|
Something else that concerns me is the issue of police "losing" their dash cam/body cam video. I think there is a simple solution; a state or federal statute that shifts the burden of proof of justification to the officer claiming the defense, if they cannot produce the dash/body cam of the incident. I'd actually prefer to flesh that thought out more, because I really don't like dicking with the presumption of innocence at trial at all, whether for cops, or mass murderers. But I do think you need to incentivize police documenting their encounters, without assuming that "all police are murdering all the time."
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 21:26 |
|
|
What about rights violations, the injured, the crippled, the mentally scarred people, unjustly jailed, the police are producing everyday? Death by police is the tip of poo poo mountain. Your police are poo poo, do something other than defending their behaviour which does nothing but perpetuate it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:What about rights violations, the injured, the crippled, the mentally scarred people, unjustly jailed, the police are producing everyday? Death by police is the tip of poo poo mountain. Thanks for your contribution. What is your proposed solution?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Something else that concerns me is the issue of police "losing" their dash cam/body cam video. I think there is a simple solution; a state or federal statute that shifts the burden of proof of justification to the officer claiming the defense, if they cannot produce the dash/body cam of the incident.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
twodot posted:While I'm totally ok with this, I think it might be hard to implement, since you'd need some sort of hearing to determine what exactly lost means (seconds, minutes, hours, degraded or otherwise edited, et cetera). We could just treat it like (my lay understanding of) the destruction of evidence it is and give an instruction that we should presume the lost footage is evidence against their claim. It would already fall under the destruction of evidence, or 'spoliation' protections. I think you go one step further, and make it strict liability. As in, "If the Court doesn't have your body cam video within 30 days of the filing of suit/complaint..." If you don't have it, we don't care why you don't have it, thats on you. I bet they never lose their videos again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Something else that concerns me is the issue of police "losing" their dash cam/body cam video. I think there is a simple solution; a state or federal statute that shifts the burden of proof of justification to the officer claiming the defense, if they cannot produce the dash/body cam of the incident.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You'd need a constitutional amendment, because that's super unconstitutional. Like, you could probably institute some sort of administrative zero tolerance policy for body camera use, but criminal penalties are a whole other kettle of fish. Which is why I said I was uncomfortable with the mechanism, if not the concept. As a practical matter, the state could do a simple rule of civil/criminal procedure and then see if it holds up on appeal. Civil cases would be much easier.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Security is a thing "normal every day beat cops" do quite a lot of. I think I've made it clear what I'm trying to find, cases where every day officers have to make split second decisions to save someone's life by using lethal force. Cases where no gun would result in the loss of innocent life. I'm excluding cases like this one because it's reasonable to plan ahead and arm a security force for an event that had been threatened with violence. blarzgh posted:Then i think, in fairness, you'd have to account for all the crime that didn't happen because police had guns but didn't use them. How do you propose we measure that? There are variables that can't be quantified or are difficult to quantify, but we don't necessarily have to look at each variable to determine the net benefit. Rhesus Pieces posted:There are cases when a sidearm is absolutely necessary to protect the officer's life and the life of his or her partner and the surrounding area. Here's a good example, skip to about 1:55: The gunman was shooting at cops, not randomly or at an innocent bystander, this case is unfortunate but I don't believe it's very common nor is it "saving the day". I would argue that criminals, much like cops, when confronted would be likely to use lethal force if they believe the other party is armed to the teeth. This is one of those hard to quantify issues, did the criminal have an AK because he wanted to match levels of force or was he going to shoot up the cops even if he thought they weren't a lethal threat to him? By excluding threats directed at police it's possible to quantify whether or not third parties are harmed more or less by police having guns.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:How do you propose we measure that? There are variables that can't be quantified or are difficult to quantify, but we don't necessarily have to look at each variable to determine the net benefit. Thats my point. Reasonable minds would conclude that they exist, and would also conclude that they'd be nearly impossible to quantify. If you wanted to be fair, you'd probably have to take the number of arrests where a weapon was present, and guestimate a percentage of those.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:It would already fall under the destruction of evidence, or 'spoliation' protections. I think you go one step further, and make it strict liability. As in, "If the Court doesn't have your body cam video within 30 days of the filing of suit/complaint..." If you don't have it, we don't care why you don't have it, thats on you. I like that, though there might be issues with it if "camera malfunctions" aren't dealt with properly. I also have to imagine that a standardization and reform of policing mentality, training procedures and recruiting would go a long way to reducing these issues, but I have no idea how you'd actually push that as some kind of national policy. Special prosecutors for police related cases that are disconnected from the normal prosecutor-police relationships would probably also help. This is a big issue though and reform will not be easy, you're dealing with entrenched power structures that are in some cases hundreds of years old, and a population that was (and I'd argue is, though that's changing,) mostly unaware of both past and current misconduct. The proliferation of cheap and portable video cameras has been a huge factor in the recent public awareness of this, and more cameras, both body and dash seems like a starting point that people on both sides of this argument should be able to agree on. For instance, the shooting in Olympia would be much clearer if there was ANY video of the shooting in question.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:It would already fall under the destruction of evidence, or 'spoliation' protections. I think you go one step further, and make it strict liability. As in, "If the Court doesn't have your body cam video within 30 days of the filing of suit/complaint..." If you don't have it, we don't care why you don't have it, thats on you. An adverse evidentiary inference given to the jury by the judge is already a lot. Having the judge turn to the jury and say "because they lost this piece of evidence, I am instructing you to assume that it was unfavorable to their case" is basically the judge instructing the jury to use their imagination to figure out what the worst thing it could have been was. Make it a non-discretionary instruction (hell, write prescribed text to use) and that solves most of the problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Parents of suspect killed by police say officers saved their lives "When [the suspect] slumped to the floor after being shot, one of the officers immediately went to Mary Jane, picked her up and carried her into the living room so that she could not see what had taken place."
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
ATP_Power posted:Special prosecutors for police related cases that are disconnected from the normal prosecutor-police relationships would probably also help.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Thanks for your contribution. What is your proposed solution? Other than firing you whole police force? Import officers and training from more "Civilised" countries for starters. Tighten your intake requirements even if it might meant manpower shortages. Actually spend time training your officers properly, seriously, you guys are intentionally training them wrong. Have a national unified police force that has a national standards and oversight instead of your hodgepodge of hold overs from the wild west. Reduce the availability of lethal weapons to police. Remove heavy weapons and vehicles. Provide proper mental healthcare for your police. Actually punish those who violate the law. Remove SWAT teams and equipment from local police forces to a better trained national agency like the FBI. Improve transparency of police actions. Reduce the number of guns in society and restrict ownership. Reduce the Hero Worship and stop treating them like soldiers. Increase economic mobility upwards for all people especially the poor. You have the tools already to implement a lot of these things even under your constitution, but you aren't willing to use them since none of them are quick fixes or you can't throw money at it or would take a generational shift.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
ATP_Power posted:I like that, though there might be issues with it if "camera malfunctions" aren't dealt with properly. ATP_Power posted:I also have to imagine that a standardization and reform of policing mentality, training procedures and recruiting would go a long way to reducing these issues, but I have no idea how you'd actually push that as some kind of national policy. My point has never been that its not tragic, or reprehensible - I think its a matter of perspective, and the solution fitting the circumstances. Theres no evidence that of the 800,000 police in this country that a significant percentage of them are such awful, power hungry murdermuppets. Over the past 5 years, officer-involved homicides account for about .00375% of the police population - thats the only reason I don't perceive 'institutional overhaul' as the solution to such a discreet and specific problem. Its not because I like killing, its because I think you get the best results if you use the right tool for the job.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Make it a non-discretionary instruction (hell, write prescribed text to use) and that solves most of the problem. Boom.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Make it a non-discretionary instruction (hell, write prescribed text to use) and that solves most of the problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Oh, I guess ya'll are right. Better keep posting on the internet about it instead. Oh go gently caress yourself. Come back to this thread when you can describe in vivid detail what its like to be pelted with rubber bullets and tear gassed. I'm sure there's a hardline neo-liberal anarchist group out there somewhere that can show you what it looks like to do something other than post about it on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Thats my point. Reasonable minds would conclude that they exist, and would also conclude that they'd be nearly impossible to quantify. Someone actually found that data in response to a question I had earlier in this very thread. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3701648&pagenumber=117&perpage=40#post445931042 quote:During 2013, law enforcement made an estimated 11,302,102 arrests (including 480,360 for violent crimes and 1,559,284 for property crimes). The highest number of arrests were for drug abuse violations (estimated at 1,501,043), larceny-theft (estimated at 1,231,580), and driving under the influence (estimated at 1,166,824). I'm not so sure this data is going to tell us what we're looking for, it doesn't tell us whether the violent crime was perpetrated while police were present or not. Nor does it take into account for the deterrent effect, where no arrest or crime was commited.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
twodot posted:I understand why this is attractive, but it's not clear to me that most jurisdictions have enough police getting charged with crimes that you could hire a full time prosecutor that only handled police cases. You could have someone do it part time, but then they are at a disadvantage because they don't have the experience or organizational backup that the full time prosecutors have. Make it a state level position for all police misconduct cases? Maybe there isn't the caseload for a full time position on a small scale, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that a special prosecutor for a whole state would have enough work to justify a full time position. If nothing else, having a truly independent investigation would help police-public relations, the actions of the prosecutor in the Mike Brown case certainly showed the weakness of the current system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:Other than firing you whole police force? - Our constitution prohibits the federal government from preempting the police powers of the states. Any discussions along those lines are akin to telling a frog to, "Just grow wings" so he won't bump his rear end when he hops. Our country doesn't function that way. - Several of your suggestions are to reduce/disarm/defund the police force; the implication being that if police are less well equipped to find and engage criminals, there will be fewer police-involved homicides. While I agree thats the likely outcome, I don't think "having less police and more crime" is the answer. - In America, everything the executive branch does (police/prosecutors) is open to the public. Save and except for ongoing investigations where the revelation of such information would jeopardize the investigation, everything about the police and their process is already legally "transparent." I'm not sure what else you could mean. - Reducing the number of guns in society, and encouraging upward mobility of the poor sounds like you're blaming criminal suspects for the amount of police-involved homicides. - Police officers have access to therapists, counselling and other medical care through the state. I'm not sure I've ever heard a story where a police officer couldn't get mental healthcare, but if its actually an epidemic that I don't know of, I'll reverse course. - "Actually punish those who violate the law." I don't have time to post the thousands of articles and instances of police officers getting fined, suspended, fired, and sent to jail or prison. If you're only talking about the select few instances where justice was not done, then good, so are we.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I'm not so sure this data is going to tell us what we're looking for, it doesn't tell us whether the violent crime was perpetrated while police were present or not. Nor does it take into account for the deterrent effect, where no arrest or crime was commited. Agreed. I think you probably have to take the number of firearm/weapon-related arrests as your pool of potential candidates. Any crime that would have been prevented by the presence of armed officers would have been stopped by an arrest for the possession or use of a weapon. At least thats the best I can come up with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
twodot posted:How would a non-discretionary instruction work? If a judge fails to give the instruction you can't file an appeal when the jury votes not guilty, and judicial immunity would stop you from holding the judge responsible. I suppose we could also get rid of judicial immunity. If the instruction is not given, and the verdict comes back in favor of the officer, then the verdict should be able to be overturned on appeal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
ATP_Power posted:Make it a state level position for all police misconduct cases? Maybe there isn't the caseload for a full time position on a small scale, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that a special prosecutor for a whole state would have enough work to justify a full time position. If nothing else, having a truly independent investigation would help police-public relations, the actions of the prosecutor in the Mike Brown case certainly showed the weakness of the current system. My only thought is that prosecutors aren't immune to the same criticisms of "the system." At the end of the day, you have to put it in the hands of a jury, I think.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
It would alleviate circumstances like we saw in the Mike Brown and Eric Garner cases where there wasn't a trial in no small part due to sympathetic prosecutors throwing the grand jury proceedings. E: or at least the appearance of throwing the grand juries.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:If the instruction is not given, and the verdict comes back in favor of the officer, then the verdict should be able to be overturned on appeal. You'd have to amend the constitution for that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:- Several of your suggestions are to reduce/disarm/defund the police force; the implication being that if police are less well equipped to find and engage criminals, there will be fewer police-involved homicides. While I agree thats the likely outcome, I don't think "having less police and more crime" is the answer. I think it's a bit presumptuous that reducing our police force would lead to more crime. There are plenty of first world countries that do this just fine. blarzgh posted:- Reducing the number of guns in society, and encouraging upward mobility of the poor sounds like you're blaming criminal suspects for the amount of police-involved homicides. It sounds to me that he's offering a way to reduce crime in general.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:If the instruction is not given, and the verdict comes back in favor of the officer, then the verdict should be able to be overturned on appeal. You don't get to appeal an acquittal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Boom. Ah yes, the popular "wave a magic wand and turn America in to Europe, everything is better there" solution, with a dash of "I don't actually understand how the system works." I just want to take an extra minute to  at someone calling the FBI "a better trained national agency."ATP_Power posted:Make it a state level position for all police misconduct cases? Maybe there isn't the caseload for a full time position on a small scale, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that a special prosecutor for a whole state would have enough work to justify a full time position. If nothing else, having a truly independent investigation would help police-public relations, the actions of the prosecutor in the Mike Brown case certainly showed the weakness of the current system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:- Our constitution prohibits the federal government from preempting the police powers of the states. Any discussions along those lines are akin to telling a frog to, "Just grow wings" so he won't bump his rear end when he hops. Our country doesn't function that way. - No poo poo. I never said it would be easy. You should be a unified nation, act like one, not like a hold over from colonial times where the limits of communication required breaking up geographical areas along now arbitrary lines in order to be governable. - Police need to be the first to stop the escalation between them and criminals and society at large. Your country has over time increased escalation and it hasn't helped one bit. People would respond to police better if they weren't such an oppressive force. - Its taking riots to get things done and constant use of "Internal" investigations isn't transparent when the police can declare themselves free of blame. - Upward mobility would give less reasons for the need to resort crime and would be general society's side of de-escalation. - Your police are constantly in a state of War with many officers continuing on the job when unsuited in the first place or become unsuited. Your mental health care don't catch these people and do nothing to change the culture of War. Feeling constantly threaten is not a healthy state of mind. - Your police doesn't have a way to safe way to deal violations when brought up internally resulting in a massive under-reporting of crimes perpetrated by the police in part by the "thin blue line". Nor does it deal with systematic violations where enter departments require replacing. There is no reason you couldn't apply the other tools. As I said before, you have to tools, you're just making excuses up not to use them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Do people think cops are actively deciding in the moment "I can kill this person and get away with it?" No, I think they kill in order to get away with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You understand that what he said is very different than what you proposed, yes? And it is still of highly questionable legality. You have been found to be a person who is so trigger happy that identifying a target is an afterthought let alone assessing threat of any kind is someone who is not well. Get help. New Zealand isn't perfect. No one died, and there were guns involved, but the police was rightly shamed for the BS they pulled and policy changed to reflect it. Those FBI incidents resulted in change as to how such thing are handled by the FBI and became lessons learned. The agents weren't punished due to incompetent handling of the cases. While no where near a perfect result, they took lasting steps in the right direction. In a choice between the police and the FBI, I take the FBI every time as under even those tragic events and problems at the time, I would have been given a chance to surrender.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:You don't get to appeal an acquittal. You do get to appeal improper jury instructions and incorrect evidentiary rulings. Failure to give a non-discretionary instruction should qualify.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Kalman posted:You do get to appeal improper jury instructions and incorrect evidentiary rulings. Failure to give a non-discretionary instruction should qualify. No. The defendant gets to appeal bad instructions. If the instruction results in an acquittal tough poo poo. Same with evidentiary rulings. There are limited circumstances where the state can halt the trial to take an interlocutory appeal but once a NG verdict is in it's game over for the state. The state can appeal an appellate court ruling though. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Jun 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
Kalman posted:You do get to appeal improper jury instructions and incorrect evidentiary rulings. Failure to give a non-discretionary instruction should qualify. Again, no, you'd have to amend the constitution for that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:
Do you have any evidence that social mobility is related to crime, that increasing it would reduce crime, or police-involved shootings, or are you just assuming if society was a nicer place everyone would get along?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
Easy MC posted:Do you have any evidence that social mobility is related to crime, that increasing it would reduce crime, or police-involved shootings, or are you just assuming if society was a nicer place everyone would get along? That's a good question! It's actually true that being poor means you're more likely to both be a victim and a perpetrator. http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5137 I do find it interesting that poor hispanics are less violent than poor whites and blacks by about double. And poverty apparently doesn't make us Hispanics any more violent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
Evidence piling up in support of national naptime
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
Easy MC posted:Do you have any evidence that social mobility is related to crime, that increasing it would reduce crime, or police-involved shootings, or are you just assuming if society was a nicer place everyone would get along? Anomie is a well documented theory of criminal deviance and involves the contradiction of societal expectations of success and the lack of acceptable avenues to achieve it leading to following an unsanctioned path in order to achieve what society has deemed as what is required to be respectable. Or put more succinctly, if you condition people to believe economic success determines personal worth and then bar them from "legitimate" ways to achieve it they will take forbidden ways to achieve it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 21:26 |
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:No. The defendant gets to appeal bad instructions. If the instruction results in an acquittal tough poo poo. Same with evidentiary rulings. There are limited circumstances where the state can halt the trial to take an interlocutory appeal but once a NG verdict is in it's game over for the state. The state can appeal an appellate court ruling though. Yes, I was talking about an interlocutory appeal (which is why I mentioned the kinds of things that interlocutory appeals are used for...). That kind of failure is absolutely tailor-made for an interlocutory appeal - limited issue, basically dead-simple decision because it is quite literally "is there footage? No? Did they give the instruction? No? Order the instruction given." That said, I somewhat doubt you'd see a lot of failures to give the instruction in a non-discretionary environment, and the instruction would presumably also apply in any follow-on civil cases so it would have some value there as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 01:29
|
|