|
On Terra Firma posted:Is there anything inherently wrong with taking away their toys? Like, I get that it doesn't solve some of the fundamental problems with policing, but I don't exactly see where the issue is in taking that poo poo away. Powercrazy posted:Yes I agree the FBI should take a more adversarial role vs police, that would probably help a lot, unfortunately no one seems willing to do that.
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:32 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:This attitude is the problem. If you're trying to defuse the adversarial relationship between citizens and the police, it's not going to help if you roll in with the attitude that we need to take something away from the police, not because it's effective policy, but to punish them. You're embracing the us vs them attitude you claim to oppose. Is giving MRAPs to police in the first place an effective policy?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
I'm using adversarial as a legal term. (of a trial or legal procedure) in which the parties in a dispute have the responsibility for finding and presenting evidence. Basically right now the FBI and the Police are on the "same team," and thus the FBI never goes out of their way to investigate police findings about themselves. They might investigate a non-leo suspect separately from the police investigation to determine if the police were correct, but regardless of the outcome, the police aren't the reason for the investigation. I'm saying that when someone dies in police custody, it should be investigated as a federal murder charge, by the fbi similar to how when I kill someone, it is investigated as a homicide on the county level.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:This attitude is the problem. If you're trying to defuse the adversarial relationship between citizens and the police, it's not going to help if you roll in with the attitude that we need to take something away from the police, not because it's effective policy, but to punish them. You're embracing the us vs them attitude you claim to oppose. Allowing the police to play DELTA FORCE ELITE OPERATOR dressup is a significant contributor to their current poor behavior, as far as I'm concerned. If you take a regular cop and hand him camo (or worse yet one of those flight jumpsuit things) and an m4 with $3000 in accessories hanging off of it - he's going to start getting the idea that he's not Just a cop. VitalSigns posted:Is giving MRAPs to police in the first place an effective policy? Considering the MRAPs already exist and the police do have (occasional) legitimate uses for an armored car, I think it's a reasonable policy. Better that than having them blow 6 figures on a brand new one.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Is giving MRAPs to police in the first place an effective policy? The main benefit of making it harder for cops to get MRAPs is that small agencies won't accept them then realize maintenance is expensive. It also reduces the chances of cops getting hurt in rollovers. Cops lusting after a shiny former DoD toys is stupid, but they've ruined lives and killed people without them for a long time. Special vehicles and SWAT/tactical teams also have the problem of administration asking why they pay for them if they don't use them. So they get used for dumb stuff when really they should be an "in case of emergency" item. If I was told I was going to lose all my fire extinguishers unless I used them, and nothing was on fire, I might find some creative uses so I could keep them around.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
IMO, SWAT teams should be on a county level in most areas rather than an individual department level.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
semper wifi posted:Allowing the police to play DELTA FORCE ELITE OPERATOR dressup is a significant contributor to their current poor behavior, as far as I'm concerned. If you take a regular cop and hand him camo (or worse yet one of those flight jumpsuit things) and an m4 with $3000 in accessories hanging off of it - he's going to start getting the idea that he's not Just a cop. I would honestly be legit surprised if there was any significant correlation between the value of DRMO materiel accepted by a department and bad policing outcomes.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:This attitude is the problem. If you're trying to defuse the adversarial relationship between citizens and the police, it's not going to help if you roll in with the attitude that we need to take something away from the police, not because it's effective policy, but to punish them. You're embracing the us vs them attitude you claim to oppose. Maybe we should give them more!
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:The order restricts transfers of armored tracked vehicles, armed vehicles, firearms or ammunition of .50-calibre or higher, grenade launchers, bayonets and some types of camouflage uniforms from federal government to local police. It does not prevent them from buying any of these things, or using federal money to buy any of these things. It does not place any restrictions on federal law enforcement. The executive order authorizing it specifically covers the use of federal money to buy these things such as through DHS as well as discounts through the DoD section 1122 program. To the extent that law enforcement agencies can buy things themselves, they're often prohibitively expensive and still subject to federal regulation. This specifically harmonizes the minimum requirements for all federal assistance programs. quote:Things specifically not restricted from transfer: Aircraft, drones, MRAPs, Humvees, explosives, riot gear including shields and batons. The things that you listed as specifically not restricted are the things that are specifically restricted but are not completely prohibited. If an agency can make a case for why they specifically need an MRAP, provide a written policy of what situations they will use it and how, documentation that all officers using the MRAP have been trained in that policy and documentation after any incidents where they use the MRAP, they can have it. However they can't have it with the ability to mount any weapons on it and failure to comply with any of the restrictions means at a minimum suspension from all federal aid programs. The only program that could possibly give tanks or attack helicopters is the DoD 1033 program and the task force didn't consider those since the DoD will never give those to the police. It does not consider them to have any legitimate law enforcement purpose and never has. It previously could loan grenade launchers to law enforcement agencies but that's no longer allowed. This doesn't solve police militarization but the DoD is probably the best avenue for pounding into their thick skulls that they're not military, they never will be military and that they didn't get the equipment so that they could act like they're military.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I would honestly be legit surprised if there was any significant correlation between the value of DRMO materiel accepted by a department and bad policing outcomes. I would honestly be legit surprised if we ever got hard statistics on "bad policing outcomes" at all.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Listening to NPR yesterday was hilarious. A caller called up and said "You called the protestors and rioters in Ferguson and Batlimore thugs... why aren't you calling the bikers in Waco thugs?" The responses from multiple people on the show were all, roughly: "Why, of course we can call them thugs! If they act like thugs, they are thugs. In fact, I'll do it right now. They were.. they were... bullies. Yes. They were big bullies. No one can denies these bikers were bullies. See, we treat these issues the same, and we're describing these bullies and the thugs from baltimore exactly the same!"
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Listening to NPR yesterday was hilarious. A caller called up and said "You called the protestors and rioters in Ferguson and Batlimore thugs... why aren't you calling the bikers in Waco thugs?" I heard that segment too. There were quite a few supposed bikers calling in and pointing the finger at law enforcement-affiliated biker gangs for sparking the Waco shoot out. The detective on the panel specializing in outlaw bikers was of course having none of it.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:I heard that segment too. There were quite a few supposed bikers calling in and pointing the finger at law enforcement-affiliated biker gangs for sparking the Waco shoot out. The detective on the panel specializing in outlaw bikers was of course having none of it. That was also pretty funny. Talking about how they'd turn other gangs into the cop gangs, the cop gangs would raid them and sell the drugs they confiscated to the first gang, and the panel just seemed to be in denial about the idea, except for the one guy who was like "uh, maybe you could take to me more about this, later, when we're not on the air...".
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:I heard that segment too. There were quite a few supposed bikers calling in and pointing the finger at law enforcement-affiliated biker gangs for sparking the Waco shoot out. The detective on the panel specializing in outlaw bikers was of course having none of it. That reminded me, lets check in on those cops that ran a guy off the road as part of a motorcycle gang.... Oh right, the trial is just beginning. Lets check in on their arguments: quote:Biker cop Wojciech Braszczok could not have done real damage to the back window of a Tribeca dad’s SUV during a frenzied gang attack on the motorist in 2013, according to an engineering study his defense lawyers commissioned. And lets see how they're describing their behavior: quote:Prosecutors charge Braszczok, who faces gang assault and related counts, not only failed to follow NYPD protocol in the situation by reporting a crime or intervening if possible, but he engaged in the mayhem "he helped create." Yup, punching through a broken window to make the hole bigger is just normal cop behavior. Just like participating in dangerous criminal activities and not stopping someone getting beaten and just driving off (never calling 911 or reporting anything in the meanwhile) is "reacting like a cop." Also there are texts from the officer from the day before that are were concerning enough his handler was worried (with bonus OWS police surveillance): quote:“Mayhem... going through red lights, tricks and s--t,” said an unidentified undercover detective, recalling the text he received on Sept. 28, 2013—one day before a group of bikers pulled Alexian Lien from his Range Rover in Washington Heights and beat him bloody as his wife and daughter watched on. Oh yeah and of course the good part: quote:Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass vehemently opposed letting the Polish native return home. “The defendant, according to his passport itself, was born in Poland which makes for a much thornier extradition should the defendant decide to remain in Poland,” Steinglass said.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:IMO, SWAT teams should be on a county level in most areas rather than an individual department level. Interesting idea. How about a step farther and have all cops at the county level.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
Dahn posted:Interesting idea. How about a step farther and have all cops at the county level. Police are of municipal authority, sheriff and deputies are of county authority. There are small towns and unincorporated areas that don't have police and are patrolled by the Sheriff's Office, but the towns have the legal right to form police if they so goddamn please and there is no way to prevent it.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
That is going to vary greatly by state. Some states consider certain types of cities the same as counties and some states have merged city/county governments.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:That is going to vary greatly by state. Some states consider certain types of cities the same as counties and some states have merged city/county governments. True, and there are States with no counties and sheriff's. So I'll state what I stated as a good rule of thumb. Due to the nature of governments and their authority, it's kinda hard to just go on limiting local law enforcement to be by the Sheriff's office. Mix in Maryland and Virginia with their drat County Police.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:This attitude is the problem. If you're trying to defuse the adversarial relationship between citizens and the police, it's not going to help if you roll in with the attitude that we need to take something away from the police, not because it's effective policy, but to punish them. You're embracing the us vs them attitude you claim to oppose. I'm not claiming anything. Don't put words in my mouth. We didn't create the adversarial attitude, the police did. The idea that we can't disarm them to some degree because oh no we're doing a mean thing to them is bullshit and you know it. It's not an us vs them thing, it's about the police having to answer to civilian leadership. Part of that is being told what they can and cannot have. All I said was that if there is nothing else that will come out of the push for reform than cutting off their supply of MRAPs and tactical playthings then I'll take it. Just because the problem cannot be solved at all once doesn't mean nothing should happen in the meantime. If part of that is limiting their ability to play dress up with hand me down military equipment then that's what's going to happen. On Terra Firma fucked around with this message at 21:57 on May 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:True, and there are States with no counties and sheriff's. Well maybe the problem is "to many cops". Cop to Joe citizen ratios by city
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Dahn posted:Well maybe the problem is "to many cops". I think you'll find too few cops brews just as much corruption.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
tezcat posted:Well if reading TCC is your only contact with people who do hard stuff then I can see that opinion being valid sort of. In my experience most addicts want to break the cycle and just need help in doing so. When given a chance to change their lifestyle, they do and its common for me to hear "its my 10th anniversary of being clean and sober". Reason being usually something lovely in their life seems to be the trigger for abuse to start and when you nullify that they get better. Which is why I agree with treating addiction as a healthcare issue. Yeah; the only reason I ever started using was because I had a period of unemployment following graduating college which, combined with depression and no social life, lead to me seeking out any avenue by which I could feel happiness/pleasure. That being said, even if someone starts using for some stupid reason, years of mental and physical suffering and anguish are hardly a reasonable punishment for being stupid. I would literally pay any amount of money to suddenly be clean and back to feeling like I did before this ever started, and I'm confident that I would never use again if such a thing happened. The problem is that after you've been using an opiate for years there's this thing called PAWS (post acute withdrawal syndrome) that basically makes you continue to feeling bad 24/7 even after acute withdrawals (which, while terrible, is relatively short) has passed and can last years. I've gotten clean before, but would always break down after several weeks of getting no sleep and being in a state of constant physical discomfort and depression. And that's not even to mention the fact that there's no way I would be able to keep my job (programmer) while suffering from the constant mental fog and insomnia from PAWS. I truly believe that, given the current pitiful state of addiction treatment, there is no workable solution. There's a reason why you hardly ever hear about people breaking long-term addictions without them finding religion or something. It's probably worth noting that the substance I used was entirely legal and I never once did anything illegal while using. I've been on suboxone for several years, but it is every bit as difficult to discontinue (if not harder) than other opiates and is not something I would recommend as a long-term solution. That being said, I do not think that there is any real difference between using what I did and using heroine and do not think that I am better in any way. It's just useful to mention due to the fact that many people conflate addiction with breaking the law.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
I'd personally move SWAT teams out of law enforcement and make it part of some other emergency services or public safety role. If it's possible to train someone to act as both a beat cop and a SWAT team member, then it should be possible to train a firefighter or EMT to do the same. Both police and SWAT have guns, both deal with people breaking the law but the more people try to find things in common, the more police act like SWAT. Firefighters may not make the ideal fit but at least SWAT training shouldn't conflict with their normal job duties. At least I hope not  quote:We responded to a single vehicle MVA with entrapment on Main Street at 04:30. When we approached the car and ordered the driver to exit the vehicle with their hands up, they failed to comply so we were forced to apply lethal force.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:Firefighters may not make the ideal fit but at least SWAT training shouldn't conflict with their normal job duties. At least I hope not
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Firefighters and EMTs really, really don't want to be cops. It interferes with their jobs when people run away from them. I can't remember if it was homeland security or I think the NYPD wanted EMTs and firefighters to report if they saw anything 'suspicious' and luckily the answer was gently caress off, making it so people are afraid to call 911 for someone ODing or a fire because they don't want to get busted is an unbelievably moronic idea.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:I'd personally move SWAT teams out of law enforcement and make it part of some other emergency services or public safety role. r: This is a ridiculous statement, SWAT is law enforcement. If you make the SWAT team firefighters you didn't make it not law enforcement, you just turned the firefighters into law enforcement.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:True, and there are States with no counties and sheriff's. Also Georgia - there are counties with both a Police Department and a Sheriff's Office as distinct entities, as well as having municipal police. I live in a city where the Sheriff, county police, and city police all have jurisdiction. And not all the incorporated cities in my county have PDs, either. County PDs can work, especially when the city cops are considered to be the worst and most power-hungry ones to deal with and most people prefer to deal with the county cops. It's not really as bizarre as you're making it out to be.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 08:17
|
|
|
  The Cleveland Police have released the Tamir Rice incident report, which cites him for aggravated menacing and inciting panic.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
soundnthefury posted:
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Just to make sure, that's the kid who was sitting in the park alone and then the police officer is on camera almost running him down, jumping out of the car and immediately shooting him, right? Unfortunately, yes
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Everyone that signed off on that should be in jail.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
...what the gently caress does aggravated menacing even mean?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
"No person shall knowingly cause another to believe that the offender will cause serious physical harm to the person or property of the other person, the other person's unborn, or a member of the other person's immediate family." So basically they are charging him with "we were scared of him and he totally intended it."
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:...what the gently caress does aggravated menacing even mean? Black in public.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Mehuyael posted:Black in public. But yeah really this.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:...what the gently caress does aggravated menacing even mean? He had a toy gun and scared a person by having it. quote:No person shall knowingly cause another to believe that the offender will cause serious physical harm to the person or property of the other person, the other person's unborn, or a member of the other person's immediate family
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
That appears to show that Officer Loehmann (who shot Tamir) received minor injuries? I can only assume that they were planning to blame the kid for a seltbelt burn when the officer leaped out of the car so fast.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
  Police Enemies #1 and 2
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:This is a ridiculous statement, SWAT is law enforcement. If you make the SWAT team firefighters you didn't make it not law enforcement, you just turned the firefighters into law enforcement. Aren't SWAT less law enforcement and more outright threat elimination? I mean, they don't exactly do normal police activity like patrolling and investigating, do they? I could see an argument for making them their own organization for the same reason Firemen aren't police officers (not saying SWAT should be firemen either) even though police are also considered to be Public Safety in addition to Law Enforcement. I agree rolling them into Fire or EMS would be stupid, but there might be an argument to making them independent from the police in the same way Fire and EMS are - they all respond to emergencies, but the type of emergencies are quite different.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:32 |
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Aren't SWAT less law enforcement and more outright threat elimination? I mean, they don't exactly do normal police activity like patrolling and investigating, do they? No, SWAT is for enforcing laws against people who actively and violently resist. Their origin is in apprehending armed bank robbers and penetrating a barricaded residence to effect an arrest.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 19:20
|
|