This is playing on a loop at the Hood Museum’s exhibition titled “Witness: Art and Civil Rights in the Sixties”… the events of the past few days make me want to revisit the exhibit before it closes on December 14… http://hoodmuseum.dartmouth.edu/exhibitions/2014witness/
Prosecution of police, or of any government employees, for crimes committed on government time should be conducted by independent public interest prosecutors, not by the DA’s office. Otherwise police will never be accountable and cameras won’t make a lick of difference.
On an NPR program on Eric Garner’s death they mentioned that it was police policy to come down hard on minor crimes. This method of policing grew out of the “broken windows” theory of policing. That if you crack down on small crimes it reduces the incidence of big crimes.
So I have a data analysis question about all this: is there any strong evidence for the broken windows theory? A reduction in crime in not necessarily definitive, since there can be a variety of causes for this.
The point is that if this style of policing is not based on any strong evidence, then there should be strong consideration given to changing it. The NY Mayor seems to have bought into the “broken windows” idea and they don’t plan on any real changes.
Does anyone really think a trial, even one with a prosecutor committed to the case, would really make a difference? Some jurors are going to be very unwilling to convict police if the law gives them any option. Would it really be better for anyone to go through a trial that ends in an acquittal?
I’ve said this before with regards to the George Zimmerman case, and I’ll repeat it now. I think the laws regarding self-defense (or, for police, for conduct in the line of duty) are too lax. I would even consider completely doing away with the defense of self-defense for manslaughter. At the very least, I think someone should have to prove that he or she would most likely have suffered serious injury or death in order to claim self-defense, not just a reasonable fear of harm.
Suppose you are in a situation where there is a 50% chance someone will hurt you seriously, and a 50% chance this person means you and everyone else no harm at all. I don’t think you have a right to shoot that person. Shooting them would mean in effect that you value your life as being twice as valuable as theirs. I don’t think that’s anywhere near morally justifiable.
mathbabe 
This is playing on a loop at the Hood Museum’s exhibition titled “Witness: Art and Civil Rights in the Sixties”… the events of the past few days make me want to revisit the exhibit before it closes on December 14…
http://hoodmuseum.dartmouth.edu/exhibitions/2014witness/
LikeLike
Worth noting that was recorded nearly 50 years ago and reflecting on the lack of progress.
LikeLike
Prosecution of police, or of any government employees, for crimes committed on government time should be conducted by independent public interest prosecutors, not by the DA’s office. Otherwise police will never be accountable and cameras won’t make a lick of difference.
LikeLike
This is the USA’s Les Miserables moment. We suck. We need to do something to fix this corruption.
LikeLike
I hear you, Mathbabe. I am grieving our inhumanity with you and Nina. https://jrcreativeink.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/i-am-a-man-protest1.jpg
LikeLike
On an NPR program on Eric Garner’s death they mentioned that it was police policy to come down hard on minor crimes. This method of policing grew out of the “broken windows” theory of policing. That if you crack down on small crimes it reduces the incidence of big crimes.
So I have a data analysis question about all this: is there any strong evidence for the broken windows theory? A reduction in crime in not necessarily definitive, since there can be a variety of causes for this.
The point is that if this style of policing is not based on any strong evidence, then there should be strong consideration given to changing it. The NY Mayor seems to have bought into the “broken windows” idea and they don’t plan on any real changes.
So, data scientists…
LikeLike
Does anyone really think a trial, even one with a prosecutor committed to the case, would really make a difference? Some jurors are going to be very unwilling to convict police if the law gives them any option. Would it really be better for anyone to go through a trial that ends in an acquittal?
I’ve said this before with regards to the George Zimmerman case, and I’ll repeat it now. I think the laws regarding self-defense (or, for police, for conduct in the line of duty) are too lax. I would even consider completely doing away with the defense of self-defense for manslaughter. At the very least, I think someone should have to prove that he or she would most likely have suffered serious injury or death in order to claim self-defense, not just a reasonable fear of harm.
Suppose you are in a situation where there is a 50% chance someone will hurt you seriously, and a 50% chance this person means you and everyone else no harm at all. I don’t think you have a right to shoot that person. Shooting them would mean in effect that you value your life as being twice as valuable as theirs. I don’t think that’s anywhere near morally justifiable.
LikeLike