|
tsa posted:Also the women was dead before the cops could do anything about it so the suggestion that they protected their friend at the cost of her life is incorrect as well. How do you know that she was already dead? How would the cops have known that? I'm pretty sure they didn't check, since their good buddy was hovering over her with a gun. quote:I'm also unsure what the point people are trying to make is- officers should be more trigger happy? When a man has a gun, has shot somebody, and is standing over the body of the possibly-still-alive-at-this-point victim where he might at any moment fire more bullets into said victim, that is the precise and exact time when cops should maybe be a little trigger happy?
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 16:59 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:That isn't what "active shooter" means. As far as they could tell, they had a murder suspect who they were trying to talk into surrendering. No, as far as they could tell they had an armed attempted murder suspect, with his gunshot victim bleeding to death in the car. Even if he hadn't shot her the second time it would still be outrageous that they chose to spend 50 minutes or so negotiating while she's sitting there, status unknown. But of course he did shoot her again, right in front of them, and they didn't do anything, which pushes this beyond outrageous and into WTF territory. This whole situation is indefensible. From the fact that he was still a cop after all of his domestic violence issues, to the fact that he had access to guns, to his actions, and to the actions of the other officers there, this whole thing is a start to finish clusterfuck of police failure.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:Not knowing the details of this incident, it probably would have been better if the police had killed the suspect prior to shooting his wife, but not killing him afterwards is actually a display of positive restraint on their part. No, it's not positive at all. At this point all they know is that there is a severely injured woman in obvious need of immediate medical attention, with their buddy, her assailant, hovering over her with a gun. Keep in mind that she did not die until she got to the hospital. This entire time, after being shot the first time, the second time, and throughout all the time the police spent talking and compiling a goddamn Precious Memories scrapbook, this poor woman is bleeding to death in the car. You can't even make the claim that the police assumed she was dead, because we've all seen that, to the police, nobody's dead until a medical professional says they're dead. If you want a cite just let me know, I'll go dig up some pictures of bullet riddled black guys in handcuffs for you. It's not like they're hard to find. This is a dismal, unmitigated gently caress up.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:In defense of the dudes that didn't shoot the cop who killed his wife: The choices you offer are dumb. There's a pretty big middle ground between not shooting this guy, who is the textbook example of the kind of criminal that police are supposed to shoot, and shooting "anyone that might possibly pose a threat to anyone, ever." Unless every decision you make swings wildly between two polar opposites I have to think that you're well aware of that yourself. If you really need it spelled out though, how about a policy of "shoot people who are an active threat to yourself or others. Don't shoot people who aren't." And yes, I realize that still leaves room for interpretation in a number of events. But not this event. This event was nothing more than a blatant failure by these police officers to do their job and it might very well have cost a woman her life.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
Dahn posted:I find it funny that in this instance, we are finding fault with the cops for "not" being trigger happy. 'Trigger happy' has a well established and understood meaning that doesn't fit what anybody in this thread is asking for at all. Shooting an armed person who is committing murder right in front of you is not being trigger happy. Using appropriate force when necessary is not being trigger happy. Nobody in this thread has faulted the police for failure to be 'trigger happy.'
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Frankly, I'm still not clear whether you think this is a fault with the Missouri rules of evidence, or some kind of thin blue line magic, the mechanism of which remains unspecified. For myself, I find it extremely difficult to believe that among the resources of an entire metropolitan police department or prosecutor's office there wasn't a single person who could authenticate a video taken by that same department, in one of that department's vehicles, which shows one of that department's officers hitting the suspect/victim in question, at the time and date that the incident was known to have occurred. How am I supposed to believe something that sounds, on its face, so utterly ridiculous? Okay, fine, the law has many mysterious and sometimes counter-intuitive ways. That's why we have lawyers, after all, because you can't be expected to understand it fully unless you devote a huge amount of study and time to it. So maybe there really wasn't a single person in the department who could authenticate a video taken by that same department, in one of that department's vehicles, which shows one of that department's officers hitting the suspect/victim in question, at the time and date that the incident was known to have occurred. If that's really the case, how is that not outrageous on its own? How is that not, in itself, a massive problem? If this is really the case, what's to prevent any department from simply saying, "Sorry, we can't authenticate the video," whenever it doesn't want to see its officers prosecuted? What protections are in place to prevent this from being abused? Or are we all simply supposed to trust that the prosecutor and police did the best they can? Terraplane fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Jul 9, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
The person chosen to lead the grand jury that will probably oversee the Waco biker shootout cases just so happens to be a Waco police detective. According to the city his presence is a result of their completely random method of picking jurors. It's just coincidental that, in a city of 120,000 people, a cop was picked. The article specifically mentions him entering the grand jury chamber wearing his gun and badge, which I'm sure couldn't be considered intimidating to anybody else on the jury. As a layman, this seems like a rather massive conflict of interest. If it isn't blatant corruption, it's about how I imagine blatant corruption to look. Is this really an acceptable practice? Link Terraplane fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Jul 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
This is the jury that will (again, probably) be investigating not only the bikers, but the police response as well. I guess I'm more than a little shocked that this is ok, it's setting up a huge conflict of interest.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:d. The system that this jury selection system replaced was laughably vulnerable to abuse. You say this is standard practice and I'll take your word for it, but I'd argue that a Waco cop leading a grand jury investigating other Waco cops indicates that we still have a system laughably vulnerable to abuse.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:After rereading the article, there will be a separate jury to review the police actions: I don't see how this indicates that it will be a different grand jury from the one we've been talking about though. The article does mention that the detective can step out while others vote if he has a conflict. That's fine, except that relies on him actually doing it and it still means that any jurors who might vote to indict a Waco PD officer will have to deal with a Waco PD officer before and after their vote. Maybe I'm just a big baby of an outlier but I would be hugely uncomfortable in that situation. quote:Terraplane and others appear to be taking the position that people with ties to law enforcement can never serve on grand juries. Now that you mention it I think they probably shouldn't, but thus far my concern has really been that people with ties to law enforcement shouldn't serve on grand juries that will investigate members of law enforcement. I think that first part is simply a good idea, but the second part should be imperative.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Crazy person does crazy thing? Why is this in the criminal justice thread? Because the cops in this case just stood around and watched while this particular crazy person, who is a cop, shot up his ex-wife. He'd already shot her some before the police got there, mind you, but they let him shoot her up a bit more. Then, instead of forcing the murderer, who is their colleague, to surrender, or shooting him so they could provide medical assistance to the injured woman bleeding to death in the car, they spent 30 minutes compiling a photo album of his kids. When he surrendered they gave him hugs and told him they loved him. The woman they allowed him to murder died in the hospital.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:So we're doing the, "Here is what police should have done in that life or death situation" thing again? Yes. There are people who believe that police should be held accountable for their actions, even in life or death situations.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I keep listening to the eyewitness statements and they're saying he rammed her car, jumped out and shot her, and then put the gun to his head when police officer approached. He did shoot her before the cops got there, though that first time cops were in the area anyway so they showed up very quickly afterwards. After they showed up is when he started putting the gun to his head, though at some point he stopped doing that long enough to shoot the (still alive at this point) victim again. Terraplane fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Jul 13, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:What you are really saying is that, every single one of 800,000 law enforcement officers in the United States should have had special training on how to handle this specific 30-50 minutes of two of their lives. Why would this situation require special training? How you deal with a man with a gun who is actively shooting people (not to be confused with an 'active shooter,' of course!) is pretty basic as far as police work goes, isn't it? Like, that's kind of the entire raison d'etre for armed police, isn't it? You want training, fine, tell the officers that the rules don't change when the perp is a cop. You shouldn't need to train that into them unless you've previously trained it out of them, but it's looking like it might be necessary so I'm all for it. quote:Plus, how do you know the people didn't receive sufficient training? What if they still didn't follow it? Everyone in America takes a driver's test, and we still get tickets and have wrecks? Do you really believe that there is a driver's safety program that you could design that would eliminate all tickets and wrecks? Ok, so maybe they did receive training, but they just didn't follow it? Well, that would just make them look worse, wouldn't it? I don't even know what you're trying to say here. "Maybe they didn't get the training they need! If not, how can we blame them!? Or if they did get the training, maybe they just didn't follow it! If so, how can we blame them!?" Well, that's pretty convenient for them, isn't it?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
I like how part of the city's argument is basically, "No fair, we paid good money to cover up this video!"
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
The shooting video that Gardena, CA didn't want released was released. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-federal-judge-orders-release-of-videos-20150714-story.html?14369191098620#page=1 I can see why they fought to keep it hidden.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2015 13:39
|
|
|
On top of that, being treated like garbage on the side of the road and locked in a cage at the whim of a power tripping rear end in a top hat is one of the more demoralizing experiences I can imagine. You're all excited about a new job and a new start, and the next thing you know you're locked away for days in a strange and scary place, you have to come up with bail money you can't afford, you don't know how any of this is going to affect your new job, and the entire new start experience you were so excited about is thoroughly ruined. The officer who dragged her out of her car for not putting out a cigarette wanted to teach her a very specific lesson about her place in society and her value compared to his, and since he's the one with the entire system backing him up it wouldn't be too shocking if she believed it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 13:55
|
|
|
Spacman posted:I was genuinely confused as to why I was being called a racist. It took me a while to sync up usernames. You accused other posters of, "Falling back to screaming racist over and over because you can't argue effectively." Some might feel that such a statement blatantly ignores that there have been incidences of actual racism in this thread. Now, I didn't ask you that question so I can't be positive, but I'd guess that they are trying to determine if you think it's racist to tell black people to 'act white.' If you do think it's racist, then why aren't you addressing that rather than accusing people of playing the race card? If you don't think it's racist, I suspect they were going to call you dumb and/or racist, because it's a dumb and/or racist as hell thing to say. And anyway... quote:Ill answer but you wont like it. If you have a problem with the question why did you agree to answer it?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
Spacman posted:Do you honestly not understand my reticence? I don't understand why you'd agree to answer it at all, if you don't intend to do so.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
Spacman posted:Yeah: 'I don't understand why this guy is concerned about voicing opinions that are not in the echo chamber when he has been called a NAZI two posts ago' . That's not where the misunderstanding lies here, and it's pretty sad that even in something as simple as this you have to misdirect and try to misrepresent others. I understand why you don't want to answer that question, if I held your opinions I wouldn't want to answer it here either. I'm asking you why you'd agree to answer it in the first place if you had no intention of doing so.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
I'm sure most here remember the baby who had his face torn up by a flash bang grenade during a no knock raid. The person responsible for the bad info that 'justified' that raid is being charged.quote:Habersham deputy sheriff Nikki Autry, working with the multi-agency Mountain Judicial Circuit Narcotics Criminal and Suppression Team, was indicted on four counts of criminal civil rights violations, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. "Without her false statements, there was no probable cause to search the premises for drugs or to make the arrest,” acting U.S. Attorney John Horn said Wednesday. “And in this case, the consequences of the unlawful search were tragic.” That was a federal grand jury, by the way. Despite what I'm certain were the DA's best efforts a state grand jury voted not to indict back in October. quote:In October, a state grand jury called the drug investigation "hurried" and "sloppy," but found no criminal intent by any of the officers involved and declined to return any indictments. Autry resigned after the grand jury findings were released.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Kalmans having a difficult time showing anyone said it was about a traffic violation. I don't think he'll have a very hard time doing that, actually. Agrajag posted:Arresting someone and putting in jail over a minor traffic violation is sooo loving stupid. Your loving system is stupid as all gently caress America. From the last page. You actually quoted the post.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
The video of the University of Cincinnati shooting will be released today, instead of tomorrow. I'm not sure why they changed their minds but there's a press conference at 1:00 PM. I'm assuming that's Eastern time, so we'll hear what they have to say in about half an hour. http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/colleges/uc-news/hamilton-county-prosecutors-office-to-release-body-cam-footage-of-uc-shooting-thursday
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
"This just does not happen in the United States. People do not get shot unless they are violent towards a police officer." LOL
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
Dahn posted:The other thing, why was the car still running and in gear (don't see Dubose putting it in gear). If his foot slips off the break the car will roll forward a little, 1 sec later he's dead. It was off until right before he got shot. At around the 1:52 mark of the video you can see Dubose reach for the igntion and hear the engine turn over. Three seconds later he's dead. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UCXdpavfWQ
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Here is a longer version of the Dubose shooting than I've seen anywhere else. Tensing starts lying almost immediately.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
quote:Police are pretty much obligated to stop people who are breaking the law and maintain the standards set by the elected representatives. Funny, I thought they had plenty of discretion with regards to traffic stops. At least, that's the line you hear whenever you ask why cops don't ticket their friends/family.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
Somebody on reddit made an image stabilized version of the Tensing video. It definitely helps clear up what's going on for anybody who was still having trouble seeing it. It shows both the shooting itself more clearly, and it shows Tensing's police cruiser, directly behind Dubose's car, at the periphery of a few frames as he's shoving his gun in the window. It's clear that Dubose's car didn't start hauling rear end until immediately after the shot. Once he's shot, it practically leaps forward and it does look like it might have yanked Tensing around, but again, only after the shot. The only moment where Tensing is ever in any real danger of being run over, it's as a direct result of his own actions.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2015 12:37
|
|
|
Two of the officers in the Marksville shooting have been arrested. That's something, I suppose. At least they'll be temporarily inconvenienced for murdering a child before a stacked jury acquits them/repeatedly mistrials and they're reinstated with full back pay.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
Here's the horrifying account of the shooting of Idaho rancher Jack Yantis. A car hit his bull and he was called by the Sheriff's Office to go deal with it. He arrived to a bullet riddled but still living bull, as the officers had tried to put it down but were apparently too inept to actually kill the creature and at some point they gave up trying. He got his rifle and went to kill the bull (which is, according to the account, something he's done before) but just before he shot an officer grabbed his shoulder and spun him around. The natural motion of this movement would obviously and necessarily lead to a man pointing a gun suddenly pointing said gun in the general direction of the police, and so the officers opened fire on him. His wife, a 62 year old woman, tried to help him so obviously they forced her down in the middle of the street and cuffed her. She then had a heart attack. The bullet riddled bull slowly suffocated on its own blood over the course of the next couple of hours. 
Terraplane fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Nov 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You, um, do see the ellipsis, right? The point is still, "Hey, we're not raping anybody, that's not too shabby!" and that is super hosed up.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:That's cool, but that's not what the guy who posted the image claimed. That's true, I'm glad you were here to point out the true injustice of the situation.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:Hold yourself to the same standards you apply to your opponents. It was a bold-faced lie to make that claim about the police chief and deserved to be called out as such. No way Dead Reckoning would be able to get away with something that flagrant; I don't understand why the rules should be different just because the poster is on my side of the argument. So point out how the poster in question overstated things (or lied, if that's what you think happened) but maybe ALSO spare a minute to mention that what was actually said was still objectively loving terrible? As it is the statement began and ended with correcting a SA poster, while completely ignoring that a person in an actual position of power said a rancid and awful thing, which is maybe a little loving bit more important in the context of the greater conversation about police and criminal justice.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
I don't think I've seen this incident in this thread, if I missed it, mea culpa. Back in 2014 a young man named Brandon Ellingson drowned in the Lake of the Ozarks. He'd been arrested for boating while intoxicated, handcuffed, and put in a life jacket. At some point he fell out of the police boat and drowned. The officer transporting him told investigators that they had hit the wave of a large wake which knocked Brandon out of the boat. Brandon was in the wrong type of life jacket for a handcuffed person. He was instead in the normal type of jacket that you or I would wear on a weekend boat outing. Imagine wearing one but without your arms through the arm holes because they're locked behind your back instead. He slipped right out of it and then he slipped under the water. Here's the early story. Even in that early article there is some anger over suggestions that the victim might have jumped out of the boat. There are also accusations that the arresting officer 'floored it' as he left with his improperly secured prisoner. But it's the kind of story that tends to fall by the wayside because, while there may be some questions, the facts are so obfuscated that it's difficult to sustain any inquiries or outrage. Unless you have a whistleblower. quote:Sgt. Randy Henry opened up about the drowning death of Brandon Ellingson, who drowned Memorial Day weekend in 2014. If you want more details, try here or here. It's not a story like a lot of the other ones in this thread. No outright murder. No resisting arrest with an ensuing panicked violence. Just a failure to follow policy that resulted in tragedy. It's mostly what happened afterward that makes it interesting in the context of this thread. The cover up and the pressure brought to bear on the one cop trying to tell the truth. What the bad apples can't spoil they simply throw out of the barrel entirely.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2015 10:26
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:Um, what rationale, if any, was given for the Chicago cops erasing the Burger King surveillance video? Or did they just say "we wanted to review this evidence, and it somehow wound up erased, sorry"? They don't know how it was erased.  Sure, police spent three hours, alone, in the room with the video recorder. And sure, after they left that entire time block was missing, but that's all mere coincidence because according the the police, "We have no credible evidence at this time that would cause us to believe CPD purged or erased any surveillance video."Source
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
cheese posted:How did we get to a place where "Guy 50 feet away with a knife walking away at an angle from multiple police officers" needs to be shot to death because hes a threat? How does that make any loving sense? I can't comprehend the escalation of force there. How are officers being trained? Is it literally "Well if there is even a tiny chance that at some point an officer could conceivably be injured, deadly force"? This sort of thing isn't a new development, it's just that now you have cameras everywhere so there's something concrete to counter the official police story. To be fair, I think that most police shootings are probably justified, there are a lot of stupid/violent people ingesting a lot of behavior altering chemicals on any given day, but at least some portion of those shootings have always been outright murders just like this one. We just finally have a way to prove it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 09:24
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You have no real basis for making this allegation, except that someone planning to run against her in the next election suggested it. You're right, she could just be grossly incompetent. Whew, what a relief!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 16:59 |
|
|
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
|
|