|
As far as i can understand the civil right issue is as follows: when if someone brings a video of a incident into court the only people who can validate that video as evidence are the people on that video. And because the other party is dead you really can't force An American Police Officer to incriminate himself. This is lawful and good.
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 03:31 |
|
|
Illegal Username posted:As far as i can understand the civil right issue is as follows: when if someone brings a video of a incident into court the only people who can validate that video as evidence are the people on that video. And because the other party is dead you really can't force An American Police Officer to incriminate himself. Look at this bloodthirsty poo poo, what's it like to think all cops should be murdered? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
Illegal Username posted:As far as i can understand the civil right issue is as follows: when if someone brings a video of a incident into court the only people who can validate that video as evidence are the people on that video. And because the other party is dead you really can't force An American Police Officer to incriminate himself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:That's because people bitch about things like "why isn't that cop forced to file a report on his own shooting" and when its pointed out to them that this is a violation of of their 5th Amendment rights out comes the chorus of "stop trying to derail the thread with legal technicalities". So rather than talk about anything people are actually saying, you're just making poo poo up and getting mad at it? Um. Kay.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
I'm curious: an officer can (like anyone else) plead the 5th in court, but could they hypothetically still be fired for failing to follow procedure by not filing a report on their own shooting, or do 5thA protections extend to the workplace too? (for comparison, could someone plead the 5th and not fill out an OHS incident report in any workplace following an accident if they believed the report would reflect negatively on them? Would refusal to fill that out be fair grounds for dismissal?)
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
UrbanLabyrinth posted:I'm curious: an officer can (like anyone else) plead the 5th in court, but could they hypothetically still be fired for failing to follow procedure by not filing a report on their own shooting, or do 5thA protections extend to the workplace too? Garrity v. New Jersey (1967) quote:In 1961 allegations of "ticket fixing" came to light in the townships of Bellmawr and Barrington, New Jersey. Six officers, including Edward Garrity, were suspected and subsequently interviewed in connection. Although they were told that their statements could be used to bring about criminal charges and that they were not required to answer any questions, the officers were threatened with removal from office if they did not cooperate. The officers answered the incriminating questions, which eventually led to criminal charges. Police and other public employees suspected of criminal misconduct can't be forced to file a report that may incriminate them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
I'd be fine if cops declined to file a report after murdering somebody, instead of filing a false report along with their buddies
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So rather than talk about anything people are actually saying, you're just making poo poo up and getting mad at it? The real irony here is the argument that in many of the cases in this thread, had the officer respected the victim's rights, the shooting that took place would never have occurred.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'd be fine if cops declined to file a report after murdering somebody, instead of filing a false report along with their buddies I could get behind this. There have been a lot of reports described in this thread that could charitably be described as "confused" (less charitably they could be described as "mendacious" or "blatant lies"). Police of all people should know how easy it is for witnesses to be confused about what they observed and be more circumspect in their reports. If they're shown to be lying in the report there needs to be some sort of consequence. If there is no way to turn in a true report without violating their 5th amendment rights, then they need to be lawyering up. Edit: Raerlynn posted:The real irony here is the argument that in many of the cases in this thread, had the officer respected the victim's rights, the shooting that took place would never have occurred. Some people are saying that taking an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. Just because McDonald had his due process right violated doesn't give us the right to deprive van Dyke of his. It is curious that it almost always seems to work in this direction, though. Grundulum fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Nov 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
what a dick, van dyke
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:It is curious that it almost always seems to work in this direction, though. Graham v Connor
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:Graham v Connor How many videos have we seen in this thread of a single individual, armed at most with a knife (usually unarmed), making no threatening motions at all, being approached by multiple officers and winding up dead? If not kissing the curb at the first sight of a blue uniform (or however you want to interpret "whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight" when no arrest has been announced or attempted) is an action punishable by death, then you need to give me a different citation for why.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:How many videos have we seen in this thread of a single individual, armed at most with a knife (usually unarmed), making no threatening motions at all, being approached by multiple officers and winding up dead? If not kissing the curb at the first sight of a blue uniform (or however you want to interpret "whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight" when no arrest has been announced or attempted) is an action punishable by death, then you need to give me a different citation for why. That the standard for an officer violating someone's due process rights has a higher burden to prove than a prosecutor performing procedural violations of due process which would lead to a natural imbalance in the claims (causing it to be "one way")? If that wasn't your point, I'm sorry for misinterpreting it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:Some people are saying that taking an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. Just because McDonald had his due process right violated doesn't give us the right to deprive van Dyke of his. It is curious that it almost always seems to work in this direction, though. I'm not saying that is my goal, just observing that the people who do their damnedest to ensure that the officer gets his fair ashamed don't seem to note the irony that several of the deaths we've seen this year, literately seen, have been from when an officer exceeded his authority and violated the rights of the citizen. But they make drat sure to make every excuse in the book to excuse the officer stepping all over the civil rights of the citizen. Just little ironies. Or cognitive dissonances.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:That the standard for an officer violating someone's due process rights has a higher burden to prove than a prosecutor performing procedural violations of due process which would lead to a natural imbalance in the claims (causing it to be "one way")? My point was that police officers get an enormous amount of leeway to be prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner -- far above and beyond what Graham vs Connor suggests at a cursory level. If there is additional jurisprudence based on it that extends the ruling, that may account for the discrepancy. Sorry for the tone; I am used to short replies carrying the connotation of exasperation and snarkiness, which apparently wasn't your intent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So rather than talk about anything people are actually saying, you're just making poo poo up and getting mad at it? What the gently caress? I included a quote of someone saying literally exactly that in my post.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:What the gently caress? I included a quote of someone saying literally exactly that in my post. quote:Can you quote "a bunch of people" saying "it's a shame that officers have civil rights" in this thread? This is the kind of thing shuts down & derails conversation. Chalets the Baka posted:Of course the police apologizers are going to default to arguing semantics. gently caress off with that. This is the best you can do, a month old post made before our current situation of a cop shooting someone 16 times with video to boot. I don't understand the correlation of using that as your example to a post calling you out for lying about the thread saying officers should not have civil rights. Before you comment further, maybe read over the thread instead of getting mad about month old post before posting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
tezcat posted:Quick refresher course for you. I asked you the following: That is literally a post saying that officer's having civil rights is bullshit
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:That is literally a post saying that officer's having civil rights is bullshit No, that is literally a post saying that officers have different (and superior) rights to civilians to let them avoid consequences for their actions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:No, that is literally a post saying that officers have different (and superior) rights to civilians to let them avoid consequences for their actions. Sure Jarmak can tell you a clip from a magazine and knows the back and forth from the latest soldier of fortune magazine, but ask him whats the difference between 1 and a bunch and well you lost him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:No, that is literally a post saying that officers have different (and superior) rights to civilians to let them avoid consequences for their actions. No, it's not, at all. It's a post lamenting that cops don't lose their 5th amendment rights by becoming cops.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 07:48
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:That's because people bitch about things like "why isn't that cop forced to file a report on his own shooting" and when its pointed out to them that this is a violation of of their 5th Amendment rights out comes the chorus of "stop trying to derail the thread with legal technicalities". People aren't bitching because they want to see a cop's civil rights violated, they bitch because the cops seem to have more civil rights than they do. If I break the law or violate policy at my job or do anything to put my employer at risk, they will demand a full accounting from me. My rights in a court of law are an entirely separate thing, if I want to clam up there, fine, but my job will either have answers, answers that they find satisfactory, or they will fire me. They don't give a gently caress if my answers cause me to incriminate myself in court, I can either tell them the truth (or, I suppose, some convincing bullshit) or I can find another job. That's the reality for the vast majority of people in this country and it's not hypocrisy for us to expect the police to live with the same rules we have to live with, is it? It seems seriously hosed up to me that somebody who carries a gun in their daily duties, somebody who might kill somebody in the course of their day to day work, has a lesser burden of accountability to their employer than I do. I'm not asking for them to give up any rights that I have, I'm just expecting them to not have more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 09:05
|
|
|
Terraplane posted:People aren't bitching because they want to see a cop's civil rights violated, they bitch because the cops seem to have more civil rights than they do. If I break the law or violate policy at my job or do anything to put my employer at risk, they will demand a full accounting from me. My rights in a court of law are an entirely separate thing, if I want to clam up there, fine, but my job will either have answers, answers that they find satisfactory, or they will fire me. They don't give a gently caress if my answers cause me to incriminate myself in court, I can either tell them the truth (or, I suppose, some convincing bullshit) or I can find another job. On the other hand though, we should be pushing for that kind of employment protection for everyone. I shouldn't have to choose between exercising my constitutional rights and keeping my job. If a cop wants to lawyer up instead of turning in a report that's fine with me. Make the employer justify the decision to fire the cop for cause, and let's get some labor laws passed to hold all employers to that standard. Also, have an independent state or federal agency that investigates allegations of police misconduct and prosecutes them to remove the conflict-of-interest of local cops and prosecutors investigating their friends. (Edit: people should probably be put on some kind of administrative leave probably without pay if they're refusing to answer questions because they might have done something illegal on the job) The hypocrisy of the "law and order" types itt isn't here, it's in their absurd stonewalling of any attempt to even discuss an investigation of this poo poo. Cops demand surveillance footage and when they leave, the part of the tape that could contain incriminating evidence is wiped. Just the appearance of such an impropriety should have us demanding an investigation and a full accounting of what's happened. If the people charged with enforcing the law are destroying evidence to protect their friends, that's one of the biggest attacks on law and order imaginable, a much greater threat to civil society than a random criminal killing a cop, "law and order" types should be incensed if this isn't taken seriously. But instead of "yeah, that looks shady, it needs to be investigated" or ideas about how to get some kind of outside authority involved that doesn't have conflicts of interest, we're getting absurd poo poo. "Oh well we can't know why the footage disappeared, just cuz it's gone doesn't mean the cops did it, so don't look into it". "Oh well the cops weren't mugging for the camera and showing their nametapes, guess there's no way to figure out who was on the videotape, so don't look into it." "Investigating allegations in any way is the same as presuming the cop guilty without a trial, so don't look into it." "Oh well liberals are mean, here's an out-of-context post from a month ago by someone who isn't even here right now that I kinda think is anti-cop, so don't look into it." Okay yeah maybe we'll investigate and find out that a solar flare just happened to erase those crucial minutes of the tape and all liberals will be proven wrong, great isn't that a really good reason to do the investigation, so if there's a benign explanation everyone will know what it is and the public's faith in the justice system won't be shaken by what looks to be a really loving atrociously blatant coverup that no one even looked into? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 10:39 on Nov 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 10:32
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:On the other hand though, we should be pushing for that kind of employment protection for everyone. I shouldn't have to choose between exercising my constitutional rights and keeping my job. Despite my occasional frustrations with people who obviously need to be fired, this is probably the way to go, true.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 13:12
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:No, it's not, at all. it's a post lamenting the differences between normal citizens and a cop when in similar situations. ya know, the entire thing that is the problem here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 13:21
|
|
|
Jarmak, I skimmed through the posts you've made in this thread, and I think a big reason why people are dogpiling you is because all you ever seem to do is disagree with specifics and talk about the legal/constitutional/whatever technicalities of whatever the latest example is at a given moment, without addressing the larger issue. It led me to wonder (honest question, not trying to bait you or anything) what your own position is. Do you even agree that there's an issue with the police often getting off easy after an officer involved shooting? If not, can I take it that as far as you're concerned the system works as intended and there's no need for reform, or are there areas that do need improvement? Maybe it's a matter of public perception? If you do agree there's an issue, and pretty much any solution discussed in this thread is apparantly impossible one way or another, do you have any suggestions of your own? I mean, there's apparantly a loophole in the system regarding the 5th amendment that allows the police to do some shady poo poo, which may or may not be technically illegal but is definitely perceived as such. What do you propose to be done about that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 13:53
|
|
|
Jarmak discusses legal specifics because that's what he knows. He's also right quite a bit of the time. There is definitely a problem with racist shootings from police. Very few people think any different. Van Dyke hosed up bad and will likely be behind bars because of it. The cops that deleted evidence should face charges as well. None of the people should be stripped of their due process and other constitutional rights. There is no 5th amendment loophole.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
I think we should encourage cops to take the fifth on their reports by coming down like a ton of bricks on anyone who lies on a report with intent to obstruct a possible criminal investigation. Right now the cop lies, his buddies lie on their own false reports, everyone nods their heads and believes it, unless a random cell phone or store security camera happens to catch the crime and show that the little boy they killed wasn't pointing a gun at everyone. Put anyone who does that poo poo away for a few years, charge them with conspiracy after the fact, or make police reports and affidavit and charge them with perjury. At least if the cops turn in a blank report and refuse to answer questions because of self-incrimination then there's no drat way the department will be able to get away with not investigating what happened the way they do now when journalists just take whatever the cops say as fact.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
Where preserving 5th amendment rights for police officers becomes problematic is that they are often the only living witness to these criminal interactions and are professionally obligated to provide an accurate account of the events that occurred while they were employed in the trust of the public.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
Yeah but that's what cameras are for, although there should be some independent way to certify the footage that doesn't depend on the cop or his friend going "yep that's me murdering the guy lol", maybe they could use whatever they use when a civilian murders a cop on camera and then refuses to testify.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
What bugs me about the "we have to be really careful about the rights of cops" stuff is it's just misdirection. Cops are the people who are least likely to have their rights violated. They have access to the judicial system in ways no one else does since they and their coworkers not only deal with gathering evidence and interviewing witnesses and have the ability to ignore, hide, or tamper with that, but are also in a close professional two-way relationship with the prosecutors that charge them. In addition they are some of the few people left in this country with a strong union to back them up. When they are often the people that are actively harassing others and abusing their authority given to them by the government such as in this instance it comes off as incredibly tone deaf to suddenly care deeply about making sure everything is fair. We shouldn't be trying to take away the constitutional rights of police. When people point out how incredibly lopsided it currently is and that the police seem to have no problem using their authority to kill or subvert justice it's to try and make sure everyone gets the sort of deal that police do, not some strawman where we start throwing police in jail without any evidence which coincidentally is a thing that happens to non-police. The hand wringing that the police might in some theoretical scenario dreamed up by internet posters be lowered to what the rest of us have to deal with comes off as simply trying to change the topic of the victims of the police to pretending that they are in any way a victim. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 16:13 on Nov 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:I'm not seeing that. I'm seeing some truly bloodthirsty, retributionist rhetoric. People are arguing that due process should be defined at the same standard as the acts which the penal system punishes. just lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Jarmak discusses legal specifics because that's what he knows. He's also right quite a bit of the time. quote:There is definitely a problem with racist shootings from police. Very few people think any different. Van Dyke hosed up bad and will likely be behind bars because of it. The cops that deleted evidence should face charges as well. quote:None of the people should be stripped of their due process and other constitutional rights. There is no 5th amendment loophole. Isn't the argument about cops being able to do something blatantly illegal and getting away with it either because they delete the evidence or because the evidence that is there is inadmissable because of the 5th amendment? I might be misunderstanding things, but being able to create a situation where you can murder someone or kill them because of incompetence but that situation, despite video evidence, is impossible to investigate properly, nor can you even be charged, seems like it pretty huge loophole. A loophole the size of if I were a legit serial killer I could abuse the hell of it. (I'm not saying cops are serial killers here.) To me it seems like there's a pretty huge flaw in the system, or rather, multiple complex flaws, that allow for abuse. I'd like to see those like Jarman, who are opposite of most of this thread, to actually engage with the issues rather than pick and choose the legal specifics. They can do both, of course, especially if they're good at it (as Jarmek seems to be) but people are talking past each other. One side is focused entirely on the specifics while the other wants to talk about the broader issues, which results in pages of people pretty much agreeing with each other followed by pages of nitpicking minutae, without any real discussion going on. e: I'm not saying the 5th amendment is bullshit, but rather there's an interaction between the 5th amendment and current laws and regulations that create a grey area ripe for abuse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
Terraplane posted:People aren't bitching because they want to see a cop's civil rights violated, they bitch because the cops seem to have more civil rights than they do. If I break the law or violate policy at my job or do anything to put my employer at risk, they will demand a full accounting from me. My rights in a court of law are an entirely separate thing, if I want to clam up there, fine, but my job will either have answers, answers that they find satisfactory, or they will fire me. They don't give a gently caress if my answers cause me to incriminate myself in court, I can either tell them the truth (or, I suppose, some convincing bullshit) or I can find another job. They don't though, the constitution restricts the hands of the government not of private citizens, this means that if you work for the government in any capacity they are bound by many more restrictions then a private employer. This isn't because you have more rights, its because your employer happens to also be the same entity your rights are there to protect you from. Taeke posted:Jarmak, I skimmed through the posts you've made in this thread, and I think a big reason why people are dogpiling you is because all you ever seem to do is disagree with specifics and talk about the legal/constitutional/whatever technicalities of whatever the latest example is at a given moment, without addressing the larger issue. I usually only bother to pipe up if I disagree with something someone is saying or if I feel like I have relevant information to contribute that isn't being factored into the discussion because I don't really feel the need to put points up on the scoreboard by posting how much I agree with how hosed up X incident is every time something comes up. The entire system, like most societal systems, is entirely hosed up, especially when viewed at the macro level. The problem is that when you start digging into the specifics of a problem that spans thousands of different departments separated by thousands of miles, different regional cultures/problems and different governments for a solution it gets very murky and often times there is no clear solution that doesn't present an even bigger problem. Which is you often see me posting to say, basically "no you can't just apply that bandaid to fix this one specific incident because x law", because x law is actually really important. I will say the one thing I can enthusiastically get behind is cameras: body cams, dash cams, cameras everywhere, no interaction between police and civilian should go unrecorded. The system of laws we have in place is actually pretty good, when I argue from it its because I believe the laws to be correct, the ability for dirty cops to subvert that system by lying and/or simply side stepping it is the biggest addressable part of the problem in my opinion. Taeke posted:Isn't the argument about cops being able to do something blatantly illegal and getting away with it either because they delete the evidence or because the evidence that is there is inadmissable because of the 5th amendment? I might be misunderstanding things, but being able to create a situation where you can murder someone or kill them because of incompetence but that situation, despite video evidence, is impossible to investigate properly, nor can you even be charged, seems like it pretty huge loophole. A loophole the size of if I were a legit serial killer I could abuse the hell of it. (I'm not saying cops are serial killers here.) No, the argument is that a cop can refuse to file a report in a shooting he's involved in because it would violate his/her 5th amendment rights to compel them to give self-incriminating testimony.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
Man, I don't know if it's possible to even have a conversation about this stuff with people who love cops. They are literally imagining things. Wanting cops to stop committing murder is "retributionist rhetoric." Wanting them to stop getting off scott free for it is "taking away their constitutional rights." (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Well consider the issue. Image you are a diehard "conservative" (whatever that means) and in the case of police abuse of power it's the "liberals" that actually have the correct position on the matter (treat the officer like everyone else and let justice prevail). At this point as a conservative you can take the position opposite of liberals which make them a racist usually or you have to actually agree with them which many conservatives will think is a fate worse than being a racist. Or you can try to manufacture a new point that doesn't address the issue and lets you dodge the racist bullet and agreeing with liberals bullet. Its the only way you can get from : these cops are walking around getting to do whatever it is they do while if it were any other "class of person" they would be sitting behind bars. to It's a post lamenting that cops don't lose their 5th amendment rights by becoming cops
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
UrbanLabyrinth posted:I'm curious: an officer can (like anyone else) plead the 5th in court, but could they hypothetically still be fired for failing to follow procedure by not filing a report on their own shooting, or do 5thA protections extend to the workplace too? Everyone has the right not to be compelled by the government to incriminate themselves. Garrity says that in the context of government employment, threatening termination is compulsion for 5th amendment purposes, and so a government employee can't be forced to make an incriminating statement under threat of termination. This means that a government employer will proceed in one of two ways: by removing the incrimination (any statements the employee is compelled to make can be used in internal disciplinary proceedings but not criminal proceedings), or removing the compulsion (the employee has the right not to make a statement, but any statements made are fair game for criminal prosecution). In the first hypo, the employee could be fired solely for refusing to give a statement. In the second, he probably couldn't. That applies if you're talking about a police officer, or a state-funded public defender, or an employee of a public university, but most people work for private employers. The Chase corporation is bounded by employment and contract law, but not the First or the Fifth; so if you're an employee there, your boss can (and probably will) demand a full accounting of any screw-ups and fire you for not cooperating. This doesn't implicate your right against self-incrimination because it's not the government you're dealing with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
tezcat posted:Well consider the issue. Image you are a diehard "conservative" (whatever that means) and in the case of police abuse of power it's the "liberals" that actually have the correct position on the matter (treat the officer like everyone else and let justice prevail). Chalets the Baka posted:Of course the police apologizers are going to default to arguing semantics. gently caress off with that. Wikipedia posted:Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that law enforcement officers and other public employees have the right to be free from compulsory self-incrimination. It gave birth to the Garrity warning, which is administered by investigators to suspects in internal and administrative investigations in a similar manner as the Miranda warning is administered to suspects in criminal investigations. Or the other way to get to it would be to understand what's being discussed. Also being right of D&D does not make someone a "diehard conservative"
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Or the other way to get to it would be to understand what's being discussed. Also being right of D&D does not make someone a "diehard conservative" Think about that, your justification a >bunch of people< wants to strip officers of their rights on an issue that opened up about 1 week before thanksgiving is >a single month old post<. I'm just hoping you get your act together cause who knows, maybe showing that you are posting badly may make you post better. That's the hope. tezcat fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Nov 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 03:31 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:I usually only bother to pipe up if I disagree with something someone is saying or if I feel like I have relevant information to contribute that isn't being factored into the discussion because I don't really feel the need to put points up on the scoreboard by posting how much I agree with how hosed up X incident is every time something comes up. The entire system, like most societal systems, is entirely hosed up, especially when viewed at the macro level. The problem is that when you start digging into the specifics of a problem that spans thousands of different departments separated by thousands of miles, different regional cultures/problems and different governments for a solution it gets very murky and often times there is no clear solution that doesn't present an even bigger problem. Which is you often see me posting to say, basically "no you can't just apply that bandaid to fix this one specific incident because x law", because x law is actually really important.  I actually expected as much but you can understand how, by only pointing out flaws in people's arguments without contributing alternatives or expressing your own position you can come across as condoning the very things people in this thread have a problem with, right? Even if you don't actually condone those things and have ideas of your own that could address these issues.quote:No, the argument is that a cop can refuse to file a report in a shooting he's involved in because it would violate his/her 5th amendment rights to compel them to give self-incriminating testimony. So, let me ask again, because you're not actually engaging my argument here, do you agree that this, combined with existing procedure and law, leads to a situation where a cop can create a situation in which they break either law or procedure, resulting in the death of an innocent, and not just get away with it but get away with it without ever being charged or the shooting being investigated at all? Is my assessment in some way incorrect, and if so, in what way? To take it to an extreme, it seems entirely possible to me for a person with the wish to murder to join the police, create circumstances that allow them to do so, and get away with it. Less extreme, incompetence or bad training going without consequence, as we've seen many times before. Is that acceptable to you? Could we change current law and procedure in such a way to prevent any of this happening while still respecting the rights given according to the 5th amendment?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 18:53
|
|