General Police Abuse Thread

[Zwinmar]

I got to see what it was like to be a cop when I was TAD to Camp Guard when I deployed to Japan. No way in hell was I going to actually be one after that. Cops seem to carry better gear than I did into combat, and they have less restrictive rules of engagement.

My solution: The Barney Fife...they get one bullet, in their pocket. The shift from Protect and Serve to Law Enforcement is the main culprit to this crap.

[TheFeniX]

Fenix, agree with the sentiment but the argument that the blue oinkers will be more likely to cover for eachother even moreso is compelling. But I'm making the assumption that this happens along with strong independent oversight.

Were the guys selling sub-prime loans and/or those making up fake bank accounts to pad numbers really at fault? Yes. But policies from the top both forced them to operate along strict guidlines of "sell, or you're out" and lack of regulation gave them the leeway to do whatever they needed to get results.

For police, their goal these days seems to be "get a situation 100% under control as quickly as possible, everything else be damned." I'm ignoring Simon_Jester's apt point about how (hope I'm not misrepresenting) their training just seems to evaporate at a moments notice and they rely on their gut instinct rather than THINKING about a situation. Going further, on my own, this is in large part due to how fucking boring/routine police work is and how cops aren't really prepared for when shit hits the fan, however they are generally taught to react with escalation when confronted. So, it becomes an (nearly one-sided) escalation of force war and they win, people die.

And this isn't just me talking here. Higher-ups at the NYPD have made mention that one of their main problems is cops continuing escalation and not even considering deescalation or even just (gasp) walking away (though, same thing really). Because they don't want to look weak, either in front of the public or other officers.

And, even further, when cops can't even be bothered to make sure the door they're breaking down has the right address and the city defends them. Well, "thinking" is last on their list, even in non-imminent danger situations.

Anyway, going back: my idea just might be horrible, but there's no reason only beat cops would be roped into this collective responsibility (for lack of a better term). Why would captains and chiefs be immune from this, they are paid out of the same coffers. If local prosecutors and judges continue to act as teammates for the police, why don't their coffers help shoulder the burden of their fuck-ups? There's been numerous cases where a civil case lead to millions in damages and yet the prosecutor never even bothered trying to convene a Grand Jury. Hell, Wii Mote Shooter cop? She got another Grand Jury after the first did indict. So, they just got another that wouldn't. JUSTICE!

Yes, I get civil court has lower burden of proof, but there's a problem here when it's like... you shot a kid in the chest, at his own front door, over a wii-mote, and the prosecutor still has your back. That not even "kid's gloves."

But right now, the entire municipality eats the cost, then budget time comes up. Sure, police departments get cuts, but you never (or at least rarely, I've got two examples of gutting, but that was due to mass corruption) see them gut it like they are more than willing to do for Parks and Rec or Schools and Libraries.

Could we lose good cops over this? Yea and that would be bad, but there's other fields where both good and bad attempts at cleaning up the system have driven good people away. So, I can't shy away from a possible solution just because some people might have temper tantrums about the idea that they might have to pay for their coworkers and bosses fuck-ups.

Besides, police departments are already have a stellar record with driving out good cops and keeping the bad ones.

EDIT: HAHA! In my ranting, I cut out the part that actually answers your post. Whoops, catch you on the next one.

[Flagg]

Fenix, agree with the sentiment but the argument that the blue oinkers will be more likely to cover for eachother even moreso is compelling. But I'm making the assumption that this happens along with strong independent oversight.

Were the guys selling sub-prime loans and/or those making up fake bank accounts to pad numbers really at fault? Yes. But policies from the top both forced them to operate along strict guidlines of "sell, or you're out" and lack of regulation gave them the leeway to do whatever they needed to get results.

For police, their goal these days seems to be "get a situation 100% under control as quickly as possible, everything else be damned." I'm ignoring Simon_Jester's apt point about how (hope I'm not misrepresenting) their training just seems to evaporate at a moments notice and they rely on their gut instinct rather than THINKING about a situation. Going further, on my own, this is in large part due to how fucking boring/routine police work is and how cops aren't really prepared for when shit hits the fan, however they are generally taught to react with escalation when confronted. So, it becomes an (nearly one-sided) escalation of force war and they win, people die.

And this isn't just me talking here. Higher-ups at the NYPD have made mention that one of their main problems is cops continuing escalation and not even considering deescalation or even just (gasp) walking away (though, same thing really). Because they don't want to look weak, either in front of the public or other officers.

And, even further, when cops can't even be bothered to make sure the door they're breaking down has the right address and the city defends them. Well, "thinking" is last on their list, even in non-imminent danger situations.

Anyway, going back: my idea just might be horrible, but there's no reason only beat cops would be roped into this collective responsibility (for lack of a better term). Why would captains and chiefs be immune from this, they are paid out of the same coffers. If local prosecutors and judges continue to act as teammates for the police, why don't their coffers help shoulder the burden of their fuck-ups? There's been numerous cases where a civil case lead to millions in damages and yet the prosecutor never even bothered trying to convene a Grand Jury. Hell, Wii Mote Shooter cop? She got another Grand Jury after the first did indict. So, they just got another that wouldn't. JUSTICE!

Yes, I get civil court has lower burden of proof, but there's a problem here when it's like... you shot a kid in the chest, at his own front door, over a wii-mote, and the prosecutor still has your back. That not even "kid's gloves."

But right now, the entire municipality eats the cost, then budget time comes up. Sure, police departments get cuts, but you never (or at least rarely, I've got two examples of gutting, but that was due to mass corruption) see them gut it like they are more than willing to do for Parks and Rec or Schools and Libraries.

Could we lose good cops over this? Yea and that would be bad, but there's other fields where both good and bad attempts at cleaning up the system have driven good people away. So, I can't shy away from a possible solution just because some people might have temper tantrums about the idea that they might have to pay for their coworkers and bosses fuck-ups.

Besides, police departments are already have a stellar record with driving out good cops and keeping the bad ones.

Like I said, I totally agree with the sentiment. I just worry that it will be more reinforcement for the Blue Wall Of Silence. But it's not something that shouldn't be tried and it makes a fuckton more sense than cutting school budgets due to poor student performance.

[TheFeniX]

Like I said, I totally agree with the sentiment. I just worry that it will be more reinforcement for the Blue Wall Of Silence. But it's not something that shouldn't be tried and it makes a fuckton more sense than cutting school budgets due to poor student performance.

Yea, I'm not trying to pick a fight and maybe I'm just being a dick to the cops, but I'd "like" to see just how well multiple departments would do when they had the same budget, but their losses had to be covered internally. They'd flounder because, IMO, they can "afford" the cost of doing business the way they do because everyone else foots the bill. The only time LEO feels the squeeze is when every other department has been totally wrung out.

Something has to break this cycle and as far as I can see "hey, you're killing actual people and suffering next to zero consequences for it" is not working. So, me being me, if I can't appeal to someone's humanity, then I'll appeal to their checkbook.

[Terralthra]

[quote="Police officer tickets man for jaywalking and "walking without ID""]A Florida Cop Ticketed a Man for Walking Without His ID

In footage of the incident, a cop threatens to arrest Devonte Shipman for a crime that doesn't exist.

Last week, a Florida cop stopped a 21-year-old man for jaywalking, threatened to arrest him, and issued him a $130 ticket for failing to have his license on him, the Miami Herald reports.

Devonte Shipman posted a video of his run-in with officer J.S. Bolen in Jacksonville on Facebook last Wednesday. The footage begins just after the officer confronts Shipman, who calmly asks the officer what he did wrong.

Bolen tells Shipman he was jaywalking, and then threatens to arrest him and slap him with a fine.

"That's a $65 ticket a piece," Bolen says. "Get to my car. You are being legally detained. If you disobey... I will put you in jail."

He then asks for Shipman's ID. When Shipman tells the officer he doesn't have it on him, Bolen cites a Florida law mandating residents must carry identification with them at all times. But, according to the Herald, that law doesn't exist.

"In the state of Florida, you have to have an ID card on you identifying who you are," Bolen says. "I can detain you up to seven hours until I can figure out who you are."

Shipman, who had already told the officer his first and last name, begged to differ.

"No sir," he says. "You cannot."

Florida, like many states, does mandate residents carry their driver's licenses whenever they're driving a car. But Shipman was just walking across the street. Still, Bolen issued him a $136 ticket for failing to provide ID, as well as a citation and a $62 fine for jaywalking.

<snip>

According to the Times-Union, the local sheriff's office is still reviewing the video, but police said Bolen isn't under investigation.[/quote]
Video at the link. Just guess what skin color Shipman has.

[Simon_Jester]

Mistakes happen, and if you or I make one we had better damned we'll be able to prove it's a mistake because innocent until proven guilty are pretty words that only seem to apply varying on jurisdiction and skin tone. That said if it's a mistake made while following correct procedure then it should be evident.

I want "innocent until proven guilty" to apply to everyone. Stripping it away from some people out of resentment because they seem to have special privileges isn't going to help. It's going to make things worse, by contributing to a climate in which it's normal to judge everyone guilty in advance, demand that they be punished, and refuse to pay attention to evidence exonerating them.

Minorities suffer worse in this kind of environment, not less. Trying to 'fight dirty in 'retaliation' by pushing for the guilty-until-proven-innocent mindset when judging powerful people isn't going to help. It's going to make things worse, because powerful people have the tools to prove themselves innocent more easily than weak people.

And really, define "mistake". The dipshits that opened up on 2 little old ladies thinking it was Dorner (who apparently was to be killed on assumption of identity because police were wetting their didies) made a "mistake".

But I largely agree with what you're saying.

Mistake, in this context, means that the police are following best practices, and are not making obvious mistakes that no reasonable person would make (like randomly shooting people on sight).

It's like, if a surgeon operates on a patient, and the patient dies, we can judge whether the death was caused by the surgeon screwing up, or by "shit happens sometimes." We already have a legal infrastructure to do this. We have standards of care for what a good surgeon does towards their patients, we train surgeons extensively, and we incentivize them to do their jobs right by making it much harder to operate as a surgeon if one has a habit of accidentally or recklessly injuring people.

And we do this without automatically assuming that every time a patient dies under a doctor's care, it's because the doctor is an evil demon sorceror.

Similar logic can apply to the police.

[Flagg]

[quote="Police officer tickets man for jaywalking and "walking without ID""]A Florida Cop Ticketed a Man for Walking Without His ID

In footage of the incident, a cop threatens to arrest Devonte Shipman for a crime that doesn't exist.

Last week, a Florida cop stopped a 21-year-old man for jaywalking, threatened to arrest him, and issued him a $130 ticket for failing to have his license on him, the Miami Herald reports.

Devonte Shipman posted a video of his run-in with officer J.S. Bolen in Jacksonville on Facebook last Wednesday. The footage begins just after the officer confronts Shipman, who calmly asks the officer what he did wrong.

Bolen tells Shipman he was jaywalking, and then threatens to arrest him and slap him with a fine.

"That's a $65 ticket a piece," Bolen says. "Get to my car. You are being legally detained. If you disobey... I will put you in jail."

He then asks for Shipman's ID. When Shipman tells the officer he doesn't have it on him, Bolen cites a Florida law mandating residents must carry identification with them at all times. But, according to the Herald, that law doesn't exist.

"In the state of Florida, you have to have an ID card on you identifying who you are," Bolen says. "I can detain you up to seven hours until I can figure out who you are."

Shipman, who had already told the officer his first and last name, begged to differ.

"No sir," he says. "You cannot."

Florida, like many states, does mandate residents carry their driver's licenses whenever they're driving a car. But Shipman was just walking across the street. Still, Bolen issued him a $136 ticket for failing to provide ID, as well as a citation and a $62 fine for jaywalking.

<snip>

According to the Times-Union, the local sheriff's office is still reviewing the video, but police said Bolen isn't under investigation.

Video at the link. Just guess what skin color Shipman has.[/quote]
There is no law requiring anyone to carry any form of ID barring a CCP or Drivers License if they are doing either. That cop needs to be shitcanned, but won't be.

[Flagg]

Mistakes happen, and if you or I make one we had better damned we'll be able to prove it's a mistake because innocent until proven guilty are pretty words that only seem to apply varying on jurisdiction and skin tone. That said if it's a mistake made while following correct procedure then it should be evident.

I want "innocent until proven guilty" to apply to everyone. Stripping it away from some people out of resentment because they seem to have special privileges isn't going to help. It's going to make things worse, by contributing to a climate in which it's normal to judge everyone guilty in advance, demand that they be punished, and refuse to pay attention to evidence exonerating them.

Minorities suffer worse in this kind of environment, not less. Trying to 'fight dirty in 'retaliation' by pushing for the guilty-until-proven-innocent mindset when judging powerful people isn't going to help. It's going to make things worse, because powerful people have the tools to prove themselves innocent more easily than weak people.

And really, define "mistake". The dipshits that opened up on 2 little old ladies thinking it was Dorner (who apparently was to be killed on assumption of identity because police were wetting their didies) made a "mistake".

But I largely agree with what you're saying.

Mistake, in this context, means that the police are following best practices, and are not making obvious mistakes that no reasonable person would make (like randomly shooting people on sight).

It's like, if a surgeon operates on a patient, and the patient dies, we can judge whether the death was caused by the surgeon screwing up, or by "shit happens sometimes." We already have a legal infrastructure to do this. We have standards of care for what a good surgeon does towards their patients, we train surgeons extensively, and we incentivize them to do their jobs right by making it much harder to operate as a surgeon if one has a habit of accidentally or recklessly injuring people.

And we do this without automatically assuming that every time a patient dies under a doctor's care, it's because the doctor is an evil demon sorceror.

Similar logic can apply to the police.

No, police are on the job and should have to justify their every action. If they cannot justify shooting and killing a suspect it's murder. If they can't handle that then they can do something more suitable, like collecting carts from the parking lot at Wal-Mart.

[Aether]

It's like, if a surgeon operates on a patient, and the patient dies, we can judge whether the death was caused by the surgeon screwing up, or by "shit happens sometimes." We already have a legal infrastructure to do this. We have standards of care for what a good surgeon does towards their patients, we train surgeons extensively, and we incentivize them to do their jobs right by making it much harder to operate as a surgeon if one has a habit of accidentally or recklessly injuring people.

And we do this without automatically assuming that every time a patient dies under a doctor's care, it's because the doctor is an evil demon sorceror.

Similar logic can apply to the police.

The purpose of a doctor is to treat people who are ill, so a prudent assumption of their purpose is to save lives. If something does indeed happen, that prudent assumption assures people that the doctor in question did there best to save the patient.

Right or wrongly, this assumption isn't afforded to the police who can 1) restrict your freedom, 2) take your life.

Basically, I'm saying that people would tend to be more forgiving of a profession in which the sole purpose is to save lives compared to that of a profession that is known to restrict one's freedom or kill you when a loss of life is involved.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Mistakes happen, and if you or I make one we had better damned we'll be able to prove it's a mistake because innocent until proven guilty are pretty words that only seem to apply varying on jurisdiction and skin tone. That said if it's a mistake made while following correct procedure then it should be evident.

I want "innocent until proven guilty" to apply to everyone. Stripping it away from some people out of resentment because they seem to have special privileges isn't going to help. It's going to make things worse, by contributing to a climate in which it's normal to judge everyone guilty in advance, demand that they be punished, and refuse to pay attention to evidence exonerating them.

Minorities suffer worse in this kind of environment, not less. Trying to 'fight dirty in 'retaliation' by pushing for the guilty-until-proven-innocent mindset when judging powerful people isn't going to help. It's going to make things worse, because powerful people have the tools to prove themselves innocent more easily than weak people.

And really, define "mistake". The dipshits that opened up on 2 little old ladies thinking it was Dorner (who apparently was to be killed on assumption of identity because police were wetting their didies) made a "mistake".

But I largely agree with what you're saying.

Mistake, in this context, means that the police are following best practices, and are not making obvious mistakes that no reasonable person would make (like randomly shooting people on sight).

It's like, if a surgeon operates on a patient, and the patient dies, we can judge whether the death was caused by the surgeon screwing up, or by "shit happens sometimes." We already have a legal infrastructure to do this. We have standards of care for what a good surgeon does towards their patients, we train surgeons extensively, and we incentivize them to do their jobs right by making it much harder to operate as a surgeon if one has a habit of accidentally or recklessly injuring people.

And we do this without automatically assuming that every time a patient dies under a doctor's care, it's because the doctor is an evil demon sorceror.

Similar logic can apply to the police.

No, police are on the job and should have to justify their every action. If they cannot justify shooting and killing a suspect it's murder. If they can't handle that then they can do something more suitable, like collecting carts from the parking lot at Wal-Mart.

Now you are just being an idiot who does not know what murder and manslaughter are. Murder requires intent to kill, manslaughter requires reckless negligence or intent to harm (or extreme emotional disturbance), criminally negligent homicide requires gross incompetence.

Police can kill an innocent person without ANY of that applying at all. They can mistake something for a lethal weapon (even after doing all their due diligence and not derping out at all), they can miss a valid target and hit an innocent bystander they didnt see etc etc etc

We get it, you hate police as a group and you want to get revenge, but revenge is not. fucking. justice. Nor is what you propose going to result in a positive change in the world. Here in reality, those of us who want actual justice want the assignation of culpability to be accurate. Anything else is unjust and wrong.

[Flagg]

I want "innocent until proven guilty" to apply to everyone. Stripping it away from some people out of resentment because they seem to have special privileges isn't going to help. It's going to make things worse, by contributing to a climate in which it's normal to judge everyone guilty in advance, demand that they be punished, and refuse to pay attention to evidence exonerating them.

Minorities suffer worse in this kind of environment, not less. Trying to 'fight dirty in 'retaliation' by pushing for the guilty-until-proven-innocent mindset when judging powerful people isn't going to help. It's going to make things worse, because powerful people have the tools to prove themselves innocent more easily than weak people.

Mistake, in this context, means that the police are following best practices, and are not making obvious mistakes that no reasonable person would make (like randomly shooting people on sight).

It's like, if a surgeon operates on a patient, and the patient dies, we can judge whether the death was caused by the surgeon screwing up, or by "shit happens sometimes." We already have a legal infrastructure to do this. We have standards of care for what a good surgeon does towards their patients, we train surgeons extensively, and we incentivize them to do their jobs right by making it much harder to operate as a surgeon if one has a habit of accidentally or recklessly injuring people.

And we do this without automatically assuming that every time a patient dies under a doctor's care, it's because the doctor is an evil demon sorceror.

Similar logic can apply to the police.

No, police are on the job and should have to justify their every action. If they cannot justify shooting and killing a suspect it's murder. If they can't handle that then they can do something more suitable, like collecting carts from the parking lot at Wal-Mart.

Now you are just being an idiot who does not know what murder and manslaughter are. Murder requires intent to kill, manslaughter requires reckless negligence or intent to harm (or extreme emotional disturbance), criminally negligent homicide requires gross incompetence.

Police can kill an innocent person without ANY of that applying at all. They can mistake something for a lethal weapon (even after doing all their due diligence and not derping out at all), they can miss a valid target and hit an innocent bystander they didnt see etc etc etc

We get it, you hate police as a group and you want to get revenge, but revenge is not. fucking. justice. Nor is what you propose going to result in a positive change in the world. Here in reality, those of us who want actual justice want the assignation of culpability to be accurate. Anything else is unjust and wrong.

The system now is unjust and wrong, I want a system where police who murder people go to jail like any other murderer which if you've been paying attention doesn't happen. So since DA's offices are effectively on the same team, judges are effectively on the same team, we need a paradigm shift.

And for the record (not that your ad hominem matters) I don't hate police, just a large number of the mouth breathers in uniform and what they get away with without fail time after time after time. This is probably the only profession where you don't get hired because your IQ score is too high.

And you know goddamned well I'm talking about police killings resulting from gross misconduct so take your "hurr hurr manslaughter blurgle blurgle" and stow it. I stand by my assertion that if a cop kills a suspect due to misconduct the lowest charge should be second degree murder. You put on the badge and carry a gun and you get held to a higher standard otherwise just give chickenfuckers like George Zimmerman uniforms and codify looking the other way instead of pretend prosecutions and shrugging of shoulders like we do now. Frankly the mealy mouthed bullshit half measures proposed are just as part of the problem as the full throated "fuck 'em, they're criminals!" horseshit.

[Flagg]

Sorry, not an ad hominem fallacy. It's an appeal to motive fallacy.

[Flagg]

It's like, if a surgeon operates on a patient, and the patient dies, we can judge whether the death was caused by the surgeon screwing up, or by "shit happens sometimes." We already have a legal infrastructure to do this. We have standards of care for what a good surgeon does towards their patients, we train surgeons extensively, and we incentivize them to do their jobs right by making it much harder to operate as a surgeon if one has a habit of accidentally or recklessly injuring people.

And we do this without automatically assuming that every time a patient dies under a doctor's care, it's because the doctor is an evil demon sorceror.

Similar logic can apply to the police.

The purpose of a doctor is to treat people who are ill, so a prudent assumption of their purpose is to save lives. If something does indeed happen, that prudent assumption assures people that the doctor in question did there best to save the patient.

Right or wrongly, this assumption isn't afforded to the police who can 1) restrict your freedom, 2) take your life.

Basically, I'm saying that people would tend to be more forgiving of a profession in which the sole purpose is to save lives compared to that of a profession that is known to restrict one's freedom or kill you when a loss of life is involved.

Not only that, but "And we do this without automatically assuming that every time a patient dies under a doctor's care, it's because the doctor is an evil demon sorceror.
Similar logic can apply to the police." is a gross distortion of what I and others are talking about. No one is saying that even a large minority of police shooting and killing suspects is malfeasance.

The problem is the children in blue who blatantly kill people due to misconduct (Which yes, includes cowardice. If you are so a'scared of dealing with a suspect, get back in your cruiser and call an adult to handle the situation and then resign and mop floors for a living.) usually get a paid vacation, then come right back on the job. The tiny minority who do get in trouble have union reps and lawyers and even then "trouble" is unpaid suspension or termination (at which point they get a job policing the town next door, or god forbid a few towns over and have to move or commute.) and maybe, if enough people are angry for whatever passes for journalism in the area to take notice, the cop in question will get charged, usually with the lowest charge possible given the incident (or with the lowest charge possible being an option for the jury to convict on). And then they get acquitted and the vast majority shrug their shoulders.

The following is the nucleus of my solution with extensive give and take based on reality:

One, and this is the single non-negotiable item, independent civilian oversight.
Two, stop limiting people with a triple digit IQ (yes, that's an exaggeration, boo fucking hoo) from joining the police force.
Three, since we've effectively militarized the police force, limit their rights in a similar, but less severe way, the same way members of the armed forces are. So your first amendment right to call the black neighborhood similar to "What I saw in Planet of the Apes" on social media is an offense requiring immediate termination. Also, if you get fired for misconduct in Tittyfuck, Nebraska you don't get to be a cop anymore anywhere in the US or it's territories. Plus, if a "suspect" is killed in the line of duty and it is the result of gross misconduct, that's minimum second degree murder.
Four, if a police organization is found to be corrupt and that includes protecting officers who have committed criminal acts while on duty or as part of an "off duty 'Training Day' type pattern of activity", the RICO statute should apply with the caveat that honest officers are immune even if part of "the blue wall of silence" on the condition that they cooperate fully with Federal officials.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The system now is unjust and wrong, I want a system where police who murder people go to jail like any other murderer which if you've been paying attention doesn't happen. So since DA's offices are effectively on the same team, judges are effectively on the same team, we need a paradigm shift.

Which means you throw people in prison for murder who did not commit murder? That is one hell of a paradigm shift!

And for the record (not that your ad hominem matters) I don't hate police, just a large number of the mouth breathers in uniform and what they get away with without fail time after time after time. This is probably the only profession where you don't get hired because your IQ score is too high.

You just refer to them as Blue Oinkers as a class. No, you don't hate them at all....

And you know goddamned well I'm talking about police killings resulting from gross misconduct so take your "hurr hurr manslaughter blurgle blurgle" and stow it.

No, I really don't.

Here is the exact quotation, if you don't like the meaning of your own language use, I suggest you think before you post. I am not a god damned psychic.

"No, police are on the job and should have to justify their every action. If they cannot justify shooting and killing a suspect it's murder."

Do I need to diagram out the sentences? I can do that you know.

I stand by my assertion that if a cop kills a suspect due to misconduct the lowest charge should be second degree murder.

You are now moving your goal posts.

Sorry, not an ad hominem fallacy. It's an appeal to motive fallacy.

Not an appeal to motive fallacy either. An appeal to motive would be if I had said "You are wrong, because you hate police". Much like calling you donkey raping shit eater would not be an ad hominem. It would be an insult. I laid out why your position was incorrect independent of your demonstrated loathing for police officers. Ergo, it is not a fallacy. If you are going to accuse me of using a logical fallacy, at least make sure you do so correctly.

[Flagg]

The system now is unjust and wrong, I want a system where police who murder people go to jail like any other murderer which if you've been paying attention doesn't happen. So since DA's offices are effectively on the same team, judges are effectively on the same team, we need a paradigm shift.

Which means you throw people in prison for murder who did not commit murder? That is one hell of a paradigm shift!

Umm, where did I say the rules of evidence should be thrown out? Oh, I didn't, you're just making shit up. What a fine example you are!

And for the record (not that your ad hominem matters) I don't hate police, just a large number of the mouth breathers in uniform and what they get away with without fail time after time after time. This is probably the only profession where you don't get hired because your IQ score is too high.

You just refer to them as Blue Oinkers as a class. No, you don't hate them at all....

Disrespect is not hatred you idiot. And I've called them a lot of other names and say they mess their diapers because much of society swallows so much blue semen I'm surprised there are actual pink, as opposed to blue, skinned people left in this festering failed Republic. I don't hate you and I'm insulting you right now. In fact I regularly insult people I don't hate. But you know, if making up shit makes you feel better.

And you know goddamned well I'm talking about police killings resulting from gross misconduct so take your "hurr hurr manslaughter blurgle blurgle" and stow it.

No, I really don't.

Here is the exact quotation, if you don't like the meaning of your own language use, I suggest you think before you post. I am not a god damned psychic.

"No, police are on the job and should have to justify their every action. If they cannot justify shooting and killing a suspect it's murder."

Do I need to diagram out the sentences? I can do that you know.

If you don't consider unjustifiable shooting and killing a suspect "gross misconduct" then maybe your IQ is low enough that you'd make a prime candidate for the force, Barney Fife.

I stand by my assertion that if a cop kills a suspect due to misconduct the lowest charge should be second degree murder.

You are now moving your goal posts.

I am? When in a discussion about police unjustifiably killing people and I flat out say that if a cop kills a suspect it's second degree murder and they should be in a cage for 25 years getting shit thrown at them and then a few posts later say almost the exact same thing using clearer language so nitpicking dipshits who refuse to put 2 and 2 together so they can whine about the most protected class of blue collar people in the country getting called names when it comes to getting away with criminality it's "moving the goalposts"? Desperation is funny.

Not an appeal to motive fallacy either. An appeal to motive would be if I had said "You are wrong, because you hate police". Much like calling you donkey raping shit eater would not be an ad hominem. It would be an insult. I laid out why your position was incorrect independent of your demonstrated loathing for police officers. Ergo, it is not a fallacy. If you are going to accuse me of using a logical fallacy, at least make sure you do so correctly.

No, you just open with "you hate police" and then extrapolate from there. Of course ignoring the fact I don't hate KS, have stated several times that I've worked with former and future police who I consider friends and good people, and flat out deny hating police, thus calling me a liar. But maybe hating what a group of people can get away with and hating the group itself is too difficult a concept for you. Why not go bitch at the people who have flat out called for murdering police over the years and give it a rest when a guy who is disgusted at the legal breaks police get and is suggesting ways to curb it a break, or am I just too juicy and easy a target for you?

Seriously, go to your local donut squad and fill out an application, I'm sure they could use another mouthbreather.

[Simon_Jester]

Flagg, if you were to succeed in creating a legal system in which things like "criminal intent" and "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" do not apply to policemen...

Sooner or later this 'cheap easy conviction' system is gonna get applied to other people. You can't have a system where people who take on a specific job automatically go to jail whenever you get a "throw the fucker in jail" boner, and not expect it to result in other classes of people getting automatically thrown in jail due to other people getting similar boners.

This is basic common sense. If the basic principles of the legal system are required to stop protecting someone, then what guarantee does anyone else have?

And don't even try the bullshit "well it's already guilty until proven innocent for group X!" line. It's not. If it were, it would be even worse than it is; we know this because it HAS been worse than it is in the past.

...

If you tear down the concept of guilt and innocence in the name of being "tough on crime," well, guess what happens? A lot of bad shit happens! We've already seen this. It doesn't make a difference whether the crimes you're "tough on" are crimes committed by police or crimes committed by drug dealers. Bad shit happens.

[Flagg]

Oh, ffs I never seriously proposed ending the innocent until proven guilty tenet of the justice system for police, it was fucking hyperbole. That said "self defense" is an affirmative defense, anyway.

[White Haven]

Flagg:

There is no observable difference between 'Flagg exaggerates wildly, people take Flagg seriously, Flagg says he was exaggerating' and 'Flagg stakes out crazy position, people take Flagg seriously, Flagg backpedals and claims exaggeration as a defense.' Nobody outside your head can tell which is going on, and in a serious discussion about a serious topic, people who lack omniscient knowledge of what you actually meant when you were saying something can only fall back on what you actually wrote.

This happens with you quite often, and frankly it makes it hard to tell the difference between you and, say, JLTucker at a glance. This is, I believe, unfair to you, but as long as you keep exaggerating your own position for...I don't know, comedic effect? Anyway, as long as you keep exaggerating your own positions, other people will keep misinterpreting you. This leads to both you looking like an ass (well, more of an ass) and the discussion itself going off the rails, neither of which are good things.

In short: Please stop. Say what you mean, no more, no less.

[Napoleon the Clown]

How about this: When cops get tried at the same rate as the average Joe, when cops take plea deals at the same rate as average Joes... Then we can start considering them trustworthy. At what rate would you consider cops to be untrustworthy?

Somewhere between what you propose and the status quo, we lack sufficient data to reach a conclusion as to exact rates. The average Joe does not often find themselves in a position to use lethal force at all and under such uncertain conditions, mistakes will happen and those mistakes do not always constitute a criminal act.

Here's the thing... We know cops can fuck up your life, or end it outright, and often suffer no significant consequences. The cost of running into one of the bad cops (and the rate varies by location) can be extremely high.

The ideal rate of "bad cops" would be zero. But if they were to have the same rate of going to trial and being convicted (with sentencing being the same as for an average Joe) I'd consider police to be no higher risk than the average person.

Here's the thing, though. With more power, there should be more responsibility.

Unless you want police dying in job lots, they will always be a higher risk than the average citizen. Again, they are exposed to danger and react accordingly (with varying degrees of accuracy depending on how good their training is). Training and oversight can be improved to increase their accuracy in threat-evaluation and reduce the degree to which they are cognitively disabled by threat-responses, but there will always be a chance for error that does not exist in the civilian world.

And that is leaving out the implicit racism in threat determination entirely.

There are some police that die on the job as it is, some due to someone with an intent to kill and some because of a crash while chasing a suspect.

Here's a fun little fact. EMTs and every other emergency response profession involves risk of being subject to violence, sometimes with the intent of ending a life. Should EMTs be given the leeway to carry weapons and use them as freely as the police? Alex the EMT might get knifed while trying to save someone's life. Being an EMT is fucking dangerous. But we don't let EMTs run around packing heat and taking down people who "look" like a threat.

People who work night shifts at a convenience store are more likely to be faced with an armed and potentially violent individual than someone working an office job. Should they be allowed to just blow someone away because "I thought he was going for a gun!"? Bank tellers?

In my opinion, a lot of self defense laws are fucking nuts. There seems to not be the "reasonable person" standard written into them for threat determination. Even if it's standard operating procedure and lawmakers figured it should be obvious that for self-defense to be valid it requires a reasonable person to feel there exists, the jurors may well lack the level of education needed to be aware of this standard. And this isn't even getting into racially-driven jury nullification.

[Flagg]

Flagg:

There is no observable difference between 'Flagg exaggerates wildly, people take Flagg seriously, Flagg says he was exaggerating' and 'Flagg stakes out crazy position, people take Flagg seriously, Flagg backpedals and claims exaggeration as a defense.' Nobody outside your head can tell which is going on, and in a serious discussion about a serious topic, people who lack omniscient knowledge of what you actually meant when you were saying something can only fall back on what you actually wrote.

This happens with you quite often, and frankly it makes it hard to tell the difference between you and, say, JLTucker at a glance. This is, I believe, unfair to you, but as long as you keep exaggerating your own position for...I don't know, comedic effect? Anyway, as long as you keep exaggerating your own positions, other people will keep misinterpreting you. This leads to both you looking like an ass (well, more of an ass) and the discussion itself going off the rails, neither of which are good things.

In short: Please stop. Say what you mean, no more, no less.

I wrote a list of exactly what I wanted to happen with no deliberate hyperbole or exaggeration. But because people choose to ignore that and respond to something 2 or 3 pages back I guess it's all my fault?

[White Haven]

Yes, it is, Flagg. You stake out one position, then enumerate another one later. That means you have said multiple contradictory things about the same topic. What is a third party without the benefit of occupying your psyche supposed to do, just assume which of the two you actually mean? Assume the more moderate, less vitriolic one, because it's more reasonable by that third party's standard? Assume the more strident, hard-line one, because you have a history of espousing such sentiments or because that is more in-line with the third party's own feelings? Roll 2d6+Flagg and consult the Discussion Table?

Or, perhaps, ask you to say what you mean in the first place for future discussion. I'm going to go with that.

[Flagg]

Yes, it is, Flagg. You stake out one position, then enumerate another one later. That means you have said multiple contradictory things about the same topic. What is a third party without the benefit of occupying your psyche supposed to do, just assume which of the two you actually mean? Assume the more moderate, less vitriolic one, because it's more reasonable by that third party's standard? Assume the more strident, hard-line one, because you have a history of espousing such sentiments or because that is more in-line with the third party's own feelings? Roll 2d6+Flagg and consult the Discussion Table?

Or, perhaps, ask you to say what you mean in the first place for future discussion. I'm going to go with that.

No, I made a broad statement then made a more thought out narrow one put in a clearer manner because my brain works in real time.

And if I "backpeddle" (which is 99.99999999999999% of the time just clarifying my position, not the dishonest attempt at "getting out of" something that term implies) it's usually because I see the problem with my previous statement either being too broad or stated poorly.

If you have a problem with that, then go cry in the corner with the rest of the Flaggvetta crowd. And don't use a post criticizing me to carry out whatever your vendetta against Tucker is since he tends to post things far more intelligent than most of the rabble since he's reached adulthood. You included.

[RogueIce]

Unless you want police dying in job lots, they will always be a higher risk than the average citizen. Again, they are exposed to danger and react accordingly (with varying degrees of accuracy depending on how good their training is). Training and oversight can be improved to increase their accuracy in threat-evaluation and reduce the degree to which they are cognitively disabled by threat-responses, but there will always be a chance for error that does not exist in the civilian world.

And that is leaving out the implicit racism in threat determination entirely.

There are some police that die on the job as it is, some due to someone with an intent to kill and some because of a crash while chasing a suspect.

Here's a fun little fact. EMTs and every other emergency response profession involves risk of being subject to violence, sometimes with the intent of ending a life. Should EMTs be given the leeway to carry weapons and use them as freely as the police? Alex the EMT might get knifed while trying to save someone's life. Being an EMT is fucking dangerous. But we don't let EMTs run around packing heat and taking down people who "look" like a threat.

People who work night shifts at a convenience store are more likely to be faced with an armed and potentially violent individual than someone working an office job. Should they be allowed to just blow someone away because "I thought he was going for a gun!"? Bank tellers?

In my opinion, a lot of self defense laws are fucking nuts. There seems to not be the "reasonable person" standard written into them for threat determination. Even if it's standard operating procedure and lawmakers figured it should be obvious that for self-defense to be valid it requires a reasonable person to feel there exists, the jurors may well lack the level of education needed to be aware of this standard. And this isn't even getting into racially-driven jury nullification.

When a knife-wielding patient stabs an EMT because they're crazy or whatever, who goes after that knife-wielding patient? The police.

When an armed robber blows away a convenience store clerk during a robbery, who goes after the armed robber? The police.

If we expected EMTs and convenience store clerks to pursue active, deadly threats, we would indeed train and equip them to do so. But we don't, because we already have a profession that does this: the police.

That's the difference between police and every other profession with risk. Others try to avoid the danger, and the issue of self defense only comes up when danger finds them. But police are asked to seek out the danger, and that's why they have different expectations when it comes to threat assessment and use of force than just about anybody else.

If we tasked EMTs and convenience store clerks to actively engage with and interact with potentially murderous subjects in potentially deadly situations, sooner or later an EMT or convenience store clerk is going to "get it wrong" and kill somebody who they probably should not have.

In the end, Alyrium Denryle has the right of it: better, more consistent training, as well as oversight to make sure that better, more consistent training is actually being used out on the street; there's a big difference between acing your tests and reviews in a controlled environment as opposed to the uncontrolled environment that they actually work in.

[Dominus Atheos]

So this happened:

South Dakota Cops Used Forced Catheterization On Boy, 3

April 14, 2017

South Dakota's Pierre Police Department is reportedly forcing residents, one as young as 3 years old, to have catheters shoved into their bladders.

Kirsten Hunter told the Argus Leader that her 3-year-old son, Aksel, had a catheter forcibly pushed into his penis by nurses at Avera St. Mary’s Hospital.

"They just shoved it right up there, and he screamed so bad," Hunter recalled. "He’s still dealing with a staph infection, and we are still giving him medication."

The boy was reportedly violated after a Department of Social Services employee and police officers showed up at Hunter's home and demanded that the toddler produce a sample of urine in late February.

Hunter said that she and her boyfriend had failed their urine tests, so authorities wanted to test Hunter's two children for drugs.

According to Hunter, her 5-year-old daughter was able to produce a sample on demand, but the toddler couldn't. Authorities reportedly threatened to take the boy away if he could not urinate for them.

Heather Smith, executive director of the ACLU of South Dakota, said: "Quite frankly, it’s cruel and barbaric to forcibly catheterize anyone, let alone a 3-year-old child, and this process raises serious constitutional concerns."

The ACLU of South Dakota wrote a letter to the Department of Social Services on March 31, asking why the boy was forcibly catheterized and called for the department to stop catheterizing children.

The Pierre Police Department and Department of Social Services did not answer questions from the Argus Leader.

Avera St. Mary’s Hospital spokesman Jay Gravholt wrote in a statement: "Avera has long recommended that care never be forced on anyone. However, the facts of any given circumstance dictates how some might respond to a directive from law enforcement or a judge."

More recent source:

ACLU of South Dakota Takes Legal Action to Stop Forcible Catheterizations

June 28, 2017

https://www.aclusd.org/sites/default/fi ... tamped.pdf

I don't know the race of the 3 year old, but I can guess.

[RogueIce]

I don't know the race of the 3 year old, but I can guess.

30 seconds of Google would have shown you your attempts at race-baiting this would have been for naught.