|
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 December 23 2014 10:19 zlefin wrote:
Why wasn't the officers baton properly secured?
From what I know of the homeless; if they wake up and find someone going through their clothes, they're probably being robbed; so it would seem unwise to frisk someone while they're asleep unless you have the physical force to guarantee they won't be a threat if they wake up violent (and confused).
It seems like one of those cases where it may be that neither side is at fault.
hmm; if the officer violated procedure in doing it; I think you may be able to make a case for criminally negligent homicide (on the theory that the criminal act was at the frisking while the guy was asleep, and the homicide a foreseeable outcome; self-defense wouldn't apply because the criminal act of negligence occurred before self-defense was an issue, because the guy was asleep).
It'd be hard to win, but it sounds like a plausible case to try.
I dont get why he was even trying to frisk a sleeping guy, surely your first action is waking them man up.
But he was fired for not following procedure so that is probably why.
|
On December 23 2014 10:20 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2014 08:21 oneofthem wrote:On December 23 2014 01:26 IgnE wrote:On December 22 2014 17:26 oneofthem wrote:
now now, both 'sides' are allowed the emotional overreactions. there's a lot to be said on who's right and who's not etc, but the important thing i see is tremendous lost opportunity for honest reflection. Nope sorry there aren't two sides. On one side is a pattern of deadly excessive force by those who are tasked with protecting the public. The other side composed of a lone wolf psycho killer is dead. again, two sides simply mean two sides to a conversation, not two sides of blameworthiness. protests for the most part do nothing wrong per se, but are also not at their most productive. the police doesn't listen when you scream at them, this much should be simple. there is no chance of reform at this rate. enjoy the escalations. whether talking with police or with kids establishing trust is the first step of a productive conversation. i'm not seeing that right now the cops reacting in this way is just more of the same from them. cop lives are more important than everyone else's. stop the presses: a cop got shot. its the end of the world. if anybody else had been shot its just another tragedy. perhaps we need to cast out the entire leadership in most precincts wholesale.
But this is how the union is supposed to react. For them, a member cop dying is a substantial threat to their existence, since it severely hurts morale and other members demand more protection, particularly the details of the shooting where both cops were in their car and did not draw their weapons, indicating they may not have seen the shooter.
You have to draw a distinction between the union to which those men belonged and the police force or local government. It doesn't appear as though the mayor or NYPD is doing anything differently or treating this as a crisis. It is just the unions and worrying about their membership to an extreme degree like this is their job.
|
On December 23 2014 11:01 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2014 10:20 IgnE wrote:On December 23 2014 08:21 oneofthem wrote:On December 23 2014 01:26 IgnE wrote:On December 22 2014 17:26 oneofthem wrote:
now now, both 'sides' are allowed the emotional overreactions. there's a lot to be said on who's right and who's not etc, but the important thing i see is tremendous lost opportunity for honest reflection. Nope sorry there aren't two sides. On one side is a pattern of deadly excessive force by those who are tasked with protecting the public. The other side composed of a lone wolf psycho killer is dead. again, two sides simply mean two sides to a conversation, not two sides of blameworthiness. protests for the most part do nothing wrong per se, but are also not at their most productive. the police doesn't listen when you scream at them, this much should be simple. there is no chance of reform at this rate. enjoy the escalations. whether talking with police or with kids establishing trust is the first step of a productive conversation. i'm not seeing that right now the cops reacting in this way is just more of the same from them. cop lives are more important than everyone else's. stop the presses: a cop got shot. its the end of the world. if anybody else had been shot its just another tragedy. perhaps we need to cast out the entire leadership in most precincts wholesale. But this is how the union is supposed to react. For them, a member cop dying is a substantial threat to their existence, since it severely hurts morale and other members demand more protection, particularly the details of the shooting where both cops were in their car and did not draw their weapons, indicating they may not have seen the shooter. You have to draw a distinction between the union to which those men belonged and the police force or local government. It doesn't appear as though the mayor or NYPD is doing anything differently or treating this as a crisis. It is just the unions and worrying about their membership to an extreme degree like this is their job.
Yes, its totally the unions job to create panicked and paranoid cops who are more likely to shoot the very people they are suppose to protect.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On December 23 2014 10:20 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2014 08:21 oneofthem wrote:On December 23 2014 01:26 IgnE wrote:On December 22 2014 17:26 oneofthem wrote:
now now, both 'sides' are allowed the emotional overreactions. there's a lot to be said on who's right and who's not etc, but the important thing i see is tremendous lost opportunity for honest reflection. Nope sorry there aren't two sides. On one side is a pattern of deadly excessive force by those who are tasked with protecting the public. The other side composed of a lone wolf psycho killer is dead. again, two sides simply mean two sides to a conversation, not two sides of blameworthiness. protests for the most part do nothing wrong per se, but are also not at their most productive. the police doesn't listen when you scream at them, this much should be simple. there is no chance of reform at this rate. enjoy the escalations. whether talking with police or with kids establishing trust is the first step of a productive conversation. i'm not seeing that right now the cops reacting in this way is just more of the same from them. cop lives are more important than everyone else's. stop the presses: a cop got shot. its the end of the world. if anybody else had been shot its just another tragedy. perhaps we need to cast out the entire leadership in most precincts wholesale.
you seriously think cops won't react emotionally to assassinations?
|
On December 23 2014 11:54 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2014 10:20 IgnE wrote:On December 23 2014 08:21 oneofthem wrote:On December 23 2014 01:26 IgnE wrote:On December 22 2014 17:26 oneofthem wrote:
now now, both 'sides' are allowed the emotional overreactions. there's a lot to be said on who's right and who's not etc, but the important thing i see is tremendous lost opportunity for honest reflection. Nope sorry there aren't two sides. On one side is a pattern of deadly excessive force by those who are tasked with protecting the public. The other side composed of a lone wolf psycho killer is dead. again, two sides simply mean two sides to a conversation, not two sides of blameworthiness. protests for the most part do nothing wrong per se, but are also not at their most productive. the police doesn't listen when you scream at them, this much should be simple. there is no chance of reform at this rate. enjoy the escalations. whether talking with police or with kids establishing trust is the first step of a productive conversation. i'm not seeing that right now the cops reacting in this way is just more of the same from them. cop lives are more important than everyone else's. stop the presses: a cop got shot. its the end of the world. if anybody else had been shot its just another tragedy. perhaps we need to cast out the entire leadership in most precincts wholesale. you seriously think cops won't react emotionally to assassinations?
On the list of things that a cop should not do this should probably be number one or two.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
that's just so far from reality.
|
No it's not. Keeping your composure in escalating situations is arguably the most important thing a police officer should be capable off.
|
On December 23 2014 10:26 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2014 10:19 zlefin wrote:
Why wasn't the officers baton properly secured?
From what I know of the homeless; if they wake up and find someone going through their clothes, they're probably being robbed; so it would seem unwise to frisk someone while they're asleep unless you have the physical force to guarantee they won't be a threat if they wake up violent (and confused).
It seems like one of those cases where it may be that neither side is at fault.
hmm; if the officer violated procedure in doing it; I think you may be able to make a case for criminally negligent homicide (on the theory that the criminal act was at the frisking while the guy was asleep, and the homicide a foreseeable outcome; self-defense wouldn't apply because the criminal act of negligence occurred before self-defense was an issue, because the guy was asleep).
It'd be hard to win, but it sounds like a plausible case to try. I dont get why he was even trying to frisk a sleeping guy, surely your first action is waking them man up. But he was fired for not following procedure so that is probably why.
In my city, where I used to live, we had a back alley where folks slept all the time.
They would get the spotlight first, then 1-2 seconds of the siren to wake them up. If they don't flinch from the siren, then you know they are passed out.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On December 23 2014 12:00 Nyxisto wrote:
No it's not. Keeping your composure in escalating situations is arguably the most important thing a police officer should be capable off.
you are acting like the police are straight up shooting protesters? they are just saying words.
distinguish between police keeping procedure on the job, and their political activity/speech off the job?
|
Given the fact that the message was spread through an official police channel I wouldn't consider it 'off the job'. Also if a police officer honestly thinks he is in some kind of war with the population he should probably trade his badge in.
|
On December 23 2014 12:00 Nyxisto wrote:
No it's not. Keeping your composure in escalating situations is arguably the most important thing a police officer should be capable off.
They're police officers, not hardened SF teams.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
again, you are confusing their on the job duty with a fictitious duty to be like that politically and off the job as well.
|
On December 23 2014 12:39 oneofthem wrote:
again, you are confusing their on the job duty with a fictitious duty to be like that politically and off the job as well.
You've been the one to consistently bring up how this reaction is only going to escalate tension. But do I think cops can or should respond unemotionally to assassinations? No. But this wasn't an assassination. You can't be the victim of an assassination if you are randomly targeted. The police reaction has gone beyond the bounds of acceptable emotional response by turning the whole affair into something it is not. You can be emotional, but the proper channel is in grieving and expressions of condolences. Turning the murders into a nationwide crisis with emergency measures, effectively amping up the fear dial to 11, is reason for removal. It's more than irresponsible; it's feckless, craven, and disgusting.
It also undermines the heroic cultural narrative that lauds cops as real-life heroes. When cop lives become more important than all the civilian lives they serve what does it even mean to say that cops are heroes? Where is the sacrifice if cops are operating under the assumption that they should never actually be in the line of fire, figuratively or literally? And that if there is a real threat that they will be in the line of fire, that they now have license to enact draconian police state measures, to shoot first and ask questions later, and to tell the people who honor them that it's in order to save cops' lives. There is no valor in that. Any thug knows to join the most powerful gang in his neighborhood if he's looking for protection. At what point is it safer to be a cop in new york than not to be one? The entire farce just exposes the leadership here for what they are: cowards. It crystallizes the common perception that many cops are just power hungry bullies waiting to beat somebody up for any perceived disrespect. Like I said, it's disgusting, and they ought to be ashamed.
|
WASHINGTON -- New York City's police unions have agreed to refrain from putting out more statements on Saturday's cold-blooded murder of police officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos, after the unions came under scrutiny for blaming Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) for the shooting.
Ismaaiyl Brinsley, the man who killed the two officers, shot his former girlfriend in Maryland before heading up to New York and killing Liu and Ramos on Saturday. Before his rampage, Brinsley put a photo on Instagram, threatening to put "wings on pigs" and adding the hashtags used to support Michael Brown and Eric Garner, two unarmed African-American men whose deaths at the hands of police officers have sparked national protests in recent months.
De Blasio has repeatedly praised the work of law enforcement, but he has also called for reform to ensure that every New Yorker feels like he or she is getting fair treatment from the police. Pat Lynch, president of the city's largest police union, the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, seemed upset that de Blasio has shown sympathy with the protesters.
During a press conference Monday afternoon, NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton said the unions had agreed to stop putting out statements out of respect for Liu's and Ramos' families. De Blasio also called for a temporary halt to the protests to allow the families to mourn.
"I've had the opportunity today to talk with the leadership of all five of our police unions, in line with what the mayor has referenced, asking that demonstrations and other forms of protests be put on hold until after the Christmas holidays and after the funerals," said Bratton. "In discussion with the five presidents of our various unions, they are standing down in respect for the fallen members until after the funerals, and then we can continue the dialogue that had begun about issues and differences that exist."
De Blasio -- along with President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder -- have been taking a significant amount of heat from some conservatives for sympathizing with the grievances of protesters who are calling for fair treatment from law enforcement. On Monday, Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) accused Obama and de Blasio of creating an anti-cop environment that encouraged Brinsley.
But the unions swiftly came under a fair amount of criticism for their remarks as well.
"Much like we shouldn't be blaming a president for the deaths of soldiers on the battlefield, let's not point fingers at the mayor for a madman's actions. It's ridiculous to believe that if only de Blasio had been more like Rudy Giuliani, Officers Liu and Ramos would be alive," said NY1 Political Director Bob Hardt in a column. "It's the same sloppy and dangerous logic in which people tried to blame American foreign policy for the 9/11 attacks, saying the chickens have come home to roost. There are plenty of chickens that fly around on their own."
De Blasio also isn't the first mayor to get into an argument with the PBA; the union has gone after at least the last four New York City mayors.
Bratton made a similar point during Monday's press conference.
Source
|
Fuck, why are you guys making me agree with Igne? I need a shower.
|
On December 23 2014 15:24 xDaunt wrote:
Fuck, why are you guys making me agree with Igne? I need a shower.
Is there a quotables section somewhere to collect things like this? I don't see one looking through the other threads in the General area, or anything website related.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On December 23 2014 13:13 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2014 12:39 oneofthem wrote:
again, you are confusing their on the job duty with a fictitious duty to be like that politically and off the job as well. You've been the one to consistently bring up how this reaction is only going to escalate tension. But do I think cops can or should respond unemotionally to assassinations? No. But this wasn't an assassination. You can't be the victim of an assassination if you are randomly targeted. The police reaction has gone beyond the bounds of acceptable emotional response by turning the whole affair into something it is not. You can be emotional, but the proper channel is in grieving and expressions of condolences. Turning the murders into a nationwide crisis with emergency measures, effectively amping up the fear dial to 11, is reason for removal. It's more than irresponsible; it's feckless, craven, and disgusting. It also undermines the heroic cultural narrative that lauds cops as real-life heroes. When cop lives become more important than all the civilian lives they serve what does it even mean to say that cops are heroes? Where is the sacrifice if cops are operating under the assumption that they should never actually be in the line of fire, figuratively or literally? And that if there is a real threat that they will be in the line of fire, that they now have license to enact draconian police state measures, to shoot first and ask questions later, and to tell the people who honor them that it's in order to save cops' lives. There is no valor in that. Any thug knows to join the most powerful gang in his neighborhood if he's looking for protection. At what point is it safer to be a cop in new york than not to be one? The entire farce just exposes the leadership here for what they are: cowards. It crystallizes the common perception that many cops are just power hungry bullies waiting to beat somebody up for any perceived disrespect. Like I said, it's disgusting, and they ought to be ashamed.
hostility towards police behavior aside, there is really no other way besides assassination for the cops perspective. there is the alert for gang targeting police in baltimore and other NE states, there is the message the deranged killer left online, etc.
let me put it in a way that does not mess with the sensitive police bashing nerves. the police was predictably reacting as though it was a war event, even though in the particular case it was a nutty individual.
some of these protesters were actually hostile in the exact way that is too antagonistic to be productive, including protesting at the cops memorial service and using very anti-police, conspiratorial rhetoric. it's just human nature for the police, given its already clear siege mentality and general lack of empathy with the community in which it operates, to view this incident as an act of war.
overall a tragic event but also predictable police backlash. thus i don't really understand how the police backlash to this very serious incident is a focal point for your anger against the police. that part is just par for the course. what the heck did you expect really
AGAIN, if you really want to see reform rather than simply express anger or be right etc, the worst thing would be to allow the worst segments of protesters to define the movement. you always want to move towards the understanding portion of the police community. in turn the more radical portion of the police force is obviously stronger now. do you really think there is political will or resource to take on the police union in NYC with a direct confrontational approach? highest kek.
there is absolutely no external actor here to take on the task of police reform, it has to find cooperation within the police force. taht is the bottom line.
|
On December 23 2014 15:24 xDaunt wrote:
Fuck, why are you guys making me agree with Igne? I need a shower.
How interesting, you don't see all that straw sticking out of his argument.
|
Most of you never had to face shitty cops in a difficult situation it's pretty obvious. The problem is not that they cannot keep their cool, stop viewing them as weak little creature. The problem is that they fucking love it, they love to dominate, to show their strength, to use the advantages of their positions, and since they are permitted to kill, they continue to do so.
What I love about all that is that the police, one of the main arm of public safety, the "strength of order" as we call it in France, one of the few institutions allowed to use violence legally on the citizens, are always described as weak, poor little creature facing the "dangerous" citizens. Poor little policemen.... We must understand, they shoot civilian because they feel like they are at war - but no we cannot understand the one insulting them, it is not "productive", even if they feel like some of them are getting shot at.
|
On December 23 2014 17:33 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2014 15:24 xDaunt wrote:
Fuck, why are you guys making me agree with Igne? I need a shower. How interesting, you don't see all that straw sticking out of his argument.
His general arguments are 1) cops can be assholes, 2) cops get way too much slack in our society, and 3) we have a resulting problem with cops abusing their authority. I tend to agree with all three.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
