|
Something that's kind of funny in a "ha ha ha life is terrible" way is that whenever another limpdick police officer decides to assert his authority over a mentally ill 5'2" woman by shooting her in the head 8 times as she sat in her car we get told that these police officers are just 'bad apples'. Except the whole point of the phrase 'bad apples' is that one bad apple spoils the bunch. We've got the bad apple part but we're forgetting the part where we have to throw out the bunch.
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 02:03 |
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Something that's kind of funny in a "ha ha ha life is terrible" way is that whenever another limpdick police officer decides to assert his authority over a mentally ill 5'2" woman by shooting her in the head 8 times as she sat in her car we get told that these police officers are just 'bad apples'. Because of that stupid loving song.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Acting polite (which is a much less racist phrasing than "acting white") should not be a prerequisite to avoiding police brutality. And many of them were polite, the cops just didn't perceive it that way as they are socialized to perceive them as criminals pathetic little tramp posted:Something that's kind of funny in a "ha ha ha life is terrible" way is that whenever another limpdick police officer decides to assert his authority over a mentally ill 5'2" woman by shooting her in the head 8 times as she sat in her car we get told that these police officers are just 'bad apples'. Bad apples that rarely get punished
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Isn't there a whole popular thing of white people filming themselves being pretty rude to cops at routine traffic stops? Excuse me, by "being rude", I meant "exercising their rights". It seems most of those don't end in death or injury, except that Michigan one I guess. But the point is that I don't see how politeness and whiteness go hand in hand. Which is why people keep asking that "acting black" be defined.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:Isn't there a whole popular thing of white people filming themselves being pretty rude to cops at routine traffic stops? Excuse me, by "being rude", I meant "exercising their rights". It seems most of those don't end in death or injury, except that Michigan one I guess. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxnFWOaJGD4 Let's see literally anyone but a white guy pull that off in America.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
I've read that the complete (unedited) dash cam footage of the Sandra Bland stop & arrest is supposed to be released today. Also, quote:Texas Commission on Jail Standards Executive Director Brandon Wood said his agency found Waller County jail to be non-compliant with the two areas of the state's minimum jail standards—one with staff training and one with observation of inmates. and quote:"In the preliminary review of the traffic stop that occurred in Prairie View on July 10, 2015, involving Sandra Bland, we have identified violations of the department's procedures regarding traffic stops and the department's courtesy policy," [Texas Department of Public Safety] officials said in a statement Friday afternoon. Link
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Let's see literally anyone but a white guy pull that off in America. Who gave you naturalization rights here in my land? Hmmm! Imma bill you for stealin' cause you stole my document! What you may have is the opportunity to read... Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Jul 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
Based on the family attorney's account of the video, the officer ordered Bland out of her car because he felt disrespected when she did not put out her cigarette. He could have handed her the already written warning and said have a lovely day but escalated the situation to violence to assert his dominance. edit: According to a pastor who also watched, Bland did not attack the trooper at any point, and she recorded the stop from her own device. DARPA fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Jul 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
C2C - 2.0 posted:"Inmates are required to be observed at least once every 60 minutes and the Waller County Jail did not perform that observation as required," Well that lie didn't hold up long. quote:Smith said "jailers saw Bland at 7 a.m. Monday when they gave her breakfast and again at 8 a.m. when they spoke with her over the jail intercom. Smith says she was found dead an hour later."
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
fosborb posted:Well that lie didn't hold up long. The Smith in question being Glenn Smith, the guy who had previously been fired for racism http://mic.com/articles/122418/r-glenn-smith-sandra-bland-death Forgive me if I take anything he says with a grain of salt.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Yup. What a swell guy. I'm actually encouraged that the external investigations will be effective. That they've publicly already contradicted the dept and Smith is good, and so is the speed in which they're moving before anything can be tampered with. Also apparently that dept lies like a 3 year old in the cookie jar, so that should help too. Thank god these particular racist shitheads are also incompetent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Dylan Roof should have kept his cool and become a cop, he would have fit right in AND got his lust for killing black people sated more than any one mass shooting could ever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
DARPA posted:Based on the family attorney's account of the video, the officer ordered Bland out of her car because he felt disrespected when she did not put out her cigarette. So what happened to her cell phone video? Man this keeps looking worse and worse. But I am not really expecting much in the way of justice if things do go that far into the shitter with this case.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Cleveland PD admitted they were wrong to hire that angry savage who killed Tamir Rice. No one's been charged yet or anything but they totally admit they were wrong to hire him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Cleveland PD admitted they were wrong to hire that angry savage who killed Tamir Rice. No one's been charged yet or anything but they totally admit they were wrong to hire him. Woah woah, charging someone for making a human mistake? What kind of sociopath are you, suggesting police should be charged with their crimes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Cleveland PD admitted they were wrong to hire that angry savage who killed Tamir Rice. No one's been charged yet or anything but they totally admit they were wrong to hire him. Meanwhile, a judge in Ohio offered his take (legally; in Ohio people can appeal directly to judges for charges to be brought) and said there was plenty of probable cause for a charge of murder, among other things. The DA in charge? Ignored the judge & is punting it to a grand jury. EDIT: Read it here quote:Judge Ronald Adrine of the Cleveland municipal court said there were grounds to prosecute officer Timothy Loehmann with murder, manslaughter, reckless homicide and negligent homicide. C2C - 2.0 fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Jul 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:So what happened to her cell phone video? Man this keeps looking worse and worse. But I am not really expecting much in the way of justice if things do go that far into the shitter with this case. http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/naperville-sun/news/ct-nvs-sandra-bland-dash-cam-video-20150720-story.html Because the officer pulled his taser when she tried recording him there likely isn't any. Plus he tells her she's going to jail before she has a chance to kick him (and never does) and then takes her off camera. Quality police work. edit: Unrelated police being police quote:Davis’s termination came less than two weeks after top IPRA officials, evaluating Davis’s job performance, accused him of “a clear bias against the police” and called him “the only supervisor at IPRA who resists making requested changes as directed by management in order to reflect the correct finding with respect to OIS,” as officer-involved shootings are known in the agency. DARPA fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Jul 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:What in the gently caress are you talking about? This isn't about wording, the literal advice given was to "act white", as if that would save you from a racist cop on a power trip. I'll just point out that if a cop wants to pull over and hassle a black driver because he believes "those people" shouldn't be on "his end of town" after a certain hour, there's nothing stopping him from doing just that. Putting on your best Safe Negro™ Carlton Banks impression won't help, even if you comply passively with every single instruction given. chitoryu12 posted:I'm still wondering how someone can see a case where a relatively successful young woman who just got accepted for a new job, was filmed being injured by police potentially to the point of a concussion after an arrest for a very minor traffic infraction (with only the officers' word that she attacked them for basically no reason), and was found hanged in her cell a few days later (indicating, at the very least, no supervision of her)....and then say "Yep, cops did everything normal. The woman was secretly just mentally ill, randomly attacked a police officer for no reason at a traffic stop, and killed herself in jail." Because a good portion of Americans still want to convince themselves that 1)Negros are just natural-born troublemakers and 2)the police still operate with a standard of integrity despite mounting evidence to the contrary. Genocide Tendency posted:"Darkie McRetard" I don't think you're cut out for this subforum. Take your probation as a hint that you need to hang up your keyboard. 90s Solo Cup fucked around with this message at 06:46 on Jul 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
Even Carlton snapped out of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bluQNcAjOA
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Even Carlton snapped out of it: The first thing I thought of when I read his name in this thread too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:Disagree 100%. The core issue with the majority of the incidents discussed in this thread is racism, having a bright shining beacon of this helps the discussion. Give you a glimpse into the abyss if you will, same as having DR and AR posting, gives you a good look into the problem by letting you understand the mental gymnastics of those who are inside the system. hosed up logic like: you can't just ignore the constitution when it's convenient? The fact someone points out that your proposals are impossible without major constitutional amendment doesn't mean they don't think there are any problems in the system. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Jul 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
If the constitution is still racist then maybe you need another amendment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:If the constitution is still racist then maybe you need another amendment. That's not a helpful comment and a big part of what's wrong with this thread.* Frequently in this thread people propose things that would be violations of the constitutional rights of the accused if implemented, and then accuse anyone who points that out as being a bootlicker at best, a racist at worst. Not helpful. *the other problem is people using terms like darkie mcretard. Also not helpful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
The few things you cherry pick might, but most suggestions don't. You focus on them to bog down the discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
We aren't allowed to discuss inequality, oppression, or abuses of the justice system without approval from the very justice system inflicting those wrongs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:That's not a helpful comment and a big part of what's wrong with this thread.* Frequently in this thread people propose things that would be violations of the constitutional rights of the accused if implemented, and then accuse anyone who points that out as being a bootlicker at best, a racist at worst. Not helpful. If you can constitutionally let the police terrorize black people with little repercussion then maybe the constitution needs a change.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:That's not a helpful comment and a big part of what's wrong with this thread.* Frequently in this thread people propose things that would be violations of the constitutional rights of the accused if implemented, and then accuse anyone who points that out as being a bootlicker at best, a racist at worst. Not helpful. We should do X X is against the law! We should change Y law then Y change in law would be against the constitution We should change the constitution That's not a helpful comment and a big part of what's wrong with this thread. Frequently in this thread people propose things that would be violations of the constitutional rights of the accused if implemented, and then accuse anyone who points that out as being a bootlicker at best, a racist at worst. Not helpful. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
DARPA posted:We aren't allowed to Seriously. The reason you find so many people on both sides of "the system" (eg both cops, prosecutors AND PDs) in disagreement with you is because a lot of what is posted here shows a huge lack of understanding about how the system functions. See eg the shitstorm over whether or not the state should need a sponsoring witness to introduce video evidence. Now, the problem there was that for whatever reason there was not an independent witness available and that is worth looking at...but that doesn't mean the prosecutor was gunning for an acquittal. If you actually want a deeper understanding of how the system works, there's a thread for that in AT. But a lot of people in here post things that are simply wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
DARPA posted:We aren't allowed to discuss inequality, oppression, or abuses of the justice system without approval from the very justice system inflicting those wrongs. Zanzibar Ham posted:If you can constitutionally let the police terrorize black people with little repercussion then maybe the constitution needs a change.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Seriously. The reason you find so many people on both sides of "the system" (eg both cops, prosecutors AND PDs) in disagreement with you is because a lot of what is posted here shows a huge lack of understanding about how the system functions. See eg the shitstorm over whether or not the state should need a sponsoring witness to introduce video evidence. Now, the problem there was that for whatever reason there was not an independent witness available and that is worth looking at...but that doesn't mean the prosecutor was gunning for an acquittal. If you actually want a deeper understanding of how the system works, there's a thread for that in AT. But a lot of people in here post things that are simply wrong. You and similar posters kind of remind me of the way many people in high finance try and counter attacks against financial institutions. The fact that most people may not be fully acquainted with the methodology used in, for example, pricing exotic derivatives, does not mean that they can't complain when they see said financial institutions doing things that are clearly wrong. Just like them, you have this feeling that, because you are more closely acquainted with the system in question, no one else has the ability or right to criticize it. It isn't a coincidence that this exact same logic can be used to defend literally any corrupt system. It isn't even necessary to understand exactly what changes need to be made to fix a problem in order to protest that it exists. Just like it's really obvious that the behavior of financial institutions lead to the recent recession, it's really obvious that our justice system/police do a bunch of really terrible things that they don't need to be doing. While it's certainly an added bonus when someone has the expertise to know the best way of fixing a problem, it accomplishes nothing at all to try and silence anyone else who is upset about it. So why is it that you feel such a need to argue against the people that are upset about these issues? What do you think you're accomplishing? If a serious problem really exists (and I believe that you've said that you believe one does), it can only help if a greater number of people are upset about it. People with expertise in the field can then try and enact beneficial changes, but they sure as hell won't have any pressure to do so if you attempt to silence everyone who doesn't possess intimidate knowledge of the workings of the system in question. To use the finance analogy again, do you truly believe that only those with the expertise to know exactly what laws need to be drafted to prevent financial corruption should be allowed to protest such corruption? Do you realize how ridiculous and counterproductive it is to try and silence or ignore anyone who lacks that expertise? It's entirely possible to know that a system is bad without also personally knowing the best way of fixing it. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Jul 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Not quite. The problem isn't "people are upset" The problem is "people are (often) alleging illegal or unethical behavior, when in fact it isn't" or "people are demanding we make changes that will actually, on average, work to the detriment of the people they claim they want to help."
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Now, the problem there was that for whatever reason there was not an independent witness available and that is worth looking at...but that doesn't mean the prosecutor was gunning for an acquittal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:How, exactly? We can start with having an independent organization tasked with reviewing the kinds of cases that are generating this controversy, who independently determine if a crime took place and if the officers responses were valid. Ideally made up of three to five people, 1-2 with police backgrounds, 1-2 with no ties to police, and one other impartial member. This board can present charges that are prosecuted by a DA who is not in the county in question. This board has administrative powers that can strip an officer of his firearm, and of his immunity to civil lawsuit as it pertains to the complaint. That would address some of the big ones - DAs who throw cases or are conflicted and don't pursue a case as honestly as possible, punishment for times when what an officer does isn't illegal but is blatantly against public interest, a review that isn't executed by a blatantly conflicted party, and unique powers to scare crooked cops straight. On top of that I would have any crimes committed while in uniform or leveraging police assets should carry a mandatory minimum sentence and have a multiplier attached. In other words, I want an independent review that is impartial and unbiased. I want there to be very, very steep consequences for abusing the position of an officer. I want a mechanism where when it's blatantly obvious that the actions undermine public trust, that there be some consequence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:The problem is "people are (often) alleging illegal or unethical behavior, when in fact it isn't" or "people are demanding we make changes that will actually, on average, work to the detriment of the people they claim they want to help." First off, whether behavior is illegal is completely irrelevant (aside from the fact that the laws making unethical behavior legal should be changed). Secondly, I've been reading this thread and you have completely failed to demonstrate that the changes people have mentioned "on average, work to the detriment of the people they claim they want to help." You just keep claiming that people are wrong without anything to back you up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:First off, whether behavior is illegal is completely irrelevant (aside from the fact that the laws making unethical behavior legal should be changed). Secondly, I've been reading this thread and you have completely failed to demonstrate that the changes people have mentioned "on average, work to the detriment of the people they claim they want to help." You just keep claiming that people are wrong without anything to back you up. You realize that weakening rules of evidence to make cop convictions easier will also make all other convictions easier too, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:We can start with having an independent organization tasked with reviewing the kinds of cases that are generating this controversy, who independently determine if a crime took place and if the officers responses were valid. Ideally made up of three to five people, 1-2 with police backgrounds, 1-2 with no ties to police, and one other impartial member. That sounds an awful lot like a Jury.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
ozmunkeh posted:Barring an occasional peculiarity reality would seem to disagree with your analysis. Please explain this to me. I'm not sure an offer of immunity is the mark of a prosecutor not looking for a conviction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:You realize that weakening rules of evidence to make cop convictions easier will also make all other convictions easier too, right? Ytlaya never said or implied the rules of evidence should be weakened. A few people suggested that pages and pages ago, it was pointed out what effects it would have, so people accepted that and started thinking about other alternatives. You are still acting as if everyone here is still arguing the original point. Nobody is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:That sounds an awful lot like a Jury. While tongue in cheek, I want this process to supplement and replace the grand jury/prosecutor decision. After this point it's a regular trial. But I want the decision to bring charges to be neutral and unable to be blocked by a potential bad actor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 02:03 |
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Please explain this to me. I'm not sure an offer of immunity is the mark of a prosecutor not looking for a conviction. Yeah, lots of poor prosecutors nationwide brimming with excitement, eager to hold cops accountable for their crimes but gosh darn it, they just couldn't manage to follow through. All the applicable laws were followed and everything! Oh well, maybe next time. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 17:48
|
|