|
Solkanar512 posted:Look, I don't work in the legal profession, but I've my entire professional life in industries with high levels of private and public oversight - food safety and aerospace. There's no problem with it, other than that the equivalent of the person responsible for this sort of logging of police evidence is another police offer. That's why I suggested moving that responsibility to some 3rd party so there's no conflict of interest in keeping these sorts of records.
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 14:50 |
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:No, what people are arguing is that under our current constitution, police are entitled to be held to the same standard as normal citizens when they're accused of a crime. You keep shouting "this should be different, there should be a higher standard", and people keep asking you "OK, how would you change the constitution and legal system to facilitate a higher standard for police without creating the opportunity for extreme abuse?" and then you say "Are you saying police should be able to kill people????" and around we go. They could start by jailing criminals for committing perjury, we have video that shows what really happened and it's clear the police involved were lying. Bring everyone to court that was involved with producing the video and ask them where it came from and jail everyone that lies about it. The video didn't magically appear, there are people you could prosecute for committing a crime.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You don't think the professionals tasked with upholding the law should be held to a higher standard of cooperation with the legal system in their professional capacity than random civilians? I really think suspending the 5th amendment would be MUCH worse on people who are not police officers dude.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:I really think suspending the 5th amendment would be MUCH worse on people who are not police officers dude. Right, because that's what everyone is asking for, just get rid of all laws because there is a loophole. Maybe he's saying police should have additional sentencing when police abuse their power, they tack on poo poo all the time to normal citizens when they commit crimes (like drug crimes for instance).
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Weird, it got really quiet when I pointed out that other industries are held responsible when they're unable to validate their own materials. Huh.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Weird, it got really quiet when I pointed out that other industries are held responsible when they're unable to validate their own materials. It's all platitudes man, what do people really mean when they say "hold police to a higher standard", it's like totally nebulous. Accountability, harsher sentencing, and police cooperation are just words, what do you really mean?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
Devor posted:We have specific laws that target civil rights deprivation under color of law. This is not a Jim Crow law. Do you think that this law violates the constitution? ElCondemn posted:Right, because that's what everyone is asking for, just get rid of all laws because there is a loophole. Also, if a witness has an Alberto Gonzales-like attack of inability to recall events on the witness stand, it's basically impossible to prove that they've perjured themselves. That's why people do it. Solkanar512 posted:Weird, it got really quiet when I pointed out that other industries are held responsible when they're unable to validate their own materials. Raerlynn posted:I think I grasp your position now. You're only stating that an officer should be prosecuted like a civilian in terms of criminal charges, and that crimes committed as an officer should still be subject to the same systems a civilian does. Administrative punishments with different standards from criminal law however are a whole different beast that you're okay with. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Jul 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Don't take this the wrong way, but I imagine that your company's attorneys would take a very different position if you were being asked to release or testify about your maintenance records for a criminal or civil trial. Don't take this the wrong way, but you're full of poo poo. The FAA already has access to these records, as do the customers and any other aviation authority the planes are allowed to fly in. They would obviously defend themselves but they certainly could not get away with saying, "we have no idea who worked on this plane, and we cannot provide anyone who does". So why won't you discuss the larger issue of tractability? You keep avoiding that for some reason. Do you think it's a problem that absolutely no one within the police department could be found to validate a video filmed under their own control with their own equipment? Why do you keep avoiding this issue? Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Jul 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:No one has a problem with sentencing enhancement for crimes committed under the color of law. I'm personally in favor of it, and it's already the law in some places. However, there is a fundamental difference in saying that a defendant is to be punished more severely because of the nature of the crime they have been convicted of, and saying that a defendant will have fewer rights at trial merely because of the type of crime they are accused of. So lets look at it this way, if a child says their parent beats them but there's no proof other than the child having a smashed in face... what would you think is reasonable? What happens to the parents in that case? They're just told "well, that's weird that your kid is beat to poo poo and he's saying you beat him, but since we've got no proof..."? This is the standard they should be held to, they hold all the power. edit: I amend the analogy, the kid is saying nothing Solkanar512 posted:Why do you keep avoiding this issue? Because he's an apologist, every argument ends with "you guys are crazy/stupid, do you expect everyone to be perfect or something?" Meanwhile that's what police are literally doing, punishing people for not being perfect. ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Jul 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Weird, it got really quiet when I pointed out that other industries are held responsible when they're unable to validate their own materials. Or maybe the police actually do have such a person and he or she wasn't called by the DA. This was a 3rd degree misdemeanor assault charge, so I'm sure the DA involved was their top lawyer. Also, the two cops were fired after this. So while it's bad that a minor criminal got off on a technicality, it's not like he and his partner are still laughing it up in the barracks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Why do you keep avoiding this issue? He also mentioned a couple of pages back that the justice system is leveraged in favor of the accused  Why does anyone even read this guy's posts? fordan posted:Also, the two cops were fired after this. So while it's bad that a minor criminal got off on a technicality, it's not like he and his partner are still laughing it up in the barracks. Depends, really. NOLA Sheriff's Department would probably accept them into the ranks with open arms. C2C - 2.0 fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Jul 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
fordan posted:Or maybe the police actually do have such a person and he or she wasn't called by the DA. This was a 3rd degree misdemeanor assault charge, so I'm sure the DA involved was their top lawyer. Oh thank goodness, these criminals got what was coming to them, being fired from a job that allows them to abuse, humiliate and ruin people's lives. It's a good thing that's how all criminal cases end, the criminal loses his job, that'll teach them. At least they're banned from becoming police elsewhere... oh wait...
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Don't take this the wrong way, but you're full of poo poo. The FAA already has access to these records, as do the customers and any other aviation authority the planes are allowed to fly in. They would obviously defend themselves but they certainly could not get away with saying, "we have no idea who worked on this plane, and we cannot provide anyone who does". My best guess is that a dumb DA put his eggs in one basket and when that one basket feel, he was hosed. Figuring out who the person you need to call likely takes longer than a continuance a goodnjudge will allow because as a loving professional the DA should have prepared for that ahead of time. And yes, for the record, I have had judges deny DA requests for continuances when me and my (non-cop) clients objected, so this isn't some pro-cop thing too. There is almost certainly someone in that department who can lay foundation for that video, but because that can be different peoplenon different incident days and stations, you're going to need more than "you have until noon, counsel." ElCondemn posted:So lets look at it this way, if a child says their parent beats them but there's no proof other than the child having a smashed in face... what would you think is reasonable? What happens to the parents in that case? They're just told "well, that's weird that your kid is beat to poo poo and he's saying you beat him, but since we've got no proof..."? You have an injury. You don't know how it happened. No one says anything. There is no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt a crime occured. nm fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Jul 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
fordan posted:Or maybe the police actually do have such a person and he or she wasn't called by the DA. This was a 3rd degree misdemeanor assault charge, so I'm sure the DA involved was their top lawyer. Someone working here a week can go through the records I was talking about. And who gives a poo poo about firings? Did those firings somehow fix this department's ability to validate their own materials? If not, then why even bring it up?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
nm posted:My best guess is that a dumb DA put his eggs in one basket and when that one basket feel, he was hosed. Figuring out who the person you need to call likely takes longer than a continuance a goodnjudge will allow because as a loving professional the DA should have prepared for that ahead of time. And yes, for the record, I have had judges deny DA requests for continuances when me and my (non-cop) clients objected, so this isn't some pro-cop thing too. If only normal people could stifle the justice system so readily. Solkanar512 posted:If not, then why even bring it up? He's telling you to quit whining, the cops got what was coming to them, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:55
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Weird, it got really quiet when I pointed out that other industries are held responsible when they're unable to validate their own materials. If we want to extend this analogy (it's not a great one), then, among other things the main problem would be the tenth amendment. The Federal government has constitutional limits on their ability to apply direct oversight or control on a variety of state government functions, including (principally) law enforcement. Like most police powers, the problems of regulation are made much worse by the presence of what are effectively 50 competing regulatory regimes.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:If only normal people could stifle the justice system so readily. They absolutely can and I've seen it. It is far more common with cops because DAs are much more likely to assume they will be perfect witnesses, and cops have enough legal training to know where to throw the wrench.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Don't take this the wrong way, but I imagine that your company's attorneys would take a very different position if you were being asked to release or testify about your maintenance records for a criminal or civil trial. I've recently gathered evidence for just such a trial and you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Why the gently caress do you think the FAA demands these traceability records are kept?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
nm posted:They absolutely can and I've seen it. It is far more common with cops because DAs are much more likely to assume they will be perfect witnesses, and cops have enough legal training to know where to throw the wrench. So you're saying if a private company did this there would be no legal ramifications? I could just sit here all day and play dumb and nobody would have a problem with it and I wouldn't be charged with any crime?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:So you're saying if a private company did this there would be no legal ramifications? I could just sit here all day and play dumb and nobody would have a problem with it and I wouldn't be charged with any crime? Depends on the exact language used. I've seen perjury charges threatened against a lot of non-coperative or even lying witnesses, but I've never seen it pursued as long as theu actually came to court. It happens, but it is extremely rare. This isn't to say they aren't pissed, but it actually takes a lot to get a perjury conviction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Don't take this the wrong way, but you're full of poo poo. The FAA already has access to these records, as do the customers and any other aviation authority the planes are allowed to fly in. They would obviously defend themselves but they certainly could not get away with saying, "we have no idea who worked on this plane, and we cannot provide anyone who does". ElCondemn posted:So lets look at it this way, if a child says their parent beats them but there's no proof other than the child having a smashed in face... what would you think is reasonable? What happens to the parents in that case? They're just told "well, that's weird that your kid is beat to poo poo and he's saying you beat him, but since we've got no proof..."?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:I really think suspending the 5th amendment would be MUCH worse on people who are not police officers dude. I didn't say to suspend the fifth amendment, I said we should expect police departments to be able to authenticate footage from their own dash cams, which doesnt have to be done by the accused. You want to claim I said to repeal the fifth amendment because you don't want to talk about actual solutions to police corruption.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:He's telling you to quit whining, the cops got what was coming to them, obviously. No, that cop should have gone to jail. He struck a handcuffed prisoner with no provocation based on what I see in the video. It sucks that because of the fuckup with the video he got to walk. But our court system was designed from the outset to be biased in favor of the accused, who in this case was the cop. And I know at least I like it that way even if the guilty sometimes go free. My point was that this is a pretty minor incident compared to all the other poo poo bad cops have done.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You'd have to ask someone who works CPS whether or not that would be enough for a court order to remove the kid, but an injury, even on a child, with no one willing to testify to its source isn't going to make it very far in a criminal trial. I mean, really for any cases, but it happens most when family is involved for obvious reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
fordan posted:No, that cop should have gone to jail. He struck a handcuffed prisoner with no provocation based on what I see in the video. It sucks that because of the fuckup with the video he got to walk. But our court system was designed from the outset to be biased in favor of the accused, who in this case was the cop. And I know at least I like it that way even if the guilty sometimes go free. I think the corruption involved in stonewalling the justice system here is way worse than the attack, because of what it indicates for the future ability to prosecute crimes committed by officers in this department.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
fordan posted:No, that cop should have gone to jail. He struck a handcuffed prisoner with no provocation based on what I see in the video. It sucks that because of the fuckup with the video he got to walk. But our court system was designed from the outset to be biased in favor of the accused, who in this case was the cop. And I know at least I like it that way even if the guilty sometimes go free. But its also indicative of the larger issue that cameras won't catch criminal cops if we rely on criminal cops as the sole authenticator of video evidence from those cameras.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I think the corruption involved in stonewalling the justice system here is way worse than the attack, because of what it indicates for the future ability to prosecute crimes committed by officers in this department. The cop that stonewalled the justice system was also fired. He committed perjury, but in a way that would make it next to impossible to prosecute. Trabisnikof posted:But its also indicative of the larger issue that cameras won't catch criminal cops if we rely on criminal cops as the sole authenticator of video evidence from those cameras. Except as I believe the lawyers in the thread have said, they aren't the sole authenticators to admit the video. They can authenticate it, and are probably desirable witness to do so since they can also describe situations leading up to the video and what happened outside the view of the camera, but a technician who maintains the camera systems/loads it into the video database could also authenticate it by talking about receiving the video unit from the officer on that date and uploading it etc. My money is on "the DA hosed up" over "the police has no one who could have validated the video."
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
fordan posted:The cop that stonewalled the justice system was also fired. He committed perjury, but in a way that would make it next to impossible to prosecute. I am not talking about him, I am talking about a police department that mysteriously has not one single person who can authenticate a video under their control recorded on their own equipment, or that they do but they were mysteriously unable to furnish one to the prosecution to make the evidence admissible at trial.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
They were fired but their union rep already started lobbying for them to be reinstated, plus cops get fired from one department and move to another one all the time. I'm not satisfied that their firing was a good enough outcome.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:If we want to extend this analogy (it's not a great one), then, among other things the main problem would be the tenth amendment. The Federal government has constitutional limits on their ability to apply direct oversight or control on a variety of state government functions, including (principally) law enforcement. Like most police powers, the problems of regulation are made much worse by the presence of what are effectively 50 competing regulatory regimes. So gently caress it. We fight an extra thirty years passing 49 identical "fix our lovely evidence procedure" laws in each state and then eventually Alabama relents and its practically federal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I am not talking about him, I am talking about a police department that mysteriously has not one single person who can authenticate a video under their control recorded on their own equipment, or that they do but they were mysteriously unable to furnish one to the prosecution to make the evidence admissible at trial. They do. One lied at the trial. My assumption (and I know it is one) is that the DA thought she was good with the one and didn't investigate other options until being surprised during the trial. At which point she may no longer have been able to introduce a new witness because the defense wasn't provided with sufficient notice or couldn't get one in the time the court allotted. Lemming posted:They were fired but their union rep already started lobbying for them to be reinstated, plus cops get fired from one department and move to another one all the time. I'm not satisfied that their firing was a good enough outcome. That's what union reps do. And part of why union members pay dues. Police union or other unions. The union rep didn't succeed to my knowledge, and I've already said I think Rory Bruce should be in jail. Probably Jacob Fowler too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
Okay, so building on this - would you be okay if becoming a police officer required a type of licensing similar to a lawyer or a doctor, and that revoking that license means the individual can never be employed in law enforcement in any capacity? Would you also agree that in the event an officer in good standing is determined guilty of a crime that leverages his status as an officer of the law, his penalty should have a minimum jail sentence and/or a multiplier attached to enhance his sentence? And finally would you also hold that civilians hold the right to tape police during their time on the clock? Part of the issue is when defenders point to "he got fired" as though it meant something. As Lemming points out, oftentimes the good old boys network will get him hired elsewhere. Hell in St. Louis, their union rep, Jeff Roorda, was a former officer fired from Arnold, tried to sue the city of Arnold, and was caught on the stand by the judge for lying. That's the kind of poo poo that's a problem - if administrative punishment is the only venue because the legal system is unable to objectively handle these issues, there needs to be a mechanism preventing these kinds of people from regaining those positions of authority. There needs to be some kind of accountability, and so far we don't have anything that sticks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:Okay, so building on this - would you be okay if becoming a police officer required a type of licensing similar to a lawyer or a doctor, and that revoking that license means the individual can never be employed in law enforcement in any capacity? This wasn't directed at me but I just wanna chime in that this is an idea I am pretty fond of. Edit- Let's call cops "Bullet Surgeons" and get this poo poo done.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:Okay, so building on this - would you be okay if becoming a police officer required a type of licensing similar to a lawyer or a doctor, and that revoking that license means the individual can never be employed in law enforcement in any capacity? Would you also agree that in the event an officer in good standing is determined guilty of a crime that leverages his status as an officer of the law, his penalty should have a minimum jail sentence and/or a multiplier attached to enhance his sentence? And finally would you also hold that civilians hold the right to tape police during their time on the clock? To answer your other questions, I think misconduct under color of law should absolutely be a sentence enhancement or felonies. This would offset the fact that most officers can argue for a lighter sentence based on being first time offenders with a clean record. Non-officers (I disagree with the term "civilian" because police officers are also civilians, not military personnel) should have the right to record police officers (or any other public official) when the officers are acting in their official capacity, and there should be better awareness in the law enforcement community of this. (This doesn't mean that putting your camera phone right next to an officer trying to put handcuffs on someone and screaming, "WHY ARE YOU ARRESTING HER?!" over and over again is helpful or a good idea.) Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Jul 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:Okay, so building on this - would you be okay if becoming a police officer required a type of licensing similar to a lawyer or a doctor, and that revoking that license means the individual can never be employed in law enforcement in any capacity? Would you also agree that in the event an officer in good standing is determined guilty of a crime that leverages his status as an officer of the law, his penalty should have a minimum jail sentence and/or a multiplier attached to enhance his sentence? And finally would you also hold that civilians hold the right to tape police during their time on the clock? That's really good I think that will work. Ohh wait, don't cops have unions that protect "human feces mounds" from being removed from their jobs. ( and they protect good cops too)
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:Okay, so building on this - would you be okay if becoming a police officer required a type of licensing similar to a lawyer or a doctor, and that revoking that license means the individual can never be employed in law enforcement in any capacity? Would you also agree that in the event an officer in good standing is determined guilty of a crime that leverages his status as an officer of the law, his penalty should have a minimum jail sentence and/or a multiplier attached to enhance his sentence? And finally would you also hold that civilians hold the right to tape police during their time on the clock? poo poo, Darren Wilson himself had a long record of abuses that simply got deleted over time or never recorded by the police to give him a "star officer" reputation with a clean record. He was part of a police unit that was so corrupt that it actually got caught for misappropriation of funds and disbanded. We can't even reliably record abuse that occurs among officers, let alone punish it adequately. The network of brotherhood among cops is the primary thing making it virtually impossible to get abuses recorded, since "snitches" have a long history of being harassed, shamed, and sometimes allowed to get shot in the face until they leave the force.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:poo poo, Darren Wilson himself had a long record of abuses that simply got deleted over time or never recorded by the police to give him a "star officer" reputation with a clean record. He was part of a police unit that was so corrupt that it actually got caught for misappropriation of funds and disbanded. Which makes it even all the more ridiculous when you see Blue Line denials that are presented as serious posts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:poo poo, Darren Wilson himself had a long record of abuses that simply got deleted over time or never recorded by the police to give him a "star officer" reputation with a clean record. He was part of a police unit that was so corrupt that it actually got caught for misappropriation of funds and disbanded. Do you have psychic abilities, or are you just imagining these deleted abuses. Cause cops=bad and therefore there must be something secret and hidden. OMG am I defending cops. I just see ink Doc....just ink
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
Dahn posted:Do you have psychic abilities, or are you just imagining these deleted abuses. Cause cops=bad and therefore there must be something secret and hidden. You're a loving idiot. Literally ten seconds of googling http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...4390_story.html quote:The small city of Jennings, Mo., had a police department so troubled, and with so much tension between white officers and black residents, that the city council finally decided to disband it. Everyone in the Jennings police department was fired. New officers were brought in to create a credible department from scratch. I'm sure that in such a department, Darren Wilson was just a shining ray of hope. I believe this because I am a clueless idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 14:50 |
|
|
Lemming posted:You're a loving idiot. Literally ten seconds of googling Hmmm I read the article seems legit and not desperately trying paint someone in a bad light. also F U for making me defend a cop I need a shower
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 04:47
|
|