|
Grundulum posted:One thing that came up towards the end of the last thread was a suggestion that officers be allowed to turn in blank report forms, but also be harshly punished for turning in a false report. What unintended consequences would this have? Both of those are currently the law, correct? Officers don't have to turn in reports if the report might describe illegal behavior and falsifying police or government documents is a criminal offense in most states, right?
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 15:16 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:Again, I specifically addressed this argument already and you haven't done anything but repeat it without adding anything new, but sure lets try this again: So are there any lethal actions police could have taken to kill Garner that you'd argue are illegal? If they had used a garrote to choke rather than hands, would that still be legal in your mind?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:Huh, reading further down the page, there's a more explicit bit: 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?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:OK, so let's say that, because he has the equivalent of a Boy Scout's first aid merit badge, the officer applies a bad tourniquet to the leg, and it ends up having to be amputated. Is the officer liable for that? Most states have Good Samaritan laws that limit the liability, and BSA hasn't taught tourniquets in a long long time. And cops do let people bleed to death before getting them medical care, so I think it'd be worth it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
Jarmak posted: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. 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....
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
botany posted:The gently caress?! He's not even aggressively posturing, he just slowly put his hand on the car He still had a hand on the car when they shot him. Yes sadly, as this thread shows, I would be shocked if the internal investigation didn't show that the officer was really scared and thus it was a good execution.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm just curious what the liability would be if he, say, missed and shattered the dude's hand at the wrist. Or loving killed him. I'm pretty sure maiming someone for life in order to stop their suicide isn't covered under QI. Maiming them wouldn't be covered but killing them would be?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 08:44
|
|
|
Here's some Danish regulation on the use of guns by police:quote:17. (1) Firearms may only be used: While it might go against NRA-based training, a warning shot to ensure that the suspect has been fully informed that police to intend to fire if police orders are not observed actually makes sense.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Nathilus posted:Just because it's official somewhere doesn't make it a good idea. People shoot guns into the air at weddings in certain parts of the world and every once in a while someone catches lead on its way back down. I'm not gonna wail and gnash my teeth hard enough to keep anyone awake over either of those situations, but I internalized the lesson that even pointing a gun at something you don't intend to destroy is a very bad idea long ago. So do you think Danish police procedure is wrong because they'll fire warning shots? And to be clear, is it that in your mind it would be better for police to kill someone than fire a warning shot or what?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Nathilus posted:Yes. I'm not Danish and they can do what they want. I would really hate it if a cop started spraying "warning" lead on a street I was on, though! Of course, you're ignoring how the rules expressly require the officer to only fire a warning shot if they can do so safely. quote:There are indications that 16 out of the 23 persons hit by police bullets were mentally ill, and that 2 out of 3 were under the influence of drugs, medicine or alcohol when they were shot. Often police officers tried other means of force before using their pistols. Based on reports submitted by police officers from 1996 to 2006, a slight decrease can be noted with respect to whether the suspects are armed, particularly with firearms. However, the numbers of police officers who are threatened or attacked with weapons are, with some fluctuation, relatively stable over the period. In the 23 shooting incidents examined, 14 suspects were armed, predominantly with stabbing weapons. 9 suspects threatened or attacked police officers physically in person or by driving a car at them or a third party. Oh look, and no one has been shot because of a warning shot either! I would really hate if a cop shot killer lead on a street I was on, and more so than a warning shot!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:The discussion of leg shots and warning shots is fascinating and all, but is there any interest in the fact that the US Dept. of Justice today announced they are investigating the Chicago PD with respect to their use of force among other things? Or speaking of Chicago, how it has been confirmed that different police reports directly contradict the evidence in the McDonald killing, but shocking to no one, there've been little to no followup from police. quote:Police officers who watched a colleague shoot a black Chicago teenager 16 times filed reports depicting a very different version of events than what dashcam footage showed, portraying the teen as far more menacing than he appeared in the video. Yup, that's right, they ruled the killing a "good shoot" without even looking at the dashcam evidence.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Toasticle posted: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. Police have no legal duty to help anyone or take any action that might protect human life.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:If I pulled a gun on a drunk guy who just rolled his car and fingerfucked the trigger so I accidentally shot him in the neck, did I do something illegal? 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: quote:William DeHayes told police that his .22 caliber handgun went off after he spun it around his finger. The bullet struck Katherine Hoover in the head, killing her. Her unborn son died soon after. I think this says more about our insane gun laws than anything. If I was being doing donuts with my car and killed someone the law would be different. (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/when-is-an-accidental-shooting-really-a-crime/)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
twodot posted:Trabisnikof's characterization of what that article says is pretty wrong. Really? What part of this: Trabisnikof posted: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: Is not backed up by this: quote:"An accidental discharge of a firearm causing death, even if the result of gross negligence cannot be prosecuted criminally," King wrote. "Just as it is my duty to prosecute those who violate the law, it is equally my duty to refrain from prosecuting those whose conduct, no matter how outrageous, does not constitute a crime. This is such a case." Which is from a story about where a guy was spinning his gun on his finger, killed someone and the DA believed no crime had occurred because it wasn't culpable negligence.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
twodot posted:Bolding added: Oh you you're just fishmechin' got it. Because accidentally shooting someone isn't a crime unless you reach the relevant standard of negligence.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
twodot posted: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. You really seem to have problems understanding the difference between an affirmative defense and an act that isn't criminalized. 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. The example from the article was a man who was spinning his gun around his finger when he shot someone, the DA said "An accidental discharge of a firearm causing death, even if the result of gross negligence cannot be prosecuted criminally" so yeah, I still think saying that "in Florida accidentally [shooting] someone isn't a crime" is a valid statement, since it is on face true and backed up by evidence.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:He can still get taken for everything in a civil suit. Why wouldn't this fall under qualified immunity? The shooter was clearly acting in an official role at the time.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Talkin' about the guy spinning a gun on his finger cowboy style. That makes way more sense. I seem to be lacking in brain today.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I seriously don't get your point here. Recently, it was argued that the SFPD shouldn't have shot a guy with a knife (who had already stabbed one person) because he tried to walk away. Yet now you're arguing that the police should have killed this guy dead before he could hurt his wife again. The police shouldn't have shot these other people, but since they did, they should also have to shoot this cop as a matter of fairness? Can you really see no difference between someone with a knife and not near their victim versus someone with a gun well within shooting range of the victim they had already shot?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:its not the anger that's the red flag, its the total disregard for the level of force that is being directed his way, and if anything the lack of outward anger. If he had stopped and started hurling expletives at the police, hell even if had done everything exactly the same but had been screaming "gently caress the police" while doing so it would have indicated general frustration and anger, his calmness in the face of the display of force is part of what makes him seem like he's about to go for a gun. Really, now it is "he was too calm" and arguing "if only he'd yelled 'gently caress the police' he might have lived"? Really, being still and not being overly emotive is "broadcast 'I'm about to pull a gun on you'" when someone has a loving gun pointed at you, and the news is full of stories of how Tamir deserved it because he flinched? This is loving kafkaesque. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
Looks like Chicago PD will be allowed to destroy records over 4 years old, even after admitting that people were tortured over a 20 year time span:quote:As the U.S. Department of Justice gears up for a civil rights investigation into the Chicago Police Department, the city’s police unions are fighting in court to keep hidden reams of complaint records spanning decades.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 08:35
|
|
|
CommanderApaul posted:I know, it's weird. I'd like to see the actual indictment, it should be enlightening. Ask and you shall receive: http://www.chicagotribune.com/ct-jason-van-dyke-indictment-document-20151216-htmlstory.html Looks like they're variations of the same charge. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Dec 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:Honestly this article is pretty enraging. A teenage girl was coerced by police into recanting her rape accusation and essentially had her life ruined through public humiliation and legal prosecution. Later on, it turns out oops! She had been the victim of a prolific serial rapist who kept pictures of his assault of her on his hard drive. Even the police admit that the investigators acted horribly and with no professional basis, yet no one was even disciplined: quote:After O’Leary was linked to Marie’s rape, Lynnwood Police Chief Steven Jensen requested an outside review of how his department had handled the investigation. In a report not previously made public, Sgt. Gregg Rinta, a sex crimes supervisor with the Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office, wrote that what happened was “nothing short of the victim being coerced into admitting that she lied about the rape.”
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So the department should, what, punish officers on the basis of unsworn statements? How about investigate them and look at other complaints against the officer when doing so? You're right they shouldn't be punished without an affidavit, but as police remind us constantly, an investigation isn't a punishment. Investigate complaints and look at officer's history of repeat complaints when investigating. quote:Nearly 60 percent of all the complaints were thrown out without being fully investigated because the alleged victims failed to sign required affidavits. What's more, investigators won't consider an officer's complaint history as part of the investigation, and many of the cases come down to the word of the officer versus the accuser.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So you want to move the burden of proof on to the accused based on previous misbehavior and have people punished on the basis of unsupported, un-sworn testimony. That's not hosed up and dystopian at all. I can see why the police are glad they have unions. (Also, we were talking about allegations an officer has been previously cleared of, but you've suddenly shifted to an officer with a record of substantiated complaints.) Funny that when its a police investigation of police, getting investigated or having unsworn testimony collected against you is some horrible violation of officer's rights. But if police did that to anyone else, it would be their job. Edit: once again, don't move the goal posts, we're talking about even just investigating complaints not firing or arresting people. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Dec 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You do realize that this argument is essentially "If enough people say it, it must be true!" right? No, its more "if enough people say it, maybe the police should investigate!"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Is this some sort of weird gaslighting attempt, or are you all just too lazy to read? DARPA was specifically in favor of disciplining officers based on un-sworn complaints with no supporting evidence. I'm not misrepresenting him, that's what he said and then doubled down on it. Watermelon City said that we should draw conclusions based on the number of times something is alleged, irrespective of its merit. That is literally a "if enough people say it, it's probably true" argument. No one has a problem with the police investigating a complaint, sworn or un-sworn. However, given the nature of things like "failure to provide service," it's likely that there is no evidence outside of the complainant's allegation. I think people shouldn't be punished based on he-said/she-said statements, particularly if the accuser isn't willing to swear to the truthfulness of their statements. Maybe because we were replying to the things you had said? Dead Reckoning posted:If literally the only evidence against a person is a statement that the accuser refuses to swear to the truthfulness of, I think the case should be dropped no matter who you are. Dead Reckoning posted:I think its reasonable to exclude allegations a person has been cleared of from a new investigation, and he-said she-said cases are always going to be difficult to prove. Those are statements about how we should drop investigations, by you, that I were responding to. If you want to backpedal and declare you disagree with what you earlier said, great. But you honestly should be ashamed to pretend to cal us "gaslighting" because you want to quote our comments out of context and pretend we were responding to a different poster. Arguing in good faith my rear end.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You're misinterpreting what I said. In each of those cases, I'm saying that a disciplinary case or complaint should be dropped if the only evidence the investigation comes up with is an unsworn statement. That's why I referred to "cases." If you have a complaint that the accuser refuses to sign and no other witnesses, what else should the investigators do? Then you're ignoring the original context of all this, which I've quoted at least once already: quote:Nearly 60 percent of all the complaints were thrown out without being fully investigated because the alleged victims failed to sign required affidavits. What's more, investigators won't consider an officer's complaint history as part of the investigation, and many of the cases come down to the word of the officer versus the accuser. The "only evidence the investigation comes up with is an unsworn statement" is because the investigation in 60% of cases didn't actually occur. Also, it is amazing that you're relying on the "if the officers can't get a sworn statement from a victim investigations are impossible!" as if they aren't loving police investigators as their job.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:This isn't a robbery they're investigating, CSI isn't going to go out to the corner where the complainant was detained and reconstruct the scene. Investigations get dropped all the time due to lack of witnesses. If I go down to the police station and accuse my neighbor of poking me in the chest with his finger and saying he'll kick my rear end, dictate my story, and then refuse to sign it, I guarantee the police won't send a detective around the neighborhood to canvass other residents and look for clues. It doesn't surprise me that you equate accusations of police abuse with poking someone with your finger, or that you think police abuse is less important than a property crime. It is funny (in a smelly kind of way) how you keep hard linking to that comment...it is almost as if the comment clearly doesn't say what you are trying to get it to say.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Ooops, remember all those SF cops fired for saying racist and homophobic poo poo? They get their jobs back!quote:A San Francisco Superior Court judge has ruled that police officers who sent racist and homophobic text messages can't be fired because the city missed a deadline. So these officers receive pay for doing nothing and the city can't fire them because police took too long. edit: some other details from an SF gate article here: http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Judge-rules-in-favor-of-S-F-cops-who-wrote-6713191.php quote:Goldsmith said Monday that he was upholding the ruling because the Peace Officer Bill of Rights, in particular the statute of limitations, exists to protect not just law enforcement, but the public. The idea that somehow its best for the public to punish SFPD by forcing them to employ racist officers is amazingly disconnected from reality. quote:City attorneys and police officials said they plan to appeal the decision, which has many upset over what they see as a free pass for bigoted behavior. The messages contained racist and antigay remarks calling African American people “monkeys” and encouraging the killing of “half-breeds.” Even other officers aren't protected from racism from police. quote:Officer Rain Daugherty filed a claim against the city in May along with eight unnamed officers identified in the texting, moving what would have been a disciplinary matter overseen by the Police Commission to Superior Court. I have a feeling that in other workplaces, even in the government, it wouldn't be so easy to stop your boss from making personnel decisions. quote:According to the district attorney’s office, 13 cases have been dismissed because of the officers’ involvement. So even if all you care about is putting the "baddies behind bars" letting racists stay on the force only hurts. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 10:12 on Dec 23, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 10:04
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The SFPD officers were never charged with any crime. Even in California, "being You even quote the part where SFPD argued that the corruption trial prevented them from trying to fire the officers.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:...and right below it is the line where the judge found that argument to be lacking merit. Calling a fellow officer a "friend of the family bitch" and saying we should kill "half-breeds" isn't exactly an off color joke, and communications with your Sgt are still official even if you're off the clock.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
A very solid article from the NYT illustrating visually the problems with police ignoring complaints in CPD: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/15/us/chicago-police-officers-rarely-punished-for-civilian-complaints.html Some quotes from the limited text, but check out the graphic as it helps explain the scale of the issue: quote:6,931 Chicago police officers had at least one allegation of misconduct from 2011 to 2015. Allegations can be filed by a resident or another officer. Officer Jason Van Dyke, who is charged with murder for shooting Laquan McDonald 16 times, had four allegations with known outcomes during this time period.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2015 09:20
|
|
|
5'7" is the average height of 15 year old boys in America. So really, if you think the "looked older" part justifies it, you're basically saying that killing 15 year olds is ok.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
Lyesh posted:This really raises the question of what kind of recourse citizens have against police who are "doing their jobs." The authorities in this and other cases are doing a piss-poor job of making anyone see that kind of recourse. Instead, they're treating these incidents as isolated tragedies. Tamir Rice should have filed a sworn statement about his unsubstantiated allegation of police abuse if he wanted an investigation. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
Good thing Rice never pointed a gun at anyone. It is amazing how quickly people show off how little they know about something.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:Why do you think that? This is the same McGinty who burned a lot of bridges with the Michael Brelo prosecution earlier this year (the cop who jumped up on the hood of a car to continue firing into two people). His history shows us he seems willing to take on controversial cases against police if he thinks he has a shot. So you're claiming that somehow the DA burned bridges by getting a cop who killed two unarmed people aquited?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 15:16 |
|
|
joeburz posted:DA didn't want to charge someone and the grand jury did their job not allowing the DA to charge someone. System works folks! Yeah, the DA recommended charges not be filed and grand juries almost always do what the DA says to do. So real shocker here.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 20:20
|
|