US Anti-Police Protests and Riots Thread III

[Ifreann]

Police and shooting dogs is like ISIS and beheadings, or Nazis and brown shirts.

your daily reminder that militarization of the police directly leads to an increase in their killing dogs

To test the relationship between lagged transfers and dogs killed by police, we estimate a negative binomial regression, including the same controls as the previous regressions (as well as a lagged dependent variable). Results, presented in Table 2, confirm that a positive relationship exists. Holding all else constant, police that received the highest 1033 transfers kill dogs at an order of magnitude higher rate than those with no transfers (0.161 compared with 0.009). Such findings strengthen our confidence in the claim that military transfers are related to LEA violence.

(and civilians, if you read the whole paper)

Protect the doggos, disarm the police.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

your daily reminder that militarization of the police directly leads to an increase in their killing dogs

To test the relationship between lagged transfers and dogs killed by police, we estimate a negative binomial regression, including the same controls as the previous regressions (as well as a lagged dependent variable). Results, presented in Table 2, confirm that a positive relationship exists. Holding all else constant, police that received the highest 1033 transfers kill dogs at an order of magnitude higher rate than those with no transfers (0.161 compared with 0.009). Such findings strengthen our confidence in the claim that military transfers are related to LEA violence.

(and civilians, if you read the whole paper)

Protect the doggos, disarm the police.

But apparently disarming the police will make communities less safe. Idk how, I thought removing legalized extrajudicial killing from a community would make things safer if anything.

[Kowani]

Finally, police reform in Cali

dvancing the most heralded police reform of the legislative session, the California Senate on Wednesday approved a bill that would create a decertification process and reduce legal immunity for crooked law enforcement officers.

By a 26-9 party-line vote, Senate Democrats OK’d the proposal civil rights groups consider to be the most impactful criminal justice reform of the year. One year after the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police, the bill’s author said the nation’s most populous state could no longer stall in weeding out violent and racist cops.

“Black and brown people are not afforded the same patience, the same restraint or the same respect and reverence for life,” said state Senator Steven Bradford, a Democrat from Gardena, as he rattled off the names of Californians recently killed by police from the Senate floor. “What happened to George Floyd wasn’t rare.”

Bradford is pressing to install a statewide process to permanently remove badges from officers convicted of serious crimes or fired due to misconduct.

Currently, California is one of four states along with Hawaii, New Jersey and Rhode Island without official processes to revoke the certificates of disreputable officers. Critics say fired officers can easily take advantage of the loophole by simply signing on with another agency.

Under Senate Bill 2, the state would create an advisory board consisting of both members of the public and law enforcement to review allegations of officer misconduct. In conjunction with the existing Peace Officer Standards Accountability Advisory Board, the new board would have the power to revoke an officer’s certification and make all related records public.

In addition, SB 2 would also update the state’s Tom Bane Civil Rights Act and make it easier for victims to pursue wrongful death claims in state court by reducing legal immunity for officers. The issue of limiting governmental immunity has been a sticking point however and Bradford was forced to take a watered down version to the Senate floor Wednesday.

This isn’t the first time Bradford is making a decertification push. Last year Bradford, chair of the Legislative Black Caucus, carried a bill that cleared the Senate but didn’t come up for a vote in the Assembly on the final day of a truncated session.

After more than an hour of contentious debate dotted with skepticism from some of his Democratic colleagues, Bradford’s latest version is once again headed to the Assembly.

Sponsored by the ACLU of California and Black Lives Matter Los Angeles, SB 2 is inspired by the death of Kenneth Ross Jr. who was gunned down in 2018 by a Gardena officer who transferred after multiple other shootings at a nearby department.

Predictably, the state’s main law enforcement groups are against the bill.

In a previous committee hearing, dozens of police chiefs and sheriffs testified that removing immunity could lead to hesitant officers afraid to protect the public over fear of being sued. They added the reforms could lead to hiring shortages and hefty civil damages for not just individual officers, but cities and counties as well.

“We are concerned that the language removing employee immunity from state civil liability will result in individual peace officers hesitating or failing to act out of fear that actions they believe to be lawful may result in litigation and damages,” The California State Sheriffs’ Association wrote in opposition.

While the Senate ultimately approved Bradford’s bill, some of the supporters warned he will have to consider changes to the advisory board and other clarifying language to get SB 2 over the hump later this summer.

But perhaps most importantly for Bradford, he will have the support of one of the most influential Democratic lawmakers as the contentious police reform advances.

“We have spent the last year working closely with Senator Bradford and all stakeholders to ensure this important bill crosses the finish line,” said Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins. “Here in California, we are delivering on the promises we made to each other and to our constituents on the steps of the Capitol one year ago.”

Meanwhile, the Senate approved another landmark criminal justice bill that would set bail at $0 for misdemeanors and low-level felonies, and would require money paid for bond to be refunded if charges are dropped or the defendant beats the case. Senate Bill 262 is modeled after the Judicial Council’s decision to set bail at $0 last April, a move intended to keep local jail populations low to mitigate outbreaks of Covid-19.

The bill’s authors called California’s current bail scheme “obsolete” and unfair to minority and poor residents.

“It has cost us millions of dollars without keeping us any safer,” said Majority Leader state Senator Robert Hertzberg. “SB 262 is fair, it is just, and we must act now to put the blueprint together to eliminate this form of economic discrimination, and stop the predatory practice that the bail industry has used for far too long.” [...] The bail reform also cleared the state Senate on a party-line vote and moves to the Assembly.

[North Washington Republic]

Protect the doggos, disarm the police.

But apparently disarming the police will make communities less safe. Idk how, I thought removing legalized extrajudicial killing from a community would make things safer if anything.

Disarming the police is a horrible idea when violent criminals are armed.

[Ifreann]

But apparently disarming the police will make communities less safe. Idk how, I thought removing legalized extrajudicial killing from a community would make things safer if anything.

Disarming the police is a horrible idea when violent criminals are armed.

But think of the poor innocent doggos.

[Kowani]

But apparently disarming the police will make communities less safe. Idk how, I thought removing legalized extrajudicial killing from a community would make things safer if anything.

Disarming the police is a horrible idea when violent criminals are armed.

in the context of militarization-the area we were originally talking about-giving the police more and better toys does not actually increase officer safety or result in better crime prevention results

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Finally, police reform in Cali

dvancing the most heralded police reform of the legislative session, the California Senate on Wednesday approved a bill that would create a decertification process and reduce legal immunity for crooked law enforcement officers.

By a 26-9 party-line vote, Senate Democrats OK’d the proposal civil rights groups consider to be the most impactful criminal justice reform of the year. One year after the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police, the bill’s author said the nation’s most populous state could no longer stall in weeding out violent and racist cops.

“Black and brown people are not afforded the same patience, the same restraint or the same respect and reverence for life,” said state Senator Steven Bradford, a Democrat from Gardena, as he rattled off the names of Californians recently killed by police from the Senate floor. “What happened to George Floyd wasn’t rare.”

Bradford is pressing to install a statewide process to permanently remove badges from officers convicted of serious crimes or fired due to misconduct.

Currently, California is one of four states along with Hawaii, New Jersey and Rhode Island without official processes to revoke the certificates of disreputable officers. Critics say fired officers can easily take advantage of the loophole by simply signing on with another agency.

Under Senate Bill 2, the state would create an advisory board consisting of both members of the public and law enforcement to review allegations of officer misconduct. In conjunction with the existing Peace Officer Standards Accountability Advisory Board, the new board would have the power to revoke an officer’s certification and make all related records public.

In addition, SB 2 would also update the state’s Tom Bane Civil Rights Act and make it easier for victims to pursue wrongful death claims in state court by reducing legal immunity for officers. The issue of limiting governmental immunity has been a sticking point however and Bradford was forced to take a watered down version to the Senate floor Wednesday.

This isn’t the first time Bradford is making a decertification push. Last year Bradford, chair of the Legislative Black Caucus, carried a bill that cleared the Senate but didn’t come up for a vote in the Assembly on the final day of a truncated session.

After more than an hour of contentious debate dotted with skepticism from some of his Democratic colleagues, Bradford’s latest version is once again headed to the Assembly.

Sponsored by the ACLU of California and Black Lives Matter Los Angeles, SB 2 is inspired by the death of Kenneth Ross Jr. who was gunned down in 2018 by a Gardena officer who transferred after multiple other shootings at a nearby department.

Predictably, the state’s main law enforcement groups are against the bill.

In a previous committee hearing, dozens of police chiefs and sheriffs testified that removing immunity could lead to hesitant officers afraid to protect the public over fear of being sued. They added the reforms could lead to hiring shortages and hefty civil damages for not just individual officers, but cities and counties as well.

“We are concerned that the language removing employee immunity from state civil liability will result in individual peace officers hesitating or failing to act out of fear that actions they believe to be lawful may result in litigation and damages,” The California State Sheriffs’ Association wrote in opposition.

While the Senate ultimately approved Bradford’s bill, some of the supporters warned he will have to consider changes to the advisory board and other clarifying language to get SB 2 over the hump later this summer.

But perhaps most importantly for Bradford, he will have the support of one of the most influential Democratic lawmakers as the contentious police reform advances.

“We have spent the last year working closely with Senator Bradford and all stakeholders to ensure this important bill crosses the finish line,” said Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins. “Here in California, we are delivering on the promises we made to each other and to our constituents on the steps of the Capitol one year ago.”

Meanwhile, the Senate approved another landmark criminal justice bill that would set bail at $0 for misdemeanors and low-level felonies, and would require money paid for bond to be refunded if charges are dropped or the defendant beats the case. Senate Bill 262 is modeled after the Judicial Council’s decision to set bail at $0 last April, a move intended to keep local jail populations low to mitigate outbreaks of Covid-19.

The bill’s authors called California’s current bail scheme “obsolete” and unfair to minority and poor residents.

“It has cost us millions of dollars without keeping us any safer,” said Majority Leader state Senator Robert Hertzberg. “SB 262 is fair, it is just, and we must act now to put the blueprint together to eliminate this form of economic discrimination, and stop the predatory practice that the bail industry has used for far too long.” [...] The bail reform also cleared the state Senate on a party-line vote and moves to the Assembly.

Whoa. Wow.

[The Lone Alliance]

Protect the doggos, disarm the police.

But apparently disarming the police will make communities less safe. Idk how, I thought removing legalized extrajudicial killing from a community would make things safer if anything.

Disarming the police will simply lead to police refusing to do their job. They're not going to go out unarmed against people who are armed.

I mean would you?

And then when police don't do their job, people will take the law into their own hands, and then we have nutcases lynching people. And that's not much difference than police brutality.

[North Washington Republic]

Disarming the police is a horrible idea when violent criminals are armed.

But think of the poor innocent doggos.

Police that shoot dogs that pose no threat to them need to be fired and charged.

Disarming the police is a horrible idea when violent criminals are armed.

in the context of militarization-the area we were originally talking about-giving the police more and better toys does not actually increase officer safety or result in better crime prevention results

There is a difference between making police look less like an occupying force and complete disarmament. Complete disarmament is dangerous. We live in a country where violent criminals are heavily armed. There are such a thing as good police officers, and they need to be able to protect themselves.

But apparently disarming the police will make communities less safe. Idk how, I thought removing legalized extrajudicial killing from a community would make things safer if anything.

Disarming the police will simply lead to police refusing to do their job. They're not going to go out unarmed against people who are armed.

I mean would you?

And then when police don't do their job, people will take the law into their own hands, and then we have nutcases lynching people. And that's not much difference than police brutality.

Nicely point. I would add that many people that want to abolish the police are ancoms and ancaps, and they would rather have people take the law into their own hands.

[Postauthoritarian America]

As a result of a federal consent decree, cops in Newark, NJ fired their weapons ZERO times in 2020 while crime dropped 40%

'Nuff said.

[Albrenia]

Police not being armed with firearms by default seems to be at least possible in some countries, but I don't know if it's plausible in the US with its unhealthy obsession with guns.

[Washington Resistance Army]

As a result of a federal consent decree, cops in Newark, NJ fired their weapons ZERO times in 2020 while crime dropped 40%

'Nuff said.

I wonder if anything else happened in 2020 that could have reduced crime and would skew the numbers

Hmm

[Lanoraie II]

But think of the poor innocent doggos.

Police that shoot dogs that pose no threat to them need to be fired and charged.

in the context of militarization-the area we were originally talking about-giving the police more and better toys does not actually increase officer safety or result in better crime prevention results

There is a difference between making police look less like an occupying force and complete disarmament. Complete disarmament is dangerous. We live in a country where violent criminals are heavily armed. There are such a thing as good police officers, and they need to be able to protect themselves.

Disarming the police will simply lead to police refusing to do their job. They're not going to go out unarmed against people who are armed.

I mean would you?

And then when police don't do their job, people will take the law into their own hands, and then we have nutcases lynching people. And that's not much difference than police brutality.

Nicely point. I would add that many people that want to abolish the police are ancoms and ancaps, and they would rather have people take the law into their own hands.

None of you seem to grasp the realization that police being "militarized" is almost entirely for their own safety. America is a shithole and even paramedics are starting to have to wear bulletproof vests and carry handguns because of the clownery that happens on these streets. When people say "militarized", they're almost always speaking from an uninformed, unwanted, and unneeded point of view that is simply "wahhh, popo have big guns and big vests! that's not fair!" But alas, it is fair, because criminals have just as much if not even more.

[Lanoraie II]

Police not being armed with firearms by default seems to be at least possible in some countries, but I don't know if it's plausible in the US with its unhealthy obsession with guns.

You mean with the extremely high levels of gun trafficking. The vast majority of gun crimes are committed with guns obtained illegally.

Also, even in countries where gun violence is extremely low (i.e. Japan), the police still carry handguns.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Police that shoot dogs that pose no threat to them need to be fired and charged.



There is a difference between making police look less like an occupying force and complete disarmament. Complete disarmament is dangerous. We live in a country where violent criminals are heavily armed. There are such a thing as good police officers, and they need to be able to protect themselves.



Nicely point. I would add that many people that want to abolish the police are ancoms and ancaps, and they would rather have people take the law into their own hands.

None of you seem to grasp the realization that police being "militarized" is almost entirely for their own safety. America is a shithole and even paramedics are starting to have to wear bulletproof vests and carry handguns because of the clownery that happens on these streets. When people say "militarized", they're almost always speaking from an uninformed, unwanted, and unneeded point of view that is simply "wahhh, popo have big guns and big vests! that's not fair!" But alas, it is fair, because criminals have just as much if not even more.

This could not be further from the truth holy hell. But please by all means try to explain why police need MRAP's that the Pentagon pawned off to them for $500, it's always amusing when people try.

[Kowani]

Police that shoot dogs that pose no threat to them need to be fired and charged.



There is a difference between making police look less like an occupying force and complete disarmament. Complete disarmament is dangerous. We live in a country where violent criminals are heavily armed. There are such a thing as good police officers, and they need to be able to protect themselves.



Nicely point. I would add that many people that want to abolish the police are ancoms and ancaps, and they would rather have people take the law into their own hands.

None of you seem to grasp the realization that police being "militarized" is almost entirely for their own safety. America is a shithole and even paramedics are starting to have to wear bulletproof vests and carry handguns because of the clownery that happens on these streets. When people say "militarized", they're almost always speaking from an uninformed, unwanted, and unneeded point of view that is simply "wahhh, popo have big guns and big vests! that's not fair!" But alas, it is fair, because criminals have just as much if not even more.

how do people do this
i don't get it
in the post you are responding to, there is evidence that militarization does not actually increase police safety
and yet you're responding to it with the talking point being explicitly debunked
it's beyond illogical

[Albrenia]

Police not being armed with firearms by default seems to be at least possible in some countries, but I don't know if it's plausible in the US with its unhealthy obsession with guns.

You mean with the extremely high levels of gun trafficking. The vast majority of gun crimes are committed with guns obtained illegally.

Also, even in countries where gun violence is extremely low (i.e. Japan), the police still carry handguns.

Not in all countries, strangely enough. There's several where the standard police don't carry firearms unless given special authority to do so or part of a special unit of some kind. I believe New Zealand and some parts of the UK are the most prominent examples, although a number of smaller nations also follow that method.

I don't think it would be a great idea in the US though, because of the sheer number of people armed both legally and illegally, and the ease of access to weaponry.

[Saiwania]

Also, even in countries where gun violence is extremely low (i.e. Japan), the police still carry handguns.

Japan is a police state in many respects, just not an authoritarian one except perhaps culturally. That is the true context. It has a judicial system where the onus is more on the accused/detained to prove their innocence instead of the state needing to establish guilt, hence the high conviction rate from people being able to be held for long enough until a confession can be extracted.

Japan has the trappings of a parliamentary democracy but also has next to no history of civilian ownership of firearms (because it was outlawed very early on for the masses in 16th century onwards). As such, Japan has one of the strictest and most unreasonable gun control regimes in the world relatively speaking. While it is at least possible for some civilians in Japan to get a shotgun, its usually quite a tall order as to not be worthwhile. But at the same time, there are just enough illegal firearms in circulation among Yakuza types where the Japanese police have armed themselves.

Why police are armed in Japan is primarily because they along with their military, see themselves as the only ones truly authorized or have the right to possess/use arms in Japan- which is the case more or less under Japanese law. They're effectively the successor of the Samurai class that got abolished from Meiji era reforms. Their tradition of there being only an exclusive warrior or elite class allowed to have weaponry continued on informally.

So Japanese police are almost a law unto themselves. The Japanese citizen is expected to conform or comply in many situations by default, if it is in their culture. High emphasis on proper etiquette and so on. Beyond being one of the countries where gun ownership is a privilege instead of a right, it is an exceedingly rare privilege there to such an extent that no other country is quite like that, regardless of how much gun control is on their books.

[Gravlen]

Police that shoot dogs that pose no threat to them need to be fired and charged.



There is a difference between making police look less like an occupying force and complete disarmament. Complete disarmament is dangerous. We live in a country where violent criminals are heavily armed. There are such a thing as good police officers, and they need to be able to protect themselves.



Nicely point. I would add that many people that want to abolish the police are ancoms and ancaps, and they would rather have people take the law into their own hands.

None of you seem to grasp the realization that police being "militarized" is almost entirely for their own safety. America is a shithole and even paramedics are starting to have to wear bulletproof vests and carry handguns because of the clownery that happens on these streets. When people say "militarized", they're almost always speaking from an uninformed, unwanted, and unneeded point of view that is simply "wahhh, popo have big guns and big vests! that's not fair!" But alas, it is fair, because criminals have just as much if not even more.

L.A. schools police will return grenade launchers but keep rifles, armored vehicle

So lets' ignore for a minute, like you did, the link above which states that militarization of the police don't increase officer safety:

Why did the LA School Police need Mine Resistant Ambush Protected armored vehicles? And how exactly do grenade launchers increase their safety?

[Page]

None of you seem to grasp the realization that police being "militarized" is almost entirely for their own safety. America is a shithole and even paramedics are starting to have to wear bulletproof vests and carry handguns because of the clownery that happens on these streets. When people say "militarized", they're almost always speaking from an uninformed, unwanted, and unneeded point of view that is simply "wahhh, popo have big guns and big vests! that's not fair!" But alas, it is fair, because criminals have just as much if not even more.

L.A. schools police will return grenade launchers but keep rifles, armored vehicle

So lets' ignore for a minute, like you did, the link above which states that militarization of the police don't increase officer safety:

Why did the LA School Police need Mine Resistant Ambush Protected armored vehicles? And how exactly do grenade launchers increase their safety?

I guess if two students get into a fight they would prefer launching a grenade at them and the 100 innocent bystander students in their vicinity (something SRO's have been doing with pepper spray for decades) than risk getting elbowed in the nose.

[Galloism]

L.A. schools police will return grenade launchers but keep rifles, armored vehicle

So lets' ignore for a minute, like you did, the link above which states that militarization of the police don't increase officer safety:

Why did the LA School Police need Mine Resistant Ambush Protected armored vehicles? And how exactly do grenade launchers increase their safety?

I guess if two students get into a fight they would prefer launching a grenade at them and the 100 innocent bystander students in their vicinity (something SRO's have been doing with pepper spray for decades) than risk getting elbowed in the nose.

I mean, given it's Los Angeles, the students probably have close air support.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

None of you seem to grasp the realization that police being "militarized" is almost entirely for their own safety. America is a shithole and even paramedics are starting to have to wear bulletproof vests and carry handguns because of the clownery that happens on these streets. When people say "militarized", they're almost always speaking from an uninformed, unwanted, and unneeded point of view that is simply "wahhh, popo have big guns and big vests! that's not fair!" But alas, it is fair, because criminals have just as much if not even more.

L.A. schools police will return grenade launchers but keep rifles, armored vehicle

So lets' ignore for a minute, like you did, the link above which states that militarization of the police don't increase officer safety:

Why did the LA School Police need Mine Resistant Ambush Protected armored vehicles? And how exactly do grenade launchers increase their safety?

It's so if the battle of Los Angeles actually happens, they'll be able to fight off the aliens with cool weapons.

[Ifreann]

But think of the poor innocent doggos.

Police that shoot dogs that pose no threat to them need to be fired and charged.

That won't bring the dog back from doggy heaven.

[Paddy O Fernature]

L.A. schools police will return grenade launchers but keep rifles, armored vehicle

So lets' ignore for a minute, like you did, the link above which states that militarization of the police don't increase officer safety:

Why did the LA School Police need Mine Resistant Ambush Protected armored vehicles? And how exactly do grenade launchers increase their safety?

It's so if the battle of Los Angeles actually happens, they'll be able to fight off the aliens with cool weapons.

It's California, there would be no fighting against said alien invaders as they would just welcome them in with open arms.

[Ifreann]

It's so if the battle of Los Angeles actually happens, they'll be able to fight off the aliens with cool weapons.

It's California, there would be no fighting against said alien invaders as they would just welcome them in with open arms.

Californians are a sensible people who would set about discovering if they can fuck the aliens.