|
That or a totally separate department should be investigating and prosecuting officers so that the "oops we waited too long tee hee", grand jury being used as a way to tank a case the prosecutor is too cowardly to just ignore, or bogus charges being brought up so that the judge has to throw out the case tricks aren't something that is encouraged.
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 09:48 |
|
|
If you're not tired of seeing people being murdered by the police yet, here's a new one. This particular rampaging monster was reported to be carrying a knife. It turned out to be a pen. Story.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
Devor posted:Police union contracts really ought to have clauses that when firing decisions are reversed solely on procedural errors, but for cause, that the only remedy is shitloads of cash instead of reinstatement. It's not reasonable that an arbitrator has to come to the decision of "Well yeah, we really need to fire them because they're bad police officer. BUT, you waited too long. So to remedy this unfairness to the police officer, we have to punish the public too." It wouldn't really work in this case. The SFPD violated California law by not firing them sooner, not the contract with the union.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
quote:The DA then held up several knives, comparing them to the size and shape of the pen found on Nehad. DA means defense attorney right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
LorneReams posted:DA means defense attorney right? District attorney, which is the prosecutor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
Terraplane posted:District attorney, which is the prosecutor. I think that was the joke....
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
I'm certainly glad the adversarial system where you have a prosecutor and a defense attorney both trying their best for their respective sides and not being subverted by one party acting in hilariously bad faith is once again working as intended here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:I think that was the joke.... I made a decision based on the facts as I perceived them at the time, don't judge me with on your 20/20 hindsight, sir. (I'm dumb)
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
Terraplane posted:If you're not tired of seeing people being murdered by the police yet, here's a new one. This particular rampaging monster was reported to be carrying a knife. It turned out to be a pen. I'm not sure I have a big issue with this case. I'm also pleasantly surprised that the cops first instinct after having shot the man was to provide first aid. It would have been better if he hadn't shot him, but at least there seems to be some rationality behind the shooting. Then he didn't just handcuff the guy and wait for him to die, so I can't be too outraged by this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Ooops, remember all those SF cops fired for saying racist and homophobic poo poo? They get their jobs back! “The public has a right to have accusations against police officers be promptly adjudicated. As such, we will be doing exactly as I'm sure the public wants and not doing anything about it.”
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
Pohl posted:I'm not sure I have a big issue with this case. I'm also pleasantly surprised that the cops first instinct after having shot the man was to provide first aid. I was thinking the same thing, which really, is sort of sad that we've become so used to police shooting someone, then just cuffing them and watching them bleed. Also, he didn't mag-dump and keep shooting him on the ground. This officer looked like he was doing his very best to save the guy. Impossible for me to say from that video and angle whether the shoot was 'good' or not, but the officers actions after the fact are what I think we should all expect from our LEO when someone is shot, once the 'threat' is removed, at that point they are a shooting victim, and should be assisted to the best of the officers ability, no matter why they were shot in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
Pohl posted:I'm not sure I have a big issue with this case. I'm also pleasantly surprised that the cops first instinct after having shot the man was to provide first aid. Not sure what the victim could have done to make the situation any better other than have the luck that some retard behind a badge doesn't answer the call.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
That was probably the most casual shooting of all time. The cop just sat in his car and opened fire. What could that guy have done to not get shot, but we're supposed to be OK with it because he got him medical attention?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
I felt like this was one of the more egregious ones. The guy doesn't look like he was threatening the cop at all, at least not to me. If he'd kept on walking towards the officer, maybe, but even though the cop only gives him a few seconds to react he's still clearly slowing down right before he gets shot. With the headlights in his eyes and no flashing lights I'm not even sure if he knew that was a cop until it was too late.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:It wouldn't really work in this case. The SFPD violated California law by not firing them sooner, not the contract with the union. Shouldn't the city be able to fire SFPD management then, since they failed to perform their duties in a timely and competent fashion?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Terraplane posted:If you're not tired of seeing people being murdered by the police yet, here's a new one. This particular rampaging monster was reported to be carrying a knife. It turned out to be a pen. Who could have possibly predicted a US prosecutor would prove themselves a worthless piece of poo poo? This is unprecedented.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:Shouldn't the city be able to fire SFPD management then, since they failed to perform their duties in a timely and competent fashion? Theoretically, that's what elections are for.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Pohl posted:I'm not sure I have a big issue with this case. I'm also pleasantly surprised that the cops first instinct after having shot the man was to provide first aid. He shot a man who wasn't within a dangerous distance and didn't check his target to confirm that he was actually armed with a knife before firing. I don't think we can even confirm if he gave any warning before shooting. While it's commendable that he apparently tried to save his life, I can't be too happy about the man being shot at all. Being glad that he tried to save the guy's life is basically being glad that he did his job immediately after spectacularly failing at his job.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
It's really an example of damning with faint praise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
"He was texting while driving, sure, but he did CPR on the teenage girl he ran over! We can't be too mad!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Terraplane posted:Am I looking at this the wrong way or is it more than just a little bit hosed up that the police can avoid charges or penalties or firings because the statute of limitations ran out because the police waited until the statute of limitations ran out before doing anything? Radish posted:That or a totally separate department should be investigating and prosecuting officers so that the "oops we waited too long tee hee", grand jury being used as a way to tank a case the prosecutor is too cowardly to just ignore, or bogus charges being brought up so that the judge has to throw out the case tricks aren't something that is encouraged. quote:The messages came out in court documents as part of a federal corruption investigation in February 2014. However, lawyers for the accused police officers say the San Francisco Police Department first learned about the texts in December 2012. But it wasn't until April 2015 that Police Chief Greg Suhr moved to fire eight of the officers and discipline the other six. It's worth noting that the only reason that their department had access to their private text messages was because it seized one of their co-workers' phones as part of a criminal investigation, which highlights the rather unique relationship government employees have with their employer. chitoryu12 posted:“The public has a right to have accusations against police officers be promptly adjudicated. As such, we will be doing exactly as I'm sure the public wants and not doing anything about it.” I'm pretty sure that not letting police chiefs keep a secret multi-year file on every officer and then hitting them with every infraction and complaint they've been accused of at once when they're a little too black or a little to close to a pension or otherwise inconvenient is in the public interest. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Dec 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The SFPD officers were never charged with any crime. Even in California, "being You even quote the part where SFPD argued that the corruption trial prevented them from trying to fire the officers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You even quote the part where SFPD argued that the corruption trial prevented them from trying to fire the officers. Even assuming that's the case, I think it's entirely reasonable to say that, if the government wants to use material found under the auspices of a criminal investigation for unrelated non-criminal disciplinary actions, they should at least do it in a timely manner. If your boss was secretly spying on you for three years, and called you into his office to fire you over an off-color joke you made back in August of 2013 while off the clock, would you feel that was fair and reasonable?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:...and right below it is the line where the judge found that argument to be lacking merit. Except the boss is your friend, knew about it in 2013, but waited until now to tell you, knowing that the delay means nothing will happen to you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:...and right below it is the line where the judge found that argument to be lacking merit. Calling a fellow officer a "friend of the family bitch" and saying we should kill "half-breeds" isn't exactly an off color joke, and communications with your Sgt are still official even if you're off the clock.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Except the boss is your friend, knew about it in 2013, but waited until now to tell you, knowing that the delay means nothing will happen to you. Trabisnikof posted:communications with your Sgt are still official even if you're off the clock. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Dec 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:The difference being that "police officer" is a job that allows the use of force. Don't act as though that isn't an enormous difference to any other public sector job. If my mailman fucks up delivering packages, no one ends up dead or raped. Tiler Kiwi posted:In my opinion, I care about the results, and the current situation sees police at a very superior position compared to generally everyone, in terms of protection from complaints. This is very bad as they are given a lot of power over the public that means the things they can get away with are very extreme compared to a private worker, including shooting people for perhaps not good reasons. So I think demanding higher standards is okay, and complaining that it's a bias against police to do so is a false equivalence, as police are rather unlike other careers in what they do. Raerlynn posted:Here's the problem. That's not how the private sector works. At all. Your perception is colored by the fact that you've not seen how private institutions handle these requests. That's a simple, verifiable fact. Your position, and Kalman's as well, is that unsworn statements should be discarded because that's not how the system should work. Except it is literally the case of how the system works in the private sector, which is where the majority of us work. Terraplane posted:I do. I mean, ideally? Sure, maybe not. But until things are fair for everybody else then I absolutely think that those with the most power should suffer alongside all of the rest of us. I do. Terraplane posted:A consistently bad reputation shouldn't be enough to put a person in jail, by any means, but it's certainly reasonable that it might cause a person to lose their job. And again, you can absolutely argue that it's not an ideal situation and in an ideal world I'd be inclined to agree. But as many police investigation results have taught me, we can't judge by the ideal but instead have to judge by what a reasonable person in that same situation might experience. That's the common defense, right? It's not, "If an ideal person acted ideally." It's "If a reasonable person acted like any other reasonable person might." So why shouldn't that work for employers?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Military officers have access to all kinds of dangerous weapons and command sovereign instrumentalities. Teachers have close, unsupervised contact with children and act as surrogate parents. The IRS has access to all your personal and financial information. CPS can take your kids away. OPM knows everything you might want to know about the private lives of many federal employees. Many public sector jobs wield exceptional power on behalf of the state, so your argument that the police are special and don't deserve the same protections as other public employees doesn't really hold up. How many teachers or CPS employees are carrying guns on the job and have the power to shoot the parents? How many IRS agents break people's teeth while getting their tax info correct?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Military officers have access to all kinds of dangerous weapons and command sovereign instrumentalities. Teachers have close, unsupervised contact with children and act as surrogate parents. The IRS has access to all your personal and financial information. CPS can take your kids away. OPM knows everything you might want to know about the private lives of many federal employees. Many public sector jobs wield exceptional power on behalf of the state, so your argument that the police are special and don't deserve the same protections as other public employees doesn't really hold up. e:f,b
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
And the police have more special protection than any of the above groups.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Military officers have access to all kinds of dangerous weapons and command sovereign instrumentalities. Teachers have close, unsupervised contact with children and act as surrogate parents. The IRS has access to all your personal and financial information. CPS can take your kids away. OPM knows everything you might want to know about the private lives of many federal employees. Many public sector jobs wield exceptional power on behalf of the state, so your argument that the police are special and don't deserve the same protections as other public employees doesn't really hold up. Okay so all the jobs you named are irrelevant except for soldier, because none of them are armed with lethal weapons as a matter of course. None of those other jobs you named have the possibility for encounters with then to end in your death. As for soldiers, there aren't many armed ones roaming around domestically as agents of the government. Furthermore, they have less "labor protections " than police, so I don't know why you're barking up that tree. quote:I'm pretty much never going to agree that it's a good idea to enshrine unequal treatment under the law in order to correct a perceived injustice. The just solution is to correct the underlying problem, rather than to intentionally make the law unjust in the other direction. A justice system based around ensuring the "correct" outcome based on public sentiment rather than having a fair process is basically mob justice. But the process is already unfair. Cops get special protections over other jobs already. It's not "unequal treatment" to insist they play by the same rules. It's unfortunate you find those rules unsavory, but those feelings don't mean two equal sets of treatments are suddenly unequal. quote:So are you arguing that this is the way it should be? You're not actually making any argument in favor of punishing people based on un-sworn statements, just complaining that you're not protected from it. I can't speak for who you're quoting but it has nothing to do with crab mentality to me, because cops are not in the same pot, or even on the loving stove with me. They are violating people's civil rights and in cases straight murdering them and it's patently ridiculous that they face no punishment or even investigation unless someone is willing to put their safety or even life on the line to "officially" complain about them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Seriously stop the "crab mentality" stuff. It doesn't work when one of the crabs is killing the other crabs then jumping out of the bucket when the crabs want him held accountable. Especially when police are not friends of unions or other labor and civil rights movements.
Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Dec 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
"Bringing down police to the level of everyone else isn't fair because everyone else is at a lovely level. Therefore, I propose that we bring everyone else up." Sounds good, right? Not when it tacitly includes "But in the meantime, the police can stay at the level where they are and we'll just wait for the rest to catch up."
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Maybe we should declaw the crab that's working harder than all the other crabs to pull them back in the bucket. Put some old bay all up those claws.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Maybe we should declaw the crab that's working harder than all the other crabs to pull them back in the bucket. Put some old bay all up those claws. Are you suggesting that we eat the police?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:How many teachers or CPS employees are carrying guns on the job and have the power to shoot the parents? How many IRS agents break people's teeth while getting their tax info correct? Radish posted:Seriously stop the "crab mentality" stuff. It doesn't work when one of the crabs is killing the other crabs then jumping out of the bucket when the crabs want him to held accountable. Especially when police are not friends of unions or other labor and civil rights movements. chitoryu12 posted:"Bringing down police to the level of everyone else isn't fair because everyone else is at a lovely level. Therefore, I propose that we bring everyone else up." Ravenfood posted:And the police have more special protection than any of the above groups. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Dec 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:that's somehow not as bad as someone getting The thing is that as horrible as it is when those things happen, some kind of fixing is possible (therapy + lawsuit, reimbursement, a lawsuit). Dead is dead. UrbanLabyrinth fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Dec 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
A whole bunch of words that ignore that none of those jobs carry deadly weapons as a matter of course. Edit: Why does it need to be a "written" protection? Is the fact that people need to complain where they are making the complaint and they have been beaten for it NOT a protection against legal claims? Hail Mr. Satan! fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Dec 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Give me an example of a written legal protection that police have that other unionized public employees don't. The long debate beforehand about how police complaints require a legally binding affidavit to be signed to avoid being ignored entirely? Dead Reckoning posted:That's not at all relevant to what Fancy Bloke argued. He said that police should be stripped of their labor protections because they uniquely wield power on behalf of the state, (unlike mailmen,) which is not the case. If a teacher molests your kid, or the IRS mistakenly fines you $100,000 and it takes 9 months to sort out while you live in your car, or someone at OPM lets a hacker walk off with your entire life history, that's somehow not as bad as someone getting punched? I can google a bunch of "CPS overreach" and "IRS gently caress-up" and "Military Commander makes everyone's life hell" stories if you really want, but the argument that the police can uniquely exercise force on behalf of the state to mess up your life is wrong, and any argument that relies on it is wrong. Either argue that all public sector employees should have their labor protections stripped, or come up with something else. If a teacher grabs my son's dick, he's still alive and the school board won't attempt to convince me and the local media that my son deserved it because he talked back. You're still trying to pretend that there's not some huge gulf between the IRS making a mistake that bankrupts you and a police officer killing you and your dog for no good reason. Dead Reckoning posted:So you're in favor of busting public sector unions until everyone can enjoy the same low standard of labor protection instead? I'm in favor of police not being granted larger amounts of protection under the law than virtually every other job when it comes to death and destruction. If that means giving cops the same poo poo that everyone else has to go through until we can improve things across the board, so be it. I don't think anyone will cry if a police officer gets fired because he gets 15 complaints of calling people niggers on the job even if nobody signs a legal statement on it, if the end result includes keeping cops from calling people niggers on the job. chitoryu12 fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Dec 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 09:48 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:If someone says, "private sector workers don't have labor protection so I don't think that public sector workers should either," I'm going to call a fig a fig. Sorry if it's inconvenient that your argument is terrible when applied generally, but if you think public sector employees shouldn't have basic labor protections, then argue that, rather than trying to argue that everyone should be dragged down to the level of the lowest. Saying "you want to hurt the public sector unions" is an obvious attempt to shift the argument that people are making where police use their power within the system to subvert justice. Trying to tie union labor to the argument that police should be subject to the same justice that regular people are and that they shouldn't be able to get away with literal murder because they have friends that will protect them is like saying that raising taxes on the rich is "crab mentality" since we are all Americans and why do you hate the success of the crabs that have left the bucket (and then use their ability to oppress the remaining crabs)? For some reason we have to be very concerned that police might have to face ramification for their actions which is terrible but when anyone else is killed or abused by the police it's "well that's the law" or "that person shouldn't have done.." There's absolutely no interest in terms of raising people up, only fear that police might be brought down so acting like invoking the "crab mentality" is anything other than trying to allow police to maintain their advantages in terms of abusing the justice system is absurd. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Dec 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 00:09
|
|