The progress is slow and compromised, but it’s still highly unusual to get a murder conviction when a cop kills a civilian. Yet the Chicago trial of then-officer Jason Van Dyke concluded with an 81-month sentence for second-degree murder.
Yes, there was clear dashcam evidence that 16-year-old Laquan McDonald, armed with only a penknife, was gunned down within six (6) seconds of Van Dyke’s arrival on the scene. Yes, he shot him 16 times, despite the fact that McDonald fell at the first shot. Yes, Van Dyke had a history of mistreatment of suspects. None of that seems to matter as much as the compromise prosecutors made, agreeing to fold related charges and the murder charge into a single charge of second-degree murder.
I think that compromise was the key to the conviction. Juries, as trials all over the country have shown, give police wide leeway on behavior. Given only the either-or choice of a long prison sentence for first-degree murder or acquittal, they most frequently choose the latter. Supporting evidence for my theory: Three of Van Dyke’s colleagues were acquitted of charges that they lied in backing up Van Dyke’s fictional account of the shooting, even after the jury found their written reports to be false.
Changing this attitude of deference to police authority is going to be slow and painful, and will only happen when people take to the streets to protest it, one unjustified police killing at a time. This trial shows prosecutors how to get convictions — give juries a punishment option they’re comfortable with and they will convict.
Can’t disagree, Al.
Welcome progress. We need a lot more as one political party is fully dedicated to simply fucking shit up.
We need to take a large number of Senate seats in 2020, and remove Republicans from office in every state and county.
That won’t solve this. Neither party is willing to challenge police authority yet. This fight has to be waged with action against each and every incident like this, one at a grueling time.
I don’t believe in getting people elected. I believe in forcing whoever is elected to behave in our interest, and for people en masse to get in their faces when they don’t.
Excellent point. It doesn’t go here. Direct action is the key.
I guess I’ve had more than the typical amount of bile over the GOP’s horribleness lately.
Well said, complete agreement.
How much police would we need if there were a right to a job with an above living wage, Medicare4All, a right to housing…. a public health approach to drug use…. a maximum wage….
I give up, how many?
That was a rhetorical question.
Yes, and my answer was designed to show what shallow, childish rhetoric it was.
So you don’t think Universal single payer healthcare with strong mental health & addictions services along with a right to proper housing would be a huge social health boon and impact law enforcement?
This is not rhetorical or childish. It is very likely correct. The only rhetorical part is how to measure all the huge positive impacts.
Once again delacrat is correct on philosophy and theory. Once he learns how to execute on these ideas he’ll be dangerous.
Come on, Al. You’re slipping my dude.
Posting your hopes and dreams isn’t “correct,” it’s virtue signaling. It’s not going to happen because you dream it will, and you’re mistaking pro-Russia trolling for a legitimate statement of principles.
In short, you’re another goddamn fool, and I don’t have time for fools.
Most crime is not committed because of a lack of those things you listed. Most crime is committed because of greed.
Because you don’t know how things got this way, you don’t know how to fix them.
Can you cite something about this assertion that most crime is greed driven?
This is rhetorical. Because you can’t. Because it isn’t.
Ah, I have to cite evidence but you guys just assert things? Fuck off.
Here, bud. I’ll cite it.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2018/01/03/new-evidence-that-access-to-health-care-reduces-crime/
http://www.icjia.state.il.us/articles/the-intersection-of-homelessness-and-the-criminal-justice-system
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/dec/23/homeless-committing-crimes-for-shelter
We good now, big boy?
You back yourself into a corner because you don’t like this particular troll. Reassess.
Lots of things reduce crime. His rhetorical question was a dreamy, starry-eyed bit of bullshit. And you continue to treat him as a legitimate actor when there is not a shred of evidence that he is such.
Do you think Wall Streeters are driven to their criminal acts by lack of access to health care? Do you think drug dealing is driven by poverty, or by greed, or by both? Street level drug dealers, maybe. Guys doing the importing, no. They’re already rich, but they don’t stop dealing.
All studies of this issue are driven by statistical analysis. There is correlation between these things and crime, but there is no way to prove causality. People don’t carjack somebody because their stomach hurts.
Consider for a moment standardized testing. Every datum, for generations now, shows the strongest correlation to good test results is high family income. Do you think the way to interpret that is “rich people are smarter”?
PS: If he had stopped at decriminalizing drugs I’d agree — lots of what’s classified as crime belongs under the heading of addiction. But to pretend that we wouldn’t need police under such circumstances is so naive that I can’t believe you’re wasting your time arguing for it.
Even if were true, which I obviously doubt, it’s just wishful thinking, and therefore not a serious approach to the issue.
Sorry, but as usual your ability for strategic thinking is nowhere to be found.
And Brookings is as centrist as it gets!
So the deeper issue is the incentives of capitalism. We agree!
Yes, on the basics. But I despise virtue signaling, so there we are.
We are not going to eliminate police, even if we do all the things on your and delacrat’s wish list. So it’s a non-starter for me.
The post was about what we can do from now until the arrival of your socialist nirvana.
Here’s my point:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/wicked-deeds/201403/greedy-elite-criminals-get-away-murder
If according to your Psy’ Today article, the police aren’t putting away the “greedy elite criminals” that “do far more damage than street crime”, ask yourself…
why do we have police ? …and whether their praetorian guard function seen during the Wisconsin uprising, company thug function demonstrated at Standing Rock or slave patrol function inflicted on AA-DOS communities are primary and not secondary.
He never said eliminate. Read it again.
How many police would be needed? How would they go about their work? In other words, what would law enforcement look like if basic health & housing needs were met. If working people were paid a living wage.
It’s a perfectly fair idea.
He never does — say anything constructive, I mean. He asks rhetorical questions that have as much real-world impact as debating whether or not to go back in time and kill baby Hitler, just with more ability to divide Democrats along the realism/idealism boundary. Just like in 2016.
I mock such idealism because if you’re going to live in an imaginary world, why would you pick one with so little change from ours?
I believe in all kinds of utopian ideals, but you don’t see me flogging them here because I don’t write fantasy.
“I mock such idealism because if you’re going to live in an imaginary world,..” – alby
I am sorry you are so devoid of idealism and imagination.