The striking thing about the footage is, again, the utter mundanity of the raid.
A family was just violently raided over an unmeasurable amount of pot. A man was
arrested over that pot. The money he needed for his business was taken from him.
Yet there’s no shame or embarrassment from the officers. There’s no panic that
the whole thing was captured on video. That’s when it hits you. They don’t think
they’ve made a mistake. This is what they do. The lead officers later tells the
camera, matter-of-factly, that the raid turned up “a personal use amount of
marijuana.” Perhaps realizing that he was also on camera back at the police
station promising a much larger stash of drugs, he adds, “It happens. Drug
warrants are, you know, 50-50.”
If they raid a home on the pretense that he has a large stash and is selling, fine. But when it turns out to not be true, they better pay for damage - no matter what else they find.That's why there's no shame or embarrassment from the officers. That's why the Black Lives Matter campaign exists: the police have, in this case, done a substantial amount of damage to someone's life but not killed them. And there's not even an acknowledgement of that.
I grew up in a poor, rural area of Appalachia, and this shit is routine.
Your assumption that the race of the victim is the reason the cops are cool with it is based on zero evidence other than your own preconceived notions. I've had my car seats slashed open in a vain search for drugs after I'd already been handcuffed and laid on the pavement with zero fucking apologies, and I'm not black.
Just because you live in a sphere of the world where white people are all rich and privileged doesn't mean that it's like that in the rest of (most of) America.
The issue is that given the same set of circumstances, a black person is more likely to be searched/shot/whatever than a white person. In the case of police shootings, yes some white dudes have been shot as well as black dudes. But if you look at all the cases of police shootings in the FBI database and compare the cases of white dudes waving knives at cops vs the sample of black dudes waving knives at cops, the police are N times more likely to shoot and kill the the black dudes. (I can't recall exactly what N is but I think it was 5 or 6).
If you're going to "burst bubbles" when talking about privilege, I encourage you to learn about intersectionality first. Otherwise you're bursting a straw man version of the concept, which doesn't achieve anything. Privilege exists on multiple axes, and you still have white privilege even if you're poor and don't have class privilege.
"But if you look at all the cases of police shootings in the FBI database and compare the cases of white dudes waving knives at cops vs the sample of black dudes waving knives at cops, the police are N times more likely to shoot and kill the the black dudes."
This study directly contradicts your statement:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evid...
Another thing that drives me crazy about these "privilege" discussions is how insanely qualitative and emotion driven they are.
What's the outcome for a white kid born in a trailer park vs. a black kid born in a wealthy suburb? Is class privilege completely nullified by racial privilege, meaning the white kid is likely to earn more than the black kid as an adult? The data doesn't show this, and puts a much heavier weight on class and geography being the bigger barriers.
The result of these emotionally driven discussions is that once again, Americans are focused on race being a primary driver of inequality and distracted away from the much bigger issue of class. It's a very convenient tactic for the corporate elites who own our government and want to prevent real change. Racism is a convenient target, because it allows people to blame a problem whose solution doesn't involve massive overhauls of tax policy to better redistribute the wealth that is accumulating with the .01%.
I'd upvote this tenfold if I could. I think the race discussion in America pits us against one another and creates Trumps and anti-Trumps, instead of pinpointing the elite (both the leaders of the Trump and anti-Trump camps are elites).
It's horrifying how far away we are from talking about class. Racial privilege exists, but by focusing on it as the number one priority, the number one problem in America, we've turned it into a wedge issue.
Asserting another person's privilege is a specific tactic for silencing speech. It is literally a method of supression if you believe in freedom of expression.
The positive side of this is that once you realize this, you can treat people who focus on "privilege" with the exact same tools you use on Mormons and Jehovas Witnesses. Race theorists behave in ways that earn them uncomfortable status in the BITE model.
Believe it or not people have done quantitative studies on the interaction of race and class. You can go read pretty much any study on intergenerational income mobility and find what you want to know: At every single income level blacks are less likely than whites to transition from their parents income bracket to a higher one [0]
And by the way it's not just police shootings that are the issue. Minorities are overrepresented at literally every stage of the criminal justice system. They're more likely to be searched following a traffic stop [1]. More likely to be charged with a more serious crime [2]. More likely to receive worse bail terms [3]. And more likely to receive longer sentences [4].
Please try to not let your emotions overwhelm the mountain of evidence pointing to the fact minorities really do have a different experience than white people.
[0] https://www.chicagofed.org/~/media/publications/economic-per...
[1] https://www.unc.edu/~fbaum/TrafficStops/DrivingWhileBlack-Ba...
[2] http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/NSPI201213.pdf/$fil...
[3] https://www.pretrial.org/download/research/Testing%20for%20R...
[4] http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/summerprog/2009/nijworkshop/Steff...
Bit of a difference.
Should it make them feel better to know they are simply being targeted by police because of their class rather than their race?
Luck, particularly how much wealth you were born with, plays a large role in your likely social outcome, in ways which cast serious doubt on the success of the layout and rules of the economic system under which we attempt to flourish.
If you follow that logic, when you look at historical state-sanctioned inequality, from slavery to Jim Crow to de-facto de-segregation to the present, what we're witnessing isn't a continuation of Jim Crow. The lack of social mobility here (a raceless consideration) has condemned those who've started off many meters behind the 'Start' line of the race.
THAT is the interplay between race and class.
The fact that we can only articulate this in terms of race is the genius of how the dialogue continuously shifts away from wealth inequality (in America the top 1% own 40% of the wealth) and into discussions of white versus black. Now, the average white person and the average black person are pitted against one another, instead of BOTH screaming against this very fact.
I don't think this is a productive framing when there is a huge excluded middle in there, but to your point, when have you seen an upper class white person treated like Henry Louis Gates?[1]
See also: Paul Mooney's "Nigger Wake-up Call"[2]
Americans are focused on race being a primary driver of inequality and distracted away from the much bigger issue of class.
Class is a function of race in the US.
"The latter argument—“the issue is class not race”—claims that because we have poor and well-to-do people within all racial groups, what matters is really class difference. As the argument goes, differences in average wealth across racial groups are in fact caused by persistent class differences; race no longer has a measurable effect. Again, this dismissal of the issue of race does not hold up to empirical scrutiny. Class matters to be sure, but so too does race. Moreover, studies find that minority groups are not able to pass middle or upper-class status on to their children with the same frequency as Anglos. And the “class not race” argument simply avoids the most pressing question: Why should there be such drastic class differences between racial groups to begin with?"[3]
1. http://archive.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/specials/...
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uw8cDmLpuzg
3. http://www.guleninstitute.org/publications/analyses/240-how-...
If it were to happen to an upper class white person, it would probably not become a national news story in which the POTUS involved himself, as was the case with Henry Louis Gates. So the fact that I haven't heard of it happening to an upper class white person does not suggest, at least to me, that it hasn't happened to an upper class white person.
And as I recall from the news reports, Gates became confrontational and argumentative with the officers who were investigating the report of the possible break-in at his home, as was their duty. That might have been a contributing factor in his getting arrested.
What data? This is counter to any data I've seen.
> these emotionally driven discussions
To suggest that there is no rational, factual basis to racism in the U.S. is not helpful to a discussion of serious issues.
Details matter.
I'm not sure where you are getting your numbers, but as far as murders by police, the numbers are generally 50% white, 25% black, 15% hispanic, and 10% other ([1] shows one year). The U.S. population is 60-75% white (depending how it is measured), 12% black, 12-25% hispanic (depending how it is measured).
So, these numbers seem to show that if you are black, you are 2x the average, white you are roughly 0.8x the average, hispanic right about 1x the average as far as likelihood of being killed by a cop. That puts black at about 2.5 as likely as white.
Point is, if you are black, you are absolutely more likely to have these problems than if you are white. This distracts from the actual problem though. The actual problem is the power imbalance that is being exploited by the cops in these situations, and race is just being used as a shortcut by the cop's brain to identify a power imbalance that can be exploited.
Again, focusing on race will guarantee the actual problem never gets addressed (even if it might make you feel like a really great person).
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/fatal-police-shootin...
You are ignoring the representation of blacks in violent crimes, where they are disproportionately highly represented [0]. If a population represents between 30% and 50% of the violent crime, you would expect them to represent between 30% and 50% of the police shootings, no?
[0]: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
One additional note on this comment, sort of inversely related to my previous comment, focusing on race here also is not going to solve any problems. There are underlying issues leading to these statistics that are independent of race and are being ignored.
I've read a lot of Social Justice texts the last few years, and it's usually a mix of moralistic preaching, loudly asserting articles of faith as fact, and tearful wonderment at the moral superiority of the author and their ingroup over the common people.
"Intersectionality" writings are often the least coherent, as they try to make quite disparate theories of injustice fit together in some Grand Unified Theory.
I won't rule out that there is intellectually honest writing that quantifies these alleged real world phenomenons in a verifiable and falsifiable way. But if so, it is hiding real well.
If you examine this particular use of the concept though:
>... I encourage you to learn about intersectionality first. Otherwise you're bursting a straw man version of the concept, which doesn't achieve anything. Privilege exists on multiple axes, and you still have white privilege even if you're poor and don't have class privilege.
—you can see that the concept of intersectionality isn't actually used: they are just saying it was the victim's lack of class privilege (that caused them to be discriminated against) in this case, rather than something race related (and that this doesn't negate their white privilege). Intersectionality is related to issues of individuals belonging simultaneously to multiple social groupings and claims that the interactions of these groupings must be taken into account—but at least in the above quote, I'm pretty sure all the term adds is a sort of attempted intimidation factor.
It's entirely possible, and I think quite likely, that both are occurring. The question then arises as to which is a stronger factor. I suspect that they are close enough in strength that it may change from region to region, city to city.
You should feel bad, but I know you won't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwyn_Heights,_Maryland_mayor...
So the state police have went over the heads of the local PD to raid the local mayor's residence. Raid went about as well as they usually do - no-knock, shoot the dogs, handcuff everyone inside, turn the place upside down, leave without any apology.
And here's what the sheriff who ran the raid had to say afterwards: "We've apologized for the incident, but we will never apologize for taking drugs off our streets. Quite frankly, we'd do it again. Tonight."
The one good bit that came out of this story was that the mayor, being in a position to influence other people, rammed through a law that required the state to collect statistics on SWAT raids (like, what laws SWAT is used to enforce, how many raids are no-knock, how many shots are fired etc), and publish it regularly. Police unions have pushed back on that big time, but it passed anyway. The results were entirely unsurprising - SWAT is mostly used to enforce drug laws, many raids are over simple possession charges, and there's a disturbing number of no-knock warrants.
If we were black, he'd be in prison. Since we're white, he got off with just probation.
Rich have it better than the poor, regardless of race. And whites have it better than blacks, regardless of income levels.
While I agree with your closing statement, I've sat in a few courtrooms where it has been very clear that white people with less education, income or job security are treated with a harsher temperament than some others.
Let's not forget overwhelming research and other evidence, and hundreds of years of history, of discrimination against people with black skin.
But I agree we shouldn't assume.
Nobody said it doesn't happen to other people. Factually, it happens to black people much more.
Do you have any evidence that the research is "overwhelmingly" one-sided?
Well-known is not the same as correct. It's well known that women will do the same work as men for 23% less. It's also disproven.
Here's at least one study that finds no such bias: researchgate.net/publication/256079484_No_evidence_of_racial_discrimination_in_criminal_justice_processing_Results_from_the_National_Longitudinal_Study_of_Adolescent_Health
I now live in a nice area and am no longer poor.
I can tell you from personal experience that cops are much nicer to white people All the time.
The worst white trash human being is still white and when confronted with arresting a white person or a black person, white people go free.
Even after you're arrested and put in jail when you go to court with all the inmates on the docket that day you will see harsher sentences for any non white person, and what essentially is a slap on the wrist for the white people.
Just go to your local court and sit in for a day, you will leave deflated and unimpressed by our judicial system.
Sure they'll put white people in jail but listen to the charges and you will see firsthand that although someone who is not white has 4 priors and gets sent away for a year, a white guy who comes in on his 10th, but has a suit on, and a lawyer might get supervised probation and 10 days.
How often are white people allowed to come back to court on their own recognizance vs. Black people that always have to post bail.
Always wear a suit, always hire a external lawyer and never talk to the police until they tell you the charges (and when they do, only say, not guilty).
For example, early-90s, me growing up in the sticks. Poor people were busted for growing/selling pot. It was reasonably their only choice, there were no jobs. 19 year old gets his car confiscated, and loses his job. Has no way to support his new wife/baby. It just happened to be at the house where the pot was being grown. He did not live there. This kid gets hit with a felony, now he'll never get a job.
Meanwhile, 20 year old son of local construction company owner gets his plants confiscated, and a few hundred in tickets.
Everyone involved here was white. Judge, poor family growing pot, and the family that owned the construction company. The only difference is poor rednecks versus rich rednecks.
How many black people have been shot by police the past few years? And how many white people?
Prior to the 80's "War On Drugs", it was only an offence to MAKE drugs. In Prohibition, only those who made alcohol were violating the law. You could still possess and drink it. That's why Speakeasys were a thing.
Fast-forward to the Drug war. And now, even a single pill is enough for a felony. Sure makes sorting out "undesirables" easier. And Harry Anslinger back in the late 30's put a fine point on it.
_______________________
" “There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others.”
“…the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races.”
“Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death.”
“Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.”
“Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing”
“You smoke a joint and you’re likely to kill your brother.”
“Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.”"
_______________________Crazy, I say! These negroes think they're somehow equal to us whites!
All I can do is shake my head, and wonder why such an obvious racial discrimination with regards to culture is still banned today. We got rid of the "colored water fountains"....
John Ehrlichman, Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under Nixon.
For example, you know that progressive darling, Joe Biden? Well, that guy has been instrumental in expanding civil asset forfeiture in collaboration with the Reagan administration, which put in place the economic underpinning of the whole "war on drugs" thing that makes the law enforcement agencies so heavily invested in continued prosecution of it. He was also behind the "COPS" program, which evolved into the present system of police departments militarizing by acquiring surplus and retired equipment from the military, all funded by the feds.
Yes it does, even if it is completely accidental and without malice. Racism is not only a way people feel about other people who are racially different from them, it is also a construction of systematic discrimination.
But the fact is that the "war on drugs" happens to be racist with malice.
> or mean that we should abolish it.
It does if you want to live in a more just society; or even if you just want to live in a healthy, functioning society. Policies which disproportionately harm a group of people lead to a permanent underclass. Even if you don't care about the people who are impacted the most, it undermines all of the other institutions of society.
> The reasons why marijuana should be legal have nothing to do with racially disproportionate effects of enforcement.
There are many, many reasons to legalize marijuana (and nearly all of them apply to all other drugs). One of those reasons is absolutely the harm that its prohibition has caused to people of color and poor whites.
By Lee Atwater, an American political consultant and Republican party strategist. He was an advisor of 40th U.S. President Ronald Reagan, the campaign manager for 41st U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and Chairman of the Republican National Committee.
Interview with Alexander P. Lamis (8 July 1981), as quoted in The Two-Party South (1984) by Alexander P. Lamis. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater
_______________________________
So, the talking point here is: "When does it migrate from blatant full-on racism(Darkies, nigger, etc.) to policies that directly are racist and affect certain races much more negatively (totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse)?"
Or, further, should we be taking data on how our policies affect different demographics, and adjust how policies are done? Should we not strive for equality, even in areas where it's simple economic decisions that do disproportionately affect certain peoples?
That people of color are more likely to be arrested, convicted, or sentenced to prison for drug crimes than white people, despite comparable levels of drug use, is most certainly an example of racism in our society.
"Demographic trends"
There's a rich history of redlining and discriminatory housing practices, which is why communities still tend to be racially segregated. By concentrating police activity on these neighborhoods- perhaps a decision often made today by looking at maps that show rates of arrests- you get a feedback loop or cops arresting people of color in predominately minority neighborhoods, because cops were able to do a bunch of that before. In sum it ends up being institutionally racist, even though there may not have been any intentionally racist decision making throughout the way.
There are of course plenty of solutions, but not arresting lots of people for common harmless activity is a good start. Not focusing all policing around areas with the highest arrest rate would be progress. Figuring out how to desegregate neighborhoods would also be useful. The status quo, however, defaults to racism, which is why institutional racism is so insidious.
That said, War on Drugs was Nixon; and it was incredibly popular with people who would show up to vote, which is likely why Reagan let his wife get on the bandwagon and didn't fight it.
No, the war on drugs started during the same Progressive era that pushed alcohol prohibition and eugenics.
The "controlling what people do with their lives" ball really got rolling under Wilson.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_t...
Is there shame and embarrassment when they do it to white people? Or do they just not do it to white people?
http://www.vox.com/2014/7/1/5850830/war-on-drugs-racist-mino...
>White and black people report using drugs at similar rates, according to the latest data from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
>A 2009 report from Human Rights Watch found black people are much more likely to be arrested for drugs. In 2007, black people were 3.6 times more likely to be arrested for drugs than white people.
>Human Rights Watch found more than four in five arrests in the war on drugs are for mere possession, while the rest are for sales. That suggests police are targeting drug users, not traffickers.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/23/opinion/oe-ayres23
>For every 10,000 residents, about 3,400 more black people are stopped than whites, and 360 more Latinos are stopped than whites. Stopped blacks are 127% more likely to be frisked -- and stopped Latinos are 43% more likely to be frisked -- than stopped whites.
>Now consider this: Although stopped blacks were 127% more likely to be frisked than stopped whites, they were 42.3% less likely to be found with a weapon after they were frisked, 25% less likely to be found with drugs and 33% less likely to be found with other contraband.
That statement directly contradicts your evidence:
>black people were 3.6 times more likely to be arrested for drugs than white people.
Please don't exaggerate, particularly when it comes to politically heated topics like this. Otherwise rational people disengage because it's clear you have some kind of axe to grind and the only people that push back are other axe grinders.
Also, as the other poster pointed out, it's not clear if any of this data has been correctly normalized for income level. This same lazy tactic is used by racists to associate crime with black people, so it's very counterproductive to perpetuate stats that don't adjust for income.
And part of the genius of their misinformation campaign is deliberately coming up with policies that target poverty, so that it's difficult to tease out how much of the racism is just a natural outcome of the policy vs. biased policing.
But that's the thing. Even if the policing isn't biased against blacks (you know it is) the policy is deliberately biased against blacks.
Adjusting for income demonstrates that the police aren't totally to blame - and that's correct. They may not even be primarily to blame. But adjusting for income also understates the scope of the problem.
Arguably, the deeper problem is that doing drugs while poor will land you in jail for 15 years while doing the same drugs while rich will get you a slap on the wrist.
STOP DOING THIS. It's not a way to conduct a rational discussion.
>Arguably, the deeper problem is that doing drugs while poor will land you in jail for 15 years while doing the same drugs while rich will get you a slap on the wrist.
Yes, being poor lands you into trouble much more frequently because poor areas are so much more heavily policed. But that's the point, many of these issues are related to biases against poor communities in general, not specifically black people.
What's no way to conduct a rational discussion is when any figure, no matter how well-researched, is immediately called into question apropos of nothing.
You seem to know an awful lot about the motives of people who disagree with you.
There is an axe to grind. I live in a country which has had about three centuries of experience finding every possible way to marginalize black people, and in the last few decades has found every way to dress up the marginalization of black people to preserve plausible deniability and work around laws preventing the direct marginalization of black people (for instance, finding things like income or geography that are correlated with race, and then applying disproportionate policies based on that, so they can convince kind-hearted people like you that they're not discriminating on race when that is totally the intention of the policy). Why should we not have an axe to grind here?
Please stop pretending that this is some sort of dispassionate "politically heated" issue that you can have a friendly watercooler discussion about. Otherwise rational people disengage because it's clear you are making the irrational assumption that both sides are being equally reasonable and participating in equally good faith.
I totally agree that minorities should be upset at these policies, but so should the non-minorities that are being affected by them, too, and hopefully those "kind-hearted people" you talk about, too.
And, how does income affect stop-and-frisk or drug possession arrests? Do cops have some sort of x-ray vision where they can see a suspect's W-2?
It's typically poor communities that these tactics are done in. I think the tactics are reprehensible, and race probably does have something to do with it, but I've also seen cops roll up into rural trailer parks to start shit, too. What gets lost in a lot of the media narrative is how poor folk in general get taken advantage of by the authorities.
The fact still remains, though, that our social institutions treat poor black folks much worse than poor white folks.
Target low-income areas? Target people with falling-apart cars, shabby clothes, etc.? It's hardly difficult.
It's not perfect - occasionally you'll stop someone who looks like a homeless guy and it'll turn out to be Robert Downey Jr. doing some method actor research for a new movie.
Most of the time, though, if you want to target someone who's low-income, there'll be a part of town and a set of characteristics you can pretty reliably look for.
The real problem would be that the poor side of the city is mainly black and that it is trapped in a vicious circle where they have less education and are then more likely to turn to crime and not succeed in life.
If you try to fix one problem when in reality it is the other, you will spend decades making failed reforms while the problem continues unaddressed.
In that context, I think that this...
> I wondered what the ethnicity of the person raided was, and of course he's black. That's why there's no shame or embarrassment from the officers.
...is not good analysis. You're basing a strong opinion on a sample size of 1, that's been selected by a film maker for best effect.
If you ask the police, anyone who owns a scale (which lots of users do, to verify the weight of what they're buying) is a "drug dealer" with intent to distribute.
The public defender will say to the defendant, here's the deal - 1 year in jail, 3 years probation where you lose your 4th amendment right and also these drug classes that are costly and burdensome.
The public defender will encourage the defendant to take the deal. "Or you will lose at trial and you will be sentenced to 3 years in jail."
The point is, the police can arrest anyone for anything. And the prosecutor can add charges that are unrelated 6 months after the fact. Anything goes in a plea deal and it is a terrifying and troubling reality.
"I have to wonder if a calmer, more reflective tone might have benefited the project in the long run. Anyone who already agrees with the movie's arguments likely won't have any problem with its methods, but a larger opportunity to open minds might've been lost somewhere."
This comic literally illustrates the hypocrisy of reactions to Black Lives Matter protests: https://www.instagram.com/p/BK8vHj4g1yb/
Besides which, responding to someone's call for help on life and death issues with "calm down" is patronizing to the point of inhumanity.
Although it's pretty hard to discuss it calmly, precisely because once you start digging into it, there's so much stuff that's plainly damning and disgusting. For example, Balko also collected a significant number of quotes from law enforcement in his book; let me share some:
"Why serve an arrest warrant to some crack dealer with a .38? With full armor, the right shit, and training, you can kick ass and have fun."
"The officers with SWAT and dynamic-entry experience interviewed for this book say raids are orders of magnitude more intoxicating than anything else in police work. Ironically, many cops describe them with language usually used to describe the drugs the raids are conducted to confiscate. “Oh, it’s a huge rush,” Franklin says. “Those times when you do have to kick down a door, it’s just a big shot of adrenaline.” Downing agrees. “It’s a rush. And you have to be careful, because the raids themselves can be habit-forming.” Jamie Haase, a former special agent with Immigration and Customs Enforcement who went on multiple narcotics, money laundering, and human trafficking raids, says the thrill of the raid may factor into why narcotics cops just don’t consider less volatile means of serving search warrants. “The thing is, it’s so much safer to wait the suspect out,” he says. “Waiting people out is just so much better. You’ve done your investigation, so you know their routine. So you wait until the guy leaves, and you do a routine"
"One day, with a big smile on my face, I popped in to tell my deputy chief, Ed Davis, that I thought up an acronym for my special new unit. He was still, as we all were, glued to the classic concepts of policing, which discourage the formation of military-type units. But he realized some changes would have to be made. “It’s SWAT,” I said. “Oh, that’s pretty good. What’s it stand for?” “Special Weapons Attack Teams.” Davis blinked at me. “No.” There was no way, he said dismissively, he would ever use the word “attack.” I went out, crestfallen, but a moment later I was back. “Special Weapons and Tactics,” I said. “Okay?” “No problem. That’s fine,” Davis said. And that was how SWAT was born."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl_XHxrd45I
It's around 37 minutes long. There's some interesting discussion on the making of Do Not Resist and the problems with the way police departments are operated and officers are trained.
The issue is that for one, the person may be wrong. Cops rarely get punished. And second, the complaints may drop by 90%, but the abuses may not drop by nearly as much. Let's say maybe they drop by only 20%.
So in practice, this could lead to an overall drop in police abuse, but not by nearly enough to cover all the abuses. However, now it seems the vast majority of people won't even complain about most of the abuses, so those abuses will remain hidden/unpunished, unless you expect the police chiefs or some other oversight body to watch all the videos and then decide for themselves when to punish the cops (which should probably happen - or at least have a "police behavior alert system" that notifies the oversight bodies by scanning the videos).
But I'm making a big assumption there. I'm assuming that the police know that they're being abusive, and don't want the public to know how they're policing.
What happens if the police are in fact proud of what they do? Convinced that it's the right thing?
For one example see how some police seem to go to maximum escalation at the earliest opportunity. They do this in the name of "officer safety", but ignore the increased danger it poses to members of the public.
If a court disagrees after seeing the proud footage, they get punished.
Although I can imagine that police officers start to change their behaviour because they're watched (there are studies showing positive changes in behaviour due to surveillance), there must also be more education for the police officers in regards to baseline probabilities so that they realize that black and white people aren't different in behaviour, this could help them to realize that their intuition is not profound. I think helping them to understand cognitive biases is a good way to start a shift.
All of this requires that they aren't doing abuses deliberately, though.
Black and white people are different in behavior, on average. There are many reasons for this, among them that black and white people (both directly and through their social networks and family histories) have very different experiences of how the police (and public authorities more generally) act toward them going back in an unbroken chain for several centuries.
And in a way this may be worse than no footage, because the biased footage may be used to discredit eyewitness accounts of abuse.
Some models of police cars overheat if left running and parked on very hot days. The officers leave the cars running to power their electronics and lights. Some officers were trying to ameliorate that situation.
Snopes can tell you more.
[0]: https://jalopnik.com/is-this-virginia-police-department-popp...
Those could be powered by the two giant batteries installed in every police vehicle. The engine is left running for the air conditioner. If "experts" are claiming the above, they are not experts.
That the cops have a 'bullet proof vehicle' is not necessarily a problem in and of itself. It's presence does not violate anyone's rights, moreover - there actually may be circumstances in which such gear might be useful that we are not aware of.
For example : a couple of times a year, a group of officers may be sent to 'take down' some very violent and armed people. Imagine if your 'daily job' required to you to face massively armed and violent bad guys. Wouldn't it make sense that your employer provide you with the basic means to protect yourself.
I'm not entirely justifying it, rather pointing out that 'having an armed vehicle' is largely outside the issue of whether or not cops change their behaviour, or whether civilians change their behaviour - when they know there are cameras present.
Surely there are special forces to deal with that sort of situation? I know there are in the UK.
The problem is that most places don't have the funds to run a completely separate dedicated SWAT. So what they do is place a bunch of regular cops on it, so that they end up sharing their time between SWAT training and door-busting, and regular policing. Needless to say, it doesn't go well, because SWAT training and practice instills the kind of us-vs-them "warzone" mentality that is extremely detrimental to day-to-day policing.
The other problem is that once SWAT is there, cities start using it everywhere on the basis that they have already paid a lot for it, and might as well get their money's worth. This is encouraged from below (i.e. by the officers) too, because raids are more "fun", but also because civil asset forfeiture proceeds from a well-timed raid can be immense, and goes towards the police budget - from which they can buy more SWAT toys like APCs, battering rams or .50 BMG rifles... which then become things begging for an excuse to use, and so the cycle closes.
I would hope that if the local police force has decided to not budget in a response team of that nature then likely they don't need one. But, if they needed one and don't have the budget, then that's a different problem.