Cops Don't Intervene In An Assault

[Revoltingest]

The article doesn't really give enough information to be able to say what happened. Why were 5 girls (who appeared to be older than 11) beating up on an 11-year-old girl? What in heck happened? Was the victim black as well? The article said that there was an unruly crowd which was reacting to the presence of the cops, but it's not clear if that's why the cops were holding back or not.

Information is often imperfect.
We work with what we have.

 

[Nakosis]

Maybe add loud praise for the overwhelming majority of officers that do a great job in nasty situations.

Yes, you have to acknowledge to good you see to reinforce it. I find it is much easier to change behavior by acknowledging good action much more so than by criticizing bad behavior.

 

[Twilight Hue]

This trend by police is kind of predictable. The danger of being accused of being too aggressive with black criminals is now a bigger worry for them than being too soft. And it is a lot less work to do less.

I am generally pro-police and they may have to get laid back until the citizenry demands they get tougher until everyone finds a balance. I think those with this rampant attitude against police need to see what it is like without them being strong out there for awhile.

All they have to do is live in Ecuador.

 

[George-ananda]

Yes, you have to acknowledge to good you see to reinforce it. I find it is much easier to change behavior by acknowledging good action much more so than by criticizing bad behavior.

It’s like it goes against the grain of the BLM crowd to praise the overwhelming majority of police officers.

 

[Revoltingest]

It’s like it goes against the grain of the BLM crowd to praise the overwhelming majority of police officers.

And so the us-versus-them mentality thrives.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And so the us-versus-them mentality thrives.

I wish you would take the time to expand on that, in your own words. Us versus them always involves enemies. How do you think people who see eye-to-throat on most things can begin finding a tiny bit of common ground, on which they can build? (As I said, I think that's definitely something that happened between the police and the gay community in Toronto some 30 years ago or so.)

 

[George-ananda]

And so the us-versus-them mentality thrives.

That’s it. BLM has made race relations more tense and everyone more on edge. Politeness not anger wins in reality.

 

[Revoltingest]

I wish you would take the time to expand on that, in your own words. Us versus them always involves enemies. How do you think people who see eye-to-throat on most things can begin finding a tiny bit of common ground, on which they can build? (As I said, I think that's definitely something that happened between the police and the gay community in Toronto some 30 years ago or so.)

I don't see how to expand on cops vs black folk & other BLM types.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

That's why there is all this talk about defunding, abolishing and restructuring the police.

Th goal of the police in not intervening in such a situation (and of some of the media reporting on it). Is to create an either or scenario where you either support the status quo or a fabricated state of violent anarchy. They expect that the fence sitter will rally to the police because they have been indoctrinated to trust them and not rally to the scary outsiders that are political anarchists and BLM.

I'm pretty open minded, but I'm very skeptical about "abolishing" the police. I admit I haven't read much about it though. What would they replace the police with? Clearly some sort of organized law enforcement with recognized authority should exist in a civil society.

 

[epronovost]

I'm pretty open minded, but I'm very skeptical about "abolishing" the police. I admit I haven't read much about it though. What would they replace the police with? Clearly some sort of organized law enforcement with recognized authority should exist in a civil society.

Abolishing police department means disbanding a police department to create a new one. It allows a city to basically fire every single police officer without breaching their union contract and then re-hire whoever they want under different work condition without having to do so under the same condition than a normal negotiation contract with the police union. It's a union busting technique that allows radical changes in how police operate, Of course, the new police officer can form a new union afterward.

 

[Stevicus]

Information is often imperfect.
We work with what we have.

Yeah, I know, although in a lot of cases, the cops may not even show up at all until after it's over. Then they fill out paperwork.

Still, if there was a large crowd gathered, why didn't any of them intervene? I mean, it was an 11-year-old girl, for Pete's sake.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, I know, although in a lot of cases, the cops may not even show up at all until after it's over. Then they fill out paperwork.

Still, if there was a large crowd gathered, why didn't any of them intervene? I mean, it was an 11-year-old girl, for Pete's sake.

Some societies are inured to violence against others.
The crowd....cops....both will stand by while it happens.

 

[esmith]

Could it be that police don't want to get involved because of the reaction of citizens as per the incident in Chicago when 100's riot after a police shooting:
below taken from: 100 arrested, 13 officers injured in overnight Chicago unrest following police-involved shooting

Hundreds of people swept through streets of Chicago overnight, injuring police officers, smashing store windows, and looting and damaging property after police officers shot a man they say was armed, officials said.

The shooting happened Sunday afternoon when police responded to a call of a person with a gun, according to the city's police department. Officers said they tried to confront a man who matched the description of the suspect when he fled on foot, firing toward officers as he did.

Two officers fired back, striking the man, identified as a 20-year-old with four arrests for burglary, child endangerment and domestic battery.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

When BLM shut down the Pride Parade in Toronto a few years ago, in order to have police barred from participation (among other demands), I was incensed. And when the Pride Committee here gave in to those demands, I vowed that I would not attend another Pride event. And I've been faithful to that vow, although I was among those who started the very first of Toronto's Pride celebrations, along with friends who became the leaders of our community (I was not a leader, just a friend).

I remember when we had it bad at the hands of police -- but we worked that through, and our relationships were improving continually. Toronto even has many LGBT officers on the force now. BLM wants those relationships broken down again. And I am vehemently opposed to that. I support our police, though holding bad officers to account, as I do bad actors in any other role.

BLM does not see what the original players in the Pride movement saw -- that we best get rid of enemies by making them friends. They appear to want everything to be adversarial, and I do not think that's a healthy way forward.

So, your Revoltitude, I'll support you're not being barred.

It's kind of hard to want to be friends with an organization that is still routinely responsible for unjust violence against you. It could just as easily be argued that the LGBT community should stand in solidarity with the black community, and refuse to stand in solidarity with an institution that still poses a significant institutional threat to the black community, including black members of its own community.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I find it amusing that when police choose not to do their job, the discussion is about how the mean old protestors are somehow making the cops do it by exercising their first amendment rights and standing up against institutionalised violence, rather than the utterly bizarre idea that a small pocket of police can't seem to do anything about a basic assault but are happy to still enact violence against protestors - and detain them unconstitutionally - all over the country.

But, no. Let's debate this like it's not somehow entirely the fault of the police. We need to blame the protestors for making the police not do the most basic part of their job. That makes perfect sense.

 

[Stevicus]

Some societies are inured to violence against others.
The crowd....cops....both will stand by while it happens.

Maybe in New York City. In Arizona, we do things a bit differently.

 

[Father Heathen]

I think they are fed up with BLM attitudes and less motivated to get involved. That's what the OP is suggesting too.

"If we can't do our job wrong then by golly we ain't gonna do it at all!"

 

[George-ananda]

"If we can't do our job wrong then by golly we ain't gonna do it at all!"

Wrong there Heathen. I was saying that they do things right overwhelmingly.

 

[Tambourine]

Yes, you have to acknowledge to good you see to reinforce it. I find it is much easier to change behavior by acknowledging good action much more so than by criticizing bad behavior.

Whenever a police officer kills somebody, people should hit the streets in loud celebration of all the good cops that didn't kill anybody - would that be the course of action that you believe would bring about a positive change in police officer's attitudes?

 

[Tambourine]

I think that's baiting, and not particularly helpful, to be honest.

There is no baiting, it is the most logical conclusion to the premise at hand.