LAW

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
User avatar
senorlegalo
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: November 17th, 2020, 6:52 am

LAW

Post by senorlegalo » November 17th, 2020, 6:59 am

When, across America, there become multiple ongoing instances of criminally overzealous law enforcement, for example, by police regularly murdering citizens in connection with enforcing extremely minor legal concerns, it becomes proper to critique the very notion of law itself, (via examining the most up to date thinking regarding how a human act comes into being), in order to consider whether American law enforcement is now an inacceptable absolute absolutism, of the very sort these United States of America was originally constituted to discard; and, in order to give ourselves reflective pause regarding the morality of doing law per se.

J. P. Sartre’s (1905-1980) account of how a human act originates is important for mankind and for the future of human civilization in the sense that it is a means to our attaining an honest and honorable system of justice.
Sartre’s account of the mode of origin of a human act is a template for organizing human civilization in accord, not in disaccord, with the very ontological structure of being an acting person, and, is a means of transcending ugly predatory and venal global con-games which are our current divers law enforcement/justice systems.
Via law mankind has currently structured a system of punishment and justice predicated upon the delusion that given language of law is determinative of the conduct of legislators, police and prosecutorial officers, magistrates and grassroots persons.
The constitution of a genuine, honest and honorable system of justice, and mode of human civilization, can be attained by reflectively transcending the extant delusional notion that language of law is a means of determining the course of a person’s conduct.
The subjoined is an delineation of the Sartreian account of the ontological mode of upsurge of a human act and, is key to recognizing the bad faith and dishonor exhibited by existing law enforcement/justice systems:

Out of 1943 France came a description of how all human action arises as a wholly negative procedure, explaining how and why what is absent and not yet existing, how and why what is desired and intended to be, is the fount of human action.

Language of law is a positive given factual phenomena, whereby police and prosecutorial officers, magistrates and legislators, invariably mistakenly claim, worldwide, to be originating social acts based upon existing factual law language.

This author endorses the following rationale set forth by J. P. Sartre (1901-1980): ” No factual state whatever it may be (the political and economic structure of society, the psychological “state,” etc.) is capable by itself of motivating any act whatsoever. For an act is a projection of the for-itself toward what is not, and what is can in no way determine by itself what is not.” (Sartre,J.P., Chapter Four, “Freedom”). And, further: “But if human reality is action, this means evidently that its determination to action is itself action. If we reject this principle, and if we admit that human reality can be determined to action by a prior state of the world or itself, this amounts to putting a given at the beginning of the series. Then these acts disappear as acts in order to give place to a series of movements...The existence of the act implies its autonomy...Furthermore, if the act is not pure motion, it must be defined by an intention. No matter how this intention is considered, it can be only a surpassing of the given toward a result to be attained. This given, in fact, since it is pure presence, can not get out of itself. Precisely because it is, it is fully and solely what it is. Therefore it can not provide the reason for a phenomenon which derives all its meaning from a result to be attained; that is, from a non-existent… This intention, which is the fundamental structure of human reality, can in no case be explained by a given, not even if it is presented as an emanation from a given.” And, further: “But if human reality is action, this means evidently that its determination to action is itself action. If we reject this principle, and if we admit that human reality can be determined to action by a prior state of the world or itself, this amounts to putting a given at the beginning of the series. Then these acts disappear as acts in order to give place to a series of movements...The existence of the act implies its autonomy...Furthermore, if the act is not pure motion, it must be defined by an intention. No matter how this intention is considered, it can be only a surpassing of the given toward a result to be attained. This given, in fact, since it is pure presence, can not get out of itself. Precisely because it is, it is fully and solely what it is. Therefore it can not provide the reason for a phenomenon which derives all its meaning from a result to be attained; that is, from a non-existent… This intention, which is the fundamental structure of human reality, can in no case be explained by a given, not even if it is presented as an emanation from a given.” (Sartre, J.P., Chapter Four, “Freedom”).

The ontological concept that no given factual state of affairs is per se efficient to determine a human being to act (or forbear action), is central to Sartre’s avant-garde explanation of how a human act originates. Human consciousness, which intentionally originates action, is an absolute freedom which cannot possibly be bound by what already exists, else innovation could not freely suddenly surge up in the world. Hence existing language of law, as a factual state of affairs, as an identity A=A, does not, cannot, itself determine the origination of either human action or, inaction. Nor can persons ontologically intelligibly claim to determine themselves to act or forbear action by law. Nor can persons correctly claim language of law to be the cause of their actions and or inactions, for human ontological absurdity consists in our being the indubitable sole free authors of the intentional acts which constitute our manifold projects, who, nonetheless, in bad faith, designate some given state of affairs already contained in the world, (e.g., a law), as motive, cause, reason for our act.

Language of law cannot rule except by delusion. Law is demonstrably not in fact a means to originate human action. Nonetheless, we mistakenly, immorally, murderously, delusionally, criminally, devilishly, treat law as if it is an absolutely absolute and indefeasible determinant of police, judicial, and, of all other forms of human conduct.

Bibliography:
Sartre, Jean Paul. Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology. Trans. Hazel E. Barnes. Philosophical Library. New York. 1956.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 4389
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: LAW

Post by LuckyR » November 17th, 2020, 7:22 pm

Do you have a question?
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 474
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: LAW

Post by Jack D Ripper » November 17th, 2020, 10:12 pm

I cannot help but think that the practical problems of how to reform the police departments of the United States are not going to be solved by looking at Sartre. I could be mistaken, but I am unaware of him ever reforming any police departments anywhere in the world.

It might be more productive to compare with policing in other countries that do not seem to have the same problems, at least not anything close to the degree in which these problems exist in the United States. Perhaps looking at the police departments in, say, Canada, how they are trained, what they are instructed to do, departmental policies, etc., to look for differences in approach that may explain differences in outcome.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume

Ecurb
Posts: 682
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: LAW

Post by Ecurb » November 18th, 2020, 7:24 pm

"Fiat justitia ruat coelum." "Let justice be done though the heavens fall."

I think one problem here in the U.S. is we've lost track of the notion of Justice. Many lawyers are interested in making money, and conforming the letter of the law to their own interests. Same with the police.

I recently read "Bleak House", in which a case before the Chancery Courts plays a major role. Apparently the Chancery did not operate on the basis of written law, but, instead, on the principles of equity and fair play. I don't know how well this worked, but I think we need to think more carefully about these principles. On our Supreme Court we have (for example) literalists and intentionalists. Should we interpret the Constitution based on what is written (literally), or based on the "intentions" of the framers? Both sides make reasonable arguments, but the great decisions of the Court (Brown vs. the Board of Education, for example) were decided on the principle of equity and fair play, rather than on either the intent or literal meaning of the Constitution.

The police, of course, are often not deep thinkers, and their hostilities and prejudices run deep.

A Canadian historian, Pierre Breton, wrote a superb history of the Klondike gold rush. I don't have it with me, and I read it 10 or 15 years ago, but one of the interesting tidbits from the book is that Skagway, in Alaska, U.S.A., and the gateway to the Klondike (by the most common route) was a corrupt, criminal town, haunted by con games, murders, robberies, and all sorts of criminal activity.

The Klondike itself (in Canada) was relatively safe from criminal activity. Breton credits the Mounted Police -- in particular their chief in the Klondike area (I forget his name). He sees them as tough but fair, incorruptable, and motivated by a sense of justice instead of a lust for power or a servile adherence to the law. He claims (and I have no idea if this is true) that the Mounties were run by English Aristocrats -- the younger sons of landed families, who were educated in English Public Schools and Universitites, and sent off to the colonies to seek their fortunes (which primogenator ruined in England).

Policing in the U.S. is clearly more difficult than in most Western countries. Our populace is armed to the teeth, and many have little respect for the law, or even for justice (why should African Americans respect Whitey's law, after all?). Nonetheless, recruiting and training better cops should be a top priority, and our society would reap the benefits.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4481
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: LAW

Post by Terrapin Station » November 20th, 2020, 7:59 am

If you question law itself too much, then not just the police but everyone can murder everyone. While that may be preferable to some, I'll pass.

User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 1213
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: LAW

Post by Pattern-chaser » November 20th, 2020, 10:25 am

Ecurb wrote:
November 18th, 2020, 7:24 pm
"Fiat justitia ruat coelum." "Let justice be done though the heavens fall."

I think one problem here in the U.S. is we've lost track of the notion of Justice.
That pretty much sums it up. We ignore justice and fairness, and implement the letter of the law. And our laws are so filled with complex details, you can flout the law if you can afford a good enough lawyer. So if you're rich, the law is your friend, and you may act as you wish, without significant restraint. If you're poor, the law will penalise you, often if you haven't even broken the law. That is the system Western nations have built for themselves. And the ruling members of these societies, being the richest members, are quite happy with this. The rest of us less so....

[P.S. this applies across all so-called civilised nations, across the world, I think.]
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Gee
Posts: 355
Joined: December 28th, 2012, 2:41 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: LAW

Post by Gee » November 21st, 2020, 12:10 am

senorlegalo wrote:
November 17th, 2020, 6:59 am
When, across America, there become multiple ongoing instances of criminally overzealous law enforcement, for example, by police regularly murdering citizens in connection with enforcing extremely minor legal concerns, it becomes proper to critique the very notion of law itself, (via examining the most up to date thinking regarding how a human act comes into being), in order to consider whether American law enforcement is now an inacceptable absolute absolutism, of the very sort these United States of America was originally constituted to discard; and, in order to give ourselves reflective pause regarding the morality of doing law per se.
It appears that you think we should "critique the very notion of law itself", possibly reevaluating the necessity of law or dismissing the value of law all together, because of a problem with law enforcement. You are aware that law and law enforcement are two different things?

I think there are serious problems with law enforcement, as do many people. I believe it was Hilary Clinton, who stated during the last presidential debates that the problems with law enforcement were "systemic" -- I agreed with her thinking. Many of the problems are due to policies, procedures, and economics, rather than legislated law, like the following problems that officers experience:

Handcuffing an eighty year old woman (suspect) because it is procedure to handcuff any suspect before putting them in the patrol car. Even if you are trying to be gentle, it is very easy to hurt her and piss off anyone who witnesses it.

Checking your computer to see if the person (suspect) standing before you has ever been accused of committing a crime. Then using that information as evidence to determine if they likely committed a current crime. If they complain that there is no real evidence and don't think they should be arrested, then they are guilty of "resisting arrest". So "innocent until proven guilty" does not really exist any more; it is more like "guilty after once being accused".

I knew a man, who was arrested at the age of 17 years-old for deserting while in the army. He was never in the army; someone had stolen his ID. He was released, but every time he had dealings with the police for the next 30 years, they seemed to be unfair and aggressive with him. Finally a police officer called him a "deserter". When he stated that he had never been in the service, he finally found out that the arrest for desertion was still on his record. He had no idea that records like that have to be expunged -- most poor people, who do not have lawyers, don't know about that necessity.

Police are trained to know which arrests are likely to succeed, and which will not. Poor people will not fight for their constitutional rights because it is too expensive. Kids with drivers licenses that are under the legal age of adulthood have no constitutional rights. Do their parents realize this? Not likely. Do traffic cops know this? You bet your boots. Poor districts need money; fines and penalties supply money.

When I was a kid, the police were there to "serve and protect". It even stated that on the side of the patrol cars. The police now will state very clearly that they are not a social service agency and are here to "enforce the law". So the police in my area changed in the last forty years from people, who were here to protect the innocent to people who are looking for the guilty and someone to arrest. That is a huge difference and that difference is dictated by policy and procedure and economics.

There are other examples, but this should be enough to make my point.

Gee

Gee
Posts: 355
Joined: December 28th, 2012, 2:41 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: LAW

Post by Gee » November 21st, 2020, 12:45 am

Ecurb wrote:
November 18th, 2020, 7:24 pm

I recently read "Bleak House", in which a case before the Chancery Courts plays a major role. Apparently the Chancery did not operate on the basis of written law, but, instead, on the principles of equity and fair play. I don't know how well this worked, but I think we need to think more carefully about these principles. On our Supreme Court we have (for example) literalists and intentionalists. Should we interpret the Constitution based on what is written (literally), or based on the "intentions" of the framers? Both sides make reasonable arguments, but the great decisions of the Court (Brown vs. the Board of Education, for example) were decided on the principle of equity and fair play, rather than on either the intent or literal meaning of the Constitution.
In the US there are different types of law and different Courts. Although I mostly agree with your thoughts on the Supreme Court and even other Appellate Courts, they are examples of Courts that one would appeal to (expensive); they are not Courts that would deal directly with criminal activity and the police.

Unless it is Federal and works through the Federal Courts, most arrests and criminal activity would be presented to the District Courts (city courts). District Courts are Courts of law (sometimes called tax collectors in robes). The county Courts, sometimes called Circuit Courts or Superior Courts, are Courts of equity (fairness) and they address probate law, family law, juvenile law, law suits, and appeals from the lower District Courts. County Courts still have to follow a great deal of the written law.

So if someone is arrested for a crime, they would first deal with the police, then the District Court, and after that they could appeal to the county Court -- if they have the money, an attorney, and/or can navigate Civil Procedure.

Gee

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 2997
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: LAW

Post by Sculptor1 » November 21st, 2020, 11:18 am

Jack D Ripper wrote:
November 17th, 2020, 10:12 pm
I cannot help but think that the practical problems of how to reform the police departments of the United States are not going to be solved by looking at Sartre. I could be mistaken, but I am unaware of him ever reforming any police departments anywhere in the world.

It might be more productive to compare with policing in other countries that do not seem to have the same problems, at least not anything close to the degree in which these problems exist in the United States. Perhaps looking at the police departments in, say, Canada, how they are trained, what they are instructed to do, departmental policies, etc., to look for differences in approach that may explain differences in outcome.
Maybe some training?
Maybe so psyche evaluation?
Maybe a little education in the basics such as freedom of speech, freedom of movement. Understanding basic human and constitutional rights?
Race sensitivity training.
You know - the minimum that many police forces in civilized countries do?
Maybe a reform of the local fiefdom system of the Sheriff's office which are more like witch finders than real police?

Now everyone has a phone it is pretty easy to find casual infractions of the most basic rights by police in the Internet. In minutes I can find a list of police murdering so-called "suspects", who have got off scot free for their failure to act with decency and respect to the public.

And as to the "some bad apples" theory - I call BS.

User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 474
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: LAW

Post by Jack D Ripper » November 21st, 2020, 12:58 pm

Sculptor1 wrote:
November 21st, 2020, 11:18 am
Jack D Ripper wrote:
November 17th, 2020, 10:12 pm
I cannot help but think that the practical problems of how to reform the police departments of the United States are not going to be solved by looking at Sartre. I could be mistaken, but I am unaware of him ever reforming any police departments anywhere in the world.

It might be more productive to compare with policing in other countries that do not seem to have the same problems, at least not anything close to the degree in which these problems exist in the United States. Perhaps looking at the police departments in, say, Canada, how they are trained, what they are instructed to do, departmental policies, etc., to look for differences in approach that may explain differences in outcome.
Maybe some training?
Maybe so psyche evaluation?
Maybe a little education in the basics such as freedom of speech, freedom of movement. Understanding basic human and constitutional rights?
Race sensitivity training.
You know - the minimum that many police forces in civilized countries do?
Maybe a reform of the local fiefdom system of the Sheriff's office which are more like witch finders than real police?

Now everyone has a phone it is pretty easy to find casual infractions of the most basic rights by police in the Internet. In minutes I can find a list of police murdering so-called "suspects", who have got off scot free for their failure to act with decency and respect to the public.

And as to the "some bad apples" theory - I call BS.

It is definitely a systemic problem, or it would not be occurring with such frequency, throughout the U.S. And this is why I suggest looking at how policing is done in places that do not have this problem, or at least not to the extent that the problem exists in the U.S., and see what they do differently in training, differences in departmental policies, etc. Canada seems a natural choice to look at for this, as Canada is similar to the U.S. in many respects, and they do not seem to have the same problems.

I am convinced that if police departments in the U.S. were run as they are in Canada, this problem would be greatly reduced. Of course, Canada is not perfect, and it can be improved upon, but they are doing things a good deal better than the U.S. is.


You are right to point out problems with small police departments, as they tend to have the lowest standards and the least training. So abolishing all police departments that are lower than state level would also be something that could be done to reduce the problem.

But, ultimately, differences in training and policy are needed if one is going to make a reasonable attempt at eliminating the problem.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 2997
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: LAW

Post by Sculptor1 » November 21st, 2020, 4:22 pm

Jack D Ripper wrote:
November 21st, 2020, 12:58 pm
Sculptor1 wrote:
November 21st, 2020, 11:18 am


Maybe some training?
Maybe so psyche evaluation?
Maybe a little education in the basics such as freedom of speech, freedom of movement. Understanding basic human and constitutional rights?
Race sensitivity training.
You know - the minimum that many police forces in civilized countries do?
Maybe a reform of the local fiefdom system of the Sheriff's office which are more like witch finders than real police?

Now everyone has a phone it is pretty easy to find casual infractions of the most basic rights by police in the Internet. In minutes I can find a list of police murdering so-called "suspects", who have got off scot free for their failure to act with decency and respect to the public.

And as to the "some bad apples" theory - I call BS.

It is definitely a systemic problem, or it would not be occurring with such frequency, throughout the U.S. And this is why I suggest looking at how policing is done in places that do not have this problem, or at least not to the extent that the problem exists in the U.S., and see what they do differently in training, differences in departmental policies, etc. Canada seems a natural choice to look at for this, as Canada is similar to the U.S. in many respects, and they do not seem to have the same problems.

I am convinced that if police departments in the U.S. were run as they are in Canada, this problem would be greatly reduced. Of course, Canada is not perfect, and it can be improved upon, but they are doing things a good deal better than the U.S. is.


You are right to point out problems with small police departments, as they tend to have the lowest standards and the least training. So abolishing all police departments that are lower than state level would also be something that could be done to reduce the problem.

But, ultimately, differences in training and policy are needed if one is going to make a reasonable attempt at eliminating the problem.
My gut feeling is that the problem is systemic because attitudes are endemic. America tends to make heroes of villains and valorises shoot first and ask questions later in most dramas related to cops, vigilante, nad standard hero movies where it always ends up with a shoot out of fistycuffs.

People with high regard for other people, particularly with ethnic and racial differences tend to be on the left and are less likely to be attracted to a career in policing.
Those that are attracted to policing may be more likley to be right wingers, grudge bearers, psychopaths, have a tendency to corruption, gun lovers.

My expectations of police are very low. And whilst you might fairly direct criticism at me for taking that attitude from film, tv, and social media (little of which paints a rosy picture of poilce) I submit that anyone living in America considering their career, sees exactly the same picture and one has to ask what sort of person would be attracted to such a career given the general depiction of police in the media? Gung-Ho and violent depiction in the media is likely to be self fulfilling.
That is not to say that all depictions of police are negative, but wherever a postive image of police is offered tends to be so f*cking cheesy, smiley, gather round the hearth fire for hot toddies at Xmas as to be utterly unbeleivable. Officer Brad Niceguy III might convince children and old ladies, but when a testosteronal teen decides policing is for him it's off the back of Call of Duty; GTA; Urban Chaos and other gems of violence on XBox etc.

User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 474
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: LAW

Post by Jack D Ripper » November 21st, 2020, 5:05 pm

Sculptor1 wrote:
November 21st, 2020, 4:22 pm
Jack D Ripper wrote:
November 21st, 2020, 12:58 pm



It is definitely a systemic problem, or it would not be occurring with such frequency, throughout the U.S. And this is why I suggest looking at how policing is done in places that do not have this problem, or at least not to the extent that the problem exists in the U.S., and see what they do differently in training, differences in departmental policies, etc. Canada seems a natural choice to look at for this, as Canada is similar to the U.S. in many respects, and they do not seem to have the same problems.

I am convinced that if police departments in the U.S. were run as they are in Canada, this problem would be greatly reduced. Of course, Canada is not perfect, and it can be improved upon, but they are doing things a good deal better than the U.S. is.


You are right to point out problems with small police departments, as they tend to have the lowest standards and the least training. So abolishing all police departments that are lower than state level would also be something that could be done to reduce the problem.

But, ultimately, differences in training and policy are needed if one is going to make a reasonable attempt at eliminating the problem.
My gut feeling is that the problem is systemic because attitudes are endemic. America tends to make heroes of villains and valorises shoot first and ask questions later in most dramas related to cops, vigilante, nad standard hero movies where it always ends up with a shoot out of fistycuffs.

People with high regard for other people, particularly with ethnic and racial differences tend to be on the left and are less likely to be attracted to a career in policing.
Those that are attracted to policing may be more likley to be right wingers, grudge bearers, psychopaths, have a tendency to corruption, gun lovers.

My expectations of police are very low. And whilst you might fairly direct criticism at me for taking that attitude from film, tv, and social media (little of which paints a rosy picture of poilce) I submit that anyone living in America considering their career, sees exactly the same picture and one has to ask what sort of person would be attracted to such a career given the general depiction of police in the media? Gung-Ho and violent depiction in the media is likely to be self fulfilling.
That is not to say that all depictions of police are negative, but wherever a postive image of police is offered tends to be so f*cking cheesy, smiley, gather round the hearth fire for hot toddies at Xmas as to be utterly unbeleivable. Officer Brad Niceguy III might convince children and old ladies, but when a testosteronal teen decides policing is for him it's off the back of Call of Duty; GTA; Urban Chaos and other gems of violence on XBox etc.

Although I am sure that there are many who fit that description, whether such people would find that they fit in or not with a police department is going to depend on how the police department is run. And that is where my recommendation in this thread comes into play.


Also, the retired police officer with whom I am most acquainted does not fit your description at all. He is a life-long Democrat, toward the liberal end of the party. When one of his daughters, as a little girl, parroted some racist nonsense (that she probably heard at school) about black people being lazy, the next morning, he made her get up early, while it was still dark (it was winter), and took her out in his car, and drove to a mostly black neighborhood, showing her black people waiting at cold bus stops to go to work and explained to her that that was what they were doing there. Not exactly what one expects of someone who is lazy, to get up early and wait outside in the cold and dark to take a bus to work. So he really did not like racism at all, and took steps to make sure that his children did not have racist beliefs.

He never shot anyone during his time as a cop.

He also was not a gun nut, and he put away his gun as soon as he got home, locking the gun in one place and locking the bullets in another place, as he did not want his little children getting hold of these things. I don't think he had any other guns than just what he needed for his job. He did enough shooting to keep in practice (which is expected of officers in many departments, with them taking accuracy tests at shooting ranges from time to time), but otherwise did not use guns.

He also did not fit the cheesy sort of image of police officers in old children's movies (he is not a smiley guy), but that was closer to the truth in his case than what you seem to believe police officers to be. Though he is not warm and fuzzy, he seemed to embody that old motto "to protect and serve". He was the sort of man one would want to be a police officer.

Unfortunately, they are not all like him.

However, there are steps that can be taken to encourage police officers to behave more like him. This is by having policies and procedures and training that promote such actions, rather than policies of drawing their guns on frivolous occasions. Police can be trained in practices of de-escalation and in the minimum use of force when required, and there can be policies of intolerance for excessive force. It is a question of doing these things, and, in the case of the legislature, they should require these things of police. Nothing new has to be invented for this, as there are police departments in the world which do the sorts of things that I am referring to.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume

Ecurb
Posts: 682
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: LAW

Post by Ecurb » November 21st, 2020, 10:08 pm

[quote="Jack D Ripper" post_id=372245 time=1605977886 user_id=49


It is definitely a systemic problem, or it would not be occurring with such frequency, throughout the U.S. And this is why I suggest looking at how policing is done in places that do not have this problem, or at least not to the extent that the problem exists in the U.S., and see what they do differently in training, differences in departmental policies, etc. Canada seems a natural choice to look at for this, as Canada is similar to the U.S. in many respects, and they do not seem to have the same problems.

I am convinced that if police departments in the U.S. were run as they are in Canada, this problem would be greatly reduced. Of course, Canada is not perfect, and it can be improved upon, but they are doing things a good deal better than the U.S. is.

[/quote]

Despite my Klondike example above , which suggests exactly what you suggest, I'm not so sure. Americans are better armed, less compliant, ruder, and less subsurvient than Canadians, so the Canadian police have an easier job. Despite this, I think we can and should learn from other policing tactics and techniques. In addition to training, I think recruitment is key. If we could recruit more cops like the one you mention, the problem would not be solved, but perhaps alleviated.

It's not an easy task, though. In a way, or good economy works against us. Police work doesn't really seem like a good opportunity economically (despite the decent pay and lifetime pensions). Instead, it attracts those who are attracted to power, violence, and control. If we could just recruit a normal cross section of society (in terms of violence of nature, desire for power and control, etc.) we would go a long way toward solving our policing problems.

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 2997
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: LAW

Post by Sculptor1 » November 22nd, 2020, 6:06 am

Jack D Ripper wrote:
November 21st, 2020, 5:05 pm
Sculptor1 wrote:
November 21st, 2020, 4:22 pm


My gut feeling is that the problem is systemic because attitudes are endemic. America tends to make heroes of villains and valorises shoot first and ask questions later in most dramas related to cops, vigilante, nad standard hero movies where it always ends up with a shoot out of fistycuffs.

People with high regard for other people, particularly with ethnic and racial differences tend to be on the left and are less likely to be attracted to a career in policing.
Those that are attracted to policing may be more likley to be right wingers, grudge bearers, psychopaths, have a tendency to corruption, gun lovers.

My expectations of police are very low. And whilst you might fairly direct criticism at me for taking that attitude from film, tv, and social media (little of which paints a rosy picture of poilce) I submit that anyone living in America considering their career, sees exactly the same picture and one has to ask what sort of person would be attracted to such a career given the general depiction of police in the media? Gung-Ho and violent depiction in the media is likely to be self fulfilling.
That is not to say that all depictions of police are negative, but wherever a postive image of police is offered tends to be so f*cking cheesy, smiley, gather round the hearth fire for hot toddies at Xmas as to be utterly unbeleivable. Officer Brad Niceguy III might convince children and old ladies, but when a testosteronal teen decides policing is for him it's off the back of Call of Duty; GTA; Urban Chaos and other gems of violence on XBox etc.

Although I am sure that there are many who fit that description, whether such people would find that they fit in or not with a police department is going to depend on how the police department is run. And that is where my recommendation in this thread comes into play.


Also, the retired police officer with whom I am most acquainted does not fit your description at all. He is a life-long Democrat, toward the liberal end of the party. When one of his daughters, as a little girl, parroted some racist nonsense (that she probably heard at school) about black people being lazy, the next morning, he made her get up early, while it was still dark (it was winter), and took her out in his car, and drove to a mostly black neighborhood, showing her black people waiting at cold bus stops to go to work and explained to her that that was what they were doing there. Not exactly what one expects of someone who is lazy, to get up early and wait outside in the cold and dark to take a bus to work. So he really did not like racism at all, and took steps to make sure that his children did not have racist beliefs.

He never shot anyone during his time as a cop.

He also was not a gun nut, and he put away his gun as soon as he got home, locking the gun in one place and locking the bullets in another place, as he did not want his little children getting hold of these things. I don't think he had any other guns than just what he needed for his job. He did enough shooting to keep in practice (which is expected of officers in many departments, with them taking accuracy tests at shooting ranges from time to time), but otherwise did not use guns.

He also did not fit the cheesy sort of image of police officers in old children's movies (he is not a smiley guy), but that was closer to the truth in his case than what you seem to believe police officers to be. Though he is not warm and fuzzy, he seemed to embody that old motto "to protect and serve". He was the sort of man one would want to be a police officer.

Unfortunately, they are not all like him.

However, there are steps that can be taken to encourage police officers to behave more like him. This is by having policies and procedures and training that promote such actions, rather than policies of drawing their guns on frivolous occasions. Police can be trained in practices of de-escalation and in the minimum use of force when required, and there can be policies of intolerance for excessive force. It is a question of doing these things, and, in the case of the legislature, they should require these things of police. Nothing new has to be invented for this, as there are police departments in the world which do the sorts of things that I am referring to.
Does your one example negate everything I have said?

Then how do you explain how dredful American police are?
How do you explain c.1500 killed by police every year at a rate greater than places like Mexico and Colombia?

User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 474
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: LAW

Post by Jack D Ripper » November 22nd, 2020, 1:28 pm

Sculptor1 wrote:
November 22nd, 2020, 6:06 am
Jack D Ripper wrote:
November 21st, 2020, 5:05 pm



Although I am sure that there are many who fit that description, whether such people would find that they fit in or not with a police department is going to depend on how the police department is run. And that is where my recommendation in this thread comes into play.


Also, the retired police officer with whom I am most acquainted does not fit your description at all. He is a life-long Democrat, toward the liberal end of the party. When one of his daughters, as a little girl, parroted some racist nonsense (that she probably heard at school) about black people being lazy, the next morning, he made her get up early, while it was still dark (it was winter), and took her out in his car, and drove to a mostly black neighborhood, showing her black people waiting at cold bus stops to go to work and explained to her that that was what they were doing there. Not exactly what one expects of someone who is lazy, to get up early and wait outside in the cold and dark to take a bus to work. So he really did not like racism at all, and took steps to make sure that his children did not have racist beliefs.

He never shot anyone during his time as a cop.

He also was not a gun nut, and he put away his gun as soon as he got home, locking the gun in one place and locking the bullets in another place, as he did not want his little children getting hold of these things. I don't think he had any other guns than just what he needed for his job. He did enough shooting to keep in practice (which is expected of officers in many departments, with them taking accuracy tests at shooting ranges from time to time), but otherwise did not use guns.

He also did not fit the cheesy sort of image of police officers in old children's movies (he is not a smiley guy), but that was closer to the truth in his case than what you seem to believe police officers to be. Though he is not warm and fuzzy, he seemed to embody that old motto "to protect and serve". He was the sort of man one would want to be a police officer.

Unfortunately, they are not all like him.

However, there are steps that can be taken to encourage police officers to behave more like him. This is by having policies and procedures and training that promote such actions, rather than policies of drawing their guns on frivolous occasions. Police can be trained in practices of de-escalation and in the minimum use of force when required, and there can be policies of intolerance for excessive force. It is a question of doing these things, and, in the case of the legislature, they should require these things of police. Nothing new has to be invented for this, as there are police departments in the world which do the sorts of things that I am referring to.
Does your one example negate everything I have said?

Then how do you explain how dredful American police are?
How do you explain c.1500 killed by police every year at a rate greater than places like Mexico and Colombia?

What I wrote does not negate what you said, and it was not intended to so so. I think the problem, being systemic, requires a systemic solution rather than a focus on individual officers. The only way this is going to be fixed (if it is going to be fixed) is by changes in policies and procedures and training. Since this is particularly a problem in the United States, looking at almost any other police force in the world may give some answers for how to change things for the better. Of course, some are far better than others on these kinds of things, and looking at the ones that are far better would most likely be the most useful for ideas on how to change the training, procedures, and policies to reduce the problems in the US.

If I had any actual control over these things, I would be looking at other police departments for the specific details of this.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume

Post Reply