Police

Lots of Talk But Much Less Action on Police Reform

Getting government officials to put their packs of enforcers on shorter leashes is the definition of an uphill battle.

|

Protests against law-enforcement abuses continue across the country, but police and their supporters are hardly ready to throw in the towel. While some progress has been made at the state level, cops aren't letting go of their tough tactics or their opposition to reforms. And government officials just can't quit their addiction to deploying armies of enforcers.

In other words, don't hold your breath for police abolition, or defunding, or anything more than modest turd-polishing in the near future.

Perhaps the best summary of the situation is to point out that roughly two weeks after reports that federal agents in unmarked vehicles were snatching anti-police protesters off the streets in Portland, Oregon, New York City cops admitted to doing the same thing. Given that such federal conduct infuriated Oregonians and gave new life to often-violent demonstrations, the NYPD move looks like a huge fuck-you to the police reform movement.

So, for that matter, does the push by New York police unions to block the release of disciplinary records under a new state law. This week, they won a court order temporarily keeping the records from public eyes.

New York City's district attorneys are on the same wavelength, showing little enthusiasm for a new ban on chokeholds of the sort that killed George Floyd. "It is hard for me to imagine a case where an officer making a lawful arrest should be charged with the diaphragm contact section of the City law," said Staten Island District Attorney Michael E. McMahon.

Not that the Portland situation has been resolved. A day after Oregon Gov. Kate Brown announced "a phased withdrawal of federal officers" who "have acted as an occupying force, refused accountability, and brought violence and strife to our community," the president threw shade on the deal. "Kate Brown, Governor of Oregon, isn't doing her job. She must clear out, and in some cases arrest, the Anarchists & Agitators in Portland. If she can't do it, the Federal Government will do it for her. We will not be leaving until there is safety!" he tweeted.

In June, Oregon did pass a package of modest police-reform measures. The reforms restricted chokeholds and riot-control weapons and made it easier to discipline misbehaving cops. But they didn't do much to address core problems with law enforcement, such as qualified immunity, which makes it difficult to sue officers (and other officials) for rights violations.

Qualified immunity is at issue in Massachusetts, where it has hung up legislation intended to make cops more accountable. "Police unions have been fighting to keep it unchanged, while others want it abolished," WBUR notes. So far, they've blocked a state Senate bill that would make misconduct more subject to lawsuits.

On a positive note, qualified immunity was trimmed in Colorado. The new "law does ensure, at least with respect to police officers, that Coloradans will have a robust alternative remedy to [federal civil rights] claims for violations of their constitutional rights," reports the Cato Institute's Jay Schweikert.

The Colorado law may be the most substantial reform so far, since it reshuffles incentives for police officers who now know that they'll face greater personal liability for misconduct.

Other states have passed generally tepid reform measures. They tend to resemble Connecticut's newly passed bill, which bans chokeholds, restricts police department access to military equipment, and promises tougher disciplinary procedures, but dances around the matter of easing lawsuits against law-enforcement officers who violate civil rights.

"I've read and re-read the bill and see nothing new, nothing that changes the manner in which police misconduct cases will be litigated in Connecticut," cautions attorney Norman Pattis (with whom I've spoken about jury issues in the past). "It's sound and fury signifying nothing."

Fundamental changes, such as dumping qualified immunity, are much harder to push through legislatures than promises of tougher police oversight and prohibitions on a few high-profile tactics. That's especially true with police reform hardening as a largely partisan issue, as police unions line up with Republicans and reformers join hands with Democrats.

On the national stage, that divide is symbolized by the feud between the Republican White House and Democratic governors and mayors over law-and-order issues.

But a lot of the feuding is more about role-playing to rile-up the party faithful than it is about real differences over policing. At the end of the day, government is about forcing people to do things they don't want to do or forbidding them to do things they do want to do. To accomplish that goal requires enforcers who can be set on people who refuse to comply.

For example, Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser is very clear about what people should do if they encounter people who refuse to abide by the city's face mask mandate.

"They should call the police and the police will enforce it," she said this week in a city that recently hosted large protests over the way police go about enforcing laws of any sort.

Take that face mask mandate and multiply it by the multitudes of mandates, restrictions, and prohibitions around the country, and it becomes apparent why there's a lot more enthusiasm for talking about changing policing than there is enthusiasm for real change. Reform legislation has to be passed by lawmakers who aren't exactly champing at the bit to weaken their ability to force laws down the throats of the public.

Any reforms that do get passed have to be implemented by the likes of the New York City district attorneys turning up their noses at prosecuting cops for using illegal chokeholds.

That's not to say that law enforcement isn't in for some sort of overhaul—reforms are being passed, in fits and starts, even if they feature big arguments over (mostly) little changes. But people go into government precisely so they can send police out to enforce laws against the rest of us. Getting government officials to put their packs of enforcers on shorter leashes is the definition of an uphill battle.

NEXT: The Extremely Online Are Less Informed About Political News, More Informed About Conspiracy Theories

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job. Click For Full Detail.

    1. Google easily work and google pays me every hour and every week just $5K to $8K for doing online work from home. I am a universty student and I work n my part time just 2 to 3 hours a day easily from home. Now every one can earn extra cash for doing online home system and make a good life by just open this website and follow instructions on this page………Click for jobs its a limited offer.

  2. The problem is too many laws. The solution? More laws of course!

    1. The beatings will continue until morale improves.

      1. I Make Money At H0me.Let’s start work offered by Google!!Yes,this is definitely the most financially rewarding Job I’ve had . Last Monday I bought a great Lotus Elan after I been earning $9534 this-last/5 weeks and-a little over, $10k last month . PMf . I started this four months/ago and immediately started to bring home minimum $97 per/hr

        Heres what I do…………► Home Profit System

    2. Strange that the “protesters” never call for fewer laws or less government power, huh?

      1. It is interesting how protests in the past were about protesting against oppressors and government action. Now all protests seem to center around demanding oppression and government action to take away freedom from someone.

        1. ^yep

          Well, not all.
          I don’t believe the people in Michigan or Virginia were protesting for Daddy Gov to impose anything on anybody.
          Weren’t they asking Daddy Gov NOT to do something?

          1. Yes, I should have clarified. The protests that are deemed PC and acceptable all call for more government action. That’s kind of telling in and of itself.

              1. Thanks to progressive violence, police reform is a much lower priority than putting down the progressive insurrection in our larger cities.

        2. Yes! In Seattle according to the “people” we’re all white supremacists that need to be taken down, down with capitalism and now just outright abolish the police. I’m sorry this is madness and has nothing to do with reform, nothing to do with black lives.

  3. Maybe allowing bands of angry retards to hijack the cause and make it synonymous with riot, arson, and looting was a bad idea? A bunch of dip shit white people trying to burn down the centers of Portland and Seattle and large sections of Minneapolis hasn’t put the public in the mood to restrict the powers of the police? Gee who could have seen that coming? A kind of dip shit white person who writes for reason, that is who.

    1. Pretty much.

    2. You basically hit it on the head. They literally smothered their own cause.

      1. Probably because they were lying about their cause.

        “Lots of Talk But Much Less Action on Police Reform
        Getting government officials to put their packs of enforcers on shorter leashes is the definition of an uphill battle”
        Tends to happen when you hitch your wagon to Marxist/collectivist totalitarians

      2. If only there were voices of reason, who could have spoken out and condemned the counterproductive excesses.

    3. Yeah, “Defund the police” seems like an intriguing idea until you see the world without police. It’s a hellhole.

      “Cops are unaccountable”. Possibly…but the people who killed folks in CHAZ seem certainly to be avoiding all accountability. Moreso than cops.

      1. I’m sure the record gun sales have absolutely nothing to do with the “Defund the police” movement. Probably just a lot of people suddenly developed an interest in target shooting.

        They’re not going to achieve meaningful reform AND they’ve permanently damaged the gun control movement. That NFAC member accidentally discharging and wounding 3 of his comrades is a very fitting image for the whole movement.

    4. Maybe allowing bands of angry retards to hijack the cause

      There’s no evidence the cause was hijacked. Local political reactions suggest the rioting and violence were understood and accepted from the start.

    5. if it werent for the cops in Minn there woulda been NO riots

    6. White progressives are perhaps the greatest existential threat to the republic.

  4. We’re already seeing the effect of cops on a leash. They have pulled back to emergency policing only. The effect is more gun crimes and higher murder rates. I suspect that the result of Biden winning will be fewer calls for defunding, as the left will now need the services of the police to keep their power. Libertarians will be left to chafe as they get abandoned by their leftist friends.

    1. Libertarians are of two types, those who are really stupid enough to think leftists are their friends and those who are not that stupid but are just leftists anyway.

      1. Not everyone who criticizes Trump is a leftist.

        1. No, but people who think every criticism of Libertarians somehow involves Trump are retards. So, there is that.

          1. Whenever someone criticizes Trump they’re immediately labeled a leftist by his drooling supporters, so there is that.

            1. No one is talking about Trump here, except. He has nothing to do with the conversation. You inject Trump into it because you are stupid and he lives inside your head for some reason.

              1. You’re the one saying all libertarians are leftists. The only explanation for that accusation I can think of is disagreement with the bombastic buffoon in the White House. Oh no! I said something bad about Trump! I must be a leftist!

                Do you wipe the drool off your chin or just let it drip onto your shirt?

                1. I am saying Libertarians are leftists or useful idiots. What that has to do with Trump is something known only to you.

                  1. Libertarians who advocate for limited, minimal government are aligned with leftists who want government to control everything?

                    Shur, dood. Whatevs.

                    1. No true Scottsman for the win. Jesus Christ fake Sarcasmic is a tiresome moron.

                    2. That’s not how the no true scottsman fallacy works, dood.

                      Fake John is an ass.

                    3. Sarc, just drink your Drano.

            2. You kinda already said that.

      2. BS. Libertarianism is not left leaning and anyone who thinks it is is a leftist pretender. That includes most of the Reason writers.

        1. Libertarianism itself is not left or right, but there are definitely left leaning / right leaning libertarians. It depends on how they prioritize issues and how they deal with their lower priorities.

          For example most Reason writers seem to be culturally left by which I mean they see the world similarly to the left. My interpretation is they come from left controlled areas but could not ignore the failure of leftist economics. But largely because of their background they still agree (consciously or otherwise) with the left on non-economic / structural issues such as that everyone on the right is motivated primarily by racism. They do not seem to believe the left’s institutional control is a threat.

          On the other hand my experience is that most libertarians are right libertarians. Right libertarians recognize in addition to economics the left’s effort to control all institutions and push ever more draconian political control is a major threat. They’re more mixed on racism, seeing some racism on the right but allowing for other motivations while also seeing racism on the left making it less of a partisan or left/right issue.

          1. Reason’s oft expressed love for section 230 – government regulation creating special protections is textbook leftism.

      3. Good news! Almost everyone here is a far-right libertarian. As in it doesn’t get much farther right. There are left-libertarians, but depending on who you ask that encompasses either radical anarchistic or most Democrats (who do still value free speech and stuff).

        The Trump-Portland fiasco illustrates how quickly the far-right libertarians are willing to give up on everything they profess to believe if their government authority figure has a bad polling day. I say the real libertarians should reclaim the word from far-right authoritarians who are simply not smart or brave enough to handle even the smallest consequences of increased freedom for other people.

        1. Tony, you’re largely against individual freedoms, favoring a 1984 style world order run by your progressive masters. So don’t even star with your bullshit.

    2. How do you know that “emergency policing” results in more gun crimes and murder rates.

      I think it might more accurate to say “non-policing”. If you know it takes the cops an hour to show up to deal with a crime in progress your get bolder.

      Driving around randomly lookng for violent crimes is NOT what suppresses violent crime. Cops almost never actually interrupt a violent crime in progress. They take reports.

      1. Are you saying having police present in an of itself doesn’t deter crime?

  5. A great start would be very simple; all warrants to be served in daylight by uniformed officers arriving in liveried vehicles.
    There is probably a PhD paper in studying the increase of drug crimes against the reduction of ‘accidental’ shootings.

    Especially now that everyone wears masks!

  6. “No Peace, No Justice.” Rioting just postpones the ability and desire of government officials to address policing reforms while violence and vandalism is rampant. Maybe it is time to call a cease fire to see what happens next?

  7. Nothing will change until we prohibit government from initiating force. I suggest a 28th amendment, “Government shall not initiate force.”

    1. Government, by definition, is the people who initiate force. Saying government shall not initiate force is like saying government cannot govern.

      The job of the police is to bring people to court. If the person doesn’t want to go then then cops initiate force. That’s what they’ve done since kings held court in the feudal days. It’s, you know, like how government works.

      Unless you’ve got a better idea we’re pretty much stuck with government initiating force. Otherwise you’ve got anarchy, as in no archon.

    2. The problem isn’t government initiating force. That’s a given. The problem is too many laws that create too many opportunities for government goons to use violence.

    3. So a lawless society whee laws are just polite suggestions?

  8. Being against racism is easy.
    Protesting gives people something to do during the lockdowns, and a sense of purpose.
    Defunding the police would create a different set of problems.
    Blaming systemic racism is missing the root cause of the problem.
    Voting for Democrats means more of the same, so voting won’t help.
    Police unions need to be reined in so bad cops can be disciplined and removed from street duty early on as the complaints pile up.
    Police unions (and other public employee unions) need to be prevented from donating to political campaigns, but the Democrats in power aren’t likely to go for that.

  9. why would there be police reform? the Elites love the police.

  10. “On the national stage, that divide is symbolized by the feud between the Republican White House and Democratic governors and mayors over law-and-order issues.”

    This ignores that the Republicans did have a police reform issue and the Democrats in the House and Senate stopped it, and refuse to put a bill of their own on the floor.

  11. Maybe if Journalists were less interested in running cover for the rioting going on with the willful obfuscation under the term “peaceful protest” while cities burn in the background you might have some goodwill left to enact positive reform. As it stands you’re just advocating leftist lawlessness and I’m not seeing that working anytime soon.

    1. Yes, what we need is more sober reporting, like MARXIST THUGS ARE FOMENTING VIOLENT REVOLUTION

      1. Because ignoring the violence on one side and going hyperbolic about everything on the other side makes you look objective, right.

        We get it Jeff you don’t care about the violence and the arson committed by your fellow travelers because Black Lives Matter unless they can’t be used by progressives. Good luck with that.

      2. On a small scale, that is exactly what has happened.

  12. It would help if these cities had elected officials that actually, you know, just focused on city government. Or perhaps engaged the subject with serious deliberations versus the knee-jerk defund the police nonsense. We have a lot un un-serious people in serious positions of power.

  13. The riots are timed to prevent police reform. Heavy policing is a progressive thing. Laws by force instead of laws by consent is a progressive thing.

    Police reform is a libertarian thing. Won’t happen with either progressive party in power.

  14. Because riots don’t change anything.

    Got the same dumb ass politicians who make decisions based on polling.

    Got the same cops caught between dumb ass politicians and criminals.

    Duh!

  15. A couple of you allude to the problem, but you focus on rioting and vandalism. The crux of the problem is more basic than that.

    At the beginning there was universal agreement – the first time we’ve had one of these cases with universal agreement. Even members of law enforcement were unanimous in condemning the killing of Floyd. Nobody was on the other side. Usually they pick cases with very questionable facts – or even entirely based on lies like “hands up, don’t shoot!”. Not this time. We all saw the video, we all agreed.

    And this time the focus was on actual reform – accountability for starters, but also training, sentencing reform, militarization of the police… all of it was on the table and ready for fast action.

    And what happened? Black Lives Matter took over. That’s what happened.

    And very quickly the progressive left moved the focus off of Floyd and police reform. They put the focus on “systemic racism”. And they did so with a vicious self-righteousness, proclaiming themselves the only people who were allowed to speak. “Now is not the time for you to speak. Now is the time for you to listen! Now is the time for yo to support us!” Have we already forgotten that? Every major press organization got behind that sentiment, sending forth their pundits to hector us into silence. I heard that mantra from CNN, NBC, PBS, ABC, the NYT… everyone was singing from the same choir book within days. There can be no discussion – now is the time to listen to black voices and support whatever they say. And not just any black voices… the voices of progressive black activists. It was time to shut up and do whatever Black Lives Matter (the marxist group, not the slogan) says.

    And they said we were all guilty of racism. They shifted the focus from police reforms that were on the table and about to sweep the nation to “systemic racism”. They shifted the changes that needed to be made from addressing qualified immunity (and maybe even absolute immunity in the prosecutor’s office) to addressing our whiteness – as individuals and as a nation. Because whiteness is evil, you see. So we all needed to expunge our whiteness and learn to be better white people (or how to properly hate white people, as the case may be).

    Being a good person who is not racist changed from being the objective of all people into a state of evil. That’s just not good enough. You are still systemically racist if you are a person who does not see race. No, you cannot stop there. You must become an Anti-Racist!

    That is the new objective. We must all confess our racism and bend the knee to a progressive black activist. We must outwardly demonstrate our allegiance to anti-racism.

    Criminal Justice reform is off the table. That is simply supporting systemic racism. No, now we must Defund The Police! We must allow anarchist activists of the extreme left to occupy cities, tear down symbols – not of racism, but of western society and of American government. Because the objective is not to address problems with policing. The objective is to destroy society so that they can usher in their Marxist utopia.

    You don’t have to trust me on this one. This is not some secret agenda. It isn’t some kooky internet conspiracy theory. They actually say this out loud. They have been saying it for years. All you have to do is slow down for a minute and listen to them. #BLM say it – tear down society to remake it. Antifa says it… Tear down society to remake it. They are both openly Marxist in their ideology.

    They are no longer talking about police reform – they are talking about the racism of capitalism. They have to change the goals of capitalism to move the focus from profit to equality and justice.

    This shouldn’t be surprising to anyone. This is not their first time at the rodeo. When BLM jumped in front of the parade in Ferguson, they took the focus from police reform and turned it to riots and racism. And nothing happened… because if the problem is “police are racist”, what is the solution? Well, if you stopped listening there, then you don’t know. But they told us, loud and clear. The solution was to tear down society and replace it with a just society. A communist society.

    Antifa did the same thing. They were “the 99%”. Remember “occupy wall street”? That’s what they were demanding as well. Tear down society. Remake it in a socialist image. (and give me free stuff – particularly write off my student loan).

    Before that, Antifa/Occupy was the Anarchist movement that violently protested the G8.

    This is the same people. They want to overthrow capitalist society. They could give a rat’s butt about police reform. That’s why they have sabotaged any hope of police reform every time it comes up.
    Racism is only a tool for them. It is a means to an end. So is police brutality. So is putting too many people in prison for too long. None of those things matter to them. Not really. They just play on the outrage in order to have a movement to jump in front of.

    And if you are a real civil rights activist, these people should make you angry. They have hijacked the criminal justice reform movement over and over again. Every time we get close to making progress, they come out and destroy the whole thing, demanding an end to racism and corporations instead of concrete reforms.

    Despite their interference, a huge amount of progress has been made over the last 20 years. When Radley Balko was the star reporter at Reason, there were nearly 100 police shot and killed in the line of duty every year. And there were many more unarmed people shot and killed by police every year – several hundred, if I recall correctly. A decade ago that number was still nearly 100, but falling fast. Even 2015 saw over 90 such killings. Now we are down under 50.. and last year only saw 11 unarmed african americans gunned down by police. And most of those were actually attacking police officers at the time – the rest are being pursued by the criminal justice system (which is remarkable in itself).

    The layers of protection were under attack. Qualified immunity was about to be stripped away. Rubber stamp warrants were under scrutiny because of the killing of Taylor. The very wisdom of the war on drugs was not just being questioned, but was on the verge of being overthrown.

    But now? Now we have to confront our systemic racism. Now we have to battle our whiteness, which makes us inherently evil.

    Those who come to the civil rights cause from the conservative side are able to see this. They are not sympathetic to the economic objectives of the BLM/Antifa crowd. They do not believe government should control people’s property and wealth, so they are able to see this and take offense.

    But those of you who come to civil rights from the left should be taking offense as well. They have once again hijacked your cause – they are blocking real progress in protecting our civil liberties in order to take a swing at their real prize – reducing our economic liberties in the name of “justice”. If you are a communist, well, then I suppose anything goes and you are OK with all of this.

    But everyone else who is not an avowed racist and who does not want to live in a totalitarian society should oppose what these people have done and are doing. They are destroying the opportunity at hand by subverting it for unrelated objectives that you do not support. Your conservative fellow travelers cannot do anything about it. They were always the enemy. But you can. They are counting on you to support them. They are counting on you to silence any objections with shouts of “racist!”…. even if the face you are shouting at is black. (see youtube for examples of that… it is a hoot. or would be, if it wasn’t so deadly serious)

    So, time to stand up and be counted, left-libertarians and progressive civil rights supporters. Do you really want criminal justice reform? Or do you want to be a tool for the CWPA?

    1. That is part of it but the other part is the riots and rise in lawlessness. What happened is obvious. Yet, Tuccille pretends that police reform is floundering because of “bad luck” or the big meanie government officials messing things up. Reason continues to be incapable of speaking the truth about BLM or Antifa.

      1. What is important about the riots is not that they exist, but why they exist.

        Never waste an opportunity.

        How many times have we heard that phrase?

        How do you take universal agreement about police reform and turn it into a fight about race? There are rhetorical methods. And then there’re in your face versions of communicating the same thing.

        Why did we see antifa activists running around trying to instigate attacks on police vehicles and retail stores? was it all just about having a good time and just getting carried away? Or was it by design?

        Antifa sure did seem to show up in a lot of places where there was only peaceful marching. And they did anything but marching peacefully.

        They have a strategy. Holding up signs and having incremental reforms enacted is not a part of the strategy.

        Nobody was on the other side. You cannot have a revolution if there is no enemy. Police reform removes the enemy.

        But if they can burn a few buildings and provoke a police response… then they can put a pretty 19 year old girl who got hit with a rear gas canister on the news and proclaim the entire society guilty of brutalized innocent little 19 year old girls who were quietly and peacefully trying to build a just society.

        It is not an accident. It is not unrelated to my screed. It is a strategic maneuver and it is intimately tied to the objective of dividing the people and preventing progress on police reform.

        1. Yes. That is what happened. The good news is they didn’t provoke the response they were hoping for and have accomplished nothing except destroy the reputations and careers of a few Democratic governors and mayors who were dumb enough to support them.

          1. Shockingly, Jay Inslee will likely be elected to a third term.

        2. “Antifa sure did seem to show up in a lot of places where there was only peaceful marching.”

          Blasphemy! There are no peaceful marchers! They’re all radicals! Hannity said so!

          1. It was “white supremacists” who killed all of those people and burned down all of those buildings. You called it dumbass.

            1. Sarc’s just trying to be useful

        3. “It is not an accident. It is not unrelated to my screed. It is a strategic maneuver and it is intimately tied to the objective of dividing the people and preventing progress on police reform”

          And this is an imperative point that many here either overlook or actively deny

    2. Yep, too bad that doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker.

    3. Blacks aren’t involved in the criminal justice system at any higher rates than their criminal actions would predict.

      Does the fact that men are vastly more represented in the criminal justice system indicate that there is systematic misandry?

      Focus. Specifically what changes are being suggested?

      1. Black men are indeed more likely to commit acts that were made crimes specifically because black men did them.

        1. Black men are indeed more likely to commit acts that were made crimes specifically because black men did them.

          All we have to believe for this to be true is that murder is only illegal because black men commit it at higher rates.

          I don’t find it surprising Tony believes this.

        2. It’s all about equality.

          The counterfeit bills Floyd was passing looked like and we’re almost equal to the real thing.

          All the blacks looting on black floydays are only trying to get what others have to be equal.

    4. Cyto,
      Thank you for the thoughtful contribution.

      I think there is a lot of truth in what you say. I do think that the conversation has regrettably shifted away from “here are a few reforms that we could enact that would make a difference” to something like “here are sweeping all-encompassing changes that we must adopt right now otherwise the protests will continue”.

      Let’s look at it from the leftwing point of view for a moment (at least as far as I understand it). From their point of view, what MLK did with the civil rights movement in the 1960’s was just the beginning. It did not bring about equality, it was just one step towards equality. It overturned the most obvious and overt forms of discrimination – Jim Crow. But Jim Crow did not appear from thin air. It arose from a racist society that condoned and actively pursued such abuses against minority groups. Once this racism is eliminated, then we can genuinely be on the path towards a measure of real equality. It has diminished greatly since the 1960’s but they would claim it’s still around in some form or fashion as evidenced by the disparate treatment of minority groups in a whole host of ways, not just when it comes to interactions with law enforcement. Many of them believed that the real source of the racism in our society is capitalism itself. I don’t agree with their diagnosis at all. Capitalism has done more to enrich all people regardless of color than any other economic system ever tried. But the point here is that the leftwing civil rights activists of today are looking to do more than treat the mere symptoms of a racist society, such as Jim Crow laws, they are looking to correct the root causes of it. This is partly why the conversation has shifted from “we must reform the police” to “we must tear down capitalism”.

      If we want to find common cause with the genuine civil rights reformers of all sides, then we have to come up with a more correct diagnosis for the problem. It is not “capitalism” that creates more crime in minority neighborhoods therefore leading to more police interactions with minority groups and more chances of violent and deadly interactions between the police and minority individuals. In my view, it is because:

      1. there are too many reasons for the police to be called to minority neighborhoods in the first place, because there are too many damn laws (such as drug laws) and the police are asked to be society’s all-purpose problem solvers, which is asking far too much of them.

      2. there are too many restrictions and inequalities outside of the realm of law enforcement which condemn individuals to live in poor neighborhoods. We need better schools for everyone, we need better health care for everyone, we need fewer restrictions on occupations to allow for more entrepreneurship and more ways for all individuals to make money, we need greater opportunities for everyone to build wealth and to allow all people to get richer through their own hard work unfettered by arbitrary rules. And “better schools” and “better health care” does not necessarily HAVE to be code words for “more government spending on schools and health care”. It can be liberty-oriented approaches like privatization and voucherization of these services which expands access without necessarily meaning expanding government control.

      I think the mood now is that just asking police to sit through one more seminar on diversity training will not be enough. It has to be more substantive than that, and it has to focus more on institutional forms of disparate treatment of minority groups (whether you would like to call that “systemic racism” or not, it still exists).

      1. Or we could just have fewer laws and be honest about black criminality. No, let’s lie and pretend it is about racism.

        1. I agree with the fewer laws part.

          What does “be honest about black criminality” mean to you, John?

          1. He is talking about the “if there is even 1% disparity in the number of black people who go to jail, it is because of racism” you can substitute any other issue for jail, and any other group for race.

            1. Personal responsibility is anathema to leftism

              1. Okay, Nardz.
                Why are there disproportionately more blacks in prison compared to whites?

                1. Because a greater proportion of blacks are convicted of crimes and sentenced to prison than whites?

                2. Because crimes are disproportionately committed by black men.
                  All you have to do is listen to the police broadcasts of any major city. These provide the descriptions, sent out to all police, from the reports of crime victims. They don’t make up the race of the one they are reporting, and they are disproportionately describing young, black men as the perpetrator.
                  The justice system goes with the evidence they have. For it to be racist, each level, from the cop on the beat, to the prosecutors, to the judges and juries, would have to ignore the facts and substitute prejudice into their decisions.
                  Do you think there are, consistently that many racists in every state in the country?

      2. Unfortunately, everything you said comes u der the heading of “racist” these days.

        MLK explicitly wanted a color blind society. Equal opportunity for all. BLM and their fellow travellers claim that this very notion is racist. They loudly proclaim that we must never be color blind. We must take race into account in all interactions with all humans. In more than anything, we must take race into account when we judge ourselves. If we are white, we must examine our own genetic racial guilt.

        This is not accidental. This is by design. They have A strategy and in the ideology based on all or nothing. It also relies on word games. They have named themselves black lives matter. Therefor, if you oppose anything in their agenda you are saying that black lives do not matter. you are inherently racist.

        This is not an accident. It is their strategy.

        Your proposals of coming ground based on shared valuing of human life and the human potential have no place in their world. They do not seek the objectives that they attach their cause to. Those are just a means to an end.

        That is why fellow travelers must be castigated into acquiescence. Because if they are given a voice, they might join forces with libertarian Republicans and independents, achieving the stated goals of reform, but wasting the opportunity for revolution.

        This is why you cannot take your proposal to the DNC or to your local Democrat politicians and garner support. This is why you would be cast out as a racist and a purveyor of hate speech were you to write that in an op-ed for the NYT. This is why you would be met with threats and violence were you to make that into a speech at a university.

        Common ground does not lead to the remaking of society. This is why “now is not the time for you to speak” became an accepted mantra.

        You have the right idea. Unfortunately, only us nutjob fringe libertarians have the ability to even see it right now. Everyone else is either part of a moral panic or too terrified to even think in such terms.

        1. The Sacramento Bee had an op-ed 7/28 which was very critical of antifa. Unfortunately it’s behind a paywall but the gist of it is that antifa is now distracting from BLM’s police reform movement, and antifa is helping Trump. In other words they basically agree that the “riots” are taking away from the conversation on police reform. Sacramento has dealt with the antifa for a while though (see 2016 Sacramento Riot). LA Times also criticized antifa a few times in 2017 (again behind paywall) after riot/protest/street fights.

          In other words there is some mainstream motion to try to get beyond the disruptions and focus on police reform. Makes me wonder how many other local publications are articulating this and we never get to see it.

          1. To add, it seems that the “left/center” splits BLM and antifa into separate groups, while the “right” sees them as closer to one group with some inner divisions (both avowed communists, both have supported rioting, etc).

            It also seems that it is ok to criticize antifa as long as it includes a slam at Trump.

            1. Related: the letter supporting free speech and opposing cancel culture. It had to include a bunch of “we all hate trump” throat clearing.

              It doesn’t work.

              Soave used to include that in all of his articles. He gave it up and the content is much better for it.

          2. “In other words there is some mainstream motion to try to get beyond the disruptions and focus on police reform.”

            Doubtful.
            Everything you said about the article is just describing a way to clear BLM of the bad optics by blaming it all on antifa

        2. You describe my ideas as not leftwing enough, yet quite a few commenters around here would describe my ideas as literally indistinguishable from progressivism. Funny how that works.

          I don’t doubt that Democrats will never come around to the idea of privatizing schools. But the idea here is to focus on reform, that goes beyond merely policing practices, that does not try to tackle the issue of racism in merely a superficial way or by treating only the symptom. I’m telling you, something like getting rid of QI will not be enough, no matter how meritorious the idea is. And frankly it shouldn’t be enough if we are going to go beyond just the issue of policing and tackling the issue of racism itself.

          Your proposals of coming ground based on shared valuing of human life and the human potential have no place in their world.

          That is literally what the phrase Black Lives Matter means. That black lives ought to matter just as much as all the other lives.

          https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/53149076

          “Nobody involved in the Black Lives Matter movement is saying that only black lives matter, or that all lives don’t matter, or that white lives don’t matter. The issue is that is white lives have always seemed to matter more,” Shaka Hislop explained.

          “What Black Lives Matter as a movement is saying is that all those lives matter equally. Black lives have to matter just as much as everybody else’s.”

          So I don’t think it is beyond the realm of possibility that we can discuss reform ideas that empower the individual, all individuals, regardless of race, in the spirit of the meaning of the phrase BLM.

          1. “What Black Lives Matter as a movement is saying is that all those lives matter equally. Black lives have to matter just as much as everybody else’s.”

            If this were true they wouldn’t saying All Lives Matter is racist as they would agree with that sentiment. In fact the path to success for BLM (if its publicly stated goals were their true goals) would have been to embrace ALM and work together. BLM did not embrace ALM specifically because they do not believe as you claim they do. Your attempts to minimize their beliefs are wrong, insulting (to them), and racist for believing your words better describe their beliefs than theirs do.

            1. Dude, I’m quoting their own comments. You are the one trying to put words in their mouths.

              All Lives Matter is typically a bad-faith rejoinder to the concerns and criticisms offered by those who have suffered historic oppression. Look at it this way. Suppose you were beaten and tortured in some Chinese prison camp. You somehow escape and return to tell your story of genuine oppression at the hands of the Chinese. Then some douchebag in the back pipes up and says “oh yeah? well I got a speeding ticket the other day, what makes your oppression so special? We’re both being oppressed here, all oppression matters!” That’s a dick move that is intended to minimize the much greater suffering and oppression of those who genuinely experience it. That is why people tend not to take too kindly to the phrase “all lives matter”. It tends to minimize the struggles that people of color face. I’m not asking you to agree with it, just understand where it comes from.

              Of course all oppression does matter, all lives do matter, every injustice is a crime. There does seem to be a disproportionate amount of injustice in minority communities however. Why would that be?

              1. All Lives Matter is typically a bad-faith rejoinder

                ALM is adherence to MLKs dream that his children will be judged for the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. Your assertion is a bad faith rejoinder insisting the only motivation can be racism when in fact many other motivations are possible, likely, and claimed.

              2. The BLM message is made moot when the only black lives that matter are the ones taken by the police and the ones taken by other blacks – many multiples in number – are ignored.
                Their website spells out their agenda and one of their goals is an anathema to black lives having much of a chance at success – the elimination of the nuclear family.

          2. Maybe the people who say black lives aren’t as valued as other lives are the ones who think black lives aren’t as valuable as other lives?

            And how in the world do you empower “individuals” if your frame of reference is entirely collective?

            1. I double dog dare you to find anyone of any import who claims black lives have less value than others.

              In fact, the only place where such motives are even imputed with any plausibility at all is in allegations against the pro-abortion crowd leveled by the anti abortion crowd.

              Well… and maybe in the case of school choice, where those in opposition are left defending their desire to ensure that black children cannot escape public schools that seem designed for failure.

              But “the people who say black lives aren’t as valued”? Yeah, I defy you to find such a group of people. Hell, I doubt the modern version of the klan even uses that sort of language. They would be much more likely to talk about separation and opposition to mixing. But it isn’t like those people are in charge of anything. Well, anything other than the homeowners association at a 10 unit trailer park.

              1. Jeff just said it above.
                “That is literally what the phrase Black Lives Matter means. That black lives ought to matter just as much as all the other lives.”
                And he quoted: ““Nobody involved in the Black Lives Matter movement is saying that only black lives matter, or that all lives don’t matter, or that white lives don’t matter. The issue is that is white lives have always seemed to matter more,” Shaka Hislop explained.”

                The notion that black lives matter less than other lives comes from one main source: Black Lives Matter, their “allies”, and the left in general.

                1. Otherwise, what cyto says is entirely correct

            2. “And how in the world do you empower “individuals” if your frame of reference is entirely collective?”

              ^^This^^

      3. The perspective Jeff describes is literally, not figuratively, poison.

        “But the point here is that the leftwing civil rights activists of today are looking to do more than treat the mere symptoms of a racist society, such as Jim Crow laws, they are looking to correct the root causes of it.”
        This is 99.99% wrong. People whose identity depends on racism do not desire an end to racism – it is their lifeblood.

        1. Sure, there are some cynical grifters out there who are using racism as an issue to generate power for themselves. Just like there are some cynical grifters out there who are using any issue to generate power for themselves. How many pro-life activists and organizations would suddenly be out of a job if abortion actually was banned in this country? How many pro-life activists would secretly confess that they need abortion as an issue to justify their own jobs? Probably a few, but I do not doubt the sincerity of most pro-lifers who genuinely view abortion as a moral abomination and work to see it end. It is the same with racism. There are a few grifters who need racism to justify their own existence. But most genuinely view racism as a moral abomination and work to see it end.

          1. Which they do by prioritizing race and viewing all individuals as faceless units of an identity class?

            1. “But most genuinely view racism as a moral abomination and work to see it end.”

              True.

              How to tell the grifters:
              –they prioritizing race and view all individuals as faceless units of an identity class–

              The rest of us who actually do care about racism and want to end it will be voting TRUMP in November.

            2. Leftists view everything as a victim/oppressor dynamic.

          2. But most genuinely view racism as a moral abomination and work to see it end.

            The current experience demonstrates how irrelevant this is. The rank and file have internalized the leadership propaganda to such a degree [you must think of racism in this minutely defined way which happens to exonerate and empower us and anyone who disagrees is racist] they substitute the leadership’s goals for their own.

            Thus they are focusing on money and elections rather than police brutality. Rather than fight for the original goal you and the rest of the sheeple defend this bait and switch.

            1. “The rank and file have internalized the leadership propaganda to such a degree [you must think of racism in this minutely defined way which happens to exonerate and empower us and anyone who disagrees is racist] they substitute the leadership’s goals for their own.”

              I like the way you said this.
              Good eye.
              And well put

              1. ^this – Marshal’s comment at 6:34

                This is an example of psychological insight.
                You see how Marshal looks to what seem to be incongruous motivation and goals, finds that which is consistent within them, then identifies the process which must be logically occurring.
                In stark contrast to superficial examination that notices colors, takes their statements at face value while dismissing the discontinuities, and accepts the vague, instructed one word answer: racism.

                This is a valuable thread.
                Cyto and Marshal have perfectly pieced together and demonstrated the heart, the moral, of BLM.
                Jeb even offers the other side of the coin, the upside.

                BLM, the left, and “allies” are conspicuously empty on positive rhetoric. They feed on the negativity, which is profitable for leadership and addictive to their masses. They create a negative feedback loop that sustains themselves (financially, socially, morally, and emotionally) but is utterly destructive when in contact with anything outside their system.
                It is possible for black people to succeed in the US. Indeed, many have and many are.
                How does the moral of “victim of systemic racism” serve the individual black person? Whether real or not, is this the most helpful moral? Will it help him/her succeed?
                Cui bono?

    5. They could give a rat’s butt about police reform. That’s why they have sabotaged any hope of police reform every time it comes up.

      Well, if actual police reforms like reforming or eliminating QI outright, busting police unions, training, sentencing reform, de-militarization of police, etc. actually came to pass it might do some good and then they might have to find some other excuse to generate the outrage their movement relies on. So of course they’re against any actual, real reform. It doesn’t advance their real agenda and in fact hurts their real goal of transforming the US into a Marxist “utopia.”

    6. Well said, cyto, as usual.

      “Criminal Justice reform is off the table. That is simply supporting systemic racism. No, now we must Defund The Police! We must allow anarchist activists of the extreme left to occupy cities, tear down symbols – not of racism, but of western society and of American government. Because the objective is not to address problems with policing. The objective is to destroy society so that they can usher in their Marxist utopia.”

      You left out just one thing: they have to remove barriers to that end and put the people they can control in power. Which means getting Trump out at all costs, electing Dems, tanking the economy, and getting everyone either dependent upon or subservient to Daddy Gov

  16. Making Cash more than $15k to $18k consistently just by doing basic online work. I have gotten $18376 a month ago just by working on the web. Its a simple and basic occupation to do from home and its profit are greatly improved than customary office work. Each individual can join this activity now just by pursue this link……..go to this site home media tech tab for more detail support your hear Here══════❥❥❥❥…Follow the link.

  17. “Perhaps the best summary of the situation is to point out that roughly two weeks after reports that federal agents in unmarked vehicles were snatching anti-police protesters off the streets in Portland, Oregon, New York City cops admitted to doing the same thing.”

    So plainclothes police arresting someone and putting them in an unmarked car would really be a violation, but that never happens, does it?

    1. And the only reason the feds have jurisdiction is because Antifa is trying to burn down the federal court house. They don’t like feds being there but somehow it never occurs to them to stop trying to burn down the courthouse.

      They are not bright.

      1. To the extent that you actually believe that they don’t want the feds there, you are not very bright . .

        But I know you dont believe that. You know that they were desperate to get the feds there.

        And “they” includes BLM and Antifa, but also includes the DNC and the local politicians.

        Can’t have a revolution without an enemy.

    2. https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2020/07/31/insanity-wrap-18-fk-it-if-one-of-them-cops-got-killed-good-n736314

      They tried to blow up a police station in Portland this weekend. This is what reason calls “protesters”.

      1. I’m sure they intended to blow it up and murder those police in the most peaceful way possible.

        1. “Peace explosions.”

          Dibs on the band name.

          1. First album: Kinetic Action.

      2. I posted this yesterday, so I’ll post it again: Jenny Durkan is starting show some humility.

        But she called what was found in the van “evidence that not everyone who comes to these protests are peaceful. Peaceful protesters do not show up in a van full of … explosives.”

  18. New York City’s district attorneys are on the same wavelength, showing little enthusiasm for a new ban on chokeholds of the sort that killed George Floyd.

    Kneeling on someone’s neck for almost 9 minutes is not a “chokehold.” You will not find a single Jujitsu, Judo, wresting, MMA, or any other competent martial arts school anywhere that teaches that “technique” as a means of subduing an opponent. Banning chokeholds is barking up the wrong tree, unless you want the cops to issue many more beatings, taserings, paper sprayings, etc. in the future.

    1. Chokes are more dangerous than a tasering or a pepper spraying though.

      In those martial arts, typically people are trained on how to properly choke someone. That particular technique isn’t trained because it isn’t valid in one-on-one combat; someone has to be controlling the lower body and arms if you want to kneel on someone’s neck otherwise they just roll out of it. In competition, if someone is choking you you have the option of tapping out before real damage is done, and they’ll let go because they assume you won’t attack them after tapping out.

      The police can’t make that assumption, so they’re not going to let you tap out or let go of the choke until they’re sure you’re not a threat, at which point you might be dead.

      1. Unfortunately, tasering and pepper spraying is sometimes ineffective, and a perpetrator must be subdued. Chokeholds are an important part of that tool kit. And as many in the MMA community have cautioned the Pink Hair Brigade, if you ban chokeholds, the only method to subdue you’re left with is blows to the head.

        Banning Chokeholds is as dumb as demanding an encryption back door.

        1. Yeah, I don’t know that an outright ban is an answer, but some mandatory BJJ classes ought to be part of the equation. Hell, that might give them the hand to hand combat skills to subdue someone without even choking them.

          1. I would have signed my ex wife up for mandatory BJJ classes had I known they existed.

      2. In those martial arts, typically people are trained on how to properly choke someone.

        True, and cops aren’t, which of course is part of the problem. They might get some hand to hand training, which in all likelihood consists of “get a guy on the ground and then wait for your buddies in blue to get there to help” as opposed to jujitsu or any other actual martial art, and maybe a few days of refresher training a year or something. Real training would help mitigate some of the inherent danger in these kinds of techniques, although any violent confrontation can still go tits up in a hurry, and you can’t train for every possible scenario.

        In competition, if someone is choking you you have the option of tapping out before real damage is done, and they’ll let go because they assume you won’t attack them after tapping out.

        The police can’t make that assumption, so they’re not going to let you tap out or let go of the choke until they’re sure you’re not a threat, at which point you might be dead.

        Also true, but a cop who is properly trained in the technique should be able to tell when a suspect loses consciousness and stop applying pressure before they die, although there again that assume they’re subduing a violently resisting who is within the normal range of health and doesn’t have “substances” in his system. More often than not the people cops have to subdue are hopped up meth-heads, morbidly obese, people with various medical conditions from years of drug abuse, or some combination of all three.

        I’m probably already “TL;DR” with this, so I’ll just add that I’m not sure what the solution is, but I don’t think that reducing cops’ options for dealing with violent people in this way is a good one. Especially the NY city ordinance, which not only bans “vascular restraint” such the good ol’ rear naked choke and others but actually makes it a crime for a cop to sit on a suspects chest or back in a manner that constricts the diaphragm. IOW, they’re not even allowed to go to the “front mount” or “back mount” position. The only legal option for a cop to subdue someone now in NYC is blows to the head, tasering, or pepper spraying them. That’s why some DA’s have already said they won’t prosecute cops for violating it – they know it’s completely ludicrous.

        1. Yeah, I think the answer is somewhat akin to what Minneapolis PD’s training manual said about the knee-on-neck technique: you can only do this after being properly trained. “Proper” is up for interpretation.

          I’d like to see all cops get some grappling training. Chances are they’d be able to subdue people without even needing to choke them with the proper training. People with no grappling training can be controlled pretty easily.

  19. Prediction: There will be few major sweeping police reforms, and Qualified Immunity will remain the law of the land. And in 25 years, you young kids will still be demanding a national conversation about race.

  20. As the article alludes to, the code enforcers are never going to be reigned in by the BAR Association handlers, they extortion millions in revenue for. It is up to the people to do ourselves, or it won’t happen. Simple as that.

    “Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 135 Ind. 308, 34 N.E. 968 (1893) — Supreme Court of Indiana. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk vs. U.S,. 177 U.S. 529, 44 L.Ed. 874, 20 S.Ct. 729, (1900) The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

    1. “Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 135 Ind. 308, 34 N.E. 968 (1893)

      With respect, I believe that quote is a fabrication, and doesn’t appear in the Plummer ruling.

    2. I believe this is the actual text of case law:

      A peace officer, in making an arrest, is not authorized to use more force than is reasonably necessary to subject the person to his authority; and if the officer use excessive force and violence upon such person, such person being where he has a right to be, he may repel force by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of self-defense, he kills such officer, he is justifiable.

      Still interesting and important.

        1. Wasn’t there a big stink recently about deference to previous decisions? I wonder how much deference the current court would give to that decision, given that they seem very focused on what the implications of their decisions are rather than the legal justification for it.

        2. Interesting.

          Everything was cool with Rayshard Brooks until the cop grabbed him from behind. I don’t recall the cops telling Rayshard they were arresting him.

          Does this mean that there was an illegal use of force that made Rayshard’s resistance legal and the shooting illegal?

  21. Of course. BLM was never about police reform as they showed by directing donations to Act Blue. AB is a PAC for funding generic Democratic Party candidates. Since police reform is entirely within the Democrats’ power by virtue of their complete control of large city politics this is effectively no change at all.

    Similarly defunding police and eliminating the prison system is not about reform. It’s execution of the BLM belief that blacks are not responsible for any of their actions. I suggest we pick a few locations [Washington, Oregon, and NY say] to allow leftists to fully invest in their fantasies and see how it comes out.

    1. I suggest we pick a few locations [Washington, Oregon, and NY say] to allow leftists to fully invest in their fantasies and see how it comes out.

      Uhh, done, done and… done.

      1. Not even close. Let’s see what they look like after ten years of no police.

        1. We know what they look like with a week of no police.

          1. Tuccille believes this is all because the feds came. So apparently a larger dataset is necessary.

            1. Nah, there were no Feds in Seattle during The CHAZ. That was 100% Seattle and Seattle alone.

              1. So if people can convince themselves the obviously false is true because it fits their agenda why would we expect they can draw accurate correct conclusions from what has occurred to date?

                They are pretty clearly going to need much more mayhem before they admit their fantasies are failures.

      2. As long as we make it so they can’t vote after they leave, I’m good. You can have your lefty paradise and once you realize it’s terrible you can rejoin polite society; you just don’t get to bring your politics with you.

    2. Why would you expect any BLM organization to donate to generic Republican candidates? Have Republicans in general been receptive to BLM ideas?

      1. Why would you expect any BLM organization to donate to generic Republican candidates?

        I wouldn’t. It’s amusing you think those are the only options, perhaps your limited understanding explains your political positions.

        If BLM were serious about opposing police brutality they would identify organizations specifically focused on police reform initiatives rather than donate to the organization most directly responsible for what they claim to oppose.

        1. Why do you think Democrats are the ones responsible for police brutality?

          Do you think that if you could wave a magic wand and all the major cities had Republicans in charge, that police brutality would suddenly end?

          The problems behind police brutality go far deeper than which tribe is currently in charge. They are largely institutional in nature. We have police departments with an institutional structure to police in a certain way. That doesn’t really change no matter who is elected. Look at how de Blasio has been in constant war with the NYPD. There is a guy who was running explicitly on a platform of police reform, and who has quite a lot of power, and not even he can wave a magic wand to enact his agenda.

          But I am not surprised that you reduce complex problems into simple-minded answers like “blame the tribe that I hate”.

          1. Why do you think Democrats are the ones responsible for police brutality?

            As already explained Democrats have complete control of essentially all the large cities where it happens the most – in most cases for longer than the median American has been alive.

            Minneapolis for example (where these protests started) has zero Republicans on its city council and hasn’t elected a Republican Mayor since 1957. Democrats have had complete control of the government for decades. Nevertheless BLM (and you by defending them) claim to believe electing more Democrats will end police brutality.

            Do you think that if you could wave a magic wand and all the major cities had Republicans in charge, that police brutality would suddenly end?

            This cannot be logically inferred from my comment. That I criticize BLM and you for believing electing Democrats solves the problem does not mean I believe electing Republicans does. This is a stupid assertion and reflects how poorly thought out your entire belief set is and explains why your responses to effectively everyone are inane and nonsensical.

            But I am not surprised that you reduce complex problems into simple-minded answers like “blame the tribe that I hate”.

            It’s interesting you work yourself into such a stupid assertion because your mind can’t understand anything other than partisanship but then claim other people think this way. In fact Team Blue Good is your only principle.

            1. As I said, there are institutional structures in place that go beyond which team is in charge at any given moment. And Democrats have until recently been almost as bad as Republicans when it came to sucking cop dick. See 1994 Crime Bill for example. But since 2013 when the BLM movement started, which tribe has actually proposed some reforms, and which tribe has done nothing except screaming about LAWN ORDER and MARXISM???

              There are Democrats who suck cop dick and then there are Democrats who don’t. BLM supports the ones who don’t. They are doing exactly what right-wingers around here suggest that libertarians ought to do – work within one of the major parties to try to change it from the inside. Maybe it will work, maybe it won’t. In the case of libertarians working from within the Republican Party to try to make it more libertarian, it’s been an abject failure. Maybe BLM will have more success working within the Democratic Party to try to make it more amenable to issues of police reform. We will see. Maybe if Republicans took the issue a little more seriously, they could have a seat at the table of these big cities where the issues are discussed. But as things stand now, they are AWOL.

              1. BLM supports the ones who don’t.

                Demonstrably false since they give the money to a generic Dem PAC instead of targeting candidates who sign on to their agenda.

                which tribe has done nothing except screaming about LAWN ORDER and MARXISM???

                More stupid partisanship. In fact Reps were on board but Dems responded by increasing demands absurd levels including defunding police and ending prisons. Ultimately though Reps (especially national Reps) are irrelevant since most police management is local and most of the rest is state.

                In fact there was universal support for reform addressing police brutality which Dems squandered because they think the riots show Trump has lost control and will give them a national wipe-out victory. Obviously they think the latter is more important.

                1. Lawn order is important. It keeps young whippersnappers off my lawn.

              2. Yeah, you don’t have a leg to stand on there.

                President Donald Trump. of all people, is the one who has passed criminal Justice reform and worked to do more. Unfortunately, democrats have decided that giving him a win on this is more painful than suffering the consequences of doing nothing.

                Most of these cities have been under exclusive Democrat control for longer than you have been alive. There is no both sides to it. Cities like Atlanta have not only been solidly Democrat for your entire lifetime, they have been entirely controlled by black democrats since the seventies.

                Proclaiming that there are institutional Barriers that cannot be surmounted by exclusive control of the police department, prosecutors, mayor’s office, judges… That is the entirety of the institutions. There is no other “the institution” involved.

                1. Trump is sending cops to rough up block people for political purposes.

                  1. It’s revealing mos of the rioters are white but you insist – without evidence – the targets are black. Sometimes it seems like reality is entirely irrelevant to you and the other leftists.

                  2. And this is why a Tony has zero credibility.

    3. Similarly defunding police and eliminating the prison system is not about reform. It’s execution of the BLM belief that blacks are not responsible for any of their actions.

      Maybe, just maybe, “defunding police” is a poorly-named idea that encompasses the concept that the police shouldn’t be society’s all-purpose problem solvers and some of the money that goes to police departments to solve problems that are only tangentially related to law enforcement would be better spent elsewhere.

      Maybe, just maybe, the idea behind “eliminating the prison system” is that there might be better ways to incarcerate and/or rehabilitate people other than the current prison-industrial complex that currently exists which has a built-in incentive for the state to generate prisoners in order to justify the money spent on the system.

      But no I’m sure you’re right, it’s all about “blacks escaping responsibility”.

      1. Maybe, just maybe, “defunding police” is a poorly-named idea

        You whitesplaining racist you.

      2. I have heard several of the people behind the movement explicitly disclaim your explanation.

        I have seen several main stream and left democrats trying to use that explanation.

        I think that certainly makes a lot more sense then what the originators of the idea want. But I do think that it is a bit disingenuous to invent a new definition for them and ascribe that idea to them instead of their own explicitly stated ideas.

      3. Of course if you actually ask them you get “defund the police” means defund the police and “eliminating the prison system” means eliminating the prison system. Not the idealistic “maybe we can build a better world” projection you’re sticking to them without evidence.

        If they wanted to reduce the scope of law enforcement they’d work to reduce the scope of the laws to enforce, but that doesn’t mesh with the Democrat platform in any way shape or form. So they back Democrats who demand ever more encroachment into every aspect of your life as a criminal enforcement problem leading to ever more interactions and statistics take their toll.

        1. Or you could focus on the people in charge running an explicitly pro “law and order” platform. But Republicans are just hapless twitching fleshbots with no agency. Vote for them!

          1. Who is the Republican “in charge” in Minneapolis?

            1. It’s all Trump’s fault! Somehow……

  22. Perhaps the best summary of the situation is to point out that roughly two weeks after reports that federal agents in unmarked vehicles were snatching anti-police protesters off the streets in Portland, Oregon, New York City cops admitted to doing the same thing.

    Why do Reasoners all devolve into panty-wetters? Are we to believe cops in unmarked cars don’t make arrests? Because Trump is involved we can’t use our brains to understand whether something is really a problem or not?

    Isn’t it revealing that the same people who make such a big deal insisting protesters aren’t rioters use the term protester to cover rioters? It’s an obvious and ham-handed effort to use the non-violent to protect the violent.

    It’s sad these writers have proven again and again they can’t manage their objectivity.

    1. Reason isn’t here to report, they’re here to spread propaganda in disguise

  23. But they didn’t do much to address core problems with law enforcement, such as qualified immunity, which makes it difficult to sue officers (and other officials) for rights violations.

    Left wingers seem focused on this because it’s something they can all get behind. But it’s not going to make much difference.

    The real game changer is eliminating unions. Doing so gets rid of significant political pressure to cover for violent cops because mayors and DAs have to suck up to police unions. It eliminates the legalistic barriers to firing bad cops which is a huge contributor to why police feel invulnerable – these procedures ensure they largely are. Unions also protect police management because what progress can be made against these structural protections managers can’t change?

    It’s revealing Reason writers don’t even mention the single reform with the greatest potential for improvement because their left wing allies love unions. It’s a clear indicator Reason is becoming what it claims to oppose.

      1. You don’t suppose that might have anything to do with the Democrats widespread and open hatred of police, do you?

        Historically unions and Democrats go together. The union isn’t stupid enough to keep supporting people who want them dead though, so they endorse the guy that acknowledges they should at least be allowed to live.

        1. And this union happens to be an interest group that aligns with Republicans. They are anti-union, sure, but also pro-cop. Maybe unionization itself is not a problem (though how convenient that would be for anti-union interests). Maybe the cops are the problem. Few other interest groups have the authority to beat and kill people.

          1. The real problem is progressives who right endless laws for the police to enforce. Progressive like you Tony.

            You have an ocean of blood on your hands.

    1. https://www.courant.com/politics/hc-pol-connecticut-police-accountability-20200729-jmvodtnfzvgsrf5ovbybupdecq-story.html

      Connecticut State Senate adopts police reform bill.
      Democrats support it.
      Republicans and police unions oppose it.

      So who again is the “left wing ally” of police unions?

      1. For this to be responsive to my comment the “reform bill” would need to eliminate unions. Why don’t you show me that section because I can’t find it.

        1. They didn’t abolish police unions. Perhaps they should have. My point in my comment is that this time, the police unions have lined up behind Republicans.

          If you actually read news sources other than Fox, you’ll see that there are a lot of leftwing groups that are rejecting the support of police unions.

          https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/politics/politics-report-dems-shun-police-unions/

          “BE IT RESOLVED that the San Diego County Democratic Party shall refuse all donations from Law Enforcement Unions and Associations and demands that all San Diego Democratic elected officials refuse such contributions as well and reject the endorsement of such associations;” it reads.

          1. My point in my comment is that this time, the police unions have lined up behind Republicans.

            Which doesn’t conflict with my point that eliminating unions is the single reform with the greatest impact in reducing police brutality but Reason won’t push for it because the left doesn’t want it. So try to find something that makes sense. Or better yet just recognize when comments are more complicated than you’re capable of following and skip responding altogether.

            If you actually read news sources other than Fox,

            Now that’s about your level.

    2. There is no need to eliminate police unions, but there should be restrictions that apply to all public employee unions. The personnel of ONE agency should be able to form a union to negotiate pay, benefits, schedule, working conditions with ONE employer (city/county/state). Not a Teamsters or big multi-agency union that seeks to influence the political situation. No political activity, no political donations, strictly a contract pertaining to the actual job and benefits.

      1. I say prohibit collective bargaining in the public sector.
        Can’t ban unions, because 1A, but you can make rules that all public sector employment will have terms and conditions only applicable to individual positions. Negotiations with each employee for the specifics of that particular position. Individual contracts, no union CBAs.

  24. No action on police reform? Are you crazy? There’s been TONS of action: buildings burned down in a “mostly peaceful” manner, people peacefully assaulted and killed, peaceful fires started, the mostly peaceful bashing in of people’s car windshields, peaceful looting, peaceful vandalism, statues peacefully torn down, etc.

    Now THAT’S action! Wait, what do you mean that none of those things do anything to reform the police?

  25. They didn’t abolish police unions. Perhaps they should have. My point in my comment is that this time, the police unions have lined up behind Republicans. No action on police reform? Are you crazy? There’s been TONS of action: buildings burned down in a “mostly peaceful” manner, people peacefully assaulted and killed, peaceful fires started, the mostly peaceful bashing in of people’s car windshields, peaceful looting, peaceful vandalism, statues peacefully torn down, etc. http://paramaster88.co/

  26. You say “packs of enforcers” and then show nothing but pictures of officers decked out in riot gear. They’re only in that gear because of the riots, assaults and property destruction. You get that the vast majority of police interactions with the citizenry involve officers in normal uniforms, responding to calls for help, investigating crimes, helping victims, enforcing traffic laws, etc? Of the millions of police-citizen contacts, only a very small number involve violent outcomes. Of those, an even smaller number involve officers committing crimes or violating policy. There is always room for reform, but there is no need for a massive national overhaul based on a few local incidents involving bad cops acting badly and then getting held accountable.

  27. You can’t expect people to pay taxes without the threat of violence from police.

    1. ^^And that’s root cause.^^

      The progressive, property tax, enslaves us all and is the root of some of the biggest problems facing America today.

  28. Liberty for you ends when you RIOT and need to be ARRESTED for violating MY liberty. End of story.
    -Tired of the bs in Seattle that IS NOT PROTEST but violence.
    Re-fund the police.
    Prosecute the politicians who got us here

  29. IMHO the problem is that “police reform” is presented as government reforming some independent police agency.

    Police aren’t independent. They work for the government.
    City police work for the city council. The city council sets law enforcement priorities. If a city council votes a high tobacco tax, and tells police to keep people from selling loose cigarettes, you get Eric Garner.

    Even with the present disrespect of police by city councils, if the city council says abandon a precinct, the police do so. City council says don’t go in the autonomous zone, police don’t. City council says no beanbag rounds and tear gas, police put them away.

    Therefore, city council can change police policy any time they want to.

    Voters need to realize if their city council has been promising to “reform police” since the Rodney King riots, and nothing has changed, they need to replace the city council.

  30. Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job.HERE====►► CLICK HERE

  31. I make up to $90 an hour on-line from my home. My story is that I give up operating at walmart to paintings on-line and with a bit strive I with out problem supply in spherical $40h to $86h… someone turned into top to me by way of manner of sharing this hyperlink with me, so now i’m hoping i ought to help a person else accessible through sharing this hyperlink… strive it, you HERE? Read More

  32. on Saturday I got a gorgeous Ariel Atom after earning $6292 this – four weeks past, after lot of struggels Google, Yahoo, Facebook proffessionals have been revealed the way and cope with gape for increase home income in suffcient free time.You can make $9o an hour working from home easily……. VIST THIS SITE RIGHT HERE
    >>=====>>>>  Click for detail.

  33. Arresting people by surprise when they’re by themselves on the street is much safer for everyone than arresting them in crowds or raiding their house at 3 AM.

    Do you want police to keep people safe or not? Stop being idiotic drama queens about 2 guys being arrested safely and released 90 minutes later in Portland.

  34. Call me a cynic, but after Floyd’s death the media (with Trump’s help) shifted the debate from state and local governments to the national level, which of course isn’t responsible for police department behavior.
    IMO two factors caused this shift: most big cities are controlled by Democrats, and the police departments are heavily unionized and the media is hesitant to attack either.

    So we end debating whether a Senate GOP reform bill is better or worse than a House bill- and our cities quietly go back to the status quo.

Please to post comments