|
Ordinarily this would be Poetic Justice, but I assume much like the founder of MADD, William Lawrence didn't actually expect this. http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/articles/2015/3/19/dub-lawrence-utah-swat-team-police-militarization.html Well at least the brave men, with their dangerous jobs are keeping us safe from gangs and drugs.... quote:From 2010 to November 2014, 45 people were killed by police in Utah – more than the number of Utahns killed by child abuse or gang- and drug-related violence. Oh. ate shit on live tv fucked around with this message at 02:04 on Mar 21, 2015 |
#
¿
Mar 21, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 01:47 |
|
|
nm posted:My "favorite" part of excessive force cases is when the officer keeps tasing and tasing a person because they won't comply. I'm not sure they understand how the nervous system works and how a big jolt of electricity can prevent someone from doing what you're yelling as you tase him. They mostly don't, which is why they should be harshly punished for reacting in a traditional and troubling power tripping manner. After all, ignorance is no excuse. Of course the problem is that they are not punished in any meaningful way nor held to any kind of standard.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:I still don't understand what scenario you're supposed to use a taser, in practice(not theory). Almost every situation I would have used a taser ends up being used to justify a shooting, and it looks an awful lot like they are mainly used to punish people who are no real threat. Well um, reality seems to be a pretty good indicator. They are obviously used as step one in the escalation of force. With step zero being "initiate the encounter."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
The simplest solution is to disarm the police, or segregate between arresting officers and armed officers.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So officers would be allowed to keep and bear arms as private citizens, but not while on duty? Do you think that officers having less capacity for force than the people they are supposed to police might be a problem? If faced with a school shooter or armed robber, would officers need to wait for the firearms unit, even though rapid action can often save lives? Considering that 99% of all policing doesn't involve physical violence, or even the threat of violence, I think the good ones will manage. For the <1% of other times, those are actually cases where specialized units should be, not Molly the Meter Maid waving her gun around trying to help. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDfNV9bJoSg
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Ah, I see. Even still, how do the politicians that appoint someone with that in their past not take an enormous amount of poo poo for it? I'd be surprised if the average person in San Francisco even know who Greg Suhr is and given his political appointment status, the Mayor (or whoever) obviously approved of his past actions, so there ya go.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Video: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer-is-charged-with-murder-in-black-mans-death.html?smid=tw-bna&_r=1 We didn't see the events that lead up to the shooting, blah blah blah.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
Even if the murder charge doesn't stick and he doesn't even spend a day in jail after the trial, the fact that he won't be a police officer anymore and that SLED treated this with the appropriate seriousness is a positive thing overall.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Accessory after the fact by not reporting the staging of the scene by the shooter I think they could claim ignorance, and might even be bona fide ignorant that he had
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:That sounds like a worthy line of defense. I wish the prosecutors would allow them the chance to mount it. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:The pat response I'm starting to get to the idea that maybe only special cop units should have guns is "well we have the 2nd Amendment in the U.S., anyone might have a gun, therefore all police must have guns, period, stop, end of story". All police would be allowed to carry guns while off-duty, as per their Constitutional rights. On-duty would be a different story.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:What I would have done would be not to even get close in the first place, which would have meant that the cop would have got off without so much as a paid vacation. Public Opinion of Police in America is super high, as reflected by the leniency of juries on police officers, the lack of any kind of civilian oversight or the push for it, and the absolute reluctance to ever question a police officer's statements, even if they are contradictory. Most people trust the police.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
blunt for century posted:has to get a unanimous vote in favor of the death penalty in the US Senate and Supreme Court on a case by case basis Better idea, Death Penalty is allowed, but the governor of the state has to be the one to carry it out and not by proxy, he has to actually pull the trigger, or push the button or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:loving South Carolina of all places: You mean your regionalist otherizing stereotypes aren't necessarily correct? Quelle surprise. Anyway, glad Progressive Strongholds like Utah and South Carolina are leading the country in police accountability. Maybe one day backwards places like Massachusetts and New York City, will catch up.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
Hey this is probably a good point in time to talk about the justice system and how it takes a massive toll on the people subjected to it. Seems kind of messed up doesn't it? Where merely being accused of a crime innocent or not, is more often then not financially ruinous for the accused party especially if the accusation comes from the state? What should be done about that, or is that by design as a type of karmic retribution?
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
You can use a rock to kill someone, and more disturbing still, you can kill someone with your bare hands. When is Obama going to declare a War on Violence so that police don't have to worry about doing their job anymore?
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Very interesting to see NRA talking points getting unironically used in D&D It may surprise you to learn that the NRA supports the police, because as a mouth piece for the major arms manufacturers, police are second only to the military as far as sales is concerned.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:What in the gently caress does this have to do with people parroting the stupid "what about rock control!!!11" style bullshit because they don't want to admit something literally designed to kill things isn't a toy. Sorry, the thread got too meta-ironic. -Troika- posted:IMO, if you point any kind of gun-looking object at a cop you are asking for it. Anyone should know that that is a dumb idea. It should be a felony to point a gun-looking object at anyone you aren't intending to shoot cop or not tbqh.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It's already assault in many jurisdictions. Right. I'm also not going to get upset about the cops shooting someone pointing a "gun" at them. The problem is, the police as a whole are unreliable witnesses and I don't believe them when they tell me the 12 year-old black kid pointed his gun at them. Nor do I believe them when a suspect moved "menacingly" at them, or even that a suspect was "acting suspicious, or aggressively."
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:That dude is incredibly brave. Seriously. I'm not an open-carry person, beyond when I'm hunting, but I'm glad that I could without too much of an issue if I needed to. If I were black I'd be incredibly reluctant to even go hunting.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Dum Cumpster posted:They train the DEA like that too? It's pretty easy to understand. If everyone plays nice together no one gets in trouble no matter what. Usually this means that if you forgot to fill out a form completely or whatever, it's not a problem. However when felonies start to occur because you forgot to fill out the form (i.e. you never booked the suspect so they are dying from dehydration after 5 days) and the dude that was supposed to check the cells nightly hasn't done that in 10 years because of an understanding with his coworkers, the stakes are higher, and the more important it is to ensure you don't cooperate with any investigation anymore then you need to. After all, if negligence can be proven, you can potentially be found responsible. But if you all "follow the rules" then you will never be personally held responsible for anything.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Huh, reading about it, I guess there are lots of interpretations of the ants' final behavior, most of which say gently caress the grasshopper. People changing children fables to fit their own agenda? My entire life is a lie. Next thing you are going to tell me is that universal truth is also a fable.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Why the exception for a "Swat" team? There is literally no need for one. The purpose of "shock and awe" no-knock raids is to secure drug evidence incase the occupants try to destroy it. And to that I say, "so what?" Your precious evidence isn't worth the huge escalation of force against citizens. SWAT teams should be explicitly federally banned and should exist as only an FBI special task force.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
People are a product of their environment. If police are dressed as army men, it's not really surprising that they start acting like army men. e: But actually it's worse because at least army grunts have strict rules of engagement, whereas police forces are free to make up their own rules, including their own policy's on escalation of force.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Here is a better argument. It seems like police are creating an Us vs Them mentality, that is reflected both in their casual interactions with the citizens of the community as well as their camaraderie within their job, going so far as to no longer consider themselves "civilians". Further it appears that this culture is mimicking a more militarized culture, including "military style" raids complete with flashy but ultimately useless "tactilol" firearms, vehicles, and shock-and-awe tactics, as well as a disturbing eagerness to use those things where less violent civilian tactics would be more appropriate. Perhaps this attitude can be traced back to the increasing militarization of the police in the form of military hardware, no-knock warrants, and " fear of terrorism" since the 60's despite the reduction of crime across all demographics. I propose that in addition to addressing the systemic problems (war on drugs, for-profit penal systems, and general revenue based law-enforcement), perhaps we should also limit military hardware that is no-doubt contributing to this hostile police atmosphere?
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:You've put the cart before the horse. The militarization of police equipment is a symptom of the militarization of police attitudes and tactics, not a cause. I agree. The military equipment isn't the cause, but surely you can see how it is helping perpetuate it right?
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Yes. Instead of addressing a complex and politically challenging problem the administration has decided to reduce the visibility of the problem. They have effectively addressed the political problem of police militarization making them look like a bunch of fascists without actually addressing the problem of police militarization. I agree with you in a cynical way. But I don't think that the federal government can actually do anything about state police without amending the constitution or tying it to funding somehow. So given those restrictions I'd say limiting the amount of military hardware going to police departments is the best they can do, so they should do it. Rent-A-Cop posted:Prosecutions. Prosecutions as far as the eye can see and federal jails stuffed to bursting with dirty cops and the dirty politicians who cover up their crimes. ate shit on live tv fucked around with this message at 16:59 on May 20, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 20, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
I'm using adversarial as a legal term. (of a trial or legal procedure) in which the parties in a dispute have the responsibility for finding and presenting evidence. Basically right now the FBI and the Police are on the "same team," and thus the FBI never goes out of their way to investigate police findings about themselves. They might investigate a non-leo suspect separately from the police investigation to determine if the police were correct, but regardless of the outcome, the police aren't the reason for the investigation. I'm saying that when someone dies in police custody, it should be investigated as a federal murder charge, by the fbi similar to how when I kill someone, it is investigated as a homicide on the county level.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:No, SWAT is for enforcing laws against people who actively and violently resist. Their origin is in apprehending armed bank robbers and penetrating a barricaded residence to effect an arrest. If this is ever needed (it's not) the situation would already be of federal interest. Thus SWAT should be FBI/Federal.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:So what kind of response time do you want for these regional agents? Why is response time even a concern?
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Because there's this fantasy that SWAT mainly gets used for responding to shooters, terrorists and evil villains instead of serving no-knock or knock-via-battering ram warrants. quote:Besides, just because something is federal doesn't mean everyone has to be stationed in DC. Most large cities have regional FBI offices anyway and when there is something of interest to the FBI, it's usually not "spontaneous jihad syndrome" or whatever wierd poo poo people think SWAT handles.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:A forums poster who has never, ever heard of a violent person or persons barricading themselves somewhere. No it absolutely happens. And what is the appropriate response to situations like that? If you said forcible entry with shock-and-awe tactics that were used 'like in that one movie', you'd be wrong.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:FBI HRT does that stuff with reasonable success. They need to go to Iraq and Afghanistan to keep busy though. There is absolutely a correct way to do that sort of thing. However it always involves a protracted stand-off and negotiation first, so response time isn't the primary concern. And honestly in almost all cases the primary concern should be the collateral damage of both the criminal action and the police response for the community in the form of lives, risks, and dollars, not "I need to make sure the bad guy doesn't get away at any cost."
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
This Jacket Is Me posted:So, at best these two people are willing to steal (crime), flee (crime) and destroy property (crime). At worst, they're willing to do all those plus assault (also crime). I don't really have a problem with the cops in this case. You are most likely "joking" but there is substantial amount of people who really don't have a problem with police actions because after all, they only deal with Criminals. It's an extremely destructive attitude and shouldn't be encouraged.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:We have people in this thread unironically complaining that the police shot the North Hollywood gunman, what set of facts do you think could possibly come out that they wouldn't protest. And we have people in this thread furious constructing strawmen and bravely knocking them down. Unironically
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Are you loving serious? Not even half way up the page: Your mischaracterization of his position isn't the same as what he said. The north hollywood shooters were a prime example of when it is ok to use deadly force. Merely robbing a bank isn't though.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2015 07:48
|
|
|
Boomer The Cannon posted:Gotcha, that's what I thought. CPD has certainly had it's share of questionable decisions and practices, and unfortunately it's hard to keep them straight. This is bullshit, you aren't going to fix the culture that causes bad policing simply by paying officers more. The only way to fix it is to hold officers accountable, and enact some kind of RICO act for police officers that forces departments to take an active role in removing "bad apples." Shielding officer wrong-doings should have a more severe penalty then whatever the behavior the officer did. I'm not even upset at most of the bad things police do because in theory they are only a small part of the justice system, but the fact that we only hear about the most egregious is a huge problem.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Your beliefs are fanciful and dumb. Achieving this would require the total disarmament of the civilian population of the US and of all countries surrounding it and that is never ever EVER going to happen. Here is a better idea. Even if every man woman and child has an "assault rifle," We should expect the police to be able to enforce the law without escalating every interaction to a life or death situation and without tanks.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2015 09:40
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/26/america-cannot-lock-its-poor-in-debtors-prisons-to-fund-its-police-departments I question the validity of the claim made in the title of the article, because many municipalities and indeed some states are doing just that, and have been for many years quite successfully.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 01:47 |
|
|
Pohl posted:Why is it always Texas or Florida, the freedom states? Because you are a biggot with no critical thinking skills? http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...3ddc_story.html
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2015 04:10
|
|