GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
A consequence of the rioting that needs to be considered. Those rioting are hurting communities, damaging property, and destroying business. The professed goal of those protesting is to end discrimination and to improve quality of life. All admirable goals. However, burning down a community will mean greater discrimination, more unemployment, and greater poverty. Why would a business locate in an unsafe area? Not only that, but if you are one of the people who has had their life and/or business destroyed, you would tend to view the rioters with contempt and would not be supportive of the cause they claim to be making (since you were violently attacked by them).
Moreover, stories of the looters hurting and killing people are beginning to emerge. The suffering these people are experiencing must also be considered.
Steve R,: totally agree - these rioters and looters are not even standing for the cause the peaceful protesters are standing for; they are using the chaos to further their criminal activities and justify them. Very sad indeed since the individuals they are hurting are not the cause of the peaceful protests in the first place...
Yup...when Law, and it's enforcement, goes to Hell, so does Order. Personally I think the US needs to take a hard look at psychological profiles for passing the "exam". In many ways, The Police Force is "where the rubber meets the road". It is the liason between politics and society as a whole... literally the face (and hands) of the government.
Yup...when Law, and it's enforcement, goes to Hell, so does Order. Personally I think the US needs to take a hard look at psychological profiles for passing the "exam". In many ways, The Police Force is "where the rubber meets the road". It is the liason between politics and society as a whole... literally the face (and hands) of the government.
One only needs to a high school degree to become a police officer. It's insane.
A consequence of the rioting that needs to be considered. Those rioting are hurting communities, damaging property, and destroying business. The professed goal of those protesting is to end discrimination and to improve quality of life. All admirable goals. However, burning down a community will mean greater discrimination, more unemployment, and greater poverty. Why would a business locate in an unsafe area? Not only that, but if you are one of the people who has had their life and/or business destroyed, you would tend to view the rioters with contempt and would not be supportive of the cause they claim to be making (since you were violently attacked by them
I did hear somewhere that U.S. police are some of the most aggressive police compared to other countries, such as British police, who try everything in their power to first de-escalate the sitution (rather than immediately draw a firearm). This is likley the case because police across the U.S. operate under the conditions of being able to use force when they feel it's "reasonable" to do so. Rather though it should be only under "necessary conditions". So in that case a police officer can't draw a weapon if a guy 'looks like a threat', or if they perceive the situation as 'possibly being so'. But now they can only draw a firearm if they know for sure the individual has a weapon, and thus IS a threat.
So alot of acts of police violence have nothing to do with psychological profiles, college degrees, or skin color. But rather police culture that stems from the power the badge and gun gives you (which their given substantial amount of leeway to leverage).
In the specific case of the cop that killed George Floyd, he was just a bad apple. There's bad apple's everywhere, but they should not been seen as representative of their organization(s) as a whole.
Last edited by quickquestion111; 06-04-2020 at 12:21 AM.
I did hear somewhere that U.S. police are some of the most aggressive police compared to other countries, such as British police, who try everything in their power to first de-escalate the sitution (rather than immediately draw a firearm). This is likley the case because police across the U.S. operate under the conditions of being able to use force when they feel it's "reasonable" to do so. Rather though it should be only under "necessary conditions". So in that case a police officer can't draw a weapon if a guy 'looks like a threat', or if they perceive the situation as 'possibly being so'. But now they can only draw a firearm if they know for sure the individual has a weapon, and thus IS a threat.
So alot of acts of police violence have nothing to do with psychological profiles, college degrees, or skin color. But rather police culture that stems from the power the badge and gun gives you (which their given substantial amount of leeway to leverage).
It also has to do with the lack of psyche profiling COMBINED with the fact that large percentages of the police force are ex-military. There are major differences in the training for dealing with external threats and simply maintaining a peaceful society.. The military by need and design are, make no mistake, trained killers. They don't need to know International Law, only military law. The militarization of the police force exists in more ways than one, some needed, some extremely dangerous. We need to weed out the latter. Many such officers think they ARE the Law, literally judge, jury and executioner. That cannot stand long.
In the specific case of the cop that killed George Floyd, he was just a bad apple. There's bad apple's everywhere, but they should not been seen as representative of their organization(s) as a whole.
Actually the full expression is that one bad apple spoils the barrel. That is what is happening, the whole institution is called into disrepute by their continued, unjailed presence. So, yeah, they really do need to be seen as representative of their organization. The push for reform needs to come from outside of that institution, because for more than a few work generations, there has been active selection against the best applicants.
There are several factors at play and more than a few groups working hard to confuse and obfuscate the issues. The factors are racism, class war, and police brutality. None of those are mutually exclusive conditions and all of which need addressing.
As for the small businesses getting hit by agitators operating under cover of the protests, they are around 99% (varies per year) of businesses. They are where the money is despite the fact that the multinationals get most of the attention being forces of their own, on par with nation-states.
One solution to this is to disarm the police in the US. Make them walk around like police in Great Britain do. Where they actually have to do police work. They get a little carried away, like trying to kill a man in front of everyone, the bystanders can grab them and throw them off. Yes I know, sounds like anarchy.
Then when something breaks out, a commander can order weapons to be checked out from the ordinance room. Then turned back in when the problem is over. Make them account for every round that was checked out.
If that was done in the US, 3/4 of all police would instantly resign. They know good and well how much they are disliked. They have even tried to get laws passed forbidding passers by from recording them. They have arrested people for that. The courts had to step in and tell then to quit it.
A little bit of power mad mentality exists in some of the police. It is a difficult thing. You give a 24 year old a gun, lawful power to use it, lawful authority to stop and detain people, it goes to their head sometimes.
The police man in Mn. was on the force for 19 years. I wonder if sometimes they simply get burned out seeing/watching/chasing the worst in society day after day. I bet that it affects them psychologically. Maybe police should only be allowed to work a beat for 3 years, then required to do a desk job for a year. Rotate like that throughout their career. Give them time to detoxify.
And then there is the American public. Ever watch them ignore everything that is said to them? That is just about standard practice for the last 20 years. I bet that police get tired of that and snap every now and then. I get real tired of it.
That older cop may have out raked those other 4 cops at the scene. They may not have had the authority to tell him to get off. Or just would not dare.
Then there is the SEIU union. Most all cops in the US are union. You can't tell on a brother union member, not unless you want your life to be miserable for the next 15 years. You have to conform and be a union brother. You can't even fire a cop without a review process according to the contract that they have with their municipality. Often times the fire dept, street dept, police dept all belong to the same union. They won't tell on each other.
One solution to this is to disarm the police in the US. Make them walk around like police in Great Britain do. Where they actually have to do police work. They get a little carried away, like trying to kill a man in front of everyone, the bystanders can grab them and throw them off. Yes I know, sounds like anarchy.
Then when something breaks out, a commander can order weapons to be checked out from the ordinance room. Then turned back in when the problem is over. Make them account for every round that was checked out.
If that was done in the US, 3/4 of all police would instantly resign. They know good and well how much they are disliked. They have even tried to get laws passed forbidding passers by from recording them. They have arrested people for that. The courts had to step in and tell then to quit it.
A little bit of power mad mentality exists in some of the police. It is a difficult thing. You give a 24 year old a gun, lawful power to use it, lawful authority to stop and detain people, it goes to their head sometimes.
The police man in Mn. was on the force for 19 years. I wonder if sometimes they simply get burned out seeing/watching/chasing the worst in society day after day. I bet that it affects them psychologically. Maybe police should only be allowed to work a beat for 3 years, then required to do a desk job for a year. Rotate like that throughout their career. Give them time to detoxify.
And then there is the American public. Ever watch them ignore everything that is said to them? That is just about standard practice for the last 20 years. I bet that police get tired of that and snap every now and then. I get real tired of it.
That older cop may have out raked those other 4 cops at the scene. They may not have had the authority to tell him to get off. Or just would not dare.
Then there is the SEIU union. Most all cops in the US are union. You can't tell on a brother union member, not unless you want your life to be miserable for the next 15 years. You have to conform and be a union brother. You can't even fire a cop without a review process according to the contract that they have with their municipality. Often times the fire dept, street dept, police dept all belong to the same union. They won't tell on each other.
Lots of factors here.
I just "love" it when someone who is not from the U.S. thinks they know all about us! Everything you (and many others) have said here is unbelievably wrong and narrow minded!
The problems going on here are far more complex than just alleged police racism and violence and there will be no simple solutions to fix them and those solutions will not come from self appointed "experts", especially those from other countries!
Disarming the police only works if the public are disarmed. Police in the UK know that very few criminals carry guns — in the USA being an unarmed officer would be the quickest route to an early grave.
But there's more to it than guns. There are batons, fists, and knees. There have been several cases of journalists and even paramedics being attacked. That's what I'd call a police riot.
The real problem as I understand it is the lack of regulation and supervision in the US compared with the UK.
Here the police are inspected annually by a national Inspectorate; there they aren't.
Here any death involving the police is investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission; there the police investigates themselves.
Here the decision to prosecute is taken by the Crown Prosecution Service; there it's the DA, who's basically a politician.
Here the police have no union, any more than soldiers do; there the unions sometimes do everything possible to protect officers from the consequences of their actions.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
