Uhh, can someone help me out? I didn't see them manufacture charges. I saw them illegally confiscate something for no reason (the camera) and I heard them deciding what to charge him with. But if he was actually guilty of those things (can't say either way from the recording) then they've done nothing more than be assholes, well and illegally confiscate a camera. Is that what we're all upset about, that they took a camera and returned it a few minutes later? If that's what it is, that's fine just tell me.
Uhh, can someone help me out? I didn't see them manufacture charges. I saw them illegally confiscate something for no reason (the camera) and I heard them deciding what to charge him with. But if he was actually guilty of those things (can't say either way from the recording) then they've done nothing more than be assholes, well and illegally confiscate a camera. Is that what we're all upset about, that they took a camera and returned it a few minutes later? If that's what it is, that's fine just tell me.
I must be missing something.
If this isn't manufacturing charges, nothing is.
“Let’s give him something,” one trooper declared. Another suggested, “we can hit him with creating a public disturbance.” “Gotta cover our ass,” remarked a third.
“Let’s give him something,” one trooper declared. Another suggested, “we can hit him with creating a public disturbance.” “Gotta cover our ass,” remarked a third.
"Gotta cover our ass" has to be one of an attorneys favorite quotes (to hear from the other party). It's effectively both an admission that you've done something wrong and a declaration that you're about to construct a flimsy legal justification for the wrong thing you've just done.
“Let’s give him something,” one trooper declared. Another suggested, “we can hit him with creating a public disturbance.” “Gotta cover our ass,” remarked a third.
"Gotta cover our ass" has to be one of an attorneys favorite quotes (to hear from the other party). It's effectively both an admission that you've done something wrong and a declaration that you're about to construct a flimsy legal justification for the wrong thing you've just done.
There we go, I wasn't reading subtitles, I just kinda had it on as I went step 43 of 17685162341 of server config. Missed that tiny bit. Yep sue the balls off them. That is pretty fuckin' far from ok.
That one's not even the bad one. There was also mention in another article that they were going to claim witnesses complained but failed to file testimony or some such.
It's almost excusable to say "we weren't sure what to charge him with because his behavior wasn't exactly what we normally deal with, we had to deliberate to find the closest fit because we had to make sure we weren't detaining him without charge"
Whether that's appropriate or not is up to debate, and whether they had any grounds to charge this guy for antrying in the first place seems certainly debunked, but I bet it's not exactly uncommon or even unethical to need to discuss what exactly you're going to write on a ticket when someone did do something messed up and wanting to make sure you cover your obligations. "Cover your ass" could be argued as not conspiracy to defraud but simply a mantra to ensure everyone is crossing ts and dotting i's so that it doesn't result in a thrown conviction due to negligence.
Again, here it's pretty plain but taken individually those actions aren't exactly incriminating.
Fabricaring witnesses and other evidence and wanting to charge the guy when there was no disturbance or violation... and being dicks about it... that is the problem.
Even if someone is actually doing something illegal, it should be required that the police know what the crime is before arresting them. Coming up with it after the fact, even if it's correct, shows that you were willing to arrest someone before you knew they were actually committing a crime. That alone should result in the defendant getting completely off the hook and the cop losing their job forever.
in a unanimous opinion issued on Tuesday, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts gave implicit approval for black men to run when the police ask to speak to them.
Proposal: any police officer that kills any suspect or bystander for any reason loses their job for life. It's a zero tolerance policy. Also they are banned from carrying or using a firearm in any following career.
This is the only way to get rid of the bad apples. Some good ones might be thrown out too, but I bet that there would be a sharp decrease in deaths. If there isn't, at least the bad cops can kill a maximum of one black teenager each.
Proposal: any police officer that kills any suspect or bystander for any reason loses their job for life. It's a zero tolerance policy. Also they are banned from carrying or using a firearm in any following career.
This is the only way to get rid of the bad apples. Some good ones might be thrown out too, but I bet that there would be a sharp decrease in deaths. If there isn't, at least the bad cops can kill a maximum of one black teenager each.
Are you proposing this everywhere or just America?
Counter-Proposal: Instead of simply dismissing any officers involved in shootings, an independent (federally funded, current/former police can't join, can't have been part of the judicial system in the area they manage etc.) investigative body reviews the case and if the officer's actions were justified (i.e. protecting themselves/another) then they are cleared but restricted from patrol duty for a year. If the shooting is found to be unjustified then they are immediately fired and what Luke proposes goes into effect.
And every officer nationwide is required to wear bodycams.
No. it has to be zero tolerance. Investigations don't work. Deciding what is justified or not doesn't work. We can't trust the word of any police officer, not any prosecutor. We can't even trust that police officers won't delete body camera footage, or that any other evidence won't be tempered with in nefarious ways.
My point: current formulations of justice don't work. Kill someone? No longer a police officer, no longer allowed to have a gun. That's it.
It's like, I accept that this will sometimes cause a good cop to lose out on ever being a cop again being put into a situation where it's unavoidable blah blah blah. But in exchange for that cost, we either immediately weed out some of the worst apples or at least force them to not be murderers of minorities with impunity.
How about any use of deadly force just means you can never be a cop again ever, independent of any other consequences (e.g., murder charges if unjustified). Even justified killing means you're done.
Police killings should be a rare event. Ideally, you're no longer a cop, but you did the right thing. Rest easy knowing that, but find another career.
A major issue with dismissing police officers like that is that the more turnover you have, the lower your standards have to go to fill the ranks. Also if there's a high chance of you losing your job suddenly at no fault of your own then people with good prospects elsewhere (who are probably the best hires) will be less likely to choose policing over another career. Remember that in the current system, retirement is one of the main perks of being a police officer.
Even if a zero tolerance system doesn't work, then a system of some nuance. 3 strikes and you're out. That's a thing already.
Or, weightings for different incidents. 100 points for motivated killing, 50 points for accidental shooting, 40 points for misfiring. Accumulate 100 points and you're in jail, no pension etc. etc.
The bare minimum of accountability will be better than no accountability, which seems to be the status quo.
If our police shoot enough people to death that a one-strike policy leads to that much turnover, then our society is already so fucked that it's the least of our problems.
If our police shoot enough people to death that a one-strike policy leads to that much turnover, then our society is already so fucked that it's the least of our problems.
Right? And I bet some of those dead people would have wanted a 3 strikes policy (for themselves). I'm happy with the no tolerance being you kill someone (and don't go to jail), parking meter purgatory for life.
There's a much simpler solution that is proven to work in so many other countries. Cops don't have guns except in special circumstances. Done. Punishing the cops after the fact and getting proper justice is well and good, and I'm all for it. But such vengeful justice doesn't matter to the dead person. Preventing the deaths in the first place is priority number one.
Pretty much. The prevalence of cops taking in violent white suspects without shooting them even further proves that the police don't really need guns in a lot of situations. We have so many alternative solutions to dealing with things, so having every cop walk around with a gun starts to seem really dangerous and unnecessary.
There's a much simpler solution that is proven to work in so many other countries. Cops don't have guns except in special circumstances. Done. Punishing the cops after the fact and getting proper justice is well and good, and I'm all for it. But such vengeful justice doesn't matter to the dead person. Preventing the deaths in the first place is priority number one.
That works in other countries, because mostly citizens don't have such easy access to guns. Cops needs guns in response to citizens having guns.
That said, cops don't need metallic projectiles. So while I agree, lethal weapons should only be used in special circumstances, police would at least need to transition to non-lethal firearms in conjuncture with adequate gun control reforms.
I don't think it's wise to disarm the police, and not also disarm it's citizens, whom can be equally reckless.
Comments
I must be missing something.
It's almost excusable to say "we weren't sure what to charge him with because his behavior wasn't exactly what we normally deal with, we had to deliberate to find the closest fit because we had to make sure we weren't detaining him without charge"
Whether that's appropriate or not is up to debate, and whether they had any grounds to charge this guy for antrying in the first place seems certainly debunked, but I bet it's not exactly uncommon or even unethical to need to discuss what exactly you're going to write on a ticket when someone did do something messed up and wanting to make sure you cover your obligations. "Cover your ass" could be argued as not conspiracy to defraud but simply a mantra to ensure everyone is crossing ts and dotting i's so that it doesn't result in a thrown conviction due to negligence.
Again, here it's pretty plain but taken individually those actions aren't exactly incriminating.
Fabricaring witnesses and other evidence and wanting to charge the guy when there was no disturbance or violation... and being dicks about it... that is the problem.
This is the only way to get rid of the bad apples. Some good ones might be thrown out too, but I bet that there would be a sharp decrease in deaths. If there isn't, at least the bad cops can kill a maximum of one black teenager each.
And every officer nationwide is required to wear bodycams.
My point: current formulations of justice don't work. Kill someone? No longer a police officer, no longer allowed to have a gun. That's it.
Police killings should be a rare event. Ideally, you're no longer a cop, but you did the right thing. Rest easy knowing that, but find another career.
Hey, if we need to shoot someone, you and only you can pull the trigger. -Police
Okay, pay me many, I'll kill anyone, anywhere, anyhow. -Boris the bullet dodger
Your paid leave starts now. We'll, call, you! -Police
I think in order for any of this to work, adequate gun control is also required on top of reforms against police shootings.
The amount of Incidents/ accidents/ motivated killings will never diminish without tighter restrictions on guns.
Or, weightings for different incidents. 100 points for motivated killing, 50 points for accidental shooting, 40 points for misfiring. Accumulate 100 points and you're in jail, no pension etc. etc.
The bare minimum of accountability will be better than no accountability, which seems to be the status quo.
That said, cops don't need metallic projectiles. So while I agree, lethal weapons should only be used in special circumstances, police would at least need to transition to non-lethal firearms in conjuncture with adequate gun control reforms.
I don't think it's wise to disarm the police, and not also disarm it's citizens, whom can be equally reckless.