|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:It's arrestable, but discretionary, which is why you get DWB/contempt of cop, which is pretty necessary context you should have included in your post especially after having been called out for dumb lawyerposting before in this thread. Like "the law allows for cops to do their job in a racist manner" is like the whole point of this exercise.
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 22:36 |
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Like "the law allows for cops to do their job in a racist manner" is like the whole point of this exercise. I don't think there will ever be a case in which cops don't have the ability to do their jobs in a racist manner.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
Cole posted:I don't think there will ever be a case in which cops don't have the ability to do their jobs in a racist manner. we could start by firing racist cops, instead of protecting and promoting them
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
Cole posted:I don't think there will ever be a case in which cops don't have the ability to do their jobs in a racist manner. Well we may as well do nothing about it then.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
Genocide Tendency posted:That is a crime. A white person wouldn't have been given that "lawful" order in the first place. Which, I suppose, is what makes you happy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Well we may as well do nothing about it then. i'm just curious but can you point out where i said that? Dr Pepper posted:A white person wouldn't have been given that "lawful" order in the first place. why did you put lawful in quotes when it's been repeatedly proven that it was, indeed, lawful?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
Because it's one of those petty dumb laws that exist only to give the cop a reason to harrass whoever they want. It shouldn't be lawful. And even if the arrest was lawful, that doesn't change the fact that every other thing the cop did was wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:What's funny is," ignorance of the law is never an excuse" is a constant police apologist refrain. Also I didn't need the state to mandate me use my windshield wipers in the rain... It's a bit late, but the thread is moving (well, spiraling) fast. "Ignorance of the law is not an excuse" is also one of the foundational elements of, to the best of my knowledge, all formal legal systems. There are interesting structural issues and exceptions, but they are as far as I know they're completely irrelevant to the subjects being discussed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
Cops are venomous bears who have every right to skip legal procedure and just maul you if you have the temerity to exercise your fourth, fifth, sixth, and/or eighth amendment rights. gently caress refusing an unreasonable search or seizure, gently caress being silent until the presence of counsel, gently caress proper notification of specific infractions, and especially, gently caress being ticketed and fined when the venomous bear of a cop can just put a bullet in the side of your head and put your corpse on trial for it. E: Atwater came up with the idea of using disparate impact as a race cudgel decades ago, and prejudice in "discretionary enforcement" is practically timeless. It isn't some modern beep boop robotic thought method where you're enlightened and free of emotional constraints when waxing binary about the legitimacy of cited offenses stemming from disproportionate numbers of minorities getting pulled over. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:A white person wouldn't have been given that "lawful" order in the first place. Can you prove that is true? Because I can prove that white people get told to get out of their cars during traffic stops. Oh wait. Personal anecdotes don't count because of reasons. Dr Pepper posted:Because it's one of those petty dumb laws that exist only to give the cop a reason to harrass whoever they want. It shouldn't be lawful. The ruling exists for more than "a reason to harass whoever they want". Its lawful. And should be. And we have already proven that he was in the right to pull her over for not signaling, ask her for her identification/papers, ect. So no. Not "every other thing the cop did was wrong". But please. Continue to be completely wrong. Change upsets me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
Genocide Tendency posted:Can you prove that is true? Let's hear your thoughts on busing, Lee.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
Cole posted:This is our argument: It was legal, so it doesn't matter if you like it. If something is legal, and they don't like it, and they live in a democracy, it really does matter if they don't like it because they can vote in people who they believe will work to change that law. Already-elected officials can listen to petitions from their citizens and response to things they want to get done. The idea that some public policy does not concern the public in a democracy is one of the weird things about your and Genocide's points of view. The conditions cops operate under aren't determined by the cops. The cops aren't the ones in control of the system--they're at the end of the chain, the actual workers. This is why i'm not terrible into blaming individual cops. They're products of the political landscape that we, the voters, in the end decide. Reform of the justice system isn't going to come from individuals in the justice systems having their heart grow three times as big, it comes form actual structural reform. Not to say that individual cops can't do anything about it, but if you're just some beat cop you're not going to really change anything through your own actions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:If something is legal, and they don't like it, and they live in a democracy, it really does matter if they don't like it because they can vote in people who they believe will work to change that law. Already-elected officials can listen to petitions from their citizens and response to things they want to get done. You've got a ridiculously rose tinted view of how politics work in the United States.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
Genocide Tendency posted:
Please tell me the crime involved in not putting out a cigarette in your own car. Dr Pepper fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:and threw her in jail to die Yeah, of all the black people in the world, he picked her because he knew she would kill herself in jail. Otherwise he would've just done it for her! Dr Pepper posted:
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
Cole posted:Yeah, of all the black people in the world, he picked her because he knew she would kill herself in jail. Otherwise he would've just done it for her! You actually think it was a suicide? Seriously there's so many weird holes and oddities from a prisoner not being checked on for 3 days, for having an impossible amount of THC in her system, I have little doubt that she was killed and then it was made to look like she killed herself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:None of that matters because he pulled her out of the car, violently beat her, arrested her, and threw her in jail to die because she refused to put out a cigarette. Dude, the crime was her not getting out of her car. Duh.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
Senf posted:Dude, the crime was her not getting out of her car. Duh. Once she refused to comply, yeah you're exactly right.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
Pick up that can citizen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:You actually think it was a suicide? Uh, she was checked on the morning she died. While it was longer than permitted in Texas jail standards, it wasn't 3 days. I don't think there's any evidence here for anything beyond the typical incompetents and power trips of small town Texas authority figures.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
A restauranteur had the right to refuse service right until he does so because a customer is black
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
This Darren Wilson interview is weird. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/10/the-cop quote:The baby has helped Wilson, who also has two stepsons, accept the constrictions of his current situation. It has also allowed him to maintain a pointed distance from the furor that the shooting helped to unleash. He told me that he had not read the Justice Department’s report on the systemic racism in Ferguson. “I don’t have any desire,” he said. “I’m not going to keep living in the past about what Ferguson did. It’s out of my control.” quote:Wilson found the classwork fascinating, especially when he and other cadets role-played at handling stressful situations. If they made a mistake, Wilson said, the instructors pounced: “They’re—bam!—in your face. Done. ‘You’re wrong.’ ‘It’s over.’ ‘That person just died.’ ” He welcomed the pressure. quote:Good values, Wilson insisted, needed to be learned at home. He spoke of a black single mother, in Ferguson, who was physically disabled and blind. She had several teen-age children, who “ran wild,” shooting guns, dealing drugs, and breaking into cars. This article really makes him less sympathetic. William Bear fucked around with this message at 03:11 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
Cole posted:You've got a ridiculously rose tinted view of how politics work in the United States. No, I don't. I didn't say anything about the process being easy. The reason we have the kind of policing we have now is because of how we've voted--how on earth do you think that represents me having a rose-tinted view of how politics works? It's not easy at all to change, and you have to accept things may get worse. The reason we're in the bind we're in is because of the war on drugs, on 'tough on crime' politicians--and that's been something it's easy to get elected on. I think we're starting to see a change in that, but it's far too early to celebrate. What I'm pointing out is that the way that cops do their job is of interest to any citizen. Yes, those citizens are going to misunderstand stuff because they haven't actually been in the job. They will also bring a perspective of being, y'know, citizens. So attempting to tell people that it doesn't matter what they think is pretty stupid, because it does matter. only a tiny bit, for any individual, but it does matter. If you're not interested in discussing potential reform in the criminal justice system, then fine, but don't try to shut down other people who want to talk abou it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
Genocide Tendency posted:Can you prove that is true? Because the plural of anecdote is not data. However, mountains of data suggest that profiling, targeting and excessive force are used disproportionately against minorities. Just because a cop was a dick to you, a white person, doesn't automatically invalidate years of data suggesting that blacks are unfairly and systematically targeted by the police.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
nm posted:It was a stupid derail, but it took two to tango. It also is also counter productive because we spent 20 pages discussing an issue that was a non-issue: admissablity when we should have been discussing the lying rear end cop. Lawyers are not going to be apologize for being pedantic assholes, its in our job discription. Somehow correcting people as to what the law is made people bootlickers. This thread would be way better if people assumed that withvthe exception of the obvious trolls (and the racist), most people are approaching things here with good intentions. Attacking someone who disagrees with you or my favorite, generally agrees with you but is pointing out something wrong, is an automatic jackbooted thug lover is extremely counter productive. While I understand what you're saying here, the reason why people get so angry with ActusRhesus *is* mostly because of her tone. Her posts are almost all extremely condescending (despite not being in a position where she has access to any special expertise that couldn't be easily explained or linked to on wikipedia or something; a prosecutor isn't exactly equal to being a professor). There's also the fact that what a person chooses to talk about reveals a lot about where their underlying sympathies and opinions lie. If a person chooses to talk about literally nothing but the way people on one side of an argument are wrong*, you can be pretty sure that they are either more sympathetic to the opposing argument and/or otherwise don't mind the status quo. It's like if someone hung around in a thread about racism and posted nothing at all other than minor nitpicks about other posters making mistakes (plus a large helping of condescension); even if nothing they said was technically wrong, they've still revealed that, at the very least they have some really twisted priorities. It also crosses a line from mere condescension to flat out dishonesty when you repeatedly claim that everyone else is making a dumb argument, despite said argument having not been made for a very long time and having only been made by a couple posters. I don't even really participate much in this thread, but I have to actively resist the urge to respond to some of her posts (which I kind of wish others would do as well) just because they're so incredibly lovely and mean. Your posts manage to accomplish the same thing without being a huge rear end in a top hat. *I think she finally gave a couple things she would be okay with changing, but only after being repeatedly prodded. Also, I can only thing of one instance in this thread where people were arguing for something that wasn't constitutional, and the topic ended up being dropped.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Because the plural of anecdote is not data. I didn't say it does invalidate data. I said that its not only black people who have issues with cops. You see. The problem here is, again, people keep saying this happened/happens because they are black. I am pointing out that its not just black people who have run into the same issues. Pulled over for not using a turn signal when changing lanes: White person - YOU ARE A lovely DRIVER Black person - COPS PULLED THEM OVER FOR DRIVING WHILE BLACK. Asked to get out of a car: White person - ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE DOESNT COUNT Black person - COPS ARE RACIST My stance: Pulled over for not using a turn signal when changing lanes: White person - Didn't signal when changing lanes. Black person - Didn't signal when changing lanes. Asked to get out of car: White person - Because cops can do that. Black person - Because cops can do that. But lets keep bitching about me not disputing your data, but rather making the simple statement that the laws and regulations apply to all races. Just because the cops enforce it more with blacks doesn't mean they only do it to blacks. And every offense isn't automatically "being black in the US".
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Not going to be exact figures, but do you think that black people are, as a whole, twice as likely to commit crime, or do you think there's some sort of disparity in how laws are being enforced? Careful, black people in the US are disproportionately poor. You're in danger of uncovering a mysterious third variable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
Cole posted:Once she refused to comply, yeah you're exactly right. Well no poo poo. It still doesn't mean that it was the necessary course of action or the most appropriate one to take. What exactly do you think the officer was going to do if she got out of her car without disputing it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
Well driving while black isn't technically illegal so I don't know what everyone is complaining about institutionalized racism for.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 04:07
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Like "the law allows for cops to do their job in a racist manner" is like the whole point of this exercise. Christ, dude. After I went through the whole "shouldn't have happened" poo poo in my post to try to avoid exactly this, you're going to nitpick that while I said it was the wrong choice for the cop to have made and he shouldn't have escalated, I didn't explicitly say the word discretionary? I can't imagine why people dislike posting anything that isn't "cops are bad" in this thread. Choice = discretion. I flat out said it was discretionary, you just have lovely reading comprehension.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:No. But you might be able to suggest reforms that don't require the suspension of the bill of rights. How do other developed countries manage to prosecute cops who openly commit beatings and murders instead of loving up the video evidence and letting them walk or skunking indictments of cops murdering people on video? Is it because those countries don't have a Bill of Rights/hate freedom?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
Genocide Tendency posted:I didn't say it does invalidate data. Nobody has said that only black people have run into these issues. What's said is that, statistically, black people get disproportionately targeted, so at least some of the time, racism has to play a part. otherwise they wouldn't be a disproportion. Just like any individual rejection of a black candidate for a job may not be racism, but given what we know about employers rejecting black applicants at a much higher rate than whites (resumes of equivalent strength with black names get rejected far more often than those with white names) some of them definitely are rejections because of race. I'm not sure what you can't grasp about this. This is just stats 101. Kalman posted:Christ, dude. After I went through the whole "shouldn't have happened" poo poo in my post to try to avoid exactly this, you're going to nitpick that while I said it was the wrong choice for the cop to have made and he shouldn't have escalated, I didn't explicitly say the word discretionary? I can't imagine why people dislike posting anything that isn't "cops are bad" in this thread. I post things that aren't 'cops are bad' and I don't get any poo poo for it. PINING 4 PORKINS posted:Careful, black people in the US are disproportionately poor. You're in danger of uncovering a mysterious third variable. Even when controlling for poverty, all the racist poo poo against black people is still there. Jarmak posted:Bingo Nope. Statistically, this isn't true; racism persists when controlling for poverty. See the resume example above. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 04:17 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
PINING 4 PORKINS posted:Careful, black people in the US are disproportionately poor. You're in danger of uncovering a mysterious third variable. Bingo
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:How do other developed countries manage to prosecute cops who openly commit beatings and murders instead of loving up the video evidence and letting them walk or skunking indictments of cops murdering people on video? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Waldorf https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ashley https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Stanley https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_June_2006_Forest_Gate_raid (I love the deemingly fabricated child porn charges against the victim. So american) They just don't do it as often. I'm not convinced that when it does they do any better. nm fucked around with this message at 04:21 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
Senf posted:What exactly do you think the officer was going to do if she got out of her car without disputing it? No idea. Here is the problem. You don't know either. And we will never know. Obdicut posted:Nobody has said that only black people have run into these issues. I grasp stats. The problem is you and others in this thread are missing my point. Here. Read this again with out omitting the rest of the post: Genocide Tendency posted:I didn't say it does invalidate data. Edit: Fixed double quote
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Bingo Every aspect of American society is racist. When you account for socio-economic status, it is still racist. Poverty alone does not explain the significantly disproportionate experiences that people of different races have at every level of our judicial system. Edit: Also for fun, here's a cop in GiP "joking" about paying another GiP cop to murder D&D posters: Cop gay. So What posted:I will pledge $1 per every D&D poster you take out before you off youslef. captainblastum fucked around with this message at 04:21 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 04:18
|
|
Genocide Tendency posted:But lets keep bitching about me not disputing your data, but rather making the simple statement that the laws and regulations apply to all races. Well, you've identified the problem.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
Genocide Tendency posted:No idea. Isn't this enough for us to say like, "hey, maybe he didn't need to ask her to get out of the car? Hell, we don't even know why he wanted her to get out in the first place." In other words, now that we've both admitted to not knowing why he wanted her out of the car, I think it's safe to say that he didn't need to ask her to get out in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
Dahn posted:Cops profile, they just do. So if you happen to be in one of those categories, they are going to pull you over. I've never understood this attitude in regards to the criminal justice system: the man-made institution that we specifically designed with the goal of making life more fair than it otherwise would be. If there's one place in the world we should care when things aren't fair and try to make them more fair, surely it's the criminal justice system. Or else why even have it, if someone robs/rapes/murders you so what it wasn't fair but neither is life.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 22:36 |
|
|
nm posted:They do? 5 examples over 30 years and you had to go to several different countries to find them, wow you're right the country that has had dozens of murder-by-cop this year alone sure couldn't stand to learn anything here
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 04:25
|
|