|
Jarmak posted:The fact people are arguing in favour of it? No, the argument is that an investigation shouldn't depend on sworn statements, and that it's rather obvious that police are not doing a good enough job of (hah) self-policing on these. Part of the problem is that even cops with proven abuse of power are still allowed to remain on the force. Just that alone sends an absolutely terrible message.
|
# ? Dec 19, 2015 22:48 |
|
|
# ? May 30, 2024 13:31 |
|
Police unions are strong as hell because instead of a company to bargain with, which has limited funds and bottom line, they have the state. So cities typically just give into the demands and raise taxes if they have to under the guise of keeping america safe, which looks great for politicians because they are helping the humble underpaid police officer do his job. Even in states that have been union busted, police benevolent associations have massive lobbying power and threaten politicians by making them look soft on crime unless sweet deals are passed out. I'm pro union and think social programs are for the most part a good thing and need lots of funding, but the antics that police unions get away with represent extreme outliers in union-employer relations that I think could undergo a massive amount of legislative change. Sad thing is, if any reform were to occur the politicians involved would be committing career suicide.
|
# ? Dec 19, 2015 23:09 |
|
DARPA posted:Yes DR, if you want to stick to my fantastical script where an officer actually got punished for poor behavior, I think after 13 complaints and several trainings, another complaint should be enough for the department to respond with a punishment. DARPA posted:Instead, I think the history of complaints should be used while investigating an officer, even unconfirmed ones. Raerlynn posted:You're arguing semantics. Again. The reality of life outside of the public sector is you can be fired, or set up to be fired, at-will with no recourse unless it is a protected class, and that said firings do not require sworn statements, months of investigation, or even substantiated allegations. Everything else you've just posted is irrelevant because it doesn't change the fact that it can, and does happen, all the loving time in the US. The bar to pursue those "no reason" dismissals is so high that's its nigh impossible for the average middle class, let alone poor, citizen to contest. Also when you are fired, you don't get to appeal and complain how its unfair and expect to have you job back with backpay. Raerlynn posted:The United States of America. Where the hell do you work where you cannot be disciplined when a pattern of complaints sharing a related thread is leveled against you. If you have multiple complaints that you're saying racist or sexist poo poo that hasn't been caught on tape, your HR department isn't going to "shucks, can't do poo poo". Raerlynn posted:1. a woman was raped, tried to report it and was attacked as "faking it", turned out to actually be raped by a serial rapist who went on to claim multiple victims, and there is none, zero, literally NO repercussions for this. No officer was written up, no officer was told "don't ever loving do that again", no officer was sent off for more training, literally nothing has been done to learn from this. Now the next rape victim, instead of coming forward immediately, is going to ask himself or herself "Are the police actually going to help me, or will they ruin my life?" In the second case, the officer's victims swore out statements against him which were used in court to convict him, so IDK why you're bringing it up to support the idea that police should be punished based on unsworn statements. Obdicut posted:No, the argument is that an investigation shouldn't depend on sworn statements, and that it's rather obvious that police are not doing a good enough job of (hah) self-policing on these. Part of the problem is that even cops with proven abuse of power are still allowed to remain on the force. Just that alone sends an absolutely terrible message.
|
# ? Dec 19, 2015 23:17 |
The issue is more that the police will happily kick down doors and hold people at gunpoint over anonymous tips, but when it's one of their people named, all of a sudden there are procedures that must be followed before they do anything rash.
|
|
# ? Dec 19, 2015 23:23 |
|
Lmao are you for real still pretending you're not intentionally misinterpreting that dude's posts after getting the clarification you claimed to be asking for numerous times? "SO YOU THINK IT'S OKAY TO MURDER POLICE AND THEIR FAMILIES IF SOMEONE SAYS THEY WERE RUDE TO A FRIEND ONCE?!" gently caress off already Darkie McRetard.
|
# ? Dec 19, 2015 23:30 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
Yeah, but that's because of intentional dancing around the central issue. If you want to keep hitting at the extremes, go for it, but there's still a moderate, simple, problem: The police aren't investigating these allegations. You also haven't addressed at all the problem of cops remaining on the force despite having an abuse of power sustained against them. I think everyone should get worker protections. I think the cops should be held to a higher scrutiny in many ways because they have a really bad combination of a lot of incentive to abuse power and a lot of opportunities to do it. The structure of the job itself is hosed up at the moment, being so politically driven, but that's not an excuse. What form this higher standard takes is open to question, and they definitely deserve worker protections, but abuse of power is ruinous to the actual mission of the police, and its far, far too common. quote:The first example is a failure of the PD. It's already within their power to discipline or dismiss the officer who mishandled the complaint. If the police chief isn't properly disciplining his officers, then the official who appoints the chief should be pressured by voters to change leadership. That's what local government is for. This is also disingenuous, because it doesn't address the problem of a place where the citizens, or at least the voting majority, are in favor of police abuse of power because it targets a minority population or they give cops enormous credence and leeway. You know there are many places like this, and you know that often the courts or a higher level of government are needed to protect civil liberties--the local level is the most likely to abuse them, most of the time. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Dec 19, 2015 |
# ? Dec 19, 2015 23:31 |
|
yeah you're still arguing with the person who literally said number of complaints should be grounds for an INVESTIGATION in the very post you quoted so I'm gonna assume you've been failed by the american school system and legit can't read.
|
# ? Dec 20, 2015 00:20 |
|
Phone posting so I can't give out a proper writeup, but someone post about Noel Aguilar, who was killed by two cops after one officer accidentally shot the other officer.
|
# ? Dec 20, 2015 00:35 |
|
yeah okay i'm doing the face againquote:Los Angeles Deputy Shoots Partner, Blames Suspect; Both Kill Suspect in Retaliation (Updated)
|
# ? Dec 20, 2015 00:44 |
|
botany posted:yeah you're still arguing with the person who literally said number of complaints should be grounds for an INVESTIGATION in the very post you quoted so I'm gonna assume you've been failed by the american school system and legit can't read. Whoa now, stop gaslighting him. And while I don't think people should be punished for hearsay, it turns out that is how nearly every other job in America does it. Why shouldn't people with the power of life and death over civilians not be held to standards as lofty as those of a Wal Mart Cashier?
|
# ? Dec 20, 2015 00:48 |
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:And while I don't think people should be punished for hearsay, it turns out that is how nearly every other job in America does it. Why shouldn't people with the power of life and death over civilians not be held to standards as lofty as those of a Wal Mart Cashier? Investigation is not a punishment. Even a complaint based on hearsay should at least lead to an investigation, but the police aren't even bothering with that. Unless someone is willing to brave harassment and intimidation to formally swear to a complaint, the police just drop it and pretend nothing even happened. There's also a difference between one complaint and a pattern of them. It's absurd to think that there's nothing behind a long string of "unfounded" complaints against a single officer, but even when the police do look into complaints, they do so in a vacuum. At the very least a long record of public complaints means that the officer in question is providing lovely customer service and shouldn't be interacting with the public. Even if there's not enough to fire him, keep him in the police station where he can only be a dick to other officers.
|
# ? Dec 20, 2015 00:58 |
|
Yeah, we're on the same side. I am just saying, as I have been this whole time, that it's how normal jobs work. So an investigation is the least they should do.
|
# ? Dec 20, 2015 01:04 |
|
Obdicut posted:No, the argument is that an investigation shouldn't depend on sworn statements, and that it's rather obvious that police are not doing a good enough job of (hah) self-policing on these. Part of the problem is that even cops with proven abuse of power are still allowed to remain on the force. Just that alone sends an absolutely terrible message. This is egregiously disingenuous, in the last page two people have explicitly stated that cops should be punished/fired for unsubstantiated complaints if there's enough of them, and about three others have chipped in to support them by arguing that's how everyone else's job works.
|
# ? Dec 20, 2015 01:23 |
|
Jarmak posted:This is egregiously disingenuous, in the last page two people have explicitly stated that cops should be punished/fired for unsubstantiated complaints if there's enough of them, and about three others have chipped in to support them by arguing that's how everyone else's job works. All claims should be documented so that when the 30th victim of the police officer isn't able to be silenced, that it's not just their word against the police officer, but their word against the police officer who has ten times the number of complaints than his peers. Second thought, I guess there aren't a lot better terms than unsubstantiated, but it has such a strong connotation of reading it between the lines as "lie". Devor fucked around with this message at 01:33 on Dec 20, 2015 |
# ? Dec 20, 2015 01:29 |
|
It made me sick to see officer Murade unholster his gun, place it against the back of a man laying on the ground on his side, and fire three times out of revenge for his partner officer accidentally shooting him in the gut. Furthermore, if Aguilar actually did have a gun in his possession and managed to do some kind of secret agent move to shoot both of them, with his dying breath, I'm of the opinion that he would have been acting in self defense.
|
# ? Dec 20, 2015 01:36 |
|
Jarmak posted:This is egregiously disingenuous, in the last page two people have explicitly stated that cops should be punished/fired for unsubstantiated complaints if there's enough of them, and about three others have chipped in to support them by arguing that's how everyone else's job works. Keep in mind when some of the cops cited in this thread are literal pedophile rapist I don't know why anyone else other than another pedophile rapist would leave them on duty to abuse more people & kids. You can suspend cops and investigate them. Its not an all or nothing thing.
|
# ? Dec 20, 2015 01:47 |
|
Jarmak posted:This is egregiously disingenuous, in the last page two people have explicitly stated that cops should be punished/fired for unsubstantiated complaints if there's enough of them, and about three others have chipped in to support them by arguing that's how everyone else's job works. This is egregiously disingenuous, in the last page two people have explicitly stated that cops should be investigated for unsubstantiated complaints if there's enough of them, and about three others have chipped in to support them by arguing that's how everyone else's job works.
|
# ? Dec 20, 2015 01:53 |
|
botany posted:This is egregiously disingenuous, in the last page two people have explicitly stated that cops should be investigated for unsubstantiated complaints if there's enough of them, and about three others have chipped in to support them by arguing that's how everyone else's job works. That's utter bullshit, in the time it took you write this crap about "no one said that" two more people chimed in to say exactly that and mock me for disagreeing.
|
# ? Dec 20, 2015 01:57 |
|
Jarmak posted:That's utter bullshit, in the time it took you write this crap about "no one said that" two more people chimed in to say exactly that and mock me for disagreeing. That's utter bullshit, in the time it took you to write this crap about "people said that" literally no other person other than the two of us posted.
|
# ? Dec 20, 2015 02:01 |
|
Jarmak you have a disability, get help please.
|
# ? Dec 20, 2015 02:01 |
|
Jarmak posted:This is egregiously disingenuous, in the last page two people have explicitly stated that cops should be punished/fired for unsubstantiated complaints if there's enough of them, and about three others have chipped in to support them by arguing that's how everyone else's job works. Instead of this deteriorating into a slapfight any further, could you quote these two people so other readers can ascertain whether this statement is true?
|
# ? Dec 20, 2015 02:12 |
|
botany posted:This is egregiously disingenuous, in the last page two people have explicitly stated that cops should be investigated for unsubstantiated complaints if there's enough of them, and about three others have chipped in to support them by arguing that's how everyone else's job works. Well DARPA said "I think police should be summarily executed based on nothing more than anonymous post it notes found taped on USPS mailboxes/the homeless" and just like Rice with the cops only having two seconds to react, if you remove all statements before and after and scrub all context then the only conclusion possible is DARPA think cops shout be fired based on a single anonymous complaint. Because that's the only possible way his flailing makes any sense.
|
# ? Dec 20, 2015 02:15 |
|
You know those surveys that accompany most public-facing jobs? What do you think happens if enough of those come back negatively? Surely you don't imagine that the employer contacts people responding that way to have them swear to their statements before investigating the employee. Far more likely, the employee is warned, hopefully provided some additional training and support, and if the pattern continues, is fired. This is not some egregious abuse by employers, it is a matter of getting rid of lovely employees. Police officers who draw an egregious number of complaints are obviously failing one of the key aspects of their jobs (community engagement), why do you people keep defending them? Of course a criminal conviction is a different matter, but Jarmak, you are pretending an administrative disciplinary action requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It does not. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Dec 20, 2015 |
# ? Dec 20, 2015 02:19 |
|
DARPA posted:More like, A Fancy Bloke posted:Actually if you thought about it for 5 seconds you'd note that my comment was specifically about how my non-police employer would take a complaint seriously enough to investigate, even if it were an "unsworn" complaint, in order to confirm an offense had actually taken place. However, that "investigation" is in no way binding, and they could just fire my rear end based on the "unsworn" statement alone, and not any actual evidence of wrongdoing. It turns out that is how it happens in pretty much every other job in this country other than special snowflake police officers. Raerlynn posted:The United States of America. Where the hell do you work where you cannot be disciplined when a pattern of complaints sharing a related thread is leveled against you. If you have multiple complaints that you're saying racist or sexist poo poo that hasn't been caught on tape, your HR department isn't going to "shucks, can't do poo poo". AreWeDrunkYet posted:Wasn't this the same issue for a long time with civil rights complaints? A lawsuit for pay discrimination or unlawful firing used to require documented evidence of willful discrimination (for example, a manager e-mail to another manager about making lower offers to women). This was obviously an unreasonable bar for most employees, so the standards were changed so statistical evidence could be used. Even if there wasn't a stupid e-mail like the example, if a company is found to be systematically paying women or minorities less for equivalent work, that can now be used as evidence in a discrimination lawsuit. Even without a smoking gun, there is no way for widespread pay differences to be anything other than discrimination. This seems to make sense, as the former bar was way out of reach in most circumstances. Phone posting but here's four, to be fair DARPA has been trying to act like he's being misquoted, but at the same time spent the entire last page refusing to clarify that he didn't mean that he thought people should be punished on the basis of complaints existing alone.
|
# ? Dec 20, 2015 02:29 |
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:
I never said that
|
# ? Dec 20, 2015 02:32 |
|
For like the fourth time my statement was describing how it works at every other job. It was not advocating that as a particular policy for police, but also saying it wouldn't be a tragedy or a dystopia if it was. Please quote thus next time you're cherry picking quotes to continue your endless loving pedantry
|
# ? Dec 20, 2015 02:36 |
Jarmak posted:Phone posting but here's four, to be fair DARPA has been trying to act like he's being misquoted, but at the same time spent the entire last page refusing to clarify that he didn't mean that he thought people should be punished on the basis of complaints existing alone. I see 2 people advocating specifically for police officers to be punished for unsubstantiated claims and 2 people saying that police are being treated completely unlike most other jobs in the United States in that they just ignore signs of poor work unless the complainants are angry and dedicated enough to sign an affidavit to force an investigation.
|
|
# ? Dec 20, 2015 02:37 |
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:For like the fourth time my statement was describing how it works at every other job. It was not advocating that as a particular policy for police, but also saying it wouldn't be a tragedy or a dystopia if it was. Please quote thus next time you're cherry picking quotes to continue your endless loving pedantry When Darpa tried to claim that wasn't what he was saying you quoted him and said "but if you were you'd be right" chitoryu12 posted:I see 2 people advocating specifically for police officers to be punished for unsubstantiated claims and 2 people saying that police are being treated completely unlike most other jobs in the United States in that they just ignore signs of poor work unless the complainants are angry and dedicated enough to sign an affidavit to force an investigation. What is the point of posting about how in any other job people would get punished for unsubstantiated complaints, in the context of responding to a post saying they shouldn't be punished for unsubstantiated complaints, other then disagreement?
|
# ? Dec 20, 2015 02:43 |
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:For like the fourth time my statement was describing how it works at every other job. It was not advocating that as a particular policy for police, but also saying it wouldn't be a tragedy or a dystopia if it was. Please quote thus next time you're cherry picking quotes to continue your endless loving pedantry Are you really going to make the statement "I wasn't actually advocating for that I was just saying it wasn't a bad thing" in the same breath you accuse me of pedantry? Edit: gently caress, sorry, phone posting, wanted to make that one post. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Dec 20, 2015 |
# ? Dec 20, 2015 02:45 |
|
Jarmak posted:What is the point of posting about how in any other job people would get punished for unsubstantiated complaints, in the context of responding to a post saying they shouldn't be punished for unsubstantiated complaints, other then disagreement? Unsubstantiated and unsworn are not the same thing. Jarmak posted:Are you really going to make the statement "I wasn't actually advocating for that I was just saying it wasn't a bad thing" in the same breath you accuse me of pedantry? It seems clear to me from context that what is being stated is that what you and Dead Reckoning and others are presenting as a completely unrealistic job expectation actually is in a lot of other jobs. So that argument against making this the new policy for cops doesn't work. It's not the same as saying that this should be the policy for cops, but you are all going to have to find a different reason to dismiss it, or defend the status quo better than you have so far.
|
# ? Dec 20, 2015 02:51 |
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Instead of this deteriorating into a slapfight any further, could you quote these two people so other readers can ascertain whether this statement is true? Dead Reckoning posted:So the department should, what, punish officers on the basis of unsworn statements? DARPA posted:I'd say Yes? DARPA posted:"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." Dead Reckoning posted:I don't think throwing out the rules in order to catch offenders is the proper way to react to problems. This "anyone who criticizes our ideas loves cops shooting minorities" thing is silly. 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. Dead Reckoning posted:You do realize that this argument is essentially "If enough people say it, it must be true!" right? Dead Reckoning posted:Let's stop beating around the bush then. Do you think police officers should be disciplined based solely on un-sworn or unsupported statements, as you previously indicated? DARPA posted:You got me! I think police should be summarily executed based on nothing more than anonymous post it notes found taped on USPS mailboxes/the homeless. Dead Reckoning posted:You still haven't clarified what you actually meant. DARPA posted:Yes DR, if you want to stick to my fantastical script where an officer actually got punished for poor behavior, I think after 13 complaints and several trainings, another complaint should be enough for the department to respond with a punishment. I mean, maybe there's some other way to read that than calling for disciplining people based on un-sworn statements or punishing people based solely on number of complaints regardless of merit, but that seems like the most obvious interpretation.
|
# ? Dec 20, 2015 02:56 |
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Unsubstantiated and unsworn are not the same thing. Three of the four people I quoted explicitly refer to complaints without evidence, which is what unsubstantiated means, so I'm not sure where "unsworn doesn't mean unsubstantiated" is coming from. And if you don't think this is what is meant then what are you asking me to defend?
|
# ? Dec 20, 2015 02:57 |
|
Alastor_the_Stylish posted:It made me sick to see officer Murade unholster his gun, place it against the back of a man laying on the ground on his side, and fire three times out of revenge for his partner officer accidentally shooting him in the gut. He did have a gun, but the officer who got shot removed it early on in the struggle. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I-Xg-Ga1a8 At around the 24 second mark you can see the officer remove something from Aquilar and put it into his own waistband. Slow motion helps make things a bit clearer. Around 1:29 you can see he reaches back into his waistband, pulls the gun back out, and sets it down on the ground. I assume he either wanted the gun farther from the struggle or, after already being shot once and not liking the experience, suddenly realized that he had a gun of unknown quality pointed at his dick. I will never understand why anybody would ever put a gun there.
|
# ? Dec 20, 2015 02:57 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I don't know about everyone else, but these were the exchanges I was referring to: I mean if people think they're being misunderstood then why don't they clarify and actually affirmatively state their position instead of sitting back and sniping at people then making accusations of bad faith whenever someone fails to divine their position correctly from context.
|
# ? Dec 20, 2015 03:01 |
|
Jarmak posted:I mean if people think they're being misunderstood then why don't they clarify and actually affirmatively state their position instead of sitting back and sniping at people then making accusations of bad faith whenever someone fails to divine their position correctly from context. That sounds like a great idea.
|
# ? Dec 20, 2015 03:04 |
|
Jarmak posted:I mean if people think they're being misunderstood then why don't they clarify and actually affirmatively state their position instead of sitting back and sniping at people then making accusations of bad faith whenever someone fails to divine their position correctly from context. I think cops should be held to the same standards that most employees are held to regarding complaints about their performance. IE if they receive complaints they should at THE VERY LEAST be investigated. It would not be a tragedy or dystopian future in any way, shape, or form if an officer was dismissed for multiple complaints re: the same issues.
|
# ? Dec 20, 2015 03:14 |
Jarmak posted:What is the point of posting about how in any other job people would get punished for unsubstantiated complaints, in the context of responding to a post saying they shouldn't be punished for unsubstantiated complaints, other then disagreement? Maybe because they're pointing out that most jobs in the country don't allow you to avoid any and all punishment from your employer as long as no co-workers or customers sign sworn statements that you hosed up, and it's yet another example of how American police get additional privileges that let them avoid responsibility and further allows them to abuse citizens?
|
|
# ? Dec 20, 2015 03:14 |
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:It seems clear to me from context that what is being stated is that what you and Dead Reckoning and others are presenting as a completely unrealistic job expectation actually is in a lot of other jobs. So that argument against making this the new policy for cops doesn't work. It's not the same as saying that this should be the policy for cops, but you are all going to have to find a different reason to dismiss it, or defend the status quo better than you have so far.
|
# ? Dec 20, 2015 03:15 |
|
Jarmak posted:I never said that You sure seem to be heavily implying it. I brought up the discrimination suit example earlier for a reason - a pattern of behavior is still evidence of wrongdoing even if no individual incident can be specifically verified. A company that can be shown to statistically pay women less is still in violation of employment laws even without a specific e-mail saying "let's give those bitches lower raises". Why would an administrative disciplinary hearing carry a heavier burden of proof than a civil lawsuit? Dead Reckoning posted:I mean, maybe there's some other way to read that than calling for disciplining people based on un-sworn statements or punishing people based solely on number of complaints regardless of merit, but that seems like the most obvious interpretation. Why are you so offended by the idea of an officer being punished based on the number of accusations? What employer in the world, except for the police, would keep someone in a public-facing position after a pattern of complaints from customers? Whatever else, he is clearly incapable of interacting with the public and undermines the department's image. Even if you don't fire him, that should be more than enough to put him in an office and away from pissing off the public and making every other officers' job more difficult.
|
# ? Dec 20, 2015 03:18 |
|
|
# ? May 30, 2024 13:31 |
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Why are you so offended by the idea of an officer being punished based on the number of accusations? What employer in the world, except for the police, would keep someone in a public-facing position after a pattern of complaints from customers? Whatever else, he is clearly incapable of interacting with the public and undermines the department's image. Even if you don't fire him, that should be more than enough to put him in an office and away from pissing off the public and making every other officers' job more difficult.
|
# ? Dec 20, 2015 03:26 |