Jarmak posted:

The fact people are arguing in favour of it?

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?"

2. a police officer systematically raped 17 women, threatening each one with jail time for non compliance. In each case he threatened them by telling them that the police would side against his victims if they talked. And the police's reputation for closing ranks against such charges, ESPECIALLY against African Americans and the poor in general, is why he got away with it. This is a very real incident wherein the police's reputation for lack of rigor when performing self-investigation had a direct material harm on the community.

I still have yet to see you or DR address how each time we have these huge arguments that the actions of these officers, legal or not, has a direct impact on the populace's willingness to report crime for fear of retribution or worse. That's a loving problem and one that needs fixing NOW. But sure, let's keep handwringing about hypothetical corner cases when we have constant proof of police systematically discouraging and outright retaliating against citizens who submit complaints against the police.

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.

Dead Reckoning posted:

No one argued that the police can't investigate based on an un-sworn complaint. DARPA and Watermelon City were arguing that the police should be punished based on un-sworn complaints, and Toasticle and Raerlynn have been arguing that, since they live in states with lovely protection for employees and weak unions, public sector workers shouldn't get worker protections (like a right to fair disciplinary and termination hearings) either.

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.

Dead Reckoning posted:

quote:

Los Angeles Deputy Shoots Partner, Blames Suspect; Both Kill Suspect in Retaliation (Updated)

A disturbing video emerged Friday showing two Los Angeles sheriff’s deputies killing a man after they had chased him for riding a bicycle while wearing headphones.

The incident took place more than a year ago with the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department initially telling the media that they shot and killed 23-year-old Noel Aguilar, a “known gang member,” after he pulled out a gun and shot a deputy.

But now a video shows the two deputies struggling to arrest Aguilar when one deputy pulls out his gun and shoots the second deputy before placing his gun back into its holster, then placing the blame on Aguilar.

“Where’s the gun?” Los Angeles sheriff’s deputy Jose Ruiz asked Aguilar seconds after his partner announced he had been shot.

“I don’t have any,” Aguilar said.

“I’ve been shot,” yelled Albert Murade for the second time.

“I didn’t shoot nobody,” responded Aguilar.

“I got shot in the stomach,” Murade continued.

“I didn’t shoot nobody,” Aguilar insisted.

Ruiz then pulled his gun back out and pointed it at Aguilar in an obvious attempt to shut him up.

“C’mon man, why you pulling a gun on me,” Aguilar asked.

Ruiz shoots him in the stomach, prompting Murade, who is already angry at having been shot, to fire three bullets into Aguilar’s back.

That sparks angry shouts of protest from witnesses, in English and in Spanish, saying Aguilar did nothing illegal.

“I’ve been shot,” Murade kept repeating now that the struggle was subsiding.

“I’m dying,” Aguilar said, fading away.

“Go sit down,” Ruiz told Murade, pushing his partner away while standing over Aguilar, comfortable he was now handcuffed and facedown, the life slowly slipping out of him, keeping his knee on his back just to be sure.

Murade took his advice and walked off-camera as the shouts of anger became more intense, demanding Ruiz remove the knee from Aguilar’s back.

But Ruiz went from keeping a single knee on Aguilar’s back to plopping his entire body on his back, remaining there for several minutes in a suffocating manner while furious witnesses ordered him off.

It was almost as if he was deliberately trying to squeeze the life out of Aguilar, whom he knew would never shut up about not having shot Murade.

Ruiz is eventually pried off Aguilar’s body by the swarming deputies who enter the scene with their guns pointed at witnesses, ordering them all back inside their homes, running up stairwells to chase people all away.

Or maybe even seize cameras. They had that familiar arrogance we have seen so many times before that they are above the law.

But it does not appear as if they saw the people who were recording, at least one of them appearing to be a woman, because that camera continued to record from an elevated position unmolested for at least eight minutes.

In fact, the footage probably runs longer but this is pretty much all we need to see.

Angel Carrazco, attorney for Aguilar’s family, released the footage to the The OC Weekly, saying he first saw the video three weeks ago, even though the incident took place on May 26, 2014 in Long Beach.

The footage shared by Carrazco’s Tustin-based law firm has been enhanced, slowed down in key spots and transcribed. “We got the video through an independent witness that was there,” he says. “This is evidence that we’ve had in the last twenty days.” Carrazco is handing the new evidence over to the Department of Justice, FBI, U.S. Attorney’s office and the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office in hopes of bringing criminal charges against the deputies involved. The attorney is already in litigation for a civil suit brought on behalf of Aguilar’s family.

How the deputies handled Aguilar after he had been shot is also a matter of concern, Carrazco says. “He’s facing down after being shot four times and they’re on top of him,” Carrazco says. “There needs to be a medical conclusion to find out whether they were trying to get him to asphyxiate or bleed to death. By the video, it seems like they were trying to do both.” Aguilar can be heard screaming, “I’m dying!” while onlookers berate the deputies in English and Spanish that they shot him in the back and to get off him because he’s dying.

The day after the shooting, the Orange County Register accused Aguilar of shooting the deputy because he was a “known gang member” as you can see in the image below.

LASD deputies kill man

But then the following month, the Los Angeles Times reported that deputy Murade had been shot by deputy Ruiz, not by Aguilar, whom they referred to as a “transient.”

But the sheriff’s department continued to insist that Aguilar had a gun, even if he didn’t shoot at it as they initially claimed. They also said he tried to grab one of their guns.

And they suggested that he may have even been the one who shot Murade with Ruiz’s gun.

But the video not only shows Ruiz shooting Murade, then blaming Aguila, it shows that Aguilar never reached for any of their guns.

UPDATE: On Wednesday, two days before this video was released, CNN published an article stating that “accidental shootings” increased 500 percent from 2012 to 2014 after the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department issued new Smith & Wesson M&P 9mm.

The article was based on a study funded by Los Angeles County, which states the following reasons those guns are “putting officers and the public at risk.”

–The weapon lacks an external safety;

–It’s more sensitive than the Beretta;

–And a light mounted to the gun and activated by deputies squeezing a pressure switch on the handle has led to confusion in some incidents, with “a significant number of deputies reporting that they unintentionally pulled the trigger of their weapon when they intended only to turn on the light.”

Here is a police report on the incident from earlier this year justifying the shooting.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

DARPA posted:

More like,
"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."

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.

If 5 separate people over 5 separate incidents go to my boss and say "yo, yo, get this... A Fancy Bloke is breaking X policy" you better believe I will be punished without a "full investigation."


But even if you meant it, you're not wrong. It's how every other loving job works.

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".


That isn't at all the way the rest of the nation works. Here's the link from Wikipedia that lays it out for you:


Emphasis mine.

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.

It's fair to approach police discipline in the same way. We're not talking about a criminal conviction, an administrative punishment is somewhat similar to a civil infraction like a discrimination claim (the administrative punishment probably even has less of a burden). If Officers Bob and Joe and Sally each get a couple of complaints over a few years, but for whatever reason the claims couldn't be corroborated, then that can certainly be white noise or addressed with minor things like additional training. But if Officer Fuckface on the other hand picks up a dozen complaints over the same period of time, even if the complaints cannot be fully vetted (it's well documented police will intimidate people trying to come forward to complain, so it wouldn't exactly be surprising) there is obviously a pattern going on here. That should be plenty of reason to get rid of Officer Fuckface and replace him with someone who isn't clearly pissing off the community he's policing.

AreWeDrunkYet posted:

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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?

Edit: gently caress, sorry, phone posting, wanted to make that one post.

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."
"But was it a SWORN statement?"
"Get hosed, you make the rest us look bad."

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.

That feels right to you?

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.

Absurd Alhazred posted:

Unsubstantiated and unsworn are not the same thing.


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.

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.

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.

Dead Reckoning posted:

I don't know about everyone else, but these were the exchanges I was referring to:











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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Jarmak posted:

I never said that

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.

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.