HawkShack.com

This is exactly what I feared when people started blaming entire police departments for the death of George Floyd and lobbying to defund or reduce PD budgets:

At least 41 Seattle Police Department officers have left the agency since the beginning of June, and sources in the department say several others are lining up to leave after a summer of street protests and attacks by City Council members that culminated recently with a vote to cut the police budget.

The department is also preparing for the departure of Chief Carmen Best, who decided to retire after the council's decision to slash the department's funding. It has prompted many officers to reevaluate their jobs with the city and the police department.

KOMO News found that a handful of police departments and law enforcement agencies across Puget Sound have received inquiries or applications from or offered jobs to current Seattle police officers.

Detective Ed Troyer with the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department said his agency has offered contracts to five Seattle officers and are reviewing applications from 25 other applicants who are connected to SPD.

36 Seattle officers have applied for position at the King County Sheriff’s Office since June 5, according to a sheriff's spokesperson.

Everett police said at least 30 Seattle police officers have completed lateral applications and more have expressed interest, according to the Everett department.

According to a spokesperson for the Kent Police Department, “Since June, we have had 21 SPD officers apply. Two have been provided conditional offers of employment and are in the latter stages of our hiring process.”

A spokesperson for Tukwila police said roughly 15 to 20 Seattle officers have applied for a position with their department.

Bellevue police said they have received 35 applications from Seattle officers for two open positions.

https://keprtv.com/news/local/morale-am ... SK2uVJXbrs

To be fair, SPD has about 1300-1400 sworn police officers, so 41 doesn't exactly represent a stampede. But this could very well be just the tip of the iceberg, and is an ominous sign of declining morale at the SPD and undoubtedly other departments around the country. The result is going to be fewer people wanting to go into law enforcement, especially in the big cities with unsympathetic or outright hostile city councils like Seattle's, leaving police departments with inexperienced applicants or applicants that other departments/occupations won't hire and INCREASING the chances of hiring a bad cop.

I would argue that the exact opposite has to happen: Increase funding, make police work more financially attractive to prospective applicants, allow for more training, a higher rotation through problem areas, more monitoring and involvement by supervisors and other support personnel.

Increase funding, make police work more financially attractive to prospective applicants, allow for more training, a higher rotation through problem areas, more monitoring and involvement by supervisors and other support personnel.

They've been doing that for years, and the problem has gotten worse. Should expect different results this time? I'm not saying defund is the answer, but there seems to be a problem within the system itself. Question: do you trust any police department to investigate itself when its officers are accused of abuse? That just doesn't make any sense to me if you apply that filter to literally any type of organization. Do you believe in qualified immunity that protects officers in almost all cases of abuse?

Since 2000, the annual SPD budget has grown to almost double in 2020 (from $229M to $409M), while meanwhile the SPD headcount has not maintained growth with Seattle's population boom, hovering just below and above 2000 headcount over the past 20 years.

I'm all for increasing budget, but something fundamentally different has to be done, otherwise we can expect more of the same.

https://sccinsight.com/2020/06/30/understanding-the-seattle-police-department-budget/

Increase funding, make police work more financially attractive to prospective applicants, allow for more training, a higher rotation through problem areas, more monitoring and involvement by supervisors and other support personnel.

I-5 wrote:They've been doing that for years, and the problem has gotten worse.

So specifically what has the SPD done wrong to where you can say that the problem has gotten worse? Has there been any unjustified officer-involved shootings where suspects were killed or seriously wounded? Relative to other similar PD's, has there been an unusually high number of complaints of excessive use of force? Have there been an unusually high number of racial profiling complaints or unjustified harassment? Are their hiring/promotional practices in need of revision? Do they not have enough minorities/women officers or promoted them into management positions?

It's not good enough to just point at a PD in Minneapolis, Atlanta, or Houston and say that the problem at SPD has gotten worse. These departments are paid for separately and should be judged on their own merits, not by events in other cities.

I dont buy that all cops or even most cops are bad , abusive or racist. I also dont buy that 99% of them are pure as the driven snow either. I dont buy that every black man shot or otherwise killed by a cop is blameless in their death and Big Mike Brown comes to mind along with Alton Sterling at the top of that list. I also NO LONGER BUY that if a subject is compliant they will never be harmed. I dont buy a Police officer kneeling on a guys neck for 4 minutes after he quit breathing smirking. That's what started this, not BLM. Another police department covering up blatant wrongdoing until it came to light.

This isn't just white cops on black people either. I had a very white buddy in des moines Iowa decades ago who was arrested after a bar fight and beaten by 13 cops. I was arrested many years ago, was totally compliant and calm and a sheriff put cuffs on me so tight it cut off the circulation to my left hand. I told him immediately it was way too tight and he laughed. My hand was numb for 4 months.

I was talking with a retired Kennewick precinct captain about all this and he said"cops are just a cross section of the public" Some are great, some are good ,some are mediocre, some are bad and some are dirty "I fired lots of them over the years".

BLM has overplayed their hand every time something happens and the never ending protests are really the only chance Trump has in the next 75 days but they have a point Im getting more all the time.

MANY cops are arrogant pricks, steroid users, wife beaters ,liars in court etc. Many are in fact racist as discovered by secret societies of white nationalists in metropolitan police forces through their social media. I have footage of police cruisers driving down the street with cops hanging out the windows spraying tear gas at peaceful protesters standing on the sidewalk just in the past few weeks . Then they say stop rioting as Trump deploys jack booted thugs in masks and unmarked vehicles detaining people. It seems to me that ever since Trump tear gassed all the protesters in lafayette park this has just gotten far worse. Kind of like the 5 guys kneeling a few years back and trump called them SOBs and half the league was kneeling the next week.He praises the proud boys and Qanoon, runs total interference for a law enforcement system in need of total overhaul.Hes encouraged police brutality from the stump. It is definitely in need of reform no matter how loud the cops and their blindly loyal defenders say they are perfect.

Oh and its rich hearing this blue lives matter refrain out of trump and his trumpanzees. I guess Andy McCabes 30 years in the FBI as a Russian counterintelligence expert didn't matter as he was fired hours before qualifying for his government pension. Jim Comey, Bob Mueller, Jeff Sessions, Chris Wray, those are law enforcement too. What a joke wrapping himself in the flag and blue lives matter. Hes tried to decapitate the justice system in this country. Biden winning is the only way to possibly come together as a nation.

Hawktawk wrote:I was talking with a retired Kennewick precinct captain about all this and he said"cops are just a cross section of the public" Some are great, some are good ,some are mediocre, some are bad and some are dirty "I fired lots of them over the years".

Without any data or facts to support my contention, I would guess that there are slightly more Type A personalities in police work than there are in other occupations. There is a type of individual that I've referred to as the "little cop". It's a person small in physical stature that was the runt of the litter, the one that kids always teased, that failed in sports, that never enjoyed any kind of superiority over others, and thus their personality craves for respect that they could not achieve in other avenues of life. Police work can attract the Rambos, the Officer Tackleberry of Police Acemedy fame, more so than other occupations. Or at least that's my belief.

Outside of that, I agree completely with the retired captain. So long as we have to select our policeman from the human population, we're going to have a certain percentage of bad cops. There are roughly 700,000 cops in this country. If we assume that just one half of one percent are defective, you're talking thousands of bad cops that have to be identified and mitigated. That doesn't mean that we should accept the premise or that we shouldn't try to improve. But we have to be realistic of what our expectations of police departments are. If there's an abusive school teacher that takes advantage of their position of authority to prey on children, we don't talk about defunding the schools as a solution.

But the OP isn't so much about the challenges police departments face, it's more about our reaction as a country. There's been a mob type mentality that has replaced common sense, a backlash that has painted all police and all police departments with one brush stroke. I've experienced a similar reaction during the post Vietnam era involving military service. As a 1973 HS grad, I might have considered military service as an option, but back then, due to all the anti war protests, the music, the movies, and all the other stuff swirling around my senses in the environment that I grew up in, my generation did not consider military service an honorable profession. "Who in their right mind would want to sign up for the army?" I often wondered. It took the Iran hostage crisis (1979) to re-awaken my sense of patriotism, and by that time, I was out of college and into my chosen career.

I'm worried that we are going so far overboard in our condemnation of the police that we will discourage a lot of potentially good cops from entering that line of work and drive good people out of the business. I know if I were a cop, especially if I were at the Seattle Police Department, I'd be considering a change in careers. This article about the SPD proves that these fears of mine are valid.

Money won't change that being a police officer in America is a terrible, no win job.

Cops are asked to police society, enforce laws, and clean up the trash. What do you do when society no longer knows what it wants to do as far as policing any longer? Do you enforce the laws based on race? Do you enforce stupid laws like gang arresting a man selling loose cigarettes? Do they have any choice in what they do and do not enforce? What does a cop do when he's sent into a community of people that don't look like him to enforce laws? When that community is against his presence and doesn't want to support him doing his job? What can that cop do?

What would you do if you were hired as a police officer and told to police a majority black community that had a high crime rate and gang violence? Would you spend a lot of time trying to arrest someone that was resisting you when you have other calls and jobs you need to get done? How long do you allow it to go on when you've been sent to arrest the person, take them to jail for processing, then you have to move on to the next person as fast as possible?

Then there is false liberal ideal that things will be ok if the police do nothing like Seattle is doing where they allow open heroin use on the street, homeless people begging in front of every store or sleeping on the side of buildings at all hours, and don't want criminal behavior impeded in any way unless it is someone obviously being killed. What do you do when a City Council has made the cops the bad guys and made criminal behavior normal?

Let's be real. Police officer is a terrible job right now. Difficult, dangerous, and not worth the pay or headache.

Fact is there is a strong liberal disposition not to care about policing and to think the world will be just fine without them. Yet when they need them they want to be able to call them, while when they don't need them they treat them like pariahs and blame them for bad laws and bad policies written by politicians who don't actually have to enforce the law or answer for it.

Sorry, no amount of money is going to fix the problem. Fact is the liberalism in many blue states like Washington and Oregon have decided that letting drug addicts, homeless people, and the like prey on regular working folk is fine. The wealthy who support these liberal scum like Inslee, Sawant, and Durkan hire private security to protect their assets and loved ones, while the regular working folk are left to figure it out on their own as they bow to the mob that wants to paint police as racist and overly brutal using rare cases to make their point and ignoring all the other examples of extreme violence in many ghetto communities populated by minority folk. Crime the minority folk themselves suffer the most from.

White people don't even deal with many crime problems where they live, neither do the middle class or upper class. The very folk this defund the police movement is supposed to protect are likely to end up the most screwed by the lack of police availability to help them when their communities are most beset by violent crime driven by drugs and violence. It's why liberalism is it's own worst enemy in these urban cesspools. It's why I would never live in a city and only work there for the money.

It's better to live in the suburbs where the citizens actually support policing crime out of the community. Not cities where politicians are catering to mobs.

What would we think of airline pilots were a cross section of society vs 'cream of the crop'? Do we really want to know? I draw that analogy because it's something I heard Chris Rock talk about...with both cops and commercial pilots, our lives literally depend on their skill and judgement. The CEO of American Airlines can't say that most of their pilots are good...they ALL have to be good. Rock also said police need to be paid more. That's fair.

I do think most cops are good, but the problem is that even one bad or dirty cop with a gun is a potential monster, and the bigger problem is that when that bad cop does something wrong, the system is designed to protect him as I outlined above.

I-5 wrote:What would we think of airline pilots were a cross section of society vs 'cream of the crop'? Do we really want to know? I draw that analogy because it's something I heard Chris Rock talk about...with both cops and commercial pilots, our lives literally depend on their skill and judgement. The CEO of American Airlines can't say that most of their pilots are good...they ALL have to be good. Rock also said police need to be paid more. That's fair.

I do think most cops are good, but the problem is that even one bad or dirty cop with a gun is a potential monster, and the bigger problem is that when that bad cop does something wrong, the system is designed to protect him as I outlined above.

Paying more will not change anything. Pilots are not all the best of the best. They are people who learned a skill. The planes have been dummy proofed to where even an average pilot can get them from A to B using all the mechanisms within the plane. It's not dog fighting.

Cops do make good money. We have a lot of cops. Doing a lot of hard jobs. No matter how much you pay them, there will be people who make mistakes in hard situations.

Don't you ever stop and really think about things rather than letting the media shape the narrative for you? How many wrongful killing by cops were there last year out of how many interactions with the public?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

Not many people out of 330 million are killed by cops. Killing an unarmed person is even rarer. So this idea that we're not hiring people proficient at being police officers is a false idea.

If you listened to the leftist media, you would think the cops driving around in their car looking for unarmed black men to kill. That isn't even close to the truth. Shot by cop is one of the lowest chances of death out there. And only an extremely small percentage of gun homicides, around 4 to 5% of total gun homicides.

Most police are competent enough to do the job, make reasonable decisions, and are fine. Paying them more would not make this any better.

It would be better if these leftist scum practiced what they preached and not judge everyone by a handful of rare cases that in no way represent the common interaction between police officers and the public. How about we try that first rather than let the media take a handful of sensationalistic cases and use that to attack the police?

I-5 wrote:What would we think of airline pilots were a cross section of society vs 'cream of the crop'? Do we really want to know? I draw that analogy because it's something I heard Chris Rock talk about...with both cops and commercial pilots, our lives literally depend on their skill and judgement. The CEO of American Airlines can't say that most of their pilots are good...they ALL have to be good. Rock also said police need to be paid more. That's fair.

I do think most cops are good, but the problem is that even one bad or dirty cop with a gun is a potential monster, and the bigger problem is that when that bad cop does something wrong, the system is designed to protect him as I outlined above.

You didn't answer the question I posed to you earlier in the thread, so here it is again:

I-5 wrote:They've been doing that (increase funding for police) for years, and the problem has gotten worse.

RiverDog wrote:So specifically what has the SPD done wrong to where you can say that the problem has gotten worse? Has there been any unjustified officer-involved shootings where suspects were killed or seriously wounded? Relative to other similar PD's, has there been an unusually high number of complaints of excessive use of force? Have there been an unusually high number of racial profiling complaints or unjustified harassment? Are their hiring/promotional practices in need of revision? Do they not have enough minorities/women officers or promoted them into management positions?

It's not good enough to just point at a PD in Minneapolis, Atlanta, or Houston and say that the problem at SPD has gotten worse. These departments are paid for separately and should be judged on their own merits, not by events in other cities.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Money won't change that being a police officer in America is a terrible, no win job.

So what's your solution? Just give up?

The problem, as I understand it, is that there are rouge cops like Derrick Chauvin that are killing citizens during arrests by the unjustified use of lethal force. So the question has to be how do we ferret out the bad cops, help cops make better decisions as to when to use deadly force, how to mitigate situations where deadly force could result, etc.

Police are not hired to solve society's problems. Their primary duty is to protect the innocent, law abiding citizen from society's problems. They are a buffer.

I don't know what the answer is, but I know what the answer is not. It's not to slash police budgets, reduce payroll, pour the money into help for the homeless, enhancing the needle exchange program, spend $5 million on high tech, self cleaning toilets for the homeless, hire more mental health counselors, and assume that the need for police will just go away and that people will police themselves. That seems to be the message that the Seattle City Council is sending.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Let's be real. Police officer is a terrible job right now. Difficult, dangerous, and not worth the pay or headache.

Plus society has Demonized the occupation and created a huge morale problem. If only a fool would want to work at a difficult, dangerous job not worth the pay, guess what kind of applicants are going to apply.

Police aren't the problem, nor are they the solution to the problem. But if we misidentify the problem as being related to the police and try to solve it by slashing their budget and making the work even more unattractive, the problem will only get worse. Supporting the police, helping departments ferret out the bad cops, keeping the good cops in the fold, making them better and more efficient at their work won't solve the problem, but it can help from letting the problem cause collateral damage and making things worse.

Like you, I see the police officers in a no win situation.
We train them like military and emphasize force and control with a few hours spent on the softer aspects of policing
then send them out to be experts in marriage counseling, drug addiction, mental health, and other societal ills as well
as confronting robbers, thieves, murderers, and the other seamy sides of life. That's just too much of a burden of
responsibility for any one person. Since what we have isn't working, maybe taking some of that responsibility off of
law enforcement and putting it onto those trained in the social aspects, we can have better results. That's what the
so called defunding movement started out to be. There's enough proper crime to not substantially cut the police budget
but that will mean higher taxes to pay for the new experts on the social side.
So the choice would be paying higher taxes to have a more effective police force that concentrates on the actual job
of policing society and another group who "police" the social side and get people the help they need. It might lead to
a happier society who has more trust in the police and mitigate some of the suffering of those who aren't well.

NorthHawk wrote:Like you, I see the police officers in a no win situation.

We train them like military and emphasize force and control with a few hours spent on the softer aspects of policing
then send them out to be experts in marriage counseling, drug addiction, mental health, and other societal ills as well
as confronting robbers, thieves, murderers, and the other seamy sides of life. That's just too much of a burden of
responsibility for any one person. Since what we have isn't working, maybe taking some of that responsibility off of
law enforcement and putting it onto those trained in the social aspects, we can have better results. That's what the
so called defunding movement started out to be. There's enough proper crime to not substantially cut the police budget
but that will mean higher taxes to pay for the new experts on the social side.

So the choice would be paying higher taxes to have a more effective police force that concentrates on the actual job
of policing society and another group who "police" the social side and get people the help they need. It might lead to
a happier society who has more trust in the police and mitigate some of the suffering of those who aren't well.

Now I can agree with that. I've heard some police complain about having to referee simple domestic quarrels between two people with no criminal record then by law, having to haul one of them to jail. I had a worker that we had to fire because he was throwing rocks at his girlfriend's house (domestic violence/malicious mischief). Heck, this summer I had people threatening to call the cops on me for killing a rattlesnake, so I can only imagine how many silly laws we have on the books that we're asking the police to enforce. I can certainly agree with a re-evaluation and prioritization of police responsibilities.

But we still have to train them in military-style environments, including identifying threats, when to use lethal force, active shooter training, and so on. It's a dangerous occupation and countless officers lose their lives in the performance of their duties.

I think this might allow them more time for more training in new concepts that would keep
them and the public safer. It's really about narrowing down the scope of an officers responsibility.
In theory the fewer things a person is responsible for, the better they will be at those tasks.

RiverDog wrote:So what's your solution? Just give up?

The problem, as I understand it, is that there are rouge cops like Derrick Chauvin that are killing citizens during arrests by the unjustified use of lethal force. So the question has to be how do we ferret out the bad cops, help cops make better decisions as to when to use deadly force, how to mitigate situations where deadly force could result, etc.

The problem of rogue cops is greatly over-stated as the statistics I posted show. It is like the problem of mass shooters who act as a catalyst for the anti-gun movement. Both events are sensationalized along a media driven narrative often absent context and exaggerated.

Fact is when you hire a group of people to police a free society of 300 million people, you will have mistakes made.

My solution would be to instead of blaming cops, how about we re-write a bunch of laws to put cops in better positions for enforcement? You ever look at how many of these screw ups are because of bad laws or bad actions by some other actor in the chain of events?

Eric Garner: Gang arrested for selling loose cigarettes on the street. Why would five cops need to be called in to arrest a guy for selling loose cigarettes?

Tamir Rice: Random call to 911 by people saying someone was threatening people with a gun at the park. Why was there no visual confirmation of shots fired or danger conveyed to cops?

Breonna Taylor: Killed when cops were going to a no knock warrant for a drug dealer who had already been arrested. Boyfriend fires at the police when the break the door in and cops fire back accidentally killing Breonna Taylor.

So the cops get to be the face of the screw up, when the mistake was on multiple levels of the system.

Why? Do you ever stop and watch the way the media delivers these stories through the lens of race rather than checking how the system works? How the laws are written? How the police are asked to enforce them? Where's the culpability for putting the police in a bad situation to start with?

Police are not hired to solve society's problems. Their primary duty is to protect the innocent, law abiding citizen from society's problems. They are a buffer.

This is not what police are hired for. They are hired to enforce laws, often written by politicians who have some agenda they are pushing, sometimes driven by business like in the case of loose cigarette sales in front of stores where they were losing tax money and the business was loosing revenue.

Same as they have laws against marijuana for years because of big tobacco who was selling an equally dangerous and more addictive bad for health or alcohol makers the same. Business lobbying along with a bunch of religious idiot politicians pushed making pot illegal with no scientific basis for it.

You want to fix the system, start fixing the laws that put police in terrible situations rather than these sad ass politicians making the police seem like the bad guy for enforcing their stupid laws.

Do you ever stop and ask yourself why the police show up after you've been robbed? After someone has been murdered or raped? Or after a crime was committed? If all cops were there for was to protect, we definitely wouldn't need as many as we have. Once you see what laws they spend time enforcing like traffic violations and cleaning up domestic violence and showing up after the fact like a clean up force, you see there duties are more administrative and legalistic than protective. Even the drug laws are bad laws written to put the police in a bad situation violently interacting with citizens engaged in often non-violent, voluntary drug use.

Plus society has Demonized the occupation and created a huge morale problem. If only a fool would want to work at a difficult, dangerous job not worth the pay, guess what kind of applicants are going to apply.

Police aren't the problem, nor are they the solution to the problem. But if we misidentify the problem as being related to the police and try to solve it by slashing their budget and making the work even more unattractive, the problem will only get worse. Supporting the police, helping departments ferret out the bad cops, keeping the good cops in the fold, making them better and more efficient at their work won't solve the problem, but it can help from letting the problem cause collateral damage and making things worse.

The police are a convenient scapegoat for bad policies.

A convenient news story for right and left wing media to stoke the flames of race.

And an easy target for the public as they are the ones in the trenches acting as the law enforcement arm of the government including businesses protecting their market and assets and politicians looking to sell themselves as law and order canddiates.

NorthHawk wrote:Like you, I see the police officers in a no win situation.
We train them like military and emphasize force and control with a few hours spent on the softer aspects of policing
then send them out to be experts in marriage counseling, drug addiction, mental health, and other societal ills as well
as confronting robbers, thieves, murderers, and the other seamy sides of life. That's just too much of a burden of
responsibility for any one person. Since what we have isn't working, maybe taking some of that responsibility off of
law enforcement and putting it onto those trained in the social aspects, we can have better results. That's what the
so called defunding movement started out to be. There's enough proper crime to not substantially cut the police budget
but that will mean higher taxes to pay for the new experts on the social side.
So the choice would be paying higher taxes to have a more effective police force that concentrates on the actual job
of policing society and another group who "police" the social side and get people the help they need. It might lead to
a happier society who has more trust in the police and mitigate some of the suffering of those who aren't well.

Or spending a great deal of time rewriting laws into a sensible fashion that don't require the police to act in a violent and militaristic manner for stupid ideas like "the war on drugs" or enforcing laws like selling loose cigarettes.

Here's some more details on the Seattle city council police department budget cuts, which were vetoed by the mayor but could be overridden by a super majority vote of the council:

Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan on Friday vetoed a City Council budget plan to slash funding to the police department and eliminate the city's homeless outreach team, among other programs.

The nine-member council approved the rebalanced budget that would have reduced police funding by 14% for the remainder of 2020. The move also would have resulted in the loss of 100 police officers through layoffs and attrition.

The cuts would have totaled around $23 million of the remaining $127 million in the budget, KOMO News reported.

One of the programs on the chopping block was the city's Navigation Team, which consisted of police officers and homeless outreach workers.

Other units -- including the Harbor Patrol, SWAT, Public Affairs and Horse Unit -- also were slated to be dismantled.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/durkan-seattle-cops

Nice to know that they're not expecting an active shooter and can wait an additional 30 minutes or so for some other agency to provide a SWAT team if someone decides to start picking off people from one of the high rises.

RiverDog wrote:Here's some more details on the Seattle city council police department budget cuts, which were vetoed by the mayor but could be overridden by a super majority vote of the council:

Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan on Friday vetoed a City Council budget plan to slash funding to the police department and eliminate the city's homeless outreach team, among other programs.

The nine-member council approved the rebalanced budget that would have reduced police funding by 14% for the remainder of 2020. The move also would have resulted in the loss of 100 police officers through layoffs and attrition.

The cuts would have totaled around $23 million of the remaining $127 million in the budget, KOMO News reported.

One of the programs on the chopping block was the city's Navigation Team, which consisted of police officers and homeless outreach workers.

Other units -- including the Harbor Patrol, SWAT, Public Affairs and Horse Unit -- also were slated to be dismantled.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/durkan-seattle-cops

Nice to know that they're not expecting an active shooter and can wait an additional 30 minutes or so for some other agency to provide a SWAT team if someone decides to start picking off people from one of the high rises.

I despise the Seattle City Council. That is what you call a group of looney Liberals. The kind conservatives have nightmares about who want to try to social engineer a society using Orwellian policies. They are terrible.

As usual, those on the extreme pull the trigger before the ducks are all in a row.
To make any change like this successfully, the other support programs have to be
in place prior to reducing the police side.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I despise the Seattle City Council. That is what you call a group of looney Liberals. The kind conservatives have nightmares about who want to try to social engineer a society using Orwellian policies. They are terrible.

Agree 100%. These past few months have highlighted why I am not married to either political philosophy. The Republicans are horrible at managing a pandemic while the Democrats are completely inept at protecting people and property.

NorthHawk wrote:As usual, those on the extreme pull the trigger before the ducks are all in a row. To make any change like this successfully, the other support programs have to be in place prior to reducing the police side.

That's exactly why the Seattle mayor, a Dem, vetoed the budget proposal, saying essentially that they were putting the wagon in front of the horses. However, the council's vote was a "overwhelming majority", so they can either over ride it or force their will upon the mayor.

Portland is in even worse shape. They've had demonstrations/riots for 87 straight days, yet the mayor and governor, both Dems, refuse to put a stop to it. Here's a clip from activities last weekend:

Images showed what appeared to be hundreds of people involved, many of them wearing helmets and carrying makeshift shields. Some demonstrators appeared to use pepper spray during clashes, and at least one person appeared to pull a gun. No arrests were reported.

Right-wing groups had announced a rally near the Justice Center Saturday afternoon that quickly drew counter-demonstrators. The building houses a police precinct, police headquarters, a county jail and courtrooms and is next door to a federal courthouse that was targeted for weeks last month by left-wing protesters who clashed with federal agents dispatched to Portland to protect it.

The protesters at Saturday’s demonstration included the Proud Boys right-wing group and left-wing protest groups, Democratic Socialists of America and Popular Mobilization, The Oregonian/OregonLive reported.

In a statement, Portland Police said there had been questions about why the gathering wasn’t declared a riot and why city police officers didn’t intervene. Incident commanders have to determine whether police action will make things more dangerous, the statement said.

“In this case, there were hundreds of individuals and many weapons within the groups and an extremely limited amount of police resources actually available to address such a crowd,” police said… “Additionally, (Portland police officers) have been the focus of over 80 days of violent actions directed at the police, which is a major consideration for determining if police resources are necessary to interject between two groups with individuals who appear to be willingly engaging in physical confrontations for short durations.”

https://nypost.com/2020/08/23/federal-p ... n-violent/

This situation has been left to fester for months and is completely out of control. Mobs are beating other citizens unconscious. The governor has national guard troops at her disposal. What is it going to take before she acts? What's the sense in having a national guard if not for situations like what we've been seeing in Portland? The state and city governments are completely paralyzed.

Tamir Rice: Random call to 911 by people saying someone was threatening people with a gun at the park. Why was there no visual confirmation of shots fired or danger conveyed to cops?

What's the actual law change here? Or is it a tactical process change? If not the cop, who would be the person(s) to do the visual confirmation on a kid with a toy gun before the cops get involved and take him out without asking questions? Let's get specific.

I do agree 5 cops don't need to show up for a guy selling illegal cigs.....that's the same thing that happened with George Floyd

I-5 wrote:What's the actual law change here? Or is it a tactical process change? If not the cop, who would be the person(s) to do the visual confirmation on a kid with a toy gun before the cops get involved and take him out without asking questions? Let's get specific.

I do agree 5 cops don't need to show up for a guy selling illegal cigs.....that's the same thing that happened with George Floyd

This would be a process change, though this entire case was a difficult situation with a lot of stupid. But the cop should have confirmed danger first and spoken with the kid. He went to his gun quick.

Not sure if you followed that case. This is the kind of stupid that happens when someone up the chain screws up, which is why better laws and tactical processes are necessary. Laws to make sure the cops know they will suffer legal consequences for going to guns too quickly and processes so they don't have to rely on their guns as quickly. I think even technology could help substantially. I think the police maybe need flying drones on their cars. Then they can send the drone in first to engage with the citizen to attempt to deescalate through the drone or at least put both at ease with no danger except to the drone. Law-enforcement is a good area for drone technology to act as a buffer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Tamir_Rice

I-5 wrote:What's the actual law change here? Or is it a tactical process change? If not the cop, who would be the person(s) to do the visual confirmation on a kid with a toy gun before the cops get involved and take him out without asking questions? Let's get specific.

I do agree 5 cops don't need to show up for a guy selling illegal cigs.....that's the same thing that happened with George Floyd

Aseahawkfan wrote:This would be a process change, though this entire case was a difficult situation with a lot of stupid. But the cop should have confirmed danger first and spoken with the kid. He went to his gun quick.

Not sure if you followed that case. This is the kind of stupid that happens when someone up the chain screws up, which is why better laws and tactical processes are necessary. Laws to make sure the cops know they will suffer legal consequences for going to guns too quickly and processes so they don't have to rely on their guns as quickly. I think even technology could help substantially. I think the police maybe need flying drones on their cars. Then they can send the drone in first to engage with the citizen to attempt to deescalate through the drone or at least put both at ease with no danger except to the drone. Law-enforcement is a good area for drone technology to act as a buffer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Tamir_Rice

Drones might be a little invasive. Images of Skynet start coming to mind. But I do agree that some sort of standoff technology, such as super enhanced video/audio monitoring or something safe and non lethal that could isolate a suspect could be useful in assessing a situation before putting police officers and/or suspects in a potentially life threatening situation. In any event, I'd be open to either if they can prove that the technology is safe and reliable.

This situation has been left to fester for months and is completely out of control. Mobs are beating other citizens unconscious. The governor has national guard troops at her disposal. What is it going to take before she acts? What's the sense in having a national guard if not for situations like what we've been seeing in Portland? The state and city governments are completely paralyzed.

It seems that what happens in these type of situations is an unorganized and peaceful demonstration that lasts longer than a couple of days
tends to be usurped by organized groups that take it on a different direction. We saw the same thing with the Occupy Wall St. demonstrations
in that it was a grassroots movement started by Tea Party and ordinary citizens that was not at all organized and taken over by the left wing
groups. The impact of the original protests was then dismissed by the powers that be as being a bunch of lazy radicals and the cause of
the protest was lost. It was really about ordinary people protesting that capitalism wasn't working for us. Unfortunately I think the meaning
of these protests are being lost, too. We'll see how devoted they are if they are still there when we get 2 straight weeks of rain and cold.

NorthHawk wrote:It seems that what happens in these type of situations is an unorganized and peaceful demonstration that lasts longer than a couple of days
tends to be usurped by organized groups that take it on a different direction. We saw the same thing with the Occupy Wall St. demonstrations
in that it was a grassroots movement started by Tea Party and ordinary citizens that was not at all organized and taken over by the left wing
groups. The impact of the original protests was then dismissed by the powers that be as being a bunch of lazy radicals and the cause of
the protest was lost. It was really about ordinary people protesting that capitalism wasn't working for us. Unfortunately I think the meaning
of these protests are being lost, too. We'll see how devoted they are if they are still there when we get 2 straight weeks of rain and cold.

I'm not close enough to the situation to know what the root cause of the violence is, and at this point, I don't think it makes a lot of difference what groups or individuals are responsible. What we do know is that the violence exists, that it has gone on night after night for a very long time, and that despite having the resources available to address it, the response of state and civic leaders has been woefully inadequate.

That's what it seems like from here, too, but the point I was alluding to was that
these things have to be controlled early before the organized or organizing characters
arrive on scene. That seems to be when the troubles start.

The instigators of the violence usually are not associated with the actual protesters and in fact are often, as in the attached story and video wherein the guy that got it started at the George Floyd protest was a member of a Kentucky prison/street gang known as the Aryan Cowboys. Clearly his intent was to instigate violence and destruction that the Right could claim to be the fault of the protesters.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/28/us/umbre ... index.html

c_hawkbob wrote:The instigators of the violence usually are not associated with the actual protesters and in fact are often, as in the attached story and video wherein the guy that got it started at the George Floyd protest was a member of a Kentucky prison/street gang known as the Aryan Cowboys. Clearly his intent was to instigate violence and destruction that the Right could claim to be the fault of the protesters.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/28/us/umbre ... index.html

I have no doubt that what you say is true. I am not blaming the BLM movement per se for the violence. But like I told North Hawk, it doesn't really make a whole lot of difference who is responsible for this continued mayhem. A rock through a store front window is a rock through a store front window. It should have been stopped months ago. If it had, then perhaps the situation in Portland and elsewhere around the country would not have been the magnet that it appears to have been for these right wing extremist groups.

It may not matter to the window, but it sure better matter to the people involved! If even a percentage of your "dark side of the BLM" is actually the Alt Right, credit needs to be given where credit is due. If I go to a peaceful protest and leave when most of the other protesters do, then see when I get back home all the rioting going on after dark, I don't want that blanket of blame being thrown over my shoulders along with the punks smashing and burning things.

But like I told North Hawk, it doesn't really make a whole lot of difference who is responsible for this continued mayhem. A rock through a store front window is a rock through a store front window. It should have been stopped months ago. If it had, then perhaps the situation in Portland and elsewhere around the country would not have been the magnet that it appears to have been for these right wing extremist groups.

If you mean it doesn't matter in terms of perception, then I agree. But of course it matters who's actually responsible. If a peaceful gun rights rally ends up in violence because someone not from their group crashes the event and causes destruction and death...will it matter to the peaceful rallygoers that the person is called out?

What Riverdog is trying to illustrate is that it doesn't matter who did the violence, people are not happy with the Democrat reaction to the violence at protests.

When you have on video a mayor making it sound like creating an "Autonomous Zone" is ok and just a "Summer of Love" and other Democratic mayors and leaders standing against the police while overlooking violent protests and burning down police stations and cars in communities, that will not sell well to voters. Regardless of who causes the violence.

At the Republican National Convention, they went in hard on the Democrats who turned a blind eye to violence at protests or let the violence get out of hand like here in Seattle and over in Portland. They are going to keep going in hard on Democrats "denying people the right to go to church, but letting people protest and loot." That is going to be a continuing theme that the Democrats support looting, protesting, burning, but don't support people going to church, freedom of speech, and the like.

Given how the Democrats are handling the protests and COVID lockdowns, that will sell very, very well. These lockdowns definitely outlawed Church services while allowing full scale hundreds of people protesting. That was a huge act of hypocrisy by the Democrats.

people are not happy with the Democrat reaction to the violence at protests.

That's a fair comment. However, when it comes down to lockdowns, one big difference I between large gatherings that I see is that, depending on who is organizing them, you'll either see everyone wearing masks, or hardly anyone wearing masks, and that makes a big difference. Who doesn't hate violence? I hate and it is always senseless when people engage in that, but for the rest of the people who are doing the right thing, what choice do they have but to keep going despite what some people do to give the movement a black eye? What would you do if you feel you aren't being heard? What's the solution for peaceful protestors?

I-5 wrote:That's a fair comment. However, when it comes down to lockdowns, one big difference I between large gatherings that I see is that, depending on who is organizing them, you'll either see everyone wearing masks, or hardly anyone wearing masks, and that makes a big difference. Who doesn't hate violence? I hate and it is always senseless when people engage in that, but for the rest of the people who are doing the right thing, what choice do they have but to keep going despite what some people do to give the movement a black eye? What would you do if you feel you aren't being heard? What's the solution for peaceful protestors?

There is no solution. Protesting is protesting. You protest, you put yourself at risk. That's how it is and how it always has been and how it always will be. If everyone stays mostly peaceful, then things will turn out ok as we've had in Seattle many times. Anyone gets violent or people start acting hostile, then you're now at risk of a hostile reaction from authorities sent in to maintain control. That's how it works. Protest at your own risk. Standing up for something is never easy and certainly isn't safe.

This whole situation is a no win situation. At best there might be minor improvements that cause a slight reduction, but the problem is deeper than illustrated. This new shooting is an example of one of the major problems with the BLM movement as a whole. Look at the fundamental differences in perception with this Jacob Blake shooting. Why do Americans of African descent's think Jacob Blake's behavior was in anyway acceptable? As an American of mixed descent, I do not think it is ok to walk away from the police who are called to a domestic dispute and have their guns pulled on you. When I watch the video, I'm thinking how do the cops know you aren't going to the car to get a gun and fire back since you're acting like some nut who doesn't care about armed cops? I don't know anyone really of any descent other than BLM supporters who think that is acceptable behavior when dealing with armed cops.

How do we even reconcile this difference in perception? Do you let the protesting mobs decide the law by simply being angry? Do you ask cops to wait until their life is in a danger by allowing the guy to get a gun if he has one and aim it back at them? How you do adjudicate that?

At what point do citizens need to be told there are standards of behavior expected of citizens when interacting with cops as in you need to comply with their requests. They are not judges and are not there to decide the law, they are there to enforce it. Once you are processed you can talk with a judge who will decide the law.

Do you think that is acceptable behavior to turn your back on an armed cop who is telling you he has to put you under arrest because you have a warrant and he was called to a domestic dispute? Do you let a mob that is burning things down and shouting decide your laws?

How do you even decide a situation like this if there aren't any standards for behavior that either side finds acceptable by both the citizen and the police officer? I don't even know how either side reaches a point of reconciliation.

c_hawkbob wrote:It may not matter to the window, but it sure better matter to the people involved! If even a percentage of your "dark side of the BLM" is actually the Alt Right, credit needs to be given where credit is due. If I go to a peaceful protest and leave when most of the other protesters do, then see when I get back home all the rioting going on after dark, I don't want that blanket of blame being thrown over my shoulders along with the punks smashing and burning things.

Like I said, I have no doubt that the Alt Right is responsible for much, if not most, of the violence that started out as peaceful BLM demonstrations. That's part of the 'dark side' of the BLM movement, that it's attracting counter protesters. It's what happens when protests are allowed to continue for week after week and month after month. Now you have groups and individuals from all over the country and from different political creeds participating in the free-for-all orgy.

But that's not really my point. My point is what are you going to do about it? The Democratic mayor of Portland/Governor of Oregon have done absolutely NOTHING to stop the violence. Even the police have said that they are completely out-manned and out-gunned.

RiverDog wrote: My point is what are you going to do about it? The Democratic mayor of Portland/Governor of Oregon have done absolutely NOTHING to stop the violence. Even the police have said that they are completely out-manned and out-gunned.

Quelling the civil unrest in the Colonies didn't work either, the only thing that worked was a change in the basic dynamic that brought about the civil unrest. I'm not saying a revolutionary war is the only thing that will stop it, but it is going to take some substantial evidence of racist police being taken to task rather than covered up for by all the decent cops out there as well as the system itself. There needs to be some demonstrated accountability and not just another unarmed black man being shot while another white supremacist is allowed to carry his AR through the streets killing protesters as the police seemingly look the other way. We cannot continue on with two completely separate sets of rules for what are supposed to equal members of society. Further violence heaped upon them simply won't make the problem go away.

c_hawkbob wrote:Quelling the civil unrest in the Colonies didn't work either, the only thing that worked was a change in the basic dynamic that brought about the civil unrest. I'm not saying a revolutionary war is the only thing that will stop it, but it is going to take some substantial evidence of racist police being taken to task rather than covered up for by all the decent cops out there as well as the system itself. There needs to be some demonstrated accountability and not just another unarmed black man being shot while another white supremacist is allowed to carry his AR through the streets killing protesters as the police seemingly look the other way. We cannot continue on with two completely separate sets of rules for what are supposed to equal members of society. Further violence heaped upon them simply won't make the problem go away.

I mostly support this. There has to be standards of behavior for both sides, clearly spelled out and adhered to by police and citizens. It can't be police fiat as to who they harass and citizens also need to be clear as to how they are expected to behave when dealing with cops. Both sides need to adhere to these guidelines and laws. Or we got nowhere to go with this. It will just be a pissing contest along the usual lines again and again again. That gets us nowhere.

RiverDog wrote:Like I said, I have no doubt that the Alt Right is responsible for much, if not most, of the violence that started out as peaceful BLM demonstrations. That's part of the 'dark side' of the BLM movement, that it's attracting counter protesters. It's what happens when protests are allowed to continue for week after week and month after month. Now you have groups and individuals from all over the country and from different political creeds participating in the free-for-all orgy.

But that's not really my point. My point is what are you going to do about it? The Democratic mayor of Portland/Governor of Oregon have done absolutely NOTHING to stop the violence. Even the police have said that they are completely out-manned and out-gunned.

And they have no support from the government who has completely caved to BLM and associated groups and started treating the police like pariahs. Here in Seattle the entire Seattle City Council sided against the cops. Seems that way in Oregon as well. What do you do as a police officer if the entire government you work for turns against you?

c_hawkbob wrote:Quelling the civil unrest in the Colonies didn't work either, the only thing that worked was a change in the basic dynamic that brought about the civil unrest. I'm not saying a revolutionary war is the only thing that will stop it, but it is going to take some substantial evidence of racist police being taken to task rather than covered up for by all the decent cops out there as well as the system itself. There needs to be some demonstrated accountability and not just another unarmed black man being shot while another white supremacist is allowed to carry his AR through the streets killing protesters as the police seemingly look the other way. We cannot continue on with two completely separate sets of rules for what are supposed to equal members of society. Further violence heaped upon them simply won't make the problem go away.

Glad you ruled out a revolutionary war, but what's your solution? Just let the riots continue until they get tired or the weather turns cold?

I'm not sure if 'demonstrated accountability' is the answer or not. Derrick Chauvin has been arrested and charged with murder, but that hasn't stopped any of the protests. I get the sense I get is that even life in prison won't satisfy the movement, and even if it did, it will only last a few months until the next questionable use of force by a policeman somewhere in the country, which with 700,000 cops, is going to happen no matter what kind of policies are adapted.

And as far as the white supremist carrying AR's in the streets killing protesters, you have your Democratic pols to thank for that. They're the ones that are turning a blind eye, not the police. The police would love to engage that scum, but they are being denied the tools and manpower in which to do it.

So you arrest a single cop in a single instance and because that didn't make everyone just shut up and let you get on with your day you're not sure demonstrated accountability is the answer? I guess in your world there is no answer.

In my world SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE! Just continuing to try to justify the situation is not going to help anything. Put accountability laws in place, make police academy training as long and arduous as military academy's, make policemen go through stages wherein they don't actually carry a gun until they have been on the force for a certain amount of time and gone through certain levels of training. Make the road to having the lives of the public in your hands long and difficult enough to deter some of these power tripping wackos that join the force just so they can take their frustrations out on people without going to prison. DO MORE THAN WHAT IS BEING DONE NOW. I'm not going to pretend to have all the answers, but I'm sure not going to pretend there are none.

There's something wrong with anyone that can look at this situation and only be mad at the protesters, and actually think that the only behavioral change warranted is for everyone to just stop raising a ruckus and accept it as the way things are.

RiverDog wrote:Glad you ruled out a revolutionary war, but what's your solution? Just let the riots continue until they get tired or the weather turns cold?

I'm not sure if 'demonstrated accountability' is the answer or not. Derrick Chauvin has been arrested and charged with murder, but that hasn't stopped any of the protests. I get the sense I get is that even life in prison won't satisfy the movement, and even if it did, it will only last a few months until the next questionable use of force by a policeman somewhere in the country, which with 700,000 cops, is going to happen no matter what kind of policies are adapted.

And as far as the white supremist carrying AR's in the streets killing protesters, you have your Democratic pols to thank for that. They're the ones that are turning a blind eye, not the police. The police would love to engage that scum, but they are being denied the tools and manpower in which to do it.

Chauvin might get off too. Floyd was found to have dangerous levels Fentanyl in his blood.

Therein lies another issue that is hard to work out. If a person is engaged in heavy drug use and that afflicts his health, how do you account for that in this whole equation? Can you ask the police to be accountable while not asking citizens to be accountable for behavior that damages their health and puts them in a position to die if put in a physically strenuous situation?

c_hawkbob wrote:So you arrest a single cop in a single instance and because that didn't make everyone just shut up and let you get on with your day you're not sure demonstrated accountability is the answer? I guess in your world there is no answer.

I didn't say that was the answer, and had you read the OP, you would have noticed that I did make some suggestions.

c_hawkbob wrote:Put accountability laws in place, make police academy training as long and arduous as military academy's, make policemen go through stages wherein they don't actually carry a gun until they have been on the force for a certain amount of time and gone through certain levels of training. Make the road to having the lives of the public in your hands long and difficult enough to deter some of these power tripping wackos that join the force just so they can take their frustrations out on people without going to prison. DO MORE THAN WHAT IS BEING DONE NOW. I'm not going to pretend to have all the answers, but I'm sure not going to pretend there are none.

That sounds a lot like what I suggested in the OP: Increase funding, make police work more financially attractive to prospective applicants, allow for more training, a higher rotation through problem areas, more monitoring and involvement by supervisors and other support personnel.

If you're going to subject candidates to the type of rigorous pre qualifications you're proposing, of which I agree with you on, you're going to have to give them a substantial monetary incentive if you want to attract the number of applicants that's going to result in successful candidates being procured. It's going to be a lot more expensive, meaning that any reduction of funding or simple massaging of a budget isn't going to cut it.

c_hawkbob wrote:There's something wrong with anyone that can look at this situation and only be mad at the protesters, and actually think that the only behavioral change warranted is for everyone to just stop raising a ruckus and accept it as the way things are.

Never said there wasn't, to the contrary, I've acknowledged several times that something's not right. What I've done is highlight the Herculean task it's going to take to affect meaningful changes and that defunding or abolishing police departments isn't the answer.

But actually, I wasn't asking you about long term changes, much of which we seem to agree on, as I was what to do in the short term: What are you going to do to stop the violence today? Personally, one of my messages to the BLM movement for the near term would be to get their asses registered and vote Donald Trump out of office. That would be a good first step to the resolution of the long term problem.