|
wixard posted:In that video the trucker basically asked to be pulled over (what did he expect to happen, the cop would know he wanted him to stop talking on the cellphone?) and the cop didn't gently caress with him for it. If a teacher ignores an absence and it fudges a grade up to pass a kid instead of failing them I have no problem with that either. Your example sucks because grades are up to the justifiable discretion of the teacher. They're not tied to test scores - and this is particularly true for student conduct grades like absences and tardiness. There's nothing fraudulent involved, unless it's done in a form of unethical quid pro quo. You compared police corruption to normal grading.
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 01:20 |
|
|
wateroverfire posted:To be fair to the officers, there is no way they could have known the door was being blocked by an occupied crib. Who would reasonably expect that? I don't think that it's outside the bounds of reason to anticipate children being in a house. And like KernelSlanders says, certainly that defence wouldn't get any traction with a judge if the roles were reversed. These police are trying to treat minor drug convictions as grounds for a military assault - but even if that were reasonable or desirable, the reality is that police lack the training and oversight to perform competently in that role.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Hell, Texas of all places is getting poo poo right for a change : The grand jury displayed some rare wisdom there, but it looks like the prosecutors are pivoting and instead intending to prosecute the pot charge as an armed felony with a 10-year sentence. So a little column-A, column-B. edit: Also, the prosecutor's attempt to defend a "knock and announcement" that happened simultaneously with the door being breached and flashbangs going off is completely ridiculous. That doesn't even come close to meeting the paltry Supreme Court requirement of ~15-20 seconds. And certainly my reaction time to answer someone knocking on my front door in the middle of the night is going to be longer than that. Sorry lady, if a raid doesn't meet the minimum legal definition of a knock-and-announcement raid then it's a no-knock raid. And don't even get me started about trying to portray a couple of small plants as a commercial grow-op. She's completely unrepentant and negligently out-of-touch. The only thing I half-believed from her statement was that she and the sheriff have a "great relationship" - as if there was any district attorney that wasn't in lock-step with their local law enforcement. Kaal fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Jul 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Sadly, the ~15-20 seconds thing isn't a hard minimum. It's specifically a 'reasonable number, although shorter times may be reasonable'. IE it doesn't mean poo poo. Also, per the Supreme Court, the exclusionary rule doesn't apply, so even if the entry was determined to be illegal due to knock & announce violations, the prosecutor can still use information found on the illegal search. Yeah I know, but of course if she thought that exemption would apply to the raid then she'd have successfully argued that in court. If anything, the context of the event (night-time, no expectation that evidence could be hidden, overriding lack of evidence) would have required an even longer duration. But as someone with a real fascination and interest in constitutional law and Supreme Court cases, it's completely frustrating to see how the Rehnquist and Roberts courts have methodically torn apart good law for vague reasons. The idea that a court would defend knocking on the door a moment before battering it down as constituting enough time for a resident to respond and a fulfillment of 4th Amendment requirements, is offensive to democracy. And their encouragement of police to gather evidence despite breaking laws is downright corrupting. It's tantamount to revoking the knock-and-announce requirement entirely, and unsurprisingly police have treated it as such. Kaal fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Jul 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Yeah the problem with police unions isn't the union part, it's the police part - and the fact that the leaders actively fight any amount of accountability or reform.
Kaal fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
The reality we all live with is that cops are of course going to have few qualms about violating laws that don't really apply to them. For example the typical cop has no hesitation about speeding without lights on, swerving in lanes, rolling through stop signs, or committing any of the numerous traffic violations that are the bread and butter of police work in the United States. And that has always been something that the typical American has accepted as the way things are, since it's typically a minor issue and complaining about it simply results in police retaliation. But with the advent of police militarization, the acceptable scope of police law-breaking has expanded greatly. They increasingly see themselves as being outside civil society, and separate from other civilians. And these expectations are causing all sorts of issues. Cops are placing themselves in increasingly legally precarious situations, with the expectation that their legal immunities and TBL relationships with prosecutors will keep them out of trouble. And the worst part is that they're probably correct in thinking that.
Kaal fucked around with this message at 06:59 on Aug 22, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
LorneReams posted:Funny how people who are not cops, who you would expect to be more affected by a shooting then someone trained, do not get this same consideration. Agreed. It's not so much that I object to cops being presumed innocent by a sympathetic and understanding judicial system actively protecting their civil rights, backed by a strong union with progressive employee policies - it's that I wish everyone else got the same treatment. And that the cops and district attorneys wouldn't stomp all over anyone that seeks parity of status.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Do you think all cops that freak out and shoot someone are out for murder? We have so many unarmed people killed by cops it's practically SOP so I don't see any motive for murder, just another cop making sure he goes home that night. No chances. He intentionally fired a gun at someone, that's intent to kill right there, full stop. There's no need to prove anything more than that. He may well be successful in his defense of it being justified (because ACAB), but that's a completely separate issue.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
"Firing a weapon" is not the same as firing a weapon at someone in particular. This aspect of the event is pretty legally simplistic: The cop pointed his weapon at the victim and fired. If he wants to make the argument that it was reckless negligence (i.e. a negligent discharge) then that's his option but it's pretty unlikely that anyone is going to buy it. What he's looking at is that he either shot the man with the intention to kill him, or with the knowledge that he probably would kill him, and the prosecution doesn't distinguish between the two when looking at attempted murder. Y'all are making a mountain out of a molehill here. His legal defense will have nothing to do with whether shooting someone is the same as trying to kill them.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
Let's put it this way: If the victim had walked up to the cop at a gas station, asked for his ID and then shot him when he reached into his truck, the prosecution would be charging him with attempted murder - along with a slew of other charges.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 07:17
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Attempted murder in South Carolina requires premeditation. Pulling out the gun and pointing it at someone constitutes premeditation. There's plenty of examples of South Carolinians being convicted for attempted murder in extremely similar circumstances to this event. Putting together a bunch of stalker photos like in the movies isn't required. http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/25592401/easley-man-sentenced-for-2012-attempted-murder-of-officer http://www.wistv.com/story/5996618/shreveporter-gets-150-sentence-on-attempted-murder-conviction
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:No, it really doesn't. You should probably call up the South Carolina justice department and let them know that they're making some dreadful mistakes.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 08:01
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:I don't think an officer pulling a firearm will be enough grounds for malice aforethought, but I am not a lawyer. Here's the South Carolina Court of Appeals chatting about "malice aforethought" (alternatively known as mens rea or premeditation). In particular I'll direct your attention to their discussion of the jury instructions (charge) of the same: quote:In this matter the trial court instructed the jury thusly: "Malice aforethought" can occur just seconds prior to the act in question (dependent on the jurisdiction, of course). It essentially constitutes the act of rationally planning out the steps required to do violence. "Malice aforethought" is a component of virtually all violent crimes (excepting ones done in an irrational state of mind, or ones that occur due to accident or negligence). One should further note that our modern concept of "malice aforethought" has been heavily influenced by the 1970 Model Penal Code. The MPC had wide-ranging effects on the laws of different states, and the concept of mens rea in particular. A lot of the common terminology used in public discussions of crimes, and even in state statutes, is now functionally obsolete as a result. This is particularly important in the state of South Carolina, which has particularly vague statutes and relies heavily on court interpretation.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 08:36
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:It's the price we pay to be numero uno. Well by "we pay", we really mean, "we make those people pay"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:I'm not sure if retaliation violence is the most reasonable police reform, though. No one should be afraid in a prison. You are happy that the same thing is going to happen to him that he did to others. Of which you are mad about. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the Blue Line somehow ends when cops go to prison. This is false. Cops who go to prison have all the advantages in the world from already knowing the system and being able to relate with the guards, and prison officials are happy to allow them a single cell or full segregation if they're having problems with the other inmates. Of course, those other inmates will soon learn to leave them alone in any case, since any abuse of the ex-cops will be taken seriously rather than ignored. The idea that bad cops go to prison in order to get the karmic comeuppance that society can't provide is a TV fantasy. Prison sucks for cops, but mostly just because anything is worse than being a law-free prince of society.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
Il Federale posted:I work in a prison and this isn't really true. If anything, they're looked down on for committing a crime. I work in a low-security prison, and the ex-LEO inmates are generally left alone but are basically shunned by the other inmates (I'm not sure how they are treated in higher security institutions). If they are put into segregation, it's usually in the Special Housing Unit, a small two-man cell where they're only allowed one hour of recreation time per day. It's not exactly an awesome scenario for them. I don't want to get into too much of an argument over this, since it's not like there's reliable studies out there that I know of. But I suppose I'd just make response of pointing out that there really aren't many awesome scenarios going on in prison, and every prisoner is looked down on. Being left alone by the other inmates for fear of official reprisal is by no means the worst thing that can happen in a prison, and is hardly reflective of the common myth that landing in prison is a death sentence for a cop. Kaal fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Oct 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
I don't know what the heck you guys are talking about, there's no "net benefit" from making some people effectively exempt from normal law. That's just corruption.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Again, nobody has talked about making anyone exempt from normal law. That's exactly what you are talking about : Cops getting special treatment and special laws, and effectively being subject to a completely different legal system as a result of their status. Don't kid yourself that you're arguing anything other than a legitimization of existing corruption as being a good thing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I'm not doing that, in any way, shape or form. If you think I am, then show me doing that, rather than asserting it. You can say, "No I'm not!" as much as you like, but the fact remains evident to all that you're simply rationalizing away the corruption of the system. Your problem is that you don't even see it as a problem. When a cop gets his wrist slapped it's because he got a "cool, smart judge" and has nothing to do with the inherent inequalities of the system. But back in real life, that "cool, smart judge" isn't actually available to anyone other than cops, and in fact that judge is probably the same one that just sentenced some poor black guy to 40 years for doing whatever the cop did. GlyphGryph posted:No, you made the argument pretty explicitly and unapologetically, without even an awareness of its potential complexities that Vahakyla seems to possess. I agree with this. Vahakyla seems to have a much more nuanced conception of the topic, even as I might disagree with him in parts. Kaal fucked around with this message at 16:17 on Oct 20, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
A HOT TOPIC posted:This thread has officially become a debate about who hates the police more. If you don't FTP hard enough for the three people who still post here your obviously an apologist. Well yeah, it's a thread that reflects how Americans feel about the police. Only about 30% of the country thinks that police do a good or excellent job. Heck, 70% of black Americans think that police do a poor job, which is the worst rating. http://www.people-press.org/2014/08/25/few-say-police-forces-nationally-do-well-in-treating-races-equally/ quote:As Michael Brown was laid to rest in Missouri, a USA TODAY/Pew Research Center Poll finds Americans by 2-to-1 say police departments nationwide don't do a good job in holding officers accountable for misconduct, treating racial groups equally and using the right amount of force. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/25/usa-today-pew-poll-police-tactics-military-equipment/14561633/ Kaal fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Oct 20, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
Tias posted:or who actually took offense with a kid drawing open hands for a content and denying him the prize,, claiming that he was depicting gang signs. That kid learned a valuable lesson: Cops are not your friends, and neither need nor particularly want your support.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
AmiYumi posted:Not really; there's an important detail that article obfuscated the poo poo out of. The "alternative school" the kid goes to is one for special-needs kids (which, as we all know, are just bastions of gang activity). It's questionable how much he even understands what happened. Whoa there that's pretty offensive. First off, students who go to special needs schools aren't unaware of their environment. People with disabilities constantly struggle with the stereotype that they are incapable children, and no one needs to add to that by assuming that "special needs student" = "vegetable". Secondly, the alternative school Herbert Pulgar is attending is clearly set up for so-called "at-risk" students - ones with involvement with the Child Welfare and/or Protective Services programs, often with histories of domestic trauma, behavioral issues, academic difficulty, and so on. Beyond all that, Pulgar clearly understands what has happened to him, both in the article (where he insists that the art is "clean" i.e. not gang-related) as well as in interviews with local media: http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/herbert-pulgar-talks-about-his-design/1d2aldzwv I assume that you simply got your facts from a biased third-party, but please be aware of the trap that is negative stereotyping. Kaal fucked around with this message at 16:48 on Nov 13, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:What if after you take the bullet, the kid goes on to shoot someone else? Someone who just shot a cop is likely to be a threat to everyone in the immediate area as well, thus it's not just about your own life. A threat to other cops maybe, but it's a stretch to extend that threat to anyone else. Pretending that everyone that interacts with police is just a hairsbreadth from going postal is exactly the kind of police-state bullshit that is the problem. There are plenty of reasons for someone getting into a confrontation with police other than being a homicidal maniac. Certainly there should not be an assumption that any time a cop starts shooting they are "protecting the public". Kaal fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
SkaAndScreenplays posted:Ask anyone in the military...UN Peacekeepers have the most absurd uniforms and are far and away some of the worst people in combat zones. 1. Police are not military and there should be no comparison. 2. UN Peacekeepers are not intended for combat and their lack of camouflage and the nature of their training reflects that. 3. UN Peacekeepers don't have uniforms per se, as they wear whatever their host nation issues them and then supplements it with blue coloration. 4. What the Christ?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:and your basis for saying that is what? You have delusions of paranoia.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:your privilege is showing. It's really funny to see conservatives try to use liberal language and fail miserably.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:no. the fact you live and work in an area so secure that you immediately assume anyone who doesn't feel safe in their environment MUST be paranoid is, in fact, a sign of privilege. Nope, go back to school. The fact that you are trying to misappropriate privilege to mean "not scared of the poors" is pretty telling of your own politics though.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Way to miss my point. You live in a world where the possibility of violence is unthinkable. That certainly shows a level of socio economic privilege. You don't have a point, you're just reiterating "check your privilege" over and over hoping that it will stick. This is a really dumb rhetorical trick that is used by a certain kind of Internet conservative. You apparently live in New England, where being a cop is an incredibly safe job. Therefore your belief in everyday danger is nothing more than a delusion of paranoia. You're a terrible poster and your ideas are offensive to a modern democratic society. Kaal fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Nov 26, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I'm not a cop. That much is evident, and it just makes your presence in this thread all the more strange. You live in one of the safest places in the world, have an incredibly safe and privileged job as one of the American legal elite, and yet still engage in the cowardly belief that you are so endangered and downtrodden that police need to come out guns blazing in order to protect you. Wake up.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:Look guys, we all know that law firms are infamous for being located in the middle of the worst parts of town with the highest crime rates and not in upscale office buildings near courthouses. He's taking his life into his very hands the second he steps out of his office (located between a crackhouse and a meth lab) into the ghetto battlefield. Yeah I'd say that his sudden absence from the thread is obviously because he's being mugged in the street right now.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Vitamin P posted:So since we just had a video of the police murdering a man and it meant jack-poo poo, is there anyone who still thinks bodycams will be some kind of panacea? The video meant that at least there was a discussion about the event. Without video evidence this sort of thing usually just ends on the night of the event when the police sergeant writes a vague report and tells his cops to not talk to the media.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
The reality that a lot of the cop supporters don't seem able to acknowledge is that if you're talking to a cop, for whatever reason, then you might be seconds from death or longterm incarceration and have little ability to predict or control the situation. And after they've finished cuffing your body, they'll trash your name in the media in order to protect themselves. That's what is behind "Hands Up".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 10:23
|
|
|
A HOT TOPIC posted:Keeping your hands up and following law enforcement direction is a good thing, especially for people being arrested. So if people become more compliant after this it's a societal net positive. We shouldn't have to live in a society where people need to "assume the submission position" just to speak with a cop without fear of being blown away on a whim. And the fact that the concern must be borne particularly by black people only makes it worse. You're reflexively blaming the victim here for being "non-compliant" even when we're being completely hypothetical. What you refuse to accept is people who aren't "bad guys" also interact with cops - and that they also see police interaction as an ordeal that they have to survive. A population that is constantly terrified of police is not a societal net positive. Kaal fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Dec 8, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Some undercover cops got busted as provocateurs at the Oakland protests over Garner/Brown. Somebody shoved one of them and that led to this horrifying photo: 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.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2014 09:45
|
|
|
peengers posted:I listened to an interview on NPR yesterday with the mayor of miami-dade county, who apparently thinks that all reports of police violence by citizens are lies since their community policing effort has "worked." He wants body cameras but not until the legislature makes it basically impossible for someone to get the footage. To my mind that is just more evidence that there can never be a solution to America's uncontrolled police industry until we create a nationalized system with real accountability and standards - just like other Western nations. We've been fighting the same fight against racist county sheriffs and corrupt city police chiefs for the last century, and we're going to continue fighting that fight until we give ourselves the tools required to bring our cops to heel. No amount of cameras, sensitivity training, or citizen review boards is going to change that simple fact. Kaal fucked around with this message at 10:13 on Dec 13, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2014 10:07
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Except for the part where they repeatedly identified themselves as police before drawing. It's so reassuring to know that they made sure every single person there knew that before drawing a gun an unarmed crowd and waving it around. It surely would have been a pity if someone hadn't been able to hear a single voice in a massive protest and simply saw a guy in street-clothes menacing a crowd with a gun. Clearly the cop should be held up as an example of best police practices, and not lambasted as a clear example of the failure of the entire concept of secret police.  Misogynist posted:I like all the apologists looking at pictures of dead black kids on the ground and then they pop up like, "yeah, but this one bought a lady eggs" The reality is that cops could shoot up streets daily and folks like Cole and Actus would still eat it up. Fox and the GOP use race-baiting and fear-mongering to control their constituents, and promoting cops as the sole line of defence against liberals is a key element of that. Kaal fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Dec 14, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:In that specific case it sounds like he drew on the crowd only after his partner was assaulted and the crowd continued to ... well ... crowd in on them. So far this sounds like an appropriate use of force. 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. quote:Given the current response to uniformed police, undercover deployment *seems* to be less of a provocation unless we find out that they were there to stir up trouble and discredit the protests. Given the current response to uniformed police, the correct action is to decrease police provocation not do it even more with secret police.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:No, it was a sarcastic pisstake on AreWeDrunkYet's insistence earlier in the thread that prosecuting any non-violent drug crime was fundamentally immoral. Cops mishandling evidence is a serious crime regardless of what evidence they stole. The fact that it was marijuana is incidental. Which you know full well. But the reality is that cop-supporters are going to support cops regardless of whatever they do, which is yet another reason why American police should be subjected to federalization. I'd suggest beginning to do so by tying federal law enforcement funds to federal oversight. Do the exact same procedure that we've done with highways and schools and everything else. If cops want our money, they can play by our rules. Kaal fucked around with this message at 09:37 on Dec 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 09:34
|
|
|
The Locator posted:Perfectly aware of that, but if they keep doing stupid poo poo like this, eventually it will happen in front of a parent or someone who snaps and trys to defend their child. Hence the 'escalation' part. This already happens fairly often, but the police spin it as "aggressive drunk man attacks police without provocation" or whatever to the media.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 01:20 |
|
|
Untagged posted:This will cost you at least three or four serious felonies in most states, more in others. Rated 1 Star Do Not Attempt. Also, if you attempt to or actually do disarm an officer you will more than likely be shot. "Intervening" is not a recommended practice unless you intend to help the cop. The flip side is you may not know the context of a given situation and what "looks bad" to you might in fact actually not be and be completely justified. Then your completely boned in two directions. On the other hand, save the life of your son ...
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2014 20:25
|
|