|
Raerlynn posted:So I'm just gonna leave this here: The department clearly acted negligently when they didn't provide the officer an individual training session on when it is and isn't acceptable to use chemical weapons on compliant prisoners.
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 13:59 |
|
|
The teenagers had a preexisting condition that can be aggravated by mace (susceptibility to cayenne peppers) which caused their spasming so you can't blame the officer here.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
twodot posted:Saying that the police are systemically doing bad things that need to be addressed is pretty clearly anti-police. No, it's not. It's anti-abuse/corruption. The argument isn't to get rid of the police, it's that they should act professionally. This isn't an unreasonable thing to expect from the police, but you clearly seem to think so.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Sheriff can fire his deputies, but a Chief can't just fire cops who are city employees. Why not? Is there some organization that stops you from getting rid of bad employees? If your a school administrator, you can get rid a lovely teachers. if you couldn't, you would have to transfer them to run down schools in poor neighborhoods, just trying to make them quit.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
Dahn posted:Why not? Is there some organization that stops you from getting rid of bad employees? The police?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
size1one posted:No, it's not. It's anti-abuse/corruption. The argument isn't to get rid of the police, it's that they should act professionally. This isn't an unreasonable thing to expect from the police, but you clearly seem to think so. Hey man it's a stressful job and they have to make snap decisions based on information in situations where they may or may not die. If we didn't let police just gun down whoever they want without repercussions then a bad guy might get away or a cop might die. I mean, being dangerous is kind of their job; if it wasn't why do they carry guns?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
size1one posted:No, it's not. It's anti-abuse/corruption. The argument isn't to get rid of the police, it's that they should act professionally. This isn't an unreasonable thing to expect from the police, but you clearly seem to think so.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Unfortunately, it requires that the perpetrators be committing certain felonies, like robbery or aggrivated assault in your example. Lawful use of force in a custodial setting doesn't qualify, so you'd have to prove both that the officers' force was unlawful, and that the other officers were knowingly aiding a criminal act. Oh, that's right, they were lawfully beating on him for twenty minutes. I guess that's no harm no foul then! 
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
twodot posted:They're presumably anti-abuse, and the anti-abuse person is saying the police are fostering an abusive system and covering up each others instances of abuse, which implies they don't like the current police very much. I mean maybe it's "anti-police-as-the-police-are-physically-instantiated-at-this-time-and-in-this-country", but it seems dumb to say that. Why in the world am I getting push back on characterizing this as anti-police? The police are terrible, everyone should understand they are terrible, and we as a society should build structures to hold them accountable for their terrible actions. Existing structures don't appear effective, but that can change. Saying children shouldn't be raped doesn't make you anti-catholic or anti-Penn State. Saying prisoners shouldn't be attacked with chemical weapons without cause, beaten to death, or locked in a room for days without food or water doesn't make you anti-police.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
^^^put better than I didtwodot posted:They're presumably anti-abuse, and the anti-abuse person is saying the police are fostering an abusive system and covering up each others instances of abuse, which implies they don't like the current police very much. I mean maybe it's "anti-police-as-the-police-are-physically-instantiated-at-this-time-and-in-this-country", but it seems dumb to say that. Why in the world am I getting push back on characterizing this as anti-police? The police are terrible, everyone should understand they are terrible, and we as a society should build structures to hold them accountable for their terrible actions. Existing structures don't appear effective, but that can change. Because generally in the U.S. where all issues are just a team sport where you're either pro-something or anti-something, "anti-police" is used to characterize anti-abuse positions as just inherently hating law and order and wanting to literally murder police officers and stuff. It's cool that YOU see the nuance, but you're sort of walking into a rhetorical trap with that term. Personally, it seems to me that "pro-police" people aren't very pro-"police" at all since they think it's just great that there's a group of people who can do whatever the gently caress they want with no legal accountability or oversight. I characterize my own position as being extremely pro-police, in that I think that effective policing is so important that everyone should be subject to it, including and especially the human beings who occupy police officer positions themselves.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
DARPA posted:Saying children shouldn't be raped doesn't make you anti-catholic or anti-Penn State. Saying prisoners shouldn't be attacked with chemical weapons without cause, beaten to death, or locked in a room for days without food or water doesn't make you anti-police. Cichlid the Loach posted:Because generally in the U.S. where all issues are just a team sport where you're either pro-something or anti-something, "anti-police" is used to characterize anti-abuse positions as just inherently hating law and order and wanting to literally murder police officers and stuff. It's cool that YOU see the nuance, but you're sort of walking into a rhetorical trap with that term.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
twodot posted:They're presumably anti-abuse, and the anti-abuse person is saying the police are fostering an abusive system and covering up each others instances of abuse, which implies they don't like the current police very much. I mean maybe it's "anti-police-as-the-police-are-physically-instantiated-at-this-time-and-in-this-country", but it seems dumb to say that. Why in the world am I getting push back on characterizing this as anti-police? The police are terrible, everyone should understand they are terrible, and we as a society should build structures to hold them accountable for their terrible actions. Existing structures don't appear effective, but that can change. The job involves huge amounts of responsibility, literally being able to ruin/end lives at will, with a relatively low bar as far as education/qualifications go and a very low chance of actually being prosecuted in the case of misconduct. ANY job that follows that description is going to have rampant abuse, even if the people you're recruiting are relatively average individuals. It's the fault moreso of the assholes that set up this ridiculous system rather than the grunts hired to carry it out.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:Oh, that's right, they were lawfully beating on him for twenty minutes. I guess that's no harm no foul then!
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:P. much, yeah. I figured you'd keep your boot licking subtle, but I guess not.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
Why not just own the label "anti-police" and recognize that the only people who would use that term pejoratively are morons anyway. edit: My god are you saying you're against the armed men who accept money to insulate the powerful from the effects of their rule? Even the good ones?! Woozy fucked around with this message at 03:42 on May 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
Woozy posted:Why not just own the label "anti-police" and recognize that the only people who would use that term pejoratively are morons anyway. Police aren't an inherently terrible concept. Unless, y'know, you like being robbed, raped, and/or murdered without legal recourse. A system being (severely) compromised and open to abuse doesn't mean it's an inherently bad idea, just that we're doing it wrong. Or, to put it another way, the problem isn't that the police protect and shelter white people. It's that they don't do it for everyone else.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
DARPA posted:Saying children shouldn't be raped doesn't make you anti-catholic or anti-Penn State. Saying prisoners shouldn't be attacked with chemical weapons without cause, beaten to death, or locked in a room for days without food or water doesn't make you anti-police. If you dont like abuse you dont like cops. Its pretty simple geez whats wrong with you you cop hater. Too bad this wasnt in Tennesee, the cop would be charged with murder. (Or does the miscarriage=murder rule only apply to the 'lesser' gender?) Woman Says Cop Beating Caused Miscarriage http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/02/09/woman-says-cop-beating-caused-miscarriage.htm Woman miscarries after Georgia cop who didn’t ‘appreciate her tone’ tackles and sits on her: lawsuit http://www.rawstory.com/2015/02/woman-miscarries-after-georgia-cop-who-didnt-appreciate-her-tone-tackles-and-sits-on-her-lawsuit/ Oh hey - Georgia did try to pass that law. I wonder if there was a clause that specifically allowed heroes to kill the unborn? http://www.commondreams.org/views/2013/01/25/miscarriage-murder-states-put-fetal-rights-ahead-mothers-say-so quote:Georgia tried, and thankfully failed, to pass a law that would have had all miscarriages investigated as possible homicides.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned "handgun cams". I am an engineer and something of an inventor, and many ideas I have had later appeared in the market, dammit. here is how I would do the "Witness Cam", as I term it. It would be a self-contained cylindrical object, mounted like a scope, on the barrel of the weapon, bore-sighted to the barrel.It could be quite small-I think 8mm is doable-smaller than the bullet. no external connections of any kind would penetrate the casing of the cam. this is an important point. The power source would be like that of certain smart artillery shells- an annular coil over a magnet driven backwards through the magnetic field by the recoil impulse yielding a single (sizable energy)pulse of current which then charges a capacitor-providing sufficient voltage to power the electronics for the seconds required to strike the target. no internal battery or external power source is required. the front of the witness cam would carry a sapphire window, behind which would be a camera, flash memory,CPU and encrypted optical data link interface (through the same window the cam looks through). Now here is the legalese. The witness cam is a sealed hermetic unit,carrying data accessible only to those in charge that hold the password (keyed to the serial number of the individual cam-keyed to the serial number of the weapon it is installed on)to access the video. It cannot be corrupted, altered, or obscured without the password, and is therefore admissible as evidence.aNY TAMPERING WOULD BE TRACEABLE. sequence: 1. the gun is fired. the bullet travels out. there is a bright muzzle flash. the power magnet moves back and powers up the electronics. 2. the electronics delays some milliseconds to let the obscuring light of the muzzle flash dissipate. 3. when ambient light is clear, the CCD camera takes one or many shots of the area surveyed by the bore-sight FOV. 4. images are stored in Flash to be later recovered by investigators, using an optical link through the camera window. ... I did not previously publish this, because this is just the sort of thing the Feds might mandate on all guns as a measure of gun control- but if these things were mandated on Police guns and other guns in the hands of authority, it could remove much doubt and fog from these incidents. Questions/suggestions, Goons? I think this gadget is a flawless solution to who did what and why. Kickstarter? I could build this now with access to certain tools. MY INVENTION! MINE! MINE!
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 12:48
|
|
|
Part of the reason to have cameras on Police is to prove that all of their interactions are above the board, not just the few seconds after firing their gun into a "bad guy".
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 12:58
|
|
|
I'm "anti-police" in that I think that American police have little oversight and way too much power. I am also "anti-police" because bullshit excuses for why beating a man to death isn't their fault because he had a preexisting condition that became aggravated when he was beaten for twenty minutes or that a man holding a bb-gun in a store is sufficient reason to kill him are unacceptable. I am "anti-police" since they have a history of being on the wrong side during labor disputes and racial issues. I'm "anti-police" since I think that once a criminal is in their care, and that person ends up dead or attacked, the people responsible should be prosecuted and the incident not brushed off. I'm "anti-police" when officers decide to randomly kill people's pets and then their department lies to cover it up. I'm "anti-police" when they tried to frame my cousin for murder and he was only saved because a neighbor could vouch for his alibi he was sleeping on his couch at the time and some of the cops accusing him eventually ended up dead because they were involved in selling illegal drugs (which was possibly related to the murder). The idea that being against these sorts of things is somehow bad and needs a pejorative label is absurd. Being "anti-police" in the sense that you want an actual functioning justice system where certain people aren't above the law is something people should be proud of.
Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 13:14 on May 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 13:08
|
|
|
zimboe posted:Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned "handgun cams". I'd be more interested in what was happening before the gun was fired, personally. My impression was that cops were constrained by causality, and therefore events occurring after the shooting have no impact on the justifiability of the shooting itself.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 13:27
|
|
|
So hey, is this the right thread to post this and talk about how unreliable eyewitness accounts are as a means of identification (and how dangerous it is for a person's name to even so much as occur in some police file or database somewhere, even for people who've never done anything wrong in their lives, because of the increased likelihood to be targeted in some investigation or other)?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
A camera that takes a picture or several at the moment of firing isn't necessarily a bad idea, particularly because it would capture things that are sometimes hazy in reports (exact distances, whether someone was holding an object when fired on, whether they were reaching into their coat/had their hands up/etc. Especially if it was self-contained and so less vulnerable to mistakes like 'not turning it on' or 'forgetting to replace the batteries' or whatever else might happen to other units. But it should definitely serve as a redundancy system to supplement something that records the whole situation leading up to a shooting - because it's very possible to have a still frame that looks like a 'good shoot' when the leadup would tell a very different story.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
Why not just strap a Gopro to the guns that activates once the gun is drawn? Or just make some kind of special issue guns that have a camera on them. People want video, not pictures.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
Anora posted:Why not just strap a Gopro to the guns that activates once the gun is drawn? Or just make some kind of special issue guns that have a camera on them. We don't need a killcam, we need a way to see what happened before it escalated into firearms.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
that's not going to happen on a gun mounted camera, that would be the body camera, Gun Cameras would be entirely "kill cams."
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Cop molests women, Man films cop, Cop assaults Man. http://www.alternet.org/nypd-cop-tries-cop-feel-woman-her-friend-tries-film-it-so-they-assault-and-kidnap-him quote:A video released last week has once again caught the police in a lie. Two NYPD officers were caught assaulting a man for filming an officer who was inappropriately touching his female friend during a stop and frisk. Its so anti-cop to not let a Hero get a little rapey when they need it. (Three angles of security cam video at the link.)
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
How dare you say that there is a systemic issue with the police when two that molest a woman, beat a man, and then deprive him of his rights by falsely arresting him not to mention wasting the money and time of the justice department aren't punished at all. That's so anti-police. And in Police Appreciation Week no less! How rude.
Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 18:16 on May 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
They weren't charged, so their actions were clearly lawful, so no harm done. The law is the grand arbiter of morality, which I'm grateful for.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Careful if you infer that that laws are not just, that people familiar with the system can abuse it for their own ends, or that it's often entirely arbitrary in how it is enforced then reality literally crumbles as the natural laws written by the gods are unwoven.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Radish posted:That's so anti-police. And in Police Appreciation Week no less! How rude.  Heres an uplifting story where the Hero gets to murder someone and then lie about it and the prosecutors totally cover for their hero-bro. http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/prosecutors-ignore-video-to-clear-florida-deputy-who-shot-unarmed-teen-with-down-syndrome/ quote:Prosecutors apparently ignored evidence from a traffic camera that contradicted a Florida deputy who shot an unarmed teenager with Down syndrome. Prosecutor totally bro'd up and covered for their bro murdercop bro to maintain the copbrocode. Its important to not "have a contentious relationship" with your bros when they murder people. If Arpaio taught us anything, its that the brocops will totally turn on other public employees if they ever forget who their bros are.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
Lemming posted:I figured you'd keep your boot licking subtle, but I guess not. zimboe posted:MY INVENTION! MINE! MINE! 
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Lemming posted:They weren't charged, so their actions were clearly lawful, so no harm done. The law is the grand arbiter of morality, which I'm grateful for. And when they are they're never convicted since they are are heroes and the people who accuse them of wrongdoing are all lying criminals http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/...ktype=hp_impact
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:How should the police respond, other than force, if a prisoner decides not to return to his cell or refuses to surrender his hands for cuffing? Just wait until he feels like complying? Lemming posted:http://www.app.com/story/news/investigations/watchdog/investigations/2015/02/06/inmate-death-inside-monmouth-county-jail/22993735/ Where in any posts in this entire thread has anyone said or implied that police should never use force? You're trying to spin everyone else's position by exaggerating to make it seem ridiculous, because you're a boot licker, and not in this conversation in good faith. Cops should be allowed to use force when appropriate. They shouldn't be allowed to randomly assault people and/or beat them to death. Tell me, is it difficult to get the taste of boot out of your mouth, or do you just like it now?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Speaking of not filing chargesquote:WAUKEGAN, Ill. (WLS) -- I left an adjacent courtroom an hour before this was announced and there were dozens of sheriff deputies guarding the hallway and elevator bank, plus even more downstairs. It was really creepy and the protest crowd outside the courthouse had less people than the deputies did.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Some good news for once, Tanaka's been indicted by the FBI. A shame it took the Feds getting involved  http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Feds-Announce-Indictment-Former-Undersheriff-Paul-Tanaka-LA-303738741.html quote:Two former high-ranking Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department officials turned themselves in to the FBI Thursday morning after being indicted in federal court, authorities said.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Minarchist posted:charged wth five counts, including conspiracy Minarchist posted:making false statements
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:How should the police respond, other than force, if a prisoner decides not to return to his cell or refuses to surrender his hands for cuffing? Just wait until he feels like complying? Beating him for 20min, restraining him, and injecting him with drugs before leaving him alone certainly shouldn't be the way they respond ! EDIT: seriously, the cops beat a man to death and you're asking "Well what else could they have done!?" how loving stupid are you?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
If our hero officers can't punch and kick a man into unconsciousness to ensure that his limp body is totally compliant, what can they do to restrain violent thugs?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 13:59 |
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpE3CpaEN84&t=290s http://thefreethoughtproject.com/video-shows-deputy-smash-autistic-mans-skull-ground-killing-joking/ Heroic officer was forced to gain control of this violent criminal with a legal take down hold/skull split. Other heroes stood by to later corroborate his story.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 21:42
|
|