Wrong again, Noah! Qualified immunity is necessary for a civil society. Without it, anyone who is arrested or given a speeding ticket could sue the police department, creating a logjam in the court system. That would yield a society tied up in court battles on issues that have no merit while issues important to the functioning of a civil society would be delayed or discarded. You failed to discuss those drawbacks due to your pro-Antifa bias.
The police should not be protected from civil or legal justice when they are wrong. They are not above the law. If they are innocent, they should be able to prove that in a court of law.
Sounds real deep. The devil is in the details, as always.
George Floyd’s killer doesn’t have immunity. So what are we talking about?
What if every drugged up violent offender claims “police abuse” after being prodded by the usual scum lawyer looking for a buck? Think THAT won’t happen? Think again.
That’s why police body cameras should ALWAYS be on when they’re on duty. Pretty easy to refute such a claim when the cops can just hit “play” on the video.
Exactly. Why the good cops love body cameras.
And why felons, who remember will steal things or sell drugs in order to make money, hate body cameras.
June 11, 2020 at 2:39 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
9
2
I’m glad we agree. So why are the cops who turned off their body cameras before murdering Breonna Taylor (then blaming her boyfriend for her death, and writing on the incident report she had “no injuries”) not in jail right now? Hint, it’s got to do with QI
June 11, 2020 at 4:02 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
5
5
You’ve made this claim before that “good cops love body cameras” I thought your whole thing was we talk about facts? The facts are that whenever there’s a question of police doing something wrong, the body cameras mysteriously weren’t on. It’s very easily solved: If a police officer has their body camera off in a situation that the camera being on would have provided evidence, then the police officer needs to be charged with obstruction of justice. Those cameras have 14 hour battery life, there is no excuse for an officer to not have his camera charged and on.
June 11, 2020 at 4:59 pm
Craig Winston Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
5
6
You guys need a logic class. I said “good cops” love body cameras. You cite an example of bad cops.
And Jon, you aren’t to be taken seriously. There is a ton of data that cops like body cameras. Allegations of police abuse have gone way down since they have been implemented.
part of that is the bad cops behaving better. Much more of that is the reaction of the accusers when they see the video.
google it.
June 11, 2020 at 5:08 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
4
5
If you’re willing to agree that cops who let other cops get away with crimes aren’t “good cops” then you’re in agreement that there are no good cops, because they ALL turn a blind eye Craig. You know that, we know that, the Buffalo PD just showed that to the entire country in a microscale.
The problem isn’t that cops like them, the problem is that they pick and choose when to use them. Sure, they love them when they get to decide they’re on, but as we discussed, any time the cops are potentially at fault it just so happens the cameras are off. This is BS and you know it.
They’re not behaving better just because of the cameras, they’re turning them off when they want to behave badly. George Floyd. Breonna Taylor. Every SINGLE other instance of a cop shooting an unarmed black person. I don’t need to go on, you’re just arguing to argue here.
June 11, 2020 at 5:17 pm
Craig Winston Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
5
5
How many unarmed black men were killed by the police in 2019? How many unarmed white men?
And when you refuse to answer . . . tell me why we never talk about the 7,500.
June 11, 2020 at 6:25 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
5
3
You’re trying to lead me down a path and I’m not falling for it, you care more about GOTCHA moments than actually discussing facts. Why don’t you answer my facts on white people not addressing discrimination?
June 12, 2020 at 7:17 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
5
Craig; notice how Jon avoided answering your question and diverted the discussion to a fallacy perpetuated by liberals; i.e. ‘white people as a group’.
June 12, 2020 at 7:30 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
5
Extracted parts of Craig’s post above:
“And Jon, …. There is a ton of data that cops like body cameras. Allegations of police abuse have gone way down….
goo-gul it.”
I assume people with open minds Goo-gul-ed it, and people with closed minds (i.e. prejudice against a specific demo group) did not.
June 12, 2020 at 10:52 am
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I acknowledged that I wasn’t going to answer the question, which is more than you’ve done when confronted by the lies you’ve told on this board, Polar. Like when you tried to say a YouGov poll from January said more americans were afraid of terrorism than global warming. That poll from January 2016 says no such thing, remember telling that lie? I do. You’ve never acknowledged it and you run scared when it’s brought up, so don’t lecture me on not answering for things, hypocrite.
Allegations of police abuse are still happening every day, your side just doesn’t care about how the police treat black people. There is evidence of this posted below.
June 12, 2020 at 12:20 pm
wm98 says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Did you ever hear of the concept of “innocent until proven guilty”? It applies to everybody, even the people you don’t like.
How does the US legal system work? It is a complete mystery.
Is this in response to my body camera comment? Presuming it is…
Yes, I have heard of that before. My point is every cop has body cameras. The battery lasts all shift. They’re required to be in use while on duty.
There is NO good reason why a cop would need to purposely turn off their camera if they’re on duty. If the cops intentionally turn off their camera before something happens, and someone claims the cops did something wrong, the cop should immediately be found guilty because THERE IS NO VALID REASON FOR TURNING OFF BODY CAMERAS, ESPECIALLY IN THIS DAY AND AGE.
Presumption of innocence is lost when someone actively tries to subvert justice.
Totally disagree. getting a speeding ticket is not a violation of a person’s constitutional rights. Getting arrested might be, but I’m confident police are very careful about reading Miranda rights, etc. I used to agree with you. But after 3 months of seeing police across the country harass, beat up, arrest honest citizens for minor things like going to the beach, opening their businesses, walking too close to another person, etc., things that are clearly NOT laws, and in many cases obviously Unconstitutional, they do not deserve QID, unless I can get it myself when I turn around and tell the cop he has NO RIGHT to enforce a law that says I can’t go to CHURCH, or a walk in the park. Cops were way too enthusiastic about harassing everyday non-criminal citizens for these stupid reasons. That is part of the reason they find themselves in this position today.
Yup; the police should not have QI if they injure someone simply because they’re recording them as citizens currently are allowed to do that by law. None of this “I’m going to pull down your mask and pepper spray you because you’re recording me and I don’t like it” nonsense.
I also think the police should be automatically assumed guilty of the crime citizens are claiming they committed if their body cameras were turned off.
“I also think the police should be automatically assumed guilty of the crime citizens are claiming they committed if their body cameras were turned off.”
Thanks for admitting your prejudice and willingness to violate the US Constitution.
{sarcasm} I think posters who disagree with the police should automatically be assumed guilty of a crime. {sarcasm} Do you now see how your bizarre suggestion yields bad results when people choose to violate the rights of others simply because they disagree?
And, did you notice that I felt compelled to enclose the above statement within a notice that it was a sarcastic statement?
Unless the protesters agreed in a contract to wear body cameras and WILLFULLY turned them off before THE EXACT MOMENT THEY’RE REQUIRED TO BE USED, your analogy is faulty to its core.
June 12, 2020 at 12:18 pm
wm98 says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Note to Rosenblatt: However you may feel about it, constitutional rights, especially for criminal matters, are not so easy to eliminate with the simple signing of contract.
Check with your attorney.
June 11, 2020 at 2:14 pm
Perplexed says:
Like or Dislike:
4
9
Abolt, in what cities were those policemen ordered to go to the churches, parks, beach, etc. to prevent walking on the beach, going to church and parks?
They are all run by liberals.
Jon, I didn’t insinuate that they did, but you know that the actions taken by the police in the incidents listed were ALL overreactions to COVID19 by liberal leaders.
June 11, 2020 at 4:49 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
5
2
Perplexed, if you really think the actions taken by police in the above incidents are all just because of COVID19 reactions by liberal leaders, you’re somehow even dumber than I thought.
The law may be responsible for them not being allowed into a church or park right now, but the police brutality is the issue he was actually talking about. If you want to rant about liberals unrelated to the topic of conversation go back to Reddit.
June 12, 2020 at 7:53 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
How would getting arrested be a violation of someone’s rights?
People are arrested because they allegedly violated laws that adversely affect US citizens.
What is the purpose of the Miranda rule? State the legal purpose, not a ‘WickyPeeDuh’ biased statement.
How many people were beat up…. etc.?
How many police were injured over that same time period as compared to the same time period last year?
Rules and laws are not changed due to singular incidents of misbehavior or criminal activity. Courts are the means of resolution, not knee-jerk, politically biased legislation.
Taking QI away would lead to a mass of law suits and be a boon for the ‘ambulance chasers’ to file suit for anything an officer does to upset someone he/she might have to deal with. And, it QI is such a bad thing then why do the politicians not want to give it up for themselves? Officers can still be sued civilly in a court of law, and in the Floyd the officer(s) will be, as well as held criminally liable. Crum will get what he wants, another large pay day!
I can’t see why this is too hard to understand. If police officers no longer had unqualified immunity, AND if police officers don’t bear the costs of litigation for lawsuits alleging impropriety, I’d think that the municipality that has to respond to such lawsuits would take action and discipline the officer. This would actually reduce these incidents because bad cops would be weeded out by those who hold the purse strings. When it comes to money, those who have to pay will do all they can to make sure they only pay what they really MUST pay. I say let’s get our head and a$$ wired together and get rid of unqualified immunity for practical reasons but I;m sure conservatives will agree that since it isn’t in the constitution, it is anathema to the freedom that they say they want to protect.
Wrong again, Noah! Qualified immunity is necessary for a civil society. Without it, anyone who is arrested or given a speeding ticket could sue the police department, creating a logjam in the court system. That would yield a society tied up in court battles on issues that have no merit while issues important to the functioning of a civil society would be delayed or discarded. You failed to discuss those drawbacks due to your pro-Antifa bias.
“It’s unclear whether eliminating the qualified immunity defense would lead to more, or more successful, lawsuits against police. Empirical evidence gathered and analyzed by Professor Joanna Schwartz of UCLA suggests the qualified immunity defense pretty rarely leads to the dismissal of lawsuits — although as she readily acknowledges, it may be that fewer lawsuits are brought in the first place because of the existence of the doctrine.”
Two points made above are not truly stated.
Eliminating a ‘barrier to entry’ or ‘bar’ always leads to greater entry or less denial of entry. Always.
The QID may rarely lead to dismissal of suits because very few false or meritless suits are filed because Qualified Immunity is known to ….competent… attorneys, both plaintiff and defense.
” It’s also worth keeping in mind that nearly all police are indemnified or insured against actually having to pay the monetary damages themselves. The real costs of successful Section 1983 suits are borne by the police officers’ government employers. ”
Yes, that is as it should be, due to the possible deterrant effect on potential candidates to become police officers. Without ‘insurance’, our society would not thrive, both socially and economically, due to averseness to risk taking. The same principle applies to people taking risks in their careers…. as police or politicians.
Now, my last sentence is worthy of a tangential off-topic discussion. Politicians who do not truly represent their entire constituent base are granted far too great immunity to lawsuits that yield far greater societal harm than QIDs for police. So, I propose removal of most politicians’ immunity from lawsuits by citizens (not ‘residents’) of the USA. Of course, such bills would require qualifiers as we do not want to tie up court in futile, meritless suits by those whose candidate lost the recent election. (Does that sound familiar? Hint: Comey, Brennan, Page, Strzozk, Mueller, Pelosi, Schumer….).
To bring my comment above back to ‘insurance’ and the subject of the article….
The costs of VIOLENT riots and property damage by those who are using the Floyd death to justify their presence among peaceful protestors is borne by those private CITIZENS whose property was stolen or destroyed or damaged AND by the TAXPAYERS who pay for public buildings that were damaged, defaced, or destroyed.
Further, the INJURY and DEATH of US CITIZENS, and PROPERTY DAMAGE/ THEFT due to VIOLENT rioters and looters is borne by US health and P&C insurers because those costs are transferred from hospitals and clinics and stores and auto repair shops to the POOL of insureds who pay premiums for their insurance.
The article discusses removal of the QID from police, who would PREVENT some of the above mentioned damage, destruction, defacing, and death due to VIOLENT domestic terrorists. Nothing about such a ridiculous proposal makes any sense, whatsoever.
The QID elimination would not affect the scenario your talking about, because citizens do not have a constitutional right to riot, murder, arson, injure, etc. persons and property. Consequently, police taking action against such criminals is not a violation of their constitutional rights, and would not apply. However, police beating up someone for going to the beach, or standing too close, or not wearing a mask, etc. IS a violation of said person’s Constitutional rights and the police should have no protection in those cases.
I agree with you about constitutional rights and that they were violated but those policemen were ordered to take that action by their local governments.
They would be going bare in my town where the City doesn’t have law enforcement liability and they do not legally self-insure. They’re a corrupt bunch at city hall.
You’re trying to blame the actions of the police on local governments. The police have been beating black citizens and covering it up across the country. It is ludicrous to try and blame it on areas with democratic governments.
Democratic leadership is why it’s been exposed in those states to the extent it has. In your red states no one cares enough to actually film and get things done.
You live in a racist hell-hole and you’re a racist person.
June 12, 2020 at 8:05 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
4
“The police have been beating black citizens and covering it up across the country. It is ludicrous to try and blame it on areas with democratic governments.”
No one who read your first sentence above refrained from asking themselves ‘how does Jon know there are such beatings if they were covered up?’
Yes, it’s ludicrous to blame police actions on Democrat Governments because police react to each incident individually, not as a result of political policies. However, local governments act to affect their constituents. So, why is there so much poverty and strife in cities and states controlled for over a half-century by Democrats? Examples: Chicago, New York, Philly, LA, Detroit, Newark, Seattle, San Francisco, St. Louis, New Orleans, Boston, Providence, Hartford, Miami, Minneapolis, Cleveland, Cincinnatti, …
June 12, 2020 at 8:27 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
‘how does Jon know there are such beatings if they were covered up?’
Anyone who read Breonna Taylor’s incident report knows they are actively trying to cover up that murder.
June 12, 2020 at 10:54 am
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
As Rosenblatt just pointed out, the information is everywhere, Polar just has his eyes shut. Or did you not see the Buffalo police shoving over an elderly man and then releasing a statement to say the man “tripped and fell”? Just because you keep your eyes shut and your fingers in your ears doesn’t mean the rest of us have to.
June 11, 2020 at 7:28 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
2
6
“because those costs” in above post should be “, and those costs”. Bear culpa.
John Oliver had a great show about policing last week. He discussed qualified immunity and the perils it raises. I highly suggest everyone view his latest episode to learn more about this topic.
It is just mind-numbing the fact free discussions going on in this country.
7,500 black people are killed in the U.S. annually. What percentage are killed by the police?
Care to have a conversation, Rosenblatt? Do you really care about black people? Then just answer the simple question. And then tell me why all the energy and focus is NOT on the 99%.
You’re deflecting again. All he did was suggest people educate themselves by watching John Oliver. Have you seen the episode in question? Or do you just want to shut down the conversation again because if you don’t people might discuss things that prove you’re wrong once again?
In this particular instance I am not. Again, Rosenblatt posted saying the john oliver video on this subject is very informative. It is, you should watch it.
You countered by trying to argue about black people being killed and yelling that he doesn’t care about black people and you don’t expect an answer. This is DEFLECTION and you know it, Craig. If you want to yell about these things, in response to “Hey, this video has a lot of great info” is not the place or time to do it.
You know you’re deflecting.
June 11, 2020 at 1:28 pm
Well... says:
Like or Dislike:
12
4
What difference does it make what the percentage is Craig? An abuse of power is an abuse of power. When Joe kills John, Joe goes to jail. When Officer Joe kills John, Officer Joe at worst, gets fired and moves to a different department.
The conversation would not be fact-free if you actually watched the episode as he presented the facts you seek (and many more) that you’re claiming I’m ignoring.
You’re back to just trying to start a fight. Did you watch the John Oliver video? Maybe you should.
June 11, 2020 at 2:00 pm
Craig Winston Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
5
3
Did you read Heather MacDonald’s book? Maybe you should.
June 11, 2020 at 2:13 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
2
4
Or…..
You could watch the video yourself, hear the facts from the source I mentioned, review the citations and sources he used to support his data to see if you have any issues with the methodology and THEN comment about it.
I made a simple suggestion (watch the video – it’s really informative) and you’re railing on me for not summarizing a 30 minute video for you.
June 11, 2020 at 2:27 pm
Craig Winston Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
5
4
I asked you a simple question. You said you knew the answers, the facts. But you refuse to answer.
Just more game playing from Rosenblatt. The usual.
June 11, 2020 at 2:43 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
4
3
I didn’t say I had the answers. I said (to nobody in particular) that folks should watch the video, then you asked me for data, and I reiterated that you should watch the video because the answers you seek are in the video I referenced.
Sorry for not taking a 30m video explaining the history of racism and the issues with our police force into 3 bullet points for you.
If it was that easy, it wouldn’t have been a 30m segment!
June 11, 2020 at 2:52 pm
Craig Winston Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
4
4
Rosenblatt’s verbatim response to my question about how many of the 7,500 black people killed annually are killed by the police:
“The conversation would not be fact-free if you actually watched the episode as he presented the facts you seek (and many more) that you’re claiming I’m ignoring.”
Well, Rosenblatt, if he presented “the facts I seek”, man up and answer the question.
June 11, 2020 at 4:05 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
3
3
Your question was leading “What about the 7500 blacks?” Not actually acknowledging his subject in anyway, or about what he mentioned in any way. This is called a deflection. You’re shifting the goalpost of the conversation.
June 11, 2020 at 4:35 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
3
2
Like I said …
John Oliver … show about policing last week … I highly suggest everyone view his latest episode to learn more about this topic.
Sounds like you want to learn more about this topic, Craig. That’s great!!
Go watch the video like I suggested to everyone before you chimed in.
June 11, 2020 at 5:01 pm
Craig Winston Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
1
4
And with that, Rosenblatt reveals he just doesn’t give a damn about the 7,500 killed annually. He can’t even remember what comedian/clown/leftist shill John Oliver actually said about the 7,500.
June 11, 2020 at 2:59 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
3
You get you news and information from a stand up comic?
I just honestly can’t be bothered to refute all the garbage Polar posted. This is what the enemy believes, people. The protests are working, because the enemy is clearly rattled. DEFUND THE POLICE.
The Enemy? That is how you describe someone defending an idea that has stood the test of time over 200 hundred years? ENEMY?
You have no hope of convincing anyone.
The consequence of eliminating qualified immunity: fewer good cops, people who won’t want to risk their lives in order to get sued. More bad cops, more cowboys, guys attracted to being a cop for the wrong reasons, for the power. Because no one else will apply for the job.
Yeah, remember those people who were against Slavery? They were just defending an idea that had stood the test of time, right? ENEMY is the correct word.
I’m not trying to convince anyone, I’m simply not allowing someone to troll this board without a counterpoint.
The consequence of keeping the system as it is: No good cops. Black people murdered by the police while their killers walk free.
You can’t prove that eliminating qualified immunity will attract more bad cops, and in fact the logic doesn’t make sense. If they don’t have qualified immunity, we defund the police, then we fund community support. We fund programs for community support instead of having the police show up and screw things up. We fund more traffic cameras, since they do a better job of enforcing traffic laws than the police are doing right now. We train the officers we DO have in de-escalation.
The system we have is NOT working, there are mountains of evidence that say so. Just because you don’t like that the system needs to change doesn’t mean the system changing is wrong.
cCome on, Jon. What party supported slavery? what party made up the majority of the KKK?
I direct you to Carol Swain’s, The Inconvenient Truth About the Democratic Party. If you’re brave enough you might learn something.
I’m not required to give you a history lesson, why don’t you read and learn why yourself. The information is out there, you’re just not smart enough to actually study.
June 11, 2020 at 5:04 pm
Craig Winston Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
4
4
The “party of Lincoln” is the Republican Party, formed to end slavery. For which hundreds of thousands of white men died accomplishing.
Fun Fact: A greater percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than did Democrats. (this is a set-up. watch it work.)
June 11, 2020 at 5:12 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
4
5
What you’re refusing to acknowledge is that Southern Democrats were a thing until the civil rights movement, because they all voted in opposition and changed to the Republican party shortly after. You’re technically true, just deceptive and you know it.
June 11, 2020 at 5:58 pm
Craig Winston Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
1
5
BOOM! You fell in the trap.
The honor of those who voted for the Civil Rights Act (Republicans) is not diminished by the dishonor of those who voted against it (Democrats).
June 11, 2020 at 6:00 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
7
2
The House passed the bill after 70 days of public hearings and testimony in a 290-130 vote. The bill received 152 “yea” votes from Democrats, or 60 percent of their party, and 138 votes from Republicans, or 78 percent of their party.
As I stated, a large number of Southern Democrats angry then defacted to the Republicans, like Strom Thurmond.
You didn’t trap anyone, you’re not clever enough for this Craig.
June 11, 2020 at 1:24 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
7
7
GDI, “Remember those people who were for slavery?” is what I meant. People protected the idea of slavery because it was an idea that had stood the test of time for hundreds of years. Just because an idea has been around for 100s of years doesn’t mean it’s not despicable and wrong. Qualified immunity has been around and cops have murdered with impunity. That time is over.
You compare slavery to qualified immunity? Say WHAT?
How about slavery is the same as free speech? is that time over now too? How about slavery and tariffs? Slavery and open borders? Hey, this could apply to everything!
See how ridiculous is the comparison? (Answer: no.)
Your only defense for qualified immunity was that it’s been a tradition. Tradition is not a reason to keep doing something. I countered that argument. You don’t have another response than to yell that I brought up slavery, because your initial argument was ridiculous. Bring something else to the table and then we can argue it, but if you’re going to just argue “tradition” then I’m of course going to point out other horrible things continued on because of “tradition”.
Again, you’re out of your depth here and I think you know it, Craig.
June 11, 2020 at 1:59 pm
Craig Winston Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
5
5
You are not telling the truth. My defense of qualified immunity is to attract good people to being cops. Period. Re-read what I wrote.
It is a QUALIFIED immunity. As the killer of George Floyd found out.
June 11, 2020 at 4:09 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
3
5
Craig Winston Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
Thumb up 8Thumb down 5
The Enemy? That is how you describe someone defending an idea that has stood the test of time over 200 hundred years? ENEMY?
You literally offered no defense except that it’s been around for 200 years. Something being around for 200 years is not a reason to keep it around if it’s broken.
Your defense that qualified immunity attracts good people to being cops is invalidated by ALL of the news we’re seeing. There are no good cops, the good cops resigned already. Those “good” cops you’re talking about are the ones who walked by while two Buffalo PD oficers knocked over an elderly man, and then released a statement saying he “tripped and fell”. This actually happened, it’s fact. There are no good cops.
June 11, 2020 at 5:05 pm
Craig Winston Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
4
3
“there are no good cops”.
Okay, we have now entered CooKoo Land. I still have not heard a single solution from you.
June 11, 2020 at 5:13 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
4
5
Then you’re not listening. For one I said if an officer of the law is involved in a situation where their body cameras being on could have solved things, and the cameras were off, the officer be charged with obstruction of justice.
There are plenty of solutions. Why don’t you go to the NAACP website and read the list of demands from the protest?
You’re just not listening.
June 11, 2020 at 1:10 pm
David Staggard says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16
2
Politicians act above the law and are demonstrating it now.
Maybe then the police could be held responsible for violating the Constitutional rights of citizens by enforcing unconstitutional edicts like lockdowns, social distancing, and mandatory masks, 1st Amendment, etc. And since they could be held responsible, then they would be less like to enforce such edicts, and the citizenry would be freer. Unlike what we have seen for the last 3 months.
It’s the biggest subject in the world right now as millions of people protest abuse by the people meant to protect them. If you don’t understand, maybe you should read and listen more.
Says the man who offers nothing but insults and single lines of hate? And because I said you should read more about a subject you just admitted you don’t understand? Maybe you should re-evaluate some things, snowflake.
Just because you don’t understand the movement doesn’t invalidate the movement. Your lack of understanding is a failure on your part, not on the movement.
Just because you’re not smart enough to understand the purpose doesn’t mean it has no purpose.
Where are you getting that number? because I see a whole hell of a lot more signs that say “Defund the police” at the protests than 16%.
Maybe the dumb idea is continuing as is out of “tradition” maybe the dumb idea was letting republicans gut education. Maybe the dumb idea is listening to you, when you don’t even understand the issues at hand and continue to stuff your fingers in your ears.
June 11, 2020 at 1:36 pm
Abolt says:
Like or Dislike:
6
7
I’m definitely not WOKE. And I don’t agree with Jon The fact is white on Black crime, including police, is not systemic and not common. All one has to do is look up the statistics. Problem is the WOKIES don’t do that. They just live on emotion. That’s OK. When the police just leave their urban S—holes, then the residents will just kill each other, like they have been doing in Chicago for decades. And then they won’t have Whitey to blame. But I DO see QID as problematic, for the very reason I’ve mentioned elsewhere on this Board, namely that police have been using their power to harass and sometimes attack LAW ABIDING citizens during unconstitutional lockdowns and edicts (WHICH ARE NOT laws). That’s what I want solved.
No, white on black crime is not systemic, no one is arguing that. However white on white crime is just as bad as black on black crime. The stats you’re talking about from the FBI state that 94.6% of black people don’t commit ANY crime in a given year, and 95.8% of white people don’t get arrested. So why are black people considered to be criminals by you?
Because you’re racist, Karen.
The black on black crime rate is 63%. The white on white crime rate is 56%. So why don’t we ever talk about white on white crime? The black on black murder rate is 89%, the white on white murder rate is 81%, so Karen, how often do you discuss white on white murders?
Okay, now we are talking about facts and getting some where.
What percentage of violent crimes are committed by blacks on whites vs. whites on blacks?
June 11, 2020 at 2:01 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
5
6
Why would we talk about that? Per the FBI 94.6% of black people don’t commit ANY crime in a given year. All crime is bad, isn’t it?
Per numbers from the urban institute, black people show the highest rates in participation in community service and community outreach, by a lot. Black people are also 8% more likely to give to charity than white people. How about those numbers?
June 11, 2020 at 2:11 pm
Craig Winston Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
4
4
Speaking of Deflection . . .
June 11, 2020 at 4:10 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
4
3
Answer my question, why does it matter?
June 11, 2020 at 5:07 pm
Craig Winston Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
1
4
It matters because the underlying theme is that Americans are still racist. But if the vast majority of violent crime involving two races says the opposite . . .
June 11, 2020 at 5:17 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
3
2
We just discussed the numbers. We know per the FBI that black people commited 5,025 of 9,466 murders in a given year. White people committed 4,188.
Now how exactly is that saying the opposite?
You’re trying to use data to justify racism, but the data is against you.
June 11, 2020 at 5:56 pm
Craig Winston Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
0
3
That is not the question I asked. Try again. What percentage is black on white violent crime? What percentage is white on black violent crime? (The total of the two is 100%.)
The FBI shows 533 black on white homicides and 243 white on black homicides. These numbers don’t factor in the cases where white people murdered a black person and got away with it, like Ahmaud Arbery would have been had media outrage not hit a peak.
You’re trying to prove a point with percentages that falls apart as soon as you look at the actual numbers.
Again, you’re defending a racist system.
You want to talk numbers? Let’s look at some numbers.
Everyone know more people commit crimes against their own people. The black on black crime rate is 63%. The white on white crime rate is 56%. So why don’t you ever talk about white on white crime?
Let’s stick to facts. The black on black murder rate is 89%, the white on white murder rate is 81%. So, how often do you discuss white murders?
Let’s go further.A FACT is that the people who are least affected by white supremacy and racism are the most likely to deny its existence. It is a FACT that white people are the only demographic in america that thinks there is LESS discrimination than there is. This is further evidenced by the last two days of me trying to explain white privilege and systemic racism to you despite your constant denials that you’re racist (you are,sorry bruh) you seem to finally get the concept.
It is a FACT that whites don’t really believe or don’t care how police treat black people. Blacks are about half as likely as whites to have a positive view of police treatment of racial and ethnic grops or officers’ use of force.
The whole black on black crime thing is not rooted in truth or evidence, nor is likely wherever you’re going with asking about white on black crime vs. black on white crime.
So there’s no logical explanation for this besides ignorance, a belief in the inherent superiority or:
acism noun
Phonetic pronunciation Definition of racism
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b: a political or social system founded on racism
3: racial prejudice or discrimination
The FBI shows 533 black on white homicides and 243 white on black homicides.
June 11, 2020 at 6:27 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
4
1
Yeah, it also says out of 47 million black people that if a different black person committed each murder, it would mean 99.989497% of black people DIDN’T commit a murder that year. That also means 99.994923% of white people didn’t commit a murder either. Your’e trying to draw a conclusion using percentages that doesn’t actually look at the reality of the numbers.
June 11, 2020 at 2:48 pm
Craig Winston Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
4
6
Good News! All our problems are solved. The show “Cops” has been cancelled! YAY!
Never mind that the producer of the show was a proud liberal who stated openly that he tilted the episodes in favor of showing white suspects instead of blacks.
Police = Bad. 2020 Deep Thinking. (Listen: you can hear all the good people at the police academy deciding on which career change they should make.)
I’d love to read that quote Craig, can you please post a link to where he’s quoted saying that? And FYI (I know I’m citing Wikipedia, but there are links to the specific studies they referenced if you want to read about them in detail)
In June 2004, researchers at Old Dominion University videotaped 16 episodes of Cops and then evaluated them for crime content, and for the racial and gender identity of characters depicted. They found prior studies statistically reinforced in their descriptions of racial misrepresentation on Cops. The study found that, on Cops, African-American men were overwhelmingly shown as perpetrators—usually of violent crimes—and Hispanic men (rarely depicted at all) were also usually depicted as violent criminals. The police officers depicted were overwhelmingly white, and the disproportionately few white offenders were more-often portrayed as involved in non-violent offenses.[54] As a response, the show’s co-creator John Langley tried to include white offenders in each episode.[55]
Statistical correlations between actual crime rates and types (by race and gender, as reported by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports) — and the Old Dominion study’s analysis of characters in the Cops episodes—indicated that the Cops episodes (on average) sharply skewed the numbers, racially, making African-American and Hispanic men appear far more responsible for violent crime than they actually are in the U.S. population at large. At the same time, white males were shown on Cops as a far less culpable group than they actually are, statistically.[54]
The study also noted that women were almost totally ignored in Cops—seldom appearing as either officers or offenders. Finally, it noted that the show overwhelmingly depicted violent crimes, despite such crimes being a distinct minority of crime in the U.S.[54]
2004 Prosise-Johnson study
In 2004, researchers Theodore O. Prosise (Univ. of Wash.), and Ann Johnson, Ph.D. (Univ. of Calif./Long Beach), studied a random, but non-scientific, sample of 81 anecdotes from Cops episodes—analyzing their content, subjects and characters. They concluded that the program was racially skewed, negatively misrepresenting African-Americans, depicted as a criminal class out of proportion to their actual percentage of U.S. crime, in particular.[56]
Moreover, the study indicated that the Cops episodes appeared to selectively edit out failed police efforts, and police-initiated actions “on a hunch” that resulted in the discovery of no grounds for an intervention or arrest—showing only those officer “hunches and suspicions” that were productive—creating the illusion that officer instincts were more reliable and valid than in actual life. The study’s authors expressed concern that this provided TV viewers with implicit—and misleading—justification for police actions that amounted to “racism, discrimination or profiling.”[56]
16 episodes of cops is NOT a statistically defensible number. And how do we know if those 16 were SELECTED or random? We don’t. In the other study, it was “random BUT NOT SCIENTIFIC” which shows were selected. In other words, not statistically defensible either.
And since you brought up statistics, what percentage of violent crimes are committed by each race?
Want to have a conversation? I’m game. Man up and answer the question. (You won’t.)
“Never mind that the producer of the show was a proud liberal who stated openly that he tilted the episodes in favor of showing white suspects instead of blacks.”
STILL waiting for you to provide that quote with a source.
“16 episodes of cops is NOT a statistically defensible number.”
I see you didn’t read the rest where a “sample of 81 anecdotes from Cops episodes…” was also studied. Going to claim small sample size on that study, too?
I remembered when the show first went on the air and we watched it for the entertainment value but the racial overtones were too hard to ignore. I stopped watching it but not because of any deep rage against racism but just simply because I recognized it as racist and I’ve steered clear of people, shows, games, arguments/discussions/jokes etc. when racist comments, ideas or actions were evident to me. I didn’t have time for racism simply because I lived in “the hood” and found that crime is committed by EVERYONE. The show has a racist bend and I’m surprised it lasted this long. But then a vocal minority can hold the rest of us hostage, with actions ideas or even TV shows. There is a part of America that drives this crap but it is time to say enough.
Stush,
You steer clear of places where there is racism? Then, what are you doing out here in IJ? There is racism out here everyday. I’d also stay away from The White House right now. This president is one of the most racist I’ve ever seen.
Police do = bad in 2020. If you’re keeping your eyes shut that’s not our fault, there is a literal war in the streets right now and you’re on the wrong side of history.
Craig, if after over 50 posts in the last two days between the two of us if you are still blind to the fact that you have been racist in your life, no one is ever going to convince you of anything. You question, you prod, you antagonize, but you got your answers to everything so much that you didn’t even have a response to half the things I said yesterday, and yet you STILL try to push this garbage?
You were trying to deny systemic and institutional racism until you had them explained to you. You are supporting systems of systemic and institutional racism STILL. This is racist. Whether you like it or not.
I never defended any such thing. You keep saying things that aren’t true. It seems to be a consistent pattern.
And calling me a racist? You don’t even know me. It cheapens the word racist.
June 11, 2020 at 6:16 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
3
4
I’ve been arguing with you on the internet for over a year now on an almost daily basis, I have seen the dishonesty, the bigotry and the deflections from you on an almost daily basis. YOU don’t like to think you’re racist, but that doesn’t make you magically not racist. Your actions and thoughts make you racist. The words you spout on here in defense of racists makes you racist. Your unwillingness to sit down and shut up and listen to actual black people about racism makes you racist.
June 11, 2020 at 6:16 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
4
4
You don’t get to decide that you’re not racist when you say and do racist things.
June 12, 2020 at 1:58 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
He’s one of these white guys who thinks because he doesn’t actively hate black people that he can’t be racist, a product of a generation being raised to “not see color”. He sees black people struggling or being treated unfairly and thinks they’ve had the same advantages as him (They haven’t) so they should be able to do something with their lives, which completely ignores systemic and institutional racism.
White people have been oppressing black people for hundreds of years, and because the civil rights movement happened 50 years ago he thinks black people have had a fair shot. They haven’t. White people started the race while holding black people back for 200 meters, and now they’ve let black people start 200 meters behind and are calling it “fair”. That’s the kind of racism Craig is guilty of. I don’t think he truly hates other races, he’s just oblivious to his own privilege and what it’s actually like for people of color in this country.
June 12, 2020 at 2:46 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I hear that, Jon. I have talked to my 3 daughters about the privileges we are afforded and why the Black Lives Matter movement is going on. They had questions and I am glad to be able to explain to them what’s going on. I reminded them of “the talk” our neighbor had with his son. That helped exemplify what I was explaining to them. All of my African American friends with kids tell me the same. They have to have “the talk”. I used to cut hair back in college, and would do anyone’s. My neighbor wanted his son’s hair cut years ago. I told him I can fade and wouldn’t charge anything. He thought about it for a bit and decided, it is more important to have the barbershop experience because of the discourse that takes place there. It is important for his son to be part of that. Is this something you can echo?
June 12, 2020 at 2:53 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Oh 100%. There’s something to be said for taking part in the culture, and barbershops are definitely a part of our culture. Additionally, there’ a big push to support black owned businesses. I unfortunately live in an area that’s almost entirely white, it’s difficult if not rare to feel that sense of community. I’d kill for a good black barbershop in this town.
The talk with black parents and their children is very real, it’s still shocking how many people seem totally unaware of the reality of raising black children these days, it’s sad.
June 12, 2020 at 10:21 am
Dylan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
It’s time to professionalize policing like we do with Architects, Engineers, Doctors, Lawyers et. al. This means requiring police to carry personal liability insurance, requiring an undergraduate degree for new police cadets, as well as continuous education and re-certification, with a focus on civil rights and the constitution. Police should also be paid like professionals (most already are) and see a commensurate rise in pay that would roughly equate to the cost of said liability insurance for a ‘good-risk’ peace officer.
The most important of these tenets is the individually held liability insurance. For substantiated abuses of power, force, or the truth, police could essentially be priced out of the ability to be a police officer as their premiums would rise if they are found to have acted inappropriately. This would also shift the burden away from municipalities and tax payers.
Qualified Immunity is an issue, but what is greater is the lack of professionalism in American policing.
Completely agree. There will always be a need for some sort of law enforcement, sure. But Policing is an area much like education and health care where the US has screwed it up so royally by not just looking at what other countries do. Scandinavian countries require 2 years of training from their police officers, and they have no cases of police brutality. Traffic cameras have proven better at catching people breaking traffic laws than the four police cars that have to stop when I get pulled over for going 5 miles over the speed limit.
You put that funding for the police into community support, rehabilitation and outreach programs, and then what few police officers remain you pay well enough and train well enough to do their jobs without killing innocent people.
Two professors, Glenn Loury, professor of economics at Brown University and John McWhorter, professor of humanities at Columbia.
Two very liberal universities and two very interesting professors. Both are black. (For you fans of late night comedians posing as people of deep insight)
So instead of listening to black voices as has been recommended to you, you exclusively listen to the black conservative voices, even though they make up less than 8% of the black population. Are you actually trying to learn something or just really drive home that confirmation bias you’ve been working on for the last few years?
You have to get outside of your comfort zone if you want to actually learn anything or you’re going to continue to spread ignorance. Black conservatives do not speak for black people.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
The police should not be protected from civil or legal justice when they are wrong. They are not above the law. If they are innocent, they should be able to prove that in a court of law.
#BlackLivesMatter
#PresidentLiesMatter
Sounds real deep. The devil is in the details, as always.
George Floyd’s killer doesn’t have immunity. So what are we talking about?
What if every drugged up violent offender claims “police abuse” after being prodded by the usual scum lawyer looking for a buck? Think THAT won’t happen? Think again.
That’s why police body cameras should ALWAYS be on when they’re on duty. Pretty easy to refute such a claim when the cops can just hit “play” on the video.
Exactly. Why the good cops love body cameras.
And why felons, who remember will steal things or sell drugs in order to make money, hate body cameras.
I’m glad we agree. So why are the cops who turned off their body cameras before murdering Breonna Taylor (then blaming her boyfriend for her death, and writing on the incident report she had “no injuries”) not in jail right now? Hint, it’s got to do with QI
You’ve made this claim before that “good cops love body cameras” I thought your whole thing was we talk about facts? The facts are that whenever there’s a question of police doing something wrong, the body cameras mysteriously weren’t on. It’s very easily solved: If a police officer has their body camera off in a situation that the camera being on would have provided evidence, then the police officer needs to be charged with obstruction of justice. Those cameras have 14 hour battery life, there is no excuse for an officer to not have his camera charged and on.
You guys need a logic class. I said “good cops” love body cameras. You cite an example of bad cops.
And Jon, you aren’t to be taken seriously. There is a ton of data that cops like body cameras. Allegations of police abuse have gone way down since they have been implemented.
part of that is the bad cops behaving better. Much more of that is the reaction of the accusers when they see the video.
google it.
If you’re willing to agree that cops who let other cops get away with crimes aren’t “good cops” then you’re in agreement that there are no good cops, because they ALL turn a blind eye Craig. You know that, we know that, the Buffalo PD just showed that to the entire country in a microscale.
The problem isn’t that cops like them, the problem is that they pick and choose when to use them. Sure, they love them when they get to decide they’re on, but as we discussed, any time the cops are potentially at fault it just so happens the cameras are off. This is BS and you know it.
They’re not behaving better just because of the cameras, they’re turning them off when they want to behave badly. George Floyd. Breonna Taylor. Every SINGLE other instance of a cop shooting an unarmed black person. I don’t need to go on, you’re just arguing to argue here.
How many unarmed black men were killed by the police in 2019? How many unarmed white men?
And when you refuse to answer . . . tell me why we never talk about the 7,500.
You’re trying to lead me down a path and I’m not falling for it, you care more about GOTCHA moments than actually discussing facts. Why don’t you answer my facts on white people not addressing discrimination?
Craig; notice how Jon avoided answering your question and diverted the discussion to a fallacy perpetuated by liberals; i.e. ‘white people as a group’.
Extracted parts of Craig’s post above:
“And Jon, …. There is a ton of data that cops like body cameras. Allegations of police abuse have gone way down….
goo-gul it.”
I assume people with open minds Goo-gul-ed it, and people with closed minds (i.e. prejudice against a specific demo group) did not.
I acknowledged that I wasn’t going to answer the question, which is more than you’ve done when confronted by the lies you’ve told on this board, Polar. Like when you tried to say a YouGov poll from January said more americans were afraid of terrorism than global warming. That poll from January 2016 says no such thing, remember telling that lie? I do. You’ve never acknowledged it and you run scared when it’s brought up, so don’t lecture me on not answering for things, hypocrite.
Allegations of police abuse are still happening every day, your side just doesn’t care about how the police treat black people. There is evidence of this posted below.
Did you ever hear of the concept of “innocent until proven guilty”? It applies to everybody, even the people you don’t like.
How does the US legal system work? It is a complete mystery.
Is this in response to my body camera comment? Presuming it is…
Yes, I have heard of that before. My point is every cop has body cameras. The battery lasts all shift. They’re required to be in use while on duty.
There is NO good reason why a cop would need to purposely turn off their camera if they’re on duty. If the cops intentionally turn off their camera before something happens, and someone claims the cops did something wrong, the cop should immediately be found guilty because THERE IS NO VALID REASON FOR TURNING OFF BODY CAMERAS, ESPECIALLY IN THIS DAY AND AGE.
Presumption of innocence is lost when someone actively tries to subvert justice.
Totally disagree. getting a speeding ticket is not a violation of a person’s constitutional rights. Getting arrested might be, but I’m confident police are very careful about reading Miranda rights, etc. I used to agree with you. But after 3 months of seeing police across the country harass, beat up, arrest honest citizens for minor things like going to the beach, opening their businesses, walking too close to another person, etc., things that are clearly NOT laws, and in many cases obviously Unconstitutional, they do not deserve QID, unless I can get it myself when I turn around and tell the cop he has NO RIGHT to enforce a law that says I can’t go to CHURCH, or a walk in the park. Cops were way too enthusiastic about harassing everyday non-criminal citizens for these stupid reasons. That is part of the reason they find themselves in this position today.
Yup; the police should not have QI if they injure someone simply because they’re recording them as citizens currently are allowed to do that by law. None of this “I’m going to pull down your mask and pepper spray you because you’re recording me and I don’t like it” nonsense.
I also think the police should be automatically assumed guilty of the crime citizens are claiming they committed if their body cameras were turned off.
“I also think the police should be automatically assumed guilty of the crime citizens are claiming they committed if their body cameras were turned off.”
Thanks for admitting your prejudice and willingness to violate the US Constitution.
{sarcasm} I think posters who disagree with the police should automatically be assumed guilty of a crime. {sarcasm} Do you now see how your bizarre suggestion yields bad results when people choose to violate the rights of others simply because they disagree?
And, did you notice that I felt compelled to enclose the above statement within a notice that it was a sarcastic statement?
Unless the protesters agreed in a contract to wear body cameras and WILLFULLY turned them off before THE EXACT MOMENT THEY’RE REQUIRED TO BE USED, your analogy is faulty to its core.
Note to Rosenblatt: However you may feel about it, constitutional rights, especially for criminal matters, are not so easy to eliminate with the simple signing of contract.
Check with your attorney.
Abolt, in what cities were those policemen ordered to go to the churches, parks, beach, etc. to prevent walking on the beach, going to church and parks?
They are all run by liberals.
Liberals don’t control the police culture in this country.
Jon, I didn’t insinuate that they did, but you know that the actions taken by the police in the incidents listed were ALL overreactions to COVID19 by liberal leaders.
Perplexed, if you really think the actions taken by police in the above incidents are all just because of COVID19 reactions by liberal leaders, you’re somehow even dumber than I thought.
The law may be responsible for them not being allowed into a church or park right now, but the police brutality is the issue he was actually talking about. If you want to rant about liberals unrelated to the topic of conversation go back to Reddit.
How would getting arrested be a violation of someone’s rights?
People are arrested because they allegedly violated laws that adversely affect US citizens.
What is the purpose of the Miranda rule? State the legal purpose, not a ‘WickyPeeDuh’ biased statement.
How many people were beat up…. etc.?
How many police were injured over that same time period as compared to the same time period last year?
Rules and laws are not changed due to singular incidents of misbehavior or criminal activity. Courts are the means of resolution, not knee-jerk, politically biased legislation.
“How would getting arrested be a violation of someone’s rights?”
If you’re arrested for no valid reason.
If you’re physically attacked while complying with police orders.
If you’re targeted simply because of the color of your skin.
If you’re arrested while peacefully protesting as constitutionally allowed.
Do I need to go on???
Taking QI away would lead to a mass of law suits and be a boon for the ‘ambulance chasers’ to file suit for anything an officer does to upset someone he/she might have to deal with. And, it QI is such a bad thing then why do the politicians not want to give it up for themselves? Officers can still be sued civilly in a court of law, and in the Floyd the officer(s) will be, as well as held criminally liable. Crum will get what he wants, another large pay day!
I can’t see why this is too hard to understand. If police officers no longer had unqualified immunity, AND if police officers don’t bear the costs of litigation for lawsuits alleging impropriety, I’d think that the municipality that has to respond to such lawsuits would take action and discipline the officer. This would actually reduce these incidents because bad cops would be weeded out by those who hold the purse strings. When it comes to money, those who have to pay will do all they can to make sure they only pay what they really MUST pay. I say let’s get our head and a$$ wired together and get rid of unqualified immunity for practical reasons but I;m sure conservatives will agree that since it isn’t in the constitution, it is anathema to the freedom that they say they want to protect.
Wrong again, Noah! Qualified immunity is necessary for a civil society. Without it, anyone who is arrested or given a speeding ticket could sue the police department, creating a logjam in the court system. That would yield a society tied up in court battles on issues that have no merit while issues important to the functioning of a civil society would be delayed or discarded. You failed to discuss those drawbacks due to your pro-Antifa bias.
“It’s unclear whether eliminating the qualified immunity defense would lead to more, or more successful, lawsuits against police. Empirical evidence gathered and analyzed by Professor Joanna Schwartz of UCLA suggests the qualified immunity defense pretty rarely leads to the dismissal of lawsuits — although as she readily acknowledges, it may be that fewer lawsuits are brought in the first place because of the existence of the doctrine.”
Two points made above are not truly stated.
Eliminating a ‘barrier to entry’ or ‘bar’ always leads to greater entry or less denial of entry. Always.
The QID may rarely lead to dismissal of suits because very few false or meritless suits are filed because Qualified Immunity is known to ….competent… attorneys, both plaintiff and defense.
” It’s also worth keeping in mind that nearly all police are indemnified or insured against actually having to pay the monetary damages themselves. The real costs of successful Section 1983 suits are borne by the police officers’ government employers. ”
Yes, that is as it should be, due to the possible deterrant effect on potential candidates to become police officers. Without ‘insurance’, our society would not thrive, both socially and economically, due to averseness to risk taking. The same principle applies to people taking risks in their careers…. as police or politicians.
Now, my last sentence is worthy of a tangential off-topic discussion. Politicians who do not truly represent their entire constituent base are granted far too great immunity to lawsuits that yield far greater societal harm than QIDs for police. So, I propose removal of most politicians’ immunity from lawsuits by citizens (not ‘residents’) of the USA. Of course, such bills would require qualifiers as we do not want to tie up court in futile, meritless suits by those whose candidate lost the recent election. (Does that sound familiar? Hint: Comey, Brennan, Page, Strzozk, Mueller, Pelosi, Schumer….).
To bring my comment above back to ‘insurance’ and the subject of the article….
The costs of VIOLENT riots and property damage by those who are using the Floyd death to justify their presence among peaceful protestors is borne by those private CITIZENS whose property was stolen or destroyed or damaged AND by the TAXPAYERS who pay for public buildings that were damaged, defaced, or destroyed.
Further, the INJURY and DEATH of US CITIZENS, and PROPERTY DAMAGE/ THEFT due to VIOLENT rioters and looters is borne by US health and P&C insurers because those costs are transferred from hospitals and clinics and stores and auto repair shops to the POOL of insureds who pay premiums for their insurance.
The article discusses removal of the QID from police, who would PREVENT some of the above mentioned damage, destruction, defacing, and death due to VIOLENT domestic terrorists. Nothing about such a ridiculous proposal makes any sense, whatsoever.
The QID elimination would not affect the scenario your talking about, because citizens do not have a constitutional right to riot, murder, arson, injure, etc. persons and property. Consequently, police taking action against such criminals is not a violation of their constitutional rights, and would not apply. However, police beating up someone for going to the beach, or standing too close, or not wearing a mask, etc. IS a violation of said person’s Constitutional rights and the police should have no protection in those cases.
I agree with you about constitutional rights and that they were violated but those policemen were ordered to take that action by their local governments.
They would be going bare in my town where the City doesn’t have law enforcement liability and they do not legally self-insure. They’re a corrupt bunch at city hall.
You’re trying to blame the actions of the police on local governments. The police have been beating black citizens and covering it up across the country. It is ludicrous to try and blame it on areas with democratic governments.
Democratic leadership is why it’s been exposed in those states to the extent it has. In your red states no one cares enough to actually film and get things done.
You live in a racist hell-hole and you’re a racist person.
“The police have been beating black citizens and covering it up across the country. It is ludicrous to try and blame it on areas with democratic governments.”
No one who read your first sentence above refrained from asking themselves ‘how does Jon know there are such beatings if they were covered up?’
Yes, it’s ludicrous to blame police actions on Democrat Governments because police react to each incident individually, not as a result of political policies. However, local governments act to affect their constituents. So, why is there so much poverty and strife in cities and states controlled for over a half-century by Democrats? Examples: Chicago, New York, Philly, LA, Detroit, Newark, Seattle, San Francisco, St. Louis, New Orleans, Boston, Providence, Hartford, Miami, Minneapolis, Cleveland, Cincinnatti, …
‘how does Jon know there are such beatings if they were covered up?’
Anyone who read Breonna Taylor’s incident report knows they are actively trying to cover up that murder.
As Rosenblatt just pointed out, the information is everywhere, Polar just has his eyes shut. Or did you not see the Buffalo police shoving over an elderly man and then releasing a statement to say the man “tripped and fell”? Just because you keep your eyes shut and your fingers in your ears doesn’t mean the rest of us have to.
“because those costs” in above post should be “, and those costs”. Bear culpa.
John Oliver had a great show about policing last week. He discussed qualified immunity and the perils it raises. I highly suggest everyone view his latest episode to learn more about this topic.
It is just mind-numbing the fact free discussions going on in this country.
7,500 black people are killed in the U.S. annually. What percentage are killed by the police?
Care to have a conversation, Rosenblatt? Do you really care about black people? Then just answer the simple question. And then tell me why all the energy and focus is NOT on the 99%.
I won’t wait for a direct and honest answer.
You’re deflecting again. All he did was suggest people educate themselves by watching John Oliver. Have you seen the episode in question? Or do you just want to shut down the conversation again because if you don’t people might discuss things that prove you’re wrong once again?
Deflecting? By talking about 7,500 dead people? That is DEFLECTING? Hello. You are talking about 1% of that number. Speaking of deflecting.
In this particular instance I am not. Again, Rosenblatt posted saying the john oliver video on this subject is very informative. It is, you should watch it.
You countered by trying to argue about black people being killed and yelling that he doesn’t care about black people and you don’t expect an answer. This is DEFLECTION and you know it, Craig. If you want to yell about these things, in response to “Hey, this video has a lot of great info” is not the place or time to do it.
You know you’re deflecting.
What difference does it make what the percentage is Craig? An abuse of power is an abuse of power. When Joe kills John, Joe goes to jail. When Officer Joe kills John, Officer Joe at worst, gets fired and moves to a different department.
I know this will lost on you.
Oh, WELL, you are SO smart to avoid the 7,500 dead people . . . so much smarter than me.
The conversation would not be fact-free if you actually watched the episode as he presented the facts you seek (and many more) that you’re claiming I’m ignoring.
And yet you refuse to answer my questions after consuming the facts . . .
You’re back to just trying to start a fight. Did you watch the John Oliver video? Maybe you should.
Did you read Heather MacDonald’s book? Maybe you should.
Or…..
You could watch the video yourself, hear the facts from the source I mentioned, review the citations and sources he used to support his data to see if you have any issues with the methodology and THEN comment about it.
I made a simple suggestion (watch the video – it’s really informative) and you’re railing on me for not summarizing a 30 minute video for you.
I asked you a simple question. You said you knew the answers, the facts. But you refuse to answer.
Just more game playing from Rosenblatt. The usual.
I didn’t say I had the answers. I said (to nobody in particular) that folks should watch the video, then you asked me for data, and I reiterated that you should watch the video because the answers you seek are in the video I referenced.
Sorry for not taking a 30m video explaining the history of racism and the issues with our police force into 3 bullet points for you.
If it was that easy, it wouldn’t have been a 30m segment!
Rosenblatt’s verbatim response to my question about how many of the 7,500 black people killed annually are killed by the police:
“The conversation would not be fact-free if you actually watched the episode as he presented the facts you seek (and many more) that you’re claiming I’m ignoring.”
Well, Rosenblatt, if he presented “the facts I seek”, man up and answer the question.
Your question was leading “What about the 7500 blacks?” Not actually acknowledging his subject in anyway, or about what he mentioned in any way. This is called a deflection. You’re shifting the goalpost of the conversation.
Like I said …
John Oliver … show about policing last week … I highly suggest everyone view his latest episode to learn more about this topic.
Sounds like you want to learn more about this topic, Craig. That’s great!!
Go watch the video like I suggested to everyone before you chimed in.
And with that, Rosenblatt reveals he just doesn’t give a damn about the 7,500 killed annually. He can’t even remember what comedian/clown/leftist shill John Oliver actually said about the 7,500.
You get you news and information from a stand up comic?
Not bob.
I just honestly can’t be bothered to refute all the garbage Polar posted. This is what the enemy believes, people. The protests are working, because the enemy is clearly rattled. DEFUND THE POLICE.
The Enemy? That is how you describe someone defending an idea that has stood the test of time over 200 hundred years? ENEMY?
You have no hope of convincing anyone.
The consequence of eliminating qualified immunity: fewer good cops, people who won’t want to risk their lives in order to get sued. More bad cops, more cowboys, guys attracted to being a cop for the wrong reasons, for the power. Because no one else will apply for the job.
Yeah, remember those people who were against Slavery? They were just defending an idea that had stood the test of time, right? ENEMY is the correct word.
I’m not trying to convince anyone, I’m simply not allowing someone to troll this board without a counterpoint.
The consequence of keeping the system as it is: No good cops. Black people murdered by the police while their killers walk free.
You can’t prove that eliminating qualified immunity will attract more bad cops, and in fact the logic doesn’t make sense. If they don’t have qualified immunity, we defund the police, then we fund community support. We fund programs for community support instead of having the police show up and screw things up. We fund more traffic cameras, since they do a better job of enforcing traffic laws than the police are doing right now. We train the officers we DO have in de-escalation.
The system we have is NOT working, there are mountains of evidence that say so. Just because you don’t like that the system needs to change doesn’t mean the system changing is wrong.
cCome on, Jon. What party supported slavery? what party made up the majority of the KKK?
I direct you to Carol Swain’s, The Inconvenient Truth About the Democratic Party. If you’re brave enough you might learn something.
history.com/news/how-the-party-of-lincoln-won-over-the-once-democratic-south
I’m not required to give you a history lesson, why don’t you read and learn why yourself. The information is out there, you’re just not smart enough to actually study.
The “party of Lincoln” is the Republican Party, formed to end slavery. For which hundreds of thousands of white men died accomplishing.
Fun Fact: A greater percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than did Democrats. (this is a set-up. watch it work.)
What you’re refusing to acknowledge is that Southern Democrats were a thing until the civil rights movement, because they all voted in opposition and changed to the Republican party shortly after. You’re technically true, just deceptive and you know it.
BOOM! You fell in the trap.
The honor of those who voted for the Civil Rights Act (Republicans) is not diminished by the dishonor of those who voted against it (Democrats).
The House passed the bill after 70 days of public hearings and testimony in a 290-130 vote. The bill received 152 “yea” votes from Democrats, or 60 percent of their party, and 138 votes from Republicans, or 78 percent of their party.
As I stated, a large number of Southern Democrats angry then defacted to the Republicans, like Strom Thurmond.
You didn’t trap anyone, you’re not clever enough for this Craig.
GDI, “Remember those people who were for slavery?” is what I meant. People protected the idea of slavery because it was an idea that had stood the test of time for hundreds of years. Just because an idea has been around for 100s of years doesn’t mean it’s not despicable and wrong. Qualified immunity has been around and cops have murdered with impunity. That time is over.
You compare slavery to qualified immunity? Say WHAT?
How about slavery is the same as free speech? is that time over now too? How about slavery and tariffs? Slavery and open borders? Hey, this could apply to everything!
See how ridiculous is the comparison? (Answer: no.)
Your only defense for qualified immunity was that it’s been a tradition. Tradition is not a reason to keep doing something. I countered that argument. You don’t have another response than to yell that I brought up slavery, because your initial argument was ridiculous. Bring something else to the table and then we can argue it, but if you’re going to just argue “tradition” then I’m of course going to point out other horrible things continued on because of “tradition”.
Again, you’re out of your depth here and I think you know it, Craig.
You are not telling the truth. My defense of qualified immunity is to attract good people to being cops. Period. Re-read what I wrote.
It is a QUALIFIED immunity. As the killer of George Floyd found out.
Craig Winston Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
Thumb up 8Thumb down 5
The Enemy? That is how you describe someone defending an idea that has stood the test of time over 200 hundred years? ENEMY?
You literally offered no defense except that it’s been around for 200 years. Something being around for 200 years is not a reason to keep it around if it’s broken.
Your defense that qualified immunity attracts good people to being cops is invalidated by ALL of the news we’re seeing. There are no good cops, the good cops resigned already. Those “good” cops you’re talking about are the ones who walked by while two Buffalo PD oficers knocked over an elderly man, and then released a statement saying he “tripped and fell”. This actually happened, it’s fact. There are no good cops.
“there are no good cops”.
Okay, we have now entered CooKoo Land. I still have not heard a single solution from you.
Then you’re not listening. For one I said if an officer of the law is involved in a situation where their body cameras being on could have solved things, and the cameras were off, the officer be charged with obstruction of justice.
There are plenty of solutions. Why don’t you go to the NAACP website and read the list of demands from the protest?
You’re just not listening.
Politicians act above the law and are demonstrating it now.
Maybe then the police could be held responsible for violating the Constitutional rights of citizens by enforcing unconstitutional edicts like lockdowns, social distancing, and mandatory masks, 1st Amendment, etc. And since they could be held responsible, then they would be less like to enforce such edicts, and the citizenry would be freer. Unlike what we have seen for the last 3 months.
Lets start with holding them accountable for violating the right to life.
I don’t even know why insurance journal posts this stuff.
It’s the biggest subject in the world right now as millions of people protest abuse by the people meant to protect them. If you don’t understand, maybe you should read and listen more.
Jon you are a vile human being that does nothing more then troll this site and waste time insulting people
. I can not believe you are not banned.
Says the man who offers nothing but insults and single lines of hate? And because I said you should read more about a subject you just admitted you don’t understand? Maybe you should re-evaluate some things, snowflake.
Because they are trying to prove they are Woke.
Just because you don’t understand the movement doesn’t invalidate the movement. Your lack of understanding is a failure on your part, not on the movement.
The Movement has no purpose. It is all rage and no solutions. Defunding the Police? Only 16% of Democrats support that dumb idea.
Just because you’re not smart enough to understand the purpose doesn’t mean it has no purpose.
Where are you getting that number? because I see a whole hell of a lot more signs that say “Defund the police” at the protests than 16%.
Maybe the dumb idea is continuing as is out of “tradition” maybe the dumb idea was letting republicans gut education. Maybe the dumb idea is listening to you, when you don’t even understand the issues at hand and continue to stuff your fingers in your ears.
I’m definitely not WOKE. And I don’t agree with Jon The fact is white on Black crime, including police, is not systemic and not common. All one has to do is look up the statistics. Problem is the WOKIES don’t do that. They just live on emotion. That’s OK. When the police just leave their urban S—holes, then the residents will just kill each other, like they have been doing in Chicago for decades. And then they won’t have Whitey to blame. But I DO see QID as problematic, for the very reason I’ve mentioned elsewhere on this Board, namely that police have been using their power to harass and sometimes attack LAW ABIDING citizens during unconstitutional lockdowns and edicts (WHICH ARE NOT laws). That’s what I want solved.
No, white on black crime is not systemic, no one is arguing that. However white on white crime is just as bad as black on black crime. The stats you’re talking about from the FBI state that 94.6% of black people don’t commit ANY crime in a given year, and 95.8% of white people don’t get arrested. So why are black people considered to be criminals by you?
Because you’re racist, Karen.
The black on black crime rate is 63%. The white on white crime rate is 56%. So why don’t we ever talk about white on white crime? The black on black murder rate is 89%, the white on white murder rate is 81%, so Karen, how often do you discuss white on white murders?
Okay, now we are talking about facts and getting some where.
What percentage of violent crimes are committed by blacks on whites vs. whites on blacks?
Why would we talk about that? Per the FBI 94.6% of black people don’t commit ANY crime in a given year. All crime is bad, isn’t it?
Per numbers from the urban institute, black people show the highest rates in participation in community service and community outreach, by a lot. Black people are also 8% more likely to give to charity than white people. How about those numbers?
Speaking of Deflection . . .
Answer my question, why does it matter?
It matters because the underlying theme is that Americans are still racist. But if the vast majority of violent crime involving two races says the opposite . . .
We just discussed the numbers. We know per the FBI that black people commited 5,025 of 9,466 murders in a given year. White people committed 4,188.
Now how exactly is that saying the opposite?
You’re trying to use data to justify racism, but the data is against you.
That is not the question I asked. Try again. What percentage is black on white violent crime? What percentage is white on black violent crime? (The total of the two is 100%.)
I’m not answering you in percentages.
ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3.xls
The FBI shows 533 black on white homicides and 243 white on black homicides. These numbers don’t factor in the cases where white people murdered a black person and got away with it, like Ahmaud Arbery would have been had media outrage not hit a peak.
You’re trying to prove a point with percentages that falls apart as soon as you look at the actual numbers.
Again, you’re defending a racist system.
You want to talk numbers? Let’s look at some numbers.
Everyone know more people commit crimes against their own people. The black on black crime rate is 63%. The white on white crime rate is 56%. So why don’t you ever talk about white on white crime?
Let’s stick to facts. The black on black murder rate is 89%, the white on white murder rate is 81%. So, how often do you discuss white murders?
Let’s go further.A FACT is that the people who are least affected by white supremacy and racism are the most likely to deny its existence. It is a FACT that white people are the only demographic in america that thinks there is LESS discrimination than there is. This is further evidenced by the last two days of me trying to explain white privilege and systemic racism to you despite your constant denials that you’re racist (you are,sorry bruh) you seem to finally get the concept.
It is a FACT that whites don’t really believe or don’t care how police treat black people. Blacks are about half as likely as whites to have a positive view of police treatment of racial and ethnic grops or officers’ use of force.
The whole black on black crime thing is not rooted in truth or evidence, nor is likely wherever you’re going with asking about white on black crime vs. black on white crime.
So there’s no logical explanation for this besides ignorance, a belief in the inherent superiority or:
acism noun
Phonetic pronunciation Definition of racism
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b: a political or social system founded on racism
3: racial prejudice or discrimination
Source: pewsocialtrends.org/psdt_03-25-19_race_update-11/
The FBI shows 533 black on white homicides and 243 white on black homicides.
Yeah, it also says out of 47 million black people that if a different black person committed each murder, it would mean 99.989497% of black people DIDN’T commit a murder that year. That also means 99.994923% of white people didn’t commit a murder either. Your’e trying to draw a conclusion using percentages that doesn’t actually look at the reality of the numbers.
Good News! All our problems are solved. The show “Cops” has been cancelled! YAY!
Never mind that the producer of the show was a proud liberal who stated openly that he tilted the episodes in favor of showing white suspects instead of blacks.
Police = Bad. 2020 Deep Thinking. (Listen: you can hear all the good people at the police academy deciding on which career change they should make.)
I’d love to read that quote Craig, can you please post a link to where he’s quoted saying that? And FYI (I know I’m citing Wikipedia, but there are links to the specific studies they referenced if you want to read about them in detail)
In June 2004, researchers at Old Dominion University videotaped 16 episodes of Cops and then evaluated them for crime content, and for the racial and gender identity of characters depicted. They found prior studies statistically reinforced in their descriptions of racial misrepresentation on Cops. The study found that, on Cops, African-American men were overwhelmingly shown as perpetrators—usually of violent crimes—and Hispanic men (rarely depicted at all) were also usually depicted as violent criminals. The police officers depicted were overwhelmingly white, and the disproportionately few white offenders were more-often portrayed as involved in non-violent offenses.[54] As a response, the show’s co-creator John Langley tried to include white offenders in each episode.[55]
Statistical correlations between actual crime rates and types (by race and gender, as reported by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports) — and the Old Dominion study’s analysis of characters in the Cops episodes—indicated that the Cops episodes (on average) sharply skewed the numbers, racially, making African-American and Hispanic men appear far more responsible for violent crime than they actually are in the U.S. population at large. At the same time, white males were shown on Cops as a far less culpable group than they actually are, statistically.[54]
The study also noted that women were almost totally ignored in Cops—seldom appearing as either officers or offenders. Finally, it noted that the show overwhelmingly depicted violent crimes, despite such crimes being a distinct minority of crime in the U.S.[54]
2004 Prosise-Johnson study
In 2004, researchers Theodore O. Prosise (Univ. of Wash.), and Ann Johnson, Ph.D. (Univ. of Calif./Long Beach), studied a random, but non-scientific, sample of 81 anecdotes from Cops episodes—analyzing their content, subjects and characters. They concluded that the program was racially skewed, negatively misrepresenting African-Americans, depicted as a criminal class out of proportion to their actual percentage of U.S. crime, in particular.[56]
Moreover, the study indicated that the Cops episodes appeared to selectively edit out failed police efforts, and police-initiated actions “on a hunch” that resulted in the discovery of no grounds for an intervention or arrest—showing only those officer “hunches and suspicions” that were productive—creating the illusion that officer instincts were more reliable and valid than in actual life. The study’s authors expressed concern that this provided TV viewers with implicit—and misleading—justification for police actions that amounted to “racism, discrimination or profiling.”[56]
16 episodes of cops is NOT a statistically defensible number. And how do we know if those 16 were SELECTED or random? We don’t. In the other study, it was “random BUT NOT SCIENTIFIC” which shows were selected. In other words, not statistically defensible either.
And since you brought up statistics, what percentage of violent crimes are committed by each race?
Want to have a conversation? I’m game. Man up and answer the question. (You won’t.)
“Never mind that the producer of the show was a proud liberal who stated openly that he tilted the episodes in favor of showing white suspects instead of blacks.”
STILL waiting for you to provide that quote with a source.
“16 episodes of cops is NOT a statistically defensible number.”
I see you didn’t read the rest where a “sample of 81 anecdotes from Cops episodes…” was also studied. Going to claim small sample size on that study, too?
I remembered when the show first went on the air and we watched it for the entertainment value but the racial overtones were too hard to ignore. I stopped watching it but not because of any deep rage against racism but just simply because I recognized it as racist and I’ve steered clear of people, shows, games, arguments/discussions/jokes etc. when racist comments, ideas or actions were evident to me. I didn’t have time for racism simply because I lived in “the hood” and found that crime is committed by EVERYONE. The show has a racist bend and I’m surprised it lasted this long. But then a vocal minority can hold the rest of us hostage, with actions ideas or even TV shows. There is a part of America that drives this crap but it is time to say enough.
Stush,
You steer clear of places where there is racism? Then, what are you doing out here in IJ? There is racism out here everyday. I’d also stay away from The White House right now. This president is one of the most racist I’ve ever seen.
Police do = bad in 2020. If you’re keeping your eyes shut that’s not our fault, there is a literal war in the streets right now and you’re on the wrong side of history.
Hi racists. We see you.
Honestly bruh I feel like we’ve always seen them, the problem is they don’t really see us. The protests have/are changing that every day.
You seem to see them in every single person who disagrees with you.
Kind of like X-ray vision.
Craig, if after over 50 posts in the last two days between the two of us if you are still blind to the fact that you have been racist in your life, no one is ever going to convince you of anything. You question, you prod, you antagonize, but you got your answers to everything so much that you didn’t even have a response to half the things I said yesterday, and yet you STILL try to push this garbage?
You were trying to deny systemic and institutional racism until you had them explained to you. You are supporting systems of systemic and institutional racism STILL. This is racist. Whether you like it or not.
I never defended any such thing. You keep saying things that aren’t true. It seems to be a consistent pattern.
And calling me a racist? You don’t even know me. It cheapens the word racist.
I’ve been arguing with you on the internet for over a year now on an almost daily basis, I have seen the dishonesty, the bigotry and the deflections from you on an almost daily basis. YOU don’t like to think you’re racist, but that doesn’t make you magically not racist. Your actions and thoughts make you racist. The words you spout on here in defense of racists makes you racist. Your unwillingness to sit down and shut up and listen to actual black people about racism makes you racist.
You don’t get to decide that you’re not racist when you say and do racist things.
He’s one of these white guys who thinks because he doesn’t actively hate black people that he can’t be racist, a product of a generation being raised to “not see color”. He sees black people struggling or being treated unfairly and thinks they’ve had the same advantages as him (They haven’t) so they should be able to do something with their lives, which completely ignores systemic and institutional racism.
White people have been oppressing black people for hundreds of years, and because the civil rights movement happened 50 years ago he thinks black people have had a fair shot. They haven’t. White people started the race while holding black people back for 200 meters, and now they’ve let black people start 200 meters behind and are calling it “fair”. That’s the kind of racism Craig is guilty of. I don’t think he truly hates other races, he’s just oblivious to his own privilege and what it’s actually like for people of color in this country.
I hear that, Jon. I have talked to my 3 daughters about the privileges we are afforded and why the Black Lives Matter movement is going on. They had questions and I am glad to be able to explain to them what’s going on. I reminded them of “the talk” our neighbor had with his son. That helped exemplify what I was explaining to them. All of my African American friends with kids tell me the same. They have to have “the talk”. I used to cut hair back in college, and would do anyone’s. My neighbor wanted his son’s hair cut years ago. I told him I can fade and wouldn’t charge anything. He thought about it for a bit and decided, it is more important to have the barbershop experience because of the discourse that takes place there. It is important for his son to be part of that. Is this something you can echo?
Oh 100%. There’s something to be said for taking part in the culture, and barbershops are definitely a part of our culture. Additionally, there’ a big push to support black owned businesses. I unfortunately live in an area that’s almost entirely white, it’s difficult if not rare to feel that sense of community. I’d kill for a good black barbershop in this town.
The talk with black parents and their children is very real, it’s still shocking how many people seem totally unaware of the reality of raising black children these days, it’s sad.
It’s time to professionalize policing like we do with Architects, Engineers, Doctors, Lawyers et. al. This means requiring police to carry personal liability insurance, requiring an undergraduate degree for new police cadets, as well as continuous education and re-certification, with a focus on civil rights and the constitution. Police should also be paid like professionals (most already are) and see a commensurate rise in pay that would roughly equate to the cost of said liability insurance for a ‘good-risk’ peace officer.
The most important of these tenets is the individually held liability insurance. For substantiated abuses of power, force, or the truth, police could essentially be priced out of the ability to be a police officer as their premiums would rise if they are found to have acted inappropriately. This would also shift the burden away from municipalities and tax payers.
Qualified Immunity is an issue, but what is greater is the lack of professionalism in American policing.
Completely agree. There will always be a need for some sort of law enforcement, sure. But Policing is an area much like education and health care where the US has screwed it up so royally by not just looking at what other countries do. Scandinavian countries require 2 years of training from their police officers, and they have no cases of police brutality. Traffic cameras have proven better at catching people breaking traffic laws than the four police cars that have to stop when I get pulled over for going 5 miles over the speed limit.
You put that funding for the police into community support, rehabilitation and outreach programs, and then what few police officers remain you pay well enough and train well enough to do their jobs without killing innocent people.
Two professors, Glenn Loury, professor of economics at Brown University and John McWhorter, professor of humanities at Columbia.
Two very liberal universities and two very interesting professors. Both are black. (For you fans of late night comedians posing as people of deep insight)
https://youtu.be/V8fndiNZimA
So instead of listening to black voices as has been recommended to you, you exclusively listen to the black conservative voices, even though they make up less than 8% of the black population. Are you actually trying to learn something or just really drive home that confirmation bias you’ve been working on for the last few years?
You have to get outside of your comfort zone if you want to actually learn anything or you’re going to continue to spread ignorance. Black conservatives do not speak for black people.
I’m assuming anyway, who the hell has an hour to kill?
They aren’t conservatives. You could not care less about solving problems. You just want to bash other people. So see through.
You posted an hour long video with nothing to say but “interesting” and a history of being you. Why don’t you give us the bullet points?
lol as per usual, sophistry abounds in the IJ comment section