|
Bachelors
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
shortspecialbus posted:If you pull someone over who has a CCW and they're up front and polite about the whole thing, are you more likely to give them a ticket? Someone suggested the cop would be sufficiently upset about the whole thing that they would be more likely to give you a ticket, but my impression was more that they probably wouldn't even take the firearm unless they had a reason to, and wouldn't be more inclined to demand a search or whatever. If I were still doing traffic enforcement: I don't see why a CCW holder telling me he has a weapon would get me any more upset at them than anyone else. Obviously I want to know if you have your gun (and the law requires that anyhow) but as long as you're complying with the law in that regard I really don't care about the gun. If you're driving like an idiot I'm far more concerned with if you have kids in the car and have them in a car seat than if you have a gun.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Cmdr. Shepard posted:SedanChair joked (although was likely serious) that SWAT teams aren't trained. I disagree. The multi-jurisdictional SWAT teams in my area train more often than any other unit I'm aware of. The problem though is that if you talk to D&D, they have this idea of some mythical level of training and qualifications that can't be met because there is not infinity money and the applicant pool isn't going to get any better than it already is without substantially raising salaries, and even then it might not change much. PD's are having a tough time as it is recruiting qualified applicants, and you'd be surprised that qualified applicant and level of education aren't necessarily related to each other. I've noticed that there are a lot of people out there (by which I mean society at large, not D&D) that seem to think that 'more training' will make unfeasible or unsafe tactics workable. For example, if the police shoot someone who was clearly armed with, say, a knife they don't like it because what they really want is for the police to never shoot anyone. When you point out that a knife is a deadly weapon though, they realize they'll look like a total idiot if they say "well I don't care; I just don't want COPS shooting anyone." So, they dress it up with comments like "well, the police should be trained to take away knives without shooting people." As to qualified applicants, I've noticed that in small departments they often actively avoid better qualified applicants because they don't fit into the social scene of the department. My old department was like this: If you were a young guy, they were looking for you to have played high school football locally. Not any other sport, football, preferably in games on local radio. If you were a little older, it was important that you ride a motorcycle - and not a crotch rocket. These were critical elements in "fitting in".
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Branis posted:I think straight federalization of the police is the way to go. There needs to be one national standard for case law, statutes, training, hiring etc. And realistically this is possible because you can still achieve the same level of service by having X amount of cops in the geographical area that used to be the county or city or whatever just have them answer to the feds. Local government is a relic from a time when communication between the state capital in pierre and sioux falls would take a week cause some rear end in a top hat had to ride his horse there to get the governors permission or whatever. Hell it could work for all levels of government. Why do I gotta call public works to plow my street in the winter, but if I go a mile out of town the county highway shop does it, and then if its a state highway DOT handles it. I don't think that would result in anything but the same ridiculous congressional horse-trading only applied to services that are presently handled locally. In some places it might make things better, but in others it'd be a lot worse. Also, since going to work for the Border Patrol and seeing them and Customs up close and personal, I have to say uniformed Federal law enforcement is its on unique brand of shitshow. If you ever want the military to look efficient and well-run, go to work for these agencies. Imagine the military run entirely by Second Lieutenants and that's about what it's like.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
Branis posted:i'm a hard leftist so i admit i want everybody to think like me Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
Equine Don posted:What are the best qualifications to have excluding a degree or the military? Have an older relative that works for that department, or at least one in the same county. Preferably as a supervisor. In all seriousness though, being able to articulate yourself clearly both in speech and writing is very valuable - and by clearly I mean in proper English with good grammar and spelling. On top of this being able to not only draw, but explain why you drew, logical inferences from information. There are a lot of officers that are just terrible at writing reports or testifying, and that's very bad because lawyers are UNIVERSALLY good at this. Its extremely important to always remember that you were the one on the scene not them. While the courts don't allow armchair quarterbacking in court, the other side of that coin is that you have to explain why you did what you did to people who have no idea what happened beyond what you tell them and maybe some video or witnesses. Neither witnesses or video are good to rely on either - video tends to start late, stop early, and miss important things because of camera angle and witnesses are even worse than cops ate remembering and explaining what they saw. You need to be able to convey to people clearly and articulately what you saw and heard and smelled and why that led you to take the actions you did. In particular, be able to tie individual small pieces of information together into a larger picture. There's a court case (I can't remember which one right now) in which Border Patrol agents stopped a vehicle based on 6 or 7 small facts, each of which individually would be insufficient for probable cause, but taken together created it. The defense attorney tried to argue - essentially - that because each fact taken by itself did not establish probable cause, that therefore there was none. The court ruled against this tactic, but for the officer the obligation remains to tie the facts to one another in an understandable and logical manner in the first place. This is not only in order to win court cases but for your protection and your department's. It's quite possible to do everything by the book but then talk or write yourself into trouble because you explain things as if you were talking to someone else that was there, are careless with terminology, or otherwise just didn't clearly convey the facts. Lawyers are like sharks with the scent of blood for errors in your reports or testimony. There's no such thing as being too careful or too pedantic about articulating what happened, what you did, and why you did it. A good lawyer can turn a 100% truthful report into a pack of lies in a heartbeat if it's poorly written. Even if they don't do that, a case can still get thrown out if you leave out facts becuase you think everyone knows what you know, or nobody can understand what you wrote or what you're talking about. On the plus side though, this can work in your favor too. Like I said, the average person sucks at this too. I once got taken to court on a speeding ticket I wrote because, essentially, the guy was mad that I had not called him "sir" enough times and therefore I was rude. In the midst of being cross-examined by him (which all by itself was an exercise in the irrelevant) he asked me a question that went on for a good 2 and a half or 3 minutes before he finally stopped explaining the question and let me answer. By the time he got through it all I had forgotten the beginning part and had no idea what the actual question was. I must have tried to figure it out too long becuase the judge turned to me and says "Well, aren't you going to answer the question, officer?" I looked back at him and said "Your honor, I don't understand the question." He said "Oh good, I didn't either and I'm glad I'm not the only one, Mr. <ignorant shitlord> please rephrase the question." I'm pretty sure Ignorant Shitlord wasn't sure what he was trying to ask either because I was pretty sure that the new, shorter question had nothing to do with the original either. His cross-examination ended shortly after that. Also, at some point learn some basic Spanish if you don't have it already. Even if it comes from other officers once you get hired, learn words and phrases that pertain to your job. That may be better than formal Spanish because you'll learn the slang. Pretty much anywhere in the U.S. you are going to run across people that speak Spanish better than English (or pretend to) sooner than you think - and if you have a couple characters stopped and they are talking in Spanish, you want to know if they are talking about kicking your rear end. They'll do that openly in Spanish if you are not obviously Hispanic or a Spanish speaker because they just assume that if you're white or black and not Hispanic you must not speak it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
Alastor_the_Stylish posted:Should there be training for the situation where a person does have indeed have a knife, but in addition may be some combination of the following: fifty feet away, mentally ill, a small child, an elderly person, whittling crafts with the knife, deaf and with their back turned, Sikh, pregnant, in a wheelchair, etc...? No. All this falls under general "use of force" training. Does the person have the means, opportunity, and intent to inflict bodily harm and how severely? For example your elderly person - merely being "elderly" does not prevent someone from inflicting serious harm if they want to - quite a few older folks are a lot more physically fit than you'd think. What's important in that example is "whittling a stick", not "elderly". The law requires that situations be judged on the totality of all circumstances. It does not create special snowflake categories of protection. Kiryen fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Apr 4, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Given the ability to employ communications and teamwork, the (theoretical) lone knife wielder would be extremely susceptible to being sucker-tazed/beanbagged/tackled from another officer while they are raving/raving/whatever at the officer occupying their attention. This is (minus the tazing/beanbags) what we were forced to do at the psych facility when an agitated resident was threatening (with or without some manner of makeshift weapon in hand). In circumstances where the knife-wielder is kind enough to oblige us by standing around ranting and other officers are available then yes, that course of action is feasible. In such cases - which are not at all unheard of - frequently this is exactly what happens. However most people don't know about them because "5 officers beanbag knife-weilding lunatic and arrest him" is not exciting news while "5 officers shoot knife-weilding lunatic 5 times" is. People tend to believe that the latter is the typical police response - in reality it's the response judged more worthy of breathy "questions are being asked!" treatment on the 11:00 news. quote:In the theoretical case where the officer is (actually) cornered then of course things change. (Assuming they have a firearm in hand - unless something has changed I believe that the standing advice is "dont try to draw against a combatant that rushes you within xx feet - the fact that this is (was?) the rule means that there is already an awareness that non-firearm means of defense must exist for an individual officer to feel comfortable/trained 'on the street'.) The rule you're thinking of is the 21 foot rule and it is not "don't try to draw". It's "If the person is within 21 feet your chances of drawing and shooting them before getting stabbed are very low". The point of the rule is to get people to understand the real distance at which knives are dangerous. If you are rushed by a person within 21 feet with a knife, you are most likely going to get cut or stabbed. Unless you are very very good at martial-arts counter-knife techniques, you definitely raw and shoot because getting stabbed once or twice is better than over and over again. As for "non-firearm defense existing" obviously it does, but those are for dealing with lesser levels of force or resistance, or for when a firearm cannot be drawn. quote:Part of this requires a shift in mindset from "Us vs 'the civilians'", and towards the mindset of "we have this job to help people, including the troubled people". Changing the current generations mindset is probably the largest hurdle to all of these problems. This change is important in building relations and understanding between the community and the police, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with immediate threats to life and limb. If a polcie officer is attacked by someone, he does not need to use lesser means of defense to protect himself because the person is "troubled" or any other special category. What matters is the real threat that he faces at that moment - and whether his response is reasonable as judged from his perspective at the time, not from the comfort of the courtroom or the living room after the fact. Also, you seem to have a misconception. Helping people is not the fundamental reason police exist. The main reason for the police is to catch criminals (however we choose to define criminals). Helping people is a part of what the police do, but people who think that is "why they have this job" are fundamentally mistaken. There are all kinds of other services that exist exclusively to help people. Many of those services are inadequate or poorly run, but that is not the fault of the police. The problem arises when people summon the police and expect them to be social workers. The police are not social workers. When the police come, the are going to resolve police problems. People should not generally call the police for things that are not police problems, and when the police come and solve a police problem it is unfair to then complain that their solution wasn't appropriate for a social problem that existed alongside the law-breaking. For example, at the point the police are called to deal with a knife-wielding mental patient there have generally been plenty of opportunities to intervene long before that was necessary. When people then blame "the police" for shooting him after he charges with the knife they are really just being intellectually lazy - it's very easy to sit in one's armchair and complain about the police shooting a mentally ill person and never even think about what might or might not have been done in advance that might prevent that situation. quote:In a related (but separate) note - the fact that this is true: http://time.com/3637967/police-officers-fattest-profession-study/ shows that the current generation(s) of LEOs cant do the jobs that the public wants them to do. The go-to solution will remain "be scared and shoot" until the state of the officers changes. Fit, strong, confident people do not go through their days as scared and reactionary as obese, agitated, and sick people do. Unfortunately, police work requires a lot of habits that are very bad for you. You eat a lot of bad food because that's all there's time for or because it's 3:00 am and only one or two places are open. You HAVE TO sit in cars, in front of a computer, or waiting around in court for days on end. Few departments offer on-duty time to work out and exercise. It's very easy for citizens to tell the police "get in shape!" when you are not the one that has to do it after getting only 5 hours sleep for days on end because of your work hours - not to mention finding time to spend with your children and spouse. This is not that I disagree police officers should stay in shape - they should; you are absolutely right in that regard - but the citizenry in this country has a bad habit of forgetting that they cannot simply place additional requirements and demands on the police without paying for it in one way or another.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
Cmdr. Shepard posted:Don't let smiling jack bully you out of the thread. Be firm in your convictions. Hey, hey hey, that was his response to me! Don't be trying to give my bullying cred to one of your cronies!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
No, I'm not anyone's alt. Sorry, should I be making more dick jokes? I'll try to step up my game. By the way, what happened to Whip? I took the advice to lurk and read some of the older threads in here. Where'd he go?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
Rad Lieutenant posted:There was talk about posting this thread in A/T and just holding hands while it drove us all off a cliff. You're good, effort posts are beyond most of us at this point but I don't mind reading rational discussion. Really? what for?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
Cmdr. Shepard posted:I agree with this sentiment. You know, that brings something else up: quote:
Aside from the blatant straw man, there's a real issue with this mentality, nationwide, that any given person is in a person to evaluate police tactics. We have outside institutions that evaluate the police. They're called courts. Court decisions tell us what we can and cannot do. Furthermore, law is a profession for a reason. Lawyers are graduate degree holders. Law is not easy. There is a reason there's a right to an attorney and a right to remain silent - to protect all your other rights that, despite your (general "you" here) you really do NOT know and regularly demonstrate that you don't know. If lay people want to make criticisms and observations that are in accordance with the law, precedent and accepted tactical doctrine we should as law enforcement officers listen to that and take them seriously. But if some shitlord criticizes a trained engineer because it contradicts his understanding of high school physics and "a brief history of time" the engineer (and everyone else) is perfectly within reason to laugh him out of the room. The same applies to the police. When someone with no training or education in the subject starts trash-talking about how the police should do things, it's pretty loving intellectually dishonest when they start acting like the cops are just engaging in elitism to point out that they know nothing about the subject. It does not follow that just because people have strong feelings on police work that their opinion on how it is done is necessarily relevant. People feel pretty strongly about having cancer too; having it does not mean you get to tell oncologists what to do.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
In places where calling the cops isn't verboten, the citizens have a lot of blame for that too. "There are teenagers walking down the sidewalk in front of my house, can you send an officer over" 5 minutes later Him: "There were teenagers on my sidewalk!!" Me: "That's what it's there for." Him: "But they might have been up to something!" Me: "Sir, they're teenagers. They're always up to something, but that's a matter for their parents, not the police."
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
Melthir posted:What is your opinion of federal law enforcement officers like myself and why. Depends what agency you work for.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
USMC503 posted:Have you ever had a chick offer sexual favors to get out of trouble a la Super Troopers? No, although I have been offered sexual favors for no apparent reason.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Bernard McFacknutah posted:I've never been offered a sexual favor but I was on a cordon one night and a girl asked for my number. She was a 3/10 so I replied with my shoulder number, she voiced some significant dis-satisfaction with my answer so I said "Madame, if you would like my phone number then may I suggest 101 or 999 in an emergency" She was still rather upset so we reconciled our differences by me placing her under arrest for drunk and disorderly. So did this get you into her pants? Don't leave us hanging; that's rude.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
Untagged posted:They suck, call me for legal advice instead. 1-800-FTP-4YOU. Down here in south Texas we get TV ads for the shyster lawyers as well as the billboards. ERvery single one of them revolves around getting money after car accidents. My favorite one is "In a wreck? Need a check?"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
Branis posted:if you listen closely at the start of the video you can hear what sounds like the taser discharging, so yeah even if the guy had it it would be useless as an incapacitation device A point of order - it wouldn't be useless; you could still drive-stun with it. However, even if the guy did grab the TASER and use it against the officer, the officer is most likely utterly hosed unless there's something really serious that we haven't seen yet. Assuming for the sake of argument that this man did indeed grab the officer's TASER and deploy it against him, that would be a felony. He then attempted to flee. Under Tennessee v. Garner, an officer may only employ deadly force against a fleeing felon if the felon poses a threat to the safety of others - not the officer; if he's fleeing he's already demonstrating intent not to attack the officer himself. For example, if an armed robber is being chased by an officer and runs, say, towards a school or other source of hostages, the officer could probably justify shooting him from behind. However, the TASER is A) not a deadly weapon and B) is limited to a single ranged use per cartridge and C) there is no reason to think that he had any intention to attack anyone else or take anyone hostage. the officer should have known this. Tennessee v. Garner is a very important precedent that is taught very early on in any basic police academy. Based on what the officer himself is describing he has no excuse whatsoever for shooting this guy. They should change "hands up, don't shoot" to "running away, don't shoot." The first one was hogwash, this one looks like straight-up murder. Hezzy posted:Surely the fact he was charged means that there's sufficient evidence to prosecute? Not in and of itself, but the video and the officer's own description of his reasons are definitely enough to prosecute. Kiryen fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Apr 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
Branis posted:drive stun doesn't incapacitate, only cause pain, and its not even that painful. I suppose that's true, although I'd say it's pretty loving painful.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Question not related to the shooting or guns at all - Is it common in your departments for police to 'dip into' illicit goods confiscated from criminals? It shows up a lot on TV, and obviously it happens since I've seen articles about officers fired because of it, but I'm wondering if its anywhere near as common (in at least some major jurisdictions) as media tends to imply. Beyond that, is drug use in general common among police officers? It seems like many of the stress factors of the job would make that likely. Border Patrol is extremely careful with weed. You can pretty much forget about getting into the evidence room and getting any; it's counted at least 3 times a day by different people. At my old department there is at least one guy I'm confident would have failed a piss test, but I doubt he'd take it from evidence. Weed is just too easy to get other ways without risking getting caught stealing it from evidence.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Grem posted:Wow that guy sure murdered the gently caress outa that kid. I wonder if he really did have the cops taser and was fleeing with it. Probably get in to big trouble for losing that, do gently caress it, kill the dude so you at least get a lawyer. Pretty sure he didn't. The article describes that the officer went bag and got something and then tossed it by the body. Pretty likely it was the TASER and that fact will be conclusive that he knew he did wrong by shooting the guy. Maybe the guy had the TASER and dropped it after firing it, but moving it that way makes him look even guiltier than he already looks from the shooting alone.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:He is already fired from NCPD, but nothing prevents a podunk small town from hiring him. No big department would, though. Not after he's been on the national news like that. The only way he'll ever get hired again is if we have another Ferguson-like discovery of totally different circumstances and I don't predict that since we have a video, and for once the video is actually pretty good. quote:I'm just grateful the cameraman had the god damned decency to rotate is phone to landscape so the video looks worth a gently caress. Yeah, it's good that he had that presence of mind so that we can actually see everything, or close to it. One thing that drives me crazy with police videos is people assuming poo poo they don't actually shoot and for once we aren't faced with that problem.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Cole posted:Ok quick traffic question. Look at the signs. If there are none, probably the right lane.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
Branis posted:drunk women are seriously the loving worst followed by their white knight friends when it comes to arresting people. In my experience, the most common cause of bar fights is white knights seizing some trivial affront to a female as an excuse to "stand up to that asshoe" for her in hopes of getting laid.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
DrakeriderCa posted:uh yeah lol if you can't chug a quart of maple syrup on demand.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
Cmdr. Shepard posted:Ask a Cop: lol maple syrup Confirming ACAB, fatass pigs only care about donuts and the syrup on their pancakes.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
Sir Lucius posted:In Maryland you do not have to stop for a school bus on a 4 lane highway divided by a median if you are traveling in the opposite direction of the school bus. Would this condition still apply if the school bus stopped at an intersection (with or without crosswalks)? It depends if the section in question specifies an exception for intersections or not.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Untagged posted:You do not have to stop if the median is "positive", ie raised curb or grass, etc. If the highway is divided but the bus stops in an undivided intersection all traffic would have to stop because the highway is no longer divided at that point. ["Technically"]. Theoretically. Another possible view is that because the highway in general is divided, and the intersection is part of it that therefore it is a "divided highway". If it came to an actual court appearance, the lawyers for either side could argue those points. There may or may not be actual judicial precedent on this question in Maryland which would govern. (I am neither advocating nor disagreeing with either position; only pointing out that both might be argued.)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
krispykremessuck posted:autism Sorry. I'll try to stick to maple syrup jokes from now on.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
Cmdr. Shepard posted:If someone actually commits a crime, the victim can just contact their local state's attorney office who can get a warrant and the suspect can voluntarily turn himself into the court of jurisdiction. This is especially effective in murder cases.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Here's a question: there have been a few cases recently where a prisoner insisted that they couldn't breathe, or needed a doctor, or were otherwise in distress, and the sheriffs basically laughed them off. Do a certain percentage of people you detain insist that the cuffs are too tight or otherwise act like they're dying, to the point that people start to tune it out, or were these sheriffs just shitheels? Illegal aliens always do this sort of thing. They run like the wind when you chase them, but as soon as you get hold of them it's all "AGUA SENOR, AGUA POR FAVOR!" because the proximity of a green uniform means they instantly start dying of dehydration. Sometimes they do this while still struggling to get away when you don't even have the cuffs out yet. The ones that are too fat will "faint". It's like a contest of you get close to a group of overweight females because they'll all start "fainting" but whichever one falls to the ground first the others will suddenly "recover" and start begging for help for the fainting one. The other thing they'll do is lay on the ground right in front of you and shut their eyes and pretend you aren't talking to them when you tell them to "levantate!" They just flop their like a rag doll. The first time it happened I was at a loss how to get one on her feet. Eventually I guess she realized I wasn't going to decide she was dead and go away and gave up. My FTO explained later that some of them actually think that if they shut their eyes and play dead, you can't see them and will go away like a bear rejecting spoiled meat. Branis posted:he was hosed from birth, but a world in which we don't criminalize drugs and instead legalize some and regulate them along with some actual restorative justice instead of just sending them to criminal MBA school means that kids in the future won't grow up thinking that a lifestyle of crime is the way to get the capitalist dream. You're not wrong about the drugs and the nature of the prison system, but we also need to stop excusing people with ideas like "hosed from birth". People are people and will always game the system - if you give them excuses to make, they will make excuses. Cmdr. Shepard posted:A couple weeks ago I arrested a combative drunk who was the passenger in a car with a DUI driver (who was also arrested). When we got him into the holding cell, we started hearing loud pounding. We ran in to see what was going on and he was bashing his head against the wall repeatedly. We had to restrain him and literally babysit him until we could bond him out. You were obviously depriving him of his rights by not letting him injure himself so he could complain about police brutality later. Kiryen fucked around with this message at 15:51 on May 1, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 1, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
Volume posted:so being charged means you're automatically guilty? Being charged means there is probable cause to believe you did something illegal. If it is already known that you did nothing wrong, or there is not probable cause, then the person should not be charged. This does not suddenly change because public officials are the potential defendants. I am not surprised that the officers were charged in this case, but that charge needs to have been on the basis of the facts, not because of the feelings of the community. Community feelings matter in determining policies and fixes - they do not matter when charging people with crimes. Protestors can jump up and down and scream all they want, but the idea that protests should actually matter to the outcome of individual cases is extremely dangerous. No matter the faults of the justice system, mob justice is still not a better idea.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Volume posted:and the courts are there to judge if that probable cause is based in provable facts. So if the facts are on their side then it should be smooth sailing for them. Yes. People being charged are entitled to a probable cause hearing prior to trial to determine if probable cause exists. Often, this is waived, but not always. That does not mean that it is ok to charge people with crimes without probable cause. At a bare minimum, that's a waste of the court's time and money, and in severe cases can itself be a crime or cause of civil action.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
Cichlid the Loach posted:Do you think probable cause does not exist in this case? I don't know. I don't have access to all the facts. I am not making an evaluation of whether the charges are appropriate; I'm pointing out that the statement "IF they did nothing wrong THEN they should not be charged" is technically correct. The fact that if they did nothing wrong they are very likely to have nothing to worry about does not make it ok to charge them IF the charging authority already knows they did nothing wrong.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Volume posted:Then I think we can all take comfort in the fact that the attorney used the medical examiners report and the internal police investigation to assess if there was probable cause. I don't believe that is in dispute. quote:I think the person saying that was being sarcastic, turning around the common response that police and co. give to civilians voicing concerns of brutality, wrongful detentions, and other violations: "If you've done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear." When applied to the public as a whole, that's a defensible statement. If you are not doing anything wrong you are unlikely to interact with police. If applied to individual members of the public charged with crimes, then it's no more acceptable than when applied to the police, but in that sense it is not "common" at all.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I think the disagreement comes from the disconnect between two interpretations of "they did nothing wrong". As a point of order, that evidence needs to meet the standard of "probable cause" but you're fundamentally correct. quote:The other case is obviously "they did nothing wrong" and the prosecutors and judge knew it. Obviously, in that situation, they should not be charged. This is the situation where the statement would be technically correct, but contextually doesn't make a whole lot of sense - there's no evidence the prosecution was political, and all the evidence that has come out so far supports a good-faith argument of continuing cause to believe they committed the crime even if it turns out they did nothing wrong and the evidence ends up being incomplete. That's also correct, and is also a fair evaluation of this particular situation. That said, the evidence is not available to any of us, so approval of the fact that the officers were charged is based essentially on faith in the process followed by the charging authority. It is not unreasonable to believe that this same faith might not appear if the result had been to not charge them even though the actual evidence available to the public is the same in either case. Or to be a bit more blunt, many people's faith in the process depends a great deal on them getting the results they want. quote:Basically: I think the "and everyone know it" was supposed to be understood in the context of Cmdr. Shepard's original comment - or at least should be understood.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Volume posted:Is it common for charges to be dropped because the perpetrator didn't know it was a crime? That depends. One cannot usually claim "I didn't know that was a law" but one certainly can claim "The facts as they appeared to me at the time caused me to believe this act was legal" <insert facts here> in which case the prosecution would need to impeach that presentation with evidence that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known other information that would have told them the act was illegal. quote:just might be my silly thoughts on how police work but I'd like to think cops are out there to stop crimes. So if they see an illegal arrest happening they should do their cop duties and stop that crime. That is an extremely silly idea. Barring "Training-day"-like circumstances that are just outrageous police should not be making determinations as to whether the official actions of other officers are legal or not on the spot. The police are not judges, and the question of whether an arrest was legal or not is a question for a judge or a jury. Police should not be having disputes over each other's interpretation of the law in the middle of trying to enforce it. If you're having to ask questions like those above it might behoove you to do a little more reading on legal principles and precedent. There's considerable precedent and legal theory on what the police may and may not do and who may be held responsible for what. "Cops are out there to stop crimes" could be a simplified expression of a general rule, but it is hardly some ironclad principle that requires them to air their disputes in the heat of the moment lest they be charged with a felony because of unusual circumstances.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
Cmdr. Shepard posted:You do know that cops have little to no medical training so when you ask for an evaluation of the scene you get exactly that. We can't call ems without getting asked a thousand questions about the patient. gently caress I don't know that's why I called the FD. Whether they're breathing, walking, talking, or breathing is about the best you're gonna get. Bro, if you make them get out of their recliners and put down the X-Box controllers long enough to respond, you're going to get a ration of poo poo. If he's walking and talking when you call it in and dies of pancreatic cancer before they get there, that's your loving fault for being a worthless ignoramus.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
JiimyPopAli posted:"Dispatch, one of the cars at this accident is leaking onto the road, can you get Fire to attend, tell them it isn't a rush we just need some absorb-all on the road" poo poo, our tow man used to take care of the leaks. That guy was great.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
ReebTop posted:...do you not know what a sternum rub is? I mean, it's considered inappropriate because it's unnecessarily painful and easily leaves marks, not because "they touched her near her boobies." Someone's irony detector needs maintenance.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2015 03:41
|
|