|
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 April 09 2015 07:05 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 07:02 ZasZ. wrote:On April 09 2015 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 06:51 ZasZ. wrote:On April 09 2015 06:45 wei2coolman wrote:On April 09 2015 06:42 ZasZ. wrote:On April 09 2015 06:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 06:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:30 wei2coolman wrote:On April 09 2015 06:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
ugh... It's only happening because it was caught on film and the officer didn't steal the camera... No video, and this guy stays on desk duty (which is where they put him after the incident) until it blows over and he's back on the streets. Well duh, DA ain't gunna charge someone without evidence. You're essentially saying "they only charged because there's evidence!". Which by the way, is exactly how the system is supposed to work. There is the problem... Without the independent video (pure luck) there is 'no evidence' despite it being a clear and deliberate murder. A criminal justice system like that is clearly in desperate need of correction. please explain this justice system that convicts people without evidence. I don't think GH is advocating for a justice system that convicts people with no evidence to support that conviction. But he has a point. If this killing had played out exactly as it did, but with no passerby to record it on video, it would have been astonishingly easy for this cop, his partner, and their department to cover it up as self defense. We know that there would be additional evidence indicating it was not, but when the police department is only accountable to themselves, can they be trusted to present those facts without any deception or modification? In this case, the video is great because it is evidence that can secure a conviction. If the video didn't exist, it wouldn't make this less of a murder it would just make it harder to prove in court. That's not a fault in the courts, it's a (significant) fault in our police system. The mayor's response, to order more body cameras for their police officers, is the right one. Until you can address the underlying racial bias that may be provoking these killings, making every police officer painfully aware that they are being recorded may be the best way to prevent his from happening in the short-term. Same with most crime... if there isn't evidence, you can't convict... the problem here, is if GH has just made the reasonable post of "this is why there needs to be body camera's in law enforcement", there would just be a couple of posts agreeing with body cameras. But, he rather stir the pot by claiming some wild conspiracy. But you have to admit that it is much easier for police officers to get rid of incriminating evidence than it is for random joe who shot his ex-wife to do the same. They are in charge of collecting evidence after all, and are in control of the crime scene while it is still fresh and no one else has seen it. There is power and responsibility associated with that, and without external accountability that power will be abused by bad cops. There is a difference between evidence not existing and evidence being hidden or destroyed. GH's contention was that if the video hadn't come to light, evidence that could have been used to gain a conviction in court would have been altered with none the wiser. And given that the cop tried to plant a taser on this man's corpse and lied to his department and the public about what happened, I'm inclined to believe that. I do think claiming conspiracy on this story is a little premature. The department acted foolishly by relying on this officer's word, but it doesn't necessarily mean they knew all the facts and decided to spin it anyways. The partner should also be charged with a crime for his involvement, but I do not think you can drag the whole department into it (yet). the police officer involved in the shooting wouldnt be the one booking the evidence; he is in no better a position than the average joe. you are assuming that everyone in the police department is corrupt. Isn't there a period of time that exists between when the evidence is created (the shooting) and the evidence is booked? A period of time during which a bad cop can do bad things? I'm not assuming everyone in the police department is corrupt, and even said as much in that I don't think this is a department-wide conspiracy, just bad police work. But why give the departments which are ACTUALLY corrupt any opportunity to cover up things like this? Everyone knows that checks and balances are a good thing, and that people in positions of power should be accountable to people or groups other than themselves and outside of their sphere of influence. there is a period of time, which both the bad cop and the bad average joe would be able to manipulate the crime scene before other officers get to the crime scene--most likely there is more time for the average joe since an officer will likely call the shooting in to the dispatcher. i don't get your distinction between cops and regular people with respect to being able to clean up a murder scene.
And then there's the longer time after the cops get there and help get their buddy out of trouble.
|
On April 09 2015 07:44 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 07:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 07:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 07:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 07:07 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 07:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 06:51 ZasZ. wrote:
[quote]
But you have to admit that it is much easier for police officers to get rid of incriminating evidence than it is for random joe who shot his ex-wife to do the same. They are in charge of collecting evidence after all, and are in control of the crime scene while it is still fresh and no one else has seen it. There is power and responsibility associated with that, and without external accountability that power will be abused by bad cops.
There is a difference between evidence not existing and evidence being hidden or destroyed. GH's contention was that if the video hadn't come to light, evidence that could have been used to gain a conviction in court would have been altered with none the wiser. And given that the cop tried to plant a taser on this man's corpse and lied to his department and the public about what happened, I'm inclined to believe that.
I do think claiming conspiracy on this story is a little premature. The department acted foolishly by relying on this officer's word, but it doesn't necessarily mean they knew all the facts and decided to spin it anyways. The partner should also be charged with a crime for his involvement, but I do not think you can drag the whole department into it (yet).
the police officer involved in the shooting wouldnt be the one booking the evidence; he is in no better a position than the average joe. you are assuming that everyone in the police department is corrupt. Having a murderous cop doesn't help the department, it's less about corruption and more about covering their ass. If they don't HAVE to admit one of theirs unjustifiably murdered someone, they wont. They look at it like you described not snitching on your friends. They just happen to have the ability to influence the outcome significantly more than an average Joe. The department has nothing to lose by proving Joe is a murderer but they have plenty to lose if they admit one of their own is a murderer. if you start with the premise that police departments are corrupt and cover up murders, i can see why you think this, but i do not start from such a premise and thus find your statement unconvincing at best. Well not every department every time, but even you wouldn't claim that police departments are free from the same corruption we find everywhere else? Or that them being corrupt gives them advantages average corrupt people can't use? not sure what you mean by corruption, but cops are just regular people and all regular people suffer from the same faults. if the police department as a whole is corrupt and wants to cover up a crime then they have an advantage over the average joe since they are trusted with the evidence and can lose or destroy a lot of the evidence, but a lot of people in the police department would have to be involved in the cover up. You at least recognize that's precisely what happened with the Brown convenience store video being released and then the chief lying about it right? i dont know what you are talking about. i assume this has something to do with ferguson since everything you say goes back to ferguson, but know very little about the investigation in that case. Not surprised you don't know what I'm talking about at all... The police chief released the video of Brown in the convenience store, the immediate observation was that it was a corrupt department tainting public opinion. The chief lied to the national press claiming he released it because they were bombarding the department with Freedom of information requests. Reporters immediately noted none of them could find a single instance of anyone requesting the video or even knowing it existed before it's release. The federal investigation confirmed the immediate suspicions that the chief was blatantly lying to influence the narrative. okay. so what is your question? thats not losing or destroying evidence. that is the police chief trying to show that the victim was not a pleasant person to, as you say, sway public opinion. also, havent we beaten the ferguson horse to a bloody pulp by now? i thought we were talking about the police department (hailed by the NAACP of doing a good job) that helped indict one of its members for murder.
We have a clear example in Ferguson of a corrupt police department, that would of remained unrecognized indefinitely without a separate federal investigation brought on solely by the response of the community and nation at large to a questionable killing.
The question is... You realize that Ferguson is an example of how a corrupt department could get away with being corrupt if they are the only ones investigating themselves? It's about manipulation of evidence not just simply destroying or losing it that is the only problem.
|
We had a bunch of high profile cases here with police misconduct (and unjustified force/death). Solution we got was a 3rd party investigation office that basically looks into all cases involving deaths or severe injuries.
|
On April 09 2015 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 07:44 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 07:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 07:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 07:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 07:07 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 07:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
the police officer involved in the shooting wouldnt be the one booking the evidence; he is in no better a position than the average joe. you are assuming that everyone in the police department is corrupt. Having a murderous cop doesn't help the department, it's less about corruption and more about covering their ass. If they don't HAVE to admit one of theirs unjustifiably murdered someone, they wont. They look at it like you described not snitching on your friends. They just happen to have the ability to influence the outcome significantly more than an average Joe. The department has nothing to lose by proving Joe is a murderer but they have plenty to lose if they admit one of their own is a murderer. if you start with the premise that police departments are corrupt and cover up murders, i can see why you think this, but i do not start from such a premise and thus find your statement unconvincing at best. Well not every department every time, but even you wouldn't claim that police departments are free from the same corruption we find everywhere else? Or that them being corrupt gives them advantages average corrupt people can't use? not sure what you mean by corruption, but cops are just regular people and all regular people suffer from the same faults. if the police department as a whole is corrupt and wants to cover up a crime then they have an advantage over the average joe since they are trusted with the evidence and can lose or destroy a lot of the evidence, but a lot of people in the police department would have to be involved in the cover up. You at least recognize that's precisely what happened with the Brown convenience store video being released and then the chief lying about it right? i dont know what you are talking about. i assume this has something to do with ferguson since everything you say goes back to ferguson, but know very little about the investigation in that case. Not surprised you don't know what I'm talking about at all... The police chief released the video of Brown in the convenience store, the immediate observation was that it was a corrupt department tainting public opinion. The chief lied to the national press claiming he released it because they were bombarding the department with Freedom of information requests. Reporters immediately noted none of them could find a single instance of anyone requesting the video or even knowing it existed before it's release. The federal investigation confirmed the immediate suspicions that the chief was blatantly lying to influence the narrative. okay. so what is your question? thats not losing or destroying evidence. that is the police chief trying to show that the victim was not a pleasant person to, as you say, sway public opinion. also, havent we beaten the ferguson horse to a bloody pulp by now? i thought we were talking about the police department (hailed by the NAACP of doing a good job) that helped indict one of its members for murder. We have a clear example in Ferguson of a corrupt police department, that would of remained unrecognized indefinitely without a separate federal investigation brought on solely by the response of the community and nation at large to a questionable killing. The question is... You realize that Ferguson is an example of how a corrupt department could get away with being corrupt if they are the only ones investigating themselves? It's about manipulation of evidence not just simply destroying or losing it that is the only problem.
considering there was a class action against Ferguson before the DoJ issued its report, i do not agree with you. police departments are not the only ones able to investigate themselves.
|
On April 09 2015 08:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:
We had a bunch of high profile cases here with police misconduct (and unjustified force/death). Solution we got was a 3rd party investigation office that basically looks into all cases involving deaths or severe injuries.
Considering departments here don't even want to release the information at all, let alone have a third part act on it, we have a long way to go here on that.
On April 09 2015 08:05 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 07:44 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 07:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 07:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 07:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 07:07 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 07:00 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Having a murderous cop doesn't help the department, it's less about corruption and more about covering their ass. If they don't HAVE to admit one of theirs unjustifiably murdered someone, they wont.
They look at it like you described not snitching on your friends. They just happen to have the ability to influence the outcome significantly more than an average Joe. The department has nothing to lose by proving Joe is a murderer but they have plenty to lose if they admit one of their own is a murderer. if you start with the premise that police departments are corrupt and cover up murders, i can see why you think this, but i do not start from such a premise and thus find your statement unconvincing at best. Well not every department every time, but even you wouldn't claim that police departments are free from the same corruption we find everywhere else? Or that them being corrupt gives them advantages average corrupt people can't use? not sure what you mean by corruption, but cops are just regular people and all regular people suffer from the same faults. if the police department as a whole is corrupt and wants to cover up a crime then they have an advantage over the average joe since they are trusted with the evidence and can lose or destroy a lot of the evidence, but a lot of people in the police department would have to be involved in the cover up. You at least recognize that's precisely what happened with the Brown convenience store video being released and then the chief lying about it right? i dont know what you are talking about. i assume this has something to do with ferguson since everything you say goes back to ferguson, but know very little about the investigation in that case. Not surprised you don't know what I'm talking about at all... The police chief released the video of Brown in the convenience store, the immediate observation was that it was a corrupt department tainting public opinion. The chief lied to the national press claiming he released it because they were bombarding the department with Freedom of information requests. Reporters immediately noted none of them could find a single instance of anyone requesting the video or even knowing it existed before it's release. The federal investigation confirmed the immediate suspicions that the chief was blatantly lying to influence the narrative. okay. so what is your question? thats not losing or destroying evidence. that is the police chief trying to show that the victim was not a pleasant person to, as you say, sway public opinion. also, havent we beaten the ferguson horse to a bloody pulp by now? i thought we were talking about the police department (hailed by the NAACP of doing a good job) that helped indict one of its members for murder. We have a clear example in Ferguson of a corrupt police department, that would of remained unrecognized indefinitely without a separate federal investigation brought on solely by the response of the community and nation at large to a questionable killing. The question is... You realize that Ferguson is an example of how a corrupt department could get away with being corrupt if they are the only ones investigating themselves? It's about manipulation of evidence not just simply destroying or losing it that is the only problem. considering there was a class action against Ferguson before the DoJ issued its report, i do not agree with you. police departments are not the only ones able to investigate themselves.
lol Where do you suppose the department would get the money to pay out that suit provided it somehow went anywhere without the DoJ report?
|
On April 09 2015 08:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 08:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:
We had a bunch of high profile cases here with police misconduct (and unjustified force/death). Solution we got was a 3rd party investigation office that basically looks into all cases involving deaths or severe injuries. Considering departments here don't even want to release the information at all, let alone have a third part act on it, we have a long way to go here on that.
Well, we had that issue here as well (in fact, currently have a police officer on trial for perjury for one of those cases).
|
On April 09 2015 08:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 08:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:
We had a bunch of high profile cases here with police misconduct (and unjustified force/death). Solution we got was a 3rd party investigation office that basically looks into all cases involving deaths or severe injuries. Considering departments here don't even want to release the information at all, let alone have a third part act on it, we have a long way to go here on that. Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 08:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 07:44 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 07:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 07:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 07:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 07:07 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
if you start with the premise that police departments are corrupt and cover up murders, i can see why you think this, but i do not start from such a premise and thus find your statement unconvincing at best. Well not every department every time, but even you wouldn't claim that police departments are free from the same corruption we find everywhere else? Or that them being corrupt gives them advantages average corrupt people can't use? not sure what you mean by corruption, but cops are just regular people and all regular people suffer from the same faults. if the police department as a whole is corrupt and wants to cover up a crime then they have an advantage over the average joe since they are trusted with the evidence and can lose or destroy a lot of the evidence, but a lot of people in the police department would have to be involved in the cover up. You at least recognize that's precisely what happened with the Brown convenience store video being released and then the chief lying about it right? i dont know what you are talking about. i assume this has something to do with ferguson since everything you say goes back to ferguson, but know very little about the investigation in that case. Not surprised you don't know what I'm talking about at all... The police chief released the video of Brown in the convenience store, the immediate observation was that it was a corrupt department tainting public opinion. The chief lied to the national press claiming he released it because they were bombarding the department with Freedom of information requests. Reporters immediately noted none of them could find a single instance of anyone requesting the video or even knowing it existed before it's release. The federal investigation confirmed the immediate suspicions that the chief was blatantly lying to influence the narrative. okay. so what is your question? thats not losing or destroying evidence. that is the police chief trying to show that the victim was not a pleasant person to, as you say, sway public opinion. also, havent we beaten the ferguson horse to a bloody pulp by now? i thought we were talking about the police department (hailed by the NAACP of doing a good job) that helped indict one of its members for murder. We have a clear example in Ferguson of a corrupt police department, that would of remained unrecognized indefinitely without a separate federal investigation brought on solely by the response of the community and nation at large to a questionable killing. The question is... You realize that Ferguson is an example of how a corrupt department could get away with being corrupt if they are the only ones investigating themselves? It's about manipulation of evidence not just simply destroying or losing it that is the only problem. considering there was a class action against Ferguson before the DoJ issued its report, i do not agree with you. police departments are not the only ones able to investigate themselves. lol Where do you suppose the department would get the money to pay out that suit provided it somehow went anywhere without the DoJ report?
the city, county or state tax coffers most likely. depends on the legal structures between the cities, county and state. regardless, i dont see how collectability is at issue. the courts can also issue injunctions. in fact, the state courts are legally in a better place to stop the "unconstitutional" acts than the DoJ who has limited authority.
|
On April 09 2015 08:18 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 08:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 08:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:
We had a bunch of high profile cases here with police misconduct (and unjustified force/death). Solution we got was a 3rd party investigation office that basically looks into all cases involving deaths or severe injuries. Considering departments here don't even want to release the information at all, let alone have a third part act on it, we have a long way to go here on that. On April 09 2015 08:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 07:44 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 07:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 07:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 07:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Well not every department every time, but even you wouldn't claim that police departments are free from the same corruption we find everywhere else? Or that them being corrupt gives them advantages average corrupt people can't use? not sure what you mean by corruption, but cops are just regular people and all regular people suffer from the same faults. if the police department as a whole is corrupt and wants to cover up a crime then they have an advantage over the average joe since they are trusted with the evidence and can lose or destroy a lot of the evidence, but a lot of people in the police department would have to be involved in the cover up. You at least recognize that's precisely what happened with the Brown convenience store video being released and then the chief lying about it right? i dont know what you are talking about. i assume this has something to do with ferguson since everything you say goes back to ferguson, but know very little about the investigation in that case. Not surprised you don't know what I'm talking about at all... The police chief released the video of Brown in the convenience store, the immediate observation was that it was a corrupt department tainting public opinion. The chief lied to the national press claiming he released it because they were bombarding the department with Freedom of information requests. Reporters immediately noted none of them could find a single instance of anyone requesting the video or even knowing it existed before it's release. The federal investigation confirmed the immediate suspicions that the chief was blatantly lying to influence the narrative. okay. so what is your question? thats not losing or destroying evidence. that is the police chief trying to show that the victim was not a pleasant person to, as you say, sway public opinion. also, havent we beaten the ferguson horse to a bloody pulp by now? i thought we were talking about the police department (hailed by the NAACP of doing a good job) that helped indict one of its members for murder. We have a clear example in Ferguson of a corrupt police department, that would of remained unrecognized indefinitely without a separate federal investigation brought on solely by the response of the community and nation at large to a questionable killing. The question is... You realize that Ferguson is an example of how a corrupt department could get away with being corrupt if they are the only ones investigating themselves? It's about manipulation of evidence not just simply destroying or losing it that is the only problem. considering there was a class action against Ferguson before the DoJ issued its report, i do not agree with you. police departments are not the only ones able to investigate themselves. lol Where do you suppose the department would get the money to pay out that suit provided it somehow went anywhere without the DoJ report? the city, county or state tax coffers most likely. depends on the legal structures between the cities, county and state. regardless, i dont see how collectability is at issue. the courts can also issue injunctions. in fact, the state courts are legally in a better place to stop the "unconstitutional" acts than the DoJ who has limited authority.
lol I'm done. If you can't see how silly that is, I'm not going to continue...
|
On April 09 2015 08:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:
We had a bunch of high profile cases here with police misconduct (and unjustified force/death). Solution we got was a 3rd party investigation office that basically looks into all cases involving deaths or severe injuries.
Wait, it ISN'T handled like that in the states?
Isn't that pretty much the only way any reasonable person would setup a system? Any time a police officer kills someone, there needs to be an investigation by someone who is not part of that persons department and who doesn't have any connections to that person. Having the direct colleagues and friends of him handle the investigation is just so obviously a recipe for disaster that i can't believe any country would work like that.
And if your police kills so many people that you can't afford a 3rd party investigation into those killings you have a much bigger problem anyways.
|
On April 09 2015 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 08:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 08:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 08:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:
We had a bunch of high profile cases here with police misconduct (and unjustified force/death). Solution we got was a 3rd party investigation office that basically looks into all cases involving deaths or severe injuries. Considering departments here don't even want to release the information at all, let alone have a third part act on it, we have a long way to go here on that. On April 09 2015 08:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 07:44 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 07:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 07:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 07:15 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
not sure what you mean by corruption, but cops are just regular people and all regular people suffer from the same faults.
if the police department as a whole is corrupt and wants to cover up a crime then they have an advantage over the average joe since they are trusted with the evidence and can lose or destroy a lot of the evidence, but a lot of people in the police department would have to be involved in the cover up. You at least recognize that's precisely what happened with the Brown convenience store video being released and then the chief lying about it right? i dont know what you are talking about. i assume this has something to do with ferguson since everything you say goes back to ferguson, but know very little about the investigation in that case. Not surprised you don't know what I'm talking about at all... The police chief released the video of Brown in the convenience store, the immediate observation was that it was a corrupt department tainting public opinion. The chief lied to the national press claiming he released it because they were bombarding the department with Freedom of information requests. Reporters immediately noted none of them could find a single instance of anyone requesting the video or even knowing it existed before it's release. The federal investigation confirmed the immediate suspicions that the chief was blatantly lying to influence the narrative. okay. so what is your question? thats not losing or destroying evidence. that is the police chief trying to show that the victim was not a pleasant person to, as you say, sway public opinion. also, havent we beaten the ferguson horse to a bloody pulp by now? i thought we were talking about the police department (hailed by the NAACP of doing a good job) that helped indict one of its members for murder. We have a clear example in Ferguson of a corrupt police department, that would of remained unrecognized indefinitely without a separate federal investigation brought on solely by the response of the community and nation at large to a questionable killing. The question is... You realize that Ferguson is an example of how a corrupt department could get away with being corrupt if they are the only ones investigating themselves? It's about manipulation of evidence not just simply destroying or losing it that is the only problem. considering there was a class action against Ferguson before the DoJ issued its report, i do not agree with you. police departments are not the only ones able to investigate themselves. lol Where do you suppose the department would get the money to pay out that suit provided it somehow went anywhere without the DoJ report? the city, county or state tax coffers most likely. depends on the legal structures between the cities, county and state. regardless, i dont see how collectability is at issue. the courts can also issue injunctions. in fact, the state courts are legally in a better place to stop the "unconstitutional" acts than the DoJ who has limited authority. lol I'm done. If you can't see how silly that is, I'm not going to continue...
how silly what is? that courts are where the laws/constitutional violations are enforced?
|
On April 09 2015 08:24 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 08:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:
We had a bunch of high profile cases here with police misconduct (and unjustified force/death). Solution we got was a 3rd party investigation office that basically looks into all cases involving deaths or severe injuries. Wait, it ISN'T handled like that in the states? Isn't that pretty much the only way any reasonable person would setup a system? Any time a police officer kills someone, there needs to be an investigation by someone who is not part of that persons department and who doesn't have any connections to that person. Having the direct colleagues and friends of him handle the investigation is just so obviously a recipe for disaster that i can't believe any country would work like that. And if your police kills so many people that you can't afford a 3rd party investigation into those killings you have a much bigger problem anyways.
we have internal affairs departments, which are police that police police.
|
With Capitol Hill and the Justice Department locked in a feud over the future of medical marijuana, two leading congressional marijuana reform advocates are warning Justice that it’s violating a new federal law.
In a letter addressed to Attorney General Eric Holder, Reps. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) and Sam Farr (D-Calif.) on Wednesday said the Justice Department’s interpretation of their medical marijuana amendment in last year’s spending bill is “emphatically wrong.”
The two succeeded in enshrining in law a provision prohibiting the department from using resources to prevent states from “implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.”
But the Justice Department told the L.A. Times this month that language won’t shield medical marijuana dispensaries from federal action for violating federal marijuana laws, which remain in conflict with state laws despite a growing push in Congress to reclassify the drug. The Justice Department has de-emphasized raids on medical marijuana dispensaries, but is still trying to shut down the Harborside dispensary in Northern California.
Source
|
On April 09 2015 08:32 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 08:24 Simberto wrote:On April 09 2015 08:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:
We had a bunch of high profile cases here with police misconduct (and unjustified force/death). Solution we got was a 3rd party investigation office that basically looks into all cases involving deaths or severe injuries. Wait, it ISN'T handled like that in the states? Isn't that pretty much the only way any reasonable person would setup a system? Any time a police officer kills someone, there needs to be an investigation by someone who is not part of that persons department and who doesn't have any connections to that person. Having the direct colleagues and friends of him handle the investigation is just so obviously a recipe for disaster that i can't believe any country would work like that. And if your police kills so many people that you can't afford a 3rd party investigation into those killings you have a much bigger problem anyways. we have internal affairs departments, which are police that police police.
But do they investigate the police department (Or whatever you call a bigger police unit) that they are part of, or are they brought in from the outside? Also, do they automatically investigate every time a cop kills someone, or is that sometimes left to that cops department if noone thinks something suspicious is going on?
|
that sounds like a silly way to change the marijuana law. It really feels odd when congress uses the wording of "no using funds for x" instead of just saying "don't do x"
It feels like stretching the power of the purse to do things it shouldn't do.
If some in congress want to fix the marijuana issue, just legislatively reclassify it to a different schedule; it's gross incompetence on a bunch of people in executive branch that it's still in schedule 1.
|
On April 09 2015 08:46 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 08:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 08:24 Simberto wrote:On April 09 2015 08:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:
We had a bunch of high profile cases here with police misconduct (and unjustified force/death). Solution we got was a 3rd party investigation office that basically looks into all cases involving deaths or severe injuries. Wait, it ISN'T handled like that in the states? Isn't that pretty much the only way any reasonable person would setup a system? Any time a police officer kills someone, there needs to be an investigation by someone who is not part of that persons department and who doesn't have any connections to that person. Having the direct colleagues and friends of him handle the investigation is just so obviously a recipe for disaster that i can't believe any country would work like that. And if your police kills so many people that you can't afford a 3rd party investigation into those killings you have a much bigger problem anyways. we have internal affairs departments, which are police that police police. But do they investigate the police department (Or whatever you call a bigger police unit) that they are part of, or are they brought in from the outside? Also, do they automatically investigate every time a cop kills someone, or is that sometimes left to that cops department if noone thinks something suspicious is going on?
i am not sure it can be generalized. the intent of IA are to be separate from and police police, but they are part of police departments.
|
On April 09 2015 08:46 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 08:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 08:24 Simberto wrote:On April 09 2015 08:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:
We had a bunch of high profile cases here with police misconduct (and unjustified force/death). Solution we got was a 3rd party investigation office that basically looks into all cases involving deaths or severe injuries. Wait, it ISN'T handled like that in the states? Isn't that pretty much the only way any reasonable person would setup a system? Any time a police officer kills someone, there needs to be an investigation by someone who is not part of that persons department and who doesn't have any connections to that person. Having the direct colleagues and friends of him handle the investigation is just so obviously a recipe for disaster that i can't believe any country would work like that. And if your police kills so many people that you can't afford a 3rd party investigation into those killings you have a much bigger problem anyways. we have internal affairs departments, which are police that police police. But do they investigate the police department (Or whatever you call a bigger police unit) that they are part of, or are they brought in from the outside? Also, do they automatically investigate every time a cop kills someone, or is that sometimes left to that cops department if noone thinks something suspicious is going on?
sometimes they are part of the police department they investigate (also all the other cops HATE internal affairs, and hate people in their own department who are in, or work for, or have ever worked for, internal affairs)
|
On April 09 2015 08:55 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 08:46 Simberto wrote:On April 09 2015 08:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 08:24 Simberto wrote:On April 09 2015 08:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:
We had a bunch of high profile cases here with police misconduct (and unjustified force/death). Solution we got was a 3rd party investigation office that basically looks into all cases involving deaths or severe injuries. Wait, it ISN'T handled like that in the states? Isn't that pretty much the only way any reasonable person would setup a system? Any time a police officer kills someone, there needs to be an investigation by someone who is not part of that persons department and who doesn't have any connections to that person. Having the direct colleagues and friends of him handle the investigation is just so obviously a recipe for disaster that i can't believe any country would work like that. And if your police kills so many people that you can't afford a 3rd party investigation into those killings you have a much bigger problem anyways. we have internal affairs departments, which are police that police police. But do they investigate the police department (Or whatever you call a bigger police unit) that they are part of, or are they brought in from the outside? Also, do they automatically investigate every time a cop kills someone, or is that sometimes left to that cops department if noone thinks something suspicious is going on? sometimes they are part of the police department they investigate (also all the other cops HATE internal affairs, and hate people in their own department who are in, or work for, or have ever worked for, internal affairs)
Internal affairs are usually only brought in by cops who snitch or massive public pressure.
|
WASHINGTON, April 8 (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama called on Wednesday for an end to psychiatric therapies that seek to change the sexual orientation of gay, lesbian and transgender youth, the White House said.
The White House statement, written by senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, is in response to a petition calling for Obama to back a law to ban conversion therapy, which is supported by some socially conservative organizations and religious doctors.
The petition was started following the suicide in December of 17-year-old transgender youth Leelah Alcorn, who died after her parents forced her to attend conversion therapy, pulled her out of school and isolated her in an attempt to change her gender identity.
"The overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrates that conversion therapy, especially when it is practiced on young people, is neither medically nor ethically appropriate and can cause substantial harm," Jarrett said.
Source
|
On April 09 2015 11:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON, April 8 (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama called on Wednesday for an end to psychiatric therapies that seek to change the sexual orientation of gay, lesbian and transgender youth, the White House said.
The White House statement, written by senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, is in response to a petition calling for Obama to back a law to ban conversion therapy, which is supported by some socially conservative organizations and religious doctors.
The petition was started following the suicide in December of 17-year-old transgender youth Leelah Alcorn, who died after her parents forced her to attend conversion therapy, pulled her out of school and isolated her in an attempt to change her gender identity.
"The overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrates that conversion therapy, especially when it is practiced on young people, is neither medically nor ethically appropriate and can cause substantial harm," Jarrett said. Source
if their trying to ban all conversion therapy thats good. it might just be what a bunch of states have passed which just bans psychiatrists from doing it which is just a small number of them anyway.
|
On April 09 2015 11:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON, April 8 (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama called on Wednesday for an end to psychiatric therapies that seek to change the sexual orientation of gay, lesbian and transgender youth, the White House said.
The White House statement, written by senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, is in response to a petition calling for Obama to back a law to ban conversion therapy, which is supported by some socially conservative organizations and religious doctors.
The petition was started following the suicide in December of 17-year-old transgender youth Leelah Alcorn, who died after her parents forced her to attend conversion therapy, pulled her out of school and isolated her in an attempt to change her gender identity.
"The overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrates that conversion therapy, especially when it is practiced on young people, is neither medically nor ethically appropriate and can cause substantial harm," Jarrett said. Source
Thank god. You hear nothing but horror stories from kids being forced to attend conversion therapy. And its always minors who are forced to attend by their parents. I have been hard pressed to find any report of an adult willingly attending.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
