|
joeburz posted:Yea, that was the same argument that really wasn't a big deal outside of two minutes because the point was ActusRhesus putting forth tons of information willingly at any moment as some sort of display of their infallible wisdom being a ~lawyer~. drat man you're really giving it to her. Haha, take THAT ActusRhesus!
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 01:14 |
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Have you ever lived in a high crime area? lol you think the police give a poo poo about high crime areas
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
joeburz posted:Yea, that was the same argument that really wasn't a big deal outside of two minutes because the point was ActusRhesus putting forth tons of information willingly at any moment as some sort of display of their infallible wisdom being a ~lawyer~. So you don't think telling a poster, and a female poster at that, "I can find you IRL" is more than a little inappropriate? Well, I guess that certainly puts your "We don't really need police at all" views in perspective. GENDERWEIRD GREEDO posted:drat man you're really giving it to her. Haha, take THAT ActusRhesus! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
Hey, there was a really interesting article about a public defender being arrested for defending her client. Can we talk about that instead?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
GENDERWEIRD GREEDO posted:drat man you're really giving it to her. Haha, take THAT ActusRhesus! Sorry I'm just trying to say that no one else really gave two shits about it at the time nor does now, other than someone being completely disingenuous trying to play that SedanChair was actually threatening her. ImAMinister posted:Hey, there was a really interesting article about a public defender being arrested for defending her client. Can we talk about that instead? It's hosed up but I don't see there being much backlash to it without any physical harm. Such as this case having the officer basically getting off with nothing, as hes only facing a misdemeanor careless discharging count now. http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2015/01/28/weekley-case-dismissed/22482049/ This is the case where the cop says someone in the house hit his gun causing him to blast away a 7 year old during a night raid. edit: just noticed detroit free press domain esto es malo fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
ImAMinister posted:Hey, there was a really interesting article about a public defender being arrested for defending her client. Can we talk about that instead? Please try to keep this in focus because the police officers who did that need to have their lives ruined to set an example of what not to do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
How about we focus on the fact that ActusRhesus has tried to divert us from, that their first response to criticisms of police is "have you ever lived in an area where thugs run wild?" I mean, to answer the question, I certainly have. I've lived for years in hilltop and the east side of Tacoma. It was in those places where I saw most police abuse take place, abuse that could not really be justified as having anything to do with containing high crime. Unless you think that harassing random black males is an appropriate method to contain crime.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
Well we may not need "police" but justice is certainly needed. It is always one of the most important things in any settled civilization that "justice" has to be done. Heck I think that one of the first lines of Hammunrabi's code is "To see justice done in the land, so that the strong shall not harm the weak". In a set up where that requires trial by trials the only applicable method of enforcing that is to make sure that there is someone to find people who have broken the law and bringing them to places. What I think may be a better option would be to seperate out various different parts of "policing" into differing zones that already exist. Vice, Traffic etc become not just seperate departments but seperate entities. That way it is easier to notice and ensure that differing areas are not colluding. Of course this does open up other problems, inter-departmental issues becoming even more over the top being the smallest one, but it would be interesting to see how it would work. Not only that but it would help there be a seperation between the way the public deal with the "police" it means that the person who says "hello" as you walk through the park and the person who is beating you with a truncheon are not the same organisation and, as such, reform is an easier option because it seems a good deal smaller.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
sedanchair, if you're the victim of a crime and someone is chasing you, do you call your random friend who may not even be in the same city as you right now, or do you call the police? please don't say you take him down with kungfu.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
joeburz posted:Sorry I'm just trying to say that no one else really gave two shits about it at the time nor does now, other than someone being completely disingenuous trying to play that SedanChair was actually threatening her. Please tell me more about how and when I should feel threatened.  And yes, arresting a PD is generally a completely asinine thing to do. If that happened here, there would be some serious fallout. They're an officer of the court and they are entitled to respect in that role. Semi-related, I find the whole concept of "perp walk" photo opportunities distasteful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:sedanchair, if you're the victim of a crime and someone is chasing you, do you call your random friend who may not even be in the same city as you right now, or do you call the police? If I am already being assaulted, the likelihood of police being able to come out to a call and protect me is very low. It's not even their job.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:sedanchair, if you're the victim of a crime and someone is chasing you, do you call your random friend who may not even be in the same city as you right now, or do you call the police? No he hides until the cop stops chasing him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:And yes, arresting a PD is generally a completely asinine thing to do. If that happened here, there would be some serious fallout. They're an officer of the court and they are entitled to respect in that role. Would arresting a PD for not allowing his client to answer questions destory whatever case the police were trying to build against the client, or would judges just basically go, world sucks, deal with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:How about we focus on the fact that ActusRhesus has tried to divert us from, that their first response to criticisms of police is "have you ever lived in an area where thugs run wild?" If you're going to use quotation marks, I'd appreciate you using actual quotes, not poo poo you made up to bolster your case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:sedanchair, if you're the victim of a crime and someone is chasing you, do you call your random friend who may not even be in the same city as you right now, or do you call the police? every time i called the police in a high crime area for 5 years, they never showed up. however, i was given two citations parked in front of my apartment though because they trolled the sidestreets with license plate scanners daily, stopped for walking home from work at 3am numerous times, and given poo poo about my garbage cans being blown over on trash day when I was at work all day so I couldn't pick them up. Keeping Our Streets Safe 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
LorneReams posted:Would arresting a PD for not allowing his client to answer questions destory whatever case the police were trying to build against the client, or would judges just basically go, world sucks, deal with it. I would imagine that this would be considered a Fifth Amendment violation. The general rule here (and I'm pretty sure everywhere) is that once you know a defendant is represented by counsel you are not to question them without counsel present. Arresting counsel because they are doing exactly what the right to counsel was designed to do seems pretty unconstitutional on its face. My guess is anything the defendant said at that point would be inadmissible, as would be any evidence derived from that. It would be the same as if you had questioned him without counsel at all. Edited to add: it appears they were taking pictures, not questioning, and there is no Fifth Amendment interest in your photograph, but it seems like this was a horribly inappropriate way to get those photographs. One concern that leaps to my mind is, this is during an ongoing case...what if a juror saw? That would be highly prejudicial. In our courthouse we don't even let the jurors see the defendant in shackels, they are brought up ahead of time, and the tables have paneling that goes down to the floor so the jurors can't see anything that could create an impression of "criminal." risking a juror seeing you trying to photo the defendant is just stupid and begging for a mistrial. If one of our cops did that heads would roll. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
joeburz posted:every time i called the police in a high crime area for 5 years, they never showed up. Yeah, the obvious solution is to disband the police.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:Yeah, the obvious solution is to Fixing the abuses seems difficult when certain sectors do not even see them as abuses. We have the "Dirty Harry" problem of "I am doing my job to help keep people safe and if a few bad guys get in the way tough poo poo" run into the real life problem of "Everyone who impedes me doing what I would like is in the wrong because I am righteous". I mean the latter is not exactly an uncommon mode of thinking, but changes to it are difficult.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:Yeah, the obvious solution is to I didn't make the previous claim that no police is the acceptable solution, nor do I think it's an intelligent thing to say. There is a massive point though in demonstrating that law enforcement(as it currently exists) in areas, and one could say especially in high crime areas, is counter-productive through breeding massive anti-police sentiment and destroying any faith in abiding law as a safeguard. The idea though that "well you'd be singing a different tune if you lived in a lovely neighborhood" is so out of touch with what actually occurs in lovely neighborhoods to breed the entire gently caress The Police mindset.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
You're right. I know nothing about lovely neighborhoods. And for the record, I have never once disagreed with the statement that there are real cases of abuse of power within the police force. And I have frequently said that those cases should be handled draconianly. However, claiming the police aren't needed at all? That is really the stuff of internet forum unicorn land. Granted, police are largely reactionary. The odds of a police officer "Saving" you from a crime in progress are slim, but can we at least agree that the investigation and successful prosecution of the criminal actor in that case has a deterrent effect (both general and specific) on other potential crime? ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 16:17 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:If you're going to use quotation marks, I'd appreciate you using actual quotes, not poo poo you made up to bolster your case. I don't think getting rid of the police is a great idea but every time you do this is seems like you're trying to avoid responding to whatever the person is talking about and it's always something that I'd like to know your answer to. e or this ActusRhesus posted:You're right. I know nothing about lovely neighborhoods.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I would imagine that this would be considered a Fifth Amendment violation. The general rule here (and I'm pretty sure everywhere) is that once you know a defendant is represented by counsel you are not to question them without counsel present. Arresting counsel because they are doing exactly what the right to counsel was designed to do seems pretty unconstitutional on its face. My guess is anything the defendant said at that point would be inadmissible, as would be any evidence derived from that. How does something like this happen? To the lay, it appears baldly unconstitutional, and I find it hard to believe that a police officer would take it upon himself to challenge a trial lawyer's legal knowledge. Is it really as simple as pictures not counting as questioning? Frankly, if I'm the accused, I'm doing my very best to only interact with the police with a lawyer present, even if that's sometimes impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
Counterpoint: I live in a relatively high crime area and the cops have come every time they get called. And are often around before we call. It's almost like it varies department-by-department and area-by-area.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
Dum Cumpster posted:I don't think getting rid of the police is a great idea but every time you do this is seems like you're trying to avoid responding to whatever the person is talking about and it's always something that I'd like to know your answer to. OK, then ask your question. I'm happy to answer it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
ImAMinister posted:How does something like this happen? To the lay, it appears baldly unconstitutional, and I find it hard to believe that a police officer would take it upon himself to challenge a trial lawyer's legal knowledge. My guess is they were relying on the volume of caselaw that says the Fifth Amendment doesn't apply to physical evidence (e.g. your appearance, voiceprints, fingerprints etc.) But the manner in which they chose to go about it was horribly inappropriate, and arresting their attorney was really out of line. Proper approach would have been to go to any one of the judges in that courthouse and get a warrant compelling the defendant to appear and have his photo taken, just like you would do if you needed his fingerprints or anything else not protected by the Fifth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:OK, then ask your question. I'm happy to answer it. You answered it with your smugdog post edit. I'm not after a gotcha or anything, just wondering what the rational is behind someone's thinking that I seem to disagree with a lot of the time. I don't think we're ever going to make progress without understanding where the other side is coming from.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
Huh. That's certainly interesting. This whole situation is absolutely boggling my mind. As always, your experience and information are much appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
Soviet Commubot posted:I'm an elementary school teacher now, is GiP where I should post about teaching? I do get paid by the state. Yes
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
i guess i should be posting in GiP too since I work for a public research institution (or is GiP americans only?)
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
Dum Cumpster posted:You answered it with your smugdog post edit. I'm not after a gotcha or anything, just wondering what the rational is behind someone's thinking that I seem to disagree with a lot of the time. I don't think we're ever going to make progress without understanding where the other side is coming from. And that's a fair point. I certainly recognize that I have some bias here working in an extremely violent blue state city with a high murder rate and, if I may say, a pretty professional police force. I have to remind myself that poo poo like the article above really does happen because holy poo poo if that happened here, I don't know who would be in line first to tear those officers a new one? The state bar (which is heavily pro defense); the prosecutor's office; the presiding criminal judge of that courthouse; the court's chief marshall; or their own supervisor. So yeah, I get the need for police reform, and I absolutely agree that police need to be held accountable for abuses of authority. But when people go beyond that and start asking why do we even need police at all and everyone in law enforcement just hates minorities! then yeah. I tend to come in on the side of law enforcement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:
Cop version of a temper tantrum. You are not doing what I say, so I am going to assert my "athorita" Like a 3 yr old kid hitting another kid cause did something they didn't like. Not everyone is Cop material.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Oh look! (h/t Thanatosian)Thanatosian posted:And remember, guys, police in Seattle: totally not racist. Oh double look!  I am tired of 69-year-old black men with no arrest record saying "poor poor me" when I book them based on a lie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
In her defence at least she isn't claiming anti-blue racism against her uniform.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I made a mildly inappropriate comment, took my knocks for it and it's over with. Please don't try to milk it, it was already sad when you did it the first time. You threatened to doxx someone because you didn't agree with them in an internet slap fight and wanted to scare them into going away you disingenuous little weasel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Glad to see the authoritarians have fully turned this thread into a giant piece of poo poo like always
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
bassguitarhero posted:Glad to see the authoritarians have fully turned this thread into a giant piece of poo poo like always Turned?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
e: nope
woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
bassguitarhero posted:Glad to see the authoritarians have fully turned this thread into a giant piece of poo poo like always
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Granted, police are largely reactionary. The odds of a police officer "Saving" you from a crime in progress are slim, but can we at least agree that the investigation and successful prosecution of the criminal actor in that case has a deterrent effect (both general and specific) on other potential crime? Is it even possible to quantify the deterrent effect, seeing as how it's not like we can go around polling people who 'would have committed a crime if it weren't for those meddling police'?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 01:14 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:I later realized that the post could be interpreted as a doxx threat. I'm sorry if ActusRhesus felt like their livelihood was threatened, that was not my intention. 'I'm sorry if you were offended' is not an actual apology, doubly so when it's 'I'm sorry if you felt threatened when I threatened you'. Doing so given the current climate, particularly towards women, on the internet is pretty ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 18:47
|
|
