Now, wait a minute. Even presuming the truth of the lead claim here–that most white people are not themselves racist in their views–if they are not aware of, and sensitive to, racist practice, then they could easily be the innocent beneficiaries. Is that not any kind of complicity? Could that not stand some education?
People seem so defensive about the idea that they might have anything to learn…
Are we discussing “largely” or “always”?
Regards,
Shodan
I doubt you’ll find anyone who thinks the system is always fair and just, since every day somebody guilty goes free and somebody innocent doesn’t.
Create incentives to behave ethically.
Like putting cops who kill unarmed children on trial, for one.
Sentence prosecutors who tamper with evidence behind bars for more than 10 days, for another.
We could withdraw funding from the FBI when it wrongfully convicts people.
Every time a prisoner is exonerated, the prosecutor and law enforcement personnel who put them behind bars should be investigated.
Confiscate property only when the owner has been convicted of a crime.
We could end prohibition, yet again. Eliminate private prisons. Stop tying police funding to tickets, fines and confiscations. Stop tying police and prosecutorial career advancement to successful convictions and instead maybe tie it to fewer crimes?
Police and prosecutorial misconduct should be among the most thoroughly investigated and strictly punished crimes on the books. We should instill a culture of law enforcement as humble public servants who are held to higher standards, not thugs who are above the law.
Then anecdotes aren’t going to be much good. Of all the convictions in the system every year, what percentage are “fair and just”? Does “largely” mean 51%? 80%? 99%?
And to some extent, it is a waste of time. The rioters in Ferguson, and race pimps like Sharption, don’t care if a given verdict was just or unjust.
And cases like Ferguson, or this, are not being judged by the same standards of fairness and justice that most people use. And so we won’t be able to come to any agreement, nor would it help if we did.
Regards,
Shodan
Absolutely - except if they are blacks and liberals, who are always eager to listen to good advice on what they can do to improve their own situations.
Regards,
Shodan
Also, create some sort of standardized training and testing for cops. Doctors have to go to medical school; lawyers have to pass the bar. Police officers have more power and responsibility than either, so why should it be easier to become one? There should be national - or at least state-wide - standards you have to meet in order to carry a badge.
AFAIU, a cop has to pass some kind of police academy/cop school to become a cop. You don’t walk off the street, get a badge and go out on patrol. Granted, the police academy is not a medical school kind of thing. But - if it would take as much training/effort to become a cop as it takes to become a lawyer or doctor, then the compensation should be accordingly high. Would you like your (well, not your, since you’re not in the US, but anyway) local taxes double to pay $300K/year salaries to cops?
Well, yes. Assuming the candidates were of sufficient quality.
If they were that much better then they are today, then that would probably be an amazing deal for the taxpayer.
I think lots of people have this expectation. I think every single one of those people is white.
Right, because the average criminal doesn’t know that what he’s doing is criminal, or wrong. 
Yep, take up the White Man’s Burden, and educate those poor, ignorant black people, amiright?
(Seriously, I can’t be the only one who took it like that)
On trial for acting within the law? The boy put the toy pistol in his waistband and the officers saw. He proceeded to pull it out when the officers confronted him. Did you even read the headline of he article? The gun looked real. There was every indication to the officer that it was real. What was the officer supposed to do? Wait for the kid to fire a test round?
Officers aren’t telepathic. The pistol was modified to look real. It was taken out in a confrontation. The shooting was absolutely justified. Too bad about the kid. Should have learned:
to not possess a toy that was modified to look like a real weapon
to not play with said toy around others in a playground where there are obviously lots of parents who are concerned about their children’s welfare
to listen and to do what a cop asks within reason
to not put a hand into your waistband when speaking to an officer
The kid made a bunch of stupid decisions and basically forced the officer’s hand. No sympathy for the dead kid. Sympathy for the officer who is now being attacked.
Following up on this: I talked to a retired New York police officer the other day. NYPD officers are eligible for retirement benefits after 20 years, so he retired at 42. His final salary (in 2002) was $99,500, and his pension benefits are 50% of that.
The median salary for an assistant state attorney in New York - today - is $89,000. Granted, that’s for the whole state and not just NYC, but still.
I should point out the cop gets $12,000 a year as a “loan repayment”, because the state legislature forced the police unions to invest their pension funds in NYC bonds that nobody else would buy when the city was nearly bankrupt in the 70s. That’s on top of the regular pension though and I didn’t count it because I assume officers that retire now don’t get it.
A. This is not an isolated incident. B. If the officer was in the right, he’ll have no problem convincing a jury of the fact.
EVERY TIME a cop shoots somebody, there should be a trial. Period. It should be a matter of public record: his reasoning, his options, the evidence for and against the necessity of firing his weapon.
Do you think if you shot a 12 year old on the playground you’d get to go home that day, no questions asked? Cops should be held to a higher standard than the general public.
I once heard a comment (and I don’t recall where) that rang very true to me - in America, if you are accused of a crime, you are better off being guilty and rich than non-guilty and poor. Until this is no longer true we will not have a fair justice system.
It’s not just America. It’s basically inherent to any adversarial criminal justice system in a capitalist state, at least so long as funding defense for the poor is not a priority.
Exactly. And ours is run by prosecutors and judges and police who all want promotions or higher political office by being “tough” on criminals. They make their mistake when they decide the accused are criminals and don’t let the jury do it.
As much as I agree that police officers are shooting people way too much, this is just an absurd position, if you actually think it through. You cannot automatically put someone on trial irrespective of the evidence.
For one thing, you can’t treat someone differently with respect to going to trial based on their profession. So in effect to do this you’d have to put EVERYONE on trial who ever shot someone, which would lead to absolutely preposterous situations. Think, for a moment, about the consequences of this idea.