|
Trabisnikof posted:Actually, the union is asking its members to follow all the rules exactly by the book. That's how this kind of labor action works. But keep living in a fantasy land. Yes, they are launching a work-to-rule strike in protest of being told not to murder people. This is unacceptable.
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 23:01 |
|
|
meat sweats posted:Yes, they are launching a work-to-rule strike in protest of being told not to murder people. This is unacceptable. Of course that's not how they see it. quote:“I think the mayor needs to support New York City’s police officers — unequivocally say it, and unequivocally say resisting arrest hurts everyone, police officers and citizens alike, and will not be tolerated,” Lynch said. But sure, the NYPD is mad they can't murder people and if only we took their union away (and their rights to political speech and free assembly of course), it would be impossible for them engage in work-slowdowns or other labor actions. Without the unions, police corruption would disappear and all of a sudden without their union reps telling them to murder people, cops wouldn't harass black people or use excessive force.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I think your obsession with the union being the problem rather than the inherent power and lack of oversight is a little off. The police already have so much political power they don't really need a union, and even if they were some how stripped of the right to have one they'd just lobby as a group anyways and have just as much political power and "solidarity". The existence of unions isn't the problem here. The union serves as a bulwark to shield the officers from culpability for any manner of crimes committed in the line of duty, and further serves as their political lobbying arm to try to ensure politicians friendly to themselves are elected. For instance, the person who killed Garner isn't even on leave, let alone unpaid leave. There's innumerable examples beyond that. Trabisnikof posted:Actually, the union is asking its members to follow all the rules exactly by the book. Ah well, okay, problem solved then! Make sure not to google PBA Garner right now, lest your idyllic view of police unions be penetrated by reality.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Arkane posted:The union serves as a bulwark to shield the officers from culpability for any manner of crimes committed in the line of duty, and further serves as their political lobbying arm to try to ensure politicians friendly to themselves are elected. For instance, the person who killed Garner isn't even on leave, let alone unpaid leave. There's innumerable examples beyond that. You like meat head, are ignoring the fact that police get away with all that poo poo without a strong union. I don't deny the unions get used by corrupt cops to shield themselves, I'm just saying that taking away police unions doesn't solve the problems you want it to solve. Police can lobby without a union, police get paid leave for killing someone without a real union, police work together to subvert regulation without a real union. Getting rid of unions won't solve the problems of police corruption and it won't stop police using their power and "good old boy" networks to influence policy. However, the more that the conversation is focused on unions the less the conversation is focused on meaningful police reforms.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
Does he mean resisting arrest or "resisting arrest"?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Cops beat a mentally ill man tied to a stretcher: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/exclusive-emts-turn-officers-beat-handcuffed-patient-article-1.1891706 That forum is absolutely terrifying.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
Cichlid the Loach posted:That forum is absolutely terrifying. It's apparently overrun by malware too, I got a popover asking me to install a new Video Player for Chrome as soon as I entered.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
LorneReams posted:Does he mean resisting arrest or "resisting arrest"? Take a guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:A police subunion is directly threatening public safety in the name of being able to continue illegally abusing people. How hosed is it that the most powerful unions in this country represent those who need them the least?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Ableist Kinkshamer posted:How hosed is it that the most powerful unions in this country represent those who need them the least? That is more or less what you'd expect if you think about it. It's basically saying powerful groups have power.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Resisting Arrest is a bullshit law that should be stricken from the books. If you're guilty, it only makes good goddamn sense you'd resist arrest. If you're innocent, it also only makes good sense you'd resist arrest. Who wants to be arrested? Nobody absolutely nobody. Not one single person ever wrote "get arrested" in their New Years resolutions list. But it seems like a lot of stupid police rationales will drop that phrase. If we take it away, wouldn't that be helpful? Plus, if police have a good motive for taking you down, you'll be guilty of the actual crime instead of just being able to tack bullshit charges on top.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
Cuntpunch posted:Resisting Arrest is a bullshit law that should be stricken from the books. Tell us about that time you were charged with resisting arrest, Cuntpunch. This union discussion is pretty moot for a lot of the U.S. since a significant amount of police officers work in non-union and anti-collective bargaining states or jurisdictions. And the notion that officers have "powerful associations" that replace unions in those cases is patently false since they have zero power as far as the employer is concerned in employee decisions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
Cuntpunch posted:Resisting Arrest is a bullshit law that should be stricken from the books. What? That's stupidity. Resisting arrest only makes sense if you're guilty. If you're innocent, you'll cooperate and either not get in trouble, or get in less trouble than you would if you had resisted. The way the system is supposed to work, you argue your case in front of a judge and a jury, not the cops.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
Cuntpunch posted:Resisting Arrest is a bullshit law that should be stricken from the books. Doing this suggest that police default behavior should be using force to take people into custody. I would think we would be hoping for the opposite. "Put your hands behind your back" is a better first attempt than throwing people to the pavement. I don't understand why we would want to create the expectation that you're going to run and the police are going to tackle you. Now, where I think you should be going with that line of thinking, is that you shouldn't be able to be arrested for resisting arrest. That is, resisting must always be a subordinate charge to some other valid arrest.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
Nah, then it's resisting arrest for disorderly conduct.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
Cuntpunch posted:Resisting Arrest is a bullshit law that should be stricken from the books. So if a cop tries to arrest you for DUI, but you're not drunk, you should be able to gun the cop down and be exonerated?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:So if a cop tries to arrest you for DUI, but you're not drunk, you should be able to gun the cop down and be exonerated? There is already an analog called murder. I'm unsure what the analog for "Non violent resisting arrest" is?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
LorneReams posted:There is already an analog called murder. I'm unsure what the analog for "Non violent resisting arrest" is? So you're saying that if we took away resisting arrest, police would just charge people with assault against a peace officer instead?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So you're saying that if we took away resisting arrest, police would just charge people with assault against a peace officer instead? They don't already? If it's not enough to be assault, I just assumed resisting was used. The few times I've been involved with a resisting arrest charge (not me, but people I was standing with), it seemed to be because the person didn't turn the right way after being struck and knocked down. In fact, some of lawyers straight-up said that an officer is almost forced to add a resisting arrest charge to legitimize the result of a take-down.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:So if a cop tries to arrest you for DUI, but you're not drunk, you should be able to gun the cop down and be exonerated? I'm not talking "waving a handgun" - because that's not resisting arrest that is *assault*. Maybe I'm mistaken, but isn't there a pretty good precedent here that a lot of general police abuse gets filed under 'dealing with people resisting arrest' when they've done nothing particularly aggressive, threatening, or serious? My point here is that "hey he didn't surrender when I asked him politely to do so" is an entirely reasonable and logical response. But when given the excuse of "why did I taze him? because he was resisting arrest" it seems to be an excuse that is egregiously out of place with the modern system and seems to be more of a burden then a benefit. There's a fun anecdote here, I suppose, to put things into perspective. I live with someone who grew up behind the iron curtain. Had neighbors 'disappear' in the middle of the night. At one point saw someone from the village shot down by the police. She was called for jury duty recently and one of the charges for the trial she was a candidate for was 'resisting arrest'. When it came time to ask if anyone felt they couldn't serve impartially, she explained her childhood and that, in her upbringing, you'd be a *fool* not to resist arrest. I'm not saying that america's law enforcement is quite at soviet-secret-police levels of terror, but what I'm pointing out here is that when the system begins to look corrupt, resisting arrest makes a lot of sense regardless of guilt. Insisting on a system of "if you're innocent just trust the police to do the right thing and play along with them" is naive. It's right up the same alley as "if you have nothing to hide, then you won't mind being spied on."
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
It's less naive than "let's reconfigure the system so that it's legal not to comply with a law enforcement officer"? Much as I would like that to be the case, I think that's always going to fall under "civil disobedience." LEOs have the right to detain those they believe to be breaking the law.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Changing "resisting arrest" so cops actually have to prove assault beyond a reasonable doubt might go some way towards eliminating the situation where it's automatically tacked on to every arrest so that you're convicted even if you're acquitted. That plus universal body cameras would be a big immediate step.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
They do have to prove resisting arrest beyond a reasonable doubt. The trouble is, it's a big charge and it's going to come down to your word against theirs, so it's probably better to plead out for time served plus 30 days suspended and 40 hours of community service or some anger management BS than to go to trial and risk nine months in jail. That's a bigger problem with our justice system though, and really isn't the fault of the police.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It's less naive than "let's reconfigure the system so that it's legal not to comply with a law enforcement officer"? Much as I would like that to be the case, I think that's always going to fall under "civil disobedience." LEOs have the right to detain those they believe to be breaking the law. Absolutely they have the right to detain. But at the same point, 'resisting arrest' is literally a crime *without a crime*. Has anyone ever been arrested *solely* for (suspicion of) resisting arrest? No, it's a complete non-sequitur. Have *any* warrants ever been issued on the charge of 'resisting arrest' without prior charge?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
You can resist an officer arresting someone else. You can also resist an officer lawfully detaining you even if you've done nothing wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 12:59
|
|
|
deratomicdog posted:You can resist an officer arresting someone else. How does this even happen without crossing into 'actual' crimes like assault? Hanging out at the park when a cop rolls up and states that your friend is under arrest and you take off at a full sprint and then get arrested on charges of resisting? Officer cuffing your buddy and you refuse to put your hands behind your back?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
Cuntpunch posted:How does this even happen without crossing into 'actual' crimes like assault? In my own Sunshine State the law reads thusly: quote:843.02 Resisting officer without violence to his or her person.—Whoever shall resist, obstruct, or oppose any officer as defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9); member of the Florida Commission on Offender Review or any administrative aide or supervisor employed by the commission; county probation officer; parole and probation supervisor; personnel or representative of the Department of Law Enforcement; or other person legally authorized to execute process in the execution of legal process or in the lawful execution of any legal duty, without offering or doing violence to the person of the officer, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Refusing to be lawfully detained and/or refusing to gently caress off when told to gently caress off basically. FYI, this is what you will be charged with if you don't stop recording them when they tell you to. Basically not following an order by an officer (legal or not) can lead to this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
LorneReams posted:FYI, this is what you will be charged with if you don't stop recording them when they tell you to. Basically not following an order by an officer (legal or not) can lead to this. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
Yeah, this guy (who is from Florida) got arrested quite a few times with that charge and IIRC got it thrown out every time. After the first time, he started a blog: http://photographyisnotacrime.com/
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Honestly resisting arrest should only be a thing for fully uniformed officers and even then it should be taken with a grain of salt. Plainsclothes officers could be confused as just some prick who has a pair of handcuffs and is saying 'I'm a cop!' PrBacterio posted:This alone should be more than reason enough to strike that law from the books I believe that a court recently ruled that cops can't tell people to stop recording them, as it's a demonstration of their First Amendment rights. E-Tank fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Aug 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:I believe that a court recently ruled that cops can't tell people to stop recording them, as it's a demonstration of their First Amendment rights. It's been for a while, but it doesn't stop police from confiscating/erasing/breaking devices, and arresting you for complaining about it. Hell, they sent a SWAT raid to someones house because of it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:I believe that a court recently ruled that cops can't tell people to stop recording them, as it's a demonstration of their First Amendment rights. In many states you can still be charged with resisting arrest for resisting an illegal arrest.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
Ableist Kinkshamer posted:What? That's stupidity. Resisting arrest only makes sense if you're guilty. If you're innocent, you'll cooperate and either not get in trouble, or get in less trouble than you would if you had resisted. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc If by cooperate you mean don't try and punch a cop trying to arrest you, yeah. If you mean you actually talk to a police officer without a lawyer present, then that'll gently caress you over.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
Remember the Bear Patrol on the Simpsons?quote:Pierce, 56, a former Battle Creek police sergeant, recently told the township board, “I have preached a vision and the Lord put me here for a reason.” quote:Pierce’s critics say there have been other examples of aggressive policing lately, and question why Pierce needs nearly three dozen, non-certified reserve officers to protect a population of 3,900 with the most serious crimes generally theft and burglary. But it isn't just terrorists and mass shootings in this little town... quote:Until a couple of years ago, the police in the community were a comfortable presence, providing a gentle reminder to pay attention to the rules. The township employed two or three full-time officers. Few speeding tickets were issued, residents recall. Instead, the officer would flash his lights and tell the motorist to slow down. quote:Early morning May 10, Jack Nadwornik stepped behind Tujax Tavern, the bar and restaurant he has owned for 30 years in this small, western Michigan town. The townspeople are fed up with all the quote:“People aren’t disciplined the way they used to be,” he said. “We’ve been taking for granted this life we lead, but it’s changing, and Victor is here to clean up the mess.” Today he quit. Saying the media attention was impacting his ability to lead: http://www.freep.com/article/20140807/NEWS06/308070218/barry-township-police-chief-quits Zero One fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Aug 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
No, you mean it impacts your ability to try and start a campaign of intimidation against the populace when everyone else realizes you're doing it? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 11:33
|
|
|
Cops blows through stop sign, hits sober driver, fabricates report to charge her with DUI while she is being carted off to the hospital: http://fox13now.com/2014/08/07/sober-driver-arrested-for-dui-when-deputy-blows-through-stop-sign-hits-her/ The officer involved has not been fired, and has instead spent the last year on vacation drawing disability pay for injuries he magically discovered several days after the crash that he was at fault for: http://fox6now.com/2014/05/01/sober-driver-arrested-for-owi-when-deputy-crashes-into-her/ The entire police department has closed ranks around the person who did this: http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/driver-hurt-in-crash-caused-by-deputy-to-sue-sheriffs-officials-b99306071z1-266194061.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
It's pretty clear from the articles the cop involved in the wreck is different from the cop who charged the other driver with DUI. Also they work for completely different agencies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Cops blows through stop sign, hits sober driver, fabricates report to charge her with DUI while she is being carted off to the hospital: http://fox13now.com/2014/08/07/sober-driver-arrested-for-dui-when-deputy-blows-through-stop-sign-hits-her/ Naturally, he's been in trouble for falsifying records before. The sheriff tried to fire him in 2007 for pre-signing citations which would 1) then be completed by someone else and 2) submitted as evidence in court. The union review board had him reinstated because reasons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 23:01 |
|
|
If anyone has a PoliceOne account, I'd be interested in the text of this article: https://secure.policeone.com/previe...for-your-career
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 05:51
|
|
