|
quote:In 2013, a federal appeals court ruled that giving the finger "alone cannot establish probable cause to believe a disorderly conduct violation has occurred" I bet the judge's opinion on this was pretty funny.
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 07:54 |
|
|
TheSpiritFox posted:I bet the judge's opinion on this was pretty funny. http://www.theonion.com/articles/supreme-court-upholds-freedom-of-speech-in-obsceni,17372/ Probably happened like this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 06:27
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted: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. I would too. I'm basing my opinion off of how even when a cop gets to the point where he is being tried for his crimes, the jury will inevitably let him off regardless of if there is a video of him beating someone to death. It's really clear that the establishment doesn't understand the problem with how cops act (and often gets severely offended if you say there is one) but I'd be interested if the population at large is similar to the types of people that get selected for juries.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
TheSpiritFox posted:Georgia? (guessing) Oklahoma. The backtalk one punishes one who 'delays or obstructs" a police officer. It has been interpreted rather expansively.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/08/watch-montana-officer-in-his-second-exon Obviously a biased source but something seems wrong with his policy and training if he can put himself in a situation where he fears for his life and then shoot anyone who moves the wrong way. Read the updates because the original story makes it sound slightly worse than it is. http://billingsgazette.com/news/loc...72d4bb1b61.html video where he killed another guy, sounds exactly the same. Makes me think he really shouldn't be in stressful situations like this again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Dum Cumpster posted:http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/08/watch-montana-officer-in-his-second-exon
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
Dum Cumpster posted:http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/08/watch-montana-officer-in-his-second-exon  I'M GOING TO SHOOT YOU! I'M GOING TO loving SHOOT YOU! Policing in America, ladies and gentlemen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
"I'm going to shoot you" seems to be that rear end in a top hat's go-to phrase.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Yep, putting body cameras on cops is going to fix everything. I love the part after he shoots the guy. "Shots Fired, Shots loving Fired!" No poo poo, you just shot the guy 3 times. Why don't you yell at him some more and threaten to shoot him again?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Yep, putting body cameras on cops is going to fix everything. I don't think anyone claimed this. But the fact that there's video proof of these things makes it a lot harder for the cops to lie about what happened convincingly enough for middle-class people to think "well maybe he did fear for his life, that other guy does sound like a thug"
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't think anyone claimed this. But the fact that there's video proof of these things makes it a lot harder for the cops to lie about what happened convincingly enough for middle-class people to think "well maybe he did fear for his life, that other guy does sound like a thug" Yeh, it's not like the threat of being caught red-handed will deter bad behavior. It WILL go a long way to dispelling the cop vs. thug myth. When the public is confronted with video evidence, the narrative will shift. I mean, we know it didn't do poo poo legally for Eric Gardner's execution to be filmed, but it did raise a lot more outrage than a hearsay recounting of the incident.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Florida police use sex-crime laws to bait men with no apparent interest in underage trystsquote:You're probably thinking, Wait a minute, I'd run from underage encounters. How could men who were really seeking adult sex partners be groomed to break the law? quote:"In the case of a 27-year-old Cape Coral man ... deputies arrested him even though he didn't even travel to meet a child for sex. Law enforcement officers responded to the man's legal 'casual encounters' Craigslist ad, pretending to be a 14-year-old girl, even though the ad said, 'age for all women must be 18+ no one under email me plz.' The man repeatedly told the undercover detectives that he was 'not OK' with meeting up with an underage girl, but because he didn't immediately end the conversation, he was arrested for utilizing his phone to solicit a sexual act from a child. Detectives went to his house and arrested him as a sexual predator of children." quote:In essence, the police wasted time pursing non-threats to public safety in part to enrich themselves at the expense of people like a 24-year-old man arrested in a January sting, who "had to pay $10,000 cash to get his 2014 Lexus returned ... though all felony charges were later dropped in his case, he will not get the money back for either the negotiated settlement or the fees he paid an attorney to handle the vehicle case." This is yet another illustration of the need for asset forfeiture reform.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
So now that cameras are considered such an UNKNOWN that needs studying and careful consideration, I assume the ones that snap license plates and automatically sends tickets for people taking a right on red will be taken down?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Yep, putting body cameras on cops is going to fix everything. Why do people keep saying this poo poo? You cannot improve any process without being able to measure the status quo. A body camera is your ruler. If people ignore it then you have other issues, but it's not due to the camera not performing well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Yep, putting body cameras on cops is going to fix everything. He uh... He was calling it in. So of course he's going to say that. It's pretty standard even in the most by the book cases.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Why do people keep saying this poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Cole posted:He uh... He was calling it in. So of course he's going to say that. It's pretty standard even in the most by the book cases. I assume that's the nomenclature they use any time shots are fired, be it from the cop or the suspect, but I kind of feel like there should be a distinction between "shots fired at me" and "shots fired from my gun with no response."
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Misogynist posted:All body cameras do is tacitly endorse the idea that bad policing is the result of a few bad apples, rather than them being reflective of systemic issues with the entire criminal justice system. People already don't care about those issues, as evidenced by numerous grand jury rulings and the lack of outrage from White America. And even if body cameras are put on I wonder how many times they'll use the excuse 'I forgot to turn it on' and get nothing beyond a slap on the wrist?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:And even if body cameras are put on I wonder how many times they'll use the excuse 'I forgot to turn it on' and get nothing beyond a slap on the wrist? the crux of this issue is that the only way to get cops to wear body cameras and turn them on is that you have to create a system that holds police accountable for not following the rules which is the whole point of the entire movement in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Misogynist posted:All body cameras do is tacitly endorse the idea that bad policing is the result of a few bad apples, rather than them being reflective of systemic issues with the entire criminal justice system. People already don't care about those issues, as evidenced by numerous grand jury rulings and the lack of outrage from White America. Body cameras don't endorse anything, and you're only going to get people to care about policing issues when you can keep throwing video after video into people's faces. The alternative is to have no way to directly measure what police are doing on the job.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
The more rules and regulations corrupt cops have to workaround the better the paper trail of their abuses. No solution will be effective without support from the top, but at least accountability tools make the systemic corruption more obvious (e.g. When records requests go unanswered).
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
I would think that body cameras endorse the idea that maybe the cop's testimony isn't the end-all be-all of the incident? I don't see how they make any comment at all about bad apples.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Body cameras don't endorse anything, and you're only going to get people to care about policing issues when you can keep throwing video after video into people's faces. The alternative is to have no way to directly measure what police are doing on the job. the only good argument I've heard against body cameras is that they might have a chilling effect on witness statements. On-scene witnesses to violent crimes are often terrified to be a "snitch" and give statements initially as "female 1" or "male 3" later the police/prosecutor may be able to help them decide to testify, but knowing there's a camera might result in a lot of "yeah, sorry...I didn't see anything" vs. "I'll tell you want I saw, but please don't put my name in it" If there was a way to fix that (e.g. witness advisory "I have turned off my camera, you are not being filmed" or limits to FOIA-like release statutes to guarantee witness privacy) I really can't see an argument against them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
DARPA posted:Florida police use sex-crime laws to bait men with no apparent interest in underage trysts There's another thread for discussing this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
Goddamn there's a whole thread 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
TheSpiritFox posted:Goddamn there's a whole thread And a mod from TVIV who is taking it way to personally for some reason. On topic, what's going to happen when a private citizen walks up to another private citizen on camera and says "Put your hands up or I'll loving shoot you" and then shoots him?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 07:53
|
|
|
Alastor_the_Stylish posted:And a mod from TVIV who is taking it way to personally for some reason. He'll go to prison unless he's super rich?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 07:56
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:the only good argument I've heard against body cameras is that they might have a chilling effect on witness statements. On-scene witnesses to violent crimes are often terrified to be a "snitch" and give statements initially as "female 1" or "male 3" later the police/prosecutor may be able to help them decide to testify, but knowing there's a camera might result in a lot of "yeah, sorry...I didn't see anything" vs. "I'll tell you want I saw, but please don't put my name in it" These people weren't going to snitch anyhow. And it creates a huge problem when the witness changes his story at trial.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 08:30
|
|
|
Alastor_the_Stylish posted:And a mod from TVIV who is taking it way to personally for some reason. Is the person he shot black? How rich is the shooter? The victim?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 11:54
|
|
|
nm posted:These people weren't going to snitch anyhow. Not necessarily. We get "female 1" to take the stand quite often. It just takes work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 13:12
|
|
|
Cole posted:He uh... He was calling it in. So of course he's going to say that. It's pretty standard even in the most by the book cases. And he exuded all the professionalism of Bill Paxton's character from Aliens, too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:And he exuded all the professionalism of Bill Paxton's character from Aliens, too. Given the situation, worrying about his potty mouth is kind of stupid. Cops who do get into legitimate shootings have a lot worse language over the radio and probably sound a lot less professional in a vacuum. It's really not that big of a deal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
Cole posted:Given the situation, worrying about his potty mouth is kind of stupid. Cops who do get into legitimate shootings have a lot worse language over the radio and probably sound a lot less professional in a vacuum. It's really not that big of a deal. Yeah, sure, I was worried about his potty mouth and not the fact that he was amped up and ready to execute someone at the slightest movement on his motion tracker.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Not necessarily. We get "female 1" to take the stand quite often. It just takes work. Out here that really only happens in sex cases. It doesn't really stop the fear anyhow, because client and his buddies will see the person in court? And also, the name may not be public, but the client will know the name as I will have to ask him "why would witness lie about you?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:Yeah, sure, I was worried about his potty mouth and not the fact that he was amped up and ready to execute someone at the slightest movement on his motion tracker. Given the fact that I was specifically talking about his radio transmission being fairly standard for the situation and you not really saying much to make me think you were talking about something else then yes, I will agree you were worried about his potty mouth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:Yeah, sure, I was worried about his potty mouth and not the fact that he was amped up and ready to execute someone at the slightest movement on his motion tracker. Yeah, it's not like he was a known criminal with a past involving drugs and weapons, and also wanted for shooting someone the night before. Being concerned about his lack of compliance and digging in his pants is clearly an overreaction when dealing with someone known to carry a gun. He was obviously reaching for a D&D Lollipop.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
A HOT TOPIC posted:Yeah, it's not like he was a known criminal with a past involving drugs and weapons, and also wanted for shooting someone the night before. Being concerned about his lack of compliance and digging in his pants is clearly an overreaction when dealing with someone known to carry a gun. He was obviously reaching for a D&D Lollipop. Again I think one scared person isn't the way to deal with this situation. Would there be something wrong with waiting in his car for more officers to arrive? They seemed to get there pretty quickly. I think that would be better for everyone involved.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
A HOT TOPIC posted:Yeah, it's not like he was a known criminal with a past involving drugs and weapons, and also wanted for shooting someone the night before. Being concerned about his lack of compliance and digging in his pants is clearly an overreaction when dealing with someone known to carry a gun. He was obviously reaching for a D&D Lollipop. Immediately shrieking obscenities at someone seems like a good way to ensure that they will respect your authority and comply with your clear instructions. I don't really care if this is 'fairly standard' because that would appear to be the problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
nm posted:Out here that really only happens in sex cases. It doesn't really stop the fear anyhow, because client and his buddies will see the person in court? And also, the name may not be public, but the client will know the name as I will have to ask him "why would witness lie about you?" It plays out a little differently in the gang homicide cases.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 07:54 |
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:It plays out a little differently in the gang homicide cases. The ones where the victim is in another gang, or just totally unrelated bystander? (The later of which happened scary number of times in some of the cities I lived in...)
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 19:39
|
|
