|
Obdicut posted:Again, nobody has talked about making anyone exempt from normal law. That's exactly what you are talking about : Cops getting special treatment and special laws, and effectively being subject to a completely different legal system as a result of their status. Don't kid yourself that you're arguing anything other than a legitimization of existing corruption as being a good thing.
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 03:29 |
|
|
Obdicut posted:Again, nobody has talked about making anyone exempt from normal law. Didn't you try to make the argument that we can't sentence anyone involved with the JS because it would be hosed up to make them face the same system as everyone else? IDK with certainty what exactly your solutions to the hosed up system is though, since your posts read like a badly translated and dense word block.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
Kaal posted:That's exactly what you are talking about : Cops getting special treatment and special laws, and effectively being subject to a completely different legal system as a result of their status. No, that's not what was being talked about. quote:Don't kid yourself that you're arguing anything other than a legitimization of existing corruption as being a good thing. I'm not doing that, in any way, shape or form. If you think I am, then show me doing that, rather than asserting it. Tight Booty Shorts posted:Didn't you try to make the argument that we can't sentence anyone involved with the JS because it would be hosed up to make them face the same system as everyone else? Nope.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
I feel like we keep talking about an overweight gunshot victim where most folks want to stop the bleeding and Obdicut wants to focus on changing diet and increasing exercise. Yes, the whole loving system needs reform, but you need to take first steps and no one is going to stop the process of improving things just because they've had a few successes. That's loving stupid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:I feel like we keep talking about an overweight gunshot victim where most folks want to stop the bleeding and Obdicut wants to focus on changing diet and increasing exercise. I want him not to be shot in the first place, in that analogy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
Well, Vahakyla ended up in the sort of conflicted state I expected. And you may not have explicitly arguedquote:that cops getting special treatment for just being cops is a good thing. I'd argue that it's very much not a net benefit, especially if the leniency, as we've seen it does with copies, ends up undermining the argument for punative, protective AND rehabilitative models of justice. Letting people get away with crimes can very easily be a net negative. Or are you seriously arguing that you'd like to see everyone in this country get treated the same way in regards to criminal conduct as the police do? Because that seems like a nightmare situation to me. Even a system focused on rehabilitation requires findings that a person is guilty and judges acting in the best interest of society to bring down sentences that best achieved the desired goal from a jurisprudence perspective, and the situation we have now is hardly "everyone else is treated punitively, police are treated rehabilitationally", it's "everyone else is treated punitively, police and others with power aren't treated at all if it can possibly be helped". Obdicut posted:I have never made this argument. Ever. At all, in the least. Neither has anyone else. This is a complete and utter strawman. No, you made the argument pretty explicitly and unapologetically, without even an awareness of its potential complexities that Vahakyla seems to possess. Worse, you seem to justify that with the argument that it would be too hard to change anyway so people are stupid for wanting to change it in any way that isn't exactly the way you want (which conveniently would have essentially no real effect in protecting people from a wide variety of police abuses). And then you said that holding them equally responsible would (somehow) result in them becoming significantly more corrupt, even though you provided no evidence of it and completely disregarded the (admittedly mediocre but still better than nothing) evidence provided to the contrary. But then, you also seem to hold the naive belief that a prison systems sole purpose should be rehabilitation, so maybe you're not making any of those arguments intentionally and you really for real just don't understand things like consequences or incentives or how things actually work. Obdicut posted:I want him not to be shot in the first place, in that analogy. ...wow. I get the feeling this says a whole loving lot more about you than you might suspect, and not much of it is good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I'm not doing that, in any way, shape or form. If you think I am, then show me doing that, rather than asserting it. You can say, "No I'm not!" as much as you like, but the fact remains evident to all that you're simply rationalizing away the corruption of the system. Your problem is that you don't even see it as a problem. When a cop gets his wrist slapped it's because he got a "cool, smart judge" and has nothing to do with the inherent inequalities of the system. But back in real life, that "cool, smart judge" isn't actually available to anyone other than cops, and in fact that judge is probably the same one that just sentenced some poor black guy to 40 years for doing whatever the cop did. GlyphGryph posted:No, you made the argument pretty explicitly and unapologetically, without even an awareness of its potential complexities that Vahakyla seems to possess. I agree with this. Vahakyla seems to have a much more nuanced conception of the topic, even as I might disagree with him in parts. Kaal fucked around with this message at 16:17 on Oct 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I want him not to be shot in the first place, in that analogy. No one wants him to be shot in the face, but it's too late for that. The thing you're missing is the first step in any form of process improvement: stop/contain/mitigate the immediate problem. Then you have the space to do more in depth research into the issue and can start with the long term fix. The way you're talking, you're going to let that guy bleed out - which may lower his risk of dying from a heart attack or diabetes, isn't the result we're looking for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:For example, say that one guy arrested for possession of paraphernalia gets a judge who's cool and dismisses the charge based on an improper search. Another guy, same exact circumstances, has an rear end in a top hat judge who allows the evidence and he goes to prison. That you think this is such a simple and clear cut question is exactly the sort of problem we're facing here. My conclusion might be similar to yours, but someone who agrees with me for bullshit reasons is way shittier than someone with a diametrically opposed conclusion for really good reasons. Why is it a benefit to society for a judge to dismiss the charges in the first situation? Why is it beneficial to the criminal, especially in regards to your ideal rehabilitation based judicial system (since you seem to indicate the first is always an unequivocal good)? Why do you think it's better than one of them gets off and one goes to prison than if justice was equitable? Does it matter why? What if the first one only got the "cool" judge because he comes from a wealthy family, while the second got the "poor person" judge? Would this change the weight of the situation at all for you? What if the "cool judge" was the same as the "rear end in a top hat judge", but the second subject was black and the judge just dislikes black people. Would you still prefer they get the different treatment (meaning you support the judge giving leniency to his favoured race), or would you prefer they get the same harsher treatment, indicating the judge was able to put aside his racial bias during sentencing? Assuming the difference between the two situations were not, in fact, random, might there be any long term consequences that might complicate the situation? What if the "cool judge" actually did this for a lot of his cases, letting people off for far more serious crimes who went on to commit more crimes. Would you still think his decision is representative of a "net benefit"? If you could choose in advance to never let him get a judgeship or never let the rear end in a top hat judge get judgeship, which would you prevent? Is the question easy for you? Simple and Straightforward? Obviously, you think the "correct" choice is that it is a 'net benefit' for the first guy to get off, but that's hardly guaranteed unless you're incapable of actually thinking about a problem in more than a skin deep way. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Oct 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:
Absolutely none of this is true. If you think it is, quote me. quote:But then, you also seem to hold the naive belief that a prison systems sole purpose should be rehabilitation, so maybe you're not making any of those arguments intentionally and you really for real just don't understand things like consequences or incentives or how things actually work. I think the main, not sole, purpose should be rehabilitative. Why is that naive? GlyphGryph posted:That you think this is such a simple and clear cut question is exactly the sort of problem we're facing here. My conclusion might be similar to yours, but someone who agrees with me for bullshit reasons is way shittier than someone with a diametrically opposed conclusion for really good reasons. I specified it was an improper search. So, that's why. quote:Why is it beneficial to the criminal, especially in regards to your ideal rehabilitation based judicial system (since you seem to indicate the first is always an unequivocal good)? We're not in my ideal rehabilitative system, though. I'm talking about things as they currently stand. Obviously, in a rehabilitative system, I'd rather both people be given medical treatment for their drug problem. quote:Why do you think it's better than one of them gets off and one goes to prison than if justice was equitable? Because there is nothing good about justice being 'equitable' if what's equitable is that everyone gets hosed equally. It is better for there to be less fuckery. quote:Does it matter why? What if the first one only got the "cool" judge because he comes from a wealthy family, while the second got the "por person" judge? Would this change the weight of the situation at all for you? Yes, as I've made clear, systemic problems matter hugely, but applying them to individual circumstances is dumb. Seriously, how have you missed me saying that? quote:What if the "cool judge" was the same as the "rear end in a top hat judge", but the second subject was black and the judge just dislikes black people. Then congrats on coming up with a new, different set of circumstances. In that case, the judge is a fucker, but that doesn't mean that things would be better if he also sent the first person to prison. If you think so, then please explain what benefit there would be in this 'equitable' justice. quote:Would you still prefer they get the different treatment (meaning you support the judge giving leniency to his favoured race), or would you prefer they get the same harsher treatment, indicating the judge was able to put aside his racial bias during sentencing? I'd prefer the different treatment, since it would mean in someone who was improperly charged going free. If you think otherwise, please explain why: how would the judge being equally lovely to white people help black people? What is the benefit? quote:Assuming the difference between the two situations were not, in fact, random, might there be any long term consequences that might complicate the situation? There aren't any consequences where sending both people to prison winds up with a better outcome for anyone than sending only one to prison. If you think so, then explain, rather than asserting, how. The huge racial bias in our justice system is probably the most repellent thing about it; the solution to it is not to start treating white people just as lovely as black people are treated. quote:What if the "cool judge" actually did this for a lot of his cases, letting people off for far more serious crimes who went on to commit more crimes. Again, I specified an improper search. Did you just miss that? quote:Would you still think his decision is representative of a "net benefit"? If you could choose in advance to never let him get a judgeship or never let the rear end in a top hat judge get judgeship, which would you prevent? Is the question easy for you? Simple and Straightforward? What the gently caress are you talking about at this point? quote:Obviously, you think the "correct" choice is that it is a 'net benefit' for the first guy to get off, but that's hardly guaranteed unless you're incapable of actually thinking about a problem in more than a skin deep way. Again, explain what the benefit is of sending both to prison. You haven't. I'm not sure if you think you have, but you really haven't. Solkanar512 posted:No one wants him to be shot in the face, but it's too late for that. This analogy really doesn't work on any level at all. What is it supposed to match up to? Someone has been shot in the face--who is this 'someone' in this context? The two potential inmates? The justice system? Black people? What?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
This thread has officially become a debate about who hates the police more. If you don't FTP hard enough for the three people who still post here your obviously an apologist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
A HOT TOPIC posted:This thread has officially become a debate about who hates the police more. If you don't FTP hard enough for the three people who still post here your obviously an apologist. Well yeah, it's a thread that reflects how Americans feel about the police. Only about 30% of the country thinks that police do a good or excellent job. Heck, 70% of black Americans think that police do a poor job, which is the worst rating. http://www.people-press.org/2014/08/25/few-say-police-forces-nationally-do-well-in-treating-races-equally/ quote:As Michael Brown was laid to rest in Missouri, a USA TODAY/Pew Research Center Poll finds Americans by 2-to-1 say police departments nationwide don't do a good job in holding officers accountable for misconduct, treating racial groups equally and using the right amount of force. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/25/usa-today-pew-poll-police-tactics-military-equipment/14561633/ Kaal fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Oct 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I think the main, not sole, purpose should be rehabilitative. Why is that naive? Motherfuck, my post got eaten and I don't feel like rewriting the whole thing so you'll just get the first part, in brief. Apologies. Thinking the main purpose of the justice system should be rehabilitation is equivalent to thinking the main purpose of a nail is to get hit by a hammer. At least the people who argue the main purpose of a nail is to be fired by a nail gun have some selfish enjoyment to justify their belief, while your belief is just... Naive is the kindest word I can use to describe something like that. The purpose of a justice system is to shape society and firmly establish social mores. I believe rehabilitation, as a methodology, is often (but not always) more effective for that than a punitive approach, in addition to being more immediately moral. But if that weren't true, and a punitive system was demonstrated as a far superior method for achieving the actual aims for a justice system, or even that the rehabilitative system was proven to be completely ineffective, I would stop supporting it. From what you've said, I get the feeling that you would not. I don't know if its just naivety, or if this is actually like a religious issue for you, but if its the second that actually helps make a lot of the more out there stuff you've argued start to make a twisted kind of sense. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Oct 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Motherfuck, my post got eaten and I don't feel like rewriting the whole thing so you'll just get the first part, in brief. Great, more terrible analogies. quote:The purpose of a justice system is to shape society and firmly establish social mores. I believe rehabilitation, as a methodology, is often more effective for that than a punitive approach, in addition to being more immediately moral. But if that weren't true, and a punitive system was demonstrated as a far superior method for achieving the actual aims for a justice system, or even that the rehabilitative system was proven to be completely ineffective, I would stop supporting it. What does 'shape society' mean? What does 'firmly establish social mores' mean? These are both incredibly vague hand-wavey concepts. They are also things that are not in the least bit unique to a justice system by any common meaning of those terms. I would certainly agree that the justice system does 'shape society', and it does (though not firmly, at all) establish social mores, but why is that the 'purpose' of it, for you, and not the result? To me, the purpose of a justice system is to prevent people from violating the rights of others and mediate when a violation of rights has occurred. If we don't have a justice system, and especially if we don't have a justice system people can actually rely on, then people will instead resort to extrajudicial means to resolve these disputes, and that gets sucky really badly. quote:From what you've said, I get the feeling that you would not. I support rehabilitation because it's been shown to be more efficacious than punishment, yeah. This isn't a theoretical attachment for me, it's out of pragmatism. Why do you think it's ideological in my case? You're the one who has an attachment to 'equitable' systems without any apparent regard for the utility of an equitable system--when challenged to explain the utility, you failed to. quote:I don't know if its just naivety, or if this is actually like a religious issue for you, but if its the second that actually helps make a lot of the more insane seeming stuff you've argued start to make a twisted kind of sense. Nothing I've argued has been in the least bit insane. You can't point to anything I've said that's even marginally nutty. If you could, you would. I haven't even made any ideological arguments, unlike you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Great, more terrible analogies. quote:What does 'shape society' mean? What does 'firmly establish social mores' mean? These are both incredibly vague hand-wavey concepts. quote:To me, the purpose of a justice system is to prevent people from violating the rights of others and mediate when a violation of rights has occurred.  You really just don't understand what the things you say actually mean, do you? quote:They are also things that are not in the least bit unique to a justice system by any common meaning of those terms. quote:I would certainly agree that the justice system does 'shape society', and it does (though not firmly, at all) establish social mores, but why is that the 'purpose' of it, for you, and not the result? quote:If we don't have a justice system, and especially if we don't have a justice system people can actually rely on, then people will instead resort to extrajudicial means to resolve these disputes, and that gets sucky really badly. quote:I support rehabilitation because it's been shown to be more efficacious than punishment, yeah. This isn't a theoretical attachment for me, it's out of pragmatism. quote:Why do you think it's ideological in my case? You're the one who has an attachment to 'equitable' systems without any apparent regard for the utility of an equitable system--when challenged to explain the utility, you failed to. And equal system is a system where more people have an incentive to fix it. When those in power can "fix it" only in their favour (which an acceptance of unequal systems not only allows but, by your own arguments, encourages), then the incentive to fix the system is removed. quote:Nothing I've argued has been in the least bit insane. You can't point to anything I've said that's even marginally nutty. If you could, you would. I haven't even made any ideological arguments, unlike you. quote:Yes, as I've made clear, systemic problems matter hugely, but applying them to individual circumstances is dumb. Seriously, how have you missed me saying that? ------ Edit: Also, apparently among the things you don't understand is the reason for letting someone off when they're improperly charged. quote:We're not in my ideal rehabilitative system, though. I'm talking about things as they currently stand. Obviously, in a rehabilitative system, I'd rather both people be given medical treatment for their drug problem. quote:I'd prefer the different treatment, since it would mean in someone who was improperly charged going free. You're sole consideration for whether something is right or wrong seems to be whether it meets your immediate emotional definition of right and wrong, since you think it's okay to charge someone improperly, and find them guilty, as long as their sentence meets your moral standards for an "acceptable sentence". It's just... so naive and shortsighted. Can you really not see that? (Hint: The point of the standard where we let people off when the police screw up is not to benefit the individual who gets off by letting them escape our justice system) GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Oct 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:You really just don't understand what the things you say actually mean, do you? Instead of saying that snarkily, explain how what I said doesn't make sense. Give it a shot. quote:So? So saying that is the purpose of the justice system obviously leaves out other aspects of the justice system, if you can't differentiate it, by your definition, from other things. It is neither sufficient nor necessary to describe the justice system. quote:Do you just... lack the ability to maintain a thought for more than one sentence? Like, you seem to have disagreed with yourself multiple times in the last several sentences alone. Again, instead of asserting this, show this. quote:So in situations where punative methodologies have been demonstrated to be significantly more effective, you would favour those instead? Yep. For example, for white collar crimes, punitive measures actually act as a much greater deterrent. quote:No, I said I'd probably come to the same conclusion as you, but that you think your conclusion is obviously correct despite seemingly not understanding anything outside of immediate situations and immediate moments. No, I think it's correct because of the weight of scholarship and evidence. quote:
You weren't really so much 'arguing' it as asserting it. However, I'm glad that you agree that it's the better outcome for only one to go to prison. Or maybe you don't, since you're still refusing to actually answer the question. quote:And equal system is a system where more people have an incentive to fix it. When those in power can "fix it" only in their favour (which an acceptance of unequal systems not only allows but, by your own arguments, encourages), then the incentive to fix the system is removed. Following your logic, why wouldn't those in power just 'fix' the system to make it inequitable? This is where we fall into the magic wand scenarios again: somehow, you can mandate that the system is equitable--how?--but you can't mandate that it's also 'fixed'. I completely agree that acceptance of an unequal system both allows and perpetuates inequity, that's just tautological, but it's also irrelevant. Here's something that might help you think about this: Imagine that that ol' racist judge has three defendants, a black guy, a white guy, and a hispanic guy. This shitlord of a judge is really goddamn racist, so he allows the improper search for the hispanic and the black guy, but disallows it for the white guy. Booo, come see the violence inherent in the system, really bad. Now let's say this shitlord of a judge has some kind of limited epiphany and is no longer racist towards Hispanics, the comedy of George Lopez has just really touched his soul. So now he disallows the illegal search for that Hispanic defendant, and that guy goes free. By what you're arguing, it'd be better for the hispanic guy to also be jailed, because then more people would have an incentive to fix the system. If, on the other hand, you restrict yourself to just talking about the privileged white guy facing the same justice as the other two in a society where white people have far more power and privilege then why on earth, why the hell do you think the response of the white power majority would be to fix the entire justice system, rather than just making it inequitable and favoring white people? This is, again, you putting the cart before the horse: an equitable justice system is an end, it is not a means. It is not something that can happen on its own while political power still rests with a particular group. If you think it can, then give me an example of a society that has unequal power and privilege but an equitable justice system; you will not be able to, because it's not something that can actually happen. quote:Your post just provided a better demonstration than anything I could be bothered to dig up. Again, you're asserting this. Instead, show it, or prove it. quote:Also, you apparently believe systems just appear out of thin air and systemic concerns should thus have no impact in individual situations. And that anyone who believes otherwise is "dumb". I didn't miss you saying this - this is exactly the point I was trying to make! Systems don't appear out of thin air, and nothing I've said in any way, in the least, amounts to that. quote:Edit: Again: Instead of asserting this, explain how this is true. What about what I said shows I don't understand the reason for letting someone off when they're improperly charged? Are you sure that you understand this, or are you misreading me and should take another look to see if what I've written actually matches up with what you think? quote:You're sole consideration for whether something is right or wrong seems to be whether it meets your immediate emotional definition of right and wrong, since you think it's okay to charge someone improperly, and find them guilty, as long as their sentence meets your moral standards for an "acceptable sentence". I do not in the least bit think it's okay to charge someone improperly. Nothing I've said in any way equates to that, and I've said over and over it'd be best for them both to go fee. I also never said 'acceptable sentence', so why'd you put it in quotes? Seriously, let's just deal with this last part. You've talked about my 'immediate emotional definition of right and wrong'-- I haven't talked about emotions in the least, used any emotional definitions, nor really talked about right or wrong. I never said, or implied, or hinted that it was okay to charge someone improperly. I never talked about an 'acceptable sentence.' I keep challenging you to actually make an argument rather than just asserting poo poo, but you're refusing to. Can I ask if you've ever read any scholarly work on criminology?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
I remember the rich kid getting that fairly rehabilitative treatment with a clear goal after the episode with daddy's car and then thinkin that "well yeah, that is actually a pretty good way to treat that" in a clear surprise. Obviously it feels dirty because it does not apply to everyone. So once again we are at the fountain of the original question. And I never said cops should be able do everything willy nilly and this is what everyone needs. I said that cops often get a huge deal of benefit of the doubt in their actions and while I am not in anyway blind to its effects in an unequal society, I would hope that that benefit of the doubt existed for everyone so that criminality would cease to be a label of "bad person, gently caress him". Leniency and rehabilitation, first and foremost.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I want him not to be shot in the first place, in that analogy. Well, we wouldn't want to blame anyone for shooting him, sometimes shootings just happen? Why would you want anything to happen to that guy? Isn't it a net positive that at least someone is immune to prosecution for shooting fat people? This is also why it's totally okay for white shooters to avoid jail while black people are jailed for life: At least someone is benefiting!
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:Isn't it a net positive that at least someone is immune to prosecution for shooting fat people? No. quote:This is also why it's totally okay for white shooters to avoid jail while black people are jailed for life: At least someone is benefiting! Connect the dots between what I've said (That in the case of a bust for drug paraphernalia, I'm glad if one out of two defendants gets improper evidence tossed out) and me thinking that it's totally okay for white 'shooters' to avoid jail. Try to stick to things I've actually said, just to make it interesting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:But if that weren't true, and a punitive system was demonstrated as a far superior method for achieving the actual aims for a justice system, or even that the rehabilitative system was proven to be completely ineffective, I would stop supporting it. Okay. And? If the world was made of chocolate pudding there'd be no world hunger, but the world has not been proven to be made of chocolate pudding so it has absolutely no relevance to the topic of discussion nor debate. You're literally just saying "Well if you were wrong you'd be wrong and you wouldn't change your mind because Nyeeeh!" Literally taking the SDAGC argument from political cartoons and applying it to every day life. If your argument is literally just 'Yeah but if that *wasn't* true then you'd make yourself look stupid huh?' Which is a non-argument. GlyphGryph posted:Your post just provided a better demonstration than anything I could be bothered to dig up. How did it demonstrate it? Please elucidate exactly how his argument is 'insane' or he doesn't understand anything. Tell us why you believe he doesn't know what he's talking about, beyond 'I disagree strongly with him'. Just saying 'your post proves it' isn't a 'gotcha', you have to explain *how* his argument is insane or 'naive'. Mormon Star Wars posted:Willful misinterpretation of statements  GlyphGryph posted:The fact that you can't understand analogies doesn't make them terrible. Actually y'know, if nobody else but the person making the analogy can understand them they are pretty lovely analogies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
http://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2014/10/16/police-confidence-department-leaders/17370383/ "ASHEVILLE, NC – Forty-four city police officers have signed a petition saying they lack confidence in department leaders amid what they described as widespread problems at the agency." Granted, this is different from other towns. Asheville is a huge liberal enclave in the South, and even their public service is mostly comprised of the left-leaning residents of Asheville, while many leadership positions are still handled by the old money.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
Frank Serpico on out of control police violence.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Fascinating, Serpico seems to think that reforming the police head-on is worthwhile:quote:1. Strengthen the selection process and psychological screening process for police recruits. Police departments are simply a microcosm of the greater society. If your screening standards encourage corrupt and forceful tendencies, you will end up with a larger concentration of these types of individuals; Is he naive?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
It's akin to a progressive saying that capitalism can be reformed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
im gay posted:It's akin to a progressive saying that capitalism can be reformed. It was a more of a jab at Obdicut, who should probably explain why he thinks he knows better than Serpico about reforming the police.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 08:35
|
|
|
Cuntpunch posted:It was a more of a jab at Obdicut, who should probably explain why he thinks he knows better than Serpico about reforming the police. I think Serpico's observation that it takes legislative change to achieve any of his goals is fine. He doesn't rely on some sort of moral breakthrough on behalf of the police. He doesn't really address a lot of things that'd be necessary to get his stuff done, but he's absolutely right that legislative change is at the heart of it. He doesn't talk about ending the drug war here, but he has elsewhere. He also, unfortunately, has flirted with 9/11 conspiracy theories and reduced his influence because of it, which is a shame, but it's understandable that someone who's been up against that much corruption would get into that. Did you notice, when you were throwing that jab, that Serpico talked about legislative change?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 11:03
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I think Serpico's observation that it takes legislative change to achieve any of his goals is fine. He doesn't rely on some sort of moral breakthrough on behalf of the police. He doesn't really address a lot of things that'd be necessary to get his stuff done, but he's absolutely right that legislative change is at the heart of it. It wasn't my jab but I'm happy to point out that out of 6 specific bulletpoints of police improvement, that ONE. The *final* point he makes has anything to do with anything other than FIX THE POLICE. If Serpico's point was "well we need brand new judges and district attourneys" I suspect that would have made his neatly summarized list.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
Cuntpunch posted:It wasn't my jab but I'm happy to point out that out of 6 specific bulletpoints of police improvement, that ONE. The *final* point he makes has anything to do with anything other than FIX THE POLICE. If Serpico's point was "well we need brand new judges and district attourneys" I suspect that would have made his neatly summarized list. Okay. How do you think that any of those goals would be achieved? For example, this one? quote:4. Enforce the laws against everyone, including police officers. When police officers do wrong, use those individuals as examples of what not to do – so that others know that this behavior will not be tolerated. And tell the police unions and detective endowment associations they need to keep their noses out of the justice system; Who is 'telling' the police unions, for example?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
A cop blackmailing sexual favors of sorts from a woman faces charges: http://gawker.com/cop-give-me-your-undies-and-ill-let-you-go-without-lic-1651482022
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Fascinating, Serpico seems to think that reforming the police head-on is worthwhile: I'm naïve as well if that's the case, these ideas all sound positive to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 09:26
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:Her lawyer most likely took the lions share of that 57k, but even without you have to remember this was an ongoing court case since the arrest in 2010. Not a lot of people can front the legal fees and four years worth of time taken for court appearances in a hobby lawsuit that wasn't assured to win a dime, and 57k is a pretty lovely return on that sort of investment if you have money to spend and no life to attend to. actually I think it might be the best way to effect change within corrupt municipalities. Politicians aren't going to do poo poo. Police admins aren't going to do poo poo. Unless we bankrupt them into realizing that abuse of power is not fiscally viable for them anymore.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 11:26
|
|
|
SkaAndScreenplays posted:actually I think it might be the best way to effect change within corrupt municipalities. The problem with that idea is that you have to be reasonably able to front the cost (somehow) of said lawsuit. They are wealthier and more powerful than you. They can just bleed you out, or find numerous ways to slow your progress in any way at best. Asides from legitimately strong arming you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 12:50
|
|
|
Cops try to invent a scandal for a mayor attempting to increase police oversight. http://m.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/07/1342840/--pointergate-may-be-the-most-racist-news-story-of-2014 I know it's a Daily Kos link, but you really have to watch the video. It's unbelievable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
If they were smart they would have just mailed drugs to her house then shot her after she took the package inside.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Radish posted:If they were smart they would have just mailed drugs to her house then shot her after she took the package inside. This already happened right (I think they just killed the mayors dogs).
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
LorneReams posted:This already happened right (I think they just killed the mayors dogs). Yeah it did. To be fair they didn't technically mail the package, just tracked it and knew it was supposed to be intercepted by dealers after delivery but before the homeowner picked it up (meaning they knew that the people living at that address were just patsies and the mayor's mom picked it up when no one was supposed to be home). Of course nothing happened to the police there so I doubt if these guys busted into this mayor's house and shot her when she menacingly cowered in fear they would get in trouble. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Cops try to invent a scandal for a mayor attempting to increase police oversight. Holy gently caress, wow. This is a great example of media bias in action.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Cops try to invent a scandal for a mayor attempting to increase police oversight. Ummm.... what? What evidence is there anywhere of the cops having anything to do with the media doing what they do best and manufacturing a bullshit scandal? Cops are plenty hosed up and this thread has a good number of legitimate examples. This is stupid as hell though. lovely source and a story that in no way points to the police doing anything to invent the scandal?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
SrgMagnum posted:Ummm.... what? What evidence is there anywhere of the cops having anything to do with the media doing what they do best and manufacturing a bullshit scandal? Supposedly the local PD were the ones that forwarded the pic to the news station. I can't find a source to back that up though. (I'm not trying too hard either) Here's what I found after a second or three of the Google - http://kstp.com/news/stories/S3612199.shtml?cat=1 "KSTP" posted:
Spun Dog fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 03:29 |
|
|
SrgMagnum posted:Ummm.... what? What evidence is there anywhere of the cops having anything to do with the media doing what they do best and manufacturing a bullshit scandal? The story came directly from the cops, here's the statement from the kstp website. quote:Law enforcement sources alerted KSTP-TV to a photo they believed could jeopardize public safety and put their officers at risk, especially given the recent increase in gang violence. Multiple sources from several law enforcement agencies told 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS the photo had the potential for undermining the work they are doing on the streets. 5 Eyewitness News blurred the individual’s face and did not name the group he was working for because police called into question only the judgment of Mayor Betsy Hodges. http://kstp.com/news/stories/S3613049.shtml?cat=1 Even if it didn't, the attitudes displayed by the cops interviewed in the story are very problematic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 23:55
|
|
