Police Reform

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Police Reform

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

The Pantaleo no-bill is loving mindblowing. If I did something that was specifically prohibited by unit policy because it could kill people, and someone died as a result, there's no way I would escape prosecution.

# ¿ Dec 3, 2014 21:51

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 10:14

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Lemming posted:

I don't know enough about the legal system specifically to suggest anything in particular, but it's pretty obvious that some of the mechanics are broken considering how often cops don't even get indicted.

The main problem appears to be that the jury pool and electorate are biased in favor of the police and against minorities. There aren't a lot of good, easy solutions to that.

# ¿ Dec 3, 2014 22:32

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

GlyphGryph posted:

Maybe cases against the local power structure should be carried about by individuals and organizations that are not part of it?

Change of Venue is hardly a new idea, combine with a special prosecutor and you'll at least possibly reduce the impact of the bias of the jury to an extent.

That wouldn't do anything, since the problem of people being biased seems to be universal. That grand jury in Georgia no-billed the SWAT team that blasted a baby's face off with a flashbang in a house that contained zero drugs.

Even if you just wanted to change the prosecutors, your choices are either to move the case to a different jurisdiction in the same state, in which case the prosecutors and investigators are still likely to have had at least casual contact with their peers, and definitely still know which side their bread is buttered on, or move it to a different state, where attorneys may not be familiar with the laws of a different state and taint the case through procedural errors.

# ¿ Dec 4, 2014 05:04

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

spacetoaster posted:

Wow, 70 pages. Has anyone discussed some level of federalization of local law enforcement?

Have several, consolidated, federal police academies sprinkled around the U.S. that train all of our law enforcement personnel. That way the federal government would have control over all the courses and training of every officer in the U.S.

It would certainly make standards more uniform and any training changes/additions would occur faster.

I'm sure this is completely unfeasable, but I don't know.

Well, just off the top of my head, you'd need uniform equipment, department policies and laws for every single jurisdiction in the United States, so yeah, a few implementation challenges.

# ¿ Dec 5, 2014 03:11

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Samurai Sanders posted:

What is police training even about, anyway? What is more important for them to spend time on than how to not kill people?

I imagine a lot of it revolves about the nitty-gritty details of the law in their jurisdiction, how to collect and handle evidence, how to use all the equipment they're issued, how to write reports, and a thousand other things one needs to know to keep the wheels of bureaucracy turning.

# ¿ Dec 5, 2014 05:51

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Samurai Sanders posted:

A child can kill someone with a gun.

Wait, I thought we were disappointed that the Cleveland PD wasn't giving minors the benefit of the doubt with lethal weapons.

# ¿ Dec 5, 2014 05:53

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

spacetoaster posted:

The uniform equipment would be a plus, I think.

Is the federal government going to be paying for the equipment? If not, you're creating an unfunded mandate for the States. Also, a sheriff who patrols a thousand square miles of Montana with a few deputies is going to have very different needs from a bicycle cop in Miami beach or the airport police at LAX.

quote:

And yes, the policies and laws would be different in some instances (many state criminal codes are very similar though), but perhaps the specifics on local law could be learned in a 12 month program where the new guys ride with a veteran officer?

I think you're vastly overestimating the ratio of technical skills to administrative skills required for police work. You also haven't considered the issue of recurring qualifications.

quote:

The National Guard is very similarly equipped, and trained compared to the federal Army and they still manage to serve their local needs and fight our national wars.

The way the National Guard is funded and equipped is Very Different from a local police force.

quote:

I think the bonus of having a single standard/code of conduct/training/etc would outweigh the time/cost of figuring it out.

I still don't understand what the benefit is supposed to be over the current model.

# ¿ Dec 5, 2014 06:15

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Samurai Sanders posted:

I guess what I'm asking is, is it possible to train people not to panic when dealing with scary black people WITHOUT training them on how to kill better?

Ludovico technique marathon of Good Times ~~and The Cosby Show~~.

spacetoaster posted:

Are they shooting/choking to death unarmed black men?

Sometimes they pay mentally handicapped men to get tattoos.

But they also have a solid record of shooting unarmed suspects and unnecessarily escalating situations.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 06:36 on Dec 5, 2014

# ¿ Dec 5, 2014 06:24

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Riven posted:

The bigger issue is that he didn't need to be cuffed. One major part of my training is essentially invoking the Serenity Prayer. "Do I absolutely have to stop this student from wandering the halls?" The cops making these mistakes basically need to take a goddamn breath and center themselves before reacting. Actually, it's ok to let someone be belligerent for awhile, because they will tire themselves and calm down. A lot of cops seem to have no idea about how to de-escalate the situation. They just escalate it until the other person's power level is reached and the cop has more power, which will usually only happen at the physical level. It is the definition of a power trip.

If you absolutely have to punish that lady, worst case you have two officers put the woman in a safe restraint while the other looks through her ID and issues a citation, then you go. But let's look at the Garner case. He was not harming anyone. He was pushing his arms down and away, saying "not today." He was unhappy and non-compliant, but not dangerous. At all. You can't even pull a "he's coming right for us!" thing there. It was just "He's not doing what I want so I'm going to make him." And if that's the expectation that cops have, then you're going to get those situations. I get into extremely stressful situations regularly, and I empathize, because your adrenaline is rushing, and your reptilian brain takes over, and the temptation to make someone comply so you can make the situation "safe" is incredibly compelling. That's why the rules say I can't. If cops can't touch someone, ever, if they're not obviously being dangerous, but have other options available, they will use those options.

Cops have the authorization to use lethal force because they are sometimes put in situations where it is necessary, but many of them just have a hammer and so everything is a loving nail. It's gone from "I can use lethal force when absolutely necessary to protect lives" to "I can do whatever is necessary to gain compliance." No, you can't. You shouldn't. You don't need to. There needs to be a hell of a lot more professional development on this. Again, why does it take four cops to do what two teachers can do? It's not that it does, it's that they're trained to do it that way.

Two problems with this. First, you have the luxury of working with children that are known quantities. You're familiar with their issues and have a pretty good idea that none of them have guns or knives concealed on their person. I don't think you can use "non-harmful techniques" to restrain a fully grown adult who is intent not on a temper tantrum but on harming you physically. I think you'd be crazy to try such a thing on a stranger you encountered less than a minute ago. Second, the police are not caregivers; their role is to maintain public order. If someone is walking out of a liquor store with a bottle they didn't pay for, you can't expect the owner to "wait for them to get it out of their system." Similarly, if a stranger is trampling through my front garden and yelling about The Revelation, I should not be expected to let them crush my flowers until they come down from their high or their psychotic episode resolves or whatever. I expect the police to remove that person whether they want to go or not.

# ¿ Dec 7, 2014 22:29

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

klen dool posted:

Basic human compassion means that your flowers get trampled so as not to remove the dignity of the human having a psychotic episode. And of course you can wait for a robber to "get it out of their system" (whatever you meant by "it") especially if its the loss of a bottle versus an assault. You can wait an hour for your bottle to be returned to you.

Do you think the police really have the resources to follow every single shoplifter until they decide to return the merchandise, or to babysit every single junkie through multi-hour manic episodes? Also, I never said that the cops should shoot the dude for trampling my flowers, just that the police remove the trespasser whether he wants to go or not, because respecting my dignity means not trespassing on my home and destroying my property. I shouldn�t have to wait for the trespasser to decide they�re finished. The other issue is that the police don�t interact with people they have the luxury of getting to know on an individual basis. Is this person acting erratically and aggressively going to calm down, or is he going to start smashing windows? How long is this person going to break the law before they decide to stop?

Riven posted:

What you're saying here, given what the actions we've seen from cops from non-violent suspected criminals, is that you value that bottle and those flowers more than human life.

Bullshit. I didn�t say the cops needed to shoot every shoplifter on sight. I said that the police should make people return merchandise, even if they refuse to do so when told. If the person refuses and decides to fight the cops, or the cops use excessive force, that�s on them.

quote:

And, you can absolutely use non-harmful techniques on a fully grown adult who is intent on harming you physically. I've had students absolutely intent on harming me physically. If a cop isn't sure if someone has a knife or gun concealed on their person, they should hold back from the situation until they have more knowledge, perhaps with their gun drawn. There's no difference between going into a choke hold on a person who may have a knife and going into a safe restraint with someone who may have a knife, and in fact the safe restraint is safer because it involves grabbing their arms. Not jumping on their back and seeing if they pull a knife and stab behind them.
�
If someone's damaging your property, sure, put them in a restraint. You can hold someone for a long time in a safe restraint until they calm down. It is possible to immediately intervene with someone who is being damaging or dangerous without putting their life at risk.

I�m not an expert, but I�ve done enough combatatives to know that there is no way to safely restrain a fighting, scratching, kicking adult (especially one larger than you) that doesn�t carry some risk of harming them, especially if you�re doing it on concrete. Things get really hairy when the other person may have weapons you don�t know about. Again, I think your experiences with special needs children is not applicable to policing the larger population.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 07:51 on Dec 8, 2014

# ¿ Dec 8, 2014 07:38

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Tender Bender posted:

I dunno if this is the right thread for it, but how the hell was Ronald Ritchie (the guy who told police that John Crawford was pointing a gun at people, then admitted he was lying) not charged with anything? Like that is pretty much conspiracy to commit murder. He basically tricked the police into attacking an unarmed man.

Conspiracy with whom? IANAL, but establishing any sort of culpability for Ritchie is going to be a pretty high bar to clear, since it necessarily removes all agency from the responding officers. Most armed suspect calls don't result in a dead suspect, so establishing that his call was likely to result in Crawford's injury or death is going to be difficult.�The decision to shoot and culpability for that rested solely with the responding officers.�In some states, lying to the police (much less a 911 dispatcher) in an unsworn statement isn't even a crime.

What he did was clearly wrong, but I'm having a hard time seeing how it was illegal, or how you could even make it so without criminalizing a whole lot of innocent behavior.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Dec 8, 2014

# ¿ Dec 8, 2014 23:18

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Sam Hall posted:

This is demonstrably the case. Have you watched the surveillance video and listened to the 911 call? Either Ronald Ritchie was in the middle of a wild hallucinatory episode when he made that call or he was knowingly lying his rear end off. Also he later admitted that he was lying his rear end off.

It wouldn't really matter because there's still a whole host of other obstacles to charging him, like articulating exactly what law he broke.

# ¿ Dec 9, 2014 09:05

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Slipknot Hoagie posted:

Ok but if you are a target, you just give up the goods and walk away right. It's the money they want.

AreWeDrunkYet posted:

Correct, and people who professionally transport valuables are taught exactly that. The gun is because their physical safety is more likely to be threatened as a result of carrying valuables, not to protect the valuables.

It's as though a person who has already aggressively demonstrated their disregard for society's laws and norms shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt and be treated as a rational actor who has decided on a list of crimes they are willing or unwilling to commit.

Plainly: people who transport jewels carry guns because there is no reason to believe a jewel thief or burglar won't step up to killing witnesses.

Pomp posted:

Property is not something worth any form brutality, and it's frankly terrifying that so many Americans don't see it that way.

So if someone kicked in your front door while you were home, grabbed your computer, and started walking off with it, you would just let them take it? If a police officer happened to be passing by, you would not want them to use any sort of force to stop that person?

# ¿ Dec 9, 2014 21:29

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Pomp posted:

If a dude kicks in my door he can take anything he wants. I'm not escalating the situation because neither my life nor theirs are worth escalating to force.

I don't understand your position. You wouldn't stop a burglary, but you're ok with the cops stopping it, as long as they never use force? What sort of loving burglar do you think gives stuff back when asked politely?

So let's say the dude walks out with your computer... and comes back the next night for your microwave. Will you stop him then? What if he just decided to crash on your couch one night and eat the food out of your fridge? At what point are you OK with the police using force to remove this intruder, since you won't get your hands dirty over "property"?

# ¿ Dec 9, 2014 22:14

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Pomp posted:

You can't separate "force" from "excessive force" can you?

"Cops shouldn't endanger someones life over property."

"Well what if a rando crashed on your couch or ate your food? "

You said you wouldn't stop a guy from walking off with your property. How far does your moral superiority extend? When he's pulling the copper out of the walls? Where do you, personally, draw the line on this moral stance you've taken?

Your exact words were

Pomp posted:

Property is not something worth any form brutality

so I'm trying to figure out where the line is between the often severe violence required to stop or apprehend someone who really doesn't want to be stopped or apprehended, and this "brutality" you detest so much.

# ¿ Dec 9, 2014 22:31

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

slogsdon posted:

Yes there is.

Just give them what they want, everything will be fine.

# ¿ Dec 9, 2014 23:00

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

anonumos posted:

This would be a great point, if I had said "I think the way American police use force right now is really good and cool."

Pomp and Taeke have both taken the position that using violence to defend or recover property is immoral, which is the incredibly stupid argument I am addressing. I believe the use of force in defense of property is moral, and also that some instances of force are excessive and immoral.

Pomp posted:

Just because it's the only thing american police are trained to do doesn't mean it's required.

Also, not killing or brutalizing people over objects = moral superiority

You didn't answer the question. How much property is one person allowed to take from another before it becomes moral to use force to stop them?

# ¿ Dec 9, 2014 23:13

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Rent-A-Cop posted:

Armed robbers arm themselves because they are willing to use force to further their robbery!?

Quelle surprise!

If only that baby had just given them his money.

# ¿ Dec 9, 2014 23:16

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Pomp posted:

Not only have I answered that over and over again, you've actually answered my own question over and over agforce hat you can't tell the difference between "I don't think the police should use force" and "I don't think the police should use excessive force."

So if someone is stealing a TV, how much force is excessive? Can the police bring him down in a manner that has a 50% chance of breaking his leg?

"I'm only opposed to force when it's excessive" is an empty statement; unless you define excessive, you're really saying "I only agree with force when it's convenient for my argument."

# ¿ Dec 9, 2014 23:28

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

AreWeDrunkYet posted:

It sure is comforting when prosecutors don't even understand how data work.

"Statistically speaking, your wife's rape and murder was an unfortunate outlier."

# ¿ Dec 10, 2014 00:35

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Pomp posted:

Police are generally expected to have more restraint and self control than criminals.

On the other hand, there are very few circumstances where a burglar can lawfully and justifiably shoot someone.

So, Pomp, if someone is stealing a TV, at what point is the force used to subdue them excessive? I note you still haven't answered.

# ¿ Dec 10, 2014 00:46

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Pomp posted:

It would be a case by case thing and there's not a solid answer, but you should stop once you have the suspect subdued, and certainly not do anything that would reasonably risk killing them you annoying, disingenuous gently caress.

So whatever you, with the full benefit of hindsight, deem to have been justified on a case-by-case basis. Got it.

# ¿ Dec 10, 2014 01:08

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Pomp posted:

I'm not an ostensibly trained official who is expected to know how to deal with the situation as it happens.

Then why do you insist on posting your admittedly unqualified opinions about the use of force?

# ¿ Dec 10, 2014 01:37

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

AreWeDrunkYet posted:

If that's the case, is there any reason to prosecute these people except as a perceived shortcut to punish them for the other crimes you listed?

Professional responsibility? I know this this is a crazy concept, but most people willingly participate in systems they acknowledge are imperfect because those systems are, in the balance, better than bashing each others heads in with rocks over every disagreement.

People who produce large quantities of heroin don't do it because it's a political statement or they couldn't find an honest job. They understand the consequences of their actions.

# ¿ Dec 10, 2014 03:43

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

AreWeDrunkYet posted:

What ever happened to prosecutorial discretion? It seems to be a valid defense for every other decision prosecutors make, but bring up some drug charges and suddenly their hands are tied?

AVeryLargeRadish posted:

Ahhh, the "Just following orders" defense.

Here's the really hypocritical thing about this dogpiling of AR: not one of you would walk up to the defense attorney representing one of the murderers and kiddie fiddlers she prosecutes and ask why they didn't throw the case, or just refuse to defend such scum. Everyone accepts that even the lowest of the low deserve competent representation, because That's The System. But when a prosecutor ~~charges~~ argues cases the best they know how, all of a sudden there's hand-wringing for the poor heroin manufacturers. Get hosed. No one tries to get out of a speeding ticket by claiming that "this really should be a 95 MPH zone."

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Dec 10, 2014

# ¿ Dec 10, 2014 04:11

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

ReV VAdAUL posted:

I assume they want the body cameras to be used like military gun cameras then?

Mainly used for awarding kill credit?

# ¿ Dec 12, 2014 20:13

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Kaal posted:

Those cops are drat lucky that Americans are so loving peaceful, because when some guy without any uniform is wildly waving a gun at a crowd then there's every justification to assume that he's a terrorist and to shoot first.

Except for the part where they repeatedly identified themselves as police before drawing.

# ¿ Dec 14, 2014 03:13

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Panzeh posted:

One might wonder what cops are doing disguised in the middle of a protest.

Yes, I have no idea why the Highway Patrol would want to send plainclothes detectives to see what the protesters were up to...

(Protestors blocking I-80 north of Oakland two nights prior)

# ¿ Dec 14, 2014 10:20

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Bel Shazar posted:

Yeah, gently caress those guys.

http://bearingarms.com/self-defense-oakland-undercover-cop-pulls-gun-protesters-attack/

I'd reeeeally like to know more about Freelance reporter Courtney Harrop's twitter sources, especially since that link to storify leads with "as seen on infowars.com"

Kaal posted:

What he did was textbook menacing and if he weren't a cop he'd have already been punted through the justice system for it. You can't draw a gun and wave it around at people for being within 10 feet of you. Doing so in a crowd of people makes it an incitement to violence, as well as disturbing the peace; he could have easily started a riot with his actions. People get trampled in stampedes caused by far less provocation than a guy waving a gun around and threatening everyone around them. It was completely negligent behavior on his part, and he and his partner should never have allowed themselves to be in the position of trying to arrest a guy while in the middle of an angry crowd, with absolutely no identification, and using a gun to do it. They clearly should have withdrawn - indeed they should never have been pretending to be protesters in the first place.

The police are allowed to point their guns at people. As for incitement to violence, it was already a little late for that, since his partner was arresting a guy for hitting him.

According to the detective, they identified themselves as police and told people to get back while they made the arrest. When people didn't get back, he pulled out his baton (you can see it in his left hand in some of the photos) and again told the crowd to step back. When they still didn't, that's when the gun came out. It was pretty much textbook escalation of force. I'm not rah-rah pro police, but this is a really stupid molehill to build your mountain on.

# ¿ Dec 15, 2014 05:09

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

I find their account slightly more plausible than a "freelance journalist" putting out feelers after the fact and discovering that dozens of people on twitter were totally there and saw the cops walking around telling people to loot.

# ¿ Dec 15, 2014 05:23

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Your Weird Uncle posted:

considering this entire thread is devoted to instances of police being bloodthirsty, dishonest and prone to self preservation above all else why on earth would you think that

Because a witness swore under oath that Darren Wilson shot Mike Brown point blank execution style, despite later forensic evidence demonstrating this was impossible.

Both sides are subject to faulty perceptions and have an incentive to lie, but people tend to lie more when the stakes are lower and it fits their narrative. Also, the police officer's account describes a logical sequence of events that agrees with the photos.

# ¿ Dec 15, 2014 05:40

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Trabisnikof posted:

How is the idea that the cops were acting like agent provocateurs which caused them to get called out as cops (wearing masks, cop boots, chanting dumb poo poo about looting) not a logical sequence of events that agrees with the photos (include the photos of the cops wearing masks at the front of a group)?

I was responding to the idea that the cop just decided to draw on a bunch of people for no particularly good reason, but it doesn't make a lot sense that two nominally undercover officers would walk around telling every person that they meet, "Hey, you know what I like? Looting! We should loot something!"

Woozy posted:

I already know the answer to this but could they really not find someone who doesn't look so obviously piggy to be their provocateur?

Seriously. "I'll wear my 1980s sports apparel and the gloves they sell at the police supply store. That doesn't stick out. Also I'm like 20 years older than everyone else."

# ¿ Dec 15, 2014 06:39

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Evil_Greven posted:

Police being incompetent is now enshrined as totally fine by SCOTUS, though.

I'm genuinely torn on this. On one hand, "the officer pulled over a dark grey sedan when the APB was for a dark blue sedan, therefore the trunk full of illegal machine guns can't be used against my client" is an absurd outcome, but on the other hand, the fact that the courts keep moving the line on what constitutes a "reasonable" police mistake means that there is essentially no remedy when an officer conducts an unjustified search.

# ¿ Dec 16, 2014 23:14

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

It was a non-violent drug crime, I think we can all agree this is the sort of thing that prosecutors should ignore.

# ¿ Dec 17, 2014 07:21

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

No, it was a sarcastic pisstake on AreWeDrunkYet's insistence earlier in the thread that prosecuting any non-violent drug crime was fundamentally immoral.

# ¿ Dec 17, 2014 07:29

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Samurai Sanders posted:

edit: are you kicked out of the military the first time you punch one of your peers?

Only if you're an officer, maybe not even then.

# ¿ Dec 20, 2014 19:13

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

SedanChair posted:

A sergeant told him that it's the police's job to enforce order, and that if the Soviet Union conquered America tomorrow it would still be their job. Now this cop and the others on the board disagreed with this idea, but apparently it's out there.

I don't really see the problem with that statement. Most of the low level nuts and bolts work of government is the same no matter who's in charge, Democrat, Republican or Communist Puppet Regime. The guy stamping passports in LAX is still going to do that (with his new hammer and sickle stamp.) The folks working at the water and power utilities are going to respond to service calls, so the taps keep running and the lights stay on. If a patrol officer sees his job as writing tickets, taking reports, and trying to keep citizens from killing or robbing each other as much as possible, it's entirely reasonable for him to see his role as helping people keep their lives and society going, rather than being about The Big Picture. I certainly don't think the guy writing traffic citations in Omsk in 1951 worried about whether it was moral to participate in a government run by Stalin.

# ¿ Dec 23, 2014 01:15

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Zeitgueist posted:

Sure, but if you point out "Cops aren't about justice, they're about enforcing whomever is in power" people get all upset.

Even though it's the same as what you just said.

Maintaining order isn't the same as being an enforcer for whomever is in power, even if the end result is the same sometimes. You're talking about different ideas of what constitutes justice. Pretty much everyone agrees that it is unjust to unlawfully take another's property or to arbitrarily detain someone, but when you ask if it is just for a man to steal medicine he cannot afford in order to treat his sick wife, (or whether it is just to arrest that man,) there is disagreement. The police are going to arrest theives regardless of their noble intentions, because we've agreed as a society that you can't just take things, regardless of how much you think you need them.

In the same way that a passport stamper isn't responsible for the fairness or unfairness of US immigration policy, I think you'll find that most civil servants, police included, see laws as a set of rules we as a society have agreed to abide by, despite our disagreements, rather than guidelines to perfect justice, and that maintaining order and tranquility by holding people to that agreement is a morally good thing to do.

# ¿ Dec 23, 2014 01:47

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

When someone is blatantly trolling, you don't need to jump in with your own take on why what they said was wrong.

Wadjamaloo posted:

Stories like this cop who bought a thief some eggs spread like wildfire and are seen as very honorable acts. Clearly people expect and want to shops to show discretion, but only when it aligns with their world views.

What people want is a police force that treats every good person with compassion and discretion but also catch all the bad people before they can hurt the good people, in a world where all the teachers are like the cool ones from movies and the bees don't sting and everyone meets their true love at prom. Unfortunately, humans' time and energy is limited and most people are mediocre at best at their jobs. When it turns out that, whoops, that kid the police let off with a warning one week drove around shooting up UCSB the next, no one says "Well, at least they used their discretion."

If the police were baseline mediocre and just did an OK job with a few mistakes here and there, this thread wouldn't exist. The problem is that a not-insignificant fraction of Americans feel that the police instinctively exclude them from the society the police are organized to protect for things like the color of their skin, and that this is tolerated as some sort of acceptable side effect by other officers, the other organs of government, and many of their fellow citizens.

There's also a lot of posters in this thread with a weird with-us-or-against us thing where everyone either agrees with them, is actively hindering them, or is a quisling. See below.

Pohl posted:

What the gently caress is maintaining order if it isn't being an enforcer for the elite?

If I'm making sure no one is parking their car on the medians, or keep a husband and wife from beating the poo poo out of each other during a domestic dispute, how is that benefiting those in power? Because dreary poo poo like that is 99% of what the police do. If it weren't for Officer Stranglehappy, the Eric Garner story would be about a guy getting busted for selling untaxed cigarettes. I suppose you could make some tangental case about how cigarette taxes are a tool of the elite that unfairly disadvantages small business owners, but taxes gotta come from somewhere. Like it or not, policing is one of those things like sanitation and record keeping that any society larger than a hunter-gatherer tribe needs to function.

American police aren't the Pinkertons or the Stasi or the NKVD, they aren't deporting dissidents to the Minnesota gulags or keeping lists of those who fail to show sufficient allegiance to First Chairman Obama. Yes, on a certain level maintaining public order benefits those on top by keeping those below from storming the gates of Martha's Vineyard and taking all their nice stuff, but in the absence of law and order the rich tend to do just fine and are often even more vicious in their exploitation of the poor.

# ¿ Dec 23, 2014 09:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 10:14

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Murderion posted:

The number of rounds fired off isn't (necessarily) an indication of excessive force; the fact that an encounter went from a fist fight to a cop drawing his gun is. Not only is it a police officer's job to de-escalate, it's also what would be reasonably expected from a member of the public, especially when dealing with someone who is quite clearly mentally ill.

The report says that Hamilton attacked the officer while he was trying to frisk him, and the two exchanged blows, then the officer drew and fired. A fistfight with a stranger can quickly turn deadly, so on the face of it, the use of deadly force appears reasonable. There could be other details that haven't been reported yet.

JohnClark posted:

This case also seems exactly like the sort for which the Taser was designed, an incident where previously a firearm would be used could now be resolved with less-lethal force. Why does it seem like tasers get deployed at the drop of a hat, except when they might actually result in less damage being done?

Megaman's Jockstrap posted:

As someone who follows Taser stuff with moderate interest I've literally never, and I mean never, read about them being used instead of a gun. They are always used instead of a baton beating, basically, when the cops don't want to leave bruises on somebody but want to hurt them.

I don't think the Tazer has ever been advertised as a substitute for a gun. It's single-shot and sometimes it doesn't work. I most law enforcement agencies think of it as equivalent to a baton or chemical spray on the continuum of force. (There's an example from the NIJ here)

AreWeDrunkYet posted:

Anyone? Isn't this standard operating procedure for police shootings?

A toxicology report would likely be included in the coroner's report, and possibly the finished police report on the shooting, but since there isn't any competing narrative or public interest, they aren't going to broadcast the results of the autopsy. "I called this press conference to let you all know that the autopsy has been finished, and it shows that our officers were not drunk or high when a man walked up to their cruiser and shot them from point blank range. Also, it was definitely the bullets that killed them, not heart disease." I don't know how NY open records laws work, but you might be able to request a copy of the reports.

# ¿ Dec 23, 2014 19:11

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Police Reform

«‹›2 »