Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice: America seems a bit fucked up tbh - The Something Awful Forums

Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice: America seems a bit fucked up tbh

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

KomradeX posted:

But how haven't they been slapped with Criminal Conspiracy?

Why would you both with a conspiracy charge when you have them on the actual riot?

# ¿ Nov 30, 2015 22:24

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 14:41

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

KomradeX posted:

Because it was part of their crime, they committed a crime and also entered into a conspiracy to go out and commit said crime. Why wouldn't they be charged with both?

Because riot contains all the elements of conspiracy so even if you got sentences on both they should be served concurrently (edit: And conspiracy by definition will have a lower sentence). On that note, even if they were charged with both, I don't see a reason a journalist would bother to report on both.

# ¿ Nov 30, 2015 22:41

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

falcon2424 posted:

When officers start doing things that are policy-violating, they should lose their "justification via official duties" defense. The policies define their duties, and they're acting outside of them.

This doesn't seem like an especially dangerous slope; those officers would still have all the defenses available to the rest of us.

Your latest post seems directly on point, but I want to talk about this a bit. We generally want people to be able to figure out whether or not they are committing a crime on their own and quickly. This isn't always possible, but it's a nice goal which is why there's the "reasonably believes" wording in there. It makes sense that something a reasonable person could believe is necessary shouldn't be illegal. When departmental policy controls whether something is criminal or not, knowing whether you're committing crime requires having read and remembered the latest memo. Sometimes this isn't a problem, like you pointed out suspended officers aren't allowed to make arrests (I assume), but there shouldn't be any way for someone to argue they were unaware they were suspended. In other scenarios I can definitely see it being a problem.

I'm unclear on the level of training this particular person received regarding grappling people, it would be both ideal and plausible to me that they are trained enough that they couldn't reasonably believe a choke hold to be necessary. I also wouldn't be surprised if the training was terrible and useless, at which point allowing the government to hold someone criminally responsible for failing to following a policy the government set, but then failed to train them in seems problematic.

# ¿ Dec 1, 2015 19:33

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Radbot posted:

No, it doesn't. You'd only use this technique if you were otherwise going to shoot to kill.

That's obviously the ideal policy, but in reality introducing this policy means that at least one person is going to go for a leg shot when they weren't otherwise going to shoot to kill. From there the only question is "Are there more shootings incorrectly escalated to leg shots than (correctly executed leg shots - extra bystanders shot by missing a trickier target)?" Other countries have demonstrated it's at least possible to balance that equation, but I'd expect anyone proposing it for the US (across thousands of individual jurisdictions) to have a detailed plan before being taken seriously.

# ¿ Dec 7, 2015 21:30

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

archangelwar posted:

In some ways I am torn on this issue. It is a hard line to walk, as you don't want to universally criminalize accidents.

I don't think it's that hard. There's accidents where you were doing something reasonable, and there's accidents where you weren't (edit: Drawing on a drunk guy who just rolled his car should be considered unreasonable). Here's criminal negligence in my state:

quote:

A person is criminally negligent or acts with criminal negligence when he or she fails to be aware of a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and his or her failure to be aware of such substantial risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation.

Trabisnikof's characterization of what that article says is pretty wrong.

# ¿ Dec 11, 2015 20:10

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Trabisnikof posted:

Really? What part of this:

Bolding added:

Trabisnikof posted:

Sadly it depends on the state. In Florida for example, that wouldn't be a crime unless you yourself were drunk or you thought the gun was unloaded so you pulled the trigger. Even "accidentally" killing someone isn't a crime there:

The usage of unless implies that the only way for accidentally shooting someone is either to be drunk or thought the gun was unloaded, but those are just two examples that the person is saying is definitely a crime. The last sentence is a direct contradiction to premise of the entire discussion, when accidentally killing someone is a crime (which is when you reach the relevant standard of negligence in whatever state).

# ¿ Dec 11, 2015 20:20

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Trabisnikof posted:

Oh you you're just fishmechin' got it. Because accidentally shooting someone isn't a crime unless you reach the relevant standard of negligence.

Saying that "Even "accidentally" killing someone isn't a crime there" 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.

# ¿ Dec 11, 2015 20:25

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Jarmak posted:

Are you seriously starting a derail over his grammar?

If people are going to disagree with me that their characterization of an article is bad, but the reason they disagree with me is that they wrote something objectively stupid and expected me to real time transform their objectively stupid sentence into something that made actual sense, I would rather have the derail than objectively stupid characterizations of articles.

# ¿ Dec 11, 2015 20:28

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Trabisnikof posted:

You really seem to have problems understanding the difference between an affirmative defense and an act that isn't criminalized.

Fun fact: self defense isn't an affirmative defense in Florida.

quote:

For example the statement: "Speech isn't criminalized in the US", do you think it is valid or invalid? Some speech can in fact get me convicted, but generally speech cannot.

Turns out that context exists! Bolding added:

Trabisnikof posted:

Sadly it depends on the state. In Florida for example, that wouldn't be a crime unless you yourself were drunk or you thought the gun was unloaded so you pulled the trigger. Even "accidentally" killing someone isn't a crime there:

If someone said "Sadly, speech isn't criminalized in the US", I would definitely say, "Uh, are you aware that certain bad forms of speech are in fact criminalized?" This would be especially true if you followed up with "I think this says more about our insane mouth laws than anything. If I was writing a letter the law would be different".

# ¿ Dec 11, 2015 21:00

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

chitoryu12 posted:

"It's harder to shoot a friend than a stranger" isn't a bad argument. The problem is that it's come from people who previously argued that it's also okay to shoot someone unarmed because it's too risky for the officer to take even a literal second to judge the situation and actually figure out if they're a threat.

(bold added) This seems like an ongoing problem in this thread. Is this even true? And even assuming it's true, why should I care? Like maybe you proved some random unspecified poster is a hypocrite, but you haven't demonstrated their current position is bad or wrong, or maybe they changed their mind and just didn't bother to include the fact they changed their mind, and you haven't demonstrated anything. The fact that you aren't naming names never mind actually demonstrating they are doing the thing you say they are doing is enough for me to suspect you've conflated anyone who has disagreed with you into the same person. Especially considering the person you are responding to is explicitly not doing the thing you are talking about.

# ¿ Dec 15, 2015 00:57

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

chitoryu12 posted:

I can actually call people out if you really want me to and I really care about your individual approval, but it requires going back to the previous thread.

It's fine if you don't care about my approval, I'm just a dude on the internet, but what about your approval? Do you really prefer people do fake call outs over real call outs? (or ideally no call outs) Do think this thread would be improved if we had more posts like "It's fine to argue police murder people too much, the problem is that it comes from people who previously argued baby rape is ok"? These are not rhetorical questions.

# ¿ Dec 15, 2015 17:54

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

chitoryu12 posted:

If a person simultaneously argued that police killings are bad but baby rape is okay, I'd be seriously concerned for their mental health based on the second half alone.

The implication there was that the baby rape claim is spurious, but also unassailable because you appear to think that it's ok to fake call out people. This argument was constructed on the notion that you would think that spurious but unassailable claims are bad, but you can't even answer direct questions so whatever.
edit:
This is weird right? Like I understand replying to a post without engaging its point. I've made several posts supporting such a practice, but I've supported it on the basis of correcting some factual/logical error. What's the point of replying to a post to say that you are concerned about the mental health of hypothetical people who support baby rape?

twodot fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Dec 15, 2015

# ¿ Dec 15, 2015 20:35

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

BloodFeastIslandMan posted:

It's unreal that people can claim that with a straight face. In Georgia, police have full access to grand jury proceedings, can have a lawyer present and are allowed to make an unrebutted statement to the grand jury. But they're just like us

Can you cite this? I don't understand how an unrebutted statement could even work. Like they can walk up to the grand jury say "2+2=5" and the grand jury isn't allowed to ask later people what is 2+2?

# ¿ Dec 28, 2015 21:09

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Toasticle posted:

How about instead of going back and forth over how it's going to work and boring everyone you just say if you agree there should be some kind of openness to let people see is the DA acting like a DA or is he acting like a defense attorney?

Hell I don't even think any information that could identify the accused or the victim should be released, especially in sex related cases (Whuch means I love rape apparently) because the social damage done to the accused and the potential social damage to the accuser if the former is found innocent. So protecting identities and potentially damaging details is fine but seeing how the DA performs his or her job would stop or at least defang accusations of misconduct. Or prove them if it's obvious they were playing defense.

Openness is only good if there is a plan to provide openness which is also good which is why the back and forth matters for anyone sincerely interested in change. For your second paragraph, go ahead and read up on personally identifiable information, and think about why that may be complicated and needing clarification.

# ¿ Dec 30, 2015 07:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 14:41

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Toasticle posted:

I absolutely agree it would be complicated and difficult to implement but the first hurdle is at least agreeing it should be done. If we can't even agree on that how it works is just pages of pointless back and forth about how this or that or wouldn't work.

The only way you can even begin to address corruption is to stop it from being hiddeen. Tamirs DA had no issue smearing the family as soon as the GJ didn't indict, if the GJ transcript had him telling the GJ the family is just pushing for this because they want to get paid that alone would be enough, no personal info to worry about.

I think it's obvious that if we can create more information with no negative consequences, that's good. The relevant question is whether that's even possible which requires the back and forth. The question isn't is it conceivable a DA could say something bad with no identifiable information in it. It's can we create a process which is both useful and never reveals identifiable information.

# ¿ Dec 31, 2015 18:17

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice: America seems a bit fucked up tbh

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.2.9 (SABB-v2.24.05)
Copyright ©2000, 2001, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright ©2024, Jeffrey of YOSPOS