|
Samurai Sanders posted: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?
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:40 |
|
|
The Oxford, Merrian Webster, Macmillan, and every other major dictionary of record doesn't agree with this thread's definition of Civilian. So while your talking about things we can "verify", I think you can let the cops are or are not "civilians" thing rest. But keep raging about semantics guys if it makes you feel better.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 06:58
|
|
|
Untagged posted:The Oxford, Merrian Webster, Macmillan, and every other major dictionary of record doesn't agree with this thread's definition of Civilian. So while your talking about things we can "verify", I think you can let the cops are or are not "civilians" thing rest. But keep raging about semantics guys if it makes you feel better. Now if only there were treaties that covered who was a civilian and who wasn't. This is actually a major problem with the police, they consider themselves to be combatants in a war. Its not raging about semantics, it is one of the major problems and I would argue a mandatory section of reform.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 07:37
|
|
|
Our IA seems pretty effective at least. They investigate any citizen complaints or use of force. Any major incidents like shootings are jointly investigated by our people and the SBI. Our in-car cameras have helped a lot with complaints and most officers are grateful for the because it exonerates the officer usually.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 08:02
|
|
|
deratomicdog posted:Our IA seems pretty effective at least. They investigate any citizen complaints or use of force. Any major incidents like shootings are jointly investigated by our people and the SBI. Our in-car cameras have helped a lot with complaints and most officers are grateful for the because it exonerates the officer usually. Well thanks for your candour at least.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 08:27
|
|
|
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. Focusing on the mindset of the police for a bit, they really do view themselves separately from the people they protect. People pick up on this I know I did. I lived in the middle of one of the worst parts of the city in Milwaukee and the cops looked at everyone there the way one would animals.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
SirKibbles posted:Focusing on the mindset of the police for a bit, they really do view themselves separately from the people they protect. People pick up on this I know I did. I lived in the middle of one of the worst parts of the city in Milwaukee and the cops looked at everyone there the way one would animals. And it's the same all over the world. Until cops see themselves as accountable to their societies, they will keep killing and lying.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
Tias posted:And it's the same all over the world. Until cops see themselves as accountable to their societies, they will keep killing and lying. It isn't, I'd be lying if I said I don't trust my local police force. They've earned that trust by acting fairly the few times I've had to deal with them and there not having been any scandals for years.  VVVVVVVVVV EDIT: This coming from a country where babies don't get grenades thrown in the their face. MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Jul 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
Xoidanor posted:It isn't, I'd be lying if I said I don't trust my local police force. They've earned that trust by acting fairly the few times I've had to deal with them and there not having been any scandals for years. That's how it is with most citizens, otherwise the system would change. Their overbearing presence keeps you and your property values safe from the Other.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted: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? Since internal affairs is made up of police employees and answers solely to police leadership, the effectiveness of any given IA department depends entirely on the mindset, management, and corruption level of the department they're part of. lovely corrupt police departments whose leadership is mostly concerned with busting heads and covering up misconduct generally have IA departments mostly concerned with justifying the head-busting and sweeping misconduct under the rug. Even at good police departments, though, the tight brotherhood and "us vs them" mentality common among police officers means that cops are generally not the best people to investigate other cops.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Since internal affairs is made up of police employees and answers solely to police leadership, the effectiveness of any given IA department depends entirely on the mindset, management, and corruption level of the department they're part of. lovely corrupt police departments whose leadership is mostly concerned with busting heads and covering up misconduct generally have IA departments mostly concerned with justifying the head-busting and sweeping misconduct under the rug. Even at good police departments, though, the tight brotherhood and "us vs them" mentality common among police officers means that cops are generally not the best people to investigate other cops. Are you a cop how do you know this
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 13:24
|
|
|
I sure do love to harp on about my gun-free society but seriously living in a place where patrol officers are completely unarmed and don't spend all day cruising around but rather on foot is pretty nice. I've heard them say lovely things to people, mostly drug addicts or homeless people, while I've been in the city but I feel like we don't have that separation of us and them like you might see in the States or Australia. Irish police satisfaction was about 69% total satisfied in 2012.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
Bedshaped posted:I sure do love to harp on about my gun-free society Then again they're generally more interested in murdering each other / the PSNI than they are in shooting it out with the Garda.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
The IRA have been disarmed to the point that they are likely less threatening than your average legal US militia. If beat cops didn't carry firearms this guy would probably be alive today:
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 13:43
|
|
|
I saw something yesterday that blew me away. I was driving down the highway when traffic began to clog up pretty bad. Up ahead the left lane was blocked with a truck angled across the highway, then about 3 county sheriff's cruisers. He appeared to be handcuffed, with his feet flat on the ground, but leaning over the concrete divider. Suddenly, two of the sheriffs grabbed him, one on each foot, and pulled him off the divider to the ground. They leaped on him, even though he didn't appear to be resisting. As we drove by the scene, my girlfriend claimed to see a third sheriff Tazer the poor guy in the neck. I really wish I had hooked up my dash cam, because it looked egregious from a distance and a recording would have been good to have. For the life of me, I'll never understand using force on a handcuffed, non-resisting "suspect". I don't care what happened before that, there was no call for it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 14:15
|
|
|
anonumos posted:I saw something yesterday that blew me away. I was driving down the highway when traffic began to clog up pretty bad. Up ahead the left lane was blocked with a truck angled across the highway, then about 3 county sheriff's cruisers. He appeared to be handcuffed, with his feet flat on the ground, but leaning over the concrete divider. Suddenly, two of the sheriffs grabbed him, one on each foot, and pulled him off the divider to the ground. They leaped on him, even though he didn't appear to be resisting. As we drove by the scene, my girlfriend claimed to see a third sheriff Tazer the poor guy in the neck. I really wish I had hooked up my dash cam, because it looked egregious from a distance and a recording would have been good to have. There are many things that could have happened to cause that response. He could have been pulling a gun out of his pocket (happened to me on Easter) or could have been making a move to push himself over the divider which would put him in moving traffic while handcuffed. Sometimes what appears to be non-resisting to somebody passing by while driving looks completely different from up close and involved in the situation. Sometimes there is absolute cause to use force on somebody in handcuffs. Handcuffs don't magically stop people from being dangerous, they just reduce the risk.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
Bedshaped posted:I sure do love to harp on about my gun-free society but seriously living in a place where patrol officers are completely unarmed and don't spend all day cruising around but rather on foot is pretty nice. I've heard them say lovely things to people, mostly drug addicts or homeless people, while I've been in the city but I feel like we don't have that separation of us and them like you might see in the States or Australia. Too bad about that massive corruption scandal that reached up to the highest echelons of government and down to individual stations. Let's be honest, the guards are exactly as bad as they could be given their relatively lower ability to project force compared to other countries' police.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
Finnish police are armed yet are one of the most trusted by their population in the world, and practically nobody gets shot by them. But hey simple answers appeal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Great, even cracked are now getting in on mocking the systemic overuse of SWAT-teams. http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-reasons-police-are-starting-to-look-like-supervillains_p2/
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Finnish police are armed yet are one of the most trusted by their population in the world, and practically nobody gets shot by them. But hey simple answers appeal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
Bernard McFacknutah posted:I'm curious on what, if any, the general consensus is on de-criminalising hard drugs like Heroin, Crack cocaine and Methamphetamine is among Goons. I'm absolutely for decriminalizing possession, and I would imagine most other people are as well. I'm not as sure about legalization, however. It might be somewhat selfish, but as an addict it would be extremely difficult for me if potent opioids were sold in stores; even if I had the self-control, it would still be very uncomfortable just dealing with the choice. Then again, for many other addicts it's probably just as easy for them to acquire their drug of choice on the streets. I probably lean more towards treating "hard" drugs in the same way that we treat, say, alcohol; I can't think of a rational reason to treat them differently, even if it wouldn't be preferable for me personally.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I'm absolutely for decriminalizing possession, and I would imagine most other people are as well. I'm not as sure about legalization, however. It might be somewhat selfish, but as an addict it would be extremely difficult for me if potent opioids were sold in stores; even if I had the self-control, it would still be very uncomfortable just dealing with the choice. Then again, for many other addicts it's probably just as easy for them to acquire their drug of choice on the streets. I probably lean more towards treating "hard" drugs in the same way that we treat, say, alcohol; I can't think of a rational reason to treat them differently, even if it wouldn't be preferable for me personally. I feel the same way with tobacco. I wish we would just flat out ban it, so that I wouldn't have to decide every day not to walk across the street and buy a pack. I honestly think that a tobacco black market would barely exist if it was banned. I am all for legalising all substances though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
klen dool posted:I feel the same way with tobacco. I wish we would just flat out ban it, so that I wouldn't have to decide every day not to walk across the street and buy a pack. Tobacco is already being phased out in the US, it's basically illegal to use it in most public areas and general smoking rates are extremely far down compared to historical rates and the world at large (smoking rates of women are up but they're hilariously low in basically all countries).
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
klen dool posted:I feel the same way with tobacco. I wish we would just flat out ban it, so that I wouldn't have to decide every day not to walk across the street and buy a pack. A significant tobacco black market exists right now just to avoid taxes, and banning it would only increase the incentives to smuggle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:A significant tobacco black market exists right now just to avoid taxes, and banning it would only increase the incentives to smuggle. Well I dunno, if tobacco isn't easily available from shops at all perhaps people won't start in the first place. I know this argument might look like an argument for prohibition of all substances - but tobacco differs from other drugs in that it doesn't get you high. People might not be keen to go find an illegal substance where using it is obvious and doesn't get you high. Right now you can start smoking and get hooked then go looking for cheaper alternatives to buying it legally. There exists right now a lot of people (like me) who got hooked back in the day before it was taxed and are looking for cheaper alternatives too buying it legally. One is to quit, which I guess is the point of the taxes. The other is to get it illegally. Hell, apparently when methamphetamine got to London a few years ago it just didn't really catch on - who would use method when you have cheap MDMA and cocaine and lots of other wonderful substances available? And meth IS addictive. I am not saying a black market wouldn't exist. I think in tobacco's case the black market would be very niche and exist where you could smoke outside without getting caught, and mostly consist of current existing smokers. I still think my position is a little hypocritical, which is probably why I am trying so hard to point out the difference between tobacco and other addictive substances lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
klen dool posted:Well I dunno, if tobacco isn't easily available from shops at all perhaps people won't start in the first place. I know this argument might look like an argument for prohibition of all substances - but tobacco differs from other drugs in that it doesn't get you high. People might not be keen to go find an illegal substance where using it is obvious and doesn't get you high. Banning tobacco would cause the same problems that Prohibition on alcohol created, and the same problems we see now with illegal drugs. Don't you doubt it. Not only would thousands be sent to jail for copping a nicotine buzz, but the prices would skyrocket and quality would dip. Imagine all the cheap-n-dirty additives that bootleggers would add to a tobacco crop as they harvest, dry, and roll it into cigarettes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 12:37
|
|
|
anonumos posted:Banning tobacco would cause the same problems that Prohibition on alcohol created, and the same problems we see now with illegal drugs. Don't you doubt it. Not only would thousands be sent to jail for copping a nicotine buzz, but the prices would skyrocket and quality would dip. Imagine all the cheap-n-dirty additives that bootleggers would add to a tobacco crop as they harvest, dry, and roll it into cigarettes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Not opposing your argument but tobacco already has all kinds of awful additives, only put there by giant, legal companies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
We have unregulated nicotine popping up all over the place in the USA right now with vape shops. Flavored cigarettes got banned because they could be attractive to kids, but there are mall kiosks pushing candy and fruit flavored vapor loaded with way more nicotine than a cigarette. I know a few people who have toned down their nicotine addiction a lot using e-cigarettes, but I also know people who have probably tripled their nicotine intake wearing a vapor pen around their neck all day compared to when they were a pack a day smoker.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
Didn't the "flavor" cigs just get replaced by euphemisms such as blue, gold, menthol, etc...? Or is there something different between Marlboro Reds and Marlboro Black besides that Black is usually a bit cheaper?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
wixard posted:We have unregulated nicotine popping up all over the place in the USA right now with vape shops. Flavored cigarettes got banned because they could be attractive to kids, but there are mall kiosks pushing candy and fruit flavored vapor loaded with way more nicotine than a cigarette. I know a few people who have toned down their nicotine addiction a lot using e-cigarettes, but I also know people who have probably tripled their nicotine intake wearing a vapor pen around their neck all day compared to when they were a pack a day smoker. Cigarettes are not dangerous simply because of the nicotine, they're addictive because of it but that's not what destroys lungs and give people cancer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:Didn't the "flavor" cigs just get replaced by euphemisms such as blue, gold, menthol, etc...? Or is there something different between Marlboro Reds and Marlboro Black besides that Black is usually a bit cheaper? There are no more cherry or melon cigarettes anymore. Those were deemed "candy flavored" and attractive to kids. "Lights" were also banned, as well as any other language that suggested one flavor was more healthy than another. "Light" was replaced by "Blue", "Silver", "Bold", or any other confusing terms that amount to the same damned thing. Menthol was on the chopping block, too, as a "flavored" cigarette, but there was too much pushback from all sides to ban it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel_(cigarette)#USA_varieties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marlboro_(cigarette)#American_cigarette_varieties Someone kindly labeled the Camel varieties on Wikipedia with the previous names, but Marlboro's Wikipedia entry only shows the current names. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menthol_cigarette#United_States_2 quote:Several Black advocacy groups have voiced opposition to a proposed ban on menthol in cigarettes. The Congress of Racial Equality, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, and the National Black Police Association have urged the FDA to reject a ban on mentholated cigarettes due to concerns that banning mentholated cigarettes could spur an illicit market for the outlawed products in minority communities.[19][20][21] Here's the relevant regulation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act quote:The Act gives the Food and Drug Administration the power to regulate the tobacco industry. A signature element of the law imposes new warnings and labels on tobacco packaging and their advertisements, with the goal of discouraging minors and young adults from smoking. The Act also bans flavored cigarettes, places limits on the advertising of tobacco products to minors and requires tobacco companies to seek FDA approval for new tobacco products. There's some suggestions that this law also banned vending machines, but I can't find any relevant info about it. anonumos fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Jul 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
Xoidanor posted:Cigarettes are not dangerous simply because of the nicotine, they're addictive because of it but that's not what destroys lungs and give people cancer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
wixard posted:That's very true, but as far as I know the jury is out on long-term effects of inhaling vapor juice, and there's no regulation on what companies might put in their nicotine vapor juice. I'm someone who generally supports deregulation of drugs, selling flavored vapor with a significantly higher nicotine concentration than cigarettes might mitigate second-hand smoke issues, but it seems like a bigger potential addiction problem than cigarettes themselves. So far none of the major drug pushers like big tobacco or big pharma have made it into the market, but with their lobby and market penetration they could get way more people addicted to their products than they do now. Anecdotally, I know many people who have switched to or tried vaporizers (e-cigs) and none became "more" addicted in any way. Nearly all of them have quit nicotine altogether, though several went back to smoking as they always did. I agree, the vapor juice is suspect, and without any oversight or testing we don't know the contents, but I believe they can't be any more dangerous than cigarettes themselves. I'd like to see e-cigs become a fixture of the market, but definitely with more regulation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
wixard posted:That's very true, but as far as I know the jury is out on long-term effects of inhaling vapor juice, and there's no regulation on what companies might put in their nicotine vapor juice. I'm someone who generally supports deregulation of drugs, selling flavored vapor with a significantly higher nicotine concentration than cigarettes might mitigate second-hand smoke issues, but it seems like a bigger potential addiction problem than cigarettes themselves. So far none of the major drug pushers like big tobacco or big pharma have made it into the market, but with their lobby and market penetration they could get way more people addicted to their products than they do now. Probably. The thing that makes me hopeful about vapor cigs is that it's basically a miniaturized water pipe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
Xoidanor posted:Probably. The thing that makes me hopeful about vapor cigs is that it's basically a miniaturized water pipe. It's not that in any way, apart from the fact that both have flavours. Hookah smoke is still smoke, e-cigarettes produce a vapour with or without nicotine. Having tried e-cigarettes: the flavours are garbage, and I like the taste of tobacco, so I don't like that part of it; further, it's easier to get more addicted to nicotine because there's no start/end point for smoking like there is with a normal cigarette. You can keep reaching for that thing as often as you want. Lastly, I found that it didn't really make me feel any better. It might be less likely to give me cancer, but I was coughing even worse in the mornings (and it wasn't just because I was quitting cigarettes, since I've done that before for periods of years and never experienced the same thing).
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 06:34
|
|
|
This is a strange derail
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
ImAMinister posted:This is a strange derail It's what what happens when GBS and D&D finish circle jerking themselves. Like when you bust a nut you gotta take a break unless you're a stud like me. We are just in the middle of jerkoff sessions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
Oh, well in the meantime here's some content. quote:Sheriff Wooten said a deputy, who was not named, was on approaching the property when a dog ran up to him. The deputy's gun fired one shot, missing the dog and hitting the child. It was not immediately clear if the gun was actively fired by the deputy. The rest of the story is here: http://m.walb.com/#!/newsDetail/25991974 In an attempt to apprehend a suspect, the deputy saw it fit to shoot a dog, but managed instead to shoot a child. What can be done about something like this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:40 |
|
|
ImAMinister posted:Oh, well in the meantime here's some content. Nothing -- cops are convinced that every "civilian", that is to say, all non-cops including children and dogs, is out to get them; they know that they can shoot at whoever or whatever they feel like without ever suffering a real consequence; and too many people are wrapped up in the "our heroes risking their lives YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE" bullshit to ever reign them in. Move somewhere where no cops ever go or don't have a dog or children, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 21:53
|
|
