|
idiotsavant posted:Dunno if it's been posted but here's another heartwarming story about cool BART cops. In one of the videos it's especially clear that she gets intentionally slammed face-first into the ground while handcuffed, so hopefully there's a big payday coming her way. Haha, everyone in the room knew how bad this one was immediately. Never seen 4 police officers wince and go "ohhhhh" simultaneously before.
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 09:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 20:00 |
|
|
When you see cops physically recoil, you know poo poo is hosed up.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 12:08
|
|
|
idiotsavant posted:Dunno if it's been posted but here's another heartwarming story about cool BART cops. In one of the videos it's especially clear that she gets intentionally slammed face-first into the ground while handcuffed, so hopefully there's a big payday coming her way. quote:the officer used an arm-bar takedown and "guided her to the ground."
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
I think they forgot to add "like a missile" in that sentence.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 14:16
|
|
|
Has that Korean CGI news story channel did anything about this yet?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
What's this passive voice thing about? I'm serious I have no idea what it means.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:What's this passive voice thing about? I'm serious I have no idea what it means. Instead of "the policeman shot Mr. Smith" the story will say "a shooting occurred".
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
It removes intent from the action as if the action itself was spontaneous and free of any person's actions. The example would be the difference between "the officer fired at the suspect" vs "the officer opened the door and a bullet flew out of his gun". The media often switches to passive voice to cover for the actions of officers whereas people arrested or attacked by officers do not get such a privilege.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
Active voice: The tornado killed ten people Passive voice: Ten people were killed by the tornado. Basically who is being placed as the subject of the sentence: the thing doing the action or the thing being acted on. It's used to minimize the agency of what ever is doing said action, which makes sense when it's something like a natural disaster (was killed by the tornado) that has no free will but is a lot shadier when used with a person (was killed by the police). Sometimes journalists do it because they're just bad writers, but more often it's because they want to quietly influence how people feel about something. edit: Hell, I'd say "they're just bad writers" is super rare because it's pretty much in every style manual and any college level English class. It's even sort of in high school English, although they really don't explain why passive voice is so bad. bassguitarhero posted:It removes intent from the action as if the action itself was spontaneous and free of any person's actions. The example would be the difference between "the officer fired at the suspect" vs "the officer opened the door and a bullet flew out of his gun". The media often switches to passive voice to cover for the actions of officers whereas people arrested or attacked by officers do not get such a privilege. Nah, that last one is active voice, the bullet is flying, it's just loving bizarro speak and very clearly intended to divorce the cop's behavior from the resulting action. 2nd edit: The bullet thing is actually kind of interesting, because it's written in a way to give the bullet agency. The bullet should be in passive voice because it's not making any loving decisions here, it's a bullet. It's not just setting up "man carries gun" and "bullet comes out of gun" as two separate actions in two sentences/other half of a conjunction/what the gently caress ever, it's treating the bullet as if it decides to run out and pop a dude all of its own volition. TGLT fucked around with this message at 15:46 on May 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
I think the idea is that media has a tendency to write cop stories differently to make the cop feel distanced from their action. So like where a story might usually be written like this. Last night Mr. Smith shot a young man after an altercation in the street. Often you end up seeing this. Last night a young man was shot after an altercation in the street with Officer Smith. The intent is to make Officer Smith feel like the person things are happening to as opposed to the first version where Mr. Smith feels like the actor making things happen. It reinforces the idea that police are never the aggressors and are simply reacting to the harsh job they have and harsh people and situations they encounter.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
I am kind of surprised that there wasn't a grand jury needed to get the charges first, is that because of all the video evidence?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
Officer Smith stood nearby as the earth's gravity and rotation made the bullet enter the brain of the suspect.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
My impression was that some of the elements were kind of completely clear so there's not a lot of questions. - The blade was either legal or it wasn't so the arrest was either warranted or it wasn't. - The cops themselves seem to admit that they didn't buckle his safety belt, threw him on the floor, and didn't answer his calls for medical help and dealt with the other prisoner before an unconscious/non responsive Gray. So they seem to basically freely admit to negligence and making every decision that led to Gray's death. - There's that second stop that it seems the cops might have completely lied about happening. Which not only seems to be against the rules but calls their credibility and intent into serious question. With the limited info we have it sort of seems like the cops basically incriminated themselves. It's just a matter of whether the prosecutor can prove the veracity of her charges.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Last night a young man was shot after an altercation in the street with Officer Smith. This is a really good example not only of passive voice but a simultaneously implied and unspoken agent. Not only is it taking the agency of Officer Smith away in the shooting that occurred, at not point is it actually stating that Officer Smith did the shooting. That fact could wind up being entirely omitted from the article, or hey might even go further and obfuscate the matter by using phrasing that implies a greater separation between events than actually occurred: "A young man was shot last night. Prior to the shooting, he was seen engaging in an altercation with 2-year veteran City PD Officer Smith", which has its own additional removal of agency from the officer and addition to the dead kid.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:Officer Smith stood nearby as the earth's gravity and rotation made the bullet enter the brain of the suspect. Officer Smith held a gun with bullets designed to be sent flying out of a gun when the hammer of the gun collides with the back of the bullet, and by such a process was the bullet sent flying out towards the man who eventually died via blood loss. Police report that the man stole something as a teen a few times, and he doped himself with heroin frequently. Some experts suggest that such heroin abuse can lead to damaged blood vessels, and that his death may be attributed to his possibly frequent use of heroin. Officer Smith was in the news a few years ago for rescuing a number of puppies from trees, and for helping a number of grandmas across the street. The mayor commended his brave actions, saying, "Officer Smith is a good cop." STAC Goat posted:My impression was that some of the elements were kind of completely clear so there's not a lot of questions. The blade was not by really any definition of a switchblade, but the switchblade law in Baltimore is really vague. However, they had no reason to know about the blade unless they had X-ray vision. They stopped him for running, which isn't itself illegal, and I think that's what the arrest thing is about. As for the belt thing, I've been hearing that it "only recently" became protocol to belt in passengers, so the new story is it's just some new fangled regulation and well by gosh they don't get briefed on these things so maybe it didn't filter down to them yet.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
TGLT posted:Active voice: The tornado killed ten people I think one major reason journalists do this is because historically any time they write anything even theoretically potentially negative about a Hero Cop they get flooded with angry letters yelling at them for hating America. So some of this probably isn't deliberate intent so much as it is learned response and the desire to avoid writing anything seen as "controversial." Gotta stay "neutral!" The authoritarian impulse is *strong* in this country.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
TGLT posted:They stopped him for running, which isn't itself illegal, and I think that's what the arrest thing is about. Doubt it. What they did was a "Terry stop", which can be performed on reasonable suspicion, and Illinois v. Wardlow held that unprovoked flight from police in a high-crime area can suffice for reasonable suspicion. I think it's bullshit to allow cops to stop-and-frisk based on "nervous, evasive behavior", especially with so many "high-crime" (poor, black, or both) communities having so many tales of police harassment of the residents, but case law seems to say the stop itself was legal. Also, is there a different definition of "switchblade" in Baltimore than Maryland state law? Because an assisted-open knife does not meet the legal definition of "switchblade" by MD law.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
Instead of claiming some passive voice conspiracy done of you should probably just crack open an English book.bassguitarhero posted:. The media often switches to passive voice to cover for the actions of officers whereas people arrested or attacked by officers do not get such a privilege. No this is just confirmation bias, you have literally no evidence to back this up.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
tsa posted:No this is just confirmation bias, you have literally no evidence to back this up. The story about the cop who attacked an MTA employee literally changed from "thug attacks MTA employee" to "MTA employee allegedly attacked by police officer" on the same news site, and most if not all references to a person doing a thing to the MTA employee were changed to the MTA employee allegedly having things done to her by an officer. This has been mentioned multiple times. Do keep up.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
tsa posted:Instead of claiming some passive voice conspiracy done of you should probably just crack open an English book. The economist style guide: "Never use the Passive where you can use the active." UC Denver: "Passive voice often hides agency, and many disciplines frown upon this practice." IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law: "Use the passive voice when intentionally trying to hide the identity of the actor." The passive voice's role in diminishing the agency of the actor is basically a well understood effect of placing the actor after their action. You're not going to find a college English, especially rhetoric, class that doesn't bring this up. Journalists are generally advised not to use it, so their use of it is a pretty deliberate choice. TGLT fucked around with this message at 16:41 on May 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
I believe police are allowed to arrest someone based on what they think of the law, not what the law actually is. I expect the false arrest charge to get dropped. I want to say this was a Supreme Court case recently, maybe it was a district one. It was a pretty lovely ruling.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
I've seen multiple posts from my Facebook friends this morning with the (mugshots? not sure) photos of the six officers, three of whom are black, with a caption "Tell me again how this is about race?" It's patently stupid, of course, since "it's about race" is more about the victim than the perpetrator, especially in police atrocity cases, but there's another reason I find this attempted defense patently stupid. Years ago, when I was still in law school, I had a provisional license in the state that allowed for legal work on behalf of certain qualified state agencies and non-profits, etc. I happened to spend the latter half of law school working for the City of Chicago as a prosecutor. Nothing high-end, just in the traffic courts, which was not only needed due to extremely high volume, but was also great exposure and practice in courtroom work. The point is that it was always, immediately, obvious which cases were pure Driving While Black as opposed to legitimate charges. The ticketed person would always be a young black man, and the charges would be things like speeding 1 mph over the limit, or obstruction of traffic (with no additional explanation), or my favorite: "Resisting Arrest" or "Failure to Obey Police Officer" without any other charges at all. And for cases like these, the issuing officers were black as many times as they were white, but the ticketed persons were always black. It can still be about race even if the police officer is black. It's that simple.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
tsa posted:Instead of claiming some passive voice conspiracy done of you should probably just crack open an English book. A lovely post was made.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
Heien v. North Carolina Decided December 15, 2014 HOLDING Because Darisse’s mistake of law was reasonable, there was reasonable suspicion justifying the stop under the Fourth Amendment. http://supremecourtreview.com/case/13-604 [The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled that police officers don't necessarily violate a person's constitutional rights when they stop a car based on a mistaken understanding of the law. The ruling prompted a lone dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who warned that the court's decision could exacerbate public suspicion of police in some communities.[/quote] http://www.npr.org/2014/12/15/370995815/supreme-court-rules-traffic-stop-ok-despite-misunderstanding-of-law
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:Doubt it. What they did was a "Terry stop", which can be performed on reasonable suspicion, and Illinois v. Wardlow held that unprovoked flight from police in a high-crime area can suffice for reasonable suspicion. I think it's bullshit to allow cops to stop-and-frisk based on "nervous, evasive behavior", especially with so many "high-crime" (poor, black, or both) communities having so many tales of police harassment of the residents, but case law seems to say the stop itself was legal. Page 175 - "It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, carry, or possess any knife with an automatic spring or other device for opening and/or closing the blade, commonly known as a switch-blade knife." so maybe? Mosby has said it was legal, but the law is awfully vague and his knife was listed as a "spring assisted, one hand opening knife." edit: page 175 in the pdf, technically 163 in the document. whatevs. As for the Illinois v Wardlow thing, are there any formal requirements for them to actually declare a place a "high crime area" or is it just "whatever the officer feels is a high crime area"?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
tsa posted:Instead of claiming some passive voice conspiracy done of you should probably just crack open an English book. Spun Dog posted:I was trying to point out how the media changed their description of the incident once they found out it was a cop. Initial reports were about how a Huge Thug/Hulking Brute assaulted the MTA employee. After it was determined he was a cop, passive voice took over and there were a bunch of "allegedly's" thrown around.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
Foma posted:Heien v. North Carolina http://www.npr.org/2014/12/15/370995815/supreme-court-rules-traffic-stop-ok-despite-misunderstanding-of-law [/quote] Huh, so ignorance of the law is a legitimate defence?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
Agrajag posted:Huh, so ignorance of the law is a legitimate defence? Not for regular people, mind you.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
Foma posted:I believe police are allowed to arrest someone based on what they think of the law, not what the law actually is. I expect the false arrest charge to get dropped. I want to say this was a Supreme Court case recently, maybe it was a district one. The ruling makes perfect sense, there's a reason it was 8-1 TGLT posted:Page 175 - "It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, carry, or possess any knife with an automatic spring or other device for opening and/or closing the blade, commonly known as a switch-blade knife." so maybe? Mosby has said it was legal, but the law is awfully vague and his knife was listed as a "spring assisted, one hand opening knife." Terry stops have no bright line rule, they are examined case by case. I haven't read Wardlow but based on Terry that ruling would make perfect sense. Unless they made "high crime area" a term of art, it would fall in line with Terry that someone fleeing the police from an area that crimes frequently occur would illicit reasonable suspicion to stop and question them. The thing most people forget about Terry though (unless Wardlow changes/modifies it), is that in order to do the frisk the cop needs not only reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is occurring, but reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed. Also a switchblade and a spring assist knife are two entirely different things and anyone familiar with knives should immediately know the difference, that isn't an honest mistake that's harassment. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 16:54 on May 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Not so "hulking" now, is he?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
TGLT posted:The passive voice's role in diminishing the agency of the actor is basically a well understood effect of placing the actor after their action. Funny. Anyway, while "don't use the passive voice" is popular to quote, it turns out that almost nobody understands what the actual definition of passive voice is: "Fear and Loathing of the English Passive" Language Log's got a number of good posts about (misidentified) passives, including using weasel-y language to diminish the perception of police responsibility.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
TGLT posted:Page 175 - "It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, carry, or possess any knife with an automatic spring or other device for opening and/or closing the blade, commonly known as a switch-blade knife." so maybe? Mosby has said it was legal, but the law is awfully vague and his knife was listed as a "spring assisted, one hand opening knife." quote:As for the Illinois v Wardlow thing, are there any formal requirements for them to actually declare a place a "high crime area" or is it just "whatever the officer feels is a high crime area"?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
Mniot posted:Funny. Anyway, while "don't use the passive voice" is popular to quote, it turns out that almost nobody understands what the actual definition of passive voice is: "Fear and Loathing of the English Passive" Pullum seems to agree that "subjected was verbed by actor" is a passive clause. He's right that it's not as simple as "Subject had verbed" but I do think that the construction does distance the actor from their action. It may not literally obfuscate who is the agent, but it does obfuscate their responsibility. Here's a Psychology Today thing discussing how passive voice causes people to judge the person doing poo poo more leniently. edit: Kugyou no Tenshi posted:Thanks for that - I couldn't find it. I think the key word here is "automatic" - in the case of an assisted-open knife, the spring only engages after the blade has been manually opened at least partway, via pressure on the blade. To top it off, there are reports around the web that the style of knife Gray was carrying are sold inside Baltimore city limits. I'm gonna guess if Mosby said it was legal, then it was legal, but I'd wonder if they could argue it was a "reasonable mistake." Also, the entirety of Baltimore? Sheesh. TGLT fucked around with this message at 17:19 on May 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
I read Wardlow, the only real new caselaw it introduces is that wholesale flight can be considered suspicious activity. Its not itself enough for a Terry stop, but it can part of the justification, the "high crime area" actually comes from Adans v. Williams. Basically all these cases are doing is ruling that flight, and the criminal history of an area are both things that can be part of an officer's justification for a Terry stop, its not any kind of bright line and it still needs to pass Terry.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
Foma posted:I believe police are allowed to arrest someone based on what they think of the law, not what the law actually is. I expect the false arrest charge to get dropped. I want to say this was a Supreme Court case recently, maybe it was a district one. There's a difference between detaining or stopping someone and outright arresting them. From what I understand stopping and detaining Gray was legal as a terry stop but since his knife was not contraband there was no reason for him to be arrested and thrown into the van. Sarcastro posted:I've seen multiple posts from my Facebook friends this morning with the (mugshots? not sure) photos of the six officers, three of whom are black, with a caption "Tell me again how this is about race?" There's also the oft repeated example in Matt Taibbi's The Divide where a black man was issued a ticket for "obstructing pedestrian traffic" by standing in front of his own building at 1am on a deserted sidewalk.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
TGLT posted:I'm gonna guess if Mosby said it was legal, then it was legal, but I'd wonder if they could argue it was a "reasonable mistake." No, again, mistaking a spring assist knife for a switchblade is not a reasonable mistake, they are extremely common. And no, not the entirety of Baltimore.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:The story about the cop who attacked an MTA employee literally changed from "thug attacks MTA employee" to "MTA employee allegedly attacked by police officer" on the same news site, and most if not all references to a person doing a thing to the MTA employee were changed to the MTA employee allegedly having things done to her by an officer. This has been mentioned multiple times. Do keep up. This is exactly the story I was referring to. It was shameless how quickly the media turned on the victim once they found out the person who assaulted her was a cop.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:No, again, mistaking a spring assist knife for a switchblade is not a reasonable mistake, they are extremely common. The law only talks about a spring or some other device opening it, not how it's triggered. I don't know if "commonly known as a switch-blade" somehow implies that, but it doesn't seem like it would. This article, on the second page, indicates that people are getting arrested for those sorts of knives under similarly vague laws. I don't know a lot about knives, and this is New York city, but I don't see the legal difference between this guy's knife and Freddie Gray's knife. edit: Basically, although it's total bullshit and seems like a fairly common knife, I'm not confident they're going to actually be convicted based on that alone. It just seems like it's intentionally vague for this reason. TGLT fucked around with this message at 17:35 on May 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
TGLT posted:The law only talks about a spring or some other device opening it, not how it's triggered. I don't know if "commonly known as a switch-blade" somehow implies that, but it doesn't seem like it would. This article, on the second page, indicates that people are getting arrested for those sorts of knives under similarly vague laws. I don't know a lot about knives, and this is New York city, but I don't see the legal difference between this guy's knife and Freddie Gray's knife. Holy poo poo guy, no, that's a completely different statute is a completely different state covering a completely different description of the knife, the second article isn't even a spring assist. edit: the New York statute isn't even trying ban the same thing. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 17:42 on May 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 20:00 |
|
|
TGLT posted:edit: Basically, although it's total bullshit and seems like a fairly common knife, I'm not confident they're going to actually be convicted based on that alone. It just seems like it's intentionally vague for this reason. Its not vague at all, the problem is: TGLT posted:I don't know
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 17:41
|
|