Police Reform Law

[Aseahawkfan]

The stats on negative racial incidents, and as far as that goes, incarcerations, does not necessarily mean that they are being targeted or discriminated against. Personally, I think that you look at the educational level, the drop out rate, the drug/alcohol rate, and the poverty level of minorities, that you'll find a direct correlation with their crime rate. That's where the real emphasis should be, helping these minorities stay in school, get good educations, stay off drugs, have access to post secondary education, and give them a way out. I'm all about opportunity and self help.

I mostly agree with you. There are some racist cops, but nowhere near the level the left wing media pushes. Fact is the left wing media and Democrats keep their bases voting for them almost solely on accusations of racism and carefully orchestrated media blitzes pushing racism along with inherent distrust within minority communities.

Like you I believe this can be attributed to other factors of which racism is just one. I don't even necessarily believe it is along racial lines, but localized to poor communities populated by a majority of minorities with enculturated gang culture with poverty being used to excuse behavior that is terrible for those communities, those people, and any push to improve them. These communities supporting Democrats who offer little more than subsistence programs to sustain these folks with no answer to the crime or long-term poverty on the sole basis of racism is a bad idea.

Not to mention there is an entire branch of academia and political leadership that wouldn't have jobs or anything to do with themselves if they didn't have racism to sell. There is a literally an industry segment along with supporting groups that make money selling racism just as there is a similar industry on the opposite side selling racism against white people and The Great Replacement. When people derive economic and political power from pushing these ideas, they are hard to root out.

But yes, on a statistical level the effect of racism on law enforcement is more of a disinformation campaign with gaggles of wrong information attributed to racism with no deeper discussion on the specific communities affected.

For example, some people use Asians as an example of a model minority to claim racism doesn't exist. But they don't even have to use Asians as an example, they can literally use Middle and Upper class Americans of African descent as well as those living in more rural areas to find that the negative police interaction issues are primarily focused in urban areas with impoverished people. It has little to do with their race and more to do with criminal culture within the community that even local businesses run by other African ancestry people have to pay extra to protect their businesses.

To put this in simpler terms, defunding the police is worse for people within minority communities with high crime rates than all them folks living in middle class or upper class suburban communities. So these types of laws will have a larger negative impact on the people they are made to protect because organizations like BLM don't have a good idea of what they need to fix the negatively impacted communities.

Oh, I know exactly why and when this law was made. But there is no evidence that any of the activities that are being restricted by this new law would have changed any of the issues brought to the forefront by BLM. How many of these restrictions, had they been in place 5 years ago, would have prevented the shooting/killing of an unarmed black man? Perhaps the one on choke holds, but what about the one on police pursuits or the use of non lethal weapons? How about handcuffing a suspect? IMO this law is an extreme, unjustified overreaction.

Not sure, but I hope the politicians are using some form of data. Not sure they are. It may be another one of those laws made to appease the mob without any good data to support it.

Well, I sure hope that there is no real change. But if you look at some of these incidents, I'm afraid that the crime rate will get worse. Additionally, it's just one more issue that's going to drive a wedge between the right and the left.

People who live where we live weren't going to be impacted much anyway. I doubt you live in a high crime area. I know I don't.

Main people who might be impacted are already in high crime areas. I don't see how this will affect much considering the majority of crimes are based on calls or police work after the crime is committed. I worked with a bunch of former cops. The one thing I learned talking with former cops is there job is nothing like the television. It's all after the crime paperwork. I worked with a detective who worked robbery and I think homicide, I was surprised the majority of her job was writing reports and taking reports from citizens and other officers to collect leads and write more reports. Most cops spend their time writing reports on what they do with a little excitement here and there waiting for calls.

It's probably more exciting in a high crime neighborhood. Not sure how much.

All I know for certain is the people this law is meant to protect are likely the most screwed because police will be slower (and they were already slow according to films at least) to react to crime in high crime communities with minority populations. Why go to a place that is going to get you fired from your job to deal with a hostile population? I think it's all around bad for the Democrats and bad for citizens in high crime communities.

For people like you and I living in low crime areas where the police respond knowing they have the support of the community, we'll get a good response. Which is another thing short-sighted politicians and left wing media pushing racism don't seem to get: making cops feel unwelcome and vilified in a particular community just further makes them not want to work in those communities and provide quality policing.

[RiverDog]

Not sure, but I hope the politicians are using some form of data (to evaluate new law). Not sure they are. It may be another one of those laws made to appease the mob without any good data to support it.

Had they been made to take the law to the people for a vote, they would have had to spell out in specific terms the need for the law and what it was intended to address, but since it was a House resolution, all they had to do is convince themselves and the Governor to sign on.

But we'll see.

Well, I sure hope that there is no real change. But if you look at some of these incidents, I'm afraid that the crime rate will get worse. Additionally, it's just one more issue that's going to drive a wedge between the right and the left.

People who live where we live weren't going to be impacted much anyway. I doubt you live in a high crime area. I know I don't.

Main people who might be impacted are already in high crime areas. I don't see how this will affect much considering the majority of crimes are based on calls or police work after the crime is committed. I worked with a bunch of former cops. The one thing I learned talking with former cops is there job is nothing like the television. It's all after the crime paperwork. I worked with a detective who worked robbery and I think homicide, I was surprised the majority of her job was writing reports and taking reports from citizens and other officers to collect leads and write more reports. Most cops spend their time writing reports on what they do with a little excitement here and there waiting for calls.

It's probably more exciting in a high crime neighborhood. Not sure how much.

All I know for certain is the people this law is meant to protect are likely the most screwed because police will be slower (and they were already slow according to films at least) to react to crime in high crime communities with minority populations. Why go to a place that is going to get you fired from your job to deal with a hostile population? I think it's all around bad for the Democrats and bad for citizens in high crime communities.

For people like you and I living in low crime areas where the police respond knowing they have the support of the community, we'll get a good response. Which is another thing short-sighted politicians and left wing media pushing racism don't seem to get: making cops feel unwelcome and vilified in a particular community just further makes them not want to work in those communities and provide quality policing.

There's mass confusion amongst police departments about the law and how it is supposed to work. The police have said that they are no longer going to respond to mental health crisiss, rather refer them to paramedics, who are already overloaded with calls and are uncomfortable going into a situation where a physical altercation could break out. As far as our personal impact goes, yes, the crime rate is relatively low in our area, but we do have burglars and car prowlers. The sheriff's department has already told us that if they get a call about a prowler, that they'll respond but that if the suspect flees, they won't pursue them, so all they'll be doing is chasing them off one house to move on to the next.

Regardless of whether or not we agree about the law, something with this large of an impact should have been put up for a vote. It's not like a gun control law that affects a relatively small number of people. This law could affect every single resident in the state. The other thing that putting it on the ballot would have done is that proponents would have had to justify it or 'sell' it and opponents, like police departments, could have laid out their case against it. We could have had an honest debate about it.

But now, it's being rammed down our throats without our having a say like most other legislation that comes out of the liberal west side of the state. No wonder there are moves to break off and form our own state.

[Aseahawkfan]

There's mass confusion amongst police departments about the law and how it is supposed to work. The police have said that they are no longer going to respond to mental health crisiss, rather refer them to paramedics, who are already overloaded with calls and are uncomfortable going into a situation where a physical altercation could break out. As far as our personal impact goes, yes, the crime rate is relatively low in our area, but we do have burglars and car prowlers. The sheriff's department has already told us that if they get a call about a prowler, that they'll respond but that if the suspect flees, they won't pursue them, so all they'll be doing is chasing them off one house to move on to the next.

Regardless of whether or not we agree about the law, something with this large of an impact should have been put up for a vote. It's not like a gun control law that affects a relatively small number of people. This law could affect every single resident in the state. The other thing that putting it on the ballot would have done is that proponents would have had to justify it or 'sell' it and opponents, like police departments, could have laid out their case against it. We could have had an honest debate about it.

But now, it's being rammed down our throats without our having a say like most other legislation that comes out of the liberal west side of the state. No wonder there are moves to break off and form our own state.

Gun control laws (some that don't make sense) pushed by a small group of politicians aren't popular either. You don't sound like you're much into gun culture. I'm not either though I'm strongly pro Second Amendment as a necessary and vital check on the power of government. I don't collect guns or spend much time reading on them. I just understand the balance of power of an armed society versus a disarmed and powerless society.

But gun owners are a very politically active and a serious group of people who are more likely to take action if they are messed with than most groups. They are probably one of the most active conservative political forces in America. They have a lot of cops and military personnel in their ranks.

It's why the Democrats have to tread carefully with those folks and why the conservatives work so hard to keep their political support.

If the country breaks apart or states start separating, it will be the Second Amendment movement that pushes it. I believe that is the key issue that could rip America apart if the Democrats push too hard against them more than anything else.

[RiverDog]

Gun control laws (some that don't make sense) pushed by a small group of politicians aren't popular either. You don't sound like you're much into gun culture. I'm not either though I'm strongly pro Second Amendment as a necessary and vital check on the power of government. I don't collect guns or spend much time reading on them. I just understand the balance of power of an armed society versus a disarmed and powerless society.

But gun owners are a very politically active and a serious group of people who are more likely to take action if they are messed with than most groups. They are probably one of the most active conservative political forces in America. They have a lot of cops and military personnel in their ranks.

I am a 2nd Amendment supporter but I do think that it has, or should have, its limits. Just like the first amendment right to free speech doesn't give you the right run into a crowded theatre and yell "Fire!", the right to keep and bear arms does not give you a right to own military style assault rifles, or at least that's my position. And no, I am not part of a gun culture. I have a couple of 12 gauge shotguns and a .22 rifle.

If the country breaks apart or states start separating, it will be the Second Amendment movement that pushes it. I believe that is the key issue that could rip America apart if the Democrats push too hard against them more than anything else.

That will undoubtedly be a big part of the equation, but there's plenty of other issues that could help drive the split. Take a look at this proposed initiative in Oregon:

Put simply, this petition (IP-13) is designed to criminalize farming, ranching, hunting, trapping, pest control, and killing of animals for any reason. It is also designed to prevent anything but offering any medical care to animals, and ensure that activities typically done for animals’ health and safety – like branding or de-horning – cannot occur. You’ll note that the initiative doesn’t only target agriculture – it would also effectively ban hunting, research involving animals, rodeos, circuses, and most other activities involving animals.

https://naturalresourcereport.com/2021/ ... -industry/

[c_hawkbob]

It's just too bad 2nd amendment nuts tend to completely ignore th "well regulated" portion of their favorite amendment. It's not a bad document as written, oppose to as interpreted.

[RiverDog]

It's just too bad 2nd amendment nuts tend to completely ignore the "well regulated" portion of their favorite amendment. It's not a bad document as written, oppose to as interpreted.

To expand on that thought, "A well regulated militia, necessary to the security of a free state..."

There was no standing army when the Constitution was adapted in 1787 as the Continental Army had been disbanded following the Revolutionary War. The 2nd was established so that the government could re-constitute a temporary army to meet the crisis in the event of an emergency. As a matter of fact, Article 1 limits the funding of such an army to two years.

In my opinion, the 2nd is not so much an affirmation of individual rights as it was a method for the government to maintain a network of militias (ie "well regulated") in lieu of a permanent standing army as at the time, there was no interest in creating such an army.

[c_hawkbob]

I agree with that if we substitute "in addition to" for "in leu of".

[RiverDog]

I agree with that if we substitute "in addition to" for "in leu of".

I was speaking of the status of the nation when the Bill of Rights was first proposed. At the time, in 1787, there was no standing army and there was no desire to establish one. It wasn't until several years after the Bill of Rights was first proposed that they realized that they needed a regular army rather than relying on militias to defend the country. Hence, they planned to use militias in lieu of a standing army. They did not envision having both.

Interestingly, although they didn't have or want a standing army, they did have a standing navy, and according to Donald Trump, they had an air force, too.

[Aseahawkfan]

I was speaking of the status of the nation when the Bill of Rights was first proposed. At the time, in 1787, there was no standing army and there was no desire to establish one. It wasn't until several years after the Bill of Rights was first proposed that they realized that they needed a regular army rather than relying on militias to defend the country. Hence, they planned to use militias in lieu of a standing army. They did not envision having both.

Interestingly, although they didn't have or want a standing army, they did have a standing navy, and according to Donald Trump, they had an air force, too.

It was never intended that we have a standing army is my understanding. We were supposed to operate more like Switzerland with states and localities having individual militias to defend the country. But as with all things human, the world changes and competition between humanity requires national militaries to compete against other nations with national militaries.

I mostly agree with the underlining idea of the 2nd Amendment which is an armed population is an important deterrent to governmental tyranny and external tyranny. It is clear The Founders when having the debate about the 2nd Amendment clearly wanted an armed populace to act as a deterrent to governmental tyranny. Citizens have no real power if they don't have the means to revolt and dissolve the government through violent revolution. Otherwise, they're just talk that a tyrant can ignore if he builds a federal military to squash dissent as is done in other tyrannical nations. There is a long history of military control by powerful classes within a society to maintain control over a population whether European or Japanese Feudalism or Communist Party Controls over weapons.

Given the set up in the modern day with The Fed having as much power as they do, best to let weapons be well dispersed among the general populace to ensure that check is in place and the government does not hold all the military power within the nation. I do still believe in some regulation in terms of background checks and similar regulations to ensure people with bad intentions don't have easy access to weapons. As with all rights, The 2nd Amendment is a responsibility as well as a right. Too many people love having rights and forget that responsibilities come with the rights.