|
on the left posted:If anything, the percentage of arrests and offenders seems low. Where i'm from, black people bat at least double their population percentage in crime representation. Then good news for you! Because when 33% of your population is non-black, having only 7% of arrests being non-black means that the police force is targeting blacks 300% harder, and not just double.
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 21:22 |
|
|
It's a shame that judge and jury will probably consider his being a police officer a mitigating factor away from the death penalty, rather than an aggravating factor.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Here's a legitimate and an acceptable way to arrest someone in the subway back in the better days during an undercover NYPD sting. What's your argument? I have a vague feeling that you're full of poo poo from your previous arguments, but you've successfully set yourself up to reply in a contrary fashion to any followup statement someone might make in response.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
semper wifi posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd2Ibw7wrvs Yeah, hopefully they gave that loving thief a nickel ride and severed his spine. That will teach the community members to commit petty theft.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Also shorting them on overtime. In previous city emergencies, police received double time for hours over 40 in a week. The city in this case is citing a different authority for requiring the police presence, and thus are only going to be paying them time and a half for hours over 40. Poor police 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
Ima Grip And Sip posted:This may come as a shock, but someone who can fill their lungs with that much air to yell that loudly and repeatedly can in fact breathe. That's why the cops probably don't give a gently caress... The video proves the man is breathing just fine, and probably making it worse by his own actions. When you find yourself unable to draw enough breath, and the oxygen saturation in your blood begins to lower, and you start to feel light-headed as your respiratory system is unable to keep up, make sure to say that whole loving sentence as a phrase so that pedantic fucks don't misinterpret your cries for help.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:The best myth you can create is "they intentionally 'let physics kill him'" instead of murdering him using a method they have been known to employ for years. Police follow the first rule of robotics, but the modified one that the mining robots used, that allow the Policeman, through inaction, to allow humans to come to harm.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
Not quite that bad. But still bad. http://www.baltimorecity.gov/emergency-curfew-20150427 quote:The night-time curfew applies for all citizens (with exceptions of emergency personnel and those commuting to and from work for essential functions, including students traveling to/from classes)
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
You are a 76 year old man. You are standing outside a house that you believe that you own the title to, that has been vacant for several years. You think there are dangerous squatters in the house. It's night time. WHAT DO YOU DO? I'm not going in that house, that's stupid and dangerous. I'll call the police tomorrow. BUT WAIT, YOU ALSO HAVE TWO GUNS ON YOUR PERSON. Well, then I can go in the house right now because I can just shoot anyone who presents a danger to me! Look out, it's two of those squatters I thought were in here! Bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang! (This should be manslaughter or murder, in a more just society)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:If someone is that incompetent with knives or stowing their kit they probably shouldn't be handling knives... or guns for that matter. I'm glad that we've changed your mind about police use of guns.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:Are you referring to the case where the drunk driver knocked on the door hours after fleeing help at the scene of the crash? Guy was stupid and jumpy and I have no problem with him being convicted once it was clear he had fired through a door. http://wvrecord.com/news/267724-wrongful-death-suit-filed-against-cabell-man-who-shot-killed-new-neighbor
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:And why exactly are you citing these cases? One was found to be unreasonable (hell the shooter claimed to have fired by accident) the other is going to trial. Neither seem to have made credible claims they feared for their lives. What relevance does that have to this case- they didn't misinterpret threatening actions, they just apparently shot people. When you shoot people because you are recklessly exercising your property rights, sometimes you kill honest people instead of degenerate meth-heads.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:"Recklessly exercising your property rights" aparently covers a lot of ground. Including, apparently, rights one no longer has. The West Virginia killer was protecting perceived property rights by shooting people going into what he thought was his shed. The Nevada killer was protecting perceived property rights by confronting squatters in his vacant duplex. Recklessness as a legal term seems extremely appropriate in reference to the Nevada killer. Excerpt from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recklessness_%28law%29 quote:Recklessness usually arises when an accused is actually aware of the potentially adverse consequences to the planned actions, but has gone ahead anyway, exposing a particular individual or unknown victim to the risk of suffering the foreseen harm but not actually desiring that the victim be hurt. The accused is a social danger because they gamble with the safety of others, and the fact they might have acted to try to avoid the injury from occurring is relevant only to mitigate the sentence. In both cases, the killers were reckless, and were acting to protect property rights.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
twodot posted:The difference where one of them at least claimed to fear for his life, and where one of them just claimed to be shooting robbers at a distance seems significant. The point where the Nevada killer chose to enter the building, and the point where the West Virginia killer chose to pull the trigger is the focal point. 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. Edit: this is being charitable, assuming that the Nevada killer was only going in being ready to shoot, instead of for the express purpose of shooting
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
tsa posted:... you can't recklessly enter your property by definition. Sure you can. "Conduct whereby the actor does not desire harmful consequence but...foresees the possibility and consciously takes the risk," I own an abandoned property. I've had vandalism problems from squatters. I visit the property one night, and I see a faint light in a window. I'm an old man, so I know that any confrontation is dangerous to me. Thus I have my gun drawn when I decide to go into the property to confront whoever is in there. I clearly foresaw the risk of harmful consequences (hence the gun at the ready), but took the risk anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:Oh so now we have to respect the schedule of the trespassers too? People who ignore things like locks and ownership are going to respond to a notice? How would he know if they saw the notice or could read it? They might be illiterate or non-English speakers so better have it in a dozen languages and pictures or something just to be sure! I live across the street from a vacant house. I don't know who owns it, but I know it's empty. I change the locks, I put up a rental advertisement on Craiglist, and I find a renter who signs a lease with me and starts paying me rent money. That tenant has a good faith expectation that they are a legal resident, so when you barge in at 11pm and shoot them in the face when they reach to turn on their bedside lamp, that is a BAD THING for society. Which is why we have legal processes for addressing problems like this.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:Literally, this: Two neighbors testified Wednesday that Burgarello told them years earlier that he might arm himself and wait for people responsible for repeatedly vandalizing and burglarizing the vacant duplex. "He told me, 'I'm going to be waiting inside with a gun,'" Kevin Morgan said. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/wounded-woman-testifies-nevada-trespass-shooting-31343480
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Can you stop bringing up the stupid rape response, which was itself a response to a stupid equivalency, equating potential rape victims to potential murderers? Thanks.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Jarmak is right. Negligent, reckless, and intentional are all different mens rea. But only intentional can be countered with a self defense claim. So if you are negligent and/or reckless, with a reasonable belief that your actions are going to create a situation where you're likely to defend yourself with lethal force, that's a good result? We're happy that the current laws don't prevent that situation? Edit: 1. Negligently kill someone is manslaughter 2. Intentionally kill someone is murder 3. Negligently arrange for a self-defense killing is not a crime 4. Intentionally arrange for a self-defense killing is murder I think we should change laws so that #3 is manslaughter Devor fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Jun 4, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:This is a false dichotomy, you don't "intentionally arrange for a self-defense killing", that's no longer self defense . You also can't "negligently arrange for a self-defense killing" because to arrange for something requires intent. We can quibble over the exact phrasing, but the bottom line is that the Nevada man "Knew, or should have known, and a reasonable person should have known that his actions would be likely to cause this self-defense killing" (Negligent and/or reckless). Edit: Adding a level of abstraction where you are negligently setting the pieces for a bad situation should have the same penalties as negligently causing the bad situation without the intermediate step.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:#3 is impossible Literally what the Nevada killer did. He was reckless in that he knew, or should have known, that busting down the door at night, gun ready, would be likely to cause another's death. He knew his own mind, and knew he was ready to shoot at a moment's notice. Edit: I may be conflating reckless and negligent. The essence stands.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Entering his own property is not a proximate cause of him killing an attacker, the attacker attacking him is. We're talking about 'should' rather than 'is', so feel free to stop talking about how a jury applied the law as it 'is' to let him get away with what 'should' be a crime. He knew his own mind, that he was ready to shoot at small movements. Breaking down a door and yelling the middle of the night are something he should have known would cause small movements. He then shot someone as a result of a small movement. I agree that we, as members of society, have duty not to take actions that we should know have a good chance of leading to death. Especially when there are other options available, like "Wait until daylight, knock" or "Call the police".
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The jury completely disagrees with your version of events The jury applies the law as it is, we are discussing the law as it should be.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yes clearly as members of society we should punish victims of an attack for letting themselves be in a position where they were should have none someone would victimize them. Yes, if you know that your action is likely to cause you to shoot someone, you should be punished when you shoot someone. He "let himself" break down a door with a gun ready.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The result of this case is about more then anything the jury giving more credibility (and the benefit of the doubt) to the story of the property owner then to the junkie that was illegally holed up on his property doing meth, not any issue of legal policy. What's it like living in a just world? It must be a lot better than this hellhole I'm in where sometimes people are wrongfully convicted, and sometimes the guilty go free. You are correct that the jury believed him because he only killed and wounded junkies, who society gives no value to their lives. I don't think that's a good feature of society though, I think that's a bug.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
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 agree. You have an unreasonable expectation of how the victim, who is not a trained person, ought to behave when he believes he is about to be shot by police.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:If I caught one of my guys doing this poo poo on patrol he'd have a very bad day when we got back in, that's how NDs happen. Don't worry, you would never catch one of your guys doing this. Because there's no way that a cop would turn in one of their brethren for violating department policies in a manner that endangers the public safety.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I wasn't a cop, and the military actually takes this poo poo pretty seriously.  Sorry that when someone says 'on patrol' in the cops thread, in discussion about the actions of cops with weapons, I interpreted that as referring to police, and not military. I'm glad you straightened us all out about how our nation ostensibly treats Iraqis and Afghans better than black Americans.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
Any time you interact with a cop, you should think to yourself, "Am I giving this person an excuse to shoot me?" because if a cop makes a good-faith error, you can get killed. This guy watched too many of the youtube "Know your rights" videos, and thought that if he said the magic words, the cop wouldn't find out he was driving without a license. And apparently took it too far when the cop was trying to cuff him, and gave the cop the excuse he was looking for. Now the guy is dead. Treat cops like the potential murderers they are, and you'll make it home safe. God bless.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
Ima Grip And Sip posted:Oh, what your saying is that in this case he was shot for not providing his drivers license? As if nothing else even happened. The cop is the one with the power to de-escalate the situation, avoiding the use of lethal force, and failed to do so. It's a systemic problem, not an isolated one, that many people refuse to acknowledge as a problem.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
twodot posted:Can you quote the person who said this? twodot posted:I actively don't want to focus on this. Someone said not giving your license to a police officer that pulled you over while you were driving is a Constitutional right, and that is wrong. I said that it is wrong because 1) it is wrong and 2) it's dangerous for people to believe that wrong thing. This should not spark any sort of argument. The response should be "Oh, thanks for the correction, this is still hosed up". Why is it dangerous for people to be mistaken about Constitutional protections? If they are instead up to date on their Constitutional law, does that make them safer? Is it the knowledge of the law PLUS their choice to stay within the law that makes them safer? Perhaps staying within the law will keep you safe from aggressive police violence. Or was your statement above saying that while staying within the law will make you MORE safe, you are still subject to wanton police abuse even if you stay within the law?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
twodot posted:I believe we can agree that acting outside the law is in general dangerous? If you mean "dangerous" in the sense of "grievous bodily harm or death" then I agree with you, because obviously this case happened, and will probably happen again. Cops will escalate minor incidents / resistance from roadside constitutional scholars into violence or death. This is considering the "is" of how things exist, rather than the "ought" of how things should be. If you mean "dangerous" in the sense of "subject to legal sanctions" then that is self-evident, and you need to find a new word instead of danger/dangerous.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:You're right. Blowing away someone you know with a gun to his own head is totes the same as shooting someone you believe is about to shoot you. In an ideal world the police would have overcome their reluctance and opened fire after the first shot at his wife. In a slightly less ideal world the police would have opened fire after the first 'barrage' of fire at his wife, rushed in and handcuffed his prone body and then had the paramedics take his wife to the hospital to see if she could be saved. In the loving world we live in, they waited 30 minutes, he fired at his wife some more before they finally eventually talked him down. Are you afraid that if you admit 'Yes, the police could have done better' then one of your colleagues is going to find out and murder you in open court or something? We're discussing what the desired outcome of training and policies should be. The conversation is (mostly) not "The cops hosed up, so we should execute the cops." The cops hosed up, we should make sure that police departments establish training priorities to avoid this happening again.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2015 12:45
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yes, I don't remember it off the top of my head, but basically it determined that the police don't have an affirmative legal duty to actually do their job. If I remember correctly the context was that someone sued the cops for waiting for backup instead of going in after an active shooter or hostage taker. Something like that quote:Meanwhile, Warren and Taliaferro crawled from their window onto an adjoining roof and waited for the police to arrive. While there, they observed one policeman drive through the alley behind their house and proceed to the front of the residence without stopping, leaning out the window, or getting out of the car to check the back entrance of the house. A second officer apparently knocked on the door in front of the residence, but left when he received no answer. The three officers departed the scene at 0633, five minutes after they arrived. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
Kalman posted:So you support training police to be less moral, less human, and more willing to overcome natural inhibitions against use of force? Current police safety priorities: 1. Self 2. Murderous cop 3. Innocent woman if we can change that to: 1. Self 2. Innoncent woman 3. Murderous cop then that is a small victory. If we can teach them to shoot murderous cops to maybe save an innocent person, that is not a bad thing. Maybe some day they would even shoot a murderous cop to save an innocent black man. Rome wasn't built in a day, though, so you should temper expectations.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
Agrajag posted:http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f3e_1435755500 This is how some cops act despite knowing they're being recorded by a device pinned to their chest. Edit: quote:For the recent jail beating, Magness pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault and was placed on one year probation by an Adams County court in June. Lasnik was also charged with misdemeanor assault. He has retained an attorney who says they are considering civil action. http://kdvr.com/2015/06/30/body-cam-shows-federal-heights-officer-with-history-of-violence-beating-suspect/ Devor fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Jul 2, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
An older good one relevant to the legal system protecting police http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...c3d021affa.html quote:Prosecutors allege it shows Bruce hitting the teen unprompted. Bruce’s attorney, Joe Hogan, planned to argue it showed his client reacting in self-defense when the teen lunged at him, after earlier trying to turn a gun on Bruce’s partner, Jacob Fowler. Hopefully that law has been revised to clarify it doesn't apply to abuse by the only ones able to attest to the video. I guess his partner was forgetful too about what happened in the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnPj9GiiKk0&t=201s
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Did you read the rest of the article? Why is introducing unverified video evidence a bad idea? Should we let non-cops, too, veto the introduction of video evidence? No, that video that shows my brother standing next to me pointing a gun at the convenience store clerk, and then shooting him in the head does not accurately reflect what happened Case dismissed! It's great that the cops were fired, but if the judge was correctly applying the law, the law needs to be changed to always allow introduction of dash cams and body cams from police as evidence. Even if there's another cop who is willing to trash his career to keep his buddy out of prison by lying about the video.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2015 13:49
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I any case you need a witness to lay foundation/authenticate a video or photos. It's a basic rule of evidence. Does the foundation/authentication necessarily have to come from a subject in the video? It seems like the video technician responsible for retrieving the information from the system would be able to provide that, for cases where the subjects are hostile and/or accused of the crime in question. What would happen in the case of a lone gunmen murdering a convenience store clerk? Would the store footage not be admissible at trial, and only used for investigative purposes?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 21:22 |
|
|
This is how a typical post in this thread goes: 1. Here's a hosed up case X, here's a link. 2. It sure sucks that Y event happened! 3. Z seems to be the cause of these sorts of problems. It would be good if we could fix it. The immediate response from the police apologists is often 1. Provide a concrete example of how we can fix Y events from hot happening 2. Here's why your solution can't work because of current laws 3. Your proposed change to laws is stupid! That argumentation style is loving stupid and contributes nothing. You can just nod along and think "yeah that sucks". This thread is all about "yeah that sucks" and none of us is going to come up with the WEIRD OLD SECRET that will stop cop abuse from happening
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2015 22:56
|
|