Senate "Race" Relations (was "U.S. Society and Black Men")

No, but as it worsens the downstream effects become more pronounced and harder to ignore. Ever society will have its poor and its rich; but the middle class acts as both a buffer between the two, and a more realistic or achievable target for upwards mobility by the poor. When that middle class gets stretched to the point of being unable to function effectively in either capacity, your economic inequality becomes more of a problem than a mere policy issue.

If you map out the gini coefficient for most Western countries over a 20 year period from, say, 2012 or so backwards (because that's recent enough to be relevant but also to have contextual data like income tax returns factored in) the US experiences the most profound impact on equality. There's a part which is due to the predatory lending practices that causes the GFC; but also because there's been a trend away from investment in social infrastructure and qualitative returns by the Government.

I actually do despair a bit for your situation; I think we're screwed here, but it seems like the US' potential is more and more squandered and as a result more people are feeling pinched by the system. You haven't also just recently experienced racial tension either, but it's more front of mind than ever before.

I think though I was pretty heavily influenced by David (The Corner; The Wire; Treme) Simon's speech to the Festival of Dangerous Ideas in Sydney in 2013. Maybe too much, I don't know. But if you want me to link it - it's relevant here -I can.

 

Ive read Simon's stuff before and he's witnessed and reported on some of the very things that went into the shows Homicide and The Wire. He's a great listen.

And there is no doubt that our upward mobility, or our belief in it, has powered our working class and middle classes in the past. Increasing obstacles to that for many is a real problem.

 

It only suggests familiarity with the sites, not firsthand experience. Your argument is basically that he excluded the phrase "reports of." That's it. You've built a whole controversy over two words that anyone else would have understood as implied. After all, when public commentators note how the Creationist Museum calls to mind something out of the Scopes Monkey Trial, you don't come out roaring "LOL THAT GUY THINKS HE WAS LITERALLY ALIVE TO SEE WILLIAMS JENNINGS BRYAN ARGUE IN COURT EVEN THOUGH THE SPEAKER WASN'T BORN YET."

 

Next, scientists confirm that water is indeed wet.

 

Look guys, would the truth even matter? It was said a long time ago in this thread that perception is everything.

Homan Square Center is just a normal police facility. It's not "off the books." It's not a secret detention facility. It's listed in the Chicago Police directory complete with telephone contacts. Anyone there can ask for a lawyer, and pay phones are provided (you just have to call collect). Media tours are given to members of the press for Pete's sake.

Part of the facility houses the restricted access and high value evidence storage vaults, which means controlled items like firearms, large quantities of narcotics, etc... or even expensive recovered stolen items are stored there for court or until they are destroyed or returned. So security is tighter than your regular precinct department- because having 200 illegal weapons locked up for evidence or a $10,000 Rolex recovered from a burglary all make for tempting break-in targets. It's also the headquarters for that district's emergency response unit (Chicago's SWAT team) but otherwise, it's just a regular administration building. There is no restrictions on lawyers or anything of the sort. I honestly don't know how these rumors are started. I think people naturally gravitate to the fantastical. I mean logically, look at one of the images contained in the article itself:


Does anything immediately stand out to anyone? 1) Why would an "off the books domestic CIA-like interrogation site" have MARKED CHICAGO POLICE VEHICLES sitting out in plain view? 2) Why would that same facility have a PUBLIC ENTRANCE for people to go pick up recovered property?

The other thing that people here should keep in mind is how the article downplays the role of one of the people involved, Brian Church. Church wasn't just "picked up in a protest," he was arrested for planning to attack President Obama's Chicago campaign headquarters, possibly assassinating Mayor Rahm Emanuel and/or bombing his house, and firebombing police stations. The more serious charges were dropped because they didn't actually carry out any of the attacks because they were all kind of stupid. They all still got around 5-8 years in prison.

If I had my guess, if Church was detained for 17 hours, it was probably to allow Secret Service Agents to come and assess how much of an actual threat he was because the President of the US was involved in their plot. That has nothing to do with that specific place at all. If he was arrested in a different town, that town's police would hold him for the Secret Service all the same. But I don't know, and it would be driven by specifics. It's not going to matter, because popular lore will now have it that the Chicago Police have a "secret, off the books interrogation facility" that is apparently untouchable by any court. At some point, these types of rumors are just...eh...strange...or...excessive? Maybe when the inevitable movie is made about it, it will star Ben Affleck?

 

Thank you for answering the question. I figured since you and I are decent friends, you'd take the question at face value. I asked, because I figured you'd supply a better answer than the article I linked. I hope you realize that I wasn't asking you in an accusatory way, at all... I simply knew that you were probably the best person to ask.

 

People wil believe what they want Mr44.

 

Why is a $10,000 Rolex there, if not to fund the black ops?

It looks to me from the outside to be identical to a CIA torture site that I guess I dreamed I saw in Cairo. Or maybe it was in a film.

Anyway, as a paper without a long history of left wing bias the Guardian is above reproach Mr44 and obviously the police cars were photoshopped into reality.

 

Did you read the article, Ender? They didn't describe the building as being hidden. They said that when suspects are brought there, they are not acknowledged as being in police custody. Further, completely contrary to 44's response, this is not about a single case. Ackerman refers over and over again to a number of different lawyers having this experience with multiple clients over several years. At best, 44's response was ill-informed, and at worst it was plainly disingenuous.

 

Yes I read it. You will note by the suggestion that a $10,000 Rolex was in evidence to fund things I was being facetious.

As for Mr44 - I told you, 44, that there was no value in responding.

 

We're all good Harps.

 

Not sure how I feel about this. One one hand, I think it may be a step in the right direction, on the other, this quote makes some sense. I just don't know...

Of course cops have already begun to fear monger the passage of this bill, “If I pull over a car and I walk up to it and the guy shoots me, he’s going to say, ‘Well, he was trying to illegally enter my property,’ ” said Joseph Hubbard, 40, president of Jeffersonville Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 100. “Somebody is going get away with killing a cop because of this law.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/state-passes-law-legalize-self-defense-police/

 

That law reads like a perfect recipe for a bloodbath given the prevalence of guns in the US.

Someone may well shoot a cop, on the basis that they deem it an illegal entry, but then get shot by other cops, because they are allowed to return fire, yes?

 

New story in the Washington Post today: Private police carry guns and make arrests, and their ranks are swelling.

Maybe we should create a dedicated "U.S. Society and Police" thread for discussing this type of story, but I'll put it here because it's also relevant to the topic at hand.

 

We surely could use a U.S. society and the police thread all on its own.

Private enforcement agencies and/or militaries are a real concern regarding accountability and transparency.

Privatisation has real benefit in many areas. There are also areas where it makes absolutely no sense. Never understood the desire to privatize law enforcement and incarceration facilities. Mixed results at best and outright corruption and theft of tax dollars at worst.

 

Arizona will be seeing an increase in private prison funding and a decrease in education funding this year.

 

The last area of society you want to incentivize is the the prison system. Here's the other thing: why are tax dollars going to fund private prisons? It sounds like some private/public partnership. Now we have corporations for prisons seeking rents with our tax dollars.

 

At the risk of being too obvious or straightforward, I think it may be largely because said corporations know that the money is there. A lot of elected officials seem to have no problem giving money to them, so it makes sense that they would aim for more of it.

 

Come on, you all know the private sector is always better, right? It's practically political dogma at this point.

 

Capitalism is not about the stupid. This is basically akin to selling off your farmland to build more concrete buildings then wondering why food insecurity is a thing.

Privatised prisons are a dangerously unreliable proposition.

 

Except that hasn't happened in other states.

For example, in Texas, there's the story of Henry Magee. On December 19, 2013, police conducted a raid* on Magee's home based on the claims of an informant that Magee was running a large marijuana growing operation (6 large plants), as well as claims that he had a stolen police gun. Magee used a gun to defend himself, and wound up killing one of the deputies. Police found two small plants, and 4 guns, none of which were stolen. After presenting the case to a Grand Jury, a no true bill was returned for the charge of capital murder. Magee is still being prosecuted on the drug charges.

A law like Indiana's is intended to encourage police to limit the use of "no knock" raids, which have repeatedly wound up getting both police and innocent people killed. Often those raids are based, as in Magee's case, on the unsupported claims of an informant who is trying to get out of trouble by giving the police a "juicy" tip. In most cases, a full SWAT raid in the middle of the night is unnecessary. For example, in Magee's case, a few weeks earlier police just walked up to his door to talk with him after getting a complaint about the noise from his shooting guns on the property. Even though they knew he was armed, they didn't feel the need to do more than just talk to him.

Especially in a day when "SWATting" has become a notable "prank", and police are known to break down the door of innocent people in the middle of the night on the basis of bad information, and even dropping flash bangs into a crib, is it unreasonable to expect that people would defend themselves against an apparent home invasion in progress? In a case where the police get it wrong, and the homeowner does defend themselves, is it really appropriate for the homeowner to then be charged with the crime of defending his home against an intrusion, just because the intruders happened to be police who didn't give enough notification for the homeowner to know that?

* There is dispute over whether it was a "no knock" raid. Police claim that they knocked and announced themselves immediately before throwing in a flash bang grenade. Magee's lawyers claim that at best, if they did announce themselves, it was simultaneous to the use of the flash bang.

 

So in short Kimball the 'score' is Cops 0, Civilian 1 - what happens when that changes in the other direction? Because given how US police tend to go on, it'll probably happen.

There's clearly a swath of problems with US police conduct but I'm not convinced this is the solution.

 

It may not be, but it's hardly likely to make blood run in the streets any more than the current policies that allow for no-know warrants that get people killed as well.

When the police are justifying "no knock" warrants for high stakes poker games, and betting on football games, targeting people with no criminal history or history of violence, there is something incredibly wrong.

 

Uhh….everything should be fine here…no problem here.