|
Grundulum posted:In the interest of bright lines, I would posit that the video evidence of the interaction would be the gold standard against which the reports were compared. If no video evidence exists then a separate punitive action would be taken (I saw an article in the USPol thread about a police officer who ran back to his car to turn off the dashcam before roughing up the driver of a pulled-over car; that should be hella against department policy and punished as such). What you said is pretty much how it is legally, it's just really hard to prove that someone is lying rather then mistaken so in effect it's really hard to actually punish people. The flip side of this is people legit make outlandishly bad mistakes when it comes to memory under stress, so it's not something as easy as just making the laws more strict.
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 01:09 |
|
|
Nathilus posted:I have a hard time arguing with the status quo on this point given that human memory is basically utter garbage when you come down to it, and the principle that it is better to allow the guilty go free than to punish the innocent. I think we're in agreement on this. Absurd Alhazred posted:In New York State, if I refuse a breathalyzer test (invoking the 5th Amendment), my driver's license will immediately be suspended pending an investigation of the matter. Can't we at least expect police officers to be automatically suspended if they refuse to file a report under 5th Amendment grounds? Being a police officer is a privilege, not a right. I've never really thought of Garrity through the lens of no refusal laws, I'm not sure if that makes me more inclined to think maybe Garrity is wrong or no refusal laws are. Some off the cuff research shows there has been some movement in the courts against no refusal, looks like the SC threw out a no refusal law for blood tests and the Texas appeals court threw out no refusal for breathalyzers last year, I honestly thought that was settled law.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 08:15
|
|
|
rockopete posted:They aren't cops, though, so the DA has no institutional incentive to throw the case. I'd like to think that given the evidence, it wouldn't make a difference, but after the Eric Garner case, I have to wonder. Yeah I'm not sure where all this expectation these guys would be given a pass is coming from, they're not cops. Has there been a basis for expecting anyone with pro-cop leanings is going to be given a free pass to shoot people without prosecution? rockopete posted:I'm a bit surprised that didn't blow up more, given the evidence and facts of the case. Ferguson and Baltimore may have been better primed to explode, but the Garner decision was such an explicit, official devaluation of a life that it hit me harder. I don't know I'm exactly the opposite, I think it might be because I've choked, and been choked out, way way more violently then it that video during sparring so many times I can't even begin to try to offer a number. As a result my reaction to the video was much more "holy poo poo you can die from that!?" and after finding out there was a policy against it for that reason its always felt like a cop doing something stupid and dangerous that resulted in a freak accident then the "that cop just choked that guy to death on camera" reaction that most people have had.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
captainblastum posted:I find it hard to believe that you were actually surprised that choking somebody can be fatal.  I meant the manner in which the choke hold was executed and the level of force it was executed with, not that you can't choke someone to death, I have the sneaking suspicion you understood this but are deliberately misunderstanding me.That poo poo doesn't usually kill people Also if I remember correctly he wasn't choked to death, he died of inflammation caused by internal injury from the choke hold, which is specifically the risk I wasn't very aware of until this incident. rockopete posted:I can understand that in isolation, but for me it was that plus the chain of events that followed. The thing is breaking department policy is not the same thing as breaking the law. I understand that people's reaction to this is that if it breaks policy how can it be a legal/official/legitimate application of force so it must be a crime, but it doesn't work that way. What constitutes criminal behavior or legally allowable force is the law, which includes statute and case law. Departments can set policies that are more restrictive then what an officer is legally allowed to do, but unless we write into the appropriate statutes that violating department policy voids a justification defense the only means they have to enforce those more restrictive rules are professional consequences. Personally I don't think giving police chiefs the ability to unilaterally and arbitrarily define de facto criminal codes is a good thing, I think it would cause way more problems then it would solve, even if it would have allowed the DA to nail the cop that choked Garner. I understand the argument for negligent homicide but I just really don't think its a winner, if that chokehold had been uniformly banned then you'd have a strong case but since in other departments it would have been allowable under their policies I just don't think that case has a chance. Civil negligence is a different issue however, though you'd have to go after the department because there's no way that conduct pierces qualified immunity. Now that last bit would be a law I'm not sure is good(tm), I can understand both sides of the argument for QI but I'm very on the fence about it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If I choke someone and they accidentally die it's probably manslaughter at least. I spent almost my entire post addressing this argument in depth, it was literally the point of the post. If you're going to just say "nuh uh" without addressing any of the points I raised at least spare us the sardonic "and now you're going to say..." because I'm not, but only because I've already said that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted: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. 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: Its not part of his job according to the policy of the NYPD, for violating internal policies the department has the option to punish him through professional means. In order to punish someone criminally the conduct has to be not part of the job of a police officer according to the criminal codes of the state of New York. If you want to revise that criminal codes to say "see: whatever department policy is" then yes you are giving police chiefs the ability to write de facto criminal code with no oversight.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
I'll try to respond to people more in depth later when I'm not on my phone, but I wanted to make one quick note. I think we're having a major disconnect on what level of force was applied to Garner. First off he wasn't "choked to death" which implies the cop kept him in a hold until he was dead and would be legit lethal force. This level of force is much more in line with something like throwing a suspect to the ground and accidentally putting his head into the curb in the process. It's a non-lethal level of force that resulted in accidental death, in many departments it is a completely authorized method to effect a non compliant arrest. Any application of force always carries a risk of lethality, that doesn't retroactively mean "lethal force was applied".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Taeke posted:Isn't a large part of the outrage also because the officers themselves often don't seem to give a poo poo and fail to provide basic medical care or call in for medical assistance when it's obviously warranted? I can understand the former because they're not medically trained but the latter is inexcusable. This is perfectly fair, right now this would be a professional consequence not legal. Is creating a legal duty to provide adequate care a road people are interested in going down? I know when I lived in Italy it was a criminal offense to pass a auto wreck without stopping to render aid so that's kind of the line of thought I'm thinking of. I honestly haven't given this idea much thought so I don't have an opinion.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
The Mattybee posted:If this is what you were trying to say, then maybe you spent too much time getting choked in the military. Because this is not what people are up in arms about. This is exactly why people get up your rear end and exactly what you were criticized of before, that you will focus on diversionary poo poo that distracts from the main issue. The point is not "he was violating departmental policy", but "his loving chokehold (which also happened to be against department policy) killed a dude completely unnecessarily. The policy thing is not the important thing, which is why you're focusing on it. Again. As in: No, he didn't deserved to be killed, if all you want out of this thread is a chorus of "man that sucks and shouldn't have happened" then its going to be a pretty boring thread. I'm trying to discuss what level and what form of culpability the officer should face and what steps if any can be taken to reduce the likelihood of future occurrences, which is a far more nuanced question. Discendo Vox posted:IANAL. This is referred to as "duty to rescue" or "duty to assist", and it is very uncommon except in cases where the harm or risk to the other was caused by the person in the first place. I'll be honest, I don't know very much at all about the specifics about that law and I don't have the time to research it right now, my knowledge comes entirely from being briefed multiple times that if we witnessed a wreck we had a duty to stop and if we didn't we could face no poo poo criminal charges. Dead Reckoning posted:I'd disagree on that point. The officer might have a QI defense if the officer's level of force was reasonable for the circumstances, even if the method was outside the scope of department policy, but it wasn't. I don't think Pantaleo ever tried to raise a QI defense at trial. By "not piercing QI" I meant "QI definitely would apply and can not be pierced" not "QI would not come into play", sorry if that wasn't clear. There's a difference between "as a policy we've decided this type of force is too dangerous" and straight up deadly force, especially when there's controversy between departments whether it is in fact too dangerous. I very intentionally said in my hypothetical that the bashing of the head into the curb was accidental, because I was trying to illustrate how even widely accepted forms of non-lethal force always carry a danger of serious injury or death, the lethality of force is a continuum, not a binary attribute. Trabisnikof posted:So are there any lethal actions police could have taken to kill Garner that you'd argue are illegal? Yes, I'm not sure where you're getting this, I never said lethal force was okay at all, a chokehold is not typically lethal force and is allowed in many departments as a non-lethal compliance method. Trabisnikof posted:Except, none of the officers involved have made the claim that they needed to kill him in self-defense right? This is an arrest takedown gone bad, not a self-defense slaying, correct? I think you're missing that part he's trying to highlight, which is this: quote:may use physical force when and
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:If it was presented like that then it sounds like there actually is an honest-to-goodness general duty to rescue regime. Weird. That's pretty unheard of. I should be doing work right now but I couldn't resist a quick google search, Wikipedia at least provides the following under the article "duty to rescue" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue posted:Criminal law
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
That clip looks bad mostly because of the absolutely ridiculous amount of cops that are surrounding the guy, but the truth is its irrelevant because excess manpower doesn't really make grappling a guy with a knife less dangerous. Dude just stabbed someone and is continuing to move toward a cop after taking multiple non-lethal rounds and still not going down, no one is getting charged in that situation.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
bango skank posted:So, aside from the obvious, what difference is there between this situation and the one in this video posted previously in-thread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX5CPx4RKWw 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.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:He wasn't even moving "toward the cop" at first. He was moving alongside the wall, toward a gap in their circle. An officer stepped directly in front of him as he walked, which is the only reason he was moving "toward a cop" in the first place. It's like when a cop stands in front of a car and then shoots the driver because "He was going right toward me!" Yes, this isn't a sport, when a cop steps in front of your car the acceptable course of action is to stop, you don't get a free shot at running him over because he's stopping your escape.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
bango skank posted:Uh... well I guess I don't know what to say to that other than I completely disagree and think that it's exactly how a civilized police force should handle that type of situation? The only moment any of the police were in any real danger was when they all rushed him, as evidenced by reality and what happened on the video, and what risk there was could be almost completely mitigated by specifically staging drills for that takedown. 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 Trabisnikof posted:why are you talking about a car, when we're talking about someone on foot? Moving towards the office as seen on the video, is not the same as attempting to run them over with a car. You're acting like we don't have video evidence here.... Are you serious? Because the post I loving quoted was talking about the car scenario. Grundulum posted:Jarmak appears to be relaying what department policy and the current state of jurisprudence is. And I am actually in agreement with him, that initially it was a good shoot; knife-wielding man suspected of a stabbing is not listening to orders to drop the weapon so that officers can move in safely and make an arrest. Less-lethal weapons had already been tried, to no effect. We need to get get police better trained at using their firearms when they do shoot, the "everyone dumps their mag" thing is excessive and has all sorts of bad results, not the least of which cops shooting bystanders. chitoryu12 posted:Compare for population size? The first five shootings I pulled up included 2 incidents of the cops getting shot at, 2 of them shooting someone who brandished a gun, and a murder-suicide that had absolutely nothing to do with the cops duties. The US also has 17.65 times the firearm homicide rate of Germany. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 03:03 on Dec 5, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:hey who wants to see a video of some guy getting murdered by the police this morning in Miami? Now this, not a good shoot. Did the women fire first? I can hear a single pop that sounds like a handgun going off right before the rifle fire.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
SedanChair posted: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? He's got his hand on the cruiser and he's standing flat footed when he becomes obscured, his hand remains visible and doesn't move in way that suggests he changes his position between him becoming obscured and becoming shot. Its not conclusive, so I suppose there's a slight chance that the body cam footage could come out and prove that this was just a really bad camera angle, but I doubt it. 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. Yeah that's a good point when I watched it again with headphones its really obviously not a 9mm unless there's something very odd going on with the audio. Honestly the only "good" thing I saw was the fact he fired a controlled pair and then reassessed the situation instead of mag dumping like every other cop shooting video. We can argue the minutiae about whether it should be a single or a pair of shots before reassessment but controlled pair is an extremely common standard because of the likelihood of a single round not stopping a threat and I feel in the grand scheme of things it would be stupid to derail the thread arguing of such a granular detail of the least objectionable part of that video.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Every time I've seen controlled pairs of shots being fired, it was a very fast one-two to guarantee that the guy drops. With this he's already got the guy falling and his body's practically hitting the ground when the second shot is fired. It feels a lot more deliberate. It's possible, I was assuming he was just sucking at doing controlled pairs and it took him a long time to get his second shot out. If he actually reassessed then decided to put another sounds in then yeah gently caress him.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
My biggest problem with leg shots is they don't replaced shooting to kill, they replace using less lethal. You're going to see more police shootings, not less, if you introduce them into American policing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
botany posted:Leg shots are part of the official policy of many police departments around the world, and are regularly with success. That's literally an empirical truth. Your or my experience on the range has zero impact on this fact. It's completely besides the point. People who are "successfully" shot in the leg should never have been shot to begin with. Except maybe people threatening suicide, I've seen a few videos of marksman wounding people with guns to their own heads, because in that case they are an imminent danger that leaves no time for less lethal... its just to themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Samog posted:i do think that shooting to wound has its place, but i have no idea how you can look at the way, say, tasers are used in this country and think that it would be a good idea to say "oh hey, you can shoot someone with your gun now and call it nonlethal force" Yeah, this is exactly what I'm getting at.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
botany posted:Oh no, warning shots are part of the official escalation of force rules too I have no problem with saying the German police policy is stupid, if you want to suddenly hold up appeals to authority as the be all end all then that changes the character of this thread significantly. I generally think that escalation of force procedures that have proven to be too dangerous to civilians to use in a warzone probably shouldn't be used by the police. Also I'm not sure what you think has been proven effective and by what data.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 19:05
|
|
you should probably also contact
|
Radbot posted:No, it doesn't. You'd only use this technique if you were otherwise going to shoot to kill. Look, you don't shoot to disable unless you still have time to shoot to kill if that fails to work. If you don't have to shoot to kill right now then you shouldn't be shooting at all. Do we see a lot of cases of American cops shooting at the very fuzzy border of "they can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt I didn't have to shoot so I'm going to shoot"? Yes, absolutely, and we need to reform things so they're not shooting at all, not codify that behavior as good practice as long as they shoot to wound. Also your statement about JHPs that hit a target center mass being as dangerous to bystanders as stray missed shots is so ludicrously wrong that it's hard to take anything you say about firearms tactics seriously. They pretty much require a defective round and a ton of luck to pass through the target and even if they do they won't retain enough energy to do much damage to anything. Edit: also I'm just as guilty as anyone but aren't shoot to wound derails a banned topic in this thread? Maybe we should all just agree to disagree and move on without waiting for mom and dad to come yell at us. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
While I think European police are generally better then their american counterparts I don't think we're comparing apples to apples here. That Danish data makes it sound like no officers faced a single firearm at all that year (I'm going out on a limb here and assuming that since that Danish report includes all incidents when a weapon was pulled a Danish cop would have pulled their weapon if they were shot at). Meanwhile in the US using the latest available FBI LEOKA data we have have states like Alaska with less then 1/5 the population of Denmark at 26 assaults on an officer with a firearm (so say 130 adjusted), Colorado with a slightly higher population at 98, Arizona with about 7/5ths of the population at 217. The US also has 16x the firearm homicide rate of Denmark. US policing is not as dangerous as its made out to be, but its a lot more dangerous then policing in Europe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u..._group_2013.xls
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:“This shooting is not justified, but also not criminal." You'd be wrong, accidental shootings are not a criminal offense
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Accidental shootings absolutely can fall under criminal negligence statutes. You are correct in that it is not always criminal. It depends on the state but not typically, searching through news articles I can only find 3 instances in the last year and one of those was a plea deal. That's in a country with over 500 accidental firearm deaths a year.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
twodot posted:Saying that "Even "accidentally" killing someone isn't a crime there" isn't a crime because it is only sometimes criminal is no different from saying "Even deliberately killing someone isn't a crime there" because it is only sometimes criminal. You are bad at words. Are you seriously starting a derail over his grammar?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Toasticle posted: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. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:So I'm just going to point out two problems with this view: That's valid criticism, but you can't charge an individual with a criminal negligence for following what is a standard practice. Trabisnikof posted:Why wouldn't this fall under qualified immunity? The shooter was clearly acting in an official role at the time. I'm pretty sure it would
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Toasticle posted: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? 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.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:So exactly what is the justification for a negligent discharge like that not being criminal? It's not exactly "My gun just went off while cleaning it!" He willingly drew and aimed his gun at someone, and he pulled the trigger by accident and shot him in the neck. The only reason a man died that night is because he knowingly engaged in actions that put someone's life at risk. I'm not saying the guy needs a first degree murder charge and 10 years in jail. I just can't imagine how this kind of action doesn't even apply for manslaughter. Cops do this frequently as part of their job, Its fair to say they shouldn't do this and want it changed, but you can't charge someone with criminal negligence for doing something that's a common practice. Talmonis posted:To be honest, "Other cops do it all the time" should not be a valid defense. I can't fathom why you think "other cops do this all the time" wouldn't be a defense to "you knew that no reasonable cop would ever think this would be lawful". Tiler Kiwi posted:I really don't like how QI means there seems to be no real mechanism to get cops to stop being stupid with their guns. It even seems to encourage it. If you look too competent with your hasty shootings, there goes your best defense. I'm not following your logic here
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:Rice was way the gently caress more than he 'wasn't going to shoot' You don't charge an individual with a criminal offense based on the results of the collective failings of an institution AreWeDrunkYet posted:How in the world is this acceptable behavior? Bringing a gun into a situation only increases the odds someone is going to die, there's no good reasons for police firearms not to be locked away until a situation requiring deadly force presents itself, and not to have a pile of paperwork every time that lock is touched. I'm not sure that it is, I wasn't arguing that, but it is common practice because: A Fancy Bloke posted:police have themselves and many others convinced that at literally any time, any suspect can flip out and murder them. And the crimes we're talking about (or lawsuit in the case of QI) are "did he do something he knew or should of known he shouldn't have?" not "was it an objectively bad decision?", hell in the case of QI its "did he do something that no reasonable cop could ever think was legal?". And both of those questions are a pretty hard sell when you're talking about standard, commonplace action. The real question we should be asking is "should we make reforms to when police are allowed to draw their firearms?", also "was that really accidental?". I'm more surprised people are jumping all over this negligence angle which seems to be a no-brainer correct call rather then the fact that cop was disturbingly composed as he pops the guy. The only reason I'm not inclined to come out and say I suspect something is I can't figure out for the life of me what motivation he'd have shoot the guy. Zwabu posted:Is there a final disposition in the Tamir Rice case yet? Or is the investigation still "ongoing"? Its currently in front of a Grand Jury edit: Toasticle posted: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. Literally the last page someone posted an article about a civilian shooting someone in the head trying to twirl their gun like a cowboy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Maybe people shouldn't use intentionally inaccurate language to score rhetorical points if they don't want to be called out on using inaccurate language to score rhetorical points? You're not using the word scrapbook because its a common colloquial phrase to refer to a collection of photos, (first off because it isn't) you're using it as a rhetorical flourish to juxtapose the images generally associated with scrap-booking with the police sitting around doing this while this women was getting shot. That's not meaningful content and its not accurate, and it adds nothing to the conversation other then white noise so you can make your sick burns sicker. And so instead of discussing what was the truly most disgusting part of that incident, the long history of domestic abuse coverups in that department, we spent pages debating exactly how long it takes to load photos into a cell phone, and struggling with the concept that 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. I mean why focus on the systemic corruption when the important part is making sure we secure this rhetorical cudgel we can use to laugh at how hypocritical "the police" are when a completely different cop, in a completely different department, in a completely different part of the country, in a completely different situation, acts differently. Likewise with "active shooter" bullshit, a poster didn't just use that colloquially, they very intentionally used the term of art and tried to argue that specific written SOPs were violated based off that technical definition of the phrase. Pointing out that the definition they were using was wrong and the SOP they were attempting to use as evidence of misdeed did not apply is directly substantive to the argument. Instead of just conceding the error we had posters try to argue that this is just pedantry and the main point still stands, which is loving insane, the entire point that was being made hinged on meeting the technical definition of the phrase so that the SOP applied. These are just a couple of examples, another big one is everyone insists on using the word "murder" for every killing. Its not a legal technicality to say the word murder involves illegality or at least malice, its what the word means in common usage. People keep wanting to try to hide behind calling it legal pedantry but it has absolutely nothing to do with that. The vast majority of the time the issue of controversy in this thread is whether a particularly killing is murder. Calling it murder as a point of order is nothing other then using loaded language that by definition presupposes one side of the argument is the correct one in order to score rhetorical points. So instead of "The police killed someone, I think this constitutes murder, how can you think this is a justified killing" we get "The police murdered this guy, how can you support the police murdering people". Its just a variation on the old "when did you stop beating your wife" crap, or perhaps more accurately "how can you support the murder of babies"(in regards to abortion). The answer of course is "I don't support the police murdering people, I reject your premise and do not think that was murder", but we've gotten to the point where people have gotten probated for pedantry for rejecting loaded language. Which brings me back to my original point, if you're using a bunch of loaded, inaccurate terms to score points, calling that out is not pedantry and its not a derail. The derail is going on for pages trying to weasel a way how your words weren't "technically" inaccurate if you squint at this alternate definition just right and ignore every bit of obvious cultural connotation that goes with the word, and then when that fails calling everyone a pedant and spending another page squabbling of what "pedantry" consists of. Toasticle posted: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. The post he was responding to was about the latest shooting, where the guy had a gun in his hand Toasticle posted: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. Is this a drunk post or something because for all your sweet burns about missing details the entire point of both of those posts seems to have flown over your head, let me help: Jarmak posted:You don't charge an individual with a criminal offense based on the results of the collective failings of an institution Toasticle posted: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 You notice how I came to a completely different conclusion then you even though I brought up some of the same facts? Its not because I didn't notice you'd acknowledged those facts, its because I was making an argument. Not every argument is about proving one set of facts or another correct, sometimes its over what conclusion we should draw from those facts Toasticle posted: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. Jarmak posted:Literally the last page someone posted an article about a civilian shooting someone in the head trying to twirl their gun like a cowboy. On this one to be fair you were completely incoherent and contradicted yourself within the span of a single line, I was rolling with the belief that the last bit was an attempt to hand waive away the evidence that thoroughly disproved the first part of your statement, which I took to be your actual position Jarmak fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Dec 14, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted: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. 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. The other is having trouble bringing yourself to fill that friend full of holes in the middle of the street. One of those things crosses the threshold of "you shouldn't have done that but its kind of understandable that you did because you are a human being that experiences emotions", and the other does not.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted: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. No, we're arguing whether doing so is intentionally misleading
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:Jarmak I'm still interested in your opinion in this. Sorry, there was a lot of stuff to respond to, I wasn't avoiding your question on purpose. chiefly? The shooter, the driver, and the long line of people who should have recognized the fact the shooter was mentally unfit to carry a gun. The last of which is who I feel the most animosity toward, the shooter was obviously completely loving unstable and was making GBS threads a brick during the incident, driving up like that is completely idiotic but getting that outcome from driving up on a 12 year old kid isn't exactly the foreseeable outcome, but the people who signed on the dotted line for that guy to get a gun and a badge knew drat well (or should have) the potential consequences for putting someone that unfit on the street. I'm tempted to include whoever was responsible for not relaying the message it was believed to be a toy gun on that list, but the truth is if you're responding to a situation where you have information that someone might have a gun you treat it like a gun until you verify otherwise, much the same way you treat every gun as loaded.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Speaking of European cops, amusing contrast between 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". I also can't comprehend why you think that having cops that will coolly and calmly show up and gun down close personal relations without hesitation like the loving terminator is the direction that will improve policing in this country.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
SedanChair posted: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. Yeah they did fail to make the hard decision there, but some decisions are harder then others and I think gunning down someone with which you have a close personal relationship crosses the line into "hard enough you don't deserve to be crucified for failing". 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. VitalSigns posted:You don't have to be a robot to stop a murder. This is the second time in barely a quarter of a page that you've just made up what I've said whole cloth, I never said any of those things. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
SedanChair posted: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. No, they let a women die because of a close personal relationship with the specific person. 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"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Good thing killing 12-year-olds is an easier decision. I've already said, repeatedly, that that man was so obviously grossly mentally unfit to be a police officer that I hold whoever approved that at least morally culpable in the Rice shooting. VitalSigns posted: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. 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 decisions in that context is impossible, these police did not have that option. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Dec 14, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 01:09 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted: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. 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. But then again I already said this, you're not even attempting to engage with what I'm saying in good faith.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 23:12
|
|