|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:And why in the hell weren't the other two cops involved fired? Do you really question that?
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 03:05 |
|
|
30.5 Days posted:There's also the fact that everything in the constitution is one court case away from getting incorporated against the states. Grand juries are not in the constitution unless for capital or "infamous" crimes. And even then, case law going back to the 1800s makes it pretty clear that unlike almost everything else in the bill of rights, this is NOT applicable to state criminal cases. It's an odd breakdown, but SCOTUS would basically have to ignore precedent in a way that would force states to rewrite their criminal procedure codes. Ain't gonna happen. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 05:44 on Dec 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:
From what I know of him, with an administration of non-psycopathic maniacs Bush W would be a pretty adorable president. Apparently Rumsfeld would just talk rings around him until he gave up whenever he was like "B-b-but Rummy I don't want no Afghan kids takin heroin! That ain't frurdom!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 10:06
|
|
I'm imagining that W is literally a sheltered 12 year old white kid, and Condoleezza is using small words to patiently explain to him why people are mad at the nice policeman. W becomes upset that the policeman hurt somebody.
|
nopantsjack posted:From what I know of him, with an administration of non-psycopathic maniacs Bush W would be a pretty adorable president. Apparently Rumsfeld would just talk rings around him until he gave up whenever he was like "B-b-but Rummy I don't want no Afghan kids takin heroin! That ain't frurdom!" Bush "W" would be much more respected if his "non-psycopathic maniacs" had been not actually psychotic maniacs. Suck a dick.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 10:08
|
|
|
Oh here's some fun poo poo. The Justice Department tore the poo poo out the Cleveland Police last week. They found that: CPD tazed a guy on a gurney quote:In another incident involving the use of a Taser against a person in crisis, a CDP officer tased a man, despite the fact that he was suffering a medical emergency and was strapped onto a gurney in the back of an ambulance, because he was verbally threatening officers. CPD tased a kid as other officers held him down. quote:In one incident that illustrates CDP’s inappropriate use of Tasers, an officer used his Taser to drive stun a 127-pound juvenile twice as two officers held him on the ground. Officers believed that “Ivan” matched the description of a possible fleeing suspect wanted for harassing store customers and stealing. Officers chased Ivan on foot, caught up to him, and tackled him. The officers alleged that the 127-pound juvenile “continued to resist” as they both held him on ground, prompting one of the officers to deploy his Taser twice in the juvenile’s back in drive stun mode, even though both officers were holding him down. CPD punched a handcuffed 13-year-old. quote:In another incident, an officer punched a handcuffed 13 year-old boy in the face several times. Officers had arrested the juvenile for shoplifting. While “Harold” was handcuffed in the zone car, he began to kick the door and kicked an officer in the leg. In response, the 300 pound, 6’4” tall officer entered the car and sat on the legs of the 150 pound, 5’8” tall handcuffed boy. Harold was pushing against the officer with his legs, but was handcuffed and posed no threat to the officer. Nevertheless, the officer continued to sit on Harold and punched him in the face three to four times until he was “stunned/dazed” and had a bloody nose. CPD almost killed a hostage they were trying to rescue. quote:When officers arrived on scene, they had information that two armed assailants were holding several people inside the home. After officers surrounded the house, Anthony escaped from his captors and ran from the house, wearing only boxer shorts. An officer ordered Anthony to stop, but Anthony continued to run toward the officers. One sergeant fired two shots at him, missing. According to the sergeant, when Anthony escaped from the house, the sergeant believed Anthony had a weapon because he elevated his arm and pointed his hand toward the sergeant. No other officers at the scene reported seeing Anthony point anything at the sergeant.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 12:14
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Oh here's some fun poo poo. The Justice Department tore the poo poo out the Cleveland Police last week. They found that: Cops are pretty ok. /reprehensible
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 12:45
|
|
|
Won't someone think of the slightly injured police?  quote:one officer who was struck with a large sandbag was treated for a dislocated shoulder at a local hospital http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/cops-injured-berkeley-protests-over-eric-garner-death-turn-violent-n263216
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 12:52
|
|
|
repeating posted:Bush "W" would be much more respected if his "non-psycopathic maniacs" had been not actually psychotic maniacs. Thats what I said. Or are you just being pedantic about typos? What if I did go and suck a dick huh, then you're fase woud be red.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 14:30
|
|
|
Apologies if this has already been posted. http://www.wwltv.com/story/news/local/lafourche-terrebonne/2014/09/23/terrebone-deputy-shoots-kills-juvenile/16131187/ I've had a few family members and/or acquaintances spit out the "Brown was just a thug, why are people protesting" or "People only ever complain about white cops". This story has helped adjust some of those opinions. What an absolutely horrible story.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 14:39
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:From what I know of him, with an administration of non-psycopathic maniacs Bush W would be a pretty adorable president. Apparently Rumsfeld would just talk rings around him until he gave up whenever he was like "B-b-but Rummy I don't want no Afghan kids takin heroin! That ain't frurdom!" Bush actually over-ruled every person in his administration by appointing Paul Bremer, who then went on to go through with debaathification, which was never agreed upon by the VP, State or Defense. They all just wanted to take down Saddam, remove WMDs and then "leave Iraq to Iraqi's," regardless of what those consequences would be. Bush was a dumbass, but he was an assertive dumbass.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
chairface posted:Do you really question that? I'm not surprised, but I'm sure as poo poo questioning it. Two cops were holding the guy's hands behind his back while a third slowly choked him out, don't the other two cops have any sort of professional or ethical responsibility to help him at that point? It's good to see that there was at least some disciplinary action against the one doing the choking (even if it was brushed away later), but the other two clearly shouldn't be allowed to deal with the public either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:And why in the hell weren't the other two cops involved fired? If a cop shoots you blatantly illegally the other cops standing around will still cuff your bleeding unconscious body and not maybe also perform aid. Only the shooter will (maybe) face discipline. I have never seen an example of an on-duty uniformed cop being stopped from an illegal use of force by other officer. The challenge is still open to prove me wrong though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
cops in GiP said a while back when that happened that they wouldn't stop their partner from choking someone like that because then they would lose control of the situation and would no longer be symbols of authority.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
The Bush-Rice relationship is so hosed up I don't even want to get into it
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:If a cop shoots you blatantly illegally the other cops standing around will still cuff your bleeding unconscious body and not maybe also perform aid. Only the shooter will (maybe) face discipline. I have never seen an example of an on-duty uniformed cop being stopped from an illegal use of force by other officer. The challenge is still open to prove me wrong though. Are you talking about something like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBfF_7rdIxg
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Oh here's some fun poo poo. The Justice Department tore the poo poo out the Cleveland Police last week. They found that: edit: especially since I guess there was no change since the last time they did this. Basically, is the justice department a "Stop! Or we'll say 'stop' again!" kind of organization? Samurai Sanders fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Dec 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
Grem posted:Are you talking about something like this?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
Miltank posted:cops in GiP said a while back when that happened that they wouldn't stop their partner from choking someone like that because then they would lose control of the situation and would no longer be symbols of authority. That makes perfect sense. Like when your toddler is out of control and one parent says yes and the other says no it just undermines the parent that says no. There needs to be consensus.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
It appears there's pretty strong evidence the DA deliberately tanked the Garner grand jury:quote:NBC New York might have an explanation for how Daniel Pantaleo managed to completely avoid charges for killing Eric Garner, despite the video that showed the NYPD officer choking the 43-year-old father of six right before he died.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It appears like there's pretty strong evidence the DA deliberately tanked the Garner grand jury:
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
Slipknot Hoagie posted:That makes perfect sense. Like when your toddler is out of control and one parent says yes and the other says no it just undermines the parent that says no. There needs to be consensus. So if one parent is beating up their child, the other parent should let it continue to avoid undermining the first parent's authority?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It appears there's pretty strong evidence the DA deliberately tanked the Garner grand jury: Hmm, maybe. Manslaughter and negligent homicide seem like much more reasonable charges than reckless endangerment, which might barely result in prison time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:So if one parent is beating up their child, the other parent should let it continue to avoid undermining the first parent's authority? Obviously not I was comparing authority not force. In the case of apprehending a criminal which requires physical force due to noncompliance then that is the case. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gn0HWYnwWoE Take a look at this belligerent woman. She's not a person of color, so instead she pulls the woman card by screaming MY BABY while resisting arrest. If you can't use force to take down criminals, then criminals realize there's no repercussion for their actions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
Slipknot Hoagie posted:the woman card A trap card.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Hmm, maybe. Manslaughter and negligent homicide seem like much more reasonable charges than reckless endangerment, which might barely result in prison time. The standard procedure would be to seek charges for all of them. The only legitimate reason to leave off lesser offenses like reckless endangerment (which by definition he committed if he committed the more serious crimes) is if you think that the jury might not give you the more serious charge if they have the option of the lesser charge.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
Slipknot Hoagie posted:Obviously not I was comparing authority not force. In the case of apprehending a criminal which requires physical force due to noncompliance then that is the case. She stole a bottle of wine. Who cares if she "gets away" with that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
Lyesh posted:She stole a bottle of wine. Who cares if she "gets away" with that? The person whose livelihood depends on the sale of that item. This is a nation of laws, and scofflaws deserve punishment. No single drop of water thinks it is the flood, but taken together, they have that effect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Do blacks need a lot of controlling?Slipknot Hoagie posted:Garner had over 30 arrests, starting from when he was 16 years old. Is it so hard to follow the law? If blacks really hate interacting with the police so much why not, you know, fly straight? I'm not saying dude should literally die for peddling illegal cigarettes, but come on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, SedanChair?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
Wish you'd receive death so you'd stop posting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Slipknot Hoagie posted:Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, SedanChair?  What exactly are you trying to say here?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
Slipknot Hoagie posted:The person whose livelihood depends on the sale of that item. This is a nation of laws, and scofflaws deserve punishment. No single drop of water thinks it is the flood, but taken together, they have that effect. And there are ways to ensure people receive consequences without endangering their lives. I'm a special education teacher who specializes in working with kids with Emotional and Behavioral Disabilities. I am trained in verbal and non-verbal de-escalation, and safe individual and team restraints that are effective and explicitly prevent kids from being hurt or asphyxiated. I will only physically engage with a student if they are directly about to cause harm to themselves or others. That can sometimes include to someone's property, so if a kid is about to break someone's glasses or something, I might restrain, but only if I don't think their parents can reasonably replace that item. The only harm that has ever come to a student I worked with was due to lack of restraint when I should have, and the kid punched through a wire-reinforced window and tore his arm apart. I don't have a nightstick, taser, gun, flashlight, or cuffs, and yet I somehow manage to control people's behaviors (some of whom are having psychotic episodes or are otherwise being "belligerent") on a daily basis. If I can do it, why can't police? I have a great relationship with my current School Resource Office, and trust him implicitly, but I'm also at a lower middle class school in an upper-middle to upper class district that is well funded and has a decent PD. When I was working in an extremely low-SES neighborhood, the following situation happened: One of my students got angry at another student in my class, and he got up and left. When that happened, we needed to maintain supervision, so I turned supervision of my class (who were doing independent work) to my assistant, and went to follow the student. Usually he would walk off his anger and come back. I gave him space because I knew he would leave the building if I followed too close. He walked by our SRO's office, who called him in. He didn't go in. This officer was at our school all day every day, knew he was in my class, knew that I had supervision over him, knew he had a disability, and yet because he didn't instantly comply with an order, she went to grab him. He naturally resisted, as he was angry and looking for personal space, so he pulled away. She shoved him into a wall and pulled out her cuffs. He resisted more, so she called for backup. Eventually there were four officers restraining him on the floor, one with their knee in the students back, compressing his lungs. They cuffed him, but then continued to restrain him like that until he was "calm," which was actually because he had essentially been asphyxiated to the point of not being able to struggle. This is a kid that I could restrain using non-harmful techniques on my own for several minutes, and my assistant and I could hold perpetually if necessary. Why did it take four cops (one kneeling on his lungs) to cuff him? The bigger issue is that he didn't need to be cuffed. One major part of my training is essentially invoking the Serenity Prayer. "Do I absolutely have to stop this student from wandering the halls?" The cops making these mistakes basically need to take a goddamn breath and center themselves before reacting. Actually, it's ok to let someone be belligerent for awhile, because they will tire themselves and calm down. A lot of cops seem to have no idea about how to de-escalate the situation. They just escalate it until the other person's power level is reached and the cop has more power, which will usually only happen at the physical level. It is the definition of a power trip. If you absolutely have to punish that lady, worst case you have two officers put the woman in a safe restraint while the other looks through her ID and issues a citation, then you go. But let's look at the Garner case. He was not harming anyone. He was pushing his arms down and away, saying "not today." He was unhappy and non-compliant, but not dangerous. At all. You can't even pull a "he's coming right for us!" thing there. It was just "He's not doing what I want so I'm going to make him." And if that's the expectation that cops have, then you're going to get those situations. I get into extremely stressful situations regularly, and I empathize, because your adrenaline is rushing, and your reptilian brain takes over, and the temptation to make someone comply so you can make the situation "safe" is incredibly compelling. That's why the rules say I can't. If cops can't touch someone, ever, if they're not obviously being dangerous, but have other options available, they will use those options. Cops have the authorization to use lethal force because they are sometimes put in situations where it is necessary, but many of them just have a hammer and so everything is a loving nail. It's gone from "I can use lethal force when absolutely necessary to protect lives" to "I can do whatever is necessary to gain compliance." No, you can't. You shouldn't. You don't need to. There needs to be a hell of a lot more professional development on this. Again, why does it take four cops to do what two teachers can do? It's not that it does, it's that they're trained to do it that way. Riven fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Dec 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
Pomp posted:
Well Sedan was asking if I thought the blacks need controlling. I'm saying that I don't know what they need, or if indeed I am the man to give it to them. I don't make those decisions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
Slipknot Hoagie posted:Well Sedan was asking if I thought the blacks need controlling. I'm saying that I don't know what they need, or if indeed I am the man to give it to them. I don't make those decisions. Well they get arrested more. So wouldn't you say they must proportionally represent a larger part of these scofflaws who deserve punishment? Is the reason blacks get arrested more often because they won't "fly straight"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
Riven posted:Cops should never use force ever Man, the Eric Garner thing was absolutely unacceptable, and it's insane that nothing is ever gonna come of it, but come the gently caress on, cops need to use force sometimes, and people who work at stores need to prevent some shithead junkie from stealing all their poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Riven posted:The bigger issue is that he didn't need to be cuffed. One major part of my training is essentially invoking the Serenity Prayer. "Do I absolutely have to stop this student from wandering the halls?" The cops making these mistakes basically need to take a goddamn breath and center themselves before reacting. Actually, it's ok to let someone be belligerent for awhile, because they will tire themselves and calm down. A lot of cops seem to have no idea about how to de-escalate the situation. They just escalate it until the other person's power level is reached and the cop has more power, which will usually only happen at the physical level. It is the definition of a power trip. Two problems with this. First, you have the luxury of working with children that are known quantities. You're familiar with their issues and have a pretty good idea that none of them have guns or knives concealed on their person. I don't think you can use "non-harmful techniques" to restrain a fully grown adult who is intent not on a temper tantrum but on harming you physically. I think you'd be crazy to try such a thing on a stranger you encountered less than a minute ago. Second, the police are not caregivers; their role is to maintain public order. If someone is walking out of a liquor store with a bottle they didn't pay for, you can't expect the owner to "wait for them to get it out of their system." Similarly, if a stranger is trampling through my front garden and yelling about The Revelation, I should not be expected to let them crush my flowers until they come down from their high or their psychotic episode resolves or whatever. I expect the police to remove that person whether they want to go or not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Second, the police are not caregivers; their role is to maintain public order.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:Man, the Eric Garner thing was absolutely unacceptable, and it's insane that nothing is ever gonna come of it, but come the gently caress on, cops need to use force sometimes, and people who work at stores need to prevent some shithead junkie from stealing all their poo poo. Is this really the only thing you took away from such a thoughtful post?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
Slipknot Hoagie posted:That makes perfect sense. Like when your toddler is out of control and one parent says yes and the other says no it just undermines the parent that says no. There needs to be consensus. This example is nothing like the excessive force example. For one thing, adults are not toddlers - and another, the police have already lost control and authority as soon as they step over the lines and use excessive force. After that, people do what they say out of fear (which is not authority) - or retaliate through direct assault or later riots. An officer reprimanding a colleague would be removing the colleagues authority but gaining back for themselves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 03:05 |
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:In this situation which would you say was more detrimental to public order, a man selling loose cigarettes or the police killing that man? This isn't a useful post and is more just an attempt to shut down a valid point. You do not need to support the cop who killed Garner to point out that Riven's argument has a serious problem. The two situations aren't comparable because Riven knows the people he's dealing with which makes it much easier for him than if you stuck a random person in his position.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 23:38
|
|