No matter the verdict, I hope they practice nonviolence tonight. They often commit violence in the streets after these kinds of announcements. I hope their leaders and elders issue calls for calm and peace. Maybe then the police won't riot. Then our communities will be safe.
I'm not optimistic. These gangs that control the streets are heavily armed. They're men with authoritarian personalities and little impulse control. Their leaders never speak out against the violence. I'm expecting these police to be violent against people and property tonight.
They go home after committing violence and physically abuse their spouses at extremely high rates. You never hear their leaders speak out against this culture of violence. Any one of the officers who speaks out against this gang "code" will be punished by the gang leaders.
We have to get tough on these "superpredators." Our streets are controlled by these gangs, and hardworking community members are afraid to leave the house for work, lest they be attacked by these gangs. If you say the wrong thing to them, the gang members can just kill you.
It might sound bad, but I and many other upstanding members of my community are afraid to be around these gang members. I'm not prejudiced, but I'm tired of the political correctness that stops me from saying the obvious: they're violent people, and they should be off the streets
I'm even openminded enough to support helping these officers get an education and out of their violent gang life. They had bad upbringings and substandard education. Maybe a nonprofit to teach them to code, a field trip to show them that they can make something of themselves.
They need better role models than the older gang members. Sure, these "OG" officers didn't have as powerful guns, but they were just as violent, if not worse. We just weren't paying as much attention back then because their gang violence wasn't captured on camera.
If we end up funding social programs to get these violent gangs off the streets, please don't put them in my neighborhood. Sure, I support the goal of transitioning these officers from gang life to upstanding members of society, but not in my back yard. Thanks.
Statement just now from one of the gangs. These gangs always blame others for the violence and disorder they bring to communities. It's time for them to grow up and learn some personal responsibility. This is a culture of violence and dependency.

via @zackbeauchamp

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Jake M. Grumbach

Jake M. Grumbach Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JakeMGrumbach

19 Apr
I am here to Rise Above Sectarianism™ to tell you Difficult Truths™ about The Tribalism™, which you suffer from but to which I'm immune.
Tribalism™ is why bad things happen to good people.
Evolution created The Tribalism™ in our brains. It's a permanent exogenous force and yet also explains historical change. How did the Civil Rights Movement produce change? Well, you see, MLK rewired the neural pathways to cure people's Tribalism™.
Read 4 tweets
18 Apr
Interesting discussion btwn Shor, @gelliottmorris, @mattyglesias on why referenda & legislation fail despite policy polling showing big support (eg, on gun background checks)

I'll add as an academic: divergence btwn item polls & outcomes can be consistent with 'unbiased' polls.
Public policy battles are different from polling: partisan & group cues, media, market as prison & structural power, tradeoffs, etc...

Divergence btwn pre-policy battle polls & outcomes doesn't necessarily mean "polls bad." It can teach us a lot about the policy process
Shor is saying polls should do more to recreate realism of policy battles via partisan frames and such. There's value in that, but in a lot of settings we actually care about what people say when they're just drawing on considerations they already have
Read 5 tweets
15 Apr
Just observing US policing, you should absolutely not believe a word of what they, their unions, or their allies in state and local government say about their murders of civilians. #AdamToledo
They routinely lie, including under oath, with impunity. Prosecutors assist them in their lying. Their lies are routinely exposed, and they face no repercussions (they're often rewarded). Until you receive overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you should assume they're lying.
It's caught on tape in Serial season 3, it's routinely exposed in police brutality cases, and I saw it up close in police statements about the murder of Sean Monterrosa and their subsequent destruction of evidence. All established facts, none held accountable.
Read 4 tweets
12 Apr
UC Berkeley webinar starting in 45 minutes. The topic looks...specifically designed to make me click on it.

Featuring @tinakim, Michael Rothberg, & @BulldogShadow

We out here
Read 4 tweets
12 Apr
Whether police brutality is the result of incompetence, the ridiculous "feared for my life" justification, racially authoritarian psychology, or a mix of all three, it's truly amazing how destructive US policing is. Police involvement is strictly harmful.
A big indictment of poli sci, econ, and political economy is the 1970s-1990s studies of the "runaway bureaucracy", which was more concerned about excessive use of state authority by, like, OSHA, and not police. It's pretty embarrassing. Glad the disciplines are changing.
For many, the only face of the state they will ever interact with is local cartel gang that occupies their community and can just murder you with impunity if you don't immediately kiss their boots (or even if you do!).…
Read 7 tweets
7 Apr
A generous reading of @conor64 et al on "viewpoint diversity on campus" implies 3 considerations:

1) viewpoint diversity for its own sake

2) ideological representation of US (or some) public

3) "coping" & engaging with disagreement

Each important, each bad in extremes
Problem with 1: If diversity in itself is important, then why not hire on absurd and rare belief systems? That would maximize diversity.
Problem with 2: Better representation of US public's ideology in academia would almost certainly reduce the number of NeverTrump conservatives (rare the public), but massively increase Trumpism on campus. That's fine, but I'm not sure that's what this coalition wants.
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!