Thank you. That's effectively what I said early on in here. However, the BLM evangelists almost had me skewered at the stake.
A majority of Oregonians polled say they support the Black Lives Matter movement, but residents are split on whether society is in a better place because of it. Results of an Oregon Values & Beliefs Center survey conducted in February show about six in 10 Oregon residents polled (59%) support the Black Lives Matter movement. Among them, 36% showed strong support. Three in 10 said they oppose the movement and about one in 10, or 9%, were unsure. According to the Oregon Values & Beliefs Center, support for the movement is higher among those with more education and income, with support being highest among Multnomah County residents. Still, surveyors noted a lingering political divide among Oregonians on the perceptions of the social justice movement, with 87% of Democrats in support and 69% of Republicans opposed. In 2020, the deaths of three different African Americans — two at the hands of police — catapulted the social justice movement into prominence. In February 2020, Ahmaud Arbery was murdered by three white men in Georgia who mistook him for a burglar while he jogged in the woods. The following month, Breonna Taylor, a 26-year-old EMT, was shot and killed by police in Kentucky while sleeping in her home. In May 2020, the murder of George Floyd by police in Minneapolis, Minnesota, who knelt on his neck catalyzed the public into action. The high-profile cases forced a spotlight on policing, racism and implicit bias in America, sparking nationwide protests and marches. While Black Lives Matter marches and demonstrations took place in major cities, Portland saw sustained protests in 2020 that garnered international media attention and defined the city for much of that time. Downtown Portland saw sometimes violent clashes between protesters and local and federal police. Police drew scrutiny from the public and lawmakers for their repeated use of tear gas, pepper spray and munitions that left one man with a fractured skull. Antifascist protesters drew strong criticism for demonstrations that ended in repeated damage to downtown businesses. Some Oregonians say that drowned out the overall message and overshadowed the need for police reform. Robert Williams, who lives in Multnomah County, told OVBC that the ongoing protests may have hurt the message. "Getting awareness of the issue is necessary. I believe the extended violence that accompanied actions was instigated by non-BLM agency," Williams said. While a majority of those polled support Black Lives Matter, Oregonians are torn on the social impact of the justice movement. OVBC polling shows 36% of Oregon residents think society is in a better place as a result of the social justice movement that followed George Floyd's death. Survey results show 38% think the country is worse off and 19% of those polled said we're in the same place as before Floyd's death and the ensuing calls for reform. "I think that BLM educated so many white Americans, resulting in (two) major impacts," Susan Heath of the Willamette Valley said. "Some whites responded with compassion and concern (and may or may not still be involved in the movement), while others responded with fear and bigotry and joined the white nationalist backlash." Marla Cox, of Marion County, said the uprising and protests in the name of the Black Lives Matter movement was harmful, leaving society more divided. "Black Lives Matters burned cities, rioted, looted and no one did anything about it," Cox wrote in a survey response, saying the Jan. 6 riots at the U.S. Capitol in 2021 "was nothing" compared to damage done in many American cities. Cox later said by phone that the movement has sown racial division. "It caused me to be aware of race all at once," Cox said. "It's damaged me. I don't like seeing color. I just want to see the person as the person. I want to go back to the way it was before. I'm Lakota and my uncle was Chickasaw. My mother was born on the reservation. My grandparents were born on the reservation. You look at what's inside people, that's what we should be looking at. Not the color of their skin." Pollsters note a significant age gap in response to the question of societal impacts. Oregonians ages 75 and older are much more likely (48% versus 28%) than those ages 18 to 29 to think our culture is in a better place. "Overall, Republicans tend to be more pessimistic on the issue, with 69% saying our culture is in a worse place, whereas 58% of Democrats think we're better off," OVBC noted in a summary of results, saying optimism on the issue tends to increase with higher income and education levels. Split on solutions Mixed opinions in the latest study are consistent with a June 2021 survey of Oregonians, which found 19% felt the Black Lives Matter movement has a positive impact on their community, compared with 22% who said it was negative. The OVBC surveys, which reports a 2% margin of error and strives for representative sample size and accuracy, shows a lingering divide in the state regarding social justice and the Black Lives Matter movement in particular. That divide has proven deadly. On Feb. 19, five people were shot and one woman was killed just before a social justice march kicked off in Northeast Portland's Normandale Park. Brandy "June" Knightly, 60 was shot and killed by a man who lived nearby and emerged with a gun, yelling at demonstrators in the park before shooting Knightly in the head and seriously wounding at least four others. The Normandale Park confrontation isn't the first time a demonstration in Portland has turned deadly. Aaron "Jay" Danielson, 39, was shot and killed in August 2020, while part of a large caravan of vehicles and members of far-right group Patriot Prayer drove through the city rallying for then-President Donald Trump. The group was met with resistance from counter-protesters. The man suspected of shooting Danielson that night, Michael Forest Reinoehl, later told a freelance journalist that he shot Danielson in what he called "self defense," believing he was about to be stabbed. Reinoehl was later shot and killed by federal police in Washington who has a warrant for Reinoehl's arrest. Oregonians are also split on solutions to reducing implicit bias and racism. When asked about potential strategies to reduce inequality between Black and white people in Oregon, a slim margin felt just two of the strategies: limiting the scope of policing and redrawing school boundaries, were effective. Of those surveyed, 54% said limiting the scope of policing to focus on serious and violent crimes would have either a lot or some impact on reducing inequality. Similarly, 52% said redrawing school boundaries to create more racially and ethnically diverse schools would help. Among the respondents, Democrats were twice as likely as Republicans (70% versus 35%) to think limiting the scope of policing would help. Democrats are also significantly more likely than Republicans (68% versus 35%) to think redrawing school boundaries to diversify campuses would help. College graduates are more likely to favor redrawing school boundaries than those with less formal education. On Feb. 19, five people were shot and one woman was killed just before a social justice march kicked off in Northeast Portland's Normandale Park. Brandy "June" Knightly, 60 was shot and killed by a man who lived nearby and emerged with a gun, yelling at demonstrators in the park before shooting Knightly in the head and seriously wounding at least four others. The Normandale Park confrontation isn't the first time a demonstration in Portland has turned deadly. Aaron "Jay" Danielson, 39, was shot and killed in August 2020, while part of a large caravan of vehicles and members of far-right group Patriot Prayer drove through the city rallying for then-President Donald Trump. The group was met with resistance from counter-protesters. The man suspected of shooting Danielson that night, Michael Forest Reinoehl, later told a freelance journalist that he shot Danielson in what he called "self defense," believing he was about to be stabbed. Reinoehl was later shot and killed by federal police in Washington who has a warrant for Reinoehl's arrest. Oregonians are also split on solutions to reducing implicit bias and racism. When asked about potential strategies to reduce inequality between Black and white people in Oregon, a slim margin felt just two of the strategies: limiting the scope of policing and redrawing school boundaries, were effective. Of those surveyed, 54% said limiting the scope of policing to focus on serious and violent crimes would have either a lot or some impact on reducing inequality. Similarly, 52% said redrawing school boundaries to create more racially and ethnically diverse schools would help. Among the respondents, Democrats were twice as likely as Republicans (70% versus 35%) to think limiting the scope of policing would help. Democrats are also significantly more likely than Republicans (68% versus 35%) to think redrawing school boundaries to diversify campuses would help. College graduates are more likely to favor redrawing school boundaries than those with less formal education. educational attainment, criminality and incarceration rates. The Progressive commitment to the counterproductive effects of the welfare state are still a problem. If you think otherwise, I invite you to visit Harvey Scott Elementary School and ride shotgun with some of the teachers there.
“We agree with what you’re doing but it’s making this worse” is what they found? So it’s making things worse than people are bringing racism to light. Wonder why
It doesn't matter if your message is true if the perception is that your movement is destructive. Is our city better off than it was three years ago?
I think I like this Vadim Mozyrsky guy.... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ WW spoke to Mozyrsky about policing. Here are three key points from that conversation: 1. He thinks “bad apples” are to blame. Asked whether he believes policing issues arise from systemic inequities or the actions of individual officers, Mozyrsky said there are “institutional problems that those handful of cops” perpetuate. Last month, for example, Mayor Ted Wheeler fired former Portland Police Association president Brian Hunzeker, who leaked a police dispatch report that mistakenly identified Commissioner Hardesty as a suspect in a hit-and-run crash. PPB’s internal affairs unit had determined that Hunzeker’s actions were retaliatory, in part because he admitted during IA interviews that he was motivated by Hardesty’s longtime criticism of the police as well as the false claim she made during the Marie Claire interview. Mozyrsky said he considers Hunzeker a “bad apple” rather than an indication of wider systemic, cultural or political problems within the Police Bureau. He added that he supported the mayor’s decision to terminate Hunzeker, and that doing so could help rebuild the community’s trust. “You have bad doctors out there, and they get sued, and you have malpractice insurance, and those people get fines because of malpractice,” Mozyrsky said. “They might lose their license. But we don’t eliminate hospitals because there is a doctor that had malpractice. There’s things that we do to take out bad apples but make sure that things still function. And that’s what we need to do with the police.” Jesse Merrithew, a Portland criminal defense lawyer, was skeptical of that argument. “If he truly believes that all the problems in policing can be reduced to bad apples, then that should mean he also supports strong accountability measures with the removal of those bad apples immediately,” Merrithew said. “It’s just a deflection to say ‘bad apples.’ It’s a way to avoid taking on these greater, systemic problems that have existed for a long time with policing in America.” 2. He aligns closely with Commissioner Mingus Mapps. WW asked Mozyrsky which of the five commissioners (including the mayor) he aligns with most closely on the Portland City Council. “I’d say Mingus Mapps,” he said. Mozyrsky pointed to Mapps’ comments at a recent city budget hearing in which the commissioner advocated the hiring of 200 sworn officers and 100 public safety support specialists as an example of the “nuanced” approach he takes to policing. Mozyrsky did not elaborate on the specific similarities between him and Mapps, who was endorsed by the PPA in 2020 and whose voting record on the City Council has been favorable to law enforcement. Young said Mozyrsky’s support of Mapps “makes perfect sense.” Young adds: “He has not been in favor of the measures that people have brought to PCCEP that are actually about holding the police accountable.” 3. He believes disbanding the GVRT led to more homicides. “I think there’s a correlation between cutting the GVRT and homicides,” Mozyrsky said, adding that if the unit hadn’t been cut, there would have been fewer murders. Prior to the budget cut, Hardesty had been highly critical of the unit, formerly known as the Gang Enforcement Team, after a 2018 city audit found that 59% of the unit’s traffic stops were of Black people. Mozyrsky argues the solution was not to dissolve the unit altogether, but to replace the bad actors with good officers, and discipline the former accordingly. “There were accusations that they treated people disproportionately. And the way you work with that is, you fix it. If that’s the case, you make sure that you get those officers out of there—assign them something else, discipline them, whatever it might be,” he said. Mozyrsky, who advocates community-style policing, said the GVRT played a key role in keeping Portland safe. “These [officers] were out in the community. They knew what the needs were, they knew who was involved and they kept crime from escalating—whatever that might look like. And then, because of objections, I think, on the part of Commissioner Hardesty, that unit was eliminated.” Juan Chavez, a Portland civil rights lawyer, disagrees with the premise that more police officers mean less crime. “Somehow we’ve convinced ourselves that the number line on a budget for the Police Bureau is the indicator of whether or not there’s crime. We don’t talk about law-and-order jurisdictions having higher crime rates, higher murder rates,” he said. “These things aren’t correlated. Low crime rates could look like New Zealand, or they could look like North Korea.”
The condition of the city and the actions of the protests are a direct result of the poor policies we've been living with. It was always going to go this way. It was just a matter of when. It will not get better until we fix those policies.
Blaming individuals for social problems is how you ignore the problem. Individual responsibility is never the solution to social problems. That's why Individual responsibility has never solved any social problems. "Bad apples" are never the problem. They are always a result of bad systems allowing them to be problems. This is simply people looking for talking points which protect their world view.
Measure 26-217: Portlanders weigh scrapping the city’s system of police oversight Stronger police oversight and accountability is one thing that directly came from the protests downtown. Portlanders will decide in November whether to scrap the city’s system of police oversight and replace it with a new body. Propelled by a national uprising over systemic racism and police violence, Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty successfully pushed to get a measure on the November ballot that would create a new civilian oversight body with the power to discipline and fire police officers. The City Council voted unanimously this summer to refer Measure 26-217 to the November ballot. A poll conducted this summer showed 70% of Portland voters support the change. While the proposal faces little in the way of formal opposition, the measure has its fair share of skeptics who warn it will face significant legal challenges if approved. The Portland Police Association, the union representing the rank and file officers, says the new body would violate their contract with the city and will get tied up in litigation if the measure passes. But that contract is up for negotiation in January and Hardesty said she is confident the voters will send a clear message, strengthening the city’s bargaining position when the time comes. “Having four city attorneys who worked on this particular ballot measure, as well as three outside attorneys, I am absolutely confident that we have the time and the political will to make the changes necessary prior to seating this board,” Hardesty said. What it does If approved by voters, the measure will amend the city charter to establish an independent police oversight board with members approved by the City Council. Members would wield a significant amount of power. The board would have the authority to discipline and fire police officers — a power currently reserved for the police commissioner. They would have a guaranteed budget of no less than 5% of the police bureau’s budget, which this fiscal year would have been $11 million. That’s compared to the current Independent Police Review board’s $2.8 million budget. And they would function independently of any government official. The new oversight board would have the power to investigate all deaths in custody, uses of deadly force, complaints of force causing injury, discrimination against protected classes and constitutional rights violations. The board would also be tasked with making recommendations on police policy and directives that the City Council — and not the police bureau — would get the final say on implementing. What types of policy the independent board could recommend has not been defined. The board would also have the power to subpoena documents and compel statements from police officers during investigations. The measure says board members should have diverse backgrounds, including lived experience with systemic racism, mental illness and addiction. It specifically prohibits current or former police officers — or anyone in their immediate families — from serving on the board. The proposed changes would mean the end of the Independent Police Review, a city agency that investigates complaints made against police. Many have criticized the agency for lacking the power to hold police accountable. Another major critique of the current system is that Independent Police Review investigations are often confidential. Disciplinary decisions are left up to the police chief and police commissioner — a post currently filled by Mayor Ted Wheeler. Those decisions can be overturned by an arbitrator if the police union appeals. State law shields most of these investigations into police misconduct from being disclosed to the public. So while Hardesty has promised a more effective and transparent form of oversight than what the Independent Police Review offers, it will require changes to state law and within the union contract to become a reality. Her staff hopes approval of this measure will pave the way for those changes. “This is an attempt to create a system that provides outward pressure to get the changes we need,” said Derek Bradley, Hardesty’s policy director, in a July City Council session. Who’s for it? Supporters say abolishing the Independent Police Review is a necessary step to rebuild Portlanders' trust in the police, and will ultimately lead to a more stable and better-funded oversight system. “I think we will be the model for this specific type of oversight board,” said Hardesty, who believes the mandatory budget is critical if the board is going to withstand political pressure from powerful interests. “The only way that this ballot measure gets changed is by a vote of the people. And I think that’s appropriate because I’ve seen too many times where political will or interest was not consistent with what community will and interest was.” The end of the Independent Police Review will also spell the end for the Citizen Review Committee, which serves as a volunteer advisory board to the Independent Police Review. Still, the measure has the support of CRC chair Candace Avalos. In the current system, Avalos said, board members pour hours into crafting recommendations for the police bureau only to have those recommendations ignored. She said they spent two years pushing to strengthen the committee by changing their “standard of review.” But the bureau had no reason to listen. “It just kind of died because there’s no mandate to anyone to follow up on anything that comes out of any of our advisory boards,” she said. Measure 26-217 would change that. If the new oversight board wants to change police policy or directives and the bureau rejects the recommendations, it could head to City Council for a vote. “So there’s actually a mechanism to have accountability for policy recommendations,” Avalos said. Jason Renaud, the founder of the Mental Health Association of Portland who now sits on the campaign’s steering committee, said if the measure passes he expects significant hurdles before voters will see the kind of oversight Hardesty envisions. The police union will need to get on board. And overhauls of this magnitude take time to implement, he said. Some will inevitably grow frustrated that this new body did not come together as rapidly as they expected when they cast their vote. But Renaud said he believes the city needs to try for a clean slate. “When a bureaucracy has lost the confidence of a community and the community doesn’t believe it can do what it says it can do, you need to move it out, change the name, change the faces, change the mission and try again,” he said. “Do protesters think they’re going to get justice with IPR? No.” Dan Handelman, the head of the police oversight activist group Portland Copwatch, has been advocating for years for a form of oversight similar to what voters will see on the ballot in November. “In that sense, the outcome will be something that we’ve been seeking as an organization for a long time,” Handelman said. He noted he’s not formally endorsing or opposing the measure But having watched Portland grapple with different forms of police oversight for three decades, he said he’s skeptical the new body will come to fruition exactly as it’s being pitched to voters. “I think it would be good for members of the general public who support the ballot measure to understand that it might not get implemented exactly as it’s written,” Handelman said. “It could be tied up in court for some time.” Who’s against it? The measure faces no formal opposition. But should the measure pass, the city is certain to run into a wall of stiff challenge from the police union. Days before the City Council unanimously voted to refer the measure to voters, Portland Police Association President Daryl Turner wrote a lengthy letter accusing the city of rushing the proposal and violating labor law. The union maintains anything that deals with discipline needs to be bargained for with the union under Oregon’s Public Employee Collective Bargaining Act. Turner has argued asking voters to approve a new disciplinary body without first getting it approved by the union is moving in reverse order — and giving voters false confidence in a plan that could get tied up in court. “Voters will listen and hear reform and hear accountability and be all for it; I mean, who wouldn’t?” Turner said. “But then, in the end, you don’t read the small print: ‘This has to be negotiated by all parties.’” Attorney Anil Karia, who represents the union, said the Portland Police Association plans to challenge the measure for violating its collective bargaining right. “The entirety of the existence of this board will be litigated,” he said. “...The union is yelling from the mountaintop saying, ‘If you do this, this is what the cause of actions going to be, don’t do it.’ You’re going to make promises to the public you can’t keep.” The police union has sued the city in the past over similar issues. In 2012, Portland voters approved a measure that changed the way the city calculated retirement benefits for police officers and firefighters. The union saw it as a bargaining issue and it ultimately got overturned in arbitration. “You have to negotiate first before you look to voters to approve changes,” Karia said. “And the city has repeatedly lost that fight over and over again.” On the day the council referred the measure to voters, some city commissioners voiced muted reservations that, if enacted, the measure would clash with the union contract and state law. The mayor noted that the measure had a severability clause, meaning if any one section is struck down by the courts, it won’t drag the rest of the measure down with it. The first sentence in the measure states the city has to meet its legal responsibilities under the Public Employees Collective Bargaining Act and “other state and federal laws” before the body could be created. All council members voted in favor of the measure. There is one elected official in City Hall who has come out against the measure. Portland City Auditor Mary Hull Caballero, who oversees the Independent Police Review, argues the city is rushing an unvetted proposal without a clear plan for how it will work once Portlanders vote it into existence. She pointed to the lack of government oversight in the proposal. “Is it going to be something that floats in a parallel universe of the rest of the city and no one can touch it, but money just keeps flowing toward it?” she asked. “Government with no checks on it is never a good idea.” https://www.opb.org/article/2020/10/12/measure-26-217-portland-oregon-police-oversight/
It doesn't matter if it's BLM's fault. It matters if the perception by the public is that it's BLMs fault.
The condition of the city and the actions of the protests weren't even related to anything in Portland. They were sparked by something that happened in Minnesota. And the homeless problems/tent cities are a result of something that happened in Boise, Idaho.
That perception has been created by those who don't wish to truly solve the real problem and to instead scapegoat.
Just because some people don't choose to go out and tear up the city, doesn't mean they don't wish to truly solve the problem. It's a lot more constructive to vote out the people who continue to support this system, rather than go downtown and fuck up our home.
Disagree. Portland Police have done the same. And they showed it during the protests. And not just the Portland police, either. It's a system wide problem. And regarding homelessness, that's not correct unless you think people should be treated as criminals because they have no home. And the appellate court which made the ruling that homeless people are not criminals was made in California, not Boise. That also would have happened at some point regardless of Boise, because America has a broken system to prevent and deal with that problem...
I think people should not be allowed to treat the city like their own personal garbage can. Just because they’re homeless doesn’t mean they need to completely destroy the area around their shitty little tent cities. It’s a complete lack of respect for anyone and anything. Frankly I lack very little compassion for drug addicts. They made the choice to take drugs in the first place. If it’s mental illness that’s one thing, but drug addiction was all a result of a choice. I’m not addicted to drugs because I chose to never do any kind of drug, ever. They fucked up their lives and now the rest of us are supposed to just sit by while they fuck up our city. They steal, they trash the area, they are violent. I have zero sympathy for these people. They can get fucked and go somewhere else.
This has turned into way more than "one reason". Pretty sure the one reason went out the window as soon as Judge "Jeanie out of the bottle" latched onto it.
But the only way to enforce that is to prevent them from being homeless. We don't have enough police to patrol all of those areas as constantly as it would take. And it would be incredibly expensive to do so. Again, the best solution here is to house those people someplace they'll choose to be so they can be more easily treated. It's a problem with the system again. Fix the system and the problem of people messing up the city largely goes away and the remaining problem becomes easier to solve.
