|
chitoryu12 posted:“This shooting is not justified, but also not criminal." Forgetting for the moment the mental pretzel of logic that justifies even drawing on someone who wrecked his car after running a red light because "he might flee" how in the gently caress is hoping nobody will notice he shot him in the neck not? Telling the EMTs and the hospital "Oh yeah btw he also has a bullet in his neck" is the kind of information that is kind of loving important for the people trying to save him.
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 19:04 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Police have no legal duty to help anyone or take any action that might protect human life. Assuming this isn't sarcasm, are you seriously saying not telling the medics he loving shot the guy is in any way comparable?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:It's not sarcasm. It's truth. It's hosed up, but welcome to police in America. He's not defending the officer, but pointing out that the officer has no legal duty to render aid. This leads to some debates in this thread and its predecessor about the topic. I didn't say anything about him not rendering aid, he willfully withheld extremely important medical information from medical personnel so he wouldn't get in trouble. That has nothing to do with not being required to take action, it's risking someone's life by lying by omission. And there's no way he 'forgot' since he suddenly remembered he shot the guy in the neck once his supervisor started talking about investigating why he had a bullet In his neck by going back the bar. Suddenly "Oh yeah, that was me. Sorry"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Maybe I just hate cops but there would to me seem to be a ever so slight difference between twirling a gun on your finger and it firing and drawing, aiming, shooting then suddenly forgetting that you shot a guy in the neck. Do you think the outcome of gun twirler would have been different had he drawn, aimed and shot the guy then claimed it was an accident?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Personally I feel that cops own an even greater responsibility, and would be comfortable holding them to higher burden when it comes to negligence, including criminal. I think the last thread buried that idea under a mountain of "Why do you want to take away cops rights" But yeah, giving someone a weapon and the authority to use it to kill should carry a much greater responsibility for what you do with that gun. I'm sure someone will pull up a somewhat relevant example but I agree if you are issued a weapon "oops it just went off  " should not be a defense unless the weapon is examined an is shown to have a mechanical flaw.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:There's a massive difference, twirling a loaded firearm on your finger by the trigger-well is is astoundingly dangerous, and aiming a gun at someone you're trying to arrest is a standard practice. Drawing on a guy who just flipped his car and opened the door is standard practice? Because "he thought he was going to flee"? I've never flipped a car but I feel safe in saying the odds of that person fleeing much less just being able to stand up are pretty low. KomradeX posted:This is just really another example of Florida being a lovely state isn't it? Having lived in Miami, Orlando and places in between, you have no idea how hosed up this state is. Toasticle fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Dec 11, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I'm pretty sure it would The previous QI discussion was a mess so sorry if this was covered, but doesn't the shot person have to be a danger to the cop or others? And is shooting someone fleeing from an accident after running a red really a valid reason to use lethal force? Not to flippant but if he did run, so what? Yeah the passenger died but it's entirely believable that a drunk who just flipped his car didn't know she was dead, and if so are a DUI, running a red light and fleeing an accident scene crimes where shooting him for running is justifiable use of deadly force?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yeah if he had intentionally shot him that would be the case, but the action we're talking about here is pulling his firearm. So to pierce QI you'd have show not only that the act of pulling his weapon violated the guy's rights, but that no reasonable officer could have thought it was legal for him to do so, an argument that would be defeated with 30 second and access to youtube. Let me be more specific: The cop had a loaded firearm with the safety off pointed at someone because he thought he might run. Since at that point he was no longer a danger to anyone, was most likely hosed up physically and mentally from flipping his car while drunk, what possible legal reason is their to be pointing a gun at the guys head. If there is no legal reason, how is "oopsie it just went off" a valid defense. If he's not a danger to the cop or anyone else he should not have had a gun pointed at him to begin with and the only justification given was he thought he might run which is not a reason for deadly force. Assuming the above is correct, how is the cop not not at fault for something? He had a loaded weapon pointed at a non-threat, accidental discharge should carry some kind of penalty should it not? And watching that video I don't believe for a second this was an accident. If he acted the least bit freaked and immediately called the ambulance and told them the guy was shot, maybe. Drawing, firing, holsterng then not saying poo poo until he thought he would get caught when they were going to investigate how he got shot by going back to the bar? Please.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:Considering that a suspect running is not a valid reason to shoot them, then that's not a valid reason to have his gun out. Well, yeah. I'm just trying to see there's ever a situation the pro-police people agree a cop should be held liable or if it's a lost cause because it sure as gently caress seems that poo poo like QI is just a free pass for nearly anything short of things like the cop who planted the tazer or the campus(?) cop who shot that guy in the head then claimed he was trying run him over until the video was released. There's been so many I can't even keep track of the names anymore. Which again is the point that keeps getting lost in the minutia or legal term derails, unless there's a blindingly obvious video of a cop flat out wasting someone for no reason there's dozens of ways cops get away with poo poo non-cops would be locked up for in 8 seconds. Tamir Rice is the one that broke me, how anyone could defend that still leaves me 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
Kalman posted:QI only prevents civil liability. Just one of those "legal minutiae" that you don't understand. Just ignore everything else and focus on the one thing that lets you get a jab in there. I'd say I'm shocked but at this point nothing does.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
SedanChair posted: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. Rice was way the gently caress more than he 'wasn't going to shoot' -12 year old with a toy that the woman who called 911 even said she thought was a toy but 911 didn't tell the cops. Also ignore it was open carry state so his only crime was being black with a gun. Or to more accurate a 12 year old black kid with a toy. -Even if he was 17 with a glock they screeched up 6 feet from him, fell out of the car and shot him within 2 seconds. No human could react even if they had given him any orders like they lied that they did in that time. -The driver had a nice long "rear end in a top hat abusive cop" history and the shooter was bounced around departments because he cried at the gun range and had multiple supervisors say he can't handle stress and didn't think he could be trained. The perfect pair to go see if the kid in the park is just a kid with a toy or not. -Lies piled on lies from the cops. Shooter gave him orders 3 times! Between falling out of the car an shooting that would give him about one second. Even if he had auctioneer speech skills "Dontmovedontmovedontmove BLAM" no human would have time to do anything but flinch while their brain is going 'what the hell' the way they nearly drove him down and fell over themselves to ventilate him. And the defenders only care about the 2 seconds between crying cop falling out of his car and the murder, nothing else matters. Of course it was a good shoot, he only he seconds to react to a 12 year old! Multiple systemic failures from the 911 call not telling them it's probably a toy to crying cop still being issued a weapon (or even still being a loving cop period) to roaring up and skidding to a stop nearly on top of him. None of that matters, you only need to focus on the 2 seconds crying cop had to decide if the freaked out 12 year old could outdraw him. So good shoot. I even agree the blame is spread all over, not just on crying cop. The system failed on every level but because of that nobody gets any blame since you couldn't point to a singular instance. So instead just focus on "well he only had seconds to react!" and hand wave away the reason he only had seconds was because of the way they handled the situation. So like all other instances where the cops actions created the 'only had seconds' situation they ignore everything except the last seconds before the murder. Cops create scenario and get the blame dismissed because the scenario they created gave them no other options than killing a kid with toy because they had no time to do anything else. Toasticle fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Dec 12, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:Is there a final disposition in the Tamir Rice case yet? Or is the investigation still "ongoing"? Unless I'm confusing with another kid murdered by cops, good shoot so no charges. And as the guy shot in the neck showed, being negligent with a gun doesn't count if you're a cop. Being held responsible for negligence with dangerous things only matters for citizens, although because it's a gun even citizens can get away with it like gun twirler. We can't hold people responsible for negligence with a gun or the NRA would cry. Toasticle fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Dec 12, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You don't charge an individual with a criminal offense based on the results of the collective failings of an institution Yeah, someone said "I even agree the blame is spread all over, not just on crying cop" and said it was the result of "Multple systemic failures" Oh yeah that was me. In the post you just quoted. quote:Literally the last page someone posted an article about a civilian shooting someone in the head trying to twirl their gun like a cowboy. And he wasnt charged. He even quoted the part of the article where the DA explained why. You pro cop guys sure do love berating people for missing important details but don't seem to pay much attention yourselves. drilldo squirt posted:Who's do you think is responsible for that kid being shot? 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 it's no one persons fault?And does it just apply to cops murdering kids? Because I'm pretty sure for civilians if the results of several people loving up ending up with a dead 12 year old they figure out how much each person is to blame and punish them accordingly. Unless you twirl a loaded gun on your finger and kill a pregnant woman I guess. Personally I'd lay most if on the two cops. Even taking the other fuckup into consideration they are the ones who decided to run the car nearly on top of the kid and gave a child all of 2-3 seconds to respond to commands they lied about giving him. They created the situation that only gave them seconds to outdraw a child with a toy who was most likely freaking out over the cop car that just came to a screeching halt 10 feet away and even if they had ordered him to do anything even an adult would need more than three seconds to shake off the "holy gently caress what is going on" to even understand what the guy with guy gun pointed at you is screaming. And most kids reaction to being accused of doing something wrong is prove they didn't so him trying to show the cops it's just a toy is a normal reaction for a kid. All they had to do is stop 25 feet away, hide behind the car door and yell or bullhorn for the kid to drop it. On the extremely rare odds the a child has a real gun there's no loving way he'd even hit the car much less them and the recoil would probably make him drop it anyway. Toasticle fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Dec 13, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:So considering that you believe the two police men are at most fault why aren't they prosecutable, and in what situation would they have been? What I think is irrelevant, as Vitalsigns said the DA played defense for the cops, highered half a dozen 'experts' to say Oh yeah, totally a good shoot and refused to file charges. Which, yet again, is something citizens don't get. The DA is supposed to present the available evidence without bias and let the grand jury decide but as is all to common he instead acted as their defense attorney. Those 'experts' should have been at a trial, not to swing a grand jury. Nearly everyone except people who blow cops who saw the video knew drat well it was murder and a trial and jury should have been the outcome but we'll never know because the DA was more interested in protecting cops than doing his loving job. It took the McDonald(? again I've lost track there's so many now) two years, a 5 million bribe attempt and a judge to finally release the video in that case. Once it was finally available there was no way the DA could have buried it, it so loving obvious the public would have burned his office to the ground. It took a video of cops emptying their clips into a dead body to get the justice system to do something. I'm pretty sure it was a different case before some pedant leaps in, I'm probably just thinking McDonald because it was yet another case of the DA dragging his rear end until video evidence forced him to do his job. Actually I'm pretty positive it was a different case but my sanity can't take digging through the last thread to figure out which complete over reaction by the cops is the right one. If they were innocent then a jury would have let them go, but cops don't have to face juries unless the case is so loving obvious usually from video evidence you have to pry from the DA and department like getting the ring from Gollum. Even then all to often they drag everything out, sometimes for years so enough people forget about it then quietly refuse to prosecute. Toasticle fucked around with this message at 08:37 on Dec 13, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Yes, absolutely, 100%. I can confirm that this is the case with CPS as well. My liver hates you for forcing me to once again drink away the thoughts of the 'justice' system (and now CPS) loving over the poeple who need their help the most. Thanks a lot 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2015 08:21
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:Because you might miss, and then in the time it takes you to re-assess, he's shooting. Because your first shot might not be a disabling shot, and the same happens. Generally the training is "shoot until the thread is no longer a threat" which translates as shoot until they're down, because if they're down then they're no longer a threat. Yeah. I may hate guns but I've been to the range plenty of times. If I miss something I'm aiming a pistol at and miss it would take about 0.5 seconds to pull the trigger again. What exactly are you re-assessing if you miss? Ditto for a non disabling shot. If you fire, hit and the guy doesn't go down you shoot again. What the hell reality are cops living in that it takes so long to realize they missed or the guy is still standing that the guy has enough time to turn around, find you, aim and shoot before you can pull the trigger again? Seriously the poo poo people make up as to why its mag dump or nothing are ludicrous. And has there even been a recent case where they going down ended the shooting? Because SOP sure seems to be empty your gun period whether the guy standing, falling or already a corpse. Toasticle fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Dec 14, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
And shot her again while his buddies put together a scrapbook.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
That's fascinating. Especially how it applies to exactly zero of the cases this or the previous thread are talking about, and I can't think of a single instance where anyone said you shouldn't shoot back at someone shooting at you. Does this study cover "Guy with a knife limping away after getting beanbagged so they mag dumped him"? Or emptying your gun into a corpse? Or "Had gun pointed at guys head for loving reason then claimed he tried to run me down when the corpse hit the gas and dragged me down the street" You know, the situations actually being discussed in these threads? The last incident the guy was wandering away not shooting ant anyone, then they kept shooting him on the ground because "Maybe he was reaching for his gun while he was bleeding to death". Because I imagine you'd have more than a few seconds there. Just so it's clear: the number of cases being discussed that involved a "firefight" is zero. So what is your point? Toasticle fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Dec 14, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted: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. Actually he shot her again while they were scrap booking. So she was probably alive after the first shooting and had they done anything whatsoever besides try and talk down good buddy sarge she may be alive today. 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) Not trying to be a dick but explaining why cops do things that has nothing whatsoever to do with any of the subjects of the thread is a useless derail. Toasticle fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Dec 14, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:Calm down. If I'm wrong that it was Facebook, I'm wrong that it was Facebook. It was still a phone, not a scrapbook. That they spent half an hour putting together instead of saving his wife. But glad to know we're right back into completely irrelevant pedantry yet again. So they put together a group of photos on a phone and not an actual 'scrapbook'. Which changes what exactly? Make sure to call us heartless for suggesting the cops shoot their friend.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:Scrapbooking is a significantly much more involved effort than putting pictures on a phone man. It implies cops were hitting up some arts and crafts store and raiding their house for photos and not like grabbing photos from facebook. Because anyone who knew the details of that tragedy knew it was a collection of pictures on a phone. Me calling it a scrapbook besides it being the exact same irrelevant argument that discussion kept getting dragged into there were two possibilities: -I meant they literally got out their glue and scissors and glitter and put together a little book for him -I was using the phrase colloquially to refer to a collection of photos. Neither of which had anything substantial to do with that conversation which as people keep repeating: rather than taze, beanbag, or even pepper spray the fucker who ran his wife off the road, shot her, then shot her AGAIN in front of them they bend over backwards to not hurt their friend while his wife is bleeding out. quote:I'm not really sure why you would think I'd call you heartless. May was well go for the trifecta. -Rather than address how a friend of the cops who not only did far more than 90% of the cases discussed but loving shot her again in front of all of them they still did nothing more than talk and show him pictures, dismiss the photo collection and repeat the same lies as you even after the police themselves said it took half an hour to put together. -argue over whether he was an "active shooter" and the definition which DR has jumped in to handle for you. Which was a particularly odious detail to argue over as this fucker actually shot her in front of the cops unlike the majority of the cases discussed. Rice gets blown away for making the wrong gesture, guy with a knife gets mag dumped because he was limping away but let's argue over whether sarge qualifies as an active shooter. -Try and derail the conversation by constantly clutching pearls over how heartless everyone is and how hard it is to shoot their friend. All just attempts to steer the conversation away from this rear end in a top hat ran his wife off the road, shot her, shot her AGAIN in full view of his cop buddies but still gets the most kid gloves treatment possible while unarmed mostly black people get blown away the moment they twitch the wrong way, sometimes to the point where they shoot the loving corpse. It's a touchy subject because it perfectly illustrated how arguing over nearly irrelevant details rather then over what actually happened is the norm. Had you just 'corrected' the word I use nobody would have jumped on you, repeating the same lie that they just tossed him some pictures on a phone when the cops themselves said it took half an hour to put together is why. It's as irrelevant to what happened as arguing over the textbook/legal definition of active shooter.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Surgeon's are not allowed to work on family members or people they have similarly close personal relationships with. Yes they can. Obviously if they are the only surgeon available and otherwise it is only the opinion of the AMA code of ethics (opinion 8.19) that they shouldn't but they aren't barred from doing so. A hospital may have its own rules (again barring 'only person available') but the AMA has no rule against it, they just don't think it's prudent, There may be some state or city law somewhere but it is allowed otherwise.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Opinion 8.19 of the AMA code of ethics specifically bars them from doing it?? It goes as far as not only stating it prevents the physician from operating objectively, but that it may well breach informed consent because the patient may not be comfortable second guessing or getting a second opinion. I asked my sister in-law doctor, she's the one who quoted the AMA. She confirmed its an opinion not a rule and there are no laws against it. And I read 8.19 it doesn't bar anything, just explains why it's not considered a good idea. It even says "generally you shouldn't do this" in the first sentence and goes on to say it's acceptable in short term situations to act as a family members doctor. I don't know what you're reading that specifically bars them. Edit here, let me help you: quote:It would not always be inappropriate to undertake self-treatment or treatment of immediate family members. In emergency settings or isolated settings where there is no other qualified physician available, physicians should not hesitate to treat themselves or family members until another physician becomes available. In addition, while physicians should not serve as a primary or regular care provider for immediate family members, there are situations in which routine care is acceptable for short-term, minor problems. Except in emergencies, it is not appropriate for physicians to write prescriptions You can even write prescriptions if you're the only one available to do it. Toasticle fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
Um, one of the cops was the pedophile not the kid.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
SedanChair posted: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. Gave him the perfect excuse if he had child porn "It's not mine! It's um... evidence!" Especially hosed up that he was on the "Internet crimes against children task force" And you need another edit, the kid sued over the penis thing, not the cop.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:I'm too outraged to actually read these articles!!! Think I'm just confused, I swear I read the kid sued then the cop sued back. Unless there's more cases of "we want to give you a boner" lawsuits which at this point wouldn't shock me depressingly enough.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:In general, the way sex crimes get treated in the United States is full of glaring flaws. Two teenagers of similar age can't have sex without one risking becoming a sex offender (except for certain states with a grace period or other exceptions to the laws), but actual rape victims struggle with being blamed for the crime. The terror with which pedophiles are treated also badly inhibits attempts to rehabilitate them or find them places to live outside of a prison, and any attempt to suggest that maybe turning them into pariahs might not be the best thing for their recidivism rate is immediately met with "So what, you think pedos are cool or something? Do you wanna gently caress little boys easier? Is that why you want us to go easy on them?". There's I think in Miami a bridge where the pedos live under (sounds like a children's book.... 'Where the pedos are") because it's the only spot that meets all the "can't live within 2000 feet of a school/playground/whatever" requirements. It's the only crime that carries a life sentance of harassment where every potential employer, renter and neighbor gets called and your picture published in the local pedo alert. And pedo maps online. Kill and rape someone and once you're out of prison you're left alone. Get caught with cgi kiddy porn and that's it. Personally I'd rather know about the ex-killer, and I got molested when I was 8. The last pedophile thread was 6 pages of actual discussion, especially the problem that if you have those urges even if you've never acted on them you can't even get help from a doctor because the moment you even hint you have the urge you're branded for life. Then the thread turned into the typical 'bullet to the brain' shitfest. It was especially depressing because the situation in the OP was some teacher who was trying to hookup online but it was a known corrupt as gently caress cop pedo ring that kept trying to bait him. Yeah he was trying to hook up with a 19 year old which is creepy but legal, the cops kept having the "girl" try and get him to agree to include her 14 or 15 year old sister. Every time 'she' brought it up he backed out so she said bring some candy and she'll send her to a friends house. So he shows up with the candy, cops bust him, plaster his picture everywhere and release the chat transcript without the parts of him backing out whenever the underage girl is brought up. If memory serves he still lost his job yet did nothing wrong. Cops did claim they found child porn but I don't think it was proven. I think anyway. Even though it happened to me I actually feel sorry for the ones that don't offend but get hosed anyway. People are wired with all kinds of hosed up fetishes, we laugh at but accept guys who cut their dick in half lengthwise and decorate it like a S&M Christmas tree, furies, diaper fetishes and we live in a society where "barely legal" is a porn category and one of the more common fantasies is the catholic schoolgirl or cheerleader, have shows like toddlers in tiaras with 7 year olds shaking their stuff on stage and even have people who are into total domination (Those hosed up Gor book people....gorians?) and are just shocked that someone might have a fetish for young girls. Not to to get into the stupid ephebophie or whatever it's called argument but post pubescent I can see how, pre is seriously sick but still if they've never acted on it they SHOULD be able to get help from a doctor instead of trying to keep it bottled up with no help from anyone. I don't get the ban on cgi/cartoon porn, if it gives them an outlet then why the hell not. Since I didn't want they guy who molested my boiled in acid Inwas told I was just making it up for attention. I know whenI want attention my go-to is "When I was 8 I got molested by a 20 year old. Really gets the chicks. I remember getting called a sick gently caress when I said one of if not the most common fantasy is 'rape'. When I said it was my wife who first brought it up and is really into it (not violent, she said the turn on is the idea that she turns me on so much I can't stop myself) it was still me who was the perv for dong it. I can choke her, tie her up and whip her but pretend 'rape'? Well that's just sick!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
I'll leave it at that post if people think it's a derail. It's a really touchy subject for me and as much as I may disagree with a lot of people here I do think this is probably the one thread where it could be discussed without the 'lol defending kidfuckers' assholes finding it and turning it into poo poo. I may be a dick but there are some people here that may have more useful insight on the legal side than in the other shitstorms this subject draws. But it still does have the risk of said assholes finding it and doing the typical 'bullet to the brain' shitposting so Ill drop it if people feel it's too off topic. I am curious what the lawyers think of the way the law treats those even just accused though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 07:54
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:These are, for some reason, six separate charges, but he's only facing possible conviction of one of them. Would that be the legal opposite of the cop who fired (over his shoulder?) into a crowd but got off because the only thing they charged him was intentional (whatever) so since it wasn't 'intentionally' aimed at anyone it got thrown out? Kind of a cover all bases thing?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Investigate the officers who were present when the citizen "refused" to sign. Yeah the idea of a woman getting up the courage to go report it then backing out at the last minute? Sure once in awhile but 60%? MariusLecter posted:Police abusing their power and lying in reports should be a punishable by guillotine. I don't remember who but one of the times cops got caught lying on their reports I asked how that's not punishable seeing if a non-cop lies on a statement it's a felony. A police report is a legal document and lying on one is still a felony. I forget if it got handwaved away or buried in that weeks 'cop murders another kid' story.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
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. Half the U.S.? Right to work states (translation: right to fire for no reason) they don't have to even mention the allegations since they don't to give any reason at all. And where the hell do YOU work where anyone but cops and firefighters still have unions? 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. Well seeing as they can fill someone with bullet holes for twitching the wrong way and the fact that the retribution for snitching on your fellow cops can be life threatening the idea that someone may be afraid to have their name associated in a complaint against them maybe they should at least pretend to care enough to look into complaints regardless if someone was willing to sign them just to be sure they don't have a problem cop in their depar...... Sorry that's too ludicrous of expectation Toasticle fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Dec 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
cunny mcalister posted:IIRC the narrative was shifted to "people at other jobs don't get fired for mistakes" with a hint of "cops need to do it to do their job" somehow. Yeah, the follow up question as to how knowingly and purposefully committing a felony is in any way comparable to 'fired for making a mistake' got surprisingly ignored. Or accused of taking away cops constitutional rights, I forget.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
captainblastum posted:Everybody deserves due process and a fair assessment of the facts, that's the real root of all of these threads. The actual problem here is that people abused by the police and other members of the judicial system do not get that due process. A big reason why that is the case is because the police (and the rest of the system) is supposed to investigate itself, and surprise surprise, it doesn't do that honestly. Independent oversight is the fair and moral answer to this particular problem. I think we've hit the point where an independent review findings would just be "dissolve them all and burn the the precincts down then federalize the police" The amount of poo poo that hasn't been properly buried alone would be appalling. Toasticle fucked around with this message at 03:59 on Dec 19, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yes you do, exploiting the fact that poor workers don't know their rights Here are the rights workers have in "right to work" states: -You can quit without having to give notice. To be fair to the poor corporations their rights are: -You can fire someone for no reason at any time, just don't gently caress up and say it was because they were black or gay. -You can also put together a bullshit list like "showed up late three times in 11 years" as long as you documented each time so you can deny them unemployment by saying they were fire for cause so your unemployment insurance rate doesn't go up. My wife worked at target in management and right before they went through a purge to replace old employees with new ones they could pay less they instructed each store to reprimand EVERY employee for anything, even poo poo like "took 31 minute lunch break" and then used that to contest their unemployment claims. Luckily in Florida those aren't sufficient, it has to be egregious things like stealing or telling customers to go gently caress themselves. Being late a few times is not enough. But they also knew at least some people wouldn't fight it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
GulMadred posted:In "right to work" states, you cannot be forced to join a union as a condition of employment, and you cannot be forced to pay union dues or equivalent payments - even if you benefit from collective bargaining. You cannot be automatically fired as a consequence of losing union membership (e.g. for crossing a picket line, or assisting the political campaign of a hated Republican candidate, or eloping with the shop steward's daughter). Godammit I always mix those up.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:get rid of Officer Fuckface and replace him with someone who isn't clearly pissing off the community he's policing. I'm pretty sure recent years have shown that at least larger city PDs stopped even pretending they view the community as anything other than an enemy theyre at war with. Or the white middle+ class need to protected against the undesirables. I remember that Arpaio case a few years back where they rolled out their biggest toys to bust somebodies weapons dealing empire, except for the minor detail that they guy didn't have one. They did shoot their dog in front of the family while laughing about it, burned down the house when one of the 20 tear gas canisters ignited and forgot to put their tank in park so it rolled down the street over someone's car. I don't remember if it was that instance but since they had solid evidence from some druggie informant the warrant was legal so tough poo poo we burned down your house. Which is yet another thing I can't fathom is still legal. Some 'informant' that will tell you anything you want to hear to get out of his latest possession charge should be evidence to start an investigation, not enough for a no-knock burn down your house and flash bang your baby while we kill your leashed dog for growling raid. "Some guy we pay for information that we won't reveal the identity of because he's a confidential informant" should be the start of an investigation, nothing more.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
fosborb posted:In my experience it's far more often things like "sorry, we can't hire you because of your due date" which is just as egregious but somehow one of the lesser known protected classes. Yet another of the Non-existent workers rights. Pretty much every other first world nation you get as much as 3 months of maternity leave, a few even have paternity leave but U.S. Companies would crumble if they grudgingly give more than two weeks, and even then it's not required, most companies I've worked for the women had to use up that years vacation time. My soon to be ex current boss expected a women who had a c-section to be back in a week. Which is yet another U.S. Bunch of poo poo. Most companies you get two weeks vacation and 5-10 personal/sick days but throw a goddamn fit if you use more than 2 sick days in a row or try and take a two week vacation. I got a middle range severity concussion a few months ago and since most of the swelling was my occipital lobe I wasn't supposed to even read or watch tv for the first week-ten days. It took 3 before it was "Work remotely from your laptop or get fired".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
fosborb posted:Pregnancy is protected as part of sex, and there are very nice people with the feds who can make your HR dept hell if they cross that line (especially if they are stupid enough to document it) I would have lost my insurance and unemployment in Florida is $275/week so wouldn't come close to covering COBRA so yeah it wasn't really an option. I just lied about what I did for two hours taking all day, I'm just riding this out for my Christmas bonus (The guy is a complete dick but the bonus is 7 grand) to use to pay for moving back to New England.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
botany posted:This is egregiously disingenuous, in the last page two people have explicitly stated that cops should be investigated for unsubstantiated complaints if there's enough of them, and about three others have chipped in to support them by arguing that's how everyone else's job works. Well DARPA said "I think police should be summarily executed based on nothing more than anonymous post it notes found taped on USPS mailboxes/the homeless" and just like Rice with the cops only having two seconds to react, if you remove all statements before and after and scrub all context then the only conclusion possible is DARPA think cops shout be fired based on a single anonymous complaint. Because that's the only possible way his flailing makes any sense.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 19:04 |
|
|
Maybe actually asking what people mean and accepting their answer instead quote mining "See you said THIS three pages ago" would save the thread it's bi monthly derail. Just a thought. And the one time I went to file a complaint the sergeant wouldn't give me the form until I understood he wouldn't want to be me next time I got pulled over for complaining about one of his upstanding officers. At least the rear end in a top hat cop came back when he was off duty to apologize for being a dick.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2015 05:19
|
|