• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Black Americans overwhelmingly support major police overhaul but not defunding

ronburgundy

Contributor
Joined
Dec 6, 2014
Messages
5,757
Location
Whale's Vagina
Basic Beliefs
Atheist/Scientist
Two separate national surveys, both done within the past couple months paint an interesting picture and suggest that Biden and the DNC are correct to embrace major police reform but not to embrace the "defund the police" rhetoric, which is highly unpopular even with Democrats and Black Americans.

Both surveys were done by respected organizations run by academics in the social sciences, and who use rigorous methods and large random national samples: NORC, based at the University of Chicago, and Gallup.

One survey shows that 85% Democrats and 93% of Blacks want "major changes" or a "complete overhaul", with similar numbers saying police who injure or kill civilians are treated too leniently. Predictably most Republicans disagree and want minor or no changes to law enforcement (proving they don't care about the race issue or just cops killing people in general).

About 2/3 of Democrats want less policing and prosecution of low-level offences, and less use of military style equipment.
80%-91% want supervisors prosecuted for the racist actions of their subordinates, and want extensive racial bias training.
In fact, most Republicans even want those last two things but a sizeably lower 59%-70%.

Despite support for those major changes and others, only 40% of Democrats and 43% of Black Americans want to see any reduction in funding for law enforcement (which speaks to lack of support for "defunding" by any standard definition of that word. While the margin of error for that one was a bit large at 5% that doesn't change the conclusions about majority opinion of each group.

The Gallup survey had 30,000 respondents and thus a much smaller margin of error (less than 1% for most results) and further supports that lack of support for defunding, by showing that only 19% of Black Americans want the cops to reduce the time spent in their neighborhoods, which is only slightly higher than the 12% of white Americans. In fact, 20% of black Americans want to see the cops spend more time in their neighborhood, with the majority okay with the current amount of time. This is true even among black Americans who had interactions with the police in the past year.

And this is despite the fact that only 18% of these respondents are "very confident" that they would be "treated with courtesy and respect" by the police during any interaction. Only among the 12% of black Americans who were "not at all confident" of being treated with respect did a slight majority favor fewer cops in their neighborhood, and they comprised only 7% of the sample.

In sum, if the majority of black Americans and Democrats want major reform but do not want either less funding or fewer cops in their neighborhood, then "defund the police" is clearly a doomed failure or at least a failure to use words properly by calling major reforms something that to most English speakers means something they don't support, even in the face of some of the most severe and clear cut cases of criminal police brutality.

OTOH, the data also show that most republicans do favor some reforms to reduce racial bias by cops, which means Trump and most GOP politicians and the right wing media are lagging behind even the slowly evolving human decency of their constituents.
 
They've been saying that for years. Decades even. But if "defund" is the only message that hits home, what tool are you going to use? This isn't a "if you think every problem is a nail...." type of issue. It's more of a "If every obstacle is 'fuck you' what have you got left?" Hammers are at least reliable.


Cops in the US aren't being held accountable. Cops should always be held accountable. It is that simple.
 
Cops in the US aren't being held accountable.
Of course they are. Most police shooting are justified, but in cases where police shootings have been unjustified, police officers have generally been charged and convicted.
The problem is that people like you want police officers to be punished even in cases where they did nothing wrong.
 
Cops in the US aren't being held accountable.
Of course they are. Most police shooting are justified,

Just going to leave that here.

IAW current laws, they are justified. Change the law. Revisit “qualified immunity”.
We could look at changing how police approach crime scenes/suspects. Unfortunately, as long as the country is awash in firearms, I can’t imagine it can be changed much. Not without further endangering the lives of those sworn to “protect and serve”.
 
IAW current laws, they are justified.
Under any reasonable set of law, most police shootings would still be justified. Most "victims" of police shootings are armed, mostly with guns.

1513725656117-chart4_Armed_FIXED12192017.jpeg

And note, unarmed people can still pose a sufficient threat to make shooting them justified. If a perp attacks a police officer, he can take control of the officer's gun, so shooting the perp is justified.
 
IAW current laws, they are justified.
Under any reasonable set of law, most police shootings would still be justified. Most "victims" of police shootings are armed, mostly with guns.

View attachment 29106

And note, unarmed people can still pose a sufficient threat to make shooting them justified. If a perp attacks a police officer, he can take control of the officer's gun, so shooting the perp is justified.

Well we can’t get rid of the guns. They are enshrined. But if we got rid of the catch 22 that is qualified immunity: a cop can’t be prosecuted for x because no cop has ever been prosecuted for x thus preventing any precedent ever being set for prosecuting a cop for x, cops would not be emboldened in their approach toward the general
public.
 
Democrats need to be more careful of their rhetoric and choice of words. Trump's working-class base is neither analytical nor wont to listen to explanations. They're swayed by initial impressions; gut reactions.
 
Democrats need to be more careful of their rhetoric and choice of words. Trump's working-class base is neither analytical nor wont to listen to explanations. They're swayed by initial impressions; gut reactions.

Most voters are. This is politics 101.
 
A remedy for cops shooting anybody.

If she does shoot someone she is automatically fired and put on a list of persons restricted from using guns while employed for life. On may fire into the air. into the ground, into a garbage can without penalty. If a person is injured by a gun fired by a police person the police person is dismissed with no recourse. It doesn't matter whether one has cause to do so. You shoot someone you lose your job.

That list that must be certified as having been reviewed for anybody permitted to carry a gun. Failure to have that piece of paper in one's packet becomes cause for dismissal of all those involved in hiring and managing such people.

No jail.

No trial.

Just a job without a holster or gun permit.
 
IAW current laws, they are justified.
Under any reasonable set of law, most police shootings would still be justified. Most "victims" of police shootings are armed, mostly with guns.

View attachment 29106

And note, unarmed people can still pose a sufficient threat to make shooting them justified. If a perp attacks a police officer, he can take control of the officer's gun, so shooting the perp is justified.

I find this very flawed as it doesn't include vehicles. (The "other" seems about right for those armed with impact weapons--bats and the like.)
 
A remedy for cops shooting anybody.

If she does shoot someone she is automatically fired and put on a list of persons restricted from using guns while employed for life. On may fire into the air. into the ground, into a garbage can without penalty. If a person is injured by a gun fired by a police person the police person is dismissed with no recourse. It doesn't matter whether one has cause to do so. You shoot someone you lose your job.

That list that must be certified as having been reviewed for anybody permitted to carry a gun. Failure to have that piece of paper in one's packet becomes cause for dismissal of all those involved in hiring and managing such people.

No jail.

No trial.

Just a job without a holster or gun permit.

Try again with something that passes the laugh test.

Firing into the air is virtually always unacceptable and should be prosecuted. Unless you're careful to fire straight up that bullet is going to come back down with lethal force. You just fired a random shot into the city.

Furthermore, this completely precludes sharpshooters. Sucks to be a hostage as there will be no hostage rescue.
 
A remedy for cops shooting anybody.

If she does shoot someone she is automatically fired and put on a list of persons restricted from using guns while employed for life. On may fire into the air. into the ground, into a garbage can without penalty. If a person is injured by a gun fired by a police person the police person is dismissed with no recourse. It doesn't matter whether one has cause to do so. You shoot someone you lose your job.

That list that must be certified as having been reviewed for anybody permitted to carry a gun. Failure to have that piece of paper in one's packet becomes cause for dismissal of all those involved in hiring and managing such people.

No jail.

No trial.

Just a job without a holster or gun permit.

Try again with something that passes the laugh test.

Firing into the air is virtually always unacceptable and should be prosecuted. Unless you're careful to fire straight up that bullet is going to come back down with lethal force. You just fired a random shot into the city.

Furthermore, this completely precludes sharpshooters. Sucks to be a hostage as there will be no hostage rescue.


I agree no shooting into the air.

But for the rest - hey, it would go a long way to making sure that no one fires their gun unless they are REALLY TRULY in fear for their life. Enough to be willing to lose their job to save their life.
 
A remedy for cops shooting anybody.

If she does shoot someone she is automatically fired and put on a list of persons restricted from using guns while employed for life. On may fire into the air. into the ground, into a garbage can without penalty. If a person is injured by a gun fired by a police person the police person is dismissed with no recourse. It doesn't matter whether one has cause to do so. You shoot someone you lose your job.

That list that must be certified as having been reviewed for anybody permitted to carry a gun. Failure to have that piece of paper in one's packet becomes cause for dismissal of all those involved in hiring and managing such people.

No jail.

No trial.

Just a job without a holster or gun permit.

Try again with something that passes the laugh test.

Firing into the air is virtually always unacceptable and should be prosecuted. Unless you're careful to fire straight up that bullet is going to come back down with lethal force. You just fired a random shot into the city.

Furthermore, this completely precludes sharpshooters. Sucks to be a hostage as there will be no hostage rescue.


I agree no shooting into the air.

But for the rest - hey, it would go a long way to making sure that no one fires their gun unless they are REALLY TRULY in fear for their life. Enough to be willing to lose their job to save their life.

You're ignoring what I said about hostages. There would be no hostage rescue. Since the bad guys would know that expect to see a lot more hostage taking.
 
Back
Top Bottom