|
Murderion posted:The police are trapped in a Kafkaesque nightmare, making stops and arrests for reasons incomprehensible to them. Blown from hither to yon by the winds of fate, occasionally they ask "why? Why did we do this? What makes us act this way?"  Bravo.
|
#
¿
May 4, 2015 09:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 19:35 |
|
|
The last (many) pages of this thread have been devoted to discussion of whether or not one can infer racism in individual acts that are part of a broad trend. Flipping it around, apparently Pennsylvania is planning to use statistical tendencies to guide sentencing (link). This makes me -- and the ACLU -- uncomfortable, but seems on the surface to be the same process applied to a different population. What is the difference between claiming that a particular cop is motivated by racism (because statistics show that this happens frequently among similar individuals), and claiming that a particular defendant is likely to commit crimes in the future (because statistics show that this happens frequently among similar individuals)?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:It's kind of scary how many of these rules can apply to police. Let's do some edits: I sometimes wish SA had a "like" button for posts. That's really funny.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2015 12:20
|
|
|
Tubesock Holocaust posted:Another case of police incompetence (summary from Jezebel): This seems too Kafkaesque for reality. The younger sister is pressured to report a rape, and then charged with making up a report. Meanwhile, the older sister is charged with obstruction of justice for deleting evidence of a crime that -- according to the police -- didn't happen. It really seems like there's some information that's been omitted from the summary presented.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Hell, I can't even do pro bono legal aid work because of the risk a person with a "family law" issue might inadvertently tell me about something criminal. Are you obligated to push for charges against any criminal act you become aware of, or do you mean "criminal cases currently under investigation/in court"?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 12:30
|
|
|
What would happen if "resisting arrest" charges were automatically dropped if they were the only charges brought against a person? What consequences would there be to police-public interactions and to the legal system?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:The type of people Open Carry laws are made for are different then the type of people that cops will rush and shoot if they see a gun on. I suspect that VitalSigns is aware of this. He may be pointing to a problem with how laws are actually applied.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 09:57
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Two problems with that: A pre-teen making a split-second decision after being ambushed doesn't have agency in any meaningful sense of that word, and the duties of the police in no way compelled them to make close contact with a what they believed to be an armed person in this case. This is what I keep coming back to. Rice barely got a chance to react to the situation at all before he was shot, and the reason for that is entirely due to the poor tactics used by the police. The police made virtually every decision in the encounter, so there's really not much Rice could have done to get a different outcome. I think (hope?) most of the disagreement at this point is whether the shooter is criminally liable or merely civilly liable for the poor decisions made. Edit: v yeah, that, too. v Grundulum fucked around with this message at 11:57 on Oct 13, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 08:30
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Slager murdered that guy, thats why the murder charge is appropriate in that case. Slager obviously had more time to make decisions leading to the fatal shooting, but it's not obvious to me that Rice's shooter didn't even qualify for 2nd- or 3rd-degree murder. There was intent to kill and a person wound up dead. It really seems like the kind of thing that ought to go to court, even if the officer is found not guilty.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Loehmann should also be busted for lying but it doesn't really go to whether he deserves a murder charge, its not clear that Rice actually reaches for the toy gun but you can definitely see him reach for his waste and his shirt pop up in the video. My personal theory is that he was probably trying to lift his shirt to show the cops the toy gun so he didn't get shot , but that motion is close enough that Loehmann can easily claim that he was reaching for the gun and combined with his obvious panic on video its going to be really hard to sell to a jury that he didn't at least reasonably believe that what Rice was doing, at least in part because I believe its actually the truth (that he believed it). I agree with your second paragraph pretty much in its entirety, but I don't think he had a reasonable belief. I have little doubt that he believed he was in danger; I'm arguing against reasonableness. It goes back to what people were saying earlier, that officers in the US have a great deal of leeway to manufacture situations where they could believe there is a threat. And, frankly, that Loehmann falsified his report after the fact would suggest he didn't think other people would find his claims reasonable.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
nm posted:And this is the exact definition of the voluntary manslaughter due to imperfect self-defense jarmak was arguing about Thanks for the clarification. It is nice to have people who know law to provide some grounding -- this thread (among others, I'm sure) tends toward hysteria at times.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Of course, he was indicted in 2013 and still getting paid until just now...pretty nice. I don't think I disagree with paying him until the verdict is delivered. Remove him from the streets, place on paid leave, sure; but I don't like the precedent that you get fired for being accused of wrongdoing. There's possibly a complaint to be leveled that the wheels of justice took too long reaching their conclusion, but that's a separate issue.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
C2C - 2.0 posted:Precedent??? People in this country are fired every single day for even the faintest hint of wrongdoing. I don't agree with it; but let's not act like it's not something that already occurs. Fair enough. I worded it poorly. Lemming and PostNouveau both restated what I wanted to say, and I think they did a better job of it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:That seems like a reasonable, if cumbersome, proposal. I'm still undecided if making the footage subject to public disclosure without a subpoena is a good idea. What's the typical staying power of a TMZ muckraking story? If FOIA requests couldn't be submitted for two weeks after a video was captured, would that be enough time for the celebrity news cycle to move on to a different topic?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
Not just celebrities, after further thought. In a situation where all police encounters are filmed you bet your rear end I'm telling my local political parties to Hoover up all video of the opposing party's members during traffic stops or anything else. Suddenly that "Bush's daughters killed a man while DUI" or "Malia was playing beer pong" has video to go along with it and can be used in attack ads. And poo poo, storage is cheap so you do this to everyone from the local level up. By the time someone makes it to the national level, there is almost sure to be video of them or family members on a hard drive that can be pulled out, possibly mischaracterized, and placed into ads on behalf of the campaign, PACs, or the party apparatus Edit for clarity: I'm in favor of always-on bodycams on police. But there are absolutely sure to be unintended consequences beyond the intended ones (e.g. having video of possible rights violations).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I added the important word above. The opinion linked above suggests that he's immune from prosecution by federal courts, too: quote:Upon establishing a Supremacy Clause immunity defense, it is not left to a federal or state jury to acquit the defendant of state-law criminal charges, nor to a federal or state judge to direct a verdict in the defendant's favor; the federal or state court instead lacks any jurisdiction over the defendant. What am I missing here? Edit: derp. Went and bolded what I think is the operative phrase. Tell me if I'm wrong. Grundulum fucked around with this message at 08:12 on Oct 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2015 08:09
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You, um, do see the ellipsis, right? Why let the truth get in the way of an inflammatory interpretation?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
Terraplane posted:The point is still, "Hey, we're not raping anybody, that's not too shabby!" and that is super hosed up. That's cool, but that's not what the guy who posted the image claimed. Edit: pathetic little tramp posted:then the chief of police said she was lucky he wasn't there because he'd have raped her? That's super different from saying the chief shouldn't hold up these incidents and say "hey, at least we aren't those guys, eh?!"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
Terraplane posted:That's true, I'm glad you were here to point out the true injustice of the situation. Hold yourself to the same standards you apply to your opponents. It was a bold-faced lie to make that claim about the police chief and deserved to be called out as such. No way Dead Reckoning would be able to get away with something that flagrant; I don't understand why the rules should be different just because the poster is on my side of the argument.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I wonder why they've moved so fast on arresting these particular cops, is there something special about the victim or the officers this time? Did they actually arrest the shooter(s)? Last I remember, they hadn't been arrested yet and posters here were complaining about how slowly the wheels were turning.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
It's a dumb idea to get "justified 4x" tattooed anywhere. What happens if you shoot a fifth person? Laser tattoo removal?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2015 12:01
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning, that line of reasoning leads to a plainly unacceptable outcome: if a police officer could shoot and kill a suspect under certain circumstances, they appear to be protected by QI under almost all circumstances.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
Look, you have no idea what happened before that. I'm sure that there is something the cameras didn't show that makes this objectively reasonable, which will come out in due time during the sealed grand jury process. Edit because tone: holy poo poo. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2015 07:15
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You, um, might want to look again. That case isn't generally considered good law anymore. Can you explain why that's the case? I thought precedent was usually a big deal, so any changes to it require exceptional circumstances.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
Why aren't more officers than just van Dyke being charged? At a minimum every officer on the scene is now an accessory to murder, and the officers who visited the Burger King would be investigated for destruction of evidence.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:He was talking about the officers at the scene, the BK footage is a different issue. You're correct; I was referring to officers at the scene. I don't know the precise legal term (a running refrain in this thread!), but I have a strong suspicion that if the situation were reversed, and several of McDonald's associates were present while van Dyke was shot repeatedly, they would have been arrested for *something*. Whatever that something is, that's what I am asking about.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Friend of a cop doesn't mean much to me, unless that earns him special treatment that wouldn't be afforded to non-friends.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:They wouldn't be, being a witness to a crime is not a crime. It's absolutely not a "gently caress those guys for being cops" crime. It was a "would the situation be the same if the shooter and victim were reversed?" crime. And apparently it would be, so there's nothing to do.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'd be fine if cops declined to file a report after murdering somebody, instead of filing a false report along with their buddies I could get behind this. There have been a lot of reports described in this thread that could charitably be described as "confused" (less charitably they could be described as "mendacious" or "blatant lies"). Police of all people should know how easy it is for witnesses to be confused about what they observed and be more circumspect in their reports. If they're shown to be lying in the report there needs to be some sort of consequence. If there is no way to turn in a true report without violating their 5th amendment rights, then they need to be lawyering up. Edit: Raerlynn posted:The real irony here is the argument that in many of the cases in this thread, had the officer respected the victim's rights, the shooting that took place would never have occurred. Some people are saying that taking an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. Just because McDonald had his due process right violated doesn't give us the right to deprive van Dyke of his. It is curious that it almost always seems to work in this direction, though. Grundulum fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Nov 27, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:Graham v Connor How many videos have we seen in this thread of a single individual, armed at most with a knife (usually unarmed), making no threatening motions at all, being approached by multiple officers and winding up dead? If not kissing the curb at the first sight of a blue uniform (or however you want to interpret "whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight" when no arrest has been announced or attempted) is an action punishable by death, then you need to give me a different citation for why.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:That the standard for an officer violating someone's due process rights has a higher burden to prove than a prosecutor performing procedural violations of due process which would lead to a natural imbalance in the claims (causing it to be "one way")? My point was that police officers get an enormous amount of leeway to be prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner -- far above and beyond what Graham vs Connor suggests at a cursory level. If there is additional jurisprudence based on it that extends the ruling, that may account for the discrepancy. Sorry for the tone; I am used to short replies carrying the connotation of exasperation and snarkiness, which apparently wasn't your intent.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 19:35 |
|
|
bango skank posted:he doesn't really feel the need to put points up on the scoreboard by posting how much he disagrees with how hosed up X incident is every time something comes up. This is a thing that happens in this thread. Lots of people here have the idea that anyone who doesn't agree with them 100%, disagrees with them 100%.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2015 13:10
|
|