|
What are you talking about, did you somehow miss the giant Department of Justice report on Ferguson? quote:The department found that the FPD has a pattern or practice of: You should read the findings and report back to the thread
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 13:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 10:00 |
|
|
If I choke someone and they accidentally die it's probably manslaughter at least. Now you're going to say "Ah but cops are allowed to choke people as part of their job" but no these cops weren't.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
I read your post, police chiefs setting procedures is not "police chiefs writing criminal codes". It's police chiefs defining what is and is not part of their employees' job which is within the chief's purview. Choking someone and killing them accidentally is manslaughter. If choking them is part of your job I can see that being a defense, but since it wasn't part of their job or allowed on the job then why should that defense be available.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
Does the criminal code of New York actually define that to such a nitty-gritty standard what the job of a police officer is and get into which maneuvers are okay and when? Could you link that, that sounds very surprising to me.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Also, doesn't the legislature devolve authority to write regulations on the executive all the time, even if we had to write a statute that includes violating department policy as unacceptable use of force, why would that be a bad thing. We know the drawbacks of not doing that: cops can choke people to death and be immune from prosecution, I'm trying to think of what would be the drawbacks of jailing people who unnecessarily choke people to death and I can't think of one. Surely the danger of government overreach here is the status quo: the government actually killing people. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Dec 1, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:So if the chief writes "don't rape people during traffic stops" and then a cop does, is it a matter of internal policy not punishable by criminal justice? I'm sure that's against statute regardless of department policy. It's not like it would be legal if the chief wrote "rape all you want".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
Uhhh, the government being able to arrest someone for killing people because he wasn't trained well enough to keep from killing people sounds a whole lot less worrying than the government sending out untrained agents and shrugging when they kill people. You're worried about an overzealous government....yet jail for killers bothers you more than civilians being killed for no reason?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Watermelon City posted:Someone is dying in front of you and you're scratching your chin going gee I don't know what's my liability? Well yeah, if you save their life they can testify that they weren't doing whatever it is you decide to make up to justify shooting them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 09:23
|
|
|
Uh if the police deliberately kill someone while pretending to treat them, I don't think that would fall under Good Samaritan immunity if proven. For example Florida's statute: anyone who renders aid whether licensed or not yada yada "shall not be held liable for any civil damages as a result of such care or treatment or as a result of any act or failure to act in providing or arranging further medical treatment where the person acts as an ordinary reasonably prudent person would have acted under the same or similar circumstances." I doubt deliberately murdering someone is how an ordinary reasonably prudent person would act (note: I am not a doctor I could be wrong) so I don't think we have to worry about accidentally legalizing cops executing someone and claiming it's medical care (I mean aside from the de facto legality of cops murdering people now by letting them bleed out so they can't contradict the cop's testimomy). I don't see any way something like that would give police immunity to allegations that they murdered someone on purpose. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Dec 2, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Nothing I wrote had anything to do with the police knowingly and provably killing people unlawfully.  Dead Reckoning posted:No, I think letting the police treat people in their care under some sort of Good Samaritan-like immunity is perfectly workable, but I expect that there would be some pushback on that after the inevitable "suspect loses a limb due to substandard medical care but can't sue due to immunity" story, or allegations that police provided improper treatment to a shot suspect who dies after a questionable shoot so that he wouldn't live to tell his side of the story. There's no Good Samaritan law where anyone would have immunity to those allegations
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Without a confession, it's going to be nearly impossible to prove that poor medical care was due to malice rather than incompetence (which is what Good Samaritan laws protect). Oh well yes you're right about that, it's not easy to prove, but this is still an improvement over the status quo. At least it's notionally possible to prove that the care did not meet the reasonably prudent standard, whereas right now it's completely legal to let a guy just bleed out. Dead Reckoning posted:I suppose you could require that every police officer hold an EMT-B cert, but good luck finding the money for that, especially in smaller departments. Federalize the police  Then their funding won't depend on how randomly poor their town is and we can have federal Law Enforcement Division that investigates police shootings and charges them so there's no conflict-of-interest with the cop's friends investigating him and his DA buddy bringing it to a grand jury. And hey, making cops EMTs would almost certainly save lives even apart from the duty it would impose on them not to deliberately kill people with incompetent care, right?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
Yeah it was a joke, hence the devil smiley, I know it's unconstitutional currently. Although really I don't see how it could be any worse than police under various lovely governors and/or the local racist mayor. At least federal agencies are accountable to national politics. And anyway, President Nixon wasn't even able to stop the FBI investigation of himself, four or eight years just isn't long enough to build up enough cronies to completely ruin institutions, it'd have to be GOP dominance for a long long time before all the federal police agencies are their private stasi or whatever it is you're worried about. E: But I also think states' rights are poo poo. Sorry the south ruined it by being terrible in every way with every chance the constitution gave them, gently caress federalism let's have a real nation-state. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Dec 3, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
Radish posted:I could understand "those cops just got lucky" if that UK example was an isolated event but the US police have a huge body count that no other first world country has so the idea that everyone else is doing it wrong but with somehow far better results for both police and suspects is ludicrous. Weird how this really good point of yours went totally unaddressed. Jarmak posted:That UK video is ridiculous, the cops have absolutely zero control of that situation and likely the only reason none of the cops got hosed up was the guy with the machete is too fat and slow to catch any of the cops he's chasing. Jarmak posted:I don't think the police should have to put themselves in life threatening situations in order to preserve the life of the person who's threatening it I love how the UK cops are simultaneously incompetent bungling pansies yet also are able to meet and beat impossible life-threatening odds that no mortal American cop should ever dare. And thus, by a continual shifting of rhetorical focus blah blah blah, police in other countries are too pathetically laughable to learn from, while their deeds are superhuman accomplishments that American cops would die trying to emulate VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Dec 6, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:People who are "successfully" shot in the leg should never have been shot to begin with. No, it's still lethal force and should be treated as such. People can and do die from leg wounds. Using lethal force doesn't mean you definitely get to kill the person, it means using force that has a reasonable chance of killing someone. The focus on lethal force as a license to kill has all sorts of cultural problems, for example the guy claiming earlier in this thread that if you are justified in shooting someone once to stop them then you're automatically justified in shooting them 10 or 20 or 100 times with every officer surrounding them and magdumping to be sure of the kill. Once you shoot once or double-tap, the situation is going to be different and it's time to reassess not go "welp I had the right to kill so *blam*blam*blam*blam*blam*" Or that bridge shooting-out-the-engine block case earlier. One of the arguments was that since spike strips might kill the driver, therefore you're justified in just executing him on purpose. Regardless of QI, that cop should not be working as a cop anymore, because that's not how it should work, police should still be trained to use the least lethal but still effective method of containing the threat, not take the opportunity to blow someone away once the minimum threshold of legality for lethal force is met. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
They're perfectly prosecutable, the DA just decided to play defense at the Grand Jury. If I charged a 12-year-old, gunned him down, and said it was because he pointed a gun at me, and then video evidence proved I was lying, then unless I'm besties with the DA he wouldn't bring in friends to testify for the grand jury that I acted in reasonable self-defense.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
Radish posted:Think about how differently this would be handled if a little white girl was holding a gun like object and police rolled up and executed her with no warning. Well this was made explicit ITT when someone posted a picture of a white guy open-carrying in a restaurant and asked if he was a threat and the answer was no because he wasn't actually pointing it at anyone. Little black boy with empty hands though
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:It can't be as cut and dry as you put it though, because different police forces have different approaches to firearms. People posted stats earlier of German and Danish police shootings, the number of shots fired was pretty close to the number of people shot - there was no mag dumping going on. If fewer shots fired could result in fewer people dying, shouldn't American police forces reassess their tactics? And be like those bungling pansy-rear end Europeans too scared to take a bite out of crime? No way! And you're a cop hater who must want dead cops or you'd never even suggest that American cops die trying to match such superhuman feats of strength, courage, and heroism. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 07:01
|
|
|
I was making fun of you for focusing on whether he met the technical definition of active shooter rather than whether he was actually shooting at someone and should have been stopped. It's hilarious that you'll defend killing a black boy for jumping when a car barrels up to him, but when a cop is firing bullets into his wife well let's not be too hasty I mean we haven't even waited to see if he's going to go on and murder strangers too so it's too early to tell if he's dangerous. That wife-murdering cop was more dangerous than most of the unarmed people whose executions you routinely defend, hmmmmmm VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 08:51 on Dec 14, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 08:37
|
|
|
Now that is some impressive pedantry even by this thread's standards. Uh excuse me did they literally use krazy glue to put together their 30-minute photo project for their friend as he repeatedly shot his victim right in front of them?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 12:03
|
|
|
Uh how is "refusing to stop your friend from murdering someone because he's your buddy buddy" not corruption? Abusing your position to do favors for friends is the very definition of corruption. Why do you think the domestic abuse coverups are unrelated to the fact that the perp's friends cared more about saving his life than the life of the abused wife he was murdering before their eyes?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
God we're really arguing over whether "scrapbook" can be metaphorically applied to a digital collection of photos like Windows Smart Scrapbook, pretending to be confused by metaphors as if people are complaining that cops were using krazy glue. We're just one more murder away from  Um excuse me, mammals such as humans are warm-blooded creatures who keep their body temperature within a narrow homeostatic range therefore it's biologically impossible for this murder to be in "cold blood" as the officer allegedly involved was not a reptile"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Because one of those things is abusing your position to cover up misdeeds and stop legals processes designed to protect the victim from running its course as a favor to a friend. No it's not understandable to let your friends commit murder, the hell are you talking about, especially if that friend has been abusing his wife and you've been looking the other way the whole time. "They were paralyzed by human empathy" is a pretty weak defense when they already knew the guy was a beater and did not care. Again, you will defend cops pumping a man on the ground full of bullets because he was fleeing with a gun and might still limp away and shoot innocent people, but a cop actually murdering someone in front of them and well he's keeping his pistol pointed safely downrange at his greviously injured wife and his good fire control is ensuring the bullets lodge inside her instead of posing a threat to anyone else so clearly this calls for calm, slow negotiation. What is the number of people a killer cop has to execute in front of his friends before it ceases to become inhumane to stop him? 3? 4? Do we have to meet the definition of a mass shooting, or does it have to be dozens or what.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Lyesh posted:If we're going to have armed police in the first place, then a situation that boils down to "put down your weapon and allow medical personnel to treat your victim or we will shoot," is pretty close to the platonic ideal of when the cops should use their guns. Seriously, even European cops will shoot someone if he's firing his pistol into someone right in front of them, it's mind-blowing that the same people who defend killing anyone who might have a gun (because you never know, a little boy might be the 3rd fastest gun in the west and outdraw and outshoot you when you're already drawn down on him) are suddenly all about human empathy for actual murderers while they are murdering people.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Speaking of European cops, amusing contrast betweenJarmak posted:That UK video is ridiculous, the cops have absolutely zero control of that situation and likely the only reason none of the cops got hosed up was the guy with the machete is too fat and slow to catch any of the cops he's chasing. and Jarmak posted:even though the correct decision in that case would have been to shoot that cop, its a somewhat of an understandable human error of judgement to fail to do your duty to kill your friend and mentor. UK cops took in a guy with a knife without anyone dying: what bumbling idiots! US cops let a guy murder his wife: bless their hearts they just love too much Dead Reckoning posted:I seriously don't get your point here. Recently, it was argued that the SFPD shouldn't have shot a guy with a knife (who had already stabbed one person) because he tried to walk away. Yet now you're arguing that the police should have killed this guy dead before he could hurt his wife again. The police shouldn't have shot these other people, but since they did, they should also have to shoot this cop as a matter of fairness? Except the killer cop was actually pulling the trigger in front of them and they still didn't stop him.  By your standard here, it's never appropriate to shoot someone, because while they're shooting it's all happening too fast to react, but in between shots they're not a threat.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I can't comprehend you're inability to understand that killing a stranger is a different emotional process then killing someone who the responding cops characterized as (if I remember correctly) "like a father to them". You don't have to be a robot to stop a murder. And you realize you're now openly advocating for police to be above the law right, if we not only shouldn't expect police to be prepared to use deadly force to stop a murder and save lives if the perp is a cop, but now you're openly celebrating that and telling me we need to be pleased when cops let cops murder their wives.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yeah they did fail to make the hard decision there, but some decisions are harder then others and I think gunning down someone with you have a close personal relationship crosses the line into "hard enough you don't deserve to be crucified for failing". Good thing killing 12-year-olds is an easier decision. Jarmak posted:If we're basing our standards of who has what it takes to be police on the ability to make that decision every time then I don't think we're going to a lot of people capable of passing that standard, and I'm not sure you want a police force made up of people who can make that particular decision the right way every time. I'm trying to think of another professional field where anyone would say "well maybe we don't want people who can do the job, isn't a little corruption and favoritism more human?" Lol cops.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Do you really want a surgeon who wouldn't let his friend steal your medication and sell it on the black market, if he can't even have empathy for his friends how can we trust him to have empathy for his patients?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Not being able to pull the trigger on a close friend is not the same thing as "hey you've got a badge so I'll do you the professional courtesy of letting you hurry up and finish offing your wife" Actually this is exactly what happened since they told her to gently caress off when she reported his spousal abuse, they were perfectly fine giving him that professional courtesy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Every other professional field would bar the professional from working on someone who they had a relationship like that with because they recognize that asking people to make objective decision in that context is impossible, these police did not have that option. I am pretty sure doctors aren't barred from working with longtime mentors in the field or being friends with their co-workers. Just doctors are real professionals and no one gets a chubby when they keep the undesirables down, so there's no incentive to defend one if it turns out he's playing favorites with coworkers who are committing crimes. Jarmak posted:Yes, which is why I made the distinction earlier between the shooting itself and the previous sweeping under the rug of the abuse claims, that was professional courtesy and it deserves all the scrutiny and derision you're giving the events at the shooting. Okay you realize the same people were complicit in both events right, and this is one of the things that make your "but but the cops just loved too much" defense for letting their buddy murder her laughable right
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Surgeon's are not allowed to work on family members or people they have similarly close personal relationships with. The cops didn't have a relationship with the murdered wife, they had a relationship with their co-worker, and surgeons are allowed to work with their co-workers.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:They would however have a conflict of interest if they ever had to treat a colleague or mentor, as the emotional connection is widely proven to cause the doctor to behave in irrational ways so are advised, and dependent on hospital policy actively barred from doing so. Using your analogy doesn't make any sense as the responding officers aren't 'working' with their mentor. They are effectively 'treating' him. Okay and? A doctor might still have to make the tough decision of whether or not to stop a co-worker from breaking the law. Conflict of interest is a reason not to get into such a situation if you can avoid it, it's not an absolution for doing the wrong thing if you happen to find yourself in it anyway. What are you advocating here, that we should just accept that cops won't use deadly force to save innocent life if the perp is a cop, that can't be what you're advocating.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Give me an example of a written legal protection that police have that other unionized public employees don't.  Adorable."Ah but is there a statute anywhere that says DA's must get experts to testify on their buddy's behalf when they're unsuccessful in burying the issue from public opinion? No? Okay then it's not a special protection when that happens."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
The obvious solution would be firing the wanna-lynch cops, and then the supervisor for sitting on the evidence so long, and replace them with professionals who are able to fulfill the responsibilities of their jobs. But there aren't any professional standards in American police departments or really any standards for police whatsoever, so yeah I'm sure it's in the public interest to arm guys who openly fantasize about murdering women and children and send them out to police the public, supervised by a guy who can't even be assed to act on disciplinary infractions. There are plenty of people who will support all that anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:Don't carry concealed when it'd be illegal, don't carry your gun in an irresponsible manner (like pointing it at people or in inappropriate directions), and don't make quick movements to your gun when the police show up sound like good places to start No they don't, these are terribles place to start from a systems safety perspective. The way you reduce injuries and deaths from preventable mistakes and accidents is by fixing the problems of training and accountability of the professional adults with the career in public safety and authorization to use deadly force as part of their jobs, not by hoping that untrained children will never do something irresponsible.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
Radish posted:Remember that the person calling 911 said specifically that the gun was probably a toy but just wanted to be safe. So the idea that Tamir was creating a situation that definitely made him appear to be a active shooting threat (which is the only possible excuse for the actions of the officer) is a lie. You can say that the police did not receive that information but it also highlights that blaming Tamir for his own murder is wrong. Note that some rando civilian caller made the correct threat assessment that somehow escaped the two people whose job it is to assess threats. When some scared old dude is doing a better job estimating the age of a subject and whether he is armed than the police are, focusing on whether the child was being responsible enough is loving absurd.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
pacmania90 posted:Cops are also civilians. I agree with the rest of your post. Okay "rando untrained layperson" then
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:How much training does it take for a 12 year to figure out the things I cited are bad ideas? His friends seemed to have figured it out. We don't have control the random upbringing of every little boy in America to anything like the extent that we control the training, procedures, and accountability of professional law enforcement officers. If your goal is to reduce deaths, that is the place to start. If you have some other goal then perhaps it makes sense shrug and say "well maybe the next little boy will be smarter".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:Do we need that level of control to expect a 12 year old to understand Tamir's actions were reckless? His own friend warned him for crying out loud. If Tamir chose to ignore that advice he's taking a risk with even the best trained police. No he's taking a risk that poorly-trained police would happen upon him. The best-trained police would not be worse at threat assessment than random parkgoers who correctly identified Rice as a likely juvenile with a toy gun, and they would not charge someone who might be armed, poo poo their pants, start shooting before giving the suspect a chance to react, hide from his body, cuff a little girl after they knew her brother that they killed was unarmed, then lie about the whole thing on a report. The police made a ton of unforced mistakes that ended up with someone dying. When a plane crashes we identify preventable mistakes and oversights from the trained professional in charge of the situation, we don't say "well no point in training pilots for mechanical errors, mechanical systems should just be perfect lol" because real people make mistakes and robust systems don't fail and kill people any time anyone involved anywhere on the line fucks up because expecting bad situations to just never come up is foolish and dangerous. I mean we can test out your system in the real world and see if 12-year-olds are reckless ever: oh look they are and professionals were unable to deal with it without killing one despite having many opportunities to better handle the situation! VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Dec 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 10:00 |
|
|
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
|
|