|
I remember someone combing over the crime data and records in one of the higher-crime areas of my city. Despite tens of thousands of people living there, something like 75-80% of the crimes for the year were committed by a few dozen people very well known to the police.
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 08:41 |
|
|
meat sweats posted:I think it's a necessity in the context of this discussion of getting cops to stop treating everyone as criminals. I also think that relying on crime stats to predict the prevalence of criminals is misleading--individual criminals commit hundreds of crimes. That's why putting actual violent criminals in prison has done so much to reduce the crime rate. I don't think we're disagreeing on anything with respect to crime stats? I was just making a pedantic point that rapists are a lot more common than the other kinds of criminals you mentioned, and also that they (and murderers, etc.) walk among us as the friends and family we would never suspect of doing something bad. But yes, they do commit a lot of crimes each (thus 1 in 20 men being a rapist, but 1 in 5 women being raped), and putting them away would eliminate a disproportionate amount of crime. But my problem with the cops' "wolves/sheep" paradigm is when there are so many crimes that don't reach that level. Did they think selling loosies made Eric Garner a "wolf?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:That you claim to work with criminals and don't see the obvious differences from top to bottom in the personality of someone who is capable of murder and someone who isn't is mindboggling. It's not mindboggling, it's just reality. I mean, you're kind of conceding the point already when you say that trauma can be the deciding factor, because any person at any time can undergo trauma. No matter who you are, you can encounter things in your life that will knock you wildly off course and yes, people who nobody could have imagined killing people wind up killing people. It's especially tragic when it's clear that they're not at a risk for reoffense, but they're going to sit in jail for twenty years nonetheless. quote:[ It's not a magic genetic lottery, it comes from upbringing, trauma, and many factors, but it is absolutely real. There is a tiny superminority of people who commit violent crimes and a huge number of people who would never do so under any circumstances. What's your proof of this? Sincerely, why do you believe this to be true? What has led you to this conclusion? Baronjutter posted:I remember someone combing over the crime data and records in one of the higher-crime areas of my city. Despite tens of thousands of people living there, something like 75-80% of the crimes for the year were committed by a few dozen people very well known to the police. Yeah, that's true for violent crimes and grand theft and stuff. There's a lot of interesting research into how life course plays into that. For one thing, people tend to commit fewer crimes the older they get, you just age out of it. But there are people who, in high school, commit quite a bit of crime (I'm talking vandalism, stealing liquor, assault, poo poo like that) but then, once they hit college or working age, just stop. There's another significant group who are good boys and girls during high school, but once they're out on their own start going into a more and more criminal path. This is one of the reasons the 'latent trait' theory is really disregarded these days. But a large percentage of crimes are committed by a few individuals, however, most people still commit some crimes, at some point in their lives. Most of us are 'criminals', and a lot of 'criminals' are just people who happened to get picked up for stuff most of us have done. The 80% figure is absolutely not true for stuff like doing drugs, light larceny, etc. Those crimes are much more evenly distributed among the population. If anyone is interested, the basic criminology textbook "Criminology:The Core" is a really good overview of modern (and classic) criminological theories. Cichlid the Loach posted:[quote]I think you're thinking that people here are thinking something that they don't think. Nobody said that "police-level fixes" wouldn't involve instituting laws to enforce them. By that metric, practically EVERY reform that you don't want to risk being rolled back with a change of the brass is a legislative fix. What people are arguing is whether we should hold off talking about immediate, police-focused legislative fixes until sweeping, system-level legislative fixes are made. You keep saying that reforming the police won't solve the larger problems, and you are right. But this thread is ABOUT the subset of problems that belong to the police. No, I'm saying you can't reform the police, not really reform them, without solving the larger problem. And many people, not just the sillies SedanChair and meatsweats, have been attacking me wildly for saying that to get these reforms we need to concentrate on where the power is: prosecutors and the legislature. I'm glad that you agree with me, but if you look through my post history, I've been consistent in my argument: To really reform the police you need to reform the conditions the police operate under. I asked you why you asserted that I was saying that we should hold up immediate reforms. You didn't reply to that: can I assume that you're acknowledging I never said we should hold up immediate reforms?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
Based on my experience in the courtroom, I'm strongly inclined to believe that any meaningful solution to the broader problems of police overreach needs to be legislative in nature, and needs to include in its ambit both the trial court judiciary and the prosecutors. There is certainly a broader issue of prosecutors and police unions influencing public policy. The New York City stop and frisk litigation took an interesting and deeply questionable turn when police unions tried to insert themselves as a defendant, as though they had some kind of cognizable standing in deciding the policies by which they police. They essentially argued they had standing and injury when their capacity to stop and search random people was violated. It was frankly bizarre. It is interesting to see examples of prosecutors and police disagreeing. The DA in Brooklyn recently decided to just stop prosecuting the simple possession of small amounts of marijuana. The NYPD chief announced that his officers would keep on arresting people on charges that no one would prosecute. (To the best of my knowledge, New York is not a jurisdiction where police officers can prosecute jailable offenses under their own power. Correct me if I'm wrong.). There is clearly some measure here where it's not just the legislatures or the trial court judges or even the prosecutors determining police conduct. There is definitely a certain strain of influence, whereby police organizations directly influence and advocate for legislation or practices that expand their capacity to stop, search, arrest, and charge people. That's fundamentally wrong. It's very similar to the influence prison guard organizations have over legislatures. That influence is readily apparent in California. I'm always deeply leery of the entire concept of prosecutors lobbying to have sentencing ranges be harsher. I'm equally disturbed by the notion that police and prison guard organizations lobbying to have harsher sentences or broader powers. You inevitably wind up in a situation where police actors do not merely enforce the law, but actively influence the law they are charged to enforce. I'm not going to ever go so far to advocate against public unions for any public employees. But it should, at the least, be regarded with tremendous skepticism and cultural or social opposition when a law enforcement agency takes it upon itself to attempt to shape the very laws it is charged to enforce. One has to wonder what interests that actually serves.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
Randbrick posted:Based on my experience in the courtroom, I'm strongly inclined to believe that any meaningful solution to the broader problems of police overreach needs to be legislative in nature, and needs to include in its ambit both the trial court judiciary and the prosecutors. Yep, this is right. Which is why I cited the NYPD earlier as a department so large and powerful that it is a political entity in its own right. NYPD, Chicago PD, LAPD all do this kind of stuff. I think that the NYPD should be split up at least into different boroughs, maybe even further, to limit the amount of power that they have, and to make the policing more local. quote:I'm always deeply leery of the entire concept of prosecutors lobbying to have sentencing ranges be harsher. I'm equally disturbed by the notion that police and prison guard organizations lobbying to have harsher sentences or broader powers. You inevitably wind up in a situation where police actors do not merely enforce the law, but actively influence the law they are charged to enforce. It's a difficult situation to resolve, because those groups also lobby for legitimate reasons. At the very least, their ability to collective bargain has got to be preserved. quote:I'm not going to ever go so far to advocate against public unions for any public employees. But it should, at the least, be regarded with tremendous skepticism and cultural or social opposition when a law enforcement agency takes it upon itself to attempt to shape the very laws it is charged to enforce. One has to wonder what interests that actually serves. I agree. The prison guard union in California especially is a behemoth of anti-progressive, just lovely thinking. They do a disservice to their members, too, because overcrowded prisons are more dangerous and unpleasant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
Randbrick posted:There is clearly some measure here where it's not just the legislatures or the trial court judges or even the prosecutors determining police conduct. There is definitely a certain strain of influence, whereby police organizations directly influence and advocate for legislation or practices that expand their capacity to stop, search, arrest, and charge people. Yep. A great example about this is the aftermath of SCOTUS' decision in Atwater v. Lago Vista. Atwater involved a case where a police officer pulled over a mother with her kids for a seatbelt violation and decided that he needed to arrest this woman in front of her kids over the seatbelt violation. The court ruled that, hey, no rule saying officers can't arrest her over that. As a result, the Texas legislature brought and passed a bill specifically removing the ability of police officers to arrest people over minor infractions. The police union's lobby went against that bill hard, and got Rick Perry to veto it. 2 years later, when the legislature was back in session, they passed the same bill again, only for the police union lobby to lobby hard against it again and get Perry to veto it again. There's really no reason police should need the ability to arrest a person for things like changing lanes without signaling, but the police union went to the mat on multiple occasions to defend their "right" to do so.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
If we just force cops to wear two cameras that must be on the entire time during shift I think it would solve 99% of problems. After all, they keep telling the rest of us we have nothing to fear if we have nothing to hide.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
I really can`t figure out why any discussion of police doesn't begin and end with "make them wear cameras" Seriously, what the gently caress is even happening that this isn't being done?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
even "police may not try to lock people up for filming them in public" would be an improvement
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
Every time a police camera program has been tried, the police unions have refused to comply with the law. But remember, unions may not be questioned and are always right.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Every time a police camera program has been tried, the police unions have refused to comply with the law. But remember, unions may not be questioned and are always right. You're doing that thing again where you fantasize about what those nasty, evil, sweaty, oiled-up leftists are doing to you with their unions and their long hair. ChairMaster posted:I really can`t figure out why any discussion of police doesn't begin and end with "make them wear cameras" Wearing cameras would be good--it is a good in the places that have it. But it wouldn't end a lot of the problems with the police, like low-level (but legal) arrests, asset forfeiture, and a host of other problems. So it might begin with that, but it sure as hell doesn't end with that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Actual people who commit actual crimes and have actual contempt for society. We definitely don't need to go back to the 70s where you got a three-year sentence for murder and a warning for rape. Who got a three-year sentence for murder or a warning for rape? Please cite these.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Every time a police camera program has been tried, the police unions have refused to comply with the law. But remember, unions may not be questioned and are always right. gently caress teacher unions, we don't need no schoolin'!
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
quote:I particularly like the suggested penalty in immediate proposal #1. I've been wondering how you might possibly force cops to always keep their cameras on, when any fair penalty for turning it off would always be less than the penalty of whatever misconduct they might want to cover up. I like the idea of no police authority without a recording. Beyond it being an effective way to get around that problem, it's also a powerful idea. I think a camera program would be great, but... I mean, what happens when cop turns it off, beats / shoots some minority kid, and then claims the camera 'malfunctioned' or whatever. At face value it seems like cameras would offer pretty slim accountability, especially considering the technical ineptitude of all the 60+ year old judges that would make any ruling on such a case.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Who got a three-year sentence for murder or a warning for rape? Please cite these. I mean, there's any number of examples of how violent crime wasn't taken seriously prior to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and the three-strikes movement in the early 90s: http://murderpedia.org/male.S/s/streleski-theodore.htm- seven-year sentence for the planned execution of his graduate advisor with a hammer. http://murderpedia.org/male.L/l/little-dwaine.htm- paroled after eight years for the rape-murder of a teenage girl. http://murderpedia.org/male.F/f/ferrell-jack-dempsey.htm- murdered his girlfriend by shooting her in the head, paroled after five years. The reality is that policing the 1% of the 1% who do things like this and not declaring war on ordinary people for selling cigarettes or driving 70 in a 65 is the most effective use of police resources. There are people on all sides who disagree. In the 70s and 80s it was misguided liberals who thought no one should go to prison for anything. Now it's conservatives who want everyone treated as a criminal and no checks on police power. My non-ideological stance is that both violent crime and police abuse are bad. It's also useful for the generally younger population of this Internet forum to get some perspective on why the "tough on crime" movement arose. It didn't start as racists whining about blacks. There really was a general breakdown of society in the 70s and early 80s that was fueled by several factors including the refusal to lock up the tiny group of people who cause a disproportionate amount of misery. If you didn't live through the peak of postwar American crime you may not understand why it can be difficult to convince a 50 year old voter that the danger has passed and we need to worry more about police overreach than street crime at this point. meat sweats fucked around with this message at 03:19 on Jul 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
The Ender posted:I think a camera program would be great, but... I mean, what happens when cop turns it off, beats / shoots some minority kid, and then claims the camera 'malfunctioned' or whatever. At face value it seems like cameras would offer pretty slim accountability, especially considering the technical ineptitude of all the 60+ year old judges that would make any ruling on such a case. That's why they have to be always-on. Police unions have resisted this utterly. meat sweats posted:I mean, there's any number of examples of how violent crime wasn't taken seriously prior to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and the three-strikes movement in the early 90s: Ah, in other words "I was exaggerating," thanks for the clarification.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
quote:That's why they have to be always-on. Police unions have resisted this utterly. I see what you mean. Hm. ...Well, suppose that we did have a lapel camera on Officer Birk during his shooting of Mr. Williams. We don't know what happened around that corner, but I'm going to make an assumption that's probably reasonably close to reality: Birk asked Williams to drop the knife. Williams made some gesture with the knife and tried to explain why he was carrying it. Officer Birk got trigger happy and shot him, because racism. Do you really think that the lapel camera footage would have much more impact than the footage we already have, assuming this is what would be shown? Personally, I can already hear the excuses from the public / media ('He should've complied like a good little infrared and dropped his weapon!' 'That gesture was a threat!' 'Cops have such a hard job!' etc). I mean, how many hours of video are there from the Occupy protests of people being run over by cops, having their personal belongings smashed, being maced, being clubbed, etc? And all that anyone ever did was find ever more inventive ways to excuse the behavior of the police / blame the victims. I don't think any police were ever charged with anything?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
The Ender posted:I see what you mean. Hm. Cameras do do a lot of good, partially just because the cops know that it's there. But yeah, even with direct evidence, cops get acquitted of stuff a lot when they get to trial. They can say that the camera didn't show the whole story, or find ways of introducing the guy's record. Often, police abuses wind up introducing evidence which should, by all rights, be considered tainted but lots of improper searches get evidence that is allowed by judges on the stretchy grounds of 'inevitable discovery', or through other loopholes. Finally, lapel cameras aren't going to change police's priorities; they might get down on actual illegal or ugly-looking stuff, but if whoever is in charge decides that they'll be doing the majority of policing in black areas, that's what'll happen. A good start, and one with immediate effects. Smart police departments can even use the camera footage to show them being decent human beings.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
We've been over this a million times but: Police unions are nothing like ordinary unions in literally any other sector or industry you can imagine. The very idea of police organizing is completely loving farcical and nothing more than a formalization of the same corruption and blue wall of silence horseshit that no sane person is in a position to defend. Their workplace problems are largely self-inflicted and in any case stem from the same sort of indoctrination and hazing the one would expect to see from a group of people who refer to themselves as a "fraternity", and besides which they produce nothing which resembles a commodity or which contains any sense of "value", the fruits of which they are therefore not at any risk of being unfairly parted with. No one is shipping policework overseas, no one is putting a dollar value on "law & order" units per hour, and the only body which has any influence at all over their lives and livelihoods is the same government body they are sworn to obey and defend without question. Most significantly, if tomorrow the police were to go on strike, it would be other police beating them with batons and firing tear gas into the crowds. It's not possible for anything resembling a functional, legitimate union to exist in these circumstances, and it therefore makes perfect sense that police "unions" are in practice just code for "old boys club", because that's what they actually are. It's perfectly consistent to support unions generally but to oppose the very existence of the FOP on principle. Not only that, but it makes perfect sense to any non-moron that a group of armed enforcers taking from orders the state need no further bargaining power beyond just merely being the body between rich senators and their expensive poo poo, and that it is dangerous and perverse to assume otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
Woozy posted:We've been over this a million times but: Police unions are nothing like ordinary unions in literally any other sector or industry you can imagine. The very idea of police organizing is completely loving farcical and nothing more than a formalization of the same corruption and blue wall of silence horseshit that no sane person is in a position to defend. Their workplace problems are largely self-inflicted and in any case stem from the same sort of indoctrination and hazing the one would expect to see from a group of people who refer to themselves as a "fraternity", and besides which they produce nothing which resembles a commodity or which contains any sense of "value", the fruits of which they are therefore not at any risk of being unfairly parted with. No one is shipping policework overseas, no one is putting a dollar value on "law & order" units per hour, and the only body which has any influence at all over their lives and livelihoods is the same government body they are sworn to obey and defend without question. Most significantly, if tomorrow the police were to go on strike, it would be other police beating them with batons and firing tear gas into the crowds. It's not possible for anything resembling a functional, legitimate union to exist in these circumstances, and it therefore makes perfect sense that police "unions" are in practice just code for "old boys club", because that's what they actually are. It's perfectly consistent to support unions generally but to oppose the very existence of the FOP on principle. Not only that, but it makes perfect sense to any non-moron that a group of armed enforcers taking from orders the state need no further bargaining power beyond just merely being the body between rich senators and their expensive poo poo, and that it is dangerous and perverse to assume otherwise. Yeah obviously. But for some people, when it comes down to "taking a necessary concrete step to end police abuse," will not do it if it means even symbolically lending support to some unrelated effort to do something something something to teachers. They make the wrong choice then refuse to admit a choice needed to be made.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Yeah obviously. But for some people, when it comes down to "taking a necessary concrete step to end police abuse," will not do it if it means even symbolically lending support to some unrelated effort to do something something something to teachers. They make the wrong choice then refuse to admit a choice needed to be made. I agree, teachers unions are literally Satan and must be purged before we can address police reform
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Yeah obviously. But for some people, when it comes down to "taking a necessary concrete step to end police abuse," will not do it if it means even symbolically lending support to some unrelated effort to do something something something to teachers. They make the wrong choice then refuse to admit a choice needed to be made. You're tireless. You know there are organizations who pay good money for tireless folks like you with an implacable hatred of teachers. I mean, they're Republicans, but you're not going to let symbolically lending support to them get in your way, are you?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
As long as you think that going against a police union means "having an implacable hatred of teachers" no police reform will ever take place. This is a fact.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
It doesn't in any way. Teacher unions are completely unrelated to police unions. This is what everyone, despite us all arguing with each other, is trying to get across to you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:As long as you think that going against a police union means "having an implacable hatred of teachers" no police reform will ever take place. This is a fact. No, no, that's explicitly directed at you. You, personally.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:As long as you think that going against a police union means "having an implacable hatred of teachers" no police reform will ever take place. This is a fact. You yourself listed banning teachers unions as one of your longterm steps towards police reform.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:I saw a great comment on Gawker yesterday (yeah, I know...) that I unfortunately can't find now, about the incident over the weekend where the NYPD used a chokehold against a pregnant woman for the crime of grilling on the sidewalk in front of her house. It pointed out that we need to put some responsibility on the people who support soda bans, laws against selling loose cigarettes, laws against grilling, and other picayune poo poo, because any law inevitably gives the police more pretext to gently caress with people and increases the number of incidents like this. It's almost impossible to go a day without technically breaking some sort of law, so cops can always be assholes whenever they feel like it. This should be taken into account whenever a new behavior is made illegal. I know this is behind the thread a little, but this one of the stupider argument's I've heard in a while. The idea that we can't have laws governing minor infractions (like not grilling on the sidewalk at 2 in the morning) because police are incapable of treating minor issues as minor while still enforcing them is beyond stupid. Plenty of police give speeding tickets every day without choking anyone out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:I know this is behind the thread a little, but this one of the stupider argument's I've heard in a while. The idea that we can't have laws governing minor infractions (like not grilling on the sidewalk at 2 in the morning) because police are incapable of treating minor issues as minor while still enforcing them is beyond stupid. Plenty of police give speeding tickets every day without choking anyone out. As you can see from this video of police attempting to choke a pregnant woman to death, http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/pregnant-woman-apparently-put-chokehold-article-1.1882755 , it was light outside so it definitely wasn't 2 in the morning. Nice apologism for racist brutality, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:I know this is behind the thread a little, but this one of the stupider argument's I've heard in a while. The idea that we can't have laws governing minor infractions (like not grilling on the sidewalk at 2 in the morning) because police are incapable of treating minor issues as minor while still enforcing them is beyond stupid. Plenty of police give speeding tickets every day without choking anyone out. It's not stupid and crimes of vice and public order are precisely the means by which the police were first used to insinuate themselves in the everyday life of the public in the first place. Prostitution and drugs are obvious examples but how many videos in this thread begin with a traffic stop?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:As you can see from this video of police attempting to choke a pregnant woman to death, http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/pregnant-woman-apparently-put-chokehold-article-1.1882755 , it was light outside so it definitely wasn't 2 in the morning. Nice apologism for racist brutality, though. Uh, I think that proves their point? I mean it is news when somebody gets choked to death. That means some cops are managing not to do it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
The Ender posted:I think a camera program would be great, but... I mean, what happens when cop turns it off, beats / shoots some minority kid, and then claims the camera 'malfunctioned' or whatever. At face value it seems like cameras would offer pretty slim accountability, especially considering the technical ineptitude of all the 60+ year old judges that would make any ruling on such a case.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
The Ender posted:I think a camera program would be great, but... I mean, what happens when cop turns it off, beats / shoots some minority kid, and then claims the camera 'malfunctioned' or whatever. At face value it seems like cameras would offer pretty slim accountability, especially considering the technical ineptitude of all the 60+ year old judges that would make any ruling on such a case. You can make it hard to tamper with, and you can make it so that turning off the camera leaves different evidence than it legitimately malfunctioning.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
 The militarization of cops has got to stop (those are titanium)
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Everblight posted:
I'm sorry, what?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
The dog has metal teeth. He was making a joke about how the dog is now 'militarized.'
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The dog has metal teeth. He was making a joke about how the dog is now 'militarized.' 
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
The fact that police rely on dogs to maul suspects and write their behavior off as "well, it's a dog" but fighting back against a police dog is considered equivalent to hitting a cop is bullshit and should also be stopped 
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
Look what someone's drinking buddies did: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20140731_Sources__6_cops_arrested_in_federal_corruption_probe.html
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Look what someone's drinking buddies did: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20140731_Sources__6_cops_arrested_in_federal_corruption_probe.html Yes, like I said, the system will prosecute cops who enrich themselves through extortion and violence against minorities. It will commend cops who enrich their departments and prison profiteers through civil forfeiture and violence against minorities.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 08:41 |
|
|
meat sweats posted:The fact that police rely on dogs to maul suspects and write their behavior off as "well, it's a dog" but fighting back against a police dog is considered equivalent to hitting a cop is bullshit and should also be stopped There's also the fact that apparently civilian dogs are just 'unfortunate casualties in the war on crime'. Shooting a police dog is the same as Murdering a police officer. quote:During Rosier’s three-day interrogation, Detective Philip DiMola told him that, By that logic, a gun in a 4 year olds hand can do equally the damage as a gun in an adult's hand, therefore we should charge toddlers as full adults. gently caress you, Judy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 23:15
|
|
