Meet George Floyd

by cofty 75 Replies latest social current

  • Phizzy
    Phizzy

    Exactly T.D. Once that Principle, in all its parts, or some, have gone, and I believe it has in the USA. and to a slightly lesser extent here in the U.K., then it simply becomes "us and them ".

    For those not familiar, here are The Nine : ( Just read, and think how many we may have lost)

    The nine principles were as follows:

    1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
    2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
    3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
    4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
    5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
    6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
    7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
    8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary, of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
    9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
  • Simon
    Simon
    During the Corvid19 lockdown in the UK, lawmakers made a mess and when the police tried to enforce, they were met a lot of backlash from the population. The lawmakers were at fault for making a law that wasn't clear and difficult to enforce and without adequate resources.

    No. People were mostly on board with it. What caused backlash was the revelation that the specific guy that made the rules which were being applied to others was flouting those same rules himself.

    But Covid is an exceptional situation with changing outlook, unlike most established laws and standards of behavior.

    The other things you mention have all been changed through the democratic process. That is the only way change can and should happen.

    People can march all they want, it accomplishes diddly squat (which is why the people who don't really want change want people marching).

  • Quetzal
    Quetzal

    @simon

    The other things you mention have all been changed through the democratic process. That is the only way change can and should happen.

    I take it you agree that policing will be much efficient if it is combined with better laws.

    "changed through the democratic process" What you call the democratic process was a lot of protest like the suffragette, it took them almost decades for women to get the right to vote in the UK. They had to fight for it.

    Often times, people have had to fight for their rights. Civil Rights movement, they had to fight for it. Apartheid it South Africa, they had to fight for it.

    Interracial Marriage in the US, they had to fight and they went all the way to the Supreme Court. Once the law was found to be unconstitutional, policing became much easier. Leave and let live

    Effective policing requires rethinking the laws of the land

  • Simon
    Simon

    Yes, a legal battle. That's different to fighting in the street which is generally ineffective because no laws change without a process and that isn't the process.

    Occasionally the actual physical conflict can change public opinion but I think the reality is that opinion has already largely been changed and we're just waiting for laws to catch up.

    But in this case there are no laws to change. Please point to the legal statute that you think needs to be modified. Do you actually believe there are laws that say "feel free to pop off some negroes as you drive around"?

  • Quetzal
    Quetzal

    @simon

    Do you actually believe there are laws that say "feel free to pop off some negroes as you drive around"?

    I don't know what you are talking about.

    Please point to the legal statute that you think needs to be modified.

    What about "Qualified Immunity"?

    Occasionally the actual physical conflict can change public opinion but I think the reality is that opinion has already largely been changed and we're just waiting for laws to catch up

    I agree. I believe the whole point of this discussion is about making the police more accountable.

  • Simon
    Simon
    What about "Qualified Immunity"?

    Does that mention race? Does it only apply if a black person is shot?

    You seem convinced that there are racist laws, but can't point to any. The only ones I can think of are todo with college admissions and diversity hiring, both of which are biased towards blacks (and IMO are counter productive to their goal).

    I think there are definitely issues with public sector unions, both for police and teaching (where a lot of abuse and failure happens with regard to blacks), but the democrats will not sacrifice one of their sacred cows. Sorry, they may like black votes but they also love union contributions. That's why they encourage marches - lets people think they are accomplishing something without anything actually changing.

  • Quetzal
    Quetzal

    @simon

    Does that mention race? Does it only apply if a black person is shot?

    If more white people are killed by police, and black people are making a lot of noise about the issue that affects them, once the problem is fixed, wouldn't black and white benefit from the protests?

  • Finkelstein
    Finkelstein

    Maybe its just a case of the police needing to be held more accountable for their actions while on duty.

    The close association and relationship with the law givers and the law enforces needs to separated further by a third party watching over the both of them .

    Too many times I've seen police inadvertently killing a person while on active duty and getting away with it when they shouldn't have.

  • Finkelstein
    Finkelstein

    I thinks its beginning to sink in through public awareness that police officers needs regulatory laws enacted while they are actively on duty.

    The list of people who have been killed inadvertently while being subdued for possible arrest is alarmingly, there was the Tazzer problem a few years back, now its gun fire and choke holds.

  • Finkelstein
    Finkelstein

    Maybe this issue with George Floyd isn't one of racism but one of police brutality ?

    Some examples in my local area of Vancouver ......

    Man having a psychotic episode is striking cars with a stick as they travel down a street.

    Police come to try to restrain the man who doesn't understand the gravity of what he is doing, police get impatient, cant put the man under control so the shoot him dead.

    Another man having a psychotic episode is waking down a street striking a chain at people as they walk pass him, same situation, police get impatient cant control the guy so they shoot him dead.

    In both these cases after an investigation into the incident, they were not charged with anything unlawful or illegal, even though they killed someone who wasn't armed, they were totally exonerated.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit