Why do we not discuss civilian on civilian violence?

[mizzou]

I realize we are very upset about police brutality, (which DOES exist and IS a problem! Any police abuse is a problem...), so how come we don't talk about the way we treat each other in general?

If we actually grow our children up to value lives, maybe when they hold positions of power they will continue that cycle.

If you have a failed angry child and they perpetuate those feelings into adulthood, I don't think attaching a camera is going to fix the root of the problem. I guess it does allow us to see into the black abyss of american life though. Maybe this is step 1 of our acknowledgement that we have a love affair with violence and that it is a victimless association.

 

[SlickSnake]

I think this is more of a discussion club sort of topic.

At any rate, the problem with unnecessary police brutality is being able to hold them personally accountable for their possibly illegal actions, and clearly in a large percentage of cases where police brutality occurs, there often isn't any accountability whatsoever.

Whereas, with two people simply brutalizing each other somehow, one person has the legal option of taking someone to court, and actually holding them accountable for their illegal actions, which is a completely different situation entirely.

Otherwise, I agree the root causes of societal problems like violence are the same in both situations. Regardless, all types of violent behaviors and incidents are a lot more likely to happen when there are no bystanders watching and no cameras present for obvious reasons. Do witnesses and cameras ultimately stop the root causes of societies problems with violence? Maybe not completely in our lifetimes, but they certainly provide a means to help society keep violence in check in many, many cases where being seen commiting an act of violence might get you fired, fined and sent to prison.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

I realize we are very upset about police brutality, (which DOES exist and IS a problem! Any police abuse is a problem...), so how come we don't talk about the way we treat each other in general?

Please. YOU are not upset about police brutality. You are upset that people don't like police brutality and that they are starting to talk about it a lot. I'm sure you fear that if the trend of public sentiment continues, you might one day lose one of your very favorite job perks.

If you want to know why police brutality is the rage du jour, let me help you out. What is particularly confusing, aggravating, and fascinating to people about police brutality is the way that the system seems set up to protect the brutal actions of the officer. Solely because his profession is law enforcement. This sets police brutality on a completely different level than non-police brutality and leads to far less true justice than will typically be found in cases of brutality by a non-cop. It is a system that protects and encourages bad behavior from the very people that everyone desperately wants to believe are good and moral people. It feels like a giant betrayal.

So, how is the system set up to protect the bad cop?

First, there is the intimidating barrier of filing a complaint against a brutal cop. It cannot be done through the mail nor over the phone. One must physically go to the officer's own friends and file a complaint. I've heard of and seen video of many cases of the officer who fields the complaint responding by intimidating, yelling, getting in the complainant's personal space, threatening to arrest the complainant, trespassing the complainant from the building, and even arresting the complainant. Yet I've never heard one case of an officer actually being punished for intimidation of a complainant during the filing of a complaint.

Next, the people who investigate the brutal officer are his friends. They know his family, attend his kids' birthday parties, drink beer together after a shift, and are brothers in arms. They are far from impartial. The fact that this is the way the system is set up very clearly communicates that the system is not set up for impartiality and those who participate in that system like it that way and would never work to change it. They WANT the ability to get away with this shit.

This process of officer-on-officer investigation is further stacked in the officer's favor due to various POBARs that exist only for cops. It's like cops got together and decided that the constitution and the bill of rights are total shit at protecting people's rights. They decided that they need more civil rights. Look, I'm all for more civil rights. But when a group of people pass needed civil rights and then bar the majority of the population from enjoying those same rights it's a big "fuck you" to that majority of the population. It's like saying "fuck you I got mine. These are for me, not you, lesser citizen. I don't want you to have the same rights that I do. I want yours to be weak and mine to be strong." It couldn't be a more clear message of disdain and condescension.

Next in the process of (criminally) disciplining a cop for wrong-doing, he must be indicted by the DA. The DA's office is continually filled with cops and he relies on cooperation from cops to reach his political goal of a high conviction rate. It is almost never in his interest to indict a cop, because other cops will be less inclined to cooperate with this DA. It is known. Even when a DA does attempt indict, they often make colossal """mistakes""" during the indictment process or even during the trial. "Whoops, I really tried to convict them but I guess they are just innocent." "Whoops I let a criminal defense attorney onto the jury and he became the jury foreman and worked from day one for an acquittal." "Whoops I accidentally got cameras barred from the trial." "Whoops I over-charged with specific charges that are nearly impossible to convince a jury of."

Finally, as part of any trial, the testimony of cops is often treated as sacrosanct. There is no other single profession where people are treated with that kind of legal/political/judicial respect and trust and honor. I and friends have witnessed testilying first hand. Every time.

Every day, multiple stories come out about police seemingly blatantly breaking the law. Ever day we watch them get away with it. And every day we see ATPN posters who are cops come and argue why the cops should get away with it. They treat it like it's a game...if the cop doesn't get convicted, they are innocent and in the moral right. If the suspect was a POS then it doesn't matter what happened to them. Dig up dirt on the family. Dehumanize, use Cop Logic® fallacies, use lawyer-speak and half-truths. Whatever it takes to convince people the cop should get away with it.

So yeah, people are sick of it and yet it isn't changing. Until it does, expect to see more police brutality threads. Expect to see them every day. I will expect to see more "OMG wahhh wahhh why are we talking about police brutality" threads.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

If we actually grow our children up to value lives, maybe when they hold positions of power they will continue that cycle.

Are you saying that cops (the positions of power) don't value lives because their parents didn't teach them to? It's something that many of us have long suspected, but hearing it from an insider is particularly chilling.

 

[ivwshane]

The title of this thread makes no sense in relation to the OP's post.

For one, non cop violence is talked about all the time, whether it be about gun control, mental illness, or the overall decline in crime.

Second, unless the OP has some stat showing non cop crime isn't being discussed then I don't get the point of the title.

With regards to the OP's actual post, I'd say patenting, or the lack of it, is definitely a factor when it comes to crime.

 

[mizzou]

Are you saying that cops (the positions of power) don't value lives because their parents didn't teach them to? It's something that many of us have long suspected, but hearing it from an insider is particularly chilling.

holy shit dude, all I said was that people who are assholes get into any profesion. Its a issue that affects us all as we grow. Perhaps if we did a better job at valui g life we wouldnt have to deal with these bad apples in the workpace.

 

[Screech]

Pretty sure the trayvon martin thread set some weird records for longest thread around here so I'm pretty sure the premise of this thread is false

 

[mizzou]

Pretty sure the trayvon martin thread set some weird records for longest thread around here so I'm pretty sure the premise of this thread is false

Good point...I wish wr talked more about preventing violence and figuring out its cause. Trayvon Martin we discussed a lot about perceptions and fears of racism

 

[Moonbeam]

holy shit dude, all I said was that people who are assholes get into any profesion. Its a issue that affects us all as we grow. Perhaps if we did a better job at valui g life we wouldnt have to deal with these bad apples in the workpace.

I think that people often do not look at the overall intention of a poster and focus on some aspect of what he said to pick it apart. Personally, anyway, I took as the main point of your post an emphasis on the solution to all violence as the raising of our children with loving respect. I agree.

However, from there we go to the issue of how parents who are infected with hate can raise children who are not. And what about those aspects of our system that are beyond the control of the home, like a competitive economic system that is bases on hate. People are not emotionally attuned to the fact that competition actually is hate.

When you win in a system that is based on hate and you have been told that hate is evil, you deny who you really are and flatter yourself over your minor success, being better at hating than others. The issue is a rabbit hole that nobody wants to go down.

 

[rommelrommel]

Also, why is every campaign about ending violence against women... How about just ending violence? Is it any surprise that people will use violence when we're implicitly saying that violence is OK as long as it's a somewhat fair fight?

 

[piasabird]

Yah like that violence against Monika Louinski by President Clinton? I don't have a clue how to spell her name.

 

[piasabird]

If you want info about civilian violence, watch the news. Lately in St Louis, MO there have been some immigrants (eastern European) killed with hammers. That must be a lousy way to die.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/02/st-louis-teen-hammer-murder/19777923/

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/0...n-community-sees-hammer-murder-as-hate-crime/

So a Bosnian person was killed by what I guess is gang members with hammers. In case you don't know this there is a Bosnian community in the greater St Louis, MO area.

With stuff like this going on all the time, do you wonder why cops shoot first and ask questions later. You have to assume everyone is an armed criminal.

 

[Orignal Earl]

I imagine that even if you had a 24 hr American Murder channel they still wouldn't be able to cover all the violent deaths in the US

 

[shady28]

Please. YOU are not upset about police brutality. You are upset that people don't like police brutality and that they are starting to talk about it a lot. I'm sure you fear that if the trend of public sentiment continues, you might one day lose one of your very favorite job perks.

If you want to know why police brutality is the rage du jour, let me help you out. What is particularly confusing, aggravating, and fascinating to people about police brutality is the way that the system seems set up to protect the brutal actions of the officer. Solely because his profession is law enforcement. This sets police brutality on a completely different level than non-police brutality and leads to far less true justice than will typically be found in cases of brutality by a non-cop. It is a system that protects and encourages bad behavior from the very people that everyone desperately wants to believe are good and moral people. It feels like a giant betrayal.

So, how is the system set up to protect the bad cop?

First, there is the intimidating barrier of filing a complaint against a brutal cop. It cannot be done through the mail nor over the phone. One must physically go to the officer's own friends and file a complaint. I've heard of and seen video of many cases of the officer who fields the complaint responding by intimidating, yelling, getting in the complainant's personal space, threatening to arrest the complainant, trespassing the complainant from the building, and even arresting the complainant. Yet I've never heard one case of an officer actually being punished for intimidation of a complainant during the filing of a complaint.

Next, the people who investigate the brutal officer are his friends. They know his family, attend his kids' birthday parties, drink beer together after a shift, and are brothers in arms. They are far from impartial. The fact that this is the way the system is set up very clearly communicates that the system is not set up for impartiality and those who participate in that system like it that way and would never work to change it. They WANT the ability to get away with this shit.

This process of officer-on-officer investigation is further stacked in the officer's favor due to various POBARs that exist only for cops. It's like cops got together and decided that the constitution and the bill of rights are total shit at protecting people's rights. They decided that they need more civil rights. Look, I'm all for more civil rights. But when a group of people pass needed civil rights and then bar the majority of the population from enjoying those same rights it's a big "fuck you" to that majority of the population. It's like saying "fuck you I got mine. These are for me, not you, lesser citizen. I don't want you to have the same rights that I do. I want yours to be weak and mine to be strong." It couldn't be a more clear message of disdain and condescension.

Next in the process of (criminally) disciplining a cop for wrong-doing, he must be indicted by the DA. The DA's office is continually filled with cops and he relies on cooperation from cops to reach his political goal of a high conviction rate. It is almost never in his interest to indict a cop, because other cops will be less inclined to cooperate with this DA. It is known. Even when a DA does attempt indict, they often make colossal """mistakes""" during the indictment process or even during the trial. "Whoops, I really tried to convict them but I guess they are just innocent." "Whoops I let a criminal defense attorney onto the jury and he became the jury foreman and worked from day one for an acquittal." "Whoops I accidentally got cameras barred from the trial." "Whoops I over-charged with specific charges that are nearly impossible to convince a jury of."

Finally, as part of any trial, the testimony of cops is often treated as sacrosanct. There is no other single profession where people are treated with that kind of legal/political/judicial respect and trust and honor. I and friends have witnessed testilying first hand. Every time.

Every day, multiple stories come out about police seemingly blatantly breaking the law. Ever day we watch them get away with it. And every day we see ATPN posters who are cops come and argue why the cops should get away with it. They treat it like it's a game...if the cop doesn't get convicted, they are innocent and in the moral right. If the suspect was a POS then it doesn't matter what happened to them. Dig up dirt on the family. Dehumanize, use Cop Logic® fallacies, use lawyer-speak and half-truths. Whatever it takes to convince people the cop should get away with it.

So yeah, people are sick of it and yet it isn't changing. Until it does, expect to see more police brutality threads. Expect to see them every day. I will expect to see more "OMG wahhh wahhh why are we talking about police brutality" threads.

That was an excellent post.

 

[soulcougher73]

Probably because that is all they would talk about since it happens so often. Cop on civilian is a bit more rare so makes headlines...well if its a white cop on black civilian that is.

 

[Blanky]

Personally I am not worried about civilian violence at all. I live in the suburbs. It essentially never happens. Granted, out here police brutality also essentially never happens, but most civilian violence is against people who know each other and police isn't, so in this sense I feel very slightly more susceptible to being assaulted by a cop than somebody I know.

Under no illusions that the odds of ever being assaulted by a cop are exceedingly low, of course.

 

[Blue_Max]

...because it's harder to hate a mass of civilians, EASY to hate an identifiable group.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

...because it's harder to hate a mass of civilians, EASY to hate an identifiable group.

The discussions about police brutality are focused on justice and morality, not on hate. Hopefully you like justice, regardless of what uniform the bad guy wears (yes, even if it's blue). And hopefully you don't equate a desire for justice with hate. Because that's what it seems like you are trying to do. This "identifiable group" gets special bills of rights and special privileges that average citizens are denied. This very group doesn't want the average citizen to have these bills of rights and special privileges. We know this as a fact because this group specifically exempted the average citizen from these rights. These rights and privileges help this "identifiable group" to get away with brutality and injustice toward the average citizen. The discussion isn't about hate toward this group, it's about dislike of exclusive advantages that the legal system grants to this group even when their actions are brutal, unjust, immoral, or simply bad.

Again, hopefully you like justice and can join the discussion in a constructive manner. The very least you could do is stop equating a desire for justice to hatred.

 

[mizzou]

The discussions about police brutality are focused on justice and morality, not on hate. Hopefully you like justice, regardless of what uniform the bad guy wears (yes, even if it's blue). And hopefully you don't equate a desire for justice with hate. Because that's what it seems like you are trying to do. This "identifiable group" gets special bills of rights and special privileges that average citizens are denied. This very group doesn't want the average citizen to have these bills of rights and special privileges. We know this as a fact because this group specifically exempted the average citizen from these rights. These rights and privileges help this "identifiable group" to get away with brutality and injustice toward the average citizen. The discussion isn't about hate toward this group, it's about dislike of exclusive advantages that the legal system grants to this group even when their actions are brutal, unjust, immoral, or simply bad.

Again, hopefully you like justice and can join the discussion in a constructive manner. The very least you could do is stop equating a desire for justice to hatred.

I'm going to go ahead and call you on your bullshit and ask you to explain this.
gets special bills of rights and special privileges that average citizens are denied.

There are, obviously, constitutional protections set in legal precedent that are given to those in Law Enforcement who are exercising their legal powers in good faith. I wonder if you even have any clue what those are.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

I'm going to go ahead and call you on your bullshit and ask you to explain this.
gets special bills of rights and special privileges that average citizens are denied.

There are, obviously, constitutional protections set in legal precedent that are given to those in Law Enforcement who are exercising their legal powers in good faith. I wonder if you even have any clue what those are.

Wait, what the fuck??? Are you saying that the various POBORs aren't special bills of rights? That's weird, because "bill of rights" is in the acronym. And the acronym also makes it very clear who is excluded from these rights.

Are you saying that there doesn't exist the thin blue line? Are you saying that cops accused of wrong doing don't get investigated by fellow members of their fraternal order? Are you saying that police testimony isn't given far higher weight in court than that of non-police? Are you saying that DAs are NOT caught in a political conflict of interest when it comes to prosecuting cops? Are you saying that cops routinely write tickets to other cops for driving the exact same way that gets me tickets? Because all of these things sound like special rights and privileges that non-cop citizens don't get.

So there is no bullshit to call me on. Nope, bullshit not found. I did find some horseshit though, and it was your attempt to call me out when you know god damn well I'm right.

 

[mizzou]

Wait, what the fuck??? Are you saying that the various POBORs aren't special bills of rights? That's weird, because "bill of rights" is in the acronym. And the acronym also makes it very clear who is excluded from these rights.

Are you saying that there doesn't exist the thin blue line? Are you saying that cops accused of wrong doing don't get investigated by fellow members of their fraternal order? Are you saying that police testimony isn't given far higher weight in court than that of non-police? Are you saying that DAs are NOT caught in a political conflict of interest when it comes to prosecuting cops? Are you saying that cops routinely write tickets to other cops for driving the exact same way that gets me tickets? Because all of these things sound like special rights and privileges that non-cop citizens don't get.

So there is no bullshit to call me on. Nope, bullshit not found. I did find some horseshit though, and it was your attempt to call me out when you know god damn well I'm right.

I just googled pobor and came up with police garrity rights which is essentially miranda for leis. Everything else sounds very similar to what regular citizens have. What pobor are you referring to?

 

[piasabird]

Yah who is going to investigate Holder for being involved in the IRS scandal?