|
joat mon posted:Unions are good. The Fifth Amendment is good. People who are police officers should be able to be in a union and should be able to use the Fifth Amendment. Ok, but it doesn't have to be all or nothing, either. Let the police have a union, but given their role in society and their ability to use deadly force, it can't have quite the same ironclad protections as other unionized jobs, it has special exceptions, higher standards, etc. Not hard to devise. As several other posters have said, this has less to do with unions and more to do with the police, who are authorized to use deadly force on behalf of the state and whose testimony is given far more weight than than your average citizen.
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 05:00 |
|
|
Also, there is no reason officers who refuse to report other officers' misconduct should avoid repercussions, yet they do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
rockopete posted:Ok, but it doesn't have to be all or nothing, either. Let the police have a union, but given their role in society and their ability to use deadly force, it can't have quite the same ironclad protections as other unionized jobs, it has special exceptions, higher standards, etc. Not hard to devise. For example, there are unionized jobs in highly regulated industries that still have zero tolerance employment policies (e.g. no bringing drugs/alcohol into the worksite). Devor posted:What's the benefit of rushing things? I would hope that the prosecutor would at least take a few days to build a bulletproof indictment. It's not like the police officers are a flight risk, or going to kill more people under color of law while they're suspended. We get it, cops should just get the platonic ideal of the justice system, while the rest of us have to "earn it" somehow in the future. Can't complain that the cops get it better than anyone else because we should "lift all boats" or whatever the placating metaphor of choice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Plus everyone is jumping to assuming that these officers are under union negotiated protections and not just common police courtesy. Have they said a crime has been committed? I was under the impression you couldn't be arrested in the United States unless they actually had something to charge you with. In the UK you can be arrested as a person of interest to the investigation, which is a bit different and would have allowed them to do it straight away. Like even in that case where the officer lied thinking there was no video, he wasn't arrested until an investigation had decided a crime had been committed and it wasn't covered by them doing their normal duties. Of course the fact the police can empty clips into a car when the person they're aiming at has no weapons and a child in there could ever be deemed as them doing their job is a whole other can of worms.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Have they said a crime has been committed? I was under the impression you couldn't be arrested in the United States unless they actually had something to charge you with. Nope and yup in that order. Which is why getting upset about the lack of an arrest is premature.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Of course the fact the police can empty clips into a car when the person they're aiming at has no weapons and a child in there could ever be deemed as them doing their job is a whole other can of worms. That is the crime that was committed. If anyone that wasn't a police officer did this, they would have been arrested immediately and put behind bars; such a person wouldn't get the benefit of roaming free waiting for an investigation to determine if there was a crime.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:That is the crime that was committed. If anyone that wasn't a police officer did this, they would have been arrested immediately and put behind bars; such a person wouldn't get the benefit of roaming free waiting for an investigation to determine if there was a crime. George Zimmerman.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:That is the crime that was committed. If anyone that wasn't a police officer did this, they would have been arrested immediately and put behind bars; such a person wouldn't get the benefit of roaming free waiting for an investigation to determine if there was a crime. But a normal person would have no reason to do that. A police office may(Incredibly unlikely in this case) have had reason to do so, which is why an investigation must be carried out to determine if it was legal or not. Your example is rather hyperbolic too. If a Surgeon cuts someone open and they die they'd be investigated to work out if it was murder or not, and if it was found to be murder they would be arrested then. A normal person however would be arrested on the spot as it is not their job to cut people open. I should probably point out before i'm called a bootlicker that in this case I firmly believe this marshall intended to kill the guy in the car no matter what. Its just I would like that these people not get let off on a technicality because the rush to charge means somethings not done correctly. serious gaylord fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Except there's a very real epidemic of police outright murdering people in this country and getting away with it. Surgeons don't have that problem. Normal people don't have that problem. Cops in other countries don't have that problem. But American cops do. These investigations to determine if there was a crime do nothing except buy time for the murderers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:Nope and yup in that order. Which is why getting upset about the lack of an arrest is premature. Or alternatively, it is something to get upset about when cops kill a child and their buddies won't even declare that a crime occurred. ayn rand hand job posted:George Zimmerman. Zimmerman didn't kill someone in addition to his "attacker".
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Zimmerman didn't kill someone in addition to his "attacker". Not for lack of trying, apparently. A year later he was arrested for stalking people outside a club or some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Or alternatively, it is something to get upset about when cops kill a child and their buddies won't even declare that a crime occurred. 60 hours later, and the prosecutor still hasn't established probable cause for an indictment, to identify who among the four officers present were responsible for the death of the child! How outrageous! You do a disservice to your argument by clamoring for instant action. Give it a week and then we can start calling bullshit on the delays, but when the people involved are refusing to give statements it will take a little while to establish the facts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Devor posted:60 hours later, and the prosecutor still hasn't established probable cause for an indictment, to identify who among the four officers present were responsible for the death of the child! How outrageous! 60 hours to figure out which cops shot up the side of the car? Really? If these people weren't cops anyone with a gun that had been fired would have been arrested.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Or alternatively, it is something to get upset about when cops kill a child and their buddies won't even declare that a crime occurred. Circular logic. They're not declaring a crime occurred BECAUSE THE INVESTIGATION IS STILL ONGOING. The sequence of events here is investigation -> warrant -> arrest -> trial. Just because you and I both can look at it and from the facts presented come to that conclusion doesn't make it a crime until the police conclude their investigation and the DA decides to charge, not charge, or punt it to a grand jury. I don't get what your issue is here that you're arguing. Everyone is saying the same thing "yes this looks like murder". You still have to wait for the official call though before you throw accusations out there. And you cannot arrest someone until you're ready to press charges. I'm of a like mind as the posters above: let those officers exercise every right, every trick at their disposal. It'll only be that much more damning when the evidence comes down. We saw this with Slager. I imagine we'll see it again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Devor posted:You do a disservice to your argument by clamoring for instant action. Give it a week and then we can start calling bullshit on the delays, but when the people involved are refusing to give statements it will take a little while to establish the facts. Why give the benefit of the doubt here when, even in the face of overwhelming evidence of their guilt, officers will still walk away from what would be an unjustifiable murder anywhere else? From Michael Brown to Tamir Rice to Eric Garner to this, what precedent is there that the prosecutor is going to do their job and these cops will face justice? No one except an American cop gets this kind of special treatment. Raerlynn posted:Everyone is saying the same thing "yes this looks like murder". You still have to wait for the official call though before you throw accusations out there. And you cannot arrest someone until you're ready to press charges. Cops arrest people on the spot before any investigations occur.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:Why give the benefit of the doubt here when, even in the face of overwhelming evidence of their guilt, officers will still walk away from what would be an unjustifiable murder anywhere else? From Michael Brown to Tamir Rice to Eric Garner to this, what precedent is there that the prosecutor is going to do their job and these cops will face justice? Michael Slager. Chalets the Baka posted:Cops arrest people on the spot before any investigations occur. And they have to be released within a short period or get charged. Just because some precincts abuse this process is not grounds to abuse it here. Raerlynn fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:And they have to be released within a short period or get charged. Just because some precincts abuse this process is not grounds to abuse it here. You really think that would be an abuse of arrest powers to arrest someone when there is a kid shot dead, someone with a gun that's been fired and that someone is refusing to answer questions? You really think that if the police came upon a man shot dead in the street and someone standing next to them with a gun that's been fired, they shouldn't arrest that person?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:Just because some precincts abuse this process is not grounds to abuse it here. Again, what precedence is there that only some precincts are abusing their power and not most? Go ahead, cite your one-off examples of when the system worked; it's a disingenuous deflect when the gestalt is a tattered mess. What makes a cop invulnerable from the same due process every one else receives?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:Michael Slager.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:
The apple doesn't far fall from the tree.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You really think that would be an abuse of arrest powers to arrest someone when there is a kid shot dead, someone with a gun that's been fired and that someone is refusing to answer questions? You know what? My patience for this is at its end. Stop loving frothing at the mouth. I want this to take long. I want it to be long and drawn out. You know why? Because I want the officers to be miserable with this trial hanging over their heads like the loving sword of Damocles. I want the officers to be found guilty in a court of law. I want their defeat to be so complete, so total, that not even the most hardcore police defender can pretend to mount any kind of defense. And I don't want to hand them a loving reason for them to get off on a technicality like a violation of their constitutional rights. So put the torch and pitchforks away fuckstick.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You really think that if the police came upon a man shot dead in the street and someone standing next to them with a gun that's been fired, they shouldn't arrest that person? George Zimmerman. Admit that there is a difference when there is a plausible self defense claim as part of the investigation, and no reason to believe that the suspect would be a danger to others during the investigation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Devor posted:George Zimmerman. He already refuted that. Zimmerman didn't kill someone in addition to his "attacker".
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
If you don't know which of the five headshots killed the 6 year old you cannot hold anyone accountable
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Devor posted:Admit that there is a difference when there is a plausible self defense claim as part of the investigation, and no reason to believe that the suspect would be a danger to others during the investigation. How is someone who, from a safe position, opens fire on a car containing an unarmed adult and a child - then lies about it - not a danger to others?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:You know what? My patience for this is at its end. Stop loving frothing at the mouth. I want this to take long. I want it to be long and drawn out. You know why? Because I want the officers to be miserable with this trial hanging over their heads like the loving sword of Damocles. I want the officers to be found guilty in a court of law. I want their defeat to be so complete, so total, that not even the most hardcore police defender can pretend to mount any kind of defense. And I don't want to hand them a loving reason for them to get off on a technicality like a violation of their constitutional rights. So put the torch and pitchforks away fuckstick. I get it. You have hope that a long process means justice is more likely. I don't. I think the longer and more drawn out the process, the more likely the officers get off. I don't think the Danziger bridge shooters are exactly feeling the sword of Damocles anymore. ayn rand hand job posted:He already refuted that. Also, Zimmerman was talking to investigators. How can these officers both get to share their story about how it went down and also refuse to communicate with investigators?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:How often can someone admit to shooting an unarmed child to death and not get arrested? Yeah this is one of the biggest loads of poo poo. Not talking while you consult an attorney, fine, everyone gets to do that. What non cops do NOT get to do is walk around free while under investigation for blowing away a 6-year old for no reason. Non-cops get to sit in a cell, lose their job and suffer the social repercussions of being a child-murderer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:Yeah this is one of the biggest loads of poo poo. Not talking while you consult an attorney, fine, everyone gets to do that. What non cops do NOT get to do is walk around free while under investigation for blowing away a 6-year old for no reason. Non-cops get to sit in a cell, lose their job and suffer the social repercussions of being a child-murderer. Exactly. This is an incredibly basic concept, and if you have to question that line of thinking then you should probably step away from civilization and do some soul-searching.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:How is someone who, from a safe position, opens fire on a car containing an unarmed adult and a child - then lies about it - not a danger to others? He's a danger as a police officer, which is why he should be suspended pending the outcome of administrative and legal proceedings. I don't think he's a danger to others while the investigation is ongoing. You clearly see the difference, I don't know why you think it somehow makes your position stronger to somehow pretend like you're afflicted by a veil of ignorance where you don't get this point. Chalets the Baka posted:Exactly. This is an incredibly basic concept, and if you have to question that line of thinking then you should probably step away from civilization and do some soul-searching. Why do you think he'd sit in a cell? He's not a danger as a regular citizen, he's a danger as a police officer. He'd be released on his own recognizance since he's not likely to shoot someone before the trial. Your fantasies about punishing him by keeping him in jail prior to trial are antithetical to the constitution.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Devor posted:Your fantasies about punishing him by keeping him in jail prior to trial are antithetical to the constitution. You have got to be kidding me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Devor posted:He's a danger as a police officer, which is why he should be suspended pending the outcome of administrative and legal proceedings. Actually, you're wrong about that. Besides, we arrest people who aren't "danger to society" all the loving time, all that is required is for the cops to have thought you committed a crime. That's the law, that's not "abuse". Now, in any other situation, a dead unarmed child and someone with a gun that has been fired would be called a crime. But since its a cop, they haven't even done that little step yet. (actually, a more accurate analogy would be someone who killed their child while trying to kill/defend against their spouse. Either way, that person would get arrested.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:You have got to be kidding me. People are released on bail, or on their own recognizance. They are refused bail if they are a flight risk, or a danger to the community. Make an argument why he is either of those. Your statement about rotting in jail is clearly punitive, and we can't punish him until he's been convicted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:You have got to be kidding me. He's not. And I'm not either. The reason you hold a suspect in custody after charging him, but before /during a trial is fear of flight or danger to the public at large. A child dying as a result of a shooting the officer was in, but is not yet formally charged for, means he goes free. The police put him in administrative leave while they review the shooting. I would imagine once charges are announced that status will change. Edit - Beaten
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
Devor posted:People are released on bail, or on their own recognizance. They are refused bail if they are a flight risk, or a danger to the community. Why shouldn't the shooter be be arraigned before a judge like everyone else? Why do their buddies on the force get to decide that the judge would set a bail? Raerlynn posted:He's not. And I'm not either. The reason you hold a suspect in custody after charging him, but before /during a trial is fear of flight or danger to the public at large. A child dying as a result of a shooting the officer was in, but is not yet formally charged for, means he goes free. The police put him in administrative leave while they review the shooting. I would imagine once charges are announced that status will change. Or if they can't pay bail, or if the crime is serious enough (e.g. Murder). People accused of murder don't get bail in Louisiana, that's the law.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Actually, murdering an unarmed person and a child, then lying about it, is what is unconstitutional. Yes, this officer deserves punitive action - 100%, all of the way. Police do not hesitate to arrest people and put them behind bars even when there hasn't been a crime committed, why give this son of a bitch the Care Bear treatment? He is literally walking free pending an investigation - a privilege no one except the police get. Here's my argument: You two are hosed in the head. Kill yourselves. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Devor posted:People are released on bail, or on their own recognizance. They are refused bail if they are a flight risk, or a danger to the community. Actually, you're wholly full-of-poo poo. In addition to spending a weekend in jail, I was put on house arrest for the 6 month period after the arrest. 18 months (and about $40,000 in legal expenses) later, the charge was summarily dismissed for lack of evidence & I was allowed to proceed with expungement for the arrest. Would you say that I escaped punishment?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
If the investigators had found the time to watch the video of the shooting, I might be willing to believe that we should just wait and wait and wait before getting upset that the cop[s] is getting light treatment. Police have confirmed that their officer shot and killed the kid, the officer isn't talking (so no self-defense excuse given) but yet the police are unwilling to say his death by shooting is a crime. But I'm being unreasonable if I point out that non-police would never get that kind of treatment. C2C - 2.0 posted:Actually, you're wholly full-of-poo poo. In addition to spending a weekend in jail, I was put on house arrest for the 6 month period after the arrest. 18 months (and about $40,000 in legal expenses) later, the charge was summarily dismissed for lack of evidence & I was allowed to proceed with expungement for the arrest. You can't complain about how police treat only police like humans if you ever want to be treated like a human!
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:Actually, murdering an unarmed person and a child, then lying about it, is what is unconstitutional. What crime should they be jailed for? What crime have these four been charged with. You don't imprison someone pending charges indefinitely. That's exactly the abuser at Riker's island, and you're okay with it. gently caress you, you don't want justice, you want vengeance. As I stated above - the fact that police do in fact break that rule, does not mean you get to do it back. This isn't loving junior high.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:Actually, murdering an unarmed person and a child, then lying about it, is what is unconstitutional. All you had to do was say that you were in favor of violating his constitutional rights in order to ensure that he'll get off on appeal later. That's fine, but I'd rather the police officer spend time in jail after his conviction, rather than violating his rights and giving him a payday on the lawsuit down the road. Edit: C2C - 2.0 posted:Actually, you're wholly full-of-poo poo. In addition to spending a weekend in jail, I was put on house arrest for the 6 month period after the arrest. 18 months (and about $40,000 in legal expenses) later, the charge was summarily dismissed for lack of evidence & I was allowed to proceed with expungement for the arrest. I would think you would be more sensitive to trying to use arrest as a punitive measure, not less so. It's a travesty that anyone is subjected to what happened to you, but the solution is not to inflict it on more people. Devor fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 05:00 |
|
|
Raerlynn posted:What crime should they be jailed for? What crime have these four been charged with. You don't imprison someone pending charges indefinitely. That's exactly the abuser at Riker's island, and you're okay with it. gently caress you, you don't want justice, you want vengeance. As I stated above - the fact that police do in fact break that rule, does not mean you get to do it back. This isn't loving junior high. The fact their cop buddies aren't calling the shooting dead of a child a crime is part of the problem! That's what people are saying. If this wasn't a cop, they would have called it a crime on the loving scene. Devor posted:All you had to do was say that you were in favor of violating his constitutional rights in order to ensure that he'll get off on appeal later. That's fine, but I'd rather the police officer spend time in jail after his conviction, rather than violating his rights and giving him a payday on the lawsuit down the road. How would arresting someone for manslaughter/murder after they were found on the scene of a dead shot up child with a fired gun be a violation of their constitutional rights?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 22:03
|
|