|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 18 2020 23:34 farvacola wrote:It isn't surprising whatsoever that Thomas totally misunderstands the adminstrative basis for the majority opinion. It's easy to say and believe reductive things about the regulatory state like "Memos can overturn memos" if you pretend that administrative decisions can be analyzed and compared with one another in a vacuum that ignores the intersection of Article III decisionmaking and the legal validity of iterative regulatory decisionmaking subject to judicial resolution. Thomas didn't (care to) understand the APA when he took the bench and he doesn't (care to) understand it now. Show nested quote +On June 18 2020 23:30 ChristianS wrote:On June 18 2020 23:23 farvacola wrote:In a 5-4, SCOTUS protects DACA on the ground that DHS's decision to wind down the program was reviewable under the APA and arbitrary and capricious when reviewed accordingly. Link I’ve been wondering about this news, maybe you’d know the answer: there’s a lot of administration rules that seem like a similar objection would apply, and I imagine there are ongoing legal challenges against many of them. Metering, MPP, and ending TPS for a lot of countries arbitrarily come to mind. Are all those gonna have to wind up at SCOTUS? And how long would we expect that to take? Or are they not reviewable under APA or something, so this objection wouldn’t apply? There are a series of judge-made tests for figuring out the character of a particular administrative decision or rule, some are reviewable under the APA and some are not. The focus tends to be on the specific legal impact and malleability of the reg/rule in question, but this is a complicated area given how different an agency action can look depending on that agency's mission. It's helpful to keep in mind that Article III standing is oftentimes a bar to suit against a particular agency action; if a party bringing a lawsuit against an agency cannot show that they suffered a particularized, cognizable harm directly related to an agency action, they lose out of the gate on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
I'm not convinced that a memo qualifies as iterative regulatory decisionmaking in the first place. The notion that two memos on the same issue aren't on equal footing feels like imaginative politicking.
|
It's really very simple. The memo that started DACA is a document containing text describing ideas/directives/rules that were operationalized by an agency to carry out a particular action that was then relied upon by millions of individuals to their benefit. Racists, xenophobes, and other immigration skeptics could have challenged the creation of DACA then, but in order to do so, they would have needed to show that the DACA-creating memo harmed them in some particularized way that is judicially cognizable, which basically means they'd need to survive both a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment using the words of people like Lou Dobbs to show that being merciful to the children of undocumented immigrants hurt them in specific ways ("they took our jerbs" won't cut it). None of that happened, and the program went into effect as outlined in the memo, though a 2014 expansion of DACA was eventually killed in the courts on a standing Fifth Circuit ruling that was decided on a rare 8-8 SCOTUS split shortly after Justice Scalia's death.
The DACA-ending memo is a piece of informal rulemaking that can be contrasted with the DACA-creating memo in numerous ways that directly impact on whether it can survive judicial review under the APA. For one, the impact of the DACA-ending memo is profoundly different in terms of the harms suffered by those able to bring a court challenge; giving legal status and taking legal status away are profoundly different actions and it makes absolute sense to regard each differently. And that doesn't even address the host of ways in which the DACA-ending memo fails the arbitrary and capricious standard given the Trump Administration's total lack of care for putting experts into important agency roles. Someone smart could have gussied up the unwinding of DACA in terms that would have made it far more difficult for Roberts to swing.
|
On June 18 2020 23:50 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2020 23:34 farvacola wrote:It isn't surprising whatsoever that Thomas totally misunderstands the adminstrative basis for the majority opinion. It's easy to say and believe reductive things about the regulatory state like "Memos can overturn memos" if you pretend that administrative decisions can be analyzed and compared with one another in a vacuum that ignores the intersection of Article III decisionmaking and the legal validity of iterative regulatory decisionmaking subject to judicial resolution. Thomas didn't (care to) understand the APA when he took the bench and he doesn't (care to) understand it now. On June 18 2020 23:30 ChristianS wrote:On June 18 2020 23:23 farvacola wrote:In a 5-4, SCOTUS protects DACA on the ground that DHS's decision to wind down the program was reviewable under the APA and arbitrary and capricious when reviewed accordingly. Link I’ve been wondering about this news, maybe you’d know the answer: there’s a lot of administration rules that seem like a similar objection would apply, and I imagine there are ongoing legal challenges against many of them. Metering, MPP, and ending TPS for a lot of countries arbitrarily come to mind. Are all those gonna have to wind up at SCOTUS? And how long would we expect that to take? Or are they not reviewable under APA or something, so this objection wouldn’t apply? There are a series of judge-made tests for figuring out the character of a particular administrative decision or rule, some are reviewable under the APA and some are not. The focus tends to be on the specific legal impact and malleability of the reg/rule in question, but this is a complicated area given how different an agency action can look depending on that agency's mission. It's helpful to keep in mind that Article III standing is oftentimes a bar to suit against a particular agency action; if a party bringing a lawsuit against an agency cannot show that they suffered a particularized, cognizable harm directly related to an agency action, they lose out of the gate on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. I'm not convinced that a memo qualifies as iterative regulatory decisionmaking in the first place. The notion that two memos on the same issue aren't on equal footing feels like imaginative politicking. The same way it can be easy for a landlord to register a new tenant but a pain to evict one if they don't want to leave. Because there are laws and regulations in place (like the Administrative Procedure Act) to protect citizens from "arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion".
Looking at Roberts opinion We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action. Here the agency failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance and what if anything to do about the hardship to DACA recipients. That dual failure raises doubts about whether the agency appreciated the scope of its discretion or exercised that discretion in a reasonable manner. The issue isn't that a memo can't cancel another memo but that the Trump administration failed to properly provide reasoning for why the DACA needed to be cancelled and how to deal with the fallout from that decision.
As I believe has been the issue with several other cases in the past, the action itself isn't necessarily the problem. Its the lack of reasoning behind it, because its hard to defend "The President promised to kick out all foreigners out of the country, regardless of political status" in court.
It looks to be little different from when the Muslim travel ban was thrown out. Yes the president can ban people from entering the country, but it has to be properly supported and not just "those countries sound Muslim".
|
Eh, if the first memo can bypass procedural requirements of agency decision making, the second should be able to as well. I guess it's a smart expansion of executive power by Obama, since the judicial system dictates that the second memo is far more likely to be reviewed by courts. Nonetheless the first memo operated outside the APA, which should mean that the second memo is also outside the scope of the APA. A policy that operates outside the APA should stay outside of the APA.
|
The first memo isn’t outside the APA, it’s duly enacted informal rule making that wasn’t challenged.
|
On June 18 2020 19:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2020 15:47 Danglars wrote:On June 18 2020 14:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 18 2020 14:40 Danglars wrote:It's a little scary to think the cop in Rayshard Brooks can get off with lesser charges. Uncooperative when being detained, he punches officers, and fights. In the fight, he discharges the taser twice (I've heard once too, and it's hard to go frame by frame in video at that quality, so whatever experts reviewing the tape with more time and tech than me eventually arrive on) as he flees. A jury in America, watching an arrested man wrestle officers to the ground, steal the taser, and shoot it at them twice, might fail to find him guilty on the more serious counts. Felony murder, and aggravated assault with a weapon hmm. The same DA in this case formerly charged officers with aggravated assault by saying the Taser they used in that instance was a deadly weapon. Defense lawyer probably already loves that the DA thinks Brooks is armed and firing a deadly weapon in a scuffle. Disclaimer that cops should undergo better training with weapons, de-escalation, and keeping their cool in scuffles. He has already been frisked and hadn't stolen any gun, just the taser, so there was no reason to fire. Sources: Intent to kill/legal scholarsNYT analysisFelony murder and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon might be tough. You saying the cops that walked off their job in an attempt to hold the city hostage to avoid accountability for a murderer among them need some better training? In an attempt to hold the city hostage to avoid accountability for a murderer among them? That's awfully poetic, and a tad bit premature. Maybe they think the charges were excessive, or hastily prepared? If we're slapdashing the developing story about Atlanta police walkoffs, I say we also print the headline: "Protestors demand justice, flatscreens" But no, I'm talking about the point made earlier about unprofessional police and how they should be trained to respond to scuffles, fleeing subjects, unarmed (in the sense of guns) suspects. If they can't demonstrate control in some future high-energy police training, they shouldn't be on the force. The problem is that the only ones that can hold police officers accountable are the other police officers and the justice system. Time has proved again and again that the former would never happen and police immunity to legal action is basically built in the whole system.
You are missing the civilian oversight of police departments. The reason that police unions and police contracts have been a national focus is because poor cops can and should be fired.
There are stories of complete psychopath moving for years from one PD to another, and there is simply nothing to stop them.
Mild measures such as increase training is really clearly not enough. The US need to rethink the place of police in society, its role (that should definitely much, much narrower) and overhaul the relationship between police and justice so that officers can be prosecuted, like everyone else.
Murders are the tip of the iceberg. If the police kills 1000 people a year, you can expect hundreds of time more totally unacceptable cases of abuse, assault and totally disproportionate use of force in situations that don't require it.
The same thing with employment history and hiring and firings apply here. Keep records on complaints, and responsible elected or appointed officials have a duty to check past write-ups and weigh them deeply.
I don’t really think of training as some “mild measure.” The sum of several proposed reforms is an extreme improvement. Training and firing those that can’t demonstrate calm under pressure, de-escalation, and a reluctance to use violence or heavy force in tussles is huge. Just training in how to deal with people resisting arrest would be huge. Training and compliance. I strongly disagree with you.
I think saying that protesters want flatscreens because in the middle of those enormous protests, there has been some looting is ridiculous and beneath you.
The context was a comparison to something also ridiculous. Choose to get offended over something that matters, and read context.
|
On June 19 2020 01:08 Doodsmack wrote:
Eh, if the first memo can bypass procedural requirements of agency decision making, the second should be able to as well. I guess it's a smart expansion of executive power by Obama, since the judicial system dictates that the second memo is far more likely to be reviewed by courts. Nonetheless the first memo operated outside the APA, which should mean that the second memo is also outside the scope of the APA. A policy that operates outside the APA should stay outside of the APA.
I also liked the dissent and full view of this. It’s just going to radicalize more voters towards thinking the system is biased against their political point of view, so elections mean less for a win and worse for a loss.
|
Found this interesting: a pro-life evangelical christian group pushed hard for the legislation to fund national parks:
One reason also Republicans are supporting this, look at this letter. This is from an environmental — the Evangelical Environmental Network. Judy, 65,000 people who describe themselves as pro-life or anti-abortion Christians signed this letter urging Congress to pass this bill and other environmental bills.
Essentially, Judy, there is some fervor on the right from religious groups to say, the environment is a life issue. And that is something that we're seeing senators listen to.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/the-senate-just-passed-a-historic-environmental-bill-heres-whats-in-it
Here's the website and letter that the group sent. I wasn't aware that there even was such an organization:
https://creationcare.org/get-involved/take-action.html#/39
I wonder if this could bring the Republicans around on the subject of climate change.
|
Facebook took down some Trump ads because they were using nazi symbols. The Trump campaign says that antifa was using the symbol, which was why it was used in the ad.
Gee, I wonder why there's a difference between antifa wearing a badge that Nazis slapped on their 1930s equivalents and Trump campaigning with it?
I don't really have any patience for the idea that the Trump campaign is doing this type of thing on accident anymore. They've done it too many times (the jewish star, for instance). They also ran 88 versions of the ad...
A red inverted triangle was first used in the 1930s to identify Communists, and was applied as well to Social Democrats, liberals, Freemasons and other members of opposition parties. The badge forced on Jewish political prisoners, by contrast, featured a yellow triangle overlaid by a red triangle.
In response to queries from The Washington Post, Facebook on Thursday afternoon deactivated ads that included the inverted red triangle.
The red symbol appeared in paid posts sponsored by Trump and Vice President Pence, as well as by the “Team Trump” campaign page. It was featured alongside text warning of “Dangerous MOBS of far-left groups” and asking users to sign a petition about antifa, a loose collection of anti-fascist activists whom the Trump administration has sought to link to recent violence, despite arrest records that show their involvement is trivial.
“We removed these posts and ads for violating our policy against organized hate,” said Andy Stone, a Facebook spokesman. "Our policy prohibits using a banned hate group’s symbol to identify political prisoners without the context that condemns or discusses the symbol.”
www.washingtonpost.com.
|
On June 19 2020 03:23 Nevuk wrote:Facebook took down some Trump ads because they were using nazi symbols. The Trump campaign says that antifa was using the symbol, which was why it was used in the ad. Gee, I wonder why there's a difference between antifa wearing a badge that Nazis slapped on their 1930s equivalents and Trump campaigning with it? I don't really have any patience for the idea that the Trump campaign is doing this type of thing on accident anymore. They've done it too many times (the jewish star, for instance). They also ran 88 versions of the ad... Show nested quote +
A red inverted triangle was first used in the 1930s to identify Communists, and was applied as well to Social Democrats, liberals, Freemasons and other members of opposition parties. The badge forced on Jewish political prisoners, by contrast, featured a yellow triangle overlaid by a red triangle.
In response to queries from The Washington Post, Facebook on Thursday afternoon deactivated ads that included the inverted red triangle.
The red symbol appeared in paid posts sponsored by Trump and Vice President Pence, as well as by the “Team Trump” campaign page. It was featured alongside text warning of “Dangerous MOBS of far-left groups” and asking users to sign a petition about antifa, a loose collection of anti-fascist activists whom the Trump administration has sought to link to recent violence, despite arrest records that show their involvement is trivial.
“We removed these posts and ads for violating our policy against organized hate,” said Andy Stone, a Facebook spokesman. "Our policy prohibits using a banned hate group’s symbol to identify political prisoners without the context that condemns or discusses the symbol.”
www.washingtonpost.com.
He literally stated he wants ID's for Jewish people since he claimed all Jewish people are Israeli, so they need to obtain their Israeli passports.
|
On June 19 2020 02:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2020 19:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 18 2020 15:47 Danglars wrote:On June 18 2020 14:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 18 2020 14:40 Danglars wrote:It's a little scary to think the cop in Rayshard Brooks can get off with lesser charges. Uncooperative when being detained, he punches officers, and fights. In the fight, he discharges the taser twice (I've heard once too, and it's hard to go frame by frame in video at that quality, so whatever experts reviewing the tape with more time and tech than me eventually arrive on) as he flees. A jury in America, watching an arrested man wrestle officers to the ground, steal the taser, and shoot it at them twice, might fail to find him guilty on the more serious counts. Felony murder, and aggravated assault with a weapon hmm. The same DA in this case formerly charged officers with aggravated assault by saying the Taser they used in that instance was a deadly weapon. Defense lawyer probably already loves that the DA thinks Brooks is armed and firing a deadly weapon in a scuffle. Disclaimer that cops should undergo better training with weapons, de-escalation, and keeping their cool in scuffles. He has already been frisked and hadn't stolen any gun, just the taser, so there was no reason to fire. Sources: Intent to kill/legal scholarsNYT analysisFelony murder and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon might be tough. You saying the cops that walked off their job in an attempt to hold the city hostage to avoid accountability for a murderer among them need some better training? In an attempt to hold the city hostage to avoid accountability for a murderer among them? That's awfully poetic, and a tad bit premature. Maybe they think the charges were excessive, or hastily prepared? If we're slapdashing the developing story about Atlanta police walkoffs, I say we also print the headline: "Protestors demand justice, flatscreens" But no, I'm talking about the point made earlier about unprofessional police and how they should be trained to respond to scuffles, fleeing subjects, unarmed (in the sense of guns) suspects. If they can't demonstrate control in some future high-energy police training, they shouldn't be on the force. The problem is that the only ones that can hold police officers accountable are the other police officers and the justice system. Time has proved again and again that the former would never happen and police immunity to legal action is basically built in the whole system. You are missing the civilian oversight of police departments. The reason that police unions and police contracts have been a national focus is because poor cops can and should be fired. Show nested quote +There are stories of complete psychopath moving for years from one PD to another, and there is simply nothing to stop them.
Mild measures such as increase training is really clearly not enough. The US need to rethink the place of police in society, its role (that should definitely much, much narrower) and overhaul the relationship between police and justice so that officers can be prosecuted, like everyone else.
Murders are the tip of the iceberg. If the police kills 1000 people a year, you can expect hundreds of time more totally unacceptable cases of abuse, assault and totally disproportionate use of force in situations that don't require it. The same thing with employment history and hiring and firings apply here. Keep records on complaints, and responsible elected or appointed officials have a duty to check past write-ups and weigh them deeply. I don’t really think of training as some “mild measure.” The sum of several proposed reforms is an extreme improvement. Training and firing those that can’t demonstrate calm under pressure, de-escalation, and a reluctance to use violence or heavy force in tussles is huge. Just training in how to deal with people resisting arrest would be huge. Training and compliance. I strongly disagree with you. .
Do you think the way police are trained is an accident, or incompetence, or do you think its more of a cultural issue within the police, and officers are trained this way on purpose to fulfil a particular function?
I'd be interested to see evidence of what happened in cases of vast improvements in police brutality numbers, if there has ever been such a thing. Whether it was just a switch up in training, or whether something more dramatic happened like firing huge amounts of cops, or high ranking people.
|
On June 19 2020 00:22 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2020 23:50 Doodsmack wrote:On June 18 2020 23:34 farvacola wrote:It isn't surprising whatsoever that Thomas totally misunderstands the adminstrative basis for the majority opinion. It's easy to say and believe reductive things about the regulatory state like "Memos can overturn memos" if you pretend that administrative decisions can be analyzed and compared with one another in a vacuum that ignores the intersection of Article III decisionmaking and the legal validity of iterative regulatory decisionmaking subject to judicial resolution. Thomas didn't (care to) understand the APA when he took the bench and he doesn't (care to) understand it now. On June 18 2020 23:30 ChristianS wrote:On June 18 2020 23:23 farvacola wrote:In a 5-4, SCOTUS protects DACA on the ground that DHS's decision to wind down the program was reviewable under the APA and arbitrary and capricious when reviewed accordingly. Link I’ve been wondering about this news, maybe you’d know the answer: there’s a lot of administration rules that seem like a similar objection would apply, and I imagine there are ongoing legal challenges against many of them. Metering, MPP, and ending TPS for a lot of countries arbitrarily come to mind. Are all those gonna have to wind up at SCOTUS? And how long would we expect that to take? Or are they not reviewable under APA or something, so this objection wouldn’t apply? There are a series of judge-made tests for figuring out the character of a particular administrative decision or rule, some are reviewable under the APA and some are not. The focus tends to be on the specific legal impact and malleability of the reg/rule in question, but this is a complicated area given how different an agency action can look depending on that agency's mission. It's helpful to keep in mind that Article III standing is oftentimes a bar to suit against a particular agency action; if a party bringing a lawsuit against an agency cannot show that they suffered a particularized, cognizable harm directly related to an agency action, they lose out of the gate on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. I'm not convinced that a memo qualifies as iterative regulatory decisionmaking in the first place. The notion that two memos on the same issue aren't on equal footing feels like imaginative politicking. The same way it can be easy for a landlord to register a new tenant but a pain to evict one if they don't want to leave. Because there are laws and regulations in place (like the Administrative Procedure Act) to protect citizens from "arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion". Looking at Roberts opinion Show nested quote +We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action. Here the agency failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance and what if anything to do about the hardship to DACA recipients. That dual failure raises doubts about whether the agency appreciated the scope of its discretion or exercised that discretion in a reasonable manner. The issue isn't that a memo can't cancel another memo but that the Trump administration failed to properly provide reasoning for why the DACA needed to be cancelled and how to deal with the fallout from that decision. As I believe has been the issue with several other cases in the past, the action itself isn't necessarily the problem. Its the lack of reasoning behind it, because its hard to defend "The President promised to kick out all foreigners out of the country, regardless of political status" in court. It looks to be little different from when the Muslim travel ban was thrown out. Yes the president can ban people from entering the country, but it has to be properly supported and not just "those countries sound Muslim".
This is my take-away as well. The trade-off of selecting a useful idiot with no understanding of how government works is that sometimes their idiocy and lack of understanding gets in the way of them being useful, and this court decision looks like another case of that. It's similar to Trump's insane promises making it harder and harder for the GOP to put together an ACA repeal and replace.
|
On June 19 2020 04:11 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2020 02:50 Danglars wrote:On June 18 2020 19:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 18 2020 15:47 Danglars wrote:On June 18 2020 14:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 18 2020 14:40 Danglars wrote:It's a little scary to think the cop in Rayshard Brooks can get off with lesser charges. Uncooperative when being detained, he punches officers, and fights. In the fight, he discharges the taser twice (I've heard once too, and it's hard to go frame by frame in video at that quality, so whatever experts reviewing the tape with more time and tech than me eventually arrive on) as he flees. A jury in America, watching an arrested man wrestle officers to the ground, steal the taser, and shoot it at them twice, might fail to find him guilty on the more serious counts. Felony murder, and aggravated assault with a weapon hmm. The same DA in this case formerly charged officers with aggravated assault by saying the Taser they used in that instance was a deadly weapon. Defense lawyer probably already loves that the DA thinks Brooks is armed and firing a deadly weapon in a scuffle. Disclaimer that cops should undergo better training with weapons, de-escalation, and keeping their cool in scuffles. He has already been frisked and hadn't stolen any gun, just the taser, so there was no reason to fire. Sources: Intent to kill/legal scholarsNYT analysisFelony murder and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon might be tough. You saying the cops that walked off their job in an attempt to hold the city hostage to avoid accountability for a murderer among them need some better training? In an attempt to hold the city hostage to avoid accountability for a murderer among them? That's awfully poetic, and a tad bit premature. Maybe they think the charges were excessive, or hastily prepared? If we're slapdashing the developing story about Atlanta police walkoffs, I say we also print the headline: "Protestors demand justice, flatscreens" But no, I'm talking about the point made earlier about unprofessional police and how they should be trained to respond to scuffles, fleeing subjects, unarmed (in the sense of guns) suspects. If they can't demonstrate control in some future high-energy police training, they shouldn't be on the force. The problem is that the only ones that can hold police officers accountable are the other police officers and the justice system. Time has proved again and again that the former would never happen and police immunity to legal action is basically built in the whole system. You are missing the civilian oversight of police departments. The reason that police unions and police contracts have been a national focus is because poor cops can and should be fired. There are stories of complete psychopath moving for years from one PD to another, and there is simply nothing to stop them.
Mild measures such as increase training is really clearly not enough. The US need to rethink the place of police in society, its role (that should definitely much, much narrower) and overhaul the relationship between police and justice so that officers can be prosecuted, like everyone else.
Murders are the tip of the iceberg. If the police kills 1000 people a year, you can expect hundreds of time more totally unacceptable cases of abuse, assault and totally disproportionate use of force in situations that don't require it. The same thing with employment history and hiring and firings apply here. Keep records on complaints, and responsible elected or appointed officials have a duty to check past write-ups and weigh them deeply. I don’t really think of training as some “mild measure.” The sum of several proposed reforms is an extreme improvement. Training and firing those that can’t demonstrate calm under pressure, de-escalation, and a reluctance to use violence or heavy force in tussles is huge. Just training in how to deal with people resisting arrest would be huge. Training and compliance. I strongly disagree with you. . Do you think the way police are trained is an accident, or incompetence, or do you think its more of a cultural issue within the police, and officers are trained this way on purpose to fulfil a particular function? I'd be interested to see evidence of what happened in cases of vast improvements in police brutality numbers, if there has ever been such a thing. Whether it was just a switch up in training, or whether something more dramatic happened like firing huge amounts of cops, or high ranking people.
I'm assuming Danglars knows the cop that murdered Rayshard Brooks was extensively trained. Including very recently passing training on de-escalation and the use of deadly force.
He joined the force in September of 2014 and has had more than 2,000 hours of training.
Garrett Rolfe... had been recently trained in de-escalation tactics, according to his department record.
In addition to the de-escalation training, he took coursework in April in cultural awareness. This past January, he passed a course entitled "Use of Deadly Force."
www.thv11.com
|
On June 19 2020 04:11 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2020 02:50 Danglars wrote:On June 18 2020 19:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 18 2020 15:47 Danglars wrote:On June 18 2020 14:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 18 2020 14:40 Danglars wrote:It's a little scary to think the cop in Rayshard Brooks can get off with lesser charges. Uncooperative when being detained, he punches officers, and fights. In the fight, he discharges the taser twice (I've heard once too, and it's hard to go frame by frame in video at that quality, so whatever experts reviewing the tape with more time and tech than me eventually arrive on) as he flees. A jury in America, watching an arrested man wrestle officers to the ground, steal the taser, and shoot it at them twice, might fail to find him guilty on the more serious counts. Felony murder, and aggravated assault with a weapon hmm. The same DA in this case formerly charged officers with aggravated assault by saying the Taser they used in that instance was a deadly weapon. Defense lawyer probably already loves that the DA thinks Brooks is armed and firing a deadly weapon in a scuffle. Disclaimer that cops should undergo better training with weapons, de-escalation, and keeping their cool in scuffles. He has already been frisked and hadn't stolen any gun, just the taser, so there was no reason to fire. Sources: Intent to kill/legal scholarsNYT analysisFelony murder and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon might be tough. You saying the cops that walked off their job in an attempt to hold the city hostage to avoid accountability for a murderer among them need some better training? In an attempt to hold the city hostage to avoid accountability for a murderer among them? That's awfully poetic, and a tad bit premature. Maybe they think the charges were excessive, or hastily prepared? If we're slapdashing the developing story about Atlanta police walkoffs, I say we also print the headline: "Protestors demand justice, flatscreens" But no, I'm talking about the point made earlier about unprofessional police and how they should be trained to respond to scuffles, fleeing subjects, unarmed (in the sense of guns) suspects. If they can't demonstrate control in some future high-energy police training, they shouldn't be on the force. The problem is that the only ones that can hold police officers accountable are the other police officers and the justice system. Time has proved again and again that the former would never happen and police immunity to legal action is basically built in the whole system. You are missing the civilian oversight of police departments. The reason that police unions and police contracts have been a national focus is because poor cops can and should be fired. There are stories of complete psychopath moving for years from one PD to another, and there is simply nothing to stop them.
Mild measures such as increase training is really clearly not enough. The US need to rethink the place of police in society, its role (that should definitely much, much narrower) and overhaul the relationship between police and justice so that officers can be prosecuted, like everyone else.
Murders are the tip of the iceberg. If the police kills 1000 people a year, you can expect hundreds of time more totally unacceptable cases of abuse, assault and totally disproportionate use of force in situations that don't require it. The same thing with employment history and hiring and firings apply here. Keep records on complaints, and responsible elected or appointed officials have a duty to check past write-ups and weigh them deeply. I don’t really think of training as some “mild measure.” The sum of several proposed reforms is an extreme improvement. Training and firing those that can’t demonstrate calm under pressure, de-escalation, and a reluctance to use violence or heavy force in tussles is huge. Just training in how to deal with people resisting arrest would be huge. Training and compliance. I strongly disagree with you. . Do you think the way police are trained is an accident, or incompetence, or do you think its more of a cultural issue within the police, and officers are trained this way on purpose to fulfil a particular function? I'd be interested to see evidence of what happened in cases of vast improvements in police brutality numbers, if there has ever been such a thing. Whether it was just a switch up in training, or whether something more dramatic happened like firing huge amounts of cops, or high ranking people.
This is just me but I would say yes to all of the options you provided in the first paragraph. The problem with police these days is a result of decades apon decades of a lack of serious reform and a reliance on what amounts to a bearly trained militia to fill a very long list of services that modern cities rely on to function day to day.
This is a link of the evidence that you are looking for
Basicaly the police department needs to go along with the union and the contract for police needs to drastically change. Real accountability isn't that hard to do and wildly increasing the non crisis interaction between police and people is A solution. There are still a list of problems with Camden but in a simple example during the protests, the camden police didn't bring riot gear and instead brought an ice cream truck while the sheriff marched at the front of the protests.
|
On June 19 2020 01:08 Doodsmack wrote:
Eh, if the first memo can bypass procedural requirements of agency decision making, the second should be able to as well. I guess it's a smart expansion of executive power by Obama, since the judicial system dictates that the second memo is far more likely to be reviewed by courts. Nonetheless the first memo operated outside the APA, which should mean that the second memo is also outside the scope of the APA. A policy that operates outside the APA should stay outside of the APA.
Arguing that the Obama administration violated APA or other laws in the first place when setting up DACA, and therefore the current administration is entitled to ignore APA again is missing the point of APA. Like it or not, and whether procedure was followed or not to this point, there are 700 000 people in the US protected under the DACA policy, and therefore under APA their interests need to be considered and weighted when rescinding DACA. The court ruled that the current administration didn't follow due process when doing so and therefore need to "try again" after following proper administrative procedure.
From the case opinions it looks like none of the justices disagree per se with the argument that rescinding DACA was "arbitrary and capricious" and in violation of APA, however the conservative block of justices think that they should have issued a ruling on the legality of DACA itself in addition/or instead of this more narrow judgement based on administrative procedure.
I do think that Thomas has a point when he says that this is a way to avoid political controversy. Roberts in particular has been trying quite hard to avoid having the supreme court seen in a partisan and political light (which Americans increasingly do especially with hyperpolitical bs like Republicans blocking the Merrick Garland nomination). So a ruling like this means Roberts doesn't have to decide whether DACA is constitutional or not in the first place. I doubt it'll work mind you. Sooner or later and regardless of who wins the next election the supreme court's going to be called upon to issue an opinion on DACA.
|
In light of danglars' post regarding the murder of Rayshard Brooks this little excerpt from a guardian article could shine a different light on whether it might be murder or not.
Brooks’s death has prompted protests in the city and elsewhere as it emerged that Brooks, 27, was 18ft from Rolfe, and running away, when he pointed the Taser – which prosecutors say Rolfe knew was not functional – before being shot.
www.theguardian.com
Is a not functional deadly weapon still considered a deadly weapon for which you can be shot because the officer feared for his life?
If he knows the weapon poses no danger to himself?
|
Poor cops should be fired, it just happens there are a whole team of really poor cops so you might as well just abolish the police departments as they currently exist.
|
There's some very wtf news today.
Prominent house GOP member Matt Gaetz dropped some info today about his personal life.
Gaetz is saying he has a 19 year old Cuban son who "lives with him" that he raised. Then he posted he was tired of it being said that the GOP doesn't know what it is like to raise a non-white kid.
Now, the thing is it would be really weird for Gaetz to be able to adopt a kid in FL at that time. It banned adoptions by gay men and those with a criminal history. This was shortly after his DUI and he was unmarried(not that Gaetz is publically gay, but usually there are some marriage requirements in states that stipulated no gay adoption). He was also only 31. No one outside of his family seems to have known Gaetz was raising this kid, with there having been no rumors even. Kid also served as a congressional page a few years ago (there are photos)
The reason that's odd : politicians love bragging about adopting immigrant children almost as much as Hollywood celebs do.
Doesn't necessarily mean that he did anything wrong, but it sounds quite sketchy. If he legally adopted him, someone broke some laws somewhere. He got into a very personal argument with someone on the house floor recently, and it may have been that he was so offended he ended a 6 year secret.
|
On June 19 2020 06:11 Artisreal wrote:In light of danglars' post regarding the murder of Rayshard Brooks this little excerpt from a guardian article could shine a different light on whether it might be murder or not. Show nested quote +
Brooks’s death has prompted protests in the city and elsewhere as it emerged that Brooks, 27, was 18ft from Rolfe, and running away, when he pointed the Taser – which prosecutors say Rolfe knew was not functional – before being shot.
www.theguardian.comIs a not functional deadly weapon still considered a deadly weapon for which you can be shot because the officer feared for his life? If he knows the weapon poses no danger to himself?
Well it's certainly going to be a challenge to prove that the officer had the same clarity of the threat against him during a chaotic scuffle that lasted seconds as we have with slow motion freeze frame video and an after the fact examination of the event.
I don't see any timeline where this cop gets convicted of murder. The decision to charge him with murder just set in motion future riots that will happen when the not guilty verdict comes down.
|
There’s Gaetz referring to his son as a helper or just another overachieving student in the past.
It’s overall pretty meaningless and I completely understand why he might not want to tell anyone about him in the hopes of giving him a pretty ordinary life.
That being said, the timing of the reveal is the thing that is actually odd and it’s meaningless if it’s a deflection. It still doesn’t mean he can comprehend what minorities go through in their daily life. Especially since the son is Cuban living in presumably Florida.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
