|
KomradeX posted:Ugh, I'm sure this will be the actual rationale Clearly they are just big dorks. How could anyone like that be dangerous?
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 17:06 |
|
|
Remember, police are subject to the same legal system with the same resources as civilians. That's an assertion that was made in the last thread by a regular pro-cop poster.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 11:32
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Dem leg shoootzzz I don't get it, the guy is still alive at the end. An obvious gently caress up, leg shots don't work.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
Keep in mind we also wouldn't even need to have this loving discussion if cops would use tazers as the less than lethal option they are intended as instead of compliance tools.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:He's assuming that it must be some super easy thing that any cop should be expected to pull off without endangering others. That's true. It's clearly more dangerous to "others" than multiple mag dumps.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 10:02
|
|
|
It's absolutely amazing that people are saying "nope, it doesn't work" when it's been shown multiple times that it absolutely works.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Nathilus posted:Just because it's official somewhere doesn't make it a good idea. No. The fact that it often leads to better outcomes than mag dumps makes it a good idea.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:How in the world is this acceptable behavior? Bringing a gun into a situation only increases the odds someone is going to die, there's no good reasons for police firearms not to be locked away until a situation requiring deadly force presents itself, and not to have a pile of paperwork every time that lock is touched. Because police have themselves and many others convinced that at literally any time, any suspect can flip out and murder them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
ozmunkeh posted:She wasn't dead yet - you expect them to not let him finish the murder? He's their brother for god's sake. The same people calling the Tamir Rice incident a "good shoot" were the exact same ones saying those cops were fine scrapbooking because the cop wasn't shooting someone that very instant. That should really tell you where they are coming from. Oh and arguing the semantics behind the phrase "active shooter" because that's surely the important thing to focus on. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So you want to move the burden of proof on to the accused based on previous misbehavior and have people punished on the basis of unsupported, un-sworn testimony. That's not hosed up and dystopian at all. Lol that's how every other job in this country works.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
Phone posted:But other jobs in this country don't require you to PUT YOUR LIFE ON THE LINE, pal. The comedy is that in my office job, if I were accused of misconduct, my employer would still likely do more of an investigation than the cops do when one of their own receives a complaint. And I work at an at - will state. Yeah its a total fuckin dystopia here. Edit: I'm going to keep going because the statement is dumber the more I think of it. This thread is literally full of situations where cops kill or injure civilians based on false impressions where they are shifting the burden of proof to the accused in the encounters. Cops roll up on Tamir Rice and it's essentially his job to prove he doesn't have a gun in less than 2 seconds. His loving life is at stake. Oh, but don't make cops accountable for their jobs, thay would be a hosed up dystopia Hail Mr. Satan! fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Dec 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Is this some sort of weird gaslighting attempt, or are you all just too lazy to read? Actually if you thought about it for 5 seconds you'd note that my comment was specifically about how my non-police employer would take a complaint seriously enough to investigate, even if it were an "unsworn" complaint, in order to confirm an offense had actually taken place. However, that "investigation" is in no way binding, and they could just fire my rear end based on the "unsworn" statement alone, and not any actual evidence of wrongdoing. It turns out that is how it happens in pretty much every other job in this country other than special snowflake police officers. If 5 separate people over 5 separate incidents go to my boss and say "yo, yo, get this... A Fancy Bloke is breaking X policy" you better believe I will be punished without a "full investigation." DARPA posted:You used ellipses to abridge where I said investigate so But even if you meant it, you're not wrong. It's how every other loving job works.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
So which was it? Was it not relevant, or was it relevant so you could do your usual pearl clutching act about how horrible we all want to treat cops? You can't have it both ways. quote:Fired without even arbitration, eh? What lovely company do you work for? Wow, I thought you were sheltered given your blind worship of authority and your racist poo poo about how white men with guns aren't at all menacing but you're really sheltered if you think this isn't how most jobs in America work. LOL arbitration. quote:Come to the public sector, we have employee protections here. Or unionize, they're supposed to protect you from exactly that sort of thing. Yeah, the cop union will even advocate letting their members get away with murdering civilians! tsa posted:Where in the hell do you people work where you can be disciplined for completely unproven allegations? Maybe time to start sending out the resume if that's the case, and stop with the crab bucket mentality? Like it just seems like a lot of people are upset that the police have basic worker protections provided through their union more than anything else. It's called "at will employment" and it's most of the states in the U.S. As long as you're not being fired for being part of a protected class, you can be fired for any or no reason at all. It's how pretty much every private sector job works these days. And also, "basic worker protections." Yeah, everyone is upset about police seniority and benefits, not the fact they can literally murder someone in cold blood and have their union leap to their defense. That's a real "basic worker protection" that a plumber's union would also extend. quote:Do you want to discipline based on hearsay or not? Personally, I think workers should be safe from punishment without a fair investigation, or even just have the complaint ignored if no one will put their name to it. Yeah but the difference is that the body you'd be reporting to has force, is the same entity as that which you are complaining about, and has shown time and time again that they will abuse that force. You really think it's safe to write a "sworn" statement about these people? Hail Mr. Satan! fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Dec 19, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
Here is why it's very important to make your statements on the record when complaining about police. For the record, that guy is still a cop. But yeah, it's totally reasonable for a civilian to have to make a "sworn" statement that will surely be taken seriously. To be fair it does mention how they were trying to get rid of him. But man, those basic worker protections sure make it hard. It's a good thing they are in place to allow cops to let their loving girlfriends use their firearms, and set up sting operations with "gotcha" charges to gently caress with exes of your lover.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yes you do, exploiting the fact that poor workers don't know their rights, or lack the resources to pursue them, is not the same as saying at will employees have no rights, and it's not the same as arguing that's how it should be. What right are you talking about? The right to gently caress up at your job and not get disciplined?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2015 12:30
|
|
|
botany posted:yeah you're still arguing with the person who literally said number of complaints should be grounds for an INVESTIGATION in the very post you quoted so I'm gonna assume you've been failed by the american school system and legit can't read. Whoa now, stop gaslighting him. And while I don't think people should be punished for hearsay, it turns out that is how nearly every other job in America does it. Why shouldn't people with the power of life and death over civilians not be held to standards as lofty as those of a Wal Mart Cashier?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
Yeah, we're on the same side. I am just saying, as I have been this whole time, that it's how normal jobs work. So an investigation is the least they should do.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
For like the fourth time my statement was describing how it works at every other job. It was not advocating that as a particular policy for police, but also saying it wouldn't be a tragedy or a dystopia if it was. Please quote thus next time you're cherry picking quotes to continue your endless loving pedantry
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I mean if people think they're being misunderstood then why don't they clarify and actually affirmatively state their position instead of sitting back and sniping at people then making accusations of bad faith whenever someone fails to divine their position correctly from context. I think cops should be held to the same standards that most employees are held to regarding complaints about their performance. IE if they receive complaints they should at THE VERY LEAST be investigated. It would not be a tragedy or dystopian future in any way, shape, or form if an officer was dismissed for multiple complaints re: the same issues.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Having to show cause to fire someone is the case in every public sector job I'm aware of, so I don't see why police should be any different. Requiring some sort of neutral arbitrator is common in most union jobs as well. This isn't new or novel, and if people are in favor of stripping that protection from police officers and other public employees because private firms have managed to chip away at unions and workers' rights, they should be prepared to argue that at-will employment and union busting are good policy. The difference being that "police officer" is a job that allows the use of force. Don't act as though that isn't an enormous difference to any other public sector job. If my mailman fucks up delivering packages, no one ends up dead or raped. Jarmak posted:To what end? Why are you pointing that out? Because the only good faith reason to point that out is because that's the way you believe it should be. Bullshit. Someone can be against something but still think it should be applied fairly if it MUST be applied. And again, this completely ignores the nature of the power a cop wields.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I don't even understand what you're getting at, if you're saying that his point was to say that private sector workers should have the same protections then... we agree? It's a pretty self explanatory statement. Not sure what the is to not get.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So you think that every worker should be pulled down to the level of those with the least protection in the interest of fairness? Can you explicitly state your position? A Fancy Bloke posted:I think cops should be held to the same standards that most employees are held to regarding complaints about their performance. IE if they receive complaints they should at THE VERY LEAST be investigated. It would not be a tragedy or dystopian future in any way, shape, or form if an officer was dismissed for multiple complaints re: the same issues.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:"Hey, that crab is getting too close to the top of the bucket!" Oh gently caress you. We're not all in this together. If I gently caress up at my job, my company is out money. If a cop fucks up, people's civil rights have been abused and they may be dead.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
Terraplane posted:The guy who was shot after a DWI accident while trying to climb out of the wreckage died today. Apparently his death alters some of the legal variables and maybe now the DA can perhaps do something. With the vigorous pursuit of justice this DA has previously displayed, should the officer be charged I look forward to his inevitable acquittal late next year or in early 2017. Well hold on now, we'll need to convene a grand jury and the DA will need time to find expert witnesses to testify on the officer's behalf.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2015 10:12
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Military officers have access to all kinds of dangerous weapons and command sovereign instrumentalities. Teachers have close, unsupervised contact with children and act as surrogate parents. The IRS has access to all your personal and financial information. CPS can take your kids away. OPM knows everything you might want to know about the private lives of many federal employees. Many public sector jobs wield exceptional power on behalf of the state, so your argument that the police are special and don't deserve the same protections as other public employees doesn't really hold up. Okay so all the jobs you named are irrelevant except for soldier, because none of them are armed with lethal weapons as a matter of course. None of those other jobs you named have the possibility for encounters with then to end in your death. As for soldiers, there aren't many armed ones roaming around domestically as agents of the government. Furthermore, they have less "labor protections " than police, so I don't know why you're barking up that tree. quote:I'm pretty much never going to agree that it's a good idea to enshrine unequal treatment under the law in order to correct a perceived injustice. The just solution is to correct the underlying problem, rather than to intentionally make the law unjust in the other direction. A justice system based around ensuring the "correct" outcome based on public sentiment rather than having a fair process is basically mob justice. But the process is already unfair. Cops get special protections over other jobs already. It's not "unequal treatment" to insist they play by the same rules. It's unfortunate you find those rules unsavory, but those feelings don't mean two equal sets of treatments are suddenly unequal. quote:So are you arguing that this is the way it should be? You're not actually making any argument in favor of punishing people based on un-sworn statements, just complaining that you're not protected from it. I can't speak for who you're quoting but it has nothing to do with crab mentality to me, because cops are not in the same pot, or even on the loving stove with me. They are violating people's civil rights and in cases straight murdering them and it's patently ridiculous that they face no punishment or even investigation unless someone is willing to put their safety or even life on the line to "officially" complain about them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
A whole bunch of words that ignore that none of those jobs carry deadly weapons as a matter of course. Edit: Why does it need to be a "written" protection? Is the fact that people need to complain where they are making the complaint and they have been beaten for it NOT a protection against legal claims? Hail Mr. Satan! fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Dec 23, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument is that, because police officers are empowered to use deadly force, it should be permissible to fire police officers based on hearsay, even if the complaint is in no way related to their use of deadly force? Yes. Absolutely. I don't think it's insane to believe "police officer" is a career that should be held to the highest standard. When you have the ability to kill someone or deprive them of their civil rights as an agent of the state, with the assistance of lethal weaponry, you should be on your best behavior. quote:If you're arguing that police officers are getting away with breaking the law, and illegally intimidating witnesses, that's not a criticism of the law as it stands or public employees' labor protections, it's a problem of lax enforcement. In that light, your belief that stripping labor protections from police is the best solution seems based more on vindictiveness than a desire to solve the problem. Getting rid of bad cops would absolutely solve the problem. How is that even a question?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2015 09:40
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Trained professional has a negligent discharge while loving around with his sidearm. This should be a firing offense and should also bar him from ever serving as a police officer again but lol at the thought he'll face any type of appropriate punishment.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
And yet he's still Sheriff. Guess he needed more sworn complaints before he could be removed from law enforcement 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2015 00:22
|
|
They've been up in his business since at least 2008, including a three year investigation, and
|
fosborb posted:I have a friend who works in this rear end in a top hat's department. I'll ask her how everyone is expecting this to go down. But even so, it's not like he won't just go to another department. That's another problem.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2015 13:19
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I think all workers deserve protection from unsubstantiated complaints. I don’t see the fact that some workers don’t have this protection as a good reason to strip it from others. Why do you? Because they aren't loving up people's lattes, people are getting killed. There's a world of difference and as people have repeatedly said and you've repeatedly ignored, we are not crabs in the same bucket as police. quote:If you think the problem is police receiving undue extralegal deference from prosecutors and superiors, why are you talking about stripping their written labor protections unless your thought process is, “anything that limits the rights of police officers is good?” Even if you admitted that you don’t give a single poo poo about workers’ rights, why do you think that making it easier for chiefs and prosecutors to go after police will make a difference if you think that the problem is that prosecutors and chiefs don’t want to discipline officers? It doesn’t make sense. Because cops have the ability to kill people as an agent of the state. That is different than any other of these jobs you keep trying to equate it to. quote:I think appointed or contracted public workers have a right to due process, which includes discipline being meted out in a timely manner, and protection from public sentiment. You want to change that because you don’t like the outcome in this case, but the result would be awful. What’s that, this public school teacher dresses in drag on the weekends? Is that really who we want teaching our children? He’s lost my trust as an educator. Have you seen his OKCupid profile? Or let’s say an employee is charged with some offense that shocks the conscience, but is found not guilty. Should the public be able to impeach them because they don’t trust them anymore? After all, everyone knows they did it. hey its going to sound like a broken record, but the only lead a teacher slings are in pencils for their student's hands. So yet again, not the same thing. quote:
Can't speak for that person, but as I said before, police should be held to the highest standard. They are in a completely unique position in that they use literal force (not taxes or bullshit) to enforce the will of the state.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Good point. No more labor protections for publicly employed medical workers. After all, they're not just making french fries, their jobs involve matters of life and death. Neither of these are equivalent because they are not wielding weapons, nor are they employed as agents of the state to enforce the will of said state. It's not even close to the same thing. That being said, it turns out that malpractice is a thing that is actually heavily investigated and punished (often with the revocation of a medical license if found guilty) and if your negligence crashes a plane while air-traffic controlling you'll likely lose your job also, so what is your loving point anyhow? quote:I understand the thought process that goes into your position, it's just that it's a horrible one. Stripping cops of labor rights is not going to "fix" the system, however you imagine that looks like. I'd argue that being employed as a police officer should be a privilege, not a right, due to the (once again) totally unique power they wield.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
Man if only there were an organization that investigated the police that wasn't the police.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
Grand Jury is the new method they'll use to get away with misconduct and murder. It lets the defense run the entire narrative in a format where they usually get little to no input, and if they somehow miraculously lose and get charges filed, they get another chance to defend with stories of their brave heroism to a real jury. Remember though, as asserted in the last thread: cops are subject to the exact same legal process as the rest of us.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
Cole posted:Right, but at the same time if you were pushing for charges against him and your argument was "he couldn't have possibly looked older" then it is no wonder the officer isn't getting charged, hope this helps. It doesn't help because his apparent age is 100 percent irrelevant to whether he deserved to be executed for having a pellet gun in an open carry state.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Radish posted:Tamir's alleged hugeness is a stupid red herring. (btw this is him in his Hulked out glory) drat look at this hardened thug
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Cole posted:You're right, but look at everyone else's posts, not just mine. People in here are harping on how he couldn't have possibly looked older than 12 years old. I'm not the one who brought this up, it has been very prominent in this thread. Mainly because it's complete bullshit, and a dog whistle to boot.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
By unrebutted I think the poster means by the DA whose loving job it is to indict. As for "look how big he was" I'm not going to get into an argument about height/weight averages for teens because it's completely irrelevant to the danger level of a pellet gun.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:So I am a little confused about the role of a grand jury. I know that they're basically there to determine if there's enough evidence to go to a trial, and in some states (but not Ohio, right?) cops get special privileges in a grand jury? In a normal Grand Jury the goal of DA or ADA or whoever is serving as the agent of the state is to secure indictments. This is an insanely easy process because in your average GJ, the narrative is completely controlled by the prosecution. There is no defense generally, and the burden of proof for GJ isn't "do you think this happened?" like on a regular jury trial but rather "Is it possible this happened in the way we outlined it." There's a reason "a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich" is a saying. The reason people are upset is because this is a case where the state was clearly advocating FOR the cop on the proceedings, which is the exact opposite of their nornal role. Instead of taking the stance of "do you think it's possible this was a bad shoot" which is what a normal GJ would convene to decide, they clearly shifted it to "do you think it's possible this was a good shoot."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 17:06 |
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:
Yeah, you know... in that time of less than 2 seconds. Good thing the cop had superhuman reaction time.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 13:41
|
|