Another Black shot...

[judoka_uk]

Just a bit of nitpicking: I do share your criticism, but I don´t see what´s socialist about liberal jurisdiction.

Policy in socialism was to send every criminal (and everyone considered not good for socialism) to prison, work-camps and brainwashing-institutions; in that respect, the american way of dealing with criminals is very socialist (think of boot-camps).

This is a common problem I encounter. People, understandably, conflate opposition to the European Human Rights Act (EHRA) and European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) with a dislike of human rights or opposition to human rights.

That is not my position.

The whole issue of Pan-European human rights emerged out of an attempt by British legal types to extend British values into Europe to help prevent a repeat of the events of WWII.

However, that initial purprose has been corrupted.

The traditional Anglo-Saxon view of liberty is that individuals convey power upwards to the state. So individuals grant the state the rights to certain areas it may operate in. The European socialist model is that the state conveys power downwards. The State grants individuals rights to do certain things.

This can be seen clearly by an analysis of the American bill of rights, which is born out of the Anglo Saxon tradition of individuals granting the state powers. To the ECHR where the European socialist model is applied and power is granted by the state to individuals.

Let's take free speech, surely one of the most fundamental rights.

US Bill of Rights:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Here the people tell the government what it cannot do - "Congress shall make no law..." That is to say the government can impose no restrictions on free speech, no restrictions on assembly etc...

ECHR

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression....

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Here the government tells the people that their rights to freedom of speech, assembly etc... are subjected to conditions and that those conditions will be decided by the government.

It explicitly says that the government will have the right to make whatever laws it please restricting what you can say, where you can assemble and what you can believe.

This European socialist model of rights is one where the state grants rights to individuals with conditions.

There can be nothing further from the concept of liberty than that.

I don't think that supporting a concept of human rights, which says that your most basic human rights can be curtailed and restricted at whim by a state is logical.

True liberty is when the the people tell the government what it can't do. Not when the government tells the people what they can do.

Anybody living in Europe who really values liberty should fight to have the EHRA ripped into pieces and a real bill of rights put in its place.

[nils]

^ under this definition, I understand and agree with you. I just wouldn´t call that phenomenon "socialism", since it leads to confusion with economic paradigms (e.g. as antithesis to capitalism) and other aspects. Also many schools of thought in socialism (those before Lenin) agree totally on the down-up approach you propagate.

Maybe "government-centered" or (partly) "totalitarism" would be a more fitting term.

But then, it´s only semantics.

[judoka_uk]

^ under this definition, I understand and agree with you.

Jolly good. I think this is a really important thing for more people to get their heads around. I'm a Eurosceptic and would rather Britain were out of the EU and in a EFTA situation, but that doesn't mean I hate Europeans or don't care about what happens to them.

I think its very dangerous and sad that more continental Europeans aren't really aware of how the institutions and structures that they think ensure their liberty actually infringe it and make them less free.

Subsuming political control from your national government to the supra-national EU government and institutions won't make you safer and it wont make you freer.

I just wouldn´t call that phenomenon "socialism", since it leads to confusion with economic paradigms (e.g. as antithesis to capitalism) and other aspects. Also many schools of thought in socialism (those before Lenin) agree totally on the down-up approach you propagate.

Maybe "government-centered" or (partly) "totalitarism" would be a more fitting term.

But then, it´s only semantics.

Perhaps a more accurate term would be 'collectivism' and its lead in phenomenon 'corporatism'.

As a German you'll be acutely aware of how the EU's corporatism is negatively affecting you, because your money is being used to bail out and prop up very wealth southern European bankers.



Profits are privatised, but losses are socialised.

And your fellow Europeans are suffering as a result of this corporatism. The Greek people are being punished by the EU's policies that sets the EU project on a higher level then their economic chances. Vicious externally imposed austerity measures are destroying the lives of ordinary Greeks, especially young people.

Austerity only works when you can de-couple, default and devalue.

Greece can currently not default, not devalue, because it is being told it can't de-couple.

No decent person could support a political project that kills Greek pensioners through starvation and hypothermia purely for the sake of a pan-European fantasy and which makes the poor pay to prop up the rich.

More continental Europeans, especially Germans, need to understand that the EU is the problem, not the solution and whilst the Euro hurts Germans, it will kill Greeks.

No liberal minded person should support such venal corporatism for the sake of politicians keeping their snouts in the trough.

[cualltaigh]

Law enforcement service is voluntary. Choosing to be in law enforcement is a decision to take on certain responsibilities. When one takes on responsibilities which include a duty to protect people's safety, I believe we can hold that person to a higher standard in terms of certain behaviors.

Whilst I understand the sentiment in holding those in a position of authority to a higher standard, I think the reasoning is flawed.

I believe that those in a position of authority should be held to the exact same level of behaviour that they are employed to enforce (i.e. the standard set for the rest of society). If that standard is lacking then it should be lifted universally, not just for those in charge.

If you have a tiered hierarchy of personal and social responsibility then what's preventing that system from ending up in a place where the gap in expectations elevates those in positions of authority to a point of accountability where they need to conduct themselves in a robotic or even superhuman way in order to simply meet that standard. Similarly, in that same system those that wish to usurp the standards have the expectations on their own level of behaviour nullified (or at least diminished) by the mere presence of someone in a position of authority (who is far more accountable for the outcome due to the higher level of expectation).

Just as I believe a law enforcement officer should control of his or her emotions and react to protect the safety of innocent bystanders, I believe it is reasonable to expect that people should not be shot unjustly. Controlling emotion in the face of fear, to either protect safety by appropriate offense or defense, is something I would like to count on in a law enforcement officer.

In many situations being able to access emotions can make them better at their job which includes far more than just protecting innocent bystanders to a violent confrontation. I don't know how you make that or the requisite of putting your life on the line part of the job, or even if you should. What it should be is the very solid foundation of our respect and appreciation for those that do.

[nils]

@judoka_uk (In spoiler since quite off-topic):

Spoiler:

Jolly good. I think this is a really important thing for more people to get their heads around. I'm a Eurosceptic and would rather Britain were out of the EU and in a EFTA situation, but that doesn't mean I hate Europeans or don't care about what happens to them.

When the EU started to form a real political institution, I thought those who feared decline of liberty and democracy, higher bureaucracy an loss of national sovereignty to be just some more conspiracy-theorists.

Recent history shows I was dead wrong with this assessment.

I think its very dangerous and sad that more continental Europeans aren't really aware of how the institutions and structures that they think ensure their liberty actually infringe it and make them less free.

The situation in germany is mostly such that many become aware of the negative impact of the EU, but in a completely wrong way: The common narrative in national and private media is that "the greek (and spanish and portuguese) people are too lazy and corrupt and we, the glorious hard working germans, in an act of charity, have to save them".
People actually believe that, which leads to the anger comfortably being directed to rassistic sentiments, instead to where it belongs.

On the other hand, especially the younger generations have become much more EU-critical and proactive towards profound change on many levels, leading to new political constellations (pirate-party at 8%) and more and more large demonstrations (in germany a rare event).

A propos demonstrations and police, fun fact: during the demonstrations in the course of the beginning of the financial crisis, the requirements for joining the Bereitschaftspolizei (riot-police) dropped from having a good middle-school-degree, psychological tests and a few years of experience in normal police-work to "be larger than 1,85m". Also they got new batons.

Perhaps a more accurate term would be 'collectivism' and its lead in phenomenon 'corporatism'.

Much better term. I like it and will use it (or do you plan to get an european-copyright for it :) ? )

As a German you'll be acutely aware of how the EU's corporatism is negatively affecting you, because your money is being used to bail out and prop up very wealth southern European bankers.

Except when you are representing a large bank or an arms-dealer. Fun fact nr.2: two months ago, germany sent a dozen top-notch Leopard2-tanks and a submarine (rumored) to Greece as a gift, since they couldn´t afford them any more.

And your fellow Europeans are suffering as a result of this corporatism. The Greek people are being punished by the EU's policies that sets the EU project on a higher level then their economic chances. Vicious externally imposed austerity measures are destroying the lives of ordinary Greeks, especially young people.

No decent person could support a political project that kills Greek pensioners through starvation and hypothermia purely for the sake of a pan-European fantasy and which makes the poor pay to prop up the rich.

Politicians, regardless of the political system, do not tend to be decent persons. It takes a special mixture of self-esteem-issues, lust for power and lack of better qualities for wanting to become one - it´s a clicheé, I know, but every politician I met (from the lowest levels to fairly high) perfectly fit into those categories.

More continental Europeans, especially Germans, need to understand that the EU is the problem, not the solution and whilst the Euro hurts Germans, it will kill Greeks.

No liberal minded person should support such venal corporatism for the sake of politicians keeping their snouts in the trough.

Agreed.

If we want to keep on this discussion, maybe another thread is in order?

[dustymars]

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...vits-crimeline

[submessenger]

Oversimplified, yes, but it all comes down to our existing bias, which can be easily observed from a simple test like this:

http://ccsn.uchicago.edu/Studies/ShooterEffect/

To give you an example, I responded "correctly" in all the trials, but unconscious bias can be seen in my reaction time. I was faster to shoot an armed black man and quicker to dismiss an unarmed white man.

Group Reaction Time Accuracy
Black Armed 680.791666667 95.8333333333%
White Armed 638.8 100.0%
Black Unarmed 774.090909091 95.4545454545%
White Unarmed 732.318181818 95.4545454545%

That was fun. I got shot by a black guy, and I took too long on another one with a cell phone; I shot two unarmed white guys.

[wetware]

"If social security is the holy grail of politics, race and crime is the holy grail of criminology. Touch it and you expose yourself to wrath and fury. For this reason, many criminologists are loath to examine the connection between race and crime outside the modern sociological paradigm that holds that race is a mere social construct - that is, something defined by any given society, ... a 'social invention'."

-John Paul Wright, associate professor of criminal justice at the University of Cincinnati

Low socioeconomic status correlates more closely with crime than race does, suggesting that it is not a problem of a certain race being troublemakers or inherently violent but more of a certain race having a greater likelihood of living in poverty. I'd love to give you sources on this, but it's hard to find good sources on this that aren't behind a paywall. (Irony?)

[It is Fake]

Low socioeconomic status correlates more closely with crime than race does, suggesting that it is not a problem of a certain race being troublemakers or inherently violent but more of a certain race having a greater likelihood of living in poverty. I'd love to give you sources on this, but it's hard to find good sources on this that aren't behind a paywall. (Irony?)

LOL. I'll look at some later when I finish my homework. I have access to all of that good stuff until I graduate.

[tgace]

Low socioeconomic status correlates more closely with crime than race does, suggesting that it is not a problem of a certain race being troublemakers or inherently violent but more of a certain race having a greater likelihood of living in poverty. I'd love to give you sources on this, but it's hard to find good sources on this that aren't behind a paywall. (Irony?)

Oh I agree with that 100% To think that there is some sort of racial/biological tendency toward criminality is stupid. ******** come in all colors.

I think that the author of that blurbs main point is that (regarless of the underlying reasons) even trying to address race and crime statistics is almost impossible to do without touching the third rail of political correctness.