The Pew Research Center’s most recent survey of religious knowledge was just published and has created a bit of a stir. Atheists are rightfully arguing that they know more about religion than their religious counterparts! And it seems this is true.
I just took a shorter online version of the larger quiz and even I scored better than most.
I just finished watching Phil Plait’s “Don’t be a Dick” talk at JREF and it got me thinking about how I’ve responded to many christians and how they have responded to me; what my ultimate goal is, etc. It certainly got me thinking.
Before I get to the video and my comments, I’d like everyone to read my request for anyone and everyone to send me examples of insults by both atheists and theists wherever you can find them and please send them to me. I explain why below.
I agree with him that screaming obscenities will not change anyone’s mind and it was inspiring to hear his story about the young earth creationist who he spoke with, but I believe that girl is the exception to the rule. With all of my talks over the years with creationists and theists of all kinds, even being nice often does not change their mind. Although, I have changed some minds of people I’ve known who now accept evolution, but didn’t before. Two specific people come to mind, but they were not deeply entrenched in their beliefs like some of my other friends were. Though, I agree that people want instant gratification and want those they speak with to “begin to see the light” immediately, and it just doesn’t happen that way. Even though the people I’ve spoken with over the years didn’t change their minds right away, perhaps I put a little bit of doubt in their mind about their beliefs but because I didn’t keep in contact with them I’ll never know. Looking back, even those two friends of mine who I ultimately convinced that evolution was true, it took several months of showing them television shows and books on evolution and answering their questions to the best of my ability. Eventually they both did accept evolution.
Perhaps trying to change peoples’ minds online isn’t the most effective? Maybe we need that human interaction to change people’s beliefs? If we speak to each other face to face perhaps we can see each other as two human beings and we will feel less inclined to be rude or insulting to that person. The internet does, after all, give us anonymity and that fact does often cause people to say things they wouldn’t ordinarily say to someone in person. I honestly know that I have said some things to people that in person I probably wouldn’t have said if we were talking face to face, though I also don’t consider myself very rude most of the time. I know I’ve been rude to Ray Comfort and two or three other individuals because I was getting so annoyed with their nonsense, even though they weren’t ever rude to me. But, as Phil said in his speech, that was simply due to pure frustration because of their ignorance. I was giving them fact after fact and they’d ignore it all. Looking back I genuinely feel bad for saying what I did.
Though then I think about all those who began to doubt because of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion and John Loftus’ blog Debunking Christianity and the people they’ve convinced - or at least caused to doubt and question - through their writings.
I honestly don’t think it’s necessarily the tone. I think it ultimately comes down to a combination of factors, the most important being the person you’re speaking to. Some people do respond to slight hostility/ridicule when someone is trying to change their minds about something. Look at all of the people who used to believe but doubted because of Dawkins’ The God Delusion and other books; books so many consider to be rude and “shrill” and “intolerant” and yet they’ve changed minds.
The example of Ray Comfort also makes me believe that being polite or rude doesn’t matter much. Rude or not I don’t think he will ever change his mind for whatever reason. Perhaps it’s the money and fame; perhaps he’s too emotionally invested in his beliefs. Whatever the reason, having a discussion with him will most likely not change his mind. Hell, I’d bet a million dollars that no discussion would.
I’m just jotting down my thoughts as they come to me, trying to sort them out the best I can so I can create a somewhat readable blog post.
I’ve begun to believe that, while the skeptical movement has come a long ways, we will not get rid of religion entirely (even if we become immortal) because there are so many different reasons people believe, because, as Phil said in his talk and I agree, people are hardwired for magical thinking. I even do it on rare occasions, believing some patten I’ve spotted in certain events means something, or there is some “plan.” Skepticism can often be a full time job, checking your natural impulses to see design and purposes or patterns where there is none, which brings to mind Michael Shermer’s fantastic talk on just this subject.
On the other hand, should skeptics try to be polite in every situation? I don’t believe so. If you’re on the receiving end of verbal abuse I see no problems with responding with your own hostility, and from experience, after that happens disengage with that individual because once a discussion reaches that level there is no more discussion to be had. The person’s mind is closed and won’t listen to a thing you have to say so there is no point in continuing.
But I also see where Phil’s speech also left out some things. From my experience and from what I’ve seen on the web the majority of skeptics are polite and willing to engage in civil discussions, but many theists aren’t. And many times theists can be just as obnoxious and rude (if not more so) than many atheists and other skeptics. I’ve experienced this a lot on the forums at Amazon.com. Many times the hostility seen from skeptics are because they were on the receiving end of some rude behavior on the part of a theist.
There seem to be many factors that go into convincing someone they are in error and it obviously isn’t easy. But I do agree with the speech in that I don’t believe people should be rude unnecessarily. I know it can be very difficult, especially when dealing with some extremely obnoxious individuals (ahem...Bruce Bain), and we sometimes say things that we probably shouldn’t, but I think we should leave any vile comments to those who truly deserve it. Those who come after us first with their own attitude and name calling (not to mention lies and smear campaigns). That is my policy and I’m sticking to it.
So, in conclusion, I agree with Phil that one shouldn’t be rude, when not provoked, though I also don’t believe it is the an answer to convincing people. I largely agree with David Eller’s comments about getting rid of religion as it’s layed out in the first chapter called The Cultures of Christianity in the book The Christian Delusion.
Now that I think about it I’d like to ask anyone who comes across this blog piece to send me links and/or screenshots of discussions you’ve been in or have come across where there is rude behavior by one of the participants. I want as many examples of rude behavior and name calling by both skeptics and believers that can be found. Let’s see who are the most rude and see who we can find engage in the most ad hominem against others. This by no means is a scientific study but I believe it will give us a relatively good idea of who needs to listen to Phil’s speech the most. Us skeptics or believers?
My Thoughts about Phil Plait’s “Don’t be a Dick” Speech at TAM8
I’ve recently watched the DVD starring Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson called Collision: Is Christianity Good for the World? and I must say that I didn’t like it much.
Another gripe I had was the sound track. The hip hop and rap I felt did not fit the setting of this debate or the two men in general. I kept waiting to see if Hitchens and Wilson were going to all of a sudden come out behind a curtain wearing gold chains and parachute pants while wearing baseball caps backwards.
At one point they show a piece of one of their debates where they are discussing morality and Wilson accuses Hitchens of having to borrow the moral standards of christianity in order to make the moral claims he does. Hitchens counters this by arguing that morality is innate and that even before christianity people lived in societies just fine, and even societies that have never heard of christianity often do just fine as well. Wilson goes completely around the argument and says that, ‘See, Hitchens’ claim that religion poisons everything is false since christianity didn’t ruin the innate morality we have and various societies.’ What?! He didn’t even answer the argument! Personally, I would have responded with the fact that, yes it has ruined morality because religion often causes people to go against our innate instinct to not kill one another and despite this they still kill others because of their religious beliefs.
In another clip of one of their debates Wilson says that it was OK to kill the Malacites because god ordered it, and Hitchens objected to this view of “morality” and Wilson counters by claiming that Hitchens also doesn’t care if the Malacites are killed because the “universe doesn’t care.”
This is the kind of nonsense that just makes me want to bang my head against a wall when I listen to christians. I could answer Wilson’s claim in one of two ways. One, I could say that we humans are what make the moral decisions in this world so why in the world are you mentioning the universe? Two, I could argue that the universe does care because we humans are made out of “star stuff,” the same components as the universe, therefore the universe cares. We are simply conscious and autonomous pieces of the universe (in most respects; we still must obey the laws of physics, etc.).
In the next clip Wilson references Freud’s belief that god is simply the projection of a father figure and how the opposite holds true with “atheism as fatherlessness,” which is a completely bogus claim, as I’ve shown in my book review of The Making of an Atheist.
They showed clips of both Hitchens and Wilson at Barnes and Noble (one of my favorite places by the way) signing their book Is Christianity Good for the World? and discussing their own religious views and upbringing.
Near the end of the DVD when they were having a discussion about morality in a tavern Wilson says something that I feel was very immoral. In fact, I think he is a complete asshole for saying it. Hitchens was asking the crowd whether or not they would feel repulsed if they saw a man kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach. Wilson remarked that Planned Parenthood wouldn’t object to the man kicking her. That made me very mad. Of course Planned Parenthood would object, you uncaring son of a bitch! They help women who become pregnant by mistake and only if the woman wants her pregnancy aborted! That’s the damn point! It all relates back to Prime. It also shows you just how naive many (if not most) christians are about these issues.
From the clips I’ve seen of Wilson’s arguments he is a horrible debater and is wholly illogical. In most cases I saw him simply go around Hitchen’s arguments and not even debate the issue at hand. I felt Hitchens made many good arguments and pointed out many flaws with Wilson’s arguments and his general view of the world.
I’ve seen the DVD so maybe I will get their book? It’s only a couple of bucks at Amazon.com so maybe I’ll pick it up. Or I’ll just view what I can at Google Books and save my money since most of these arguments I’ve participated in and have heard just about every argument there is.
Overall, I felt the DVD was very poorly done and Wilson is a piss poor debater and ignorant as hell about a lot of the topics he discussed with Hitchens...but that’s my opinion about all apologists. They don’t care about evidence or rationality, only defending a view of the world they came to believe because of illogical thinking and emotional reasons - just like most christians.
Collision: Is Christianity Good for the World? - My Thoughts
For anyone who may have an interest in martial arts my other blog, aptly titled Truth in Martial Arts, is in full swing. I have several entries discussing my return to the martial arts scene and where I’ve been training. I also have a review of a self-defense DVD I’ve posted and I have a few book reviews scheduled as well. One is already finished and will be posted later this month.
Just as I am with Arizona Atheist I strive for the truth, and nothing but the truth, so if you’d like some tips on self-defense or some actual training stop on by and check out my blog!
These responses are purely ridiculous. I’m not sure if many of these theists have even read the book yet and they’re already claiming they’ve refuted Hawking! Several theists have already come out of the woodwork trying to refute him!!! That tells you right there the theists are scared about science ripping their beliefs a new one.
Now, it seems that a main argument they object to is Hawking allegedly arguing the following (taken from Lennox’s article):
The Big Bang, he argues, was the inevitable consequence of these laws 'because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.'
It seems that what Hawking is saying is that these “laws”; properties of the nature of the world, caused the universe to form just as it did and human happened to evolve because of it. I have not yet read the book but I have read a few of his other works and I might respond more fully once I have a better grasp of Hawking’s argument and see it in context. I’ve already pre-ordered the book and it should arrive in about a week. I’m looking forward to reading what he has to say. I’ve read several good reviews of it so far and it looks very interesting.
"You know those controversial TSA full-body scanners? Well, they are coming to airports here in New York next month. Great. Normally I take a Xanax before I fly, now I have to take a Viagra." - Jimmy Fallon
The TSA’s body scanners, or ‘millimetre wave’ and 'backscatter’ machines, have created quite a stir around the world ever since they were rushed out to be included in several airports in the U.S. and Europe because of an attempted terrorist attack. A man, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, is said to have supposedly had plastic explosives sewn into his underpants and attempted to detonate it. These scanners were said to help foil such attempts in the future. The only problem is that even an engineer who worked on the scanners said they wouldn’t detect chemicals, like the bomber used, or light plastics.
For anyone familiar with my blog I’m sure you will know that I am very much against this new form of privacy invasion. In fact, several weeks ago I had my own encounter with these machines for the first time when I flew to visit family.
While going through security at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport I approached the first TSA agent whom I gave my I.D. and boarding pass to inspect. Having worn shorts the man saw my prosthetic leg and asked if I’d like to try out these new scanners that are much quicker and easier than having to be frisked. Having read about these scanners many months back and their privacy implications I politely said no, and that I’d like to just go through security as I usually do. Usually I walk through the metal detector and because of my prothetic leg I obviously beep off (though oddly enough I have gone through some metal detectors without them going off a handful of times before) and then they have a male security agent pat me down and wave the metal detecting wand over my body. Ever since 9/11 they also use a cloth to swab my hands, shoes, and prosthetic leg to check for any bomb material residue. Luckily I’ve never had any false positives (I’m not sure if false positives are very common, assuming they’ve happened at all, though with any kind of scanning software there’s bound to be glitches and false positives occurring at some point).
This time was different, however. After refusing to go through their strip search machine, I waited patiently for someone to come over and perform the usual pat down, and while I waited I saw one of the TSA agents tell others in line to try the new security device. He failed to mention to these unsuspecting people - some of whom were young girls - that an image of their naked body would be displayed in front of who knows who. For all you know they have a small group of people viewing them and mocking or “getting off” on those who go through, like young girls for example, since I saw one of the TSA agents stare at some young girls like pieces of meat as he told them to go into the scanner (more on this possibility later).
Finally I was called over to do the customary search, but this time I was labeled an “opt out.” Several times they yelled out, ‘We have an opt out over here,’ or something to that effect. I felt this was an attempt to embarrass someone who didn’t want to submit to their Orwellian methods and wanted to humiliate me. And in addition to doing the usual wand, pant down, and scanning for explosive materials, both on the usual places and on the inside and outside of my bag as well. Something that was never done before. All because I didn’t want some asshole to see my naked body.
Even more, these assholes aren’t educating those who choose to go into the scanners. True, thankfully, in Phoenix you are not required at the present time to go through the scanners as in some places, but the fact that they go through your bags for no reason at all and treat you as if you’ve done something wrong is a huge violation of my rights. Especially when there is no evidence whatsoever that any one of those TSA agents could cite that would give them probable cause in needing to open and peek inside my bag while swabbing for explosive material.
Remember the TSA agent who seemed a tad bit too interested in those younger girls (for the record they seemed to be about 15-17 years of age but I have no idea for sure)? Well it’s already happened where the TSA not only printed out photos of a boarding passenger but passed copies of the picture to several others throughout an airport in London of Indian film star Shahrukh Khan. The risk is too great to allow potential child molesters and just plain unethical individuals to look at young children and teenagers. Not to mention those who would rather not have nearly the entire airport staff view your naked body.
Another similar incident took place in London's Heathrow Airport on March 10, 2010 when 29 year old Jo Margetson went through a body scanner and her co-worker John Laker, 25, took a picture of her naked body and remarked, “I love those gigantic tits.” Margetson has reportedly made a statement to the press that she has since been “totally traumatized” by the event. I don’t blame her!
Update: It’s been brought to my attention that the reports about Ms. Margetson were inaccurate. They give a slightly different story than the inaccurate, and not to mention unauthorized, story the press put out. It seems Ms. Margetson did not make any statements to the press about the incident and what her co-worker said is also inaccurate, though I wasn’t told exactly what was said. She also did not “accidentally” walk into a scanner. The Press Complaints Commission has since resolved the issue. However, she was scanned without her permission and complained to her employer about it. I received this information from, apparently, Ms. Margetson herself who left a comment on this post, but asked that the comment not be published. - 9-5-10
Another incident took place in Florida when Rolando Negrin beat his supervisor with his baton after going through a body scanner during a training exercise at Miami International Airport and being continuously teased about his small penis.
In fact, here is one example of the images from the TSA’s own website of what will be seen when you go through the scanners. This is clearly going overboard.
Here are a few other images that the scans produced:
Other than the privacy issues, which we’ve seen several breaches of privacy already in this short amount of time during the scanners’ use, there are also legal issues. Some groups are arguing that the scanners violate child porn laws since when minors pass through the scanners images their naked bodies will be taken and saved on a computer and it will be possible to print and/or transmit these images, unlike what the TSA has claimed, though they’ve since fessed up about the truth. Though oddly enough, on the TSA website it still says that,
Advanced imaging technology cannot store, print, transmit or save the image, and the image is automatically deleted from the system after it is cleared by the remotely located security officer. (assessed 8-24-10)
I call bullshit.
Of course child porn laws likely won’t be a strong legal case against the scanners since they can simply make it so no person under the age of 18 will have to go through the scanners.
Finally, there have been some health concerns about these scanners as well. A study done at Columbia University has shown that there is an increased risk of skin cancer due to the doses of x-rays emitted by the scanners which could be up to 20 times higher than originally estimated. Dr. David Brenner, head of Columbia University’s center for radiological research, warns that children and people with gene mutations whose bodies are less able to repair damage to their DNA are most at risk.
“'The individual risks associated with X-ray backscatter scanners are probably extremely small. If all 800 million people who use airports every year were screened with X-rays then the very small individual risk multiplied by the large number of screened people might imply a potential public health or societal risk. The population risk has the potential to be significant,” said Brenner.
After looking at all of the evidence what have we found? For starters, the TSA lied about how detailed the images were and falsely claimed that the images taken could not be stored or transmitted. Luckily, through the Freedom of Information Act, much of this finally came to light, unfortunately, at airports around the world this information is not being passed on to the passengers and the media has been largely silent on the issue.
Second, despite the scanners’ short time in use, they’ve already caused several privacy concerns, both serious and more minor, like the man who was teased about the size of his genitals.
Third, this technology is one step closer to making George Orwell’s novel 1984 an accurate future for all of us. Parts of it have already become reality, and from what I’ve read, the mind reading technology that is used in the book is currently in development. Sometime in the future “thoughtcrime” will become a reality. And what a sad, fucked up reality that will be.
Of course, these scanners seem to measure much the same things as “lie detectors.” In fact, with the interrogations shown near the end it seems exactly like a lie detector, and all they do is detect things like rapid pulse, perspiration, rate of breathing, etc. and don’t actually tell the examiner if you’re lying. Similarly, these new scanners won’t be able to detect “thoughtcrime” but if a person is nervous! Anyone who is nervous, a women on PMS, or if you’re in a hurry and upset because you’re late for your flight, you better stay away from these machines because you might be pegged as a “terrorist” and thrown in jail, but only after beating beat to hell by security of course.
So, is this technology a necessary new step in security or a tremendous privacy risk? Only if you have your head stuck up your ass will you believe the first answer.
Electronic Strip Searches: Threat to Privacy or Necessary New Step in Security?
In this Lucifer Effect I’m going to do something a little different. Instead of depicting videos of police brutality I’m going to discuss the issue of police brutality.
In a 1991 228 page report popularly called The Christopher Commission, it was shown with LAPD records themselves the existence of immense bias, prejudice, and brutality within the LAPD.
The report tells of several improper statements made over their Mobile Digital Terminals (MDT’s) that were racial and sexist in nature. Such examples were:
“Capture him, beat him and treat him like dirt....” (xi)
“[They] should know better than run, they are going to pay a price when they do that.” (3)
It seems this mind set is all too prevalent within the “law enforcement” community since in the first video this man was brutally kicked in the head after running from police. And this happened in California! It seems this report and the resulting investigation did nothing to stop the brutality that took place within the police department. More on this supposed investigation later.
Often made in the context of discussing pursuits or beating suspects, the offensive remarks cover the spectrum of racial and ethnic minorities in the City:
“I would love to drive down Slauson with a flame thrower....we would have a barbecue.” (xii)
“I almost got me a Mexican last night but he dropped the dam [sic] gun to [sic] quick, lots of wit.” (xii)
“Sounds like monkey slapping time.” (xii)
“Well...I’m back over here in the projects, pissing off the natives...” (69)
“A fem named [C]...I will be careful...we are out to get 211 susp that have been hitting almost twice a night. 2 m/blks...are you busy...” (72)
Another cop responded:
“I was for a while. But now I am going to slooow [sic] it down. If you encounter these negroes shoot first and ask questions later.” (72)
The report states how these messages clearly violate the department’s “official policy against ‘racially or ethnically oriented remarks.’ Memorandum No. 1, dated April 24, 1987, ‘Unacceptable Remarks of a Racial Nature,’ states”:
This Memorandum reaffirms the Department policy concerning racially or ethnically oriented remarks, slurs, epithets, terminology, or language of a derogatory nature. These remarks are an inappropriate form of communication which becomes a destructive wedge in relationships with peers and members of the community. The deliberate or casual use of racially or ethnically derogatory language by Department employees is misconduct and will not be tolerated under any circumstances. (emphasis in original.)
The report adds the following:
The officers typing the MDT messages apparently had little concern that they would be disciplined or otherwise sanctioned for making those remarks. Other officers took no steps to prevent this behavior; supervisors made little effort to discipline it or to review the messages. In fact, many of the offensive MDT comments were made from sergeants’ field supervisory units.
A review of records provided by the LAPD indicates that only a small number of personnel complaints have been sustained on the ground of improper racial remarks (not involving other misconduct) in the seven-year period from 1984-1990. The sustained complaints resulted in modest penalties. These records also show that during this period only two personnel complaints were sustained for transmission for an improper message over the MDT. (73-74)
So much for “derogatory language by Department employees [not being] tolerated under any circumstances.” (emphasis in original.)
Aside from the issues of prejudice, an even more serious issue is excessive use of force. While the LAPD is well known for its brutality excessive force is by far not just an issue with the LAPD, but with cops everywhere. Just look at my Lucifer Effect and other police brutality videos and stories that occur in places all over the world.
The Christopher Commission claims that the issue is not necessarily with the officers; most are upstanding good cops, it’s only a handful of bad cops who are not being reprimanded by their superiors, and therefore it’s a “management issue” more than anything. (31)
Jesse Brewer, a retired 38-year LAPD veteran who served as Assistant Chief from 1987 until Febuary 1991, testified before the Commission that this lack of management attention and accountability is the “essence of the excessive force problem” in the LAPD:
“We know who the bad guys are. Reputations become well known, especially to the sergeants and then of course to lieutenants and the captains in the areas. We know the ones who are getting into trouble more than anyone else. But, I don’t see anyone bringing these people up and saying, ‘Look, you are not conforming, you are not measuring up. You need to take a look at yourself and your conduct and the way you’re treating people’ and so forth. I don’t see that occurring.”
“The sergeants don’t, they’re not held accountable so why should they be that much concerned. They know that some of these officers who do generate the most complaints are also the ones who make a lot of arrests and write a lot of tickets and so forth and the sergeants, I have a feeling that they don’t think that much is going to happen to them anyway of they tried to take action and perhaps not even be supported by the lieutenant or the captain all the way up the line when they do take action against some individual.”
“I think more attention needs to be paid to these people that we know are ones who constantly get into trouble. It appears we have a large number, large -- I don’t know how large the number is -- we have a number of people who have established a reputation for generating complaints. And we know that when you get one complaint, there are probably three or four instances where the same thing has occurred, but no complaint has been lodged because people don’t necessarily, all people don’t necessarily make complaints. [...] (emphasis mine) (32-33)
Note the comments I emphasized in bold. This is the infamous "blue wall of silence”, an unspoken rule where “good” cops don’t squeal on the “bad” cops when they witness wrong doing. [1]
If “good” cops don’t report what the “bad” cops are doing aren’t they just as guilty as the ones who are actually abusing people, or in some cases committing crimes? Of course they are! It’s morally right to let someone know when a friend is doing something you know is wrong...especially when it’s something as serious as harming or even killing someone as happens with cops all the time. Here is a very good blog post about just this issue.
Even Brewer said about the “code of silence”:
That may be the right way to term it in that there is a reluctance on the part of police officers to complain about misconduct on the part of their partners when they see it, when they observe it. [...] They try to save themselves by saying, “I don’t know,” or “It didn’t happen,” because if it comes out that they knew it happened and did nothing about it, then they would be subject to a personnel complaint for failing to take appropriate action. (169)
The report follows up with the following, after quoting Brewer:
Interviews of many present and former LAPD officers by the Commission staff yielded conclusions similar to those of Assistant Chiefs Brewer and Dotson. Senior and rank-and-file officers generally stated that a significant number of officers tended to use force excessively, that these problem officers were well known in their divisions, and that the Department did not do enough to control or discipline these officers. The officers interviewed felt that supervisors were not held accountable by their superiors for excessive use of force by their subordinates, and consequently supervisors paid little attention to the problem. (34)
Later on the report tells of a survey given to 960 randomly selection officers of the LAPD in May of 1991:
Thirty percent of the 650 officers responding agreed -- as does this Commission -- that “the use of excessive force is a serious problem facing the Department.” (Of the remainder, 53% disagreed and 17% had no opinion.) A significant percentage of officers in this survey agreed with the statement that “an officer is justified in administering physical punishment to a suspect who has committed a heinous crime” (4.9%) or “to a suspect with a bad or uncooperative attitude” (4.6%). (Another 11% of the officers had no opinion on the statements regarding physical punishment of suspects, while 84% disagreed.) That nearly 5% of LAPD officers would acknowledge in a written survey sponsored by the Department that an officer would be entitled to use “street justice” against suspects with a “bad or uncooperative attitude,” and that 11% would have “no opinion,” are evidence of a serious problem in attitude toward use of force among a significant group of LAPD officers. (34)
If you combine the cops who were actually honest on the survey the final “official” figure for cops who are assholes is 15.9%. Just because the cops marked “no opinion” that means they don’t give a shit and obviously support such behavior or are indifferent to it. This is an obvious sign of some serious attitude problems with a large percentage of cops. As for the 84% who answered “no” to “street justice” who knows if they’re even telling the truth. I don’t doubt that the percentage is much higher but without complete honesty from the cops we may never know.
The following are charts detailing the types and percentages of citizen complaints that were filed against various LAPD officers. The report also goes into the percentage of complaints that are actually “sustained” and when they are “not sustained" or “unfounded", which is when the department covers for the brutality, something I’ve known for a long time happens but have never seen statistics about it before. It was shocking. The report found that
very few citizen allegations of excessive force (2.0%) were ruled sustained by the LAPD in the five years from 1986 through 1990. Only 4.8% of the public’s improper tactics allegations were ruled sustained during the period. (35-36)
To clarify the jargon used,
Personnel complaints against officers [...] are ruled by the Department to be “sustained” (meaning the officer is guilty of the misconduct alleged), “not sustained” (meaning that because the evidence is conflicting it cannot be determined whether the alleged misconduct occurred), “unfounded” (meaning that the alleged misconduct did not occur), or “exonerated” (meaning that the conduct did occur, but was justified under LAPD policy). (35)
Here are some examples of MDT messages as they relate to police brutality. These are just as sickening as the racist ones.
“Capture him, beat him and treat him like dirt...” (49)
“Sounds like a job for the dynamic duo...after I beat him what doo [sic] I book him for and do I have to do a use of force [report]” (49)
“I was out of vehicle, whippin [sic] on a couple of em, how r u.
[signed] Sgt Brutality.” (49)
“Gary,, [sic] if you see [name omitted],, [sic] grab him and beat him,, he has a fel warr [sic]”
[The other pig responded with] “Rgr will destroy him” (49)
“No problemmm [sic] ... we R hungry...we got a little physical w/ a [name omitted] on Colombus...it was fun... we had to teach him a little respect...for the police...hahahahaha...we had fun...no stick time though.” (49)
“Did U arrest the 65yr lady of [sic] just beat her up.”
[The pig replied] “We just slapped her around a bit...she/s [sic] getting m/t [medical treatment] right now.” (49)
“We’ll start with beat the drunk and go from there gotta go now talk to u [sic] later.” (50)
“They give me a stick they give mee [sic] a gun they pay me 50G:s [sic] to have some fun” (52)
“Go get em my-man [sic], and shoot him twice for me” (52)
“I shoulda [sic] shoot ‘em huh [sic], I missed another chance dammmmmm [sic]” (52)
“Looking to end 1990 with a good shotgun killing ruggg [sic]” [Message cont. below]
“Raa a full moon and a full gun make for rewards from god.”
“A full moon and a full gun makes for a night of fun”
“Everybody you kill in the line of duty becomes a slave in the afterlife”
“Then U [sic] will have a lot of slaves...” (52)
These messages are simply sickening...especially that last one.
From 1986 through 1990, members of the public filed over 2,500 claims alleging personal injury or property damage resulting from the use of force by LAPD officers. (55)
In concluding, the Report recommended several solutions to the above problems. Something they said I felt was a joke is that
Full implementation [of the reforms set forth in the report], however, will require action by the Mayor, the City Council, the Police Commission, the Police Department, and ultimately the voters. Up to now, the people of this City have been deeply disappointed by the failure of our governmental bodies and political leaders to cooperate in addressing the problems considered in this Report. It has not been the finest hour for City government. We are fully cognizant of the need to restore the credibility of our governmental institutions and to promote, through these recommendations, the full restoration of community confidence in our Police Department, as well as our political institutions. (225-226)
The following recommendations were put forward, though as I’ll show later, they didn’t do a damn thing.
1. The city council was said to have reports within one year sent to the president about how this reform is going.
2. Community organizations “should accept responsibility” for carrying out the recommendations of the report.
3. A “committee of distinguished citizens” should be organized in order to oversee the measures set forth in the report and to see that they are properly carried out.
4. The members of the the Commission should reconvene in six months to monitor the situation and make sure their recommendations are being carried out.
5. The Commission’s primary focus was said to be more on structural and operational issues, rather on “an assessment of individual performance.”
This I do not understand since, according to their own report, it was only a percentage of cops who were the “bad” ones, though as I noted before, even those “good” cops who stood by and watched as the “bad” cops did their thing are just as guilty. If it’s only a number of “problem” officers and the leadership then change leadership, one that is more accountable and will actually do something and fire those assholes who are in the department. It’s that simple, but it seems this Commission was more interested in saving face than doing anything that actually accomplished anything.
6. Essentially change around management who are more accountable. Bravo. You read my mind. (226-228)
According to the new report little had changed, though they argued that small changes had taken place but that
The progress made to date remains fragile in that it principally represents the goodwill and good efforts of certain individuals in the LAPD who have moved forward, mostly on their own, to bring reform to their various commands. It is not the result of an overall plan to institutionalize change. Individuals come and go, and the changes will not become self-perpetuating until they are fully integrated into the Department’s everyday operations - so much so that the reforms themselves become and remain custom and practice. [...] The LAPD does not currently have an overarching vision and plan that is adequate to perpetuate the LAPD’s reputation as the nation’s finest [...] (77)
As far as the LAPD’s use of force the report states that “[t]he data suggest that officers use force no more and no less than before the Rodney King incident.” (1)
They argue that the use of chemical spray has replaced the use of the baton, though the department has still failed to implement any kind of oversight to monitor the use of force the cops’ use. (2) While somewhat better than beating someone’s head in with a big stick, pepper spray has still caused many deaths, one example being Mark Garcia in 1996. And this, by the way, happened in California.
Some decent news, however, is that according to the report shootings and use of force issues decreased by 36% in the five years since the first report, though that isn’t a very large decrease at all and is nothing to get excited about. (3)
Of course, as even the report says,
Such numbers by themselves, however, do not and cannot answer the question whether officers are resorting to force less often today than in 1990. The reason for this is simple: The declining numbers may reflect a decrease in officers’ opportunity to use force rather than a decrease in officers’ willingness to use force. Put another way, the decline in the use of force may be due to decreased contact between officers and suspects rather than a decrease in officers’ use of force when they do come into contact with suspects. (4)
The report later says, in bold by the way,
Thus, it does not appear that officers either increased or decreased their use of force as a percentage of arrests significantly following the Rodney King incident or the release of the Christopher Commission Report. (6)
One incident that occurred was the piolet program for chemical spray, thus resulting in a sharp decline of the baton in beating and “punishing” suspects. However, even this early the Commission noted the fact that,
It thus appears that officers do not just view such agents [chemical spray] as a replacement for the baton, but rather that chemical spray is being used in a wide range of situations. This wider use of chemical spray is an interesting phenomenon and one that the Commission may want to consider further. Without in any way suggesting that chemical spray is being misused, it is prudent, given the rapid increase in its deployment as the non-lethal force option choice, for the Commission to satisfy itself that there are adequate standards for the use of the spray. There is anecdotal evidence - from departments other than the LAPD - that on occasion the spray has been used to punish a suspect with respect to whom control is not an issue. (8) (emphasis mine)
So far this does not look very promising by any means. And even as far back as the mid 1990‘s cops were abusing their pepper spray. What a surprise, and nothing has changed since, though the spray seems to have been mostly replaced by the indiscriminate use of tasers.
As far as the racial attitudes, the Commission didn’t seem to report much on this issue, though noted that more ethic diversity is being gained within the police department, though only a small percentage. However, it also said that
What has been accomplished to date is not enough, and these important Christopher Commission recommendations have not been adequately implemented. Nothing less than detailed, fully-articulated programs and procedures to eliminate racism, sexism, ethnic and sexual orientation bias, root and branch, will suffice. (30)
Obviously, the issues of racial discrimination and use of force issues were about just as prevalent as before, and even the last several years one can find police brutality issues being raised with the LAPD. Clearly, the issue was simply swept under the rug and no long term changes took effect.
Here are several examples of more recent LAPD police brutality:
Posts
