sugar free jazz posted:

Seems like definitional issues are a really huge problem in the study of sexual violence, which isn't surprising at all because welcome to social sciences.

captainblastum posted:

Everybody is entitled to due process. Do you think that minorities receive equal treatment and equal due process in our current judicial system? From a recent post in another thread it seems to me that you think that there is no racial bias in the system, I'd be interested to see the evidence you have that contradicts the evidence that I've seen.

ActusRhesus posted:

I would agree with this. I honestly don't think most "false allegations" are even the result of "lying" accusers. I think they've been taught an incorrect definition.

sugar free jazz posted:

Definitional issues in the context of studies on sexual violence is what I was mostly talking about. I'm not familiar with the lit so I don't know what I'm talking about, but according to those studies there's no global definition of what violence against women is referring to, and no global definition of what would count as a false allegation, and some other stuff I think. They say that many articles simply come up with their own unique definition and then use that within their article. Some count every rape that the police consider lacking evidence as a false allegation, others do other things. In my experience with social sciences it's really common for there to be a whole fuckload of definitions for one thing. It's really confusing and bad.

They also talk a little about complainants or whatever they call them simply having an incorrect idea of what rape is, but from what I remember from my skimming that was a minor section.

ActusRhesus posted:

Quote in context, please.

ActusRhesus posted:

Full disclosure, despite all the "why are you mad?" "why are you freaking out?" posts directed at me, I tend not to take much on this site seriously. And it is bullshit. But for some reason we now live in a world where despite all rationale evidence to the contrary, cops are the new branch of the KKK, and the system is just a tool of oppression. We don't actually...you know...serve a public function. It's all rather infuriating. I could cite to study after study that shows that the Baldus study relied on flawed methodology, and the death penalty in 2015 in fact has no proven racial bias, and studies that show an officer is LESS likely to shoot a minority do to fear and social conditioning, and the response will be "nuh uh, racist." You're fighting the zeitgeist. (Which ironically is occasionally put into print by a user named zeitgeist. Fun!) Fact of the matter is, I suspect mandatory body cams would just confirm that the overwhelming majority of the time, the stop was legit. I don't like the idea, however, because of the collateral consequence it would have on my witnesses. For us,if you don't get a statement at the scene, you aren't getting a statement, as people tend to develop sudden cases on amnesia. They are willing to talk if you don't write their name down. They might not be willing if they knew they were on camera. So maybe body cams for patrol so we get more sweet sweet sov cit taser videos, but not for detectives and CSI?


This.

quote:

A Modesto attorney, his wife and three California Highway Patrol officers were arrested Friday along with four alleged accomplices in connection with the 2012 killing of a 26-year-old man who was targeted for stealing scrap metal from the attorney and whose body was then dumped in the Stanislaus National Forest, officials said.

quote:

One officer pulled a firearm in a road rage incident, beat his wife and used illegal steroids.

In other instances, an officer made bigoted statements, and another drove drunk and lied about a petty conviction. The last officer harassed a colleague.

Such were the San Francisco police officer discipline cases in which action was taken by the San Francisco Police Commission from April to June.

quote:

A former San Francisco police officer known to cab drivers as “Johnny Dangerously” was found guilty by a jury Monday of accepting bribes in exchange for fixing taxicab exams, according to the District Attorney’s Office.

Officer Paul Makaveckas, 69, who worked the taxi detail for more than two decades, was in charge of grading exams for all prospective cabbies.

“This individual abused his position of power,” said District Attorney George Gascon. “He was sworn to serve the public, instead he chose to serve himself.”

quote:

A San Francisco sheriff’s deputy was found guilty Tuesday of abusing his authority as a law enforcement officer when he beat a homeless man — a man who was initially accused of attacking the deputy until video footage emerged.
A jury convicted Michael Lewelling, 34, of assault under the color of authority, a felony, and misdemeanor assault in connection with the Nov. 3 encounter in the waiting room of San Francisco General Hospital.

quote:

San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi’s driver’s license has been suspended since February for his failure to fulfill a legal obligation to tell the state Department of Motor Vehicles about a car accident in which he was involved, The Chronicle has learned.
A spokeswoman for Mirkarimi said Monday that the sheriff was unaware his license had been suspended until The Chronicle asked him about it.

quote:

An 18-year veteran counselor with the San Francisco Juvenile Probation Department vacationing at Disneyland earlier this month allegedly left a loaded handgun and cocaine behind in his hotel room, according to the Orange County District Attorney’s Office.

Robert Dandrea Minor, 51, is being accused of leaving behind a fanny pack containing a Glock 20 handgun and about half a gram of cocaine when he checked out of an Anaheim hotel room with his family June 5. He was charged last week in Fullerton with a felony for possession of cocaine and a loaded firearm.

ActusRhesus posted:

gently caress CA, sink it into the ocean.

captainblastum posted:

I can't dig through your post history. I just happened to read more than one thread.

ActusRhesus posted:

So you read the police lounge thread to...what? Gain a finer understanding of the other side? Or pan for "gotcha" quotes?

Untagged posted:

You know the answer to this question.

ActusRhesus posted:

...
There is a huge difference between saying a study was flawed and saying there is no institutional racism in law enforcement. There is institutional racism in any facet of society. Where you and I probably differ is on our belief as to the scope of the problem.

I have often acknowledged that there are racist cops, just as there are racist lawyers, racist doctors, racist janitors, racist politicians, and racist dog-walkers.

How ever many in this thread seem to think that the entire criminal justice system exists to oppress minorities, and with that I disagree.
...

ActusRhesus posted:

EDIT: Also, I don't think I have ever even attempted to defend California's system. Between elected cowboy judges, Orange County DAs who should all be disbarred IMO and SFPD, gently caress CA, sink it into the ocean.

ActusRhesus posted:

I have often acknowledged that there are racist cops, just as there are racist lawyers, racist doctors, racist janitors, racist politicians, and racist dog-walkers.

Rah! posted:

I'm pretty sure hosed up police and justice system poo poo isn't unique to CA. But you'll defend the system in other states, apparently? Using the logic in this post you just made, we should sink the entire country into the ocean.

ActusRhesus posted:

I will absolutely defend the system in my state. Yes.

PostNouveau posted:

What state?

Edit: Actually it doesn't matter. It's racist as all gently caress. We can do some Kabuki theater, but you know it's true.

ActusRhesus posted:

So we're back to "this isn't really a debate thread."

OK.

quote:

The union representing Riverside County sheriff’s deputies has pulled its support from Sheriff Stan Sniff and accused him of a dictatorial approach that shunned union input on the deployment of body-mounted cameras and other matters.

The decision, which came after a vote of the Riverside Sheriffs’ Association Board of Directors, means the union does not support how Sniff runs the county Sheriff’s Department, the union wrote in a letter to Sniff dated Thursday, Aug. 13.

In it, the union cites the sheriff’s actions and comments regarding body cameras, pay raises, discipline and take-home cars as why it can no longer endorse him.

The letter signed by union President Robert Masson accuses Sniff, an elected official, of being “unwilling to even recognize (the union’s) legitimate interests in advancing and protecting the welfare of (the union’s) members and our community.”

“Your autocratic engagement style may suit your personal preferences, but it leaves no room for working together with (the union) in a partnership designed to succeed,” the letter read.

Sniff is on vacation for “much of August,” and was not available for comment Friday, Aug. 14, according to an e-mailed statement from sheriff’s administrators.

The statement said Sniff views the union’s action as “unfortunate, but understands there are raw emotions involved in the union leadership’s dispute with the Sheriff’s Department’s decision to press forward with the fielding of body-worn cameras.”

“The sheriff has sought and received input from both employees and outside community sources throughout the (camera) testing process,” the statement read. “The sheriff and county have repeatedly invited the appropriate labor groups to meet on the foreseeable effects of the program, and have in fact already held talks with the other effected (sic) labor groups.”

The county was set to begin formal talks with the union Friday, the statement added.

In a telephone interview Friday, Masson said the frustrations behind the letter have been building.

After Sniff was re-elected in 2014, “he didn’t really need us anymore,” Masson said. “As a leader, you can’t throw members under the bus like he’s been.”

The union, which has more than 2,000 members, isn’t trying to run the Sheriff’s Department, Masson said.

“We have to work together because we serve the citizens of this county, plain and simple,” he said. “We want to make sure we have good policies not just for our members, but for everybody.”
The union might recruit someone to run against Sniff in 2018.

“It’s a possibility,” Masson said.

The union’s letter cites Sniff’s decision earlier this year to require deputies to wear body-mounted cameras that record interactions with the public. Police departments regionally and nationwide are starting to deploy the cameras following increased public scrutiny of officer-involved shootings and allegations of police brutality.

The union sued the county to stop the test deployment because deputies believe that the cameras constituted a significant change in working conditions that required negotiations. Sniff countered that negotiations weren’t required because the cameras were being deployed on a trial basis.

Union officials have said they don’t oppose the cameras in principle. But in its letter, the union contends it was wrongly left out of camera discussions.

“As invested stakeholders in the department’s investigation and decision to deploy devices through countywide operations, the community and the members who will be wearing these devices, should not have been completely excluded from this ‘process,’” the letter read.

The union also objects to Sniff’s announcement of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California’s support of his camera policy, which “deprived the men and women of the Department of the opportunity to view body-worn camera video,” the letter read.

“Your posture embracing the ACLU while you have ignored the collective voices of the men and woman who will be wearing these devices day in and day out in the field, is an embarrassing insult to (the union’s) dedicated members,” the letter read.

Sniff has said that allowing deputies to view camera footage before making an official statement about an incident could lead them to alter their statements to fit what’s on the video.

The letter brings up other grievances, including Sniff’s repeated statements blaming union pay raises for an increase in what contract cities are charged for sheriff’s services.

“Such ‘increases’ were negotiated at the bargaining table and approved by the Board of Supervisors; a ‘bargaining table’ where you claimed you ‘have no seat,’” the letter read.

“When in truth, there has always been a sheriff’s management representative present at the table. The statement is misleading, and prejudices (the union’s) position in regard to future contract negotiations.”

The sheriff’s disciplinary system is too focused on punishment with overly harsh penalties and department managers “unilaterally implemented” policies regarding the use of take-home vehicles, the letter read.

The department employs more than 4,000 people, including deputies, corrections officers and civilian support staff. Besides policing contract cities and the county’s unincorporated areas, the department runs five jails, serves as the coroner’s office and provides courthouse security.

Sniff cruised to re-election last year and his term expires in 2018. He has been sheriff since October 2007, when the Board of Supervisors appointed him to replace Bob Doyle, who resigned to take a state parole board job.

E-Tank posted:

However you know, it seems that more racists are cops, than cops that aren't racist. I wonder why that is. Could it be how they're taught?

Take for instance this.
Alternative link here

E-Tank posted:

How can you explain cops shooting a man holding a toy rifle, but ignoring white dudes armed to the loving teeth with rifles? Or a nine year old kid with a toy pistol? How many black people have to die before you admit that poo poo is wonky and the cops tend to shoot at black people a hell of a lot more than white people, and tend to suffer consequences much more when they do shoot white people?

E-Tank posted:

They broke a 12 year old girl's jaw because she was at a pool party and the staff got scared of 'all the black people' because one of the kids didn't have a swimsuit.

PostNouveau posted:

Nah just that I don't need to know what state you want to defend because we both know it doesn't matter. You say New Jersey or something and I'll be like "Oh well black motorists are 17% of the drivers on the Turnpike, but they're 45% of the stops and 72% of the arrests."

We both know the data's gonna look like that no matter what state you're talking about, so let's just skip that step and jump right to your rationalizations of how a system that nonstop shits on minorities and the poor is OK.

Dead Reckoning posted:

Because they were different cops in different departments in different situations?

lfield posted:

Why does this matter?

lfield posted:

People like John Crawford & Tamir Rice would be far, far more likely to have survived their encounters with police if they were white. That's if there even were encounters with police to begin with.

lfield posted:

Why does this matter?

Trabisnikof posted:

Because according to some people's logic, you can't show a pattern of systemic abuse without double-bind testing.

ActusRhesus posted:

So we're back to "this isn't really a debate thread."

OK.

sugar free jazz posted:

If the stuff in the article is true, that's a perfectly reasonable reaction from a union I think?

Dead Reckoning posted:

That story is about a professional expert witness who testifies in police shooting cases for money. It seems kinda scummy, but it doesn't have anything to do with race.

Dead Reckoning posted:

The only basis for the claim that she suffered broken bones was Bishop Bobby Hilton (leader of Word Deliverance Ministries)'s facebook page. There is no independent confirmation of the injuries. The emergency medical technicians on site that day did not make note of any injuries sustained by juveniles other than side effects from pepper spray. At a subsequent press conference, Hilton refused to discuss the seriousness of the girl's injuries, and refused to let her answer questions. If a 12 year old is kicking a cop or trying to yank on one's arm because her friend is getting arrested, pulling her off and restraining her is absolutely reasonable. Sorry your outrage is based on something that didn't happen.

quote:

At a news conference Tuesday, Bishop Bobby Hilton, leader of Word Deliverance Ministries in Forest Park, played snippets of a video Dixon's family recorded that day. Pictures of two juveniles who were hospitalized and later released decorated the room.

Hilton said he was "shocked" and "embarrassed" at what he called the police department's "ridiculous" and excessive use of force.

quote:

Hilton said the family came to him after they went to the police department Friday and were told they couldn't make a report and needed to talk to the police chief.

E-Tank posted:

Which was only part of my argument, it's almost like I said other things than the things you quoted. It was pointing out that cops are already told 'shoot, kill them all and let god sort it out' at the beginning. Then they bump into people in police stations that are racist fucks and are forced to deal with that constantly in the back of their heads. The human mind is an amazing thing in that it can adapt to almost anything. The familiar becomes banal and you don't think about it that much anymore, but it works against you in this case. You're exposed to racial jokes, to racist slurs, to stories about a 'drat dirty n_____'. You can't complain to others about racist pricks in the station because that's breaking the rule of 'you don't snitch on your fellow cops' that can get you loving 'friendly fired'. Or you end up being in trouble and backup doesn't get there in time because reasons.

But sure, the disproportionate amount of black people dying to cops, and said cops getting off with a slap on the wrist at best doesn't mean there's a pattern of the police murdering black people without suffering any consequences.

E-Tank posted:

From your link:

Well gee, it sounds like they're scared of the cops and wanted someone to help them out who might be a bit harder to begin a campaign of intimidation against. They don't want to answer questions, they don't want to deal with the police, they approached their bishop and asked him to help shield them a bit.

Discendo Vox posted:

The professor giving the main talk is on the far right anti-government wing- it's just a few inches shy of sovcit territory. A good cue is the suggested videos over to the right- click the link and you also wind up with Alex Jones and militia channels in your feed for a few days. In terms of the content, it's paranoiabait and gives overly broad advice about police interaction. Talk to the police- just don't overshare and know when unambiguously invoking your rights is the best course of action. The last time the video came up someone posted a link to some much better ACLU guidance on police interaction- I'll see if I can find it.

edit: drat it, since google bought youtube their customization is mixed- now I'm getting Alex Jones in my results for "ACLU talking to police". Some of the ACLU materials is outdated, since it doesn't include the affirmative right to silence req.

lfield posted:

Police are more likely to shoot unarmed black people than armed white people.

Dr Pepper posted:

Cole posted:

Prove it.

Dr Pepper posted:

Cliven Bundy

Cole posted:

Prove it.

And don't do that "I'M GONNA MAKE A CLAIM HAHAHAHA NOW PROVE ME WRONG" bullshit that you usually do. If you make a claim, back it up.