tvc184

That is why I said it was political. Defund means to end funding or in other words, abolish. In politics, you can make up your own definitions.

Yep, like I said, the city no longer controls the police that patrol their streets. They will have the same number of cops .... they just won’t have control. Like the article said, 10% of the city residents are not black but the officers patrolling are 50% white and it causes the citizens concerns. Yep, the city abdicated that responsibility to the county. I am not sure when Camden went through this charge but I found their crime index through 2012 where they were up to 400% higher than the national average. So now they have cut that in almost half..... only 200+% higher than the average. My department started community policing in 1995. I guess Camden was a bit behind the times. As an example in this area, I believe Beaumont and Port Arthur police departments have a combined budget of about $70 million. So they both abolish their departments and refuse to pay the county. So now Jefferson County has to come up with $70M new dollars and find 400 new officers. Then an elected sheriff will dictate who patrols those cities and what rules they will have. Acceptable?

Defund is to take away all funding. In Minneapolis’ case, the city council voted to abolish the police department. They cannot however because it is in their city charter (equal to a city’s constitution) and it has to be voted in by the voters. Politically people are coming up with all kinds of definitions such as Reduced funding, restructuring, contracting out, etc. The entire thing is political. Cities have almost always run their police departments at the bare bones cost. It is tax payer’s money so that is understandable, except..... do you want untrained officers? Many, if not most, police departments use the state minimums for officers. I would guess that most police agencies have no firearms training programs. The Cadets fire about 500 rounds of ammo in the police academy in five days and in many departments an officer can put in 25 years and never again have training. It goes for other areas. The state mandates 20 hours of training per year but it can be in any topic. Then something happened and the cry is for either more training or defunding which oddly are complete opposites. Yes officers get certain types of training mandated, particularly early in their career. For the first 4 years or so they are supposed to take “Core” courses or other mandated classes that the state has deemed as necessary. These are crime scene, Spanish, domestic violence, arrest-search-seizure, deescalation (recently added) and so on A 15 year officer might not have had any updates in those in 13 years however. You get out of the academy, run through these mandated courses as quickly as possible and then finish the last 30 years of your career. Then something happens and I have many times seen people use the phrase (when it is beneficial to them) “highly trained officers”. These highly trained officers then...... Hmmmm..... I think the entire defund craze is nonsensical. They cannot get rid of the police any more then they can get rid of nurses.

No, they would not. It doesn’t work like that. They have age requirements, different standards, different academies, different laws and so on. You can’t just transfer to another agency. I saw a guy on a Facebook forum (when they thought that Minneapolis was about to lay off all officers) say that there was no big deal because that state and county would just take their place. Okay, Minneapolis loses 800 officers. So the state has 800 troopers sitting around waiting for something to do? Nope.... I looked up MN state police and they have only 591 troopers in the entire state. Do they could completely strip the entire state and cover just over half of ONE city? The county had very few actual street cops but mostlt runs the county jail (which is pretty much the standard). ...,,and again, that is one city. The federal government has completely different laws. They enforce the US Code and state/county/local police enforce their state Penal Code... which are all different. It would be like if all doctors quit, couldn’t veterinary assistants take their place? They are both in medical fields. Then.... let’s assume that you could simply have the state police hire all local officers immediately and forget all of the stuff I just mentioned. You would have the exact same officers patrolling the exact same streets but now the city council who is mad at then would have no control at all over them. All that would do is to stop their own authority and have another government have complete control over the same area that you used to control. To say this isn’t well thought out (by people calling for it) might be the understatement of all time.

BPD is a civil service agency That means that there are legal practices that must be adhered to for hiring, discipline and promotions It is intended for fairness and to get the good ol’ boy system out of the police department. Examples are promotions must be done by test score after all officers have had the books for the test listed for at least 90 days and at least a 30 day notice of the test, All tests must be done at the same time and location (no secret tests) and each candidate has 5 days to file appeals of test questions. Hiring must also be done by test scores in order with all candidates tested at the same time and location. Civil Service mandated rules can be changed locally only by a collective bargaining contract if the city and union agree during negotiations. If I remember correctly Beaumont changed the hiring state law by contract. They changed from the state mandated hiring the highest score first to a 3 tier hiring system. A minority (Black or Hispanic), a female and the a white person (or something similar). I guess by that system there could have hired a Black female, any female and then a white female since a female could be in multiple categories. But... I wasn’t working for them so.... I just remember the case. Also if I remember correctly, a White male (who I believe had a brother working for BPD) scored high enough to get hired (“maybe” even #1 on the test) but he was not hired because..... there were not enough candidates that passed on the first two lists. Like maybe they hired a Black officer but no female candidate passed everything so no “second” tier. They could not get to the qualified third tier so the White candidate who passed everything could not be hired because he was White male. Or so my fading memory goes. I “heard” that he settled or was awarded by a jury, 6 figures and BPD changed their discriminatory hiring practice immediately. I may not have all of the details correct but think I am pretty close. I an fairly certain they had a tier system by race and sex and it cost them...

Systematic is a buzz word right now. Every complaint is a systematic problem. I heard Joe Biden today saying something else was systematic Systematic: Involving a system or plan. So the claims of systematic racism, most in larger cities, is a claim that the city officials are sanctioning and condoning the racism. In Baltimore,MD where there were riots after Freddie Gray’s death, was it systematic racism that caused it? The mayor, police chief, driver of the police van where Gray died, the main suspect (van driver) and the judge hearing the cases were all the same race as Gray. So was it a conspiracy by all of them to do away with Gray’s civil rights? In southeast Texas, we have Port Arthur where the entire city council, the mayor, the municipal court judge, the city manager, the city attorney and the police Chief are all of the same race. As the definition of systematic says, it is planned as part if the system. So when people are protesting locally, are they saying that the systematic racism is these leaders?

Yes.

They don’t need any more laws to initiate a contact. I would bet 1 out of 2,000 (or less) contacts is for tint.

It is what it is. There are a few outright exemptions. Speeding, parking in fire lanes, handicap spots, driving on shoulder, etc.

His window tint was not illegal. Law enforcement vehicles are exempt from that law.

Yep

I never much considered racism up until now. I thought it was a vigilante trying to take the law into his own hands. I loon at these things in black and white and I am not taking about race. I read and teach the law and frequently read laws from other states. I try to avoid the emotional side and simple ask, what evidence do we know about and then compare that to the law. Every time new information is released, I reevaluate my opinion. On another forum I posted on l before this one, I called it Murder based on what I read and saw and on reading GA law. That was before any arrests were made. That was subject to change with new information. All of the new information kept my original opinion in place.

I have never heard of using a knee to the head or neck as a means of controlling a person. I am not saying in a fight you won’t use any means available up to deadly force if necessary but as a trained technique of control, I have never heard of it and in my 37th year.

I don’t think the knee got him in much trouble for a minute or so. Several minutes after Floyd had quit moving? Animosity or not......

Fight with him 3 minutes after he was unconscious... in handcuffs... with at least 4 other cops with him?

This was your post on the opening comment on this thread.... “Once again, the narrative has turned to the epidemic of unarmed young black men being gunned down by racists. I've gotta cry foul on this one”. I believe that we have recently learned that the video guy actually used his pickup to help cut Arbery off so was directly involved in the incident. Then the video guy gave a statement that has McMichael calling Arbery the ultimate racial slur AFTER killing him. Then McMichael tells the police that he didn’t know if Arbery stole anything but basically he looked suspicious. McMichael’s justification to the police was that he had a “gut feeling”. The third post in the thread I pretty much called it BS. I think that I will stick with my original stance. Perhaps the most troubling thing is that the local DA almost saw nothing with investigating. I saw enough from behind an iPhone screen. Things that make you go hmmmmm.....

Yeah but you equate s civil rights organizations with not having the best interest of all students but dismiss an NRA member as not a factor. Every time there is a school shooting, the NRA catches grief of putting too much pressure on lawmakers to maje guns to easy to access. No matter how you look at it, many people blame the NRA rightly or wrongly for shootings. You are doing the same for the NAACP.

If a board member is a member of the NRA, is that a conflict of interest and is he against stopping gun violence in schools?

Our phone (like all attaches to a cord and had a rotary dial) was RAndoph 2-0747 in Nederland. i think my father’s work number in PA was YUkon 5-2394.

No. We don’t offer sacrifices. Assuming that his lawyers can show that there is no crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt, he should walk and will. I don’t think that will happen (I think there will be enough to show that the officer at least contributed) but it is how it should be.

I watched him tell obvious lies on national television. His conclusion was, it can’t be determined. Well... yes it can and was. Baden said that from the angle of the bullets it could have happened 3 direct ways. That is true.... if you ignore the rest of the scene. To not tell the entire story in order to stir up controversy is a lie. Baden lied.

Baden will say what you want him to say. I saw him on FNC say that he couldn’t tell if Michael Brown has his hands up. He could tell because the crime scene diagrams and photos should what happened. Baden ignored what didn’t fit his case. Be cherry picks what he needs to make bus case.

Going by Texas law, there are specifically stated uses of deadly force for protection of property only. A person “may” be able to use df for property however the statements that looters can be shot because they are committing theft is not correct. officer: why did You shoot him? shooter: he was stealing. OOPS!!

I read all 20 something witness statements from that case and I think one person backed up Whitehead’s side of events. The others either agreed with Arnold or didn’t agree with him but gave information that backed his version. Like, the officer was wrong and he.. then went on to describe the incident which backed the officer. Those statements were like, I disagree with the officer, because he is a cop or shot my friend... but this is what I saw. I have taken two statements against officers in my career where the witnesses literally said, the officer was wrong, then went on to state facts that made the officer correct.

It depends on where you work and what reporting requirements they have. Is it a “complaint” or just a use of force. Our current use of force (called response to resistance) is documented any time we use any force other than just the suspect submitting to being handcuffed. If that was in place when I first started (36+ years ago), I would have had a use of force almost every week and sometimes more than one a night. Or are try taking about an actual complaint like a person or officer actually filed an excessive force complaint. I have been involved in more than one shooting incident and been to the hospital multiple times in the line of duty and think I have had one complaint that I used to much force. Strangely, in that case I used no force but made what I thought was a reasonable threat. His complaint was roughly, the officer told me that if I tried to hurt him (me), he was going to hurt me worse. Yes, that was the actual complaint... kind of cleaned up for language. So in this case, that is a lot of outside complaints if it is for improper force. It doesn’t mean that he didn’t use lawful force but it would beat looking into.