|
pathetic little tramp posted:She was 5'2" and sitting down, he was this: He's got good form at least 
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 01:54 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Just say the tapes can't be reviewed unless someone dies or to defend against/prove charges of police brutality, and only evidence relevant to the investigation can be released, just like all other everything ever. How does this cover cases with a public outcry, but no charges or internal discipline? Can they only be released in a court of law/with a court order or publicly? Are they completely exempt from FOIA otherwise?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
If there's a public outcry then I am sure the victim and/or his surviving family have lodged a complaint and would have the right to review the tapes. I am okay with the weird corner case of a public outcry existing but the victim and his family are fine with everything and don't want to look at the tapes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
So, let's talk about something that is criminal justice-y but not involving a police shooting. I went to the mall today and somebody trying to get me to sign a petition about Marsy's Law in my state, and they basically described it as "victims get to get notified when somebody gets out of jail". I declined to sign it because I was tired and didn't know enough about what I was signing, and the more I look at it the more it seems to be sort of a "tough on crime" thing that... cares more about the victims' feelings than about justice or about rehabilitation. What do y'all think about this, and the push for it to be put in states?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
Isn't someone being released from jail publicly available knowledge anyways? I always kinda thought it was. Seems like if the victim of a crime really cared that much about whether the person was in jail or not they could keep up on it themselves?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
Dum Cumpster posted:He's got good form at least Um, you see, she was slumped over in the barbell position and his instincts kicked in and he had no other option than to deadlift her out of her desk (and throw her across the room).
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
Phone posted:Um, you see, she was slumped over in the barbell position and his instincts kicked in and he had no other option than to deadlift her out of her desk (and throw her across the room). Classic case of muscle memory.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
Dum Cumpster posted:Classic case of muscle memory. That's what happens when you use your muscles for memory instead of your brain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
Hooded Reptile posted:Cops begin carrying nunchucks to subdue suspects — in California, where nunchucks are illegal Actually, a great many police weapons are illegal for civilian ownership in California. This includes non-neutered AR-15s, magazines greater than a 10-round capacity (illegal for civilians in Los Angeles and legal for possession but illegal to sell in the rest of the state), side-handled batons, fully automatic weapons, short-barreled rifles, etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
The Mattybee posted:So, let's talk about something that is criminal justice-y but not involving a police shooting. I don't have time atm to really get into the details, but it's bad. Legal regimes based on "victim's rights" frameworks are almost always a ticket to Unconstitutionalville, and this one was the product of a well-heeled voter initiative process. Heck, looking at the editorial and vote outcome sections of the wikipedia page make for an excellent nutshell of the problems of direct democratic voter initiatives.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
DA admits to covering up police abuse, is actually going to get punished (with probation).quote:A former St. Louis prosecutor admitted in federal court Monday that she helped cover up a city police detective’s assault on a handcuffed suspect that included beating him and shoving a “pistol down the guy’s throat.”
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
So, the officer that shot Zachary Hammond won't be charged. Big shocker. *Steps in path of fleeing vehicle during apprehension of non-violent perp* *Feels threatened* *Kills Perp* "Ah, man, I feared for my life. Nothing could be done." US Justice, bitch.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Officer straight up executes the kid. https://twitter.com/MikeEllis_AIM/status/659013047902711808/video/1 No charges.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
DARPA posted:Officer straight up executes the kid. Well hey now, think about how that cop must have FELT.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Oh jesus christ, the dude was never not at the side of the vehicle, bull loving poo poo the kid tried to hit him. More like he tried to flee from psycho pointing gun at him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
Mavric posted:Oh jesus christ, the dude was never not at the side of the vehicle, bull loving poo poo the kid tried to hit him. More like he tried to flee from psycho pointing gun at him. He was in the turning radius of the vehicle, and could've been bumped by the vehicle or hit by the rear tire, but he totally put himself there. And really, he had no reason to fear for his life. Weird to execute a kid in a sting for a nonviolent offense just because the kid was fleeing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
This is the exact same thing that happened years ago where I live (kids MAYBE fleeing a non violent crime of dine and dash, cop gets in front and then unloads and kills one) and likewise the cop didn't get charged. The cop was also moonlighting as security so he wasn't even on the job. But remember we have to be ultra careful when we try and figure out how to rewrite laws so that police can be held accountable for their violent actions since we CERTAINLY wouldn't want them treated differently by the justice system. 
Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 18:09 on Oct 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
This isn't going to change as long as America's gun culture fetishizes the idea of getting a chance to murder petty criminals with no consequences. Intentionally putting yourself in harm's way is a clever and heroic way to give yourself an excuse to start shooting, and jumping in front of a car so you have a reason to execute the driver will be defended as always by "well if he hadn't run out on the check it wouldn't have happened"
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
On that topic do you remember a few years ago where gun nuts were advising each other to just call 911 and say you feared for your life and you'd be clear?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
I'm glad that dude that tried to get off by saying he was scared of the teenagers listening to music in their car which is why he shot into them got nailed at least.A Fancy Bloke posted:On that topic do you remember a few years ago where gun nuts were advising each other to just call 911 and say you feared for your life and you'd be clear? Yeah the "you get to legally kill someone once he steps onto your property, tee hee  " poo poo has been around for a while. Lots of monsters that really want to kill someone and not get in trouble for it think that there is a magic phrase you can yell and suddenly your murder is totally ok and they are encouraged by these lovely "self defense" proponents. Look earlier in this thread for the guy that killed a squatter in the middle of the night when he and his girlfriend were sleeping and people saying "well it's legal so there's nothing here to discuss."
Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Oct 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Same with that guy who shot his neighbor while on hands-free with 911 while shouting "I fear for my life", at least sanity sometimes prevails when the shooter isn't a cop.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This isn't going to change as long as America's gun culture fetishizes the idea of getting a chance to murder petty criminals with no consequences. Yes, it has absolutely nothing to do with the culture within the police of continual escalation, us v. them, militarization and battlefield mentality, or the fact that they rarely suffer consequences for their actions. No, the cops aren't to blame. Its those darn 'civilians' with their darn culture!
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
In regards to body cams. How's this for a solution. Police are required to wear and ensure operation of body cameras during the course of their duties. Failure to do so would result in spoliation of evidence and a negative inference against the police during the suspect's criminal proceedings. This would allow them to use their discretion to turn the video off when they want to poop, but give a rather large incentive to ensure they are capturing video of shootings. It's also rather clear that the video evidence either exists or it doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Yes, it has absolutely nothing to do with the culture within the police of continual escalation, us v. them, militarization and battlefield mentality, or the fact that they rarely suffer consequences for their actions. Well if you didn't have such a proliferation of guns in America, it'd be much harder to run the 'they could pull a gun and kill you any moment' training style. Such easy access to weapons in the US has a direct correlation to Police being trigger happy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Well if you didn't have such a proliferation of guns in America, it'd be much harder to run the 'they could pull a gun and kill you any moment' training style. Such easy access to weapons in the US has a direct correlation to Police being trigger happy. Not valid. They gun down people physically incapable of using weapons all the time. (Even if we did have gun control, they'd claim 'they're criminals and have access anyway', so its a moot point.) Stop your victim blaming and address the root of the problem: police culture.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
I enjoyed the part where he didn't identify verbally as a police officer to an indivdual he had approached from behind. I know when someone points a gun at me the first thing I'm gonna look for is that cheeky ensemble they wore to the party and not that giant drain-pipe staring me in the face. Weapons out for a couple of young offenders on a misdemeanor possession charge. "A good kill".
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Stop your victim blaming and address the root of the problem: police culture. I think I just agreed with you for the very first time.  The gun problem is a separate (and very valid) issue independent of the increasing culture of police aggression and militarization. Police officers just need to accept that they chose a difficult and dangerous job and stop meeting resistance with overwhelming force in the name of  I Just Want To Make It Home.Your job is about peace preservation and deescalation--but that's gone completely out the window.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:
Was it ever in the window to begin with considering how hosed up the police are they were much more corrupt not that long ago
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Was it ever in the window to begin with considering how hosed up the police are they were much more corrupt not that long ago The emphasis on military-style policing is very evident--even over my lifetime.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:The emphasis on military-style policing is very evident--even over my lifetime. Yeah, they've gone from being the Mafia to basically being MS13 over the past couple decades.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Not valid. They gun down people physically incapable of using weapons all the time. (Even if we did have gun control, they'd claim 'they're criminals and have access anyway', so its a moot point.) I don't really think it's irrelevant to look at our warlike, gun-worshiping, authority-fellating culture and say that maybe it has a lot to do with why police abuse exists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:The emphasis on military-style policing is very evident--even over my lifetime. Militarization is different, but violence is the same as far as anyone can tell. They may be wearing tactical gear, but they're probably not exactly shooting unarmed people in the face any less than it happened in the 1970s. The difference is that we now have ubiquitous HD cameras on both sides of the confrontation and the Internet allowing instantaneous communication of news and anecdotes across the world, which means that all of the endemic corruption and brutality that goes back decades (or longer) is now publicly visible. You can't exactly shoot a guy at a traffic stop on a lonely highway and just bullshit about him trying to run you over when your dash cam and his cell phone are recording it from the beginning. Of course, nowadays the police look at the footage of the officer leaning in through the window and shooting the driver in the head and say "Yep, good shoot." So we're not quite there yet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
From the politics thread. http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/sc-student-arrested-for-recording-school-cops-violent-assault-on-classmate-sitting-in-her-desk/ Girl who recorded dead-lift cop throwing that student was arrested for "disturbing school" which is an offense apparently. Like I said earlier we must be careful in how we want to fix the system otherwise cops might be treated unfairly in contrast than non-Leos. This is very important in the face of these sorts of punitive arrests and officers being allowed to repeatably rough up kids.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
pigz posted:In regards to body cams. I think that's a more reasonable approach than most I've seen articulated, though a lot would depend on what "spoilation of evidence" meant. Given that this would have to occur jurisdiction by jurisdiction, it will be interesting to see what works and doesn't. Access to recordings during proceedings (and generally) will remain a concern, but I think it can partly separated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
pigz posted:In regards to body cams. I recommended that a page or two ago and it seemed like a good idea to almost everyone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Yeah, they've gone from being the Mafia to basically being MS13 over the past couple decades. They might have pushed you down the stairs on the way to the cells, but by golly those stairs were clean.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Militarization is different, but violence is the same as far as anyone can tell. The 'aggressive stance' taught to LEOs probably proliferated alongside the War on Drugs™, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Dum Cumpster posted:I recommended that a page or two ago and it seemed like a good idea to almost everyone. Different use standard, different evidence effects. "always on and taken off during breaks" isn't the same thing, and doesn't speak to the standard applied when they aren't on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Different use standard, different evidence effects. "always on and taken off during breaks" isn't the same thing, and doesn't speak to the standard applied when they aren't on. Sorry, I meant what he said and figured it was obvious but apparently not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 01:54 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So let's assume for a second that they have pistols drawn on the kid and genuinely think he's going for a gun. How long do they have to wait before pulling the trigger for it not to qualify as reckless under your new standard? Once his hand is on it? Once he has it out? Once it's pointed at them? I know this is pretty late, but it still boggles the mind that we (or at least the three people who choose to turn this thread into a ouroboros of highly-refined shitposting) are still dwelling on this particular minutiae. But here's the thing: the cops shouldn't have had their weapons drawn on a 12-year-old child in the first place. That's what our Most Valuable shitPosters seem to miss about this whole thing. Why the gently caress would you draw your weapon on a CHILD? You'd think the police would be equipped with the situational assessment skills necessary to see that this kid couldn't possibly couldn't represent a threat. He wasn't Kenard from The Wire.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 21:29
|
|
