|
botany posted:You do this literally every time cops in a civilized country behave in a professional way, you just start shouting "they're doing it wrong". Never mind the statistics, never mind the positive outcomes, if they ain't killing they're doing it wrong. I'm not sure if this is funny or sad. 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.
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 12:12 |
|
|
Kent Scheidegger is a literal '80s movie villain. He is so comically evil I'm surprised he is even real and not being shoved into his Nazi plane's jet engine by Harrison Ford or Arnold Swartzenager. The fact that he has more clout that your average person is depressing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
To me the Rice case is so egregious it's really bar for how much the police can gently caress up during a murder (I don't care if this is technically the correct legal terminology for this situation, it's what it actually is) and still have DA support. Killed a twelve year old child Shot without any warning whatsoever after jumping out of a car The kid didn't even have time to act "aggressively" Victim was holding a toy Victim was not threatening anyone Victim was in an open carry state so even if the gun was real simply holding one should not have resulted in immediate police violence Lied about the entire encounter Threatened the sister of the victim and treated her terribly while her brother was dying in front of her This is pretty much one step away from a cop deciding to kill a person, jumping out of the bushes when he's walking to work so that he acts surprised or jumps "aggressively", and then filling him with bullets and that one second before his death determines the "good shoot" level of the incident. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2015 13:23
|
|
|
SedanChair posted: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? This is a little reminiscent of the issue with the Burger King manager saying that the police erased the footage of that murder when the tapes had mysteriously specific parts deleted and no one in the PD cared to look into it. There's no investigation because there's no evidence they did anything and there's no evidence because there was no investigation. We can't know which officers it was because there's just no way to know without doing an investigation that we simply can't do because we don't know who was there. It's a pretty great way to make sure you have an excuse why your hands are always tied and can't do anything. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 15:07 on Dec 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
Honestly "employee investigated thoroughly after receiving a certain amounts of complaints and then punished if that investigation is corroborated" is probably a step UP for most employees in the U.S so acting like if police having to deal with that is a huge labor issue is pretty ridiculous. That's not even considering the way they are able to punish people that lodge complaints against them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2015 12:59
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:http://gothamist.com/2015/12/22/cop_watch_season_2_the_reckoning.php Stuff like this is why the argument that we need iron clad evidence before we can even think about investigating officers is absurd. The system is certainly fine with proceeding against a man based on the (false) testimony of an officer but if a bunch of cops are accused of destroying evidence by a manager of a burger king and that evidence is indeed missing and they have a perfect motive for erasing it and were the ones "examining" it, well I'm sorry our hands are tied and we can't do anything. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 14:01 on Dec 23, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 13:54
|
|
|
That or a totally separate department should be investigating and prosecuting officers so that the "oops we waited too long tee hee", grand jury being used as a way to tank a case the prosecutor is too cowardly to just ignore, or bogus charges being brought up so that the judge has to throw out the case tricks aren't something that is encouraged.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
I'm certainly glad the adversarial system where you have a prosecutor and a defense attorney both trying their best for their respective sides and not being subverted by one party acting in hilariously bad faith is once again working as intended here.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
Seriously stop the "crab mentality" stuff. It doesn't work when one of the crabs is killing the other crabs then jumping out of the bucket when the crabs want him held accountable. Especially when police are not friends of unions or other labor and civil rights movements.
Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Dec 23, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:If someone says, "private sector workers don't have labor protection so I don't think that public sector workers should either," I'm going to call a fig a fig. Sorry if it's inconvenient that your argument is terrible when applied generally, but if you think public sector employees shouldn't have basic labor protections, then argue that, rather than trying to argue that everyone should be dragged down to the level of the lowest. Saying "you want to hurt the public sector unions" is an obvious attempt to shift the argument that people are making where police use their power within the system to subvert justice. Trying to tie union labor to the argument that police should be subject to the same justice that regular people are and that they shouldn't be able to get away with literal murder because they have friends that will protect them is like saying that raising taxes on the rich is "crab mentality" since we are all Americans and why do you hate the success of the crabs that have left the bucket (and then use their ability to oppress the remaining crabs)? For some reason we have to be very concerned that police might have to face ramification for their actions which is terrible but when anyone else is killed or abused by the police it's "well that's the law" or "that person shouldn't have done.." There's absolutely no interest in terms of raising people up, only fear that police might be brought down so acting like invoking the "crab mentality" is anything other than trying to allow police to maintain their advantages in terms of abusing the justice system is absurd. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Dec 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
The entire premise is ridiculous. If a drug operation is so paltry that the suspects can flush it in the time it takes for the police to knock on the door and show their warrant it's not worth potentially killing the people inside or worse killing totally innocent people when you get the wrong loving house. The fact that politicians just ignore this issue is shameful.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
codenameFANGIO posted:Sounds like all the posters here are jealous of the fun police get to have. Yeah this sounds like some crab fun bucket stuff to me.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
It's not that amazing once you remember that a good deal of Americans will support cops murdering unarmed civilians as long as there's some lip service explaining why the victim deserved in and maybe some out of context facebook pics. Even when it happens to white mayors it's "well it's a simple mistake what do you want them to do, NOT bust into the wrong house if it means some low level dealers don't get nabbed???" There's no way to combat it via the system since the majority of voters are good with it so you can't vote out elected positions, currupt police are protected at every step of the justice system, and any sort of protest is "inconvenient" or gets brutalized with the support of the media and most established politicians.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
And beyond that allies in the criminal justice system that will manipulate it to exonerate them if it even gets that far.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 14:10
|
|
|
Cops are kinda like Vampires but instead of just not being visible on photographs or video, the sections where they would be there just mysteriously disappear entirely.
Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 15:33 on Dec 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
Welp, don't know what to say about that.BloodFeastIslandMan posted:He's playing defense attorney, like the DAs always seem to. But police get no special privilege!! Seriously stuff like this is why the "oh dear we need to be careful of worker's rights  " poo poo is stupid and offensive. There are actual people being victimized and killed by the police for no good reason and corrupt prosecutors go out of their way to make sure there is no punishment but we have to worry that if police are investigated after receiving large amounts of complaints from the community there are supposed to be serving we are returning to The Jungle.
Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Dec 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Well "he looked older" -totally not racist reasoning given by a lawyer in employment by a government for why a 12 year old is dangerous to an adult cop.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Like even IF this was a 25 year old man walking down the street with a real, loaded gun, how can you possibly argue that rolling up and executing him is legal??? It's actually saying that cops can murder literally anyone as long as they say "I felt threatened" regardless of what actually happened like in that season 1 Southpark episode.A Fancy Bloke posted:Grand Jury is the new method they'll use to get away with misconduct and murder. It lets the defense run the entire narrative in a format where they usually get little to no input, and if they somehow miraculously lose and get charges filed, they get another chance to defend with stories of their brave heroism to a real jury. Um the justice system says that these murders by cops are fine and as we all know from reading these threads, reality is based on what the legal system decides ergo the fact that these people were killed fairly is indisputable and cops have exactly the same legal process of everyone else. 
Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Dec 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
I wish they'd just own it instead of insulting our intelligence with this "he was big and scary" poo poo every time.Zas posted:if he looked older that just means he was executed for practicing his 2nd amendment rights, the nra will be all over this one Yeah if he was "older" then why was he killed for holding a gun in an open carry state? I wonder why the prosecutor who was certainly acting in good faith did not ask this question. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Dec 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
It's sad the "check" on this sort of thing is the voting populace who the majority of aren't subject to random police executions.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Tamir's alleged hugeness is a stupid red herring. (btw this is him in his Hulked out glory) THIS PERSON IS BIG seems like a really dangerous precedent for summary extrajudicial executions but I'm not a prosecutor so what do I know?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
I gained some weight a few years ago and was 5'7" and 175 pounds before I lost the weight and absolutely no one would think that I looked threatening in the least (hey I'm white). That's really not that big especially depending on where the weight is and it's totally reasonable to point out this kid is 12 and the people arguing that his size was the reason he was shot are full of poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
"Um sorry but your child's puffy coat put about 20 pounds on him visually which put him out of the percentile of "cute kid" and into "scary adult" so we had to kill him." The kid looks like a kid and if the officers couldn't tell then because his silhouette was large or whatever the gently caress they thought maybe they should have looked a little harder before killing him so casually. It's a garbage argument, it's irrelevant, and I feel like I'm being tricked even discussing it at all and giving it legitimacy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
Pathos posted:I didn't even connect the dots that Georgia is an open carry state. That additional fact makes this entire thing even more disgusting. I really wonder how many extrajudicial killings this country needs before something actually changes. I'm guessing the answer is "depressingly high". The people electing these guys apparently support it so... Lyesh posted:He looks like maybe 15 at the oldest. What the cop thought at the time is unfalsifiable, but by that standard we'd never convict anyone of any crime. If the standard for cops was used for every other citizen we'd have no need for jails. I'm told these are the same for everyone but somehow people end up in prison regardless.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
I'm starting to feel "is saying that a 5'7" twelve year old is big enough to be shot as an adult a fair complaint?" is this thread's "lets argue flashing your brights is against the law so it's your own fault when the police pull you out of your car and shoot you for five pages."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:The lying on a police report has been asked (mostly by me) dozens of times and always gets ignored. Doing so is perjury which is a felony and I've had a cop threaten me 5 times that if I'm lying on this report I'll be prosecuted and jailed for it yet cops do it over and over, while I'm sure it's happened cops getting even a stern talking to much less being held to the same legal standard as a citizen lying on even that same police report is a pipe dream. I THINK the argument regarding this was that since police are required to give a report, if you punish them for lying when it would incriminate themselves you are infringing on their 5th Amendment rights since they are put in the position of saying they did a crime or making a false report. I don't want to argue against what might not be the real argument too much but in that case I think the better fix would be to allow cops to refuse to give a statements in such cases (basically "no comment") rather than allow them to lie about a crime and face no penalties. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 13:54 on Dec 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 13:52
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:
Yeah like I said I may be misconstruing the argument. It doesn't make sense to me that you can tie falsifying a police report into a constitutional right at all so maybe I'm missing something poignant.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 14:14
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Note that some rando civilian caller made the correct threat assessment that somehow escaped the two people whose job it is to assess threats. Yeah the argument that the twelve year old child is supposed to know what will get him shot by police who as theoretically trained adults are not required to do even the minimal effort to understand a situation before they start killing is so over the top it's offensive. It's especially stupid when you factor in all the cases where white people are using actual real guns in threatening ways and somehow don't end up dead but for some reason in this case Tamir's death was inevitable and his own fault. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Dec 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted: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! Saying "the victim should have done [not what they did]" is disingenuous as hell since there's no standard for what to do when police surprise someone with a gun pointed at him or her. You can find examples where raising hands, doing nothing, moving hands towards the waist area, going into shock after being taser, doing exactly what you are told, etc results in getting killed. It's just a way to make sure there is always, always a reason that the person killed is responsible and the person that actually has agency over and started the encounter is absolved of all culpability. I can't think of any case where this sort of argument can't be used. Toasticle posted:Secondly if a COP is caught committing perjury he/she should absolutely be held to a higher standard. They are enforcing the law, breaking the law should carry a higher penalty. Steal some oxy and you get thrown in jail. Write yourself scripts or help yourself to them as a pharmacist and your no longer a doctor/pharmacist. Holding people to a higher standard in jobs they have the ability to abuse is not diminishing any workers rights. You are given the authority to do things above and beyond a normal person, violating that should carry a stiffer penalty. Yeah the fact that police testimony both holds more weight than an average persons and is treated as true until proven otherwise but then when it turns out the testimony is a blatant lie it's just "haha oh well!" is really wrong. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Dec 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
lfield posted:Loehmann's statement can he found here. It's always "funny" when people defend these cases after this information is made public. Like the police involved know that what they did was hosed which is why they lied but then we have people that have to explain why a kid being killed after being given no warning is the real irresponsible one here.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
nozh posted:
I think this is the same sort of thing that led to John Crawford's killing when no shots had been fired but the police didn't bother to confirm that before neutralizing the "threat." See this officer shooting his wife isn't an active shooter since he wasn't constantly shooting his gun in between the two times he shot his wife but this child pointing a toy in a park or a guy holding a toy in a store are because they should have known better.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
The problem with prosecutor misconduct is that the check on them is supposed to be voting them out of office but that doesn't really work when they are supported by the majority that wants this misconduct. This was just posted in the cartoon thread but even from the eighteen hundreds it's perfectly applicable to today.  Just imagine prosecutor McGinty or any of these killer cops as the hillbilly. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Dec 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
McGinty being disbarred would probably be a net positive to society so I'd be fine with it regardless of if it's the correct procedure or not.Mr. Wookums posted:They blamed the sister's reaction to her brother being shot as to why the officers did not provide medical aid. Much like if he didn't want to be shot he wouldn't have had a toy gun in a public park, his sister should have known that grieving over her dying brother is reckless and forced the cops to neglect a child bleeding out on the ground.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Mr. Wookums posted:He's well enough connected that it won't happen. Oh course. I have no misconceptions that the justice system is able to police itself whatsoever but theoretically it would be a good thing if he wasn't able to practice law. VVV heh nice Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Dec 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
The idea that a prosecutor is going to waste time in a grand jury getting experts that contradict his supposed case for anyone other than a cop is pretty absurd. I mean maybe they do that but it seems like if he was going to he wouldn't bother with the grand jury in the first place and just not attempt the prosecute the person. The point of tanking a grand jury intentionally (and that's exactly what happened here) is to create the illusion that the cop has been processed by the system fairly like everyone else when in actuality he is getting the special perk of having the prosecutor letting him off scot free. They've overused this trick so publicly though that people are catching on to the scam and understand what's really going on and they are losng their plausible deniability. Edit: sure is weird all these prosecutors are so up beat about their high profile they supposedly want to go to court getting stuffed in an environment where they have almost total control over evidence and testimony. I guess they are just happy to be bad at their jobs in very specific situations. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Dec 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:The issue here isn't that McGinty didn't think he had a good shot of conviction, it's that he transparently didn't want a good shot of conviction. Yes. It's impossible to look at his statements about the police in this instance and his personal insults towards the family of the slain child and think that he handled that grand jury in an objective and impartial manner. The idea that we need to assume prosecutors and police are always acting in good faith unless overwhelming evidence says otherwise (and even then it's debatable and we probably should still air on giving them the benefit of the doubt) is one of the reasons they keep getting away with these ridiculous crimes that any regular person would be in jail for.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Another thing is that grand juries don't even have to be unanimous so if you have one made up of five people you only need to convince three. So saying that the system didn't indict someone is really saying that a majority of a tiny subset of people with no oversight thought there was or was not evidence to go further. The intent is to make it sound a lot more conclusive than it really is. It's easier for people to claim that the system handled it fairly when it's technically a jury that exonerated the cop than when one prosecutor decided that kid was totally reaching for his toy gun.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
People really don't want to admit that the justice system MAYBE isn't as impartial as they have been led to believe since that directly contradicts the Just World/you get what you deserve mentality the country is built on. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 12:12 |
|
|
Yeah also if rules are being followed and undesirable results are occurring like people (including children) being executed in the street and in stores despite doing nothing illegal then maybe those rules are bad. I'm not going to get into teh debate that some apparently find that a beneficial outcome (not accusing anyone in this thread of that btw, but there are definitely people that do) but the attitude that following the letter of the law is more important than actively trying to prevent these sorts of atrocities because the alternative is chaos is similar to any kind of effort to hamstring opposition to oppression throughout history.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 17:16
|
|