am suspicious of Scott being the stalking horse for the odious eminence grise himself (McConnell) but I saw Scott interviewed on CNN and he appeared to be someone acting in good faith. Similarly Scott's Wikipedia entry suggested he had credibility on race issues and had distanced himself from the Orange Buffoon's racist pronouncements. So I need to find out more, but I agree that there is an equal onus on Democrats not to put politics ahead of reform, and if they are not doing that it reflects poorly on same.

Regards. Dylan.
 

Drifter

Contributor
Messages
3,035
Role
Private
So again, other than making the database of police interactions national, why are any of the states or localities waiting for federal action?
Because state and local governments have had the capability to address these underlying problems forever, but many of them haven't adequately dealt with those problems. It's the general public, not local governments, that are waiting for federal action. Local governments cater to the biases of local people, but Americans, in general, want laws to be as unbiased as possible for everyone in all jurisdictions.
 
Top