|
pathetic little tramp posted:Here's the full dash video of Sandra Bland - there's like a whole hour here. The incredibly unsafe lane change happens at 1:55 and the rest starts from there: A chickenshit arrest, though from the defense attorney perspective she did herself few favors -- this is why we always tell people to save the fight for the courtroom. I've seen this video hundreds of times, and I hate watching it always. Also, of course the cop is a liar, like anyone is shocked that Mr., i mean, "Officer," Powertrip lied.
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 09:32 |
|
|
blarzgh posted:Talk about lazy, can't even be bothered to read the quoted text - the question was 'why shouldn't we suspend constitutional rights for cops'? and the answer was 'because cops are people too." Actually, the quote was ToastyPotato posted:Did anyone say those words? Because I feel like I remember them saying to get rid of them for COPS, not everyone, So if you're done making poo poo up, we can actually discuss the matter at hand.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:Actually, the quote was I can't tell if you're being for real or not. Toasty: Suspend Cops Constitutional Rights Me: Bad Idea [+ pics] you: Perhaps the first step would be for the officer, the initiator of the confrontation, to perhaps keep that in mind before pulling a woman out of her car for not respecting the officer's request to stop smoking?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
Yeah seriously. It's amazing how quickly it escalates. She's completely within her rights, and he hasn't gotten his satisfaction of getting someone to do what he says so he throws in the cigarette line, she says no and he just goes loving nuts like a rabid dog frothing at the mouth, grabbing at her, telling her he's going to tase her, yanking her out of the car. That's when you say "What the hell" and just go straight to the police car to be arrested. Then sue the gently caress out of the whole district when it comes to trial.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
I don't know why y'all even bother trying to engage in a policy debate here. People who work for a systemically racist system have no intention of working to implement change (even thouhgh they're the best positioned to). Either they don't see (or care about) the problem or they've been internalizing rationalizations for years. They can call this thread an outrage circle jerk, but outrage has been proving itself a pretty effective motivator in the past few years. "This injustice should end now," is a perfectly fine assertion, and politicians can hash out the details once they've been made to care by a pissed off public.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I can't tell if you're being for real or not. Yeah I seem to have the same problem with you. So let's be blunt about it. Do you or do you not believe that systemic police abuse exists? Yes or no.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I can't tell if you're being for real or not. Toasty was recapping an old argument, not making that argument himself. Again, obvious from the context if you read the whole post, but a really good out of context sentence fragment if you want to be a disingenuous piece of poo poo. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
Tensing fired a single shot, hitting the driver in the head. Tensing fell to the ground as he fired the shot, bruising his legs and tearing his uniform, Cincinnati police said.Samuel Dubose's 9-year-old son posted:"He was coming home that night and we had a projector so we were going to watch a movie on it but we didn't get to do that ... because he died."
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
That's one way not to get fouled.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:
Cops don't have the ability to carry weapons that everyone else can't carry in places where non cops can't carry weapons? Does everyone have the ability to detain, restrain, transport, and imprison people against their will? Do cops not have the right to enter private property without the owner's permission under certain circumstances? Does everyone have the right to use force to gain control of a person, even if that person is not being violent (they aren't complying but pose no threat?) Cops can't legally run red lights or break the speed limit?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
Lemming posted:disingenuous piece of poo poo. Awesome stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:Yeah I seem to have the same problem with you. So let's be blunt about it. Do you or do you not believe that systemic police abuse exists? Yes or no.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:Cops don't have the ability to carry weapons that everyone else can't carry in places where non cops can't carry weapons? Does everyone have the ability to detain, restrain, transport, and imprison people against their will? Do cops not have the right to enter private property without the owner's permission under certain circumstances? Does everyone have the right to use force to gain control of a person, even if that person is not being violent (they aren't complying but pose no threat?) Cops can't legally run red lights or break the speed limit?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Those aren't individual rights, as police generally aren't allowed to do such things when not acting in their capacity as agents of the state. Like how IRS employees don't have the right to take your money for their own purposes, but may do so on behalf of the government. Then following that logic while they are acting in their official office they should be held to a higher standard than when they are not acting in their capacity as agents of the state, no? blarzgh posted:Awesome stuff. Still waiting on that answer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
That video of Sandra Blands arrest is infuriating. Wow. Guy was a pussy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
DARPA posted:http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Dash-cam-video-in-Sandra-Bland-case-to-be-6396735.php They are Judge Dredd authoritarian power trippers with cowboy hats. They are allowed to shoot your tires out if you run from them. They only recently halted shooting at getaway vehicles from helicopters because they killed two Guatemalan immigrants that way. If it matters, whites are disproportionately pulled over by State Troopers compared to blacks and Hispanics, both whom are pulled over at lower rates than their percentage of the population: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/director_staff/public_information/annualRptFY13.pdf There were also State Troopers among the police who shot up the crowd of armed bikers in Waco a few weeks ago. (The officer involved here is Hispanic, for what it's worth.) Yes, it was a bullshit reason for pulling her over, and the result was tragic. But that's what they do. The absolutely last thing you want to do is talk back or they will ruin your day and love it, and I wonder if her coming from Chicago made her not realize this. These are not local cops, yet some of the national reporting on this has confused him for a Waller County cop, which is a whole different story and where I wouldn't be surprised if racism was involved. BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Jul 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Those aren't individual rights, as police generally aren't allowed to do such things when not acting in their capacity as agents of the state. Like how IRS employees don't have the right to take your money for their own purposes, but may do so on behalf of the government. Shouldn't their duties as agents of the state extend to any and all investigations, including investigations on their own? And if they are granted different rights when acting as agents of the state, is it a stretch to suggest that there be different penalties when acting as agents of the state? The suggestion that has been made that they not have the ability to impede investigations or withhold testimony of events they bore witness to while on duty (to protect themselves or each other) doesn't seem that terrible when placed in the context that it only applies to their duties, and not their personal lives, especially since they are given special rights and privileges when on duty in the first place. In other words, there should be a penalty for cops refusing to cooperate with an investigation, regardless of whether it may incriminate them or not. It should be their duty to cooperate completely in any investigation that they are a part of, regardless of who is the focus of said investigation. While I don't know that failure to do so should be a "crime" in the sense that it result in jail time, it should at least result in a stripping of their badge. Furthermore, cops who are found to have committed crimes through the use of their position probably should have additional punishments heaped on them, which was also suggested in this thread. If assaulting a police officer can be a separate crime than assault, then committing a crime while a police officer should probably also be a crime in of itself. That seems pretty fair. If it isn't, I wouldn't mind hearing why in detail. The argument last time was mostly constitutional.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:Then following that logic while they are acting in their official office they should be held to a higher standard than when they are not acting in their capacity as agents of the state, no? Sure. They have to follow various rules about how cops should act and could potentially lose that official office if they fail to do so. That doesn't mean they should have fewer protections as criminal defendants than other people do, simply that it's okay to expect better from them in performing their duties than from random people being people. E:theres a world of difference between making it a crime to abuse authority (totally okay! Also constitutional!) and making it so that someone who has done so doesn't have the same procedural protections as any other defendant (not okay, not constitutional, and hugely problematic if you believe that those protections are important to protecting people from unfair treatment.) Kalman fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Jul 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:Then following that logic while they are acting in their official office they should be held to a higher standard than when they are not acting in their capacity as agents of the state, no?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:If it matters, whites are disproportionately pulled over by State Troopers compared to blacks and Hispanics, both whom are pulled over at lower rates than their percentage of the population: Comparison should be against driving population (really driving-hours), not against general population. Black and Hispanics have much lower rates of car ownership and drive shorter distances.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Sure. They have to follow various rules about how cops should act and could potentially lose that official office if they fail to do so. Would you go so far as to say that having a third mechanism that applies to police officers in regards to being charged with a crime would reduce their criminal protections? i.e. my suggestion earlier about an oversight board that has the power to present charges if the DA and/or the grand jury process fails to produce charges?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Comparison should be against driving population (really driving-hours), not against general population. Black and Hispanics have much lower rates of car ownership and drive shorter distances.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:Would you go so far as to say that having a third mechanism that applies to police officers in regards to being charged with a crime would reduce their criminal protections? i.e. my suggestion earlier about an oversight board that has the power to present charges if the DA and/or the grand jury process fails to produce charges? Yeah, I think that having a separate charging process for cops is problematic, because charging procedure are part of those procedural protections. There's a reason the UDHR included them. On the other hand, if that oversight board can review any case no matter who the defendant is, there's no real procedural problem with unequal treatment (it still might not be a great idea for other reasons, like the fact that that oversight board is just another grand jury and those already don't produce the results you want.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Awesome stuff. You repeatedly refuse to answer people's questions or engage with them and get massively offended when they call you out on it. You're just proving their point. If you can't handle being called a piece of poo poo you seriously need to grow a thicker skin.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Comparison should be against driving population (really driving-hours), not against general population. Black and Hispanics have much lower rates of car ownership and drive shorter distances. Probably also comparing officer visual identification of race in their own report vs self reporting of race on the census which is why more Hispanics show up as white, while blacks are almost nearly exact to the population. Also heartening to see the law at least seems to work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Yeah seriously. It's amazing how quickly it escalates. She's completely within her rights, and he hasn't gotten his satisfaction of getting someone to do what he says so he throws in the cigarette line, she says no and he just goes loving nuts like a rabid dog frothing at the mouth, grabbing at her, telling her he's going to tase her, yanking her out of the car. The problem with this is when you sue the district/city/whatever, it doesn't seem to be directly disciplining or punishing the aggressive cop or police department. I mean, isn't taxpayer money being dealt out as payment when the victim wins a lawsuit? So the cop goes on their merry way to intimidate and harass a bunch of other people, and we're essentially playing cleanup but never correcting the actual problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:Would you go so far as to say that having a third mechanism that applies to police officers in regards to being charged with a crime would reduce their criminal protections? i.e. my suggestion earlier about an oversight board that has the power to present charges if the DA and/or the grand jury process fails to produce charges? A mechanism? No. An office like SLED in South Carolina like AR proposed and then was alledged to be nitpicking? Yeah. That is a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:The problem with this is when you sue the district/city/whatever, it doesn't seem to be directly disciplining or punishing the aggressive cop or police department. I mean, isn't taxpayer money being dealt out as payment when the victim wins a lawsuit? So the cop goes on their merry way to intimidate and harass a bunch of other people, and we're essentially playing cleanup but never correcting the actual problem. Directly no, but I know in some departments the only two ways for lovely cops to get fired or put somewhere they can't comtact the public is either getting on a brady list or costing the city over x amount of dollars. When a city has to settle for a sizable amount of money or even a lot of smaller lawsuits, they do pay attention to that officer because he costs money they could be using for a new chopper.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
Kalman posted:(And when the constitutional things you're trying to get around are the Confrontation Clause, they may also wonder if you realize what effects removing it would have.) I'm not talking about the confrontation clause, I'm talking about [/url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-first_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution]This[/url]. The 21st amendment is the one that repeals the 18th. A constitutional change. I don't recall anyone saying we shouldn't have the confrontation clause, they're concerned about the fact that we're letting people off with out a trail, making the confrontation clause moot. There's no one to enjoy confrontation if there's no trial.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
Anora posted:I'm not talking about the confrontation clause, I'm talking about [/url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-first_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution]This[/url]. The 21st amendment is the one that repeals the 18th. A constitutional change. You must have missed the long discussion explicitly about the Confrontation Clause with respect to video evidence, in which people in fact said that that evidence should have come in despite the Confrontation Clause. And the 21st amendment passed in 1933 and re-legalized alcohol (a pretty broadly popular idea.). I'm not sure how relevant it is to passing a questionable amendment that won't enjoy the same broad popularity in a world in which we can't pass an amendment for equal rights for women. A constitutional amendment is really goddamn hard to get passed these days, unless it's some meaningless poo poo like fixing the time at which congressional pay increases can occur.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
Kalman posted:You must have missed the long discussion explicitly about the Confrontation Clause with respect to video evidence, in which people in fact said that that evidence should have come in despite the Confrontation Clause. How'd the dinkheller shooting video get into evidence without violating the confrontation clause?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
Kalman posted:You must have missed the long discussion explicitly about the Confrontation Clause with respect to video evidence, in which people in fact said that that evidence should have come in despite the Confrontation Clause. The strawman that you're continuing to loving flog: Hey, X is bullshit. We should do Y! Y is unconstituional, why do you hate the constitution! Well there has to be some constitutional way of preventing X in the future! But let's try to agree th- Y is unconstituional, why do you hate the constitution! Ad nauseam. And then just now, in your post. NO ONE CARES that an unconstitutional method was raised 20 pages ago. We've moved on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
DARPA posted:People weren't saying evidence should come in despite it. They were saying departments shouldn't be structured in a way that only the police on scene and their victims are capable of getting a video into evidence. Then the cast of law and order dropped in to tell us lowly folk its just not possible and why do we hate the Constitution? No, people were saying it should come in, then people pointed out the problems with that, then some people shifted to restructuring departments. quote:How'd the dinkheller shooting video get into evidence without violating the confrontation clause? Trial transcript not being available online (or not to a casual search) means this is a guess, but: probably someone testified about it in order to authenticate it, which satisfies the Confrontation Clause because the authenticating testifier can be cross-examined.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
Kalman posted:No, people were saying it should come in, then people pointed out the problems with that, then some people shifted to restructuring departments. You're never going to get people formally renouncing all their past advocacies, so feel free to assume that they concede points when they stop fighting for them. I'd be happy to start, if it helps: I, Devor, hereby renounce all my suggestions that turned out to be unconstitutional.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
Oh my god, we talked about the video issue like 20 pages ago. This issue was almost certainly an incompenwnt prosecutor, not the lack of the existance of a person.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
DARPA posted:Tensing fired a single shot, hitting the driver in the head. Tensing fell to the ground as he fired the shot, bruising his legs and tearing his uniform, Cincinnati police said. Those of you talking about officers not getting extra rights, what are the odds of someone who's not a cop shooting at an unarmed person vehicle driving away from them not getting arrested on the spot, and instead getting 24-48 hours to work out his story with his lawyer and his buddies before even being questioned? What are the odds that someone who isn't a cop in that situation doesn't immediately get put in a lovely jail with bail they probably can't meet and likely loses their job, instead of getting put on paid leave and the benefit of the doubt through the whole process?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
nm posted:A chickenshit arrest, though from the defense attorney perspective she did herself few favors -- this is why we always tell people to save the fight for the courtroom. Why is it that people who scream the loudest about knowing their rights when interacting with police always seem to get it the most wrong. How many youtube videos do we need before people realize cops ordering you from a vehicle during a traffic stop is a thing and each step of the way in which you resist that order either verbally or physically only makes the situation for the person worse. Get out of the car and fight it in court if you think you have something to fight about the stop.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Those of you talking about officers not getting extra rights, what are the odds of someone who's not a cop shooting at an unarmed person vehicle driving away from them not getting arrested on the spot, and instead getting 24-48 hours to work out his story with his lawyer and his buddies before even being questioned? What are the odds that someone who isn't a cop in that situation doesn't immediately get put in a lovely jail with bail they probably can't meet and likely loses their job, instead of getting put on paid leave and the benefit of the doubt through the whole process? I believe the talking point response is "well, I think we should treat everyone as good as cops. I'm not so mean as to say the cops should be deprived of rights just because of some bad apples. Keep letting police be treated like humans and eventually we'll treat everyone like humans!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Those of you talking about officers not getting extra rights, what are the odds of someone who's not a cop shooting at an unarmed person vehicle driving away from them not getting arrested on the spot, and instead getting 24-48 hours to work out his story with his lawyer and his buddies before even being questioned? What are the odds that someone who isn't a cop in that situation doesn't immediately get put in a lovely jail with bail they probably can't meet and likely loses their job, instead of getting put on paid leave and the benefit of the doubt through the whole process? Everyone has the right to speak to an attorney before, and during questioning. Period. The only difference is that it's codified for the police so that they cannot be questioned immediately until they've spoken to one. If you've ever been arrested, you'd have received a Miranda warning which informs you of this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 09:32 |
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:Yes, it was a bullshit reason for pulling her over, and the result was tragic. But that's what they do. The absolutely last thing you want to do is talk back or they will ruin your day and love it, and I wonder if her coming from Chicago made her not realize this. Chicago police shooting unarmed teenagers running from them and then paying to not have the video released is tragic, but that's what they do. I wonder if you being from Texas(assuming?) makes you not realize this. Clearly nothing can be done about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 05:41
|
|
