|
Lemming posted:It's a little bit unclear but I *think* the first one is the second shooting, the timing of the shots sounds like it lines up. The second half of the video also doesn't include the first shots, I believe. Hey, sounds like you're right. Timing is unclear. To sum up everything so far: The police should have done everything necessary to try and save that woman, including preventing an armed man who allegedly shot her minutes before from approaching her and shooting her again. RaySmuckles fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Jul 14, 2015 |
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 15:14 |
|
|
Lemming posted:It very obviously says that the girl was being taken away when the shots were fired, which means that it was after she was pulled out of the car, which is the event we're talking about. I've seen the video, I was just laughing at your choice of article. Now I'm laughing at the fact what you were actually arguing was "if the shooting happened as the police led her away from the car then it means she must have cleared the threshold of the door  "
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:Hey, sounds like you're right. Timing is unclear. The video here shows the end of the second video a little better: http://www.nj.com/monmouth/index.ssf/2015/06/officer_taken_into_custody_as_shooter_at_asbury_pa.html I included that video because it shows them leading the girl away. The timing of the shots in both cases is two groups of two shots, if the first shot is t = 0, at about 0 seconds, then 2 seconds, then 8 seconds and 9 seconds.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
Pohl posted:We are talking about changing the system because it is broken. Yeah, I doubt this is acceptable but I really don't know if it's the system that's actually broken or if it's just people. People suck and will always find a way to do bad things. People who do bad things are necessarily an affront to the system.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:Hey, sounds like you're right. Timing is unclear. Bros before hos, you don't let a buddy down when he's getting rid of his nagging wife, that's against the Bro Code. Do you want cops so uncool that they ignore the bro code, libtard? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Yeah, I doubt this is acceptable but I really don't know if it's the system that's actually broken or if it's just people. People suck and will always find a way to do bad things. People who do bad things are necessarily an affront to the system. When the system lets people ignore months and months of domestic abuse calls until the abuser murders his victim in broad daylight, the system is probably broken actually
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
That's a nice platitude, but its just a criticism of consequence and nothing else. Explain what you mean "the system is broken." Explain what you mean that it "lets" people ignore domestic violence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
Lemming posted:It's a little bit unclear but I *think* the first one is the second shooting, the timing of the shots sounds like it lines up. The second half of the video also doesn't include the first shots, I believe. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I've seen the video, I was just laughing at your choice of article. I see, it's incredibly important to dissect the defintion of "active shooter" and identify and correct anyone who gets it wrong, but when someone's being corrected about the actual events that took place because they were mistaken about it, even though you recognize and agree they got it wrong, you're content to sit back and snipe at the guy who's trying to get the facts straight. Really speaks to your priorities.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:That's a nice platitude, but its just a criticism of consequence and nothing else. Explain what you mean "the system is broken." Explain what you mean that it "lets" people ignore domestic violence. That multiple domestic violence calls occurred without even taking the perp's sidearm, and that no supervisors even batted an eye are failures in policing, enforcement, and oversight. Also, that the woman was unable to count on any help from the local police department, which was staffed by her abuser's friends (which posters here are defending as right and good brotherly love for a fellow brother) is a problem with our system of law enforcement, because victims of abusers who happen to be cops can't expect their safety to be taken seriously.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
It sounds like what you're saying is that the system is fine, it's just that the people in place to enforce the system weren't doing so.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
So, the system doesn't kill people. People kill people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:It sounds like what you're saying is that the system is fine, it's just that the people in place to enforce the system weren't doing so. If a system cannot mitigate or prevent clearly avoidable deaths from human error, the system is broken. If people who are supposed to ensure its integrity are not properly trained, or not properly checked up on, or are allowed to continue in their jobs despite incompetence, the system is broken. You're smarter than this. When pilot error kills 300 people, we don't go "welp, the pilot just hosed up, everything's fine, guess he won't make that mistake again lol", it's "holy poo poo, how was the training, or procedures, or checks, or redundancies not enough to catch this situation and allow a guy running on 4 hours of sleep to drive a 767" Humans are fallible by nature: what do you think is the point of creating organized systems for fallible creatures? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Jul 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:It sounds like what you're saying is that the system is fine, it's just that the people in place to enforce the system weren't doing so. It sounds like you're in denial.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
The only system we need is a sheet of paper that says "don't do bad stuff". If people do bad stuff anyway, then it's people that are the problem the system is fine okay
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
So, exactly
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
As many pages as the number of bullets it's cool to let a buddy fire into his wife before stopping him becomes the right thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
Tubesock Holocaust posted:So, exactly God forbid we get all caught up on this one dead person. How lovely of us. We should probably all stop talking about it lest some person on the internet judges our conversation masturbatory and unproductive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
Tubesock Holocaust posted:So, exactly As many pages as it takes for the tiny number of nonstop posters who have a creepy rage-on for this case to realize how loving weird it is for them to get angrier over a cop not getting gunned down than over an unarmed black kid getting killed by the cops. There are obvious issues surrounding this case, including whether or not Seidle was improperly allowed to continue carrying a firearm even after being accused of domestic abuse. And more broadly, there are issues in many departments about how domestic violence by officers is swept under the carpet. But holy poo poo the posters getting blue balls over this cop not getting shot by other cops should probably go take a cold shower or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:As many pages as it takes for the tiny number of nonstop posters who have a creepy rage-on for this case to realize how loving weird it is for them to get angrier over a cop not getting gunned down than over an unarmed black kid getting killed by the cops. This is such a dishonest post; you had to really just read the last post & respond else you can't read at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
Clearly anyone who thinks police should put a higher priority on saving the life of a shooting victim than on their friend the murderer is only saying that out of secret lust for the blood of all police, you got it TIC. It's also hilarious that you're accusing people of not caring about unarmed black kids because we're talking about this case now, when of course the refrain of the other cop apologists is accusing us of never wanting cops to shoot anyone ever because we spent too much time caring about the shooting of unarmed black kids instead of fellating the cops for executing them. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Jul 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:As many pages as it takes for the tiny number of nonstop posters who have a creepy rage-on for this case to realize how loving weird it is for them to get angrier over a cop not getting gunned down than over an unarmed black kid getting killed by the cops. If you're going to tag in, you should at least use a different dishonest attack than two or three other people have already used in the past few pages.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
Lemming posted:I see, it's incredibly important to dissect the defintion of "active shooter" and identify and correct anyone who gets it wrong, but when someone's being corrected about the actual events that took place because they were mistaken about it, even though you recognize and agree they got it wrong, you're content to sit back and snipe at the guy who's trying to get the facts straight. You know, that's fair, out of frustration I'm starting to do exactly what I have been bitching about other posters doing in this thread and its probably an indication I need to take a break from this thread
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-agrees-to-pay-family-of-eric-garner-5-9-million-1436833250 "New York City has agreed to pay the estate of Eric Garner $5.9 million to settle a lawsuit over his death after he was placed in a chokehold by a New York Police Department officer. “I believe that we have reached an agreement that acknowledges the tragic nature of Mr. Garner’s death while balancing my office’s fiscal responsibility to the city,” said City Comptroller Scott Stringer, whose office has the authority to settle claims."
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
I am sorry for bring Active Shooter into this thread. I didn't know it would lead to this many shootings. I mean it's in the name, especially the whole shooting thing. What was I thinking? So sorry. Surely there is another descriptor that can be used describe person(s) who is being very actively shooting people? Please don't answer this question unless you want to trigger DR again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 12:15
|
|
|
ACAB Thread: User was put on probation for this post!
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 12:41
|
|
|
repeating posted:http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-agrees-to-pay-family-of-eric-garner-5-9-million-1436833250 I assume this is a civil lawsuit. Were there ever criminal proceedings from his death, or is that still in progress?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 14:11
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:I assume this is a civil lawsuit. Were there ever criminal proceedings from his death, or is that still in progress? Grand jury would not indict.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 14:11
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:People like AR, and other professionals on the business end of the criminal justice system ask from the other direction. Were the proper procedures followed, and if so, do the procedures need amendment?" "Was this incident a failure of the system, or a failure of humanity?" There's a difference, and one of those two things can't be fixed. Its a top-down thought process. I find this line of thinking particularly offensive. There is only humanity, understand? But when the system allows a cop's humanity to result in unequal outcomes, that is a failure of the system, and it can and should be fixed. If you find yourself saying "they didn't shoot him because it's hard to kill a friend," then THE SYSTEM needs to make it easier to kill a friend. Yes I said it. If cops are going to do scenario training on such outlandish things as "domestic dispute OMG THE WIFE PULLED A GUN OUT OF THE SINK" then such scenarios should include turning off your rampaging wife-killer boss when he runs amok. But the truth is, this was never about "it's hard to kill a friend." They loved how he treated his wife. That's why he never faced any consequences for it. When he pumped bullets into her, the creaky little wheels began to turn in their underused brains. "Oh poo poo," they thought. "Did I let sarge go to far?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Grand jury would not indict. Grand Jury was convinced not to indict
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I find this line of thinking particularly offensive. If life were a video game, then yes, every scenario has a quick-time sequence of buttons to push that, or pre-battle inventory selection, if followed exactly, will result in the 100% best ending to the game. What you are really saying is that, every single one of 800,000 law enforcement officers in the United States should have had special training on how to handle this specific 30-50 minutes of two of their lives. Thats one half hour, out of 16,640,000,000 (sixteen billion, six hundred forty million)* hours of career law enforcement. Thats stupid. Its just dumb. Its bad form to honestly argue that their police force should have a) predicted this exact series of events, b) developed and implemented special training for all of their police officers and c) that doing so still would have prevented this woman's death. Plus, how do you know the people didn't receive sufficient training? What if they still didn't follow it? Everyone in America takes a driver's test, and we still get tickets and have wrecks? Do you really believe that there is a driver's safety program that you could design that would eliminate all tickets and wrecks? No, I don't think you do. I think you just want someone to blame and you want it to be the police. *Saying 40 hrs/week, 52 weeks/ year, avg. of 10 LEO career.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
Yeah its stupid to identify problems and provide training to avoid them in the future. Instead let's just sympathize with these poor heroes that their friend was the perp and forget about that dead woman. I mean it's not like police culture is corrupt or anything, why would they need training or practice reinforcing that they shouldn't be treated differently than civilians?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Again, sorry that people want to have intelligent conversations about what are actual problems and actual reforms and how they'd work in the actual criminal justice system that we have instead of just yelling "gently caress the 5-0". These "pedantic" little derails are actually substantive 90% of the time, that's the loving point, its not what the law "technically" says, its what the law loving says and usually for a reason. If you don't even want to be assed to understand the system that you want to change why the gently caress do you expect anyone who does to take you seriously? This thread goes to poo poo because when someone points out that "hey 'active shooter' is a term of art and that's not what it means" the response is a page of people trying to argue something which is easily provable obviously wrong and then another page of dumb-rear end posts like this crying about how the boot-lickers and apologists keep trying to cloud the issue with their facts. The headlight example is loving great example of this thread throwing a hissy fit because someone had the temerity to point out that the "cop illegally stops teen and executes him on side of road" narrative was total bullshit. It wasn't the "apologists" that kept us from the actual controversy of the action, which was the decision to physically escalate the arrest attempt, it was the people who kept wanting to rant about made up bullshit. This is actually exactly what I was talking about though. The entire reason the headlight incident was even talked about was because the kid ended up dead. Yes, some people were wrong about whether he was pulled over for an actual violation but that has close to zero to do with the conversation and bringing it up just serves to shift the focus from "Why the gently caress is he dead" into "The stop was legal!". Especially since I doubt anyone would disagree that a cop can pull you over for any reason or no reason then make one up. The headlights weren't even the reason he was getting arrested, unless my memory is failing it was because he had no license or at least wouldn't provide it. The discussion should have been "How in the gently caress did a traffic stop escalate to tazing and death by cop". Yes he was a little snotty poo poo. Yes he should have listened listened to the cop. The problem was how in the gently caress did a cop "lose control" of a situation involving an rear end in a top hat teenager so badly it ended with the kid dead. Good for you (Or whoever), you won the argument about whether the initial stop was legal. But who gives a poo poo it served nothing but distract from the overall discussion of how the gently caress did it escalate so quickly and so badly. Same for sarge. No matter how many times people try and point out the entire sequence of events from the numerous domestic abuse calls for help to the 30 minutes photo album while his wife is bleeding out is the problem, arguing over the definition of active shooter has nothing to do with any of that. So congratulations again to whoever won that bit of trivia but again it did nothing but drag the actual discussion into legal minutia that in the end added nothing of use to the conversation. If someone is wrong about a term or law this incessant need to argue over and over as to who is right if it doesn't have anything to do with the overall discussion is the problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:If life were a video game, then yes, every scenario has a quick-time sequence of buttons to push that, or pre-battle inventory selection, if followed exactly, will result in the 100% best ending to the game. Yeah that would all have a little more sting if they didn't already train for scenarios precisely that outlandish (including the previously mentioned woman who pulls a gun out of the sink on a domestic dispute call). If police are going to train for outlandish scenarios, they should train for shooting each other when circumstances call for it. Even if it never happens again, it should be a part of their conditioning that they should be ready to take one another out in the event of poor brain chemistry manifesting as it did in this case.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
You're pointing out things that are already a given; that not every encounter is going to be resolved 100% in a manner that comports with both departmental policy & respect for life. The counter-arguement (sic) is that there needs to be movement within departments toward striving for that end as often as possible. What happened in Neptune is done. Going forward, the supervisors on scene should most certainly face some type of punishment for mishandling the situation; a situation that might've ultimately led to the death of the victim. I'd imagine there should also likely be some training focusing on specific incidents like what occurred. What can't be trained is an officer's reaction toward a suspect versus someone they know personally. To counter this, there should be penalties in place for that very behavior, especially when it doesn't protect a victim. ALSO, since the appeals to authority are getting prevalent in this thread, why don't the "experts" offer up some ideas about how to reform the system instead of acting as human shields for the the one that's already in place?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:If life were a video game, then yes, every scenario has a quick-time sequence of buttons to push that, or pre-battle inventory selection, if followed exactly, will result in the 100% best ending to the game. Holy gently caress are you being disingenuous. Let me ask you something. So you feel the outcome of this entire train wreck of events, from the DV complaints that never ended up in court, the lack of action against the offender who still retained his police issues weapon, the subsequent running of her vehicle off the road, him shooting her the first time, the cops failing to remove him so the victim could be treated, to the point where he shoots her again, are in any way an acceptable outcome? That they could not have been prevented at all? That we should just go "aw shucks guys, can't save them all"? What in the ever loving gently caress is wrong with you? How can you not possibly see how this could have been vastly improved almost anywhere in the narrative?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
blarzgh: what is the point of having systems and institutions, as opposed to just sending people to run out and do whatever? What are they for?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:What you are really saying is that, every single one of 800,000 law enforcement officers in the United States should have had special training on how to handle this specific 30-50 minutes of two of their lives. Why would this situation require special training? How you deal with a man with a gun who is actively shooting people (not to be confused with an 'active shooter,' of course!) is pretty basic as far as police work goes, isn't it? Like, that's kind of the entire raison d'etre for armed police, isn't it? You want training, fine, tell the officers that the rules don't change when the perp is a cop. You shouldn't need to train that into them unless you've previously trained it out of them, but it's looking like it might be necessary so I'm all for it. quote:Plus, how do you know the people didn't receive sufficient training? What if they still didn't follow it? Everyone in America takes a driver's test, and we still get tickets and have wrecks? Do you really believe that there is a driver's safety program that you could design that would eliminate all tickets and wrecks? Ok, so maybe they did receive training, but they just didn't follow it? Well, that would just make them look worse, wouldn't it? I don't even know what you're trying to say here. "Maybe they didn't get the training they need! If not, how can we blame them!? Or if they did get the training, maybe they just didn't follow it! If so, how can we blame them!?" Well, that's pretty convenient for them, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
Here's a new one, apparently back in January a girl had a seizure at a concert in Alabama, and instead of rendering aid the police tazed her and her mother and then arrested the mom for disorderly conduct: http://www.gadsdentimes.com/article/20150713/NEWS/150719929 Anyone else have more information on this? I feel like there must be more to the story because it seems insane that, even in Alabama, the response from police rolling up on a minor having a seizure is to assault them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 15:14 |
|
|
bango skank posted:Here's a new one, apparently back in January a girl had a seizure at a concert in Alabama, and instead of rendering aid the police tazed her and her mother and then arrested the mom for disorderly conduct: It was at a rap concert, what do you expect?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 21:55
|
|