Surprise! ANOTHER black person dead, murderer not punished

[SVPD]

So presenting the officer's side of the story is a problem, but having all these other people come out and scream to the media about their side of the story is just perfectly fine?

No.

There is a BIG difference between saying

"Person X claims this is what happened, and we are investigating to determine if this is true" and "This is what happened, we are investigating".

The difference in implications between the two statements is obvious.

Not really. The latter is more easily explained as just an easy way of stating the former, especially since it makes no sense to investigate when you already know what happened.

In any case, the fact is that we do not have any direct quote of the department saying "this is what happened."

[SVPD]

As for making it a crime. The most you'd be able to do is a low class misdemeanor...maybe. I doubt the legislature would approve. What you can do is require a mandatory termination for anyone that intentionally shuts off their camera.

In that other case, the idea that officers can be recorded intentionally turning off the devices intended to prevent abuse and then people ending up dead and NOBODY BEING INSTANTLY FIRED is totally beyond me. Are officers under surveillance, or not? Are they held to standards, or not? Is it acceptable to say 'shut it off' during the commission of a violent entry, or not?

First of all, the recording devices are not intended to "prevent abuse". They're there to record what happened.

Second, no one should ever be "instantly fired" for any violation of policy. A full investigation, by the rules, should always be performed.

[Kamakazie Sith]

As for making it a crime. The most you'd be able to do is a low class misdemeanor...maybe. I doubt the legislature would approve. What you can do is require a mandatory termination for anyone that intentionally shuts off their camera.

In that other case, the idea that officers can be recorded intentionally turning off the devices intended to prevent abuse and then people ending up dead and NOBODY BEING INSTANTLY FIRED is totally beyond me. Are officers under surveillance, or not? Are they held to standards, or not? Is it acceptable to say 'shut it off' during the commission of a violent entry, or not?

First of all, the recording devices are not intended to "prevent abuse". They're there to record what happened.

Second, no one should ever be "instantly fired" for any violation of policy. A full investigation, by the rules, should always be performed.

After reading that part of the article more carefully it seems the recording device was mounted on the taser which likely means it is turned on when the taser is on and off when the taser is off.

[TheFeniX]

Where did you obtain this 48 hours number?

I used to watch The First 48 and interviews with detectives would focus on how important the first 2 days of an investigation were. And yes, this applies to murders. After those first 48 hours, the chances of any new evidence showing up or existing evidence still being around get lower and lower.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Not really. The latter is more easily explained as just an easy way of stating the former, especially since it makes no sense to investigate when you already know what happened.

Do the finer points of language escape you?

I am assuming here for the sake of linguistic argument that indeed, we have a police department saying in effect of "The officer discharged his weapon in response to a threat to his life by an individual engaged in a criminal act. We are investigating the incident.". This is an assumption. To be made for the sake of argument. I do not want to see any "we do not have such a statement" bullshit, because that is not the point.


The alternative statement is something to the effect of: "A police officer claims that he discharged his weapon in response to a threat to his life by an individual engaged in a criminal act. We are investigating the incident."

The entire POINT is that the first statement makes no sense if you assume that the department has not in fact already decided what the investigation will conclude. If however, you assume that they reach a conclusion and then "investigate" as a matter of formality, it makes perfect sense. It makes sense, because that is what the first statement solidly implies.

They make a factual statement about the incident. No hedging, no uncertainty in the claim. Then they claim to be investigating. Their certainty makes the investigation they are supposedly conducting redundant. There is only one thing a reasonable person can conclude with language like that if they take the time to think about the statement. It is not in fact an easier way of saying the second statement, which deliberately leaves significant uncertainty about the truth of the officer's account, thus validating and legitimizing the investigation and its necessity.

Just because an investigation is performed pro forma does not mean that the results are not rigged, or that the investigation is in any way real.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Not really. The latter is more easily explained as just an easy way of stating the former, especially since it makes no sense to investigate when you already know what happened.

Do the finer points of language escape you?

I am assuming here for the sake of linguistic argument that indeed, we have a police department saying in effect of "The officer discharged his weapon in response to a threat to his life by an individual engaged in a criminal act. We are investigating the incident.". This is an assumption. To be made for the sake of argument. I do not want to see any "we do not have such a statement" bullshit, because that is not the point.

The alternative statement is something to the effect of: "A police officer claims that he discharged his weapon in response to a threat to his life by an individual engaged in a criminal act. We are investigating the incident."

The entire POINT is that the first statement makes no sense if you assume that the department has not in fact already decided what the investigation will conclude. If however, you assume that they reach a conclusion and then "investigate" as a matter of formality, it makes perfect sense. It makes sense, because that is what the first statement solidly implies.

They make a factual statement about the incident. No hedging, no uncertainty in the claim. Then they claim to be investigating. Their certainty makes the investigation they are supposedly conducting redundant. There is only one thing a reasonable person can conclude with language like that if they take the time to think about the statement. It is not in fact an easier way of saying the second statement, which deliberately leaves significant uncertainty about the truth of the officer's account, thus validating and legitimizing the investigation and its necessity.

Just because an investigation is performed pro forma does not mean that the results are not rigged, or that the investigation is in any way real.

I think you shouldn't allow yourself to get caught up in what basically amounts to nitpicking the choice of words of the Public Information Officers, or whoever gave the statement to the media. Investigators attached to the case do not make comments to the media.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I think you shouldn't allow yourself to get caught up in what basically amounts to nitpicking the choice of words of the Public Information Officers, or whoever gave the statement to the media. Investigators attached to the case do not make comments to the media.

If it were just some guy, sure. However, I assume PR officers have training in... you know...public relations and how language works? Maybe it is my fault, but I do tend to assume a baseline level of competence. If that sort of thing is a result of lack of training, methinks the departments probably need to rethink their choices in that regard.

When someone makes a statement on behalf of the department and the interpretive choices are between:

1) We have already reached an evidence-free conclusion and are going through the motions of an investigation like paramedics doing CPR on a DOA

2) Our PR specialist has no idea what he is saying

I am not filled with confidence.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I think you shouldn't allow yourself to get caught up in what basically amounts to nitpicking the choice of words of the Public Information Officers, or whoever gave the statement to the media. Investigators attached to the case do not make comments to the media.

If it were just some guy, sure. However, I assume PR officers have training in... you know...public relations and how language works? Maybe it is my fault, but I do tend to assume a baseline level of competence. If that sort of thing is a result of lack of training, methinks the departments probably need to rethink their choices in that regard.

When someone makes a statement on behalf of the department and the interpretive choices are between:

1) We have already reached an evidence-free conclusion and are going through the motions of an investigation like paramedics doing CPR on a DOA

2) Our PR specialist has no idea what he is saying

I am not filled with confidence.

Can't argue with that. When you have people that exist to nitpick what you say to death then you need to make sure you don't leave any wiggle room.

[Simon_Jester]

I don't think it's even nitpicking- it's just basic attempts to be neutral about facts you don't know. It doesn't cost you anything to say "we are investigating" in a neutral way: "the officer claims self defense, we're investigating whether that's true" just sounds like so much better a way to reassure the community that you're on the ball and not trying to cover anything up. I can't understand why you'd avoid that.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I don't think it's even nitpicking- it's just basic attempts to be neutral about facts you don't know. It doesn't cost you anything to say "we are investigating" in a neutral way: "the officer claims self defense, we're investigating whether that's true" just sounds like so much better a way to reassure the community that you're on the ball and not trying to cover anything up. I can't understand why you'd avoid that.

Exactly. If you assume that police statements such as that actually indicate what the person writing it intends to say, then the alternative is a bald-faced admission that their investigation is heavily biased either in procedure or in subjective matters, in the officer's favor. Something that is easy to do when an internal investigation is laden with massive conflicts of interest, or when non-cooperation with Internal Affairs is part of the institutional culture. Either case can readily be true (and in fact, we would expect at least one, if not both to be true, given what social psychology knows about how humans behave in social groups).

[SVPD]

Not really. The latter is more easily explained as just an easy way of stating the former, especially since it makes no sense to investigate when you already know what happened.

Do the finer points of language escape you?

I am assuming here for the sake of linguistic argument that indeed, we have a police department saying in effect of "The officer discharged his weapon in response to a threat to his life by an individual engaged in a criminal act. We are investigating the incident.". This is an assumption. To be made for the sake of argument. I do not want to see any "we do not have such a statement" bullshit, because that is not the point.

I don't really care what you want to see or don't want to see. The fact of the matter is that you're criticizing what the PD spokesman supposedly said based on what the opposing party's attorney said he said.

The alternative statement is something to the effect of: "A police officer claims that he discharged his weapon in response to a threat to his life by an individual engaged in a criminal act. We are investigating the incident."

The entire POINT is that the first statement makes no sense if you assume that the department has not in fact already decided what the investigation will conclude. If however, you assume that they reach a conclusion and then "investigate" as a matter of formality, it makes perfect sense. It makes sense, because that is what the first statement solidly implies.

Uh, yes, it does in fact "make sense" if you understand that people frequently do not say exactly what they mean with precise clarity, and before you whip out some bullshit about how he's speaking in public and should know better, public speakers make gaffes all the time. The fact is that you are trying to nitpick his exact words to make it seem like he necessarily was stating that they'd already decided the shooting was justified, you are engaging in false dilemma by pretending there are only two ways of saying it and only one possible meaing for each AND you are doing all this based not upon a quote but upon an opposing party's claim as to what his words were.

T

hey make a factual statement about the incident. No hedging, no uncertainty in the claim. Then they claim to be investigating. Their certainty makes the investigation they are supposedly conducting redundant. There is only one thing a reasonable person can conclude with language like that if they take the time to think about the statement. It is not in fact an easier way of saying the second statement, which deliberately leaves significant uncertainty about the truth of the officer's account, thus validating and legitimizing the investigation and its necessity.

Not at all. A reasonable person concludes that they mean that's the officer's story, and the investigation is ongoing. Nitpicking the semantics of the police department spokesman to make it appear that the only way it can be interpreted is as if the matter is already closed is not reasonable.

Just because an investigation is performed pro forma does not mean that the results are not rigged, or that the investigation is in any way real.

Just because you have found a semantic error in a sentence that is complete hearsay does not some how establish that the investigation is pro forma.

[SVPD]

I think you shouldn't allow yourself to get caught up in what basically amounts to nitpicking the choice of words of the Public Information Officers, or whoever gave the statement to the media. Investigators attached to the case do not make comments to the media.

If it were just some guy, sure. However, I assume PR officers have training in... you know...public relations and how language works?

In "how language works"? They're able to speak in understandable English.

Maybe it is my fault, but I do tend to assume a baseline level of competence. If that sort of thing is a result of lack of training, methinks the departments probably need to rethink their choices in that regard.

A baseline level of competence does not mean "construct every sentence to preclude some nitwit nitpicking it." You are trying to apply some academic-type linguistic analysis to what was said. Disregarding that we don't even know that the PR officer actually said that, the fact is that people, even public speakers talk in ways that can be interpreted in a lot of different ways. Almost no one sits there and thinks out the exact linguistic implications of every sentence they utter, and most people do not sit around and analyze the exact linguistic implications of every sentence they hear. You are applying an excess of academic criticism to the precise language of this sentence because you want it to be a slip-up indicating the department is faking an investigation, and all this nullshit about "assuming for the sake of argument that it's accurate" is a distraction from the most important point about that line: IT IS WHAT THE OTHER SIDE'S LAWYER CLAIMS HE SAID.

When someone makes a statement on behalf of the department and the interpretive choices are between:

1) We have already reached an evidence-free conclusion and are going through the motions of an investigation like paramedics doing CPR on a DOA

2) Our PR specialist has no idea what he is saying

I am not filled with confidence.

Try cutting down on the habit of knee-jerking and then trying to make the facts fit your preconceived ideas. That would most likely help.

[SVPD]

I don't think it's even nitpicking- it's just basic attempts to be neutral about facts you don't know. It doesn't cost you anything to say "we are investigating" in a neutral way: "the officer claims self defense, we're investigating whether that's true" just sounds like so much better a way to reassure the community that you're on the ball and not trying to cover anything up. I can't understand why you'd avoid that.

Becuase there's no reason to assume that the PR officer thought that carefully about his exact words. It sounds "so much better" to people that are bound and determined to find fault with it to phrase it differently, but the the community at large, it does not sound like "we have already made up our minds" because they specifically state they are still investigating, and most people are not out there assuming ahead of time the police are dishonest, demanding that the police disprove it, and seizing on every nitpicked detail that offers promise to argue that they are being dishonest.

The average person out there also does not take the other side's attorney's word for what was actually said.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Uh, yes, it does in fact "make sense" if you understand that people frequently do not say exactly what they mean with precise clarity, and before you whip out some bullshit about how he's speaking in public and should know better, public speakers make gaffes all the time.

Except it is his (a Pr guy's) FUCKING JOB to say what he means with precise clarity. To sit and think about the linguistic implications of the things they write and say in public. Most other public speakers dont do that, because it is not in the job description

What is a PR guy supposed to do? Make a statement tailored in such a way as to make the department look as competent as possible. A fairly typical professional degree in public relations has entry requirements including 9 credit hours of english composition and professional courses that include extensive instruction in reporting, writing mechanics, basic public relations theory etc. Presumably, anyone who is given the task of public relations in a government institution will either have said degree, or will have received internal training that accomplishes the same goals. If not, then yes. A department needs to rethink its hiring practices.

I am not saying that they ARE rigging the investigation. I am saying that statements similar to that one (if you would like me to dig up examples from other threads, I can do that), create the verbal impression that it is what they are doing to anyone who reads carefully, and is not inclined to give police departments every possible inch of slack on the rope before they are permitted to hang.

You are applying an excess of academic criticism to the precise language of this sentence because you want it to be a slip-up indicating the department is faking an investigation

No. I really dont. I would much prefer that civic institutions behaved in an upright manner and did not engage in corruption, protecting their own guilty, or covering their own asses at the expense of the public good. Unfortunately, they sometimes DO IN FACT DO THESE THINGS, and I am not going to sit here and rationalize away cases where they do, or immediately jump to the defense of said institutions by assuming that the other side's lawyer is a lying sack of shit, while discounting the possibility that the accused will also lie. That is another rant I would like to have in your general direction in the other thread, so I will save further articulation for that.

That said: I have always had very pleasant interactions with police. Three generations of my immediate family have been police officers (Grandfather, uncle, cousin. I consider them immediate family because of physical and emotional proximity). I dont hate police. I am suspicious of insulated holders of power who conduct internal and non-transparent investigations of wrong-doing within their own circle. It is called a conflict of interest. I cannot even submit a manuscript to a journal where it might be reviewed by an old friend. But police conduct criminal investigations regarding their own co-workers, and where a guilty verdict can fry the political bacon of the brass? No. That situation is ripe for abuse, and it needs to be held to a high degree of critical scrutiny. Someone needs to watch the watchers. Unfortunately, they are currently watching themselves.

I don't really care what you want to see or don't want to see. The fact of the matter is that you're criticizing what the PD spokesman supposedly said based on what the opposing party's attorney said he said.

I generally assume a baseline level of competence, as I said earlier. No competent lawyer will lie in such a way that his lie can be so easily refuted. Especially when making public statements like that, about other public statements. So yes. We probably CAN trust what one side's lawyer says about a public statement made by the other side.

[SVPD]

Except it is his (a Pr guy's) FUCKING JOB to say what he means with precise clarity.

Actually, no it is not, precisely because language is fluid and open to interpretation. It is generally not possible to discuss anything other than the simplest of situations with the kind of precision you are demanding.

To sit and think about the linguistic implications of the things they write and say in public. Most other public speakers don't do that, because it is not in the job description

What job description would that be? I haven't seen you cite one. More importanly, no, it is not their job to think about the "linguistic" implications of what they say because the average person listening to them does not conduct any sort of formal linguistic analysis.

What is a PR guy supposed to do? Make a statement tailored in such a way as to make the department look as competent as possible. A fairly typical professional degree in public relations has entry requirements including 9 credit hours of english composition and professional courses that include extensive instruction in reporting, writing mechanics, basic public relations theory etc. Presumably, anyone who is given the task of public relations in a government institution will either have said degree, or will have received internal training that accomplishes the same goals. If not, then yes. A department needs to rethink its hiring practices.

Why do you assume that the PR person would have a degree in public relations? Most likely it is an officer who has been sent to a course or two on the job, not a full degree.

Second, no, they do not need to re-think their hiring practices. You are taking one possible interpretation of a hearsay allegation about what was said and trying to pretend that is the only possible way that sentence, if it was even ever uttered, could be taken. Furthermore, this entire issue is a read herring. You are grasping at this straw of the exact linguistics of what the PR officer may or may not have said in an attempt to claim that no serious investigation is being conducted.

I am not saying that they ARE rigging the investigation. I am saying that statements similar to that one (if you would like me to dig up examples from other threads, I can do that), create the verbal impression that it is what they are doing to anyone who reads carefully, and is not inclined to give police departments every possible inch of slack on the rope before they are permitted to hang.

No, it does not create that impression to "anyone who reads carefully"; it creates that impression to you. This has nothing to do with not being inclined to give the police department slack; this has to do with you trying use the semantics of the PR man as some sort of evidence that an investigation is not being properly conducted.

No. I really dont. I would much prefer that civic institutions behaved in an upright manner and did not engage in corruption, protecting their own guilty, or covering their own asses at the expense of the public good. Unfortunately, they sometimes DO IN FACT DO THESE THINGS, and I am not going to sit here and rationalize away cases where they do, or immediately jump to the defense of said institutions by assuming that the other side's lawyer is a lying sack of shit, while discounting the possibility that the accused will also lie. That is another rant I would like to have in your general direction in the other thread, so I will save further articulation for that.

Well, here's a clue you fucking idiot:

Refusing to accept the other side's lawyer's word for what was said is not "jumping to the defense" of the police. It's applying a level playing field. No one is "rationalizing away anything." You cannot simply accept the words of interested parties on one side of a conflict about what the other side said under the excuse of "not assuming they're lying", simply because in unrelated cases, people who are members of a similar demographic (in this case, police officers) have occasionally lied.

That said: I have always had very pleasant interactions with police. Three generations of my immediate family have been police officers (Grandfather, uncle, cousin. I consider them immediate family because of physical and emotional proximity). I dont hate police. I am suspicious of insulated holders of power who conduct internal and non-transparent investigations of wrong-doing within their own circle. It is called a conflict of interest. I cannot even submit a manuscript to a journal where it might be reviewed by an old friend. But police conduct criminal investigations regarding their own co-workers, and where a guilty verdict can fry the political bacon of the brass? No. That situation is ripe for abuse, and it needs to be held to a high degree of critical scrutiny. Someone needs to watch the watchers. Unfortunately, they are currently watching themselves.

No, as a matter of fact they are NOT watching themselves; they are exceedingly well-watched as demonstrated by the press attention given to such cases, and the fact that law enforcement officers are regularly fired and charged with crimes for misconduct. If someone is going to "watch the watchers" furthermore, it is not going to be done in this manner of assuming misconduct and then demanding disproof of it.

I don't really care what you want to see or don't want to see. The fact of the matter is that you're criticizing what the PD spokesman supposedly said based on what the opposing party's attorney said he said.

I generally assume a baseline level of competence, as I said earlier. No competent lawyer will lie in such a way that his lie can be so easily refuted. Especially when making public statements like that, about other public statements. So yes. We probably CAN trust what one side's lawyer says about a public statement made by the other side.

No, as a matter of fact we cannot. You're trying to make it a matter of either blatantly falsifying what the PD spokesman said, or telling the exact truth. In point of fact, when one person relates what another person said, it is never to be treated as an exact quote unless the speaker specifies that they are quoting directly and the article doesn't specify that.

This is because people almost always make mistakes or leave out, or alter the words of others, even when they have no particular interest in doing so. When they do have an interest in doing so, they almost always will, again, unless they specifically quote. That's why it is so significant whether quotation marks are used or whether something is called a quote.

A lawyer is always going to spin things in favor of his clients. If you're assuming a baseline level of comeptence, you had better be assuming that he is doing that. Right now, all you're doing is using this "baseline level of comptetence" as a shield for blatant favoritism towards one side.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Except it is his (a Pr guy's) FUCKING JOB to say what he means with precise clarity.

Actually, no it is not, precisely because language is fluid and open to interpretation. It is generally not possible to discuss anything other than the simplest of situations with the kind of precision you are demanding.

I think what AD is getting at that is so damning, is that PR specialists in other fields HAVE to be extremely careful about language, to the point of covering such nitpicky little things. Lots of legal, professional, medical, and scientific discourse (hell, even in politics) is tailored down to individual words to be 100% certain that what you are saying cannot be interpreted in other ways. For example, a press release form a research institute that is looking at cancer would be incredibly irresponsible to say, "We found a cure for cancer. We are investigating this."

I don't know how police departments handle their PR affairs, and I don't particularly care, because this isn't my argument. However, broadly speaking, people trained in public relations and writing press releases DO have to be incredibly precise with their words. I briefly worked as an intern in the communications division of the Rhode Island state Department of Health, and every press release went through 4-5 people, being rewritten each time, to make it almost legally binding in what it has to say.