|
bassguitarhero posted:In many countries, simply firing a weapon is reason enough to be taken to court. Is that an effective use of judicial resources, in your opinion? Maarek posted:That is why it's such a contentious issue and why these kinds of arguments happen. Aside from some really blatant exceptions it's only provable at the macro level. Even if Wilson was completely honest about what happened and Michael Brown attempted to murder him with his bare hands, we STILL have a big problem with race and class in our legal system, right? I think you've really hit upon why there's skepticism about the reformism in this thread - it's hard not to read it as a macro reaction to a micro issue, which almost always has unintended consequences. See also the "affluenza" case. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Nov 20, 2014 |
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 09:35 |
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Is that an effective use of judicial resources, in your opinion? Absolutely. Killings by police officers in those countries range from 0 to 8 a year.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I think you've really hit upon why there's skepticism about the reformism in this thread - it's hard not to read it as a macro reaction to a micro issue, which almost always has unintended consequences. See also the "affluenza" case. Well, I think that the way that the police handled the investigation is the big story (much like the real story in Sanford, FL wasn't whether Zimmerman murdered Martin, but how the police basically said "eh, dead black kid"), and that's a macro issue. e: Everything that the Ferguson police force has done after the killing has been to antagonize the public, apparently. Throw all the bums out, even if Wilson is factually innocent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I think you've really hit upon why there's skepticism about the reformism in this thread - it's hard not to read it as a macro reaction to a micro issue, which almost always has unintended consequences. See also the "affluenza" case. I don't necessarily disagree with that, but I strongly disagree with people who take the attitude that we should meet those reactions with calling them stupid, ignoring them, or treating them like plebes who cannot gaze into the scrying crystal and see the true form of Lawicus. For what its worth, you are definitely not one of those people. I believe that you have seen His visage and were wizened.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Well, I think that the way that the police handled the investigation is the big story (much like the real story in Sanford, FL wasn't whether Zimmerman murdered Martin, but how the police basically said "eh, dead black kid"), and that's a macro issue. Well, yeah, that's generally why these stories get picked up as opposed to all the other police shootings - really overt mismanagement. Maarek posted:I don't necessarily disagree with that, but I strongly disagree with people who take the attitude that we should meet those reactions with calling them stupid, ignoring them, or treating them like plebes who cannot gaze into the scrying crystal and see the true form of Lawicus. Goddammit look at my student debt I earned the right to gaze into the scrying crystal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Well, I think that the way that the police handled the investigation is the big story (much like the real story in Sanford, FL wasn't whether Zimmerman murdered Martin, but how the police basically said "eh, dead black kid"), and that's a macro issue. I felt that way, too, until I went to Ferguson. But a big part of that is how the police (and the public) going "eh, dead black kid," allows us to start marginalizing and ignoring cases in which people are killing black kids and not getting a rise out of the justice system or the public.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
There are some issues in America that have overwhelming support or opposition that go unchanged because legal or political systems prevent it from happening, but if you look at the polls following the Zimmerman verdict it clearly shows that black people being murdered is not one of them. It is a societal problem reflected in the legal system, not one that is imposed on society by the legal system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
Maarek posted:There are some issues in America that have overwhelming support or opposition that go unchanged because legal or political systems prevent it from happening, but if you look at the polls following the Zimmerman verdict it clearly shows that black people being murdered is not one of them. It is a societal problem reflected in the legal system, not one that is imposed on society by the legal system. agreed
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
bassguitarhero posted:I felt that way, too, until I went to Ferguson. But a big part of that is how the police (and the public) going "eh, dead black kid," allows us to start marginalizing and ignoring cases in which people are killing black kids and not getting a rise out of the justice system or the public. It seems almost like "losing your temper at the police while black" is an offence for which the penalty is summary execution at the officers' discretion. Sure, this isn't codified in legal code, but when it's the de facto outcome of cases like this people are going to be angry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
Lyesh posted:It seems almost like "losing your temper at the police while black" is an offence for which the penalty is summary execution at the officers' discretion. Sure, this isn't codified in legal code, but when it's the de facto outcome of cases like this people are going to be angry. No, that's the problem. People *aren't* angry. I mean there are a few protesters in Ferguson, but by and large the country is not bothered by the summary execution of young black men. Police officers kill people because the lack of accountability for the police means they are likely to get away with it. Not because they enjoy killing people (I'm trying to be fair here) but they're more likely to pull the trigger because there are no consequences for doing so. This is especially the case for young black men, tying into issues of poverty and racism in this country. Some people are motivated by the fact that the police are killing young black men. Some people are motivated by the fact that the police are killing people at all. Some folks are motivated because a police officer shot a young man who lived in their community. But almost everybody who thinks this kid was unjustly killed believes that this kid was unjustly killed *because* there are no consequences for this kind of shooting. That's what makes the process of justice important. I don't mean to single you out on that, I just mean that what you're saying is one of a lot of reasons that this is such a problem. Losing your temper at a cop should not be an offense that deserves summary execution, but a lot of people are willing to believe it is, for a number of different reasons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
Throwing what Darren Wilson did in with the rest of the many, many cases of police brutality may be downgrading what he did. What Darren Wilson did to Michael Brown may not legally qualify as just police brutality, but cold blooded murder.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
bassguitarhero posted:That's part of it, yeah. The real "spike" is that McCulloch won't offer charges for the grand jury, instead piling on evidence for them (and even getting Darren Wilson to testify in his defense) to make decisions with. The problem here is that only the prosecutor is legally trained as a prosecutor. The grand jury are laypeople. So if you look at it from a social dynamic, nobody on the grand jury has the authority or weight behind them to say, "These are the charges we should go with." That's why prosecutors typically offer the charges they would like the grand jury to indict on. It's one thing to offer charges you think the grand jury will agree to, it's another to ask the grand jury to come up with what charges they believe should apply, since they are not legally trained. Won't one person inevitably take charge and get them to go along with his way of thinking? That's the social dynamic that occurs in small groups, it doesn't matter if he's qualified or not. Now, that person, whoever he or she is, is almost certainly going to let him off the hook, but if they happen to be for a trail they'll just drag the rest of the grand jury along with them. Charlz Guybon fucked around with this message at 07:52 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 07:04
|
|
|
One thing everyone can agree on is that Robert McCulloch is one ugly motherfucker:
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Won't one person inevitably take charge and get them to go along with his way of thinking? That's the social dynamic that occurs in small groups, it doesn't matter if he's qualified or not. Now, that person, whoever he or she is, is almost certainly going to let him off the hook, but if they happen to be for a trail they'll just drag the rest of the grand jury along with them. Depending on one grand jury member to take control of the conversation, to understand the law enough to make a compelling argument, and to bring the rest of the jury on board is a whole shitload to ask of one layperson. Maybe if we lived in the world of Die Hard, but we don't. People have to make legally justifiable beliefs for their actions. There's a lot of work left to go but it's a good start.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 08:04
|
|
|
bassguitarhero posted:Depending on one grand jury member to take control of the conversation, to understand the law enough to make a compelling argument, and to bring the rest of the jury on board is a whole shitload to ask of one layperson. Maybe if we lived in the world of Die Hard, but we don't. People have to make legally justifiable beliefs for their actions. There's a lot of work left to go but it's a good start. No they don't. I think you're way over selling the competence of the 12 random people that were picked by the state to sit on this jury. Wilson's either going to be let off (95%+ chance) or indited, because one or two people on the jury have a strong personality and happen to be convincing speakers. That's it, their understanding of the law doesn't come into it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 10:04
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Wilson's either going to be let off (95%+ chance) The only people in the world that have any chance to make an informed prediction about what the grand jury is going to decide are people directly involved with the case that have seen all the evidence. Everyone else is essentially just guessing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 10:09
|
|
|
bassguitarhero posted:No, that's the problem. People *aren't* angry. I mean there are a few protesters in Ferguson, but by and large the country is not bothered by the summary execution of young black men. Police officers kill people because the lack of accountability for the police means they are likely to get away with it. Not because they enjoy killing people (I'm trying to be fair here) but they're more likely to pull the trigger because there are no consequences for doing so. This is especially the case for young black men, tying into issues of poverty and racism in this country. Most of the time when people get mad and news stories are written about dead black men its to rage against their deaths. In many cases police say it was self defense, that he had a gun, that has was attacking people. Yet in every case his friends and family say he didn't do anything wrong. We cannot judge based on projection of our own racist experiencing onto each incident and treat each incident as separate, judging it by the facts presented, not by everyone who says "he didn't do anything" because people always say despite more credible forensics evidence proving that they were doing something (like shooting at people) while the police shot them. People aren't angry because its just another dead black, and we only seem to get mad at this when a white person, or perceived white person like George Zimmerman, shoot a black kid. That happens less than 7% of all the murders of blacks. 93% of all murders of blacks are because of other blacks. Until we learn to take those seriously, nothing will change, it will be just another black person shot because we only care when it happens if a white person does it. Shouldn't a black life matter regardless who takes it? Thats why this is a sham. Its only a feel good excercise. There are plenty of real cases where blacks are unjustly killed. Why is it you only protest the just ones?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 10:26
|
|
|
Oh now suddenly Wilson is just and blacks are the real racists?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 10:44
|
|
|
Yes hm, why are people more concerned when an authority figure kills someone and may be getting an undue amount of protection than they are about the fact that not every crime ever has been solved. What a curious phenomenon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 12:03
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:If Wilson wasn't a cop then this would be a completely different issue, thats like saying "if Brown didn't get shot", there's a reason the government owns a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. I'd agree with that view if it weren't for this: Slo-Tek posted:Last time he spiked a case where cops put 20 rounds into unarmed victims, lied about the evidence presented to the Grand Jury, and publicly called the victims bums, he ran unopposed. That happened. The police lied about the circumstances of the shooting ("they were coming right at us!"). McCulloch had surveillance video showing that it was a lie. Instead of using it, he buried it and backed up the lie. Afterwards he excused his actions by saying that the dead men deserved it because they were "bums."
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 13:43
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:That happened. The police lied about the circumstances of the shooting ("they were coming right at us!"). McCulloch had surveillance video showing that it was a lie. Instead of using it, he buried it and backed up the lie. Afterwards he excused his actions by saying that the dead men deserved it because they were "bums." The Process works!
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 13:47
|
|
|
Convicted felon Mark Fuhrman thinks Wilson is not going to be indicted. Just throwing that one out there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 13:56
|
|
|
Caliph206 posted:
Are you a troll or from stormfront?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 14:23
|
|
|
Why aren't police body cameras a universal thing? Is it just something that is going to take a while to get money for, or do PDs resist it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 14:39
|
|
|
JohnGalt posted:Why aren't police body cameras a universal thing? Is it just something that is going to take a while to get money for, or do PDs resist it? The police rarely do anything that is blatantly illegal. Morally reprehensible, yes, but usually not anything that is obviously illegal. Body cameras aren't going to really fix that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 14:44
|
|
|
JohnGalt posted:Why aren't police body cameras a universal thing? Is it just something that is going to take a while to get money for, or do PDs resist it? The most honest explanation that I've heard from an actual officer in another thread is that departments are so completely unprofessional that there is zero confidence that the recordings would be kept confidential, e.g., an officer might be talking with a friend at lunch about how he might be getting a divorce and the next day the whole station would know because everyone took turns watching the video for laughs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
JohnGalt posted:Why aren't police body cameras a universal thing? Is it just something that is going to take a while to get money for, or do PDs resist it? One study showed an 88% drop in citizen complaints against officers when the cameras were used, which is one of those stats that could be spun however way you want it. I don't know why police departments aren't scrambling to use them. http://www.policefoundation.org/content/body-worn-camera
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
JohnGalt posted:Why aren't police body cameras a universal thing? Is it just something that is going to take a while to get money for, or do PDs resist it? Where do you store this video? How do you make sure it's not tampered with? How do you get the police unions to agree to this? There's more to it than just strapping a GoPro to every cop. There's infrastructure that has to be obtained and paid for. Someone has to keep that data. As the guys in the IT board will tell you, reliable storage isn't cheap or trivial to setup and maintain. Raerlynn fucked around with this message at 15:02 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 14:56
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:One study showed an 88% drop in citizen complaints against officers when the cameras were used, which is one of those stats that could be spun however way you want it. I don't know why police departments aren't scrambling to Because there may be fewer complaints because the officers are doing less lovely stuff due to knowing they'll be on camera, and they don't want to be restricted like that. quote:Where do you store this video? All of these questions have been answered by the departments that use them. It's not exactly an insurmountable problem when it's already been solved and in use. The only true obstacle is getting the cops to agree to being monitored.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
JohnGalt posted:Why aren't police body cameras a universal thing? Is it just something that is going to take a while to get money for, or do PDs resist it? Imagine always being recorded at your job? Every time you alt tabbed go SA? Every time you took a personal call? Every time you shot an unarmed black kid? Every time you chatted at the water cooler? See how embarrassing it could get?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Because there may be fewer complaints because the officers are doing less lovely stuff due to knowing they'll be on camera, and they don't want to be restricted like that. That same study did show a 60% drop in use of force with body cameras. Can't have that, oh no. It's uhhhhh too expensive, yeah, that's the ticket.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
DARPA posted:Imagine always being recorded at your job? Every time you alt tabbed go SA? Every time you took a personal call? Every time you shot an unarmed black kid? Every time you chatted at the water cooler? Welcome to the life of a celebrity who are not only photographed while at their jobs, but doing such mundane tasks as going to the grocery store.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 15:06
|
|
|
DARPA posted:Imagine always being recorded at your job? Every time you alt tabbed go SA? Every time you took a personal call? Every time you shot an unarmed black kid? Every time you chatted at the water cooler? If the only time they looked at it was when I beat up someone or shot a guy to death while on the job I'd probably be ok.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 15:09
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Because there may be fewer complaints because the officers are doing less lovely stuff due to knowing they'll be on camera, and they don't want to be restricted like that. Or the other argument is that these people are not comfortable interacting with someone on camera. chitoryu12 posted:All of these questions have been answered by the departments that use them. It's not exactly an insurmountable problem when it's already been solved and in use. The only true obstacle is getting the cops to agree to being monitored. Just because they've been answered doesn't make it feasible to deploy. I'm not arguing that its impossible, or even that it shouldn't be attempted. But assuming that is just those drat cops refusing to play along is being willfully blind to the fact that police resources are not universal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
JohnGalt posted:Why aren't police body cameras a universal thing? Is it just something that is going to take a while to get money for, or do PDs resist it? Ferguson police aren't even using the cams they already own, so it's definitely a resistance thing, not a cost thing. DARPA posted:Imagine always being recorded at your job? Every time you alt tabbed go SA? Every time you took a personal call? Every time you shot an unarmed black kid? Every time you chatted at the water cooler? Funny, the police department that embraced them don't seem to mind, nor do the officers in them. It's almost as if there are ways to address these concerns that minimize that problem. Or that people don't really care that much. (Also, most police stations already have cameras installed so it wouldn't even change anything but the view angle) Raerlynn posted:But assuming that is just those drat cops refusing to play along is being willfully blind to the fact that police resources are not universal. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and the police have shown they have more than enough resources to deliver a metric ton of cure, so... I honestly doubt the cameras would be more expensive to maintain than the MRAPs and would be way more useful, and it's not like they'd be treading new ground here. It's a question of priorities, not resources. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 15:13 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 15:11
|
|
|
The NSA hoovers up terabytes of internet traffic everyday. Video records can be managed if the political will is there. Also 90% of the videos can be wiped at the end of each week, the only reason to keep footage would be after an incident has occurred. You prevent tampering with time/date stamps that get synced at the beginning and end of the shift. Raerlynn posted:Or the other argument is that these people are not comfortable interacting with someone on camera. Who isn't comfortable? The cop or the person they are interacting with? Mc Do Well fucked around with this message at 15:16 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
DARPA posted:Imagine always being recorded at your job? Every time you alt tabbed go SA? Every time you took a personal call? Every time you shot an unarmed black kid? Every time you chatted at the water cooler? They don't let me kill people at my job. Not even Debbie. Who, let's be honest, has been seriously slacking off lately
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Ferguson police aren't even using the cams they already own, so it's definitely a resistance thing, not a cost thing. http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael-brown-shooting/ferguson-cops-get-body-cameras-after-michael-brown-shooting-n193196 That implies that these are recent acquisitions, after the shooting. Hardly seems like they're willfully not using the cameras. On topic, we've already covered what would happen if the grand jury doesn't indict Wilson. What about if they did indict, and the jury trial proves him innocent... Where would we go from there?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
quote:Or the other argument is that these people are not comfortable interacting with someone on camera. Uh, boo loving hoo? Maybe they wouldn't need to be monitored on the job so much if American police weren't abusing and murdering innocent people so often. I'm sorry that they need to be a little uncomfortable and let their interactions with the populace be recorded to keep them from murdering people and planting drugs on their bodies. Raerlynn posted:Just because they've been answered doesn't make it feasible to deploy. I'm not arguing that its impossible, or even that it shouldn't be attempted. But assuming that is just those drat cops refusing to play along is being willfully blind to the fact that police resources are not universal. But the fact that they're already being implemented without the requisite departments collapsing under the weight of their debt is indicative that it's perfectly feasible? Why do I get the feeling that this very same argument occurred decades ago with the suggestion to implement dash cams in police cars? quote:On topic, we've already covered what would happen if the grand jury doesn't indict Wilson. What about if they did indict, and the jury trial proves him innocent... Where would we go from there? That's impossible to answer because there are too many hypotheticals regarding this trial that probably won't happen. Exactly why he would be found innocent is what would matter. Would new evidence suddenly crop up that proves that Brown was a hardened killer on his way to strangle Wilson with his bare hands? Would evidence be suppressed or manipulated to make Wilson look like an innocent victim? chitoryu12 fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 09:35 |
|
|
DARPA posted:Imagine always being recorded at your job? Every time you alt tabbed go SA? Every time you took a personal call? Every time you shot an unarmed black kid? Every time you chatted at the water cooler? Even private sector employees are beginning to be subjected to that treatment already. A large contractor I work with puts driver cams and monitoring systems in their commercial trucks. Continuous video feed saved for 5 minutes which is flagged and saved if any abnormal activity takes place. Also it is able to determine phone use while driving and other data. Anything I do on my work computer is recorded and I act accordingly. Do we exempt cops because they are real american heroes?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 15:23
|
|