|
The actual thing he said was "She's lucky we just use excessive force and bullshit resisting charges instead of raping the people we arrest like other towns!" So still lovely and uncaring.
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 21:09 |
|
|
"You're sure lucky I wasn't the one arresting you! Oh hey by the way did you know cops can rape people?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You, um, do see the ellipsis, right? How many sentences need to be in between those two statements for it not to be creepy?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:How many sentences need to be in between those two statements for it not to be creepy? His point is that the police chief isn't saying that he would rape her, just that other police forces throughout the country might and that she should be grateful that they just used excessive force. Our heroes in blue, everyone!
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You, um, do see the ellipsis, right? The point is still, "Hey, we're not raping anybody, that's not too shabby!" and that is super hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
Terraplane posted:The point is still, "Hey, we're not raping anybody, that's not too shabby!" and that is super hosed up. That's cool, but that's not what the guy who posted the image claimed. Edit: pathetic little tramp posted:then the chief of police said she was lucky he wasn't there because he'd have raped her? That's super different from saying the chief shouldn't hold up these incidents and say "hey, at least we aren't those guys, eh?!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You, um, do see the ellipsis, right? Are you trying to defend any part of that statement?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:That's cool, but that's not what the guy who posted the image claimed. That's true, I'm glad you were here to point out the true injustice of the situation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
Terraplane posted:That's true, I'm glad you were here to point out the true injustice of the situation. It's already horrible enough that it doesn't need to be overblown into something that it isn't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
Terraplane posted:That's true, I'm glad you were here to point out the true injustice of the situation. Hold yourself to the same standards you apply to your opponents. It was a bold-faced lie to make that claim about the police chief and deserved to be called out as such. No way Dead Reckoning would be able to get away with something that flagrant; I don't understand why the rules should be different just because the poster is on my side of the argument.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:Hold yourself to the same standards you apply to your opponents. It was a bold-faced lie to make that claim about the police chief and deserved to be called out as such. No way Dead Reckoning would be able to get away with something that flagrant; I don't understand why the rules should be different just because the poster is on my side of the argument. So point out how the poster in question overstated things (or lied, if that's what you think happened) but maybe ALSO spare a minute to mention that what was actually said was still objectively loving terrible? As it is the statement began and ended with correcting a SA poster, while completely ignoring that a person in an actual position of power said a rancid and awful thing, which is maybe a little loving bit more important in the context of the greater conversation about police and criminal justice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
Glad to see Clinton policies coming to fruition.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
Gonna' keep an eye on this one; waiting on verification. LINK quote:Audio recording of Oct. 27th, 2015, meeting in the sheriff's office in Beauregard Parish, LA, in which deputies are coerced into supporting the sheriff's re-election campaign. Deputies told to provide phone numbers of potential voters, are threatened that they "can be let go for any reason at any time", and told that, when deciding for whom to vote, "the next time you look at your paycheck, you better figure it out."
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
quote:told that, when deciding for whom to vote, "the next time you look at your paycheck, you better figure it out." What kind of person upon hearing that wouldn't just immediately go, "Oh well I for sure know who I'm not voting for, and it's that oval office."
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 09:50
|
|
|
Blue Lives Matter! We must end the war on police!quote:Four cops from four different departments lied about shootings they were responsible for, and their lies were used by media outlets and pro-police groups to implicate Black Lives Matter protesters each time. It turns out that in all four cases, the officers involved either shot themselves, shot their own car, or were shot by a fellow officer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 10:04
|
|
|
Is anyone at all surprised?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
quote:This is not Stafford's first brush with the wrong side of the law. In October 2011, he was indicted by a Rapides Parish grand jury on two counts of aggravated rape.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
In regards to the Louisiana shooting my friend posted this: There's gotta be more to this story 1) A vehicle being driven towards officers would justify the shooting unless they were aware of the child's presence 2) For the officers to be arrested on 2nd degree murder, there must be underlying circumstances---Unless negligent homicide is also classified under 2nd degree 3) Why were the 2 arrested marshals put in the back of the same vehicle. This never happens anymore! They could be back there getting their stories straight. Even in a simple fender bender, cops will often separate the involved parties My friend is a biracial son of a cop. He is liberal on every other issue except when it comes to LEOs then he just sides with them blindly despite the fact that there is a lot of shady poo poo going on. Is there a proper response to that other then "Ya it's really hosed up you should read more about it!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
SalTheBard posted:In regards to the Louisiana shooting my friend posted this: Give it a day or two; Few's lawyer claims to have seen the bodycam footage...and that his hands were up when the shots started. EDIT: Also, apparently, neither of the LEO's who were arrested had bodycams on. One of the others did though, so thank God for that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
SalTheBard posted:In regards to the Louisiana shooting my friend posted this: I really suspect that what's more to this is this marshals office was creeping into being legit organized crime
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
Supreme Court gives broader immunity to police using deadly force in chasesquote:The Supreme Court made it harder Monday to sue police for using deadly force against fleeing suspects, ruling that officers are immune from lawsuits unless it is “beyond debate” that a shooting was unjustified and clearly unreasonable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 14:04
|
|
|
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/10/us/spartanburg-methodist-college-officer-involved-shooting/?iid=ob_homepage_NewsAndBuzz_pool&iref=obnetwork Guess this officer did nothing wrong then. Another person dead because an officer created a situation to justify killing someone. Beyond debate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 14:06
|
|
|
Sotomayor is better than RBG.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
quote:The Supreme Court made it harder Monday to sue police for using deadly force against fleeing suspects, ruling that officers are immune from lawsuits unless it is “beyond debate” that a shooting was unjustified and clearly unreasonable. Okay, fine, clarifying the line a bit... quote:By an 8-1 vote, the justices tossed out an excessive force suit against a Texas police officer who ignored his supervisor’s warning and took a high-powered rifle to a highway overpass to shoot at an approaching car. The officer said he hoped to stop the car but instead shot and killed the driver. ... The gently caress. Well surely this won't set a precedent of officers trying to play action hero with a shot through the engine block.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
C2C - 2.0 posted:EDIT: Also, apparently, neither of the LEO's who were arrested had bodycams on. One of the others did though, so thank God for that. Yeah, I'm sure that the cops will be more vigilant in making sure that everyone's body cams are turned off going forward. How embarrassing!
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:Okay, fine, clarifying the line a bit... quote:Texas state Trooper Chadrin Mullenix heard about the chase over his radio and drove to a spot where officers were putting a strip of spikes across the highway to puncture the tires of the fleeing car. He had been criticized for not reacting decisively in the past, and he decided on his own to shoot at the fleeing car. He wanted to show the boys how much of a badass he was. I saw in another article that the car was seconds from passing over spikes stripes too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
Phone posted:Yeah, I'm sure that the cops will be more vigilant in making sure that everyone's body cams are turned off going forward. How embarrassing! I think he's saying they didn't have body cams, not that they were turned off. If not wearing them is against department policy that could be another point towards them deliberately trying to do something wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
Radish posted:Sotomayor is better than RBG. Wise Latina Justice best Justice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
What the hell does beyond debate even mean in this context? Does the Supreme Court have to step in and decide that too? Because it seems like no matter how obviously hosed up and wrong the situation is, there are always people willing to argue it was justified. e: I mean in a world where healthy school lunches have become a political hill to die on is anything beyond debate anymore? There are no facts in a Post-Fox world, only different points of view. Professor Beetus fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Nov 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:What the hell does beyond debate even mean in this context? Does the Supreme Court have to step in and decide that too? Because it seems like no matter how obviously hosed up and wrong the situation is, there are always people willing to argue it was justified. We should have listened to Obi-Wan in Empire smdh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
Keep in mind this is personal immunity, the police department can still be sued.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Keep in mind this is personal immunity, the police department can still be sued. The problem seems to be that the dead person remains so possibly even after the lawsuit but IANAL.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Keep in mind this is personal immunity, the police department can still be sued. Yes, that is why it is so outrageous.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Keep in mind this is personal immunity, the police department can still be sued. Do you think that broadened personal immunity is good?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Keep in mind this is personal immunity, the police department can still be sued. And they'll probably say "we told him not to, our hands are clean."
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
The guy disobeyed his commanding officer and operated outside the scope of procedure, why should personal immunity be granted? If he did the exact same thing, but he was instead a construction worker, should he enjoy the same immunity?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:And they'll probably say "we told him not to, our hands are clean." "Picking people off from an interstate overpass? I can't condone that."  *spells out "DO IT" on desk with donut crumbs*
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Keep in mind this is personal immunity, the police department can still be sued. The problem with that is it removes individual accountability. If an officer takes a risky shot and killed a bystander, sure you can sue the police department, but the officer who made the decision to shoot suffers no personal repercussion. If a soldier takes a shot at something against his superior's recommendation, he can have pay seized, be demoted, or even imprisoned. If a doctor takes a risk with a medical procedure, it's his rear end in the form of malpractice insurance and the loss of his license. A police officer faces no personal risk, he has no skin in the game. At worst he gets fired, which this thread has proven again and again just means he gets a job as a cop somewhere else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Keep in mind this is personal immunity, the police department can still be sued. Keep in mind libertarian justice!
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 21:09 |
|
|
Raerlynn posted:The problem with that is it removes individual accountability. If an officer takes a risky shot and killed a bystander, sure you can sue the police department, but the officer who made the decision to shoot suffers no personal repercussion. Whether qualified immunity should exist at all is an interesting discussion I'd love to have because I'm not sure where I stand on it, the linked case is however an absolutely correct application of it Also the legal reporting being linked here is loving atrocious, I finally found the actual decision and read it and its not broadening qualified immunity at all. There's a reason this case was an 8-1 per curium decision, its not really setting any new precedent so much as a multi page smack down of the lower court for just making poo poo up, I think the dissent actually makes Sotomayer look rather foolish. FAUXTON posted:And they'll probably say "we told him not to, our hands are clean." That's not how qualified immunity works
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 18:31
|
|