|
Dead Reckoning posted:So the department should, what, punish officers on the basis of unsworn statements? How about investigate them and look at other complaints against the officer when doing so? You're right they shouldn't be punished without an affidavit, but as police remind us constantly, an investigation isn't a punishment. Investigate complaints and look at officer's history of repeat complaints when investigating. quote:Nearly 60 percent of all the complaints were thrown out without being fully investigated because the alleged victims failed to sign required affidavits. What's more, investigators won't consider an officer's complaint history as part of the investigation, and many of the cases come down to the word of the officer versus the accuser.
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 21:29 |
|
|
DARPA posted:I'd say Yes? Why does a statement need to be sworn to investigate something internally? It isn't a criminal trial. It's an administrative punishment by their employer. If what the officer did gets elevated to a criminal matter then the statement can upgrade its sweariness. Trabisnikof posted:How about investigate them and look at other complaints against the officer when doing so? You're right they shouldn't be punished without an affidavit, but as police remind us constantly, an investigation isn't a punishment. Investigate complaints and look at officer's history of repeat complaints when investigating.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It's fine if someone's discipline history is part of an investigation, but allegations of which a person was cleared shouldn't be used against them. Its just as scummy as employers using those "find anyone's arrest record" sites. It's less scummy because police have the power of life and death over citizens, and limitless authority in practice. All scummy tricks are appropriate and necessary until corrupt institutions are reformed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
It's OK when we do it to really bad people. Martial law will end once the revolution has been safeguarded.
Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Dec 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:If literally the only evidence against a person is a statement that the accuser refuses to swear to the truthfulness of, I think the case should be dropped no matter who you are. They aren't fully investigating though. They're saying "All we have is the initial complaint. Case closed." before they even look into it. It's the "only evidence" because they haven't been bothering to look for anything more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
DARPA posted:They aren't fully investigating though. They're saying "All we have is the initial complaint. Case closed." before they even look into it. It's the "only evidence" because they haven't been bothering to look for anything more. "Hey officer DARPA, did you use an ethnic slur when you stopped a woman on Friday?" "Nope." "Well, she says you did." "I see. Well, I didn't. Has she submitted a sworn statement to that effect?" "No." "Was there anyone else present?" "No." "OK, have a nice day."
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm going to go out on a limb and say that a lot of these complaints are ones that don't have a lot of physical evidence. And you know that how?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm going to go out on a limb and say that a lot of these complaints are ones that don't have a lot of physical evidence. "Officer Johnny White, this is the 14th complaint we've got of you calling a black citizen a friend of the family. We sent you to sensitivity training twice and suspended you for one day already. You're suspended without pay for the next week." "But was it a SWORN statement?" "Get hosed, you make the rest us look bad."
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
DARPA posted:More like,
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So you want to move the burden of proof on to the accused based on previous misbehavior and have people punished on the basis of unsupported, un-sworn testimony. That's not hosed up and dystopian at all. I can see why the police are glad they have unions. (Also, we were talking about allegations an officer has been previously cleared of, but you've suddenly shifted to an officer with a record of substantiated complaints.) Funny that when its a police investigation of police, getting investigated or having unsworn testimony collected against you is some horrible violation of officer's rights. But if police did that to anyone else, it would be their job. Edit: once again, don't move the goal posts, we're talking about even just investigating complaints not firing or arresting people. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Dec 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So you want to move the burden of proof on to the accused based on previous misbehavior and have people punished on the basis of unsupported, un-sworn testimony. That's not hosed up and dystopian at all. I can see why the police are glad they have unions. (Also, we were talking about allegations an officer has been previously cleared of, but you've suddenly shifted to an officer with a record of substantiated complaints.) These aren't crimes (yet, and if they get elevated then the burden of proof does as well). These are customer service issues. The department is treating people reporting issues as the enemy, rather than people they serve. Instead of confrontational, the department should be vigorously trying to resolve issues instead of adding barriers to investigation. "Come back Monday - Friday between 9 and 5 to sign your complaint with a supervisor" is a great way to prevent your buddies from facing up to what they've done, and a terrible way to serve the community. Edit: And "allegations previously cleared of" include the 60% they automatically get cleared of because no one even bothers to look into it. DARPA fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Dec 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
botany posted:And you know that how? Trabisnikof posted:Funny that when its a police investigation of police, getting investigated or having unsworn testimony collected against you is some horrible violation of officer's rights. But if police did that to anyone else, it would be their job. DARPA is literally talking about suspending people without pay in the post I quoted, so don't accuse me of moving the goal posts. DARPA posted:These aren't crimes (yet, and if they get elevated then the burden of proof does as well). These are customer service issues... Instead of confrontational, the department should be vigorously trying to resolve issues instead of adding barriers to investigation. "Come back Monday - Friday between 9 and 5 to sign your complaint with a supervisor" is a great way to prevent your buddies from facing up to what they've done, and a terrible way to serve the community. DARPA posted:The department is treating people reporting issues as the enemy, rather than people they serve.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
botany posted:Oh is that something somebody in this thread said? No? Then how about you shut the gently caress up DARPA posted:I'd say Yes? Why does a statement need to be sworn to investigate something internally? It isn't a criminal trial. It's an administrative punishment by their employer. If what the officer did gets elevated to a criminal matter then the statement can upgrade its sweariness.  None of the relevant information is available, which isn't all that surprising in retrospect- given that such a large proportion of the filers weren't willing to swear an affidavit, it'd be difficult for anyone, including someone with access to all the reports, to make a frequency distribution. The distribution of claims has some suspicious outliers (a bit less than 10% was "inadequate/failure to provide service"), which defined deductively against other claims seems likely to contain a lot of empty "they didn't make those kids upstairs turn down their radio" complaints, but that's not the sort of data I was going for.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
I wonder why lots of claims went without sworn affidavits. Is it time to post that video of people being threatened when asking for a complaint form at police departments again?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So you want to move the burden of proof on to the accused based on previous misbehavior and have people punished on the basis of unsupported, un-sworn testimony. That's not hosed up and dystopian at all. I can see why the police are glad they have unions. (Also, we were talking about allegations an officer has been previously cleared of, but you've suddenly shifted to an officer with a record of substantiated complaints.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
Watermelon City posted:Before I read your thoughtful contributions, I thought police officers shooting unarmed poor people with impunity was dystopian, but now I realize yeah maybe police officers are the real victims in all this hubbub about black lives mattering.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
Officer Jones, this is the fourth time we've received a complaint about you! Unfortunately, there haven't been any sworn affidavits, so it's impossible to draw any conclusions about your behavior. That feels right to you?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
Watermelon City posted:Officer Jones, this is the fourth time we've received a complaint about you! Unfortunately, there haven't been any sworn affidavits, so it's impossible to draw any conclusions about your behavior.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
ozmunkeh posted:I wonder why lots of claims went without sworn affidavits. Is it time to post that video of people being threatened when asking for a complaint form at police departments again? Apparently we do, because according to DR if it's not in an affidavit, it didn't happen. Nevermind that that flies completely in the face of how similar complaints of racism, sexism, and workplace violence are handled at literally every other unelected job in this country.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:Apparently we do, because according to DR if it's not in an affidavit, it didn't happen. Nevermind that that flies completely in the face of how similar complaints of racism, sexism, and workplace violence are handled at literally every other unelected job in this country. Look, we can't treat police the same way as we do every other type of professional. That would be absurd.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You do realize that this argument is essentially "If enough people say it, it must be true!" right? No, its more "if enough people say it, maybe the police should investigate!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:
It's not because of people not swearing that there's a lack of information. Even the confirmed ones don't have it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:Look, we can't treat police the same way as we do every other type of professional. That would be absurd. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
This is all a really good argument for ensuring all cops have body cams on them at all times when they're on the job, so when someone makes a complaint they can just check the video. No more "he said she said."
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
Lemming posted:This is all a really good argument for ensuring all cops have body cams on them at all times when they're on the job, so when someone makes a complaint they can just check the video. No more "he said she said."
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
We've also seen what happens when citizens go to the police station to file a complaint: they get intimidated or arrested. Is that where they're supposed to go to make the sworn statement?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 10:03
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You do realize that this argument is essentially "If enough people say it, it must be true!" right? http://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/daniel-holtzclaw-women-in-their-ow#.hb0oELyO56 quote:The next month, T.B. said she had another encounter with Holtzclaw when she pulled up to her house and found his patrol car in her driveway. Holtzclaw was on the porch — he told T.B. to “come here,” and put her in the backseat of his car, running her name again. She asked him why he was at her house — he asked her where she had been and whether she’d taken care of her tickets yet. She told him he was scaring her daughter, who was on the front porch. Yeah I can't fathom why people are inclined to believe people who don't make "formal, signed complaints" when it comes to police misconduct.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:We've also seen what happens when citizens go to the police station to file a complaint: they get intimidated or arrested. Is that where they're supposed to go to make the sworn statement? This is a little reminiscent of the issue with the Burger King manager saying that the police erased the footage of that murder when the tapes had mysteriously specific parts deleted and no one in the PD cared to look into it. There's no investigation because there's no evidence they did anything and there's no evidence because there was no investigation. We can't know which officers it was because there's just no way to know without doing an investigation that we simply can't do because we don't know who was there. It's a pretty great way to make sure you have an excuse why your hands are always tied and can't do anything. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 15:07 on Dec 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So you want to move the burden of proof on to the accused based on previous misbehavior and have people punished on the basis of unsupported, un-sworn testimony. That's not hosed up and dystopian at all. Lol that's how every other job in this country works.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:Lol that's how every other job in this country works. But other jobs in this country don't require you to PUT YOUR LIFE ON THE LINE, pal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Phone posted:But other jobs in this country don't require you to PUT YOUR LIFE ON THE LINE, pal. The comedy is that in my office job, if I were accused of misconduct, my employer would still likely do more of an investigation than the cops do when one of their own receives a complaint. And I work at an at - will state. Yeah its a total fuckin dystopia here. Edit: I'm going to keep going because the statement is dumber the more I think of it. This thread is literally full of situations where cops kill or injure civilians based on false impressions where they are shifting the burden of proof to the accused in the encounters. Cops roll up on Tamir Rice and it's essentially his job to prove he doesn't have a gun in less than 2 seconds. His loving life is at stake. Oh, but don't make cops accountable for their jobs, thay would be a hosed up dystopia Hail Mr. Satan! fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Dec 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You do realize that this argument is essentially "If enough people say it, it must be true!" right? If enough people say it, there's probably a reason so many people say it. That might be a vast conspiracy waiting to be uncovered, or it might because they're right. Either way, you should probably check up on that. How dystopian.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
botany posted:If enough people say it, there's probably a reason so many people say it. That might be a vast conspiracy waiting to be uncovered, or it might because they're right. Either way, you should probably check up on that. How dystopian. Ugh, that almost sounds like journalism. 'Checking on complaints to verify if they're warranted or just white noise' UGH
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:No, its more "if enough people say it, maybe the police should investigate!" A Fancy Bloke posted:The comedy is that in my office job, if I were accused of misconduct, my employer would still likely do more of an investigation than the cops do when one of their own receives a complaint. And I work at an at - will state. botany posted:If enough people say it, there's probably a reason so many people say it. That might be a vast conspiracy waiting to be uncovered, or it might because they're right. Either way, you should probably check up on that. How dystopian. RareAcumen posted:Ugh, that almost sounds like journalism. 'Checking on complaints to verify if they're warranted or just white noise' UGH Raerlynn posted:Apparently we do, because according to DR if it's not in an affidavit, it didn't happen. Nevermind that that flies completely in the face of how similar complaints of racism, sexism, and workplace violence are handled at literally every other unelected job in this country.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
lol DR you literally linked to me using the word "investigate" Also do you know what a sworn statement is? You seem to think it's a signed letter or something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Is this some sort of weird gaslighting attempt, or are you all just too lazy to read? DARPA was specifically in favor of disciplining officers based on un-sworn complaints with no supporting evidence. I'm not misrepresenting him, that's what he said and then doubled down on it. Watermelon City said that we should draw conclusions based on the number of times something is alleged, irrespective of its merit. That is literally a "if enough people say it, it's probably true" argument. No one has a problem with the police investigating a complaint, sworn or un-sworn. However, given the nature of things like "failure to provide service," it's likely that there is no evidence outside of the complainant's allegation. I think people shouldn't be punished based on he-said/she-said statements, particularly if the accuser isn't willing to swear to the truthfulness of their statements. Maybe because we were replying to the things you had said? Dead Reckoning posted:If literally the only evidence against a person is a statement that the accuser refuses to swear to the truthfulness of, I think the case should be dropped no matter who you are. Dead Reckoning posted:I think its reasonable to exclude allegations a person has been cleared of from a new investigation, and he-said she-said cases are always going to be difficult to prove. Those are statements about how we should drop investigations, by you, that I were responding to. If you want to backpedal and declare you disagree with what you earlier said, great. But you honestly should be ashamed to pretend to cal us "gaslighting" because you want to quote our comments out of context and pretend we were responding to a different poster. Arguing in good faith my rear end.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Look if tamir rice didn't want to die he should have had a notarized statement in triplicate sent to the PD office before he went out to play in the park.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
DARPA posted:lol DR you literally linked to me using the word "investigate" DARPA posted:Also do you know what a sworn statement is? You seem to think it's a signed letter or something. Trabisnikof posted:Those are statements about how we should drop investigations, by you, that I were responding to. If you want to backpedal and declare you disagree with what you earlier said, great. But you honestly should be ashamed to pretend to cal us "gaslighting" because you want to quote our comments out of context and pretend we were responding to a different poster. Arguing in good faith my rear end.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:If you have a complaint that the accuser refuses to sign and no other witnesses, what else should the investigators do? Investigate the officers who were present when the citizen "refused" to sign.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 21:29 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You're misinterpreting what I said. In each of those cases, I'm saying that a disciplinary case or complaint should be dropped if the only evidence the investigation comes up with is an unsworn statement. That's why I referred to "cases." If you have a complaint that the accuser refuses to sign and no other witnesses, what else should the investigators do? Then you're ignoring the original context of all this, which I've quoted at least once already: quote:Nearly 60 percent of all the complaints were thrown out without being fully investigated because the alleged victims failed to sign required affidavits. What's more, investigators won't consider an officer's complaint history as part of the investigation, and many of the cases come down to the word of the officer versus the accuser. The "only evidence the investigation comes up with is an unsworn statement" is because the investigation in 60% of cases didn't actually occur. Also, it is amazing that you're relying on the "if the officers can't get a sworn statement from a victim investigations are impossible!" as if they aren't loving police investigators as their job.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 21:26
|
|