|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 19 2014 10:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 10:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 10:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 10:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 09:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 09:25 Jormundr wrote:On August 19 2014 09:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 08:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 08:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
LOL really? Well unless the person is telepathic you shouldn't have to worry about a guy ~35 ft away taking your weapon.
And my point is that if he looks like he is trying to, a police officer should have the skills to avoid him taking the weapon without having to shoot him multiple times (before he is even close). There are similar incidents when officers unnecessarily killed relatively unarmed mentally ill people with similar justifications. There is at least one witness why ways that he moved toward the cop before the cop opened fire. It doesn't take long to cover 35ft, so opening fire could be justified in that case. Again 'justified' was not my point (though I disagree depending on a lot of factors), it's that we are talking about how an unarmed man allegedly charging toward the cop from ~35ft away left the officer with no reasonable choice but to kill him (apparently at that distance). I just don't consider that acceptable. Even if it turns out to be completely legal and 'justified' we need to make the necessary changes to prevent that from being true. Because this wasn't the first time something like such has happened and it won't be the last. Killing people should be avoided whenever reasonable. Maybe eventually when we hear any semblance of a story from the police or the officer about what happened after the officer left the vehicle there will be some information that changes this particular case, but the over-aggression/militarization of the police is a clear and rampant problem that people consistently minimize, deny, and sweep under the rug. Depending on how it went down it could be acceptable. If the guy went for the officer's gun... that's a very dangerous situation. I wouldn't expect an officer to take that lightly. Edit: What's with the "minimize deny and sweep under the rug" comment? This is getting huge attention from many angles. Moreover, where's the evidence that it's a "clear and rampant" problem? The only statistics I've seen is for police shootings going down. That's not a very useful statistic because it 1. Is not necessarily indicative of the country as a whole (it's only NYC) 2. As a starting point it picks the most violent point (in terms of gun violence and homicide) in our history 3. Doesn't include statistics on race. It also raises the question on why we don't have those statistics. Yeah it's not a great statistic but it's all I have to go on. Here's a longer dated one for police shootings to address no. 2: + Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://www.policemag.com/_Images/news/M-NYPD-OIS2010.jpg) LinkYes we could use better data on this, but people are saying "it's getting worse" without posting any justifications for that position. Here is the most recent/relevant data for NYC + Show Spoiler +I mean ~30% increase recently is one sign. But again it's not just shooting people that is being suggested as getting worse (it may or may not be depending on where you measure from) it's a much larger issue which you obviously know. So I don't really get the intentional pettifogging. Source 2 years doesn't really make a trend. Well it's more than enough time for people to feel the consequences whether it is a 'trend' or not. But beyond that as for it being a widespread problem A Department of Justice study revealed that a whopping 84 percent of police officers report that they’ve seen colleagues use excessive force on civilians, and 61 percent admit they don’t always report “even serious criminal violations that involve abuse of authority by fellow officers.” The good news is that the first step toward preventing police brutality is well-documented and fairly simple: Keep police constantly on camera. A 2012 study in Rialto, Calif. found that when officers were required to wear cameras recording all their interactions with citizens, “public complaints against officers plunged 88% compared with the previous 12 months. Officers’ use of force fell by 60%.” The simple knowledge that they were being watched dramatically altered police behavior. SourceWhen it's not a "he said she said" cops tend to act radically differently. There is no reason they should not all be cam'd up (other than to protect the criminal ones). Cameras everywhere would be excessive, but if you want cops in a given area to carry cams I wouldn't have a problem with that.
Most precincts resist any kinda cam idea tooth and nail, you have to fight them hard to get them to wear them.
|
On August 19 2014 13:45 Quintum_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 10:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 10:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 10:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 10:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 09:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 09:25 Jormundr wrote:On August 19 2014 09:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 08:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 08:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
There is at least one witness why ways that he moved toward the cop before the cop opened fire. It doesn't take long to cover 35ft, so opening fire could be justified in that case.
Again 'justified' was not my point (though I disagree depending on a lot of factors), it's that we are talking about how an unarmed man allegedly charging toward the cop from ~35ft away left the officer with no reasonable choice but to kill him (apparently at that distance). I just don't consider that acceptable. Even if it turns out to be completely legal and 'justified' we need to make the necessary changes to prevent that from being true. Because this wasn't the first time something like such has happened and it won't be the last. Killing people should be avoided whenever reasonable. Maybe eventually when we hear any semblance of a story from the police or the officer about what happened after the officer left the vehicle there will be some information that changes this particular case, but the over-aggression/militarization of the police is a clear and rampant problem that people consistently minimize, deny, and sweep under the rug. Depending on how it went down it could be acceptable. If the guy went for the officer's gun... that's a very dangerous situation. I wouldn't expect an officer to take that lightly. Edit: What's with the "minimize deny and sweep under the rug" comment? This is getting huge attention from many angles. Moreover, where's the evidence that it's a "clear and rampant" problem? The only statistics I've seen is for police shootings going down. That's not a very useful statistic because it 1. Is not necessarily indicative of the country as a whole (it's only NYC) 2. As a starting point it picks the most violent point (in terms of gun violence and homicide) in our history 3. Doesn't include statistics on race. It also raises the question on why we don't have those statistics. Yeah it's not a great statistic but it's all I have to go on. Here's a longer dated one for police shootings to address no. 2: + Show Spoiler +LinkYes we could use better data on this, but people are saying "it's getting worse" without posting any justifications for that position. Here is the most recent/relevant data for NYC + Show Spoiler +I mean ~30% increase recently is one sign. But again it's not just shooting people that is being suggested as getting worse (it may or may not be depending on where you measure from) it's a much larger issue which you obviously know. So I don't really get the intentional pettifogging. Source 2 years doesn't really make a trend. Well it's more than enough time for people to feel the consequences whether it is a 'trend' or not. But beyond that as for it being a widespread problem A Department of Justice study revealed that a whopping 84 percent of police officers report that they’ve seen colleagues use excessive force on civilians, and 61 percent admit they don’t always report “even serious criminal violations that involve abuse of authority by fellow officers.” The good news is that the first step toward preventing police brutality is well-documented and fairly simple: Keep police constantly on camera. A 2012 study in Rialto, Calif. found that when officers were required to wear cameras recording all their interactions with citizens, “public complaints against officers plunged 88% compared with the previous 12 months. Officers’ use of force fell by 60%.” The simple knowledge that they were being watched dramatically altered police behavior. SourceWhen it's not a "he said she said" cops tend to act radically differently. There is no reason they should not all be cam'd up (other than to protect the criminal ones). Cameras everywhere would be excessive, but if you want cops in a given area to carry cams I wouldn't have a problem with that. Most precincts resist any kinda cam idea tooth and nail, you have to fight them hard to get them to wear them.
The fact they are so against them is just one more reason why they should be required.
|
On August 19 2014 13:50 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 13:45 Quintum_ wrote:On August 19 2014 10:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 10:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 10:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 10:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 09:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 09:25 Jormundr wrote:On August 19 2014 09:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 08:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Again 'justified' was not my point (though I disagree depending on a lot of factors), it's that we are talking about how an unarmed man allegedly charging toward the cop from ~35ft away left the officer with no reasonable choice but to kill him (apparently at that distance). I just don't consider that acceptable.
Even if it turns out to be completely legal and 'justified' we need to make the necessary changes to prevent that from being true. Because this wasn't the first time something like such has happened and it won't be the last. Killing people should be avoided whenever reasonable.
Maybe eventually when we hear any semblance of a story from the police or the officer about what happened after the officer left the vehicle there will be some information that changes this particular case, but the over-aggression/militarization of the police is a clear and rampant problem that people consistently minimize, deny, and sweep under the rug.
Depending on how it went down it could be acceptable. If the guy went for the officer's gun... that's a very dangerous situation. I wouldn't expect an officer to take that lightly. Edit: What's with the "minimize deny and sweep under the rug" comment? This is getting huge attention from many angles. Moreover, where's the evidence that it's a "clear and rampant" problem? The only statistics I've seen is for police shootings going down. That's not a very useful statistic because it 1. Is not necessarily indicative of the country as a whole (it's only NYC) 2. As a starting point it picks the most violent point (in terms of gun violence and homicide) in our history 3. Doesn't include statistics on race. It also raises the question on why we don't have those statistics. Yeah it's not a great statistic but it's all I have to go on. Here's a longer dated one for police shootings to address no. 2: + Show Spoiler +LinkYes we could use better data on this, but people are saying "it's getting worse" without posting any justifications for that position. Here is the most recent/relevant data for NYC + Show Spoiler +I mean ~30% increase recently is one sign. But again it's not just shooting people that is being suggested as getting worse (it may or may not be depending on where you measure from) it's a much larger issue which you obviously know. So I don't really get the intentional pettifogging. Source 2 years doesn't really make a trend. Well it's more than enough time for people to feel the consequences whether it is a 'trend' or not. But beyond that as for it being a widespread problem A Department of Justice study revealed that a whopping 84 percent of police officers report that they’ve seen colleagues use excessive force on civilians, and 61 percent admit they don’t always report “even serious criminal violations that involve abuse of authority by fellow officers.” The good news is that the first step toward preventing police brutality is well-documented and fairly simple: Keep police constantly on camera. A 2012 study in Rialto, Calif. found that when officers were required to wear cameras recording all their interactions with citizens, “public complaints against officers plunged 88% compared with the previous 12 months. Officers’ use of force fell by 60%.” The simple knowledge that they were being watched dramatically altered police behavior. SourceWhen it's not a "he said she said" cops tend to act radically differently. There is no reason they should not all be cam'd up (other than to protect the criminal ones). Cameras everywhere would be excessive, but if you want cops in a given area to carry cams I wouldn't have a problem with that. Most precincts resist any kinda cam idea tooth and nail, you have to fight them hard to get them to wear them. The fact they are so against them is just one more reason why they should be required.
Consider that tomorrow your boss comes to you and says, from now on this work place requires everybody to carry a camera during work hours. Your reaction?
I wouldn't want to carry a camera in my line of work. That is a normal office work place. It just feels like a waste of time and invasive. So I see the point of why they don't want them.
|
On August 19 2014 15:02 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 13:50 Vindicare605 wrote:On August 19 2014 13:45 Quintum_ wrote:On August 19 2014 10:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 10:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 10:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 10:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 09:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 09:25 Jormundr wrote:On August 19 2014 09:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Depending on how it went down it could be acceptable. If the guy went for the officer's gun... that's a very dangerous situation. I wouldn't expect an officer to take that lightly.
Edit: What's with the "minimize deny and sweep under the rug" comment? This is getting huge attention from many angles. Moreover, where's the evidence that it's a "clear and rampant" problem? The only statistics I've seen is for police shootings going down. That's not a very useful statistic because it 1. Is not necessarily indicative of the country as a whole (it's only NYC) 2. As a starting point it picks the most violent point (in terms of gun violence and homicide) in our history 3. Doesn't include statistics on race. It also raises the question on why we don't have those statistics. Yeah it's not a great statistic but it's all I have to go on. Here's a longer dated one for police shootings to address no. 2: + Show Spoiler +LinkYes we could use better data on this, but people are saying "it's getting worse" without posting any justifications for that position. Here is the most recent/relevant data for NYC + Show Spoiler +I mean ~30% increase recently is one sign. But again it's not just shooting people that is being suggested as getting worse (it may or may not be depending on where you measure from) it's a much larger issue which you obviously know. So I don't really get the intentional pettifogging. Source 2 years doesn't really make a trend. Well it's more than enough time for people to feel the consequences whether it is a 'trend' or not. But beyond that as for it being a widespread problem A Department of Justice study revealed that a whopping 84 percent of police officers report that they’ve seen colleagues use excessive force on civilians, and 61 percent admit they don’t always report “even serious criminal violations that involve abuse of authority by fellow officers.” The good news is that the first step toward preventing police brutality is well-documented and fairly simple: Keep police constantly on camera. A 2012 study in Rialto, Calif. found that when officers were required to wear cameras recording all their interactions with citizens, “public complaints against officers plunged 88% compared with the previous 12 months. Officers’ use of force fell by 60%.” The simple knowledge that they were being watched dramatically altered police behavior. SourceWhen it's not a "he said she said" cops tend to act radically differently. There is no reason they should not all be cam'd up (other than to protect the criminal ones). Cameras everywhere would be excessive, but if you want cops in a given area to carry cams I wouldn't have a problem with that. Most precincts resist any kinda cam idea tooth and nail, you have to fight them hard to get them to wear them. The fact they are so against them is just one more reason why they should be required. Consider that tomorrow your boss comes to you and says, from now on this work place requires everybody to carry a camera during work hours. Your reaction? I wouldn't want to carry a camera in my line of work. That is a normal office work place. It just feels like a waste of time and invasive. So I see the point of why they don't want them.
Unless your office is getting tons of complaints of it's employees going on the streets and abusing people and their rights and killing several people a year it's not even remotely comparable.
Thinking about it most people/companies would have a huge problem with it because it's common for people to skirt rules and regulations in order to get jobs done more quickly and/or more profitably.
I don't think I have ever had a job or talked to someone about one (non-self-employed people anyway) where there weren't regular cases of rule/legal violations. Some places were more obvious than others but without fail they all had them and management was aware if not implicitly/explicitly encouraging them. From a corndog stand to real estate agent, from student newspaper to construction, retail/customer service to stadium security, every single job I've had and plenty I've talked about they have all turned blind eyes to clear and repeated violations that would be undeniable with video surveillance...
God the shit you would see if real estate workers (agents, lenders, inspectors, escrow etc) had to wear cameras...Sooooo many of them would be in prison, out of a job, broke, or some combination of the three in a week.
I imagine the same could be said for lots of jobs.
|
Constant surveillance is terrible, but if you carry a gun and wield force there should be a black box camera that can be referred to if anyone disputes your allegedly lawful use of force. With a monopoly on force there must be sacrifices, and autonomy is one of them.
|
On August 19 2014 15:02 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 13:50 Vindicare605 wrote:On August 19 2014 13:45 Quintum_ wrote:On August 19 2014 10:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 10:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 10:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 10:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 09:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 09:25 Jormundr wrote:On August 19 2014 09:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Depending on how it went down it could be acceptable. If the guy went for the officer's gun... that's a very dangerous situation. I wouldn't expect an officer to take that lightly.
Edit: What's with the "minimize deny and sweep under the rug" comment? This is getting huge attention from many angles. Moreover, where's the evidence that it's a "clear and rampant" problem? The only statistics I've seen is for police shootings going down. That's not a very useful statistic because it 1. Is not necessarily indicative of the country as a whole (it's only NYC) 2. As a starting point it picks the most violent point (in terms of gun violence and homicide) in our history 3. Doesn't include statistics on race. It also raises the question on why we don't have those statistics. Yeah it's not a great statistic but it's all I have to go on. Here's a longer dated one for police shootings to address no. 2: + Show Spoiler +LinkYes we could use better data on this, but people are saying "it's getting worse" without posting any justifications for that position. Here is the most recent/relevant data for NYC + Show Spoiler +I mean ~30% increase recently is one sign. But again it's not just shooting people that is being suggested as getting worse (it may or may not be depending on where you measure from) it's a much larger issue which you obviously know. So I don't really get the intentional pettifogging. Source 2 years doesn't really make a trend. Well it's more than enough time for people to feel the consequences whether it is a 'trend' or not. But beyond that as for it being a widespread problem A Department of Justice study revealed that a whopping 84 percent of police officers report that they’ve seen colleagues use excessive force on civilians, and 61 percent admit they don’t always report “even serious criminal violations that involve abuse of authority by fellow officers.” The good news is that the first step toward preventing police brutality is well-documented and fairly simple: Keep police constantly on camera. A 2012 study in Rialto, Calif. found that when officers were required to wear cameras recording all their interactions with citizens, “public complaints against officers plunged 88% compared with the previous 12 months. Officers’ use of force fell by 60%.” The simple knowledge that they were being watched dramatically altered police behavior. SourceWhen it's not a "he said she said" cops tend to act radically differently. There is no reason they should not all be cam'd up (other than to protect the criminal ones). Cameras everywhere would be excessive, but if you want cops in a given area to carry cams I wouldn't have a problem with that. Most precincts resist any kinda cam idea tooth and nail, you have to fight them hard to get them to wear them. The fact they are so against them is just one more reason why they should be required. Consider that tomorrow your boss comes to you and says, from now on this work place requires everybody to carry a camera during work hours. Your reaction? I wouldn't want to carry a camera in my line of work. That is a normal office work place. It just feels like a waste of time and invasive. So I see the point of why they don't want them.
The difference is, my job does not entail me carrying around the power and authority to legally take life.
If I had a job that entailed that I would not mind in the least being watched. With that kind of responsibility you should be held damn accountable for how you use it.
There's a reason I didn't choose to become a police officer, I did not want that kind of responsibility.
|
On August 19 2014 16:00 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 15:02 Yurie wrote:On August 19 2014 13:50 Vindicare605 wrote:On August 19 2014 13:45 Quintum_ wrote:On August 19 2014 10:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 10:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 10:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 10:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 09:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 09:25 Jormundr wrote:
[quote]
That's not a very useful statistic because it
1. Is not necessarily indicative of the country as a whole (it's only NYC)
2. As a starting point it picks the most violent point (in terms of gun violence and homicide) in our history
3. Doesn't include statistics on race.
It also raises the question on why we don't have those statistics. Yeah it's not a great statistic but it's all I have to go on. Here's a longer dated one for police shootings to address no. 2: + Show Spoiler +LinkYes we could use better data on this, but people are saying "it's getting worse" without posting any justifications for that position. Here is the most recent/relevant data for NYC + Show Spoiler +I mean ~30% increase recently is one sign. But again it's not just shooting people that is being suggested as getting worse (it may or may not be depending on where you measure from) it's a much larger issue which you obviously know. So I don't really get the intentional pettifogging. Source 2 years doesn't really make a trend. Well it's more than enough time for people to feel the consequences whether it is a 'trend' or not. But beyond that as for it being a widespread problem A Department of Justice study revealed that a whopping 84 percent of police officers report that they’ve seen colleagues use excessive force on civilians, and 61 percent admit they don’t always report “even serious criminal violations that involve abuse of authority by fellow officers.” The good news is that the first step toward preventing police brutality is well-documented and fairly simple: Keep police constantly on camera. A 2012 study in Rialto, Calif. found that when officers were required to wear cameras recording all their interactions with citizens, “public complaints against officers plunged 88% compared with the previous 12 months. Officers’ use of force fell by 60%.” The simple knowledge that they were being watched dramatically altered police behavior. SourceWhen it's not a "he said she said" cops tend to act radically differently. There is no reason they should not all be cam'd up (other than to protect the criminal ones). Cameras everywhere would be excessive, but if you want cops in a given area to carry cams I wouldn't have a problem with that. Most precincts resist any kinda cam idea tooth and nail, you have to fight them hard to get them to wear them. The fact they are so against them is just one more reason why they should be required. Consider that tomorrow your boss comes to you and says, from now on this work place requires everybody to carry a camera during work hours. Your reaction? I wouldn't want to carry a camera in my line of work. That is a normal office work place. It just feels like a waste of time and invasive. So I see the point of why they don't want them. The difference is, my job does not entail me carrying around the power and authority to legally take life. If I had a job that entailed that I would not mind in the least being watched. With that kind of responsibility you should be held damn accountable for how you use it. There's a reason I didn't choose to become a police officer, I did not want that kind of responsibility.
It's not just the power. Anytime you're dealing with the public (i.e. customers), any reasonable employer needs to monitor employees for quality assurance purposes. Sure, it's a blot on Comcast's eye when someone puts up a recording of embarrassingly bad service on the internet, but that's the whole point. Comcast SHOULD be ashamed of themselves and forced to change because customers get angry when they find out they could also be mistreated.
It's a disgrace for cops to not have dash cams. The only reason cops oppose it is precisely because it generally brings a lot of shame, as it turns out it's not unusual for cops to be rude or unfair. I understand they're scared of all the amateur lawyers on the internet second-guessing their actions, but I think we should err on the side of excessive accountability with those empowered to detain and kill citizens.
|
Wow I just watched {CC}StealthBlue's video on page 1224 (jon oliver's show). What the hell is that tank doing in the hand of a swat team of a small city ? And that huge big ass armored vehicule. This is absolutly retarded I can't believe.
Also http://www.mediaite.com/online/ayatollah-khamenei-trolls-u-s-race-relations-on-twitter/
Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, or the intern who runs his Twitter account, spent his Sunday evening trolling U.S. race relations in response to the situation in Ferguson. This is a continuation of his tweets from two days ago, when he even made use of the #Ferguson hashtag.
Funny, maybe ?
|
Democrat John Walsh dropped out of the Montana Senate race after things looked like it might get really ugly with the allegations of plagiarism on a final paper at the Army War College.
Link
Montana Democrats on Saturday selected a little-known state lawmaker named Amanda Curtis as their candidate for U.S. Senate after Sen. John Walsh dropped out amid plagiarism allegations from his time at the U.S. Army War College.
Curtis, a first-term representative from Butte, now faces the challenge of introducing herself to Montana voters and making her case for them to choose her over well-known and well-funded Republican Rep. Steve Daines with less than three months until the Nov. 4 elections.
"If we win here in Montana, outspent and outgunned in a race where we were left for dead, it will send a message to Washington, D.C., that we want change," she said in a speech before the vote.
Curtis, 34, is a high school math teacher. She emerged as the front-runner earlier in the week after she received the endorsement of Montana's largest unions and high-profile party leaders said they weren't interested in running.
On Saturday, she appealed to working-class voters and portrayed Daines as being in the camp of corporations and the wealthy. She said her Senate campaign would focus on issues that include campaign finance reform, tax reform and funding for schools and infrastructure that would create jobs.
"This is the worst job market in a generation, but the stock market is doing just fine. Wall Street is doing great," Curtis said. "This recovery has not reached the rest of us."
Note that Walsh was the incumbent, so it's interesting for Curtis to try to flip the script as the underdog, although even state Democrats are treating this election as though it's hopeless. Daines was up in all the polls last month against Walsh, so I can't imagine Curtis will be doing much better when the first polls with her name come out.
|
United States43991 Posts
On August 19 2014 15:02 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 13:50 Vindicare605 wrote:On August 19 2014 13:45 Quintum_ wrote:On August 19 2014 10:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 10:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 10:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 10:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 09:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 09:25 Jormundr wrote:On August 19 2014 09:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Depending on how it went down it could be acceptable. If the guy went for the officer's gun... that's a very dangerous situation. I wouldn't expect an officer to take that lightly.
Edit: What's with the "minimize deny and sweep under the rug" comment? This is getting huge attention from many angles. Moreover, where's the evidence that it's a "clear and rampant" problem? The only statistics I've seen is for police shootings going down. That's not a very useful statistic because it 1. Is not necessarily indicative of the country as a whole (it's only NYC) 2. As a starting point it picks the most violent point (in terms of gun violence and homicide) in our history 3. Doesn't include statistics on race. It also raises the question on why we don't have those statistics. Yeah it's not a great statistic but it's all I have to go on. Here's a longer dated one for police shootings to address no. 2: + Show Spoiler +LinkYes we could use better data on this, but people are saying "it's getting worse" without posting any justifications for that position. Here is the most recent/relevant data for NYC + Show Spoiler +I mean ~30% increase recently is one sign. But again it's not just shooting people that is being suggested as getting worse (it may or may not be depending on where you measure from) it's a much larger issue which you obviously know. So I don't really get the intentional pettifogging. Source 2 years doesn't really make a trend. Well it's more than enough time for people to feel the consequences whether it is a 'trend' or not. But beyond that as for it being a widespread problem A Department of Justice study revealed that a whopping 84 percent of police officers report that they’ve seen colleagues use excessive force on civilians, and 61 percent admit they don’t always report “even serious criminal violations that involve abuse of authority by fellow officers.” The good news is that the first step toward preventing police brutality is well-documented and fairly simple: Keep police constantly on camera. A 2012 study in Rialto, Calif. found that when officers were required to wear cameras recording all their interactions with citizens, “public complaints against officers plunged 88% compared with the previous 12 months. Officers’ use of force fell by 60%.” The simple knowledge that they were being watched dramatically altered police behavior. SourceWhen it's not a "he said she said" cops tend to act radically differently. There is no reason they should not all be cam'd up (other than to protect the criminal ones). Cameras everywhere would be excessive, but if you want cops in a given area to carry cams I wouldn't have a problem with that. Most precincts resist any kinda cam idea tooth and nail, you have to fight them hard to get them to wear them. The fact they are so against them is just one more reason why they should be required. Consider that tomorrow your boss comes to you and says, from now on this work place requires everybody to carry a camera during work hours. Your reaction? I wouldn't want to carry a camera in my line of work. That is a normal office work place. It just feels like a waste of time and invasive. So I see the point of why they don't want them.
If a workplace routinely faces accusations of mistreating, or even killing, civilians through gross incompetence then it's probably worth making an exception for.
|
|
|
On August 19 2014 22:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 15:02 Yurie wrote:On August 19 2014 13:50 Vindicare605 wrote:On August 19 2014 13:45 Quintum_ wrote:On August 19 2014 10:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 10:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 10:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 10:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 09:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 09:25 Jormundr wrote:
[quote]
That's not a very useful statistic because it
1. Is not necessarily indicative of the country as a whole (it's only NYC)
2. As a starting point it picks the most violent point (in terms of gun violence and homicide) in our history
3. Doesn't include statistics on race.
It also raises the question on why we don't have those statistics. Yeah it's not a great statistic but it's all I have to go on. Here's a longer dated one for police shootings to address no. 2: + Show Spoiler +LinkYes we could use better data on this, but people are saying "it's getting worse" without posting any justifications for that position. Here is the most recent/relevant data for NYC + Show Spoiler +I mean ~30% increase recently is one sign. But again it's not just shooting people that is being suggested as getting worse (it may or may not be depending on where you measure from) it's a much larger issue which you obviously know. So I don't really get the intentional pettifogging. Source 2 years doesn't really make a trend. Well it's more than enough time for people to feel the consequences whether it is a 'trend' or not. But beyond that as for it being a widespread problem A Department of Justice study revealed that a whopping 84 percent of police officers report that they’ve seen colleagues use excessive force on civilians, and 61 percent admit they don’t always report “even serious criminal violations that involve abuse of authority by fellow officers.” The good news is that the first step toward preventing police brutality is well-documented and fairly simple: Keep police constantly on camera. A 2012 study in Rialto, Calif. found that when officers were required to wear cameras recording all their interactions with citizens, “public complaints against officers plunged 88% compared with the previous 12 months. Officers’ use of force fell by 60%.” The simple knowledge that they were being watched dramatically altered police behavior. SourceWhen it's not a "he said she said" cops tend to act radically differently. There is no reason they should not all be cam'd up (other than to protect the criminal ones). Cameras everywhere would be excessive, but if you want cops in a given area to carry cams I wouldn't have a problem with that. Most precincts resist any kinda cam idea tooth and nail, you have to fight them hard to get them to wear them. The fact they are so against them is just one more reason why they should be required. Consider that tomorrow your boss comes to you and says, from now on this work place requires everybody to carry a camera during work hours. Your reaction? I wouldn't want to carry a camera in my line of work. That is a normal office work place. It just feels like a waste of time and invasive. So I see the point of why they don't want them. If a workplace routinely faces accusations of mistreating, or even killing, civilians through gross incompetence then it's probably worth making an exception for.
Not to mention the ability to proove false accusations as being false. In case of a surgeon it is common to film the operation. In case of an official interrogation it is common to film it. Carrying the camera while on patrol or covering an event in official capacity, doesn't on its own seem that bad since it can be used as evidence in case of complaints.
The problems could be recording the conversation between the cops in the car while they are not "on" or in other downtime-situations where it would be advantageous to not have to worry about being watched (lunchbreak etc.). Then you can argue something like turning it off for that period, but if a cop is going to do something questionable, I'll bet the camera would be turned off if they have a choice. As much as I can see the reason for the surveillance, I am not sure how the delineations can be made without invading the cops privacy to an extend I wouldn't feel comfortable with.
|
As I have been saying for some time, I'm not sure that she will make it out of the primary. Her openly thumbing her nose at Obama on foreign policy issues is going to cost her with the democratic base. More to the point, I'm not entirely sure that she's going to gain anything among the general electorate if she does make it out.
|
Here's a really interesting paper put out by the public defenders for St. Louis County:
Overall, we found that by disproportionately stopping, charging and fining the poor and minorities, by closing the Courts to the public, and by incarcerating people for the failure to pay fines, these policies unintentionally push the poor further into poverty, prevent the homeless from accessing the housing, treatment, and jobs they so desperately need to regain stability in their lives, and violate the Constitution. These ongoing violations of the most fundamental guarantees of the Constitution are the product of a disordered, fragmented, and inefficient approach to criminal justice in St. Louis County.
Source
Basically a key revenue stream for local governments is fines related to traffic offenses. People get pulled over for speeding or whatever, and are assessed a fine of a couple hundred dollars. If they are unable to pay it, a warrant gets issued for their arrest, and they are likely to end up in jail for "as much as three weeks waiting to see a judge," and have even more fines to pay.
A few key facts from the report:
- "Despite their poverty, defendants are frequently ordered to pay fines that are frequently triple their monthly income."
- "According to the St. Louis County two municipalities alone, Ferguson and Florissant, earned a combined net profit of $3.5 million off of their municipal courts in 2013."
- "After being stopped in Ferguson, blacks are almost twice as likely as whites to be searched (12.1% vs. 6.9%) and twice as likely to be arrested (10.4% vs. 5.2%)."
-"[One defendant] described the startlingly common experience of being instructed to call everybody he could think of who might have money to pay his fine — with the promise of three or four days in jail if he could not find somebody with enough money."
- "Despite Ferguson’s relative poverty, fines and court fees comprise the second largest source of revenue for the city, a total of $2,635,400."
Based on this information, the community's response to Brown's shooting should surprise no one.
|
On August 19 2014 23:53 xDaunt wrote:As I have been saying for some time, I'm not sure that she will make it out of the primary. Her openly thumbing her nose at Obama on foreign policy issues is going to cost her with the democratic base. More to the point, I'm not entirely sure that she's going to gain anything among the general electorate if she does make it out.
Is there someone else beside Hillary that could be the representative for the democrats ?
|
On August 20 2014 00:38 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 23:53 xDaunt wrote:As I have been saying for some time, I'm not sure that she will make it out of the primary. Her openly thumbing her nose at Obama on foreign policy issues is going to cost her with the democratic base. More to the point, I'm not entirely sure that she's going to gain anything among the general electorate if she does make it out. Is there someone else beside Hillary that could be the representative for the democrats ?
Beats me. There weren't many people who thought that a total political neophyte such as Obama would displace Hillary in 2008. I just foresee the democrat party throwing her overboard again for many of the same reasons that they did in 2008, and her current anti-Obama foreign policy campaign certainly isn't winning her any additional supporters from the base.
|
On August 20 2014 01:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2014 00:38 WhiteDog wrote:On August 19 2014 23:53 xDaunt wrote:As I have been saying for some time, I'm not sure that she will make it out of the primary. Her openly thumbing her nose at Obama on foreign policy issues is going to cost her with the democratic base. More to the point, I'm not entirely sure that she's going to gain anything among the general electorate if she does make it out. Is there someone else beside Hillary that could be the representative for the democrats ? Beats me. There weren't many people who thought that a total political neophyte such as Obama would displace Hillary in 2008. I just foresee the democrat party throwing her overboard again for many of the same reasons that they did in 2008, and her current anti-Obama foreign policy campaign certainly isn't winning her any additional supporters from the base.
I'm not sure her positions on foreign policy are anti-Obama. If I remember correctly (which I might not), Obama wanted to aid Syrian rebels too.
Maybe she had a different kind of aid in mind or something.
|
I really doubt there's someone like Obama coming out of the woodwork to whack Hillary this time. That guy was a once in a generation political anomaly. Hopefully there are some people that will come out of the woodwork this time to at least make the democratic primaries interesting. My dream is that Hillary doesn't run at all for some reason. We'd have a wonderfully entertaining/depressing crapshoot from both parties.
|
Is Elizabeth Warren a serious candidate? She seems to be quite popular among progressives.
|
On August 20 2014 01:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2014 00:38 WhiteDog wrote:On August 19 2014 23:53 xDaunt wrote:As I have been saying for some time, I'm not sure that she will make it out of the primary. Her openly thumbing her nose at Obama on foreign policy issues is going to cost her with the democratic base. More to the point, I'm not entirely sure that she's going to gain anything among the general electorate if she does make it out. Is there someone else beside Hillary that could be the representative for the democrats ? Beats me. There weren't many people who thought that a total political neophyte such as Obama would displace Hillary in 2008. I just foresee the democrat party throwing her overboard again for many of the same reasons that they did in 2008, and her current anti-Obama foreign policy campaign certainly isn't winning her any additional supporters from the base.
Obama was being telegraphed as the next potential hope since 04 when he gave that speech at Kerry's nomination. There is no parallel guy like that. Especially someone who will inspire the kind of infrastructure Obama had actually set up when he ran. I really get the feeling that a lot of Republicans dont appreciate Obama the electioneer as much as they should, the guy ran one of the best campaigns twice in presidential politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Os2sqAB.png)
