|
mlmp08 posted:So let’s suppose for the sake of argument that Brown was killed purely because of drug trade. This is the more important part of the tweet in my opinion. I think the "thinly veiled threat" as it's been called here is just a poor command of the English language. But a declarative statement about innocence/guilt or whether third party comments are factual or not is not only incredibly premature, it's a clear conflict of interest. There is no way for the Chief of DPD to know with absolute certainty whether or not his department was involved - the investigation/judicial process around a murder generally takes weeks at a minimum, more often months unless they have a signed confession. To me this reads more like "Move along citizen, nothing to see here" than it does a threat. And when the victim in this case was a key witness in a murder trial that already had a corrupted investigation process by the same department that just doesn't fly - DPD needs to be more forthcoming, not obfuscating further.
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 09:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:50 |
|
|
And don't forget he was going to be involved in the civil suit, as well
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 16:26
|
|
|
UP THE BUM NO BABY posted:And don't forget he was going to be involved in the civil suit, as well
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 16:53
|
|
|
McNally posted:"We encourage those leaders to be mindful because their words may jeapordize (sic) the integrity of the city of Dallas and DPD" reads like being told "be careful what you say, for your own safety" accompanied by a hard stare. Yeah, it's not a particularly veiled statement. It's "dad sitting on the porch cleaning a shotgun" veiled, except far more credible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 17:18
|
|
|
joat mon posted:What does he add to the civil suit? The x - factor 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 17:20
|
|
|
The afterparty, allegedly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 17:21
|
|
|
Ok lets give the guy the benefit of the doubt for a second and assume he legit didn't mean it to sound like a threat. One of your cops just got convicted for murder followed shortly by one of the star witnesses getting murdered before they could testify in a civil suit that is still pending. If you can't figure out that your statement needs to be 100% not a threat then you are an idiot and useless as a police chief because no sane member of the public you serve should ever trust you. Its like the bit from Its Always Sunny. We gotta definitely write a song about how we don't murder people. Do not murder people its no good murdering people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 21:03
|
|
|
So basically our options are "too incompetent to not voice a threat publicly" or "too incompetent to wordsmith a statement that doesn't sound like a threat." I'm seeing a pattern here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 21:08
|
|
|
God drat install police protection devices on your home if you live in the Dallas-FW area. https://www.fox4news.com/news/woman...gTIL0hwffu2K6Qw
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 21:34
|
|
|
Grem posted:God drat install police protection devices on your home if you live in the Dallas-FW area. Article posted:While responding officers were searching the area, an officer looked inside the home through a window, and saw a person standing inside. Getting on my favorite hobby horse, the difference I perceive between police doctrine and military doctrine is the police put their safety above all else while the military puts mission accomplishment above all else. The police's mission should be to ensure public safety and to enforce the law, not to ensure the officer safety.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 22:08
|
|
|
Calling the handgun a plant and you can't convince me otherwise. The track record is there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 22:24
|
|
|
Seeing how they cant remember to turn off the camera half the time theyre planting drugs anything found by police at a scene shouldbt pass "beyond a reasonable doubt" in court
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 22:42
|
|
|
EBB posted:Calling the handgun a plant and you can't convince me otherwise. The track record is there. Or they found it in the bedside table in the bedroom far far away from the person.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 22:58
|
|
|
bird cooch posted:Or they found it in the bedside table in the bedroom far far away from the person. This was my assumption too
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 23:06
|
|
|
this seems like a great example of gunpower: that someone had a gun is ventured as a justification for a cop killing them with a gun. this is offensive from an abstract perspective of a right to bear arms, but makes perfect sense if you feel the purpose of that right, and of guns themselves, is to enforce our society's current hierarchy. in that light, it is natural for police (and men and white folks in general) to order, threaten, and kill people within their socially recognized area of control (a "beat," an ethnically privilehed neighborhood, a house, etc).
Doc Hawkins fucked around with this message at 23:16 on Oct 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 23:12
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:this seems like a great example of gunpower: that someone had a gun is ventured as a justification for a cop killing them with a gun. this is offensive from an abstract perspective of a right to bear arms, but makes perfect sense if you feel the purpose of that right, and of guns themselves, is to enforce our society's current hierarchy. in that light, it is natural for police (and men and white folks in general) to order, threaten, and kill people within their socially recognized area of control (a "beat," an ethnically privilehed neighborhood, a house, etc). Your writing style is very evocative of a crazy uncle who ever says things that are correct by accident.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 23:41
|
|
|
wow another isolated incident!
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 23:59
|
|
|
McNally posted:Your writing style is very evocative of a crazy uncle who ever says things that are correct by accident. I accept the criticism, and I think I understand it. I've found the idea of "gunpower" very convincing, but it can sound like a Metal Gear Solid monologue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 00:39
|
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:wow another isolated incident!
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 01:02
|
|
|
In case you didn't think LEOs had a high enough opinion of themselves, there are now Airborne qualified SWAT teams. https://www.recoilweb.com/airborne-with-the-countrys-first-parachute-qualified-swat-team-148068.html article posted:Fast-forward to 2017. A similar situation struck the island of Puerto Rico which, at time of writing, is still a long way off from anything resembling a full recovery. What’s the difference? In a foreign nation, such as Haiti, it’s perfectly acceptable for military units to conduct humanitarian aid, policing actions, and operations to restore and maintain civil order. But both of the latter missions usually require some application of force, up to and including the lethal kind.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 01:36
|
|
|
Grem posted:God drat install police protection devices on your home if you live in the Dallas-FW area. Sadly she failed her duty to lock.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 01:46
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:This is the more important part of the tweet in my opinion. I think the "thinly veiled threat" as it's been called here is just a poor command of the English language. But a declarative statement about innocence/guilt or whether third party comments are factual or not is not only incredibly premature, it's a clear conflict of interest. There is no way for the Chief of DPD to know with absolute certainty whether or not his department was involved - the investigation/judicial process around a murder generally takes weeks at a minimum, more often months unless they have a signed confession. "Move along citizen, nothing to see here" is also an implicit threat. Edit: Remember also this is Texas. Even if the lady was armed to the teeth and carrying an AK at high ready, she'd be perfectly within her legal rights. Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 09:34 on Oct 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 09:29
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:"Move along citizen, nothing to see here" is also an implicit threat. I was referencing a tweet about an entirely different incident, the Joshua Brown murder after the Guyger trial. The Fort Worth shooting is 100% bad as described (I haven't seen the video), there is no defense, that dude needs to spend time behind bars.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 13:56
|
|
|
https://amp.star-telegram.com/news/local/fort-worth/article236067328.html?__twitter_impression=truequote:In the video, he does not identify himself as an officer. Is it slowly becoming SOP to be secret squirrel SEAL Team like now for welfare checks
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 18:30
|
|
|
EBB posted:I'm not differentiating any more since the "good guy in a bad department" theory isn't panning out at all. You're either in uniform being part of the problem via silent acceptance or active participation in lovely activities, or not. The sweeping changes needed to policing in the US need to come from an external governing body but pigs will fly before that happens in the current atmosphere.. I'll take it to detainment if we want to discuss further. I want to see the problems in the system fixed, but I do not understand the objective of your statement. The intended outcomes are not immediately apparent, and I ask that you help me understand what the intended outcomes are. I interpret the above statement as implying there is no value in separating an 'ethical cop' from a cop that has failed to meet ethical standards (I will refer to as an 'unethical cop'), and that all cops are 'unethical cops'. Is this interpretation accurate? This suggests that the only way to maintain an ethical position is to not be a member of the police force. The implicit encouragement seems to be 'don't fix it'. If you're a cop, you're clearly an unethical cop, because there are no other options. So if you're an unethical cop that aspires to be an ethical person, you must leave the force. If a person stays to try and change the culture of the police or more responsibly enforce internal administration their actions are doomed to failure and likely to alter that person's ethical aspirations. If seen to its conclusion then, no persons ethical or aspiring to be ethical should remain or join the police force. Does my interpretation follow your intent? If my interpretation matches your intent and we're in agreement on the expectations that follow, is the intended outcome of this sentiment: 1) that enough cops leave that the system fails, 2) that cops are so clearly unethical that the governed take action, 3) no outcome, no interest in second order effects, or 4) some other outcome? If 1, is the next less proximate intended outcome of this sentiment: a) state or federal governments are forced to step in to maintain order, (i.e. DOD forces utilized temporarily until new standards and force are created), b) system and private entities fill the void, (NGO groups, for profit security, etc), c) system fails and we realize that we don't need police forces, or d) some other outcome? If 2, is the next less proximate intended outcome of this sentiment: a) state or federal governments establish new regulations, b) state or federal governments establish a new force (i.e. gendarme) to consolidate the disparate police forces with a series set of policies more effective at matching the country's ethics, or c) some other outcome?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 18:31
|
|
|
piL posted:words You could have the most pure and amazing point in the universe, but I stopped reading, because your writing style is unforgivable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 18:37
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:You could have the most pure and amazing point in the universe, but I stopped reading, because your writing style is unforgivable. My only point is someone please explain to me the next step after "cops suck, gently caress all cops." I don't get it, but a lot of people seem to behave as if it's obvious and the only thing that needs to happen is for cops to gently caress off and everything will be solved.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 18:46
|
|
|
Well, we could do away with carceral capitalism and better invest in healthcare and education, or we can maintain our empire with more defense and law enforcement spending and cheap labor in prisons
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 18:51
|
|
|
Communities that policed themselves last got labeled as ghettos and gangs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 18:53
|
|
|
Nobody is kidding themselves that violent, armed revolution is immediately around the corner. In the meantime I feel relatively powerless to do anything about the uniform culture. Police unions and the thin blue line will always protect their own, so change isn't going to come from within. The judicial and legislative bodies that should have oversight over policing bodies are also complicit in advancing this culture instead of stomping it out, as is their duty. As a civilian I cannot change internal police culture and don't feel that I can elect persons who care to or are able to change police culture. I have no desire to run for office. The best effort I can give is activism, and warning others that the people in uniforms are not there for the safety of the public any more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 18:53
|
|
|
piL posted:My only point is someone please explain to me the next step after "cops suck, gently caress all cops." I don't get it, but a lot of people seem to behave as if it's obvious and the only thing that needs to happen is for cops to gently caress off and everything will be solved. I vote for people who should be the ones solving this issue, because I don’t know how. Until they do, gently caress all cops. Hope this helps.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 18:53
|
|
|
UP THE BUM NO BABY posted:Well, we could do away with carceral capitalism and better invest in healthcare and education, or we can maintain our empire with more defense and law enforcement spending and cheap labor in prisons This is a position I understand. It doesn't demand getting rid of all cops, unless I'm misinterpreting it. Moreover, I don't believe encouraging cops whose ethics match that sentiment to leave the force will have any kind of positive effect on the likelihood of its outcome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 19:00
|
|
|
EBB posted:Nobody is kidding themselves that violent, armed revolution is immediately around the corner. In the meantime I feel relatively powerless to do anything about the uniform culture. Police unions and the thin blue line will always protect their own, so change isn't going to come from within. The judicial and legislative bodies that should have oversight over policing bodies are also complicit in advancing this culture instead of stomping it out, as is their duty. As a civilian I cannot change internal police culture and don't feel that I can elect persons who care to or are able to change police culture. I have no desire to run for office. The best effort I can give is activism, and warning others that the people in uniforms are not there for the safety of the public any more. Learn who your judges and sheriffs were before you vote for them. Vote for minorites and those that fight for the Rights of minorites.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 19:05
|
|
|
Wasabi the J posted:Learn who your judges and sheriffs were before you vote for them. Just posting to remind people that just because the candidate is of a minority, don't mean they fight for the rights of minorities Do your homework folks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 19:14
|
|
|
EBB posted:Nobody is kidding themselves that violent, armed revolution is immediately around the corner. In the meantime I feel relatively powerless to do anything about the uniform culture. Police unions and the thin blue line will always protect their own, so change isn't going to come from within. The judicial and legislative bodies that should have oversight over policing bodies are also complicit in advancing this culture instead of stomping it out, as is their duty. As a civilian I cannot change internal police culture and don't feel that I can elect persons who care to or are able to change police culture. I have no desire to run for office. The best effort I can give is activism, and warning others that the people in uniforms are not there for the safety of the public any more. This makes sense, cynicism taking over because of perceived powerlessness. Thank you for taking the time to explain it because I hadn't thought about it from a focus on communicating sentiment over policy. What worries me is that without a nuanced discussion that considers objectives and means of obtaining those objectives, it's impossible for an actionable consensuses to emerge and drive public policy. Without objective and policy goals, you cannot hold your elected officials responsible for not voting towards those goals. The best we can hope for then would be for the noise to become large enough that politicians develop policies and offer them to the public to encourage their own elections and I don't see that happening by 2020. Edit: colachute posted:I vote for people who should be the ones solving this issue, because I don’t know how. Until they do, gently caress all cops. It does, thank you. Unfortunately, until there's a discussion on how to fix it (that doesn't necessarily have to come from you), I don't think any of the people you vote for will be able to do anything about it or be held accountable for not doing anything about it. piL fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Oct 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 19:17
|
|
|
We should disarm all police and repeal the 2nd amendment
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 19:24
|
|
|
1) No more DoD freebies for police departments 2) Vets get in line with everyone else trying to apply (because I know banning vets from being cops will not happen) 3) BA in some kind of relevant field required 4) National standards/policies for all departments 4a) Federal oversight for all PDs (no idea what this looks like) 5) Bring back residency requirements 6) No individual department may have a SWAT team (to reserve then for real SWAT situations) 7) Make all policing community policing. Get out of the cars and learn people's names 8-999) Other things I haven't thought of
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 19:25
|
|
|
#3 is particularly worthless, but overall I like em.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 19:26
|
|
|
stealie72 posted:1) No more DoD freebies for police departments Cops will never change themselves if they do not get rid of white nationalists. "You will not replace us," literally their statement that implies they are not going anywhere and are embedded everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 19:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:50 |
|
|
Godholio posted:#3 is particularly worthless, but overall I like em. Wasabi the J posted:Cops will never change themselves if they do not get rid of white nationalists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 19:30
|
|