Yeah, we've seen how much use video recordings are. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Printable View
Yeah, we've seen how much use video recordings are. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I just have difficulties understanding how someone can harp on about the presumption of innocence in situations where that also entails presuming guilt on the part of the victims pretty much every single time. Well, I understand it, but it strikes me as being a form of injustice.
Yeah its not perfect. Its actually a bit difficult. Lets just give up and not make any changes. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Suspects should always get a presumption of innocence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Or be shot/beaten/choked/shaken to death.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
That should never happen except as a last resort.
Should the police officer(s) in question be punished?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Too bad every resort is a last resort to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
In an ideal world yes. However I don't expect every officer to be incredibly knowledgeable about the subject. They should have a basic working of the law but their department sets the rules. Its clear in this case the department wants those arrests and rewarded him for making them. Identifying someone who is on drugs and driving is important - its clear here that several people had no drugs in the system and no one seemed to give a shit. Frankly there is a good civil case to be made here and punitive damages awarded to those who were arrested for no clear reason other than to get a quota. Voters should also be up in arms about it in that local region.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Thanks again for making my point for me. You will NEVER punish a police officer.
I'd be good with convicting these two:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willia...Antonio_Murray
No the officer has done nothing wrong here. It is the procedures that need changing. Why are you so hung up at targeting individuals rather than fixing the system?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Never said that.Quote:
Too bad every resort is a last resort to you.
However while pulling the trigger should be the last resort once it has been pulled you need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the officer knew it was not the last resort to get a murder conviction. You only need to prove it on a balance of probabilities to get the officer fired or otherwise disciplined but that isn't good enough to you.
We have had several incidents where video did not make a iota of a difference. A "bit" difficult doesn't even begin to describe it.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Yes. Because of the dead person on the other end of the gun.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
https://www.facebook.com/newsnercom/...7546838745962/
Odds of this happening in the US?
High. Bet it happens regularly without it being widely publicised as shit is more noticeably than honey.
doubtful. putting one's guard down with a weapon drawn at you very much goes against current US training standards. subdue first, questions last.
The guy was at a distance and had a knife not a gun and wasn't moving forwards. It wouldn't surprise me if that would happen in the US (though indeed it also wouldn't surprise me to see a bodycount+1 increment). Given how big America is and how many crazies there are it probably would be quite likely that both someone gets talked down like that and someone else gets shot on the same day.
Which part?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Talking down a person from being violent? That happens.
Hugging a person? That happens.
Not pressing charges? Probably rare.
All of the above - maybe not. Generally speaking it is a game of percentages. This officer had a good read on the situation and I'm not going to bash him for how he handled. However at a macro level, what are the odds of it ending this way? Should officers always try to do this? What if 1% of the time it leads to someone other than the criminal dying? At that point I'd say I'd rather have the criminal die a hundred times over one innocent - that's my moral calculus, yours is likely different.
Except American police departments don't train their police officers to try to get a handle of the situation. They train them to use force the second there is a threat.
remember, subdue then question:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/%E2...ect/ar-BBEj5wP
No doubt Lewk will find this hilarious and have some distasteful and prejudicious things to say about women who don't look like little girls on reddit... but at least we now know why innocent black women are more likely to be subjected to excessive force by cops than white women: cops think black women are actually black men.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
If you don't, you get fired:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/1...g-lawsuit.html
This is also why American cops shoot mentally ill black people, even pregnant ones #prolife
While that's an unbelievably stupid decision it was one made by one force once. The fact that same case must have been referenced dozens of times already kind of proves the fact this is not routine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Duh, because no one wants to take the risk of getting fired, so they go for the kill.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I don't believe that but hope that the fired cop wins a lawsuit for that insane decision.
West Virginia is an at will work state. The lawsuit isn't just about the firing. Its about the leadership lying about the reason for the firing, lying to the media about the firing (press was told all 3 officers were back on the job just hours after he was fired), harassment (the murdering officer actually followed the fired officer to a school and verbally harassed him in front of his class), the department's refusal to take a report of the harassment, and the damage to his reputation from the dismissal claims.
If this guy wins his lawsuit, don't think for a second its only because he was incorrectly fired. The fired officer himself has admitted that the officer that did kill the suspect was justified based on his training and time of arrival.
An officer can simultaneously be both justified in shooting and justified in not doing so. We have people who make judgement calls and not autonomous robocops.
There are frequently situations where multiple officers are on the scene and one fires while another does not.
Your comments about there being more to the story in this specific case match my suspicions that this was an isolated case and not representative of some endemic culture of firing trigger resistant cop.
This may look like evidence of American police embracing a Dreadnaughtian philosophy but it's actually just how cops say "hi":
http://m.startribune.com/woman-kille...s/434782213/#1
Not turning bodycams on should be considered conspiracy to commit a crime.
Its actually a sign that the officer who showed restraint is the odd ball out considering how he was harassed/ignored/lied about at multiple levels and times of this event unfolding.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
The poor guy didn't fit in, he slipped through the process thats in place to weed at such people, and this is how the department reacted.
Not turning bodycams on should not be an option. I don't ask my staff to switch on the CCTV in the morning, it runs 24/7.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Your link has nothing to do with your claim. For one thing it is from a different state let alone a different department. I may not be an American so my geography may not be perfect but to my knowledge West Virginia and New York are not the same state :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Secondly the link says they have a process to weed out those they think will have high turnover, which the court ruled as they "had “shown a rational basis for the policy.” In a ruling dated Aug. 23, the 2nd Circuit agreed. The court said the policy might be unwise but was a rational way to reduce job turnover."
Reduce job turnover, not weed out people from another frigging state who might not want to shoot. :rolleyes: