|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:Wait, I thought this was a reminder that patrol officers should be disarmed completely Pretty much this. "Lock the gun in a compartment in the car" just means "Cops will take it out every time they get out of their car until they're just not expected to put it in the compartment anyway." The only way to deal with gun violence is to remove the guns.
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 06:32 |
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:Wait, I thought this was a reminder that patrol officers should be disarmed completely There are rare occasions when deadly force is necessary and armed backup may be some time away. It makes sense to have a shotgun or rifle locked in the center console or trunk of the car. The point is to make it so that it requires a conscious decision (and after the fact justification) to introduce deadly force into a situation. bassguitarhero posted:Pretty much this. "Lock the gun in a compartment in the car" just means "Cops will take it out every time they get out of their car until they're just not expected to put it in the compartment anyway." The only way to deal with gun violence is to remove the guns. Require written justification for unlocking the gun and I don't think it would happen as often as you assume it would.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Just another reminder that police guns really should be in a locked compartment in their patrol cars. To open the boxes you'd have to ace a quiz on how to deescalate a situation with a minority involved.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Since my choice is basically zero unions, with a very weak teacher's union and an insanely strong police union, or no unions, I choose no unions. My father works for the City of Everett (WA), and the Police and Fire unions regularly support the Public Works union.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:There are rare occasions when deadly force is necessary and armed backup may be some time away. It makes sense to have a shotgun or rifle locked in the center console or trunk of the car. The point is to make it so that it requires a conscious decision (and after the fact justification) to introduce deadly force into a situation. Police are running around killing people and not even having to fill out police reports so I'm not going to place any faith in a "written justification for unlocking the gun" system. None of that would matter or be followed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:There are rare occasions when deadly force is necessary and armed backup may be some time away. It makes sense to have a shotgun or rifle locked in the center console or trunk of the car. The point is to make it so that it requires a conscious decision (and after the fact justification) to introduce deadly force into a situation. We had a numbered plastic tag seal on the shotgun in our cruisers. The number on the seal had to be listed on your log sheet, and if it was broken or missing, you reported it to your supervisor. Discrepencies resulted in unpaid days off. Same with the plastic tag seal on the box in the trunk that held the pepperball gun and taser, and (before we replaced them with a DVR system) on the box in the trunk that had the VCR for the cruisercam. Low tech and cheap solutions exist, as long as enforcement of the policy occurs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Given the low numbers, I wouln't be surprised if it was the SF version of reserve deputies; a way for the people who know the right people to get a badge for the purpose of exercising privileges given to Law Enforcement Officers. It's not though, SFPD reserves are a different thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Police_Department#San_Francisco_Police_Reserve_Officers edit: here's an interesting article that talks about the problems between them and the SFPD: http://www.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisc...ent?oid=2827468 Rah! fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Rah! posted:It's not though, SFPD reserves are a different thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Police_Department#San_Francisco_Police_Reserve_Officers I dug through the SF city webpage and found this faq: http://sf-police.org/index.aspx?page=1695 quote:WHAT IS A PATROL SPECIAL OFFICER? They're basically old school private police/security that work on a system where the officer buys the right to provide services to any interested customers in an area.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I dug through the SF city webpage and found this faq: http://sf-police.org/index.aspx?page=1695 It's kind of confusing that they're not part of the SFPD and are not considered law enforcement officers (anymore), yet they have to report to the SFPD whenever they go on patrol, are regulated by the SF police commission, have police uniforms, guns/cuffs/batons/badges etc, and have patches that say "San Francisco Police".
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Wow look at that hate crime.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Speaking of police incompetence, an officer in Kauai responding to a hit-and-run ran over the victim by mistake. http://thegardenisland.com/news/local/man-dies-after-being-hit-by-kpd/article_56be88f2-948b-11e4-b557-1736a1d36a29.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Misogynist posted:Speaking of police incompetence, an officer in Kauai responding to a hit-and-run ran over the victim by mistake. Hey, at least he didn't shoot him by mistake! http://sfappeal.com/2011/09/update-sfpd-shoot-innocent-bystanders-when-firing-at-suspect-in-drug-deal/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/25/empire-state-building-shooting-nypd-bullets-shot-all-nine_n_1830007.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Officer slips on banana peel; executes woman. All because a dog startled him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
DARPA posted:All because a dog startled him. Are civilians with legal guns allowed to draw down everytime someones dog scares them or is that a cops only thing? It strikes me as odd that this is such a regular thing it only gets mentioned in passing in a story like this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:Are civilians with legal guns allowed to draw down everytime someones dog scares them or is that a cops only thing? It strikes me as odd that this is such a regular thing it only gets mentioned in passing in a story like this. Some police group claimed that dogs are immune to pepper spray, thus shooting them is the first and only deterrent to muddy paw prints and dog slobber. Of course a bunch of veterinarians did a study, and the results were "lol of course pepper spray works on dogs you dumbasses." DARPA posted:Officer slips on banana peel; executes woman. There are some stupid posts in the comments but overall they're encouraging.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:Are civilians with legal guns allowed to draw down everytime someones dog scares them or is that a cops only thing? It strikes me as odd that this is such a regular thing it only gets mentioned in passing in a story like this. Basically the same rules as with respect to self defense against humans, usually. There was a Washington state court case on exactly this issue recently. E: that said, shooting a dog is probably going to get you less sympathy from jurors than shooting a black person.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
As if a police officer would face a jury for killing a black person.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
Has this been posted? http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/6/police-union-presses-feds-for-hate-crime-protectio/ The Washington Times posted:By Cheryl K. Chumley - The Washington Times - Tuesday, January 6, 2015 I don't know whether to laugh at how loving stupid these people are that they don't know what the hell "protected minority" means and why discrimination laws exist, or to cry for the same reason, or to be scared of the fact that they're directly seeking a weapon to use to destroy the lives of anyone who expresses anything a court decides is "anti police sentiments" I mean, the flow chart is directly 1) Criticize police 2) Get noticed by police you criticize 3) Forced confrontation 4) Hate crime charge (if you survive the encounter with police) It says in the article that a significant portion of police deaths have been because of ambush attacks. I'm genuinely curious how many of the people who ambushed police actually made it to trial. This push seems to me to be clearly made as a way to retaliate against citizen pressure by indiscriminately destroying the lives of anyone who criticizes police. I've googled a few articles and so far they all seem to say that these people want any attack on any officer to be a hate crime, but I'm sure that if this push survives as more than just stupid blustery statements by police the push is going to end up specifying that there has to be proof of "hate motive" like there has to be in a normal hate crime, which is going to mean that the legislation they are pushing for serves literally no purpose other than creating a new felony they can charge people with if they have any form of court admissible evidence that the person held any form of "anti police bias" or whatever. TheSpiritFox fucked around with this message at 06:02 on Jan 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
I'm sick of people getting off with a slap on the wrist for murdering or assaulting the police! This happens all the time!
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 09:31
|
|
|
Oh jeez, this sucks. WARNING AUTOPLAYING VIDEO: Fatal crash victim was John Crawford's girlfriend quote:DAYTON, Ohio (WKRC/WKEF) -- Two people died after a fatal car crash on New Year's Day. One of the victims was Tasha Thomas, the girlfriend of John Crawford III, who was fatally shot by police at a Beavercreek Walmart. Police believe excessive speed was the cause. The crash happened on North Broadway Street between Holt Street and Edgewood Avenue just after 3 p.m. Witnesses told Dayton Police that the driver was headed south at an excessive rate of speed, between 90 and 100 miles per hour. The driver then crashed into an RTA pole, which caused the driver's side of the car to be sheered off, and the car to flip several times. Thomas and the driver, Frederick Bailey of Dayton, were then ejected from the car. "When I came over the one lady was still breathing," said Lewis, "I tried to use a towel to cover her up but the police got here and the ambulance was already here." "This is a very delicate scene, very troubling scene with being the holiday and two people passed away on the holiday at a careless act of excessive speed," said Sgt. Coleman. Police were not able to determine if both victims were wearing seat belts because of the state of the wreckage. Thomas had been interrogated by police following Crawford's death. She had been at the Walmart with Crawford, who was from Fairfield.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 11:41
|
|
|
In more horrifying news, Cleveland police have released the extended surveillance tape of the aftermath of the Tamir Rice shooting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
Considering the fact that police hardly get charged with any crimes or taken to court for wrongdoing I kind of think that the justice system already treats them as a protected class.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:In more horrifying news, Cleveland police have released the extended surveillance tape of the aftermath of the Tamir Rice shooting. Goddamn, that poor sister... 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
TheSpiritFox posted:Has this been posted? These laws already exist. In my state, Backtalk a cop? Misdemeanor, up to a year in jail. (not a crime against little people) Make a cop think you're going to touch him? Midemeanor, up to 6 months in jail (up to 30 days against little people) Touch a cop? Felony, up to 5 years in prison. (Misdemeanor, up to 90 days in jail against little people) Cause great bodily injury to a cop? 0 to life in prison (0 to 5 years in prison against little people) Kill a cop? Automatically eligible for the death penalty. joat mon fucked around with this message at 16:08 on Jan 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
You choose to be a cop, therefore it cannot be a protected class. If congress adds them to it you might as well throw the whole thing out as it will be worthless
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
bassguitarhero posted:You choose to be a cop, therefore it cannot be a protected class. If congress adds them to it you might as well throw the whole thing out as it will be worthless I wouldn't be entirely surprised if they use it as a back door attempt to do just that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
And the line between police officer and abusive father blurs evermore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
The entire thing is ridiculously offensive when you consider the historical, let alone the current, hand police played in oppressing minorities which required laws they want to get grand fathered into.
Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Jan 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
bassguitarhero posted:You choose to be a cop, therefore it cannot be a protected class. If congress adds them to it you might as well throw the whole thing out as it will be worthless According to this logic, Congress already threw it out the window 50 years ago with the CRA. You can choose to worship. Religion is protected. Choice isn't the sole factor in making the decision of protected classes. OJ MIST 2 THE DICK fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Jan 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:According to this logic, Congress already threw it out the window 50 years ago with the CRA.  That's not going to be treated as equivalent at all because I'm pretty sure most people consider their religious beliefs to not be a matter of choice in nearly the same way as a job.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:
It shouldn't be and I agree completely. The point was that there's more to determining protected classes than it being something you can't choose.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
bassguitarhero posted:You choose to be a cop, therefore it cannot be a protected class. If congress adds them to it you might as well throw the whole thing out as it will be worthless I think this is the byproduct of a frequent misreading of why protected classes are protected classes - it's not that they're immutable necessarily (though many of them are, or are at least determined as much by external assignment than they are by internal identification) so much as society would find it unconscionable to demand that someone suppress or change that identity. This is how religion is covered - it's not that you can't change your faith (at least superficially), but that it would be super hosed up to ask you to do so. Also protected class was replaced with protected classification in the 90s, which doesn't affect hate crime laws at all because they've always been classification-based but is a critical distinction if you go down the rabbit hole of this area of law.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:
Depends if you're Muslim apparently.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:You can choose to worship. Religion is protected. Choice isn't the sole factor in making the decision of protected classes. Freedom of choice vs freedom of conscience. What they are trying to do is argue that "being a cop" is a matter of conscience, not choice. Given how evil and hilariously corrupt cops are that is going to be a . . . tough argument.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
The opinion of most people in power and probably a majority of people that vote is that police are noble heroes who put their lives on the line to make the country a better place so I doubt it will be that hard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
Radish posted:The opinion of most people in power and probably a majority of people that vote is that police are noble heroes who put their lives on the line to make the country a better place so I doubt it will be that hard. I wish there was some long term polling on this. I'd be curious how much, if any, that has become less true in the last 20 years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
joat mon posted:These laws already exist. In my state, Georgia? (guessing) I'm curious about the backtalk one. I know cops can manufacture reasons to arrest you and such pretty easily, but I was under the impression you could tell a cop "gently caress you" and that specific act was not a crime in any way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
In Texas disorderly conduct includes the use of vulgar language in public.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
TheSpiritFox posted:Georgia? (guessing) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_cop
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 06:32 |
|
|
TheSpiritFox posted:Georgia? (guessing) gently caress you can also be articulated as a threat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 06:11
|
|
