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

[ReubenSherr]

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

???

I did. Your entire criticism of the E. O. revolves around the fact that you don't think Barr will enforce anything.

I've been going back and forth between threads.

I'll read the E. O. in greater detail, if that's what you're getting at, and get back to you.

 

[MauiMan]

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 important question is red meat!

Mike Pence says: “Sen. Kamala Harris said she would change the dietary guidelines of this country to reduce the amount of red meat that Americans can eat. Well I've got some red meat for you: We're not going to let Joe Biden & Kamala Harris cut America's meat!"

That’s right! Let’s fight for our meat! Yes, we will not have any more red meat if you vote for Kamala Harris. So, don’t vote for her! Long live red meat!

I wonder if Pence likes pee sex like his boss. Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe just sex for procreation only.

 

[Chomsky]

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

Harris is extremely important, in every way.

Of course she's important. But good luck slinging dirt at her to get Dems to change their vote to Trump. It's not going to happen. No Dem cares if it's Biden, Harris, or a damn ham sandwich! It's Trump they 'want'. They want him out! Biden, Harris, etc., are just the vehicles to do the job. The perception is, 'no one could be worse than Trump'. It's a perception to which I agree.

 

[ReubenSherr]

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

These are the highlights I found...What do you feel is missing? I would have liked to see bodycams mentioned, but everything else seems in place. Police are locally run, the E. O. can't be so specific that it steps on the toes of local officials, at least not yet.

A lot of this, as you stated, rests in Barr. And you need to give him a chance lol.

FROM SECTION 2:

"Independent credentialing bodies can accelerate these assessments, enhance citizen confidence in law enforcement practices, and allow for the identification and correction of internal deficiencies before those deficiencies result in injury to the public or to law enforcement officers."

"The Attorney General shall certify independent credentialing bodies that meet standards to be set by the Attorney General. Reputable, independent credentialing bodies, eligible for certification by the Attorney General, should address certain topics in their reviews, such as policies and training regarding use–of-force and de-escalation techniques; performance management tools, such as early warning systems that help to identify officers who may require intervention; and best practices regarding community engagement."

"The State or local law enforcement agency’s use-of-force policies prohibit the use of chokeholds — a physical maneuver that restricts an individual’s ability to breathe for the purposes of incapacitation — except in those situations where the use of deadly force is allowed by law."

"The Attorney General shall engage with existing and prospective independent credentialing bodies to encourage them to offer a cost-effective, targeted credentialing process regarding appropriate use-of-force policies that law enforcement agencies of all sizes in urban and rural jurisdictions may access."

FROM SECTION 3:

"The Attorney General shall create a database to coordinate the sharing of information between and among Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement agencies concerning instances of excessive use of force."

"The database described in subsection (a) of this section shall include a mechanism to track, as permissible, terminations or de-certifications of law enforcement officers, criminal convictions of law enforcement officers for on-duty conduct, and civil judgments against law enforcement officers for improper use of force."

FROM SECTION 4:

"The Attorney General shall, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services as appropriate, identify and develop opportunities to train law enforcement officers with respect to encounters with individuals suffering from impaired mental health, homelessness, and addiction; to increase the capacity of social workers working directly with law enforcement agencies; and to provide guidance regarding the development and implementation of co-responder programs, which involve social workers or other mental health professionals working alongside law enforcement officers so that they arrive and address situations together."

FROM SECTION 5:

"Training and technical assistance required to
adopt and implement improved use–of-force policies and procedures, including scenario-driven de-escalation techniques;

(iii) retention of high-performing law enforcement officers and recruitment of law enforcement officers who are likely to be high-performing;

(iv) confidential access to mental health services for law enforcement officers;"

 

[Mr Person]

<snip quote>

Here is what I said about it:




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?




I now add: and what was the point of snipping everything from my post regarding my assessment of the EO to copy/paste bits of the EO at me that I was assessing? You weren't making a dishonest post, were you?

 

[ReubenSherr]

Here is what I said about it:




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?




I now add: and what was the point of snipping everything from my post regarding my assessment of the EO to copy/paste bits of the EO at me that I was assessing? You weren't making a dishonest post, were you?

I'm not getting anything out of this analysis except that you don't trust Barr.

And I do.

I would have liked to see bodycams mentioned, but everything else seems in place. Police are locally run, the E. O. can't be so specific that it steps on the toes of local officials, at least not yet.

Your post is lengthy, I'm zooming in on points to respond to. Chill.

Everyone can see what you posted, they don't need to see it three times in its entirety.

 

[Mr Person]

I'm not getting anything out of this analysis except that you don't trust Barr.

And I do.

I would have liked to see bodycams mentioned, but everything else seems in place. Police are locally run, the E. O. can't be so specific that it steps on the toes of local officials, at least not yet.

The post you responded to was made at 8:22, toward the later end. Yours at 8:23, but barely any more than 15 seconds after I made mine. I barely refreshed the window and you had quoted me.

You're not here to debate. You're spewing talking points. This EO is just more smoke and mirrors, the only things Trump ever has. But what can one expect from a guy who bankrupted multiple casinos?

Casinos

 

[ReubenSherr]

The post you responded to was made at 8:22, many seconds in. Yours at 8:23, but barely any more than 15 seconds after I made mine. You're not here to debate. You're spewing talking points.

What is your criticism of the E. O.? Except that you don't trust Barr?

 

[Mr Person]

What is your criticism of the E. O.? Except that you don't trust Barr?

My criticism? Are you trying to bait me into a spam infraction? For the third time, this is it. Try reading the words this time:


Here is what I said about it:




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?




I now add: and what was the point of snipping everything from my post regarding my assessment of the EO to copy/paste bits of the EO at me that I was assessing? You weren't making a dishonest post, were you?

 

[ReubenSherr]

My criticism? Are you trying to bait me into a spam infraction? For the third time, this is it. Try reading the words this time:


Here is what I said about it:




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?




I now add: and what was the point of snipping everything from my post regarding my assessment of the EO to copy/paste bits of the EO at me that I was assessing? You weren't making a dishonest post, were you?

???

You've already posted this.

It's essentially a statement, in great detail, that you don't have faith in Barr.

I do.