|
blunt for century posted:I asked yesterday, but why didn't they use their tasers instead of their handguns? This type of situation is exactly what they're meant for. This is my big question, whether the shooting was justified or not (the video doesn't show the shooting at all) it was totally unnecessary for things to unfold that way.
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 15:34 |
|
|
Condiv posted:are you watching the same video as everyone else? it most certainly does show the shooting Yeah, that video doesn't show anything useful at the actual time of the shooting, the camera is pointing at the corner
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:In no way do any of the chemicals in pepper spray render you incapable of "deliberate action." That's my point. It hurts like poo poo, but if you don't care because you're nuts, or wasted, or just hard as nails well then it doesn't do much good. It's effectiveness is mostly in people not wanting to feel like their face is on fire and generally reacting to that feeling with panic. Its not really the point, it doesn't take much deliberate action to be to frantically grab at and stab wildly at the closest thing to you. Also this conversation is dumb , we don't have enough information (yet, probably never) from the video to know whether the man became a legitimate threat. What we do know is that these cops approached a MH call just like they would any other rational actor and because they did so this guy is dead. The lack of training on dealing with the mentally ill, and the fact we task cops with dealing with them as much as we do is a major loving problem. If he did become a threat its because their mishandling of the situation escalated it. g0del posted:I think that's what really got to me - they immediately start justifying the shoot. They sounded like my kids when I've just caught them doing something they know is wrong. "He made me hurt him" isn't a valid excuse at my house, but evidently is justification for shooting someone if you're a cop. I'm guessing you've never dealt with people who just killed someone, this is common reaction and its usually the person is convincing/reassuring themselves. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 01:16 on Mar 19, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:As a reminder, while cops rank in the top 15 of most deadly jobs, most of those deaths are car acccidents. I'm curious if that stat controls for people who work for the police and don't actually leave the building. I know someone quoted the crab fisherman statistic to me in regards to soldiers and when I dug into it if you control for people who deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan it suddenly became like 100x more deadly then crab fishing injuries.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Start with this: How many police officers die each year vs. total amount of police officers in service? Its about 11 per 100k, but I'm having trouble finding a number of how many of the ~900k police officers in the country do patrol duty. Best I've been able to find so far is 2/3rds, not controlling for patrol versus detectives. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 05:54 on Mar 20, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:It is not. The least bit of effort would have shown you this. 27 deaths in the entire year 2013. 48 in 2012. Actually there were 102 deaths in 2013, but good job taking the "murdered" number and passing it off as the "total deaths" number, the smugness about how easy it was to find correct numbers as you gave wrong numbers was a nice touch. You're also quoting the year with the lowest number of police fatalities on record, 2014 was 126 and 2011 was 171. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/12/30/373985338/report-number-of-police-officers-killed-spikes-in-2014
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Deap see fisherman and loggers should be carrying artillery. None of their occupational death's are "murdered"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Feloniously killed is relevant. Dying in a car accident while talking on a cell phone is less relevant. Not all jurisdictions participate in the UCR, and you straight up claimed your numbers included car accidents when you said FRINGE posted:As someone else mentioned, "driving a car" is one of the contributions to LEO deaths, and when you remove that the number is even lower. You're also comparing it to stats of non-police employment that include things like dying in a car accident while talking on a cell phone.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:
This is kind of silly because the occupational fatality states for the other professions include the same sort of stuff, and also the nature of police work is a very unhealthy lifestyle in of itself. Besides, a delivery driver slipping on a frozen sidewalk is an occupational death even if we might do the same walking to work. Including these deaths in the statistics represents aggregate risks caused by the differing amounts different occupations place people in situations where low probability events could result in death. A 55 year old overweight chef is at far less risk of a heart attack then a 55 year old overweight police officer that has to shovel out the parking lot as part of his duties. Its correct to point out cops get an inappropriate amount of hero worship for how "dangerous" the job is. Trying to use the fact fishing is more dangerous to say cops don't need guns or to be threat conscious is a non sequitur. Its like saying fisherman shouldn't have life vests because logging is more dangerous and loggers don't wear them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:It's not a non-sequitur, it's specifically talking about how "this job is dangerous" is not an excuse for killing folks on questionable cause. A substantial part of the danger from police work is from people trying to kill you, none of the danger of logging is from people trying to kill you.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 22:36
|
|
just for you Ima
|
FRINGE posted:Until the LEOKA report for 2014 that number is bullshit. You're an idiot the LEOKA report is not all inclusive so using it as a measure of the high water mark is loving stupid, also even according to the LEOKA report from 2013, literally the safest year ever recorded to be a cop, shows that more cops were shot to death then died in traffic accidents. Calling the NLEOMF propaganda doesn't make it so, the fact that they are pro-police doesn't somehow invalidate their data, do you think they're just engraving fake names into the memorial in DC or something? Zeitgueist posted:Substantial is doing a lot of heavy lifting as a weasel word there. SedanChair posted:A substantial part? Compared to traffic accidents? Yes, substantial, as in 30-40% depending on year/source, as in more then traffic accidents. There's nothing weasel words about it. Zeitgueist posted:Oh and by the way That's a depressing statistic but I think its telling that you decided to compare cop fatalities from the year with the least police fatalities ever recorded to to murders of black Americans from the year where the most cops were murdered in the last 10 years, despite there being data on both available in the same year.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:The discussion comes from folks attempting to justify cop kills. I think if we agree that cops kill way too many people and should do it less, and shouldn't get it easy when they kill someone, we'd be good, but that's the core of the conflict, isn't it? This discussion comes from the fact you and Sedan Chair couldn't stand Pohl making the point "Policing is dangerous but it doesn't justify the tactics they're using" without jumping all over him/her for saying police work is dangerous. edit: sorry it was Sedan Chair and Fringe
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
nm posted:He should have, certainly. However, if she did have a large knife (which I can't see, but I guess the video is poor), this isn't the shooting to get worked out about. Charging with a knife is clearly deadly force and use of it in defense is proper. Again, shouldn't have gotten to that point, but not as bad as the man with the screwdriver. When she charges at him I can see the flash of something that looks consistent with the size of an 8"-9" chef's knife and shiny, but yeah the video quality is poo poo and its definitely not a confirmation. After finally watching the video I've got mixed feelings, Its definitely clean from a criminal standpoint. I'd like to know how much the officer was trained with mental health issues and how much the audio conveyed that he was dealing with someone having a breakdown before throwing him under the bus. It seems like he kept trying to deescalate the situation and talk the person into calming down, and with a rational person you'd thinking getting standoff with a firearm trained on them would count as "control", most people don't suicide charge into gunfire. edit: if you stop the video at 3:31 you can clearly see what I'm talking about.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:The cop already found enough reason to wrestle her to the ground at 2:43. If you've already committed to taking them to the ground you've decided to physically control them. At that point there is no good reason to let them back up and try to talk to them. I mean, is that standard police training? Physically overpower someone, take them to the ground, then let them up for round 2? I agree it was poor judgement, but at that point he was probably still thinking he's dealing with an unarmed teenage girl that not much of a threat and decided to keep trying to deescalate the situation in much the same way people in this thread keep saying cops should do more of (I mean the first reaction of this thread was "look at this harmless little white girl the cops couldn't deal with without shooting". The only thing that doesn't make sense is he seems to draw his gun pretty quick after getting off her, so why did he feel okay releasing control but feel the need to draw his gun and get standoff? The only two things that make sense to me is she pulled the knife out as soon as he let go of her, or he saw the knife while she was on the ground and he didn't feel confident in his level of control and went "gently caress, knife" and got distance. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Mar 21, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:
Vaha, as usual I disagree with how far you take this stuff, this guy is a piece of poo poo, but I do give you credit for being the only one being consistent. Its somewhat amusing watching people who are normally talking about how criminals are victims of society, how rehabilitation is the only legitimate goal of the prison system, and how the idea of retributive justice is barbaric and bloodthirsty suddenly be calling for the death penalty and throwing the word evil around because the criminal here is a cop.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 13:16
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:What do you mean by 'too far'? That's incredibly vague. I just mean I'm not agreeing with him
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 13:40
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:What aren't you agreeing with? You also think there's no systemic reasons why police (or other criminals) commit crimes, that it's all up to someone just deciding to be evil--or in your terms deciding to be a piece of poo poo? Hey look its Obdicut trying to pedantically parse two words of my post into an argument completely tangential to the point I was making, it means "my post criticizing people attacking you should not be taken as an endorsement of your views" nothing more, nothing less. If I had an interest in posting on that subject I would have posted on that subject. Hieronymous Alloy posted:Eh, "consistency" here depends on why you oppose the death penalty. I'm opposed to the death penalty in almost* all cases because I don't think the American justice system is competent enough to administer it reliably -- our court system has too wide a margin for error, as the DNA revelations over the past few years have shown, and too much systematic bias against the poor and the brown. Agreed, but its been my casual observation that even a person exposing what you just will often lead to a thread being derailed with a chorus of people shouting them down about how its wrong because its barbaric and bloodthirsty. Since I share this opinion with you I've experienced it myself. edit: Or more succinctly, your're correct but I don't think that's the case here. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 14:19 on Apr 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 14:08
|
|
|
Murderion posted:
Yeah but this is kind of silly cause the population of Northern Ireland is like a third of just the state of Massachusetts.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
Murderion posted:I made my point badly, sorry. I was trying to compare the number of police killings in the US to an actual goddamn war, and the Irish independence war was the best comparison I could make based on the level of police involvement. Yes and its a stupid comparison, the Florida highway system killed more people last year then that entire war, Ireland is a small country. Murderion posted:Oh, and the 1919-22 conflict was fought over all of Ireland, not just the north. Sorry, I misread that as being mostly referring to the troubles, we're up to just under 2/3 of the population of Massachusetts now. edit: just saw your edit, yeah I'm not saying US cops don't kill a ridiculously high amount of people, I just think this statistic is a silly comparison.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
mastervj posted:Nah, it's related. The fact that almost any suspect, in the USA, might have a firearm factors into the equation. And the fact that CDC is barred from even tracking things is just another step to keep the status quo. Which includes policemen killing people without fear of repercussion. Why would the Center for Disease Control be tracking police shootings?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
Lemming posted:They were banned from doing any research on any type of gun violence in 1996, due to a push by the NRA. Gun deaths in general make sense, and I know about the bullshit with the NRA, I was just thinking police shootings would be the domain of the UCR edit: and BJS
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Nobody is saying the gap isn't real, but that's so easy to address in hiring that we don't understand why it would be an excuse to throw up your hands at the suggestion of getting smarter cops. Why the hell would you think this would be easy to address in hiring? And why would that be different from every other context of gating something with a standardized test that people complain about having disparate impact on minorities?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:Isn't most of that just extra defense budget bloat getting dumped off? It's not like the Hicksville PD has the money to pay bluebook for an APC or whatever. This, and also training is usually way more expensive then gear
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:It's free and the public loves that poo poo so why not? Also does any police department actually own a tank? I know everyone likes to call MRAPs tanks because it sounds extra silly for cops to have one, but they're not remotely tanks, they're basically super armored Humvees. I know that rear end in a top hat Arpaio has that stupid self propelled howitzer as a PR stunt, but I think that's an isolated thing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
Spun Dog posted:Maintenance too? Training on how to use the equipment, or do they just wing it? Are you kidding me? Hell when I was in the Army we would just wing it most of the time, the only training we had was a manual and poo poo passed down.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Uh... MRAPs are way bigger than humvees. Sorry, super armored, bigger humvees.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Someone, eventually, is in fact paying for it, and that money could at least theoretically be redirected to training. Admittedly that would take action at the federal level, but that's what this needs anyway. Well yeah if you have a time machine that can go back and stop the Iraq war.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Military: So this militant that we know is armed and wants to make us die ran into that house over there. We have him outnumbered 30:1 and are just going to wait him out. He can't stay in there forever. This is a bad analogy because this isn't some sort of standard military response and depending on the time frame of the war and their area of operations you're just as likely (if not more likely) to see the military either kick in the doors or just kill everyone in the house from the outside.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:I think you guys got the completely wrong message from my post. I was trying to suggest that the police are so out of control that they exercise less restraint than an occupying army fighting an insurgency, and that this highlights just how hosed up police tactics and use of force are. Yeah but your message was completely wrong, we didn't use less restraint.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
So we've reached the point where people are telling vets how they're wrong and the US Army was actually really restrained during the war just to avoid having to admit that maybe, just maybe, saying that cops are more trigger-happy then a bunch of infantryman in a war-zone was a bridge too far. Truly we are through the looking glass now edit: Dead Reckoning posted:I'd also note that your source for the claim that it was SOP to camp a guy's house until he decided to come out on his own is an article you sort of remember from several years ago, which, again, I'd really like to read since it's quite different from other accounts of the war. Yeah, like mine, I was just assuming maybe some different poo poo then my experience in Afghanistan happened in Iraq at some points
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
tezcat posted:It's more getting vets to say how lovely they are just to spite the "leftist" & "liberals" mentioning the fact that the police are may be worse. That is comedy in itself. I never said lovely, war calls for a different level of restraint then law enforcement. People lacking any sort of conceptual grounding of what a war is actually like and instead using law enforcement as their framework for understanding an issue is one of the most aggravating things about discussing that topic here. This is just people making that mistake from the other direction.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
The judge out and out says that the required elements of murder were proven by the prosecution if you read the full order. The ruling looks absolutely correct, the DA is the issue here.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
JohnClark posted:Again, not a lawyer, but I don't think this is correct. Even though he wasn't tried for murder, he was tried for the potential criminal acts surrounding the death of Rekia Boyd, and jeopardy attaches to the act rather than the specific charge a prosecutor chooses to levy. Otherwise prosecutors could keep you in court theoretically indefinitely while they charge you with each possible crime related to some sequence of events, one at a time. Its not quite that simple, the basis for double jeopardy is what required facts need to be proven for the charge, not the event the charges are based on. I'm not a lawyer so maybe there's more case law then Blockburger that would make this clearer (or maybe my understanding of that ruling is off, since it mostly deals with additional charges to a guilty or untried defendant), but absent that I'd almost think that could be issue that goes all the way to the Supreme court for resolution.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:Yeah that's the sort of thing that is throwing me for a loop. I can't find any other legal or dictionary definition where a reckless act must be an unintentional act. You could easily be charged with reckless driving for driving on a sidewalk intentionally as far as I can tell. I'm sure the judge is on solid footing with the precedent but boy is it hard to parse for someone who doesn't know the applicable law. The difference is being charged with a reckless act vs. being charged with causing something as a result of a reckless act.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:This page has an actual lawyer giving his opinion regarding the question "Does double jeopardy apply if you admit guilt after?" and talking about how another court could bring different charges for the same case. Assuming he's correct, the federal government would be unable to charge someone deemed not guilty of manslaughter with a higher degree of murder because there are no elements of manslaughter not present in second or first-degree murder. It would be different if they were downgrading to involuntary manslaughter from murder, as they would potentially have the "reckless endangerment" element. But you can't really punch up from there. That article actually makes a strong case that they could recharge him, you're reading the reasoning completely wrong. The judge's ruling already established that recklessness was an element of the crime distinct from murder. If this wasn't the case he wouldn't have ruled that they proved all the elements of murder but not manslaughter. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Apr 21, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
The judge goes over the elements of murder in the opinion, intent clearly follows the bullet.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
MattO posted:How often to prosecutors make oopsies with non-cops? Based on all the stories I've heard from lawyers, all the loving time.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
effectual posted:I'm pages kate but I thought DJ was so you couldn't be punished twice. There are lots of crimes that are re-tried again, if the person was found not guilty. No the purpose of DJ is so the state can't just keep trying you until they get a guilty verdict, and... no there are no crimes that are tried again if the person was found not guilty.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Ahohohoaha The cop was the department's homeless liaison officer, so he also does this poo poo everyday. But yeah, this is a good way of approaching police reform, lets poo poo on any police department who tries to do good things. This is part of whats frustrating about this thread, I'm full in favor of police reform but people seem more interested in red team blue team gently caress the police poo poo then actual reform. My Rhythmic Crotch posted:Shine on you crazy diamond Or just straight have no comprehension of how government or policing works.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2015 07:54
|
|
A COP
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 15:34 |
|
|
TURN IT OFF! posted:Yes the "but everyone else is doing it too" legal defense. It works so well for five-year-olds. What is this stupid bullshit? It also works well when you're talking about breaking the speed limit on the highway, since if everyone else is doing it not doing it is unsafe.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2015 18:26
|
|