OH, and why is it that in certain neighborhoods the establishments (mainly minority) where people go to unwind, have a beer or two, and Chattanooga tries to shut down. Then in an adjacent neighborhood (predominately white) people can sit out in the open and drink all the beer they want? Openly walk around guzzling their beer from their beer cans? Have all the RAVE parties they want, and police will just drive right by. But a minority will get arrested on an open container charge?
Gang violence increases. Cops crack down. Community leaders hold anti-police brutality rallies.
That's because cops don't bother to make a distinction between innocent citizens in the community and criminals.
Cops lessen presence. Crime spirals out of control. Death toll rises.
Is it possible that some rogue cops may have a hand in the above?Spreading false rumors in the community? Even committing a few of the crimes (drivebys) themselves and blaming it on the opposite side?
Same community leaders organize Stop the Violence rallies, calling for more concern about their community from city officials. Repeat cycle.
I see nothing positive law enforcement has done in these communities. The way they respond and interact in them have only served to make the communities more volatile and explosive. Keeping the people basically in their place. The citizens in these communities are held basically in bondage by law enforcement. They will never rise above their situation and progress until police change their tactics. As long as there are criminals on the force going into these communities carrying on as they please, the communities will continue to deteriorate. As long as police interactions and actions in these communities are all about them (the police) getting promotions, bonuses and raises and not about serving and protecting the people within, there will always be mistrust.
As for as drugs and drug dealing, I dont' condone it, but I can understand an individual with a criminal record of selling drugs, getting back into the business when he can't find a job in to help pay for some of the most basic necessities needed to survive and take care of his family. Hell! You have cops who've gotten caught in the drug dealing and other illegal activities trying to maintain a certain lifestyles, and they have a job at least. So imagine having a criminal record and no one will hire you, but you have a family to feed! Hell! I sent a young man to apply for a job at Amazon through a temp. service, and the temp service was very impressed with his resume, education etc., but because he had a criminal record within the last five years, even the temp service wouldn't hire him. They told him he'd have to be crime free for FIVE YEARS!! Hell/BELLS! By then you're basically forced back into the lifestyle that got you in the mess to begin with just to survive. And OH YES!! The cycle continues. Around and Around and AROUND!!
sagoyewatha, those two cops would be carr criminals too if they hadn't managed to slither their way onto the police force. At least one, Cooley, I believe, was in the news prior, and not long before he was caught on tape, accused of the same thing. The only difference in this incident was Salvation had its own cameras. Otherwise, police cameras, would have mysteriously malfunctioned.
Reminders of just how much America hasn't changed from those bygone days John Grisham recently wrote about in his book Sycamore Row. The only difference today is they no longer bring a rope, a torches to burn down the homestead and run minorities off their land. But they still acquire the powers of the local law, change ordinances, local laws, and give power to local neighborhood associations who use the law to do the dirty work of running minorities out of their homes.
Cooley and Emmer just got caught in the act. There are and have been many more. Far too many. You can't have criminal upholding the law and expect no one to notice. Now, the Cooleys and Emmers have become embolden and are venturing into areas never before intended. White America. Like the two Texas cops who publicly stripped searched and sexually assaulted two white females on the side of the road. Now such excessive powers allotted are venturing into areas not intended, people are starting to take notice. They don't want their white teen-daughters/sons and spouses stripped searched and digitally sexually assaulted during routine traffic stops. Surely, you wouldn't either.
People like Cooley and Emmer should have been brought down a few notches a long time ago. In fact, it's those types who should never have been hired in the first place.
There are no winners or losers here. This is not a game where someone lose or someone wins. Just a great sadness and disappointment in how prior chiefs ran their regiment. One that promoted cracking heads, polarizing and encouraged creating volatile situations, promoting fear and intimidation, and sending their posse out to silence anyone who attempted to complain, rather reaching out to the people and public and at least attempting to promote peace.
For reasons I won't go into on this board, I don't think I can ever fully trust police again. However, I do believe Chief Dodd is one of the good guys. Someone who can return policing under his charge back to being peace officers, serving and protecting ALL citizens. The dept. lost some potentially good cops because they didn't want to work with or around the bullies and hot-heads, as one once told me.
I've never met the chief personally, and likely never will. But you don't have to be in physical presence or close proximity to a person to know they have good character, values and compassion. It's the way they carry themselves and the look in their eyes. The eyes really are the window into ones soul.
GIVE HIM A CHANCE To turn things around for the better.
Likely, my last post here.
So, degage, you can't disprove it either.
Why don't you let rick1 out to speak for himself?
Going to work. Will catch up with you later.
Facts, stop your rambling. Take your meds. Chill.
Addressing the oftetimes multiple and complex realities to such problems isn't supporting crime or criminal activity. Denying there are multiple causes and sources to the problem is the true and greatest threat. One that only guarantees the problems with not only continue but escalate.
Reality is not hate.....it's just REALITY! To ignore the various causes and effects is the greatest form of hate.
Former gang members face the same risks as witnesses in violent crimes that testify-
And the same risks good cops face who attempt to expose bad cops.
Actually, degage, my only stand is you and yours can't blame social programs or any of their alleged failures soley on Democrats. It was the rules change and strings attached, created and supported by Republicans during that period, after LBJ signed the war on poverty bill that heavily affected the outcome you and yours blame on the Democrats today.
In fact, before the Civil Rights Movement, the very ones who later attacked social programs had been all for them, as long as they remained exclusive.
And I won't get into a tit-for-tat or a one-upper here with you, rick1 or anyone from your ilk. Any adult from that time period, 1970s(?) who doesn't have dementia yet, and is truthful and honest can likely recall the open hostitlity against the poor, and the resentment of LBJ's war on poverty bill coming from members of the Republican Party, some locals even.
While the "most important organization for dealing with gangs is the police."
Not when the most nefarious gang organization in existence IS your friendly average, on the beat, police unit.
That's where the bulk of the problem(s) exist. Admitting that is where you'll find solutions. Bad and dirty policing have played a major role in crime escalation and the deterioration in struggling poor communities. Denial only guarantees there will be no solutions, and any gains will be lost at some near future date.
In Jesse's post he mentions the war on poverty set in motion the break down of the family in the black community and I provided a comment made by The Late Daniel Patrick Moynihan Former N.Y.U.S. Senator (D)where he is confirming what Jesse posted.
The conversation dealt with the war on poverty breaking down the families in the black community.
That was one man's opinion. It wasn't the welfare program(s), but rules and retstrictions that accompanied created, primarily by republicans when they overwelmingly briefly gained control, that led to creating more poverty and dependency.
Please provide the name or names of the Republican(s) that you alleged made the comment "We'll take care of the women and children, but only if there's no man in the house."
Unlike you who conveniently latch onto the opinion of one individual to boost your stance, and as there was no Internet at that time, I can't magically go back to something that occured more than 40 years ago and magically start to pull names from anyone one specific hat. As there were many saying the same or similar thing from the Republican side. However, there should be tv footage, even locally, because local stations aired the interviews. So maybe you can contact some local station and see if they're willing to go back and pull up some old footage.