Are there any drugs on the banned list that weren't added because of racism?
I mean, you can make arguments for some specifics ecstasy for example. But racism and the US justice system are so deeply intertwined its hard to say. When they go to add something to the banned substance lists and they talk about about keeping money out of the hands of gangs...is that racist?
Nothing exasperates me more than a conversation with somebody who spouts off bullshit like "all black people have to do is start caring about education and the core family unit and stop doing crime and they'll be fine. Look at the asian american community, they're a minority too!"
Like, sure it sounds so simple when you completely ignore the socioeconomic situation and what daily life is like for the people in those communities.
Firstly, not disagreeing with your point.
Secondly, it sounded like his point was, why is the group focusing entirely on just the police aspect, rather than both/all. Not the, "cleanup your own community and all problems go away" aspect.
I get what you're saying, I just think it's disingenuous bullshit to go "Hey, if you think black lives matter then you have to protest at the site of black on black crimes too!"
Protesting the police treatment of black people isn't the only thing that needs to happen, but it's surely one of them. Hell, if police and the poor black communities had the type of relationship where the people could actually trust the police and thought they were on their side, there might be a few less disenfranchised youth that decide to go the criminal route and get swept up in that us vs. them mentality. That's obviously only the tip of the iceberg too, but it's something.
Agreed! I think it is definitely something they could at least address in a minor fashion to increase good will/public opinion towards their group though, it would shut up the detractors (at least on that front).
I strongly disagree. Detractors of things like "Black people don't deserve to get shot" aren't the kind of people who respond to evidence.
It's such a sad thing to know that the same failed prohibition we tried with alcohol (which also created gangs and crime and a secondary illegal economy) has done this to our poorest communities, but we're going to suffer another 50+ years before drug prohibition is recognized as the same failed bullshit and we start to repair it.
Eh, disagree on this, unless you are specifically referring to weed. Most of that shit is illegal because of the risks it poses to yourself and/or others.
We don't schedule drugs with respect to their real world effects. Alcohol is consistently, clearly dangerous, but it's nowhere near as controlled as even some common ADHD medications.
Besides, it being dangerous has nothing to do with whether or not prohibition works. Treating drug addiction as a health problem instead of a criminal problem is way more effective. Programs that give users cleaner doses with sterile needles and puts them in contact with treatment options are way more successful than revolving door drug arrests.
Sorry, you are right, let me rephrase that. I was just responding to Josh's post.
I would have no objections towards (and agree with!) changes of how we deal with users. Don't criminalize the people using the substance, get them help to get off of it. However it should stay illegal to sell, and go after the people selling it.
Pysck0, link me to a medical journal telling me how they are perfectly safe to use. Since you are claiming that PCP was apparently removed from use as a pharmaceutical drug, due to impure elements being introduced to it via the medical industry? (Do we have a thread for this we could take the discussion to instead?)
Thanks, I think I understand you better now.
I'm still not sure how I feel about prohibiting sellers, but I don't have enough research in front of me to know what the best overall policy would be.
But yeah, most of it was criminalized for straight up racism, and I often start from a position of skepticism when talking about prohibition of any type.
Are there any drugs on the banned list that weren't added because of racism?
I mean, you can make arguments for some specifics ecstasy for example. But racism and the US justice system are so deeply intertwined its hard to say. When they go to add something to the banned substance lists and they talk about about keeping money out of the hands of gangs...is that racist?
And let's not forget which communities are targeted by police enforcing these laws.
Much in the same way that Baltimore curfew was enforced.
Hello, actually medical doctor here. The personal risks of using illegal drugs are no higher than alcohol, except when the drugs have been unknowingly adulterated, which wouldn't happen if they were regulated. The social costs of illegal drug use are far, far less than alcohol, and are close to zero if you exclude the shit that only happens BECAUSE they are illegal like gang violence (but are less than alcohol even if you don't). You can't even begin to have a rational discussion of drug regulation until you agree with that. It is medically indisputable.
These drugs most certainly are not illegal because of their associated risks. It is pure moralistic bullshit that conveniently disproportionately targets poor and minorities.
Hi actual medical doctor.
There's a reason medical doctors are generally dismissed by researchers in the field who actually work for NICE and similar organisations and continually poked fun of or spoken of in an exasperated fashion.
To be clear whilst alcohol generally ranks highest for societal harm, on a personal level all the major class A drugs (heroin, crack, meth) massively outperform it on a personal harm level - from rates of addiction, ability to function within society, and end term outcomes.
Whilst certainly legislation on drugs isn't based on evidential grounds and needs overhauling, this myth that all drugs are worse than alcohol is just that. See this study as one of the key examples.
As an anonymous person I would like to point out that the illegal drug classification system is different from the controlled substance schedule system.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
How long till black lives matter starts application drives for law enforcement to replace all the corrupt officers they want prosecuted?
It's a bit presumptuous to start doing that before any corrective measures are actually taken against the corrupt officers and the systems they operate in.
How long till black lives matter starts application drives for law enforcement to replace all the corrupt officers they want prosecuted?
That's an interesting tactic.
I wonder how much it costs a police department to process an application?
To what degree it would effect the actual pool, assuming they were even vaguely qualified.
You could get thousands of applicants in major metropolitan areas.
How long till black lives matter starts application drives for law enforcement to replace all the corrupt officers they want prosecuted?
That's an interesting tactic.
I wonder how much it costs a police department to process an application?
To what degree it would effect the actual pool, assuming they were even vaguely qualified.
You could get thousands of applicants in major metropolitan areas.
In Madison Wi, last year they had just under 800 applications for 22 open officer positions.
The application process is: Fully fill out paper application and turn it in with an essay by November, take a timed Nelson-Denny reading comp test and a timed hand written essay (different from the first), physical fitness test, board interviews, interview with chief, background checks, ride-along and psych evals, conditional employment pending medical tests.
By the time someone starts the training the following September, they've spent a little over $100,000 on that one applicant. By the end of classroom training 5 months later they'll have spent a total of ~$1,000,000, and another ~$1,000,000 on the new officer by the end of their 9 month field training.
Edit: This department does in house training of all recruits regardless of how long they've been an officer, however they prefer people who've never been a police officer. A department that doesn't do in house training and prefers already licensed and certified officers will spend a lot less, but they have zero control over the quality of the training received.
Seriously though, this is why police guilds need to let officers get fired every now and again. Because they are monsters.
The union's job is to defend them. We can argue that police unions go too far at times, but if city hall really wanted an officer fired, they would get fired. The push from prosecutors and politicians simply isn't hard enough yet.
+6
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
edited October 2016
We need Police police, who have no jurisdiction over citizens, but are tasked and empowered to treat police like police treat normal citizens.
We need Police police, who have no jurisdiction over citizens, but are tasked and empowered to treat police like police treat normal citizens.
Teach empathy.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
We need the Justice Department and the FBI to have their oversight authority massively expanded to cover law enforcement crimes. I imagine that if every time a cop shot someone the Feds came to investigate, there would be a marked increase in discretion when it comes to pulling the trigger.
Hello, actually medical doctor here. The personal risks of using illegal drugs are no higher than alcohol, except when the drugs have been unknowingly adulterated, which wouldn't happen if they were regulated. The social costs of illegal drug use are far, far less than alcohol, and are close to zero if you exclude the shit that only happens BECAUSE they are illegal like gang violence (but are less than alcohol even if you don't). You can't even begin to have a rational discussion of drug regulation until you agree with that. It is medically indisputable.
These drugs most certainly are not illegal because of their associated risks. It is pure moralistic bullshit that conveniently disproportionately targets poor and minorities.
Hi actual medical doctor.
There's a reason medical doctors are generally dismissed by researchers in the field who actually work for NICE and similar organisations and continually poked fun of or spoken of in an exasperated fashion.
To be clear whilst alcohol generally ranks highest for societal harm, on a personal level all the major class A drugs (heroin, crack, meth) massively outperform it on a personal harm level - from rates of addiction, ability to function within society, and end term outcomes.
Whilst certainly legislation on drugs isn't based on evidential grounds and needs overhauling, this myth that all drugs are worse than alcohol is just that. See this study as one of the key examples.
(i actually work with david nutt)
crack and meth are pretty much the exception among class a in that there is no almost no credible argument for legalising them, meth especially, but it is sneaky to ignore that the rest of that category contains shrooms, mdma, lsd and, amusingly, methadone.
heroin harms, however, are multiplied enormously by the illegality. i was actually discussing a rather comical letter with him sent to the british journal of addiction in the late 50s from an american discussing their experience with making it illegal a few days ago (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.1957.tb05094.x/abstract for those interested), fun bits quoted
"the actual number of addicts is a multiple of 60,000. No one, in or out of the government, knows the exact figure..."
"Each of these thousands of people obtains enough Heroin for several injections each day despite the best efforts of the Narcotics Bureau to prevent smuggling. In fact the Federal Commissioner of Narcotics Harry Anslinger recently testified before a Congressional Committee, "If we had the Army, the Navy, the Coast Guard and the FBI all working together we could not prevent Heroin smuggling through the Port of New York."
"At this point we may begin to perceive one of the cardinal effects of a Ban on Heroin. Lawlessness!"
"Strangely enough, the addict is a rather normal person under the influence of drugs, a highly abnormal one without them... These addicts can, while they have narcotics, work in responsible positions and are not likely to be a charge on the public. Without them they are one or another variety of psychopath."
"This short study of the drugs and of the addicts make one wonder why crime and drug addiction are so closely allied in the United States. The term "criminal addict" on the other hand had to be defined every time I used it during my recent visit to the United Kingdom..."
"Unequivocally then I would prophesy for the people of Great Britain, if a Ban on Heroin were ever to be imposed, that you, a nation historically and ethnically allowed to our own, would repeat our unhappy experiences. In a few years your now non-criminal 279 drug addicts (home office figures) would have expanded to many many thousands. Many of your youth, the easiest prey for the addict peddlers, would become enslaved. Your young girls who became addicted would have sold themselves in order to support the ever-increasing cost of their addiction. You too will begin to spend sums approximating to the colossal sum that Heroin costs the United States.
There are other difficulties. The peddlers of narcotics dilute the material repeatedly so that by the time the consumer receives it, it may only be 3 per cent pure. (Average figure in New York City). What happens when the addict by some mischance gets 20 per cent pure heroin? He receives seven times his usual dose and his life is forfeited. Many of them are sickened by the dilutents which are usually non-sterile. The customer may never dare complain. He is threatened with either an interruption in his supply or a "Hot Shot." (one containing poison, usually cyanide. The latter is responsible for many lost lives each year).
Since Britain no longer exports Heroin, even under conditions of strict control, the presence of the meagre quantities of this material legitimately stocked in your country in no way influences our narcotic problem... Therefore, the argument that the Ban is necessary in order to protect other nations is untenable.
Were the proposed ban on Heroin to be revived your presently addicted patients would be deprived of the counsel and advice of their physicians... Prohibition would cause them to substitute an underworld character for the one person who could have helped them... Make no mistake, the Narcotic racketeers of the world eagerly awaited the enactment of your prohibitive law. It would have opened an illegitimate income of millions to them. May I ask your indulgence if I repeat: Heroin Addicts will obtain Heroin, ban or no ban.
Those of us who have interested ourselves in Narcotic Addiction have always admired the British management of the problem... Your heartening experiences to date have been the strongest proof that this medical problem is best managed by physicians. A complicated psychological illness cannot be cured by legislative decrees or by a policeman's truncheon. "
"You, in the United Kingdom, have 279 registered narcotic addicts, we number ours by the hundred thousand. You have no criminal problem with addiction; ours is enormous. You know little of the social ravages of drug use, to us it is relatively commonplace."
Who made this articulate and reasonable expression of systemic racism? Was it Hillary Clinton? Deray McKesson? John Lewis?
It was Ben & Jerry's.
This reminds me of a sorta-good-news-ish story about the Thunder Bay police, responding to some of their (off-duty) officers saying some pretty racist stuff about indigenous people:
As the Thunder Bay Police await an Ontario watchdog to conduct a review concerning how they handle indigenous death investigations, the force has also asked the body to handle a probe into alleged racist comments made by their members.
Thunder Bay Police Services announced Wednesday they were suspending one officer with pay, Rob Steudle, while another four officers were reassigned to administrative duties regarding Facebook postings from Sept. 17 and Sept. 18.
Police Chief J.P. Levesque asked the Office of the Independent Police Review Director to “take carriage of the investigation,” according to a news release.
“This request was made to ensure public confidence and transparency in this process. This step recognizes the compelling public interest in this matter,” the release said.
I feel like this is a great response. It demonstrates responsiveness, that they understand their role in society, how this sort of scrutiny is essential to their performing that role. (Obv, the fact that this review was happening already isn't great, but you know, small victories.)
But some of their officers were just behaving like idiots. This quote, in particular, is what triggered this connection for me:
The war of words escalated this week in Thunder Bay after an open letter to the editor to Fiddler was posted on The Chronicle Journal’s website on Tuesday.
The letter was by an anonymous Thunder Bay police officer. The letter started off by saying, “You don’t know me. We have never met, never shaken hands, yet you have called me, a police officer a ‘systemic racist.’
The fact that someone can say, "You called me a systemic racist," is just so head-hurtingly revealing how ill-equipped some people are to even appreciate the issues at hand here.
Then there was the Trump supporter in Iowa; it seemed like that story was going to be bigger before it was revealed that the suspect was a white dude...
do "blue lives matter" only when it's used to shout down "black lives matter"? honestly seems so
+11
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
The shooting of the police officers in Iowa was international news in mere hours. It was all over the BBC's front page.
There was also a shooting of a black man in Iowa two days previous to that. I deliberately did not post about it because I wanted to wait and see if it got any wider coverage. Nope!
There's not a lot of information to go on right now. All I know is that there was a traffic stop and then the officer fired at the man, who then drove a short distance before crashing. He was taken to a hospital for treatment as he had been hit several times, and last I heard he was in critical condition, but still alive. The police here have said they don't want to release details until the investigation is concluded. Which I mean... total silence on the matter is frustrating but is better than committing deliberate character assassination on the man who was shot?
The shooting of the police officers in Iowa was international news in mere hours. It was all over the BBC's front page.
There was also a shooting of a black man in Iowa two days previous to that. I deliberately did not post about it because I wanted to wait and see if it got any wider coverage. Nope!
There's not a lot of information to go on right now. All I know is that there was a traffic stop and then the officer fired at the man, who then drove a short distance before crashing. He was taken to a hospital for treatment as he had been hit several times, and last I heard he was in critical condition, but still alive. The police here have said they don't want to release details until the investigation is concluded. Which I mean... total silence on the matter is frustrating but is better than committing deliberate character assassination on the man who was shot?
Disappeared as soon as the suspect was named though, except for the obligatory NYT "he was a disturbed loner" piece which is written about every white guy who shoots people.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I can no longer tell what I want from the police in this situation.
I can honestly understand a situation getting escalated during a traffic stop and requiring an officer to open fire, but I also understand that the police can force/enable these escalations by being .....racist and/or incompetent.
So hearing information like that, I do not know what i want.
We need Police police, who have no jurisdiction over citizens, but are tasked and empowered to treat police like police treat normal citizens.
Teach empathy.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Who then would police the Police Police? The Police Police Police? Would the Police Police Police likewise be policed by the Police Police Police Police?
...the word "police" looks really weird to me now.
Poh-LEESE.
0
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
We need Police police, who have no jurisdiction over citizens, but are tasked and empowered to treat police like police treat normal citizens.
Teach empathy.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Who then would police the Police Police? The Police Police Police? Would the Police Police Police likewise be policed by the Police Police Police Police?
...the word "police" looks really weird to me now.
We need Police police, who have no jurisdiction over citizens, but are tasked and empowered to treat police like police treat normal citizens.
Teach empathy.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Who then would police the Police Police? The Police Police Police? Would the Police Police Police likewise be policed by the Police Police Police Police?
...the word "police" looks really weird to me now.
Poh-LEESE.
I look at more as Rock-Papers-Scissors.
Police beat Citizens.
Watchmen beat Police.
Citizens beat Watchmen.
Triangles are the stablest shape anyway, right?
I am picturing a "Mexican standoff" where everyone is holding a bat over someone else's head.
The shooting of the police officers in Iowa was international news in mere hours. It was all over the BBC's front page.
There was also a shooting of a black man in Iowa two days previous to that. I deliberately did not post about it because I wanted to wait and see if it got any wider coverage. Nope!
There's not a lot of information to go on right now. All I know is that there was a traffic stop and then the officer fired at the man, who then drove a short distance before crashing. He was taken to a hospital for treatment as he had been hit several times, and last I heard he was in critical condition, but still alive. The police here have said they don't want to release details until the investigation is concluded. Which I mean... total silence on the matter is frustrating but is better than committing deliberate character assassination on the man who was shot?
Disappeared as soon as the suspect was named though, except for the obligatory NYT "he was a disturbed loner" piece which is written about every white guy who shoots people.
The "loner" quote was from a neighbor, because neighbors always either say that kind of thing. The police did say “We may never actually know what motivated this act,” which is stupid when you've got the guy alive in custody. But the "loner" bit? Not from the cops. Just another example of NYT making horrible misleading tweets.
I can no longer tell what I want from the police in this situation.
I can honestly understand a situation getting escalated during a traffic stop and requiring an officer to open fire, but I also understand that the police can force/enable these escalations by being .....racist and/or incompetent.
So hearing information like that, I do not know what i want.
It's a difficult situation. An LEO just isn't very likely to killed by homicide, IIRC last time I looked at the stats it ranked behind death by being struck by a vehicle. But people don't judge their risk based on true probability, so it's not necessarily unusual that LEOs react to deliberate homicides and homicide attempts on LEOs by ratcheting up escalation, even if it's an obvious net negative (~1200 non LEO deaths versus ~40 LEO deaths a year during politce-citizen encounters, not counting injured citizens). Even if we assume that the majority of citizen deaths at the hands of LEOs are "good shoots", there is a non zero number that are bad, and a more significant number that would be suspicious just based on LEO behavior with regards to officer involved shootings (working the report, being caught on video by third parties etc.)
The shooting of the police officers in Iowa was international news in mere hours. It was all over the BBC's front page.
There was also a shooting of a black man in Iowa two days previous to that. I deliberately did not post about it because I wanted to wait and see if it got any wider coverage. Nope!
There's not a lot of information to go on right now. All I know is that there was a traffic stop and then the officer fired at the man, who then drove a short distance before crashing. He was taken to a hospital for treatment as he had been hit several times, and last I heard he was in critical condition, but still alive. The police here have said they don't want to release details until the investigation is concluded. Which I mean... total silence on the matter is frustrating but is better than committing deliberate character assassination on the man who was shot?
Disappeared as soon as the suspect was named though, except for the obligatory NYT "he was a disturbed loner" piece which is written about every white guy who shoots people.
The "loner" quote was from a neighbor, because neighbors always either say that kind of thing. The police did say “We may never actually know what motivated this act,” which is stupid when you've got the guy alive in custody. But the "loner" bit? Not from the cops. Just another example of NYT making horrible misleading tweets.
That was a media critique, not a police critique.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Having a watchman doesn't do shit when the civilians bargain away the watchmen's power in the CBA.
While true, are we at the point that there are literally no people willing to do Police work unless they are free from consequences for their actions?
Not consequences but liability. This has been a long time in coming. Something we've seen in the corporate world for a long time.
See? The officer has to live with what they've done. That's a consequence. What they don't want is to also have to go to prison, or even get charged, or have to be financially available when they've caused grievous bodily harm.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
Having a watchman doesn't do shit when the civilians bargain away the watchmen's power in the CBA.
While true, are we at the point that there are literally no people willing to do Police work unless they are free from consequences for their actions?
Not consequences but liability. This has been a long time in coming. Something we've seen in the corporate world for a long time.
See? The officer has to live with what they've done. That's a consequence. What they don't want is to also have to go to prison, or even get charged, or have to be financially available when they've caused grievous bodily harm.
Considering how often we find out officers who are involved in a shooting have been involved in a number of violent and/or discriminatory incidents over the course of their career, I think it can safely be said that a lot of them are just fine with "living with what they've done."
We need Police police, who have no jurisdiction over citizens, but are tasked and empowered to treat police like police treat normal citizens.
Teach empathy.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Who then would police the Police Police? The Police Police Police? Would the Police Police Police likewise be policed by the Police Police Police Police?
...the word "police" looks really weird to me now.
Poh-LEESE.
I look at it more as Rock-Papers-Scissors.
Police beat Citizens.
Watchmen beat Police.
Citizens beat Watchmen.
Triangles are the stablest shape anyway, right?
Except in political showdowns, where it's the least stable shape.
In other countries (including my own) we have a watchman of sorts on the geographic and structural level--namely, a National Police Agency that has very little (if any) motivation to protect or otherwise stick its neck out for a subordinate local police force (and depending on the climate, a lot of reason to denounce them--which can lead to its own issues). A local city command may have some reason to cover up malicious or illegal behavior on the part of a precinct command, but the county command has very little, since replacing the entire city command amounts to a few firings and hirings, and the political fallout for failing to do so is much, much worse.
On the other hand, this probably leads to shorter police careers (there's literally no-one, or very few people, with multi-decade police careers, though on the other hand, martial law only ended ~25 years ago) and not a particularly high sense of loyalty. When no one's invulnerable, commanding officers invariably get taken down because they made the wrong enemy somewhere down the line too. And obviously, there is no equivalent to the NPA in the United States either.
Also, our drug laws are hello prohibitive by comparison to the United States.
Just a bump to let those who haven't seen it know, that the police officer that shot Walter Scott-- a black man 20 feet from him, running away, in the back-- and then lied about his life being in danger right up until the cellphone video came out; has returned a hung jury. State says it will retry the case.
Because apparently video evidence isn't quite enough to put a cop in jail.
tinwhiskers on
0
Options
Caulk Bite 6One of the multitude of Dans infesting this placeRegistered Userregular
edited December 2016
From what I understand, the main cause of that hung jury is one guy got in with a thing up his butt about never finding a cop guilty ever.
Edit: though that is hearsay, so if I'm wrong, someone correct me.
Posts
I mean, you can make arguments for some specifics ecstasy for example. But racism and the US justice system are so deeply intertwined its hard to say. When they go to add something to the banned substance lists and they talk about about keeping money out of the hands of gangs...is that racist?
Thanks, I think I understand you better now.
I'm still not sure how I feel about prohibiting sellers, but I don't have enough research in front of me to know what the best overall policy would be.
But yeah, most of it was criminalized for straight up racism, and I often start from a position of skepticism when talking about prohibition of any type.
And let's not forget which communities are targeted by police enforcing these laws.
Much in the same way that Baltimore curfew was enforced.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
Hi actual medical doctor.
There's a reason medical doctors are generally dismissed by researchers in the field who actually work for NICE and similar organisations and continually poked fun of or spoken of in an exasperated fashion.
To be clear whilst alcohol generally ranks highest for societal harm, on a personal level all the major class A drugs (heroin, crack, meth) massively outperform it on a personal harm level - from rates of addiction, ability to function within society, and end term outcomes.
Whilst certainly legislation on drugs isn't based on evidential grounds and needs overhauling, this myth that all drugs are worse than alcohol is just that. See this study as one of the key examples.
As an anonymous person I would like to point out that the illegal drug classification system is different from the controlled substance schedule system.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
How long till black lives matter starts application drives for law enforcement to replace all the corrupt officers they want prosecuted?
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
It's a bit presumptuous to start doing that before any corrective measures are actually taken against the corrupt officers and the systems they operate in.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
LSD, Mushrooms and MDMA?
That's an interesting tactic.
I wonder how much it costs a police department to process an application?
To what degree it would effect the actual pool, assuming they were even vaguely qualified.
You could get thousands of applicants in major metropolitan areas.
In Madison Wi, last year they had just under 800 applications for 22 open officer positions.
The application process is: Fully fill out paper application and turn it in with an essay by November, take a timed Nelson-Denny reading comp test and a timed hand written essay (different from the first), physical fitness test, board interviews, interview with chief, background checks, ride-along and psych evals, conditional employment pending medical tests.
By the time someone starts the training the following September, they've spent a little over $100,000 on that one applicant. By the end of classroom training 5 months later they'll have spent a total of ~$1,000,000, and another ~$1,000,000 on the new officer by the end of their 9 month field training.
Edit: This department does in house training of all recruits regardless of how long they've been an officer, however they prefer people who've never been a police officer. A department that doesn't do in house training and prefers already licensed and certified officers will spend a lot less, but they have zero control over the quality of the training received.
Fuuuuuuck.
Seriously though, this is why police guilds need to let officers get fired every now and again. Because they are monsters.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
The union's job is to defend them. We can argue that police unions go too far at times, but if city hall really wanted an officer fired, they would get fired. The push from prosecutors and politicians simply isn't hard enough yet.
Teach empathy.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
We need the Justice Department and the FBI to have their oversight authority massively expanded to cover law enforcement crimes. I imagine that if every time a cop shot someone the Feds came to investigate, there would be a marked increase in discretion when it comes to pulling the trigger.
Who made this articulate and reasonable expression of systemic racism? Was it Hillary Clinton? Deray McKesson? John Lewis?
(i actually work with david nutt)
crack and meth are pretty much the exception among class a in that there is no almost no credible argument for legalising them, meth especially, but it is sneaky to ignore that the rest of that category contains shrooms, mdma, lsd and, amusingly, methadone.
heroin harms, however, are multiplied enormously by the illegality. i was actually discussing a rather comical letter with him sent to the british journal of addiction in the late 50s from an american discussing their experience with making it illegal a few days ago (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.1957.tb05094.x/abstract for those interested), fun bits quoted
fun times
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
This reminds me of a sorta-good-news-ish story about the Thunder Bay police, responding to some of their (off-duty) officers saying some pretty racist stuff about indigenous people:
Thunder Bay officer suspended as watchdog asked to probe alleged racist Facebook post:
I feel like this is a great response. It demonstrates responsiveness, that they understand their role in society, how this sort of scrutiny is essential to their performing that role. (Obv, the fact that this review was happening already isn't great, but you know, small victories.)
But some of their officers were just behaving like idiots. This quote, in particular, is what triggered this connection for me:
The fact that someone can say, "You called me a systemic racist," is just so head-hurtingly revealing how ill-equipped some people are to even appreciate the issues at hand here.
http://www.13wmaz.com/news/local/suspect-named-in-fatal-peach-deputy-shooting/348788327
Then there was the Trump supporter in Iowa; it seemed like that story was going to be bigger before it was revealed that the suspect was a white dude...
do "blue lives matter" only when it's used to shout down "black lives matter"? honestly seems so
There was also a shooting of a black man in Iowa two days previous to that. I deliberately did not post about it because I wanted to wait and see if it got any wider coverage. Nope!
There's not a lot of information to go on right now. All I know is that there was a traffic stop and then the officer fired at the man, who then drove a short distance before crashing. He was taken to a hospital for treatment as he had been hit several times, and last I heard he was in critical condition, but still alive. The police here have said they don't want to release details until the investigation is concluded. Which I mean... total silence on the matter is frustrating but is better than committing deliberate character assassination on the man who was shot?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Disappeared as soon as the suspect was named though, except for the obligatory NYT "he was a disturbed loner" piece which is written about every white guy who shoots people.
I can honestly understand a situation getting escalated during a traffic stop and requiring an officer to open fire, but I also understand that the police can force/enable these escalations by being .....racist and/or incompetent.
So hearing information like that, I do not know what i want.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
Who then would police the Police Police? The Police Police Police? Would the Police Police Police likewise be policed by the Police Police Police Police?
...the word "police" looks really weird to me now.
Poh-LEESE.
I look at it more as Rock-Papers-Scissors.
Police beat Citizens.
Watchmen beat Police.
Citizens beat Watchmen.
Triangles are the stablest shape anyway, right?
While true, are we at the point that there are literally no people willing to do Police work unless they are free from consequences for their actions?
The "loner" quote was from a neighbor, because neighbors always either say that kind of thing. The police did say “We may never actually know what motivated this act,” which is stupid when you've got the guy alive in custody. But the "loner" bit? Not from the cops. Just another example of NYT making horrible misleading tweets.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
It's a difficult situation. An LEO just isn't very likely to killed by homicide, IIRC last time I looked at the stats it ranked behind death by being struck by a vehicle. But people don't judge their risk based on true probability, so it's not necessarily unusual that LEOs react to deliberate homicides and homicide attempts on LEOs by ratcheting up escalation, even if it's an obvious net negative (~1200 non LEO deaths versus ~40 LEO deaths a year during politce-citizen encounters, not counting injured citizens). Even if we assume that the majority of citizen deaths at the hands of LEOs are "good shoots", there is a non zero number that are bad, and a more significant number that would be suspicious just based on LEO behavior with regards to officer involved shootings (working the report, being caught on video by third parties etc.)
That was a media critique, not a police critique.
Not consequences but liability. This has been a long time in coming. Something we've seen in the corporate world for a long time.
See? The officer has to live with what they've done. That's a consequence. What they don't want is to also have to go to prison, or even get charged, or have to be financially available when they've caused grievous bodily harm.
Considering how often we find out officers who are involved in a shooting have been involved in a number of violent and/or discriminatory incidents over the course of their career, I think it can safely be said that a lot of them are just fine with "living with what they've done."
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Except in political showdowns, where it's the least stable shape.
In other countries (including my own) we have a watchman of sorts on the geographic and structural level--namely, a National Police Agency that has very little (if any) motivation to protect or otherwise stick its neck out for a subordinate local police force (and depending on the climate, a lot of reason to denounce them--which can lead to its own issues). A local city command may have some reason to cover up malicious or illegal behavior on the part of a precinct command, but the county command has very little, since replacing the entire city command amounts to a few firings and hirings, and the political fallout for failing to do so is much, much worse.
On the other hand, this probably leads to shorter police careers (there's literally no-one, or very few people, with multi-decade police careers, though on the other hand, martial law only ended ~25 years ago) and not a particularly high sense of loyalty. When no one's invulnerable, commanding officers invariably get taken down because they made the wrong enemy somewhere down the line too. And obviously, there is no equivalent to the NPA in the United States either.
Also, our drug laws are hello prohibitive by comparison to the United States.
Because apparently video evidence isn't quite enough to put a cop in jail.
Edit: though that is hearsay, so if I'm wrong, someone correct me.
That sounds like grounds for juror removal?
It is... If he doesn't hide the fact and it continues to verdict