|
Wasn't the DoJ report before this, though? I thought it was just referenced in that as far as "What the hell are you doing?"
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 00:41 |
|
|
Boomer The Cannon posted:Wasn't the DoJ report before this, though? I thought it was just referenced in that as far as "What the hell are you doing?" Edit - it was more general and not focused on the Brelo case.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
http://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/index.ssf/2014/12/justice_department_recommends.html Among the findings: The Cleveland Police department engages in a pattern of using excessive force in violation of citizens' Constitutional rights. Officers were quick to pull their guns, often escalating situations, and fired their guns at people who did not pose an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury. There were incidents where officers punched and Tasered suspects already subdued or in handcuffs – sometimes as punishment. And they used Tasers too readily. The report also cited the city for failing to adequately investigate and discipline the officers involved in using excessive force. They said that investigators conducting reviews admitted that their goal was to paint the accused officers in the most positive light. http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2014/12/04/cleveland_division_of_police_findings_letter.pdf
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
Gotcha, that's what I thought. CPD has certainly had it's share of questionable decisions and practices, and unfortunately it's hard to keep them straight. I don't want to say 'You get what you pay for' as far as policing goes, as I don't know what their officers make and what sort of funding base they have. At the same time, I can't imagine you get the quality of training/staffing that you would elsewhere with higher funding levels. Maybe I'm just grasping at straws, though. Boomer The Cannon fucked around with this message at 16:38 on May 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:What the gently caress? Are you not understanding that the North Hollywood shootout is the bank robbery he's specifically talking about in that series of posts? Maybe he doesn't know the full details of that particular robbery, but for the majority of robberies he's right. What do you think, if you can prove he's wrong about one case it will justify your position?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Maybe he doesn't know the full details of that particular robbery, but for the majority of robberies he's right. What do you think, if you can prove he's wrong about one case it will justify your position?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
twodot posted:If their position is "That person is wrong about that case" it would. Right, he's just trying to clear up the misconception about one robbery case. He hasn't been constantly trying to justify police actions every chance he can.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Right, he's just trying to clear up the misconception about one robbery case. He hasn't been constantly trying to justify police actions every chance he can.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
twodot posted:This is the upside of being correct, you get to be correct. Attack them somewhere where they are wrong. If the goal is to feel good about bring right once or twice then feel free to celebrate. However, being right once or twice doesn't make the pro-police abuse position justified. That's the whole point, you can argue all day about one case where police use of force was justified, that does not make all their other actions justified. So why is he trying to prove his case so hard? So he can say stuff like this: Jarmak posted:We have people in this thread unironically complaining that the police shot the North Hollywood gunman, what set of facts do you think could possibly come out that they wouldn't protest. If he's right about one thing he feels he can use that as a way to discredit the position/ideas of the people against police abuse. It's a stupid persons argument style.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:If he's right about one thing he feels he can use that as a way to discredit the position/ideas of the people against police abuse. It's a stupid persons argument style.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
The judgment was basically two fold. First the judge declared that he was not guilty of manslaughter because there were so many bullets fired there was no way to tell that he landed the killing blow and the other was that he was justified in his assault of the couple because he perceived them as a threat (which is why he jumped on the hood of their car and unloaded his gun into them.) So basically, the couple was guilty of driving into 137 bullets and killing themselves.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
twodot posted:They're right about someone being wrong. It's totally reasonable to use the fact that someone is wrong about something to discredit their other ideas. You should be attacking the wrong person, not harassing the right person for being right. If you think Jarmak is wrong about other things, you should be attacking the things they are wrong about, and at most ignoring the things they are right about. If the goal is to feel like a winner you've got a great strategy, ignore anything you can't win. If the goal is to understand, scrutinize and defend your position it's a real poo poo strategy.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
Good thing there is an ocean between me and your cops. Your cops are beyond hosed up and so is your legal system to render such an absurd verdict.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:Good thing there is an ocean between me and your cops. Your cops are beyond hosed up and so is your legal system to render such an absurd verdict. Manslaughter was always going to be a stretch in this case. That leaves the assault charges, however according to the judge while being on the hood was stupid it doesn't mean the perceived threat was gone (Brelo apparently wasn't the last to shoot, meaning other police also thought there was still a threat).
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
On a tangent, the conspiracy vs conspiracy play between the CIA and the Senate is pretty hosed up. Also another sign that "oversight" is not something that really exists for armed agencies in America. http://www.alternet.org/books/unbelievably-shocking-and-corrupt-tactics-cia-used-hide-their-torture-practices quote:The Unbelievably Shocking and Corrupt Tactics the CIA Used to Hide Their Torture Practices Interestingly the same tactics seem to work from hick-hamlet sheriff murderers all the way up to the big time spooks. quote:Even more worryingly, while the Senate report was for the moment holding back from policy recommendations and other action, it set the stage for a high-stakes game on accountability for torture, including unexplained homicides involving prisoners. These people can pretty much do whatever they want from all current signs. Cop role models basically. quote:On January 15, 2014, Brennan met with Feinstein and had to acknowledge that the CIA had run searches on the Senate computers. Far from apologizing for this intrusion, Brennan stated that he intended to pursue further forensic investigations “to learn more about activities of the committee’s oversight staff.” ... and the ever powerful: "Nuh uh! You did!" quote:By January 2014, before Feinstein gave her speech, the controversy had reached a fever pitch. Reports that the CIA had been snooping on the Senate committee and had gained unauthorized access to its computers began to circulate in the Beltway media. Through its surrogates, the CIA struck back. Unidentified agency sources asserted that Senate staffers had “hacked into” CIA computers to gain access to the Panetta report and other documents. The staffers had then illegally transported classified information to their Capitol Hill offices, removing it from the secure site furnished by the agency.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:If the goal is to feel like a winner you've got a great strategy, ignore anything you can't win. If the goal is to understand, scrutinize and defend your position it's a real poo poo strategy. What the gently caress are you on about, I made a snide comment that was pointing out the ridiculousness of both his North Hollywood shootout position and the fact people were already protesting the new shooting before anyone knows anything about what happened. Yes, the fact people are arguing for the fact the police shouldn't have shot the North Hollywood bank robbers does discredit their judgement as to what constitutes a "good" shoot. I'm not really sure what you're trying to accomplish with this "how dare you be right about something I disagree with" routine.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:If the goal is to feel like a winner you've got a great strategy, ignore anything you can't win. If the goal is to understand, scrutinize and defend your position it's a real poo poo strategy.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
Oh, did America happen again while I was asleep? edit: the judge said he wouldn't "sacrifice" this guy to the police violence argument without evidence, and I guess I agree, but I wish he had mentioned how almost certainly an enormous law enforcement problem, bigger than him or anyone else there, led to this destructive outcome. Samurai Sanders fucked around with this message at 19:05 on May 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Boomer The Cannon posted:Gotcha, that's what I thought. CPD has certainly had it's share of questionable decisions and practices, and unfortunately it's hard to keep them straight. This is bullshit, you aren't going to fix the culture that causes bad policing simply by paying officers more. The only way to fix it is to hold officers accountable, and enact some kind of RICO act for police officers that forces departments to take an active role in removing "bad apples." Shielding officer wrong-doings should have a more severe penalty then whatever the behavior the officer did. I'm not even upset at most of the bad things police do because in theory they are only a small part of the justice system, but the fact that we only hear about the most egregious is a huge problem.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:
This is what I got now:  Though to be fair, they may have had to trim for length as it moved out of the top spot.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Cichlid the Loach posted:This is what I got now: The NYT probably decided that headline was a bit much even for their tastes considering the context of the situation. It's been amended a few times.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:Why is the verdict absurd? Does your legal system convict people of killing people who are already dead? It effectively says you can kill someone and get away with it if you dilute responsibility(and keep shooting) in a large enough group, especially when they should have been taken to trial collectively for massive excessive use of force. It shouldn't have mattered whether he fired the killing shot or not, it was his intentions and actions leading up to the shooting that was important. Technically the Judge is correct under your law, but that still doesn't make it less absurd. oohhboy fucked around with this message at 20:10 on May 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:It effectively says you can kill someone and get away with it if you dilute responsibility(and keep shooting) in a large enough group, especially when they should have been taken to trial collectively for massive excessive use of force. It shouldn't have mattered whether he fired the killing shot or not, it was his intentions and actions leading up to the shooting that was important. Technically the Judge is correct under your law, but that still doesn't make it anymore absurd. This is America, though. Our justice system is a bizarre and cruel mirror universe mockery of some other world's real, functional justice system.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Officer Brelo, according to the ruling, swiss-cheesed the driver and passenger because he still reasonably perceived a threat. Given that in reality the car was stopped and the occupants were unarmed—in other words, it was already the case that there was indeed no threat—what WOULD, from the officers' point of view, have constituted an end to the threat, short of the victims' death? If the answer is "nothing," then what?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
Cichlid the Loach posted:Officer Brelo, according to the ruling, swiss-cheesed the driver and passenger because he still reasonably perceived a threat. Given that in reality the car was stopped and the occupants were unarmed—in other words, it was already the case that there was indeed no threat—what WOULD, from the officers' point of view, have constituted an end to the threat, short of the victims' death? If the answer is "nothing," then what? Does it matter? This is the nation where "I don't know, I thought I smelled weed, I guess" is enough justification for a police officer to smash your door in and gun you down.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/8th-grader-arrested-threatened-beatings-and-held-6-days-jail-throwing-skittlesquote:8th Grader Arrested, Threatened with Beatings and Held for 6 Days in Jail – For Throwing Skittles
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
I was shopping around Ohio City (west Cleveland) this afternoon and white people are buzzing nonstop about the "protests" and "riots" which either will or already have sparked in Cleveland. I drove by public square and saw basically nothing. Looking at the news, there are several headlines about protests, but none of them actually describe protests in their contents. The feeling I'm getting is these people, and the media, want to see order break down so that they can make hay out of it. They literally enjoy clutching at their pearls and playing the victim. It's loving bizarre and it sort of exemplifies how most people have absolutely no concept of what a real riot looks like. I have a feeling that if Tamir Rice's shooter gets acquitted, they'll get a taste of it. ANIME AKBAR fucked around with this message at 21:16 on May 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
No, my point was this: They robbed a bank. No hostages, nobody lives in danger. They did shoot at some cop cars while they were trying to escape. The cops were woefully outgunned, unless some crack shot McGee was able to get a headshot they could not take them down. SWAT had not arrived. Rather then let them get in their car and follow them instead they start a full out gun battle. 10 cops and 6 civilians get shot. Because if they didn't then some FDIC insured money might have to be tracked down. Nobodies life was being threatened, no hostages and up until that point the only casualties were some cop cars. Instead 16 people get shot because they might get away from the scene. If someone's life is in danger, fine. If the danger is they might have to follow them In a helicopter or do something like investigate and find them, don't start a 45 minute gun battle and put the cops and bystanders lives in danger because there's a slim chance they don't get the most important important thing: the money. Robbing a bank is not a capital offense and the decision should be between what is the safest way to catch them. If the immediate situation puts cops and civilians in danger then don't loving do it. I know the thought of them not being caught on the spot is unthinkable but if the outcome could (and did) end a bloodbath over money then wait until the situation can be more safely dealt with. Like maybe wait for SWAT to show up before everyone just starts shooting at two guys playing iron man.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:nobody lives in danger. Toasticle posted:They did shoot at some cop cars Toasticle posted:Nobodies life was being threatened  Pictured: A non-threatening situation. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 21:28 on May 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:Why is the verdict absurd? Does your legal system convict people of killing people who are already dead? This is not a good justification for anything!!
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
They emptied a couple hundred rounds into the bank full of people. I guess we should let airplane hijackers have the plane and go land wherever too?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Can someone give me a brief summary of what happened in Ohio? I hard a few things about it already, but I just want to know what exactly happened that night.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I guess we should let airplane hijackers have the plane and go land wherever too?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:It effectively says you can kill someone and get away with it if you dilute responsibility(and keep shooting) in a large enough group, especially when they should have been taken to trial collectively for massive excessive use of force. It shouldn't have mattered whether he fired the killing shot or not, it was his intentions and actions leading up to the shooting that was important. Technically the Judge is correct under your law, but that still doesn't make it less absurd. Seems like this is an argument that those bikers in waco should be making.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:That was pretty much the SOP pre-9/11. Not so much anymore for obvious reasons. 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
peengers posted:Seems like this is an argument that those bikers in waco should be making. It is almost guaranteed that most, if not all of them, will go free precisely for that reason.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
blunt for century posted:Can someone give me a brief summary of what happened in Ohio? I hard a few things about it already, but I just want to know what exactly happened that night. High speed (100+) chase for 23 miles. During chase cops report gunfire coming from the car with no guns. Passenger is seen reloading non existent gun. Cops finally corner car in a parking lot. Dead guy rams cop car to try to break out. 13 cops mag dump into car. 1 Cop (former marine) is a better mag dumper and gets off 49 rounds (I assume 3 mags) in 20 secs, the last 15 into the windshield while standing on the hood of dead guys car. (this tactic is good in Anbar Province, but not so much in Cleveland) This cop gets charged with manslaughter, but since the 2 people killed are riddled with fatal wounds from the other 12 cops, he is found not guilty. There is a protest out front of the courthouse with more cameramen then reporters (shocker). e: cop is white guy, dead people are black. Dahn fucked around with this message at 22:25 on May 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
Word from a friend on the east side of Cleveland is riots/at least 6 houses torched.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Don't know if I should post this here or not but here is a live feed of the protests. I don't think there have been any fires or anything resembling a riot yet. Protesters blocked off shoreway and there are a ton of police following them as they head downtown. I am at the casino playing poker so I might run down and see if I can catch any craziness in the crowd but I highly doubt anything will happen. http://www.wkyc.com/videos/homepage/2015/04/21/3311833/ There are 2 fires at vacant homes on the eastside but they are not related to any rioting. Fires like that happen all the time on the eastside. jase1 fucked around with this message at 22:48 on May 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 00:41 |
|
|
Mr. Wookums posted:Word from a friend on the east side of Cleveland is riots/at least 6 houses torched. CNN has been roaming the streets waiting for something to happen since this morning so if that were happening they would certainly be on it.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 23:00
|
|