|
I'm doing a course on language and power/politics and I have to write a short paper (1500ish words) in which I apply some of the theories I learned (Critical Discourse Analysis and stuff.) I already used the whole Lee Atwater/Southern Strategy thing for a Language and Society course I did last year, otherwise I would do that, but I was thinking of doing a short and simple analysis (it's an elective, after all) on the event a while back with the NY metro worker being assaulted by an off-duty cop which is interesting in light of the change of language used in reports of that event before and after it became clear it was a police officer. I remember it being talked about how some news agencies changed their stories, first talking about a senseless assault of a government worker by a thug, editing it to an essentially unfortunate incident (for which the transit employee was implicitly to blame.) I'm really not asking you guys to do my homework for me but I'm (1) not from the US so I'm not all that familiar with US newspapers and (2) not as engaged as I know a lot of you are, so if anyone could link me some articles on this I would really appreciate it. Preferably it would be a (mirror of the) original report and the edited version without too much analysis, because I want to do the analysis myself, but really even a nudge in the right direction would be a big help. Like I said, I'm not entirely familiar with all the journals and I'm sure some of you have exactly what I need bookmarked or at least know which papers I'm talking about, so it would save me a lot of googling/scouring through archives (if I could even access them) if you could help me out. I really only just need one or two examples of newspapers changing their story after it became apparent it was a cop that did the assault. Thanks in advance.
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 00:46 |
|
|
Vahakyla posted:http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/thug-attacks-female-mta-employee-bronx-cops-article-1.2061700 Exactly what I needed, thanks!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 12:50
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Critique your own Language and Society paper. It'd be the perfect pure application of critical analysis. Also, the perfect crime. Haha, that's not a bad idea, actually, and I might even be able to persuade the teacher but I think I'll try to keep it as simple as possible.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Haha you should read TCC sometime. Most of the people who do the hard stuff are, indeed, vermin or scum and only worth derision. I, too, base the way I view people and the world on what I read on an internet forum.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
Dahn posted:High speed (100+) chase for 23 miles. During chase cops report gunfire coming from the car with no guns. Passenger is seen reloading non existent gun. Cops finally corner car in a parking lot. Dead guy rams cop car to try to break out. 13 cops mag dump into car. 1 Cop (former marine) is a better mag dumper and gets off 49 rounds (I assume 3 mags) in 20 secs, the last 15 into the windshield while standing on the hood of dead guys car. (this tactic is good in Anbar Province, but not so much in Cleveland) Okay, wait. So the claim is that he was in fear of his life, therefor he had to jump on the hood of the car to shoot the two, despite 12 or 13 other officers already peppering it with bullets. Did he jump on the car as his colleagues were shooting, potentially putting himself in the line of fire, or did he jump on the car after the others had stopped, pretty much to finish them off execution style?
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2015 09:55
|
|
|
Condiv posted:it sounds like he jumped up during fire cause the judge said he couldn't be blamed for thinking there was still a threat cause his colleagues were still firing. that being said, I can't think of a worse place to be than the hood of a car if you're trying to deal with armed suspects. he'd have absolutely 0 cover and could easily be filled with holes by the occupants (or just loving run over). So he was in danger of being shot, just from his colleagues?
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2015 11:51
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:This is the statute he was charged with: I'm not interested in rehashing the whole legal discussion. I'm not familiar enough with the US legal system, or even the situation, which is why I asked those questions just to clear something up that was bothering me. I mean, he actively put himself in danger by jumping on the hood of that car, didn't he? Not just in danger from being shot by the people in the car, but also in danger of friendly fire. That seems to go against common sense and even instinct in any situation, and I find it hard to believe that he was trained to do that. It just sounds like some ridiculous action movie scene, you know?
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2015 12:46
|
|
|
You know what, I've been struggling to put my opinion into words but I just can't. The US culture and legal system and all that is just too hosed up beyond words. Seriously, there's been so many killings that seem to be blindly (or as good as) accepted as justifiable that, were I a sociopath wanting to know what it feels like to kill a person, or someone who had someone in my life I would rather do without, it wouldn't be all that hard to get away with murdering them. There's this one thing I can't get my head around. A lot of these protections, like the castle doctrine and whatnot, that are designed to protect the killer from unnecessary grief (from an investigation) in the case it were justified, which just doesn't compute for me. If I were to kill a person in self defense, in an 'ideal' situation where it were their life or mine and I could 100% justifiably make the choice to take their life to save mine, that being properly investigated would be the least of my worries because I just ended someone else's life. gently caress, the argument could even be made that submitting myself to a proper investigation, getting all angles looked at etc, would be to my benefit because either (1) I'll be completely vindicated and it'll just give me reassurance I made the right choice in taking the other's life, or (2) I wasn't justified in taking their life which could be either punished for and depending on that reason, or I could be made to understand how and why I came to the decision to do what I did, helping me to move on. Oh, right, never mind. That would be assuming justice is something that benefits people, both society at large and individuals, instead of being purely punitive and revenge driven. Never mind, carry on. I'll just be here on the other side of the ocean reading the occasional article of a mentally unstable person being taken into custody with pepper spray or whatever, because, you know, that's what gets the news, because of the use of pepper spray or a baton or whatever. Usually mentally ill people threatening the lives of themselves or others are taken in without the need of those things, so it isn't really newsworthy. edit: Sorry, never mind. I'll leave this up, but it was just a general outpouring of frustration. Life just seems worth so little in the US. Be that of criminals or mentally ill or addicts or simply those who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Drunk college student walking into the wrong house? Kill that motherfucker and get away with it, he could've been a murderer! Taeke fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Jun 1, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Point of order: Batman doesn't kill people I wonder how many people are actually aware of the fact that one of Batman's principles is he doesn't kill people? I wasn't up until like literally a year or two ago, well after I saw The Dark Night. Having never watched the cartoons properly him not actually killing people wasn't one of those things I noticed, or when I did, I just thought it was him being incidentally magnanimous instead of it being an actual code of honor kind of thing. If it was ever explicitly stated I must have missed it or something. When a lot of people imagine Batman they must be thinking Punisher, I guess. Not someone to be emulated, but when has that stopped the masses?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
I've read dystopian fiction that was less hosed up than the current reality in the US.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Agreed, but this means that they have a right to not be under surveillance when not engaged in their duties, like when they're taking a poop. Sure, allow them to turn it off in those situations. All the more reason to punish the bad apples when they abuse their ability to turn it off when it shouldn't be. It's really not all that complicated and I'm sure you yourself can come up with reasonable solutions to all these problems you're seeing. The problem isn't a lack of possibilities but a lack of will to actually hold the police accountable.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Wait, it's a civil right for cops to ignore their own policies and procedures?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 00:46 |
|
|
My apologies, I guess I'm not not as clear as I should be. Full disclosure, I'm not American (so I don't even quite understand the near deification of the Constution) and as far as US politics are concerned, I'm about as far left as imaginable (although the rise of Sanders did put me at some point of that spectrum, I guess.) Hell, I consider the democrats to be center right at best, and would never call them left outside of US-political context. That said, while I'm definitely and obviously on one side (poo poo is hosed up yo) I hope it's clear I'm trying to keep an open mind and try to understand both sides. I think I've been pretty fair in that regard. I'm sorry it wasn't entirely clear there's basically two parts to my posts, which were directed at Jarmak specifically: twodot posted:I don't understand this. If we're acknowledging the things being pointed out are flaws, anyone who is sincerely interested in constructed good and sound arguments should consider pointing out these flaws to be a valuable service. Arguments with flaws are bad, and correcting them is good. If you're ever in a situation where you think "This person is pointing out flaws, they must be wrong about something" you need to rethink your position. quote:This is obviously true, but it's true for all people so I don't see your point. It's structurally not possible to eliminate the concept of a perfect crime for any class of person. I could see an argument that it's too easy for police and you want to do <a thing> to make it harder, but if you're not presenting the thing I don't see anyone can engage with your argument. I'm not proposing <a thing> at all, because I'm not knowledgeable enough to do so. I'm merely lamenting Jarmak's lack of propositions concerning <a thing> and asking what their thoughts are, hopefully moving the conversation away from specific circumstances and addressing a wider issue. I do think that you're wrong in asserting that it's true for all people, at least to the same degree, because it seems to me there's laws and procedures in place that allow a police officer, specifically, to create a 'perfect crime.' Given the many shootings involving police that went uninvestigated, that doesn't seem that much of a stretch. That's not to say non-police can use laws and procedures to get away with the same (Zimmerman, for example) but it's fairly obvious that the police do have numerous advantages. So while a non-police officer could, plausibly, create the circumstances to commit the perfect murder, it would be so much more easy for a police officer to do so. Is that not a problem?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2015 19:52
|
|