Classic Conversation Thread

[Alpha]

20 hours ago, filmlover said:

 

 

What's up with this phrase "we hear you" that keeps popping up in statements like these? It doesn't mean anything.

[filmlover]

18 minutes ago, Alpha said:

What's up with this phrase "we hear you" that keeps popping up in statements like these? It doesn't mean anything.

Avatar, its power and influence.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 6, 2020 by filmlover

[Cap]

7 hours ago, Porthos said:

Has a catchy theme tune and the X-Files episode, I'll admit.  But beyond that?

FTFY  

[MrPink]

2 hours ago, Alpha said:

What's up with this phrase "we hear you" that keeps popping up in statements like these? It doesn't mean anything.

 

We hear for you @4815162342 @DAR

[Eric Atreides]

 

[Porthos]

4 hours ago, TwoMisfits said:

Again, that would require legally disallowing a government union for public safety government workers.  Unions ensure that you can't just fire folks wholesale,,,and pretty much that you can't fire singular folks ever without enormous, enormous amounts of evidence, paperwork, time, etc...(I mean, the Minneapolis union is sure to fight for the 4 cops after this all dies down...just wait)...

 

I mean, unions in this field, and in the government overall, have not existed as long as people think.  And seeing what people think now, it's probably time for them to go.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-sector_trade_unions_in_the_United_States#:~:text=By the 1960s and 1970s,of unions of federal workers.

 

PS - The one area of "public safety/defense", the military, cannot unionize...and it shows...

Oh, I think the idea of banning police unions or severely curtailing their power is gaining pretty rapid acceptance in large sections of the Democratic base.

 

Police unions traditionally aren't Democratic allies (or at least liberal allies) and as the Democratic party gets more and more liberal, they will be quite happy to throw the police unions to the wolves.  

 

That the heads of various police unions are becoming more reactionary (and I use this term judiciously) only accelerates that process.

 

Calling for the breakup of police unions might not happen this election cycle.  Might not even happen the next.  But unlike "Defunding the police" this is something I could see gain a ton of traction rapidly.  It's something that I could see happen in a local by local jurisdiction.  Especially if reform refuses to take root.

 

And any charges of "hypocrisy" that might come from some quarters (why not also ban teachers unions) should either be met with silence (don't take the bait) or simply point out that teachers aren't running around bashing people's skulls in when it isn't warranted.  As your very own "PS" notes, being able to apply State Violence changes the equation.

[TwoMisfits]

1 hour ago, Porthos said:

Oh, I think the idea of banning police unions or severely curtailing their power is gaining pretty rapid acceptance in large sections of the Democratic base.

 

Police unions traditionally aren't Democratic allies (or at least liberal allies) and as the Democratic party gets more and more liberal, they will be quite happy to throw the police unions to the wolves.  

 

That the heads of various police unions are becoming more reactionary (and I use this term judiciously) only accelerates that process.

 

Calling for the breakup of police unions might not happen this election cycle.  Might not even happen the next.  But unlike "Defunding the police" this is something I could see gain a ton of traction rapidly.  It's something that I could see happen in a local by local jurisdiction.  Especially if reform refuses to take root.

 

And any charges of "hypocrisy" that might come from some quarters (why not also ban teachers unions) should either be met with silence (don't take the bait) or simply point out that teachers aren't running around bashing people's skulls in when it isn't warranted.  As your very own "PS" notes, being able to apply State Violence changes the equation.

I agree 100%...the most scrutiny on allowing unions in government needs to be on those that can do the most damage and have the most power:).  It's probably why there's never been more than a whisper for ever letting the military have any type of one...and even then, I'm not sure there's even been a whisper:)...and now, there sure as heck won't be a whisper for a long time in the future, either:)...

[JB33]

 

😂😂

[dudalb]

5 hours ago, Eric Atreides said:

 

Irony is that I think kids are actully a lot tougher and more willing to face reality then their parents at times....

[Porthos]

2 hours ago, JB33 said:

 

😂😂

Ummm.... I wouldn't be laughing at that if I were you, JB33.

 

 

Probably why the tweet you were quoting was deleted.  

 

EDIT::

 

Also, not that it matters, but apparently that tweet you quoted was wrong in the first place:

 

Quote

In Schlapp’s case, she retweeted a quoted tweet of the viral video that had been viewed about 7.5 million times on Twitter as of Saturday afternoon. The video originated in McAllen, Texas, where demonstrators had gathered downtown, only to be confronted by a man with a chainsaw that he revved at them as they fled.

 

“Go home!” yells the man, who was arrested Friday. “Don’t let those f------ n------ out there fool you!”

 

The man’s use of racist language and violent threats were roundly condemned on social media, with some sarcastically referring to the cult classic “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” movie. A pro-Trump account from Texas, though, lauded the assailant on Twitter and said he is “a Mexican business owner.” Another pro-Trump account, called Latino Townhall, approvingly quote-tweeted the post Friday night and exclaimed: “That’s how to do it.”

 

Hours later, Schlapp retweeted that post. Schlapp, who is married to the prominent head of the American Conservative Union that hosts the popular CPAC conference, later retweeted it from another account that censored the racist comment but wrote the protesters had said “f--- the police.” There is no evidence the demonstrators said that.

 

I took a look at the clip in question (racist and other explicit language) and let me tell you something, that dude was psycho.  Glad to see he's been arrested.  

 

Near as I can tell he flipped out at innocent people who weren't doing anything but holding some signs on a public street that just happened to be in front of his store.

Edited June 6, 2020 by Porthos

[DeeCee]

Do states have power over local police?Could the states say regulate the carrying of firearms for local police? 

 

Could states set up a regulatory systems that local police would have to comply with to have qualified immunity and the right to bear arms?

[Porthos]

42 minutes ago, DeeCee said:

Do states have power over local police?Could the states say regulate the carrying of firearms for local police? 

 

Could states set up a regulatory systems that local police would have to comply with to have qualified immunity and the right to bear arms?

One of the articles I linked to yesterday looked at the different responsibilities that federal, state, and local institutions can have over the police and what actions they can take.

 

From the State Intervention section:

 

Quote

STATE INTERVENTION

State legislatures, which can often move much faster than the pace of national politics, have their own five objectives to focus on.

 

To begin with, 36 states have statutes that govern the use of both deadly and nondeadly force, while six states have statutes only for deadly force. More than three-quarters of the 58 total state statutes (some states have more than one) were adopted prior to or during the 1970s, and most have not been recently amended. In the absence of statutes, states regulate police use of force through judicial decisions. But even where state statutes do exist, the courts that interpret them unfortunately tend to rely on the Fourth Amendment law. This is a problem for two reasons. First, the Fourth Amendment regulates police seizures, but state law is supposed to regulate use of force, and not all uses of force count as seizures. (Several courts have held, for example, that an officer shooting at someone but instead striking a bystander does not constitute a seizure.) State law is supposed to be broader than the Fourth Amendment, which means that referring to Fourth Amendment doctrines in the interpretation of state law can provide less protection than state lawmakers intended. Second, and perhaps more important, those Fourth Amendment doctrines are a mess; they provide little meaningful guidance that officers in the field can use to determine when and how much force to use, and the guidance they provide to courts reviewing use of force is often flawed.

 

Worse, many of the state statutes and common-law doctrines are contrary to good practices. Some states allow officers to use force to make an arrest if they believe the arrest is lawful, even if it isn’t and their belief is unreasonable. Others are woefully outdated, and still provide a defense to officers who use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon. And most states authorize officers to use “reasonably necessary” force, but do not bother to define what reasonable force is or explain how officers should determine that it is necessary. Very few states admonish officers to use appropriate tactics or punish officers for egregious mistakes that contribute to avoidable use of force.

 

States can do better. In the past several years, for example, both Washington State and California have amended their statutory regimes, giving officers the authority to use force in the situations that require it while also providing meaningful guidance to officers and courts about what those situations are. California allows officers to use deadly force against “imminent threats of death or serious bodily injury,” and says that an “imminent threat” exists when “a person has the present ability, opportunity, and apparent intent” to cause such harm. Definitions like this, which draw from best practices in policing, give officers the leeway to protect themselves and others while also prohibiting them from acting on unfounded or purely speculative fears.

 

State legislatures can also amend law-enforcement officers’ bills of rights and the laws that govern the collective-bargaining rights of police unions. Most states permit or encourage collective bargaining for police unions—even states that, like Wisconsin, otherwise take a dim view of public-sector unions. Police unions do some good work; research suggests that officers at unionized agencies are, on average, higher paid and more professional than officers at nonunionized agencies. However, unions have leveraged the collective-bargaining process to create labyrinthine procedural protections that can make it exceptionally difficult to investigate, discipline, or terminate officers. Some of the limits on investigation—such as delaying interviewing an officer after a critical incident for several “sleep cycles”—are based on faulty reasoning and have been thoroughly debunked by credible scientific research. Too often, discipline is precluded by unnecessary or inappropriate procedural violations; in some cities, for example, civilians can file a complaint only during a limited period after an incident, sometimes as short as 30 days. When officers are disciplined, that discipline is subject to grievance and arbitration procedures; at one agency, a study found that arbitrators “routinely cut in half” the severity of disciplinary sanctions imposed by agency management. Officers should have a right to appeal disciplinary findings, but only when they are arguing that the agency’s decision was arbitrary and capricious or that the agency did not act in good faith. By protecting bad officers, collective-bargaining agreements and state laws contribute to misconduct.

 

Further, state legislatures can do a better job of certifying and, when necessary, decertifying officers. Currently, most states require most officers to be certified by a standards-and-training commission. Such commissions set minimum training requirements, but state law can impose specific training that the state commission has, thus far, omitted from the academy curriculum. Washington State, for example, now requires both violence de-escalation training and mental-health training, and the commission must “consult with law enforcement agencies and community stakeholders” in developing that training. And while most states allow for decertification—which prevents someone who has engaged in misconduct from continuing to work in that state as an officer—that authority can be tightly limited. In some states, an officer can be decertified only after a criminal conviction for a felony or serious misdemeanor. Even in states that have more permissive decertification regimes, decertification is often used only sparingly. From the 1960s until 2017, only about 30,000 officers were decertified, and three states—Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina—make up about half of those. As the decertification expert Roger Goldman has said, that isn’t because those states have a higher proportion of bad officers; it is because those states “have very active decertification programs.” States have good reason to strengthen their commitment to policing the police: According to a recent study, officers who are hired by another police agency after being terminated or resigning in lieu of termination from a prior agency are more likely than other officers to engage in future misconduct.

 

A persistent culture of secrecy regarding personnel matters has not helped. Many states have sharply limited the public’s right to access officers’ disciplinary files or agency use-of-force investigations. Although there is, and must be, room for certain employee information to be kept confidential, an officer’s actions while dealing with members of the community and the steps that an agency takes to investigate those actions are clearly matters of public interest. The states that have passed broad sunshine laws, such as Florida, have taught us that public access can be a crucial component of police accountability without impeding proper police action. States that allow agencies to shred disciplinary records after a set period, sometimes as short as six months, are effectively making patterns of misconduct by problem employees significantly more difficult to detect. States should follow the lead of Florida and, more recently, Californiain passing public-records laws ensuring that disciplinary records and reports pertaining to critical incidents such as police shootings or other serious uses of force cannot be hidden.

 

Finally, states can rethink their approach to criminalization. “Overcriminalization” has been broadly discussed; there are so many laws that violations are ubiquitous. If everyone is a criminal, officers have almost unfettered discretion to pick and choose which laws to enforce and whom to stop, frisk, search, or arrest. And, as the saying goes, when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. For too long, the hammer of criminal law has been used against a wide array of social ills. The result is police over-involvement in matters that would be far better left to other government institutions and social-service providers, including school discipline, poverty, homelessness, and substance abuse. The opioid crisis remains a stark reminder that the United States cannot arrest its way out of addiction. The troubling discrepancies between how police have been cast as soldiers in the War on Drugs—a war that, despite almost identical drug-use rates between white and black Americans, is fought mostly in poor and minority communities—and how police have been seen as an adjunct to the public-health authorities addressing opioid abuse in suburban middle- or upper-class neighborhoods should be a stark warning for state legislators to rethink the scope of criminal law.

I can speak from witnessing it when it happened that that when California enacted the use of deadly force guidelines mentioned in the fourth paragraph, it was highly controversial.  A somewhat watered-down measure was still able to be enacted into law though.  Probably too soon to really say how effective it's been in deterring police violence when dealing with suspects.

 

===

 

I realize that's on the long side, but I didn't want to cut stuff out.  There's equally long sections on Federal Intervention as well as Local Intervention.

 

For what it's worth, qualified immunity was in the Federal Intervention section, presumably because it was birthed out of the Supreme Court interpreting federal law.

 

 

Edited June 7, 2020 by Porthos
rephrased slightly for clairity

[DeeCee]

Short answer is yes. If states have the will they have the legal power to do it. 

[filmlover]

With The Help now being deemed "problematic" these past few days after its rise on the Netflix charts I wonder what will officially become the new movie that's usually on before the SAG awards every year. Safe to say it won't be Green Book once it moves to regular cable next year lol. I'd say Black Panther but who knows if the Disney+ deal will allow it.

[elcaballero]

Finally scratched Barry off my watch list. I feel like an emotional yo-yo right now.

[Webslinger]

2 hours ago, elcaballero said:

Finally scratched Barry off my watch list. I feel like an emotional yo-yo right now.

I know, right? Come for the funny premise, stay for the surprisingly deep exploration of dark emotions. I’m excited to see where they go next whenever they return.

Edited June 7, 2020 by Webslinger

[Plain Old Tele]

 

[Lordmandeep]

On 6/6/2020 at 10:03 PM, filmlover said:

With The Help now being deemed "problematic" these past few days after its rise on the Netflix charts I wonder what will officially become the new movie that's usually on before the SAG awards every year. Safe to say it won't be Green Book once it moves to regular cable next year lol. I'd say Black Panther but who knows if the Disney+ deal will allow it.

 

 

The issue is that who is it problematic too?

 

Most people or some people on Twitter. 

 

I have rewatched the Help after a lot of these recent complaints and its nowhere near as bad as The Green Book. 

 

My only critique is perhaps they never looked at sexual harassment of black women who worked in those households. 

[filmlover]

59 minutes ago, Lordmandeep said:

 

 

The issue is that who is it problematic too?

 

Most people or some people on Twitter. 

 

I have rewatched the Help after a lot of these recent complaints and its nowhere near as bad as The Green Book. 

 

My only critique is perhaps they never looked at sexual harassment of black women who worked in those households. 

The Help gets lumped in with Green Book as movies that were made by white people (and in the case of The Help, based on a book that was written by a white person) mainly sold to a white audience that focus in on racism in the most obvious of places (the early 60s South) while taking a more PG-rated approach. Viola Davis also said in an interview two years back she regretted making the movie because she didn't feel that it was really the voices of the maids that were being heard (which I don't entirely agree with, since she functions as the movie's narrator, but it does spend a lot more time on Stone and her lame would-be romance with Chris Lowell than it should).

 

One can easily go after it for being simplistic in how it depicts the characters (Viola is The Saintly Maid. Octavia is The Funny Maid. Stone is The Kind Caucasian. BDH is the Evil White Lady Who Is Cruel Just Because. Chastain is The Ditz Who Undergoes A Transformation.) but I don't think that takes away from the real strengths of the movie, which is the performances from the cast (most of whom would get big career boosts from it).

Edited June 8, 2020 by filmlover

[Eric Atreides]

52 minutes ago, Lordmandeep said:

 

 

The issue is that who is it problematic too?

 

Most people or some people on Twitter. 

 

I have rewatched the Help after a lot of these recent complaints and its nowhere near as bad as The Green Book. 

 

My only critique is perhaps they never looked at sexual harassment of black women who worked in those households. 

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/09/viola-davis-the-help-regret