It's not a "bad apple" problem but a systemic problem.
Millions and millions and millions of police interactions annually. There's actually never been less police corruption than now because of the amount of oversight and the advent of the cellphone. That might be the biggest irony of it all.
A much higher percentage of blacks get police attention or arrested. How much of that bump do you think represents racism?
I'm asking specific to Chauvin. There was an awful case, the Kelly Thomas case, which will make your stomach churn. Considering the heinous nature of the murder (no other way to describe it) it got so little attention. Kelly Thomas was white and killed by white officers. My point is, Chauvin may have been motivated by race and maybe he wasn't. I think it really detracts from the point to inject speculation into it. What we know is that Chauvin did something odious and he should pay for it.
This is just typical racist white grievance crap.
Is it? Or is it the truth? You think CNN gives a flying fuck about George Floyd? George Floyd is ratings on steroids. CNN has all the impetus in the world to paint everything in divisive terms... Pure rage bait... and they've got you hook, line and sinker.
Your mere mention of ANTIFA ("BLM are also rejecting ANTIFA") gives away exactly where you're coming from. Trumpublicans just march out the ANTIFA bogeyman whenever they want to falsely tar some one or some group.
Its a fact that you're not willing to accept. Little white suburban kids who have been pumped full of Marxist ideology for years are using BLM as a platform. They speak on behalf of black people when not asked to, they control the conversation when not asked to, and use it to sow as much discord as possible.
Do you have any actual evidence of this? Calling your account into question are articles like Federal Arrests Show No Sign That Antifa Plotted Protests and False stories about "paid protesters" spike — again — in effort to delegitimize Black Lives Matter protests.
Since you believe that media coverage is the only metric for knowing what's happening in the world, probably because you're so geographically disconnected from it, here you go:
Meaning... if there were stagecoaches, there would be stagecoach robberies. If cops could get away with corruption, there would be corruption.
That's why checks and balances need to remain in place. There are definitely still some good 'ole boy agencies in the backwoods of America and I'm sure to a lesser extent in Canada. Of this, I have no doubt. Most agencies though have enormous incentive to root out shitty officers. Shitty officers erode public trust and they're horribly expensive in the form of lawsuits.
I think of LAPD who has had so much negative publicity over the years.... The Watts riots, Rampart scandal, Rodney King, the OJ verdict, etc... LAPD has cleaned up a lot since those days. They're actually one of the finest law enforcement agencies around, but their past sins have had irreparable damage to their public image -- so much so that even the acronym insinuates corruption.
For them to come back from such a deficit in the public eye takes decades -- multiple decades. So there is a ton of incentive to be upright, square dealing, and to demand extremely high standards. That's what they've now done. And if you don't toe the line they will personally incarcerate you for dishonoring their name and for dishonoring the profession.
You also have to understand the resentment that all police officers have for Derek Chauvin. His deplorable actions didn't just effect him, though I hope he rots in shame for the rest of his miserable life. He single-handedly put a target on every cops back. Do you really believe that most agencies would want a Derek Chauvin on their team? Equally, do you truly believe that most or even many cops see parity with him or defend him?
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
There are definitely still some good 'ole boy agencies in the backwoods of America and I'm sure to a lesser extent in Canada.
We don't have "good 'ole boy" agencies to the extent that you do in the states but the RCMP are still being dragged kicking and screaming into the twentieth century. Racism and sexism are pretty rampant.
Most agencies though have enormous incentive to root out shitty officers.
When I worked for the RCMP (on support staff), we had a cleaner fired for stealing. He was hauled away in handcuffs and he wasn't even allowed back on the base to pick up his car; his roommate had to get it for him. During the same period of time, three RCMP sergeants got caught stealing. They got early retirement.
Do you really believe that most agencies would want a Derek Chauvin on their team? Equally, do you truly believe that most or even many cops see parity with him or defend him?
I believe that many would defend him if they could. Many do in less extreme cases.
"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
This is yet another argument for defunding the police. That doesn't mean disbanding police forces. It means taking police funding for things like wellness calls and giving it to medical and mental health professionals. Men with guns and specialized training for handling dangerous situations should not be sent out on a mental health call.
Yet another town's insurance company will pay out millions. It's time for the insurance companies to defund the towns for episodes like this. When towns have to start paying for these lawsuits out of their own pockets forcing them to raise property taxes, maybe then something will be done.
I'm just trying to have a rational discussion with you based upon facts. You claimed the video showed Marquez pointing the gun at an officer on the staircase. There is no officer on the staircase. The video does not show what you claimed it did. If you modify your claim to something supported by the facts then we can discuss that.
First of all, you selectively screenshot whatever frame suits you best, but even still there is clearly the officer with the rifle at the bottom of the stairs. You can even see the rifle underneath the Axon symbol of your own screenshot.
You're not even bothering to defend your claim. You're just making up more stuff.
You can't pull guns on officers. You can't point guns at officers or anywhere near the directions of officers. That you are somehow arguing the point is laughable.
Making up stories about what I'm arguing doesn't help you, either.
My main position is that most cops shouldn't have guns period, which solves the problem of cops seeing their guns as the solution to too many problems.
Then you wouldn't have anyway to stop violent things, Percy.
How many times are you going to ignore my actual position on this? Do I have to state it in full in every post to prevent you from ignoring it?
I mean honestly, let's say these were unarmed social workers and she pulls a gun on them. What's the next course of action? Well, 10 out of 10 times you call the police, but since in your scenario they are as ineffectual as everyone else, what then?
Do you really not recall the many times I've said *most* police shouldn't have guns. We're not having a discussion, we're just exchanging a series of posts where I have to keep reminding you of what I've actually said.
Obviously in cases requiring guns you call the police with the guns. Now that I've stated this yet again I assume you'll resume ignoring it.
Meaning that the positions you stake out are a more accurate portrayal of your attitudes than your own claims about yourself.