|
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/14...&pf_rd_i=507846 This is whats wrong with cop culture, that they see themselves as warriors, ex-military really need to stop getting preferential hiring to be cops.
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 16:11 |
|
|
Wait, they're justified as long as they followed their own policies?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
I assume he means in the eyes of the law.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
But that's worthless to say. If the law allows police to escape consequences for throwing a stun grenade into a house and injuring a toddler, the law is an rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Wait, they're justified as long as they followed their own policies? Yes. As long as their policies are the same or stricter then state/federal/local law. A lot of policies of police departments are actually more restrictive then what federal or state calls for at the minimum.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:But that's worthless to say. If the law allows police to escape consequences for throwing a stun grenade into a house and injuring a toddler, the law is a rear end. Thus the existence of this thread, or so i thought.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:Yes. As long as their policies are the same or stricter then state/federal/local law. Is "justified" the same as "I, justsharkbait, am OK with it"?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Is "justified" the same as "I, justsharkbait, am OK with it"? No. legally, as in, criminally, etc. And no where did i say i was OK with it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
The problem I have is, we've already seen that police reserve the right to interpret, or in some cases, ignore laws based on the situation. If that's the case, then changing laws can't be the entire solution.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:No. legally, as in, criminally, etc. Maybe you should pick a different phrase then, like "legally untouchable" or "not accountable." Because "justified" certainly implies that you think their actions were reasonable. quote:And no where did i say i was OK with it. justsharkbait posted:Because we have to look at the facts unbiased and unemotionally attached. That is how investigations are conducted, we have to be able to do conduct them without becoming emotionally involved in the circumstances because that leads to biased investigations. Unless I'm completely misunderstanding, you seem to be saying that there is some set of facts that would excuse the SWAT team's actions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:Because we have to look at the facts unbiased and unemotionally attached. That is how investigations are conducted, we have to be able to do conduct them without becoming emotionally involved in the circumstances because that leads to biased investigations. So what part of the facts demanded that they throw the flashbang into the crib, again? What kind of facts would make doing that A-okay at all?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:The problem I have is, we've already seen that police reserve the right to interpret, or in some cases, ignore laws based on the situation. In that case, changing laws can't be the entire solution. Correct. Total reformation is needed, in my opinion. However, that is not easy at all and will not happen all at once. So where to start? Each police department in this country is responsible to make their own policies, procedures, etc based on federal/local/state laws. There is no unity across the nation despite similar procedures. However, how to fix that? you cld take it from being local police to regionallized state police, as it is a lot easier to hold people accountable in that regard then so many different agencies all with their own rules. That is a big sale, and the federal gov cannot make a state do that, so a state would have to decide to do that, which they won't because the local counties would not give that up. Legal chance is even harder to do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:So what part of the facts demanded that they throw the flashbang into the crib, again? Facts don't have to demand anything. From what i have read, their procedure allowed FB for no-knock warrants, so they used it. A child in a crib was in the house that they did not know was there and got hurt. And the only facts that would make it not ok is if they knew the kid was there, failed to follow law/procedure, etc, etc. None of that, of course, excused the department from civil liability which, in this case, is the only thing that really matters. If there was criminal misconduct here and the cops went to jail, the family would not get any repayment. They would still have to civilly sue to get any money. So whether the criminal element exists or not will not help with the medical bills, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Maybe you should pick a different phrase then, like "legally untouchable" or "not accountable." Because "justified" certainly implies that you think their actions were reasonable. http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/30/us/georgia-toddler-injured-stun-grenade-drug-raid/ That paints a better picture, with more information then what most outlets who just want a public response will tell you. There had been other subjects at the house that appeared to be standing guard earlier. The door was blocked upon trying to make entry, so they responded as they should for a barricaded front door. The people in the house blocked the front door of the house with the babies crib. That alone, of course, does not imply that they knew the cops were coming to raid and barricaded the front door with a crib, but who in the world would expect that a crib would be blocking the front door at a known drug house, where no one knew a family with a child was even there? Even the confidential informant did not report seeing any children at the house because that is something that would absolutely be reported. So. Based on the facts of the incident as read, the cops were more then justified in their actions and response and nothing has suggested they knew a child was there. Also, the confidential informant is someone who has been vetted by a judge or else the warrant would not have been signed, or an undercover officer who cannot be identified. A warrant cannot be issued just because a regular informant provided information. justsharkbait fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Jul 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:The people in the house blocked the front door of the house with the babies crib. That alone, of course, does not imply that they knew the cops were coming to raid and barricaded the front door with a crib, but who in the world would expect that a crib would be blocking the front door at a known drug house, where no one knew a family with a child was even there? Crafty. So the baby wasn't an innocent bystander, he was literally armor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:So. Based on the facts of the incident as read, the cops were more then justified in their actions and response and nothing has suggested they knew a child was there. This is the problem, they literally did no surveillance or investigation at all, because they didn't bother when they had this sweet-rear end SWAT team ready to go kick in some doors. Edit: The SWAT team is supposed to be used for high-threat and time-sensitive situations. This was neither.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
In general, it's really hard for me to buy any denial of the old adage "when you have a shiny new hammer, everything looks like a nail". It seems central to human nature to me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
Piell posted:This is the problem, they literally did no surveillance or investigation at all, because they didn't bother when they had this sweet-rear end SWAT team ready to go kick in some doors. That is my question, personally. I want to know why they did not do more surveillance. Even when i served warrants, and granted i was not SWAT, so i don't know all those procedures, we did not go in blind. We surrounded the house and checked. However, this case was in the middle of the night and obviously shining a light in the windows would defeat the purpose of no-knock. However, from what i remember of such high-risk, high-value warrants, someone would have been watching the house most of day for surveillance. So why did no one see the child all day. Were they hiding inside without making a sound or leaving? I don't know, but don't know why they would not have seen movement or even known the suspect had left and was not there. Bottom line, is i do not like no knock for such silly things as drugs. It should not be an issue except people abusing their power. EDIT: About your edit. A no-knock qualifies on both. as does most stuff drug-related. SO it was both, according to current legal precedent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
Let us also not forget. Some judge signed off on the warrant, and even if he signed off on it with less then probable cause, judges are 100% immune from civil and criminal liability in stuff they do. So you can't sue or charge a judge for stuff like signing bad warrants, biased verdicts on cases, etc. Also, i am not saying the cops did not bend the evidence either, i have not read the warrant to see how they worded it to tell.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:
Since you didn't think that happened, you are personally okay with it, then? Good to know. edit: sometimes you gotta mess up a few babies to bust a dude for doing meth, no bigge
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:Since you didn't think that happened, you are personally okay with it, then? Good to know. I never, anywhere, said i was personally OK with it. This is a thread about police reform, something i think is needed. This incident was used as an example, so i filled in information on police policy and procedure. We don't have the full story nor do we know the behind the scenes. I am not ok that a child got hurt, but that does not mean there was automatically a violation of law or policy on behalf of the cops.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:
You are trying to imply that the cops said "hey. let's go flashbang a baby because some dude who might be home did some meth". I don't know of any cops who would find that OK, and if you have that big a problem with cops that you assume they do everything maliciously then you are not part of fixing us or them problems anymore then the bad cops who don't want change are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:Correct. Total reformation is needed, in my opinion. However, that is not easy at all and will not happen all at once. So where to start? Each police department in this country is responsible to make their own policies, procedures, etc based on federal/local/state laws. No, each police department in this country should not be responsible to make their own policies, procedures based on federal/local/state laws. There should be a community review board that will create those policies and procedures after an public debate. The legal authority for the police will come out of this board. The police chief works at the pleasure of this board. Any police action that leads to injury or death will lead to an investigation of all police actions, procedures and policies leading up to the incident. The board can run the police department however they want and if any police officer disagrees with it they can resign. That probably would be a good start.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
karthun posted:No, each police department in this country should not be responsible to make their own policies, procedures based on federal/local/state laws. There should be a community review board that will create those policies and procedures after an public debate. The legal authority for the police will come out of this board. The police chief works at the pleasure of this board. Any police action that leads to injury or death will lead to an investigation of all police actions, procedures and policies leading up to the incident. The board can run the police department however they want and if any police officer disagrees with it they can resign. That probably would be a good start. the main problem i have with that is civilians do not know or are trained in police procedure, criminal law, rules of evidence, etc. They will have very little influence over it because that comes from federal law and state law mainly. So the only thing the could do is make stricter policies, which sometimes can be negated by case law, so in the end they would just go around the civ review board.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:You are trying to imply that the cops said "hey. let's go flashbang a baby because some dude who might be home did some meth". I don't know of any cops who would find that OK, and if you have that big a problem with cops that you assume they do everything maliciously then you are not part of fixing us or them problems anymore then the bad cops who don't want change are. The cops didn't care where the weapon went off so there may not be malice, but certainly ambivalence and a good amount of incompetence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:the main problem i have with that is civilians do not know or are trained in police procedure, criminal law, rules of evidence, etc. They will have very little influence over it because that comes from federal law and state law mainly. So the only thing the could do is make stricter policies, which sometimes can be negated by case law, so in the end they would just go around the civ review board.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:the main problem i have with that is civilians do not know or are trained in police procedure, criminal law, rules of evidence, etc. They will have very little influence over it because that comes from federal law and state law mainly. So the only thing the could do is make stricter policies, which sometimes can be negated by case law, so in the end they would just go around the civ review board. Civilians? Police are civilians. If you want to make the argument that civilian police don't know or are trained in police procedure, criminal law, rules of evidence, etc go right ahead. Civilian police are not under the UCMJ. You are not military. Stop pretending that you are. Secondly a civil review board can't have a lawyer explaining this to them? And if the community (not civilian because you are call civilians) review board is not going to change a thing then why not let the board exist and do nothing? There would be no harm right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
karthun posted:Civilians? Police are civilians. If you want to make the argument that civilian police don't know or are trained in police procedure, criminal law, rules of evidence, etc go right ahead. Civilian police are not under the UCMJ. You are not military. Stop pretending that you are. Well, a lawyer should be involved anyway i was assuming that. However, i don't think it will help change things if an oversight board does not feel they have any power--i think people would see through that. I don't think the idea is a bad one though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
The way citizen review boards can get to know police procedure is by interrogating police about their procedures, then changing them with the advice of their legal counsel. Boom, tough actin' Tinactin. Problem solved.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:The way citizen review boards can get to know police procedure is by interrogating police about their procedures, then changing them with the advice of their legal counsel. Boom, tough actin' Tinactin. Problem solved. I'm not against that at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
What would citizen review boards do that internal affairs already doesn't do?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:the main problem i have with that is civilians The best thing we can do for police reform is immediately fire any cop who views the world as divided into virtuous warriors and idiotic/dangerous "civilians."
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:You are trying to imply that the cops said "hey. let's go flashbang a baby because some dude who might be home did some meth". I don't know of any cops who would find that OK Uh, yes you do, because this is how cops are now. Do you think this doesn't happen every day? A big part of the reason that militarization of the police has happened is that too many cops want to play around with the intimidating new equipment because they find it fun. The other part is that cops have convinced themselves that every non-cop (using code words such as "civilians," "criminals," "the bad guys," "the public," all of which cops view as interchangeable terms for the same thing) is out to get them, so the siege mentality makes thinking "this house full of people who are distantly related to an accused drug dealer who doesn't even live here are probably all going to fire automatic weapons at us, better treat it like storming Hamburger Hill" seem rational, when in fact it's totally loving insane. Here's a proposal: if you're too scared to execute a search warrant on a baby's room without grenades, body armor, and a tank, don't become a cop and then tell me how "brave" you are. Furthermore, this is just more evidence that unjust laws, particularly the war on drugs, need to be repealed before any decent person can think about joining a police force.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
deratomicdog posted:What would citizen review boards do that internal affairs already doesn't do? ...not be cops?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:...not be cops? Report to the community about what happened.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:The problem I have is, we've already seen that police reserve the right to interpret, or in some cases, ignore laws based on the situation. If that's the case, then changing laws can't be the entire solution. Honestly, if that's the case, then the only way change is possible is either full on martial law or putting all the pigs up against walls until more wanna-be fascists stop volunteering. justsharkbait posted:That is my question, personally. I want to know why they did not do more surveillance. Even when i served warrants, and granted i was not SWAT, so i don't know all those procedures, we did not go in blind. We surrounded the house and checked. However, this case was in the middle of the night and obviously shining a light in the windows would defeat the purpose of no-knock. At no point in your construct does it address that the entire raid was a complete failure from start to finish. It didn't get the target. It didn't find any drugs, much less amounts that would justify needing to prevent their destruction. It did maim and nearly kill an innocent bystander. If they had any evidence that this was a high value or high threat target, the complete lack of any evidence of weapons or any quantity of drugs greater than 'paraphrenalia and residue' suggests that evidence was blatantly falsified. Likely by an informant looking for a payoff. 'Whoops!' is not a valid response to failure of this magnitude. Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Jul 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
deratomicdog posted:What would citizen review boards do that internal affairs already doesn't do? How does a community involve internal affairs in something like that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
To add to all the talk about an oversight group for police, here in Alberta we have a group called ASIRT, the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team. I don't know enough about to talk about its effectiveness or potential biases, but it has a mix of lawyers, officers from the major cities, and civilians and it investigates municipal and federal officers (the RCMP) when major incidents happen, like shootings or if an officer is alleged to have sexually assaulted someone. It seems like a pretty decent way to do an oversight group, and while it looks like charges are pretty rare I think Canadians are a little less trigger happy. Having trouble with formatting so this is the link: https://www.solgps.alberta.ca/programs_and_services/public_security/ASIRT/Pages/default.aspx
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
deratomicdog posted:What would citizen review boards do that internal affairs already doesn't do? Not give officers a blanket pass because they're other officers, until such point as the feds grudgingly get involved if the community bitches enough?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 16:11 |
|
|
How effective are internal affairs people in police departments, anyway? Are there shining success stories of them getting bad cops fired left and right, or anything like that? But more in general, the idea of an organization as horribly beweaponed as the police in charge of their own oversight has always seemed very strange to me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 04:55
|
|