The WOKE Thread (Merged from WTF?)

[busdriver]

12 hours ago, Buddy Spike said:

This is a bit of a fallacy.  There are even fewer aviation crashes per year as a percentage of flight hours, should we therefore not have boldface and emergency procedures because the risk is small?  Of course not. Every officer should approach every interaction as if it could become a lethal encounter, because it absolutely can. Complacency kills.

It's easy to throw stones from the cheap seats, but unless you've done it, you're not really speaking from a knowledgeable position. 

 

I don't think I can make my first point in a way that you wouldn't see him as anything by a law-breaker.  So we'll have to agree to disagree.

I don't really disagree with your points about training and people in general. My point is the overstated risk without a confidence boosting level of training to deal with the risk just leaves fear and an inability to think.  It's like that IP that tells you about all the shit that can kill you but doesn't give you any tools to avoid those things.

My brother is a cop, I get the sport smashing of police in general is demoralizing.  I'm also well aware of how little time there is to process things, and quite frankly how crappy training shrinks that.

The idea that criticism can only be levied from a former or current officer to another is nothing be a recipe for authoritarianism.

So I'll pass on the ride along, I'm already well aware of how to hide to get caught up on paperwork.  It's basically what I do now.  

[HeloDude]

27 minutes ago, Homestar said:

huh?

 

Edit: Ok, I think I understand what you're asking now.....

I pretty much just Googled "Police violence by race" and read the first 4 hits/studies that popped up.

I guess I'd like to know why you think I was wrong in stating that if the previous poster was white he was not likely to be the victim of police violence?  Admittedly it was a "pop off" remark on my part.  I didn't mean for it to be inflammatory.

You made a comment that if someone is white, it’s not likely that they’ll be at the wrong side of a baton...so I would like to know what the likelihood is of someone who is non-white being at the wrong end of a baton?  Are you suggesting that the majority of non-white Americans have been engaged with any sort of physical force from law enforcement? 

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, Lawman said:

Do you think there is currently an epidemic or Racist extremism or to borrow from 10 years ago predatory sexual conduct that is a systemic part of the military? Do you think they are either consciously or subconsciously baked into our population. Now of course both those ideas are pretty absurd (and currently being peddled to the mob), but those of us that have experience in the military know better. What we see is a narrative on those topics created through cherry picking of details and a steady diet of shock and outrage media pumped into a society full of echo chamber social media circles.

Similarly the idea that police face no action for misconduct and that police unions are somehow more powerful than city legislatures and mayors is being peddled. Sorry dude, I watched cops get fired for misconduct. I know guys who never made it past the state certificate from the academy because no department would hire them (one in particular was the son of a Lt in that department).

Is there room for improvement? Sure as with any field where the median salary is in the sub 50k range, same as it is for teachers or nurses or any other field. But anybody who has spent a week in the military should know damn well empty promises to study the problem and “mandatory training” will lead to nothing but hours expended on PowerPoint briefings so leadership can tell it’s constituency “we did something.” Unless you and a whole lot of others are prepared for a full reinvestment of serious capital and time vetting, equipping, and training a Law Enforcement enterprise demands for change are nothing more than shouting to feel better about a tree in a forest of greater societal issues.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think police are racist. I think they're assholes. They are just as happy pepper spraying whites, blacks, Jews, Asians, or Native Americans.  It's about unchecked power, not racism.

[Homestar]

15 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

You made a comment that if someone is white, it’s not likely that they’ll be at the wrong side of a baton...so I would like to know what the likelihood is of someone who is non-white being at the wrong end of a baton?  Are you suggesting that the majority of non-white Americans have been engaged with any sort of physical force from law enforcement? 

I'm simply suggesting that the evidence shows that blacks are disproportionatly more likely to die from a police encounter than whites.

NIH study here:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6080222/

PNAS study here: https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793

[Homestar]

11 minutes ago, pawnman said:

I don't think police are racist. I think they're assholes. They are just as happy pepper spraying whites, blacks, Jews, Asians, or Native Americans.  It's about unchecked power, not racism.

This seems like a pretty unfair, broad stroke of police.

I don't believe most police are racist (or assholes)  But there are ways that police forces can better train their officers to prevent unnecessary death.

Saying that de-escalation training is pointless is like telling aircrew that CRM training is worthless.

Edited February 19, 2021 by Homestar

[HeloDude]

5 minutes ago, Homestar said:

I'm simply suggesting that the evidence shows that blacks are disproportionatly more likely to die from a police encounter than whites.

NIH study here:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6080222/

PNAS study here: https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793

A simple question:  Is a non-white American more likely to be engaged with physical force with law enforcement vs a non-white American who has not been engaged with physical force with law enforcement? 

[Homestar]

6 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

A simple question:  Is a non-white American more likely to be engaged with physical force with law enforcement vs a non-white American who has not been engaged with physical force with law enforcement? 

I don't know, man. What's your point?

[Lawman]

I'm simply suggesting that the evidence shows that blacks are disproportionatly more likely to die from a police encounter than whites.
NIH study here:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6080222/
PNAS study here: https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793

Are you willing to evaluate those from the wider optic of the number of times and conditions creating/resulting in the encounters? Police encounters isn’t the leading cause of black men under 40, its Homicide in general. So are police simply so out to kill that it’s causing a massive skew in numbers do they possibly exist by disproportionate representation in an environmental condition more likely to have a negative outcomes associated with all encounters, not just the ones with law enforcement.

This is one of those arguments that quickly gets the race card played against it because encounters above certain points in the socio economic strata have a disproportionately “positive” outcome. Meanwhile below a particular point which is where the demographic population swaps you end up with a combination of higher number of violent/exigent circumstances creating the encounter as well as less tangible impact points like the fact that an officer who patrols in that environment carries more behavioral stressors than the guy patrolling in another area. Population densities in particular urban vs rural environment also means the areas of denser population involve more encounters per patrol hours from say rural areas... again skewing numbers towards minorities.


BCJS has done some pretty exhaustive peer studies into this math, and while there is a disparity, it is not supportive of the idea there is some baked in “with whites you gotta try and de-escalate, but you can just shoot the black guys,” crap being peddled by the ACAB crowd.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[HeloDude]

9 minutes ago, Homestar said:

I don't know, man. What's your point?

Well, not too long ago (see below) you were able to make a comment on the likelihood of race and physical encounter with me enforcement...and now you don’t seem to be able to do so when I ask you in my post above.

6 hours ago, Homestar said:

Assuming he's white, he likely won't.

In every one of these cases de-escalation techniques might have prevented the need for force altogether, which I think we all agree is the desired goal.

[Lawman]

Well, not too long ago (see below) you were able to make a comment on the likelihood of race and physical encounter with me enforcement...and now you don’t seem to be able to do so when I ask you in my post above.
6 hours ago, Homestar said: Assuming he's white, he likely won't.
In every one of these cases de-escalation techniques might have prevented the need for force altogether, which I think we all agree is the desired goal.

How many hours of training are you willing to fund as a taxpayer? What qualitative impact in fatalities do we need to see to call it a good ROI? These are the two immediate questions that come to mind with people screaming we have to do something about the “epidemic of improper police violence” as som have called it.

You know what would actually translate better than most to immediately alleviating fear and stressors going into an encounter which will likely result to an officer employing greater force to include deadly force? Mandatory 2 officer patrol units, and more hours spent doing hand to hand combative/retention/ground drills. Both those are dead concepts the second you suggest them because while they do have an impact, they cost way more than anybody is willing to pay for a solution.

Again, this is stuff that requires more and wider funding/Manning to achieve actual downstream results (more arrests/less fatal encounters), but that’s not what the mob is shouting for now is it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[HeloDude]

9 minutes ago, Lawman said:

How many hours of training are you willing to fund as a taxpayer? What qualitative impact in fatalities do we need to see to call it a good ROI? These are the two immediate questions that come to mind with people screaming we have to do something about the “epidemic of improper police violence” as som have called it.

You know what would actually translate better than most to immediately alleviating fear and stressors going into an encounter which will likely result to an officer employing greater force to include deadly force? Mandatory 2 officer patrol units, and more hours spent doing hand to hand combative/retention/ground drills. Both those are dead concepts the second you suggest them because while they do have an impact, they cost way more than anybody is willing to pay for a solution.

Again, this is stuff that requires more and wider funding/Manning to achieve actual downstream results (more arrests/less fatal encounters), but that’s not what the mob is shouting for now is it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Are you asking me these questions or Homestar?

[Homestar]

27 minutes ago, Lawman said:

Are you willing to evaluate those from the wider optic of the number of times and conditions creating/resulting in the encounters? Police encounters isn’t the leading cause of black men under 40, its Homicide in general.

Sure, if I were writing a masters thesis on the topic.

[Homestar]

23 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Well, not too long ago (see below) you were able to make a comment on the likelihood of race and physical encounter with me enforcement...and now you don’t seem to be able to do so when I ask you in my post above.

6 hours ago, Homestar said:

Assuming he's white, he likely won't.

In every one of these cases de-escalation techniques might have prevented the need for force altogether, which I think we all agree is the desired goal.

Dude, you're being pedantic. It was a flippant, off-hand remark. You win.

[Lawman]

Are you asking me these questions or Homestar?

I’d honestly say we as a society need to be asking these questions but hell wherever anybody stands in this jump in. Answer the question in dollars and let’s say % of current deaths reduced.

It would be good to get a wide array of answers out in the forum only to show just how far apart (and in some cases backward) opinions are on a way forward.

Having been both in the academic and physical ends of this discussion it’s always amazing to see people demand change, only to immediately withdraw any actual motivation or funding that would result in any.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Lawman]

Sure, if I were writing a masters thesis on the topic.

So no....

You just want to be mad at a number you don’t understand then, but luckily you can find no lack of people telling your with little/no Context that it’s a bad number and you should be mad.

While we are at it, I can’t believe there were over 300 fatal plane crashes in this country. Year after year we do nothing to change that... we should be doing more.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[busdriver]

36 minutes ago, Lawman said:

Mandatory 2 officer patrol units, and more hours spent doing hand to hand combative/retention/ground drills. 

They also suck at shooting.

 

ETA:  Roland Fryer did a pretty exhaustive econometric deep dive into the racial disparities in police encounter outcomes.  The short version is there isn't a significant disparity between races in fatality rates that isn't explainable by non racist means.  There is a disparity in the rate at which officers use force below the lethal threshold.

Edited February 19, 2021 by busdriver

[HeloDude]

30 minutes ago, Lawman said:

I’d honestly say we as a society need to be asking these questions but hell wherever anybody stands in this jump in. Answer the question in dollars and let’s say % of current deaths reduced.

It would be good to get a wide array of answers out in the forum only to show just how far apart (and in some cases backward) opinions are on a way forward.

Having been both in the academic and physical ends of this discussion it’s always amazing to see people demand change, only to immediately withdraw any actual motivation or funding that would result in any.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

For starters, get rid of victimless crime laws.  I’m not saying that this does/does not have a specific racial element to it, but rather, why have any law enforcement action if there is no victim?  Remember Eric Garner being originally confronted for selling loose cigarettes?  Confrontation should have never occurred...

[Lawman]

For starters, get rid of victimless crime laws.  I’m not saying that this does/does not have a specific racial element to it, but rather, why have any law enforcement action if there is no victim?  Remember Eric Garner being originally confronted for selling loose cigarettes?  Confrontation should have never occurred...

There are plenty of people that would argue the actual act of prostitution is without violence (or even with if it’s agreed upon) a “victimless crime.” Now any dive into the world looking at it from the point of exploitation and all the little resultant negatives that come with it would see there is a whole lot of 2nd/3rd order effects that would definitely equal victimization.

Likewise when I lived in Washington a whole lot of vocal people wanted to get rid of the victimless act of drug use... forget all the property crime and other issues that resulted from it. Who is that junky hurting but themselves.... just ignore all those other issues.


There is very little in the typically referenced events that would be actual “victimless crimes.”


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[busdriver]

4 minutes ago, Lawman said:

There is very little in the typically referenced events that would be actual “victimless crimes.”

The crime itself is still victimless and the result of a consenting adult being a consenting adult, the secondary effects are typically already crimes themselves.

As a society we've waged war on the supply side of the drug question for decades, zero impact, shitloads of money spent, and the cartels have literal armies.  Our solution to the demand side is to just lock people up once their lives get shitty enough that they self destruct.  At what point do we stop doing the same thing over and over expecting a better outcome?

If for no other reason than taking money and power away from cartels and stop throwing money away trying to outspend them.

[Lord Ratner]

13 hours ago, Buddy Spike said:

 

 

He told the kid to put his hands up and the kid reached into his waistband in response.  Would you rather him wait to find out it's a real gun and get shot?

 

It seems insane that I have to say this, but YES.

It's a fucking kid. If we don't even expect the cops to take that level of risk, then we have no standards at all.

[pawnman]

7 hours ago, Lawman said:

How many hours of training are you willing to fund as a taxpayer? What qualitative impact in fatalities do we need to see to call it a good ROI? These are the two immediate questions that come to mind with people screaming we have to do something about the “epidemic of improper police violence” as som have called it.

You know what would actually translate better than most to immediately alleviating fear and stressors going into an encounter which will likely result to an officer employing greater force to include deadly force? Mandatory 2 officer patrol units, and more hours spent doing hand to hand combative/retention/ground drills. Both those are dead concepts the second you suggest them because while they do have an impact, they cost way more than anybody is willing to pay for a solution.

Again, this is stuff that requires more and wider funding/Manning to achieve actual downstream results (more arrests/less fatal encounters), but that’s not what the mob is shouting for now is it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

A lot more than we currently have.  When cosmetologists need twice as many hours of training as cops, it really shows where we are putting our effort.

[pawnman]

17 hours ago, Buddy Spike said:

 

He told the kid to put his hands up and the kid reached into his waistband in response.  Would you rather him wait to find out it's a real gun and get shot?

 

1. Lohman had previously been fired as a cop in a different city after being found "emotionally unstable and unfit for duty".

2. The 911 call detailed it was a kid, but that was never passed to responding officers.

3. From arrival to shooting was 2 seconds.  How much instruction do you think they gave Rice in 2 seconds?

So, for accountability...maybe cops need a nationwide database like pilots or doctors.  If you're unfit to be a cop in Chicago or Dallas, you're probably not going to be a good cop in Cleveland or LA.

[jazzdude]

Having been both in the academic and physical ends of this discussion it’s always amazing to see people demand change, only to immediately withdraw any actual motivation or funding that would result in any.

This is probably one of the most important points that gets missed or glossed over, not just in the police debate, but elsewhere in our society as well.

If something is important to our society, we have to be willing to pay for it (through taxes). Otherwise, it's not really important...

The only way to make it cheaper is through social norms we all abide by (whether it's written down in law, or just "understood"). Essentially, using social shame and embarrassment to discourage certain actions. But that requires everyone within a society to agree to and follow those norms.

So then the question becomes what duty does an individual have to the society they live in (an by extension, the government)? Is a person required to obey the law because it's the law, or to comply with the law because the penalty for not complying is a price they aren't willing to pay? (Coincidentally, the richer you get, the less you have to comply with laws, especially if the punishment is only a fine, unless there are progressive fines based on income or net worth. This creates an upper class that is removed from many of society's rules).

Our general ethos as Americans creates conflict: follow the law, unless the law is wrong or immoral, then your duty is to not follow the law. So it's unlikely we'd get everyone to follow the same norms, especially being a diverse nation and generally open society (which brings in differing values, which is a source of both greatness and conflict).

Since we have diverse communities, it helps if the police see themselves as *part* of the community they are policing, and not something external to the community that is there to establish order (I'm not a fan of the thin blue line movement because they subscribe to the latter notion). Being part of the community, and having officers from different subcommunities (race, gender, religion, etc) helps police understand the norms and values of the community, and build/foster a relationship with the community. That's not to say they won't have to enforce laws, or that they won't face dangerous situations that may require lethal force, but understanding how the community (or subcommunities) acts in different situations can help lower a patrolman's assessment of the threat, and using a "more appropriate" level of force.

[FLEA]

5 hours ago, pawnman said:

A lot more than we currently have.  When cosmetologists need twice as many hours of training as cops, it really shows where we are putting our effort.

Not sure you are right or have a point here. So google told me cosmology usually takes 40 weeks to get a certificate. This was the same period it took my wife to get qualified. (Not half of it as you claim) 20 weeks academy, 6 weeks additional academy (department specific training) and 14 weeks of Field Training (OJT with assigned training officer.) Additionally, you can say that pilots on the AF today under some of the new syllabuses are only getting 40 weeks or a bit more of training. 

 

So was your point here LEOs don't get enough training or that cosmology was surprisingly more complicated than you underestimated it for? 

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

Not sure you are right or have a point here. So google told me cosmology usually takes 40 weeks to get a certificate. This was the same period it took my wife to get qualified. (Not half of it as you claim) 20 weeks academy, 6 weeks additional academy (department specific training) and 14 weeks of Field Training (OJT with assigned training officer.) Additionally, you can say that pilots on the AF today under some of the new syllabuses are only getting 40 weeks or a bit more of training. 

 

So was your point here LEOs don't get enough training or that cosmology was surprisingly more complicated than you underestimated it for? 

National average for cosmetologists to be certified is 1300 hours. 

National average for police is 670 hours. 

https://www.insider.com/some-police-academies-require-fewer-hours-of-training-plumbing-2020-6