|
Jarmak posted:Again, I specifically addressed this argument already and you haven't done anything but repeat it without adding anything new, but sure lets try this again: 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?
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 01:44 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted: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". And it's normally pretty illegal to choke people as well, so I'm not sure why you get even the slightest bit of special protection if you choke somebody outside of policy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:Nonsense. I can fit three "show me your hands" in two seconds without breaking a sweat. That's like seven or eight repetitions in five seconds. SHOMRANSOMEORANS *blam* *blam*
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
I don't get the cowardice. I'd have felt perfectly comfortable disarming that guy with a baton. Well not perfectly comfortable, but more comfortable than taking the life of a man who appeared 99% unlikely to commit further assaults.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Now this, not a good shoot. You're surprisingly quick to make this call. What is different? His entire body is obscured by the woman cop right before he is shot. How do you know he didn't make a lunge?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:That pop seems too quiet compared to the rifle round. A 5.56mm shouldn't be orders of magnitude louder than a 9mm from such a close distance. She also doesn't move even a little from recoil, none of the other officers seem to react, and there's no smoke or visible casing. I'm guessing it was something other than a gunshot. It's very easy to touch off a second round from an AR by accident, especially if you are terrified that the shirtless man in front of you is going to do a forward somersault and behead you.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Limb shots in America would expand the number of situations in which American police would understand firearm use to be appropriate. For that reason it is a bad and dangerous idea.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
Radbot posted:No, it would simply turn some fatal shots into non-fatal shots. It's not as if police officers in America need much justification for lethal force, when compared to the justification required in western Europe. There would be more "shots" period. And since we'd be calling it something short of lethal force, they'd be quick to use in in circumstances where a baton, taser or (now I'm really taking off on flights of fancy) verbal de-escalation would be more appropriate. It gives latitude in judgment to American cops, and they've proven that they can't handle that. e: beaten by DV on the last page: Discendo Vox posted:Because the effect of introducing a leg shot policy is to expand the total set of situations in which police open fire.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Radbot posted:And yet, it works in Europe. I'm OK with having one extra person shot in the leg in the current US policing environment, where people are routinely killed for contempt of cop. And if there's a bystander around, I'm OK with not shooting to disable. Yes, we are attempting to point out the fundamental difference between police in Europe and America. American cops are trained to be brutal and to kill. They shouldn't be trusted to use a gun to do anything other than prevent themselves from being killed.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:Tamir Rice is the one that broke me, how anyone could defend that still leaves me I defended the Rice shooting before I saw the video. A gun is just as deadly when a 12 year old pulls the trigger. But when I saw the video it was clear that there was no reason to believe he was going to shoot.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 06:54
|
|
|
joeburz posted:Serious question: Why should you give police any benefit of the doubt? We've seen that they manipulate statements to falsify evidence and even with video are hardly held accountable for either their false statements or the actual crime. I wasn't giving them the benefit of the doubt, but posters were basically arguing that the police shouldn't have shot him "because he was 12" and that's not a good reason not to shoot somebody who looked like they were just pointing a gun down the street.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:Based on the discussion about in the last thread apparently nobody. Is there a set number of people who gently caress up and end up with a dead twelve year old that once you hit that number it's just Yes, absolutely, 100%. I can confirm that this is the case with CPS as well.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2015 02:27
|
|
it's no one persons fault?
|
Elendil004 posted:People asked why cops mag dump, or fire multiple shots instead of a single shot and reassessing. That's why. It's not justifying the egregious shootings we've been talking about, simply discrediting the idea that cops should shoot once then check. (Or at least WHY cops don't do that, currently) No, that's not why. They mag dump because they have inadequate training and high-capacity striker-fired pistols that invite poorly-trained shooters to fire more wild shots instead of maintaining focus on the front sight. Trainers don't teach you to mag dump, they teach you to fire a single shot or controlled pair. But that goes out the window if you don't have enough range time or force-on-force training.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Who cares about their emotions? If you can't overcome your emotions and do your job you shouldn't be doing that job. Cops love to talk a big game about hard decisions but I guess when the decisions are actually hard they go to pieces.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:You're right, we need more Unfeeling Murder Machines on the streets. It turns out we don't have any of those, because when a fellow cop blows a gasket they have nothing to offer but feelings and scrapbooks. Jarmak posted:Yeah they did fail to make the hard decision there, but some decision 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". Crucifixion is inappropriate, but firing a cop and making sure they are never a cop again is not crucifixion. They let a woman die because of favoritism towards cops.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:No, they let a women die because of a close personal relationship with the specific person. Do you understand what favoritism is? quote: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" It is in practice, apparently.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:Some of you may remember a sexting case last year. Not just any sexting case, but a sexting case where the investigators tried to get a warrant to inject a 17-year-old with drugs to give him a boner and compare his penis with a photo from his girlfriend's phone. The cop sued the victim's lawyer for defamation for calling the warrant crazy, saying that it ruined his reputation and made people think he was a pedophile. Hey thanks, another article for my "for god's sake kids, don't send pictures of your junk to people" file. It worked out OK here, but you can't exactly count on the cop doing the right thing in every case.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
So the warrant served as a kind of catalog of his perversions? "I want to inject the suspect with boner juice. So I can...investigate the case."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I don't disagree with much in your post, Toasticle, but because of the derail potential you mention, I think it might be best to put that in a separate thread- even if it would nominally fit into this one. We've tried that before, it just serves as a honeypot for morons who use it to detail their torture fetishes.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:I don't think its very wise to use this as proof all police officers bully women into retracting rape allegations. That seems misguided at best. Proof was furnished long ago, this is just the latest example of a pattern that repeats itself over and over again. Some police don't do it but who cares?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So the department should, what, punish officers on the basis of unsworn statements? Perhaps not, but people should certainly stop inviting cops to block parties or treating them like decent people until they get their poo poo together and figure out how to get rid of the bad apples.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It's fine if someone's discipline history is part of an investigation, but allegations of which a person was cleared shouldn't be used against them. Its just as scummy as employers using those "find anyone's arrest record" sites. It's less scummy because police have the power of life and death over citizens, and limitless authority in practice. All scummy tricks are appropriate and necessary until corrupt institutions are reformed.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
We've also seen what happens when citizens go to the police station to file a complaint: they get intimidated or arrested. Is that where they're supposed to go to make the sworn statement?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 10:03
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:If you have a complaint that the accuser refuses to sign and no other witnesses, what else should the investigators do? Investigate the officers who were present when the citizen "refused" to sign.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Trained professional has a negligent discharge while loving around with his sidearm. Keep practicing, I guess. Maybe at home though? Or the range? I'm trying to be constructive here.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
Some day making vague intimations and calling the families of those killed by police "interesting people" will be seen as just as bad as deliberately keeping black people out of juries.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
joeburz posted:Truly indisputable... I think there is a much bigger story here. Bigfoot is clearly getting out of the other door of the squad car, and there is a second gunman behind the picnic bench.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
Why is  this considered "award winning police dog training"?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 01:44 |
|
|
Oh how did I miss this one.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 16:01
|
|
