|
edit: Ah gently caress it, this is turning into a dumb knife derail. I don't pretend to know poo poo about knives, and I'll just look around for similar cases in Baltimore to answer my question.
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 05:45 |
|
|
TGLT posted:why do you feel that a "spring assisted knife" doesn't fall under "any knife with an automatic spring or other device for opening and/or closing the blade"? I'm legitimately curious Basic info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted-opening_knife quote:An assisted-opening knife is a type of folding knife which uses an internal mechanism to finish the opening of the blade once the user has partially opened it using a flipper or thumbstud attached to the blade. quote:How a Switchblade Works Maryland apparently bans "Dangerous Weapons" and then defines a bunch of ridiculous things as "Dangerous Weapons" (nunchuks, throwing stars, "bowie" knives, but not necessarily other fixed blades? ... unless its a "dirk" (double edged).) Some knife nut forum extracted the section: http://www.knifeup.com/maryland-knife-laws/
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:And no, not the entirety of Baltimore.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
tsa posted:Instead of claiming some passive voice conspiracy done of you should probably just crack open an English book.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Its not vague at all, the problem is: It doesn't matter if the victim had a spring loaded rocket-launcher. The police are supposed to apprehend the suspect and deliver them to a holding facility so that way a court can process him when he has legal representation. You don't abuse a subject in your custody. You don't refuse to render him aid when he is unresponsive. You don't spend a week trying to get your story together to cover your rear end only to have your poo poo blown wide open. Basically this whole thing is opening peoples eye about the sorry state of affairs to the point that even Republicans like John Boehner have to make comments about it. It's pretty phenominal when both Repubs and Dems both cant even defend abusive cops, or they can but they get rightly called retarded or crazy.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
tezcat posted:The problem is that people like yourself and the media like FOX want to talk about everything other than the fact that police tortured/abused a man till he died. You are aware I started this poo poo derail about knife laws, not Jarmak, right? And I started it specifically because I was concerned they'd use Baltimore's laws on knives which are not necessarily pre-empted by Maryland's laws as wiggle room FRINGE posted:Basic info: Thanks, it's helpful to have some clearer definitions of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
TGLT posted:You are aware I started this poo poo derail about knife laws, not Jarmak, right? And I started it specifically because I was concerned they'd use Baltimore's laws on knives which are not necessarily pre-empted by Maryland's laws as wiggle room
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
tezcat posted:It doesn't matter if the victim had a spring loaded rocket-launcher. The police are supposed to apprehend the suspect and deliver them to a holding facility so that way a court can process him when he has legal representation. You don't abuse a subject in your custody. You don't refuse to render him aid when he is unresponsive. You don't spend a week trying to get your story together to cover your rear end only to have your poo poo blown wide open. It does matter. Specific charges were filed, and unless they are guilty of those specific things they will get off. We are discussing whether or not they are likely to be found guilty of those specific things. Yes, the cop who drove isn't getting off on poo poo whether or not the knife was legal. The cops who were in the van aren't getting off their charges. The cops who arrested him originally, though, for no reason? They might, or might not, depending on this very relevant part of the situation. I feel like you're not actually paying attention and just want to get mad.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
TGLT posted:Thanks, it's helpful to have some clearer definitions of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:If you can stomach it, you can also poke around officer dot com and other cesspits and discover how much they decide "legality" using their "guts".
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
http://www.statter911.com/2015/05/01/hose-slashing-suspect-charged-in-baltimore/ Cameras everywhere and social media are going to clean up both police and protesters. All hail our new self made Panopticon. I am glad all these people out their taped breaking and stealing things are catching charges.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:It does matter. Specific charges were filed, and unless they are guilty of those specific things they will get off. We are discussing whether or not they are likely to be found guilty of those specific things. Again it's just another way for officers to get off the charges for shaking someone till their neck breaks like shaking a baby till his neck breaks. Except a shaken baby isn't slammed against metal walls in a confined area, that's reserved for adults. So who is the person that doesn't cast a wary eye on that?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:If you can stomach it, you can also poke around officer dot com and other cesspits and discover how much they decide "legality" using their "guts". News flash; o.com is considered to be the stormfront of police and a reason for disicpline in many departments. Besides that, their vetting process is non-existent so the place has mostly posers anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
TGLT posted: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. You see passive voice in stories because the only sources that get used are the police. Reporters write most crime stories using only information released by the police. If you compare crime stories to real stories, you'll see a lot of police jargon in crime stories where the reporter is copy-pasting from the police news release. The public information officer will never tell you which officer shot a dude (or they'll use the mysterious bullet-from-nowhere passive voice), so you end up with passive voice in the story. But when the police release info on a suspect, the authorities are more than happy to tell you exactly what they think happen, so you get stories where it's "Robert Smith robbed a liquor store and then pistol-whipped a baby, authorities said." I think it generally stems from laziness/being overworked rather than intentionally covering for the police. Reporters should try to find witnesses and other sources for stories besides the police, but those things are tough to dig up and they've got 3 more stories to write today. Although, most of the police reporters and city editors I know aren't real sympathetic to defendants because they spend a lot of their time hearing from police what shitbags the defendants are.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:Both Baltimore City and County are identified by name as part of the Washington/Baltimore High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, not particular segments of either. While you may be correct that the entirety of either would not necessarily be considered a "high crime" area, you're dead balls wrong that it's not the entirety of Baltimore that's on the Federal list. I'm not talking about the list, I'm talking about its applicability to Terry, which is none. tezcat posted:It doesn't matter if the victim had a spring loaded rocket-launcher. The police are supposed to apprehend the suspect and deliver them to a holding facility so that way a court can process him when he has legal representation. You don't abuse a subject in your custody. You don't refuse to render him aid when he is unresponsive. You don't spend a week trying to get your story together to cover your rear end only to have your poo poo blown wide open. I'm sorry but are you mistaking my argument that this was a completely illegal arrest and not some sort of innocent mistake as some sort of 12 dimensional chess defense of what happened in the van?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Yeah, the legality of the knife seems to deal specifically with the officers who are charged with an unlawful arrest but not the more serious manslaughter and murder charges. Although that does lead me to ask, are all six officers going to receive one trial? That seems remarkably complicated. I've never followed a case with this many people involved. It seems like balancing all the separate charges with the jury would be a massive mess. If the defense does manage to convince them that the knife was a reasonable reason to arrest them then how do you keep that from not seeming like a victory for all the officers, even the ones who aren't charged with unlawful arrest? And vice versa, if you're unable to convince the jury that the one officer was guilt of murder how do you keep that from affecting all those lesser charges with people who had nothing to do with it?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
TGLT posted:Active voice: The tornado killed ten people The second sentence doesn't hide the actor/agent at all, it's right there.  I've bolded it for you. Both sentences convey precisely the same information.Passive voice can be used to omit the actor, but you didn't. And guess what, active voice can omit the actor too: Ten people died.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
The kind of passive constructions I show my students are things like this:AP posted:She said his neck was broken because he was handcuffed, shackled and placed head-first into a police van, where his pleas for medical attention were repeatedly ignored as he bounced around inside a small metal compartment in the vehicle. edit: I would ask my class: as the prosecutor in this case, the person whose job it is to promote them as being guilty and send them to prison, do you think she would have a reason to leave them out of this statement? Or did the journalist who paraphrased what she said take some liberties with the emphasis? Samurai Sanders fucked around with this message at 19:25 on May 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:The second sentence doesn't hide the actor/agent at all, it's right there. Which is why in that example I said "minimizes agency" not "hides the actor"? Which research shows that it does exactly that? We think primarily about the subject of sentences, so pushing the actor away from being the subject diminishes the sense that the actor is responsible for the action. I don't understand your disagreement here.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Sarcastro posted:It can still be about race even if the police officer is black. It's that simple. Only white people can see black people as bad guys, duh!
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
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. quote:The same user noted that he had seen "rookies stalking the subways between 5-7pm to catch a construction worker wearing one so they could get a...Big CPW [criminal possession of a weapon] arrest." What a joke of a law.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Agrajag posted:What a joke of a law. Its worse then that, the article makes it sound like its a quirk of certain folding knives, its not, I've never seen a folding knife of any type that I can't flick open like that given a couple attempts to get the angle of the snap right. edit: its also a really stupid law in general, there's nothing more dangerous about switchblades, they're just more convenient and look cool when they snap open. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 19:49 on May 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Its worse then that, the article makes it sound like its a quirk of certain folding knives, its not, I've never seen a folding knife of any type that I can't flick open like that given a couple attempts to get the angle of the snap right. I think laws like these are intentionally vague to give police a reason to arrest someone. If the problem is knives they could have just tried to ban knives. The problem is they wanted to make a law so that they could arrest people they want to arrest (black people) without affecting the people they don't want to arrest (white people). A switch blade in the hands of a black man is clearly a dangerous weapon, in the hands of a white person it's just a tool used to open packages.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
It's so weird that they can turn anyone into a convicted criminal based on that too.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:The problem is they wanted to make a law so that they could arrest people they want to arrest (black people) without affecting the people they don't want to arrest (white people). quote:In 1950, an article titled The Toy That Kills appeared in the Women's Home Companion, a widely read U.S. periodical of the day. The article sparked a storm of controversy and a nationwide campaign that would eventually result in state and federal laws criminalizing the importation, sale, and possession of automatic-opening knives. In the article, author Jack Harrison Pollack assured the reader that the growing switchblade "menace" could have deadly consequence "as any crook can tell you". Pollack, a former aide to Democratic Senator Harley M. Kilgore and a ghostwriter for then-Senator Harry S Truman, had authored a series of melodramatic magazine articles calling for new laws to address a variety of social ills. In The Toy That Kills, Pollack wrote that the switchblade was "Designed for violence, deadly as a revolver - that’s the switchblade, the 'toy' youngsters all over the country are taking up as a fad. Press the button on this new version of the pocketknife and the blade darts out like a snake’s tongue. Action against this killer should be taken now". To back up his charges, Pollack quoted an unnamed juvenile court judge as saying: "It’s only a short step from carrying a switchblade to gang warfare". Same reason balisongs are usually considered to be in the same category even though they are less useful than the average hunting knife. "They look scary."
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
Lol gently caress anyone who doen't think the media is being manipulated massively to control the narrative. Just gently caress off and go back to sucking off the MSM.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
tsa posted:It shouldn't really be that surprising that tiny, ethnically and racially homogeneous countries have a better track record. Problem with experts is they disagree. There's a sentiment I hear somewhere, whenever anybody says this, let me see if I can remember what it was... Oh Yeah, they don't have those people 20% of the German population is minority/migrant/otherwise not German. 13.5% of Norway's population is minority/migrant/not native Norwegian. 15% of France's population is minority/migrant/not native French. 22% of the Netherlands' population is minority/migrant/not Dutch. 14% of England's population is minority/migrant/not English. 28% of the US Population is "Not White". It seems that you're proceeding from a false and racist notion somebody once told you. None of those countries are remotely as homogenous, especially in their metropolitan areas, as your comparison would seem to warrant. How is it that Germany, with its almost 15% "undesirable" Turkish "gangster" population, combined with its mostly open borders to its Eastern European Gangster Neighbors, is able to fire fewer bullets at criminals in a year than US cops do in a single incident?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
My Q-Face posted:There's a sentiment I hear somewhere, whenever anybody says this, let me see if I can remember what it was... Oh Yeah, they don't have those people It might be helpful to cite where you got these statistics. The modern US census distinguishes between race and ethnicity, so you may not be counting the Hispanic population in those numbers. Edit: A quick google search found that the white non-hispanic population was estimated at 62%, so your numbers aren't including a fairly large segment of the population that probably more accurately relates to the point you were trying to make. 38% vs 13.5% is a pretty significant difference. Not weighing in on the relevance of that for shootings, but don't overstate your case. BougieBitch fucked around with this message at 20:48 on May 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
PerpetualSelf posted:Lol gently caress anyone who doen't think the media is being manipulated massively to control the narrative. Just gently caress off and go back to sucking off the MSM. People can have opinions that differ to yours without being wrong. No need to insult people over valid opinions.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
My Q-Face posted:There's a sentiment I hear somewhere, whenever anybody says this, let me see if I can remember what it was... Oh Yeah, they don't have those people Look, more really bad statistics about Europe, yes "not native Norwegian" vs "not white" is a really good way of comparing relative levels of homogeneity. edit: top two sources of immigration for Norway: Sweden and Poland edit2: More fun with numbers, the "Not native American" number is 99% Jarmak fucked around with this message at 21:09 on May 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Look, more really bad statistics about Europe, yes "not native Norwegian" vs "not white" is a really good way of comparing relative levels of homogeneity. polish people are legit discriminated against in norway though
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
It's actually just morally wrong and totally loathsome that police are able to benefit from the same rights and privileges they work tirelessly to deny others can that please be the end of union chat
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:polish people are legit discriminated against in norway though My point was that they wouldn't count in the "not white" category he was comparing it against, and as its biggest source of Immigration Polish ancestry is still only 1.8% of the population compared to 3.2% of the US Population
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:My point was that they wouldn't count in the "not white" category he was comparing it against, and as its biggest source of Immigration Polish ancestry is still only 1.8% of the population compared to 3.2% of the US Population i think polish/baltic people in norway are sort of in the same boat as (legal) hispanics in america, to be honest. nobody claims that they aren't white, but they still face trouble getting interviews on account of their names etc. they're also heavily concentrated in "low-status" work e. like, sure, that use of statistics is sort of dubious, but so is the one you implicitly argued for
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:i think polish/baltic people in norway are sort of in the same boat as (legal) hispanics in america, to be honest. nobody claims that they aren't white, but they still face trouble getting interviews on account of their names etc. they're also heavily concentrated in "low-status" work That wasn't dubious that was conservative, if you compare to Hispanics it looks even more stark, Poles make up 1.8% of the Norwegian population compared to 6.5% of the US Population coming from just Mexico, and that's from census data which allowed people to identify as "American".
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
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] Reasonable suspicion to stop is differe.t than probable cause to arrest That said, I'll bet it is a specific intent crime, in which case they'll need to prove the cops knew the knife was legal. nm fucked around with this message at 21:49 on May 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Woozy posted:It's actually just morally wrong and totally loathsome that police are able to benefit from the same rights and privileges they work tirelessly to deny others can that please be the end of union chat It shouldn't be because it brings to light how public sector unions are an antithesis of good government. Oh is Jonny Nightstick an abusive rear end in a top hat who should be shown the door, too bad he has a union protecting him. Oh is this the 30th abusive complaint for the officer, which puts him in #1 in all complaints, it would be great to fire him, but the union has leveraged protections that prevent that.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Actually teachers and firefighter unions are cool and good. Then again, they don't have the power to murder people and get away with it.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Lotka Volterra posted:Actually teachers and firefighter unions are cool and good. Then again, they don't have the power to murder people and get away with it.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 05:45 |
|
|
Foma posted:It shouldn't be because it brings to light how public sector unions are an antithesis of good government. Oh is Jonny Nightstick an abusive rear end in a top hat who should be shown the door, too bad he has a union protecting him. Oh is this the 30th abusive complaint for the officer, which puts him in #1 in all complaints, it would be great to fire him, but the union has leveraged protections that prevent that. The thing is that it isn't that hard to fire someone in a union civil service position. It only requires that they have a hearing first. The thing preventing them is the poltical will, not the union. You also assume they want to fire the "supercop" who busts skulls. Government unions are potentially needed more than private sector unions. With the lack of any profit motive, there is no reason to not fire good, but unpopular employees. The unpopular employee will not be the racist, but the guy who reports the racist. Remember the union protects him too.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 21:55
|
|