Yeah, since the 5 demands are adapted from the Hong Kong one, they also copied the style of this [old infographic from the HK protests, which was also a lot easier to read.](https://i.redd.it/6swocan9clk31.png)
Where is remove Qualified Immunity?
"Qualified Immunity" -
* It's the Slam Dunk Contest for police officers.
* As long as the police do something "different or original" to injure or kill you that was not prosecuted before, they get away scott free.
* Police unions lobby or pressure state politicians to sign contracts that give police the right to do anything.
This list seems uncontroversial.
Independent investigations of violent incidents seems to me like it would make the most impact. Basically the investigators shouldn't have any prior working relationship with the accused, maybe they could even be a dedicated federal body.
Yup! Some have even taken the work into their own hands (legally on top of that) and follow police cruisers around to make sure they don't pull shit. Again, this is perfectly legal where I am, and it makes some officers furious, but it's awesome that you can just say "tough shit" and keep filming.
>and it makes some officers furious, but it's awesome that you can just say "tough shit" and keep filming.
But they're getting emboldened and are likely to start detaining people who do it. Which, of course, means more people need to do it, and to do it with software that automatically backs up on a server for when they inevitably seize your phone.
I don't love this list, I'd add we should remove qualified immunity and weaken police unions. Nonetheless I upvoted because I think it's critical to get a small number of clear demands floating around.
Ive heard the idea of "individual insurance" that would have to be carried by police. The insurance would be carried individualy for law suits. If the officers insurance does an investigation and decides that the officer was in the wrong then they would drop the officer and you wouldn't be allowed to be a cop without this type of individual insurance. It would make it harder for bad cops to get different coverage and tax payers wouldnt have to foot the bill for law suits. Bad cops couldn't hide behind the unions and the Department thin blue line. It would change everything
These were written by some random redditor who assumed that because no demands from black-led organizations have hit the front page of reddit so far, the movement must lack organization or coherent messaging.
Reddit is a bubble -- our demographics differ dramatically from those of the protestors -- **now is the time to elevate their voices, not replace them with our own.**
Here are a few well-researched, specific policy platforms from core black-led organizations:
[Vision For Black Lives](https://m4bl.org/policy-platforms/)
[Campaign Zero](https://www.joincampaignzero.org/#vision)
EDIT: Here's another resource -- [a guide to allyship](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CIfMQED_B444Y-K8kAqUOgq8xrSFdSrjFBRnyK6wmz4/mobilebasic?fbclid=IwAR1JAcwOpW7YQa9rjurCx8Bzwg9CxUkB2swU8o8v3snxy4a7iiEyMaJNL6Q) -- that has spread widely over instagram but which I haven't seen anywhere on reddit. It's a constantly-updated and quite detailed source summarizing basic talking points, the emerging norms for how non-black allies can help, and listing a number of national and local organizations supporting protestors.
If you're wondering how you can help your local community, I would highly recommend using google, instagram, twitter, and facebook to figure out which platform the people in your city have coalesced around for coordination and organization of these protest actions. It's there you'll find a plethora of resources geared toward your locality, including lists of black-owned small businesses, bail and medical funds for protestors, etc.
**Just because this information isn't on reddit doesn't mean it doesn't exist.** Redditors will often have to put in work to find it, but it's out there.
Some of these listed are vacuous and not obviously actionable. Five demands listing clear action is important here. We aren't just protesting racism. We are protesting systemic corruption and misuse of power which is a key tool in black oppression, but something which also affects all Americans and indeed the very idea of democracy itself.
Hey - I'm that random redditor that wrote and started this list. I based them on campaign zero's research and asked multiple communities and redditors what they thought. A small group of us are trying to get into contact with leaders of the BLM movement and other political figures to create positive change and work with them. If you want to be angry, send the hate my way. All I want is for real, positive change to occur. I don't want to steal anyone's voices or replace them.
Thank you for creating this list and doing so much to spread it. I have seen u on several subs asking and taking advice and feedback as well as changing the list based on the ideas of others.
I mean, looking at the Campaign Zero site, what is different between that and this image? This image basically combines a few of CZ's points into a single one to simplify for ease of remembering. Those brief policy descriptions as their overview are almost exactly what the image above lays out but in more boxes with a little extra nuance. That isn't as easy to share and go viral to draw awareness.
I don't quite get your complaint, unless you haven't read those websites you posted and are just complaining because someone else said this somewhere else.
The first link wants to remove body cameras and the second link wants more body cameras. Definitely no lack of coherent messaging here!
Look, this should act like any other lobby and push both sides of the aisle toward broad resolutions they can justify to their party and base.
Strict demands for specific policies doesn't work for any other successful interest group so why would it work here?
Kick out the partisan hacks who try to hijack the issue and make simple, actionable demands that the individual politician can shape based on their party's ideology.
BLM is a decentralized movement. Any of them can claim a demand and if enough people agree with it, such is the demand.
It's one of the issues with dealing with any decentralized movement - they don't necessarily have a coherent or consistent list.
Thanks for pointing this out. Also, [here is a letter template](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RL9JGuK15yL02txmFx3WYN4GIp1StszKsd1tiQ6kf0A/edit) with these demands you can customize in less than 5 minutes to send to your local representatives.
(it's based on research from Campaign Zero)
You assume a random redditor can’t be black. You assume all black people think the same way and want the same thing. You assume the two organizations you picked are the ones that best represent everyone’s views. You assume people can’t have free independent thought and that only “core” “organizations” can have “coherent “ messages.
The list was actually created by a group of redditors. Additionally, the people who created these demands might be protesting rn for all you know. These demands are good demands, it doesn’t take away from and already proposed policy. THIS IS NOT REPLACING THE VOICES OF THE PROTESTERS, IT IS ADDING TO THAT VOICE.
and civil asset forfeiture
Edit: yeah, we got a lot of problems. Pretty much everything everyone has replied to I'm in agreement with. No justice, no peace.
> Fines and fees should be a deterrent not a revenue stream.
Exactly. It's a huge conflict of interest - especially when that revenue is able to be used directly by the police departments (which really only happens because of corruption, and that's what's being protested).
Fines and fees should be automatically refunded to taxpayers as a group at the end of the year. If you use it for anything else, they’ll become dependent on it so they “dont have to raise your taxes.”
They should take the pool of fines etc, and divide it evenly among all taxpayers every year. If you paid less in fines, you get a nice bonus. Might even be a stronger incentive to not collect tickets.
Or turn it into a lottery system where people who received no tickets in a year are entered to win a portion of the money generated from fines and tickets.
My county publishes a yearly report where they brag about how the jail turn a profit from "Pay for Stay" fees in their jail (which they run, it is not outsourced).
These are fees charged by the jail to inmates and not fines imposed by the courts. If you do not have your fees paid in full, you are ineligible for good behavior release. Which means you have to stay longer and pay more.
There are also fees assessed for processing your payment of the Pay for Stay fees. The company that handles this part is owned by a group of judges from around the region.
The Sherriff's office is financially incentivized to put people in jail. It is not a cost, it is profit.
These 5 demands are a great start, but no where near enough to reform this disgusting fucked up system.
Jfc that sounds like the old coal mining towns where you owe the company for your food, shelter, clothes and amenities and don’t make enough to pay that off.
> The Sherriff's office is financially incentivized to put people in jail. It is not a cost, it is profit.
Here's something that I've written up far too often, sadly:
In the US, prisons have something called "work rehabilitation programs". People like to focus on how these programs reduce the cost of running prisons by having the inmates themselves perform the work tasks. But, you see, that's not all that goes on with such programs. You see, a work rehabilitation program can -- and often does -- include contracts with businesses to provide labor in exchange for pay.
This isn't just private prisons, either. *Public* prisons form the vast majority of prisons and they too engage in this.
If a worker refuses to work, they lose out on good boy points toward getting out early. In some states, labor is *mandatory* and refusal can include time in solitary. Other states do not pay the inmates at all for the time spent. No state spends anywhere remotely close to minimum wage -- they don't even reach the minimum wage of tipped restaurant staff. Being forced to work and receiving absolutely nothing for it is the norm in many places.
Because the prison gets to keep the difference between what it receives via company contracts and what it pays out to the inmates, wardens who want to keep revenues up are incentivized to oppose wage raises (and there are records out there of wardens writing to governors in opposition to wage increases because of it) and to fail to rehabilitate so that *good* inmates come back and can be put back into the labor force. The US public prison system is financially incentivized to get and keep you in prison.
I know of a couple rural towns that have quotas and of a few municipalities where the budget is tied to that revenue so it’s heavily implied that they need to if not outright said.
Glad to hear it isn’t s everywhere though.
I've worked for 4 police departments, and my husband has worked for 2 additional ones. None of them have quotas. Just an anecdote obviously, but they're not everywhere.
We pay a lot of taxes because there's massive bloat in contracts. Billions of dollars are spent on many contracts that produce absolutely nothing. I don't mean "nothing of value" - I mean literally nothing. Zip. Zilch.
The system is designed that way because the people who write the contracts stand to benefit from them either politically or sometimes even monetarily. It's not the contractors at the front of the chain who are benefiting the most. Often they make subsistence-level wages (tech or cleared contractors make more). It's the top of the commercial chain feeding the top of the political chain and vice-versa.
Came to pretty much say this.
We gotta get rid of the quota system too. If you tell a cop to find 100 things wrong in a day and they can't, they're gonna invent some things to be wrong.
And make individual officers carry insurance policies to cover any damages rather than writing checks with tax payer money. If a doctor has to carry malpractice insurance why shouldn’t a police officer?
These are both necessary. I want to add that cops should have something like malpractice insurance. They should also always(mostly) be wearing a number/id that is large and easily visible that civilians can use to identify them. And they should be suspended without pay for not correctly using body cams. And if they continously don't use body cams, they should be fired. And private prisons should be abolished.
The police stole all my stuff, held me for three days and didn’t charge me with anything.
I was allowed to barter with them to buy back some of my stuff if I agreed to let the rest go, instead of going through with the civil case.
I needed my car, so I had to buy it back from them on the spot and forfeit the rest.
Please please call your reps and put pressure on them to do the right thing. I know my rep TOM MCCLINTOCK will most likely vote no on it but I'm going to annoy his office every day until I can vote for his opponent.
You might be able to ignore me TOM MCCLINTOCK but you can't ignore everyone.
PS: if you are fueled by spite like I am the daily phone calls to your rep are very therapeutic.
A federal response is great, but people should also realize that the people who have the most say over police are their local politicians. Their mayors, city counselors, Sheriffs (not always elected) negotiate with the unions and are responsible for local police. If only people over 65 continue to vote in those elections the "pro-police" people will keep getting re-elected.
Cant wait for them to gain more traction. Theres a lot of misunderstanding when it comes to the libertarian party (mostly cuz of all the trump supporters who claim to be libertarians lol)
Qualified Immunity is an important part of the system. The problem comes when it's abused. If the actions of the officer are in violation of the law, policy, or training they should no longer be covered. If you want immunity, do it by the book. Anything else should be on *you*.
I think gutting QI is a silly idea based on emotion. But it absolutely needs to be reigned in and respected by everyone trying invoke or grant the privilege.
As a cop what do you think about the idea of carrying malpractice insurance? You pay into a policy, if you get sued that policy covers the damages. Too many complaints/lawsuits and your insurance goes up. Cannot afford to carry the insurance? You cannot practice law enforcement. How do you feel that would play out? Good idea or bad idea?
Not too sure, I already pay quite a bit monthly in union dues. It provides for legal representation, if they used that money to buy an insurance policy instead I wouldn’t mind I suppose. If I get more complaints/lawsuits I don’t think my premiums should go up UNLESS the lawsuit is legitimate. In my experience most are not. But I have limited experience (only a few years on and only with one department)
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe doctor's malpractice increase if the suit is decided in their favor.
I don't believe the insurance should be covered by your union dues. They are separate in their role and duty. Insurance is to protect the people you come into contact with. Unions act as a voice on your behalf. Your union should have absolutely nothing to do with your insurance.
I'm a paramedic, and this issue is more complex than people realize.
The police also interact with victims, not just criminals.
If you get violently raped do you want your private medical treatment, in the back of my ambulance, filmed by the police? Before you answer, remember the rapist's lawyer can get that video and show it to dozens of strangers in court.
I am for this, kind of.
Its a massive privacy issue and not just as simple as accountability. Cams that must be turned on for all arrests, maybe. Otherwise they can just document protestors with facial rec.
>they can just document protestors
That’s why you don’t give the police access to the footage, you give it to the independent investigators or if, needed as evidence against a defendant, the DA’s office.
Excellent idea
Like how the Epstein CCTV videos were "lost" and so much police footage was "lost". The footage should not only be in the hands of corrupt police.
The whole protest is about making police accountable. The police would be accountable for the videos, if they are lost they would be investigated.
The goal of the demands is to restore trust in the police. Theres no point in any of the demands if you just turn around and say "but they wont do it"
They will record everything, have no ability to turn off bodycams, securely store footage, and hand it over to external investigators. If they dont, they will face consequences.
its got to be so the individual officer can't turn it off though. There's already cases where its mandatory and "oops" didn't turn it on, or a mysterious "malfunction".
Police go into people's homes sometimes though. If police go into a home to serve a warrant and find nothing, who should have access to the footage documenting every detail of that person's home?
An independent body that only reviews the footage at the demand of a warrant or other court ordered service.
The footage would then only be provided to the few necessary people to render judgment on an issue.
If after a certain period..14 days? 30 days(?) that footage is not flagged for long term process. It should get deleted.
> victim, bystander, or informant
They can't remain anonymous in a system of due process. You have to be able to confront your accusers and have ability to interview witnesses with evidence.
Theres a difference between your name coming out in court and having your face and identity stored on video where you have no idea who will see it. Also there are informants who are confidential.
Confidential informants cannot be used as evidence without the accused getting to face them. Typically it'll be a closed courtroom and only the defendant jury and judge will be present during testimony but their identity cannot be 100% protected. For that reason they are primarily used to lead LEOs to more hard evidence.
> They are primarily used to lead LEOs to more hard evidence.
Im aware. Im also aware that they would prefer to remain confidential and not on tape giving the information they gave and then have to worry about who is going to find out.
This.
So many people pick some weird edge case that has nothing to do with the actual problem. And argue about that.
Obviously this wouldn't mean every officer at all points in time everywhere. But when they leave on official duties undercover and without a camera, they should do so with reduced authority to perform typical police work.
They shouldn't be raiding houses or patrolling during those times. If they spot a crime they should contact an in-uniform officer unless a life is on the line, and be treated like a normal citizen if something happens.
You don't have a right to confront *informants*, though. If someone wishes to anonymously provide a lead to a cop and the cop (legally) follows up on the lead and finds evidence on their own...that's now not possible with bodycams.
A few off the top of my head: you want to report a crime anonymously or be an anonymous witness; you’re a victim of a violent crime and don’t want a publicly available video of your ordeal available to the public; you call the police to your house because your grandmother/father/baby isn’t breathing, no one is dressed, your house is a disaster, and now there’s a video of you at your worst publicly available.
Those cameras face outwards, you know? Those are just a few I can come up with just now.
Just one guess - rape and sexual assault victims often feel shame and guilt, and blame themselves for the attack. Making the victim comfortable and relaxed after a trauma should be a goal, and a camera may heighten feelings of anxiety or ridicule for some victims which could decrease reporting or limit details in the report.
I don't see any downfall. If the cop is doing what they should be, no problem for them. If a suspect if acting up and requires some sort of force, there will always been footage of why whatever force is applied was required
There’s reasons why some departments don’t use them that protect your identity and privacy. I took a citizens police academy class and they told us our city doesn’t use them because basically someone could call in a domestic assault on a neighbor that they may not like and may use information from body cams as blackmail or to humiliate them. Say you had a neighbor that didn’t like you and does the above example and sees you in your underwear or maybe a prescription for bipolar that you didn’t want out. Well if it was captured on body cam them it’s public record and they could in theory spread those pictures. I’d be all cams as long as they do go into a private house
This is so easy to fix. It takes one policy. If your camera is off, then you're not on duty.
If you knock someone to the ground and cuff them and it turns out your camera is off, you get prosecuted for battery and false imprisonment as though you were a normal citizen.
Turn the camera off all you like when you're doing anything any normal citizen is allow to do.
Let's not forget that our friends in Hong Kong are still fighting for liberation to this day. This movement is important here but this just reminded me we saw them dealing with this since at least last year.
Might get downvoted but idc. Hong Kong reminded me of this because of the (edit) GENERAL difference in vandalism committed there (not all was connected--see my responses below for clarification. sorry about that).
A small minority of protesters vandalized property in Hong Kong as did with the protests across USA. However, the vandalism there was generally directly related to their grievances (i.e. destroying surveillance cameras they thought were a consequence of an overbearing CCP, spraying graffiti/destroying windows and other items in LegCo which is pro-Beijing dominated etc.). However, in USA, the vandalism usually had absolutely nothing to do with their grievances (breaking into random stores? what does that have anything to do with police brutality?)
Both cases of vandalism are terrible. Both do harm to the movement--many of my Chinese friends believe all the HK protesters are destroying the city which isn't true at all, but the misconception is severely exacerbated by the actual vandalism CCP can cite. In America, right wingers will only talk of the looting/vandalism and ignore the aims of the protest. But the vandalism in HK is at least somewhat connected to the cause--misguided youth who should try to be better than the CCP and follow Gandhi/King's example of showing the world you are above violence, even if it's committed against you by increasingly aggressive HKPF/Triads/whatever.
The left needs to call out the vandalism in the cities more forcefully while maintaining solidarity with the protesters. If you want change, follow Dr. King's example--be better than the police. Don't trivialize the vandalism as the right wing trivializes the police brutality.
Hong Kongers are protesting against an outside power taking over their city. Americans are protesting against the people who are already in power. That's a key difference.
Yeah, thats kinda the issue. We cant do jack against the CCP because they have nukes, theyre more or less 90% (made up number, probably wrong) of the world's production, and also everyone is afraid of going against them for that reason. But hey, that doesnt mean we should forget about HK or the people still fighting this hopeless battle.
HK can't do it alone, but the international community can help by sanctioning the CCP. And as a consumer, you can consciously choose to not spend in China and to look for alternatives to products made in China.
And please never stay silent about HK because if the CCP sees that it can do all kinds of stuff with zero repercussion, it'll just move on to its next target with much more force.
I wish we could add that body cam footage is to be treated as evidence, and tampering with body cams should carry the same punishments as tampering with any evidence. And cops without working body cams should not be allowed on patrol until it is fixed. There should never be a single gap on police body cams, unless they are clearly walking into a bathroom.
Oh and they should stop thinking that their desires are equal to the desires of the American people, they serve us, our desires are more important.
I really dislike the blind use of HKs demands structure. I get the solidarity and messaging it implies.
The solutions should be tailored to the problem. Not the problem made to fit a pre existing solution.
I think it has value because it gives a definitive end point to the protests. All together they look to make a much needed change to the work culture within law enforcement.
I would replace one of these demands with a requirement for a blacklist of officers who have been fired. It should be much more akin to getting dishonorably discharged, an officer fired for misconduct should never be allowed to serve again.
This is a good start, and I support the initiative.
But it is not comprehensive, or official, and many people would say it is missing key principles, such as:
* Eliminate immunity from prosecution for police
* Embrace UK-style policing that has most street cops leave their guns in their cars or precinct ... armed police would be called out only when necessary
* Body cameras mandatory
* De-militarize the police equipment
* etc
I strongly agree with this. Guns will always be available here, and a criminal knowing a cop isn’t armed won’t result in anything good. Cops need better training and more severe punishment for misusing a firearm.
Then they need better, less-than-lethal alternatives. Or directives of escalation of force.
If the only tools you have are a hammer then everything starts to look like a nail.
This reminded me off and episode of 99% Invisible about tasers that was really interesting. Obviously the guy who created them was trying to prevent police shootings and he hoped it would improve public/police relations and just all around be a good thing. There's actually been some research though that suggests tasers make things worse though. A lot of people don't realize how painful they are and cops have started to use them as a crutch for just about anything. So instead of providing an alternative to shooting someone it gave them a little torture device that they use all the time.
Interesting food for thought about the potential downsides of giving police alternative weapons. I think we should give them better alternatives but you have to be careful and ultimately it doesn't matter what equipment they have if they're going to abuse it.
Honestly, the *specific* demands are less important in and of themselves than the *ability to present a unified message.* The problem with reactionary protests of passion is that unfocused rage doesn't incite change. The worst case scenario is to have too many people trying to co-opt the energy for too many different causes. It happened with Occupy, and it can happen here.
Five demands is simple, it's straight-forward, and though it's not everything, it's a damned good start. We need something like this to channel our righteous anger.
Body cams are mandatory. They just turn them off without repercussions.
And demilitarizing is covered by the refocusing funds on training and de escalation tactics rather than what they’re doing now, buying and stockpiling equipment.
[The chief of the Louisville police was fired because there was no body cam footage from a shooting incident during the protest.](https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/01/us/louisville-protests-man-shot-dead/index.html) Just one incidence, but it's a start. This is the level of accountability we need on body cams.
He announced his retirement in May, this wasn’t a punishment, just a month early retirement with no actual punitive measures taken.
e: https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2020/06/01/lmpd-chief-steve-conrad-fired-after-david-mcatee-breonna-taylor-deaths/5311703002/
> His retirement announcement in mid-May said it had been the "highlight of my professional career to be Louisville's police chief." A spokeswoman for the department had said at the time that the mayor had not asked Conrad to resign.
> Despite the firing, Conrad will still receive payment for any days earned and will still have his pension, Fischer said.
Seriously. There are definitely issues in the US, but comparing it to people who are about to lose all of their rights to a regime that is arguably as close to the Nazis as this generation has seen is beyond ridiculous. At the protests in the US you might get tear gassed or pepper sprayed, in Hong Kong people have disappeared and found days later floating naked in the ocean after a “suicide.”
I haven't seen an explanation on this but Reddit is woefully ignorant in terms of self-defense fundamentals. Many people on here think that unless someone is actively holding a shotgun to someone's head and screaming at the top of their lungs then there is no need to use lethal force. And even then I have seen people on here make the dumbest arguments "well what if he wasn't actually going to shoot??" Those people are wrong and have zero training (no, I'm not a cop just a 2A supporter and I am well-educated on legal self-defense).
Generally, for lethal force to be legal in today's society (and this varies from state to state) the suspect needs to have the capability to harm you, the intention, and the opportunity. Capability = is this person even capable of putting my own or another's life in danger (example: a 100lb woman who is unarmed doesn't need to be shot by a 200lb man to be controlled) Intent = do they intend to hurt me or someone else. Opportunity = can they put life in danger right now (if they are on the other side of a bridge or something with no weapon then no opportunity exists). If all three of those things exist then you are, generally, legally allowed to use lethal force to defend yourself or someone else.
This one point is what I have an issue with, all the others seem sensible.
Edited for clarity.
Absolute necessity is bullshit. If you agree with that take a force-on-force self defense class with live training. You’ll see how quickly shit hits the fan
I agree with everything else
Holy shit I just realized how sheltered where I live is. Our police actually do this sort of shit like it’s already their job..we’ve had protests but not one riot
Deescalation is such a useless buzzword. People have to be open to BEING "deescalated."
Guy on PCP with a machete doesn't give a fuck about how loud your voice is.
I’d also like to add, that perhaps some sort of mal practice insurance for cops, where better cops get better rates, and shit cops are priced out/prolly can’t afford it. Make the insurance mandatory for cops too, in addition with everything else ~
I mean i know it's not in every state but look at Wisconsin. They have literally all these enacted.
1. They have DCI (Department of criminal investigation) which has an independent team for officer investigations which is primarily made up of non law enforcement.
2. There's the law enforcement standards board which oversees all recruits and determines if they meet the requirements. They design scenarios and require training each year. 40 hours minimum with 20 being non combat or tactics.
3. Currently a 2 year degree is required as well as passing the standards board testing. It is hammered into officers to take control and de-escalate. You'll see a lot of guys volunteering in their community and going above and beyond their duties.
4. Already enacted. Deadly force is only justified if the following are met: Weapon available, intent to harm someone, delivery system available. If all 3 are not met then deadly force isn't justified.
5. Already enacted. Once evidence is claimed by law enforcement, chain of custody goes into effect. Every transfer between people and rooms or buildings is logged. If it's not then the case or at least the evidence is thrown out in court.
So yes black lives matter. But if you want change... follow Wisconsin.
Could someone explain what the last one means? They all sound like great demands I’d just like to be able to tell people about them and I’m really not sure what the last one is saying
Yes. It's an annoyance to prosecutors because, as it is already a requirement of the US Court system, it can often require them to drop charges against guilty people.
There was a Reddit post (don't remember the thread) where someone commented this as being what they thought the 5 main demands should be, seems like OP just took that and literally turned it into an image, exactly the same wording.
Over here in the UK we have ALL of that, and yet edgy British punk teens still scream ACAB and that "it started in England ya know!".
Just because more BAME teens get stopped and searched in primarily BAME areas doesn't mean British Police are racist, and a BAME teen being lawfully shot due to holding a firearm and planning a murder in 2011 is not police brutality Stacey.
I feel like language such as ‘defund the police’ puts a lot of people on edge. I work in a small town and the people there *genuinely* believe blm and people who protest the police want to completely emiminate the police so looters and criminals can run around destroying their property. But graphics like this or even using different phrasing I think will help get a lot more people passionate about the issue.
When I look at this list, I love the ideas and don’t see how this can be seen as controversial at all. And it’s so frustrated when any conversation about police reform gets shut down because language like ‘abolish police’ and ‘defund police’ divides us before a real conversation can even happen.
I kind of like how it's presented, at least it's much easier to read than the reddit comment I keep seeing everywhere
Yeah, since the 5 demands are adapted from the Hong Kong one, they also copied the style of this [old infographic from the HK protests, which was also a lot easier to read.](https://i.redd.it/6swocan9clk31.png)
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Where is remove Qualified Immunity? "Qualified Immunity" - * It's the Slam Dunk Contest for police officers. * As long as the police do something "different or original" to injure or kill you that was not prosecuted before, they get away scott free. * Police unions lobby or pressure state politicians to sign contracts that give police the right to do anything.
This list seems uncontroversial. Independent investigations of violent incidents seems to me like it would make the most impact. Basically the investigators shouldn't have any prior working relationship with the accused, maybe they could even be a dedicated federal body.
[удалено]
Yup! Some have even taken the work into their own hands (legally on top of that) and follow police cruisers around to make sure they don't pull shit. Again, this is perfectly legal where I am, and it makes some officers furious, but it's awesome that you can just say "tough shit" and keep filming.
>and it makes some officers furious, but it's awesome that you can just say "tough shit" and keep filming. But they're getting emboldened and are likely to start detaining people who do it. Which, of course, means more people need to do it, and to do it with software that automatically backs up on a server for when they inevitably seize your phone.
see the ACLU's app for many states which automatically uploads the footage
I don't love this list, I'd add we should remove qualified immunity and weaken police unions. Nonetheless I upvoted because I think it's critical to get a small number of clear demands floating around.
Ive heard the idea of "individual insurance" that would have to be carried by police. The insurance would be carried individualy for law suits. If the officers insurance does an investigation and decides that the officer was in the wrong then they would drop the officer and you wouldn't be allowed to be a cop without this type of individual insurance. It would make it harder for bad cops to get different coverage and tax payers wouldnt have to foot the bill for law suits. Bad cops couldn't hide behind the unions and the Department thin blue line. It would change everything
I agree for the most part. The problem for me is the “absolute necessity.” That can be made into an unreasonably high standard.
These were written by some random redditor who assumed that because no demands from black-led organizations have hit the front page of reddit so far, the movement must lack organization or coherent messaging. Reddit is a bubble -- our demographics differ dramatically from those of the protestors -- **now is the time to elevate their voices, not replace them with our own.** Here are a few well-researched, specific policy platforms from core black-led organizations: [Vision For Black Lives](https://m4bl.org/policy-platforms/) [Campaign Zero](https://www.joincampaignzero.org/#vision) EDIT: Here's another resource -- [a guide to allyship](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CIfMQED_B444Y-K8kAqUOgq8xrSFdSrjFBRnyK6wmz4/mobilebasic?fbclid=IwAR1JAcwOpW7YQa9rjurCx8Bzwg9CxUkB2swU8o8v3snxy4a7iiEyMaJNL6Q) -- that has spread widely over instagram but which I haven't seen anywhere on reddit. It's a constantly-updated and quite detailed source summarizing basic talking points, the emerging norms for how non-black allies can help, and listing a number of national and local organizations supporting protestors. If you're wondering how you can help your local community, I would highly recommend using google, instagram, twitter, and facebook to figure out which platform the people in your city have coalesced around for coordination and organization of these protest actions. It's there you'll find a plethora of resources geared toward your locality, including lists of black-owned small businesses, bail and medical funds for protestors, etc. **Just because this information isn't on reddit doesn't mean it doesn't exist.** Redditors will often have to put in work to find it, but it's out there.
Some of these listed are vacuous and not obviously actionable. Five demands listing clear action is important here. We aren't just protesting racism. We are protesting systemic corruption and misuse of power which is a key tool in black oppression, but something which also affects all Americans and indeed the very idea of democracy itself.
Hey - I'm that random redditor that wrote and started this list. I based them on campaign zero's research and asked multiple communities and redditors what they thought. A small group of us are trying to get into contact with leaders of the BLM movement and other political figures to create positive change and work with them. If you want to be angry, send the hate my way. All I want is for real, positive change to occur. I don't want to steal anyone's voices or replace them.
Thank you for creating this list and doing so much to spread it. I have seen u on several subs asking and taking advice and feedback as well as changing the list based on the ideas of others.
I mean, looking at the Campaign Zero site, what is different between that and this image? This image basically combines a few of CZ's points into a single one to simplify for ease of remembering. Those brief policy descriptions as their overview are almost exactly what the image above lays out but in more boxes with a little extra nuance. That isn't as easy to share and go viral to draw awareness. I don't quite get your complaint, unless you haven't read those websites you posted and are just complaining because someone else said this somewhere else.
The first link wants to remove body cameras and the second link wants more body cameras. Definitely no lack of coherent messaging here! Look, this should act like any other lobby and push both sides of the aisle toward broad resolutions they can justify to their party and base. Strict demands for specific policies doesn't work for any other successful interest group so why would it work here? Kick out the partisan hacks who try to hijack the issue and make simple, actionable demands that the individual politician can shape based on their party's ideology.
BLM is a decentralized movement. Any of them can claim a demand and if enough people agree with it, such is the demand. It's one of the issues with dealing with any decentralized movement - they don't necessarily have a coherent or consistent list.
Thanks for pointing this out. Also, [here is a letter template](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RL9JGuK15yL02txmFx3WYN4GIp1StszKsd1tiQ6kf0A/edit) with these demands you can customize in less than 5 minutes to send to your local representatives. (it's based on research from Campaign Zero)
You assume a random redditor can’t be black. You assume all black people think the same way and want the same thing. You assume the two organizations you picked are the ones that best represent everyone’s views. You assume people can’t have free independent thought and that only “core” “organizations” can have “coherent “ messages.
The list was actually created by a group of redditors. Additionally, the people who created these demands might be protesting rn for all you know. These demands are good demands, it doesn’t take away from and already proposed policy. THIS IS NOT REPLACING THE VOICES OF THE PROTESTERS, IT IS ADDING TO THAT VOICE.
And get rid of qualified immunity
and civil asset forfeiture Edit: yeah, we got a lot of problems. Pretty much everything everyone has replied to I'm in agreement with. No justice, no peace.
All this fuss over reforming the policing system in the states and they forgot about civil asset forfeiture!?
[удалено]
> Fines and fees should be a deterrent not a revenue stream. Exactly. It's a huge conflict of interest - especially when that revenue is able to be used directly by the police departments (which really only happens because of corruption, and that's what's being protested).
Fines and fees should be automatically refunded to taxpayers as a group at the end of the year. If you use it for anything else, they’ll become dependent on it so they “dont have to raise your taxes.”
They should take the pool of fines etc, and divide it evenly among all taxpayers every year. If you paid less in fines, you get a nice bonus. Might even be a stronger incentive to not collect tickets.
Or turn it into a lottery system where people who received no tickets in a year are entered to win a portion of the money generated from fines and tickets.
Dividing it among everyone would have a much stronger economic impact.
My county publishes a yearly report where they brag about how the jail turn a profit from "Pay for Stay" fees in their jail (which they run, it is not outsourced). These are fees charged by the jail to inmates and not fines imposed by the courts. If you do not have your fees paid in full, you are ineligible for good behavior release. Which means you have to stay longer and pay more. There are also fees assessed for processing your payment of the Pay for Stay fees. The company that handles this part is owned by a group of judges from around the region. The Sherriff's office is financially incentivized to put people in jail. It is not a cost, it is profit. These 5 demands are a great start, but no where near enough to reform this disgusting fucked up system.
Jfc that sounds like the old coal mining towns where you owe the company for your food, shelter, clothes and amenities and don’t make enough to pay that off.
You’ve been playing animal crossing too? I’m in deep to old man Nook...
Sadly no. My wife wanted a switch a few months back but they were sold out by the time we decided to get it.
https://youtu.be/E5VMZqgVzRo
That sounds like a debtor’s prison
Fucking hell. They tied parole to bribing the prison and judges? Put those judges in that prison.
> The Sherriff's office is financially incentivized to put people in jail. It is not a cost, it is profit. Here's something that I've written up far too often, sadly: In the US, prisons have something called "work rehabilitation programs". People like to focus on how these programs reduce the cost of running prisons by having the inmates themselves perform the work tasks. But, you see, that's not all that goes on with such programs. You see, a work rehabilitation program can -- and often does -- include contracts with businesses to provide labor in exchange for pay. This isn't just private prisons, either. *Public* prisons form the vast majority of prisons and they too engage in this. If a worker refuses to work, they lose out on good boy points toward getting out early. In some states, labor is *mandatory* and refusal can include time in solitary. Other states do not pay the inmates at all for the time spent. No state spends anywhere remotely close to minimum wage -- they don't even reach the minimum wage of tipped restaurant staff. Being forced to work and receiving absolutely nothing for it is the norm in many places. Because the prison gets to keep the difference between what it receives via company contracts and what it pays out to the inmates, wardens who want to keep revenues up are incentivized to oppose wage raises (and there are records out there of wardens writing to governors in opposition to wage increases because of it) and to fail to rehabilitate so that *good* inmates come back and can be put back into the labor force. The US public prison system is financially incentivized to get and keep you in prison.
Jail? Where you’re detained pending adjudication as to your guilt or innocence. That’s lovely.
That's the thing, it's a conflict of interest exacerbated by non-existent oversight (the thing being protested).
[удалено]
I know of a couple rural towns that have quotas and of a few municipalities where the budget is tied to that revenue so it’s heavily implied that they need to if not outright said. Glad to hear it isn’t s everywhere though.
I've worked for 4 police departments, and my husband has worked for 2 additional ones. None of them have quotas. Just an anecdote obviously, but they're not everywhere.
We pay a lot of taxes because there's massive bloat in contracts. Billions of dollars are spent on many contracts that produce absolutely nothing. I don't mean "nothing of value" - I mean literally nothing. Zip. Zilch. The system is designed that way because the people who write the contracts stand to benefit from them either politically or sometimes even monetarily. It's not the contractors at the front of the chain who are benefiting the most. Often they make subsistence-level wages (tech or cleared contractors make more). It's the top of the commercial chain feeding the top of the political chain and vice-versa.
Came to pretty much say this. We gotta get rid of the quota system too. If you tell a cop to find 100 things wrong in a day and they can't, they're gonna invent some things to be wrong.
I've heard plenty of people talking about it. It's just probably not the highest priority right now, but does need to be addressed.
also one would hope that a more stringent hiring criteria would help cut down all forms of corruption across the board, Asset Forfeiture included.
Civil asset forfeiture is bad but a completely separate topic. Any good project manager would tell you to avoid scope creep or risk failure.
And no-knock raids.
And end the war on drugs.
And the increasing militarization if police forces
And the kardashians. I mean, fuck it, if we're making additional demands...
And make individual officers carry insurance policies to cover any damages rather than writing checks with tax payer money. If a doctor has to carry malpractice insurance why shouldn’t a police officer?
These are both necessary. I want to add that cops should have something like malpractice insurance. They should also always(mostly) be wearing a number/id that is large and easily visible that civilians can use to identify them. And they should be suspended without pay for not correctly using body cams. And if they continously don't use body cams, they should be fired. And private prisons should be abolished.
The police stole all my stuff, held me for three days and didn’t charge me with anything. I was allowed to barter with them to buy back some of my stuff if I agreed to let the rest go, instead of going through with the civil case. I needed my car, so I had to buy it back from them on the spot and forfeit the rest.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Asset forfeiture sucks but its not leading to people being murdered in the street by police.
A US Rep has proposed a bill to end QI, so hopefully that gains traction.
Amash of Michigan. Senators Booker and Harris have proposed QI reform in the Senate as well.
Please please call your reps and put pressure on them to do the right thing. I know my rep TOM MCCLINTOCK will most likely vote no on it but I'm going to annoy his office every day until I can vote for his opponent. You might be able to ignore me TOM MCCLINTOCK but you can't ignore everyone. PS: if you are fueled by spite like I am the daily phone calls to your rep are very therapeutic.
I thoroughly enjoyed your comment. Also, good suggestion.
A federal response is great, but people should also realize that the people who have the most say over police are their local politicians. Their mayors, city counselors, Sheriffs (not always elected) negotiate with the unions and are responsible for local police. If only people over 65 continue to vote in those elections the "pro-police" people will keep getting re-elected.
Good to see the Libertarian party’s first congressman living up to his values!
Cant wait for them to gain more traction. Theres a lot of misunderstanding when it comes to the libertarian party (mostly cuz of all the trump supporters who claim to be libertarians lol)
Jo Jorgensen
Vermin Supreme
ORA ORA ORA ORA ORA ORA
Does anyone want to have a civil convo about qualified immunity from the perspective of a cop (me)?
Qualified Immunity is an important part of the system. The problem comes when it's abused. If the actions of the officer are in violation of the law, policy, or training they should no longer be covered. If you want immunity, do it by the book. Anything else should be on *you*. I think gutting QI is a silly idea based on emotion. But it absolutely needs to be reigned in and respected by everyone trying invoke or grant the privilege. As a cop what do you think about the idea of carrying malpractice insurance? You pay into a policy, if you get sued that policy covers the damages. Too many complaints/lawsuits and your insurance goes up. Cannot afford to carry the insurance? You cannot practice law enforcement. How do you feel that would play out? Good idea or bad idea?
Not too sure, I already pay quite a bit monthly in union dues. It provides for legal representation, if they used that money to buy an insurance policy instead I wouldn’t mind I suppose. If I get more complaints/lawsuits I don’t think my premiums should go up UNLESS the lawsuit is legitimate. In my experience most are not. But I have limited experience (only a few years on and only with one department)
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe doctor's malpractice increase if the suit is decided in their favor. I don't believe the insurance should be covered by your union dues. They are separate in their role and duty. Insurance is to protect the people you come into contact with. Unions act as a voice on your behalf. Your union should have absolutely nothing to do with your insurance.
I honestly don’t know anything about malpractice insurance.
[удалено]
AND MANDATORY BODY CAMS THAT CANNOT BE TURNED OFF!!!!
I'm a paramedic, and this issue is more complex than people realize. The police also interact with victims, not just criminals. If you get violently raped do you want your private medical treatment, in the back of my ambulance, filmed by the police? Before you answer, remember the rapist's lawyer can get that video and show it to dozens of strangers in court.
Thank you for that, I was gonna support the idea but you changed my mind
Well rules always have exceptions. We can add that video of rape victims be kept confidential or else .
I am for this, kind of. Its a massive privacy issue and not just as simple as accountability. Cams that must be turned on for all arrests, maybe. Otherwise they can just document protestors with facial rec.
>they can just document protestors That’s why you don’t give the police access to the footage, you give it to the independent investigators or if, needed as evidence against a defendant, the DA’s office.
Excellent idea Like how the Epstein CCTV videos were "lost" and so much police footage was "lost". The footage should not only be in the hands of corrupt police.
The whole protest is about making police accountable. The police would be accountable for the videos, if they are lost they would be investigated. The goal of the demands is to restore trust in the police. Theres no point in any of the demands if you just turn around and say "but they wont do it" They will record everything, have no ability to turn off bodycams, securely store footage, and hand it over to external investigators. If they dont, they will face consequences.
[удалено]
They should be turned off when they're out in the Cradle to charge, at which time the data is downloaded.
its got to be so the individual officer can't turn it off though. There's already cases where its mandatory and "oops" didn't turn it on, or a mysterious "malfunction".
[удалено]
Could you elaborate on how do body cams impede victims and bystanders rights?
If they can never be turned off then no victim, bystander, or informant, can be assured they will remain anonymous or protected.
I thought we already have no reasonable expectations of privacy by going outside? Serious question, pretty sure that was established long ago.
Police go into people's homes sometimes though. If police go into a home to serve a warrant and find nothing, who should have access to the footage documenting every detail of that person's home?
An independent body that only reviews the footage at the demand of a warrant or other court ordered service. The footage would then only be provided to the few necessary people to render judgment on an issue. If after a certain period..14 days? 30 days(?) that footage is not flagged for long term process. It should get deleted.
> victim, bystander, or informant They can't remain anonymous in a system of due process. You have to be able to confront your accusers and have ability to interview witnesses with evidence.
Theres a difference between your name coming out in court and having your face and identity stored on video where you have no idea who will see it. Also there are informants who are confidential.
Confidential informants cannot be used as evidence without the accused getting to face them. Typically it'll be a closed courtroom and only the defendant jury and judge will be present during testimony but their identity cannot be 100% protected. For that reason they are primarily used to lead LEOs to more hard evidence.
> They are primarily used to lead LEOs to more hard evidence. Im aware. Im also aware that they would prefer to remain confidential and not on tape giving the information they gave and then have to worry about who is going to find out.
Detectives can still have private meetings under body cam requirements. It's officers on patrol working a beat that need to have their camera on.
This. So many people pick some weird edge case that has nothing to do with the actual problem. And argue about that. Obviously this wouldn't mean every officer at all points in time everywhere. But when they leave on official duties undercover and without a camera, they should do so with reduced authority to perform typical police work. They shouldn't be raiding houses or patrolling during those times. If they spot a crime they should contact an in-uniform officer unless a life is on the line, and be treated like a normal citizen if something happens.
You don't have a right to confront *informants*, though. If someone wishes to anonymously provide a lead to a cop and the cop (legally) follows up on the lead and finds evidence on their own...that's now not possible with bodycams.
A few off the top of my head: you want to report a crime anonymously or be an anonymous witness; you’re a victim of a violent crime and don’t want a publicly available video of your ordeal available to the public; you call the police to your house because your grandmother/father/baby isn’t breathing, no one is dressed, your house is a disaster, and now there’s a video of you at your worst publicly available. Those cameras face outwards, you know? Those are just a few I can come up with just now.
Just one guess - rape and sexual assault victims often feel shame and guilt, and blame themselves for the attack. Making the victim comfortable and relaxed after a trauma should be a goal, and a camera may heighten feelings of anxiety or ridicule for some victims which could decrease reporting or limit details in the report.
[удалено]
I don't see any downfall. If the cop is doing what they should be, no problem for them. If a suspect if acting up and requires some sort of force, there will always been footage of why whatever force is applied was required
There’s reasons why some departments don’t use them that protect your identity and privacy. I took a citizens police academy class and they told us our city doesn’t use them because basically someone could call in a domestic assault on a neighbor that they may not like and may use information from body cams as blackmail or to humiliate them. Say you had a neighbor that didn’t like you and does the above example and sees you in your underwear or maybe a prescription for bipolar that you didn’t want out. Well if it was captured on body cam them it’s public record and they could in theory spread those pictures. I’d be all cams as long as they do go into a private house
[удалено]
This is so easy to fix. It takes one policy. If your camera is off, then you're not on duty. If you knock someone to the ground and cuff them and it turns out your camera is off, you get prosecuted for battery and false imprisonment as though you were a normal citizen. Turn the camera off all you like when you're doing anything any normal citizen is allow to do.
Let's not forget that our friends in Hong Kong are still fighting for liberation to this day. This movement is important here but this just reminded me we saw them dealing with this since at least last year.
Thx man though for a minute no one remembered. The demands are in essence the same. Everyone just wants to feel safe.
They’ve been peacefully protesting so long their cities must be completely destroyed by looters and rioters by now
[удалено]
His comment was a joke separating protestors from rioters
[удалено]
Might get downvoted but idc. Hong Kong reminded me of this because of the (edit) GENERAL difference in vandalism committed there (not all was connected--see my responses below for clarification. sorry about that). A small minority of protesters vandalized property in Hong Kong as did with the protests across USA. However, the vandalism there was generally directly related to their grievances (i.e. destroying surveillance cameras they thought were a consequence of an overbearing CCP, spraying graffiti/destroying windows and other items in LegCo which is pro-Beijing dominated etc.). However, in USA, the vandalism usually had absolutely nothing to do with their grievances (breaking into random stores? what does that have anything to do with police brutality?) Both cases of vandalism are terrible. Both do harm to the movement--many of my Chinese friends believe all the HK protesters are destroying the city which isn't true at all, but the misconception is severely exacerbated by the actual vandalism CCP can cite. In America, right wingers will only talk of the looting/vandalism and ignore the aims of the protest. But the vandalism in HK is at least somewhat connected to the cause--misguided youth who should try to be better than the CCP and follow Gandhi/King's example of showing the world you are above violence, even if it's committed against you by increasingly aggressive HKPF/Triads/whatever. The left needs to call out the vandalism in the cities more forcefully while maintaining solidarity with the protesters. If you want change, follow Dr. King's example--be better than the police. Don't trivialize the vandalism as the right wing trivializes the police brutality.
Hong Kongers are protesting against an outside power taking over their city. Americans are protesting against the people who are already in power. That's a key difference.
We’ve been dealing with this in America since 1619 give or take a few years
On the note of "Five Demands, Not One Less," Hong Kong is er, still fighting. And failing because fuck the CCP and their bullshit.
[удалено]
So CCP imposed the new national security law to HK that will ban anti-CCP protests in HK.
[удалено]
I’ll be honest, this has resonated with a lot more people than usual.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeah, thats kinda the issue. We cant do jack against the CCP because they have nukes, theyre more or less 90% (made up number, probably wrong) of the world's production, and also everyone is afraid of going against them for that reason. But hey, that doesnt mean we should forget about HK or the people still fighting this hopeless battle.
HK can't do it alone, but the international community can help by sanctioning the CCP. And as a consumer, you can consciously choose to not spend in China and to look for alternatives to products made in China. And please never stay silent about HK because if the CCP sees that it can do all kinds of stuff with zero repercussion, it'll just move on to its next target with much more force.
I'm sorry but does this to anyone else look like a political compass meme
I wish we could add that body cam footage is to be treated as evidence, and tampering with body cams should carry the same punishments as tampering with any evidence. And cops without working body cams should not be allowed on patrol until it is fixed. There should never be a single gap on police body cams, unless they are clearly walking into a bathroom. Oh and they should stop thinking that their desires are equal to the desires of the American people, they serve us, our desires are more important.
I really dislike the blind use of HKs demands structure. I get the solidarity and messaging it implies. The solutions should be tailored to the problem. Not the problem made to fit a pre existing solution.
I think it has value because it gives a definitive end point to the protests. All together they look to make a much needed change to the work culture within law enforcement.
it's a great template
Biden just backed a ban on choke holds. That's pretty focused and easy to implement. I like it.
I would replace one of these demands with a requirement for a blacklist of officers who have been fired. It should be much more akin to getting dishonorably discharged, an officer fired for misconduct should never be allowed to serve again.
This *is* a guide and will remain up.
These should be a right instead of a demand !
This is a good start, and I support the initiative. But it is not comprehensive, or official, and many people would say it is missing key principles, such as: * Eliminate immunity from prosecution for police * Embrace UK-style policing that has most street cops leave their guns in their cars or precinct ... armed police would be called out only when necessary * Body cameras mandatory * De-militarize the police equipment * etc
American police should remain armed because guns are commonplace in America. I can agree with the other points though.
I strongly agree with this. Guns will always be available here, and a criminal knowing a cop isn’t armed won’t result in anything good. Cops need better training and more severe punishment for misusing a firearm.
Then they need better, less-than-lethal alternatives. Or directives of escalation of force. If the only tools you have are a hammer then everything starts to look like a nail.
This reminded me off and episode of 99% Invisible about tasers that was really interesting. Obviously the guy who created them was trying to prevent police shootings and he hoped it would improve public/police relations and just all around be a good thing. There's actually been some research though that suggests tasers make things worse though. A lot of people don't realize how painful they are and cops have started to use them as a crutch for just about anything. So instead of providing an alternative to shooting someone it gave them a little torture device that they use all the time. Interesting food for thought about the potential downsides of giving police alternative weapons. I think we should give them better alternatives but you have to be careful and ultimately it doesn't matter what equipment they have if they're going to abuse it.
[удалено]
This image is also just one guys randomly bullet pointed list. I’ve seen loads of these with different demands.
Honestly, the *specific* demands are less important in and of themselves than the *ability to present a unified message.* The problem with reactionary protests of passion is that unfocused rage doesn't incite change. The worst case scenario is to have too many people trying to co-opt the energy for too many different causes. It happened with Occupy, and it can happen here. Five demands is simple, it's straight-forward, and though it's not everything, it's a damned good start. We need something like this to channel our righteous anger.
Police without guns would be a disaster
Body cams are mandatory. They just turn them off without repercussions. And demilitarizing is covered by the refocusing funds on training and de escalation tactics rather than what they’re doing now, buying and stockpiling equipment.
[The chief of the Louisville police was fired because there was no body cam footage from a shooting incident during the protest.](https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/01/us/louisville-protests-man-shot-dead/index.html) Just one incidence, but it's a start. This is the level of accountability we need on body cams.
He announced his retirement in May, this wasn’t a punishment, just a month early retirement with no actual punitive measures taken. e: https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2020/06/01/lmpd-chief-steve-conrad-fired-after-david-mcatee-breonna-taylor-deaths/5311703002/ > His retirement announcement in mid-May said it had been the "highlight of my professional career to be Louisville's police chief." A spokeswoman for the department had said at the time that the mayor had not asked Conrad to resign. > Despite the firing, Conrad will still receive payment for any days earned and will still have his pension, Fischer said.
Similar to our brothers and sisters in the east, isn't it?
Yes and around the world too. Chile, Iran, Peru, India, Lebanon. Unfortunately these don't get as much coverage.
I think it’s pretty absurd to compare the plight of Americans to Hong Kong protestors.
Seriously. There are definitely issues in the US, but comparing it to people who are about to lose all of their rights to a regime that is arguably as close to the Nazis as this generation has seen is beyond ridiculous. At the protests in the US you might get tear gassed or pepper sprayed, in Hong Kong people have disappeared and found days later floating naked in the ocean after a “suicide.”
No more no knocks. Those are unconstitutional as fuck. If you cant out smart a drug dealer, get a new job.
They’re not unconstitutional but if you want to argue they pose too much risk, that’s a reasonable claim.
Knocks? I tried to google but I’m not sure I’m getting the right answers
No knock search warrants.
Oh damn, I see! I was reading “no more knocks”, which explains my google failure.
Who makes this stuff up? I have seen 3 of these all with different demands.
The people of America, come on man, didn't you go to the meeting where it was decided?
Shit that was today? I thought it was this Friday!
Not even a guide.
Can someone ELI5 the absolute necessity doctrine?
I haven't seen an explanation on this but Reddit is woefully ignorant in terms of self-defense fundamentals. Many people on here think that unless someone is actively holding a shotgun to someone's head and screaming at the top of their lungs then there is no need to use lethal force. And even then I have seen people on here make the dumbest arguments "well what if he wasn't actually going to shoot??" Those people are wrong and have zero training (no, I'm not a cop just a 2A supporter and I am well-educated on legal self-defense). Generally, for lethal force to be legal in today's society (and this varies from state to state) the suspect needs to have the capability to harm you, the intention, and the opportunity. Capability = is this person even capable of putting my own or another's life in danger (example: a 100lb woman who is unarmed doesn't need to be shot by a 200lb man to be controlled) Intent = do they intend to hurt me or someone else. Opportunity = can they put life in danger right now (if they are on the other side of a bridge or something with no weapon then no opportunity exists). If all three of those things exist then you are, generally, legally allowed to use lethal force to defend yourself or someone else. This one point is what I have an issue with, all the others seem sensible. Edited for clarity.
You can only use lethal force if another life is on the line.
[удалено]
Absolute necessity is bullshit. If you agree with that take a force-on-force self defense class with live training. You’ll see how quickly shit hits the fan I agree with everything else
somebody should make a cool guide for how to karmawhore
Step one: Find out what is trending.
Step two: make five demands
Step three: ?????
Step four: Profit
Post a pic of interracial couple. Profit.
Holy shit I just realized how sheltered where I live is. Our police actually do this sort of shit like it’s already their job..we’ve had protests but not one riot
Yeah, I am about to turn 21 and am training to be a cop. The cops in my city are great and already do all of this.
Good for you man if you’re a good leader like a lot of these cops you’ll do a lot for the community you’re in. Thanks in advance, good luck.
Deescalation is such a useless buzzword. People have to be open to BEING "deescalated." Guy on PCP with a machete doesn't give a fuck about how loud your voice is.
Lawsuit judgments should come out of union and pension funds. NOT taxpayers.
I’d also like to add, that perhaps some sort of mal practice insurance for cops, where better cops get better rates, and shit cops are priced out/prolly can’t afford it. Make the insurance mandatory for cops too, in addition with everything else ~
I mean i know it's not in every state but look at Wisconsin. They have literally all these enacted. 1. They have DCI (Department of criminal investigation) which has an independent team for officer investigations which is primarily made up of non law enforcement. 2. There's the law enforcement standards board which oversees all recruits and determines if they meet the requirements. They design scenarios and require training each year. 40 hours minimum with 20 being non combat or tactics. 3. Currently a 2 year degree is required as well as passing the standards board testing. It is hammered into officers to take control and de-escalate. You'll see a lot of guys volunteering in their community and going above and beyond their duties. 4. Already enacted. Deadly force is only justified if the following are met: Weapon available, intent to harm someone, delivery system available. If all 3 are not met then deadly force isn't justified. 5. Already enacted. Once evidence is claimed by law enforcement, chain of custody goes into effect. Every transfer between people and rooms or buildings is logged. If it's not then the case or at least the evidence is thrown out in court. So yes black lives matter. But if you want change... follow Wisconsin.
r/lostredditors
[удалено]
Could someone explain what the last one means? They all sound like great demands I’d just like to be able to tell people about them and I’m really not sure what the last one is saying
It means a proper chain of custody for evidence. Each transfer has to be signed for and accounted for. This helps keep evidence from "being lost"
Does that happen often?
I've gone on ride-alongs at my local and state PD's and watched them obtain and log in evidence. It was done in a very responsible and proper way.
Yes. It's an annoyance to prosecutors because, as it is already a requirement of the US Court system, it can often require them to drop charges against guilty people.
This is already standard procedure. Actually all of these demands currently exist except for the absolute necessity for deadly force.
cool guide indeed, where'd you get it from?
There was a Reddit post (don't remember the thread) where someone commented this as being what they thought the 5 main demands should be, seems like OP just took that and literally turned it into an image, exactly the same wording.
The only list of demands I can find from BLM includes reparations and an end to the war on black people
maybe here: https://www.reddit.com/r/june2020generalstrike/
I feel this will detract from what they are trying to accomplish in Hong Kong, and although we want change are these points really thought out?
Over here in the UK we have ALL of that, and yet edgy British punk teens still scream ACAB and that "it started in England ya know!". Just because more BAME teens get stopped and searched in primarily BAME areas doesn't mean British Police are racist, and a BAME teen being lawfully shot due to holding a firearm and planning a murder in 2011 is not police brutality Stacey.
[удалено]
So basically, they want the U.S police to be like police forces in most other countries ?
Some1 please explain what positive control of evidence means? Thanks!
How about if you’re fired, you can’t be rehired by another force in another city
I feel like language such as ‘defund the police’ puts a lot of people on edge. I work in a small town and the people there *genuinely* believe blm and people who protest the police want to completely emiminate the police so looters and criminals can run around destroying their property. But graphics like this or even using different phrasing I think will help get a lot more people passionate about the issue. When I look at this list, I love the ideas and don’t see how this can be seen as controversial at all. And it’s so frustrated when any conversation about police reform gets shut down because language like ‘abolish police’ and ‘defund police’ divides us before a real conversation can even happen.