|
I guess this pertains to this thread, too. http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/08/19/338895262/mental-health-cops-help-reweave-social-safety-net-in-san-antonio quote:It's almost 4 p.m., and police officers Ernest Stevens and Ned Bandoske have been driving around town in their unmarked black SUV since early this morning. The officers are part of San Antonio's mental health squad — a six-person unit that answers the frequent emergency calls where mental illness may be an issue.
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 12:09 |
|
|
zzyzx posted:Criminal charges would probably require that he knew his statements were false at the time and made them anyway This is demonstrably the case. Have you watched the surveillance video and listened to the 911 call? Either Ronald Ritchie was in the middle of a wild hallucinatory episode when he made that call or he was knowingly lying his rear end off. Also he later admitted that he was lying his rear end off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 08:47
|
|
|
Sam Hall posted:This is demonstrably the case. Have you watched the surveillance video and listened to the 911 call? Either Ronald Ritchie was in the middle of a wild hallucinatory episode when he made that call or he was knowingly lying his rear end off. Also he later admitted that he was lying his rear end off. It wouldn't really matter because there's still a whole host of other obstacles to charging him, like articulating exactly what law he broke.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 09:05
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It wouldn't really matter because there's still a whole host of other obstacles to charging him, like articulating exactly what law he broke. Arguably, Involuntary Manslaughter (based on Ohio's version of making a knowingly false report) or Reckless Homicide, both depending on how Ohio courts view proximate cause - how they treat it for felony murder would be a good starting point to get that answer. pertinent statutes
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 09:35
|
|
|
In a world where police there were consequences for bad acts by the police, they'd probably jump on Richie to derail a special prosecutor by scapegoating him. But if getting results would be tricky and there won't be any consequences for not prosecuting, why would the DA care?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 09:53
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It wouldn't really matter because there's still a whole host of other obstacles to charging him, like articulating exactly what law he broke. 2917.32 Making false alarms Interestingly although it goes all the way up to third degree felony depending on how much economic harm was caused, it doesn't seem to have anything to say about people getting killed harm. So uh, I guess the decision weather or not to actually charge him with anything's probably going to mainly pivot on how much the store's business was disrupted? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 10:15
|
|
|
Sam Hall posted:This is demonstrably the case. Have you watched the surveillance video and listened to the 911 call? Either Ronald Ritchie was in the middle of a wild hallucinatory episode when he made that call or he was knowingly lying his rear end off. Also he later admitted that he was lying his rear end off. quote:Wright said that in the video, no other customers appeared to pay much notice to Crawford and the BB gun. But Ritchie said he felt threatened by Crawford, as did his wife, leading to the 911 call. Ritchie was the only person to call 911 from the Walmart. Relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTXYwBqXbcA
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 11:37
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
No they probably don't but I never said they should. "Dead Reckoning" posted:or to babysit every single junkie through multi-hour manic episodes? They probably don't, but society needs someone who can. If the cops decide (or society demands) that they should deal with junkies or other mentally I'll people, then they should have the training and resources to do so. dead reckoning posted:Also, I never said that the cops should shoot the dude for trampling my flowers, just that the police remove the trespasser whether he wants to go or not, because respecting my dignity means not trespassing on my home and destroying my property. I shouldn’t have to wait for the trespasser to decide they’re finished. Dignity is not dependant on flowers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 11:43
|
|
Do you think the police really have the resources to follow every single shoplifter until they decide to return the merchandise,
|
Man what the gently caress are you even talking about? Yea, it'd be nice if all countries were like Norway where they give a poo poo about people and help them out so that they don't end up homeless and wander around loving people's poo poo up for no reason, but they're not. In the real world if you can't stop yourself from trespassing on vandalising and stealing other people's property then you should be taken away by the cops, because there's nobody else who's gonna do it. I'm sure you understand how stupid it is to say that any given persons personal property and safety don't actually matter if there's a drug addict or mentally ill person around, so I can only assume this is some kind of fakepost or something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 11:54
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:Man what the gently caress are you even talking about? Yea, it'd be nice if all countries were like Norway where they give a poo poo about people and help them out so that they don't end up homeless and wander around loving people's poo poo up for no reason, but they're not. In the real world if you can't stop yourself from trespassing on vandalising and stealing other people's property then you should be taken away by the cops, because there's nobody else who's gonna do it. D&D sometimes forgets, especially in the context of threads discussing criminal justice topics, that there are routinely other people party to a given situation that also have rights. Like a property owner to not have a trespasser, or a store owner to not have shoplifter, or even someone walking down a sidewalk during a protest just trying to get from point A to point B being allowed to pass unobstructed. It shouldn't take mental gymnastics to see the other side of a situation like that, but for some folks it does.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 12:13
|
|
|
Untagged posted:D&D sometimes forgets that there are routinely other people
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 13:42
|
|
|
*contentedly thinks of all the families they've separated for the holidays*
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Arguably, The problem is, as I think was pointed out, that it requires the caller to have reasonably foreseen the police were just gonna roll up and blow the guy away instead of handling it properly. Which despite I'm sure people in this thread will jump to "that should be a given", it really isn't at all. Also it would put the prosecutor in the amusing position of having to argue that not only are the police so inept that they don't own agency over their own actions, but this is obviously the case to the point the public at large should be reasonably aware of it. Even then... unless there's some way to define proximate cause in a contributory way in Ohio it seems really hard to get over the hump that this poo poo sandwich belongs to the cops.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 14:59
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:I'm sure you understand how stupid it is to say that any given persons personal property and safety don't actually matter if there's a drug addict or mentally ill person around, so I can only assume this is some kind of fakepost or something. Untagged posted:D&D sometimes forgets, especially in the context of threads discussing criminal justice topics, that there are routinely other people party to a given situation that also have rights. Like a property owner to not have a trespasser, or a store owner to not have shoplifter, or even someone walking down a sidewalk during a protest just trying to get from point A to point B being allowed to pass unobstructed. It shouldn't take mental gymnastics to see the other side of a situation like that, but for some folks it does. I'm sure it's totally unintentional that both of you are failing to distinguish between property rights and bodily harm. If someone is threatening your personal safety, of course the police should physically intervene with the least amount of force possible to end that threat. But your property rights do not (to be fair, it is 'should not' rather than 'do not' under the current state of affairs) supersede anyone's rights to continue breathing. If someone running out of a store with a DVD player can't be apprehended without a violent tackle or tasering, it's better to just let it go, give the store manager a police report to file with insurance, and then attempt to identify (security footage, witnesses) and peacefully apprehend (knock on his door, flag his plates and pull him over) the suspect. If some mentally ill person is trampling your flowers (the original issue that you were responding to), the role of the police should be to try to talk him down, issue a citation (mail it if the person isn't cooperating), get in touch with mental health professionals who may be able to provide specialized help, and yes, even babysit him to make sure that the situation does not escalate beyond the flowers. I don't see why anyone should give enough of a poo poo about your flowers to create a violent situation where there wasn't one before. Unfortunately cops tend to have no compunction about escalating a situation, so it's a lot more likely that they will run up guns drawn, bark a bunch of orders at a person who may or may not be capable of immediately understanding and following them, proceed to beat the poo poo out of him for not complying instantly, then haul him off to jail.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:Man what the gently caress are you even talking about? Yea, it'd be nice if all countries were like Norway where they give a poo poo about people and help them out so that they don't end up homeless and wander around loving people's poo poo up for no reason, but they're not. In the real world if you can't stop yourself from trespassing on vandalising and stealing other people's property then you should be taken away by the cops, because there's nobody else who's gonna do it. Untagged posted:D&D sometimes forgets, especially in the context of threads discussing criminal justice topics, that there are routinely other people party to a given situation that also have rights. Like a property owner to not have a trespasser, or a store owner to not have shoplifter, or even someone walking down a sidewalk during a protest just trying to get from point A to point B being allowed to pass unobstructed. It shouldn't take mental gymnastics to see the other side of a situation like that, but for some folks it does. If cops were really concerned with lives they would get their poo poo together and protect Officers who uphold and obey the law & punish those that don't. But people like yourself who fight against reform basically are just begging for citizens to arm themselves and protect themselves from cops who think they can just act any way they want, forgetting people have second amendment rights after all. Though the good news is that if every Person of Color & Woman was armed you would have alot less chickenshit cops harassing people if they know someone could put a bullet between their beady little eyes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
Lol at middle class white dnd posters not understanding that strong property rights are needed for society to function. Yes if someone steals your tv you can just have daddy buy you a new one no big deal. That store owner absolutely can't have people shoplifting without consequence. First his insurance will go up to the point of being unaffordable if he keeps filing claims. Second there are people who will rob him blind and not give a poo poo about a summons in the mail. Third even if the perp is caught, the property may never be recovered. Most stores have tight margins and can't obsorb that cost.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
WorldsStrongestNerd posted:Lol at middle class white dnd posters not understanding that strong property rights are needed for society to function. Yes if someone steals your tv you can just have daddy buy you a new one no big deal. That store owner absolutely can't have people shoplifting without consequence. First his insurance will go up to the point of being unaffordable if he keeps filing claims. Second there are people who will rob him blind and not give a poo poo about a summons in the mail. Third even if the perp is caught, the property may never be recovered. Most stores have tight margins and can't obsorb that cost. Yea, this is pretty much the gist of it. I can only assume that certain posters just have never actually had to go to a poo poo neighborhood for a short visit, much less ever live or work in one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
WorldsStrongestNerd posted:Lol at middle class white dnd posters not understanding that strong property rights are needed for society to function. Yes if someone steals your tv you can just have daddy buy you a new one no big deal. That store owner absolutely can't have people shoplifting without consequence. First his insurance will go up to the point of being unaffordable if he keeps filing claims. Second there are people who will rob him blind and not give a poo poo about a summons in the mail. Third even if the perp is caught, the property may never be recovered. Most stores have tight margins and can't obsorb that cost. I'm utterly confused by people's inability to extrapolate the results of a single occurrence into consequences resulting from making that single occurrence systemic. I'm also thoroughly confused by people who hold rights to be absolute with no respect to circumstance despite managing the interaction and compromise between competing rights being one of the foundational purposes of society.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
WorldsStrongestNerd posted:Lol at middle class white dnd posters quote:Yes if someone steals your tv you can just have daddy buy you a new one no big deal. That store owner absolutely can't have people shoplifting without consequence. First his insurance will go up to the point of being unaffordable if he keeps filing claims. Second there are people who will rob him blind and not give a poo poo about a summons in the mail. Third even if the perp is caught, the property may never be recovered. Most stores have tight margins and can't obsorb that cost.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
And why is this being brought up in the police reform thread?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
tezcat posted:Do you or have you actually work in any kind of retail? It's pretty dishonest to think there is no protection from shrinkage other than insurance and armed retaliation. Yea, it's when you call the cops and they come haul away some idiot junkie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It wouldn't really matter because there's still a whole host of other obstacles to charging him, like articulating exactly what law he broke. What law is involved when they charge somebody with 'swatting?' Wouldn't that work?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
tezcat posted:
Not true. If more minorities were armed and ready to defend themselves from cops, police departments would move to become even more militarized. poo poo, that's the justification for it NOW, despite falling police mortality rates. Being a cop is actually safer than ever, but the call for more heavy handed tactics is ongoing. For example, rather than setting up a fair distance away from Tamir Rice, ascertaining his intent and assessing the situation, they rolled right up on the gazebo and blew him away with minimal (if any) warning. Their first act of engagement was to shoot. This is justified by the imaginary danger that officers were in, because we all know how dangerous America is because of guns in everyone's hands.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
anonumos posted:Not true. If more minorities were armed and ready to defend themselves from cops, police departments would move to become even more militarized. poo poo, that's the justification for it NOW, despite falling police mortality rates. Being a cop is actually safer than ever, but the call for more heavy handed tactics is ongoing. For example, rather than setting up a fair distance away from Tamir Rice, ascertaining his intent and assessing the situation, they rolled right up on the gazebo and blew him away with minimal (if any) warning. Their first act of engagement was to shoot. This is justified by the imaginary danger that officers were in, because we all know how dangerous America is because of guns in everyone's hands. To be fair, the Tamir Rice situation is much more about the Vet cop being an idiot and driving right up on him combined with the Rookie being a idiot manchild who panicked and should have never been allowed a gun or a badge in the first place then it is about heavy handed tactics and militarization.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:To be fair, the Tamir Rice situation is much more about the Vet cop being an idiot and driving right up on him combined with the Rookie being a idiot manchild who panicked and should have never been allowed a gun or a badge in the first place then it is about heavy handed tactics and militarization. "Bad apples"? loving come on, man.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
anonumos posted:"Bad apples"? loving come on, man. what?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
anonumos posted:poo poo, that's the justification for it NOW. Only thing your conservative white male loves more than cops are guns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:what? I think he's referring to leaving out the 'spoils the bunch' part of the quote. The systematic issue that people are up in arms about, and that is coming up again with the Tamir Rice situation, isn't that some poorly screened dumbass shot a kid. It's that some poorly screened dumbass shot a kid, then the rest of the department closed ranks and vehemently defended said dumbass for shooting a kid and the state attorney's office is (probably) going to let the dumbass get away with it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:I think he's referring to leaving out the 'spoils the bunch' part of the quote. The systematic issue that people are up in arms about, and that is coming up again with the Tamir Rice situation, isn't that some poorly screened dumbass shot a kid. It's that some poorly screened dumbass shot a kid, then the rest of the department closed ranks and vehemently defended said dumbass for shooting a kid and the state attorney's office is (probably) going to let the dumbass get away with it. The whole thing is just loving tragic, the reports on the guy make him sound mentally ill, and the video makes sure seem like authentic panic the way the idiot falls on his rear end then scrambles across the ground to get away. I blame the department more for giving that guy a badge and a gun more than I blame the guy. The guy who drove up so close is at fault too, but criminally? I mean he should be disciplined for incompetency, but I'm not really sure he should be expected to anticipate that his partner was going to freak out and shoot a 12 year old.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
Interestingly enough, one of the only ways to get a concealed carry permit in NY is to carry large sums of money or jewelry with you. Simply wanting to preserve your life from mortal threat is not enough, you have to demonstrate that you are carrying valuables. So money is worth more than human life, and worth much more when it comes to certain kinds of humans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
Slipknot Hoagie posted:Interestingly enough, one of the only ways to get a concealed carry permit in NY is to carry large sums of money or jewelry with you. Simply wanting to preserve your life from mortal threat is not enough, you have to demonstrate that you are carrying valuables. So money is worth more than human life, and worth much more when it comes to certain kinds of humans. Or just perhaps the people carrying valuable sums of money, such as couriers, are the ones who face somekind of risk?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Slipknot Hoagie posted:Interestingly enough, one of the only ways to get a concealed carry permit in NY is to carry large sums of money or jewelry with you. Simply wanting to preserve your life from mortal threat is not enough, you have to demonstrate that you are carrying valuables. So money is worth more than human life, and worth much more when it comes to certain kinds of humans. Or maybe its because those people are at higher risk because they're targets? edit:gently caress, beaten
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Ok but if you are a target, you just give up the goods and walk away right. It's the money they want.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
Slipknot Hoagie posted:Ok but if you are a target, you just give up the goods and walk away right. It's the money they want. Correct, and people who professionally transport valuables are taught to do exactly that. The gun is because their physical safety is more likely to be threatened as a result of carrying valuables, not to protect the valuables.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
That sounds good on paper, but in reality the gun is to protect the valuables. And that is how it will be used by the person.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:*contentedly thinks of all the families they've separated for the holidays* yes, that's exactly right. You know, it takes a particularly warped view of the world to see a prosecutor as the monster and a convicted murderer or pederast as the victim.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:yes, that's exactly right. I view both the perpetrator and the victim as victims of the shortcomings of the society. It's not very warped.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:yes, that's exactly right. That is a topic that is far bigger than "we side with the criminal". You're brushing aside many issues to reduce your debate opponents' arguments into absurdity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:You know, it takes a particularly warped view of the world to see a prosecutor as the monster and a convicted murderer or pederast as the victim. This coming from the same person who has repeatedly defended prison sentences for non-violent drug offenders in this very thread?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 12:09 |
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:This coming from the same person who has repeatedly defended prison sentences for non-violent drug offenders in this very thread? I seem to recall saying that for most simple possession cases, diversionary programs were more appropriate than incarceration. I also seem to recall stating repeatedly that I was not opposed to legalization of most narcotics. But by all means, argue against the point you wish I had made, not the point I actually made...
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 21:02
|
|