[Part 1 of 2] Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) takes the lead on a national police reform plan that dangles taxpayer cash toward cities and states to reduce police brutality, without banning chokeholds. Can the Republican effort at persuasion work, or must the federal government put the force of law behind its attempt to prevent and punish incidents like the death of George Floyd?
Bill Whittle Now with Scott Ott is a production of our Members.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZW_FrWnwnE
Join the Rebellion
Listen to the Audio Version
Bill Whittle Network · GOP Police Reform Plan: Dangle Cash But Don't Ban Chokeholds [Pt. 1]
6 replies on “GOP Police Reform Plan: Dangle Cash But Don’t Ban Chokeholds [Pt. 1]”
Police reformis a local issue. Civil rights violations are a national issue. When the policing violates civil rights, the national government intervenes. That system already exists.
None of the nationally directed “reform” of policing have anything to do with civil rights. Choke holds are a reasonable tactic in certain dangerous interactions. If improperly employed it is criminal misconduct and covered by existing law and national intervention as required. Prohibiting the tactic will increase officer vulnerability causing them to use more extreem routinely for their safety and will have little positive effect on restraining excessive use of force by bad cops. Cops alreadt=y get plenty of training on use of force. It is not primarily a training issue. So a national datas base for excessive use of force incidents. What constitutes an incident to get a cop on the national bad cop data base? An allegation? An administrative finding of true? What due process rights do the accused have? Appeals? Civil recourse? Severity of the excess? If you like the no fly list, you’ll love this one as well. If you like the national education standards, you’ll love the national police education standards. Shall I go on?
We are trying to treat a minimal deviant problem with a national baseball bat. The collateral damage will be massive and those suffering from ineffective politicized policing will be less, not more safe.
Look at the Atlanta incident: Was a choke hold used? Did the suspect assult two cops and get away? Did the suspect get a weapon from the officer and try to use it on the officer? So how exactly would any of this national reform have prevented this outcome?
At some point, we need to call BS on this “we got to do something” mentality. How about if the MPD had done their job and terminated the guy with the kneeing problem. Here is a question I hasven’t asked or answered: How many of the excessive force complaints were substanyiated and what penalties were enforced?
If you abandon chokeholds, what will replace them, gunfire?
If choke holds can be made subject to federal law, then everything a cop does and all the equipment he uses can be made subject to federal laws, be it the choice of firearms, ammunition, tasers, pepper spray, handcuffs, batons, shields, facial recognition software, SWAT tactics, high speed chase, no-knock raids, undercover investigations, wiretapping, interviews, training techniques, etc. Where does it end?
People who want choke holds banned know nothing about choke holds and know nothing about the reality of controlling a fully grown man who does not want to be controlled.
I could not agree more. What is really not helping are people who are either in less that stellar physical or mental condition and/or are under the influence of drugs or alcohol adding other physiological risk want to get into a physical altercation with the police. The risk of serious injury or death multiplies. Then the media and racebaiters take it and turn it into a race thing and the rest is very predictable.
Based upon reality? I don’t think so. Almost all that goes on in the public/political scene is emotionally and wish based. It is somebody has to do something. What? Pass a law against it. What is “it”? Anything somebody feels they don’t want to happen.
It is almost universal that if you change the name of a thing, the thing will *poof* become what the new name describes. If you don’t like a word, change the definition and *poof* the thing the word refers to will change to meet the new definition. If that doesn’t happen, it is [fill in the blank]s fault. So out comes the jackbooted thugs, the whips, knives, guns to FORCE compliance with the new word or definition.
As long as We the People believe that what is can be voted in and made so by coercive force, we will fail! To be able to use reality, you first have to understand what it is. Then you must act accordingly. A war against reality cannot be won. Sadly, we “collectively” are at war with reality and we therefor WILL LOSE!