|
So I'm just gonna leave this here: http://www.kmov.com/story/29048813/authorities-investigating-after-video-shows-alton-officer-macing-teens-in-handcuffs Police macing a pair of teens handcuffed in the police station. So there's that.
|
#
¿
May 13, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 21:21 |
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:"Recklessly exercising your property rights" aparently covers a lot of ground. Including, apparently, rights one no longer has. Huh, it's almost like the people arguing with you are suggesting there's a middle ground and that a reasonable person doesn't go Yosemite Sam at the first hint of trouble. The relationship is in both cases the accused took a "shoot first, ask later" policy and immediately escalated to gunfire. Both cases were a reaction to a perceived threat invading their property. The only significant difference between the two scenarios is in one the victim was a methhead and the other was not. There's no problem with a person defending their home. These are not that scenario. If you plan to use a deadly weapon in defense of your home, be prepared to answer some hard questions if someone ends up dead.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Devor posted:The Nevada killer was reckless in going in to confront the squatters because he knew, or should have known, that his action was likely to endanger others' lives. This. He didn't live there. It was abandoned. There's nothing stopping him from calling the police, or returning with them during the day. He chose, knowing full well that there were squatters there, to enter the building at night, alone, and armed with a deadly weapon. That's not a defensive action.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Tell you guys what, let's end this pointless loving debate because you have a group of people who are honest to God doing their damnedest to avoid a discussion that while what he did was legal, it sure as gently caress wasn't moral in any sense of the word, and that perhaps the law shouldn't excuse a completely avoidable confrontation in the name of self defense and property rights. Instead let's focus on the thread topic, and use this as a good example of police abuse.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:A mistake was made, and it cost someone their life. And you two making it some political bullshit is the most tragic, and disgusting loving thing in this thread. No. Seriously gently caress you. "A mistake was made" - passive blame and responsibility avoiding bullshit. The officer choose to draw a lethal weapon on a civilian who had no apparent arms, was not committing any felony, and was not a direct danger. He chose to draw a lethal weapon, not a tazer , not a loud speaker, nothing but his gun. What's that thing in the newbie post in the firing range board? "Never point your weapon at anything you aren't going to shoot." The officer set the tone for this confrontation, he decided an unarmed man was a threat and dropped him. His choice. This was not a case of "mistakes were made", this is a case of a serious lapse of judgment by an armed officer of the law, and it needs to loving be treated as such. Edit: The disgusting part is the unarmed civilian died, and you see nothing wrong with that, and have the loving temerity to be angry with other posters who are pointing out that this absolutely could have been handled so many different ways that are on the officer that this entire shitstorm could have been avoided. But sure, let's keep with the "feeling threatened" defense for murder. Raerlynn fucked around with this message at 14:30 on Jun 5, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2015 14:21
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:The law allows police to initiate confrontations all the time. They're called arrests. I believe the trend of dead bodies that seem to result from those confrontations under suspicious circumstances is the subject of this thread, yes. And generally for an arrest to take place doesn't there have to be a charge, and the arrested advised of his rights vis-a-vis the Miranda reading?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
DARPA posted:If a person can't tell the difference between a real or imagined and chooses to kill for imaginary reasons he's a danger to society and should be in jail. I believe that's referred to as "paranoid schizophrenia".
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
Devor posted:I agree. You have an unreasonable expectation of how the victim, who is not a trained person, ought to behave when he believes he Fixed that for you. ActusRhesus posted:A lot of people here seem to have pretty unreasonable expectations of how a person, even a trained person, ought to behave when the believe they are about to be shot. I disagree. I believe it is reasonable to assume that the men and women whose function in society is to keep the peace will not open fire on an unarmed man with out first confirming that a weapon exists, and that said officers will use good judgment and use the lowest level of force necessary. Raerlynn fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Jun 5, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:A bunch of cops showing up with at least one yelling at him to show his hands with a gun drawn would have tipped off most people something was amiss. Depending on where he lived I would argue that having cops yell at and draw weapons on you for literally no reason may just be another day that ends in "y".
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:Then he should have had plenty of practice and known what to do. Trolling, or you are literally a sociopathic monster. Either way, gently caress off.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Do people think cops are actively deciding in the moment "I can kill this person and get away with it?" No, but people are thinking that a cops first thought after shooting someone is covering it as fast as possible. This can be corroborated by the number of reports where the victim survives the initial shooting and is not provided emergency medical treatment.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yes, "why would you antagonize the police while doing something clearly illegal" is totally the same thing as talking back to abusive spouse Because both of them murder you for the same reason. Because they can.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:No one has said they didn't gently caress up. What people are objecting to is the line of thought that says "well they shot so and so without any hesitation, so why not this guy?" Clearly there's a lot that could and should have been done differently. Let me summarize it. "To protect and serve" is the generic catchphrase of the police. If the police are incapable of protecting the public from one of their own murdering an unarmed bystander, how can I objectively assume they will protect me when I need it? Displaying poor judgement in a critical moment when civilian lives are on the line should be the point where we question their effectiveness. That is literally what they are there for. That's before we even touch on the appearance of the entire system being stacked because officers seem to have this magical ability to get out of legal situations that cost civilians their lives and livelihoods, or the appearance of deeply embedded racism, or the old boys club mentality that punishes the upright officer for blowing the whistle. Your constant defense of these officers does neither you nor them any justice. When I read that story, I was repulsed because they let a gun wielding madman murder a woman in cold blood in front of their seven year old daughter, and were more concerned with talking their brother down than saving the life of the civilian. That's a problem, and it needs to be fixed. Until it is fixed, you will have a substantial number of the population who are like me, who fear police interaction, because the appearance is that they give zero fucks about keeping innocent people safe, and zero fucks about keeping peace. Had the officers actually put bullets in the assailent, then sure they'd have my empathy, and my respect as well for heroically putting aside their brotherhood to protect lives. And who knows, maybe now nine people wouldn't have had to spend the rest of their lives without both parents.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:This is actually the biggest fuckup and outrage from this case and its being completely ignored in favor of "look I guess cops only shoot black people So you're settling on #NotAllCops then. Alright.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2015 16:58
|
|
" because a pair of cops didn't want to shoot their sergeant bullshit. This is actually real, intentional corruption and enabling by the police which directly contributed to this women being killed.
|
Jarmak posted:I'm not sure how to respond to this because I"m not sure how a functioning human brain can come to the conclusion that saying that we should be more outraged about the systemic corruption in the department that led to this situation then a couple of cops failing to make a hard decision to kill someone they had a close relationship with is a #notallcops argument. I came to that conclusion because we're discussing police and criminal justice in a thread that has a new allegation of police abuse every few pages, and yet you're dismissing a clear cut example of the blue wall as a case of two corrupt cops. So either that's the biggest loving coincidence in the history of coincidence, or maybe, just maybe, there might be a causal link between police departments on a national level protecting their own at all costs and civilian death. In the last month we've had a cop straight up murder his wife with on site police refusing to even draw on him, an unarmed black man killed in a confrontation initiated by a police officer, and an unarmed black man killed for not listening to an officer. Each one of these incidents occurred in different locations in the country. Each one, a police officer reacted to a situation with far and away more force, to the point that our armed forces, the people we actually employ to kill other people, are saying officers are too trigger happy. Each time there's officer misconduct, even the appearance of it, there are no charges. Yet somehow, there's no systemic failure of police training in your eyes. That's the intellectually lazy bullshit. Each month brings a new series of abuses. Each month you and Dead Reckoning put forth the most bile inducing defenses that magically exculpate the officer from any wrongdoing. Each month, you quibble and troll up on minor details when you know full drat well the points being made. And you have the brass balls, when I call out your statement for what it is, to call me intellectually lazy. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:so whether or not something was correct depends upon an after the fact analysis with the benefit of hindsight. Got it. Yes. I believe you may be familiar with the process - it's called a 'trial' in some languages. Edit: More specifically, the benefit of hindsight and making the judgments of whether or the outcome could have been avoided when it results in loss of life. So far the common thread when people in this thread criticize police actions is that each time someone has died, the police could have acted differently and potentially changed the outcome of encounter. Kid refusing to show his license? Summon backup, or let him go and mail the ticket to the vehicle owner. Man shooting a woman after running her off the road? Tazer, beanbag round, or hell, shoot the individual who actively attempted to murder someone else in their line of vision, and then get the EMTs on site. This isn't rocket science. I don't feel safer with the police around when their judgment in heated moments seems to have a pattern of leaving unarmed bodies in its wake. Raerlynn fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Jun 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
Kalman posted:So you support training police to be less moral, less human, and more willing to overcome natural inhibitions against use of force? Holy poo poo, that post. On one hand I really want you to describe how the officers actions could be described as moral in the context of this shooting, but on the other hand... So what you're implying is that police can't be trusted to enforce the law against their own in a manner that protects public interests? See what I did there? I took your post and wrote a loaded question that's completely not what the issue at hand is nor is it at all relevant to the overarching point that you are so quick to defend a reluctance to kill an armed man in the middle of a murder attempt, but if it's a black unarmed civilian the police should employ deadly force with no fear of reprisal. It's almost like we're arguing that police respond with disproportionate force when it's not needed, and don't employ that same level of force in a situation where it's clearly warranted.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Hey, me too. I would love to see you go to this woman's family and use this argument. What we're trying to get through your thick loving skull for the last five pages is that this kind of conduct costs lives. And since we can't bring the dead back when cops go "whoops my bad", we expect cops to err on the side of minimizing deaths and casualties especially of those who have not demonstrated a capacity for murder. But God forbid you actually address this point.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:This. You can write a law that punishes a class more severely based on position. (E.g. A sentencing enhancement for crimes done while in a position of trust, like Dr. Sexual assault cases.) but you can't change the constitution as applied to a class. It's not really an equal protection thing because cop is not a protected class, it's a basic goddamn constitutional rights thing. Then how would you recommend a lawmaker resolve this? This appears to be a situation wherein there is direct physical evidence of the crime in question, but cannot be introduced unless it is validated. The plaintiff fears for his life if he carries through, and the defendant claims that the video is not valid. The prosecutor claims he cannot find anyone to validate this video, which as noted above seems absurd on its face. How do we address this? On one hand the defendant does have rights as you've noticed, but the key witness appears to be coerced by fear of retaliation. The prosecutor's claim seems to a reasonable lay person to be unacceptable. Are you saying there's no possible way to resolve this, and that any video in these same circumstances is just as easily defeated?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
Kalman posted:They got fired. And other countries have inferior protections for defendants. Okay, but was there any barrier to rehire? If not all you've done is inconvenience the guy.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:How do we address this? On one hand the defendant does have rights as you've noticed, but the key witness appears to be coerced by fear of retaliation. The prosecutor's claim seems to a reasonable lay person to be unacceptable. Are you saying there's no possible way to resolve this, and that any video in these same circumstances is just as easily defeated? Would like a response here Kalman, what do we do in a situation where the prosecution says he can't find anyone to validate the evidence when a lay person believes that to be absurd on its face? Can we compel the prosecutor to prove that claim? Remember that part of the mistrust of the police comes from the appearance of conflict of interest with prosecution staff and their apparent unwillingness to execute their duties in good faith against an officer. How does a prosecutor defend the claim that no one can validate this evidence?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Not at risk of criminal prosecution, no. I think that criminal laws should apply equally to everyone. I think I grasp your position now. You're only stating that an officer should be prosecuted like a civilian in terms of criminal charges, and that crimes committed as an officer should still be subject to the same systems a civilian does. Administrative punishments with different standards from criminal law however are a whole different beast that you're okay with.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
Okay, so building on this - would you be okay if becoming a police officer required a type of licensing similar to a lawyer or a doctor, and that revoking that license means the individual can never be employed in law enforcement in any capacity? Would you also agree that in the event an officer in good standing is determined guilty of a crime that leverages his status as an officer of the law, his penalty should have a minimum jail sentence and/or a multiplier attached to enhance his sentence? And finally would you also hold that civilians hold the right to tape police during their time on the clock? Part of the issue is when defenders point to "he got fired" as though it meant something. As Lemming points out, oftentimes the good old boys network will get him hired elsewhere. Hell in St. Louis, their union rep, Jeff Roorda, was a former officer fired from Arnold, tried to sue the city of Arnold, and was caught on the stand by the judge for lying. That's the kind of poo poo that's a problem - if administrative punishment is the only venue because the legal system is unable to objectively handle these issues, there needs to be a mechanism preventing these kinds of people from regaining those positions of authority. There needs to be some kind of accountability, and so far we don't have anything that sticks.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Don't question my integrity and don't suggest you know anything about how I handle cases or charging decisions. Perhaps if you stopped trying to argue that the actions of the officers who failed to stop their fellow officer from murdering a woman is a clear cut case of a national trend of officers looking out for each other at the expense of the public they're supposed to protect in the thread where numerous examples of this behavior has resulted in the deaths of unarmed innocents, your precious integrity wouldn't be tarnished. Just my observation. Raerlynn fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Jul 13, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Whereas your posts are the soul of maturity. It's telling that out of your four probations, two are from this thread and one is from the Michael Brown thread. To recap my earlier phone-post: people wouldn't call your integrity into question if you actually expressed some integrity. Specifically you and DR keep deflecting about minor bullshit like "what constitutes an active shooter" that at the end of the day, doesn't change the fact that an officer of the law drove a woman into a crash, then shot her, then held emergency responders at bay by threatening to shoot himself. All of this in front of his 7 year old daughter. And that when the police confronted the man who had done all of this, instead of actually subduing the offender who literally just attempted to murder someone, they hosed around for a period of time that any lay person could consider absolutely ridiculous getting him pictures of his kids. Which ordinarily, if someone wasn't literally bleeding out in the car while they were doing said loving around, I would be happy to see a non-violent resolution. But this approach completely flies in the face of every previous encounter in this thread where an armed officer shoots an unarmed civilian for suspecting the civilian carried a weapon. This was a case were the man confirmed having a gun, and demonstrated a willingness to use it to lethal effect. That this particular case involved a woman who had filed repeated DV complaints with zero, literally zero, repercussions to this point, simply exacerbates the already very damning appearance of impropriety. And you are somehow trying to make the argument that this obvious collusion to protect one of their own and complete failure of a police force at every conceivable level to do the jobs they were entrusted to do is a unique situation that is isolated to this one location. And yet we shouldn't dare question your integrity. gently caress off. ActusRhesus posted:No gymnastics. It's loving hard to kill a friend. Even when they deserve it. Certainly prosecutor, you'd do your absolute best to secure a conviction in this scenario, regardless of your personal feelings, right? Or is this a valid legal defense for the officers who failed to intervene when this guy murdered a woman? Because the events here seem to fit the description of gross negligence on the part of the officers in question.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:It sounds like what you're saying is that the system is fine, it's just that the people in place to enforce the system weren't doing so. It sounds like you're in denial.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:If life were a video game, then yes, every scenario has a quick-time sequence of buttons to push that, or pre-battle inventory selection, if followed exactly, will result in the 100% best ending to the game. Holy gently caress are you being disingenuous. Let me ask you something. So you feel the outcome of this entire train wreck of events, from the DV complaints that never ended up in court, the lack of action against the offender who still retained his police issues weapon, the subsequent running of her vehicle off the road, him shooting her the first time, the cops failing to remove him so the victim could be treated, to the point where he shoots her again, are in any way an acceptable outcome? That they could not have been prevented at all? That we should just go "aw shucks guys, can't save them all"? What in the ever loving gently caress is wrong with you? How can you not possibly see how this could have been vastly improved almost anywhere in the narrative?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
Dahn posted:Ahhh, most traffic violations are a cops word against yours. "A cop says so", carries a lot of weight in the legal system. Do cops lie, I'm sure they do. I'm going to give you the very generous benefit of the doubt and assume you're being incredibly naive. This video is a shot from Jon Stewart in the aftermath of the Michael Brown shooting. Specifically watch at the 9:30 mark to understand why this approach is a problem. Cole posted:Someone could come in this thread and type 4000 words. 3995 of them could the the best point on the planet but those last 5 were racist so the other 3995 don't count. What in the gently caress are you talking about? This isn't about wording, the literal advice given was to "act white", as if that would save you from a racist cop on a power trip. Raerlynn fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Jul 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Acting polite (which is a much less racist phrasing than "acting white") should not be a prerequisite to avoiding police brutality. Yeah, I'm going to add on that I would hope the people we trust with firearms and civil immunity would have better self restraint than we demand out of the local bagger at Walmart. But if that were the case I would imagine this discussion would not be taking place so...
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:How, exactly? We can start with having an independent organization tasked with reviewing the kinds of cases that are generating this controversy, who independently determine if a crime took place and if the officers responses were valid. Ideally made up of three to five people, 1-2 with police backgrounds, 1-2 with no ties to police, and one other impartial member. This board can present charges that are prosecuted by a DA who is not in the county in question. This board has administrative powers that can strip an officer of his firearm, and of his immunity to civil lawsuit as it pertains to the complaint. That would address some of the big ones - DAs who throw cases or are conflicted and don't pursue a case as honestly as possible, punishment for times when what an officer does isn't illegal but is blatantly against public interest, a review that isn't executed by a blatantly conflicted party, and unique powers to scare crooked cops straight. On top of that I would have any crimes committed while in uniform or leveraging police assets should carry a mandatory minimum sentence and have a multiplier attached. In other words, I want an independent review that is impartial and unbiased. I want there to be very, very steep consequences for abusing the position of an officer. I want a mechanism where when it's blatantly obvious that the actions undermine public trust, that there be some consequence.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:That sounds an awful lot like a Jury. While tongue in cheek, I want this process to supplement and replace the grand jury/prosecutor decision. After this point it's a regular trial. But I want the decision to bring charges to be neutral and unable to be blocked by a potential bad actor.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Just so you understand, your proposal would be a de facto violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. How exactly?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Article 10 guarantees equality in all phases of criminal prosecution, including charging. I would argue that we already violate that on a daily basis since cops don't seem to get charged with the same frequency as civilians and statistics seem to belie a bias in charging patterns. But fine, remove the charging mechanism. Independent oversight that can unilaterally take administrative actions, including stripping civil immunity, disarming an officer, or straight up blacklisting officers from law enforcement. The biggest obstacle to reform is that officers are accountable to the same system that rewards their corruption. Thus an outside panel needs to be formed solely for hearing complaints against officers.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:If I could prove to you that statistically this was not true, how would you change your position? If you could prove it conclusively , you'd have done it long ago. If you think you have something germane, post it, stop teasing it like a clickbait headline.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Having a different set of lawyers charge government officials under the same set of laws is different from having a different set of laws to charge government officials. Understand? So you seriously approve of my ideas then? That independent boards to hold police misconduct accountable isn't unworkable?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Cops are people, too. Funnily enough, so are the unarmed people who seem to get gunned down on a regular basis. Perhaps the first step would be for the officer, the initiator of the confrontation, to perhaps keep that in mind before pulling a woman out of her car for not respecting the officer's request to stop smoking? But of course, why bother actually discussing the matter at hand when you can just post a couple of images and again go with the lazy as poo poo "not all cops"defense.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Talk about lazy, can't even be bothered to read the quoted text - the question was 'why shouldn't we suspend constitutional rights for cops'? and the answer was 'because cops are people too." Actually, the quote was ToastyPotato posted:Did anyone say those words? Because I feel like I remember them saying to get rid of them for COPS, not everyone, So if you're done making poo poo up, we can actually discuss the matter at hand.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I can't tell if you're being for real or not. Yeah I seem to have the same problem with you. So let's be blunt about it. Do you or do you not believe that systemic police abuse exists? Yes or no.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Those aren't individual rights, as police generally aren't allowed to do such things when not acting in their capacity as agents of the state. Like how IRS employees don't have the right to take your money for their own purposes, but may do so on behalf of the government. Then following that logic while they are acting in their official office they should be held to a higher standard than when they are not acting in their capacity as agents of the state, no? blarzgh posted:Awesome stuff. Still waiting on that answer.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 21:21 |
|
|
Kalman posted:Sure. They have to follow various rules about how cops should act and could potentially lose that official office if they fail to do so. Would you go so far as to say that having a third mechanism that applies to police officers in regards to being charged with a crime would reduce their criminal protections? i.e. my suggestion earlier about an oversight board that has the power to present charges if the DA and/or the grand jury process fails to produce charges?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 02:43
|
|