|
On November 20 2018 05:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2018 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 20 2018 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 20 2018 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:I've bought beer at this specific store before: Besides the absurd inability to deescalate or behave remotely competently they constantly lie. While they are being held slightly accountable for the most egregious examples of criminal violence the police are not held accountable for their constant lying at all. www.seattletimes.comAnyone claiming to support "law and order" that doesn't think consistent lying from law enforcement is catastrophically detrimental to social order is being dishonest about supporting law and order. Of course it is catastrophically detrimental to society for law enforcement to cover up for their own. If the police fuck up, they need to be held to account. I'm litigating a case right now that has a video that is far worse than the one above (incidentally, the victim is a white guy). And as bad as it is, it's the cover-up that occurred afterwards is what really makes me ill. The cover-up included not only the officers and their immediate agencies, but it went up to the district attorney level. What are the politicians that allegedly think law and order are critical doing to address this egregious and longstanding problem? There are various initiatives promoting transparency, such as mandatory body cams. But I would personally go further and legislatively loosen up some of the civil liability protections that are typically afforded law enforcement.
So basically nothing? Forgive me for not taking their appeals to "law and order" seriously then.
|
On November 20 2018 04:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2018 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:I've bought beer at this specific store before: https://twitter.com/sahluwal/status/1064201098687217664Besides the absurd inability to deescalate or behave remotely competently they constantly lie. While they are being held slightly accountable for the most egregious examples of criminal violence the police are not held accountable for their constant lying at all. www.seattletimes.comAnyone claiming to support "law and order" that doesn't think consistent lying from law enforcement is catastrophically detrimental to social order is being dishonest about supporting law and order. Of course it is catastrophically detrimental to society for law enforcement to cover up for their own. If the police fuck up, they need to be held to account. I'm litigating a case right now that has a video that is far worse than the one above (incidentally, the victim is a white guy). And as bad as it is, it's the cover-up that occurred afterwards is what really makes me ill. The cover-up included not only the officers and their immediate agencies, but it went up to the district attorney level.
I hope it gets tons of publicity. The public that too often errs on the side of the cop in disputed jury trials needs to know just how high coverups go. I say build the public consciousness on how far some departments are willing to go.
|
On November 20 2018 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2018 05:22 xDaunt wrote:On November 20 2018 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 20 2018 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 20 2018 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:I've bought beer at this specific store before: https://twitter.com/sahluwal/status/1064201098687217664Besides the absurd inability to deescalate or behave remotely competently they constantly lie. While they are being held slightly accountable for the most egregious examples of criminal violence the police are not held accountable for their constant lying at all. www.seattletimes.comAnyone claiming to support "law and order" that doesn't think consistent lying from law enforcement is catastrophically detrimental to social order is being dishonest about supporting law and order. Of course it is catastrophically detrimental to society for law enforcement to cover up for their own. If the police fuck up, they need to be held to account. I'm litigating a case right now that has a video that is far worse than the one above (incidentally, the victim is a white guy). And as bad as it is, it's the cover-up that occurred afterwards is what really makes me ill. The cover-up included not only the officers and their immediate agencies, but it went up to the district attorney level. What are the politicians that allegedly think law and order are critical doing to address this egregious and longstanding problem? There are various initiatives promoting transparency, such as mandatory body cams. But I would personally go further and legislatively loosen up some of the civil liability protections that are typically afforded law enforcement. So basically nothing? Forgive me for not taking their appeals to "law and order" seriously then.
That's not "basically nothing." All you really need to do to fix most of the problems is to create additional transparency, curtail the immunities that protect the dirty officials, and otherwise incentivize plaintiffs to bring claims. We don't need to have public beheadings of abusive cops/law enforcement officers to correct the system.
|
On November 20 2018 06:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2018 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 20 2018 05:22 xDaunt wrote:On November 20 2018 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 20 2018 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 20 2018 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:I've bought beer at this specific store before: https://twitter.com/sahluwal/status/1064201098687217664Besides the absurd inability to deescalate or behave remotely competently they constantly lie. While they are being held slightly accountable for the most egregious examples of criminal violence the police are not held accountable for their constant lying at all. www.seattletimes.comAnyone claiming to support "law and order" that doesn't think consistent lying from law enforcement is catastrophically detrimental to social order is being dishonest about supporting law and order. Of course it is catastrophically detrimental to society for law enforcement to cover up for their own. If the police fuck up, they need to be held to account. I'm litigating a case right now that has a video that is far worse than the one above (incidentally, the victim is a white guy). And as bad as it is, it's the cover-up that occurred afterwards is what really makes me ill. The cover-up included not only the officers and their immediate agencies, but it went up to the district attorney level. What are the politicians that allegedly think law and order are critical doing to address this egregious and longstanding problem? There are various initiatives promoting transparency, such as mandatory body cams. But I would personally go further and legislatively loosen up some of the civil liability protections that are typically afforded law enforcement. So basically nothing? Forgive me for not taking their appeals to "law and order" seriously then. That's not "basically nothing." All you really need to do to fix most of the problems is to create additional transparency, curtail the immunities that protect the dirty officials, and otherwise incentivize plaintiffs to bring claims. We don't need to have public beheadings of abusive cops/law enforcement officers to correct the system.
It would help immensely if the right wing media - primarily FOX since it has the biggest audience by far - was more willing to highlight cases where officers do go too far instead of just not talking about those ones and only featuring ones where it comes to their defense.
Accountability's hard enough without half of the country being fed a consistent narrative that the cops are almost never in the wrong. Cases like this one should be highlighted, because that was horrendous. And your white guy case as well, if it's as bad as you say.
|
On November 20 2018 08:02 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2018 06:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 20 2018 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 20 2018 05:22 xDaunt wrote:On November 20 2018 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 20 2018 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 20 2018 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:I've bought beer at this specific store before: https://twitter.com/sahluwal/status/1064201098687217664Besides the absurd inability to deescalate or behave remotely competently they constantly lie. While they are being held slightly accountable for the most egregious examples of criminal violence the police are not held accountable for their constant lying at all. www.seattletimes.comAnyone claiming to support "law and order" that doesn't think consistent lying from law enforcement is catastrophically detrimental to social order is being dishonest about supporting law and order. Of course it is catastrophically detrimental to society for law enforcement to cover up for their own. If the police fuck up, they need to be held to account. I'm litigating a case right now that has a video that is far worse than the one above (incidentally, the victim is a white guy). And as bad as it is, it's the cover-up that occurred afterwards is what really makes me ill. The cover-up included not only the officers and their immediate agencies, but it went up to the district attorney level. What are the politicians that allegedly think law and order are critical doing to address this egregious and longstanding problem? There are various initiatives promoting transparency, such as mandatory body cams. But I would personally go further and legislatively loosen up some of the civil liability protections that are typically afforded law enforcement. So basically nothing? Forgive me for not taking their appeals to "law and order" seriously then. That's not "basically nothing." All you really need to do to fix most of the problems is to create additional transparency, curtail the immunities that protect the dirty officials, and otherwise incentivize plaintiffs to bring claims. We don't need to have public beheadings of abusive cops/law enforcement officers to correct the system. It would help immensely if the right wing media - primarily FOX since it has the biggest audience by far - was more willing to highlight cases where officers do go too far instead of just not talking about those ones and only featuring ones where it comes to their defense. Accountability's hard enough without half of the country being fed a consistent narrative that the cops are almost never in the wrong. Cases like this one should be highlighted, because that was horrendous. And your white guy case as well, if it's as bad as you say.
Conservative media isn't the problem when it comes to the coverage of police abuse cases. Liberal media is. Every time that the liberal media pushes the "cops are racist assholes narrative" with trash examples like Ferguson, it turns off most Americans and makes it harder to build a consensus towards real reforms. By and large, people on the Right are okay with the general proposition that cops can be assholes and that they need to be reined in more. Making the issue about race needlessly polarizes the issue makes it much more difficult to discuss.
|
On November 15 2018 17:27 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 10:58 xDaunt wrote:On November 15 2018 10:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 15 2018 09:40 xDaunt wrote:
GH, you can't possibly be a fan of Obama's feckless foreign policy, can you? I'm not a fan of Obama's FP but for different reasons than yourself in most cases, though there's probably overlap somewhere. I suggest to you that Obama’s foreign policy was fairly representative of mainstream democrat foreign policy, at least in terms of its goals. Regardless of whether you agree with the goals, Obama certainly failed to achieve them. In stark contrast, and again, regardless of whether you agree with his goals, Trump is succeeding in realizing his foreign policy goals. One of Trump's foreign policy goals was to make America respected again because he believed OBama was weak. I don't think getting literally laughed at by world leaders counts as realising that goal.
You're buying way too much into the media narrative if you think that foreign leaders are simply laughing at Trump. Trump is getting his way on a lot of things. Take trade as just one example. Trump forced critical concessions out of both Mexico and Canada in renegotiating NAFTA into the USMCA. I think that it's only a matter of time before Trump gets China to capitulate on a favorable trade deal. The Chinese are bearing the brunt of the trade war:
President Donald Trump is succeeding in making China pay most of the cost of his trade war.
That’s the conclusion of a new paper from EconPol Europe, a network of researchers in the European Union. U.S. companies and consumers will only pay 4.5 percent more after the nation imposed 25 percent tariffs on $250 billion of Chinese goods, and the other 20.5 percent toll will fall on Chinese producers, according to authors Benedikt Zoller-Rydzek and Gabriel Felbermayr.
The trade dispute between the U.S. and China is showing slim hope of abating as the leaders of the two nations prepare to meet in Argentina this month. According to Zoller-Rydzek and Felbermayr, the tariffs will do what Trump has longed for: They will cut American imports of affected Chinese goods by more than a third, and lower the bilateral trade deficit by 17 percent.
The Trump administration selected products with the highest “price elasticity,” or high availability of substitutes, according to Zoller-Rydzek and Felbermayr. The Chinese products hit by Trump’s tariffs can mostly be replaced by other goods, forcing exporters to cut selling prices to keep buyers.
“Through its strategic choice of Chinese products, the U.S. government was not only able to minimize the negative effects on U.S. consumers and firms, but also to create substantial net welfare gains in the U.S.,” the researchers wrote.
Source.
China's losing trade war with its biggest market, combined with its ongoing credit issues, is taking a very large toll and causing a lot of grief for the governing party. Trump should have another scalp to add to his collection pretty soon. Throw in stuff like progress on North Korea and Trump's pulling of aid from asshole countries that don't deserve it, and I'm quite pleased with how things are going on the foreign policy front. It's certainly take some time to get the ball rolling, but we're definitely starting to see results now.
|
On November 20 2018 06:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2018 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 20 2018 05:22 xDaunt wrote:On November 20 2018 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 20 2018 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 20 2018 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:I've bought beer at this specific store before: https://twitter.com/sahluwal/status/1064201098687217664Besides the absurd inability to deescalate or behave remotely competently they constantly lie. While they are being held slightly accountable for the most egregious examples of criminal violence the police are not held accountable for their constant lying at all. www.seattletimes.comAnyone claiming to support "law and order" that doesn't think consistent lying from law enforcement is catastrophically detrimental to social order is being dishonest about supporting law and order. Of course it is catastrophically detrimental to society for law enforcement to cover up for their own. If the police fuck up, they need to be held to account. I'm litigating a case right now that has a video that is far worse than the one above (incidentally, the victim is a white guy). And as bad as it is, it's the cover-up that occurred afterwards is what really makes me ill. The cover-up included not only the officers and their immediate agencies, but it went up to the district attorney level. What are the politicians that allegedly think law and order are critical doing to address this egregious and longstanding problem? There are various initiatives promoting transparency, such as mandatory body cams. But I would personally go further and legislatively loosen up some of the civil liability protections that are typically afforded law enforcement. So basically nothing? Forgive me for not taking their appeals to "law and order" seriously then. That's not "basically nothing." All you really need to do to fix most of the problems is to create additional transparency, curtail the immunities that protect the dirty officials, and otherwise incentivize plaintiffs to bring claims. We don't need to have public beheadings of abusive cops/law enforcement officers to correct the system.
That's most definitely basically nothing. You're suggesting that all they need to do is something they are not doing at all.
They don't care about law and order, they just care about using the rhetoric to advance their agenda. No one is talking about beheading cops, but when you lie about a murder committed by your colleague you should lose your job and share a prison sentence.
That's how I know that those that claim to think it's a big issue aren't serious about doing anything about it and that "law and order" isn't to be taken literally. Law and order without enforcement on the enforcers isn't law and order at all and those that claim to find it so important aren't doing anything about it.
Taking your rhetoric as sincerity I don't understand how you can possibly think they are doing something. If I suggested that Democrats are seriously addressing illegal immigration by video taping the border, and eventually getting around to legislating something about what to do with the people we have on video "illegally crossing" you would think that preposterous.
But the enforcement arm of the law is known to regularly and catastrophically undermine the public trust and social order and has practically no accountability and you're like "well once they get some cameras and change some laws (that they aren't trying to change at all) that would be enough".
So what you've given me is confirmation that they don't take this issue seriously and they get a free pass from people who claim they do.
|
Yeah they don't take this issue seriously. What do you want? Organize a political campaign or something.
I do think that if you made cops/municipalities liable for massive damages in civil court for fuck ups you'd see a lot of change pretty quick.
|
Canada11509 Posts
Trump forced critical concessions out of both Mexico and Canada in renegotiating NAFTA into the USMCA
He got concessions alright. More erosion to the public domain 
|
On November 20 2018 13:25 IgnE wrote:
Yeah they don't take this issue seriously. What do you want? Organize a political campaign or something.
I do think that if you made cops/municipalities liable for massive damages in civil court for fuck ups you'd see a lot of change pretty quick.
Wouldn't you also have every police department crippled by constant damages claims by every single person they arrest regardless of the circumstances?
|
On November 20 2018 10:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2018 08:02 iamthedave wrote:On November 20 2018 06:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 20 2018 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 20 2018 05:22 xDaunt wrote:On November 20 2018 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 20 2018 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 20 2018 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:I've bought beer at this specific store before: https://twitter.com/sahluwal/status/1064201098687217664Besides the absurd inability to deescalate or behave remotely competently they constantly lie. While they are being held slightly accountable for the most egregious examples of criminal violence the police are not held accountable for their constant lying at all. www.seattletimes.comAnyone claiming to support "law and order" that doesn't think consistent lying from law enforcement is catastrophically detrimental to social order is being dishonest about supporting law and order. Of course it is catastrophically detrimental to society for law enforcement to cover up for their own. If the police fuck up, they need to be held to account. I'm litigating a case right now that has a video that is far worse than the one above (incidentally, the victim is a white guy). And as bad as it is, it's the cover-up that occurred afterwards is what really makes me ill. The cover-up included not only the officers and their immediate agencies, but it went up to the district attorney level. What are the politicians that allegedly think law and order are critical doing to address this egregious and longstanding problem? There are various initiatives promoting transparency, such as mandatory body cams. But I would personally go further and legislatively loosen up some of the civil liability protections that are typically afforded law enforcement. So basically nothing? Forgive me for not taking their appeals to "law and order" seriously then. That's not "basically nothing." All you really need to do to fix most of the problems is to create additional transparency, curtail the immunities that protect the dirty officials, and otherwise incentivize plaintiffs to bring claims. We don't need to have public beheadings of abusive cops/law enforcement officers to correct the system. It would help immensely if the right wing media - primarily FOX since it has the biggest audience by far - was more willing to highlight cases where officers do go too far instead of just not talking about those ones and only featuring ones where it comes to their defense. Accountability's hard enough without half of the country being fed a consistent narrative that the cops are almost never in the wrong. Cases like this one should be highlighted, because that was horrendous. And your white guy case as well, if it's as bad as you say. Conservative media isn't the problem when it comes to the coverage of police abuse cases. Liberal media is. Every time that the liberal media pushes the "cops are racist assholes narrative" with trash examples like Ferguson, it turns off most Americans and makes it harder to build a consensus towards real reforms. By and large, people on the Right are okay with the general proposition that cops can be assholes and that they need to be reined in more. Making the issue about race needlessly polarizes the issue makes it much more difficult to discuss.
So asshole cops need to be reined in more unless they're accused of racism, then it's incredibly important they be defended unto death and under no circumstances should they actually pay for what they've done?
The left wing media isn't responsible for right winger's response to what is a basic moral issue. They're simply not. And trying to let the right wing media - which right wingers consume - off the hook and put the blame squarely on the left wing media - which they don't - is again part of the problem. It's just shifting the blame. The left wing media doesn't determine right wing media's talking points. This travesty of justice should be a talking point irrespective of leaning.
There's nothing at all preventing that discussion from happening. Your side of the aisle doesn't want to have it, beyond the occasional whispers of fake remorse. A lame excuse like 'those left wing media types keep calling cops racist so we can't talk about how to rein in cops period' doesn't even make internal sense let alone work in a discussion context.
SIDE NOTE: How do you feel about the troops being called home from the border before the caravan has even arrived? I seem to recall you were happy about them being deployed to deal with this earlier.
On November 20 2018 17:07 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2018 13:25 IgnE wrote:
Yeah they don't take this issue seriously. What do you want? Organize a political campaign or something.
I do think that if you made cops/municipalities liable for massive damages in civil court for fuck ups you'd see a lot of change pretty quick. Wouldn't you also have every police department crippled by constant damages claims by every single person they arrest regardless of the circumstances?
Well... no? Not unless every cop in America is an overly violent incompetent fuckhead who can't handle a basic arrest without escalating it into violence and tasering people for no good reason (I think even GreenHorizons would concede that this is not the case). Especially if there's body cam footage.
|
On November 20 2018 13:25 IgnE wrote:
Yeah they don't take this issue seriously. What do you want? Organize a political campaign or something.
I do think that if you made cops/municipalities liable for massive damages in civil court for fuck ups you'd see a lot of change pretty quick.
He's missing the point of what I'm suggesting. We don't need more criminal laws on the books to fix the problems that we have with law enforcement. All of this police abuse stuff is already illegal. What we need is an independent check on law enforcement. Private civil actions are very effective in this regard. Hell, we don't even really need to incentivize plaintiffs and their attorneys to bring suit. We just need to curtail the various qualified immunities that interfere with a plaintiff's ability to bring suit. For example, one of the big obstacles to bringing claims in my jurisdiction is pinning municipalities with vicarious liability for the bad acts of their cops. What we have to prove to get over that hurdle is really difficult. As a result, the municipalities are more likely not to give a shit about the bad actions of their cops because they know that, in many instances, they can simply fire the cop and then wash their hands of whole matter, without fear of any civil claim being brought against them. Like you suggested, politicians are more likely to start giving a fuck if they have to repeatedly explain to voters why they're shelling out big money to settle and satisfy police abuse claims.
|
On November 20 2018 17:07 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2018 13:25 IgnE wrote:
Yeah they don't take this issue seriously. What do you want? Organize a political campaign or something.
I do think that if you made cops/municipalities liable for massive damages in civil court for fuck ups you'd see a lot of change pretty quick. Wouldn't you also have every police department crippled by constant damages claims by every single person they arrest regardless of the circumstances?
No, the court system is pretty good at weeding the shitty claims out.
|
On November 21 2018 07:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2018 13:25 IgnE wrote:
Yeah they don't take this issue seriously. What do you want? Organize a political campaign or something.
I do think that if you made cops/municipalities liable for massive damages in civil court for fuck ups you'd see a lot of change pretty quick. He's missing the point of what I'm suggesting. We don't need more criminal laws on the books to fix the problems that we have with law enforcement. All of this police abuse stuff is already illegal. What we need is an independent check on law enforcement. Private civil actions are very effective in this regard. Hell, we don't even really need to incentivize plaintiffs and their attorneys to bring suit. We just need to curtail the various qualified immunities that interfere with a plaintiff's ability to bring suit. For example, one of the big obstacles to bringing claims in my jurisdiction is pinning municipalities with vicarious liability for the bad acts of their cops. What we have to prove to get over that hurdle is really difficult. As a result, the municipalities are more likely not to give a shit about the bad actions of their cops because they know that, in many instances, they can simply fire the cop and then wash their hands of whole matter, without fear of any civil claim being brought against them. Like you suggested, politicians are more likely to start giving a fuck if they have to repeatedly explain to voters why they're shelling out big money to settle and satisfy police abuse claims.
No I get it.
politicians are more likely to start giving a fuck
You just tried to pretend/claim they already "gave a fuck". Clearly they don't. So when they say "law and order" they don't mean addressing the catastrophic undermining of the social fabric we established earlier.
|
On November 21 2018 07:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2018 13:25 IgnE wrote:
Yeah they don't take this issue seriously. What do you want? Organize a political campaign or something.
I do think that if you made cops/municipalities liable for massive damages in civil court for fuck ups you'd see a lot of change pretty quick. He's missing the point of what I'm suggesting. We don't need more criminal laws on the books to fix the problems that we have with law enforcement. All of this police abuse stuff is already illegal. What we need is an independent check on law enforcement. Private civil actions are very effective in this regard. Hell, we don't even really need to incentivize plaintiffs and their attorneys to bring suit. We just need to curtail the various qualified immunities that interfere with a plaintiff's ability to bring suit. For example, one of the big obstacles to bringing claims in my jurisdiction is pinning municipalities with vicarious liability for the bad acts of their cops. What we have to prove to get over that hurdle is really difficult. As a result, the municipalities are more likely not to give a shit about the bad actions of their cops because they know that, in many instances, they can simply fire the cop and then wash their hands of whole matter, without fear of any civil claim being brought against them. Like you suggested, politicians are more likely to start giving a fuck if they have to repeatedly explain to voters why they're shelling out big money to settle and satisfy police abuse claims.
I thought one of the classic 'tricks' used to get cops off in these instances was to deliberately try them for a grade of crime worse than what they committed because there'd be no chance of finding them guilty for it? So manslaughter would be tried as murder 1, meaning they walk because duh.
And doesn't the DA have a huge influence over cases brought against cops?
From my various readings of the reports on many, many dubious cases over the last decade it sounds like there's a lot more than just qualified immunities, but a lot of different structural elements that shield the police from punishment unless their actions are just so egregious that their fellow cops turn on them or its so incontrovertible that there's no way to wriggle free.
In addition, plenty of times cops involved in these cases - not edge cases where both sides have an argument - aren't fired at all or really punished in the slightest.
I guess what I'm asking is, even if you remove those qualified immunities, wouldn't those structural elements still get in the way? Or is the civil court separated enough that the police can't influence it at all?
|
On November 21 2018 09:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2018 07:47 xDaunt wrote:On November 20 2018 13:25 IgnE wrote:
Yeah they don't take this issue seriously. What do you want? Organize a political campaign or something.
I do think that if you made cops/municipalities liable for massive damages in civil court for fuck ups you'd see a lot of change pretty quick. He's missing the point of what I'm suggesting. We don't need more criminal laws on the books to fix the problems that we have with law enforcement. All of this police abuse stuff is already illegal. What we need is an independent check on law enforcement. Private civil actions are very effective in this regard. Hell, we don't even really need to incentivize plaintiffs and their attorneys to bring suit. We just need to curtail the various qualified immunities that interfere with a plaintiff's ability to bring suit. For example, one of the big obstacles to bringing claims in my jurisdiction is pinning municipalities with vicarious liability for the bad acts of their cops. What we have to prove to get over that hurdle is really difficult. As a result, the municipalities are more likely not to give a shit about the bad actions of their cops because they know that, in many instances, they can simply fire the cop and then wash their hands of whole matter, without fear of any civil claim being brought against them. Like you suggested, politicians are more likely to start giving a fuck if they have to repeatedly explain to voters why they're shelling out big money to settle and satisfy police abuse claims. No I get it. You just tried to pretend/claim they already "gave a fuck". Clearly they don't. So when they say "law and order" they don't mean addressing the catastrophic undermining of the social fabric we established earlier.
Out of curiosity, have you listened to the latest season of Serial (the podcast)? I'd be interested in your thoughts on some of the specifics it talks about wrt criminal justice. You probably don't need a podcast to tell you how fucked the system is, but it might interest you if only because it's a lot of white people's most in-depth exposure to it.
For instance, the specifics they get into about East Cleveland are absolutely harrowing, and I at least left with absolutely no idea how we would even begin "reform." It's the sort of thing where I'm not sure "abolish the police" would even be enough.
|
On November 21 2018 18:14 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2018 07:47 xDaunt wrote:On November 20 2018 13:25 IgnE wrote:
Yeah they don't take this issue seriously. What do you want? Organize a political campaign or something.
I do think that if you made cops/municipalities liable for massive damages in civil court for fuck ups you'd see a lot of change pretty quick. He's missing the point of what I'm suggesting. We don't need more criminal laws on the books to fix the problems that we have with law enforcement. All of this police abuse stuff is already illegal. What we need is an independent check on law enforcement. Private civil actions are very effective in this regard. Hell, we don't even really need to incentivize plaintiffs and their attorneys to bring suit. We just need to curtail the various qualified immunities that interfere with a plaintiff's ability to bring suit. For example, one of the big obstacles to bringing claims in my jurisdiction is pinning municipalities with vicarious liability for the bad acts of their cops. What we have to prove to get over that hurdle is really difficult. As a result, the municipalities are more likely not to give a shit about the bad actions of their cops because they know that, in many instances, they can simply fire the cop and then wash their hands of whole matter, without fear of any civil claim being brought against them. Like you suggested, politicians are more likely to start giving a fuck if they have to repeatedly explain to voters why they're shelling out big money to settle and satisfy police abuse claims. I thought one of the classic 'tricks' used to get cops off in these instances was to deliberately try them for a grade of crime worse than what they committed because there'd be no chance of finding them guilty for it? So manslaughter would be tried as murder 1, meaning they walk because duh. And doesn't the DA have a huge influence over cases brought against cops? From my various readings of the reports on many, many dubious cases over the last decade it sounds like there's a lot more than just qualified immunities, but a lot of different structural elements that shield the police from punishment unless their actions are just so egregious that their fellow cops turn on them or its so incontrovertible that there's no way to wriggle free. In addition, plenty of times cops involved in these cases - not edge cases where both sides have an argument - aren't fired at all or really punished in the slightest. I guess what I'm asking is, even if you remove those qualified immunities, wouldn't those structural elements still get in the way? Or is the civil court separated enough that the police can't influence it at all?
Civil courts are wholly separate from the regular criminal justice system. The judges may be the same, but the DAs and the police are uninvolved except insofar as they are called as witnesses. Where civil attorneys sometimes run into trouble is with what the DAs and police have done to manipulate or cover up evidence, which is why I advocated that additional measures be taken to improve transparency. Beyond that, however, there isn't much that needs to be done other than weakening the immunities.
|
Interestingly enough, Mr “Under no circumstances will I back Pelosi” Brian Higgins now supports Pelosi as speaker. Ocasio-Cortez also switched to her against challengers, not too long after giving support to a sit-in protest in Pelosi’s chamber. She’s good at buying them off and flipping the her staunchest critics.
|
On November 22 2018 01:53 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2018 18:14 iamthedave wrote:On November 21 2018 07:47 xDaunt wrote:On November 20 2018 13:25 IgnE wrote:
Yeah they don't take this issue seriously. What do you want? Organize a political campaign or something.
I do think that if you made cops/municipalities liable for massive damages in civil court for fuck ups you'd see a lot of change pretty quick. He's missing the point of what I'm suggesting. We don't need more criminal laws on the books to fix the problems that we have with law enforcement. All of this police abuse stuff is already illegal. What we need is an independent check on law enforcement. Private civil actions are very effective in this regard. Hell, we don't even really need to incentivize plaintiffs and their attorneys to bring suit. We just need to curtail the various qualified immunities that interfere with a plaintiff's ability to bring suit. For example, one of the big obstacles to bringing claims in my jurisdiction is pinning municipalities with vicarious liability for the bad acts of their cops. What we have to prove to get over that hurdle is really difficult. As a result, the municipalities are more likely not to give a shit about the bad actions of their cops because they know that, in many instances, they can simply fire the cop and then wash their hands of whole matter, without fear of any civil claim being brought against them. Like you suggested, politicians are more likely to start giving a fuck if they have to repeatedly explain to voters why they're shelling out big money to settle and satisfy police abuse claims. I thought one of the classic 'tricks' used to get cops off in these instances was to deliberately try them for a grade of crime worse than what they committed because there'd be no chance of finding them guilty for it? So manslaughter would be tried as murder 1, meaning they walk because duh. And doesn't the DA have a huge influence over cases brought against cops? From my various readings of the reports on many, many dubious cases over the last decade it sounds like there's a lot more than just qualified immunities, but a lot of different structural elements that shield the police from punishment unless their actions are just so egregious that their fellow cops turn on them or its so incontrovertible that there's no way to wriggle free. In addition, plenty of times cops involved in these cases - not edge cases where both sides have an argument - aren't fired at all or really punished in the slightest. I guess what I'm asking is, even if you remove those qualified immunities, wouldn't those structural elements still get in the way? Or is the civil court separated enough that the police can't influence it at all? Civil courts are wholly separate from the regular criminal justice system. The judges may be the same, but the DAs and the police are uninvolved except insofar as they are called as witnesses. Where civil attorneys sometimes run into trouble is with what the DAs and police have done to manipulate or cover up evidence, which is why I advocated that additional measures be taken to improve transparency. Beyond that, however, there isn't much that needs to be done other than weakening the immunities.
Even if that were the case (they are committing crimes and not going to jail in your representation), the politicians claiming to highly value "law and order" aren't dealing with the catastrophic undermining of society by law enforcement failing to be held accountable for crimes, let alone facing the civil penalties you're suggesting.
So when they say "law and order" they don't mean law and order, they mean something else.
On November 22 2018 01:43 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2018 09:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 21 2018 07:47 xDaunt wrote:On November 20 2018 13:25 IgnE wrote:
Yeah they don't take this issue seriously. What do you want? Organize a political campaign or something.
I do think that if you made cops/municipalities liable for massive damages in civil court for fuck ups you'd see a lot of change pretty quick. He's missing the point of what I'm suggesting. We don't need more criminal laws on the books to fix the problems that we have with law enforcement. All of this police abuse stuff is already illegal. What we need is an independent check on law enforcement. Private civil actions are very effective in this regard. Hell, we don't even really need to incentivize plaintiffs and their attorneys to bring suit. We just need to curtail the various qualified immunities that interfere with a plaintiff's ability to bring suit. For example, one of the big obstacles to bringing claims in my jurisdiction is pinning municipalities with vicarious liability for the bad acts of their cops. What we have to prove to get over that hurdle is really difficult. As a result, the municipalities are more likely not to give a shit about the bad actions of their cops because they know that, in many instances, they can simply fire the cop and then wash their hands of whole matter, without fear of any civil claim being brought against them. Like you suggested, politicians are more likely to start giving a fuck if they have to repeatedly explain to voters why they're shelling out big money to settle and satisfy police abuse claims. No I get it. politicians are more likely to start giving a fuck You just tried to pretend/claim they already "gave a fuck". Clearly they don't. So when they say "law and order" they don't mean addressing the catastrophic undermining of the social fabric we established earlier. Out of curiosity, have you listened to the latest season of Serial (the podcast)? I'd be interested in your thoughts on some of the specifics it talks about wrt criminal justice. You probably don't need a podcast to tell you how fucked the system is, but it might interest you if only because it's a lot of white people's most in-depth exposure to it. For instance, the specifics they get into about East Cleveland are absolutely harrowing, and I at least left with absolutely no idea how we would even begin "reform." It's the sort of thing where I'm not sure "abolish the police" would even be enough.
Can't say that I have. But yeah, torture, black sites, murder, conspiracy, rape, and so on are things we've documented different police departments doing without legal consequence (though occasionally there are some).
On November 22 2018 02:55 Danglars wrote:
Interestingly enough, Mr “Under no circumstances will I back Pelosi” Brian Higgins now supports Pelosi as speaker. Ocasio-Cortez also switched to her against challengers, not too long after giving support to a sit-in protest in Pelosi’s chamber. She’s good at buying them off and flipping the her staunchest critics.
No one else can get the votes. Not that there's really any good options. Barbara Lee is my preference simply because she's one of few who might not give Trump another authorization for force before 2020 and yet another bloated military budget. Nancy Pelosi will give that trash to Trump without even any real protest.
There's also the whole thing about Pelosi trying to kill medicare for all by implementing stupid conservative tax rules. So people assuming she will protect social programs should probably rethink things a bit.
|
Happy Thanksgiving!
Not today colonizer, not today...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
