|
chitoryu12 posted:At no point have we ever been expected to give empathy to civilian victims. In fact, we've been told by one poster that empathy for the victim was irrelevant.
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 09:53 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:Its not just irrelevant its actively prejudicial, there's a reason why evidence to that effect would be banned from any courtroom. Yes, when your goal is to defend the actions of police no matter what, empathy for victims is definitely prejudicial.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:
I think people understand it just fine, they just don't excuse it, especially when cops are so trigger happy in every other scenario. It's just more of the pro-police rhetoric people are just supposed to buy into. Think about how they FEEL. (Never think about the victims)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Lol You're just too much of a *GoOoooooooooooOOOOnN* to understand how those cops FELT you see? It's really scary there are several people here who are so worshipful of cops that they are arguing it was fine, understandable, and just that the cops let this cop kill his wife.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 13:06
|
|
|
Kalman posted:So you support training police to be less moral, less human, and more willing to overcome natural inhibitions against use of force? If the only two options are "applaud police for not stopping a murdercop when they have no beef killing people usually" and "the cops kill murdercops along with the people who don't deserve it" I guess I'll pick the latter? I mean it's a good thing those aren't the only two options but yeah; offering a hypothetical where cops become less reluctant to use force in a country where they are already not very reluctant to do so isn't a powerful threat
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
Nah even they are usually good even in the most egregious circumstances. The "perp" generally shouldn't have "talked back", "resisted", or should have just averted his gaze quicker.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Literally LOL if you paid attention to the Eric Garner incident and think cameras will curb police brutality
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
Yeah its stupid to identify problems and provide training to avoid them in the future. Instead let's just sympathize with these poor heroes that their friend was the perp and forget about that dead woman. I mean it's not like police culture is corrupt or anything, why would they need training or practice reinforcing that they shouldn't be treated differently than civilians?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
quote:The district attorney’s office declined to file charges against the officers. Deputy Dist. Atty. Rosa Alarcon wrote in a memo about the shooting that Diaz Zeferino’s right hand was no longer visible from the officers’ angle and that it was reasonable for them to believe he was going to reach for a weapon. I can kind of see the DA's point here. That guy clearly looked like a master assassin capable of drawing one pistol from his hat or waistband and killing three officers trained on him before they could react. You know, he just looks like one of those types. Also, there's that "technicality" stuff the apologists are so fond of fighting over. Agrajag posted:I also like that they also managed to shoot the guy next to him while they are at point blank range. loving turds with badges so trigger happy they don't even give a gently caress that there are bystanders in their crosshairs. WITH LASER SIGHTS!!!!! By the way WHY DO COPS NEED LASER SIGHTS?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
Zarkov Cortez posted:The article mentions that the dispatcher erred and reported that it was a robbery (although they don't say what type of robbery, or whether there was actually a report of a weapon) not just someone reporting a bicycle theft. That doesn't excuse their actions, but there is a difference. Not really though? There's still no need to be in fear when it's 3 officers with guns trained on an unarmed suspect. Even if he miraculously pulled a gun from his hat, magician style, he's not going to get three perfect shots off like a master assassin. It seems like an underlying problem in all these cases is officers either not being able to control the flow of encounters, despite training and armaments, or not knowing WHEN they have control, like in this case.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
tentative8e8op posted:
I served on Grand Jury a few years ago and we were given the instruction that if we felt charges were ever warranted that were not on the table already we could add them and vote to indict on them. Also the burden of proof for Grand Jury is MUCH lower than an actual trial. It's not "did this happen? " It's "is it a reasonable possibility this MAY have happened?" It's also almost impossible not to indict if the case is brought because the prosecution controls the entire narrative that the Grand Jury hears. There is not usually a defense. The fact these cops keep getting off due to Grand Juries failing to indict is a sure indicator to anyone familiar with the process that the DA is deliberately torpedoing the charges. "You can indict a ham sandwich" is a saying for a reason. Hail Mr. Satan! fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Jul 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Will address a lot of this when I'm not phone posting. It's super weird how you can phone post to your heart's content to poo poo all over someone who posted weeks ago and compare them to people making completely different non insane points, but when challenged on things you can't weasel out of you're Wimpy offering your posts later for a hamburger today Edit gently caress super beaten
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:because substantive answers will require paragraphs of text with supporting citations? oh okay carry on with your non substantive posts I guess
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Has the debate over whether she has a right to smoke been had? Because she doesn't. Yeah this is an important detail that could blow the case wide open. Could you cite it
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 13:56
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I don't think we had, because it's irrelevant. In any case, it's hard to smoke when you've been killed extrajudicially. Well by hanging anyway. If she had been immolated she'd probably smoke after death which would then retroactively justify said death IE resisting arrest charges on their own
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 14:14
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:I'm pretty sure at some point in the video she asserts a right to smoke. I'm glad in the absence of the pedantic Pollies we have someone to step up and carry the banner. Are you phone posting by chance? Hail Mr. Satan! fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Jul 22, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
Spacman posted:E: Ill answer but you wont like it. At what point did I say that so that I have any reason to be accountable for it to you, of all people? Bear in mind that I am classified as worse than black by your hosed up country. You know you can just answer, you don't need to prepare us for it. At what point did anyone claim smoking was a constitutional right?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
captainblastum posted:Do you think that 'just act white' is a valid suggestion, and if so, can you explain what acting black is in your opinion? You missed this in your rush to pedantics so I hope this helps.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
Spacman posted:Stereotype all police as cold murderers... Well I believe all police ARE cold blooded murderers, but you wouldn't like it if I explained why. Sorry guys, for when people argue against me 3 months from now acting like I am serious 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Spacman posted:My cousin is gay, they are great people. Because in this case it'd be masturbatory and since you're acting like a loving wanker it's appropriate. Nothing to do with homosexuality!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So if I was in legal custody of someone and they told me that they'd had suicidal thoughts before, but I ignore them because I'm lazy, them "not seeming depressed" is enough to absolve me of all liability, criminal or civil, if they then kill themselves after trying to get help while in my custody right? Honestly with the state of policing in this country you could probably provide them with the rope, table, and a push and it'd be fine. You'd have a ton of defenders. She should have put that cigarette out after all.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
It's like Spider-Man's motto, with great power comes less responsibility.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2015 13:09
|
|
|
Radish posted:I thought saying people angry that police let one of their fellow co-workers murder a woman as sociopaths because they didn't understand how humans don't want to hurt their friends was fairly obscene but straight up saying that letting your friends and family get away with crimes as some kind of job perk is pretty Hey it's a hard job with poo poo pay that is super dangerous that they were conscripted into so the had no choice farrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2015 13:37
|
|
. If the laws are that poo poo that you can let some people straight up ignore them why do we care about enforcing them at all?
|
semper wifi posted:Did you get this info from a worldstar comment or something? god drat it's rare a user's custom text is so appropriate to one of their posts
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 13:33
|
|
|
semper wifi posted:I guess you guys have never been to worldstar, I get it though you guys like to keep your online activities confined to the gated community of SA, who could blame you some of those other sites have black people on them. "You see, in this scenario, I have adopted the guise of rubber, while you have mimicked the properties of some sort of adhesive compound!"
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Considering some of the most prolific posters in this thread have said that they don't feel the discussion should be "constrained" by legal realities, the meanings of words, or facts, it's pretty loving hilarious to get snotty about AR not providing D&D with the serious legal analysis it clearly deserves. Yeah, the tone policing is much more valuable input. Oh oh and your side had someone who said "Darkie McRetard" so it's "pretty loving hilarious" you're acting like you're not all racist. See how dumb that is? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
Cool, make sure you include the part about how it was literally a criticism of you doing the exact same thing. Oh never mind, you'd have to not be disingenuous for a change.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I suppose the difference is that the tones I spend most of my time policing are "factually incorrect" and "logically inconsistent." Go back and read it again, the context was AR and her constant tone policing
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:
Weird, I didn't see that in his post at all. Also I am sure they just falsified the police report out of good-natured "idiocy."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:That would require new statutes to be written, right now police are charged with the same crime with the same elements as any civilian would be. I loving guarantee that if I, as a civilian, rolled up on Tamir Rice and shot him, firstly it wouldn't take over a year to bring it to grand jury, and secondly, the prosecutor would not be contacting "expert witnesses" to see if it really was self defence.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 11:52
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You as a civilian have a duty to retreat from a kid waving a gun around in the park, the cops have a duty to confront that person. It's not remotely the same situation. It is when you're trying to claim that police are subject to the same laws and legal processes as civilians and this cop is basically getting prosecutors to defend him
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 13:20
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:No, it's not, for the reason I already stated Really? Do self-defense cases often get expert witnesses on grand jury? I did Grand Jury for 3 months and the only expert witnesses I saw were there to support indictment but I am sure it's just a weird coincidence in this case that they both support not indicting Hail Mr. Satan! fucked around with this message at 13:47 on Oct 13, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
^^^ Nah dude cops are subject to the same laws and use the same legal channels that civilians do, it's just the circumstances are always different and you're a loving idiot I guess? Jarmak posted:I just told you this is a completely different situation then a normal civilian self defense case, so you're arguing with me that "no it's different"? Were you just unable to adapt when I took a different direction with my argument then "no civilians get the same treatment" or can you just not able to keep your own arguments straight? No, I'm just laughing at your assertion that civilians and police have the same laws and legal channels when you're also claiming the situations are TOTALLY DIFFERENT and that it's literally impossible to legally be in the same situation as the cop.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
double
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
No its because civilians aren't subject to the same laws as cops, except when it's convenient for a pro-cop argument
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:
You mean the law that they are both subject to in exactly the same way?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:
This sounds like how a civilian shooter claiming self-defense would be treated, your statement about the same laws applying checks out 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I know you keep making these comments like they're some sort of gotcha, but all you're highlighting is that you don't understand the law whatsoever. The answer to all of them is yes, this is the same law. So they're following the "same law" in the same way that gay people had the same ability as straights to marry someone of the opposite gender?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yeah man, my neighbor keeps going in and out of his house at will but every time I try to do that they arrest me for breaking and entering, why the gently caress does he get a special set of laws? No, if I enter my neighbor's house and he enters mine without permission, we'd reasonably both be subject to the same laws and have the same process to find satisfaction. You're trying to claim the cops are held to the same laws as civilians while you argue they have special privileges that make them immune. That's logically inconsistent. Hail Mr. Satan! fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Oct 13, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 09:53 |
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:You are aware of the difference between common law and statutory law, right Yes, and?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 00:28
|
|