Police brutality .... going a little too far there officer.

Nice additions to my bookmarks. Thank you kindly.

This is interesting and all but, we've deviated quite far from the original topic.

So far, I've surmised that law enforcement has lost respect amongst the community for lack of enforcement against excessive force or corruption by it's members. Additionally I posted relative legal cases that have erected a legal barrier and reduced liability for law enforcement failing to perform the duties they are charged with which encourages the population to not trust law enforcement. Finally, I posted a study that dismissed the concept of "a few bad apples" are responsible for police brutality but, instead it's a matter of policy that has lead to a culture of police brutality.

You're very welcome for the bookmarks. I absolutely love the movie when I first saw it, it talks about all kids of interesting things from education to abortion to cheating in sumo wrestling. But yes, back on topic of this threat.

I'm not arguing that isn't police violence, I'm not arguing that those policies are protecting people they shouldn't but some policies do protect people who do deserve to be protected.

The problem is more than just a few bad apples but a whole orchard full of rotten fruit. But what is it about the police profession that attracts so many bad apples? Is it because there are things that protect police from being charged with brutality? And if that is the case, when where did these policies come from, and who made them?

It's only logical to draw the conclusion that at some point in history, police needed to be protected from the people for "necessary" action. That is why laws and policies are made in the first place. So who is to blame for the root cause of the issue? Certainly not the police today because many of them weren't even around when those policies were put into place.

So the fault must lie with the people who created the system to start with. And as always, we the people, are the ones who must consent to allow these systems to form. At some point in history people said "we need police to protect us" and then there were police. Then someone said "they more power" and they got it. And eventually people sat by without speaking out against the rise in power, and that is what things look like today.

Just as I like to make an example of the nazi's. They came to power because people who could resist, would not resist. And people who do nothing are just as responsible as those who commit the crimes. That is part of the geneva convention.

I haven't read all the post but Ill forget my thoughts if I don't post now.


That's always been an evident problem, since the wild west period in American history that detested state interference. The biggest examples of this is states like Florida in which, the right "to trial" and "sentence to death" individuals are in the hands of any gun wielder, of course there has to be significance evidence that the person felt scared that their life was endanger despite their participation in the event being their choice (I can't quote anything other than msnbc or pbs, that was looking at the total death of law enforcement officials in 2012, totaling something like 140, and the most, 12-14, being from Florida). Other states allow for concealed firearms in public area's already regulated by police force or other trained security forces. The most extreme firearm enthusiast insist that the most effective killing tools should be in the hands of the everyday citizen so they can protect themselves from other people when they receive those guns.

A large part of our society is stuck in the years of the wild west where law was something the individual made and enforced, and the state was not something you could rely on for protection. Where crime was rampant, to be outside meant death quite often. Every one of them wants to be a cowboy taking justice into their own hands. such as "Arizona's posse of armed civilian in school" (without back ground checks (quite a few of them have pretty bad, child related, offenses)). We still glorify the era of cowboys emulating the best misconceptions/marginal instances of that generation. (I would love to see a realistic cowboy movie in which the protagonist dies or rapes someone in the first act, but its Hollywood...)

The police themselves have done little to earn respect (after each incident of wrong doing from the individuals that represent them). With laws like "stop and frisk" in which police officers, from personal bias alone, can detain an individual and violate his rights with a unlawful assumption of ill intent from the victim. Or there banning of peoples right to record officers conduct (Russia allows video footage, I think, considering the cameras in cars thing) out of the fear of misconduct being caught on tape and spread. When it should be that training and mental condition examining/therapy(if they don't have) should go into the police force. They are human, yes with an intent to make society a better place, but someone with the best intentions values can digress/degrade over time.

Often time's, to the public, it seems the police force have very little concern with public safety considering the actions of some of the worst. As well the handling of those said people who end up receiving preferential treatment due to their positions. No matter where you go, a group will always be judge by their worst faculty first and foremost. So much so they have become a popular punching bag in media often time representing an organization supporting the antagonist who intends to bring downfall to or enslavement of America to the whole human race, in some of the most extreme of fictional stories. American society proves that media has influence in shaping a child's "adult perception" of the world (how much so, seems to differ a bit between me and those who are pro unrestrained senseless/meaningless violence in media format).

Lastly, the police force has horrible relations with minorities, especially blacks, with a long history of suppression and unprovoked violence brought about by obvious racist intent that still occurs. Such as the shooting of Oscar Grant (though the wiki seems to favor Johannes Mehserle, obscuring the events, this would be better source to get an idea of the events), who was tried for second degree murder but got involuntary man slaughter with only 2 years (subtracting the time he served before this verdict). Oakland went crazy, first when this happened, and when this decision came out, their cries for justice were ignored. Which reminded the black community of Rodney King. In their eyes, the police force has not changed, granted it's more diverse, but its still the same, legally deemed power, fueling racist acts, acting as an extension of corrupt politics.

Their are problems everywhere (more than I brought up), that all need to be addressed, but I do not agree with what "seems like" a pardon/ignoring of the police responsibility to the people it serves, in your statements. The police are suppose to protect civilians and maintain proper order, with the legal right to take others lives, their unlike fire fighters who only protect, and soldiers who don't use their position to wrong "American" civilians but instead live in a place where they can die at any second fighting to protect "American" civilians from unknown (the scariest kind) threats.

As well, each country having completely different history from one another, can not compare things that stem from deep rooted social and cultural issues. Japan is a very different country than America. Gun's are banned from civilians hands, they don't commonly (or at least as commonly as Americans) deal with offenders of different races, nor do they have a negative history with law enforcement or racism from their political system. This is not a problem that can be instantly fixed by putting a model of "a better system" in front of us, the current problems have to be fixed first.

(I spent too long on this... ~grumble~)

Great post, the only thing I can comment on that I slightly disagree with is the quote that I've taken. Even in japan there was racism against other asian ethnicities. Most islanders that aren't from the main land were considered inferior to the mainland japanese and even if you look at the samuri era, you see this huge division in clan forms of racism. I don't think there is a government on the planet that has not been involved in some historical racism. The most glaring standing fact about japanese political racism is the several attacks on the chinese. The japanese saw the chinese the same way that the nazi's saw jews.

I know a small bit about the externally pointed racism of Japan and a little bit on their history with China, I had not known what you've just told me, thanks (something I can look into). So I'd like to apologies for my ignorance.

As far as I know, your right (government history in racism), but the scale of the events, meaning and behavior of, the way it was conducted and ended, the number of victims, accessibility and glorifying of violent means to solve problems, American self-destructive mentality. The mentality that America is divided into multiple social groups that must fight each other for control as opposed to negotiate and cooperate, constantly put in positions of "other side gaining means your losing". I feel that a lot of these factors puts America into a continuing spiral downwards. A lot of problems, many I don't even have the capacity to conclude on my own of, needs to be addressed, problems that are unique to its further culturally unique citizens. Of course, I do agree that we can model the good traits of other country's but I feel perfect emulation of, is neither piratical nor efficient.

I love Crips, Bloods, Surenos, and Nortenos in L.A. for the simple fact that they revolutionized cop killing. Fuck law and order Im a man I can hold my own with my fists thank you very much. Really what problem can a cop solve that you and I cant? Riddle me that! We don't need power tripping assholes handing out tickets and making arrests because has a quota to reach that month.

umm.... (Half ass) List time...
-Discourage to prevents crimes about to occur.
-Provide safety and maintain order (prevent anarchy).
-Without police we'd have the wild west law and crime system... People could kill based on personal bias and no one would care or know.
-Investigate and find criminals.
-People who dedicate their lives at understanding the criminal mind to catch them.


I mean seriously it doesn't take much thought to realize that police prevents a system of anarchy and chaos. That without would be worst than with. Having to worry about being killed without warning for no reason every waking (and sleeping) moment is not an ideal system in any manner.

Your statement is quantitatively equivalent to "distribute a bunch of weapons (already done) and let whoever is strong enough to survive (what you suggested) do whatever they want and feel is needed to survive. Kill people, rape people, eat people, who cares! Let the victims and their families figure it out, guns and killing solve all problems big and small!"

Sorry I don't know what your definition of "man" is but I'm pretty sure I can't punch a bullet into submission, let alone, I don't think I'm capable of preventing crime with fist versus a group of automatics wielding psychopath.

One thing we can definitely agree on is that Police is a symbol of authority and protection, whether it is to protect you or protect something else, it has it's ways of controlling things. Police can be seen as the good, the bad, or the neutral, we might never understand what the real intentions behind it is, but all we know is they help keep things in order.

Laws. If you're avoiding a politician stealing your money it becomes financial fraud, if you prevent police brutality against you you're assaulting an official. If you have this system to back you up you can literally do whatever you want as long as you play with the rules. An officer might strike you down on the basis of him feeling threatened from your body language. Anything goes.

I am from central europe, and I am not allowed to do anything no matter the situation. If someone threatens me with a knife, the law forbids me to take action before I was not actually harmed. If I call officials and they find a person physically disabled on the ground with a knife and I have no stab wounds to prove my acts of self defense I will be going straight to jail for assault, even if I might provide camera footage of me becoming a victim it will just as well prove the fact that I did not receive any stab wounds and had therefor no reason to act. I might also be paying compensation for harming the dude and putting him into a condition where he might not be able to work.

This whole system is much more flawed than just the freedom of officials which might eventually lead to police brutality. I, as a person, am too limited. If I see a woman on the street getting robbed I have to be very cautious about the law as simply holding the dude down until the police arrives might already be worded into assault. Dude might as well punch himself in the face and then I'm definitely paying.

The funny thing is .. you are exactly right ... here in Europe one has to be seriously careful how to approach the situation because the officials simply doesn't take time to look up into it in a very specific manner, and in times their judgement can be very reckless.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUnzpILdlCo

www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCQv5V_mtcE Comparison to how police were viewed from years ago to now.

(Tell me if links don't work.)

Police like to take advantage of the situation and it doesn't look like the minority. How many cops were in that station where the woman was shouted at and dragged? None really seemed to care. The end of the second video shows protestors chanting, with their hands up, this is not a riot but riot police still hit them. There's a lot of brutality that doesn't make the news. I've heard of a lot that would start another wave of riots.

Relations with the police aren't swell here for valid reasons. Example: Teacher of mine went to try and build relations between youths and cops. Said loads of good thing about the police to them. They walk outside and a cop car's driving past. Police inside it pretend to shoot them with their fingers. Obviously not helpful to the current situation, but that's probably how they want it.

Jacob, why are you so intent on blaming the general public for being the cause of these problems? The police wouldn't be the first in history to abuse their power. Maybe that's when respect began to drop.

It needs to be taken into consideration the contenxt of police power and brutality. It is true that this is not the first case in history to the abuse of power but look at the cases where it was.

The most obvious being the use of the german military police during the second world war. In which was given power by the elected political party that refused to give up power. The german society is a society of followers who do not typically argue with authority figures. So it is only logical to assume that if the public didn't allow the course of events to turn out as they should have, it wouldn't have happened.

If you look at the majority of dictatorships that happen to have the same thing. The government gives it's police force a rather large amount of power with little accountability, and the public suffers until as we have seen in recent events, there is a catalyst that turns into civil war.

I would say these situations are akin to that in america or canada for instance that have shown police aggression towards it's civilian population. Typically all reforms done for policies for the police are given by a government which are elected by the people. If we elect people who give the police the power to harm us without accountability, then it must be our fault for putting these people in power.

Governments aren't voted in when they tell the population that they're going to make things harder for people. They tell people what they want to hear and then use their allocated time to do what they want. People are only to blame because they fall for it every four years. Giving the police more simply means it's easier for the government to do what they want without fear of people jumping in the way.

Every government does the same so unless you want to introduce people to anarchy, there's not a lot you can do. America has the power to change whose in charge but even if they did it wouldn't be very different. But back to the topic. How would you stop thesse things from happening? A government says they're going to make life easier and suddenly do the opposite. You can be respectful and law abiding but that didn't stop police beating up participants of a peaceful protest (second video).

Also those videos were mainly in reply to your opinion of lack of police brutality in the UK.

I didn't watch the videos, but it is glaringly obvious that in comparision to the scale in which police brutality exists in america, it is almost non-existant in britain.

You stop it from happening by using public reforms. The greatest thing about democracy is that any individual regardless of education can run for a political office, and change the community and even the world. The public does not hold the government accountable for it's actions. I believe the founding fathers themselves said that the people of a country should overthrow it's own government when it no longer serves it's people.

While it's true that any individual can run, the likelihood that they will be elected is low as people will vote for the college educated person over the high school educated person because of prejudice towards them. As for "public reforms", you are expecting a corrupt institution, to pass meaningful reforms that would bind their own hands. All governments seek to increase their authority over their subjects and increase the subjects dependence on them (government). A politician only cares about his/her constituents enough to get re-elected. This is seen when politicians remain quiet in between election years.



There is a problem with that idea. The liberals stripped away our ability to overthrow our own government. We're expected to use "elections" to control the government which frankly is a stupid idea. Our voting machines have no way to detect voting fraud. There are cases of malfunctioning machines, questionable purchases, not to mention the videos on YouTube that walk you through HOW to tamper with electronic voting machines. methods that include pre-election tampering such as ""man in the middle"" or in the booth tampering.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2060608/Jeremy-Minnier-18-Alex-Morse-22-elected-mayors-towns.html

An 18 and a 22 year old voted in for mayor. People don't necessarily vote for the college educated man over someone else. How would bush have been elected twice if that was the case. Both times he was running against a vastely more intellectual man. Or how about obama and mccain, or obama and romney. Many people say that the only reason obama won the first election was because he was black and it had nothing to do with his intellectual level.

People aren't smart enough to know the difference, the masses are dumb. They are entertained by the likes of jersey shore, jackass, 16 and pregnant. They vote on the simple bases of who appears more on tv.

The psychology behind it is stunningly terrible, this is why people not busy themselves with important topics such as politics, economy, and also the operations behind such structures. They are also manipulated to show politics are boring, economy is only for the true intelligent people, and supporting such structures are only left for the rich and highly educated, and then they are bombarded with the idea that people who don't have these things are not meant for it and therefore should never try, and then they are shown who these people are that don't deserve it.

This is why many believe that these people behind the structures are very difficult to beat, when in fact it is not that difficult at all, it is just that they are not educated on how to handle these things and also were never educated about it in the first place, which can clearly explain for their so called ignorant and dumb behavior. This is also why many young people rather teach themselves on these things by going to the library, research on the internet, and applying themselves for it. Schools are becoming less and less reliable and more and more people find it that if you wanna learn something, go for it with your own mind.

I wonder if the Police department now belong to a private company or something, I read in Facebook they no longer belong to the people, even though our taxes still flow in their pockets.

It is to protect the burger lovers from further inflicting harm to themselves.

Bush has a B.A from Yale and a M.B.A. from Harvard and was capable of flying a Convair F-102

Education of Al Gore

While John Kerry Attended Yale an got a B.A.

It's all a gross oversimplification but, all three are Ivy league educated and Al Gore's own transcripts show he as a dismal student who barely applied himself. Don't get me wrong, I don't like Bush either but, that is more to do with his administrations Neoconservative policies than anything else.



A presidential race is far more complicated than that. Yes, Obama got an overwhelming majority of the black vote to mobilize to the polls which certainly helped his victory but, it isn't the whole story. He was a charismatic orator who came in at the perfect time with the perfect pitch. The U.S economic was crumbling and people were worried so they obviously gravitate towards people who speak of such positive notions as "Hope" and "Change". Unfortunately, he turned out to be just another politician spewing lies and promises he couldn't or didn't intend to keep. He was also helped by John McCain's campaign with Sarah Palin being unattractive towards moderates and McCain's own Neoconservative policies which made him unpopular with the conservative base.

Obama was able to mobilize his own base and secure the votes of moderates while McCain couldn't mobilize his own base and had a V.P. choice that wasn't popular for the moderates and generally wasn't popular with actual conservatives.

As for the second election, Obama didn't have much to run on so he bound together a loose coalition of "1-issue" groups such as the LGBT community when he promised them marriage and the Hispanic community when he promised Amnesty for all the illegals. Meanwhile, Romney essentially bought the Republican nomination which applied a tremendous amount of pressure on the cracks within the party. This is seen with how the party officials treated the Ron Paul supporters at the country, state and national conventions. When the election came about the majority of Republican aligned voters (L/libertarians, T.E.A. party "patriots", social conservatives and fiscal conservatives) stayed home and didn't vote. So Romney only mobilized a large chunk of his base.



To take a step back, that is another reason why Obama won. People who are ignorant and scared will listen to a charismatic person who promises to make everything better.