Did you really just suggest that gays enjoy getting assaulted by the police?
Part of the reason minority communities are high-crime areas, as investigations of Ferguson have informed us, is that the police go there and harass civilians with petty crimes. In Ferguson's specific case it was part of a fining racket in which fines were compounded by making the warrant resolution process obtuse, and making it difficult for workers to appear when summoned.
Law enforcement can follow just about anyone and within ten minutes find a reason to detain them for something. And then according to the Department of Justice, anything can be probable cause, from being too calm to being too nervous.
Terry stops have been ruled time and again as a violation of fourth amendment rights. And we've seen how they're used disproportionately against minorities. They're not random stops in that a computer tags every 500 + RND (1000) head for a Terry stop. Essentially, the officer gets to choose who he wants to harass. And that's the problem.
So...yeah, go easy on the simplified preconceptions.
HAH! You apparently haven't lived in the poorer neighborhoods of the US, or been a person of color. Or been in the vicinity of a crime as the same approximate build and sex of a suspect.
Once an officer has it in his mind you are guilty, it's only a matter of time before they figure out what. You are committing crimes right now. Every American averages three felonies a day (and you might be surprised what is regarded as a felony).
So if an officer is wanting a collar or doesn't like you defiling his beat, or wants to fuck your spouse, or wants that sweet, sweet car you are driving, you are, but for the grace of a small handful of decent judges, doomed to a few years in prison. Because they'll make your life Hell no matter how clean you are.
No, the best way not to get killed by a cop: don't be black. If you are black, stay off the streets. And even then someone will SWAT your house thanks to a false informant just out of spite.
You're speaking to the rumor and not the actual numbers.
In fact, I'd wonder how a long commute is in rush-hour traffic in inclement weather compares to a year of being in law enforcement.
When I started playing Payday 2 (a heist game set in Washington DC) I noticed on long missions the police just kept on coming, and it raised the question how much I and my buddies were (virtually) cutting into DC precinct manpower, or contributing to the Fallen Officers Memorial. It turns out we were often doubling it. It speaks to the violence of the game, yes, but more surprising is how few officers have died in the line of duty in Washington DC (what was at least for some of the time the murder capital of the nation).
For instance, the last death in the line of duty was in 2010. Since then, 100% of the police officers in Washington DC precincts have come home.
I doubt subdermals will be mandated anytime soon. We encourage pets to be chipped because they often don't carry ID if they escape their collars.
We also don't yet have the infrastructure in place (e.g. a scanner on every bus or street car, and we're already developing technology to block unwanted scans of RFIDs that are more common (e.g. credit card chips.)
So this is a very, very low tech compared to obedience chips or even the more dreaded mandated GPS tracker that are now used to monitor the movements of felons on parole.
TL:DR The devices we've seen in fiction (e.g. Star Trek) are of the worst kind: No warning and it just kills you. (Even Minority Report sentenced precriminals to prison).
The advantage of a mandated obedience system is that it could warn someone in advance of breaking the law, and then intercept the behavior. No further punishment is required.
The problem with such a system are the privacy issues we have with the NSA mass surveillance system or even with Google in that it would be prone to abuse. It would also be prone to unnecessary restrictions as magistrates decide to impose their own values on the people.
It's mandated obedience devices like shock collars are something we wouldn't want to consider in today's political climate (the world over!) but in another era, another time, with a system that could compensate for the temptation to abuse it, it could actually work really well.
Last I checked, many police departments prefer to take in new officers from outside of town.
It was one of the noted elements of the Ferguson affair that in a community that was over 60% black the police department was 90% white, most of whom commuted from St. Louis.
There was a whole racket in Ferguson where the system by which citations were processed was obfuscated so as to run up late charges. That way, even if a kid in Ferguson was cited for something petty, it could bankrupt his entire family, or drive the kid into prison.
Then there's the New York City terry stops which targeted blacks disproportionately, even though the whites stopped were more likely to have contraband, more blacks were arrested because they stopped more blacks.
There's the Chicago canine unites that had an over 90% false positive rate when sniffing Latin suspects. At this point detection dogs so consistently show false positive rates that they're being challenged as a valid police tool at all.
Then there's the asset forfeiture program that robs the public of more money than all the burglaries in the US.
Then there's the false testimony culture that is expressed within the precincts. Officers share an entire slang about who is expected to lie to cover for whom by saying what. This isn't a few guys who know how to wink and nudge each other, but a protocol consistent across the nation.
Then there's the labs who were willfully faking positives of drug tests because doing so encouraged the precincts to take their lab work there. Then there's the $2 field tests that often yield false positives, and the DoJ insists they should still be valid in court.
Then there's the NSA searches which were tolerated only because they were limited to anti-terror. Now the results are passed on to local law enforcement.
Then there's the labor unions, benign brotherhoods and fraternal orders who go into tantrums and outrage over every slightest effort to increase accountability or curb asset forfeitures. While I personally know two officers who really believe in serving the community, the resistance of the entire law enforcement sector implies they're in it for the money and the free murder.
Then there's our underfunded public defenders, and a ninety percent conviction rate within the legal system. We can safely say our penal system has more than a fifty percent rate of wrongfully convicted inmates, not that this can be proven, given the system tasked with such proof is corrupt from the law enforcement officers to the jurists. We have the largest prison population in the world, and the highest incarceration rate in the world. (We run neck-and-neck with the Republic of Seychelles at around 700/100,000 the next one down, St. Kitts, is at 600/100K. Russia, in which Putin openly imprisons dissenters, is at 450/100K. Also Human Rights Watch despises our prison conditions, finding them worse than some non-industrialized nations in Africa.)
We may want a justice system but we don't have one. We may want law enforcement, but no law enforcement at all would be better than the alleged law enforcement sector we have today. If every cop quit tomorrow morning, the nation would actually be better off than it is.
I thought it was implicit, but it's good to make things clear.
An assassination involves a precise hit, say a sniper shot, or a spy with a gun or poisoned tea. Ideally there are no other casualties than the target.
Targeted killing involves dropping a bomb or other large anti-personnel ordinance at the location where the target is allegedly on site. Bush would send in private security contractors as death squads to cleanse a zone of anyone alive.
Obama's method during his administration was to use drone strikes, at least in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The CIA drone strike program in Afghanistan averaged 500 strikes a year at its nadir, but is tapering off. Meanwhile the Pakistan program is still accelerating.
The difference between Assassinations and Targeted Killings is semantic. Assassinations are associated with political targets rather than military and are not considered ethical and involve a lot of blowback. But since a targeted killing technically targets not a person but the location, it allows for plausible deniability, and a strike can be called a success even if the intended target escapes.
Really, one could write some good Catch-22-style military satire about targeted killings, given how somehow doing a hit with massive civilian casualties is less embarrassing to an industrialized state than doing the same hit with no casualties, because of how the mission is defined.
Is that tasers are drawn sooner than guns would be, and are not considered lethal force.
Once we changed policy so that tasers were regarded as lethal force, and a police officer was reviewed (charged and indicted as necessary) as if he had drawn a gun, then yeah, I could see a massive transition away from guns in general and toward tasers.
Preferably, police wouldn't carry firearms unless a situation was known in advance to warrant it, in which case rifles and shotguns are appropriate.
Here. CNN has provided some good charts to put the Chicago crime wave in context.
Murder rates are up in Chicago in context of very recent years. It's actually hovering at a low point with slightly higher bumps. 2016 was a slightly higher bump. Contrast to the mid 90s when the murder rate in Chicago was 1.6x what it today.
That's not a crime wave to inspire Batmen unless you're Trump.
As for police brutality being better since the 60s, we don't really have evidence to say one way or the other. The police covered things up. The marginalized communities complained. The Rodney King aftermath started a riot, and as more and more cameras enter the field we're seeing that police brutality is an accepted norm, largely because we assume that blacks and marginalized minorities are all incorrigible hoodlums that hulk out with the first toke of cannabis.
(The dudes-monstering-out-on-drugs legend came from a few incidents involving PCP. No one really takes Angel Dust anymore, since it's a bad buzz for a lot of risk and health hazards. Crystal meth and crack have since replaced PCP being cheaper and a faster high. It's kind of like cars exploding in 80s action flicks because of a couple of Pintos)
Regardless of whether brutality rates better or worse, it's bad now. If it weren't, we wouldn't still have police fighting bodycams or collecting phones against Supreme Court rulings, or yelling STOP RESISTING! as they pummel the crap out of their latest victim. These are all indicators of a brutality culture.
And it's systemic, such as with a use of SWAT raids for any little thing (rather than specifically for hostage-barricade situations). SWAT raided occurred 500 times a year in the 70s. Now it's 50,000 times a year, with undertrained agents, and we no longer knock. They just barge in and toss in flashbangs, and then search the house for something to justify the raid.
This is all history. And it's all recorded here on TechDirt.
I think the BLM argument is currently black lives don't count as much as white lives do. And Blue matter more than any of us ordinary civilians.
Blue lives aren't really that threatened if we look at how often one of them gets killed on the job. And they do have a propensity to just rotate around murderous officers from precinct to precinct like they do priests who engage in child sexual assault. The good cops don't like it because every murder by an officer drives the wedge between police and community further and further.
I can't confirm your homicides stats, but I do know that homicides, along with violent crime in general, have plummeted since the 70s and 80s, most likely due to removal of lead from gasoline. Despite what Trump says, we aren't living in a crime wave, at least not crime by civilians.
Murders by law enforcement are under-reported by law-enforcement. (This is despite a congressional order that every incident has to be reported to the FBI and then to the BJS. They just refuse.) The only reason we have statistics at all in the last couple of years is thanks to non-profits and more recently news-media agencies actively tracing dead bodies at the coroner's to the incidents that killed them.
Case in point, Michael Brown was left to die in the street for hours, with no attempt by Wilson to contact paramedics to render life-saving aid. (An old SS trick, by the way -- shoot them and let them bleed out in the street.) When Wilson's incident report was requested for the coming grand jury, it hadn't even been filed yet. The report was finally released a week after the incident. So Brown was murdered and the entire precinct didn't bother with the report until it was absolutely necessary.
So we really don't know the stats regarding how many black lives have been taken by blue lives except in the most recent handful of years.
According to those black lives I've known, police brutality has not gotten any better since MLK was complaining about it (much to the chagrin of J. Edgar Hoover) in the early 1960s. But until everyone had phone cameras, and police became less successful at confiscating them, the US public was just able to pretend that none of this was going on.
We also still have the matter that a legal system that can indict a ham sandwich seems to be incapable of indicting a law enforcement agent. And where we give ordinary indictments less than sixty seconds, we'll spend days convincing a grand jury that a blue life shouldn't be even indicted.
Then there's the mistrial of Officer Randall Kerrick in which the twelfth juror could not in good conscience find a law enforcement officer guilty. They had video of him shooting Jonathan Ferrell in the back and then re-arranging evidence to cover his story.
Blue lives already matter. Blue lives matter way more than civilian lives ever did.
And Jonathan Ferrell's life doesn't matter at all.
And neither does yours, if a law enforcement officer covets your spouse or your stuff. Or wants to gun you down out of sheer spite. Even video of the incident will not see justice. And you may not appreciate that, Anonymous Coward, because you aren't yet in the crosshairs.
In the meantime, I'd appreciate it if you (and the United States) didn't decree the fate of the rest of us based on the behavior of some people who have a few common traits with us, whether its brown skin or low income or whatever.
Because if we were to apply the same sort of judgement to blue lives, the case for epidemic brutality and abuse of power has already been made evident with video after video after video. The behavior of the entire police force during the Ferguson unrest was contemptible (and recorded, despite their best efforts), and is in itself an indictment of the entire law-enforcement complex. Their behavior alone suggests that humans simply turn monstrous once issued a badge and a gun.
You may trust your nephew to do some semblance of the right thing at the NSA but I don't. I expect that he passes around uncovered private cheesecake photos much like the rest of the NSA interns. That's common practice according to Snowden, and been regarded as an accepted perk of spying assignments in espionage and law enforcement since the 50s. Even the TSA hands around particularly notable nude-scans for intra-office entertainment.
I also expect he'd do his duty and report on people who's forth-amendment rights were just bypassed by a secret court, even if their crimes have nothing to do with whatever terror assignment is on. At this point it's accepted policy within the NSA to report uncovered suspect activity (and large amounts of seize-worthy assets) to local law enforcement.
If by droner in Chief you mean to imply you disapprove of Obama's drone-strike programs in Afghanistan and Pakistan, I wholeheartedly agree.
It's also a continuation of Bush's use of targeted killings in the war on terror, just with drones instead of Private Security Contractors. Same massacres, not as close-up-and-personal.
Targeted Killings has been a US policy since we ceased using assassination as a military tactic, since it becomes too easy to use assassination for political or personal targets rather than military ones. The only problem is targeted killing has (almost) all of the same problems as assassination and then all of the problems of terror attacks. TKs targeting a guy just with bombs (or death squads) rather than a single sniper or ninja. And it leads to more civilian deaths.
So I'm right there with you regarding our CIA drone strike programs.
But calling Obama the Droner In Chief doesn't really contrast him to Trump (who's eager to continue drone-strikes, if not open new programs) and is way on board with extrajudicial detention and interrogation (e.g. capture and torture without due process) or really all of the war atrocities of Iraqi Freedom. Trump is keen to be the New Holocaust president.
Regarding the thermonuclear problem, Trump is not the same madman that Nixon was, who was essentially playing good cop / bad cop alongside Kissinger to secure Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties (and put the fear of God into Ho Chi Minh).
Trump with the US thermonuclear arsenal, in contrast, is closer to giving nukes to Caligula. We're less likely to see a nuclear attack on Russia, given Trump's irrational fondness of Putin (and the threat of severe retaliation). But he may well nuke Iran for the fun of it. Or Mexico. Or California. Because he's a real madman who has shown evidence of a severe disconnect regarding action and consequences.
Regardless, Trump's insanity will only move forward Putin's expansionist ambitions, not slow them.
And yes, the world trembles at the might of Trump the madman, knowing that any of us could be targets based on his whimsy and what he reads in Breitbart or Fox News.
That's a state of destabilization and it's only a good thing in political thrillers, not IRL.
This is something I've observed as well. I think when scarcity gets too great we start looking for scapegoats to blame our woes on, ultimately to cull them from society.
Given a surplus of food (say an unattended flour silo) mice and rats will multiply to consume the food supply, but once the food source is exhausted, they'll turn on each other and fight viciously. The ones that survive will live on cannibalizing the dead.
Our scarcity is artificial. Most of our wealth is hoarded by a tiny percentage. Our housing is plentiful but we have a lot of homeless, and we have a lot of people going hungry even through we also have a surplus of food (much of which gets dumped). And I fear it's pushing us towards that starving-rats place.
The White House has made so many claims since Trump's administration that have been verifiably counterfactual, I think Trump, and anyone from whom he commands total loyalty (e.g. Spicer, Conway) are the least truthful source. Of course, Trump has shown to have almost no grip on reality, so the White House may just be very, very, very inaccurate.
Considering how post-Snowden, US government scared away a whole lot of viable hackers from state employment, it's very possible Russia has a stronger cyberwarfare sector than the US, even though the US has three agencies at least (FBI, CIA, NSA) that engage in cyberwarfare practices. Sadly, despite DHS' efforts to get them to play nice with each other, they really don't
So by your (spurious) logic, Putin would be the least trustworthy, having at his hands the most hacking resources.
Still, all that aside, Trump super keen to get cuddly with Russia, which is really contrary to US policy since Putin's been a total authoritarian and expansionist ass. Remember they're still in Crimea which they've annexed by force. It's that (and not Putin's record of assassinating a gagillion dissentors) that has the US State Department (and Europe, and the UN) sore at the Russian administration.
Speaking of convenient, it is very convenient that the US has been reduced to a floundering buffoon. When Putin's army rolls into Estonia, Trump is going to be completely beside himself rather than organize a measured military response.
Or are you thinking Estonia and most of Eastern Europe is not your problem?
Maybe we'll get lucky and Mattis will handle it while Trump's staffers distract him from the telly.
The chaos around the White House serves as a continuous whirlpool of distractions, within which Trump's agenda gets served, except that this chaos seems to extend to the WH staff. I think only Trump is used to working as if every day was take-out-the-trash day, and I think he's used to not really getting all that much done in such a maelstrom.
It's possible that the leak release was timed to correspond with other events, but it will be hard to say until we see how they interact.
The investigation of the White House administration and its interactions with Putin and the Russian administration is going to continue, and I suspect it will be slowed more by GOP obstructionism than by news distractions.
More distressing is that the CIA can be hacked like this at all. If documents regarding their tools are inadequately secured, what else is already in malicious hands?