General Police Abuse Thread

[Wild Zontargs]

The problem with posting the pictures is that if the person in question is cleared the postings with his picture, as well as text talking about him as a "person of interest" or "suspect" remain and can lead to an innocent person receiving death threats or other harassment. For years. This is not cool.

The mods may want to consider a policy of editing such posts just so this forum does not contribute to such problems. Of course, where the person in question does turn out to be a real suspect or guilty party that's a different matter (but I still have to condemn any form of vigilante justice).

That's a fine idea in principle, but when the police department posts it on their Twitter account, then hands it out at a press conference, most reasonable people would conclude at the time that it's a valid ID, even if the police retract it later. Otherwise, we'd have to have something like a moratorium on developing news stories.

[Purple]

Does it really matter what we do or do not do here? I mean its not like this is a sprawling community with millions of members all or a majority of which are violent vigilantes just itching for an excuse to go dish out some lynch mob justice. The closest thing we have to something like that is a person that roleplays batman. So I think it is very safe to say that posting anything here can not be reasonably expected to cause such things.

[Broomstick]

That's a fine idea in principle, but when the police department posts it on their Twitter account, then hands it out at a press conference, most reasonable people would conclude at the time that it's a valid ID, even if the police retract it later. Otherwise, we'd have to have something like a moratorium on developing news stories.

Too many people don't know the difference between "person of interest", "suspect", and "convicted".

One of the prime examples of the problem is Richard Jewell who, despite discovering a bomb and evacuating a park, undoubtedly saving lives, was dragged through the court of public opinion by the media and had several lawsuits filed against him.

Does it really matter what we do or do not do here? I mean its not like this is a sprawling community with millions of members all or a majority of which are violent vigilantes just itching for an excuse to go dish out some lynch mob justice. The closest thing we have to something like that is a person that roleplays batman. So I think it is very safe to say that posting anything here can not be reasonably expected to cause such things.

It doesn't have to be a "sprawling community" to make a difference, it just has to come up on a google search. I made my suggestion, whether or not the mods act on it is up to them.

[Wild Zontargs]

I made my suggestion, whether or not the mods act on it is up to them.

OK, I just want to do a reality check for myself here. Don't want to be putting proposals in your mouth.

Are you suggesting that we avoid/ban posting images of non-convicted persons? Even if they were disseminated by the police, who (at the time) requested that they be shared far and wide? What about news articles, press releases, videos, etc. that name those people? Taken to the extreme, this would seem to require that we avoid discussion of any criminal event prior to a conviction, which strikes me as absurd.

[Executor32]

According to his attorneys, Mr. Hughes has already gotten thousands of death threats thanks to the mix-up. After leaving it up most of the day and being very dickish about it, the police department finally removed the tweet about 45 minutes ago.

WZ, I'm pretty sure Broomstick means a policy of removing such content if it's later determined to have been an error, as is the case here.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I made my suggestion, whether or not the mods act on it is up to them.

OK, I just want to do a reality check for myself here. Don't want to be putting proposals in your mouth.

Are you suggesting that we avoid/ban posting images of non-convicted persons? Even if they were disseminated by the police, who (at the time) requested that they be shared far and wide? What about news articles, press releases, videos, etc. that name those people? Taken to the extreme, this would seem to require that we avoid discussion of any criminal event prior to a conviction, which strikes me as absurd.

There are maybe three people here who live in the Dallas area. At most. Posting massive images of a suspect or POI has significantly less probative value than linking the article it came from along with quoting the damned article text (which is the convention here). All it does is make me suspect you have an ulterior motive for doing so, but you are new so I will assume for the time being that it is ignorance of board customs rather than some attempt to poison the well with Scary Black Man images.

[Wild Zontargs]

There are maybe three people here who live in the Dallas area. At most. Posting massive images of a suspect or POI has significantly less probative value than linking the article it came from along with quoting the damned article text (which is the convention here). All it does is make me suspect you have an ulterior motive for doing so, but you are new so I will assume for the time being that it is ignorance of board customs rather than some attempt to poison the well with Scary Black Man images.

I'm talking more about the general case here:

Person X is named by the police in connection with Crime Y. Person X has not yet been convicted. Broomstick has suggested that we avoid naming Person X or showing Person X's photo until we're sure Person X really is involved.

At what point does it become acceptable to name and/or show Person X on this board?

-When the news media has blasted it all over creation?
-When the police have officially released the information at a press conference?
-When the person is visible on live video being involved in the crime?
-After the person has been taken into custody?
-Z days after being taken into custody, so the police have a chance to clear them?
-When the person is formally charged?
-When the trial has started?
-After a conviction?

---

As for my posting of the images, I don't know why you're so inclined to assume some sort of racism here. It's a developing news story. People are naturally curious as to the identity of the perpetrator. Given both the political climate and the stated motive, the racial identity of the perpetrator is directly relevant.

I didn't just post the image out-of-context; I linked the source and summarized the article. As I said upthread, I was responding to a post by Broomstick dealing with that specific set of details and neglected to hit the Quote button on said post. If I had quoted both Broomstick's post and the entirety of the news article, would posting the image still be a problem?

I didn't go trawling 4chan or some shit looking for random images. As I linked upthread, this image was intentionally disseminated by the Chief of Police at a press conference, and also on the department's official Twitter account. The person shown was explicitly referred to as a "suspect" in both locations. Regardless of whether or not anyone reading lives in Dallas, it's official materials related to an ongoing news story that the board has expressed an interest in, and the race of the shooter was already a topic of discussion in-thread. I fail to see why my posting it automatically puts me under suspicion of race-baiting.

[Broomstick]

WZ, I'm pretty sure Broomstick means a policy of removing such content if it's later determined to have been an error, as is the case here.

^ This.

[Broomstick]

I didn't just post the image out-of-context; I linked the source and summarized the article. As I said upthread, I was responding to a post by Broomstick dealing with that specific set of details and neglected to hit the Quote button on said post. If I had quoted both Broomstick's post and the entirety of the news article, would posting the image still be a problem?

I have found, after a couple decades of playing on the internet, it's usually better to quote than not to quote, just to make sure the context travels with the post. Purely my opinion.

[Ziggy Stardust]

As for my posting of the images, I don't know why you're so inclined to assume some sort of racism here. It's a developing news story. People are naturally curious as to the identity of the perpetrator. Given both the political climate and the stated motive, the racial identity of the perpetrator is directly relevant.

I didn't just post the image out-of-context; I linked the source and summarized the article. As I said upthread, I was responding to a post by Broomstick dealing with that specific set of details and neglected to hit the Quote button on said post. If I had quoted both Broomstick's post and the entirety of the news article, would posting the image still be a problem?

I didn't go trawling 4chan or some shit looking for random images. As I linked upthread, this image was intentionally disseminated by the Chief of Police at a press conference, and also on the department's official Twitter account. The person shown was explicitly referred to as a "suspect" in both locations. Regardless of whether or not anyone reading lives in Dallas, it's official materials related to an ongoing news story that the board has expressed an interest in, and the race of the shooter was already a topic of discussion in-thread. I fail to see why my posting it automatically puts me under suspicion of race-baiting.

Have you done the same for any other developing news story? So far as I can tell, this is the only time you've engaged in this behavior. That's why it's suspicious. If we all knew you as someone with a specific interest in obsessively updating current events stories with the latest information, we'd give it a pass. But this seems to be the first and only time you've engaged in this type of behavior, which begs the question of why you are doing it just for this suspect, and not, say, the Orlando shooting or any of the other shootings that have occurred since you joined the board. Maybe I'm wrong and you have (please correct me if I am), but that's what is so suspicious. WHY is this the one event you've decided to act this way about?

(In addition, there's also the well established media bias of what pictures they choose to show when an alleged suspect is black versus white.)

[Wild Zontargs]

Have you done the same for any other developing news story? So far as I can tell, this is the only time you've engaged in this behavior. That's why it's suspicious. If we all knew you as someone with a specific interest in obsessively updating current events stories with the latest information, we'd give it a pass. But this seems to be the first and only time you've engaged in this type of behavior, which begs the question of why you are doing it just for this suspect, and not, say, the Orlando shooting or any of the other shootings that have occurred since you joined the board. Maybe I'm wrong and you have (please correct me if I am), but that's what is so suspicious. WHY is this the one event you've decided to act this way about?

You mean this Orlando shooting thread: Umptety shooting in usa. Orlando case? I posted all over that one as it broke. Lots of short update posts, and I had to correct myself more than once as things developed. If I'm not otherwise occupied and near my computer when "shit hits the fan", I tend to post in current events threads. I avoid repeating things that other people have already posted, but if it seems new, I'll throw it out there.

(In addition, there's also the well established media bias of what pictures they choose to show when an alleged suspect is black versus white.)

Canadian here. I'm not necessarily familiar with American media conventions. Up here, the media tends to err on the other side, and seems more likely to avoid racial identifiers if the suspect is non-white, rather than the other way around.

[Wild Zontargs]

WZ, I'm pretty sure Broomstick means a policy of removing such content if it's later determined to have been an error, as is the case here.

^ This.

Ah, fair enough. Disregard the previous speculation, then.

[Ralin]

All it does is make me suspect you have an ulterior motive for doing so, but you are new so I will assume for the time being that it is ignorance of board customs rather than some attempt to poison the well with Scary Black Man images.

I was pretty neutral and inclined to assume he didn't have any ulterior motive, but then I noticed he has a link to a piece by this guy in his sig. Which is, uh, pretty eyebrow raising.

[Executor32]

The link text is Latin for "social justice must be destroyed", which is also pretty eyebrow-raising.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The link text is Latin for "social justice must be destroyed", which is also pretty eyebrow-raising.

I can read Latin, so that is a contributing factor. Same with Vox Day (as a nod to Ralin). But I am not going to let that bias me too much in my mod duties, so in lieu of additional evidence, I have my suspicion but it gets no further than that.

[Wild Zontargs]

The link text is Latin for "social justice must be destroyed", which is also pretty eyebrow-raising.

After riding out the Atheism+ attempted takeover of Atheist/Skeptic groups, the ongoing Sad Puppies vs TOR fight for the Hugos, and similar ideologically-motivated attempted takeovers of damned near every online space I participate in, I'm a bit tired of the self-styled Social Justice Warriors. Delenda est.

I noticed he has a link to a piece by this guy in his sig. Which is, uh, pretty eyebrow raising.

Before you go all "bbbut Voooox Daaaay!" on me, the man's a flaming asshole, but he's right about how to deal with attempted takeovers of your online spaces, and the associated character assassinations. I'm not some crypto-facist nazi shithead. I'm a Canadian lefty. I'm waaaay out in the southwest quadrant on the Political Compass. The online voting poll thingies say if I was American, I should vote Jill Stein as my first choice and Bernie Sanders as my second. That doesn't mean I need to agree with every boneheaded hashtag "my" side starts passing around on Twitter, and sometimes the guys on "the other side" have valid points.

[Alyrium Denryle]

We're getting off topic.

[Wild Zontargs]

Oops, was supposed to be a PM. Deleted

[Patroklos]

The fourth Freddie Grey trial ends in acquittal. This was for the LT, the highest ranking of the officers charged. It was via bench trial.

[Elheru Aran]

And then there's this shit.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/07/i-dont- ... no-reason/

When a 23-year-old autistic man carrying a toy truck wandered from a mental health center out into the street Monday, a worker there named Charles Kinsey went to retrieve him.

A few minutes later the autistic man was still sitting cross-legged blocking the roadway while playing with the small, rectangular white toy. And Kinsey was prone on the ground next to him — a bullet from an assault rifle fired by a police officer having struck his leg.

“He throws his hands up in the air and says, ‘Don’t shoot me.’ They say lie on the ground, so he does,” Kinsey’s attorney Hilton Napoleon said Wednesday. “He’s on his back with his hands in the air trying to convince the other guy to lie down. It doesn’t make any sense.”

Cellphone video footage obtained by Napoleon clearly shows the heavy-set autistic man sitting and playing with his toy while Kinsey, dressed in a yellow shirt and shorts, obeys police orders to lie down on his back.

The video, taken before the officer fired his weapon, shows Kinsey on his back with his hands in the air telling police he didn’t have a weapon and asking them not to fire. At one point the autistic man appears to yell at Kinsey to shut up. A second brief video shows officers who are carrying rifles physically patting down Kinsey and the autistic man while they are lying on the ground.

In an interview with WSVN-Channel 7, Kinsey said that after he was shot, officers approached and flipped him over and handcuffed him.

“Sir, there’s no need for firearms,” Kinsey told the news station he said to police before he was shot. “It was so surprising. It was like a mosquito bite.”

Kinsey said when he asked the officer why he fired his weapon, the cop responded, “I don’t know.”

By Wednesday, North Miami police hadn’t offered much of an explanation. Assistant Police Chief Neal Cuevas said the investigation has been turned over to the Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office.

Cuevas said officers received a 911 call indicating a man was in the street with a gun threatening to kill himself. They responded to Northeast 127th Street and about 14th Avenue and began barking orders. When the autistic man didn’t comply, an officer fired three times, striking Kinsey once in the leg. He was transported to Jackson Memorial Hospital.

Cuevas said he didn’t know who the officer was aiming at when he struck Kinsey. The offier’s name hasn’t been released.

In a prepared statement, North Miami police spokeswoman Natalie Buissereth said “arriving officers attempted to negotiate with the two men on the scene, one of whom was later identified as suffering from autism... At some point during the on-scene negotiation, one of the responding officers discharged his weapon.”

Police still hadn’t released any paperwork or the incident report of the shooting by Wednesday. There is no indication that a weapon of any kind was found. The officer who fired his weapon has been placed on administrative leave, as is standard, for at least a week.

Kinsey, 47, who’s worked at MacTown Panther Group Homes for a little over a year, wasn’t badly injured and is expected to be home by Thursday.

By Wednesday, Napoleon said he was already negotiating a possible settlement with the city of North Miami.

“They realize this was something inappropriate regarding the shooting,” he said. “If police departments come out more and admit fault, that would probably go a long way,” toward improving relations with the public, he said.

The incident highlights how explosive a situation can get when cops already on edge are forced to confront someone with autism or a mental disability.

In dealing with the mentally ill, experts say, those dangers only multiply.

“I was more worried about him than myself,” Kinsey told Channel 7 of the autistic man, whose name hasn’t been released.

Said his wife Joyce Kinsey: “I’m just grateful he’s alive and able to tell his story.”

I mean, really, what the fuck? They couldn't have asked "what are you guys doing?" They're right by a mental hospital, they don't figure they might need to use a little extra caution addressing any situations on the street? The guy is *laying down* already as directed, and they just unload on him?

This is a fucking abomination and illustrates dramatically just why American police need better tutoring on how to handle the mentally ill.

[Kamakazie Sith]

And then there's this shit.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/07/i-dont- ... no-reason/

When a 23-year-old autistic man carrying a toy truck wandered from a mental health center out into the street Monday, a worker there named Charles Kinsey went to retrieve him.

A few minutes later the autistic man was still sitting cross-legged blocking the roadway while playing with the small, rectangular white toy. And Kinsey was prone on the ground next to him — a bullet from an assault rifle fired by a police officer having struck his leg.

“He throws his hands up in the air and says, ‘Don’t shoot me.’ They say lie on the ground, so he does,” Kinsey’s attorney Hilton Napoleon said Wednesday. “He’s on his back with his hands in the air trying to convince the other guy to lie down. It doesn’t make any sense.”

Cellphone video footage obtained by Napoleon clearly shows the heavy-set autistic man sitting and playing with his toy while Kinsey, dressed in a yellow shirt and shorts, obeys police orders to lie down on his back.

The video, taken before the officer fired his weapon, shows Kinsey on his back with his hands in the air telling police he didn’t have a weapon and asking them not to fire. At one point the autistic man appears to yell at Kinsey to shut up. A second brief video shows officers who are carrying rifles physically patting down Kinsey and the autistic man while they are lying on the ground.

In an interview with WSVN-Channel 7, Kinsey said that after he was shot, officers approached and flipped him over and handcuffed him.

“Sir, there’s no need for firearms,” Kinsey told the news station he said to police before he was shot. “It was so surprising. It was like a mosquito bite.”

Kinsey said when he asked the officer why he fired his weapon, the cop responded, “I don’t know.”

By Wednesday, North Miami police hadn’t offered much of an explanation. Assistant Police Chief Neal Cuevas said the investigation has been turned over to the Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office.

Cuevas said officers received a 911 call indicating a man was in the street with a gun threatening to kill himself. They responded to Northeast 127th Street and about 14th Avenue and began barking orders. When the autistic man didn’t comply, an officer fired three times, striking Kinsey once in the leg. He was transported to Jackson Memorial Hospital.

Cuevas said he didn’t know who the officer was aiming at when he struck Kinsey. The offier’s name hasn’t been released.

In a prepared statement, North Miami police spokeswoman Natalie Buissereth said “arriving officers attempted to negotiate with the two men on the scene, one of whom was later identified as suffering from autism... At some point during the on-scene negotiation, one of the responding officers discharged his weapon.”

Police still hadn’t released any paperwork or the incident report of the shooting by Wednesday. There is no indication that a weapon of any kind was found. The officer who fired his weapon has been placed on administrative leave, as is standard, for at least a week.

Kinsey, 47, who’s worked at MacTown Panther Group Homes for a little over a year, wasn’t badly injured and is expected to be home by Thursday.

By Wednesday, Napoleon said he was already negotiating a possible settlement with the city of North Miami.

“They realize this was something inappropriate regarding the shooting,” he said. “If police departments come out more and admit fault, that would probably go a long way,” toward improving relations with the public, he said.

The incident highlights how explosive a situation can get when cops already on edge are forced to confront someone with autism or a mental disability.

In dealing with the mentally ill, experts say, those dangers only multiply.

“I was more worried about him than myself,” Kinsey told Channel 7 of the autistic man, whose name hasn’t been released.

Said his wife Joyce Kinsey: “I’m just grateful he’s alive and able to tell his story.”

I mean, really, what the fuck? They couldn't have asked "what are you guys doing?" They're right by a mental hospital, they don't figure they might need to use a little extra caution addressing any situations on the street? The guy is *laying down* already as directed, and they just unload on him?

This is a fucking abomination and illustrates dramatically just why American police need better tutoring on how to handle the mentally ill.

This has nothing to do with training to handle the mentally ill. It has everything to do with having a better hiring process to weed out people that are easily terrified. It was one officer that opened fire and there was more than one on scene. It's pretty clear at this point whoever this officer is he/she should never made it past the academy and certainly not field training.

[Elheru Aran]

This has nothing to do with training to handle the mentally ill. It has everything to do with having a better hiring process to weed out people that are easily terrified. It was one officer that opened fire and there was more than one on scene. It's pretty clear at this point whoever this officer is he/she should never made it past the academy and certainly not field training.

It's still a goddamn shit-show. I understand deploying with weapons to respond to a possible suicide situation... but when you encounter two guys sitting on the street together, is your first response being "OMG DANGEROUS" actually reasonable? Especially when one of them responds appropriately to directions and tells the responding officers clearly what he's doing? At that point, wouldn't it be reasonable to advance carefully and ascertain what's going on rather than just continue yelling at people?

I reiterate:

Cellphone video footage obtained by Napoleon clearly shows the heavy-set autistic man sitting and playing with his toy while Kinsey, dressed in a yellow shirt and shorts, obeys police orders to lie down on his back.

What is so goddamn threatening about that situation?

[Alyrium Denryle]

This has nothing to do with training to handle the mentally ill. It has everything to do with having a better hiring process to weed out people that are easily terrified. It was one officer that opened fire and there was more than one on scene. It's pretty clear at this point whoever this officer is he/she should never made it past the academy and certainly not field training.

It's still a goddamn shit-show. I understand deploying with weapons to respond to a possible suicide situation... but when you encounter two guys sitting on the street together, is your first response being "OMG DANGEROUS" actually reasonable? Especially when one of them responds appropriately to directions and tells the responding officers clearly what he's doing? At that point, wouldn't it be reasonable to advance carefully and ascertain what's going on rather than just continue yelling at people?

I reiterate:

Cellphone video footage obtained by Napoleon clearly shows the heavy-set autistic man sitting and playing with his toy while Kinsey, dressed in a yellow shirt and shorts, obeys police orders to lie down on his back.

What is so goddamn threatening about that situation?

The best I can come up with is cognitive priming. He was expecting a gun, and saw a gun where no such thing existed.

It makes him a blithering incompetent who should be fired in the interest of public safety. Particularly because failed every other competency checks I can think of for that situation.

[PREDATOR490]

I have seen a recent spin on the situation being that the cop was aiming for the Autistic individual and missed which then hit the therapist. I was under the impression that police that are trained to use firearms would be taught specifically to aim centre mass to ensure a kill shot AND that firing a gun should ONLY be done if you intend to kill the target.

On the one hand, its relief that the cop sucks so that the target actually survives but on the other... about that training. Lots of comments state the police should be trained better for conflict resolution, but if your going to accept cops having guns, making sure they can responsibly use them seems like it failed severely here.

[Mr Bean]

I have seen a recent spin on the situation being that the cop was aiming for the Autistic individual and missed which then hit the therapist. I was under the impression that police that are trained to use firearms would be taught specifically to aim centre mass to ensure a kill shot AND that firing a gun should ONLY be done if you intend to kill the target.

On the one hand, its relief that the cop sucks so that the target actually survives but on the other... about that training. Lots of comments state the police should be trained better for conflict resolution, but if your going to accept cops having guns, making sure they can responsibly use them seems like it failed severely here.

It's worse than that, the cop fired three times because they were worried the Autistic kid was a threat one of the bullets hit the kids therapist... and after they shot the doctor after "fearing for their lives" they went over and cuffed both of them and delayed medical care by twenty minutes.


It's just a 10 out of 10 they fucked up but don't worry here comes the police Union
Bullet that struck caregiver was meant to protect him, police union president says

Here's the video