U.S. Justice Department blasts Chicago police over excessive force

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: LSU0408

Trump picked Jeff Sessions who will prop up police and make the situation worse in my opinion. He doesn't have the courge or insight to say the police force, especially high up, the police unions, and judiciary are part of the problem.

I actually love good cops. I have been in martial arts, particularly grappling for 30 years. I also know my friends complain about fat stupid ignorant guys they have been forced to work with and get protected by police unions.

70 percent are capable but a good 30 or more are over weight and not equip to even fire a weapon in stress never mind handle stress like combat.

Wait around to see how Sessions will be. If he doesn't turn out like you want him to, then by all means knock him. I believe he'll be an honest and fair AG, something we haven't seen in nearly a decade, I'm excited.

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: luthier

I never said word one about CPD not being corrupt. Far from it in fact, since I used to live just outside the city and am well familiar with it. No need to make stuff up and then ask me to defend the ridiculous premise that you came up with.

But let's not talk about "drinking the kool-aid and blaming the other guy" in one comment and then turn around and blame the other guy in the next comment. CPD has a lot of corruption in it, but I'm more than happy to wager that the corruption doesn't rise to the level of forcing gangs to go out and kill each other, or forcing wannabe hoodrats to go out and kill their neighbors, or forcing thugs to go do a drive-by and pop 8 year old little girls.

^^^ This, times 100

Really so cops are not to blame at all in Chicago. For taking bribes and looking the other way so that little girl ends up shot?

Give me a break. Your looking for an easy answer why not blame the citizens of Chicago. It's not simple and my entire point is the police are hardly blameless in the crisis in chicago. In fact they helped water the garden.

a reply to: LSU0408

Sorry I am a libertarian. Someone like Jeff Sessions and his 20 year record is not encouraging. Nor is his support from police unions which are a scourge to Leo's.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: luthier

I never said word one about CPD not being corrupt. Far from it in fact, since I used to live just outside the city and am well familiar with it. No need to make stuff up and then ask me to defend the ridiculous premise that you came up with.

But let's not talk about "drinking the kool-aid and blaming the other guy" in one comment and then turn around and blame the other guy in the next comment. CPD has a lot of corruption in it, but I'm more than happy to wager that the corruption doesn't rise to the level of forcing gangs to go out and kill each other, or forcing wannabe hoodrats to go out and kill their neighbors, or forcing thugs to go do a drive-by and pop 8 year old little girls.

^^^ This, times 100

Really so cops are not to blame at all in Chicago. For taking bribes and looking the other way so that little girl ends up shot?

Give me a break. Your looking for an easy answer why not blame the citizens of Chicago. It's not simple and my entire point is the police are hardly blameless in the crisis in chicago. In fact they helped water the garden.

I thought I'd given you well thought out answers. Shamrock said he's willing to bet the level of corruption doesn't rise to the level of forcing the sky high black on black crime rate, drive by shootings, or little 8 year old girls being shot in the head. With that, I agree 100%.

This somehow reminds me of this:
www.newsweek.com - As Riots Consume Baltimore, Orioles Postpone Baseball Game...

That said, my greater source of personal concern, outrage and sympathy beyond this particular case is focused neither upon one night's property damage nor upon the acts, but is focused rather upon the past four-decade period during which an American political elite have shipped middle class and working class jobs away from Baltimore and cities and towns around the U.S. to third-world dictatorships like China and others, plunged tens of millions of good hard working Americans into economic devastation and then followed that action around the nation by diminishing every American’s civil rights protections in order to control an unfairly impoverished population living under an ever-declining standard of living and suffering at the butt end of an ever-more militarized and aggressive surveillance state.

The innocent working families of all backgrounds whose lives and dreams have been cut short by excessive violence, surveillance, and other abuses of the Bill of Rights by government pay the true price, an ultimate price, and one that far exceeds the importance of any kids' game played tonight, or ever, at Camden Yards.

I realize there's discrimination against blacks, but I also think there's another side to all this and it's not just directed at them.

This is aimed at virtually anybody who's not wealthy, including the middle class. This is why wages have stagnated for most people, whereas the most wealthy have seen their earnings continue to grow.

Something happened in the 1960's or 1970's. Jobs started going overseas increasingly. Jobs were continuing to be automated as well--this has always been true, but perhaps hte effects is growing. Prison incarceration rates skyrocketed. Mass homelessness arose--it didn't always exist to this extent. Affordable housing dried up. Wealthier people increasingly moved into the suburbs and the jobs went with them, starving the cities and inner suburbs. Reagan won and taxes on the wealthiest plummeted, starving the war on poverty which started in the 1960's, setting up the welfare programs to be unsustainable.

From what I understand, 1 million FEWER people are working than just before the great recession in 2009. Since hten about 10 million people have entered hte labor force. This is why the labor force participation rate is the lowest since the 1970's. And most of the new jobs are contractual or part time.

About the incarceration rate, look here:
en.wikipedia.org - United States incarceration rate - Wikipedia...

Look how strongly it has impacted males. It's not a small effect. Males are incarcerated ~14 times more than females. Females, nationally, most recently are 9% of the prison population. In 2007, they were 7%. Female incarceration increased fivefold in the 1980's and 1990's, the burst ending in 2000's.

Regarding homelessness and affordable housing, try this:
thinkprogress.org - It Would Actually Be Very Simple To End Homelessness Forever...

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: luthier

I never said word one about CPD not being corrupt. Far from it in fact, since I used to live just outside the city and am well familiar with it. No need to make stuff up and then ask me to defend the ridiculous premise that you came up with.

But let's not talk about "drinking the kool-aid and blaming the other guy" in one comment and then turn around and blame the other guy in the next comment. CPD has a lot of corruption in it, but I'm more than happy to wager that the corruption doesn't rise to the level of forcing gangs to go out and kill each other, or forcing wannabe hoodrats to go out and kill their neighbors, or forcing thugs to go do a drive-by and pop 8 year old little girls.

^^^ This, times 100

Really so cops are not to blame at all in Chicago. For taking bribes and looking the other way so that little girl ends up shot?

Give me a break. Your looking for an easy answer why not blame the citizens of Chicago. It's not simple and my entire point is the police are hardly blameless in the crisis in chicago. In fact they helped water the garden.

Why do you refuse to cure the disease and insist upon treating the symptom? Blame the PD all you want, but its the cowards in government and the judges in our justice system that have become corrupt who allow this to happen!

Seems you have an agenda you're trying to justify!

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: LSU0408

Sorry I am a libertarian. Someone like Jeff Sessions and his 20 year record is not encouraging. Nor is his support from police unions which are a scourge to Leo's.

Trump isn't going to pick a guy that's gonna screw our police over. Not in my opinion anyways.

a reply to: seeker1963

Which I posted about 100 times now. But cops are politicians too and they order people and pick people to do bad things in the upper ranks.

a reply to: LSU0408

Sessions us a huge proponent of the war on drugs which screws the people.

It's a failure it doesn't work and he doesn't know it.

Sessions is a terrible pick for the people.

Police unions support the guy. Police union are how fat and bad cops get protected just like in teaching.

originally posted by: jonnywhite
This somehow reminds me of this:
www.newsweek.com - As Riots Consume Baltimore, Orioles Postpone Baseball Game...

That said, my greater source of personal concern, outrage and sympathy beyond this particular case is focused neither upon one night's property damage nor upon the acts, but is focused rather upon the past four-decade period during which an American political elite have shipped middle class and working class jobs away from Baltimore and cities and towns around the U.S. to third-world dictatorships like China and others, plunged tens of millions of good hard working Americans into economic devastation and then followed that action around the nation by diminishing every American’s civil rights protections in order to control an unfairly impoverished population living under an ever-declining standard of living and suffering at the butt end of an ever-more militarized and aggressive surveillance state.

The innocent working families of all backgrounds whose lives and dreams have been cut short by excessive violence, surveillance, and other abuses of the Bill of Rights by government pay the true price, an ultimate price, and one that far exceeds the importance of any kids' game played tonight, or ever, at Camden Yards.

I realize there's discrimination against blacks, but I also think there's another side to all this and it's not just directed at them.

This is aimed at virtually anybody who's not wealthy, including the middle class. This is why wages haven't risen to keep pace with inflation, wheras the most wealthy have seen their earnings continue to rise.

Something happened in the 1960's or 1970's. Jobs started going overseas increasingly. Jobs were continuing to be automated as well--this has always been true, but perhaps hte effects is growing. Prison incarceration rates skyrocketed. Mass homelessness arose--it didn't always exist to this extent. Affordable housing dried up. Wealthier people increasingly moved into the suburbs and the jobs went with them, starving the cities and inner suburbs. Reagan won and taxes on the wealthiest plummeted, starving the war on poverty which started in the 1960's, setting up the welfare programs to be unsustainable.

From what I understand, 1 million FEWER people are working than just before the great recession in 2009. Since hten about 10 million people have entered hte labor force. This is why the labor force participation rate is the lowest since then 1970's. And most of the new jobs are contractual or part time.

There's a stereotype that I don't think anyone can deny, but it's a stereotype that they've brought on themselves. We all have one. For blacks it's inner city crime.

a reply to: LSU0408

Really so civil rights played no role? The war on poverty etc?

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: LSU0408

Sessions us a huge proponent of the war on drugs which screws the people.

It's a failure it doesn't work and he doesn't know it.

Sessions is a terrible pick for the people.

Police unions support the guy. Police union are how fat and bad cops get protected just like in teaching.

I, too, support the war on drugs. I don't know if my reasoning is the same, but I don't think turning a blind eye to drugs will solve the problem, I think it will instead make drugs easier to get, therefore easier to become addicted. I think anything over a day or two in jail for marijuana is too much, but I don't think it should be anymore legal than drinking and driving. And of course, your hardcore drugs should remain illegal and carry heavy penalties.

At the very least, if you don't want to jail drug abusers, you could lock them away in secure rehab centers and save our prisons for murderers, rapists, and other such crimes. If you're an armed robber that committed a crime and are found with drugs, you serve your time in prison for the armed robbery and then go to rehab afterwards. That would separate your killers from your abusers, etc. because I'm pretty sure that some people go to jail for drugs, buddy up with killers, and come out with an entirely new (bad) prospective on life.

Plus if you build secure rehab centers across the country for drug abusers, what do you gain? MORE JOBS.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: LSU0408

Really so civil rights played no role? The war on poverty etc?

I'm sure a lot of things played a role. I'm not gonna pretend that poor white kids in the inner city aren't exactly the same. I'm just talking about the stereotype we build for ourselves. When was the last time you heard about a poor black kid from the city killing his parents and then shooting up a school or a mall, or a movie theater? Off the top of my head, almost never. I remember an LL Cool J look-a-like shooting people up but that's it. Schools are usually shot up by some spoiled rich white kid that's babied his entire life and like a vicious animal, turns on his parents and kills them first.

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: LSU0408

Sessions us a huge proponent of the war on drugs which screws the people.

It's a failure it doesn't work and he doesn't know it.

Sessions is a terrible pick for the people.

Police unions support the guy. Police union are how fat and bad cops get protected just like in teaching.

I, too, support the war on drugs. I don't know if my reasoning is the same, but I don't think turning a blind eye to drugs will solve the problem, I think it will instead make drugs easier to get, therefore easier to become addicted. I think anything over a day or two in jail for marijuana is too much, but I don't think it should be anymore legal than drinking and driving. And of course, your hardcore drugs should remain illegal and carry heavy penalties.

At the very least, if you don't want to jail drug abusers, you could lock them away in secure rehab centers and save our prisons for murderers, rapists, and other such crimes. If you're an armed robber that committed a crime and are found with drugs, you serve your time in prison for the armed robbery and then go to rehab afterwards. That would separate your killers from your abusers, etc. because I'm pretty sure that some people go to jail for drugs, buddy up with killers, and come out with an entirely new (bad) prospective on life.

Plus if you build secure rehab centers across the country for drug abusers, what do you gain? MORE JOBS.

Oddly enough drug use is not correlated to drug legality.

Prohibition of alcohol a very dangerous addictive drug didn't work.

And conversely legalizing drugs in Portugal didn't increase users either.

Places with needle exchanges for instance have less aids and less hep.

There are many cases where morality based laws backfire with unintended consequences.

It's the nature of progressive legislating whether liberal or conservative.

Freedom is the ability to make even bad choices.

Marijuana is no where near the problem alcohol is.

It's bad name comes from the slave trade where the brits were growing it for slaves comercially

Just to point out some irony sugar causes a bigger public health crisis with diabetes then almost any drug.

Accept for the pharmaceutical company created heroine problem.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: LSU0408

Sessions us a huge proponent of the war on drugs which screws the people.

It's a failure it doesn't work and he doesn't know it.

Sessions is a terrible pick for the people.

Police unions support the guy. Police union are how fat and bad cops get protected just like in teaching.

I, too, support the war on drugs. I don't know if my reasoning is the same, but I don't think turning a blind eye to drugs will solve the problem, I think it will instead make drugs easier to get, therefore easier to become addicted. I think anything over a day or two in jail for marijuana is too much, but I don't think it should be anymore legal than drinking and driving. And of course, your hardcore drugs should remain illegal and carry heavy penalties.

At the very least, if you don't want to jail drug abusers, you could lock them away in secure rehab centers and save our prisons for murderers, rapists, and other such crimes. If you're an armed robber that committed a crime and are found with drugs, you serve your time in prison for the armed robbery and then go to rehab afterwards. That would separate your killers from your abusers, etc. because I'm pretty sure that some people go to jail for drugs, buddy up with killers, and come out with an entirely new (bad) prospective on life.

Plus if you build secure rehab centers across the country for drug abusers, what do you gain? MORE JOBS.

Oddly enough drug use is not correlated to drug legality.

Prohibition of alcohol a very dangerous addictive drug didn't work.

And conversely legalizing drugs in Portugal didn't increase users either.

Places with needle exchanges for instance have less aids and less hep.

There are many cases where morality based laws backfire with unintended consequences.

It's the nature of progressive legislating whether liberal or conservative.

Freedom is the ability to make even bad choices.

Marijuana is no where near the problem alcohol is.

It's bad name comes from the slave trade where the brits were growing it for slaves comercially

Just to point out some irony sugar causes a bigger public health crisis with diabetes then almost any drug.

Accept for the pharmaceutical company created heroine problem.

I know that whole song and dance. Portugal has 10 million people. That's like telling me socialist programs would work in America because they work in Sweden. I understand your concern but you can't tell me that an open and legal drug market in a country with almost 340,000,000 people would decrease drug use, AIDS, and Hepatitis because it worked in Portugal.

Also, if you look at the lifetime prevalence of drug use in Portugal, there was more drug use in 2012 than 2001. And it spiked real high over the first 6 years it was legal.

a reply to: LSU0408

Where is your source from?

I can provide you an actual peer reviewed study that shows very different results.

And yes I can because it's common sense.

Should you be able to go to the corner store for heroine? No. That isn't the same as decrim of personal possession.

However you can go to your Dr for just about anything. I know of people who have gone to their GP for like Xanax.

You have pharmacies getting millions of scripts like in Kentucky for oXi when they have 400 customers.

My point is you can't come down on the people you come down on the source.

I don't think making drugs illegal has done a single bit of good however. We still do drugs like crazy in the us they just make the dealers more money because of the risk.

Did prohibition of alcohol work?

Alcohol has no medical purpose and is widely used and addictive.

Sugar

Nicotine

You can't make moral laws they don't work. Laws work on a principle of justice outlined by John Locke in two treaties for government. Our forefathers pretty much copied it.

Where do you stop?

How long to you play nanny?

What would gangs be fighting over without drugs?

Why does the drug war target minorities when studies show all the races do drugs on basically equal proportions?

Because progressivism is government overreach.

Study

academic.oup.com...


What I am finding is most trump supporters are fine with authoritarianism, as long as it fits their beliefs.

It's unfortunate because when he was elected I had hope. Then he started with the favor system appointments and tweets.

Looks like another Andrew Jackson.

a reply to: luthier

Gangs fight over turf, power, weapons, prostitution, gambling establishments, protection rackets, import/export cuts, influence. The list goes on. So lets not paint it as if legalizing drugs will end gang warfare. Gangs have been around since a wee bit before the drug war kicked off.

The drug war has enough wrong with it, you don't have to make crap up to try and score a point.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Really so let's see

Prohibition didn't increase gangs power?

Drugs don't provide the majority income and bribe money?

I would consider your point of view but my wife happens to be a research scientist in the field at a university.

And she ain't a liberal.

a reply to: luthier

The source I found is from a site that promotes legalization.

mic.com...

What do you find authoritarian about Trump's policies?

Gangs are fighting for much more than drugs. And the police don't target minorities, they target inner cities where the highest concentration of crime happens.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Shamrock6

Really so let's see

Prohibition didn't increase gangs power?

Drugs don't provide the majority income and bribe money?

I would consider your point of view but my wife happens to be a research scientist in the field at a university.

And she ain't a liberal.

Come on, man. This isn't the 20's, you can drop the whole prohibition thing. We're nearly 100 years past that. You're finding all these comparisons that don't really compare. 1920 to 2017, 335,000,000 population to 10,000,000 population... Things are different.