|
MariusLecter posted:Cop can say "I was just kiddin' brah" when he is recorded proposing killing a black man and covering it up. Keep linking that story and omitting that it was settled out of court in 2013.. Eventually it won't have ever been addressed. Also LOL at the guy for saying they added the drug charges he was out on bail on after he threatened to sue.
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 22:30 |
|
|
MariusLecter posted:Cop can say "I was just kiddin' brah" when he is recorded proposing killing a black man and covering it up. quote:I’m a lot different from a lot of these other folks. I’ll loving tell you what’s on my loving mind. He thinks everyone else is a racist psychopath but just isn't willing to say it out loud, which I guess might be true. quote:And before the police got here, I’d loving put marks all over my poo poo and make it look like he was trying to loving kill me. I god drat guarantee you Certainly the cop who killed that 17 year old kid wouldn't think to do anything like this either...
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Not quite. He'd still probably have to get qualified as an expert to testify about anything outside that specific investigation. Doing this in the gang context is fundamentally no different than it would be to certify a narc detective as an "expert" on the use of drugs, and introduce testimony that some guy was doing drug-looking stuff. It's a legal way to sneak non-probative testimony, guesswork, idle speculation, and hearsay into a trial. And it's wrong. quote:There really isn't a standard to be met at all, the inherent danger of a traffic stop alone is enough to justify ordering someone out of the vehicle, belligerence isn't at issue, its would be the defense's job to argue that the actual reason she was ordered out was not in line with officer safety. "She was confrontational when questioned so I decided to pull her out of the care for my safety because I was concerned it might escalate" is all that would be required to clear that hurdle. Not really, no. The pretext requires a pretext. EDIT - Actually, looking over Arizona more closely, the incidental extra intrusion of the patdown is what must be justified by a reasonable belief the driver is armed. I apologize and stand corrected. gently caress it, cops do whatever. Randbrick fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Aug 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But it was in violation of the department's policy, so how could that be justified as a reasonable to protect the officer's safety? Do you think the court is likely to rule that the Texas DPS policy requires officers to needlessly endanger themselves at traffic stops by not ordering a woman out of her car after she refused to put out a cigarette at the conclusion of the stop? I think it's reasonable to expect the justice system to side with the officer. If he says he's scared why should he follow a policy that puts him in danger?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But it was in violation of the department's policy, so how could that be justified as a reasonable to protect the officer's safety? Do you think the court is likely to rule that the Texas DPS policy requires officers to needlessly endanger themselves at traffic stops by not ordering a woman out of her car after she refused to put out a cigarette at the conclusion of the stop? What the gently caress does a generic statement that at some point during the stop unspecified actions of the trooper violated a courtesy police have at all to do with what we're talking about? Please, loving enlighten me. Because as far as I can tell you don't understand any of this conversation so you're just throwing irrelevant bullshit remarks from out in the weeds somewhere to try and get attention.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Certainly the cop who killed that 17 year old kid wouldn't think to do anything like this either... Here we go again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Randbrick posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Johnson Np, sorry for being snarky at you earlier
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Uh yeah, you can retaliate against someone you perceive as being impolite that hasn't done anything indicating she's an actual threat? I don't have the education or experience to determine if it's a racial/sexism-charged incident. I can say this is power projection. The officer asked if she could put out the smoke politely, Bland declined in an impolite manner, but not abusive. AFAIK police officers are not considered indoor areas by the Clean Air Ordinance. I can't tell in the video if the smoke was being blown at the officer, or if it was just residual billowing. The officer could have used different methods to wait out the smoking, such as stepping back to his vehicle to wait for the agitated driver to calm down, or walking to the passenger side of the vehicle to deliver the ticket. The officer instead felt non-compliance with a non-law related request constituted escalation, because his authority and position over Bland was not being respected. The officer reaches for Bland inside the vehicle, and then thinks to call for backup. At this point this is just a downward spiral of "Do what I say!"/"No!". The real kicker is the officer pulling his goddamned gun out on Bland as she's crawling away from him inside the vehicle. That just screams "I am taking the implication you don't respect me unprofessionally". Bland steps out of the car after seeing the drawn firearm, and is seen holding her phone which the officer demands she set down, pointing the firearm at her like she's armed even though he verbally identifies the object as a "phone". There is no attempt to de-escalate the situation beyond power projection. This wasn't some sovereign citizen crazy bullshit, this was an irritated driver. It goes from standard traffic stop to dangerous situation BECAUSE of the officer's actions. And unfortunately, the story doesn't end there or get any better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
Randbrick posted:To the extent that his testimony is predicated on the pretense that "knowing stuff about individual and specific things in the world," is expert testimony, that's extremely problematic. It is an excuse to sneak generalities and anecdote into a trial under the guise of expert testimony. This is particularly problematic where the "expert" is in fact just another cop in the department with the overwhelming incentive not to produce unbiased or actual expert testimony, but simply to generate convictions. You're not quite correct. It's more like requiring a computer cop to be qualified as an expert before explaining how peer to peer networks work in a kiddie porn case. Which is also required.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Thread's going on hiatus for a bit, on account of all the extremely bad posts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
There has been a shootout in Ferguson, leaving a person dead. If any of that dumb slapfighting/forums rival poo poo happens again we're gonna come down on you like a ton of bricks 
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
Not to dereail but regarding the Christian Taylor case: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/08/08/christian-taylor-killed_n_7959440.html I think i've pretty much given up on trying to argue with people in facebook comments, what the hell was I thinking? I was trying to make some interesting and valid points about why the kid seemed a bit doped up before jumping and sitting on a few cars and driving his SUV through a dealership and possibly trying to steal a car. He was shot multiple times by a 49 year old rookie officer, another officer had his tazer out, why wasn't more less lethal force used? The 19 year old kid was unarmed. Apparently my arguments led to a guy in texas resorting to say i'm just some waiter and possibly couldn't have any intelligence on the matter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 07:34
|
|
|
@search4swag's begging the police to help a man as he dies in the street. S4S is promptly arrested. NSFW. https://twitter.com/search4swag/status/630595778977796096?s=09
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 07:40
|
|
|
I'll post some pictures later this morning
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 07:43
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:@search4swag's begging the police to help a man as he dies in the street. S4S is promptly arrested. NSFW. https://twitter.com/search4swag/status/630595778977796096?s=09 Instead of shouting back up 20 times why don't the police calmly just say that they have radioed/called EMT and they are on the way? Seems like an easier way to diffuse tension than the have a shouting match and ultimately handcuffing a guy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 07:46
|
|
|
infraboy posted:Instead of shouting back up 20 times why don't the police calmly just say that they have radioed/called EMT and they are on the way? Seems like an easier way to diffuse tension than the have a shouting match and ultimately handcuffing a guy. Because the cops have been trained to believe they should be afraid. Legally: blah blah blahb laha lbhjlahjh blah blah. It is a goddamn nightmare. Koalas March posted:@search4swag's begging the police to help a man as he dies in the street. S4S is promptly arrested. NSFW. https://twitter.com/search4swag/status/630595778977796096?s=09 That is really loving hard to watch. Pohl fucked around with this message at 07:59 on Aug 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 07:57
|
|
|
infraboy posted:Not to dereail but regarding the Christian Taylor case: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/08/08/christian-taylor-killed_n_7959440.html All that has been released makes him seem bad, you can't have an argument that would matter, honestly. I'm not saying he was bad, just that the information we have at this point doesn't make for a good argument. I'd say he was obviously hosed up on drugs, but that isn't going to change anyone's mind. I haven't heard any details of the shooting. I don't know what went down outside of him wrecking cars and breaking into the dealership. Do you have more information? All I know is he was obviously acting crazy; I don't know why and I don't know what happened when he was killed. Maybe he had a psychotic break? I don't know. It would have been nice if they could have helped him rather than shoot him but we don't know what happened. Edit: I know he was unarmed. Why did they shoot him? I don't know, since nothing as far as I know has been released about the indecent. Pohl fucked around with this message at 08:10 on Aug 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 08:06
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:@search4swag's begging the police to help a man as he dies in the street. S4S is promptly arrested. NSFW. https://twitter.com/search4swag/status/630595778977796096?s=09 welp
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 08:13
|
|
|
Guy with a sub-70 IQ spent 35 years in prison AFTER his conviction was vacated. The DA blames the suspect. quote:Matagorda County District Attorney Steven Reis has said while prosecutors "may be partially responsible" for not retrying Hartfield earlier, the state hasn't acted in bad faith. Hartfield also bears some responsibility for not filing for nearly a quarter-century, Reis said. He's spent so much time in prison that if he's found guilty of murder again at his retrial, he'll be immediately eligible for parole.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 09:55
|
|
|
               Lots of nice people out last night.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 10:01
|
|
|
infraboy posted:Instead of shouting back up 20 times why don't the police calmly just say that they have radioed/called EMT and they are on the way? Seems like an easier way to diffuse tension than the have a shouting match and ultimately handcuffing a guy. American police training is, across the board, really, really bad. Simply asking him to back up, and that saying that the EMT was on a way in a calm as manner as possible would have helped resolve the situation. Unfortunately this isn't easy when you've spent hundreds of hours learning to shoot guns, use physical force to subdue suspects, and very little time on simply learning to communicate or the proper way to carry yourself and talk to people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 10:24
|
|
|
infraboy posted:I think i've pretty much given up on trying to argue with people in facebook comments, what the hell was I thinking? I was trying to make some interesting and valid points about why the kid seemed a bit doped up before jumping and sitting on a few cars and driving his SUV through a dealership and possibly trying to steal a car. He was shot multiple times by a 49 year old rookie officer, another officer had his tazer out, why wasn't more less lethal force used? The 19 year old kid was unarmed. "a bit doped up" the dude is on video peeling a windshield off a car barehanded, it's pretty obvious why the taser didn't work/they had to shoot him. I mean really out of all the unarmed guy shot stories thus far this one has gotta be the most clearcut. Equine Don posted:Lots of nice people out last night. At least the police came dressed as police without having to be told, this time
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 10:33
|
|
|
To be fair at least it looks like a lot of those cops aren't armed with surplus M16/M4 rifles this time around.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 11:17
|
|
|
infraboy posted:Not to dereail but regarding the Christian Taylor case: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/08/08/christian-taylor-killed_n_7959440.html Well, "interesting and valid" is subjective. You say "unarmed kid" others will say "college football player" I have no idea how good that program is, but having gone to a D1 college myself and tutoring some of these "kids" it's not unreasonable that officers may not have felt a physical take down was possible, especially if he was behaving erratically. There is apparently surveillance video of him kicking in a windshield. If he was high, this is really tragic. Sounds like he was a decent guy. But the investigation isn't complete, we don't have all the video or the officers' accounts, and the PD has already agreed to let FBI review the case. Bottom line it's probably premature to weigh in one way or the other on this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 13:42
|
|
|
It's certainly a situation of "can't trust the police" right now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 13:47
|
|
|
So the narrative seems to be in the large "so long as the person was a criminal or did something illegal they deserve to die" now, every time something like this happens. Have I been blind and this many people have always summary execution in the street was acceptable, or is how often I'm seeing it now indicative of it being a growing sentiment?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 14:20
|
|
|
I think before it didn't get nearly as much publicity which is why there's so many people trying to rationalize it instead of being able to quietly ignore the issue. People don't want to believe they live in a world where you can be killed by the people that are supposed to protecting them for minor crimes, mistakes like hands in pockets while listening to headphones, or having a bad day and mouthing off so they have to construct a reason that the victim deserved it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:So the narrative seems to be in the large "so long as the person was a criminal or did something illegal they deserve to die" now, every time something like this happens. Have I been blind and this many people have always summary execution in the street was acceptable, or is how often I'm seeing it now indicative of it being a growing sentiment? Or others taking the position that while the loss of life is tragic, behaving erratically in response to law enforcement requests to surrender is generally a bad idea. Had he surrendered, he probably would have ended up with probation and drug treatment based on what appears to be a clean prior record. Edit: big difference between "he deserved to die" and "this is tragic but I can see how it happened"
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 14:25
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Or others taking the position that while the loss of life is tragic, behaving erratically in response to law enforcement requests to surrender is generally a bad idea. You don't think maybe we could see a world where people don't get killed for damaging or stealing property? I'm mindful that we don't have all the facts, but just go with this hypothetical for a moment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Edit: big difference between "he deserved to die" and "this is tragic but I can see how it happened" Agreed, but this should also be followed with "how can we stop this from happening again?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
Starshark posted:You don't think maybe we could see a world where people don't get killed for damaging or stealing property? I'm mindful that we don't have all the facts, but just go with this hypothetical for a moment. He didn't get killed for damaging or stealing property. He got killed for allegedly responding erratically to requests to surrender. But thank you for acknowledging you don't have all the facts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
Starshark posted:You don't think maybe we could see a world where people don't get killed for damaging or stealing property? Not in America. That would require more than just a police reform.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:Agreed, but this should also be followed with "how can we stop this from happening again?" To answer that I'd need to know all the facts about how it happened this time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:So the narrative seems to be in the large "so long as the person was a criminal or did something illegal they deserve to die" now, every time something like this happens. Have I been blind and this many people have always summary execution in the street was acceptable, or is how often I'm seeing it now indicative of it being a growing sentiment? In Death Wish 3 (1985), Charles Bronson literally executes a man for stealing a camera and everyone cheers. It's just a movie, obviously, but having a protagonist who does poo poo like that who isn't portrayed as a monster is pretty telling about attitudes towards ~criminals~ even back then.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
My position is that your police are just terrible at their job. When our cops do shoot someone they do it in a controlled manner, not in your asinine mag dump, reload, shoot some more while jumping on the hood. So I can see why this happened, incompetence on the cops part. Containment? De-escalation? Non-lethal? Appropriate use of force? Talking? Human forms of communication?, these are things not known to an American cop.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 14:46
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:So the narrative seems to be in the large "so long as the person was a criminal or did something illegal they deserve to die" now, every time something like this happens. Have I been blind and this many people have always summary execution in the street was acceptable, or is how often I'm seeing it now indicative of it being a growing sentiment? No, it's been a thing forever. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Goetz. Texas actually allows you to use deadly force to recover stolen property, as seen in this case: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Jury-acquits-escort-shooter-4581027.php , where a guy shot a prostitute to death over $150 and got acquitted. quote:Gilbert's defense team conceded the shooting did occur but said the intent wasn't to kill. Gilbert's actions were justified, they argued, because he was trying to retrieve stolen property: the $150 he paid Frago. It became theft when she refused to have sex with him or give the money back, they said. And you can go back to public support for lynchings, hanging horse thieves, etc. Though Radish is right in that these incidents are becoming more visible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:No, it's been a thing forever. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Goetz. Texas actually allows you to use deadly force to recover stolen property, as seen in this case: Prostitute case is appalling but probably due to lack of victim sympathy. It sucks but if juries don't care about the victim they are more likely to aquit. If he had shot a cleaning lady over $150 he probably would have been convicted. Doesn't make it right but juries can be assholes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Edit: big difference between "he deserved to die" and "this is tragic but I can see how it happened" Yeah and it's the first one I've been seeing more of lately. Sharkie posted:No, it's been a thing forever. [...]
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:To answer that I'd need to know all the facts about how it happened this time. Fair enough. I would argue that the outcome is unacceptable, as long as the kid didn't pose a threat to anyone. Property can be replaced, and odds are that the business carries insurance for precisely this sort of reason (theft/vandalism). If the argument is that he was a danger to law enforcement, then why did law enforcement enter a situation where they became the people that the kid posed a threat to? We will need to wait for more details to come out, but at the end of the day we need to understand why and how someone was killed over the destruction of property.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 22:30 |
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:If the argument is that he was a danger to law enforcement, then why did law enforcement enter a situation where they became the people that the kid posed a threat to? What else is law enforcement supposed to do? This isn't regards to killing anyone, this is strictly about getting involved in a situation where the kid poses a threat to them/they posed a threat to him. Just let him continue to damage property and break the law?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 15:11
|
|