carcajou

No, but you were the one who got me thinking about it the other night, when in the other thread a few people had the same sentiments and then you attacked and implied racism, and what I felt was a mis-contextualisation of Dr King.

I am not saying that to have a go at you or to start an argument.

But it's absolutely pertinent, particularly with the discussion in a few other threads about lack of credible news sources. News media/social media mob mentality is very much a thing right now and it seemed in the early days of this to be serving as a cover for looters. Which has wrecked what should be a powerful point not just about police behaviour towards minorities but police militarisation and police brutality in general.

Lion in Winter

On the contrary, I disagree that the looting has been "covered up" in any way. Not only is it featured prominently in every news source there is, but POTUS and a large number of other public figures are making a huge deal over it. "Mob mentality" emanates from the White House, and was used to gain office and has beenused ever since that. It's a tactic. In fact, I would say that the highlighting of the looters is aimed at taking away the strength of the overall point about racism, inequality, and police brutality. And yet still, as we also see from media outlets, social and otherwise, the police continue to attack peaceful protesters as though there were no difference.

You also have to distinguish between moral and ethical questions, and social causes. It's easy enough to say "the looters are wrong", and they are. But ask yourself what has happened to a society that so many people are prepared to behave this way? Some want to pass that off as poor individual choices and simple bad behaviour, but that degree of social unrest is never that simple. And if we fail to look at that beyond shooting and beating people and putting them in jail, the causes will be not stopped and the behaviour will not change.

carcajou

I disagree with you. Yes "mob mentality" has originated from the White House as a '68 Nixon election tactic, as I have elaborated on in other threads.

But I think where you are wrong is you assume it only comes from the right. It comes from the left as well and gets pumped up by the media. This is what I feel is a new phenomenon. I never felt the mainstream US media had a left-wing bias until about 6 or 7 years ago. Now it almost drips off the screen as bad, if not worse, than on Fox News. You have misunderstood what I said when I said they were "given cover" - not covered up. They were glorified and highlighted. I felt the media and mob mentality people thought it would give the protests even more strength and pop if they seemed angry and violent. So looters were actively conflated with peaceful protesters and those differentiating between them got attacked. Not just on this issue, it happens routinely in other contexts and other settings and then has to get walked back some days later.

Some of it is commercial, and the news has taken a different take on "commercial" in recent years. I remember a comment from Rush Limbaugh in a (non-media) trade publication some time ago. He said he was not a journalist or a newsman, he was a salesman. His job was to be a salesman of advertising space. He found a gap in the market and filled that space, in order to command high advertising rates. That gap in the market was right-wing radio coverage and he tells the people who want that, what they want to hear. I think of Limbaugh and that commentary whenever I hear Rachel Maddow or any of those other people. Why do you think Maddow was so militant about Russiagate? None of them are newspeople or journalists, they are salesmen and advertisers, now infused with a mix of naive activists.

When the chapter gets written on this part of Western history the media, and social media's influence on it, will not be looked upon kindly. Much like the Yellow Journalism period 120 years ago.

Watchpost

I hereby nominate you for the Understatement of the Year Award.

Watchpost

I think Bob Kroll still is.

Lion in Winter

I don't get that award very often on here

Lion in Winter

I don't disagree that the ability to use social media to get a response that was previously impossible has been a fact for some time now. I doubt that the brexit thing would have happened without it and Banks, Farage, Cummings et al were certainly running ad campaigns and passing their tactics off as "the voice of the people". It worked. But it's also time to stop dividing this into "right" and "left" camps. It's not nearly as simple as that, and I would tend to look at the intersection of wealth and power and its preservation over and above "left" or "right". While it is true that in political terms this intersection has most often conflated itself with "the right" since "the left" is by definition antithetical to that particular intersection, but this doesn't mean that they are the same thing. In addition, simplifying these hugely complex issues into "left" and "right" promotes a lot of the social media shouting and the tribalism that we see right here on BE, which is also social media.

Lion in Winter

With what sort of regime do we associate this kind of treatment of the press?

amideislas

If you honestly thought you'd get away with that, not only have you grossly underestimated those you were trolling for, but you apparently aren't "up on the news" at all, because that impassioned speech was broadcast, widely shared on social media, and written in the press pretty ubiquitously worldwide.

carcajou

Incorrect. Have you not been following?

Red Eric

Well I'm a member of the general public and I have some qualms about whether all of the officers attending the scene should be charged with the same offences.

I'll put my hands up to not being up on the full details even of what's out in the public domain so far but from the little I do know, it appears to me that one officer bears almost complete culpability for the death, and that what might be regarded as appropriate responses from fellow officers may have been constrained by their inexperience and by his seniority to them, not to mention the possibility that (judging by his behaviour) he might well have been a highly intimidating brute towards his junior colleagues.

If I was on a jury, I'd want to know a little more about the power dynamics (probably not the right term but you know what I mean) within the group, and about whether rookie policemen have been adequately trained in the matter of how to deal with witnessing unacceptable behaviour from senior colleagues. And I might want the option of returning a verdict which doesn't absolve any of the officers present but recognises significant differences in the nature of the offences.

Former Lancastrian

Police training is definitely going to be under the microscope but is not an exact science. Before they even look at the training should the question be asked "Why do we even need the Police"? Of course the answer is Yes we need them as human beings are not perfect and break laws and society demands that these people are dealt with. Of course the jails around the world are full of criminals who didn't do anything wrong or they did not commit an offence.
In the US the Police carry guns whereas in the UK only certain officers are allowed to carry them. Most countries contained within their laws have a section where a person including the Police can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others or prevent the commission of an offence there are also sections that deal with Police officers specifically.

So back to training we can all agree that training needs to be provided. What should this training consist of? There are a raft of subjects that they receive training on including racism, mental health, the law, self defence techniques, listening and verbal tactics to de escalate certain situations. They are provided with certain tools be it handcuffs, batons, OC spray, tasers and firearms where applicable. So when sat in a classroom setting and going through training what is the Instructor supposed to say when the scenario comes up for example where you are on foot patrol on your own and walking along the street and you see a person walking towards you and approx when 6 feet away from you pulls out a huge knife and shouts I'm gonna kill you. If you react quickly enough you could run away or if not then you have to defend yourself and hopefully manage to do so without getting stabbed/injured? Faced with this situation I suspect most would say I would do anything I could to defend myself so that I can carry on living.

With any job experience can be a huge factor so when faced with situations in real life (not classroom scenarios) without experience how you deal with it will vary. Even with the best training available you cannot predict what will happen in a real life scenario.

I won't bore anyone with more but having been one and with events happening today and the pay they receive for the job they have to do and even if 28 today I couldn't honestly give you an answer as to if I would join a Police force again.

Red Eric

Sure, but I wasn't talking about it from that angle, which is a much wider topic altogether.

It was only the joint culpability of all the officers on that patrol I was looking at and the particular scenario of whether it was feasible that the junior officers could reasonably have been expected to intervene. Whether there would be a culture in the force which encourages such action or whether it would have been a career-ending move or might have put them in personal danger. Whether they could have been expected, in the light of their training, to confidently take control of the situation or to have someone to call for advice or backup.

That kind of thing.

Nutek

Lion in Winter

Stand outside the White House unarmed, you get gassed and baton-charged.

Stand outside (and in some cases push your way inside) courthouses and senate chambers like this? Nada.












A few days ago, a man on his knees and with his hands in the air and with a hammer in his pocket was shot dead by police from inside the police car because "the officer perceived a threat".