|
Vahakyla posted:Things going on with conviction of cops that fall out of line Vahakyla, I've got no desire to create these threads, so I thank you for doing so. It might help discussion though, if the OP is a bit less.... whatever this was. Some people may find it telling that, for instance, more time is spent on Groubert's employment status than his victim's name. -Columbia, South Carolina: Trooper Sean Groubert shot the unarmed Levar Jones for no apparent reason. Trial date still pending, but Groubert has been fired. Jones received compensation from the State Insurance Reserve, and may make a full recovery. -North Charleston, South Carolina: Michael Slager shot and killed the unarmed Walter Scott and planted a taser. As a bit of humor advice: Giving a victim a name and THEN dehumanizing him as a number in White Supremacy Killcount is much funnier than dehumanizing a victim by giving him a demographic description and THEN listing him as a number in White Supremacy Killcount. -Eutawville, South Carolina: Former Police Chief Richard Combs pleaded guilty to misconduct in office and was given a year of home detention but zero prison time for shooting and killing an unarmed Bernard Bailey after showing up to his house in order to arrest him for what prosecutors describe as "a trumped up charge" of obstruction of justice (for, weeks prior, arguing against a speeding ticket given to his daughter). - Baltimore, Maryland: Freddie Gray is dead, and the six officers are still pending trial, set to begin this week. In the interim, there are three ongoing Department of Justice probes into the incident and Baltimore policing in general. - Cleveland, Ohio: Officer Tim Loehmann, who shot Tamir Rice, is awaiting the decision if he will be charged. Earlier prosecutor commissioned reports sided with him, but the newest does not. Taking advantage of a little-used Ohio law, lawyers for Tamir Rice petitioned municipal court Judge Ronald Aldrine for his non-binding opinion of the case. Judge Aldrine found probable cause that Loehmann should face trial for murder, involuntary manslaughter, reckless homicide, negligent homicide and dereliction of duty, while his partner, Officer Frank Garmbeck should be charged with only the latter two. Hopefully you take these edits under advisement. It might help delay this thread becoming the disgraceful mess prior threads have been.
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 10:00 |
|
|
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? Restating what you've understood from someone and then asking for confirmation is a very effective active listening technique. I'm glad you're taking such pains not to misinterpret the arguments of other posters. In that spirit, I'm hoping you're willing to clear a few things up for me, with the goal of moving the thread away from meta topics and more towards substantive debate and discussion. I'd encourage other posters to answer as well, if they believe it can contribute to productive and instructive discussion on the subject of Police Misconduct, Discipline and Sexual Assault. Semantics 1) Do you believe "unsworn" and "unsubstantiated" are synonyms when it comes to complaints made against officers? 1a) If yes-do you believe the choice to use "unsubstantiated" in this context is understood by many to be more closely related to "false" or "of questionable veracity" than it is to "unsworn"? 1b) If no- Why have you consistently chosen "unsubstantiated" over "unsworn"? 1c) The International Association of Chiefs of Police's official stance is that EVERY incident of misconduct must be "investigated thoroughly and all employees with knowledge [...] who fail to report it are held accountable." Their reasoning is that "failure to identify misconduct and enforce accountability for even seemingly minor indiscretions may not only empower the officer, but may also encourage those who have knowledge of, or were witness to, the behavior to commit similar or more serious offenses. Tolerance at any level will invite more of the same conduct." Do you believe that the sworn/unsworn distinction was omitted because it is thought to be assumed by everyone who reads the Policy and Training guidelines, or because the IACP does not believe the distinction relevant? 1d) If it's latter, do you assign to the IACP the same anti-officer "vindictiveness" you assign posters in this thread? Why or Why not? Determining Boundaries and Clarifying Boundaries 2) Do you think there is a threshold at which the volume of unsworn complaints against an officer should be sufficient justification to begin an investigation? 2a) After receiving a sworn complaint, is there a threshold at which the volume of unsworn complaints against an officer can be used to shape the course of an investigation? 2b) Is the absence of sworn complaints an absence of accusations? For example: If Polly follows the proper procedures to lodge a complaint that Officer Mike pulled her over for a minor traffic violation and pleasured himself while offering to waive the ticket if she showed him her breasts, a possible defense for Officer Mike is that he has never been accused of sexual misconduct in his career. Should that defense still be available to him if there was a history of unsworn complaints against him alleging similar behavior? 3) At what point does a complaint against an officer become substantiated? 3a) If, as the IACP alleges, officers resign their roles and join another department before being formally punished in order to prevent the investigation from being completed.... are the prior sworn complaints against those officers valid, substantiated, and/or usable in future investigations? 3b) In the scenario where an officer transfers to avoid punishment, is "I have no record of discipline and have never been punished for misconduct" a valid defense? Should it be? Relative Protection Levels for Officers The IACP believe that "Within the policing profession some conditions of the job" create opportunities for misconduct and abuse. Specifically, they note that officers: "(1) have power and authority over others; (2) work independently; (3) sometimes function without direct supervision; (4) often work late into the night when their conduct is less in the public eye; and (5) engage with vulnerable populations who lack power and are often perceived as less credible (e.g., juveniles, crime victims,undocumented people, and those with addictions and mental illness)". They cite as an additional risk factor: "the existence of a law enforcement culture of allegiance and loyalty forms an important backdrop against which officers risk personal safety to protect and serve the public [...] these principles may lead to the belief that fellow officers will protect or provide cover in questionable circumstances. This could result in situations where unprofessional and even illegal behavior is tolerated out of a misplaced sense of loyalty" 4) Do you agree with the assessment of the IACP? 4a) Can you tell me a public union outside of law enforcement to which these factors are as applicable? 4b) If we, for the sake of argument, accept the IACP's view that there is a substantial power and credibility disparity between officers and their accusers and that there is a culture of covering up for and protecting officers who commit misconduct: Can you see reasons other than dishonesty that a complainant may not wish to share personally identifying information when filing an initial report? 4c) Again, accepting for the sake of argument the IACP's view, do you believe that these factors should lead to erring on the side of investigating more of the misconduct complaints made against officers, or fewer? I look forward to your responses and I ask you to make careful note that in the 800+ words above, I (like most others in this thread) at no time suggested, recommended, nor implied that officers should face discipline, suspension, termination or execution solely on the basis of an unsworn, unsubstantiated, uninvestigated report.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2015 08:52
|
|
|
Oh good. Bullshit quibbling at the very fringe of news in this thread when big news comes out. Again. On the off chance this helps- Cole (and Raerlynn) are trying to express to most of the thread at large that when you have a situation where there are a wide variety of compelling facts in your favor, getting bogged down on "evidence of systemic racism" is more focused on signaling the purity of your outrage to your side and preaching towards your own choir. On the other hand, Loehmann's past employment records, videotape, and Judge Aldrine's finding of probable cause provide ample opportunity to convert those who are reflexively skeptical of claims about of police misconduct and their ability to skate in even the worst situations. The rest of the thread is trying to express that the prosecutor's statements are part in parcel with the larger issues of race in the justice system and the idea, put forward by the disgrace of a prosecutor, that Tamir Rice forfeits his childhood by being tall and heavy for his age-and thus seen as menacing rather than cherubic-is the same sort of racist bullshit that leads to the discrepancies in school discipline and the rates of who is tried as juvenile and who is tried as an adult. I'm skeptical that Cole (and those in society who tend to agree with him on issues) will find any mention of the prosecutor's blatant signaling on this topic acceptable, no matter how it is couched. Most people in general, not any specific posters, dislike when an easy opportunity to show moderation and balance is taken away from them. If left as "An officer committed an egregiously bad shoot on camera, should never have been in the situation in the first place, and somehow skated when an impartial judge said the evidence should have led to charges. Clearly, we need to examine the system that allowed this to occur", the media, tough-on-crime Democrats and Kill-You're-Parents conservatives can all bask together in the righteous outrage they'll generate by condemning this egregious act. All three of those groups lose their cover to be outraged by the situation though, if it becomes "An extremely bad shoot by an officer that he was allowed to avoid punishment for because the prosecutor did all that he could to ensure a "no bill" was returned, including relying on old racial biases and hatreds in order to manipulate the GJ and provide public cover for his actions to a majority-white population". If that's how this is framed, someone disagreeing with the shoot will have to grapple with a justice system that is set up to gently caress over minorities whether they enter as victim or suspect. For my part, I think we've seen already where the first framing leads. It's about reforming the 911 system-because Loehmann would have merely beaten and imprisoned Tamir rather than executed him if he knew the gun was fake- and about changing hiring practices so that those who are flunked out of one department for being incompetent and unfit can't be rehired by another with a blank slate. That's woefully inadequate, given that we've just seen another example of the resurgence of the antebellum South in a free state during the 21st century.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
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. While I think the dangers of policing are overhyped, what makes it different than everything else on that list (with the possible exception of 7, if that includes cabbies) is that the most publicly-visible danger of being an officer is from someone actively trying to do you harm. Logging, fishing, aircraft, construction, industrial-those dangers are all contextual, from the weather or equipment or shoddy safety standards. While it's true that the leading cause of officer casualties is traffic-related injury, public perception is still that their biggest risk is a bad-guy-with-a-gun. That makes it distinct from the overall list of dangerous occupations and makes conflating the two... questionable.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Zas posted:Much of the most egregious aspects of the case has been discussed in depth already, however, the tactics the prosecution used are current fresh news, and are therefore new and relevant pieces of information both to this case and to the problems of systemic racism at large. To not talk about them is asinine. That's where I'm coming from, personally. I'm with you, I'm just attempting to rephrase an opposing view (which is held by many in the public, if not Cole and Raerlynn themselves) in a way that makes more sense than "it's stupid" to be upset about comments regarding his size. I'm not particularly concerned in the purity of my outrage, but that's the underlying sentiment for any complaints about "out-outraging", SJWs and Tumblrinas. Some people don't see a reason to mention or focus on the systemic racial issue unless you're trying to prove that you are the most righteous of those who are angered and perceive doing so as tilting at windmills. The prosecutor's goal was to strip the societal protections that we give children away from Tamir. It's tough to find racists without a hood or stormfront account who actively hate individual children. But Tamir, at his size, was practically a teenager. And we all know teenagers are practically adults, so really, he should have known better than to be waving around a toy gun in a public space. Allowing that to go unchallenged is allowing the Prosecutor to transform Tamir Rice into Michael and Trayvon. They've already robbed him of his life, do we really need to sit idly by as they rob him of his innocence too? e: PhilippAchtel posted:I'm glad you noted these factoids so I didn't have to, but all the same it's a bit cheeky to just brush them aside. I'll just restate them without comment: I agree with you on each of the first 2 (and said so!) and haven't seen data regarding the third, but am easily able to believe it. My only comment is that most people find Law Enforcement to be dangerous in a way that Fishing and Forestry are not. It is tempting to engage with that argument on the most basic level, but comparing fatality rates to other industries is missing the point of the objections, though if it helps correct those who are misinformed by FOP propaganda it's still doing some good. Geoff Peterson fucked around with this message at 00:24 on Dec 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 00:14
|
|