|
ToastyPotato posted:American Society doesn't cherish democracy at all. Nearly half of the people don't vote mostly because they don't want to and even those who do tend to still have a cynical view of the system. There are also many who support making voting more difficult, and plenty who at least oppose making voting easier. There are also a disturbing number of people who think certain demographics shouldn't be allowed to vote. I've met a distressing number of people that thought poll taxes were a great idea and need to be brought back.
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 00:35 |
|
|
William Bear posted:This article from earlier this month highlighted the degree to which officers are warned about things that are unlikely to be encountered. In particular, officers in the Chicago Police Department were warned about gunblades, which the officer who shot Laquan McDonald said he feared McDonald was carrying. So yes, it is possible for police to theoretically justify your murder no matter what your actions because literally any object or piece of scenery (like your car door) can potentially be a disguised weapon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:There are also a disturbing number of people who think certain demographics shouldn't be allowed to vote. I've met a distressing number of people that thought poll taxes were a great idea and need to be brought back. It gets more anachronistic than that. I've talked to multiple people who thought property ownership was a good prerequisite for voting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
I don't think any of them post ITT though, nor do they compose a notable & vocal segment of the electorate, so I don't know why you're bringing it up.Toasticle posted:I absolutely agree it would be complicated and difficult to implement but the first hurdle is at least agreeing it should be done. If we can't even agree on that how it works is just pages of pointless back and forth about how this or that or wouldn't work. Also, the DA is an elected official, isn't he? You don't need some sort of slam dunk evidence, if you think the guy is not properly executing the duties of the office to which he was elected, you can vote or campaign against him even if he hasn't actually done anything illegal or even unethical. "The DA showed a lack of judgement by failing to vigorously pursue this conviction" can be your campaign slogan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Also, the DA is an elected official, isn't he? You don't need some sort of slam dunk evidence, if you think the guy is not properly executing the duties of the office to which he was elected, you can vote or campaign against him even if he hasn't actually done anything illegal or even unethical. "The DA showed a lack of judgement by failing to vigorously pursue this conviction" can be your campaign slogan. The police and those affiliated with them are actually doing the job that enough want them to
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:Not to be blunt, but aren't all the problems of your American Judicial system related to your inability to reform governmental structures that've remained unchanged for a century? For a society that cherishes democracy so dearly, it just seems rather ironic that you can't seem to change these structures. Like you're inmates in a prison of your own making. Or rather, an asylum with the death penalty... I think most of us love that the system kills and destroys the underclass. They might act concerned in different ways but unlike some other issues, I do not think the people's will is being misrepresented in this case. Racist Americans have been socialized to believe that changes to policing will cause blacks to run amok.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:Not to be blunt, but aren't all the problems of your American Judicial system related to your inability to reform governmental structures that've remained unchanged for a century? For a society that cherishes democracy so dearly, it just seems rather ironic that you can't seem to change these structures. Like you're inmates in a prison of your own making. Or rather, an asylum with the death penalty... It's a nice thought, but actually there is a substantial plurality of the population that believes the status quo to be either the best of all possible worlds or not nearly harsh enough
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:American Society doesn't cherish democracy at all. Nearly half of the people don't vote mostly because they don't want to and even those who do tend to still have a cynical view of the system. There are also many who support making voting more difficult, and plenty who at least oppose making voting easier. I think the biggest problem is the only vote most people cast is president. When I go to local elections the turnout is loving pathetic and these are for things that have the most direct impact. City council, education boards, judges, loving Florida lost on the pot amendment by like 2% despite the popularity being way above what was needed. Way to many people vote every 4 years and that's it. It's the one thing the GOP and the tea party learned and I wish the loving DNC would figure out is midterms. The GOP gets people out there, libs/dems? Most don't even know about them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You do understand that, "this is a great idea in theory except that it's impossible to implement in practice, everyone agree to the first before we discuss the second part" is kinda an insane position, yeah? I said difficult. You said impossible. You are also against the idea itself. What, exactly, would we discuss? This isn't an insult or anything but I don't think I've ever seen you change your mind on anything in these last two threads, or if so not about something this big. Hell except for a couple small things like I agreed headlight kid did hit the cop once I saw his hand was damaged I don't budge much either. So I say something, you come up with why it won't work or is a bad idea and we get nowhere except making people scroll past 5 pages of crap between us, But I'll word it it differently: would you be against the idea if ways could be found to protect people identities? Or are you against the idea in general and if so, why is more openness in a system the population is starting to lose faith in a bad thing? Yes people in some counties/cities vote for DA, wouldn't giving them as much of an idea of how well or badly they do their job be a good thing? As it is people vote for sheriffs, judges and DAs pretty much solely on their "win" record, giving them a look at how he does his job might help get rid of the poo poo ones. Although Arpaio is an example of complete filth still getting elected so who knows. Toasticle fucked around with this message at 06:47 on Dec 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 06:43
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:It gets more anachronistic than that. I've talked to multiple people who thought property ownership was a good prerequisite for voting. I've had this argument... "Well, they pay the taxes." But, the owners of the properties pass the costs of those taxes onto their renters, so they aren't actually losing out for taxes or for the cost of maintaining the property, instead they are profiting, or else they wouldn't be Landlords. Rental profit is actually a tax that poors have to pay to the American Capitalist Aristocracy. Since a significant majority (wikipedia suggest 64%) already lives in a home that they own... I can understand why some people would make this argument. Self-interest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
I'd rather US judges and DAs not be elected. US police culture is pretty weird. I had a speaker from a gang unit come in and talk about gangs, and rather than offer much insight, he spent a lot of time going on about how gangsta music was celebrating a death culture and that gang members literally worshipped Death. one image he brought in to show how they saw themselves as servants of death had two cars driving by with the occupants shooting at each other, with puppet stings attached being controlled by the grim reaper. I said it came off more as criticism of gang culture, what with the whole ignorant playthings of death massage going on; his reply was that I only saw that due to having decent values. Point being, cops have some antagonistic views about the public, particularity the parts of the public they blame for producing Bad Guys. I recommend reading What Cops Know for some insight in that mindset. It's a collection of short police anecdotes, and a lot of them are pretty stark in describing how cops can wind up being pretty hosed up individuals, and some anecdotes from hosed up cops rationalizing their views with stuff like the thin blue line. Tiler Kiwi fucked around with this message at 07:29 on Dec 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
That's basic military propaganda of dehumanization of the enemy... Police militarization isn't about the guns. It's about the ideas.Tiler Kiwi posted:Point being, cops have some antagonistic views about the public, particularity the parts of the public they blame for producing Bad Guys. I recommend reading What Cops Know for some insight in that mindset. It's a collection of short police anecdotes, and a lot of them are pretty stark in describing how cops can wind up being pretty hosed up individuals, and some anecdotes from hosed up cops rationalizing their views with stuff like the thin blue line. Did you know that in 1985, the Philly PD dropped bombs from a helicopter on a radical commune and ALSO burned down more than 60 neighboring homes? I didn't until recently! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#1985_bombing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nsKDJlpUbA
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
Cole posted:Saying that someone who is 5'7" and 195 pounds looks older than 12 years old is dog whistle racism? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 08:27
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 09:23
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:
What you're talking about has nothing to do with local elections in a Democratic stronghold like Cuyahoga County. This place is run by Democrats, the only election that really matters for local elections is the Democratic primary. It seems really weird to bemoan the GOP performance during midterm elections when complaining about Cuyahoga County/Cleveland elected officials.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 12:51
|
|
|
Cole posted:Saying that someone who is 5'7" and 195 pounds looks older than 12 years old is dog whistle racism? Cole is a literally a cop.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 14:15
|
|
|
Oh how did I miss this one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
A woman shoots her own her daughter thinking she's an intruder. Not surprising. That's the likely outcome of having a gun in the house. But then this happensquote:The woman's husband is a former undercover narcotics officer with the St. Cloud Police Department. Seems like a pattern of police hiding the fact a victim involved shooting occurred
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:I've never been in that situation as I don't consider pointing guns or gun shaped objects at people in public light-hearted hijinks. The only time I dealt with Ohio police and my guns I was still and followed their directions very deliberately; admittedly they did not drive right up to me as I sat in a gazebo, but I'd try to do the same if they had (it's not like marked Cleveland police cars are hard to spot). I think my 12 year old self would had done the same as well. I've never said Tamir Rice wasn't doing something dangerous and that some common sense wouldn't have helped, you're just making things up and attributing them to me. It's just irrelevant because we can't magic all 12-year-olds in the country into having common sense but we can focus on training and accountability of professional public servants who should have been able to handle this situation without killing anyone. How do we prevent this from happening the next time. We could train professionals better and hold them accountable for their actions...or we could shrug and say "kid should've been smarter" and I guess keep blowing away children until the problem fixes itself. When it's something like a plane crash everyone understands this: we look at everything that contributed to the crash and all of the missed opportunities to avert a disaster and we improve our systems and procedures so simple unavoidable human error doesn't instigate a chain reaction that needlessly kills people. But for some reason, when it's authorities needlessly shooting unarmed victims, people's brains turn off and they have to justify their illusions of a just world by talking about how this or that mistake means the victims deserved it no matter how poorly the supposed trained professionals acted and will continue to blame the victim even when it's proven the authorities blatantly lied and covered up what happened. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Dec 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
People really don't want to admit that the justice system MAYBE isn't as impartial as they have been led to believe since that directly contradicts the Just World/you get what you deserve mentality the country is built on. It's easy (and lazy) to say a system treats everyone fairly since all the rules were followed but forget those rules were created by humans and are also interpreted and carried out by humans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Radish posted:It's easy (and lazy) to say a system treats everyone fairly since all the rules were followed but forget those rules were created by humans and are also interpreted and carried out by humans. Yeah "well the dead people should've followed the rules" is an attitude that's incompatible with improving public safety. If the rules aren't being followed and people are dying as a result, then we need better rules or better contingencies for what to do when someone (especially a child with a developing brain) doesn't follow the rules. Of course the foregoing assumes that one's goal is actually improving public safety. Obviously someone with a different goal in mind might have a rational reason to insist that an unarmed little boy deserved to die.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Yeah also if rules are being followed and undesirable results are occurring like people (including children) being executed in the street and in stores despite doing nothing illegal then maybe those rules are bad. I'm not going to get into teh debate that some apparently find that a beneficial outcome (not accusing anyone in this thread of that btw, but there are definitely people that do) but the attitude that following the letter of the law is more important than actively trying to prevent these sorts of atrocities because the alternative is chaos is similar to any kind of effort to hamstring opposition to oppression throughout history.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
osirisisdead posted:That's basic military propaganda of dehumanization of the enemy... Police militarization isn't about the guns. It's about the ideas. Jesus Christ. "Seen as a terrorist organization." For what? I see no mention of actual terrorism in the article, and the only bombing done was by the loving police. The only thing those people seemed to be guilty (prior to the police instigated shooting in 1978) of was being obnoxious with bullhorns, disturbing the peace and/or sound ordinances.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:I absolutely agree it would be complicated and difficult to implement but the first hurdle is at least agreeing it should be done. If we can't even agree on that how it works is just pages of pointless back and forth about how this or that or wouldn't work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Jesus Christ. "Seen as a terrorist organization." For what? quote:MOVE is a ... black liberation group
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The prosecutor has the rightful ability to vindicate a suspect, it's not "tainting" the process for him to do that, it's part of their job. No, I think officials who can't be unbiased ought to recuse themselves from the process, and a prosecutor going on TV and calling the grieving parents of a dead child greedy golddiggers for wanting a fair trial for the killer is obviously unable to approach the case in the detached and objective manner that justice requires. Just because he comes right out and says he's throwing the case and the victims' family sucks doesn't mean it's not corruption. Someone doesn't have to be secretive about what he's doing to corrupt the process.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
twodot posted:I think it's obvious that if we can create more information with no negative consequences, that's good. The relevant question is whether that's even possible which requires the back and forth. The question isn't is it conceivable a DA could say something bad with no identifiable information in it. It's can we create a process which is both useful and never reveals identifiable information. Arrest records are already public unless it would interfere with an investigation (If trying to get a large scale dealer they don't want him knowing someone in his operation got arrested) and DAs don't seem to have an issue holding press conferences in high profile cases listing what they're going to try and charge someone with. So that you were arrested and what for is already public. Hell in some places, even where I live (west palm beach) there's a little pamphlet next the register at the convenience store that's just a list of that weeks arrests with mugshots. I think some newspapers even list arrests with identities. I'm actually aganst all that, I'm for until at minimum charges are actually filed your identity should not be released, personally I'd prefer only if found guilty. Witness statements could be an issue if there is a fear of retribution, "His neighbor said he saw..." I'm pretty sure they could figure out who it was. You could have people give or deny permission to have their statements and/or identities remain sealed. I'm sure someone whose store got robbed wouldn't care. What the 911 caller said in Tamir would have no way of identifying who called but the GJ hearing that 911 was told "A kid with probably a toy" and whether he gave that info to the GJ or not would help in showing whether the DA is only giving them information that isn't damaging. Just knowing he gave them the cops statements and then showed them the video would be extremely useful to know, without the video showing the statements were complete lies you could tell he's being selective in favor of the cop. And there may very well be cases where what can be released will end up being near useless but I don't think that's a reason to not do it. Waco Panty Raid posted:I'm sorry, are you blaming GOP or tea party turnout for electing people like McGinty? I dunno, maybe the post I quoted may shed insight into what I was talking about. Or just assume I'm talking about what you want so you can argue against that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No, I think officials who can't be unbiased ought to recuse themselves from the process, and a prosecutor going on TV and calling the grieving parents of a dead child greedy golddiggers for wanting a fair trial for the killer is obviously unable to approach the case in the detached and objective manner that justice requires. Do we have any evidence that he's biased other then you disagree with him? Are we just assuming every prosecutor is biased in favor of cops? Or do you mean biased as in not in favor of charges? You still seem to be operating under the notion that the Grand Jury is a process where everyone plays some sort of unbiased neutral role and the result of the process is we get a decision whether a person should be charged. The purpose of the GJ is to act as a check on the power of the DA to charge someone with a crime, it is not to compel prosecution. It is the job of the DA to decide whether a crime has been committed and whether the chance of conviction is great enough to warrant pursuing charges. Looking at a case and developing an opinion whether a provable crime has been committed and then acting on that opinion isn't corruption it's his job. Its a big part of why almost all states elect these positions, they wield a great deal of discretionary power. I'll also repeat my disgust for his classless behavior in regards to the family, even if it was true that would still be completely disrespectful to the memory of a dead child to go around spouting that poo poo off and he should be ashamed of himself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
The problem is the perception, true or not, that a DA does have enough to warrant charges to be filed but just sits on it hoping enough people forget (was it McDonakd that took two years?) and if he convenes a grand jury because of public pressure then throws the case. Just that statement about the family just wanting to get paid. If he said that to the grand jury then it's pretty obvious he was just doing it for show so he could hide behind "Well the grand jury didn't indict, oh well"
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Do we have any evidence that he's biased other then you disagree with him? Are we just assuming every prosecutor is biased in favor of cops? Or do you mean biased as in not in favor of charges? Bullshit, if you've ever sat on a grand jury.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
DA didn't want to charge someone and the grand jury did their job not allowing the DA to charge someone. System works folks!
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
joeburz posted:DA didn't want to charge someone and the grand jury did their job not allowing the DA to charge someone. System works folks! Yeah, the DA recommended charges not be filed and grand juries almost always do what the DA says to do. So real shocker here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
yeah i can't imagine anyone would regard it being much of a "check on the DA" when a DA is getting exactly what he wants.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:I said difficult. You said impossible. You are also against the idea itself. What, exactly, would we discuss? This isn't an insult or anything but I don't think I've ever seen you change your mind on anything in these last two threads, or if so not about something this big. Hell except for a couple small things like I agreed headlight kid did hit the cop once I saw his hand was damaged I don't budge much either. So I say something, you come up with why it won't work or is a bad idea and we get nowhere except making people scroll past 5 pages of crap between us, Also, if people are losing faith in the system, not because the system has a problem, but because they aren't getting the results they want, that isn't a problem with the system. Toasticle posted:The problem is the perception, true or not, that a DA does have enough to warrant charges to be filed but just sits on it hoping enough people forget (was it McDonakd that took two years?) and if he convenes a grand jury because of public pressure then throws the case. Radish posted:Yeah also if rules are being followed and undesirable results are occurring like people (including children) being executed in the street and in stores despite doing nothing illegal then maybe those rules are bad. I'm not going to get into teh debate that some apparently find that a beneficial outcome (not accusing anyone in this thread of that btw, but there are definitely people that do) but the attitude that following the letter of the law is more important than actively trying to prevent these sorts of atrocities because the alternative is chaos is similar to any kind of effort to hamstring opposition to oppression throughout history. Tiler Kiwi posted:yeah i can't imagine anyone would regard it being much of a "check on the DA" when a DA is getting exactly what he wants. 
Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Dec 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The GJ is meant as a check on over-zealous prosecution. Complaining that they don't sometimes indict anyway over the wishes of the prosecutor is like complaining that your brakes can only slow your car down, not speed it up. The prosecutor points to the emergency brake Grand Jury, and says, "Sorry guys, that emergency brake is the reason we're not moving", ignoring the fact that the car isn't running, his foot is not near the gas pedal, and he is still standing on the regular brake pedal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The GJ is meant as a check on over-zealous prosecution. Complaining that they don't sometimes indict anyway over the wishes of the prosecutor is like complaining that your brakes can only slow your car down, not speed it up. if the prosecutor doesn't want to prosecute, they can already just not press charges. if they want an indictment, they're getting it unless they're woefully incompetent. it's banal to try to make points over why wanting to change how grand juries function will destroy some vital social function when the whole theatre of a grand jury is transparently meaningless, like a, uhh, check engine light?? im poo poo at car analogies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Christ I knew that was a mistake. How about engaging with the point: Grand Juries don't always indict. Their whole role is to not always indict, because being arrested and going to court have costs. They usually indict, because they have a lower standard of proof than a trial, and most of the time prosecutors only take cases to the GJ that they think they can win at trial. If the prosecutor doesn't pursue a case but takes it to a GJ anyway so that no one can say he didn't try, or just throws his hands up and says that he isn't going to prosecute, it doesn't change the situation one iota and doesn't somehow invalidate the idea of Grand Juries. If you think the prosecutor should have pursued the case, vote him out of office. It doesn't have anything to do with the Grand Jury process.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:If you think the prosecutor should have pursued the case, vote him out of office. So in a situation where a racist prosecutor has enough votes to stay in office, what recourse do black people have, and what recourse do you think they should have?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Hallucinogenic Toreador posted:So in a situation where a racist prosecutor has enough votes to stay in office, what recourse do black people have, and what recourse do you think they should have? Well move, obviously, and if they can't afford it then they should work harder. Bootstraps themselves into a better neighborhood, as it were. (and before anybody asks yes I'm being sarcastic and don't actually mean that)
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 00:35 |
|
|
In this case hopefully the feds pursue a civil rights case, but that seems pretty unlikely
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 21:36
|
|