|
The Locator posted:Texas cop pulls over 76 year old man because the cop didn't understand that dealer plates are exempt (no inspection sticker), and then tries to grab a paper out of the guys hand, and when unsuccessful (because old dudes don't give a gently caress and aren't going to take poo poo from a 23 year old punk even if he is a cop), takes the old man down and tazes him. Twice. YouTube says the video is disabled. Bit think clearly, this is important: Was the old man white?
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 07:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 12:03 |
|
|
PhilippAchtel posted:YouTube says the video is disabled. Bit think clearly, this is important:
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 07:41
|
|
|
PhilippAchtel posted:YouTube says the video is disabled. Bit think clearly, this is important: Video works fine for me when I use that link in a new browser. PhilippAchtel posted:Was the old man white? His hair is! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 07:43
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Freakonomics is full of bullshit you say? Well, I never! Well, I mean it sounds like something that was made up wholesale based on the author's perceptions of 'thug' culture and a few nuggets he might have gleaned from watching scared straight a few times.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 08:10
|
|
|
The Locator posted:Texas cop pulls over 76 year old man because the cop didn't understand that dealer plates are exempt (no inspection sticker), and then tries to grab a paper out of the guys hand, and when unsuccessful (because old dudes don't give a gently caress and aren't going to take poo poo from a 23 year old punk even if he is a cop), takes the old man down and tazes him. Twice. I love the old guy that comes along and starts scolding the officer for what he's doing about halfway through.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 12:20
|
|
|
Misogynist posted:The text at the beginning is explaining what the video is, it's not an error message. Maybe it's a mobile browser thing, but it gives an error message when I try to play it with the YouTube app. It directs me to the right video; it just says it's "not available".
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/16/justice/walmart-shooting-john-crawford/index.html?c=homepage-t The transitive property of police violence. Handcuffing a little girl, interrogating the girlfriend of a innocent man. I wonder how the girlfriend fared after officer liang murdered her boyfriend in front of her.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
DARPA posted:http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/16/justice/walmart-shooting-john-crawford/index.html?c=homepage-t quote:As she cries, the detective appears unconvinced. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
Clearly treating that woman like that (while knowing they killed a man with a toy) was due to their training so they are not responsible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
Radish posted:Clearly treating that woman like that (while knowing they killed a man with a toy) was due to their training so they are not responsible. The interrogator is saying he didn't know the gun was a toy at the time he was interrogating her.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The interrogator is saying he didn't know the gun was a toy at the time he was interrogating her. Sheer incompetence all around then? Well that's comforting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
hobotrashcanfires posted:Sheer incompetence all around then? Well that's comforting. Seriously. What's the use of interrogating someone when the most basic evidence (the gun supposedly used by offender) isn't known by the officer. Even if he didn't know what's the point of trying and freaking her out with threats because she looked like she was on drugs (bullshit)? It's obviously CYA procedure since why on earth would you start interrogating the girlfriend of a man that was shot with a toy gun in the first place?? Police use incompetence as an excuse for their malevolence getting away with stuff way too much. "I didn't mean to do that, I'm just such an idiot, people die from my mistakes." "Ok, no problem!" Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Dec 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
Radish posted:Seriously. What's the use of interrogating someone when the most basic evidence (the gun supposedly used by offender) isn't known by the officer. Even if he didn't know what's the point of trying and freaking her out with threats because she looked like she was on drugs (bullshit)? It's obviously CYA procedure since why on earth would you start interrogating the girlfriend of a man that was shot with a toy gun in the first place?? Yeah, it's really hard not to assume that's bullshit and they were trying to get anything incriminating that might begin to justify what happened, or tarnish his reputation. Hell, she wasn't even there with him, just on the phone. Hell, it wasn't even just Crawford who died, a woman had a heart attack and died too. If he didn't know, that was surely by design of the others involved. You think ol' 911 calling hero Ronald Ritchie got interrogated like that? Or interrogated at all?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
It's like when they didn't intercept the drug mule package being delivered to the Maryland mayor's house in time and his mother in law accidentally picked it up and they stormed in and shot his dogs. Their immediate action was to ransack the house even though they knew the people living there were patsies and had nothing to do with it. Cops are all about CYA first when they gently caress up and if people get hurt, their property destroyed, or ruined as a result oh well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
It should have been pretty easy to figure out the gun was fake, it would have still had the price tag on it. Of course, the cops would have had to take the time and *look* which they weren't willing to do before they killed Crawford so I guess it wasn't worth bothering to look at *after* he was shot, either. "Just tag it and bag it"
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
I'm sure they knew afterwards, but they had to create the illusion that they were justified in their killing long enough for the media narrative of "Cops heroically stopping spree shooter before any casualties" to get out there before the truth in order for people to be purposely misinformed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
bassguitarhero posted:It should have been pretty easy to figure out the gun was fake, it would have still had the price tag on it. According to the police, the gun had been originally packaged in a box and had been removed. There would have been no price tag on the gun.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:According to the police, the gun had been originally packaged in a box and had been removed. There would have been no price tag on the gun. So maybe we can swap out their assault rifles with toys and save lives, and they'll never be the wiser.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:Well, I mean it sounds like something that was made up wholesale based on the author's perceptions of 'thug' culture and a few nuggets he might have gleaned from watching scared straight a few times. He's fairly famous for doing sociological research on gang culture and actually interacting with gang members. There's questions over whether he has embellished some of that research but I don't think anyone disputes he has considerable experience of interacting with low ranking urban criminals such as those featured in the article or The Wire. Jack of Hearts posted:Herc and Carver didn't accidentally steal money, they found bundles of cash in a stash house and stuffed them behind in their vests. In the last season, there was a cop who straight-up robbed a kid for his chain. McNulty ackowleged that he was an rear end in a top hat, but it was in the context that they worked separate beats, and there was no way for McNulty to do anything about it. The bad beat cop that appeared in the last two seasons seemed more of a reaction to criticism that the cops were so clearly shown to be good guys prior to that. Even then they serve as something as a contrast to the virtuous rule bending of the other police characters. The police brutality is shown in general to be justified, Bodie gets beaten up but we know he is a criminal that beat up Bubble's friend at that point, Kima beats on the kid because they attacked first and so on. By contrast politicians are shown to be so corrupt Sabotka has to smuggle drugs to get the bribes necessary for genuine improvements for the docks, journalists so ignorant they don't know who major figures in the underworld are and the lying journalist promoted and rewarded while McNulty and Freamon are drummed out for the same lies etc etc. As I said though, I don't think the show was pro-cop, just that it was much milder on the police than the other strata of Baltimore. Thus Wendell Pierce being murdered by a police would've been jarring to fans of The Wire who may have given a quite a positive view of the police away from the show.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
Radish posted:Police use incompetence as an excuse for their malevolence getting away with stuff way too much. Police being incompetent is now enshrined as totally fine by SCOTUS, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Yeah sorry RGB but Sotomayor is the new sheriff in town.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
hobotrashcanfires posted:Hell, she wasn't even there with him, just on the phone. This was his girlfiend, who was in the store. Crawford was on the phone with his ex-gf.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Py-O-My posted:This was his girlfiend, who was in the store. Crawford was on the phone with his ex-gf. Ah, didn't realize that was the case, had never seen mention of him being there with someone even. Not that it justifies any bit of her interrogation or that they were so incompetent to not only shoot a man holding a toy on sight, but also supposedly unable to even examine the object they shot him for holding.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
I'm genuinely torn on this. On one hand, "the officer pulled over a dark grey sedan when the APB was for a dark blue sedan, therefore the trunk full of illegal machine guns can't be used against my client" is an absurd outcome, but on the other hand, the fact that the courts keep moving the line on what constitutes a "reasonable" police mistake means that there is essentially no remedy when an officer conducts an unjustified search.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
It also seems extremely straightforward that if the police are allowed to make an illegal search when they "forget" the rules, they're allowed to make an illegal search.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:It also seems extremely straightforward that if the police are allowed to make an illegal search when they "forget" the rules, they're allowed to make an illegal search. That's not the holding of that case, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
Kalman posted:That's not the holding of that case, though. I apologize for misunderstanding the case, then, but it seemed as though they were saying that if probable cause for a search arises entirely out of a misunderstanding of the law then the search is still valid. Seems as though an officer can always, then, justify a search.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
The basic gist of that case is that police in NC had been pulling people over for having broken taillights for years and nobody had ever challenged it before, so the officer was acting in good faith when he pulled that guy over, so the stop was legitimate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
deratomicdog posted:The basic gist of that case is that police in NC had been pulling people over for having broken taillights for years and nobody had ever challenged it before, so the officer was acting in good faith when he pulled that guy over, so the stop was legitimate. Now we understand the real reason why cops aren't indicted for shooting unarmed citizens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:I apologize for misunderstanding the case, then, but it seemed as though they were saying that if probable cause for a search arises entirely out of a misunderstanding of the law then the search is still valid. Seems as though an officer can always, then, justify a search. The key words are "objectively reasonable misunderstanding", meaning that what the officer who screwed up thought the law meant is essentially irrelevant. What matters is what your hypothetical reasonably good (officer or judge, it's not clear who just yet) would have understood the law to mean in that situation. If they would have misunderstood, and misunderstood in the same way as the officer, then it's okay. And the specific law in question really was unclear (are brake lights stop lamps, rear lights, or both? There's good arguments for each of those categories and it was only decided when the guy appealed the issue). I mean, like most 4th Amendment stuff the way it's applied will determine how much it matters, but my suspicion is that it isn't going to have much impact since most officers are going to have a perfectly legit reason to make a pretextual stop anyways. Even if an officer wanted to game the system it's a lot easier to game it by waiting for someone to do some minor thing indisputably wrong than to get into a dispute about whether it was objectively reasonable to interpret the law the way it was interpreted by the officer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
In the specific case that was brought to the Supreme Court the person actually consented (or was not aware that they could withhold their consent) to the search in question, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
prom candy posted:In the specific case that was brought to the Supreme Court the person actually consented (or was not aware that they could withhold their consent) to the search in question, right? That's correct. Although, had the officer not been wrong about the law there wouldn't have been a legal stop to ask for consent during. Edit: I wish I could get police burden of proof: quote:The Contra Costa County District Attorney's Office has been investigating since the case came to its attention earlier this year but is not inclined to file charges, said Robin Lipetzky, the county's chief public defender. According to Lipetzky, the decision likely stems from evidence not strong enough to produce a conviction. Now before you call me a drug warrior, this cop stole evidence, lied about it, and was later found with said evidence but will not be charged with a crime. Ignore the fact it was several pounds of weed (and that even in California that much weed could send you to prison). Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 07:06 on Dec 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
It was a non-violent drug crime, I think we can all agree this is the sort of thing that prosecutors should ignore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It was a non-violent drug crime, I think we can all agree this is the sort of thing that prosecutors should ignore. So you really think there should be no legal punishment for police stealing evidence just because they stole drugs? Sorry! Poe's law lives in this thread. \/ Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 07:30 on Dec 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 07:24
|
|
|
No, it was a sarcastic pisstake on AreWeDrunkYet's insistence earlier in the thread that prosecuting any non-violent drug crime was fundamentally immoral.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:No, it was a sarcastic pisstake on AreWeDrunkYet's insistence earlier in the thread that prosecuting any non-violent drug crime was fundamentally immoral. Oh come on. That'd be criminal regardless of whether or not it involved drugs, and you know it. Fairly certain AWDY's point is about crimes that only exist because of drugs, not existing crimes that also involve drugs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 09:27
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:No, it was a sarcastic pisstake on AreWeDrunkYet's insistence earlier in the thread that prosecuting any non-violent drug crime was fundamentally immoral. Cops mishandling evidence is a serious crime regardless of what evidence they stole. The fact that it was marijuana is incidental. Which you know full well. But the reality is that cop-supporters are going to support cops regardless of whatever they do, which is yet another reason why American police should be subjected to federalization. I'd suggest beginning to do so by tying federal law enforcement funds to federal oversight. Do the exact same procedure that we've done with highways and schools and everything else. If cops want our money, they can play by our rules. Kaal fucked around with this message at 09:37 on Dec 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 09:34
|
|
|
8-1 ruling, jesus christ. quote:He dismissed the refrain “ignorance of the law is no excuse” as a maxim with “rhetorical appeal,” but not worthy of the court’s serious consideration, at least not when it comes to investigatory stops. “[J]ust because mistakes of law cannot justify either the imposition or the avoidance of criminal liability, it does not follow that they cannot justify an investigatory stop,” he writes. "The law only applies if we're not trying to find something to arrest you for."
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 11:16
|
|
|
Pomp posted:8-1 ruling, jesus christ. It's ok no one actually read the entire decision except for the little excerpts that fit the narrative because oh boy there'd be nothing to post about.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 11:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 12:03 |
|
|
I don't really get why anyone would try to pull the bad apple defense against the plainclothes infiltration/interference in protests. Cops do that poo poo all the time, particularly here in Europe, and you can't just act like it's a sad coincidence - The foremost duty of police forces are the protection of the state, and they regard protest interference as a legitimate tactic to that end. Either you're for police doing what they're trained and ordered to do, or you're not - pussyfooting around one tactic that they themselves consider acceptable really doesn't make sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 11:42
|
|
