|
A Fancy Bloke posted:A whole bunch of words that ignore that none of those jobs carry deadly weapons as a matter of course. If you're arguing that police officers are getting away with breaking the law, and illegally intimidating witnesses, that's not a criticism of the law as it stands or public employees' labor protections, it's a problem of lax enforcement. In that light, your belief that stripping labor protections from police is the best solution seems based more on vindictiveness than a desire to solve the problem.
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 20:44 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument is that, because police officers are empowered to use deadly force, it should be permissible to fire police officers based on hearsay, even if the complaint is in no way related to their use of deadly force? Private sector workers get fired and disciplined for hearsay all the time. Do you believe that police officers deserve more protection than private sector workers currently receive?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Private sector workers get fired and disciplined for hearsay all the time. Do you believe that police officers deserve more protection than private sector workers currently receive? He said yes multiple times. The union busting line is such strawmanning nonsense. Last time I checked, teacher unions weren't so powerful that teachers were constantly getting away with abusing kids until a recording finally appeared. Teachers can be let go for lots of dumb poo poo that isn't even anywhere near that serious, and they are constantly being evaluated. Time and time again we have posted stories about cops getting caught lying only after recordings surfaced and time and time again we have seen that cops seem to take longer to be charged (if at all), even with the recordings, than anyone else, especially when it is only the cop's word. I can't think of any instances where postal workers, teachers, sanitation workers, fire fighters or EMS have enjoyed that kind of power, and they are all public sector and have unions too. There's no reason the police can't have a union and have basic common sense worker rights that don't allow them to commit crimes and get away with it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-deranged-son/quote:Douglas County sheriff’s deputies got the call around 8:20 p.m. Monday. The security guard for a mobile home park in Douglasville, Ga., said he had just been held at gunpoint for 45 minutes as he made his evening rounds.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Give me an example of a written legal protection that police have that other unionized public employees don't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
Why are we even talking about labour rights on this? If an employee generates significantly more complaints than their fellow employees, their employer should be able to discipline them on that alone. Existing labour rights shouldn't be protected just because labour is hosed right now. Some of them might be bad and should absolutely go if so. I generally agree we should look to add before we worry about taking away the few bad protections there might be, but not in the case where they protect corrupt police. Police don't just have more protection than other occupations, they have a ridiculous amount of protection period.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
Your edited version of the article hints at this, but the full article makes it much clearer that there are three differing accounts of what happened at the scene. As far as I can remember, Grundulum fucked around with this message at 02:59 on Dec 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Give me an example of a written legal protection that police have that other unionized public employees don't.  Adorable."Ah but is there a statute anywhere that says DA's must get experts to testify on their buddy's behalf when they're unsuccessful in burying the issue from public opinion? No? Okay then it's not a special protection when that happens."
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:This is a perfect example of a crab mentality. You admit that a lack of worker protections is bad but rather than advocating for better protections for private sector workers, you want public sector workers stripped of their protections in the interest of "fairness." You really think once the last vestiges of organized labor are broken up wiped out, everyone will finally come around to the idea of increasing worker protections? I want the police to have at least the same accountability as normal people, if not more, yes. I don't think that's such an outrageous position. They already have powers and privileges far beyond that of a normal citizen, why should they have employee rights well above them as well? And even if we lived in a worker's utopia, I would still think that the people of a city should to a certain extent be able to decide who they want policing them. I think that when an officer has lost the confidence of the city they serve the citizens of that city should have a way to get rid of them. Right now we have city employees who we can't fire failing to discipline other city employees who we also can't fire. There's nothing the people can do about it, and that shouldn't be the case. They shouldn't ever have to worry that Officer "N----- Bitch," Officer "U may have to kill the half breed kids too. Don't worry. Their an abomination of nature anyway," or Officer ""Busted up but thats what happens to fags," is out on the street with a gun, pulling over their family members or kicking in their doors. Period. If there isn't a method to remedy that situation, at any time, there needs to be. As far as that goes, I wouldn't even limit it to police. I think it's outrageous that any employer could find themselves unable to fire an employee for that. It's just especially awful that they're police.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
The obvious solution would be firing the wanna-lynch cops, and then the supervisor for sitting on the evidence so long, and replace them with professionals who are able to fulfill the responsibilities of their jobs. But there aren't any professional standards in American police departments or really any standards for police whatsoever, so yeah I'm sure it's in the public interest to arm guys who openly fantasize about murdering women and children and send them out to police the public, supervised by a guy who can't even be assed to act on disciplinary infractions. There are plenty of people who will support all that anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The obvious solution would be firing the wanna-lynch cops, and then the supervisor for sitting on the evidence so long, and replace them with professionals who are able to fulfill the responsibilities of their jobs. A quick reminder that the chief of the SFPD helped cover up an incident where a bunch of off-duty cops (including the assistant chief's son) beat up some dudes and stole their fajitas (an incident dubbed "fajitagate"), back when he was deputy chief, and more recently he fired a police lawyer who had the nerve to investigate his friend after a domestic violence incident that Suhr had neglected to report (and he also told the victim to keep his name out of it if she decided to report it). And that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to SFPD shadyness.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument is that, because police officers are empowered to use deadly force, it should be permissible to fire police officers based on hearsay, even if the complaint is in no way related to their use of deadly force? Okay, how about this as a middle ground? Everyone has cell phone cameras these days, so lets change up police internal policies (e: and laws in some places) to make interfering with a citizen filming a Very Bad Thing(tm), with the obvious exception of needing to move the citizen back to a safe distance. Accept videos of police behavior as complaints, the PD doesn't even need to set anything up beyond an email address or web form that takes YouTube URLs. Ideally we would pair this up with universal body camera usage for police officers, so the reviewers can catch when someone edits a video in bad faith, because that is one of the big complaints the police have about people recording them right now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
buttcoinbrony posted:Okay, how about this as a middle ground? Everyone has cell phone cameras these days, so lets change up police internal policies (e: and laws in some places) to make interfering with a citizen filming a Very Bad Thing(tm), with the obvious exception of needing to move the citizen back to a safe distance. Accept videos of police behavior as complaints, the PD doesn't even need to set anything up beyond an email address or web form that takes YouTube URLs. Ideally we would pair this up with universal body camera usage for police officers, so the reviewers can catch when someone edits a video in bad faith, because that is one of the big complaints the police have about people recording them right now. I see an argument about police rights of privacy in your future. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
joeburz posted:I see an argument about police rights of privacy in your future. Well, in what I'm envisioning the police body cams are there to counter the claim that people are editing videos out of context and making the police look bad. If the police officer has their own body cam footage that proves the uploaded video is BS, the complaint is tossed. The idea still works without it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 05:29
|
|
|
buttcoinbrony posted:Well, in what I'm envisioning the police body cams are there to counter the claim that people are editing videos out of context and making the police look bad. The idea still works without it. cop arguments against body cameras include that somehow it will take the overall situations out of context and misrepresent the causes of action for police under scrutiny. they're all bullshit arguments, which guarantees you'll hear it here
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument is that, because police officers are empowered to use deadly force, it should be permissible to fire police officers based on hearsay, even if the complaint is in no way related to their use of deadly force? Restating what you've understood from someone and then asking for confirmation is a very effective active listening technique. I'm glad you're taking such pains not to misinterpret the arguments of other posters. In that spirit, I'm hoping you're willing to clear a few things up for me, with the goal of moving the thread away from meta topics and more towards substantive debate and discussion. I'd encourage other posters to answer as well, if they believe it can contribute to productive and instructive discussion on the subject of Police Misconduct, Discipline and Sexual Assault. Semantics 1) Do you believe "unsworn" and "unsubstantiated" are synonyms when it comes to complaints made against officers? 1a) If yes-do you believe the choice to use "unsubstantiated" in this context is understood by many to be more closely related to "false" or "of questionable veracity" than it is to "unsworn"? 1b) If no- Why have you consistently chosen "unsubstantiated" over "unsworn"? 1c) The International Association of Chiefs of Police's official stance is that EVERY incident of misconduct must be "investigated thoroughly and all employees with knowledge [...] who fail to report it are held accountable." Their reasoning is that "failure to identify misconduct and enforce accountability for even seemingly minor indiscretions may not only empower the officer, but may also encourage those who have knowledge of, or were witness to, the behavior to commit similar or more serious offenses. Tolerance at any level will invite more of the same conduct." Do you believe that the sworn/unsworn distinction was omitted because it is thought to be assumed by everyone who reads the Policy and Training guidelines, or because the IACP does not believe the distinction relevant? 1d) If it's latter, do you assign to the IACP the same anti-officer "vindictiveness" you assign posters in this thread? Why or Why not? Determining Boundaries and Clarifying Boundaries 2) Do you think there is a threshold at which the volume of unsworn complaints against an officer should be sufficient justification to begin an investigation? 2a) After receiving a sworn complaint, is there a threshold at which the volume of unsworn complaints against an officer can be used to shape the course of an investigation? 2b) Is the absence of sworn complaints an absence of accusations? For example: If Polly follows the proper procedures to lodge a complaint that Officer Mike pulled her over for a minor traffic violation and pleasured himself while offering to waive the ticket if she showed him her breasts, a possible defense for Officer Mike is that he has never been accused of sexual misconduct in his career. Should that defense still be available to him if there was a history of unsworn complaints against him alleging similar behavior? 3) At what point does a complaint against an officer become substantiated? 3a) If, as the IACP alleges, officers resign their roles and join another department before being formally punished in order to prevent the investigation from being completed.... are the prior sworn complaints against those officers valid, substantiated, and/or usable in future investigations? 3b) In the scenario where an officer transfers to avoid punishment, is "I have no record of discipline and have never been punished for misconduct" a valid defense? Should it be? Relative Protection Levels for Officers The IACP believe that "Within the policing profession some conditions of the job" create opportunities for misconduct and abuse. Specifically, they note that officers: "(1) have power and authority over others; (2) work independently; (3) sometimes function without direct supervision; (4) often work late into the night when their conduct is less in the public eye; and (5) engage with vulnerable populations who lack power and are often perceived as less credible (e.g., juveniles, crime victims,undocumented people, and those with addictions and mental illness)". They cite as an additional risk factor: "the existence of a law enforcement culture of allegiance and loyalty forms an important backdrop against which officers risk personal safety to protect and serve the public [...] these principles may lead to the belief that fellow officers will protect or provide cover in questionable circumstances. This could result in situations where unprofessional and even illegal behavior is tolerated out of a misplaced sense of loyalty" 4) Do you agree with the assessment of the IACP? 4a) Can you tell me a public union outside of law enforcement to which these factors are as applicable? 4b) If we, for the sake of argument, accept the IACP's view that there is a substantial power and credibility disparity between officers and their accusers and that there is a culture of covering up for and protecting officers who commit misconduct: Can you see reasons other than dishonesty that a complainant may not wish to share personally identifying information when filing an initial report? 4c) Again, accepting for the sake of argument the IACP's view, do you believe that these factors should lead to erring on the side of investigating more of the misconduct complaints made against officers, or fewer? I look forward to your responses and I ask you to make careful note that in the 800+ words above, I (like most others in this thread) at no time suggested, recommended, nor implied that officers should face discipline, suspension, termination or execution solely on the basis of an unsworn, unsubstantiated, uninvestigated report.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 08:52
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument is that, because police officers are empowered to use deadly force, it should be permissible to fire police officers based on hearsay, even if the complaint is in no way related to their use of deadly force? Yes. Absolutely. I don't think it's insane to believe "police officer" is a career that should be held to the highest standard. When you have the ability to kill someone or deprive them of their civil rights as an agent of the state, with the assistance of lethal weaponry, you should be on your best behavior. quote:If you're arguing that police officers are getting away with breaking the law, and illegally intimidating witnesses, that's not a criticism of the law as it stands or public employees' labor protections, it's a problem of lax enforcement. In that light, your belief that stripping labor protections from police is the best solution seems based more on vindictiveness than a desire to solve the problem. Getting rid of bad cops would absolutely solve the problem. How is that even a question?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 09:40
|
|
|
Welp, almost made it a full calendar year without a police shooting in all fifty states. This isn't as troubling as a lot of other shootings, but it's still not good. For one, a few stray shots went into a neighboring home, almost hitting a bystander. Secondly, this "no-knock warrant" BS seems to result in the suspect (or innocent bystanders who are at the suspects home, or innocent bystanders who are in their own home and police have the wrong house) getting killed an awful lot. My cynical side thinks that's the point. You bust in someone's home in the middle of the night, even if you (claim to) yell "police" or "federal agents", they're going to be jumpy, confused, scared, and might reach for a weapon to defend themselves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
No knock warrants need to, if not be completely eliminated, have the requirements bar set so high that they are next to impossible to get approved. I don't care how many drug dealers/users have time to eliminate their stash down the toilet, these things are just way too common, and end in tragedy far too often.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
They won't be eliminated because police are lazy. The alternative would be keeping an eye on the house for a while, establishing the suspect's routine, then arresting him with a minimum of confrontation. That's a ton of planning and requires far more time than just getting outfitted in military hand-me-downs and playing out little kid pew-pew fantasies. Not to mention not nearly as much fun, and are you really going to be the monster that denies police their right to have some fun?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
The entire premise is ridiculous. If a drug operation is so paltry that the suspects can flush it in the time it takes for the police to knock on the door and show their warrant it's not worth potentially killing the people inside or worse killing totally innocent people when you get the wrong loving house. The fact that politicians just ignore this issue is shameful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:They won't be eliminated because police are lazy. The alternative would be keeping an eye on the house for a while, establishing the suspect's routine, then arresting him with a minimum of confrontation. That's a ton of planning and requires far more time than just getting outfitted in military hand-me-downs and playing out little kid pew-pew fantasies. Not to mention not nearly as much fun, and are you really going to be the monster that denies police their right to have some fun? Sounds like all the posters here are jealous of the fun police get to have. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Radish posted:The entire premise is ridiculous. If a drug operation is so paltry that the suspects can flush it in the time it takes for the police to knock on the door and show their warrant it's not worth potentially killing the people inside or worse killing totally innocent people when you get the wrong loving house. The fact that politicians just ignore this issue is shameful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
codenameFANGIO posted:Sounds like all the posters here are jealous of the fun police get to have. Yeah this sounds like some crab fun bucket stuff to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
The very first time a no-knock was done at the wrong house should have been the end of no-knocks period. Wasn't the flash banged baby a no-knock? Plus the fact that if you are one of the wrong house victims and shoot at the people who just smashed in your front door (and somehow survive) can't you be prosecuted for it? How the gently caress are you supposed to know they're cops if they don't announce it? To be honest they never made any sense safety wise. If they are worried that the people are armed and ready, busting down their door would seem a highly probable way for a gunfight to start. If they aren't sitting around with loaded Uzis within reach, the 20 seconds between announcing and busting down the door isn't enough time to go arm up. And as said, if the amount of contraband there can be flushed in 30 seconds how the gently caress does such a small time operation deserve smashing in your door unannounced, shooting your pets and throwing flashbangs into a crib? Just turn the loving water off before you serve the warrant. They get one flush. I thought think that Arpaio cluster gently caress to bust some fantasy weapons dealer that burned down their house when a tear gas grenade ignited, shot the dog in front of the crying family while laughing at them and their tank rolled over someone's car because they forgot to put it in park was a no-knock. And if memory serves the huge cache of illegal guns didn't exist. I still don't comprhehend how this rear end in a top hat doesn't have FBI crawling up his rear end, I'd wonder how he keeps getting elected but it's scared old white people city so no surprise ther. Edit: gently caress I should not have looked that up http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/dog-day-afternoon-6438729 -they got dressed up in their milsurp toys in front of the house. Real sneaky. -They blamed the fire on a candle. Since they didn't bother to have paramedics or a fire truck standing by they just let the house burn down. Didn't bother warn neighbors maybe they should evacuate. -Don't read if you don't want to throw up: They chased the families 10 month old dog back into the house, laughed at the family while they listened to it burn to death then left it in there to rot for 5 days. Buts it's all good, turns out the guy had an outstanding warrant for unpaid parking tickets! Toasticle fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Dec 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
The best part is if the.cops think that the person in the house will actively resist, they won't do a no knock. Too unsafe.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
I don't think anyone in this thread will defend Arpaio. Dude represents the worst of the worst of American law enforcement, it's amazing he is still in office.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
It's not that amazing once you remember that a good deal of Americans will support cops murdering unarmed civilians as long as there's some lip service explaining why the victim deserved in and maybe some out of context facebook pics. Even when it happens to white mayors it's "well it's a simple mistake what do you want them to do, NOT bust into the wrong house if it means some low level dealers don't get nabbed???" There's no way to combat it via the system since the majority of voters are good with it so you can't vote out elected positions, currupt police are protected at every step of the justice system, and any sort of protest is "inconvenient" or gets brutalized with the support of the media and most established politicians.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Trained professional has a negligent discharge while loving around with his sidearm. http://www.kcci.com/news/officer-pr...m_source=Social
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Trained professional has a negligent discharge while loving around with his sidearm. This should be a firing offense and should also bar him from ever serving as a police officer again but lol at the thought he'll face any type of appropriate punishment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:I don't think anyone in this thread will defend Arpaio. There's always more and it's always worse. But I seriously don't understand how the justice department has let this sick gently caress alone. He left a woman arrested for prostitution in a cage in the Arizona sun and shock, she's dead. How does that not get the Feds crawling up your rear end with a microscope? The fucker is proud that he treats prisoners barely a step above chattel slaves, just making them live in tents in loving Arizona has to violate cruel and unusual. Edit: actually reminds me of a question for any lawyers left: How/Why is forced labor allowed in prisons? Doing it for commissary money fine but I don't recall sentances including forced labor. Aren't you just sentanced to be locked up for X time? I forget if it was this thread but there was a story about a prison where refusal to work meant solitary (Which is another legal question, most psychiatrists I've seen say it is unequivocally torture after 24 hours, without human contact or stimulus you literally start to lose your mind and fairly quickly, how is that allowed?) Toasticle fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Dec 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:
Isn't there a deliberate exception in the 13th amendment to allow prisoners to be used as slaves?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Manic_Misanthrope posted:Isn't there a deliberate exception in the 13th amendment to allow prisoners to be used as slaves? Guess there is. It does say "As punishment", so is that just implied to part of your sentance? My first thought was it has to be actually given as your punishment as it doesn't specify just being in prison but I imagine that would be like arguing what a militia is in gunchat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:But I seriously don't understand how the justice department has let this sick gently caress alone. He left a woman arrested for prostitution in a cage in the Arizona sun and shock, she's dead. How does that not get the Feds crawling up your rear end with a microscope? The fucker is proud that he treats prisoners barely a step above chattel slaves, just making them live in tents in loving Arizona has to violate cruel and unusual.  They've been up in his business since at least 2008, including a three year investigation, and 2012 lawsuit that was partially settled by summary judgement earlier this year. Maybe google next time?Manic_Misanthrope posted:Isn't there a deliberate exception in the 13th amendment to allow prisoners to be used as slaves?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Trained professional has a negligent discharge while loving around with his sidearm. Keep practicing, I guess. Maybe at home though? Or the range? I'm trying to be constructive here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:Edit: actually reminds me of a question for any lawyers left: How/Why is forced labor allowed in prisons? Doing it for commissary money fine but I don't recall sentances including forced labor. Aren't you just sentanced to be locked up for X time? I forget if it was this thread but there was a story about a prison where refusal to work meant solitary (Which is another legal question, most psychiatrists I've seen say it is unequivocally torture after 24 hours, without human contact or stimulus you literally start to lose your mind and fairly quickly, how is that allowed?) If I'm not mistaken, most prison labor is "voluntary". As in, you can volunteer to work for pennies an hour, or you can forget about any sort of "privileges" like interacting with other people or going outside.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
And yet he's still Sheriff. Guess he needed more sworn complaints before he could be removed from law enforcement 
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
Yeah, the devasting investigation into racial profiling Latinos on traffic stops. (Yes that's bad still) Just maybe I was referring to what I was actually posting about like letting a woman die locked in a cage in the Arizona desert. Going after him for the horrific poo poo he pulls like her or burning down that guys house is what I was referring to, which you could have asked instead of being a dick but whatever. Maybe it's a Capone situation in that's all they could prove but (rightfully) going after him for being a racist scumbag towards Latinos is about as far from the fbi/doj crawling up his rear end as you can get.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:And yet he's still Sheriff. Guess he needed more sworn complaints before he could be removed from law enforcement
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 20:44 |
|
|
Toasticle posted:like her or burning down that guys house
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 07:23
|
|
