|
SedanChair posted:Whatever else you can say about open-carry filth (and you can say a lot; you can pretty much say anything), they don't point their guns. They may hold them at low ready but they don't raise them to eye level and aim. And in any case an open carry reckoning is coming; somebody's going to get shot. The kid didn't point his gun at eye level and aim at the cops, either. According to their own testimony it was in his waistband. If he had a rifle slung over his shoulder with his hand on it like the white guy in the picture, the outcome would have been the same. As far as black open carry groups, perhaps they haven't gotten shot because they're in clearly marked groups - what about a black guy on his own who happens to be open carrying? Though I agree a reckoning is coming.
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 08:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 00:27 |
|
|
The bundinos were not an open carry group, they were terrorists. quote:Here's the infamous one shot after an open carry group confronted families of the Sandy Hook victims and pointed guns at them. Of course they totally deny pointing the weapons, and who are you going to believe, those REAL HEARTLAND AMERICANS or some dumb loser women, lol? That's low ready, as I mentioned. It's menacing but it is not pointing. Sharkie posted:The kid didn't point his gun at eye level and aim at the cops, either. According to their own testimony it was in his waistband. If he had a rifle slung over his shoulder with his hand on it like the white guy in the picture, the outcome would have been the same. As far as black open carry groups, perhaps they haven't gotten shot because they're in clearly marked groups - what about a black guy on his own who happens to be open carrying? Though I agree a reckoning is coming. I never said he pointed it at the cops. Before the cops arrived he was pointing it up and down the street. He was sweeping the whole neighborhood with a presumably loaded weapon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 08:53
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:That's low ready, as I mentioned. It's menacing but it is not pointing. There's no way he could have got the rifle to that position without pointing or sweeping it, however momentarily. Unless maybe he had it somehow slung below his waist, pointing down, like a scabbard. SedanChair posted:I never said he pointed it at the cops. Before the cops arrived he was pointing it up and down the street. He was sweeping the whole neighborhood with a presumably loaded weapon. Like I mentioned re: the picture, that guy had to have swept the gun at some point. I'm just trying to say that it's incredibly hosed that police didn't even try to ascertain the situation, they literally arrived and killed him; they guy in the picture had safety in numbers, and the benefit of being white. If the kid in Ohio was in that posture, he would have been shot. I don't know that we actually disagree on important points.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 09:08
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:There's no way he could have got the rifle to that position without pointing or sweeping it, however momentarily. Unless maybe he had it somehow slung below his waist, pointing down, like a scabbard. Incorrect.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
quote:That's low ready, as I mentioned. It's menacing but it is not pointing. The women at the event said that the guys pointed their guns at them. But you can go ahead and believe those women are just liars I guess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
The Ender posted:Here's the infamous one shot after an open carry group confronted families of the Sandy Hook victims and pointed guns at them. Of course they totally deny pointing the weapons, and who are you going to believe, those REAL HEARTLAND AMERICANS or some dumb loser women, lol?  So threatening. I can see the menace in their steely eyes as they pose for a photograph in Texas. Also, cops should wear body cameras. Costs? Subtract out all the money they spend on wrongful death suits and poo poo. I bet it comes out even.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
The Ender posted:But you can go ahead and believe those women are just liars I guess. Like yourself they're probably not used to thinking clearly about what is really "pointing." In the absence of evidence to the contrary I will make a guess that by "pointing" they mean "having a gun in my direction." And it wasn't Sandy Hook victims, it was a meeting of scolds in Texas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:There's no way he could have got the rifle to that position without pointing or sweeping it, however momentarily. Unless maybe he had it somehow slung below his waist, pointing down, like a scabbard. No, there's no reason to think he had to have swept or pointed the gun at some point. You pick the gun up, muzzle towards ground, you grab the sling with one hand and thread it over your head. You're now free to let go of the gun while you adjust the sling. When the sling is adjusted, you grab the gun and kneel. At no point did you muzzle sweep or point at anyone. If you don't have a sling, it's even easier. If you're a responsible gun owner, always making sure the gun is pointing towards the ground becomes second nature. However, what I learned back in the day was that when dealing with unarmed civilians, you keep the gun behind your back. Showing up and standing around with guns at low ready is kind of lovely, and will naturally make a lot of people feel uncomfortable. Seeing as these people are neither military nor police, most people would probably be even more uncomfortable with them showing up and standing around like that. Scherloch fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Nov 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Also, cops should wear body cameras. Costs? Subtract out all the money they spend on wrongful death suits and poo poo. I bet it comes out even. Cops wearing body cams would still mean they could control the release of the footage and it would be nothing but 'ran out of battery' for the important stuff anyway. And it could be a vehicle for facial recognition tools being used habitually. Cops need to be filmed by neutral bystanders ideally.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
Vitamin P posted:Cops wearing body cams would still mean they could control the release of the footage and it would be nothing but 'ran out of battery' for the important stuff anyway. And it could be a vehicle for facial recognition tools being used habitually. B) Same as with crimes NOT committed by the police, the really bad poo poo usually seems to happen when almost no one else is around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
Vitamin P posted:Cops wearing body cams would still mean they could control the release of the footage and it would be nothing but 'ran out of battery' for the important stuff anyway. And it could be a vehicle for facial recognition tools being used habitually. I think it would be more ideal if the data was stored in escrow, controlled by a civilian review board would work just fine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
Did you know that it's illegal to post profanities and call cops racist on their Facebook page? I sure didn't, and the Wisconsin appellate court is similarly confused!
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 14:19
|
|
|
 You can't call us racist!!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 14:23
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:I think it would be more ideal if the data was stored in escrow, controlled by a civilian review board would work just fine. Call it the Neighborhood Watch Alliance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
Vitamin P posted:Cops wearing body cams would still mean they could control the release of the footage and it would be nothing but 'ran out of battery' for the important stuff anyway. And it could be a vehicle for facial recognition tools being used habitually. I saw a news segment where TASER, inc. is creating a camera that cannot be turned off or tampered with in the field, short of destroying it. All of the information is encrypted and automatically uploaded to a central database outside of individual police departments' control. It seems pretty tamper-proof outside of some large scale systematic corruption. TASER said that they are already doing multiple pilot programs and have interest from large police forces (the CEO specifically mentioned the LAPD). I think these cameras have a lot of buy-in from police departments, despite the cynicism shown in D&D, because they don't want to be the next Ferguson PD. These cameras will protect police officers from lawsuits, false testimony, and horrible PR. edit: I found the interview: http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/opening-bell/index.html#/v/3909104813001 Seph fucked around with this message at 15:26 on Nov 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Whatever else you can say about open-carry filth (and you can say a lot; you can pretty much say anything), they don't point their guns. They may hold them at low ready but they don't raise them to eye level and aim. And in any case an open carry reckoning is coming; somebody's going to get shot. I was glad to see an open carry group take some action when that kid got shot at Wal-Mart. I don't open carry, but it's legal and there's a lot of overlap between open carry groups and people who want to see law enforcement reform. Of course there's also plenty of overlap with racist jackasses...
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
The upstanding paragons of virtue have shown once again that they are always right and should not be questioned. By demanding that your boss discipline you for showing support to non-violent protest. http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/01/us/ferguson-nfl-st-louis-rams/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
I too only like it when the people I agree with exorcise their 1st Amendment Right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
ex·or·cise ˈeksôrˌsīz/ verb drive out or attempt to drive out (an evil spirit) from a person or place. A strange typo?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Ferguson's mayor announced the creation of a civilian oversight committee. Is this meaningful or an empty
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Ferguson's mayor announced the creation of a civilian oversight committee. Is this meaningful or an empty In just about every case I've seen where such a body is announced it invariably ends up an unfunded toothless nothing, or completely captured by the police system and used as a rubber-stamp for their own investigations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
beejay posted:ex·or·cise Almost as if my phone's auto correct knew how crappy this thread has become with who can be king FTP nonsense. Will implode in t-minus...
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
A HOT TOPIC posted:Almost as if my phone's auto correct knew how crappy this thread has become with who can be king FTP nonsense. Will implode in t-minus... Look I know you're just having a posting spree now that D&D isn't moderated anymore, but even a casual reading of the thread demonstrates that "FTP" is limited to a few drivebys. A good troll engages just enough with reality to be believable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:How many police officers get shot per year, and how does that compare to the number of people who get shot by police officers? What about the number of fatalities on each side? Sorry for the ancient quoting but I decided to google up on this: http://www.odmp.org/search/year This page suggests 104 police officers died this year, 54 of them to violence. (I'm adding up the deaths by gunfire and vehicular/assault and giving them the benefit of the doubt that none of it was friendly fire) Not bad for a country of 323 million possible gunmen. http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/11/26/more-than-12-peoplekilledbylawenforcementinsevendays.html For civilians however, as has been said official statistics don't actually disclose quite how many citizens your nation is killing, the official numbers say its around 431 people killed by police this year. Theres a good bit about this in the aljazeera story actually: quote:The Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), official national crime data complied annually by the FBI, indicates that there were 461 total deaths at the hands of law enforcement in 2013, the most recently published year. But Burghart told Al Jazeera that after scanning local government agencies and media reports the number of police-related fatalities was “closer to about 1,400 a year,” with at least 9,000 from 2000 to 2014. So by the official numbers 8 times as many people are killed by cops as kill cops or by the unofficial numbers 28 times as many people. You're also 4x as likely to be killed if you are black than if you are white. I mean 5 years on from Oscar Grant getting executed in handcuffs on video I don't see how any of you colonials can have any doubt that one of the purposes of the US police is to kill black men. All the instituions responses to these killings seem to basically sum up to a modern day version of Lloyd George saying "Britain reserves the right to bomb niggers," Black Americans have to know that they are not safe and police departments have to be protected from even the idea that they could be prosecuted for killing them. e: That said I don't think all police officers, even those killing black people are necessarily evil racists. I think they are low-IQ men trained as if (especially black) people are inherently dangerous then given the full financial, institutional and social support the system can garner whenever they end up killing someone. The system inherited a dark legacy since instead of dealing with the aftermath of slavery and then the civil rights movement the US just shot all the civil rights leaders and called it a day. Communist Thoughts fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Probably a bit old and tangential to this thread, but here is an interesting piece from the Atlantic about structural disconnects between the justice system and the people who face adjudication in that system, particularly how judges and prosecutors don't understand reality for many parents of limited economic means, specifically in Connecticut. taking pot shots at the prosecutors office and the bench seems to be the national pastime of the Office of the Chief Public Defender's Office these days.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:taking pot shots at the prosecutors office and the bench seems to be the national pastime of the Office of the Chief Public Defender's Office these days. Potshot in the sense that the criticism is easy (but true) or that the criticism is inaccurate?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Potshot in the sense that the criticism is easy (but true) or that the criticism is inaccurate? I would say the criticism is inaccurate. I don't deal with the AGs office, but denizens of the PD's office have written similar editorials about the prosecutor's office that were baseless. My biggest problem here is that he is overlooking the role of DCF and social workers who prepare the file for the court, and trying to dump it all at the feet of his adversaries and the court...pretty self serving.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
I guess that my instinct is that whether it's self-serving or not, the bar generally is (for obvious reasons, like having enough money to toss into the dumpster fire that is law school) operating at a not-insignificant distance from poor people and minorities, though I think this is starting to shift as the field diversifies (though that is ebbing as well). Whether or not the bar bridges that distance is a matter of effort and exposure, which can always be improved.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I guess that my instinct is that whether it's self-serving or not, the bar generally is (for obvious reasons, like having enough money to toss into the dumpster fire that is law school) operating at a not-insignificant distance from poor people and minorities, though I think this is starting to shift as the field diversifies (though that is ebbing as well). Whether or not the bar bridges that distance is a matter of effort and exposure, which can always be improved. sure. racism exists in the world, either conscious or subconscious...but this is just the latest in what has been a trend of members of the CT PD's office writing editorials accusing anyone who disagrees with them of misconduct or racism. It's really unprofessional, IMO. BTW, one thing he conveniently neglects to mention is that prosecutors and judges are both selected via commissions in CT. I don't have much insider knowledge of the judicial selection committee, but I do know the criminal justice commission actively seeks minorities for appointment in the more high volume/high visibility urban courts, and prefers candidates with broad life experience to the "I've always wanted to be a prosecutor" law and order types. There's a huge emphasis on getting qualified applicants with empathy, so to read how we're all a bunch of ivory tower racists is really loving offensive. (PS...per state law, a PD in CT gets EXACTLY the same pay as a prosecutor of commensurate seniority. So if we're just all out of touch rich people...) ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:sure. racism exists in the world, either conscious or subconscious...but this is just the latest in what has been a trend of members of the CT PD's office writing editorials accusing anyone who disagrees with them of misconduct or racism. It's really unprofessional, IMO. Can you link some other examples? I haven't lived in CT in a while so I probably missed this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:sure. racism exists in the world, either conscious or subconscious...but this is just the latest in what has been a trend of members of the CT PD's office writing editorials accusing anyone who disagrees with them of misconduct or racism. It's really unprofessional, IMO. Are you sure it's not just smart?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Can you link some other examples? I haven't lived in CT in a while so I probably missed this. there was on in the CT law tribune last month claiming that prosecutorial misconduct is rampant. Written under a pseudonym of course. I can't link it because it's subscription only.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:there was on in the CT law tribune last month claiming that prosecutorial misconduct is rampant. Written under a pseudonym of course. I can't link it because it's subscription only. Ah. Can you really blame the PD for basically going HAM in the court of public opinion after the Lenarz case, though?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Ah. Can you really blame the PD for basically going HAM in the court of public opinion after the Lenarz case, though? one case from 2011, in which the prosecutor (rightly) got bitch slapped, is hardly evidence of a rampant trend. Interestingly, there's the same type of AC mail reading shenanigans in GITMO. (Which I also think is a sham...don't get me wrong, I certainly think the detainees are guilty as gently caress in most cases...but the commissions are a joke.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:one case from 2011, in which the prosecutor (rightly) got bitch slapped, is hardly evidence of a rampant trend. It's been a while since I read it since that thing blew up when I lived there, but when you say the prosecutor got slapped you mean there was actual sanction? Because as I remember it the conviction got overturned but the Court stopped short of actually sanctioning the prosecutor. Again, it was three years ago, but I recall reading an article by Dubois on it. One case where the courts let prosecutorial misconduct slide (even if they patch up the results) is enough to provoke if not justify the behavior you're taking issue with - repeatedly calling out and documenting alleged misconduct. Also, yeah, the mail reading poo poo at Guantánamo is beyond the pale but no one seems to have bothered asking to what extent it's par for the course with incarcerated clients.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:It's been a while since I read it since that thing blew up when I lived there, but when you say the prosecutor got slapped you mean there was actual sanction? Because as I remember it the conviction got overturned but the Court stopped short of actually sanctioning the prosecutor. Again, it was three years ago, but I recall reading an article by Dubois on it. I don't know what happened so far as sanctions, I didn't live in CT when that came down...but I do know similar cases have resulted in pretty major shunning and ridicule until the person in question ended up leaving the state in disgrace. (It's hard to fire ANY state employee. something that also warrants review, though it would probably go worse for the PDs than the state...pm me for sordid details on that one, if you want) I don't take issue with calling out/shaming people who actually do commit violations. I have no patience for judicial or prosecutorial misconduct. They should be held accountable. Where I take issue is going from "Attorney X committed misconduct" a fair statement, to "because all prosecutors are shitbags."
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
The author seemed mostly to focus on how judges are clueless and privileged. I don't see how this can be gainsaid or how it is particularly a slam on Connecticut. e: also "PDs make the same, I guess we are all out of touch rich people" LOL you loving amateur. Maybe they are a little more in touch because they spend their time trying to unfuck the lives that you destroy. woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I don't know what happened so far as sanctions, I didn't live in CT when that came down...but I do know similar cases have resulted in pretty major shunning and ridicule until the person in question ended up leaving the state in disgrace. (It's hard to fire ANY state employee. something that also warrants review, though it would probably go worse for the PDs than the state...pm me for sordid details on that one, if you want) Social sanction isn't really a substitute for formal sanction in the context of professional legal services, but when the Court backs up the office refusing to name and shame publicly by also not naming the offender it creates an impression of closed ranks. I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect the PD's office to break through those ranks or to sit quietly until they figure out how to do so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 00:27 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:Maybe they are a little more in touch because they spend their time trying to unfuck the lives that you destroy. Like the lives of their clients' victims?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 18:00
|
|