Louisiana ‘Blue Lives Matter’ law: How big a shift in police brutality debate?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

ATLANTA — Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards, a Democrat, is expected to sign into law the nation’s first so-called “Blue Lives Matter” law, extending hate crime protections to men and women wearing a police badge.

The bill, passed by the legislature in Baton Rouge this week, is controversial, coming amid a national debate over the shooting of unarmed black people by police officers. Expanding hate crime protections to all active and non-active police officers is seen by some as an attempt to muzzle law enforcement critics and to undermine efforts to curb the use of excessive force by police.

Moreover, extending hate crime protection to a professional class for the first time, critics argue, may weaken protections for those who have to endure ethnic, racial, and gender-based violence because of who they are.

“Hate crime legislation was created because certain crimes – beating someone for being openly gay or wearing a turban … – are meant to strike fear in the heart of a community,” Anna Merlan writes for Jezebel. “[But] being a law enforcement officer is a job, not a fixed, immutable identity like race, gender or sexual orientation: the things at the center of actual hate crimes.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2016/0521/Louisiana-Blue-Lives-Matter-law-How-big-a-shift-in-police-brutality-debate

As if LEOBoR wasn't enough. Police unions need to be busted.

For a refresher:


The rights created by these bills differ from state to state, but here's how a typical police misconduct investigation works in states that have a law enforcement bill of rights in place:

A complaint is filed against an officer by a member of the public or a fellow officer. Police department leadership reviews the complaint and decides whether to investigate. If the department decides to pursue the complaint, it must inform the officer and his union. That's where the special treatment begins, but it doesn't end there.

Unlike a member of the public, the officer gets a "cooling off" period before he has to respond to any questions. Unlike a member of the public, the officer under investigation is privy to the names of his complainants and their testimony against him before he is ever interrogated. Unlike a member of the public, the officer under investigation is to be interrogated "at a reasonable hour," with a union member present. Unlike a member of the public, the officer can only be questioned by one person during his interrogation. Unlike a member of the public, the officer can be interrogated only "for reasonable periods," which "shall be timed to allow for such personal necessities and rest periods as are reasonably necessary." Unlike a member of the public, the officer under investigation cannot be "threatened with disciplinary action" at any point during his interrogation. If he is threatened with punishment, whatever he says following the threat cannot be used against him.

What happens after the interrogation again varies from state to state. But under nearly every law enforcement bill of rights, the following additional privileges are granted to officers: Their departments cannot publicly acknowledge that the officer is under investigation; if the officer is cleared of wrongdoing or the charges are dropped, the department may not publicly acknowledge that the investigation ever took place, or reveal the nature of the complaint. The officer cannot be questioned or investigated by "non-government agents," which means no civilian review boards. If the officer is suspended as a result of the investigation, he must continue to receive full pay and benefits until his case is resolved. In most states, the charging department must subsidize the accused officer's legal defense.

A violation of any of the above rights can result in dismissal—not of the officer, but of the charges against him.

Because of these special due process privileges, there's little incentive for police departments to discipline officers. In most cases, it's more financially prudent to let a District Attorney or outside law enforcement agency do the heavy lifting, and then fire the officer if he's convicted. This is the only "easy" way, under police bills of rights, for departments to get rid of bad cops--which essentially means the only way to get rid of bad cops is if some other law enforcement agency can make a felony charge stick. This is the biggest problem with law enforcement bills of rights--they encourage police departments to let external forces determine what behavior is unacceptable. That's eventually why Rhode Island's Krawetz resigned his post.

http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/19/how-special-rights-for-law-enforcement-m

[spurraider21]

this has absolutely nothing to do with police misconduct... merely violence TOWARDS officers

[FuzzyLumpkins]

this has absolutely nothing to do with police misconduct... merely violence TOWARDS officers

So granting extra protections and rights via legislation is not similar? I get you dream of being a prosecutor but gmfb.

[TDMVPDPOY]

isnt a cop/police occupation just another job? why so protective?

[spurraider21]

So granting extra protections and rights via legislation is not similar?
This law would do nothing to protect wrongdoing cops


I get you dream of being a prosecutor but gmfb.
Apparently not since I've said numerous times on this board that I prefer defense

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This law would do nothing to protect wrongdoing cops


Apparently not since I've said numerous times on this board that I prefer defense

It's all related to civil rights. You can reductio ad absurdum and demand your paradigm all you like but they both serve to make cops a protected class as opposed to the rest of society. It's never been safer to be a cop.

You can claim whatever you like. TSA and CC make arguments all one way and then say the socially --in the forums context-- preferred position all the time. You seem to be the same.

[Th'Pusher]

This law would do nothing to protect wrongdoing cops


Apparently not since I've said numerous times on this board that I prefer defense

:lol

You're going to be a horrible defense attorney considering you refuse to keep big blue cocks out of your mouth.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

isnt a cop/police occupation just another job? why so protective?

Police unions. They need be abolished particularly the national ones.

[spurraider21]

:lol

You're going to be a horrible defense attorney considering you refuse to keep big blue cocks out of your mouth.
I never even said I supported the proposed law :lmao... I just pointed out that it's unrelated to police brutality

[spurraider21]

It's all related to civil rights. You can reductio ad absurdum and demand your paradigm all you like but they both serve to make cops a protected class as opposed to the rest of society. It's never been safer to be a cop.

You can claim whatever you like. TSA and CC make arguments all one way and then say the socially --in the forums context-- preferred position all the time. You seem to be the same.
Just a lot of drivel. I couldn't give less of a shit if :cry you don't believe me :cry

I say what I mean and mean what I say. What you take from it is your issue alone


and reductio ad absurdum? :lol... either you misspoke or that doesn't mean what you think it means

[Winehole23]

this has absolutely nothing to do with police misconduct... merely violence TOWARDS officersmaking a mountain out of a molehill. it's never been safer to be an LEO in the USA.

[boutons_deux]

making the POs a protected class as victims of hate crimes is just another way of ridiculing, minimizing BlackLivesMatter (it's not a safe time to be a black in USA)

[spurraider21]

making a mountain out of a molehill. it's never been safer to be an LEO in the USA.
im not arguing the numbers or anything like that. and again, i never even said i supported the initiate in the OP :lol.. the only thing i pointed out is that this kind of law has no bearing on police brutality or excessive use of force

[Wilt Chamberlain]

huh?

[ducks]

interesting considering the cop killing there sunday

[CosmicCowboy]

bunch of fucking cop haters in here. Sad.

[FromWayDowntown]

bunch of fucking cop haters in here. Sad.

I don't think there's any intellectually honest inconsistency in believing that one problem with the perception of LEO is that they get a pass in the criminal justice system when they are accused of misconduct and also believing that the killing of cops is unconscionable.

I don't have to hate cops to believe that some of the tension that has likely led to the tragic killings of brave public servants could be resolved by revisiting the way the law views officers' use of deadly force and reconsiders the extent of the immunity that officers are afforded in those situations. (it also likely doesn't help matters when cops are subjected to prosecution and the right erupts with joy when they're acquitted of killing unarmed black men -- the optics there aren't good).

The overwhelming majority of cops -- all but a very, very small minority -- are good people who dutifully perform the task of protecting the public and do that with bravery and humility that is foreign to most of us. But its problematic to allow that very, very small minority to bask in the well-won respect given to the good cops by allowing deadly force protocols to be as lax as they have become and then to afford them broad immunity from meaningful prosecution and civil liability for their bad acts.

I'm convinced that a large part of the crisis we're in is simply a matter of the perception -- a justifiably accepted one in the black community, in my view -- that when white cops shoot black guys, no matter the circumstances, the system is disinclined to even seriously consider punishment unless there is no other choice.

Adding further protections to cops' lives, while a political winner in Kneejerk America, 2016 (and a symbolic tip of the societal cap to the bravery of so many good cops), certainly won't fix that perception. That's particularly when many of the people who are supporting these "cop-killing as hate crime" laws long resisted using that term to characterize heinous crimes visited on blacks or gays.

I can think all of that and not hate cops.

[CosmicCowboy]

I don't think there's any intellectually honest inconsistency in believing that one problem with the perception of LEO is that they get a pass in the criminal justice system when they are accused of misconduct and also believing that the killing of cops is unconscionable.

I don't have to hate cops to believe that some of the tension that has likely led to the tragic killings of brave public servants could be resolved by revisiting the way the law views officers' use of deadly force and reconsiders the extent of the immunity that officers are afforded in those situations. (it also likely doesn't help matters when cops are subjected to prosecution and the right erupts with joy when they're acquitted of killing unarmed black men -- the optics there aren't good).

The overwhelming majority of cops -- all but a very, very small minority -- are good people who dutifully perform the task of protecting the public and do that with bravery and humility that is foreign to most of us. But its problematic to allow that very, very small minority to bask in the well-won respect given to the good cops by allowing deadly force protocols to be as lax as they have become and then to afford them broad immunity from meaningful prosecution and civil liability for their bad acts.

I'm convinced that a large part of the crisis we're in is simply a matter of the perception -- a justifiably accepted one in the black community, in my view -- that when white cops shoot black guys, no matter the circumstances, the system is disinclined to even seriously consider punishment unless there is no other choice.

Adding further protections to cops' lives, while a political winner in Kneejerk America, 2016 (and a symbolic tip of the societal cap to the bravery of so many good cops), certainly won't fix that perception. That's particularly when many of the people who are supporting these "cop-killing as hate crime" laws long resisted using that term to characterize heinous crimes visited on blacks or gays.

I can think all of that and not hate cops.

I appreciate the well thought out response.

At the same time, I think the job we ask cops to do IS different and they deserve every benefit of the doubt in questionable calls. Cops have a right to protect their lives with deadly force and they have to make snap decisions based on their perception of the situation. Mistakes can happen but they shouldn't go to jail over honest mistakes.

As an attorney you are somewhat protected by the same system. If you make an error it sucks to be your client but you aren't gonna go to jail for it and the chances of even having a malpractice suit brought are extremely slim. Attorneys just don't like to go after other attorneys. You would have to do something absolutely outrageous to be disciplined.

You as an attorney are protected in similar ways by the system.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Just a lot of drivel. I couldn't give less of a shit if :cry you don't believe me :cry

I say what I mean and mean what I say. What you take from it is your issue alone


and reductio ad absurdum? :lol... either you misspoke or that doesn't mean what you think it means

I missed this back in the day. Reductio ad absurdum means you try and reduce it down to a singular simple thing in an attempt to discredit the entire argument when the issue is far more complicated. That is what you're doing with your 'it would do nothing to protect wrong doing cops' as if that invalidates the point that it is never been safer to be a cop and they are already afforded extra protections.

Also if I am a bad cop and I now can pin crimes on other people using the new cop protections then it would in fact facilitate bad cops by giving them extra leverage for coercion. Assault on a police officer would now be a hate crime after all.

[spurraider21]

Assault on a police officer would now be a hate crime after all.
not every assault on a cop would be a hate crime just like not every assault on a gay person is a hate crime

[vy65]

I missed this back in the day. Reductio ad absurdum means you try and reduce it down to a singular simple thing in an attempt to discredit the entire argument when the issue is far more complicated.

That's not what reductio ad absurdum means. Unless you think "singular simple thing" means the same as absurd logical conclusion. Which doesn't appear to be the case since those aren't the words you used.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That's not what reductio ad absurdum means. Unless you think "singular simple thing" means the same as absurd logical conclusion. Which doesn't appear to be the case since those aren't the words you used.

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity"; pl.: reductiones ad absurdum), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin: "argument to absurdity", pl.: argumenta ad absurdum), is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

The law doesn't reduce X therefor it isn't bad. Thanks for demonstrating your ineptitude, Counselor Crayola.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

not every assault on a cop would be a hate crime just like not every assault on a gay person is a hate crime

Framing is as framing does.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I means the latin literally translates to reduce to absurdity.

[vy65]

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity"; pl.: reductiones ad absurdum), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin: "argument to absurdity", pl.: argumenta ad absurdum), is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

The law doesn't reduce X therefor it isn't bad. Thanks for demonstrating your ineptitude, Counselor Crayola.

None of which is what you originally said. The Latin literally translates to argue to absurdity, as you posted. It's the tactic of taking arguments to their "logical" conclusions to show an absurd result -- to show the argument is incorrect. Again, not what you said. Quoting wiki isn't going to cover up your boo-boo, no matter how much you say counselor crayola.

[vy65]

I means the latin literally translates to reduce to absurdity.

Reduction as in distillation. Reductio means bringing to a point of absurdity. It doesn't mean reducing as in paraphrasing or misrepresenting, which is how it seems you're using it.

You don't seem to get it.

Edit: this is exactly how you're using it. RAA has nothing to do with simplifying or "reducing" a complex issue to the exclusion of nuance. A classical RAA argument is: 1) the world cannot be flat because 2) if it were, people would fall off the edge, and 3) people don't fall off the edge of the earth. That's got nothing to do with how you use it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

None of which is what you originally said. The Latin literally translates to argue to absurdity, as you posted. It's the tactic of taking arguments to their "logical" conclusions to show an absurd result -- to show the argument is incorrect. Again, not what you said. Quoting wiki isn't going to cover up your boo-boo, no matter how much you say counselor crayola.

Well myself and wikipedia disagree with you. False, untenable, or absurd is what it is. The argument I said was reductio ad absurdum was indeed reductio ad absurdum. Just because I didn't give the formal definition doesn't mean that my explanation was wrong.

The definition does require the singular reason to discredit the entire argument as I said. If you would like to demonstrate how my defintion was mutually exclusive with wiki's then great. All you do is assert your claim and wave your hands at your conclusion like the typical mouthbreather.

I call you Counselor Crayola because if you are indeed a lawyer you suck at logical argumentation; I picture you writing your briefs out in crayon. I don't just ad hominem gratuitously nor do I base my arguments off of it.

[vy65]

Well myself and wikipedia disagree with you. False, untenable, or absurd is what it is. The argument I said was reductio ad absurdum was indeed reductio ad absurdum. Just because I didn't give the formal definition doesn't mean that my explanation was wrong.

The definition does require the singular reason to discredit the entire argument as I said. If you would like to demonstrate how my defintion was mutually exclusive with wiki's then great. All you do is assert your claim and wave your hands at your conclusion like the typical mouthbreather.

I call you Counselor Crayola because if you are indeed a lawyer you suck at logical argumentation; I picture you writing your briefs out in crayon. I don't just ad hominem gratuitously nor do I base my arguments off of it.

No, Wikipedia disagrees with you too. See above.

Thanks for the explanation of ad hom. No one, including me, cares.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No, Wikipedia disagrees with you too. See above.

Thanks for the explanation of ad hom. No one, including me, cares.

Actually the fact that it require the singular basis in fact does mean that. The moment that you add addition arguments it stops being reductio ad absurdum by definition. Logical extensions are tough for simpletons.

What are you reducing elsewise? They just throw in the verb for fun?

[vy65]

Actually the fact that it require the singular basis in fact does mean that. What are you reducing elsewise? They just throw in the verb for fun?

The explanation you gave is not the definition given by wiki. Nor is it the classical definition of RAA. You used it to mean "over simplification." That's not what a reductio ad absurdum means no matter now many times you say "actually, it requires a singular basis in fact." Reduction means "taken to a logical conclusion," not as you understand it, which is to make more basic.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The explanation you gave is not the definition given by wiki. Nor is it the classical definition of RAA. You used it to mean "over simplification." That's not what a reductio ad absurdum means no matter now many times you say "actually, it requires a singular basis in fact." Reduction means "taken to a logical conclusion," not as you understand it, which is to make more basic.

Again just because it wasn't same thing doesn't make them inequitable. It just follows some logical conclusions.

We'll distill it down to some questions that I am sure you will ignore:

Does the fallacy require a singular reason to discredit an entire argument or not?

Plus words have many meanings often arising from one another. My understanding and your definition are not mutually exclusive, Crayola.

I mean youre not even arguing the SR's argument isn't RAA. Your just quibbling about my understanding desperate to win a single point like a moron. Good job of fixating on a tree.

[vy65]

Again just because it wasn't same thing doesn't make them inequitable. It just follows some logical conclusions.

We'll distill it down to some questions that I am sure you will ignore:

Does the fallacy require a singular reason to discredit an entire argument or not?

Plus words have many meanings often arising from one another. My understanding and your definition are not mutually exclusive, Crayola.

I mean youre not even arguing the SR's argument isn't RAA. Your just quibbling about my understanding desperate to win a single point like a moron. Good job of fixating on a tree.

If you want to characterize what you said as compatible with the correct definition, go for it. The simple fact is "RAA" doesn't mean oversimplify, which is how you used it. The correct definition is something different.

You're very quick to drop Latin phrases which, apparently, you don't understand. I found that noteworthy. I'm not required to have an opinion on what spurraider said to point out your misuse of basic terms.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you want to characterize what you said as compatible with the correct definition, go for it. The simple fact is "RAA" doesn't mean oversimplify, which is how you used it. The correct definition is something different.

You're very quick to drop Latin phrases which, apparently, you don't understand. I found that noteworthy. I'm not required to have an opinion on what spurraider said to point out your misuse of basic terms.

I never said it meant oversimplify. Fuck yo strawman, clown. And again the two notions are not incompatible. Youre too hidebound in your thinking and struggle with logical extensions.

I was very clear about it requiring the singular simple argument to discredit an entire argument.

And I get that you really want to show me that I'm not as smart as I think I am. My schtick draws your type like flies. At the end of the day I applied the term to the correct form of argument.

[DarrinS]

Fuck yo strawman, clown. :lol

[vy65]

I never said it meant oversimplify. Fuck yo strawman, clown. And again the two notions are not incompatible. Youre too hidebound in your thinking and struggle with logical extensions.


Reductio ad absurdum means you try and reduce it down to a singular simple thing in an attempt to discredit the entire argument when the issue is far more complicated.

I see.


I was very clear about it requiring the singular simple argument to discredit an entire argument.

That's not what reductio ad absurdum means. It means taking an argument to its logical conclusion, getting an absurd result, and concluding that the argument is therefore invalid. If that's what you mean by "singular simple argument," great. Next time, use the appropriate words so as to not look like a clown.


And I get that you really want to show me that I'm not as smart as I think I am. My schtick draws your type like flies. At the end of the day I applied the term to the correct form of argument.

The comparison of your schtick to shit is apt.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I see.



That's not what reductio ad absurdum means. It means taking an argument to its logical conclusion, getting an absurd result, and concluding that the argument is therefore invalid. If that's what you mean by "singular simple argument," great. Next time, use the appropriate words so as to not look like a clown.



The comparison of your schtick to shit is apt.

Does it require a singular reason to discredit an entire argument or not? Was the argument I called RAA actually RAA?

Since we both know it does and it was, you can go and fuck off now.

Is that what you do in your briefs? Just assert what you want and then not cite any logic or relevant case law like a dumbfuck, Crayola?

[vy65]

Does it require a singular reason to discredit an entire argument or not? Was the argument I called RAA actually RAA?

Since we both know it does and it was, you can go and fuck off now.

Is that what you do in your briefs? Just assert what you want and then not cite any logic or relevant case law like a dumbfuck, Crayola?

The simplest explanation is the best explanation. The simplest explanation here is that you don't know what reductio ad absurdum is since you didn't give the proper definition. Screaming and waving your hands won't cover that up. Maybe you should pay more attention to your wiki reading next time.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The simplest explanation is the best explanation. The simplest explanation here is that you don't know what reductio ad absurdum is since you didn't give the proper definition. Screaming and waving your hands won't cover that up. Maybe you should pay more attention to your wiki reading next time.

Occam's razor is an excuse for the intellectually lazy. Quantum mechanics demonstrates the falsity of it completely. My explanation was simpler than the two part wiki definition much less the one using formal logic so even by your own standard youre wrong. You can say that it isn't complete but what your not able to do is exclude it. You suck at deduction. Most people do but youre supposed to be a lawyer, Counselor Crayola.

and :lol parroting my own argument back and not being able to make your own.

[vy65]

Occam's razor is an excuse for the intellectually lazy. Quantum mechanics demonstrates the falsity of it completely. My explanation was simpler than the two part wiki definition much less the one using formal logic so even by your own standard youre wrong. You can say that it isn't complete but what your not able to do is exclude it. You suck at deduction. Most people do but youre supposed to be a lawyer, Counselor Crayola.

and :lol parroting my own argument back and not being able to make your own.

Totally not surprised that the guy who can't correctly define modes of argument (despite being the wiki guru) would glibly through out shit like quantum physics. Intellectually lazy indeed.

[vy65]

Quick show of hands: who here trusts the guy who can't properly comprehend what he read on reason-wiki to lecture us on quantum physics?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Totally not surprised that the guy who can't correctly define modes of argument (despite being the wiki guru) would glibly through out shit like quantum physics. Intellectually lazy indeed.

Occam's razor is what it is.


simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable.

Youre being a hidebound simpleton again. And thanks for that circular stupidity. Are you now arguing that what I identified as RAA was not in fact RAA now? Before you begged off saying you had no comment. We both know it would kill you to say I'm right.

The argument about quantum mechanics doesn't require me to explain QM unless you dispute that QM is more complex than the Newtonian approach or other simpler paradigms anyway.

[vy65]

Occam's razor is what it is.

Youre being a hidebound simpleton again. And thanks for that circular stupidity. Are you now arguing that what I identified as RAA was not in fact RAA now? Before you begged off saying you had no comment. We both know it would kill you to say I'm right.

The argument about quantum mechanics doesn't require me to explain QM unless you dispute that QM is more complex than the Newtonian approach or other simpler paradigms anyway.

I can't be any clearer in saying this: you've demonstrated, in this thread, that you have no idea what you're bloviating about. But please, go on and educate us on quantum theory ...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I can't be any clearer in saying this: you've demonstrated, in this thread, that you have no idea what you're bloviating about. But please, go on and educate us on quantum theory ...


Does it require a singular reason to discredit an entire argument or not? Was the argument I called RAA actually RAA?

Since we both know it does and it was, you can go and fuck off now.

Is that what you do in your briefs? Just assert what you want and then not cite any logic or relevant case law like a dumbfuck, Crayola?

[Winehole23]

The number of people who die while being arrested by a Texas law-enforcement officer nearly doubled between 2005 and 2015, according to data compiled by the Dallas Morning News (http://beta.dallasnews.com/news/dallas-ambush/2016/07/16/fatal-encounters-suspects-deaths-rise-across-texas-even-arrests-drop), with police shootings accounting for nearly all of the increase. For context, the total number of arrests over the same period declined by 20 percent, so not only are more people being shot, more are being shot per police encounter. An extraordinarily pregnant Brandi Grissom reported that:


More than half of the deaths from 2005 to 2015, 511 cases, were considered justifiable homicides, instances in which police used deadly force on a suspect because they feared for their own lives or the lives of others. And those numbers have been rising, from 32 justifiable homicides in 2005, to 61 in 2014 and 54 last year.



The bottom DMN graphic at right depicts the leading causes of deaths in police custody, with a significant spike in deaths that agencies reported as "justifiable homicides." (The other leading death causes: "In 126 incidents between 2005 and 2015, suspects police encountered took their own lives. Another 121 of the deaths were attributed to drug and alcohol overdoses.")

Asked to explain the rise in shootings during a period when overall arrests steeply declined, our pal Charley Wilkison, lobbyist for the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas, offered an absurd analysis:


Charley Wilkison, executive director of the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas, attributed the rise in violent confrontations largely to increasingly aggressive suspects who refuse to cooperate with officers.

Officers are “facing a new kind of lawlessness,” he said, “a sense that police are not necessarily on the side of the public that’s being broadcast far and wide.”


The only problem with Charley's analysis is its utter falsity. Far from a "new kind of lawlessness," crime in America has declined overall since 2005 and police are safer on the job today than they've been in many decades (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/09/police-are-safer-under-obama-than-they-have-been-in-decades/). The folks who collect your garbage are much more likely to die on the job (http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2009/09/police-have-dangerous-jobs-but-some.html). Indeed, the recent tragedy in Dallas makes it easy to forget that most on-the-job police deaths (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/07/12/are-most-job-related-deaths-of-police-caused-by-traffic-incidents/)stem from traffic accidents (http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2009/01/suggestion-for-reducing-life.html), exacerbated by an officer culture that disdains seat belt use (http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2010/03/seat-belts-for-thee-but-not-for-me.html).http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2016/07/why-increase-in-number-of-texans-shot.html

[russellgoat]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2016/0521/Louisiana-Blue-Lives-Matter-law-How-big-a-shift-in-police-brutality-debate

As if LEOBoR wasn't enough. Police unions need to be busted.

For a refresher:



http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/19/how-special-rights-for-law-enforcement-m

Why do we need hate crime laws anyway? Not even death penalty have a significant impact on stopping people from committing crimes, so I doubt this help.