18-year-old Michael Brown was killed by police over the weekend. It turns out he was unarmed and the preliminary story of what happened is all kinds of fishy.
Based on this LA Times story, Brown and a friend were walking in the middle of the street to Brown's grandmother's house. A patrol car pulled up and told them to get out of the street and some kind of scuffle ensued with Brown in the car. Then, Brown got out, put his hands up and was shot repeatedly?
Try to disregard all the ridiculous looting and vandalism by the opportunistic scum.
The officer who fired the shots was a 6-year vet of the force and is on paid administrative leave.
LA Times Reporting - (
New Window )
actually, that would be giving you too much credit. i know 13 year olds who are smart enough not to throw money after lost money on carnival games.
if you expect anyone to take you seriously - on any topic - after asking the board for advice on how to beat a street carnival game, i think you're wasting your time.
His face being swollen still isn't justification for the kid being shot in the back.
we actually don't know if the cop fucked up yet. and why don't we know? because the investigation is not complete.
so, some of us (like you) make up our minds based on what we read on Deadspin. others wait for the people who actually know what the fuck they're talking about to investigate and come to a conclusion.
and then the dumb fucks will question their result, every single time, simply because they know a guy who knows a guy who got roughed up by a cop once.
don't you have better shit to do? how many more times are you going to ask the board for career advice before you realize that you probably need to pay more attention to your job and less attention to BBI?
Threads like this one and the WalMart one and read how quickly people form conclusions with so little facts remind me of a quote that I have always liked.
Most people don't think -- they merely rearrange their prejudices.
Quote:
Don't you fucking act like I'm some two bit 14 year old incapable of understanding what he's posting.
actually, that would be giving you too much credit. i know 13 year olds who are smart enough not to throw money after lost money on carnival games.
if you expect anyone to take you seriously - on any topic - after asking the board for advice on how to beat a street carnival game, i think you're wasting your time.
lol, do you think I give a shit? My track record where it counts, in real life, speaks for itself. Hope you're having fun being MR AGRO on the board.
Quote:
They don't give a shit. They're looking for an excuse to take free shit. Still though, I'm still waiting on someone to talk about how badly this cop that shot the kid fucked up.
His face being swollen still isn't justification for the kid being shot in the back.
we actually don't know if the cop fucked up yet. and why don't we know? because the investigation is not complete.
so, some of us (like you) make up our minds based on what we read on Deadspin. others wait for the people who actually know what the fuck they're talking about to investigate and come to a conclusion.
and then the dumb fucks will question their result, every single time, simply because they know a guy who knows a guy who got roughed up by a cop once.
don't you have better shit to do? how many more times are you going to ask the board for career advice before you realize that you probably need to pay more attention to your job and less attention to BBI?
Actually, no, regardless of what happened, the cop fucked up. I can't imagine any scenario within the context of this situation where an unarmed teen getting shot in the back is dead.
Even IF, hypothetically, he tried to hit a cop, he STILL shouldn't have been shot multiple times and killed.
Dead private citizens is a fuck up unless there was reason to believe the cops life was in danger. Have you seen anything to suggest the cops life was in danger?
Threads like this one and the WalMart one and read how quickly people form conclusions with so little facts remind me of a quote that I have always liked.
Most people don't think -- they merely rearrange their prejudices.
Because the number of times officers have confiscated or deleted digital evidence after they have committed acted inappropriately is far greater than the number of times police have been exonerated by film.
Because police officers are human beings, and humans tend to act in self preservation, so if there is a chance to alter evidence to make the situation appear more favorably to the police, and provided the police felt nobody would know if they confiscated or altered evidence, they probably would. This isn't a cop thing, this is human nature.
Because it's an inherent conflict of interest when the group involved in the homicide of an individual is tasked with gathering evidence at the scene.
Steve, I respect you a lot, so please answer this directly. Do you feel it makes any sense to have for the few individuals involved in this incident to be in charge of collecting evidence that can potentially incriminate them? In fact, does it make any sense for any individual to be in charge of collecting evidence that incriminates him or her?
This case is high profile, so I doubt that video will be deleted or altered (hopefully). But this concept applies to all digital evidence of police action.
I'm still waiting to hear what people think about all cops having badge cameras. It makes complete sense, yet the Police Union fights tooth and nail against it. Why is that?
Hint; it's not limited to the police. A cursory examination of the history of unions suggests this is not a far-fetched refusal.
I just try to not, and don't see any benefit in jump to conclusions or forming concrete options about these types of things without the benefit of knowing all the facts. I prefer to wait and see what the facts might produce.
It may very well end up I will believe this cop was wrong and should be held criminally responsible, or I may end up believing that it was reasonable for him to feel he needed to fire his weapon, or maybe even something somewhere in between. I just don't make it a practice of so quickly condemning people after first reading about something. You can have your suspicions raised and want to find out more because of it but when too quickly forming concrete opinions I think we then look at everything else from that point from a skewed perspective trying hard to make everything fit into our preconceived view point and lose most objectivity.
"There is no escalation in the use of deadly force. What we are seeing is a proliferation of cell phones and cameras," she said.
"Dear Ferguson:
I have no doubt that the vast majority of you (including the family of the late Michael Brown) are solid, law-abiding citizens who want no more than to see the proper thing done after an unspeakable tragedy. You have my deepest and sincere condolences. I am equally certain that you are willing to let the investigation run its course and will be able to restrain yourself from flying off the handle before all the facts are known and officially made public. The next paragraphs are NOT intended for you.
To all the thugs, looters, race-baiters, rabble-rousers, and Monday Morning Quarterbacks that live in the same area: you are idiots. You are parasites and opportunists who have decided to use a deeply personal tragedy as an opportunity to, as my grandfather would have said, act a rot-non FOOL! Only ONE person on this planet really knows what happened the other day. Tragically, the other young man is no longer with us.
Thugs, theft and destruction is NOT justice. It never has been, and it never will be. Dr. King never said, "Let freedom ring, and get yourself a free TV while you're at it." You people aren't worth a warm bucket of hamster vomit. Race baiters, we don't know WHAT the officer's motivation was. So how about we let the case run its course before we assume that color was the primary motivation? MMQBs, if you've never been in a potential deadly force situation, SHUT UP!!! You don't know what the hell you're talking about. Save some of that hot air for a balloon float. Reverend Sharpton, if you and Treyvon Martin's lawyer really want to really do some good, STOP using the word "execution," for Christ's sake! It's a SHOOTING. A deeply unfortunate SHOOTING. And until the case is closed, that's ALL it is! How about focusing your energy on improving relations between the police and the community? Oh, yeah ... you won't make any money that way, will you? Silly me.
I am a police officer, and I am saying that if the officer in question is wrong, then he should suffer the consequences. But if it is proven that Mr. Brown was in the wrong, I hope all of you parasites are as quick and vocal with your apologies as you were with the officer's condemnation. I also hope that you offer to help rebuild what you destroyed.
Oh -- one more thing: If you want to hate the police and wish us dead, that's fine by me. I don't care. Just do me one favor: Don't call me for any kind of law enforcement service -- regardless of how major or minor -- for the rest of your days. EVER.
Rant over. Back to my seclusion."
He had me until he qualifies anyone that has not been in a potential deadly force situation as not having the right to offer a viewpoint as it pertains to this situation. That's rich. I shudder to think how this might apply to other situations and professions ("if you haven't faced a sales quota dont judge the guy handing out subprime mortgages"-2007).
And I would consider anyone with blanket hate for the police a fool but for a public servant to insinuate that he wouldn't fulfillthe duties of his job that apply to those individuals? Regardless of their ridiculous opinions, it remains that officer's job to serve them. Poor form.
Quote:
St. Louis City police officer, written two days ago...
"Dear Ferguson:
I have no doubt that the vast majority of you (including the family of the late Michael Brown) are solid, law-abiding citizens who want no more than to see the proper thing done after an unspeakable tragedy. You have my deepest and sincere condolences. I am equally certain that you are willing to let the investigation run its course and will be able to restrain yourself from flying off the handle before all the facts are known and officially made public. The next paragraphs are NOT intended for you.
To all the thugs, looters, race-baiters, rabble-rousers, and Monday Morning Quarterbacks that live in the same area: you are idiots. You are parasites and opportunists who have decided to use a deeply personal tragedy as an opportunity to, as my grandfather would have said, act a rot-non FOOL! Only ONE person on this planet really knows what happened the other day. Tragically, the other young man is no longer with us.
Thugs, theft and destruction is NOT justice. It never has been, and it never will be. Dr. King never said, "Let freedom ring, and get yourself a free TV while you're at it." You people aren't worth a warm bucket of hamster vomit. Race baiters, we don't know WHAT the officer's motivation was. So how about we let the case run its course before we assume that color was the primary motivation? MMQBs, if you've never been in a potential deadly force situation, SHUT UP!!! You don't know what the hell you're talking about. Save some of that hot air for a balloon float. Reverend Sharpton, if you and Treyvon Martin's lawyer really want to really do some good, STOP using the word "execution," for Christ's sake! It's a SHOOTING. A deeply unfortunate SHOOTING. And until the case is closed, that's ALL it is! How about focusing your energy on improving relations between the police and the community? Oh, yeah ... you won't make any money that way, will you? Silly me.
I am a police officer, and I am saying that if the officer in question is wrong, then he should suffer the consequences. But if it is proven that Mr. Brown was in the wrong, I hope all of you parasites are as quick and vocal with your apologies as you were with the officer's condemnation. I also hope that you offer to help rebuild what you destroyed.
Oh -- one more thing: If you want to hate the police and wish us dead, that's fine by me. I don't care. Just do me one favor: Don't call me for any kind of law enforcement service -- regardless of how major or minor -- for the rest of your days. EVER.
Rant over. Back to my seclusion."
He had me until he qualifies anyone that has not been in a potential deadly force situation as not having the right to offer a viewpoint as it pertains to this situation. That's rich. I shudder to think how this might apply to other situations and professions ("if you haven't faced a sales quota dont judge the guy handing out subprime mortgages"-2007).
And I would consider anyone with blanket hate for the police a fool but for a public servant to insinuate that he wouldn't fulfillthe duties of his job that apply to those individuals? Regardless of their ridiculous opinions, it remains that officer's job to serve them. Poor form.
I didn't care for the entire tone of the letter and he lost me at "You people aren't worth a warm bucket of hamster vomit"
That said I don't think he was implying that he wouldn't fulfill his duty but instead if they truly believed that then they should also accept the idea of never calling on the police, in other words they would be hypocrites if they wanted it both ways; "hating them and wanting them dead", and yet would depend on them if the situation would arise.
Hint; it's not limited to the police. A cursory examination of the history of unions suggests this is not a far-fetched refusal.
I don't need a hint, the answer to the question is that it would open their actions up to more scrutiny.
It would make the life of the police harder... But the question to ask is this -- why would it make law enforcement's lives more difficult?
This is because their actions and situations will always be documented. And their actions and the situations they face are not always congruent with what is reported in police reports or police accounts, and because they do not always act appropriately.
It would also add a video record that police complaints can be checked against. Which is opening up the vulnerability of the police department.
In theory, videotaping would make citizens safer from police abuse, and make the life of the police's life easier by providing an objective record that can justify their actions.
I'm also still waiting on a reasonable answer why the vast majority of complaints against police are completely ignored. This occupation has immense power over the general populace. Can someone give me one good reason why nearly all complaints against them are completely ignored?
So, you guys can sit and roll your eyes all you want, but can ONE PERSON please answer:
What is the downside of having police officers carry on-duty cameras that record their actions? Does this downside outweigh the positive effects?
Why are complaints against police completely ignored? Shouldn't there be some form of checks and balances for a segment of the population that exerts massive amounts of power over citizens?
Does giving a police the automatic benefit of the doubt and always assuming they are truthful in the court of law give them more leeway and more incentive to not be truthful, and present events in a light that is more favorable to the police themselves?
Still haven't gotten an answer to any of these. I've asked these multiple times. Instead, I've got arguments on semantics, vague "oh brother" eye roll comments, and bullshit attacks on me.
So what are the answers to those questions?
It's pathetic how "protect and serve" has turned into "us vs them". Videos of police in military gear confronting protesters and muttering things like "bring it on you fucking animals" (caught on a news video broadcast. I'd post the link but let's not kid yourselves, none of you would look at it anyway).
Quote:
Because the number of times officers have confiscated or deleted digital evidence after they have committed acted inappropriately is far greater than the number of times police have been exonerated by film
Fuck putting the onus on me. I can pull example after example after example of police confiscating, deleting, losing, or altering digital evidence to cover misconduct. Can you please point me to some instances in which police were wrongfully accused of misconduct and then cleared by digital evidence? And not one or two isolates incidents, please, feel free to provide a laundry list. Cause anyone can hit Google for five minutes and come up with example after example of police seizing digital evidence and harassing those who record them.
There obviously isn't any data tracked by the police on how often they manipulate or confiscate digital evidence, given that it's fucking illegal. This country doesn't even track the number of unarmed citizens killed by police.
We don't even track the number of UNARMED citizens killed by police. How is this number not recorded. Isn't this pretty fucking important?
I'm trying to understand the viewpoint of the group that keeps getting argumentative with my assertions. Like what is your basic viewpoint? That police don't abuse their power? What is the point you are trying to prove? That things aren't as bad as they seem?
What is the counterpoint to my point that the police are completely above the law?
Quote:
potential reprisals, or the altering of worker behavior, because of outside pressure?
Hint; it's not limited to the police. A cursory examination of the history of unions suggests this is not a far-fetched refusal.
I don't need a hint, the answer to the question is that it would open their actions up to more scrutiny.
It would make the life of the police harder... But the question to ask is this -- why would it make law enforcement's lives more difficult?
This is because their actions and situations will always be documented. And their actions and the situations they face are not always congruent with what is reported in police reports or police accounts, and because they do not always act appropriately.
It would also add a video record that police complaints can be checked against. Which is opening up the vulnerability of the police department.
In theory, videotaping would make citizens safer from police abuse, and make the life of the police's life easier by providing an objective record that can justify their actions.
I'm also still waiting on a reasonable answer why the vast majority of complaints against police are completely ignored. This occupation has immense power over the general populace. Can someone give me one good reason why nearly all complaints against them are completely ignored?
So, you guys can sit and roll your eyes all you want, but can ONE PERSON please answer:
What is the downside of having police officers carry on-duty cameras that record their actions? Does this downside outweigh the positive effects?
Why are complaints against police completely ignored? Shouldn't there be some form of checks and balances for a segment of the population that exerts massive amounts of power over citizens?
Does giving a police the automatic benefit of the doubt and always assuming they are truthful in the court of law give them more leeway and more incentive to not be truthful, and present events in a light that is more favorable to the police themselves?
Still haven't gotten an answer to any of these. I've asked these multiple times. Instead, I've got arguments on semantics, vague "oh brother" eye roll comments, and bullshit attacks on me.
So what are the answers to those questions?
It's pathetic how "protect and serve" has turned into "us vs them". Videos of police in military gear confronting protesters and muttering things like "bring it on you fucking animals" (caught on a news video broadcast. I'd post the link but let's not kid yourselves, none of you would look at it anyway).
So, what, your rant was a poorly constructed attack on unions?
Perhaps people are responding because most view your position as having no nuance; not even the semblance of hedging on the subject.
It's all declarative and anger.
Quote:
In comment 11805938 kickerpa16 said:
Quote:
potential reprisals, or the altering of worker behavior, because of outside pressure?
Hint; it's not limited to the police. A cursory examination of the history of unions suggests this is not a far-fetched refusal.
I don't need a hint, the answer to the question is that it would open their actions up to more scrutiny.
It would make the life of the police harder... But the question to ask is this -- why would it make law enforcement's lives more difficult?
This is because their actions and situations will always be documented. And their actions and the situations they face are not always congruent with what is reported in police reports or police accounts, and because they do not always act appropriately.
It would also add a video record that police complaints can be checked against. Which is opening up the vulnerability of the police department.
In theory, videotaping would make citizens safer from police abuse, and make the life of the police's life easier by providing an objective record that can justify their actions.
I'm also still waiting on a reasonable answer why the vast majority of complaints against police are completely ignored. This occupation has immense power over the general populace. Can someone give me one good reason why nearly all complaints against them are completely ignored?
So, you guys can sit and roll your eyes all you want, but can ONE PERSON please answer:
What is the downside of having police officers carry on-duty cameras that record their actions? Does this downside outweigh the positive effects?
Why are complaints against police completely ignored? Shouldn't there be some form of checks and balances for a segment of the population that exerts massive amounts of power over citizens?
Does giving a police the automatic benefit of the doubt and always assuming they are truthful in the court of law give them more leeway and more incentive to not be truthful, and present events in a light that is more favorable to the police themselves?
Still haven't gotten an answer to any of these. I've asked these multiple times. Instead, I've got arguments on semantics, vague "oh brother" eye roll comments, and bullshit attacks on me.
So what are the answers to those questions?
It's pathetic how "protect and serve" has turned into "us vs them". Videos of police in military gear confronting protesters and muttering things like "bring it on you fucking animals" (caught on a news video broadcast. I'd post the link but let's not kid yourselves, none of you would look at it anyway).
So, what, your rant was a poorly constructed attack on unions?
Perhaps people are responding because most view your position as having no nuance; not even the semblance of hedging on the subject.
It's all declarative and anger.
lol. Kicker, I silently learn so much from you discussions with Bill, duned, and others on economics threads that I know how intelligent you are, and know that you are capable of giving actual answers to the questions I've posted. It's incredibly disappointing to see you ignore all the content of my thread.
As for unions, I posed a simple question. Instead of insuating an answer, go ahed an answer it. I have no problem admitting you know more about labor economics and organization than I do, in all likelihood. I gave you my perspective on why the union opposes cameras on cops. More importantly, I think cops don't want cameras recording their movement because of two primary reasons: 1) this probably opens up the door for supervisors to randomly review procedural compliance during arrests and 2) their word is no longer gospel, and their misconduct and transgressions will be recorded.
I'm not saying this in a condescending, sassy way, but please, educate me on what other reasons I missed for why the union would be so vehemently opposed to something that should benefit all parties involved.
It almost seems as if the enemy aren't criminals (which should be a common enemy of both citizens and the police), but anyone who opposes any police actions in any way.
As for "anger", you can you see what you want to see, but if you actually go back and read my points, there isn't really much of a tone of anger or outrage in my posts. Please, I encourage you to do so, because I feel you are filling in blanks with your own preconceived notions about "anti cop" people.
I've raised valid points which are just repeatedly dismissed as "OMG COP HATER", which, much to my chagrin, feels like what you've essentially done.
So to answer your questions, my "rant" wasn't a poorly constructed attack on unions, and I still away the answers to the questions I posed.
I've posted them multiple times, and nobody seems interested in answering them. All I get are bullshit platitudes, probably complete with a bunch of eye rolling and headshaking behind the computer screen - but no answers to the questions I've posted, which I think are fair questions to pose as citizens.
I look forward to when someone answers my questions, because this is a legitimately serious issue with legitimate serious consequences on the day to day lives of the ordinary person in the US.
Police have become militarized. They don't protect and serve. They can say whatever they want, and it's taken as gospel in the court of law.
While the truly bad ones actively cover up eachother's misconduct, at the very least, they do not even look into the misconduct of their coworkers.
They have the power to ruin lives for your average person, and even have the power to end lives. People who have this power need to have some sort of accountability.
There is no trust between segments of the population and the police, and that's a major problem for society as a whole. Instead of any type of reasoning or discussion as to why this is and how it can be fixed, I have people who refuse to give me anything of substance.
I don't answer the questions simply because I feel like it would be a huge waste of my time to deal with this issue. I have no expectation that people would change their tone of outrage or anger over anything I've posted.
So I simply don't try.
Some take it as a sign that I can't come up with valid responses. That's fine. People can take that viewpoint. It's more of a "I simply don't care to waste my time with this type of shit".
There are a variety of reasons a union would not want to expose their workers to more visible monitoring. Namely, by outsiders, any video evidence is often taken out of context. Human recollection of events are biased, but interpretation of objective evidence is also heavily biased.
Workers unions have also fought against video monitoring of workers on assembly lines, in the office, etc. It's not limited to the police union.
Workers work for the benefit of the workers. Trying to attach a "social motive" to a union or a firm misses the point of these entities. Yes, it would be nice if firms gave a shit about pollution, or if firms gave a shit about social stability, etc. But that's not what these entities are for. These entities are for the people within them.
We use laws to create social constructs that constrain the behavior of unions and firms.
To expect unions and firms to do what's "socially responsible" (a reprehensible term, since it's usefulness is almost 0) is foolish.
Are you going to actually play or coach football, or are you going to just post ignorance from the other side?
I am not going to do a police ride-a-long. I don't have time, and I don't think we should reach the point that ride-a-longs should be necessary for citizens to understand why police have the ability to trample their rights and then crush them in court, with the basis of being crushed in court being that they are not cops, and cops are cops.
CTC, since you harped so much on the digital evidence collection, I'd like to ask you point blank: Do you think it's appropriate for the person involved in a homicide or the close colleagues (and ostensibly friends) of the person involved in a homicide to be confiscating digital evidence related to the murder? Is this not a conflict of interest? Does the human instinct to preserve one's career, reputation, and income have no bearing on the police, simply because they are police?
Here's another question: Why do we have arrest quotas? This isn't sales. Arrest quotas inherently make police look for reasons to arrest people. How is this logical? Why are we telling an institution designed to protect, serve, and maintain law and order, that they must arrest a certain amount of people per month? Of course this plants the seeds of mistrust within society.
I said it before, which everyone conviently ignored except for Cam in MO: There MUST be checks on the power of policemen. The courts are effectively useless (unless there is video evidence), because it is a given that a cops word will always win, because they are a cop. Naturally, they will say whatever they want, because there is no downside to saying whatever they want. And considering this, it is extremely inappropriate that involved police officers are able to confiscate video evidence at the scene of a crime. Video is essentially the only way to prove a cop was lying, and you're saying there is no conflict of interest in involved cops confiscating digital evidence.
It's completely illogical. It makes no sense whatsoever.
What do you think I desire? Do you think I desire a lawless society where criminals run amok and do whatever the fuck they want?
No, I want a society where people's rights are respected, where not only are criminals caught, but innocent citizens aren't harassed. A society where confrontations over walking on a street vs sidewalk don't escalate into a dead teenager.
Where the power of authority figures is kept in check, and where a cop can't ruin or end your life without fear of retribution merely because he is a cop. That sounds reasonable to me, but apparently to some of you, it's some sort of over the top way of thinking.
No idea if you'll take it for the advice that it is, but it's something I've had to work on in the past.
You needn't bother responding to me; I made the mistake of diving in on this shithole of a topic far too much already.
There are a variety of reasons a union would not want to expose their workers to more visible monitoring. Namely, by outsiders, any video evidence is often taken out of context. Human recollection of events are biased, but interpretation of objective evidence is also heavily biased.
Workers unions have also fought against video monitoring of workers on assembly lines, in the office, etc. It's not limited to the police union.
Workers work for the benefit of the workers. Trying to attach a "social motive" to a union or a firm misses the point of these entities. Yes, it would be nice if firms gave a shit about pollution, or if firms gave a shit about social stability, etc. But that's not what these entities are for. These entities are for the people within them.
We use laws to create social constructs that constrain the behavior of unions and firms.
To expect unions and firms to do what's "socially responsible" (a reprehensible term, since it's usefulness is almost 0) is foolish.
I understand and agree with all this.
Unions exist for the benefit of those in the union. But wouldn't you agree that the police, as a governmental and social institution funded by taxpayers dollars, have more responsibility than the public than, say, the carpenters union?
Given the context of their function in society, things should be a little different and their end game be taken into a little more consideration?
Police are supposed to be public servants and keep the population safe. And if we think about why they don't want to be filmed or wear cameras, it's because they don't want to be caught in the act of misconduct.
And correct me if I'm wrong (I may be, not being condescending) but the entire premise of a union is 1) labor protection and 2) keeping wages/benefits high? How is refusing to put cameras on cops labor protection? Is their opposition to protect cops from being recorded in the act of misconduct?
Ok, so the end goal is keep wages high and life good for the cops - but the entire foundation of the job of the police is different from most other unionized labor forces, because cops are supposed to be a pillar of society who serve society as a whole and protect against lawlessness and criminals. Their apprehension to be filmed, because it would catch misconduct and get cops in administrative or legal trouble, is really bothersome when put into the context of their function in society.
It feels like you're saying the labor unions are obviously obligated to take whatever steps are necessary to protect police from getting in trouble for misconduct by their very nature as a union, but that should be acceptable despite the fact its bad for every single private citizen (I'm trying to think of any situation where a private citizen would be negatively impacted by cops having cameras as long as they weren't committing a crime).
My roommates brought some beers upstairs, so I apologize if this somewhat stream of consciousness, but I hope it presents a thought process in which you can see a shred of validity, even if it doesn't align with your own viewpoint.
"upheld by the internal units tasked with investigating complaints against their colleagues."
Furthermore it says
"In the majority of cases, the police agencies reportedly "either 'exonerated' the officers, dismissed the complaints as frivolous, determined that they did not have sufficient evidence or simply never closed the investigation."
So it looks like based on that they were investigated. Just because every complaint of police brutality wasn't prosecuted that doesn't mean 99% went uninvestigated. Regardless, you still keep saying it like the article is talking about all police when in reality it's one area in one state.
No idea if you'll take it for the advice that it is, but it's something I've had to work on in the past.
You needn't bother responding to me; I made the mistake of diving in on this shithole of a topic far too much already.
Actually, this is the exact opposite of what's going on. This has been what has ben happening to me (i.e Peter in Atlanta).
And fuck the "glib" responses.. If I"m attributing incorrect responses to people's viewpoints, let's hear their fucking viewpoints?
Because it doesn't take a genius to draw conclusions from the responses in this thread. Context clues, we all learned that in like 2nd grade. And if I'm mistaken, someone correct me.
Because most people seem to think the status quo is fine. And I don't, because people are getting shot by cops at an alarming rate.
Let's take it to a super macro level:
Do people not think citizens are getting shot, killed, and abused by police at an alarming rate?
And do people not believe police abuse their powers at an alarming rate?.
And to a slightly smaller scope, are these incidents occurring more frequently against a certain segment of society, and are the police and their tactics/reactions partially to brame (socioeconomic factors definitely play a very large part in this -- though these factors and police behavior are both interconnected)
Because I gather my thoughts and emotions, that is the crux of my belief. All my posts are cumulatively disagreeing with the two above statements.
So no, I'm getting glib responses because people don't want to take on the questions I am posing.
I already said no.
What is this mystic force that will fall out of the sky that you talk of?
Are you just ignorant or stupid?
Every regional, state and federal agency that can be, by law, is watching this.
Next thing your going to tell me it's Obama's fault.
"upheld by the internal units tasked with investigating complaints against their colleagues."
Furthermore it says
"In the majority of cases, the police agencies reportedly "either 'exonerated' the officers, dismissed the complaints as frivolous, determined that they did not have sufficient evidence or simply never closed the investigation."
So it looks like based on that they were investigated. Just because every complaint of police brutality wasn't prosecuted that doesn't mean 99% went uninvestigated. Regardless, you still keep saying it like the article is talking about all police when in reality it's one area in one state.
Let's address the fact that the headline says "99% were not investigated".
Ok, so first of all:
1) You missed the link that I posed about the North Carolina county where the Florida A&M player was murdered (after looking for help post car crash)... the one that said 95% of complaints were not even investigated.
2) While obviously not every complaint is valid, and some are frivolous, implying that 99% of all complaints had absolutely no police misconduct is absolutely absurd. This is 99% of all arrests -- this is 99% of all of the times people actually took it upon themselves to go back to the police station and file a complaint. Out of every 100 times that happened, 99 were totally false, made up, or had a cop that did nothing wrong. Yeah, okay.
3) You have inherently biased groups trying to investigate these crimes. This is just by nature of the fact that you have part of a "Fratenal Brotherhood" trying to get another part of the brotherhood in trouble. Of course these complaints are legitimately investigated or explored. I truly cannot understand how someone can argue this point. There is literally an archetype of the "good cop who is an outcast from the brotherhood because crooked cops don't like him". This doesn't mean that this only occurs in groups of crooked cops; just like a sports team, frat, or any other bro-camredrie, tattle tales are hated, despised, and exiled. But internal affairs is supposed to work?
BTW: it's so nice of the police agencies to exonerate their own fucking officers. Yeah, I'm sure they did a real thorough investigation of complaints against police before exonerating their own cops and avoiding public scrutiny and media shitstorms.
Blind trust, once again. How you see a stat like 99% and think this is accurate is fucking mind blowing. On top of that, I can't believe an adult would be naive enough to think that legit investigations occurred and an impartial judgement made a police force "exonerate" their own goddamn cops. Are you fucking serious?
I already said no.
What is this mystic force that will fall out of the sky that you talk of?
Are you just ignorant or stupid?
Every regional, state and federal agency that can be, by law, is watching this.
Next thing your going to tell me it's Obama's fault.
Uh, if you said no, then you agree with me. The cops directly involved in the incident should not be collecting evidence pertaining to it. So what's the problem again? That you and I can't think of a better system? Doesn't excuse how fucking stupid it is to trust people with collecting evidence incriminating them.
How's this for a system? Videotape police encounters and make them public record, allow private citizens to back up digital evidence. Boom, solved. There's the system. Now we will know if anything happened that was sketchy.
Doesn't mean my original point was wrong. So cool, I'm glad you agree that people shouldn't be trusted to gather evidence that could incriminate them from the crime scene, now that I developed a better system.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/nyregion/10quotas.html?_r=2&ref=nyregion
http://www.oanow.com/news/crime_courts/article_5121e14c-4751-11e3-916d-001a4bcf6878.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/10/local/la-me-ln-ticket-quota-20131210 (this one is tickets, but obviously the framework exists)
theres plenty of info out there. Google it.
-denied a raise for not enough tickets and arrests
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/22/justice/new-york-stop-and-frisk-trial/
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/21/second_cop_confirms_nypd_arrest_quotas/
http://rt.com/usa/nypd-evidence-arrest-quotas-570/
I already said no.
What is this mystic force that will fall out of the sky that you talk of?
Are you just ignorant or stupid?
Every regional, state and federal agency that can be, by law, is watching this.
Next thing your going to tell me it's Obama's fault.
What are you even referring to when you talk about mystic force? The mystic force that will make sure cops don't delete evidence that incriminates them?
Thanks for letting me know this is a high profile case (already said this cell phone video is likely safe at this point)
CTC, I might be "stupid" but at least I'm not fucking blind. This is a high profile case, everyone is watching this (as I said many times, but apparently you have selective reading).
The fact of the matter is that this type of shit happens often (see: the link I posted that was an actual TV NEWS REPORT with interviews from actual people who testified about cops forcing them to delete their footage of them beating up an allegedly mentally ill man)
so tell me again how I'm fucking stupid, because you can't think of a better way to protect the integrity of digital evidence? This is fucking bullshit. Why don't you guys answer some questions instead of telling me I'm stupid for raising valid concerns. Or at least try and tell me how they are invalid without grabbing on to minutia and semantics.
so please, since I'm so fucking stupid, tell me again:
tell me please, are there not multiple incidents of cops deleting footage and altering digital evidence when they can without retribution?
I'll save you the trouble. There are, I posted them on the first or second page of this shitshow thread of people who live in a fantasy world. 5 pages deep and nobody has expressed that the cop who shot an 18 year old kid in the back was wrong. You're all more interested in digging your feet into the sand and proving that law enforcement in this country is just perfecttttlyyyyy fine, instead of trying to figure out how we can prevent black teenagers and people from getting shot dead on a bi-weekly basis.
law enforcement in this country is NOT simply a-okay.
who is this neutral third party that's going to do it, and how do you envision them actually doing it, practically speaking?
without that, this entire thread is basically a temper tantrum.
now, we can then go in two directions from there:
a) you actually provide specifics, at which time anyone and everyone who knows anything about law enforcement will snicker at you and explain why what you just wrote is ludicrous
b) you don't provide specifics and cut your losses
What about the other comments I've quoted where you have made wild accusations with no proof what so ever?
This entire situation isn't going to end well...and someone will end up getting killed senselessly as result of it.
Link - ( New Window )
Veterans on Militarization of Ferguson - ( New Window )
Without debating the right or wrong of any of that, you can see how many in the community can get the impression the police are an occupying force as opposed to civil servants. I don't see much good coming of any of this.
Come on, man. That's one of the most irrelevant observation that can be made from that link.
For your information, many soldiers/Marines (including myself) worked and sometimes lived with their Iraqi counterparts. And since one should probably get familiar with one's partners' weapons systems, I don't see how some soldier/Marine posing with or holding an AK is at all meaning that he's trying to get a reaction.
Me thinks you are grasping at straws in trying to deflect the sentiments from that link.
The police officer has good equipment,...so what? If they're doing shit wrong...which I'll wait before I rush to judgement on...then talk about that.
The police officer has good equipment,...so what? If they're doing shit wrong...which I'll wait before I rush to judgement on...then talk about that.
Does it really matter? It's called a "moto-picture." You seemed to have latched onto a pretty innocuous and irrelevant picture for some strange reason.
And it's a damn opinion piece from a person, who probably was combat trained and served in combat making an observation about the trend of police forces being better equipped than the ones actually in combat. Big fucking deal.
Is the increasing arming of our civilian police a result of taking on duties that they never had to cope with before with the reluctance to call out the military?
Thoughts. Comment?
What's the big deal with a swat or special ops police officer having good equipment?