|
chitoryu12 posted:I'm guessing his behavior may have been from a general "gently caress all y'all" attitude toward police. If he lived in an inner city or poorer area, he may have been subjected to (justified or otherwise) harassment from police over his lifetime. poo poo, it could have exclusively been justified harassment for crimes; he had convictions for felony robbery and obstruction of justice at the time. He may have just been so fed up with how poo poo was going at the time that he stopped behaving rationally even if it got him killed. its not the anger that's the red flag, its the total disregard for the level of force that is being directed his way, and if anything the lack of outward anger. If he had stopped and started hurling expletives at the police, hell even if had done everything exactly the same but had been screaming "gently caress the police" while doing so it would have indicated general frustration and anger, his calmness in the face of the display of force is part of what makes him seem like he's about to go for a gun. Loudmouths are generally just loudmouths, people who just calmly ignore you are the ones that do poo poo. Also if he had been pulling a gun and the officer had waited longer then he did he would have run a real risk of himself or others being shot before he could stop the threat. I'm sorry and I know a lot of this stuff I'm basing this assessment on isn't as obvious to people who haven't had training/experience in dealing with similar situations, but with the Taylor shooting I couldn't have scripted a sequence of events that more clearly broadcast "I'm about to pull a gun on you" then Taylor's actions.
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:52 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:its not the anger that's the red flag, its the total disregard for the level of force that is being directed his way, and if anything the lack of outward anger. If he had stopped and started hurling expletives at the police, hell even if had done everything exactly the same but had been screaming "gently caress the police" while doing so it would have indicated general frustration and anger, his calmness in the face of the display of force is part of what makes him seem like he's about to go for a gun. Really, now it is "he was too calm" and arguing "if only he'd yelled 'gently caress the police' he might have lived"? Really, being still and not being overly emotive is "broadcast 'I'm about to pull a gun on you'" when someone has a loving gun pointed at you, and the news is full of stories of how Tamir deserved it because he flinched? This is loving kafkaesque. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:its not the anger that's the red flag, its the total disregard for the level of force that is being directed his way, and if anything the lack of outward anger. If he had stopped and started hurling expletives at the police, hell even if had done everything exactly the same but had been screaming "gently caress the police" while doing so it would have indicated general frustration and anger, his calmness in the face of the display of force is part of what makes him seem like he's about to go for a gun. Well, Officer Kidder also put himself at a high level of danger. But he willingly accepted the risk onto himself to make sure that he didn't have to kill someone who didn't deserve it. Plus, I find it a bit unlikely that an untrained gang banger in excessively baggy clothes could have done a quick-draw and accurately fired before the officer's index finger could move. But again, that's part of what being a cop is supposed to be. Officers are supposed to be the guys who put themselves at risk to save lives and protect civilians, not kill civilians just in case they're a threat that you can't see yet. Then again, they're also supposed to be sufficiently trained so that they can shoot accurately and react appropriately to threats. I wouldn't call a guy who shoots an unarmed man just in case he's hiding a gun "good at his job" any more than an officer who shot a guy for grabbing the wallet he asked for.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Well, Officer Kidder also put himself at a high level of danger. But he willingly accepted the risk onto himself to make sure that he didn't have to kill someone who didn't deserve it. Plus, I find it a bit unlikely that an untrained gang banger in excessively baggy clothes could have done a quick-draw and accurately fired before the officer's index finger could move. He didn't shoot him "in case he had a gun" he shot him because he believed he was going for one. You can't just look at each individual action in isolation, it's about clusters of behavior and information that support the same conclusion, even the way he pulls up his shirt looks like someone who is trying to get a baggy shirt out of the way in order to draw a gun in the waistband. I'd be willing to bet good money that even after the shoot and there wasn't a gun in his hand that cop still fully believed he just hadn't finished his draw and it would be in his waistband. I think on this we're going to hit an irreconcilable difference of opinion on how much risk an officer is supposed to have to take on himself in order to avoid killing a threat or potential threat, especially in light of the fact that threat or potential threat can eliminated by simple compliance. I will say however you should also take into account that its not just about some "untrained gangbanger" getting off a perfect quick-draw and hit the cop, just him getting it out and spraying a few rounds puts everyone, including the nearby civilians in danger, missed bullets always hit something. The cop in the link you posted had no other indicators whatsoever that they guy was a threat, and he was in fact complying with the cops orders, he was rightfully fired and is facing very serious felony charges. Trabisnikof posted:Really, now it is "he was too calm" and arguing "if only he'd yelled 'gently caress the police' he might have lived"? I didn't say anything like that
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I didn't say anything like that here let me help you Jarmak posted:its not the anger that's the red flag, its the total disregard for the level of force that is being directed his way, and if anything the lack of outward anger. If he had stopped and started hurling expletives at the police, hell even if had done everything exactly the same but had been screaming "gently caress the police" while doing so it would have indicated general frustration and anger, his calmness in the face of the display of force is part of what makes him seem like he's about to go for a gun. Your conflicting arguments regarding the nature of police shooting/use of force don't put together a coherent argument other than one of awkwardly defending their actions in cases while sprinkling in a few "well i'm totally for improving law enforcement oversight" and other things despite going to bat for the police regardless of incident. While you may see it as taking a neutral stance, it's painfully obvious to anyone that neutral in this case is not-so-tacit approval. Jarmak posted:I will say however you should also take into account that its not just about some "untrained gangbanger" getting off a perfect quick-draw and hit the cop, just him getting it out and spraying a few rounds puts everyone, including the nearby civilians in danger, missed bullets always hit something. Yet the police have shown time and time again that careless firing of their own weapons is of no significance, simply because they are feeling threatened. They reap the benefits of this sole capability of employing use of force as a law enforcement professional, but have none of the responsibility both criminally or civilly or even remotely similar to any other professional employee with respect to loss of employment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
joeburz posted:here let me help you Still didn't say any of that, and you haven't shown that my arguments are conflicting or incoherent at all
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
EDIT: You know what, it doesn't really matter.
Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 03:59 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:EDIT: You know what, it doesn't really matter. That was a good post I'm not sure why you edited it out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:Yes they can. Obviously if they are the only surgeon available and otherwise it is only the opinion of the AMA code of ethics (opinion 8.19) that they shouldn't but they aren't barred from doing so. Opinion 8.19 of the AMA code of ethics specifically bars them from doing it?? It goes as far as not only stating it prevents the physician from operating objectively, but that it may well breach informed consent because the patient may not be comfortable second guessing or getting a second opinion. Or are you just confused because the AMA labels the sections of its code of ethics "opinions"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 08:25
|
|
|
Looks like Chicago PD will be allowed to destroy records over 4 years old, even after admitting that people were tortured over a 20 year time span:quote:As the U.S. Department of Justice gears up for a civil rights investigation into the Chicago Police Department, the city’s police unions are fighting in court to keep hidden reams of complaint records spanning decades.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 08:35
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Opinion 8.19 of the AMA code of ethics specifically bars them from doing it?? It goes as far as not only stating it prevents the physician from operating objectively, but that it may well breach informed consent because the patient may not be comfortable second guessing or getting a second opinion. I asked my sister in-law doctor, she's the one who quoted the AMA. She confirmed its an opinion not a rule and there are no laws against it. And I read 8.19 it doesn't bar anything, just explains why it's not considered a good idea. It even says "generally you shouldn't do this" in the first sentence and goes on to say it's acceptable in short term situations to act as a family members doctor. I don't know what you're reading that specifically bars them. Edit here, let me help you: quote:It would not always be inappropriate to undertake self-treatment or treatment of immediate family members. In emergency settings or isolated settings where there is no other qualified physician available, physicians should not hesitate to treat themselves or family members until another physician becomes available. In addition, while physicians should not serve as a primary or regular care provider for immediate family members, there are situations in which routine care is acceptable for short-term, minor problems. Except in emergencies, it is not appropriate for physicians to write prescriptions You can even write prescriptions if you're the only one available to do it. Toasticle fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I can actually call people out if you really want me to and I really care about your individual approval, but it requires going back to the previous thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Wait, so the Chicago Police Union's argument is literally "you can't see the records because if you saw the hosed up poo poo we'd do people would think less of us?" And that's going to prove to be a winning legal argument to justify the destruction of decades of evidence? Please tell me I'm just reading that wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Wait, so the Chicago Police Union's argument is literally "you can't see the records because if you saw the hosed up poo poo we'd do people would think less of us?" And that's going to prove to be a winning legal argument to justify the destruction of decades of evidence? Please tell me I'm just reading that wrong. That's how i read it, yup. Basically the police version of executive privilege.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Wait, so the Chicago Police Union's argument is literally "you can't see the records because if you saw the hosed up poo poo we'd do people would think less of us?" And that's going to prove to be a winning legal argument to justify the destruction of decades of evidence? Please tell me I'm just reading that wrong. No, that's their reason for the injunction. Basically to get a temporary injunction like that you need to show, among other things, that the damage from whatever you're going to stop can't be remedied after the fact so it's necessary to stop it now until court can address the grievance. They're basically arguing that the damage to their reputation is irreversible so the judge must stop the release until the controversy over whether to destroy them is settled. Their argument for destroying them is that their collective bargaining agreement with the city says that disciplinary records are only supposed to be kept for 5 years (7 for certain specific things).
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:No, that's their reason for the injunction. Basically to get a temporary injunction like that you need to show, among other things, that the damage from whatever you're going to stop can't be remedied after the fact so it's necessary to stop it now until court can address the grievance. They're basically arguing that the damage to their reputation is irreversible so the judge must stop the release until the controversy over whether to destroy them is settled. I feel that this is one of those cases where legality and morality are mutually exclusive. And it's definitely one that will harm the Chicago PD in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
The immediately obvious counter here is to attack the collective bargaining agreement- even on policy grounds, particularly using the language that the department uses to justify the injunction.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
twodot posted:It's fine if you don't care about my approval, I'm just a dude on the internet, but what about your approval? Do you really prefer people do fake call outs over real call outs? (or ideally no call outs) Do think this thread would be improved if we had more posts like "It's fine to argue police murder people too much, the problem is that it comes from people who previously argued baby rape is ok"? These are not rhetorical questions. If a person simultaneously argued that police killings are bad but baby rape is okay, I'd be seriously concerned for their mental health based on the second half alone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:If a person simultaneously argued that police killings are bad but baby rape is okay, I'd be seriously concerned for their mental health based on the second half alone. edit: This is weird right? Like I understand replying to a post without engaging its point. I've made several posts supporting such a practice, but I've supported it on the basis of correcting some factual/logical error. What's the point of replying to a post to say that you are concerned about the mental health of hypothetical people who support baby rape? twodot fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
twodot posted:The implication there was that the baby rape claim is spurious, but also unassailable because you appear to think that it's ok to fake call out people. This argument was constructed on the notion that you would think that spurious but unassailable claims are bad, but you can't even answer direct questions so whatever. ....anyways. Edit: This story has not been verified. chitoryu12 fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Dec 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:An Inglewood police officer is being accused by two (luckily surviving) black men of shooting them with a shotgun unprovoked as "robbery suspects" and staging a crime scene to frame them: That is so far beyond the pale I can't in good faith believe the article without additional evidence. The officers, according to the article, did basically everything they could to justify negative stereotypes -- I couldn't have written a more dastardly plot that left both men alive. Are other outlets reporting this, or just HuffPo at this point?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:That is so far beyond the pale I can't in good faith believe the article without additional evidence. The officers, according to the article, did basically everything they could to justify negative stereotypes -- I couldn't have written a more dastardly plot that left both men alive. Are other outlets reporting this, or just HuffPo at this point? Actually, I think you're right. I Googled Robert Pickett and can't find any name except for the guy who jumped the White House fence. Unless further evidence comes forth, I'd consider that story false.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
All the articles are going to say is, "two guys are suing the PD for $$$ damages, claim that they were just minding their own business when a cop decided to shoot them and frame them for armed robbery." I don't know whether anyone has cared enough to dig up their original court transcripts, or even whether doing so wold reveal anything relevant. This looks like the filing, but apparently you need a login to view it. Looks like they filed a similar suit last year? IDK, stop reading clickbait like HuffPo and treating it like legitimate journalism. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Dec 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:All the articles are going to say is, "two guys are suing the PD for $$$ damages, claim that they were just minding their own business when a cop decided to shoot them and frame them for armed robbery." I don't know whether anyone has cared enough to dig up their original court transcripts, or even whether doing so wold reveal anything relevant. It's Los Angeles though, so who knows. The original source is Courthouse News and the Huffington Post article has what's supposedly a podcast with Pickett. You'd think it would have picked up steam by now if it were legit. I mean, I can believe it happened. It's a sad state of affairs that I find this kind of awful behavior plausible from American police. But I can't prove it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hung-jury-trial-baltimore-cop-freddie-gray-case-n481296quote:Over the past two days, the jury of four black women, three black men, three white women and two white men gave signals that they were locked in tense discussions. On Tuesday they told Judge Barry Williams that they were deadlocked and he sent them back to deliberate. Once the gag order is up it's going to be interesting to see what was going on in the jury room.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Some of you may remember a sexting case last year. Not just any sexting case, but a sexting case where the investigators tried to get a warrant to inject a 17-year-old with drugs to give him a boner and compare his penis with a photo from his girlfriend's phone. The cop sued the victim's lawyer for defamation for calling the warrant crazy, saying that it ruined his reputation and made people think he was a pedophile. Turns out the cop was a pedophile trying to get the photo for his wank stash and he committed suicide when cops showed up at his house today. Luigi Thirty fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Dec 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
Um, one of the cops was the pedophile not the kid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:Um, one of the cops was the pedophile not the kid. I know, I reworded my post to be clearer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:Some of you may remember a sexting case last year. Not just any sexting case, but a sexting case where the investigators tried to get a warrant to inject a 17-year-old with drugs to give him a boner and compare his penis with a photo from his girlfriend's phone. The cop sued the victim's lawyer for defamation for calling the warrant crazy, saying that it ruined his reputation and made people think he was a pedophile. Hey thanks, another article for my "for god's sake kids, don't send pictures of your junk to people" file. It worked out OK here, but you can't exactly count on the cop doing the right thing in every case.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Hey thanks, another article for my "for god's sake kids, don't send pictures of your junk to people" file. It worked out OK here, but you can't exactly count on the cop doing the right thing in every case. Gave him the perfect excuse if he had child porn "It's not mine! It's um... evidence!" Especially hosed up that he was on the "Internet crimes against children task force" And you need another edit, the kid sued over the penis thing, not the cop.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
I'm too outraged to actually read these articles!!! The cop sued the kid's lawyer for defamation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
So the warrant served as a kind of catalog of his perversions? "I want to inject the suspect with boner juice. So I can...investigate the case."
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:I'm too outraged to actually read these articles!!! Think I'm just confused, I swear I read the kid sued then the cop sued back. Unless there's more cases of "we want to give you a boner" lawsuits which at this point wouldn't shock me depressingly enough.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
pentyne posted:http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hung-jury-trial-baltimore-cop-freddie-gray-case-n481296 Googling around isn't telling me anything, so maybe I'll just toss this out to the lawyers in the thread. This is a great result for the defense, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
Slightly related, are courtroom sketch artists really necessary now for any reason other than "We want a sketch artist"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 00:07
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Googling around isn't telling me anything, so maybe I'll just toss this out to the lawyers in the thread. Yes and no. It's open to retrial, and it doesn't give the defense anything in particular to work with in the other cases. On the other hand, I don't believe it gives the prosecution anything to work on in the other cases, either- and a prior conviction would have been extremely useful for the prosecution in those other cases. chitoryu12 posted:Slightly related, are courtroom sketch artists really necessary now for any reason other than "We want a sketch artist"? Cameras are still banned in a lot of courtrooms as a distraction and to preserve privacy of others in attendance. There are some (fairly valid) concerns about public pressure on those present if they're constantly reminded of publicity within the room.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
The kid got probation for sexting someone two years younger than him lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
Teflon Don posted:The kid got probation for sexting someone two years younger than him lol In general, the way sex crimes get treated in the United States is full of glaring flaws. Two teenagers of similar age can't have sex without one risking becoming a sex offender (except for certain states with a grace period or other exceptions to the laws), but actual rape victims struggle with being blamed for the crime. The terror with which pedophiles are treated also badly inhibits attempts to rehabilitate them or find them places to live outside of a prison, and any attempt to suggest that maybe turning them into pariahs might not be the best thing for their recidivism rate is immediately met with "So what, you think pedos are cool or something? Do you wanna gently caress little boys easier? Is that why you want us to go easy on them?".
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:In general, the way sex crimes get treated in the United States is full of glaring flaws. Two teenagers of similar age can't have sex without one risking becoming a sex offender (except for certain states with a grace period or other exceptions to the laws), but actual rape victims struggle with being blamed for the crime. The terror with which pedophiles are treated also badly inhibits attempts to rehabilitate them or find them places to live outside of a prison, and any attempt to suggest that maybe turning them into pariahs might not be the best thing for their recidivism rate is immediately met with "So what, you think pedos are cool or something? Do you wanna gently caress little boys easier? Is that why you want us to go easy on them?". I don't know how many people I have heard/seen unironically state that they should just be killed, jailed for life, or castrated, whenever treatment and recidivism rates get brought up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:52 |
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:In general, the way sex crimes get treated in the United States is full of glaring flaws. Two teenagers of similar age can't have sex without one risking becoming a sex offender (except for certain states with a grace period or other exceptions to the laws), but actual rape victims struggle with being blamed for the crime. The terror with which pedophiles are treated also badly inhibits attempts to rehabilitate them or find them places to live outside of a prison, and any attempt to suggest that maybe turning them into pariahs might not be the best thing for their recidivism rate is immediately met with "So what, you think pedos are cool or something? Do you wanna gently caress little boys easier? Is that why you want us to go easy on them?". There's I think in Miami a bridge where the pedos live under (sounds like a children's book.... 'Where the pedos are") because it's the only spot that meets all the "can't live within 2000 feet of a school/playground/whatever" requirements. It's the only crime that carries a life sentance of harassment where every potential employer, renter and neighbor gets called and your picture published in the local pedo alert. And pedo maps online. Kill and rape someone and once you're out of prison you're left alone. Get caught with cgi kiddy porn and that's it. Personally I'd rather know about the ex-killer, and I got molested when I was 8. The last pedophile thread was 6 pages of actual discussion, especially the problem that if you have those urges even if you've never acted on them you can't even get help from a doctor because the moment you even hint you have the urge you're branded for life. Then the thread turned into the typical 'bullet to the brain' shitfest. It was especially depressing because the situation in the OP was some teacher who was trying to hookup online but it was a known corrupt as gently caress cop pedo ring that kept trying to bait him. Yeah he was trying to hook up with a 19 year old which is creepy but legal, the cops kept having the "girl" try and get him to agree to include her 14 or 15 year old sister. Every time 'she' brought it up he backed out so she said bring some candy and she'll send her to a friends house. So he shows up with the candy, cops bust him, plaster his picture everywhere and release the chat transcript without the parts of him backing out whenever the underage girl is brought up. If memory serves he still lost his job yet did nothing wrong. Cops did claim they found child porn but I don't think it was proven. I think anyway. Even though it happened to me I actually feel sorry for the ones that don't offend but get hosed anyway. People are wired with all kinds of hosed up fetishes, we laugh at but accept guys who cut their dick in half lengthwise and decorate it like a S&M Christmas tree, furies, diaper fetishes and we live in a society where "barely legal" is a porn category and one of the more common fantasies is the catholic schoolgirl or cheerleader, have shows like toddlers in tiaras with 7 year olds shaking their stuff on stage and even have people who are into total domination (Those hosed up Gor book people....gorians?) and are just shocked that someone might have a fetish for young girls. Not to to get into the stupid ephebophie or whatever it's called argument but post pubescent I can see how, pre is seriously sick but still if they've never acted on it they SHOULD be able to get help from a doctor instead of trying to keep it bottled up with no help from anyone. I don't get the ban on cgi/cartoon porn, if it gives them an outlet then why the hell not. Since I didn't want they guy who molested my boiled in acid Inwas told I was just making it up for attention. I know whenI want attention my go-to is "When I was 8 I got molested by a 20 year old. Really gets the chicks. I remember getting called a sick gently caress when I said one of if not the most common fantasy is 'rape'. When I said it was my wife who first brought it up and is really into it (not violent, she said the turn on is the idea that she turns me on so much I can't stop myself) it was still me who was the perv for dong it. I can choke her, tie her up and whip her but pretend 'rape'? Well that's just sick!
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 02:47
|
|