Why Did Kamala Harris Withhold Support For Special Investigations Of Police Shootings?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...port-special-investigations-police-shootings/

Jake Tapper, CNN: “When you were attorney general, you opposed legislation that would have required your office to investigate fatal shootings involving police officers. Why did you oppose that bill?”

Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.): “So, I did not oppose the bill. I had a process when I was attorney general of not weighing in on bills and initiatives because, as attorney general, I had a responsibility for writing the title and summary. So I did not weigh in.”

This is the candidate Democrats are pushing, claiming that she will fight against police brutality and racial profiling?

And help to reform the police?

The GOP was for the police before they were against them. The GOP is especially against those who bargain for the police for wages, benefits, health care and pensions.

ReubenSherr said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...port-special-investigations-police-shootings/

Jake Tapper, CNN: “When you were attorney general, you opposed legislation that would have required your office to investigate fatal shootings involving police officers. Why did you oppose that bill?”

Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.): “So, I did not oppose the bill. I had a process when I was attorney general of not weighing in on bills and initiatives because, as attorney general, I had a responsibility for writing the title and summary. So I did not weigh in.”

This is the candidate Democrats are pushing, claiming that she will fight against police brutality and racial profiling?

And help to reform the police?

Click to expand...

Probably because she was from the prosecutor's side of things. There's a reason I have an overall grudge against prosecutors.

Unfortunately, you lot worship someone so utterly vile that the Democrats would have to run Satan for me to consider voting Trump, so I don't have to worry about Harris. You made this election very easy for me.

:2wave:





Oh...wait....before I go. Does this mean you're now on board with being tough on cops who kill citizens? Or is it what I expect - you only care to the extent you can use it to attack Harris?

I have to ask because there's this ever-growing list of things that you only ever seem to care about when it's useful to attack the left or defend the right.

Y'know, like FISA warrants, but only the one aimed at Carter Page.

Or perjury ("Process crime"), but only when Flynn is the target.

Mr Person said:

Oh...wait....before I go. Does this mean you're now on board with being tough on cops who kill citizens? Or is it what I expect - you only care to the extent you can use it to attack Harris?

Click to expand...

I'm behind police reform 100%. Keeping the same cops, and retraining them, with strict and specific consequences for misbehavior.

Trump addressed this in detail during the rally, but, surprise, the only network covering it was Fox.

Harris, on the other hand, was in a position to make a difference and save lives (including black lives), in California, and she wimped out.

ReubenSherr said:

I'm behind police reform 100%. Keeping the same cops, and retraining them, with strict and specific consequences for misbehavior.

Trump addressed this in detail during the rally, but, surprise, the only network covering it was Fox.

Harris, on the other hand, was in a position to make a difference and save lives (including black lives), in California, and she wimped out.

Click to expand...

Trump addressed police reform?

:lamo

He lies as he breaths, and what he delivers is never what he promises. He - the guy who still has not apologized for calling for the execution of the innocent Central Park Five - does not give half a **** about "police reform". He's just pandering to the easily pandered-to.

Mr Person said:

Trump addressed police reform?

:lamo

He lies as he breaths, and what he delivers is never what he promises.

Click to expand...

Did you watch the rally, like an informed citizen?

Here's the EO...

Trump signs executive order urging police reform, says cops need more funding

ReubenSherr said:

Did you watch the rally, like an informed citizen?

Here's the EO...

Trump signs executive order urging police reform, says cops need more funding

Click to expand...

Oh dear. You think an informed citizen gets information from propaganda events, aka, rallies?



And that wasn't a link to the executive order. That was a link to an article. Nevertheless, increasing police funding is not "police reform." Hiring and training clearly needs to be redone, as do the kinds of evaluations done to determine if someone is fit. There also needs to be funding for all sorts of things police handle that police aren't trained to handle. Over the last several decades, they seem to have been trained to treat every situation like they're being dropped in a hot LZ, not like they are there to be keepers of the peace.

Tell me, Mr. Informed Citizen, is Trump moving to get absolute and qualified immunity stripped? Is he moving to get social workers involved in responding to calls relating to mental illness and the like, instead of sending cops in with guns who are trained to shoot if someone does something that would be threatening were a non-ill person to do it? How about things designed to prevent us ending up with cops who think kneeling on the neck of a guy who fell unconscious for a full three minutes not being on the force?



“I strongly oppose the radical and dangerous efforts to defund, dismantle and dissolve our police departments,” Trump said in the Rose Garden. “Americans know the truth: Without police there is chaos, without law there is anarchy, and without safety there is catastrophe.”

See, I can't trust a guy who tells that stupid pandering lie. I'm sure you can find a few protesters with signs like "abolish the police", but no meaningful contingent of people actually want to do away with police. They want better policing. "Defund the police" is just an example of Democrats being terrible at getting out in front of a movement with a better message.

ReubenSherr said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...port-special-investigations-police-shootings/

Jake Tapper, CNN: “When you were attorney general, you opposed legislation that would have required your office to investigate fatal shootings involving police officers. Why did you oppose that bill?”

Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.): “So, I did not oppose the bill. I had a process when I was attorney general of not weighing in on bills and initiatives because, as attorney general, I had a responsibility for writing the title and summary. So I did not weigh in.”

This is the candidate Democrats are pushing, claiming that she will fight against police brutality and racial profiling?

And help to reform the police?

Click to expand...

Without knowing all the details, seems like she explained her actions well.

ReubenSherr said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...port-special-investigations-police-shootings/

Jake Tapper, CNN: “When you were attorney general, you opposed legislation that would have required your office to investigate fatal shootings involving police officers. Why did you oppose that bill?”

Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.): “So, I did not oppose the bill. I had a process when I was attorney general of not weighing in on bills and initiatives because, as attorney general, I had a responsibility for writing the title and summary. So I did not weigh in.”

This is the candidate Democrats are pushing, claiming that she will fight against police brutality and racial profiling?

And help to reform the police?

Click to expand...

Wow! What music was she tap-dancing to while singing this jabberwocky.

Mr Person said:

Trump addressed police reform?

:lamo

He lies as he breaths, and what he delivers is never what he promises. He - the guy who still has not apologized for calling for the execution of the innocent Central Park Five - does not give half a **** about "police reform". He's just pandering to the easily pandered-to.

Click to expand...

To answer your question, Trump did address police reform. He told cops "please don't be too nice" with suspects. Sort of follows the pattern of condemning the Central Park Five prior to trial.

Nickyjo said:

To answer your question, Trump did address police reform. He told cops "please don't be too nice" with suspects.

Click to expand...

???

He spent 20 minutes on police reform during the rally, and signed and E O

You all are spreading misinformation

Mr Person said:

Oh dear. You think an informed citizen gets information from propaganda events, aka, rallies?



And that wasn't a link to the executive order. That was a link to an article. Nevertheless, increasing police funding is not "police reform." Hiring and training clearly needs to be redone, as do the kinds of evaluations done to determine if someone is fit. There also needs to be funding for all sorts of things police handle that police aren't trained to handle. Over the last several decades, they seem to have been trained to treat every situation like they're being dropped in a hot LZ, not like they are there to be keepers of the peace.

Tell me, Mr. Informed Citizen, is Trump moving to get absolute and qualified immunity stripped? Is he moving to get social workers involved in responding to calls relating to mental illness and the like, instead of sending cops in with guns who are trained to shoot if someone does something that would be threatening were a non-ill person to do it? How about things designed to prevent us ending up with cops who think kneeling on the neck of a guy who fell unconscious for a full three minutes not being on the force?



“I strongly oppose the radical and dangerous efforts to defund, dismantle and dissolve our police departments,” Trump said in the Rose Garden. “Americans know the truth: Without police there is chaos, without law there is anarchy, and without safety there is catastrophe.”

See, I can't trust a guy who tells that stupid pandering lie. I'm sure you can find a few protesters with signs like "abolish the police", but no meaningful contingent of people actually want to do away with police. They want better policing. "Defund the police" is just an example of Democrats being terrible at getting out in front of a movement with a better message.

Click to expand...

Defunding the police, in any way, is dangerous as hell.

The way to reform policing effectively is to increase funding, for more bodycams, stricter training, possibly employees who travel around and audit police departments, etc.

ReubenSherr said:

???

He spent 20 minutes on police reform during the rally, and signed and E O

You all are spreading misinformation

Click to expand...

Running his mouth for 20 minutes isn't doing anything.

An EO might be doing something, but you need to explain what exactly it did. Thus far, all you said was that he increased police funding.........which is not the reform anyone was talking about.

Mr Person said:

Tell me, Mr. Informed Citizen, is Trump moving to get absolute and qualified immunity stripped? Is he moving to get social workers involved in responding to calls relating to mental illness and the like, instead of sending cops in with guns who are trained to shoot if someone does something that would be threatening were a non-ill person to do it? How about things designed to prevent us ending up with cops who think kneeling on the neck of a guy who fell unconscious for a full three minutes not being on the force?


“I strongly oppose the radical and dangerous efforts to defund, dismantle and dissolve our police departments,” Trump said in the Rose Garden. “Americans know the truth: Without police there is chaos, without law there is anarchy, and without safety there is catastrophe.”

See, I can't trust a guy who tells that stupid pandering lie. I'm sure you can find a few protesters with signs like "abolish the police", but no meaningful contingent of people actually want to do away with police. They want better policing. "Defund the police" is just an example of Democrats being terrible at getting out in front of a movement with a better message.

Click to expand...

Defunding the police, in any way, is dangerous as hell.

The way to reform policing effectively is to increase funding, for more bodycams, stricter training, contracts which clearly outline what officers are and aren't allowed to do, possibly employees who travel around and audit police departments, etc.

Social workers shouldn't be responding to emergency calls, police officers should. But they should be trained extensively in how to handle situations involving mental illness. Which involves more money for policing, not less.

The difference between Biden and Trump is that Biden wants less money for policing, Trump wants more. And more money will solve these problems, not less.

ReubenSherr said:

Defunding the police, in any way, is dangerous as hell.
.

Click to expand...

As I said: An EO might be doing something, but you need to explain what exactly it did. Thus far, all you said was that he increased police funding.........which is not the reform anyone was talking about.

ReubenSherr said:

The way to reform policing effectively is to increase funding, for more bodycams, stricter training, possibly employees who travel around and audit police departments, etc.

Click to expand...

Does his EO require police to have "more bodycams"?
Does his EO require "stricter training"?
If so, what sort?
Does his EO include "employees who travel around and audit police departments"?
If so, how is it lawful? Policing is generally a state matter.



Here is what I said: Hiring and training clearly needs to be redone, as do the kinds of evaluations done to determine if someone is fit. There also needs to be funding for all sorts of things police handle that police aren't trained to handle. Over the last several decades, they seem to have been trained to treat every situation like they're being dropped in a hot LZ, not like they are there to be keepers of the peace.

Were you agreeing with me on that? If so, does his EO do that? (And if so...how?)


What about qualified and absolute immunity? What's he doing about that? That's the biggest shield, you know. Do you know what those are?





See, the thing is... all you seem to know about this EO is that it increases police funding, and that he said some words about "police reform" at a rally. That isn't substance.

Mr Person said:

As I said: An EO might be doing something, but you need to explain what exactly it did. Thus far, all you said was that he increased police funding.........which is not the reform anyone was talking about.

Click to expand...

That's what you all don't understand.

Increased police funding is the key to police reform.

Not decreased police funding.

This is the essential difference between Trump and Biden.

Mr Person said:

Does his EO require police to have "more bodycams"?
Does his EO require "stricter training"?
If so, what sort?
Does his EO include "employees who travel around and audit police departments"?
If so, how is it lawful? Policing is generally a state matter.

Click to expand...

Here's the link to the actual E. O....

Access Denied

Bullseye said:

Wow! What music was she tap-dancing to while singing this jabberwocky.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's pretty amazing of an excuse. That being said, I don't see many Dems or Never-Trumpers voting for Trump regardless of anything that comes-up on Harris.

Chomsky said:

Yeah, that's pretty amazing of an excuse. That being said, I don't see many Dems or Never-Trumpers voting for Trump regardless of anything that comes-up on Harris.

Click to expand...

Biden's mental fitness is extremely questionable, and regardless, he'll turn 80 in a few years.

Harris is extremely important, in every way.

ReubenSherr said:

Increased police funding is the key to police reform.

Not decreased police funding.

.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. The police have been overfunded for decades. It doesn't take more money to tell cops not to put a knee on a suspect's neck and keep it there until the suspect is dead.

The coronavirus pandemic revealed, and the Floyd uprising has confirmed, that big, structural interventions are the bare minimum for making Black lives matter in the United States. The call to defund the police captures both the enormity of the crisis and the need for an enormous response. It draws attention to the continuity of police funding even as other parts of the public sector have been depleted. Cities across the country are a living testament to this, with privatization and other market-oriented solutions summoned to fill the gaps. Public housing has been replaced by for-profit housing; public schools and hospitals have been closed and turned into condos; library hours have been reduced to the bare minimum. Youth and jobs programs are from a distant era. And, all the while, police departments remain almost entirely immune to layoffs and austerity that all other public workers are subjected to. In fact, the cuts to public services that might mitigate poverty and promote social mobility become a perpetual excuse for more policing.

Click to expand...

We Should Still Defund the Police | The New Yorker

ReubenSherr said:

Biden's mental fitness is extremely questionable.....................

Click to expand...

Nowhere near as questionable as Trump's.

ReubenSherr said:

Here's the link to the actual E. O....

Access Denied

Click to expand...

This does not seem to meet any of the demands for police reform being made, other than 'choke holds'. Except the choke holds provision itself leaves a massive loophole: what's allowed by law. What is already 'allowed by law' is far far too much. That's the point.

Look up qualified and absolute immunity. Seriously.

S1: Purpose. Whatever, doesn't do anything.

S2: AG has discretion to allocate DOJ discretionary funding (how much is this anyway?) if agencies sought or are seeking "appropriate credentials" an "appropriate credentialing body". Who determines it? The AG. Bill Barr. The guy who approved gassing protesters so Trump could molest a bible. The AG certifies the body. The AG sets certification requirements. Use-of-force policies must adhere to law but they already have to adhere to law because DUH. Deadly force ("choke holds") is prohibited except where law allows deadly force. Well, DUH, that's already the case. And that last bit requires "cost-effectiveness". What's cost-effective? Guess who gets to determine that, too.

S3: This is just about the AG setting up a database for local/state/fed to share info. This is the one bit that might do something, but only if administered well. If done right, it might stop situations where a bad cop keeps hopping departments. But, the AG only shares information after he/she determines that the officers were "afforded fair process". What's fair? Guess who decides that.

S4: Bland to the point of meaninglessness. The AG consults HHS and develops "opportunities to train". The AG will "support" such opportunities. HHS shall "survey" models about mental health, homelessness, and addiction. HHS, AG, and Dir. of OMB will "prioritize resources" as appropriate.





This is bull****. It doesn't mean anything. Every single thing is wrapped in twenty weasel-words. It's a show He conned you again. Someone typed up some fancy-sounding words and you were awed.

Are you seriously saying you read this and thought "yeah, that means something!"

It's like claiming the McDonalds is huge on health food because he issued a directive telling the recipe 'chefs' to reduce sodium and fat if they believe it will improve people's health without reducing demand. If his AG has discretion on ever single definition, it does not mean anything.






Did you even read this? Or did you just hear that he signed an EO about 'police reform' and trumpeted it without reading?

Mr Person said:

This does not seem to meet any of the demands for police reform being made, other than 'choke holds'. Except the choke holds provision itself leaves a massive loophole: what's allowed by law. What is already 'allowed by law' is far far too much. That's the point.

Look up qualified and absolute immunity. Seriously.

S1: Purpose. Whatever, doesn't do anything.

S2: AG has discretion to allocate DOJ discretionary funding (how much is this anyway?) if agencies sought or are seeking "appropriate credentials" an "appropriate credentialing body". Who determines it? The AG. Bill Barr. The guy who approved gassing protesters so Trump could molest a bible. The AG certifies the body. The AG sets certification requirements. Use-of-force policies must adhere to law but they already have to adhere to law because DUH. Deadly force ("choke holds") is prohibited except where law allows deadly force. Well, DUH, that's already the case. And that last bit requires "cost-effectiveness". What's cost-effective? Guess who gets to determine that, too.

S3: This is just about the AG setting up a database for local/state/fed to share info. This is the one bit that might do something, but only if administered well. If done right, it might stop situations where a bad cop keeps hopping departments. But, the AG only shares information after he/she determines that the officers were "afforded fair process". What's fair? Guess who decides that.

S4: Bland to the point of meaninglessness. The AG consults HHS and develops "opportunities to train". The AG will "support" such opportunities. HHS shall "survey" models about mental health, homelessness, and addiction. HHS, AG, and Dir. of OMB will "prioritize resources" as appropriate.

This is bull****. It doesn't mean anything. Every single thing is wrapped in twenty weasel-words. It's a show He conned you again. Someone typed up some fancy-sounding words and you were awed.

Click to expand...

You're giving Barr absolutely no credit.

And you seem to have this assumption in your head that liberals care about police reform, and conservatives don't.

When it is the exact opposite. Harris didn't do squat, as referenced in the OP. And neither are all these democratic mayors who are directly responsible for these police departments.

Democrats have had their turn to handle police reform, they failed. Miserably.

ReubenSherr said:

You're giving Barr absolutely no credit.

And you seem to have this assumption in your head that liberals care about police reform, and conservatives don't.

When it is the exact opposite. Harris didn't do squat, as referenced in the OP. And neither are all these democratic mayors who are directly responsible for these police departments.

Democrats have had their turn to handle police reform, they failed. Miserably.

Click to expand...

You did not read it, did you?

You did not read it, you did not read my response, and you're just on autopilot.

Figured, but had to check. At least I know I can now confidently say his EO is weasel-word bull**** that won't have effect because unlike you, I read it.

:shrug:

Trump's idea of police reform: