Opinion Polls: Delphi's Polling Place

Hosted by Cstar1

Opinion polls on all subjects. Opinions? Heck yes, we have opinions - but we're *always* nice about it, even when ours are diametrically opposed to yours. Register your vote today!

  • 3967
    MEMBERS
  • 71328
    MESSAGES
  • 11
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Do you want police gear and weapons to be removed or restricted?   The Newsy You: News of Today

Started Jul-24 by Showtalk; 705 views.
Showtalk

Poll Question From Showtalk

Jul-24

Do you want police gear and weapons to be removed or restricted?
  • Yes, police should not have protections that protestors don't0  votes
    0%
  • Yes, but only during riots0  votes
    0%
  • Yes, all the time0  votes
    0%
  • No, there are better options0  votes
    0%
  • Absolutely not!12  votes
    92%
  • I'm not sure1  vote
    7%
  • Other0  votes
    0%
Yes, police should not have protections that protestors don't 
Yes, but only during riots 
Yes, all the time 
No, there are better options 
Absolutely not! 
I'm not sure 
Other 
In reply toRe: msg 1
Showtalk
Staff

From: Showtalk 

Jul-24

I heard a bit on a news commentary and searched. This was the only article I could find anywhere.  Are people unaware of this? Do they agree? Do you?
In reply toRe: msg 2
MerlinsDad

From: MerlinsDad 

Jul-24

The New York Times,  July 21, 2020

The Senate on Tuesday [July 21] rejected a bipartisan bid to bar the Pentagon from transferring a wide range of military-grade weaponry to local police departments, effectively killing the last remaining initiative before Congress this year to address the excessive use of force in law enforcement.

With policing overhaul legislation stalled on Capitol Hill, the measure, which lawmakers sought to attach to the must-pass annual defense bill, was a last-ditch attempt to begin to demilitarize law enforcement after a nationwide uproar to address racial discrimination and distrust between the police and the communities they serve.

But despite the outcry in favor of sweeping changes, lawmakers declined to place limitations on some of the most controversial military-grade equipment provided to local police departments, rejecting a proposal by Senator Brian Schatz, Democrat of Hawaii, to prohibit such items as tear gas, grenades and bayonets.

The vote, 51 to 44, which failed to reach the required 60-vote threshold to pass, underscored how fraught and often fruitless attempts to rein in the program have become, allowing such matériel to flow to law enforcement in America’s cities and towns with few restrictions.

The Senate did approve a measure that would reinstate some restrictions originally imposed by the Obama administration and rolled back by President Trump. That amendment, led by Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, would prohibit the Pentagon from supplying law enforcement with tracked combat vehicles, drones that carry weaponry like tear gas and rubber bullets, and other equipment that the Defense Department has said it does not currently provide to local police departments. It would also require agencies that receive the equipment to undergo de-escalation training.

But the limits are unlikely to decrease the amount of military equipment that goes to police departments around the country or materially constrain the type of weapons made available to them. An analysis by The New York Times shows that despite President Barack Obama’s efforts to rein in the program after the killing of an unarmed Black man by the police in Ferguson, Mo., in 2014, the restrictions did little to reduce the amount of weaponry available to local police departments through the program, known as 1033. Nor did Mr. Trump’s move to unravel Mr. Obama’s policies make a significant difference.

“Trump came in and said, ‘I have undone all the reforms,’ which in the first place hadn’t done anything, anyway,” said Peter Kraska, a professor at Eastern Kentucky University who has studied police militarization for decades. “There’s just been this whole political game done.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/21/us/politics/senate-police-military-equipment.html

In reply toRe: msg 1
MerlinsDad

From: MerlinsDad 

Jul-24

selected excerpts from a CNN news item/opinion piece by

Now, as debates over how to reform or defund police departments are growing around the country, the pipeline from the military to cops on the streets is facing a wave of renewed criticism, with members of Congress from both parties pushing to change it or end the program altogether.?
 
While Trump provoked a bipartisan backlash with his threat to deploy US troops to major cities, some of the police departments responding to protests and riots have already been equipped with the same gear soldiers might use.?
Terron Sims II, an Army veteran in Arlington, Virginia who's attended several recent protests, said some of the videos he's seen of officers rolling through their cities in mine-resistant vehicles remind him of the equipment he used while serving in Iraq.?
"It'd be one thing if you're fighting al Qaeda in the streets, but we're not," said Sims. "They're facing a peaceful crowd of folks exercising their constitutional rights. It's ridiculous" [bolding mine  _MD]?
 
Obama moved to restrict the program in 2015 after the first major Black Lives Matter demonstrations in Ferguson, Missouri, and elsewhere, putting in place new limits on some equipment and banning other gear such as tracked armored vehicles, weaponized aircraft, and grenade launchers.?But Trump undid those restrictions in August 2017.
David Chasteen, an Army veteran who served in Iraq and later worked as a civilian executive in the San Francisco Police Department, said he was dismayed by police officers "play-acting what they think it's like to be in the military" [bolding mine --MD]
 
"This stuff is designed for us to go and kill people in order to accomplish our objectives," Chasteen said. "The idea that those tools should then be put to use against people in the U.S. is wildly offensive and un-American. That's not how we do things here"  [bolding mine --MD]
 
Ironically, Chasteen said, over years of counterinsurgency missions in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the US military has moved away from using massive shows of force when soldiers try to reach out to civilians.
"We stopped driving tanks into neighborhoods, we started taking off the body armor, we said 'don't point your weapons at people,'" Chasteen said. "You have to demonstrate to people you are trustworthy and you're going to be there for them, not that you consider them to be the enemy"  [bolding mine --MD].
But experts say that images of police deploying in ballistic armor or bringing out their tank-like vehicles could deal lasting damage to officers' relationships with their communities.?
 
?"When police use this militarized equipment, many black and brown people see them acting as occupying forces," said Jennifer Cobbina, a professor at Michigan State University who wrote a?book?about Black Lives Matter protests in Ferguson and Baltimore. "They shouldn't be seen as warriors, they should be working with the community to promote public safety" [bolding mine --MD]?

"If we can do that in Iraq and Afghanistan, then sure as s*** cops can do that in Minnesota," he said [bolding mine --MD].
"Weapons of war don't belong in our local police departments and should never be used against the American people," Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, said in a statement. A new bill he introduced this month would ban the transfer of offensive military equipment, but still allow police to receive defensive equipment.
 
The vehicles themselves can more or less inflame whatever situation is going on," said Daniel Lee, a city council member and Air Force veteran who successfully advocated for the item to be cut from the Los Angeles suburb's budget. "It really puts people on a wartime footing, and it sends the wrong message."
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/17/politics/protests-police-reform-military-supplies-invs/index.html
MD's opinion:  Yes, there are situations in which the gear is needed, but not against American citizens exercising their rights to protest.
In reply toRe: msg 4
Showtalk
Staff

From: Showtalk 

Jul-24

I found this, again on a less used website.  According to this article, police have much more support than the media indicates.  No surprises that the major media outlets aren’t even talking about these facts.
 

In reply toRe: msg 5
MerlinsDad

From: MerlinsDad 

Jul-25

The Newsweek article in question was printed on June 3.  At that time, Americans supported the protesters,
 

A majority of Americans disapprove of Donald Trump's response to the nationwide protests over the death of George Floyd, while just one-third approve of the president's handling of the demonstrations, new polling has shown.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll, which was published on Tuesday, showed that 55 percent of Americans said they disapproved of Trump's response to the demonstration. Meanwhile, just one-third said they approved of his response, while 40 percent said they "strongly" disapproved.

Furthermore, the polling showed that a significant majority of respondents (64 percent) said that they were sympathetic to the protesters, while just 27 percent said they were not supportive. An additional 9 percent of respondents said they were not sure whether they supported or disapproved of the demonstrations.
https://www.newsweek.com/majority-americans-disapprove-donald-trumps-response-protests-poll-shows-1508474

A more recent poll -- July 12 to July 15 -- shows that Americans support some of the goals of the protesters.  I presume that the protests are continuing because public opinion supports them.  I think it significant that the support is as still as strong as it is.

Sixty-three percent of Americans support the Black Lives Matter movement and a record 69% -- the most by far in 32 years of polling -- say Black people and other minorities are denied equal treatment in the criminal justice system, two of several signs of deep changes in public attitudes on racial discrimination.

These views don't necessarily translate into majority preferences on policy -- 55% oppose reducing police funding in favor of more social services, for instance, with 40% in favor. Nonetheless, this ABC News/Washington Post poll finds substantial shifts in how Americans view underlying issues of racial justice. Among them:

• Fifty-five percent in this poll, produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates, say Black people who live in their own community experience racial discrimination, up from a low of 37% in 2012 and the most since the question was first asked 17 years ago. Among whites, 33% in 2012 saw racial discrimination in their own communities; today this has grown to 52%. It's also at 52% among Hispanic people.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/63-support-black-lives-matter-recognition-discrimination-jumps/story?id=71779435

In reply toRe: msg 6
Showtalk
Staff

From: Showtalk 

Jul-25

Is this what people support?

In reply toRe: msg 7
Showtalk
Staff

From: Showtalk 

Jul-25

Dated June 10. I am looking for a more recent list.  If people support riots, do they mind the casualties? Do they even know about them?

In reply toRe: msg 1
MerlinsDad

From: MerlinsDad 

Jul-25

Here’s an interesting and informative opinion piece about Trump’s militarized federal agents in Portland.  It’s by Benjamin Haas, "[an] advocacy counsel at Human Rights First, a non-profit, nonpartisan international human rights organization that challenges America to live up to its ideals. He served as an intelligence officer in the Army and was deployed to Afghanistan twice." 

He provides some thought provoking insights into the dangers of militarized law enforcement.

Blurring the line between the military and law enforcement is a risky proposition [bolding mine  --MD], with Portland offering a striking glimpse of the results. The DHS officers in Portland are more reminiscent of the special operators and the 10th Mountain Division infantry soldiers I supported in Afghanistan than the police officers I expect to see serving and protecting American communities.

Except there is no war in the United States [bolding mine  --MD, and law enforcement organizations should not be trained  and equipped to act as if they are in one. Yet the Trump administration would have us believe that protesters are enemies who must be defeated in combat [bolding mine  --MD].  And against this backdrop, the DHS agents acting at the behest of the Trump administration have behaved in ways that are unacceptable even in armed conflict -- apprehending apparently peaceful protesters and beating others who posed no meaningful threat. Unsurprisingly, the militarized federal response and the heavy-handed tactics have escalated the state of affairs in Portland  [bolding mine  --MD, and Mayor Ted Wheeler was tear gassed on Thursday when he joined crowds of protesters.

As if plain observations from Portland weren't convincing enough, studies suggest that militarized law enforcement is unhelpful for police and bad for community safety [bolding mine  --MD].  One study in 2018, for example, found that "militarized policing fails to enhance officer safety or reduce local crime" and "may diminish police reputation in the mass public."

Public trust in the military is high, but confusion about its role or a false perception that it is involved in these federal protest responses could damage its relationship with society.

. . .  he's trashing the spirit of the American principle that separates the military from law enforcement. This is more like the conduct of foreign authoritarians, not US presidents [bolding mine  --MD].  Trump may feel tough by deploying soldier-like federal law enforcement officers to terrorize Portland. But as usual, he seems motivated by his own desire to present himself as a strongman and please his political base. His actions do not serve the best interests of our democracy, the American people, good policing or the military [bolding mine  --MD]. Unfortunately, it appears that other cities across the country will only become additional cases in point.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/24/opinions/trumps-militarized-policing-of-portland-haas/index.html

kizmet1

From: kizmet1 

Jul-26

Mayor Wheeler works in city hall, a very old building in the heart of Portland, across from the transit center. Why was city hall vandalized?
TOP