Seems like DC people might "like" the idea of law enforcement again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that Black people are disproportionately deemed 'threats' that need to be physically defend against where white people doing the same are not.

One of the MPD officers summed it up nicely (talking about a rioter who gave him a hand): "Thank you, but f@*& you for being there"

Well, that's how I feel about MPD

It is a problem that needs to be addressed if/when it manfests, but you cant really nake up different rules for different permitted protests based on what you think might happen. Riot gear at all 1st amendment protests (and ongoing training and accountability) or at no protests, and the MOD go back to the van to change + grab their gear. That has to apply to Grannies for Peace or the Klan equally. Can you imagine if the Klan came to march (which courts have said over and over they have the 1st amendment right to do) and we sent the MPD to the perimeter dressed like English bobbies? How would that make sense?

If you're Robert J. Contee III: get off DCUM, you have more immediate worries right now.

If you're Peter Newsham: you don't have to worry about this anymore, yay!

If you're neither Robert J. Contee III nor Peter Newsham: let MPD leadership figure it out (or don't you have confidence in their ability to do so?).

I don't think they have confidence. That's why they "thumbs downed" the Councils summer riot gear legislation. They commented extensively on their reservations. It should definitely be looked at again in light of 1/6, so we can all have confidence.

If MPD doesn't have confidence in their own ability to reliably figure out when it's a peaceful protest and when it's a riot, that's the problem.

As per the Councils order, they cannot police any protest in riot gear including inaugural protests. If they do, they are violating the ban on not wearing riot gear to 1st amendment protests and a lawyer should be looking into it. It has zero to do with their ability to distinguish. Its the current law, which you repeatedly cited .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

As per the Councils order, they cannot police any protest in riot gear including inaugural protests. If they do, they are violating the ban on not wearing riot gear to 1st amendment protests and a lawyer should be looking into it. It has zero to do with their ability to distinguish. Its the current law, which you repeatedly cited .

Are you referring to the emergency legislation passed on June 9, 2020, which remained effective for 90 days, and doesn't seem to have said what you say it said anyway?

https://dccouncil.us/council-unanimously-passes-emergency-police-and-justice-reform-measure/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that Black people are disproportionately deemed 'threats' that need to be physically defend against where white people doing the same are not.

One of the MPD officers summed it up nicely (talking about a rioter who gave him a hand): "Thank you, but f@*& you for being there"

Well, that's how I feel about MPD

It is a problem that needs to be addressed if/when it manfests, but you cant really nake up different rules for different permitted protests based on what you think might happen. Riot gear at all 1st amendment protests (and ongoing training and accountability) or at no protests, and the MOD go back to the van to change + grab their gear. That has to apply to Grannies for Peace or the Klan equally. Can you imagine if the Klan came to march (which courts have said over and over they have the 1st amendment right to do) and we sent the MPD to the perimeter dressed like English bobbies? How would that make sense?

I just can't get past treating grannies and the Klan equally. It's called intelligence. The police can gauge who they are dealing with. That said, they need to stop using the handy Peter Griffin skin color chart.

They can also leave reserves in riot gear in case things get out of hand, which would not preemptively escalate things with them protestors.

[Anonymous]

If it's true that MPD can only use OC spray if there is an imminent threat, that's insane. OC spray is highly effective in crowd control situations and is a much better option than people getting beat down with a baton. I get that people are upset about Cadet Bonespur clearing out Lafayette Square, but that is an odd situation with the president pulling the strings. I think they were hit with tear gas, which is very mild compared to OC spray.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that Black people are disproportionately deemed 'threats' that need to be physically defend against where white people doing the same are not.

One of the MPD officers summed it up nicely (talking about a rioter who gave him a hand): "Thank you, but f@*& you for being there"

Well, that's how I feel about MPD

It is a problem that needs to be addressed if/when it manfests, but you cant really nake up different rules for different permitted protests based on what you think might happen. Riot gear at all 1st amendment protests (and ongoing training and accountability) or at no protests, and the MOD go back to the van to change + grab their gear. That has to apply to Grannies for Peace or the Klan equally. Can you imagine if the Klan came to march (which courts have said over and over they have the 1st amendment right to do) and we sent the MPD to the perimeter dressed like English bobbies? How would that make sense?

I just can't get past treating grannies and the Klan equally. It's called intelligence. The police can gauge who they are dealing with. That said, they need to stop using the handy Peter Griffin skin color chart.

They can also leave reserves in riot gear in case things get out of hand, which would not preemptively escalate things with them protestors.

This is what they will have to do. Whether grannies or the Klan, it doesn't matter what intelligence they gather. They MUST attend first amendment protests dressed as English bobbies. Police, like the military, answer to civilian authorities and these are the wishes of our Council.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If it's true that MPD can only use OC spray if there is an imminent threat, that's insane. OC spray is highly effective in crowd control situations and is a much better option than people getting beat down with a baton. I get that people are upset about Cadet Bonespur clearing out Lafayette Square, but that is an odd situation with the president pulling the strings. I think they were hit with tear gas, which is very mild compared to OC spray.

Good points above, and yes-it's true. To be clear, there are some good points in the bill. However, the riot gear provisions were feel-good for our Council and shortsighted. Here is the full bill-

https://www.dccouncil.us/council-unanimously-passes-emergency-police-and-justice-reform-measure/

"prohibits use of tear gas, pepper spray, riot gear, rubber bullets and stun grenades by MPD (or federal police while on non-federal land) in response to First Amendment protests"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have always liked the idea of law enforcement.

AND I want the racist actions by law enforcement to stop.

AND I want law enforcement to do the work to stop insurgencies.

Right -- this idea that wanting systemic reform to rein in police brutality and racism means that you are somehow against the very idea of law enforcement is a strawman of the worst kind. The police failed to prevent violence by a big group of white people, in part, because of systemic racism and sympathy with white supremacists. It's the flip side of police committing violence against people of color and people protesting on behalf of people of color.

The police who put themselves in harm's way to protect the Capitol were doing their jobs, and for them I am grateful. But there are also police who enabled, facilitated, or were directly complicit in the violence at the Capitol, and they are not just "a few bad apples." They are symptoms of a serious, systemic problem with policing in this country. It's not one or the other -- law enforcement is necessary, and it is also flawed. We can recognize both things at once. It's not about whose side you are on, although some people really want to frame it that way.

+100. I’m trying to figure out why am I being made to choose between not supporting law enforcement and accepting law enforcement that is brutal with black protestors and people protesting about police brutality and kid gloves with white insurrectionist trying to overthrow the government that come with weapons. I would like option c, a fair, professional, consistent law enforcement that treats everyone equally. Instead of putting up strawman arguments, let’s talk about what it would take to get to option c.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have always liked the idea of law enforcement.

AND I want the racist actions by law enforcement to stop.

AND I want law enforcement to do the work to stop insurgencies.

Right -- this idea that wanting systemic reform to rein in police brutality and racism means that you are somehow against the very idea of law enforcement is a strawman of the worst kind. The police failed to prevent violence by a big group of white people, in part, because of systemic racism and sympathy with white supremacists. It's the flip side of police committing violence against people of color and people protesting on behalf of people of color.

The police who put themselves in harm's way to protect the Capitol were doing their jobs, and for them I am grateful. But there are also police who enabled, facilitated, or were directly complicit in the violence at the Capitol, and they are not just "a few bad apples." They are symptoms of a serious, systemic problem with policing in this country. It's not one or the other -- law enforcement is necessary, and it is also flawed. We can recognize both things at once. It's not about whose side you are on, although some people really want to frame it that way.

+100. I’m trying to figure out why am I being made to choose between not supporting law enforcement and accepting law enforcement that is brutal with black protestors and people protesting about police brutality and kid gloves with white insurrectionist trying to overthrow the government that come with weapons. I would like option c, a fair, professional, consistent law enforcement that treats everyone equally. Instead of putting up strawman arguments, let’s talk about what it would take to get to option c.

Can we talk about it specific to MPD and DC? Our MPD isnt guilty of extensive civil rights abuses and that also didnt treat Capitol rioters with kid gloves. DC Councils summer bill was overkill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have always liked the idea of law enforcement.

AND I want the racist actions by law enforcement to stop.

AND I want law enforcement to do the work to stop insurgencies.

Right -- this idea that wanting systemic reform to rein in police brutality and racism means that you are somehow against the very idea of law enforcement is a strawman of the worst kind. The police failed to prevent violence by a big group of white people, in part, because of systemic racism and sympathy with white supremacists. It's the flip side of police committing violence against people of color and people protesting on behalf of people of color.

The police who put themselves in harm's way to protect the Capitol were doing their jobs, and for them I am grateful. But there are also police who enabled, facilitated, or were directly complicit in the violence at the Capitol, and they are not just "a few bad apples." They are symptoms of a serious, systemic problem with policing in this country. It's not one or the other -- law enforcement is necessary, and it is also flawed. We can recognize both things at once. It's not about whose side you are on, although some people really want to frame it that way.

+100. I’m trying to figure out why am I being made to choose between not supporting law enforcement and accepting law enforcement that is brutal with black protestors and people protesting about police brutality and kid gloves with white insurrectionist trying to overthrow the government that come with weapons. I would like option c, a fair, professional, consistent law enforcement that treats everyone equally. Instead of putting up strawman arguments, let’s talk about what it would take to get to option c.

What you want is very sensible. One of the problem is that the general public knows nothing about reality when it comes to what law enforcement does on a daily basis. Facts and real life experiences of cops who have been doing a job for decades means nothing to most people. Instead, Don Lemon and his cherry picked videos become reality for these people. I guess my point is that you wouldn't know if law enforcement is doing a good job or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have always liked the idea of law enforcement.

AND I want the racist actions by law enforcement to stop.

AND I want law enforcement to do the work to stop insurgencies.

Right -- this idea that wanting systemic reform to rein in police brutality and racism means that you are somehow against the very idea of law enforcement is a strawman of the worst kind. The police failed to prevent violence by a big group of white people, in part, because of systemic racism and sympathy with white supremacists. It's the flip side of police committing violence against people of color and people protesting on behalf of people of color.

The police who put themselves in harm's way to protect the Capitol were doing their jobs, and for them I am grateful. But there are also police who enabled, facilitated, or were directly complicit in the violence at the Capitol, and they are not just "a few bad apples." They are symptoms of a serious, systemic problem with policing in this country. It's not one or the other -- law enforcement is necessary, and it is also flawed. We can recognize both things at once. It's not about whose side you are on, although some people really want to frame it that way.

+100. I’m trying to figure out why am I being made to choose between not supporting law enforcement and accepting law enforcement that is brutal with black protestors and people protesting about police brutality and kid gloves with white insurrectionist trying to overthrow the government that come with weapons. I would like option c, a fair, professional, consistent law enforcement that treats everyone equally. Instead of putting up strawman arguments, let’s talk about what it would take to get to option c.

What you want is very sensible. One of the problem is that the general public knows nothing about reality when it comes to what law enforcement does on a daily basis. Facts and real life experiences of cops who have been doing a job for decades means nothing to most people. Instead, Don Lemon and his cherry picked videos become reality for these people. I guess my point is that you wouldn't know if law enforcement is doing a good job or not.

You make it sound like the general public has not had interactions with law enforcement, their friends and families have not had interactions with law enforcement and we don’t have video of interactions with law enforcement. We have all of that and have proof that the interactions are not fair and consistent. If you can’t admit that there is an issue, even if you don’t personally experience it, then we can’t have a conversation about a solution. Because you will continually expect that you get the Capitol insurrection treatment with law enforcement even with side by side pictures and personal accounts refuse to admit that some people get the BLM protest treatment by the police and will make every excuse under the sun, except the obvious to explain it.

If you have never been stopped by the police for some bs reason, consider yourself fortunate. I have, just this past week where the cop claimed I had something wrong with my car that was completely made up and let me go with a written warning with something different than what they verbally said. When we did some research we found the cop has had a complaint of doing something similar before. Now is this every cop, no. Was I fortunate I had my daughter in the car, and it was daytime and things didn’t go further off the rails, yes, I am. But if a cop can lie and make up one thing to stop you, who knows what else they will do. I would be doing a disservice to my children not to prepare them and a disservice to myself not to be prepared.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have always liked the idea of law enforcement.

AND I want the racist actions by law enforcement to stop.

AND I want law enforcement to do the work to stop insurgencies.

Right -- this idea that wanting systemic reform to rein in police brutality and racism means that you are somehow against the very idea of law enforcement is a strawman of the worst kind. The police failed to prevent violence by a big group of white people, in part, because of systemic racism and sympathy with white supremacists. It's the flip side of police committing violence against people of color and people protesting on behalf of people of color.

The police who put themselves in harm's way to protect the Capitol were doing their jobs, and for them I am grateful. But there are also police who enabled, facilitated, or were directly complicit in the violence at the Capitol, and they are not just "a few bad apples." They are symptoms of a serious, systemic problem with policing in this country. It's not one or the other -- law enforcement is necessary, and it is also flawed. We can recognize both things at once. It's not about whose side you are on, although some people really want to frame it that way.

+100. I’m trying to figure out why am I being made to choose between not supporting law enforcement and accepting law enforcement that is brutal with black protestors and people protesting about police brutality and kid gloves with white insurrectionist trying to overthrow the government that come with weapons. I would like option c, a fair, professional, consistent law enforcement that treats everyone equally. Instead of putting up strawman arguments, let’s talk about what it would take to get to option c.

What you want is very sensible. One of the problem is that the general public knows nothing about reality when it comes to what law enforcement does on a daily basis. Facts and real life experiences of cops who have been doing a job for decades means nothing to most people. Instead, Don Lemon and his cherry picked videos become reality for these people. I guess my point is that you wouldn't know if law enforcement is doing a good job or not.

You make it sound like the general public has not had interactions with law enforcement, their friends and families have not had interactions with law enforcement and we don’t have video of interactions with law enforcement. We have all of that and have proof that the interactions are not fair and consistent. If you can’t admit that there is an issue, even if you don’t personally experience it, then we can’t have a conversation about a solution. Because you will continually expect that you get the Capitol insurrection treatment with law enforcement even with side by side pictures and personal accounts refuse to admit that some people get the BLM protest treatment by the police and will make every excuse under the sun, except the obvious to explain it.

If you have never been stopped by the police for some bs reason, consider yourself fortunate. I have, just this past week where the cop claimed I had something wrong with my car that was completely made up and let me go with a written warning with something different than what they verbally said. When we did some research we found the cop has had a complaint of doing something similar before. Now is this every cop, no. Was I fortunate I had my daughter in the car, and it was daytime and things didn’t go further off the rails, yes, I am. But if a cop can lie and make up one thing to stop you, who knows what else they will do. I would be doing a disservice to my children not to prepare them and a disservice to myself not to be prepared.

this has happened to me as a young, white person. It feels like crap. I have also had really favorable interactions with police officers. And I prefer a society with law enforcement. That's why I support police and reform not just of policing, but also some policies like the abuse of cash seizures. To BE reformed, police will need support and possibly more funding. Change (training, supervision, body cameras, more community foot patrols) isn't free. Last, we need to STOP asking police officers to be social workers. Every reform measure should have an accompanying mental health, substance abuse etc measure. No, not solving all of societal ills--but we have seen over and over how problematic police encounters with mentally ill, high or differently abled persons are and this should specifically be addressed in reform measures. If police, what training and support do they require? if not police who and how? and what can be done preventively before it gets to the point of an encounter? Especially with mentally ill, more involuntary holds .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have always liked the idea of law enforcement.

AND I want the racist actions by law enforcement to stop.

AND I want law enforcement to do the work to stop insurgencies.

Right -- this idea that wanting systemic reform to rein in police brutality and racism means that you are somehow against the very idea of law enforcement is a strawman of the worst kind. The police failed to prevent violence by a big group of white people, in part, because of systemic racism and sympathy with white supremacists. It's the flip side of police committing violence against people of color and people protesting on behalf of people of color.

The police who put themselves in harm's way to protect the Capitol were doing their jobs, and for them I am grateful. But there are also police who enabled, facilitated, or were directly complicit in the violence at the Capitol, and they are not just "a few bad apples." They are symptoms of a serious, systemic problem with policing in this country. It's not one or the other -- law enforcement is necessary, and it is also flawed. We can recognize both things at once. It's not about whose side you are on, although some people really want to frame it that way.

+100. I’m trying to figure out why am I being made to choose between not supporting law enforcement and accepting law enforcement that is brutal with black protestors and people protesting about police brutality and kid gloves with white insurrectionist trying to overthrow the government that come with weapons. I would like option c, a fair, professional, consistent law enforcement that treats everyone equally. Instead of putting up strawman arguments, let’s talk about what it would take to get to option c.

What you want is very sensible. One of the problem is that the general public knows nothing about reality when it comes to what law enforcement does on a daily basis. Facts and real life experiences of cops who have been doing a job for decades means nothing to most people. Instead, Don Lemon and his cherry picked videos become reality for these people. I guess my point is that you wouldn't know if law enforcement is doing a good job or not.

While you are being willfully ignorant, at best, of the many “real life experiences “ that some of us and those that we love have on a regular basis. Some of us don’t need to watch Don Lemon on tv to have very real and very personal experiences with the police.

I guess my point is that not all of us have the same kinds of experiences with the police. Not all police forces have the same culture, not all cops are the same. Not all citizens are “policed” in the same ways by cops.

I have been fortunate to work directly with police officers in the past. Some of us really do “know if law enforcement is doing a good job or not”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You make it sound like the general public has not had interactions with law enforcement, their friends and families have not had interactions with law enforcement and we don’t have video of interactions with law enforcement. We have all of that and have proof that the interactions are not fair and consistent. If you can’t admit that there is an issue, even if you don’t personally experience it, then we can’t have a conversation about a solution. Because you will continually expect that you get the Capitol insurrection treatment with law enforcement even with side by side pictures and personal accounts refuse to admit that some people get the BLM protest treatment by the police and will make every excuse under the sun, except the obvious to explain it.

If you have never been stopped by the police for some bs reason, consider yourself fortunate. I have, just this past week where the cop claimed I had something wrong with my car that was completely made up and let me go with a written warning with something different than what they verbally said. When we did some research we found the cop has had a complaint of doing something similar before. Now is this every cop, no. Was I fortunate I had my daughter in the car, and it was daytime and things didn’t go further off the rails, yes, I am. But if a cop can lie and make up one thing to stop you, who knows what else they will do. I would be doing a disservice to my children not to prepare them and a disservice to myself not to be prepared.

this has happened to me as a young, white person. It feels like crap. I have also had really favorable interactions with police officers. And I prefer a society with law enforcement. That's why I support police and reform not just of policing, but also some policies like the abuse of cash seizures. To BE reformed, police will need support and possibly more funding. Change (training, supervision, body cameras, more community foot patrols) isn't free. Last, we need to STOP asking police officers to be social workers. Every reform measure should have an accompanying mental health, substance abuse etc measure. No, not solving all of societal ills--but we have seen over and over how problematic police encounters with mentally ill, high or differently abled persons are and this should specifically be addressed in reform measures. If police, what training and support do they require? if not police who and how? and what can be done preventively before it gets to the point of an encounter? Especially with mentally ill, more involuntary holds .

Again, no one said they wanted a society without law enforcement. If your doctor had an issue of gross negligence and it left someone in your family dead and you later found out there was a pattern where someone of your relative’s background more often than not had the same outcome, would it help if I said the doctors just need more medical training and support and to give the hospital even more money. Oh and when you try to seek justice I’d helpfully tell you I’d rather a world with doctors and a world without and ask you why are you not supporting your doctors. Again, need people to do their job, fair, consistent, and without bias and that there is accountability when they cannot. Your suggestions don’t address accountability for actions and what to do about someone not being able to do their job correctly because they cannot be fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You make it sound like the general public has not had interactions with law enforcement, their friends and families have not had interactions with law enforcement and we don’t have video of interactions with law enforcement. We have all of that and have proof that the interactions are not fair and consistent. If you can’t admit that there is an issue, even if you don’t personally experience it, then we can’t have a conversation about a solution. Because you will continually expect that you get the Capitol insurrection treatment with law enforcement even with side by side pictures and personal accounts refuse to admit that some people get the BLM protest treatment by the police and will make every excuse under the sun, except the obvious to explain it.

If you have never been stopped by the police for some bs reason, consider yourself fortunate. I have, just this past week where the cop claimed I had something wrong with my car that was completely made up and let me go with a written warning with something different than what they verbally said. When we did some research we found the cop has had a complaint of doing something similar before. Now is this every cop, no. Was I fortunate I had my daughter in the car, and it was daytime and things didn’t go further off the rails, yes, I am. But if a cop can lie and make up one thing to stop you, who knows what else they will do. I would be doing a disservice to my children not to prepare them and a disservice to myself not to be prepared.

this has happened to me as a young, white person. It feels like crap. I have also had really favorable interactions with police officers. And I prefer a society with law enforcement. That's why I support police and reform not just of policing, but also some policies like the abuse of cash seizures. To BE reformed, police will need support and possibly more funding. Change (training, supervision, body cameras, more community foot patrols) isn't free. Last, we need to STOP asking police officers to be social workers. Every reform measure should have an accompanying mental health, substance abuse etc measure. No, not solving all of societal ills--but we have seen over and over how problematic police encounters with mentally ill, high or differently abled persons are and this should specifically be addressed in reform measures. If police, what training and support do they require? if not police who and how? and what can be done preventively before it gets to the point of an encounter? Especially with mentally ill, more involuntary holds .

Again, no one said they wanted a society without law enforcement. If your doctor had an issue of gross negligence and it left someone in your family dead and you later found out there was a pattern where someone of your relative’s background more often than not had the same outcome, would it help if I said the doctors just need more medical training and support and to give the hospital even more money. Oh and when you try to seek justice I’d helpfully tell you I’d rather a world with doctors and a world without and ask you why are you not supporting your doctors. Again, need people to do their job, fair, consistent, and without bias and that there is accountability when they cannot. Your suggestions don’t address accountability for actions and what to do about someone not being able to do their job correctly because they cannot be fair.

While further training, support and reform are needed, there actually is accountability in place. there are body camera laws, there are rules for engagement and pursuits, there are reviews after police shootings, there are reviews for complaints. Surely you know this?