Doctivism---Is it the new normal?

[masaraksh]

---

Members don't see this ad.

And combine that with the fact that it's damn hard to get bad cops fired and stay fired or actually face consequences for actions and you have a problem that compounds itself.

Same with teachers. Its impossible to fire teachers thanks to unions. Same with the VA. It encourages mediocrity, if not worse. I hate unions.

 

[ridethecliche]

Same with teachers. Its impossible to fire teachers thanks to unions. Same with the VA. It encourages mediocrity, if not worse. I hate unions.

I don't hate unions. I think they serve a valid function and much of working life that is taken for granted is a result of their work. However, some of them, like any other institutions, do bad things in addition to good things. That doesn't make the institution of unions evil, just some of them and their actions. Same goes for LEO's.

 

[GaiusOctavius]

I believe you're being sarcastic. Never claimed to be "an expert on social movements and effective protest movements."

With respect to the Garner case, there's no system of checks and balances when a D.A. is tasked with prosecuting a colleague. The D.A. works closely with police--they serve as witnesses for the prosecution, jointly interrogate suspects, make arrests for the D.A., etc. Is it reasonable to expect that the D.A. is going to be completely unbiased in prosecuting an officer it routinely works with and relies upon (not to mention political lobbying and prosecutor re-election hopes)? I think there's an obvious need for an independent prosecutor to be used in such cases.

The focus shouldn't be on "saving black lives." Garner died because an officer used unnecessary force and ignored the cries of a man who repeatedly verbalized that he was suffocating. Furthermore, the system in place failed to hold that officer accountable for his actions. Those are the real issues. IMO, the best way to prevent that from happening again is to have police officers wear cameras and to have a better system in place for prosecuting police that commit such heinous acts. Civilians are going to feel more comfortable knowing that their interactions are being recorded and police are more likely to monitor their behavior when wearing a camera.

Also, you're an ass.

I am glad to have such an expert on social movements and effective protest movements in our midst!

Recordings and autopsy findings will certainly help the cause. I'm sure it would have helped in the Garner case... oh wait.

 

[masaraksh]

I don't hate unions. I think they serve a valid function and much of working life that is taken for granted is a result of their work. However, some of them, like any other institutions, do bad things in addition to good things. That doesn't make the institution of unions evil, just some of them and their actions. Same goes for LEO's.

Thats probably closer to what I meant. Protection for the working class is a good thing - especially because you can probably imagine how poorly so many wage earners would be treated without them. Just look at someplace like WalMart. Employees are very low on their list of priorities.

However, I still dislike that powerful unions can give people too much job security and that in turn removes the incentive to work to be responsible or to work well

 

[mehc012]

Big brother, big sister= Government endorsed program overwhelmingly involving (and funded by) outside communities.

Community center= Nothing unique to black communities, and funded through various sources, including taxpayer.

Mentorship programs= Often taxpayer funded and generally consist of outside communities reaching in.

"Several stories" about people giving back to their communities= Yeah, they are stories because this is rare.

Nothing you mentioned demonstrates any signs of accountability from WITHIN. You've provided no policy proposals or actions that could be taken to help. Only complaining and pointing out injustices. We know there's a damn problem, but please point out exactly what is is, and provide a viable solution. Otherwise, what is the point of this whole discussion? The bolded is incredibly naive, and will never happen as long as there's crime. It's a catch 22. On one hand, governments (local, state, and federal), are dealing with a majority of constituents who are (rightly) concerned about violence in their communities. On the other hand, you have these annoying voices in the background essentially telling lawmakers that they need to be working on policy to make law enforcement less able to execute their jobs effectively because it hurts some feelings. This will NOT happen on any considerable scale. You might get some body cameras and a few weapons taken away, but until the overall levels of violence decline in these places, people will continue to get frisked for no good reason, and some people will even get shot every once in a while by stupid cops for doing stupid things.

So wait, which is it...should they be trying to push for policy proposals (aka more funding of community centers and 'government endorsed programs'), or do their efforts only count if they do them on their own?

How do you know they are rare? They seem pretty common to me. And why is it suddenly an issue of rarity, when before your argument was that nobody was doing ANYthing on this front?

Who the hell said anything about these programs being only by black people, for black people, or else they don't count? Why do these efforts have to be 'unique to black communities' in order to matter? Heck, if we're saying that other communities aren't having these problems to the same extent as black communities, maybe they should be trying to get involved in the same programs and efforts which the less troubled groups have - it apparently worked for them, no?

Don't sit there and tell me 'we know there's a problem' when you have spent an inordinate amount of time on this thread trying to deny exactly that. Step 1 is getting people to actually admit that there is something here that needs to be addressed.

 

[mehc012]

I believe you're being sarcastic. Never claimed to be "an expert on social movements and effective protest movements."

With respect to the Garner case, there's no system of checks and balances when a D.A. is tasked with prosecuting a colleague. The D.A. works closely with police--they serve as witnesses for the prosecution, jointly interrogate suspects, make arrests for the D.A., etc. Is it reasonable to expect that the D.A. is going to be completely unbiased in prosecuting an officer it routinely works with and relies upon (not to mention political lobbying and prosecutor re-election hopes)? I think there's an obvious need for an independent prosecutor to be used in such cases.

The focus shouldn't be on "saving black lives." Garner died because an officer used unnecessary force and ignored the cries of a man who repeatedly verbalized that he was suffocating. Furthermore, the system in place failed to hold that officer accountable for his actions. Those are the real issues. IMO, the best way to prevent that from happening again is to have police officers wear cameras and to have a better system in place for prosecuting police that commit such heinous acts.

Also, you're an ass.

Why would we suppose that cameras would help when direct video of the case at hand does not seem to have changed anything?

 

[GaiusOctavius]

The video of the case helped immensely in bringing media attention to a heinous act. It helps because there's not always someone filming.

Edit: Apparently it's not illegal to film police in NY

Why would we suppose that cameras would help when direct video of the case at hand does not seem to have changed anything?

 

[mehc012]

The video of the case helped immensely in bringing media attention to a heinous act (despite it being illegal to film police in NY). It helps because there's not always someone filming.

It's not illegal to film police in NY.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nypd-cops-told-memo-filmed-article-1.1898379

Media attention is nice, but it's not like video evidence of the cop using potentially lethal (to the point that it was disallowed by the NYPD) force on an unarmed man who had not made any motion to harm anyone and was being held essentially because he had committed a nonviolent crime at some point in the past (rather than, you know, because he was seen doing anything illegal that day) enabled even an indictment.

 

[ridethecliche]

I believe you're being sarcastic. Never claimed to be "an expert on social movements and effective protest movements."

With respect to the Garner case, there's no system of checks and balances when a D.A. is tasked with prosecuting a colleague. The D.A. works closely with police--they serve as witnesses for the prosecution, jointly interrogate suspects, make arrests for the D.A., etc. Is it reasonable to expect that the D.A. is going to be completely unbiased in prosecuting an officer it routinely works with and relies upon (not to mention political lobbying and prosecutor re-election hopes)? I think there's an obvious need for an independent prosecutor to be used in such cases.

The focus shouldn't be on "saving black lives." Garner died because an officer used unnecessary force and ignored the cries of a man who repeatedly verbalized that he was suffocating. Furthermore, the system in place failed to hold that officer accountable for his actions. Those are the real issues. IMO, the best way prevent that from happening again is to have police officers wear cameras and to have a better system in place for prosecuting police.

Also, you're an ass.

Also, also, it's all on video. All of it. From the initial encounter, to the 'altercation', to later video showing him lying there till people started prodding him, and the EMT's finally showed after being on scene for a while.

Body mounted cameras have been shown to decrease instances of police brutality cases in areas they have been implemented.

PS: You missed the entire point of this 'movement'. In the simplest terms I can muster, black people are tired of being treated like second class citizens. A large percent of their population and allies believe this to be the case and believe such cases to be the epitome of such treatment. The point is to save all lives that are unjustly lost in this fashion, black people being the epitome of the system at its worst. This is why the response is being met with support from people of all races. Bringing a marginalized group up doesn't bring everyone else down.

Re: bold part. Appreciate it!

The video of the case helped immensely in bringing media attention to a heinous act (despite it being illegal to film police in NY). It helps because there's not always someone filming.

I wonder who such laws protect.

Slash, why you think this is a law. It's illegal in Illinois (possibly), but not New York.

Thats probably closer to what I meant. Protection for the working class is a good thing - especially because you can probably imagine how poorly so many wage earners would be treated without them. Just look at someplace like WalMart. Employees are very low on their list of priorities.

However, I still dislike that powerful unions can give people too much job security and that in turn removes the incentive to work to be responsible or to work well

I'm actually pretty reasonable. 😛

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Ironically enough, most of the crime in Mexico is committed by wealthy cartels and corrupt governments, not starving citizens. Even more amazingly, the crime there is fueled largely by the drug habits of uhh... urban black communities here in America.

Do you have data to back up this claim? Blacks aren't the only ones with drug habits in this country...

Oh, I'm not at ALL denying here that people brought up in these environments are more likely to pursue a life of crime. I'd make the damn drop if I were that kid.

I'm glad you admitted that many inner city youth are indeed confronted with insanely difficult dilemmas.

Why does everyone continue to overlook the fact that odds are, the person who shot the father in that scenario would have never been caught (following sheer statistics of case closures for homicides in these place), because much of the community was probably unwilling to cooperate with PD out of fear of retaliation or being labeled a snitch.

No, that person will most likely end up in prison and/or dead. If eventually incarcerated, it may not be for that specific crime, but prison is a very likely outcome for such individuals.

I don't think there is any outright neglect by the nation of the underlying cause.

There are underlying causes.
And there is definitely neglect:
3 strike laws
mandatory minimums for drug-offenses
lack of summer, music, and after-school programs
a lack of food!!!
impractical school curricula
overcrowded classes
police brutality
not enough police officers in many of these areas!
a lack of services for the mentally ill
etc...

Unfortunately, we often do not follow through with effective solutions/programs because they are phased out when a new policy regime comes to power. We live election cycle to election cycle, and generational problems are not going to be solved in 2-4 years...

 

[mehc012]

I'm glad you admitted that many inner city youth are indeed confronted with insanely difficult dilemmas.

I'd almost be happier if he were simply oblivious to the situation. Instead, the stance here seems to be "yes, these people live in difficult situations and often find themselves with no better options...but that is their problem, not mine. If they want it to suck less, they should figure out how to fix it themselves, even though I just admitted that they're hardly in a position to do so without assistance. Also, I'm going to be pissed off at the notion that anyone else would want to empathize with them or help them because dammit, I'm not going to help and so no one else should! It doesn't count if things improve if people help with the process!"

...somehow I would find pure ignorance less frustrating.

 

[Aloft085]

Thats probably closer to what I meant. Protection for the working class is a good thing - especially because you can probably imagine how poorly so many wage earners would be treated without them. Just look at someplace like WalMart. Employees are very low on their list of priorities.

However, I still dislike that powerful unions can give people too much job security and that in turn removes the incentive to work to be responsible or to work well

One of my top reasons for not staying in my previous profession was that their white-collar workers were unionized. I'm not kidding. Unionization brings an enormous quantity of negative policies to the workplace, such as being paid primarily or solely based on seniority. I have absolutely no desire to ever be a union employee. I wouldn't have a problem at all with unions if they were purely optional. However, their existence largely depends on being able to compel new employees to join the union on condition of employment. Simply put: If unionization were entirely optional for employees, it would be almost non-existent. The decline of union membership in the private sector, and the lower rates of unionization in right-to-work states, support this assertion.

So ask yourself: If union membership has to be made compulsory in order to gain the membership of new workers, is it really beneficial to those workers? Clearly the workers do not think so.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

I'd almost be happier if he were simply oblivious to the situation. Instead, the stance here seems to be "yes, these people live in difficult situations and often find themselves with no better options...but that is their problem, not mine. If they want it to suck less, they should figure out how to fix it themselves, even though I just admitted that they're hardly in a position to do so without assistance. Also, I'm going to be pissed off at the notion that anyone else would want to empathize with them or help them because dammit, I'm not going to help and so no one else should! It doesn't count if things improve if people help with the process!"

...somehow I would find pure ignorance less frustrating.

I was particularly annoyed at the contention that the black community here is largely responsible for the unrest in Mexico!

 

[touchpause13]

I'd almost be happier if he were simply oblivious to the situation. Instead, the stance here seems to be "yes, these people live in difficult situations and often find themselves with no better options...but that is their problem, not mine. If they want it to suck less, they should figure out how to fix it themselves, even though I just admitted that they're hardly in a position to do so without assistance. Also, I'm going to be pissed off at the notion that anyone else would want to empathize with them or help them because dammit, I'm not going to help and so no one else should! It doesn't count if things improve if people help with the process!"

...somehow I would find pure ignorance less frustrating.

Yes to allllllllll of this

Seriously