|
https://twitter.com/yashar/status/908780976498671617
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 14:31 |
|
|
Now that's how you do a racsexism.  I'm sure Huckabee-Sanders will be right on that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
khy posted:Weirdly enough given that SLC is the single most important location for the Mormon church, the culture in SLC is the least mormon in any place in the state of Utah. All the cities surrounding SLC are far, far, far worse about being rabidly mormon while the city itself, especially downtown, tends to be far less so. There's still a lot of mormons, don't get me wrong, but you're far more likely to encounter people of different religions (Or none at all) in the capital than anywhere else in the state. It's also quite liberal compared to the rest of the state which is HEAVILY conservative. If you were going to live anywhere in the state SLC is the best place to be for a non-mormon. The Mormons I know from non-SLC Utah are either crazy zealots who seem eager to fit every stereotype, or the most r/atheism haters of religion in general and Mormonism in particular on the planet. The Mormons I know from SLC and outside the state are almost entirely extremely cool, friendly, and serious about the "be good to each other" stuff, or they're chill Jack Mormons. What I'm saying is yeah avoid Utah outside SLC, also flying through SLC is weird as hell because for someone like me from England the landscape is straight-up alien.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
lol this guy played into the dudebro stereotype so much he forgot that it was a stereotype
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:The Mormons I know from non-SLC Utah are either crazy zealots who seem eager to fit every stereotype, or the most r/atheism haters of religion in general and Mormonism in particular on the planet. The Mormons I know from SLC and outside the state are almost entirely extremely cool, friendly, and serious about the "be good to each other" stuff, or they're chill Jack Mormons. Agreed. It's just bizarre that the city that is the center of mormon culture (Location of the main HQ, the biggest and most important temple, et al) is the least Mormon place in the state. It kinda sucks because right now Utah's in a great place compared to so much of the rest of the country in terms of jobs, economy, housing and so on, but a lot of people are put off by some of the religious crazies we have here. And I don't blame them at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
Footnote 6: "the statement was not intelligible when the recording was played during the trial" is pretty unfortunate. "The statement" is clear as loving day on lovely youtube vids.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Yeah, it's limited in scope but the benefit is that it'd circumvent that bureaucracy and directly access/impact the officers in question. Presently, the cost of their malfeasance is an externality. The community pays, the community suffers. With mandatory 'malpractice insurance,' the individual officers pay and suffer, too. Javes posted:Body cam records also need to be stored by a third party, or have have independent oversight. Ogmius815 posted:Hey here is an idea: maybe we shouldn't adopt a slew of anti-defendant criminal procedure reforms just in one situation the bastard tends to get off? A lot of people are proposing dismantling defendant protections in order to level the playing field against the structural advantages police officers enjoy, and it's just the wrong way to go about it. If you don't want juries to be biased against black defendants, then you need to work on making the jury pool, society as a whole, less racist. Some of those structural advantages are basically insurmountable as well: law enforcement officers are always going to be more familiar with the criminal justice system, be less likely to incriminate themselves, testify better, and have cleaner records than he average defendant. In terms of fixes for the here-and-now, I'd say that having a standby crisis intervention team for mental health & DV calls is a great idea, and increased funding for implicit bias training and crisis intervention training would be good. I don't think either one would have helped in this case though. This is pure fantasy though: RuanGacho posted:I would take it a step further and make a position that is literally there to make sure cops act as peace officers instead of state militia, like they have to be monitored on site or remotely at all times and can't pull weapons without that clearance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:When has this been a problem? I mean in terms of actual destruction of evidence. As it is now, spoliation of evidence rules seem to neatly cover the situation. you know how officers body cameras have a nasty habit of "stopping working" at moments of high tension, at the conclusion of which someone is dead and for some reason this is not considered spoliation of evidence
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:you know how officers body cameras have a nasty habit of "stopping working" at moments of high tension, at the conclusion of which someone is dead
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
it's just a mechanical fault, DR. after all, what incentive would the officers in question have to lie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:i think of denver and seattle as kind of sister cities. I'd like to point out that for several years in a row, MLS would schedule a game between the Sounders and the Rapids on the week of 4/20.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
skylined! posted:lol this guy played into the dudebro stereotype so much he forgot that it was a stereotype 
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Can you provide a specific example of this? http://lmgtfy.com/?q=officer+turns+off+body+cam Here ya go you lazy piece of poo poo
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
The free market will fix the justice system.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:The Mormons I know from non-SLC Utah are either crazy zealots who seem eager to fit every stereotype, or the most r/atheism haters of religion in general and Mormonism in particular on the planet. The Mormons I know from SLC and outside the state are almost entirely extremely cool, friendly, and serious about the "be good to each other" stuff, or they're chill Jack Mormons. Count south east Idaho as Utah here for consistency. Boise's sort of the same way. The city itself is fairly liberal but turns beet red outside it. Except guns we loving love shooting stuff. Please move here and spread your liberal/leftist agenda far and wide.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
 I believe in boobs too!!~But seriously what the hell?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Can you provide a specific example of this? One of the most high profile police brutality cases this month with an NFL player Michael Bennett, the Las Vegas police officer conveniently had his body cam off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
empty whippet box posted:http://lmgtfy.com/?q=officer+turns+off+body+cam Here ya go you lazy piece of poo poo
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:There are plenty of examples of officers turning off their body cameras in questionable situations, or thinking they had and incriminating themselves, but a 3rd party having access to the footage won't solve the issue of the footage not being collected in the first place. I'm asking for an example of when the department is alleged to have destroyed already collected evidence after the fact, which is the problem an outside body having access to the footage would solve. Watch those goal posts move. You originally quoted this post: Ze Pollack posted:you know how officers body cameras have a nasty habit of "stopping working" at moments of high tension, at the conclusion of which someone is dead but now you're asking for proof of destroyed footage not bodycams that fail to record.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:There are plenty of examples of officers turning off their body cameras in questionable situations, or thinking they had and incriminating themselves, but a 3rd party having access to the footage won't solve the issue of the footage not being collected in the first place. I'm asking for an example of when the department is alleged to have destroyed already collected evidence after the fact, which is the problem an outside body having access to the footage would solve. No, you asked for a specfic examples of someone turning it off during high tension that was later lost when it may or may not have been incriminating. Also, you're a pedantic goal post moving piece of poo poo who is transparently desperate to defend murderers. https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...m=.c8960d99f8d6 6th entry down, btw. e: Feel free to address how the bolded part is actually the problem, but you won't Unoriginal Name fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Sep 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
The post I originally quoted and was responding to was this:Javes posted:Body cam records also need to be stored by a third party, or have have independent oversight.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
A bright spot in a sea of despair https://twitter.com/gothicdogsclub/status/908370757713100806
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
my example of police questionable handling video evidence: i had a friend get arrested after a car crash for a DUI. he did all the field sobriety tests but refused to blow because he didn't want a false positive. he says that during the tests he did a fine job completing them and was able to hold up a conversation with the police. after he got cuffed and was being taken away he got very animated, as lots of people do, and was ranting and raving in the car on the way to the police station. at his trial the police could only find the video tape of the part where he was in the car. somehow the video from the car pointed directly at him to light up the area he was supposed to do the field sobriety tests and when he was his most composed was missing! they couldn't find the one piece of evidence that could have helped exonerate him, but the footage of him in the back of the police car was, of course, available and shown at the trial. he was found not guilty by some miracle, but that to me stood out as a perfect, everyday example of how the police can manipulate things like video evidence. "oops, the one part that could have helped you is missing! here's the part that will incriminate you though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
Rigel posted:A bright spot in a sea of despair They're removed because their recovering, not extinct right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:They're removed because their recovering, not extinct right? They were upgraded to "vulnerable", I think
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
Good enough for me. I'd definitely support another county office having custody of the records.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Which doesn't solve the issue of body cams being turned off. So I guess we're talking past each other. if a third party was in charge of the body cams then there would never be a need to turn them on or off. they'd just be on all the time and the incidents in question would be collected and sent to lawyers come trial time. this might have the added benefit of not letting cops watch the video and construct plausible alibis from that
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
tentative8e8op posted:
my instincts say hes grabbing a gun to plant. but just looking at the video from a evidence perspective i dont know what he has in his hand if i was a lawyer id want to videotape replicate that situation to see what a grainy gun held at an angle looks like also does he put it in his pocket? because i read there was footage of him walking towards the victims car and there was nothing in his hand. what did the defense say he was grabbing there?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 23:13
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The post I originally quoted and was responding to was this: As technology advances hopefully we'll soon reach the point where it's feasible for them to just never be turned off, and livestream to an offsite third party.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:As technology advances hopefully we'll soon reach the point where it's feasible for them to just never be turned off, and livestream to an offsite third party. goodness, isn't that the dream
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:This is the dumbest poo poo. Not only is it loving cruel to the homeless but abandoned houses are just gonna keep getting worse and depreciate. It's better to have someone living there and taking care of the place which I'm sure they'd be able to do especially if they had access to proper resources and mental health care. theres no situation where a homeless person does anything but destroy a property and spread feces all over the walls. they are homeless for a reason. the few times ive sat down with homeless people to feed them and talked to them about helping them turn their life around ive anecdotally learned that its all substance abuse based. and theyre ok enough with their life. they have stolen cell phones they can connect to burger king wifi and scrounge together some food and money for drugs. sometimes the woman talk about wantint different life but cant kick the habit. the men just dont care im down with a program that gives homeless people care though. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
It's possible now, I just don't know where I'm going to get the money to octuple the size of my storage array just for the dozen officers I support right now. It's not so simple as clouding it because it needs evidentiary custody and public records access.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:theres no situation where a homeless person does anything but destroy a property and spread feces all over the walls. they are homeless for a reason. the few times ive sat down with homeless people to feed them and talked to them about helping them turn their life around ive anecdotally learned that its all substance abuse based. and theyre ok enough with their life. they have stolen cell phones they can connect to burger king wifi and scrounge together some food and money for drugs. sometimes the woman talk about wantint different life but cant kick the habit. the men just dont care hooooooooly poo poo
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:if a third party was in charge of the body cams then there would never be a need to turn them on or off. they'd just be on all the time and the incidents in question would be collected and sent to lawyers come trial time. this might have the added benefit of not letting cops watch the video and construct plausible alibis from that Public records laws are tricky when you are trying to balance public interest against individual liberty. IMO, the best solution would be for each state to have an agency, maybe within the state Inspector General office or similar, that functions like the NTSB investigations that review CVR Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Sep 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:theres no situation where a homeless person does anything but destroy a property and spread feces all over the walls. they are homeless for a reason. the few times ive sat down with homeless people to feed them and talked to them about helping them turn their life around ive anecdotally learned that its all substance abuse based. and theyre ok enough with their life. they have stolen cell phones they can connect to burger king wifi and scrounge together some food and money for drugs. sometimes the woman talk about wantint different life but cant kick the habit. the men just dont care Man, can we give you 2 custom titles somehow?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:It's possible now, I just don't know where I'm going to get the money to octuple the size of my storage array just for the dozen officers I support right now. It's not so simple as clouding it because it needs evidentiary custody and public records access. fewer tanks, more storage arrays. with all that GWoT money, i don't think it'd be too hard to scrounge up the necessary resources. logosanatic posted:theres no situation where a homeless person does anything but destroy a property and spread feces all over the walls. they are homeless for a reason. the few times ive sat down with homeless people to feed them and talked to them about helping them turn their life around ive anecdotally learned that its all substance abuse based. and theyre ok enough with their life. they have stolen cell phones they can connect to burger king wifi and scrounge together some food and money for drugs. sometimes the woman talk about wantint different life but cant kick the habit. the men just dont care lmao. yes, substance abuse and mental illness are almost always linked in the line of social work. but taking the stance that these people are hopeless is stupid. like, what do you think social workers do? how important do you think reliable, safe shelter is for helping people turn their lives around? i'll give you a hint: its very important
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:what did the defense say he was grabbing there?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:If the purpose of the cameras is transparency, there isn't any reason why the police shouldn't be allowed to use the recordings in writing their reports. The only reason to withhold it is in hopes of catching the officers in a contradiction and encourages them to try to defeat the system. You want them to want to capture as much on camera as possible, because it will further serve to highlight situations where collection was questionable. Yeah, that's a double standard with how the cameras are used against suspects, but the fundamental issue is that government employees have a massively different relationship with their employer than private sector employees do, and you can't really dick around with that without setting up 5th Amendment conflicts. remember back when police officers body cams mysteriously stopping working at moments of high tension wasn't actually a problem, as far as you were concerned good times
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:theres no situation where a homeless person does anything but destroy a property and spread feces all over the walls. they are homeless for a reason. the few times ive sat down with homeless people to feed them and talked to them about helping them turn their life around ive anecdotally learned that its all substance abuse based. and theyre ok enough with their life. they have stolen cell phones they can connect to burger king wifi and scrounge together some food and money for drugs. sometimes the woman talk about wantint different life but cant kick the habit. the men just dont care :extremely kramer voice and kramer mannerisms and just kramering everywhere:
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 14:31 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:If the purpose of the cameras is transparency, there isn't any reason why the police shouldn't be allowed to use the recordings in writing their reports. The only reason to withhold it is in hopes of catching the officers in a contradiction and encourages them to try to defeat the system. You want them to want to capture as much on camera as possible, because it will further serve to highlight situations where collection was questionable. Yeah, that's a double standard with how the cameras are used against suspects, but the fundamental issue is that government employees have a massively different relationship with their employer than private sector employees do, and you can't really dick around with that without setting up 5th Amendment conflicts. i see no problem with this, other than linking the office with an elected official who may need police union sponsorship for his campaign (i can't remember if inspector generals are elected or not…).
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 23:33
|
|