|
"WHY OPEN A NEW THREAD? IT ALWAYS ENDS UP BADLY!?". Well, we need the thread. These are discussions that we have in other threads, and these are discussions goons love to have. We can't really be without a cop thread, even if we can't be with a cop thread.  In this thread, let's wrangle about everything related to Law Enforcement, good and bad.  DON'T loving METAPOST ABOUT poo poo PLEASE poo poo gently caress. NO loving FIGHTING ABOUT PEDANTRY. Be it reforms that are not working, that are working, horrible abuses, good practices, US cops and international cops, whatever pertains to the concept of a "system by which some members of society act in an organized manner to enforce the law by discovering, deterring, rehabilitating or punishing persons who violate the rules and norms governing that society."  While this will surely be mostly about the bad sides of Law Enforcement in the United States, don't let that stop you. Law Enforcement in the US kills more, fires more bullets and loses more officers than any civilized nation in the world, both absolutely and per capita. It offers plenty to talk about. In addition, the sentences in the United States are most draconian when pretty much compared to any other nation in the world. Only western nation to practice regular death penalties and to have life sentences without parole, despite most of the world having a life sentence of where only a small portion of it is spent behind bars. While prison reform is its own thread, Law Enforcement ties directly into it too and thus can't be separated from the discussion. While many are horrified by some of the abuses in Law Enforcement in the US, many more believe everything to be well in their black-white worldview where evil people get what they deserve and good people aren't affected. Reforming the police can be hard if the majority see nothing wrong with it.Here we can also discuss about the amount of force that should be necessary in policing, be it US mag-dumps or EU limb shots  Or perhaps creating a police force like in the UK where routine officers do not carry nor are they trained to use firearms. We can talk about the firearms the police use, what boots they use and how horrible some of the acquisitions for small time departments are and how rife with corruption and handshakes they are. Or we can talk about Amsterdam Police in Netherlands putting up signs telling that people buying drugs should be more careful since a new batch is found dangerous. Because there are all kinds of goons from nerds to gals, from kiddy twiddlers to federal agents, from farmers to fighter pilots, so do we have Cop Goons. You can ask them questions here in the Ask a Cop Goon thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3710350&perpage=40 Don't try to bring debate and discussion there or you might be met with hostility, drunkenness and lewd behavior. Humor is harsh, but if you have a legit question, odds are you'll get an answer very fast in an informative manner. Things going on with conviction of cops that fall out of line -South Carolina Trooper Sean Groubert, shot a black manman in the hip for no apparent reason. Trial date still pending, but is fired and employed as a truck driver. The man he shot got paid by the State Insurance Reserve, and is possibly making a full recovery. -South Carolina, North Charleston Officer Michael Slager, shot a black man in the back multiple times and planted a taser. Awaiting trial in Charleston County Detention Center Isolation, along with White Supremacist SC Church Shooter Dylann Roof. Score is currently in Roof's favor. - South Carolina, white ex-police chief pleaded guilty to misconduct in office in the 2011 shooting death of an unarmed black man and was sentenced to a year of home detention. Juries were hung about murder charges two times, so prosecutors proceeded another way. So in the end, it ends up being a decent outcome. - Maryland, Baltimore. Freddie Gray is dead, and the six officers are still pending trial. Nothing worthwhile is happening right now. - Cleveland, Ohio. Officer Tim Loehmann who shot Tamir Rice is still awaiting the decision if he will be charged. Earlier prosecutor commissioned reports sided with him, but the newest does not. Officer Loehmann was recommended to not be a police officer by his own superiors. - Good things related to American Law Enforcement. San Antonio trains officers to handle mental illness calls differently. http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/201...ontent=20140819 quote:It's almost 4 p.m., and police officers Ernest Stevens and Ned Bandoske have been driving around town in their unmarked black SUV since early this morning. The officers are part of San Antonio's mental health squad — a six-person unit that answers the frequent emergency calls where mental illness may be an issue. FBI Director said publicly things that many americans need to hear. Naturally, he is already a race baiter and a traitor and a supporter of thugs. http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/12/politics/police-race-relations-james-comey/ quote:FBI Director James Comey took on the issue of police and race relations Thursday challenging police to avoid "lazy mental short-cuts" that can lead to bias in the way they treat blacks and other minorities. And in other news, Richmond CA has tried another approach to police reform, helping people prone to crime instead of punishing them, and it seems to be working. http://richmondpulse.org/in-a-relationship-with-the-richmond-police-department/ quote:In the past decade, the police department in Richmond, Calif. has undergone a dramatic transformation. Spearheaded by an openly-gay and white chief in charge of policing this largely African American and Latino city, the changes are now bearing fruit, with crime down and trust between officers and the residents they are meant to protect on the rise. As departments nationwide look for ways to improve community ties in the wake of police killings in Ferguson and New York, Richmond stands as a promising template. Finally, enjoy police officers from countries where Police Services don't use grooming standards.   Some lighter policing, here is this Lithuanian Police TV series showing a drunk or off-meds American girl threatening Lithunian cops with World War 3. It's loving hilarious. "Even though the girl asked help from the United Nations, she was escorted to the hospital by regular police officers." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53gAFuE0FwQ Subtitled.
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 03:47 |
|
|
- nevermind, apparently this is for something else
FRINGE fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Nov 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
No, Fringe, no. SOmeone please ban him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:No, Fringe, no. SOmeone please ban him. If someone can assert that laws treat everyone equally, and there are signs that this is not true, why is this is forbidden topic (to respond to)? If this is just a tag team thread why not just gas this thread and have current events threads for individual topics?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Your youtube link in the op doesn't work anymore
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 21:05
|
|
FRINGE posted:What is this for? It's a happy tea party where you post news articles and avoid discussing them because discussion might be painful. Please, don't kill this hothouse flower with your "disagreements". With that said, police used to be seen as just another gang in much of the world, and given that the response to Black Lives Matter protests has been to surround the protesters with an equal amount of police "escorts", it's still sadly accurate.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Things going on with conviction of cops that fall out of line Vahakyla, I've got no desire to create these threads, so I thank you for doing so. It might help discussion though, if the OP is a bit less.... whatever this was. Some people may find it telling that, for instance, more time is spent on Groubert's employment status than his victim's name. -Columbia, South Carolina: Trooper Sean Groubert shot the unarmed Levar Jones for no apparent reason. Trial date still pending, but Groubert has been fired. Jones received compensation from the State Insurance Reserve, and may make a full recovery. -North Charleston, South Carolina: Michael Slager shot and killed the unarmed Walter Scott and planted a taser. As a bit of humor advice: Giving a victim a name and THEN dehumanizing him as a number in White Supremacy Killcount is much funnier than dehumanizing a victim by giving him a demographic description and THEN listing him as a number in White Supremacy Killcount. -Eutawville, South Carolina: Former Police Chief Richard Combs pleaded guilty to misconduct in office and was given a year of home detention but zero prison time for shooting and killing an unarmed Bernard Bailey after showing up to his house in order to arrest him for what prosecutors describe as "a trumped up charge" of obstruction of justice (for, weeks prior, arguing against a speeding ticket given to his daughter). - Baltimore, Maryland: Freddie Gray is dead, and the six officers are still pending trial, set to begin this week. In the interim, there are three ongoing Department of Justice probes into the incident and Baltimore policing in general. - Cleveland, Ohio: Officer Tim Loehmann, who shot Tamir Rice, is awaiting the decision if he will be charged. Earlier prosecutor commissioned reports sided with him, but the newest does not. Taking advantage of a little-used Ohio law, lawyers for Tamir Rice petitioned municipal court Judge Ronald Aldrine for his non-binding opinion of the case. Judge Aldrine found probable cause that Loehmann should face trial for murder, involuntary manslaughter, reckless homicide, negligent homicide and dereliction of duty, while his partner, Officer Frank Garmbeck should be charged with only the latter two. Hopefully you take these edits under advisement. It might help delay this thread becoming the disgraceful mess prior threads have been.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
Geoff Peterson posted:Vahakyla, I've got no desire to create these threads, so I thank you for doing so. It might help discussion though, if the OP is a bit less.... whatever this was. Some people may find it telling that, for instance, more time is spent on Groubert's employment status than his victim's name. Also, as nice as that San Antonio NPR article is, cops in san antonio are still shooting unarmed people on the regular and lying about the circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
One thing that came up towards the end of the last thread was a suggestion that officers be allowed to turn in blank report forms, but also be harshly punished for turning in a false report. What unintended consequences would this have?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:One thing that came up towards the end of the last thread was a suggestion that officers be allowed to turn in blank report forms, but also be harshly punished for turning in a false report. What unintended consequences would this have? Both of those are currently the law, correct? Officers don't have to turn in reports if the report might describe illegal behavior and falsifying police or government documents is a criminal offense in most states, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
Tomorrow we get to find out what the man who shot 5 people at a BLM protest in Minneapolis will be charged with. A judge extended the standard holding period so they can decide if it should be charged as a hate crime or not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Both of those are currently the law, correct? Officers don't have to turn in reports if the report might describe illegal behavior and falsifying police or government documents is a criminal offense in most states, right? I'd imagine this will vary widely among jurisdictions, but the real question isn't whether or not they are allowed/required to turn in blank reports, but whether or not they'll actually be punished for turning in false reports. Especially given that a report isn't an empirical proof, it's a witnessed accounting of an event from a single perspective. Even without knowingly lying about the content of a report, it's easy to imagine how 2 or more officers' reports could vary considerably - should you punish whichever was more false, and under what circumstances?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:I'd imagine this will vary widely among jurisdictions, but the real question isn't whether or not they are allowed/required to turn in blank reports, but whether or not they'll actually be punished for turning in false reports. Especially given that a report isn't an empirical proof, it's a witnessed accounting of an event from a single perspective. Even without knowingly lying about the content of a report, it's easy to imagine how 2 or more officers' reports could vary considerably - should you punish whichever was more false, and under what circumstances? In the interest of bright lines, I would posit that the video evidence of the interaction would be the gold standard against which the reports were compared. If no video evidence exists then a separate punitive action would be taken (I saw an article in the USPol thread about a police officer who ran back to his car to turn off the dashcam before roughing up the driver of a pulled-over car; that should be hella against department policy and punished as such). The point is not to nail officers to the wall for misremembering the color of a person's shirt, but to force them to be more accurate when trying to recall whether a struggle over a taser occurred, or whether the car was coming right for them, or whether they gave the civilian any warning (or enough time to process and respond to said warning) before opening fire. However, unintended consequences are still a thing, which is why I asked the question.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
mugrim posted:Also, as nice as that San Antonio NPR article is, cops in san antonio are still shooting unarmed people on the regular and lying about the circumstances. Yeah. I live in San Antonio and can add some personal color to this line of argument. The one and only time I've ever seen the inside of a police cruiser, I ended up staying at the magistrate's office for a few hours. I'm not sure if this is how they do it everywhere but there are holding cells there. Just the usual pre-bond holding kind of place. One of the drunks in the drunk tank got pissy and started spewing cop hate, so they calmly took him out of the tank, moved him to another holding cell (in clear view of everyone else there), and then multiple cops beat the poo poo out of him. I've never had similar problems, I'm white; but San Antonio's new softer (and better) view/treatment of the homeless (we have a world-class shelter too) doesn't mean that our police don't have the same institutional issues that plague the rest of the system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:In the interest of bright lines, I would posit that the video evidence of the interaction would be the gold standard against which the reports were compared. If no video evidence exists then a separate punitive action would be taken (I saw an article in the USPol thread about a police officer who ran back to his car to turn off the dashcam before roughing up the driver of a pulled-over car; that should be hella against department policy and punished as such). What you said is pretty much how it is legally, it's just really hard to prove that someone is lying rather then mistaken so in effect it's really hard to actually punish people. The flip side of this is people legit make outlandishly bad mistakes when it comes to memory under stress, so it's not something as easy as just making the laws more strict.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
More stuff has emerged about one of the officers involved in the Jamar Clarck shooting. Emphasis mine. quote:Officer involved in Jamar Clark's death sued 10 days before shooting http://www.fox9.com/news/54787087-story Seatbelt violations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 06:33
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:One thing that came up towards the end of the last thread was a suggestion that officers be allowed to turn in blank report forms, but also be harshly punished for turning in a false report. What unintended consequences would this have? Knowingly filing a false report is a firing offense and a crime pretty much everywhere, but appears to be rarely prosecuted, either due to the difficulty in proving the "knowingly" part of the offense, or due to institutional apathy. Based on my time working for the government, I suspect it is a little of column A and a little of column B.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 06:43
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Officers cannot be forced to file a report in which they may incriminate themselves. They can be required to file a report which incriminates their peers. In New York State, if I refuse a breathalyzer test (invoking the 5th Amendment), my driver's license will immediately be suspended pending an investigation of the matter. Can't we at least expect police officers to be automatically suspended if they refuse to file a report under 5th Amendment grounds? Being a police officer is a privilege, not a right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:What you said is pretty much how it is legally, it's just really hard to prove that someone is lying rather then mistaken so in effect it's really hard to actually punish people. I have a hard time arguing with the status quo on this point given that human memory is basically utter garbage when you come down to it, and the principle that it is better to allow the guilty go free than to punish the innocent. Which is why I'm so happy that body cameras are becoming a bigger thing. It's getting to the point that when someone gets killed by a cop and there is zero footage, people are asking why. It's not too huge a jump from there to the same question being asked when police are clearly tampering with evidence. In my opinion, testimony is fallible enough that it really has no place as solid evidence in a court of law. Unfortunately, it isn't possible to have a more objective record of events when poo poo goes down in every case without going full-blown surveillance state, but fortunately it makes sense for at least public servants to be monitored when applying the force of law as an oversight measure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 07:08
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Officers cannot be forced to file a report in which they may incriminate themselves. They can be required to file a report which incriminates their peers. The bolded part raises a problem, since it seems that police are incentivized to have each others' backs, even when the offending officer is clearly in the wrong. When the culture of the department is "snitches get stitches", it becomes difficult for an officer to turn in a report incriminating a peer. Thus my suggestion that officers who lie on their reports be punished harshly: I am trying to figure out if it is possible to find a system where officers aren't willing to lie and cover up for each other.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 07:16
|
|
|
Nathilus posted:I have a hard time arguing with the status quo on this point given that human memory is basically utter garbage when you come down to it, and the principle that it is better to allow the guilty go free than to punish the innocent. I think we're in agreement on this. Absurd Alhazred posted:In New York State, if I refuse a breathalyzer test (invoking the 5th Amendment), my driver's license will immediately be suspended pending an investigation of the matter. Can't we at least expect police officers to be automatically suspended if they refuse to file a report under 5th Amendment grounds? Being a police officer is a privilege, not a right. I've never really thought of Garrity through the lens of no refusal laws, I'm not sure if that makes me more inclined to think maybe Garrity is wrong or no refusal laws are. Some off the cuff research shows there has been some movement in the courts against no refusal, looks like the SC threw out a no refusal law for blood tests and the Texas appeals court threw out no refusal for breathalyzers last year, I honestly thought that was settled law.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 08:15
|
|
|
I'm deeply uncomfortable with the precedent set by implied consent/no refusal laws, even though I understand the reasoning, so I'm pretty OK with Garrity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 08:30
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm deeply uncomfortable with the precedent set by implied consent/no refusal laws, even though I understand the reasoning, so I'm pretty OK with Garrity. What is the reasoning behind no refusal laws? I could see this both ways. I understand the no incrimination thing, but I would also think that, since the police can search you if their suspicions clear some standard, they could call your refusal to do a breath test an obstruction of their investigation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 09:11
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:What is the reasoning behind no refusal laws? At the basic level the idea is that driving is not an implicit civil right but a privilege granted and controlled by the government as long as you are driving on the road (often maintained/built by the government); just as they can mandate that you must do certain things to keep your vehicle registered (inspections, etc) or have registration revoked, they can also mandate you do certain things to keep yourself registered (licensed). IE: Driving tests every so many years, or tests for alcohol when it relates to driving. You can decide not to do those things, but in return the government can decide you no longer have the privilege of driving. There is obviously a bit more to it but that's the short version.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
Also remember that on private property in (most?) states anybody can drive completely drunk, with a rusted out truck, no license, or registration and not get in trouble. So long as they are on private property.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
You are on the clock at your job. At the end of the day your employer wants to know what you did today. You refuse to tell them. They insist, you double down. You plead the 5th. They wonder what you were doing on the job that would be considered incriminating in the first place. Your employment is terminated for being a shady motherfucker. At some point legal action is taken against your friend and co-worker for a crime committed during the shift you wouldn't account your time for. You are called to the stand to testify but plead the 5th. You go home that day because you can't be held in contempt for exercising your right against self incrimination. If you are a cop you can do this AND keep your job as long as you are doing it to hide criminal activity. Am I missing something?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
Spoke Lee posted:You are on the clock at your job. At the end of the day your employer wants to know what you did today. You refuse to tell them. They insist, you double down. You plead the 5th. They wonder what you were doing on the job that would be considered incriminating in the first place. Your employment is terminated for being a shady motherfucker. At some point legal action is taken against your friend and co-worker for a crime committed during the shift you wouldn't account your time for. You are called to the stand to testify but plead the 5th. You go home that day because you can't be held in contempt for exercising your right against self incrimination. Yes, you are. Private sector employees do not 'plead the Fifth' with their employer, in the same sense that a private employee has no recourse to the First Amendment if fired for speech. Outside certain protected classes and Equal Employment Opportunity issues, private companies are bound only to the contract they have made with their employees. Police officers are employed by the government, so the Fifth comes into play there. e: as things currently stand. I don't know enough about constitutional law to say if it's possible to legislate a special exempt status for police and the like, but as far as I know it would be unprecedented legally, and at minimum a very heavy lift in even a Democratic congress. I'm leaning toward jarmak's view that under the circumstances, the best way to actually eliminate abuse and corruption is cameras always on and around cops. Unfortunately this also feels like a tacit concession to corruption in the absence of cameras, when as far as I am aware there have been police forces pre-camera that have been impartial and clean--though I doubt any of them were American. It also doesn't address wider problems such as majority black urban areas being patrolled by largely white police from the suburbs, local politics that favor police departments for revenue generation over tax hikes, deliberately low recruiting standards with ceilings, and wreckage from the War on Drugs like the 1033 program, all of which worsen the divide between the police and the poor and minorities. And which are in turn fuelled by a sneering certainty that the poor have only themselves to blame and are basically animals to be kept in line, up to and including the death penalty. That will take time to change, but hopefully cameras can help force the system to face its contradictions and speed things along while reining in the worst excesses. rockopete fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Nov 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Also, this is a bit more like your employer accusing you of stealing and demanding that you give a sworn statement in front of their lawyers or get fired. I personally think that a person shouldn't lose their job for exercising their legal rights, but since the Constitution generally doesn't bind private employers, this would be an issue for union mediation or similar. Not coincidentally, I think the decline of labor unions in the US has been bad for workers.PostNouveau posted:What is the reasoning behind no refusal laws? I have similar feelings about Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Association, which paved the way for random drug testing of employees in safety-sensitive positions. While I recognize the importance of making sure that pilots, air traffic controllers, locomotive engineers, and police officers aren't coming to work high, allowing this one suspicionless, warrantless search because we really need it is the camel's nose under the tent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Minneapolis 4chan shooter charged with second degree assault and second degree armed riot. His buddies were all charged with second degree riot as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
Silver Nitrate posted:Minneapolis 4chan shooter charged with second degree assault and second degree armed riot. His buddies were all charged with second degree riot as well. These were the guys that were openly planning on shooting up the event right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Silver Nitrate posted:Minneapolis 4chan shooter charged with second degree assault and second degree armed riot. His buddies were all charged with second degree riot as well. good. KomradeX posted:These were the guys that were openly planning on shooting up the event right? maybe. I think they probaly went their to try to incite poo poo, but since they were armed they could have been.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
I wouldn't take it that far but they were planning to start a riot and brought guns. And made a video of themselves with their guns while saying racial slurs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
But how haven't they been slapped with Criminal Conspiracy?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:But how haven't they been slapped with Criminal Conspiracy? rowdy lone wolf youth's who don't know any better but their parents say they are good kids.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
There may be federal hate crime charges coming, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Dexo posted:rowdy lone wolf youth's who don't know any better but their parents say they are good kids. Ugh, I'm sure this will be the actual rationale
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
Here's a nice story: Ex-Rikers inmate shot to death a day before receiving $450K settlement in police brutality case http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/ex-rikers-inmate-shot-to-death-a-day-before-receiving-450k-settlement-in-police-brutality-case/ They were also serving food with rat poison and then denied the inmates medical attention. That is hard to believe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:But how haven't they been slapped with Criminal Conspiracy?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 03:47 |
|
|
twodot posted:Why would you both with a conspiracy charge when you have them on the actual riot? Because it was part of their crime, they committed a crime and also entered into a conspiracy to go out and commit said crime. Why wouldn't they be charged with both?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:30
|
|