-
This is not true.
-
There were police long before slave catchers in the South.
-
This last line is also false.
- Most certainly true in the U.S. In the Southern states most police forces were established after the war from slave patrols. In the North, they were not, but they were not there to serve and protect either. They were there to defend business from the underclass. Cite:
Slave patrols
There are two historical narratives about the origins of American law enforcement.
Policing in southern slave-holding states had roots in slave patrols, squadrons made up of white volunteers empowered to use vigilante tactics to enforce laws related to slavery. They located and returned enslaved people who had escaped, crushed uprisings led by enslaved people and punished enslaved workers found or believed to have violated plantation rules.
…
The more commonly known precursors to modern law enforcement were centralized municipal police departments that began to form in the early 19th century, beginning in Boston and soon cropping up in New York City, Albany, Chicago, Philadelphia and elsewhere.The first police forces were overwhelmingly white, male and more focused on responding to disorder than crime.
As Eastern Kentucky University criminologist Gary Potter explains, officers were expected to control a “dangerous underclass” that included African Americans, immigrants and the poor. Through the early 20th century, there were few standards for hiring or training officers.
And as far as the criminal conduct of the police, have you not been paying attention? They threaten slow downs or stoppage, if politicians get out of line, they threaten their families. There critics wind up mysteriously dead. The steal kids from cars and use them in propaganda videos. Not to mention when police become actual gangs.
Yes, in a tiny % of the time and officers.
Kinda like a tiny % of “the left’ and ‘rioting and looting’ at BLM protests, hunh?
Yes, and so???
Look, all these weird plans to abolish or fix the police totally ignore the problem is very small as a percentage.
The problem is near-universal as a percentage, actually. When a cop commits murder and the rest of the department stands behind him, that’s a whole department full of problems, not just the one guy who choked/beat/drugged/shot someone to death.
Ok, let us take the famous Floyd murder. I concur, Chauvin murdered Floyd, I dont know 1st, 2dn or whatever, I am not sure which he will be convicted of. But murder.
All four officers were fired within days. Chauvin is charged with murder.
So, no the department didnt stand behind him.
So, show me a case, where the Police officer was convicted or even charged with murder, and the PD stood behind them- after they were charged or convicted.
Shaun Lucas was fired days after the killing and also charged within days.
How many unjustifiable homicides would you defend in your place of work? Were you trained and encourage to kill?
How many bad apples does it take before it is an organizational problem?
Nope, my type of Federal Agent didnt carry a gun.
Cops are not encouraged to kill.
5% or so. Not less than 1%
Nope, that’s called moving the goalposts. I said ‘when a cop commits murder’, not when he’s convicted or charged. It’s incredibly common for prosecutors and medical examiners to side with police, many laws are written to give police immunity for beating, killing, and raping people, and police actions to obfuscate what happened contribute to prosecutions failing. Sometimes by the time a charge comes around, and often by the time a conviction does, the department stops standing behind the cop, but that’s way, way too late in the game. The murder of Eric Garner, for example, doesn’t meet your critera, as the murderer was never convicted but is a perfect example of a department covering for a murderer, and doing so well enough that, while a civil suit succeeded, the thug responsible was allowed to walk free.
A good example that shows the problem with your criteria: Botham Gene. An off-duty cop breaks into his house and murders him on his own couch. Rather than arresting the perp, questioning her, and searching her apartment for evidence linking her to him, the police let her run loose around the crime scene and give her days to make up her story and hide any evidence that might show a connection between the two (and thus motive), and to trash or stash any illegal drugs or other ‘bad look’ items. They did, however, immediately search the victim’s house and leak to the press that it looks like he might have had marijuana. Eventually the prosecutor did bring charges and the force did fire her, but the cops on the scene should have arrested her for shooting someone in his own home, should have interrogated her like any other prisoner, should have gotten a search warrant for her apartment right away, should not have ‘leaked’ information attempting to defame the victim, and otherwise should not have accorded her special treatment. The fact that they did all of this and the department has no problem with it, certainly not enough to consider any kind of obstruction of justice charges against the cops, is a major problem.
Then there’s things like the mysterious ailment “Excited Delerium” which coincidentally seems to kill a lot of black men in police custody:
But it’s not just outright murder that’s a problem. There’s the rape I linked to in my previous post - it’s legal for NY cops to rape people they’ve arrested!. Then there’s widespread, frequent and accepted practice torture and severe bodily harm through a variety of means - your basic beating and choking, firing so-called ‘rubber bullets’ (which in many cases cause the loss of an eye), assault with chemical weapons, assault with electrictroshock weapons, and forced drugging. And this is not limited to people who could reasonably be said to be doing something even kind of illegal, it’s frequently done to reporters, legal observers, and medical personnel, like in the example below:
Oh, here’s another example of major policing problems that aren’t covered by the ‘did they fire the cop once he was charged with murder’. I think that the a police academy ever did anything but fire everyone involved in creating or using these materials indicates a huge problem. This isn’t ‘oh, maybe this is a little gung-ho’, these training materials “imploring officers to be ‘ruthless killer[s],’ instructs troopers to have ‘a mindset void of emotion’ and to ‘meet violence with greater violence’” and that quote’s Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler (yes, that Hitler) “the very first essential for success is a perpetually constant and regular employment of violence.”
But yeah, it’s just a few incredibly rare cops, sure.
You mean, when in your own personal opinion- a cop commits murder, even tho we usually define that as being convicted or at least charged. So he is guilty until proven innocent- and even that’s not enuf, eh? I didnt move the goalposts- you did. Murder is something decided by a jury of your peers, not by a guy on a message board who has read a couple biased reports.
And the Grand Jury- one of the longest running pieces of Democracy in history, dating back at least 1000 years- said- No, it wasnt. Those are members of the public, chosen at random. They aint cops, they aint the DA. But you want to ignore that fact that members of the public heard all all the evidence and said no- while you read a couple news stories and decided it was.
As for the cops covering for a murderer- they fired his ass.
Botham Gene? On November 30, 2018, Guyger was indicted on murder charges by a Dallas County grand jury…
On October 1, 2019, Guyger was found guilty of murder.
But you can go on, convicting cops in the court of your own mind, ignoring what juries actually ruled- after actually- gasp- looking at ALL the evidence.
You can give examples but how many can you come up with - a handful?
There are close to a million law Enforcement officers in the USA. Come up with a hundred thousand examples- merely 10%, and I will concede.
Wait a minute. If it’s only 5% or so who are murderous thugs, what are the odds that all four of the ones involved in killing George Floyd would be in that tiny cohort? There’s only going to be a 0.000625% chance of that being the case. That’s gotta be some real bad luck.
Now, if we assume that it’s closer to 85% murderous thugs on the police force, then it’s an even money proposition that four out of four would all be thugs. That’s a lot more reasonable, and far more likely to be the case.
Two of them were trainees (first week on the job), who had “obey your TO no matter what or you get fired” drilled into them and it is unclear if everyone knew what was happening.
We shall see who gets convicted of what.
I did not say convicted or charged, I said commits. The concept of murder predates codified law, and the word ‘murder’ has been in use longer than there has been a United States to reference the laws of and longer than there has been a parliament to pass laws or United Kingdom to reference the laws of (the precursor to the US legal system).
Again, I am talking about cops committing murder. The fact that other cops, internal affiars, medical examiners, prosecutors, judges, and legislators work together to avoid them actually getting prosecuted when they murder someone like Eric Garner indicates a major, systemic problem with the justice system. Attempting to use the major, systemic problems with the justice system (in particular, it’s failure to prosecute police) as proof that actions we have video evidence, multiple witnesses, and in some cases even confessions of are rare is absurd. It’s like saying that a car who’s electrical system is broken is completely safe to drive because there are no warning lights.
I will note that you completely and utterly ignored the actions of the police in covering for Guyger and attempting to smear the name of her victim that occured between the murder and conviction. This is a good indication that it makes my point and you’re hoping to avoid it.
Yeah, you’re not actually debating anything when you demand that someone cite ‘a hundred thousand examples’, you’re just spewing nonsense.
Meanwhile, for anyone who wants evidence of of widespread, deeply-rooted issues in the police and isn’t playing absurd games like ‘cite 100,000 cases and I’ll concede’, this is pretty sobering:
and you, as judge, jury and execution is the one who decies eh?
Not the 23 random good citizens who read and hear ALL the evidence and decide there isnt enuf evidence for a indictment? Not "other cops, internal affiars (sic), medical examiners, prosecutors, judges, and legislators "- 23 randomly selected good citizens. You, some random dude on the internet, you get to decide. Well, not in America. In America we let the People decide. 23 men and women, picked randomly, usually decide in cop cases. They hear evidence that you have never seen, and will never see. But you know better than they do, after reading a couple biased news reports, so you are claiming here.
You see the problem here, right?
If “obey your TO no matter what or you get fired” is how police are trained then that’s a great example of precisely why police organizations need to be rebuilt from the ground up.
It shows that the system itself is broken; that’s it’s not only about individual officer’s behavior.
It’s a great example of how even though most cops might not be “bad”, the entire structure need to be thrown out and rethought.
It’s sad if two trainee officers had to go down not because they were necessarily “bad cops” themselves but because they were considered bad cops because they were following the unwritten rules.
Clearly change is needed at the root level.
That is how fry cooks at McDonalds are trained, in fact, pretty much every single job I had was “do what your trainer sez or you are out” during your first few weeks on the job. That is how just about every job works.
I know what you mean. It’s true. But cops ain’t fry cooks. There’s a lot more on the line. It’s like Crew Resource Management among commercial flight crews. We don’t fire first officers for questioning their captains during critical events. We encourage it. But, AIUI, it’s taken a while to get to this point in commercial aviation and we still aren’t fully where we need to be.
It’s weird having a full-on bootlicking defender of police brutality accusing someone else of being ‘executioner’. When the police choke a man to death on video, I’m going to call that murder, even if they manage to avoid prosecution. This goes double if they denied it before the video came out and tried to suppress the video. When police force a woman in custody to have sex with them, I’m going to call it rape, even if their unions have pushed to have rape laws written so that police forcing someone in custody to have sex doesn’t count as rape.
I’m not going to apologize for using facts, especially things like clear video feeds, instead of lie-filled reports from cops and their enablers that contradict things like direct video of what happens.