|
this reminds me of a funny thing i read about that "blade runner" dude that killed his girlfriend. the judge admonished him for not using a warning shot. in the U.S., there was a woman who got the book thrown at her for using a warning shot, because hey if you shot your gun you were trying to kill someone, regardless of your motives. It's tricky, since you want to encourage an attitude that you only want too shoot at all when you have to, but there's a line between saying "only shoot if you're willing to have someone die" and "only shoot when you want to kill", and I think the latter, while seemingly more restrictive, plays a role in the high body count of U.S. police, since it on edge cases like "noncompliant suspect with knife", it encourages overkill in the form of fifteen rounds into a crumpling figure, since any restrained behavior on the cops part damages the rationalization for shooting in the first place. I think it's more an unconscious thing, since people tend to act first and rationalize later, so they adjust their behaviour so there's no cognitive dissonance; the cop wants to shoot for whatever reason, so they internally justify their shooting by going extra lethal, when a less restrictive doctrine would help by not placing police in an immediate "do I need to want to kill this person?" mentality. this is just a pet hypothesis, mind you, and im not being terribly clear.
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 07:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 05:40 |
|
|
I really don't like how QI means there seems to be no real mechanism to get cops to stop being stupid with their guns. It even seems to encourage it. If you look too competent with your hasty shootings, there goes your best defense.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I'm not following your logic here Okay, a police officer can shoot a dude in the neck, and not be held criminally liable, as it was accidental, correct? Even if the accident is precipitated by the cop behaving in a very risky manner, aka pointing guns while getting out of a car and chasing people, or in earlier cases, doing stuff like charging into unknown situations by themselves and doing a bad job of convincing people they are a cop. So, what's the incentive for a police officer not to do that? Suppose you're an officer, and you want to avoid jail if you shoot someone by mistake. Why bother trying to make it less likely to shoot someone by not doing dumb things, when that just means, if you still shoot in error, your avoidance of incompetent conduct just undermines your negligence defense? More generally, why would a cop do anything that reduces risk of harm to a suspect? A lot of trends in US policing like no knock raids, militarization, tazer trigger happiness, gun pointing, magazine dumping, car chases, or just the general predilection to go overkill seem driven by the need to reduce officer risk and risk of suspects eluding prosecution. But these also place the risk on the suspects; the party that is engaging in risky behaviour (police) are shielded from the risk. How is this not moral hazard?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
Being punished for unsubstantiated complaints is bad. Being unable to lodge substantiated complaints because of an abuse of power is bad. I would call it worse. Police often have a great deal of power over citizens, and have control over the investigations meant to substantiate complaints. This problem is somewhat exceptional due to police being government workers, and being able to use force and compulsory tactics. This can lead to the mechanism meant to remove bad cops, substantiated complaints, to be very hard to carry out. One means to overcome that would be to lower the requirement of what constitutes a substantiated complaint. This is not perfect, and creates unfairness, since it is holding police to a different de jure standard, in the name of correcting a de facto difference in standards. In my opinion, I care about the results, and the current situation sees police at a very superior position compared to generally everyone, in terms of protection from complaints. This is very bad as they are given a lot of power over the public that means the things they can get away with are very extreme compared to a private worker, including shooting people for perhaps not good reasons. So I think demanding higher standards is okay, and complaining that it's a bias against police to do so is a false equivalence, as police are rather unlike other careers in what they do. okay is there anything there people want to call me a huge fucker on
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
yeah, everything I've heard about police training in the US emphasis the danger involved and how trying to be a "good cop" is putting your life in danger. to be fair, the US per capita death rate for police on the job appears higher than other western nations, something like, oh I don't recall, two or four times higher. and the number of people dead by police guns is something like, uh, several hundred times? so maybe it's not a very good thing, in the end.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
e: ^^ it's a great thing, that because a twelve year old looked like a teen, and because black teens are so often tried as adults, that the leap to "rice had it coming" came so easily to the "prosecution"PhilippAchtel posted:Though, to be fair, loggers probably have a higher KDR vis-a-vis trees. On the other hand, trees are not 12-year-old children. yeah, i think trees generally have respected legal protections Tiler Kiwi fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Dec 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
yeah i think the actual literal 12 year old did things that brought about his death in a very reasonable shoot. makes you think. about life, and all that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 12:49
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:That being said, a 12 year old should know not to behave like that. Hell, Tamir's friend said he warned Tamir to be careful with the airsoft gun so clearly his peers could appreciate the danger. Are you certain Tamir didn't appreciate it or somehow wasn't able to? are you completely shameless or something
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
grand juries are transparently a show trial and it's insulting to people's intelligence to be told that it's "working as intended", even outside of cases where a DA puts on a dumb circus. come the gently caress on. it's also rather tangential to the overall Rice case compared to having elected DAs and the DA/police relationship so im no more interested in posting about it than you are. Tiler Kiwi fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Dec 31, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Boy howdy, this quip about a ham sandwich has really convinced me that a legal institution with hundreds of years of history, that is literally enshrined in the constitution, is a ridiculous farce. a "check on DA authority", run entirely by the DA, that DA's openly admit is a farce, turns out to be really old and thus immune to mockery e: v 
Tiler Kiwi fucked around with this message at 00:03 on Jan 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
the powers that be were very concerned about that kind of thing, hence the constant monitoring, infiltration, subversion, and prosecution of minority civil rights groups. nowadays, the sort of minority "dregs of society" orgs you'd expect would cause "let's smash the state" problems out of desperation make enough money with the drug trade that getting involved with politics would just give themselves grief, and they dominate the lives of the most disenfranchised, basically incapacitating them. course, there's always opportunity for a sort of Mao/Triads style relationship, but theres not many politically motivated groups that really want much to do with criminal organizations in America. least, that's one theory I saw put forward.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:That number isn't meaningful for your stated claim when it's a sample of cases the prosecutor chooses to bring before the grand jury. The grand jury is a check because it limits the set of cases and evidence that prosecutors indict on. are you certain they are deterred by an inability to indict, as opposed to an inability to get a conviction? e: or plea bargain
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2016 08:32
|
|
|
I think even looking at things on the aggregate should be enough to inspire a great deal of antipathy towards the current system.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
It's not really a convincing argument. I made the point before but I guess I wasn't clear, that I believe a prosecutor would be more deterred going after a case due to feeling it didn't stand a chance at a trial, rather than feeling as though it didn't stand a chance at a grand jury. Any case you couldn't get the majority of a grand jury to indict on, despite the permission of illegally gathered evidence, hearsay, and a lack of judicial oversight or any exculpatory evidence, is one that wouldn't stand a chance at a trial anyways. To make a wretched car analogy, it's like having a bridge that 20% of semis smash against, and then pointing to a warning pole in front that 98% of them clear and going "that pole does a great job keeping semis away from the bridge". I think the 98/99% figure can be read multiple ways, and without data covering just how many cases prosecutors did not follow up on, it's presumptuous to claim it's doing much of anything. I mean, otherwise, I've got a tiger warding stone I could sell you; 99% of people carrying it whom are attacked by tigers get mauled to bits, but that's only because only the most killer tigers can resist it's warding power.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
far less judicial oversight than a trial, what with the whole "distinct from the three branches" precedent. how are they a check against malicious prosecution, in modern context? I figure the whole grand jury proceeding during Whitewater shows they're actually a fairly effective means for enabling malicious prosecution. I don't really know at what point "limited oversight, incredibly lax standards on evidence, and vast prosecutorial discretion" serves as a deterrent factor to anything for the prosecution. What's the downside? They waste their time? i hate car analogies and grand jury stuff is kind of boring; it's like arguing over the role of the electoral college. You can argue over theoretical points and conjecture but I think it's tiring in lieu of just going "just loving look at it, it's stupid" and moving on with our lives. e: vvv yes i agree with all that e2: son of a bitch vox, I liked your exploding truck metaphor better. why you gotta be lame Tiler Kiwi fucked around with this message at 10:02 on Jan 2, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2016 09:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 05:40 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The problem is that the only evidence you have for this assertion is the high indictment rate, and that number is pointless because it doesn't tell us anything about why the rate is so high. In 2014, U.S. Attorneys got 55,966 'Guilty' verdicts/pleas, and 171 'Not Guilty.' (See Table 2A.) That's a 327:1 ratio. Are Federal courts a show trial that only returns a NG when the charge is totally outlandish or the U.S. Attorney deliberately threw the case, or is it more likely that U.S. Attorneys only bring forward prosecutions that they are certain they can win? just going to use this to say that plea bargaining has become pretty poo poo and should be deprecated
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2016 02:02
|
|