|
snyprmag posted:It was launched two days after the shooting but there were protests the day after. Also the grand jury announcement was last November and the results of the probe weren't released till March, so actions after the grand jury announcement could still have a large impact. It's also impossible to say how much the political will behind the DoJ investigation was a result of media pressure, which was in turn there because of the protesters. There might have been some cursory questions and a slap on the wrist if not for (a) the risk of public backlash if the DoJ did not take the investigation seriously and (b) all the stuff found in the independent media investigation caused by the attention on Ferguson, which would have embarrassing if ignored by the DoJ.
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 20:12 |
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:A Philadelphia officer has been placed on desk duty after literally being caught on camera demanding a bribe. I mean, I would of expected someone so nakedly corrupt to ask for more than a $30 bribe. Especially considering I would expect there to be enough oversight in a police fundraising effort to keep someone from just pocketing cash in exchange for fundraiser tickets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
DeathSandwich posted:I mean, I would of expected someone so nakedly corrupt to ask for more than a $30 bribe. Especially considering I would expect there to be enough oversight in a police fundraising effort to keep someone from just pocketing cash in exchange for fundraiser tickets. There's a good chance they're incentivized to sell tickets somehow, and this seemed like an easy way to unload three of them. Besides, getting your car out of impound is going to cost a lot more than $30, so it seems safe enough. Just didn't anticipate being on camera.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
Lumberjack Bonanza posted:There's a good chance they're incentivized to sell tickets somehow, and this seemed like an easy way to unload three of them. Besides, getting your car out of impound is going to cost a lot more than $30, so it seems safe enough. Just didn't anticipate being on camera. Whoever extorts the most people into buying tickets wins a pizza party for their
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
The protests may also have highlighted some of the issues later included in the DOJ findings, just by bringing the cops out to do what they do against protesters, but on camera. Wasn't that one guy yelling "loving animals" while cuddling his rifle from the FPD? He can say that a thousand times a day in his cruiser but that protest got it on camera.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
bango skank posted:Whoever extorts the most people into buying tickets wins a pizza party for their Sounds like Philadelphia to me, except maybe it'd be cheesesteaks
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:It's also impossible to say how much the political will behind the DoJ investigation was a result of media pressure, which was in turn there because of the protesters. There might have been some cursory questions and a slap on the wrist if not for (a) the risk of public backlash if the DoJ did not take the investigation seriously and (b) all the stuff found in the independent media investigation caused by the attention on Ferguson, which would have embarrassing if ignored by the DoJ. FAUXTON posted:The protests may also have highlighted some of the issues later included in the DOJ findings, just by bringing the cops out to do what they do against protesters, but on camera. Wasn't that one guy yelling "loving animals" while cuddling his rifle from the FPD? He can say that a thousand times a day in his cruiser but that protest got it on camera. That's some pretty tenuous rationalization. The investigation and the protests were both triggered because the media decided to spend time covering the Michael Brown shooting. The protesters didn't drive the coverage, they were a consequence of it. The bureaucrats who do investigations for the DoJ aren't swayed by street protests. Once those cogs start turning, they're going to dig up whatever dirt they can in order to look good to the people who ordered the investigation in the first place. I suppose upper management or the administration could have suppressed the final report, but the whole reason it was initiated was that the Administration wanted to show it was taking police misconduct seriously after a wave of media attention. The change came about because of bad press and the feds deciding to dig into the local PD. The protesters on the streets had little to do with it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
The protests started the evening of the shooting, long before major media coverage. Don't let facts get in the way of preconceived notions though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:That's some pretty tenuous rationalization. The investigation and the protests were both triggered because the media decided to spend time covering the Michael Brown shooting. The protesters didn't drive the coverage, they were a consequence of it. The protestors had little to do with the bad press. Yup.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:That's some pretty tenuous rationalization. The investigation and the protests were both triggered because the media decided to spend time covering the Michael Brown shooting. The protesters didn't drive the coverage, they were a consequence of it. ""The media"" is not as capable of getting thousands of people to march in the streets than you think they are. You'd need to post some pretty strong evidence that the media drove the protests rather than the other way around. People in America don't tend to protest like that just because someone said something on TV. People protested because things were poo poo, they were mad, and Brown's death was a catalyst. You could see it a lot more with the start of the tea party, where public demonstrations were being insanely hyped and then a few dozen people would show up. Without the protests, and the momentum from things like Trayvon Martin's death (where Zimmerman was only arrested after public outcry and protests) a few local news outlets would have reported it happened, an investigation was happening, and moved on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:The protests may also have highlighted some of the issues later included in the DOJ findings, just by bringing the cops out to do what they do against protesters, but on camera. Wasn't that one guy yelling "loving animals" while cuddling his rifle from the FPD? He can say that a thousand times a day in his cruiser but that protest got it on camera. There was also an incident during the August 2014 protests (the super crazy ones) where the police put the entire town on lockdown and started arresting everyone they saw outside at night. This extended to a Fox reporter, whose dashcam showed him being arrested by about a dozen riot cops live on the air when he tried to keep recording them in a strip mall parking lot. After a while it cut back to a fellow reporter in the "free speech zone", who was rather shocked and confused. That whole month was basically a dystopian film.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Lemming posted:""The media"" is not as capable of getting thousands of people to march in the streets than you think they are. You'd need to post some pretty strong evidence that the media drove the protests rather than the other way around. Most of the ongoing media coverage centered on the investigation and trial, but the largest and most violent protests came after Darren Wilson was acquitted, after the federal probe had already been announced and after extensive national media coverage. The protests prior to that were basically a footnote. There is also the fact that the major rallying cry of the early protests was, "Justice for Michael Brown," but the justice department found that they had no reason to prosecute Wilson, indicating that the protesters' desires were largely irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:That's some pretty tenuous rationalization. The investigation and the protests were both triggered because the media decided to spend time covering the Michael Brown shooting. The protesters didn't drive the coverage, they were a consequence of it. That's some pretty tenuous rationalization on your end. The DoJ is not run by robots - the political situation will impact the investigation. It's not a question of sweeping the results under the carpet, but the resources allocated in the first place. More investigators, and likely more senior investigators, are going to be assigned to an investigation where the results are likely to get more publicity. The investigators have more incentive to put in their best effort since the attention on their case is more likely to impact their standing in the agency and careers generally - you're not going to phone it in when the bosses are watching. Agency management (including politically appointed management) is more likely to focus on the sort of investigation that's going to put the agency under the spotlight, and more likely to make sure that the investigation is not underfunded or understaffed when there are competing priorities. You're being very short-sighted if you think that public attention has no affect on the functioning of a bureaucracy, and that the protests in Ferguson didn't affect the public attention on everything coming out of there. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Aug 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I think you're the one who is going to need evidence if you want to claim that the protests were the impetus behind the DoJ investigation or the media coverage. You're crazy if you think that the protests in Ferguson would have been as big as they were without national media coverage of the shooting and trial. The protests started the day he was shot and didn't stop for a while. They got bigger over time, and the quiktrip was burned down literally the next day. Sure, I think the media coverage probably had some effect on peoples' awareness, but the protests were already pretty significant before there was much media around it, and the media jumped on it nationally because it was already a topic due to similar recent cases and the fact that protests had already started and a building was burned down. You made a very specific claim: "The investigation and the protests were both triggered because the media decided to spend time covering the Michael Brown shooting." I certainly think media coverage had an effect in spreading awareness of what was going on, but considering how it started it's absurd to say that people protesting were a "consequence" of the coverage. Again, the protest started the day of.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
bango skank posted:Whoever extorts the most people into buying tickets wins a pizza party for their the best part is i bet the tickets were to this loving thing which would close down market st every year so policemen could ride in loving circles on their motorcycles. i hate my hometown so much.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:That's some pretty tenuous rationalization on your end. The DoJ is not run by robots - the political situation will impact the investigation. It's not a question of sweeping the results under the carpet, but the resources allocated in the first place. More investigators, and likely more senior investigators, are going to be assigned to an investigation where the results are likely to get more publicity. The investigators have more incentive to put in their best effort since the attention on their case is more likely to impact their standing in the agency and careers generally - you're not going to phone it in when the bosses are watching. Agency management (including politically appointed management) is more likely to focus on the sort of investigation that's going to put the agency under the spotlight, and more likely to make sure that the investigation is not underfunded or understaffed when there are competing priorities. The DoJ responds, to some degree, to political pressure, but it doesn't change its agenda based on street protests. Do you think if Ashcroft was still Attorney General that police overreach in poor communities would be a priority? The DoJ under Holder had already been stepping up investigations of local PDs, and Ferguson hilighted themselves by killing a black guy under what initially appeared to be questionable circumstances while such incidents were at the forefront of the news cycle. If Washington politicians actually responded to poorly organized street protests, we would live in a very different country. The only reason there has been change in Ferguson is because of pressure from the Feds and some political organization in local elections, and if you believe that the people who came out to burn down local stores and throw poo poo at the police were also canvassing for city council candidates, I've got a bridge to sell you. Everyone wants to believe the American myth that street protests make a difference, but it isn't true.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
You can't separate the media coverage and the protests. Media coverage can spark a protest, and a protest can gain media interest and keep the issue in the news. Of course they make a difference.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Do you think that there was national attention on the Casey Anthony trial because of people protesting, or because the media decided that it was a story with a good narritive that would sell? i wasn't aware that people took to the streets protesting after casey anthony was shot by the police in questionable circumstances although i do see your point, it was quite evident that the challenger blew up if only because of the media attention focused upon it
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Everyone wants to believe the American myth that street protests make a difference, but it isn't true.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The change came about because of bad press and the feds deciding to dig into the local PD. The protesters on the streets had little to do with it. There was bad press so there was an investigation but no one protesting had anything to do with it. It just magically happened. Also, the cops are just alright, why is everyone so down on the cops? They did nothing wrong, ever. Rinse and repeat. Pohl fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Aug 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
Pohl posted:There was bad press so there was an investigation but no one protesting had anything to do with it. It just magically happened.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The bad press had to do with the fact that one of their officers shot an unarmed black dude who witnesses initially claimed had his hands up. Not the protests of that event. One of their officers provoked a fight and generally acted like a prick, then shot an unarmed teenager when he found himself losing control of the situation he created. The residents of the area had seen this happen in one form or another, what with a whole report generally detailing how they've been continually shaken down by an occupying force, and it was one of these interactions ending with a death that set off the outrage that led to the ongoing bad press. If it wasn't for the community response, the initial press reports would have come and gone, just like they do with most shootings of unarmed black men who were going for a gun or reaching for their pants or resisting arrest or some other such nonsense. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 03:06 on Aug 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
I am sure the protests and the media coverage had nothing to do with the DOJ's decision to investigate the FPD's decades of rampant abuse and the city's legalized extortion of its poorest residents. No doubt the DOJ was just really busy for the last 20 years and coincidentally happened to get 'round to investigating right after the protests started.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:The effect being judicial reform, so yes? Effectiveness doesn't really cover the ethics or morals of activism. I wasn't joking in the slightest.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I wasn't joking in the slightest. Oh, well then  with regard to the specific example of Ferguson, where you had a bunch of lily-white cops protecting lily-white bourgeois and putting the screws to the majority of the town's residents lest they tax whitey to fund the muni gov. drat right they deserved to have their poo poo burnt, considering the money used to build it was plundered right off the hides of the city's black majority by loansharking on fake busted blinker tickets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 03:23
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:A Philadelphia officer has been placed on desk duty after literally being caught on camera demanding a bribe. You think justice would have been better served if he had just impounded their car?
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:You think justice would have been better served if he had just impounded their car? Are you actually defending the police demanding bribes? e: If he could use his discretion to let them go with a warning after accepting a bribe, he could use his discretion to let them go with a warning without accepting that bribe. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Aug 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:You think justice would have been better served if he had just impounded their car? He could have just ticketed them, given them a warning, or any thing else between nothing and impounding their car.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
If you don't support police taking bribes for favorable treatment, clearly you want the police to impose maximum penalties at all times, that's just logic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 04:31
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If you don't support police taking bribes for favorable treatment, clearly you want the police to impose maximum penalties at all times, that's just logic. Correct, thanks for backing me up.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
Wait don't we already have a system where you pay money for an infraction to avoid getting your car impounded immediately? Isn't that called a "ticket"? Why not give one of those for an unregistered vehicle in cases where impounding it is too harsh?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 04:49
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Wait don't we already have a system where you pay money for an infraction to avoid getting your car impounded immediately? Isn't that called a "ticket"? Why not give one of those for an unregistered vehicle in cases where impounding it is too harsh? Not an option for the cop in question. 1301. Registration and certificate of title required. (a) Driving unregistered vehicle prohibited.--No person shall drive or move and no owner or motor carrier shall knowingly permit to be driven or moved upon any highway any vehicle which is not registered in this Commonwealth unless the vehicle is exempt from registration.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Not an option for the cop in question. of course it was an option, unless you're going to say that he compounded his crimes by attempting to strongarm a bribe by then failing to fulfill his oath by impounding the car as the law requires
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Not an option for the cop in question. Is there a section (b) where the cop is legally empowered to accept bribes?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Is there a section (b) where the cop is legally empowered to accept bribes? No but there's a section (d) that he didn't want to post because it's inconvenient for his argument (ie, it says the opposite of what he claims the statute says) quote:(d) Penalty.--Any person violating the provisions of subsection (a) is guilty of a summary offense and shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to pay a fine of $75 or double the registration fee, whichever is greater, except when the vehicle was previously registered in this Commonwealth within 60 days of the commission of the offense whereupon the fine shall be $25. In the case of a motor carrier vehicle other than a trailer, the fine shall be $50 if the motor carrier vehicle was previously registered in this Commonwealth within 60 days of the commission of the offense or, if the registration occurs outside the 60-day period, the fine shall be double the registration fee for the maximum weight at which the vehicle could have been registered in this Commonwealth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
.
Pohl fucked around with this message at 08:10 on Aug 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 07:57
|
|
|
it was acceptable for the cop to solicit bribes from citizens because that money had probably been used to purchase drugs at some point and therefore was no angel
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 08:26
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:it was acceptable for the cop to solicit bribes from citizens because that money had probably been used to purchase drugs at some point and therefore was no angel I saw that very $20 smoking a blunt the other day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 08:51
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:A Philadelphia officer has been placed on desk duty after literally being caught on camera demanding a bribe. That's clearly extortion, not bribery. Checkmate liberals. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 12:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 20:12 |
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I saw that very $20 smoking a blunt the other day. This is why we need those civil forfeiture laws. That $20 needs to see its day in court again the local municipality. It doesn't have a chance. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 17:43
|
|
