|
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?
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 03:33 |
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:I'd imagine this will vary widely among jurisdictions, but the real question isn't whether or not they are allowed/required to turn in blank reports, but whether or not they'll actually be punished for turning in false reports. Especially given that a report isn't an empirical proof, it's a witnessed accounting of an event from a single perspective. Even without knowingly lying about the content of a report, it's easy to imagine how 2 or more officers' reports could vary considerably - should you punish whichever was more false, and under what circumstances? 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). The point is not to nail officers to the wall for misremembering the color of a person's shirt, but to force them to be more accurate when trying to recall whether a struggle over a taser occurred, or whether the car was coming right for them, or whether they gave the civilian any warning (or enough time to process and respond to said warning) before opening fire. However, unintended consequences are still a thing, which is why I asked the question.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Officers cannot be forced to file a report in which they may incriminate themselves. They can be required to file a report which incriminates their peers. The bolded part raises a problem, since it seems that police are incentivized to have each others' backs, even when the offending officer is clearly in the wrong. When the culture of the department is "snitches get stitches", it becomes difficult for an officer to turn in a report incriminating a peer. Thus my suggestion that officers who lie on their reports be punished harshly: I am trying to figure out if it is possible to find a system where officers aren't willing to lie and cover up for each other.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 07:16
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Or, maybe it's because it's pointless to charge someone for conspiracy to commit a crime when you can charge them with the actual crime? That makes sense if conspiracy is an included lesser charge, and the jury could convict on it even if they acquit on the act itself. (I think someone said that's the case in CO.) If not, then charging with both seems like a good way to ensure that something sticks.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Be that as it may, I don't think the prosecutor's decision not to throw in a conspiracy charge is an attempt to let misunderstood white youth off the hook, as KomradeX and Dexo suggested at the start of this discussion. Whoops. I completely forgot which crazy-rear end shooting was under discussion.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Now it's been awhile since I watched the video of the incident, but isn't everything this dude is saying completely contradicted by the video that shows the cruiser pull up abs the kid shot in less than 5 seconds Nonsense. I can fit three "show me your hands" in two seconds without breaking a sweat. That's like seven or eight repetitions in five seconds.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 12:49
|
|
|
I just did some cursory poking around, and it appears to cost $600-900 to obtain an EMT basic certification. Could not quickly find an answer to how much it costs to recertify and maintain the license. Additional Googling suggests that state and local law enforcement agencies employ about 1,000,000 people full-time. Assuming (perhaps generously) that all of those million are patrol officers, and that EMT licenses must be re-obtained at full cost every year, that's an annual expenditure of just under $1B to get every officer in the US EMT-certified. (Really, the annual cost will probably be substantially lower, since many full-time law enforcement personnel aren't patrol officers, and I am pretty sure EMT certs last for more than a year and don't need to be reobtained from scratch.) How much do we spend at a federal level on grants for former military equipment? Is it about that much, significantly more, or significantly less? Set aside the political feasibility for the moment; I was just curious about the economics.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Also where are you finding $600 EMT-B courses, because it's like two grand minimum around here. I Googled "cost to obtain EMT certification" and looked at the numbers presented in the first few links. It was not any sort of scientific or complete check -- I was trying to get within a factor of a few so that I could compare against the equipment grants the federal government provides. If you have better information, especially about ongoing costs to maintain certification, I would appreciate hearing it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
semper wifi posted:I think you can pretty fairly credit BLM for the increase in charges, though I'm curious to see how many of them actually end up convicted of anything Even if conviction rates are low (admitting a small sample size), that these charges are being brought at all would seem to mark a sea change in oversight of US police. I am hopeful that with the proliferation of bodycams, this trend will continue over the next few years, and then reverse as officers finally start behaving in ways that don't result in dead people quite as frequently.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2015 13:39
|
|
|
Jarmak posted: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. 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. As others have said already, the line between good and bad shoots should probably be placed right after "one bullet from one cop". If the suspect didn't respond to less-lethal rounds, escalate things once and see if the subject responds. It is ridiculous that so many police officers felt a need -- and will be protected by policy -- for overwhelming use of force that killed a man who was completely surrounded and showing no signs that escape was imminent.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
Samog posted:if pain compliance isn't making the guy do exactly what you want, escalate to execution, but do it real clean like What do you suggest the officers do in this scenario? They don't have access to tasers in San Francisco, I think, so beanbag rounds were the best they could do in the less-lethal department. Are you saying that one or more officers should have moved into arm's reach of a person who was holding a knife and refused orders to drop it? A single gunshot wound (depending on location) is survivable with quick medical care; hell of a lot more so than 15.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
Terraplane posted:edit: Honestly I'm still a bit unsure about the 'fire one bullet first thing' because I worry it'd be interpreted as 'shoot them once before it's absolutely necessary, so we still have time to shoot the poo poo out of them if we need to." While you might have less people turned into swiss cheese, you might have a whole lot more who get shot 'just once.' I'm not sure that's going to save lives overall. That one is easy. If your gun is out before your less-lethal alternatives, your bodycam had better prove that there was no time to try anything else.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Use a method other than surrounding a likely mentally ill man with a crowd of screaming men with guns to try and make him surrender peacefully and shooting him if he does anything other than drop the knife and lay on the ground? I assumed (perhaps mistakenly) that there was a step 0.5 and 1.5 involving talking to the dude. There surely ought to be even in a progression that includes firing once after exhausting all the other possibilities.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2015 08:25
|
|
|
ozmunkeh posted:American police candidates are selected by HR for low intelligence and poorly trained on top of that. Of course <civilised police behaviour> doesn't work in America. The specific case you're thinking of was discussed either late last thread or earlier in this one. In the interest of fairness, that particular department was screening for applicants who were average to slightly above-average (but not exceptionally above-average). Your point about training stands; based on the stories presented in these threads, US police training seems to fall somewhere between insufficient and malignant.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:An Inglewood police officer is being accused by two (luckily surviving) black men of shooting them with a shotgun unprovoked as "robbery suspects" and staging a crime scene to frame them: That is so far beyond the pale I can't in good faith believe the article without additional evidence. The officers, according to the article, did basically everything they could to justify negative stereotypes -- I couldn't have written a more dastardly plot that left both men alive. Are other outlets reporting this, or just HuffPo at this point?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Ooops, remember all those SF cops fired for saying racist and homophobic poo poo? They get their jobs back! Statutes of limitations are a thing, though. I agree that these officers really ought not be in positions of authority, and I don't buy the argument that it's okay because they were just telling their sergeant what he wanted to hear. Hopefully the claim that the delay is due to a pending trial is true, and the judge allows the process to continue.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 11:31
|
|
|
Your edited version of the article hints at this, but the full article makes it much clearer that there are three differing accounts of what happened at the scene. As far as I can remember, Grundulum fucked around with this message at 02:59 on Dec 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:But even so, it's not like he won't just go to another department. That's another problem. Can't say that I have a problem with that; I would have a problem if his position in that new department involved handling a firearm, since he has clearly proven himself too immature to be issued one. The lack of malice plays into my reasoning here -- I take a dimmer view of officers who abuse their fellow citizens getting such second chances, especially since they seem to go right back onto the streets instead of desk jockeying till retirement.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:Nah, it's pretty much been that holding police to the same laws as citizens is saying you think cops don't deserve the same protections as a burger flipper. That's a mischaracterization of the argument and you know it. The argument is that if rights are different, it is more moral to bolster the rights of the less-privileged than to remove the rights of the police. I don't think anyone has claimed that non-police have more rights than do cops. Now, it may be accurate to state that this is a deflection or stalling tactic to avoid admitting support for the current system (only they would know, and they sure wouldn't say anything). But the claims made are not at all what you just wrote.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 14:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 03:33 |
|
|
ClancyEverafter posted:On the real though, I'm pleading with the other reasonable posters to just block WPR. Why argue with monsters? Why lower ourselves to this? He thinks a twelve year old got himself shot, and refuses to acknowledge the lies on the reports that were filed on this totally legit shooting. I've seen this several times since the grand jury announced its decision, but I don't remember what specifically the inconsistencies were. Can someone remind me or link me to a discussion?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 16:32
|
|