I think some of us would say over policing is not a thing. Proper policing would the the appropriate term. I must be the only american who would love to see our driver's license system overhauled to be more like EU style.
There is definitely such a thing as an omnipresent or overly-present police force, and that would be a bad thing.
I'm pretty sure most of the people in this thread are against overpolicing and for proper policing.
It is not a bad argument at all to say that both over policing and zero policing are bad things.
And society would be better served if the war on drugs was put to an end. And as a few states and DC have shown, they are under no obligation to assist the federal government in waging it.
Insofar as someone can be objectively right about this stuff, I'm pretty sure you are.
The article makes neither of the points you made, though (though it alludes to them when it references the mayor and the academic). And the quotes chosen specifically from that article definitely don't do that.
Like, TPM chose bad interviews. That's what I'm getting at here. And that's why steak jumping all over Romero's shit was off-base (imo). Those are some poor quotes in there, and they do the sound arguments serious injustice. It's not just semantics sometimes.
I think some of us would say over policing is not a thing. Proper policing would the the appropriate term. I must be the only american who would love to see our driver's license system overhauled to be more like EU style.
No doubt people who are never subjected to things like stop and frisks or being pulled over for no particular reason could conclude there wasn't a problem with over-policing. But that's just privilege shielding them from what is reality for other people.
If everyone were subjected to that sort of thing on a regular basis I question how many people would still claim over policing "is not as thing".
I think some of us would say over policing is not a thing. Proper policing would the the appropriate term. I must be the only american who would love to see our driver's license system overhauled to be more like EU style.
There is definitely such a thing as an omnipresent or overly-present police force, and that would be a bad thing.
I'm pretty sure most of the people in this thread are against overpolicing and for proper policing.
The omnipresent aspect is a part of the targeted aspect of policing which is the crux. I would state that the petty crimes aspect is not over policing that is improper policing when attached to the targeted nature of it. I fully support an increase in petty policing on a universal aspect. As many like to state, we can do multiple things at once, well we could police the petty stuff universally (which needs to exist), police the items that we as a society deem inappropriate (drugs) and work the higher order stuff. I guess I just have different nomenclature than some of you guys. And different thoughts on what policing should be.
I think some of us would say over policing is not a thing. Proper policing would the the appropriate term. I must be the only american who would love to see our driver's license system overhauled to be more like EU style.
There is definitely such a thing as an omnipresent or overly-present police force, and that would be a bad thing.
I'm pretty sure most of the people in this thread are against overpolicing and for proper policing.
The omnipresent aspect is a part of the targeted aspect of policing which is the crux. I would state that the petty crimes aspect is not over policing that is improper policing when attached to the targeted nature of it. As many like to state, we can do multiple things at once, well we could police the petty stuff universally (which needs to exist), police the items that we as a society deem inappropriate (drugs) and work the higher order stuff. As inferred in the original statement I feel we are too lax on some fronts, universally. I guess I just have different nomenclature than some of you guys. And different thoughts on what policing should be.
The police involving themselves in areas they shouldn't be is overpolicing. I understand you want to define your terms differently, but for the rest of us who are fine with that nomenclature, it's fine to debate and discourse around that.
I think some of us would say over policing is not a thing. Proper policing would the the appropriate term. I must be the only american who would love to see our driver's license system overhauled to be more like EU style.
There is definitely such a thing as an omnipresent or overly-present police force, and that would be a bad thing.
I'm pretty sure most of the people in this thread are against overpolicing and for proper policing.
The omnipresent aspect is a part of the targeted aspect of policing which is the crux. I would state that the petty crimes aspect is not over policing that is improper policing when attached to the targeted nature of it. As many like to state, we can do multiple things at once, well we could police the petty stuff universally (which needs to exist), police the items that we as a society deem inappropriate (drugs) and work the higher order stuff. As inferred in the original statement I feel we are too lax on some fronts, universally. I guess I just have different nomenclature than some of you guys. And different thoughts on what policing should be.
The police involving themselves in areas they shouldn't be is overpolicing. I understand you want to define your terms differently, but for the rest of us who are fine with that nomenclature, it's fine to debate and discourse around that.
What aspects are specifically "shouldn't" be? In a society with proper policing the petty aspects are a large part of the cops daily load, for instance the research I have done on road policing in the EU. Stop and frisk? Well that was legislation that was specifically passed for police. The reasoning behind it is crappy. That is universally agreed (and obviously not intended by my statement). Most aspects of what we talk about here on a daily basis, other than the misconduct, is pretty specifically related to aspects of policing that we would want policing to do, just properly.
I think some of us would say over policing is not a thing. Proper policing would the the appropriate term. I must be the only american who would love to see our driver's license system overhauled to be more like EU style.
There is definitely such a thing as an omnipresent or overly-present police force, and that would be a bad thing.
I'm pretty sure most of the people in this thread are against overpolicing and for proper policing.
The omnipresent aspect is a part of the targeted aspect of policing which is the crux. I would state that the petty crimes aspect is not over policing that is improper policing when attached to the targeted nature of it. I fully support an increase in petty policing on a universal aspect. As many like to state, we can do multiple things at once, well we could police the petty stuff universally (which needs to exist), police the items that we as a society deem inappropriate (drugs) and work the higher order stuff. I guess I just have different nomenclature than some of you guys. And different thoughts on what policing should be.
Possibly a diversion, but I disagree that universal petty crime policing is desirable policing. This would require the assumption that our laws are well-written, which they are not. Many of us break the law regularly, and I don't want to live in one of those fictional Lawful Neutral planes from DnD mythology, where inadvertent loopholes in laws combine with rigid enforcement to create dystopia.
Police do need to exercise discretion, like not spending all their damn days pulling everybody over for speeding. How they exercise that discretion is the problem, I think.
I think some of us would say over policing is not a thing. Proper policing would the the appropriate term. I must be the only american who would love to see our driver's license system overhauled to be more like EU style.
There is definitely such a thing as an omnipresent or overly-present police force, and that would be a bad thing.
I'm pretty sure most of the people in this thread are against overpolicing and for proper policing.
The omnipresent aspect is a part of the targeted aspect of policing which is the crux. I would state that the petty crimes aspect is not over policing that is improper policing when attached to the targeted nature of it. I fully support an increase in petty policing on a universal aspect. As many like to state, we can do multiple things at once, well we could police the petty stuff universally (which needs to exist), police the items that we as a society deem inappropriate (drugs) and work the higher order stuff. I guess I just have different nomenclature than some of you guys. And different thoughts on what policing should be.
Possibly a diversion, but I disagree that universal petty crime policing is desirable policing. This would require the assumption that our laws are well-written, which they are not. Many of us break the law regularly, and I don't want to live in one of those fictional Lawful Neutral planes from DnD mythology, where inadvertent loopholes in laws combine with rigid enforcement to create dystopia.
Police do need to exercise discretion, like not spending all their damn days pulling everybody over for speeding. How they exercise that discretion is the problem, I think.
Well I will give you an agreed there hippo. To a point. The whole "we can do multiple things at once" aspect of my statement applies here. We would want to renovate the policy and procedure along with the reform to policing. But there will be some of us that will want those rules applied across the board, which is one of the smaller aspects of the movement (along with the reform).
I think some of us would say over policing is not a thing. Proper policing would the the appropriate term. I must be the only american who would love to see our driver's license system overhauled to be more like EU style.
There is definitely such a thing as an omnipresent or overly-present police force, and that would be a bad thing.
I'm pretty sure most of the people in this thread are against overpolicing and for proper policing.
The omnipresent aspect is a part of the targeted aspect of policing which is the crux. I would state that the petty crimes aspect is not over policing that is improper policing when attached to the targeted nature of it. As many like to state, we can do multiple things at once, well we could police the petty stuff universally (which needs to exist), police the items that we as a society deem inappropriate (drugs) and work the higher order stuff. As inferred in the original statement I feel we are too lax on some fronts, universally. I guess I just have different nomenclature than some of you guys. And different thoughts on what policing should be.
The police involving themselves in areas they shouldn't be is overpolicing. I understand you want to define your terms differently, but for the rest of us who are fine with that nomenclature, it's fine to debate and discourse around that.
I think some of us would say over policing is not a thing. Proper policing would the the appropriate term. I must be the only american who would love to see our driver's license system overhauled to be more like EU style.
There is definitely such a thing as an omnipresent or overly-present police force, and that would be a bad thing.
I'm pretty sure most of the people in this thread are against overpolicing and for proper policing.
The omnipresent aspect is a part of the targeted aspect of policing which is the crux. I would state that the petty crimes aspect is not over policing that is improper policing when attached to the targeted nature of it. As many like to state, we can do multiple things at once, well we could police the petty stuff universally (which needs to exist), police the items that we as a society deem inappropriate (drugs) and work the higher order stuff. As inferred in the original statement I feel we are too lax on some fronts, universally. I guess I just have different nomenclature than some of you guys. And different thoughts on what policing should be.
The police involving themselves in areas they shouldn't be is overpolicing. I understand you want to define your terms differently, but for the rest of us who are fine with that nomenclature, it's fine to debate and discourse around that.
Just curious, but what do you mean by involving themselves in areas they shouldn't be?
I think some of us would say over policing is not a thing. Proper policing would the the appropriate term. I must be the only american who would love to see our driver's license system overhauled to be more like EU style.
There is definitely such a thing as an omnipresent or overly-present police force, and that would be a bad thing.
I'm pretty sure most of the people in this thread are against overpolicing and for proper policing.
The omnipresent aspect is a part of the targeted aspect of policing which is the crux. I would state that the petty crimes aspect is not over policing that is improper policing when attached to the targeted nature of it. As many like to state, we can do multiple things at once, well we could police the petty stuff universally (which needs to exist), police the items that we as a society deem inappropriate (drugs) and work the higher order stuff. As inferred in the original statement I feel we are too lax on some fronts, universally. I guess I just have different nomenclature than some of you guys. And different thoughts on what policing should be.
The police involving themselves in areas they shouldn't be is overpolicing. I understand you want to define your terms differently, but for the rest of us who are fine with that nomenclature, it's fine to debate and discourse around that.
I think some of us would say over policing is not a thing. Proper policing would the the appropriate term. I must be the only american who would love to see our driver's license system overhauled to be more like EU style.
There is definitely such a thing as an omnipresent or overly-present police force, and that would be a bad thing.
I'm pretty sure most of the people in this thread are against overpolicing and for proper policing.
The omnipresent aspect is a part of the targeted aspect of policing which is the crux. I would state that the petty crimes aspect is not over policing that is improper policing when attached to the targeted nature of it. As many like to state, we can do multiple things at once, well we could police the petty stuff universally (which needs to exist), police the items that we as a society deem inappropriate (drugs) and work the higher order stuff. As inferred in the original statement I feel we are too lax on some fronts, universally. I guess I just have different nomenclature than some of you guys. And different thoughts on what policing should be.
The police involving themselves in areas they shouldn't be is overpolicing. I understand you want to define your terms differently, but for the rest of us who are fine with that nomenclature, it's fine to debate and discourse around that.
Just curious, but what do you mean by involving themselves in areas they shouldn't be?
Honestly. There is overpolicing (Lawful Neutral dystopias and other Police States) and there is No Policing (No presence of police forces...what-so-ever). Baltimore is neither of those.
Its bad policing. It's policing that's misaimed, undertrained and suffering from dysfunctional group behavior.
It's a problem that many parts of the United states suffer from.
When the police arrive at a scene and within 15 seconds kill an unarmed person, regardless of skin colour, that's unacceptable.
When the police immideatly after they arrive on a scene and shoot someone without giving them even a chance to surrender, even though there are no bystanders, that's unacceptable.
When a person is choked to death by police officers using incorrect restraining techniques, or are otherwise left to choke to death without medical care and in police custody, that's unacceptable.
When the police shoot an unarmed person immideatly after they open the door to their own house, that's unacceptable.
When a person is apprehended and in handcuffs and is then shot (sometimes multiple times), that's unacceptable.
Yet all of these things have happened, multiple times, within just the last 3 years.
To reinterpretate a line from shakespear, there is something rotten in the United States of America.
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
I think some of us would say over policing is not a thing. Proper policing would the the appropriate term. I must be the only american who would love to see our driver's license system overhauled to be more like EU style.
There is definitely such a thing as an omnipresent or overly-present police force, and that would be a bad thing.
I'm pretty sure most of the people in this thread are against overpolicing and for proper policing.
The omnipresent aspect is a part of the targeted aspect of policing which is the crux. I would state that the petty crimes aspect is not over policing that is improper policing when attached to the targeted nature of it. As many like to state, we can do multiple things at once, well we could police the petty stuff universally (which needs to exist), police the items that we as a society deem inappropriate (drugs) and work the higher order stuff. As inferred in the original statement I feel we are too lax on some fronts, universally. I guess I just have different nomenclature than some of you guys. And different thoughts on what policing should be.
The police involving themselves in areas they shouldn't be is overpolicing. I understand you want to define your terms differently, but for the rest of us who are fine with that nomenclature, it's fine to debate and discourse around that.
I think some of us would say over policing is not a thing. Proper policing would the the appropriate term. I must be the only american who would love to see our driver's license system overhauled to be more like EU style.
There is definitely such a thing as an omnipresent or overly-present police force, and that would be a bad thing.
I'm pretty sure most of the people in this thread are against overpolicing and for proper policing.
The omnipresent aspect is a part of the targeted aspect of policing which is the crux. I would state that the petty crimes aspect is not over policing that is improper policing when attached to the targeted nature of it. As many like to state, we can do multiple things at once, well we could police the petty stuff universally (which needs to exist), police the items that we as a society deem inappropriate (drugs) and work the higher order stuff. As inferred in the original statement I feel we are too lax on some fronts, universally. I guess I just have different nomenclature than some of you guys. And different thoughts on what policing should be.
The police involving themselves in areas they shouldn't be is overpolicing. I understand you want to define your terms differently, but for the rest of us who are fine with that nomenclature, it's fine to debate and discourse around that.
Just curious, but what do you mean by involving themselves in areas they shouldn't be?
Arresting people because they "look suspicious," arresting people because they're in a high crime area, arresting people without cause at all, arresting people for resisting arrest, beating people because they had it coming, shooting people solely because they felt threatened, arresting people because they deserve it, giving people "rough rides," shooting people for not following orders immediately, shooting people because they did follow orders immediately, seizing whatever property they want because it's related to a crime and never returning it, using torture as a interrogation method, threatening anyone with any of the above for any reason, etc.
That's only the stuff immediately off the top of my head but it's pretty much what the citizens of Baltimore have been dealing with for the last few decades. So I'm not especially sympathetic to the police that have been allowing it to happen.
In a just world it's misconduct. In the one we live in it's police doing what many of them believe their job is. As demonstrated by the fact that it took a literal riot for the police to be charged with obviously killing someone.
In a just world it's misconduct. In the one we live in it's police doing what many of them believe their job is. As demonstrated by the fact that it took a literal riot for the police to be charged with obviously killing someone.
Well in accordance to what the debate was at the time I was expecting more of "police shouldn't pull someone over for tail light out" as it was more of the nature of the discussion. Not examples of items that we all agree need to be addressed in accountability and proper procedure.
In a just world it's misconduct. In the one we live in it's police doing what many of them believe their job is. As demonstrated by the fact that it took a literal riot for the police to be charged with obviously killing someone.
Well in accordance to what the debate was at the time I was expecting more of "police shouldn't pull someone over for tail light out" as it was more of the nature of the discussion. Not examples of items that we all agree need to be addressed in accountability and proper procedure.
But that's not what's been happening at all and not what people mean when they say over policing. What has been happening is poor minorities get yanked off the street for no reason other than being "suspicious," found with some piece of contraband, and charged. People in the area aren't upset about police responding to crimes that are actually happening. They're upset that the police are doing everything they can to watch their every move and punish their existence.
In a just world it's misconduct. In the one we live in it's police doing what many of them believe their job is. As demonstrated by the fact that it took a literal riot for the police to be charged with obviously killing someone.
Well in accordance to what the debate was at the time I was expecting more of "police shouldn't pull someone over for tail light out" as it was more of the nature of the discussion. Not examples of items that we all agree need to be addressed in accountability and proper procedure.
But that's not what's been happening at all and not what people mean when they say over policing. What has been happening is poor minorities get yanked off the street for no reason other than being "suspicious," found with some piece of contraband, and charged. People in the area aren't upset about police responding to crimes that are actually happening. They're upset that the police are doing everything they can to watch their every move and punish their existence.
Yes. We all know about that aspect we see it every day here. The original article for this discussion specifically states petty crimes in a quote in reference to over policing. Which is what is the cause of this discussion. At least my side.
In a just world it's misconduct. In the one we live in it's police doing what many of them believe their job is. As demonstrated by the fact that it took a literal riot for the police to be charged with obviously killing someone.
Well in accordance to what the debate was at the time I was expecting more of "police shouldn't pull someone over for tail light out" as it was more of the nature of the discussion. Not examples of items that we all agree need to be addressed in accountability and proper procedure.
But that's not what's been happening at all and not what people mean when they say over policing. What has been happening is poor minorities get yanked off the street for no reason other than being "suspicious," found with some piece of contraband, and charged. People in the area aren't upset about police responding to crimes that are actually happening. They're upset that the police are doing everything they can to watch their every move and punish their existence.
Yes. We all know about that aspect we see it every day here. The original article for this discussion specifically states petty crimes in a quote in reference to over policing. Which is what is the cause of this discussion. At least my side.
Yes. The petty crimes that the police were spending most of their time trying to destroy people's lives over, often illegally, instead of looking to solve violent crimes. And when confronted over that abandoned an entire portion of the city.
It's pretty obvious why the woman quoted feels the way she does. Police work for her community has meant nothing at all about fighting crime and instead focused on arresting people.
I feel like this argument about what is overpolicing and what is improper policing is super pedantic and missing the issues for the definitions of the issues.
Everybody has addressed their personal definitions. That should be good enough.
tl;dr- A 1950's law aimed at banning switchblades and related knives in NY, has become a way to make possession of any knife illegal and fill out arrest quotas for NYC cops.
Now if i were the city, i'd call what the police are doing an Industrial Action, and respond accordingly (e.g., mass firings). "If you don't want to do your jobs, we're happy to oblige."
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Now if i were the city, i'd call what the police are doing an Industrial Action, and respond accordingly (e.g., mass firings). "If you don't want to do your jobs, we're happy to oblige."
That's incredibly dangerous. NY cops rioted before when their immunity was challenged with oversight. If city hall fires a bunch of cops for refusing to do their jobs, things would get ugly fast.
I think some of us would say over policing is not a thing. Proper policing would the the appropriate term. I must be the only american who would love to see our driver's license system overhauled to be more like EU style.
There is definitely such a thing as an omnipresent or overly-present police force, and that would be a bad thing.
I'm pretty sure most of the people in this thread are against overpolicing and for proper policing.
The omnipresent aspect is a part of the targeted aspect of policing which is the crux. I would state that the petty crimes aspect is not over policing that is improper policing when attached to the targeted nature of it. As many like to state, we can do multiple things at once, well we could police the petty stuff universally (which needs to exist), police the items that we as a society deem inappropriate (drugs) and work the higher order stuff. As inferred in the original statement I feel we are too lax on some fronts, universally. I guess I just have different nomenclature than some of you guys. And different thoughts on what policing should be.
The police involving themselves in areas they shouldn't be is overpolicing. I understand you want to define your terms differently, but for the rest of us who are fine with that nomenclature, it's fine to debate and discourse around that.
I think some of us would say over policing is not a thing. Proper policing would the the appropriate term. I must be the only american who would love to see our driver's license system overhauled to be more like EU style.
There is definitely such a thing as an omnipresent or overly-present police force, and that would be a bad thing.
I'm pretty sure most of the people in this thread are against overpolicing and for proper policing.
The omnipresent aspect is a part of the targeted aspect of policing which is the crux. I would state that the petty crimes aspect is not over policing that is improper policing when attached to the targeted nature of it. As many like to state, we can do multiple things at once, well we could police the petty stuff universally (which needs to exist), police the items that we as a society deem inappropriate (drugs) and work the higher order stuff. As inferred in the original statement I feel we are too lax on some fronts, universally. I guess I just have different nomenclature than some of you guys. And different thoughts on what policing should be.
The police involving themselves in areas they shouldn't be is overpolicing. I understand you want to define your terms differently, but for the rest of us who are fine with that nomenclature, it's fine to debate and discourse around that.
Just curious, but what do you mean by involving themselves in areas they shouldn't be?
Now if i were the city, i'd call what the police are doing an Industrial Action, and respond accordingly (e.g., mass firings). "If you don't want to do your jobs, we're happy to oblige."
That's incredibly dangerous. NY cops rioted before when their immunity was challenged with oversight. If city hall fires a bunch of cops for refusing to do their jobs, things would get ugly fast.
It is incredibly dangerous for not only employment rights but also citizen safety. NYY might have had a reduction in crime last time. No guarantee it wouldn't result in W Baltimore this time though.
It is not a bad argument at all to say that both over policing and zero policing are bad things.
And society would be better served if the war on drugs was put to an end. And as a few states and DC have shown, they are under no obligation to assist the federal government in waging it.
Insofar as someone can be objectively right about this stuff, I'm pretty sure you are.
The article makes neither of the points you made, though (though it alludes to them when it references the mayor and the academic). And the quotes chosen specifically from that article definitely don't do that.
Like, TPM chose bad interviews. That's what I'm getting at here. And that's why steak jumping all over Romero's shit was off-base (imo). Those are some poor quotes in there, and they do the sound arguments serious injustice. It's not just semantics sometimes.
Just wanted to toss in here, it's the AP. TPM just reprinted it.
In a just world it's misconduct. In the one we live in it's police doing what many of them believe their job is. As demonstrated by the fact that it took a literal riot for the police to be charged with obviously killing someone.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. It's hard to know what the prosecutor would have done sans riots, but almost certainly there still would have been charges of some kind. She did run on a platform of curbing police abuses.
The Atlantic has a nice article on Cincinnati as a successful case of reform. Spoilered for length.
Looking back, the results of Cincinnati’s reform efforts are startling. Between 1999 and 2014, Cincinnati saw a 69 percent reduction in police use-of-force incidents, a 42 percent reduction in citizen complaints and a 56 percent reduction in citizen injuries during encounters with police, according to a report by Robin S. Engel and M. Murat Ozer of the Institute of Crime Science at the University of Cincinnati. Violent crimes dropped from a high of 4,137 in the year after the riots, to 2,352 last year. Misdemeanor arrests dropped from 41,708 in 2000 to 17,913 last year.
Yet it might not be so simple to adopt Cincinnati’s changes in other cities. It took a long time—five to ten years, by some counts—to get police to actually buy into the reforms. Nobody likes it when somebody comes into their workplace and tells them how to do their job. The changes Cincinnati adopted were nothing short of a complete turnaround in how the city approached incarceration, crime and its relationship with its residents. And to make sure they were adopted, the federal government had to apply constant pressure, reminding all parties involved about the need to stay vigilant about reform.
“In the early 2000s and late 90s, Cincinnati was just a hotbed of problems, and we got the city and the police department to agree to certain reforms,” said Mike Brickner, senior policy director with the ACLU of Ohio, which sued the city shortly before the riots over discriminatory policing practices. “It’s gratifying for me to see that people are coming back several years later and recognizing how successful it was.”
Some of the changes were small: The police department vowed to hold a press conference within 12 hours of any officer-involved shooting and to provide information as well as camera footage from the event. It agreed to track officers who received an inordinate number of complaints or who violated policies, and take disciplinary action if needed. It established a Citizen Complaint Authority with investigative and subpoena powers over police. It adopted new use-of-force policies, changed guidelines on when to use chemical spray, and established a mental-health response team to deal with incidents in which a suspect may have mental-health problems.
But those changes were tiny in contrast to what Herold and others say completely altered the department over the course of a decade: the adoption of a new strategy for how to police. The settlement agreement for the ACLU lawsuit, dubbed the Collaborative, required Cincinnati police to adopt community problem-oriented policing, or CPOP. The strategy required them to do fewer out-and-out arrests, and instead focus on solving the problems that cause people to commit crimes in the first place....
There were certain things that were expected of Maris Herold when she first became a cop. She was expected to write a few traffic tickets a month, issue some parking tickets, and get a misdemeanor arrest, a felony arrest, and a DUI arrest. If police were out making arrests, the thinking went, they were proactively preventing crime. So Herold followed the guidelines, got positive evaluations, and was seen by supervisors as a good cop....
Problem-oriented policing was developed in 1979 by Herman Goldstein, a University of Wisconsin professor, and was first adopted in Newport News, Virginia. Other police departments, such as Baltimore, have used the method and then abandoned it, said John Eck, a criminologist at the University of Cincinnati who helped the city adopt problem-oriented policing (which it calls Community Problem-Oriented Policing). The strategy suggests that police should not just respond to calls for service. It says they should also look for patterns in these calls to service, determine what is causing the patterns and then implement solutions to solve them, he said....
Many people in Cincinnati say the police finally started to buy into these reforms in 2006, after a new mayor had been elected and a new city manager appointed (Mayor Charlie Luken, who governed the city from 1999 to 2005, had asked the Justice Department to stop putting police through “this silliness,” in 2004.)
Green, the monitor, said the changes tracked very closely to new city leadership taking office. The police chief reports to the city manager, after all. New city manager Milton Dohoney Jr. started attending meetings of the parties in the Collaborative, and made sure that the rancor that had characterized them before wasn’t tolerated.
“They became much more business-like, and we were able to move forward,” Green said....
Senior officers slowly started making it clear that officers weren’t going to get promoted if they didn’t embrace problem-solving and make an effort to listen to the community, Dunn said. That may be because those leaders had to answer to the independent monitor. The monitor looked closely at district reports for examples of problem-solving, held police accountable for training officers in problem-oriented policing, and constantly checked in with the Citizen Complaint Authority for police progress....
The reforms soon began to make a difference on the ground. In a county that had to reduce jail space by one-third in 2008, officials were relieved to see that Cincinnati’s focus on problem-solving was leading to fewer arrests. Felony arrests fell from 6,367 in 2008 to 5,408 the following year; by 2014, they were down to 3,735. Misdemeanor arrests fell by 3,000 between 2008 and 2009, and dropped by an additional one-third between 2008 and 2014, according to Engel, the Cincinnati professor. And in the same years, even as arrests were falling, almost every major category of crime also declined.
In New York City, by contrast, between 2005 and 2010, where stop and frisk was being implemented as policy,misdemeanor arrests increased 28 percent. The misdemeanor arrest rate jumped 190.5 percent between 1980 and 2013....
Of course, not everything is perfect now in the Cincinnati police department. Two families filed lawsuits against police, for example, after two separate run-ins with the same police officer, whose dashcam was turned off during both encounters.
Some police officers still discriminate on the basis of race, said Dion Branhan and Mike Dodson, two black men I met near the University of Cincinnati.
“I haven't seen much of a difference,” Branhan said.
“They still need some type of cultural-diversity training,” Dodson added.
In Over-the-Rhine, the now-bustling downtown neighborhood where the riots began, black men say they’re hustled by police who don’t want them standing around on the street, even though white people are allowed to stand around outside the bars and restaurants nearby. One man I spoke to in that neighborhood, who goes by the name of Big Quartar, said he was stopped and put in the back of a police cruiser recently because he was mistaken for somebody else. Although one of the officers knew him, her partner rolled up the windows and made Quartar sit in the hot car for a long time, without explanation, he said.
“All they do is look at me with nasty attitudes,” he told me. “They do a lot of foul things.”
What’s more, he said, any policing changes since 2001 have done little to remedy economic inequality in the city. Many of the people he knows can’t find a job, even as the nearby neighborhood prospers. For all the talk of police as social-service officers, police reform can’t fix an economy that’s tougher for people at the bottom.
“People need help in the streets—they don’t need help from police,” he told me. “They can’t give you a job.”
Roley, the community activist, has the same complaints. In the aftermath of the riots, a Minority Business Accelerator was created in the city, but the black community is being pushed out of Over-the-Rhine, she said. She sometimes wonders if the police reforms are meaningful without a corresponding degree of economic change.
Cincinnati has more income inequality than any municipal area in Ohio except Cleveland, and fares worse on that measure than other similar cities, including Pittsburgh, Louisville, St. Louis and Indianapolis, said Julie Heath, the director of the University of Cincinnati’s Economic Center. The median household income in Cincinnati in 2001 was $21,000 for African Americans and $36,500 for whites, she said. In 2013, the median household income for African Americans had only gone up a few hundred dollars, to $21,300, while white median income jumped to $48,000 in Cincinnati.
In a just world it's misconduct. In the one we live in it's police doing what many of them believe their job is. As demonstrated by the fact that it took a literal riot for the police to be charged with obviously killing someone.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. It's hard to know what the prosecutor would have done sans riots, but almost certainly there still would have been charges of some kind. She did run on a platform of curbing police abuses.
I'm fine going with the current trend of nothing up until that point.
Edit: I don't doubt that she genuinely wanted reform with the police. But I strongly suspect she wouldn't have been able to get that without the riots.
Arresting people because they "look suspicious," arresting people because they're in a high crime area, arresting people without cause at all, arresting people for resisting arrest, beating people because they had it coming, shooting people solely because they felt threatened, arresting people because they deserve it, giving people "rough rides," shooting people for not following orders immediately, shooting people because they did follow orders immediately, seizing whatever property they want because it's related to a crime and never returning it, using torture as a interrogation method, threatening anyone with any of the above for any reason, etc.
That's only the stuff immediately off the top of my head but it's pretty much what the citizens of Baltimore have been dealing with for the last few decades. So I'm not especially sympathetic to the police that have been allowing it to happen.
I thought you were one of those nutters who wanted police free zones like those folks in NYC. I believe they were called Disarm NYPD. All though I haven't shot anyone, I've certainly been shot at. I have arrested people for resisting arrest, because it is still against the law in most states. Also can't say I've ever used torture to interrogate anyone or any of the other things so guess I'm doing alright?
Arresting people because they "look suspicious," arresting people because they're in a high crime area, arresting people without cause at all, arresting people for resisting arrest, beating people because they had it coming, shooting people solely because they felt threatened, arresting people because they deserve it, giving people "rough rides," shooting people for not following orders immediately, shooting people because they did follow orders immediately, seizing whatever property they want because it's related to a crime and never returning it, using torture as a interrogation method, threatening anyone with any of the above for any reason, etc.
That's only the stuff immediately off the top of my head but it's pretty much what the citizens of Baltimore have been dealing with for the last few decades. So I'm not especially sympathetic to the police that have been allowing it to happen.
I thought you were one of those nutters who wanted police free zones like those folks in NYC. I believe they were called Disarm NYPD. All though I haven't shot anyone, I've certainly been shot at. I have arrested people for resisting arrest, because it is still against the law in most states. Also can't say I've ever used torture to interrogate anyone or any of the other things so guess I'm doing alright?
I never said anything approaching wanting "police free zones" whatever those are. Arresting someone for resisting arrest is a tautology. If that's all they're being arrested for then it shouldn't be happening in the first place. And I don't doubt the vast majority of police who have brutalized and abused people don't consider it torture. That doesn't change what it was.
Also I've also never claimed you specifically did any of the above. No one is accusing you personally of having done any of those things. This thread is about police in general.
+14
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Arresting people because they "look suspicious," arresting people because they're in a high crime area, arresting people without cause at all, arresting people for resisting arrest, beating people because they had it coming, shooting people solely because they felt threatened, arresting people because they deserve it, giving people "rough rides," shooting people for not following orders immediately, shooting people because they did follow orders immediately, seizing whatever property they want because it's related to a crime and never returning it, using torture as a interrogation method, threatening anyone with any of the above for any reason, etc.
That's only the stuff immediately off the top of my head but it's pretty much what the citizens of Baltimore have been dealing with for the last few decades. So I'm not especially sympathetic to the police that have been allowing it to happen.
I thought you were one of those nutters who wanted police free zones like those folks in NYC. I believe they were called Disarm NYPD. All though I haven't shot anyone, I've certainly been shot at. I have arrested people for resisting arrest, because it is still against the law in most states. Also can't say I've ever used torture to interrogate anyone or any of the other things so guess I'm doing alright?
This might be a silly question, but how do you arrest someone for resisting arrest?
Policing to raise money, not reduce crime
Performing otherwise legal actions so much they impede quality of life for the area
Focusing on tiny tiny violations that if the person could bother to fight them would get thrown out (you stopped but not completely, you were 1 mph over, etc, is that knife spring loaded or not)
Arresting people because they "look suspicious," arresting people because they're in a high crime area, arresting people without cause at all, arresting people for resisting arrest, beating people because they had it coming, shooting people solely because they felt threatened, arresting people because they deserve it, giving people "rough rides," shooting people for not following orders immediately, shooting people because they did follow orders immediately, seizing whatever property they want because it's related to a crime and never returning it, using torture as a interrogation method, threatening anyone with any of the above for any reason, etc.
That's only the stuff immediately off the top of my head but it's pretty much what the citizens of Baltimore have been dealing with for the last few decades. So I'm not especially sympathetic to the police that have been allowing it to happen.
I thought you were one of those nutters who wanted police free zones like those folks in NYC. I believe they were called Disarm NYPD. All though I haven't shot anyone, I've certainly been shot at. I have arrested people for resisting arrest, because it is still against the law in most states. Also can't say I've ever used torture to interrogate anyone or any of the other things so guess I'm doing alright?
This might be a silly question, but how do you arrest someone for resisting arrest?
You start hassling someone until they show resistance and then you arrest them.
the chief of police is arguing that having to officially record when a cop pulls a gun will cause cops to die because they will be too afraid of paperwork to unholster their weapon in a crisis
the chief of police is arguing that having to officially record when a cop pulls a gun will cause cops to die because they will be too afraid of paperwork to unholster their weapon in a crisis
Exactly how often does this guy think guns will need to be drawn
the chief of police is arguing that having to officially record when a cop pulls a gun will cause cops to die because they will be too afraid of paperwork to unholster their weapon in a crisis
Exactly how often does this guy think guns will need to be drawn
It sure would be nice to have my firearm drawn and ready in case this liquor store robbery goes south but I forgot to set my DVR and don't want to miss tonights Friends rerun doing paperwork.
the chief of police is arguing that having to officially record when a cop pulls a gun will cause cops to die because they will be too afraid of paperwork to unholster their weapon in a crisis
Exactly how often does this guy think guns will need to be drawn
And what is so scary about some paperwork
Clearly you've never seen what government paperwork looks like.
I'm only half joking btw. Sometimes paperwork means ALOT of annoying paperwork.
Posts
There is definitely such a thing as an omnipresent or overly-present police force, and that would be a bad thing.
I'm pretty sure most of the people in this thread are against overpolicing and for proper policing.
Insofar as someone can be objectively right about this stuff, I'm pretty sure you are.
The article makes neither of the points you made, though (though it alludes to them when it references the mayor and the academic). And the quotes chosen specifically from that article definitely don't do that.
Like, TPM chose bad interviews. That's what I'm getting at here. And that's why steak jumping all over Romero's shit was off-base (imo). Those are some poor quotes in there, and they do the sound arguments serious injustice. It's not just semantics sometimes.
No doubt people who are never subjected to things like stop and frisks or being pulled over for no particular reason could conclude there wasn't a problem with over-policing. But that's just privilege shielding them from what is reality for other people.
If everyone were subjected to that sort of thing on a regular basis I question how many people would still claim over policing "is not as thing".
I suspect the number would fall to near zero.
The omnipresent aspect is a part of the targeted aspect of policing which is the crux. I would state that the petty crimes aspect is not over policing that is improper policing when attached to the targeted nature of it. I fully support an increase in petty policing on a universal aspect. As many like to state, we can do multiple things at once, well we could police the petty stuff universally (which needs to exist), police the items that we as a society deem inappropriate (drugs) and work the higher order stuff. I guess I just have different nomenclature than some of you guys. And different thoughts on what policing should be.
The police involving themselves in areas they shouldn't be is overpolicing. I understand you want to define your terms differently, but for the rest of us who are fine with that nomenclature, it's fine to debate and discourse around that.
What aspects are specifically "shouldn't" be? In a society with proper policing the petty aspects are a large part of the cops daily load, for instance the research I have done on road policing in the EU. Stop and frisk? Well that was legislation that was specifically passed for police. The reasoning behind it is crappy. That is universally agreed (and obviously not intended by my statement). Most aspects of what we talk about here on a daily basis, other than the misconduct, is pretty specifically related to aspects of policing that we would want policing to do, just properly.
Possibly a diversion, but I disagree that universal petty crime policing is desirable policing. This would require the assumption that our laws are well-written, which they are not. Many of us break the law regularly, and I don't want to live in one of those fictional Lawful Neutral planes from DnD mythology, where inadvertent loopholes in laws combine with rigid enforcement to create dystopia.
Police do need to exercise discretion, like not spending all their damn days pulling everybody over for speeding. How they exercise that discretion is the problem, I think.
Well I will give you an agreed there hippo. To a point. The whole "we can do multiple things at once" aspect of my statement applies here. We would want to renovate the policy and procedure along with the reform to policing. But there will be some of us that will want those rules applied across the board, which is one of the smaller aspects of the movement (along with the reform).
Just curious, but what do you mean by involving themselves in areas they shouldn't be?
Just curious, but are you a cop?
Its bad policing. It's policing that's misaimed, undertrained and suffering from dysfunctional group behavior.
It's a problem that many parts of the United states suffer from.
When the police arrive at a scene and within 15 seconds kill an unarmed person, regardless of skin colour, that's unacceptable.
When the police immideatly after they arrive on a scene and shoot someone without giving them even a chance to surrender, even though there are no bystanders, that's unacceptable.
When a person is choked to death by police officers using incorrect restraining techniques, or are otherwise left to choke to death without medical care and in police custody, that's unacceptable.
When the police shoot an unarmed person immideatly after they open the door to their own house, that's unacceptable.
When a person is apprehended and in handcuffs and is then shot (sometimes multiple times), that's unacceptable.
Yet all of these things have happened, multiple times, within just the last 3 years.
To reinterpretate a line from shakespear, there is something rotten in the United States of America.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Arresting people because they "look suspicious," arresting people because they're in a high crime area, arresting people without cause at all, arresting people for resisting arrest, beating people because they had it coming, shooting people solely because they felt threatened, arresting people because they deserve it, giving people "rough rides," shooting people for not following orders immediately, shooting people because they did follow orders immediately, seizing whatever property they want because it's related to a crime and never returning it, using torture as a interrogation method, threatening anyone with any of the above for any reason, etc.
That's only the stuff immediately off the top of my head but it's pretty much what the citizens of Baltimore have been dealing with for the last few decades. So I'm not especially sympathetic to the police that have been allowing it to happen.
Well in accordance to what the debate was at the time I was expecting more of "police shouldn't pull someone over for tail light out" as it was more of the nature of the discussion. Not examples of items that we all agree need to be addressed in accountability and proper procedure.
But that's not what's been happening at all and not what people mean when they say over policing. What has been happening is poor minorities get yanked off the street for no reason other than being "suspicious," found with some piece of contraband, and charged. People in the area aren't upset about police responding to crimes that are actually happening. They're upset that the police are doing everything they can to watch their every move and punish their existence.
Yes. We all know about that aspect we see it every day here. The original article for this discussion specifically states petty crimes in a quote in reference to over policing. Which is what is the cause of this discussion. At least my side.
Yes. The petty crimes that the police were spending most of their time trying to destroy people's lives over, often illegally, instead of looking to solve violent crimes. And when confronted over that abandoned an entire portion of the city.
It's pretty obvious why the woman quoted feels the way she does. Police work for her community has meant nothing at all about fighting crime and instead focused on arresting people.
Everybody has addressed their personal definitions. That should be good enough.
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2014/10/nyc-gravity-knife-law-arrests.php?page=all
tl;dr- A 1950's law aimed at banning switchblades and related knives in NY, has become a way to make possession of any knife illegal and fill out arrest quotas for NYC cops.
That's incredibly dangerous. NY cops rioted before when their immunity was challenged with oversight. If city hall fires a bunch of cops for refusing to do their jobs, things would get ugly fast.
Indeed I am. Eight years now.
It is incredibly dangerous for not only employment rights but also citizen safety. NYY might have had a reduction in crime last time. No guarantee it wouldn't result in W Baltimore this time though.
Just wanted to toss in here, it's the AP. TPM just reprinted it.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. It's hard to know what the prosecutor would have done sans riots, but almost certainly there still would have been charges of some kind. She did run on a platform of curbing police abuses.
I'm fine going with the current trend of nothing up until that point.
Edit: I don't doubt that she genuinely wanted reform with the police. But I strongly suspect she wouldn't have been able to get that without the riots.
I thought you were one of those nutters who wanted police free zones like those folks in NYC. I believe they were called Disarm NYPD. All though I haven't shot anyone, I've certainly been shot at. I have arrested people for resisting arrest, because it is still against the law in most states. Also can't say I've ever used torture to interrogate anyone or any of the other things so guess I'm doing alright?
I never said anything approaching wanting "police free zones" whatever those are. Arresting someone for resisting arrest is a tautology. If that's all they're being arrested for then it shouldn't be happening in the first place. And I don't doubt the vast majority of police who have brutalized and abused people don't consider it torture. That doesn't change what it was.
Also I've also never claimed you specifically did any of the above. No one is accusing you personally of having done any of those things. This thread is about police in general.
This might be a silly question, but how do you arrest someone for resisting arrest?
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Policing to raise money, not reduce crime
Performing otherwise legal actions so much they impede quality of life for the area
Focusing on tiny tiny violations that if the person could bother to fight them would get thrown out (you stopped but not completely, you were 1 mph over, etc, is that knife spring loaded or not)
You start hassling someone until they show resistance and then you arrest them.
It's so easy any cop can do it.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/05/union_head_says_aspects_of_cle.html#incart_m-rpt-1
the chief of police is arguing that having to officially record when a cop pulls a gun will cause cops to die because they will be too afraid of paperwork to unholster their weapon in a crisis
Exactly how often does this guy think guns will need to be drawn
And what is so scary about some paperwork
Paperwork = paper trail = accountability.
Clearly you've never seen what government paperwork looks like.
I'm only half joking btw. Sometimes paperwork means ALOT of annoying paperwork.