Derek Chauvin Trial

TheDude: In psychology and sociology, there is something called the minimal group paradigm: that even a minor difference between two groups (i.e. different clothing choices) decreases empathy between members of different groups and increases in-group favoritism. We see this clearly in the "blue lives matter" crowd. Put a bunch of people in costumes, hand them weapons, give them the power of life or death over others, have the public call them heroes, and you have done nothing other than created a special group which favors itself over all others.

Agreed. I think there are a lot of good cops and a lot of cops just doing their jobs and a lot of cops who simply make mistakes and many who make mistakes out of fear. I accept that there is a natural bond between cops because they expect each other to defend them in case they end up in a dangerous life-threatening situation. That being said, gangs are not nearly different enough. Gang mentality doesn't set in once one side has chosen a "color" (red, blue, yellow, etc). It sets in when one side feels supported. Their instinct becomes more violent because they feel more power and with that power, the idea that they should be in total control and if you rob them of this delusion they are threatened by it.

I think maybe it even does something positive, psychologically when some people verbally abuse police officers, even when they are getting arrested for a crime. Why? Because if you treat an officer like he's the president of the US every time he pulls someone over, then perhaps he starts to expect this from everyone, and may even feel like he's "above" while some people are "beneath" him. I think officers need to be treated as normal citizens so that they are reminded that they are normal citizens and not above the law. Responding to the police with fear may simply educate them to choose to invoke more fear so that they can get the same response.

TheDude: Personally, I am a police abolitionist through-and-through. When protesters say "defund the police" I take it very seriously; I do not support a mere reallocation of funding, but a complete dissolution of policing entirely.

I'm not down with complete abolition. I think bringing in other specialists is a must; especially mediators and officials who are trained more in health and wellbeing. Calling the police should be limited to dangerous situations where there is a suspect that needs to be arrested. In most cases, apprehension isn't necessary. Send them a ticket. If they want to dispute it, they can choose to go to court. If they dont show the ticket stands and is automatically taken from their taxes.

The only people in jail should be people who are a high risk to public safety. But certainly, if someone's on the run, you need police to chase and catch that person. If you have a mediator I would still ask police to be on the scene to support and protect the mediator. And if they disguise the act of arrest as them playing judge, jury, and executioner, then they should receive the harshest punishment because murdering someone with a badge on should be twice as bad as a regular murder.

If someone kills for drugs, that's not an excuse but at least they weren't pretending to be a hero. If someone kills out of passion at least you could say they lost control, overcome by their emotions. But what is the excuse when the person is doing a job the people in that jurisdiction are paying for? I prefer killers who have a reason. Not just, "hey I got weapons on me and several partners here to make sure I don't get killed by a suspect but I'm still going to kill the suspect anyway."

Rex: When handling evidence with any level of complexity beyond taking a picture of something, the average person would be insufficient for the job. Evidence would be tossed out via voir dire so fast (chain of custody who?)

Very true. There would have to be a lot of other changes to even consider a complete disbanding of the police force. However, one could argue that evidence is better collected, not by officers, but by CSI and when officers do it there could be a conflict of interest.

I just think police officers should either be support staff for qualified specialists or qualified specialists should be given some police training but perhaps run out of a separate organization so that there can be checks and balances. One of the problems is that it has been shown in a number of cases that police will cover for each other and they'll lie in order to justify their actions. Body cams have proven to be a necessity because of fabricated stories. I'd like to see body cams that are activated by voice commands. So as soon as the officer says "police", "hands", or has an elevated heart rate, boom, cameras automatically turn on. And that way if they don't cut on then you know the officer was not following procedure from the get go and any death that happens as a result is charged to them as if they weren't police officers at all. Because if you can't even identify yourself as an officer then the system shouldn't treat you like one.

ZealotX wrote: TheDude: Personally, I am a police abolitionist through-and-through. When protesters say "defund the police" I take it very seriously; I do not support a mere reallocation of funding, but a complete dissolution of policing entirely.

I'm not down with complete abolition. I think bringing in other specialists is a must; especially mediators and officials who are trained more in health and wellbeing. Calling the police should be limited to dangerous situations where there is a suspect that needs to be arrested. In most cases, apprehension isn't necessary. Send them a ticket. If they want to dispute it, they can choose to go to court. If they dont show the ticket stands and is automatically taken from their taxes.

The only people in jail should be people who are a high risk to public safety. But certainly, if someone's on the run, you need police to chase and catch that person. If you have a mediator I would still ask police to be on the scene to support and protect the mediator. And if they disguise the act of arrest as them playing judge, jury, and executioner, then they should receive the harshest punishment because murdering someone with a badge on should be twice as bad as a regular murder.

Defunding the police does not work, it was done in many area's, crime sky rocketed. Complete dissolution of the police? that will be WAY worse. Not just in crime but I don't think people ever stop to think or realize the reality of what that will do to other agencies and businesses. Certain businesses will close and not reopen at all if there is no form of sudden intervention law enforcement. Emergency Medical Services, will no longer exist. They will not respond to calls if they can't be safe doing so. Some hospitals will likely close down too. Heavy crime area's, will just get worse. I can't even begin to fathom why people think that will be fine. Not everyone can defend themselves more so not then can. Mediators and health and wellbeing? that is a dream to think that will solve situations. I've been on scene where the most polite, most calm, most appropriate friendly person with 0 suspicion and 0 history do a 180 and physically assault you out of nowhere. I've been a victim of it. I and many along with me would quit my career as a paramedic in a heart beat. No one in their right mind would step up to take that spot either.

I've also seen some of these mental health workers at work, and just like in any career because I've been in many over my years there is always going to be people that are under-trained, or got the free ride through who shouldn't be in the spot they are compared to others in their field. That's not specific to police that's every industry out there. Someone makes your coffee better at the starbucks then others, and someone makes it terrible. To assume they are going to be any better? You are just spinning the same wheel which will have the same problems. Dissolution of the police is not going to fix anything, it will make everything worse. Revisiting training sure, revaluating officers on the regular basis, absolutely. Dissolution, that shouldn't even be considered a solution. The amount of needless deaths and violence that would occur as a result of that would be unreal.

That's why I said you need the police to be there to keep the specialists safe. The question is more like that of a lead actor vs a supporting actor. I don't want to get rid of the police at all. I want them to be the supporting actor while the lead is a specialist who specializes in that particular situation.

Drug call? Lead: EMT , Supporting: Police
Drug call /w weapon? Lead: Police, Support EMT
Mental health call? Lead: Mental Health professional, Support: Police
Mental health call /w weapon? Lead: Police, Support: Mental Health professional
Domestic Violence call? Lead: Marriage Counselor, Support EMT
Domestic Violence call /w fear of assault? Lead: Marriage Counselor, Support: Police
Domestic VIolence call /w weapon? Lead: Police, Support EMT
Domestic Violence call /w active assault? Lead: Police, Support EMT
Traffic Violation? Lead: Traffic cop, Support: Regular cop. Traffic cops should write tickets only and not be under any quota system involving other crimes and therefore, not looking for PC. The regular cop should hang back near the police car, body cam on, and hand on weapon. If the worst that can happen on a traffic stop is a ticket then all traffic stops will be that much safer. Only if the traffic cop escalates and asks the driver to exit the vehicle should the other officer get tagged in. For example, if the driver's license is suspended or the driver is suspected of being under the influence.

Escalation 1: Roles reverse, Police Lead.
Escalation 2 (threat spotted): Police Only
De-escalation 1: Roles reverse, Police support.
De-escalation 2 (non threat): Specialist Only

Police should always be there unless there is no threat of violence determined by specialists on the scene. The specialist can fall back or tag in the police but the police should not take the lead unless the situation calls for an arrest or for a person to be physically restrained. If a person willingly hands over their license or state id there should be no need to restrain them unless they know they're going to be arrested and are a flight risk. But if they're going to get a ticket then all you need is their ID anyway and they should be free to go once the ticket is written. If the person wants to fight the ticket they can voluntarily set up a court hearing.

Because our justice system assumes every case needs a hearing it creates a situation that forces the police to make more arrests, filling the system with bodies, interrupting jobs and income, wasting the time of judges and courtroom staff who all have to be paid. I know for a fact that many people who are stuck in jails are there simply because they didn't show up for court. But that could have been avoided by not forcing every case to go to court in the first place. Even if the person is innocent, they are damaged by having to take time off work to go to court. That could take hours over a ticket that may only really be worth $50.

And part of this amounts to a secret tax on the poor because of the extra hardships that can be caused by this process. And let's not even get started on having to get a public defender, relationships between lawyers and police officers, judges, and magistrates. There's conflict of interest in a lot of cases because the magistrate knows that each case is money for the municipality, etc.

Again, cops are necessary, but not to lead or be the only ones to handle all these different types of calls. We ask too much of them and that's part of the reason why they handle calls the way they do.

We sure are asking A LOT from John Q. Citizen hu?

I think at this point in the time line, we dont need the past but the NOW. We need those who are trained in the NOW, not in the past. MY 2 cents. Police go to be trained at a Academy. Every "Training Master" or instructor is in charge of what these few selected or even volenteers are told and how to read the law. There are those who are DIRECTLY PAID to enforce the law, the Officers in the unit. Those captains and lieutenants are there not for just signing shift paper work but for INTERPITATION of the LAW. The LAW currently standing and in violation as per time present. Something to think about during this discussion, why get mad at the Cops or the volunteers when its the structure that can be mended?

What is it in their training that makes them act this way?
Remember, my 2 cents

Rex: so someone mugging me has that much of a head start. Without law enforcement, there's no reason for the perp to not escalate the situation and I would equally have no recourse besides defending myself.

I believe we need the police. However, I also believe you're more likely to get robbed at gunpoint and not with a knife because of the likelihood the mugger will have to deal with armed opposition, whether it is the victim or the police. Guns are used mainly to inspire fear for a quick transaction. If the mugger knows the police may be on their way then they know they need to wrap up the transaction quickly and now they have to consider whether the victim is a witness.

The Dude's point is that the mugger is likely gonna mug, regardless of whether or not the cops are on the way. And there's a good point there. However, you're also right that the police do provide a certain level of deterrence because criminals at least know they will have to deal with the police whether it is during or after the commission of the crime. I think that in the mugging situation, police should try to get there, and maybe drones scattered on rooftops could be activated to help find the suspect for arrest.

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote:
What is it in their training that makes them act this way?
Remember, my 2 cents

I believe there is fear bred into their training where they are taught that their own safety and protection is paramount to anyone else's safety; especially the suspect.

I believe they are also not trained to truly consider the crime for which a suspect is being questioned or arrested for. I believe this causes them to exaggerate the threat and allow their actions to be ruled by fear.

Also, the police need be trained by regularly carrying out arrests on each other. They need to be given imaginary crimes and even training with under cover officers they don't know so that another officer can evaluate their self control and discipline under pressure.

If a cop fails this mock arrest test then they should switch places with the officer(s) they arrested so they can show them 2 scenarios:

1. how it feels to be treated exactly the same way
2. how to do it properly so they can see the difference

All officers should be trained in wearing handcuffs for hours in the back of a police car. Some of these things that seem so simple are extremely uncomfortable and can be very painful.

There should also be some kind of belt that can go around the waist of a suspect that the handcuffs can be attached to in the front. Why? Because the behind the back position is done because officers fear the range of motion the suspect could have as far as taking an officer's weapon or even using the cuffs to strangle an officer. However, these painful holds and positions are typically unnecessary and when someone is causing you pain your body has a natural reaction to resist. And some cops will use that natural reaction in order to say the suspect was resisting and use that to justify more violence against them or even shooting.

So yes, I believe training has a lot to do with it.

Zero wrote: Let’s get this thread back on topic or it will be locked. The thread was about a trial for a police officer. It’s not about raping women in the middle of the night or the national guard acting as police.

Thank you for your concern, Zero. But please, as the OP, please allow me to determine what the thread or its continued discussion is about because I'm perfectly happy going down such lines of reasoning. In this case, we're talking about the trial and anything related to cause of the trial which is excessive force. TheDude simply offered his opinion on what could stop or cut down excessive force and that opinion deserved analysis and counter-arguments. So it's all good. Plus, I think the OP should always have an opportunity to get their own topic back on track so that they and others can continue to participate. Mods should step in if the OP is unable to regain control. That is my humble opinion. Please take it as such. Again, thank you for your concern and vigilance.

So then my question to the smart individual is why ISNT the ones who train accountable? When will ACOUNTABILITY be know instead of needing a trail? Just chatting with you Z X . I have served as "Law Enforcement " with the U.S. Coast Guard and the Us Army - and let me tell you, when there was a change to ANY LAW or any rule, we had a group of people REPRESENTIN the change to train us on the new change and to be better accountable. I see and hear next to NONE doing this in the real world.

Some times it aint fair to punish the kid for his upbringing, the same can be said for the Cops. If no one is too far from redemption then truly, we can train our own brave citizens to act better? Even organizations, Sects and faiths.
What we are taught some times matters. You know there are TONS of NON lethal ways to neutralize people, some involve foam, some include tea... some involve much more training but ... IM NOT IN CHARGE lol