You still need to maintain a warped view of the world to hold police to such a standard, rather than the act of regarding them itself.
Footage from the Justine incident of other responding officers showed good communication and confusion. Both good indicators if we assume one measures the ability of law enforcement and the other the extent of cases such as these - given the surprise of the officers in this circumstance that would be supporting evidence that this is rare perhaps? Hard to say given no comparison, but, you do mock the idea of stating such events are isolated incidents? More troubling was the one officers seeming rush to prevent the negroid from incriminating himself, a kind of failure to investigate and said officers rush to cease the gathering of incriminating evidence via bodycamera. That doesn't make these situations any less rare (vanishingly small) nor any less isolated as a non systematic-err.
I would agree with an "anti-mayor rhetoric" given that mayors interfering with police work is most often detrimental, but these kinds of hire in a non rhetorical more serious toned look are somewhat inevitable given that it is government sector jobs that can't discriminate based on race. The private sector can do things that aren't, but in effect are, meritocratic control as blacks compared to whites are over-credentialed and the market corrects itself for this over-credentialization as one example of possible private public differences.
The National Safety Council puts the lifetime risk of being killed in the United States by any assault with a firearm at 1 in 358.
The lifetime risk of dying in a mass shooting is around 1 in 110,154 — about the same chance of dying from a dog attack or legal execution.
Terrorism is also vanishingly small as well, just like these great, often conceptual, police injustices.
People like to make alot appear out of nothing, and to be entirely fair it is politically and rhetorically effective. Very effective.
The real big brain move though is to be smart enough to acknowledge the jingle-key fear monger politics and be even smarter and realize that it's entirely necessary, perhaps rationalized; and natural.
Unlike leveraging 'think of the children' (from mass shootings to child abuse by grooming gangs) - which mainly targets female voters for you in non-politicized elections (I know it seems like a misnomer for political elections but it's a monster vote thing) -you don't really seek to gain very much.
Your entire spiel about sociological tendencies and patterns of pathology is strange and errant in the sense you talk about sociological issues without mentioning any of the actual extant literature on the subject, bizarre. "Let me guess, you got bullied at school, had a pet goldfish didn't you pig? It died at the age of 6, you had to flush it down the toilet, saddest day of your life." I also saw a similar scene in a movie as well. Liam Neeson?
You mention no-knock warrants but don't even mention the tendency to move towards acquittal in what should be made clear cases of criminal liability? That would seem like a sound systematic error on part of the police and judges to me, I would find it rather convincing infact of some kind of great systematic wrongdoing, although not itself indicative of the extent. That is if most of those weren't acquittals caused by grand juries which tend to make fine decisions.
"half the time they don't." Is rhetorically... something. Rhetorically persuasive but I even doubt its use as that. I'm going to assume you got this idea from the controversial no-knock cases which tend to involve lots of acquittals anyway and also incorrect addresses, the implication though is that this is no-knock warrants generally, perhaps assemble some evidence for that? It's probably fair to say of controversial no-knock cases (including those involving Jury acquittals). Again doesn't make it more significant or any less isolated.
"American cops are very trigger happy and not at all afraid to stack some bodies when it's a white taxpayer in their sights." This is blatantly... true. Yes. I feel these are much better arguments but that's only because I know of the research given I cite it in arguments in which I contend the direction of this "racism" by police thing. To not just refute but carry in the other direction is a stronger position.
Again there's plenty of other better arguments, instead you waste half your words writing a 'big if true' paragraph of rhetoric that's entirely in admissible as anything important. Big if true.
Like you say yourself, hierarchical paramil. So change the orders not the people. but i contend the orders are fine.>>240455
Cocksucker? It's a question don't worry.>>240473>that declared that the guy was innocent:
Yes, and I'm starting to think most of these // wouldn't start arguments if they got training in objective reasonableness or had access to even half of the evidence a Grand Jury gets. I actually have some "belief" in Juries as bad as that is, but, it's hard to assess the actual effectiveness of this "Jury" thing unlike this "academic expertise" thing.>>240445
I've had this conversation a dozen times.>police suck>which police>all western police forces tbh>the us and uk police aren't the same, you need proper objects, groups that don't exist in the real world that you imagined aren't proper objects of conversations and aren't real, etc.
I also don't talk about all police forces together for the same reason I clarify studies of blacks as studies of blacks in the US.
I recognize this from the imagined "universal pan-European man" (which defers away from any real tactical hereditarian thinking, although I have no problem with the idea strategically, pragmatically and practically).