Starting to wonder at what stage European countries are going to start feeling compelled to issue travel advice to their black citizens planning on travelling to the US.
Starting to wonder at what stage European countries are going to start feeling compelled to issue travel advice to their black citizens planning on travelling to the US.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Utterly tragicOriginally Posted by Aimless
Silver lining, I'm glad to see that in this instance a body cam was used which has allowed us to know what happened and action is now being taken using the body cam as evidence. As I've advocated should be standard all thread. Nobody in the 21st century should need a gun who doesn't also need a camera. No camera, no gun - simple.
So at what point can an officer open fire on a vehicle, and when should they be held accountable for their reckless actions? You realize that in many metropolitan areas it often is policy to call off high speed chases when pursuing a suspect could lead to harm to other motorists or pedestrians, right? Policies like that exist because there are far more important things than "getting" someone who may be running from the police.
Yeah, Lewk hates the idea of calling off high-speed chases because it might put others at risk, too. You have to remember just how low DOWN other people's lives are as a priority for Lewk.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
We got to this point by not putting people in prison for running from the police. If someone is running from the police they are a danger to everyone around them and need to be in prison. No exceptions to that, period. They have made the decision to willfully disobey the laws of society. They have made the decision to willfully disobey the ones called to serve and protect the populace. They have made the decision to willfully place other lives at jeopardy for their own benefit. They have chosen to to be a menace, they have proven they are perfectly willing to be violent and have no regards for the law. If these 'people' (and I do like to de-humanize them as much as possible) need to be locked up and separated from the rest of society. They need to be made an example of.
All that being said... I do think it is important to try to avoid harming civilians caught in the crossfire. Just like you wouldn't want to spray bullets at a fleeing suspect in a crowd you don't want to chase a suspect through a school zone during recess. Sound judgement should be made, aerial assets should be used to keep track of the dangerously violent criminal that needs to be put down, but cars right on the heels of a violent idiot can be a danger to others.
It is a careful balancing act because other criminals are watching. If criminals believe they can get away they will run more frequently. If they aren't harshly made an example of the immediate cost/benefit analysis leads people to not worry about fleeing because they know they won't spend a single day more in prison. That's why it is so critical to pass harsh penalties for people who flee.
Liberals of course disagree. They side with criminals OVER AND OVER again.
"Waaah there is rape in prison."
"Waaah prison conditions are bad."
"Waaah prison sentences are too long."
"Waah criminals deserve a second chance."
"Waaah they had a hard life."
"Waaah the system is racist so they had to turn to crime."
"Waaah...."
And all their bleating and crying makes MORE victims and produces MORE criminals.
Um. Well."Waaah there is rape in prison."(Seriously? You're pro prison-rape????)
"Waaah prison conditions are bad."
"Waaah prison sentences are too long."
"Waah criminals deserve a second chance."
"Waaah they had a hard life." (Not sure anyone's using that as an excuse, but it isn't one, I agree.)
"Waaah the system is racist so they had to turn to crime."
"Waaah...."
And all their bleating and crying makes MORE victims and produces MORE criminals.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
That's... a pretty dumb analysis, Lewk. I'm sorry
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Lewk opposes any prison time at all for pot to be fair ...
Well, that's the sort of thing "Liberals" are talking about when they whine that prison sentences are too long... Would be a shame to support shit-head policy bc it feels tough on criminals when you really don't agree with it at all.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
I'm not supporting prison rape as a policy, but I'm not going to cry over the fact that criminals are suffering for their idiocy.
I agree 100% - we shouldn't put people in prison for pot, gambling, prostitution and other drugs. "Vice" crimes are bull shit.
It isn't just drug use that liberals want lower sentences for. Many liberals get bent out of shape for someone going to prison for life for felony murder when they were the getaway driver. Sorry, no sympathy for someone who helps in a crime that gets someone killed - liberals on the other hand...Well, that's the sort of thing "Liberals" are talking about when they whine that prison sentences are too long... Would be a shame to support shit-head policy bc it feels tough on criminals when you really don't agree with it at all.
Define running from police. I have several friends who are police officers. If they approach someone on the street and that person starts running they are trained not to do anything, unless there is reasonable suspicion that they may be involved in criminal activity. Simply running from a police officer is not a crime, nor should it be. Individuals are free to disengage from an encounter with the police if they are not under arrest, or are otherwise being detained.
So if a police officer in an unmarked car starts chasing a citizen, at what point can they use lethal force to stop that individual from running? What should happen to that police officer if during the chase they run a bus full of children off the road, or shoot an elderly grandmother who happened to be walking past? What should be the punishment for an officer exercising bad judgment if that poor judgment results in the death of an innocent bystander?If someone is running from the police they are a danger to everyone around them and need to be in prison. No exceptions to that, period. They have made the decision to willfully disobey the laws of society. They have made the decision to willfully disobey the ones called to serve and protect the populace. They have made the decision to willfully place other lives at jeopardy for their own benefit. They have chosen to to be a menace, they have proven they are perfectly willing to be violent and have no regards for the law. If these 'people' (and I do like to de-humanize them as much as possible) need to be locked up and separated from the rest of society. They need to be made an example of.
All that being said... I do think it is important to try to avoid harming civilians caught in the crossfire. Just like you wouldn't want to spray bullets at a fleeing suspect in a crowd you don't want to chase a suspect through a school zone during recess. Sound judgement should be made, aerial assets should be used to keep track of the dangerously violent criminal that needs to be put down, but cars right on the heels of a violent idiot can be a danger to others.
It is a careful balancing act because other criminals are watching. If criminals believe they can get away they will run more frequently. If they aren't harshly made an example of the immediate cost/benefit analysis leads people to not worry about fleeing because they know they won't spend a single day more in prison. That's why it is so critical to pass harsh penalties for people who flee.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 10-04-2016 at 03:44 PM.
He does, but he also thinks that since it is the law, they really ought to be murdered in prison because they still chose to break it.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
That's actually the normal and reasonable exercise of felony-murder and few are going to get bent out of shape about it. We might vacillate a bit but it's how the law is supposed to work. What we're going to get upset about is if you charge the "get-away driver" with felony-murder because a guard/homeowner shot and killed the guy actually committing the alleged theft. Or if a spectator at the scene's aftermath gets hit by a car when they're distracted.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Hope is the denial of reality
Two cops acted dreadfully which was caught on a body cam and now neither of them are cops anymore?
Score a big win for what I've been proposing all along.
Law enforcement officers are entitled to use whatever amount of force they deemed necessary to arrest someone they believed committed a crime, Neumann told the paper.
“To charge him would be a violation of my role as a prosecutor,” Neumann said.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Score a big fat loss. It only shows that even with body-cams cops treat black people like shit and suggests that your attempts to trivialize the problem (or make it look like black people are exaggerating) are foolish. It also shows that a cop can act like that on camera and basically get away with it with no real punishment. The guy resigned during the investigation. No charges. Nothing to stop him from working as a cop again somewhere else.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Losing your career and likely now losing his licence so he can't get a job elsewhere is no punishment?
If a doctor screws up that's a pretty severe punishment isn't it?
I never once said black people are exaggerating or that it was trivial. I suggested that the Police in the USA work in a dangerous potentially fatal career and need to use force sometimes, but there should be body cams and anyone who abuses that should be dealt with properly. The top punishment for gross misconduct in most careers being losing your career.
For deliberate unjustifiable assault and a likely violation of a person's civil rights? Getting away with just resigning? I don't think that's punishment, no. That's just the bare minimum needed to save face and protect the public a little. It's like saying, "Oh, it looks like you don't know how to do your job properly. Maybe you shouldn't work here"
Punishment would be to impose additional fines or otherwise appropriate sentence all the way up to prison time. Restitution for the victim would entail eg. financial compensation.
Losing your license for "screwing up" is a pretty severe punishment, yes. But there's screwing up and then there's deliberately doing something grossly inappropriate to the point of being arguably criminal.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Except that the use of force is sadly part of the officers job in the same way cutting a patient is a part of a surgeons job.
If a surgeon screws up in a non fatal but serious manner then you'd think losing his licence was a severe punishment.
One strike and you're out will terminate this behaviour very quickly.
As for financial restitution for the victim that would normally come from the employer not the employee surely? There should be restitution but I'd think the force would be held liable for their employees actions.
If a doctor on purpose does not follow procedure that will lose him his license and job, ánd open him for prosecution and civil lawsuits.
Whether the employer or employee is responsible for paying depends an whether department procedures are followed I guess. If you are doing your job in a way your employer waves you to do it, then he should be liable. But if you clearly acted against policy you should be personally liable.
Basically if, as you claim, there is no institutional problem, just bad apples, surely you agree that individuals should be liable? If I wilfully breach company policy I am pretty sure I can be held responsible personally. There is a difference between making mistakes and committing illegal acts. Hell I'm not even allowed to follow my bosses orders if I think they are illegal, unsafe, or have risks for our product.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Liability extends beyond just policy. I pay all sorts of insurance to cover lots of eventualities and in a previous employment had to make a claim against insurance for the actions of an employee that were not our fault.
The prosecutor is in this instance saying the employee did what was permitted (using force) but did it inappropriately, which is grounds for dismissal but not prosecution. If everyone who is inappropriate is dismissed it won't take long before there is nobody left who is inappropriate.
A better comparison would be to a cancer doctor who immediately jumps to surgery without considering chemo or radiation.
The employer in this case being the tax paying citizens. Although cities has started to make bad cops personally financially responsible so that they can claim bankruptcy and the victim gets nothing while the cop, department, and city walk away free and clear.
As for financial restitution for the victim that would normally come from the employer not the employee surely? There should be restitution but I'd think the force would be held liable for their employees actions.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
If not for the body cams, Yourse would be in jail right now and the cop would have got his promotion. The body cams did their job perfectly.For deliberate unjustifiable assault and a likely violation of a person's civil rights? Getting away with just resigning? I don't think that's punishment, no. That's just the bare minimum needed to save face and protect the public a little. It's like saying, "Oh, it looks like you don't know how to do your job properly. Maybe you shouldn't work here
Punishment would be to impose additional fines or otherwise appropriate sentence all the way up to prison time. Restitution for the victim would entail eg. financial compensation.
Losing your license for "screwing up" is a pretty severe punishment, yes. But there's screwing up and then there's deliberately doing something grossly inappropriate to the point of being arguably criminal.
Interesting to see what set the cop off. As soon as Yourse said on the phone that he was "being harassed" the cop lost it.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Absolutely!
That doesn't sound like progress to me. There's a reason employers are held legally liable, holding someone who's just lost their job liable is begging for a bankruptcy so they get nothing outcome.The employer in this case being the tax paying citizens. Although cities has started to make bad cops personally financially responsible so that they can claim bankruptcy and the victim gets nothing while the cop, department, and city walk away free and clear.
Thank you exactly. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the much improved, to get rid of cops like this and to acquit the innocent like Yourse and let him see justice instead is progress.
Yes, but if your employee would, say, beat up a client of yours, he would personally be liable for prosecution (assuming it's not your company policy to beat up clients).
That's a bullshit argument though. You're saying because cops sometimes have to use force they can always do it without fear of prosecution.
The prosecutor is in this instance saying the employee did what was permitted (using force) but did it inappropriately, which is grounds for dismissal but not prosecution. If everyone who is inappropriate is dismissed it won't take long before there is nobody left who is inappropriate.
I agree that not everybody who uses force inappropriately should be prosecuted by the way. They should not even always be fired. Circumstances matter, sometimes retraining or a Slaap on the wrist can be enough. Sometimes firing can be enough. I'm not even judging this particular case, I'm glad he's fired though. But as a general statement, he's basically giving carte blanche to officers using force whenever they feel like it without risking more than their jobs.
Oh and regarding the doctor analogy, also keep in mind that doctors who lose their license also lose 6+ years and tonnes of money they invested in their own education, which makes it a bit harsher penalty for them than for police officers.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Yes he would be personally liable for prosecution, but if he did so in our employment we'd be liable to pay any damages.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying there are different levels of abuse.That's a bullshit argument though. You're saying because cops sometimes have to use force they can always do it without fear of prosecution.
There is clearly acceptable use of force - no harm, no foul.
There is borderline cases use of force - benefit of the doubt will have to go to the employee (unless its a repeated issue) but more training or supervision could be necessary.
There are marginally unacceptable uses of force - some form of training or punishment probably necessary (eg suspension, disciplinary action, retraining etc)
There are unacceptable uses of force ... like this incident ... where the officer may have thought he was justified but wasn't and should have known he wasn't - either severe punishment or dismissal
Then there are grossly evil abuses where the officer couldn't possibly have thought he was justified ... these should be prosecuted too.
The final one would I imagine be extremely rare and to continue with the medical analogy would be akin to Doctor Harold Shipman over here.
I think what Flixy is getting at is that it's more accurate to say that you'd be liable as well. The fact that you share liability does not remove his own liability, for damages as surely as prosecution. He's just more judgement-proof via having smaller pockets.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Indeed, I'm not arguing against that. And people will always sue the deeper pockets (unless they get too deep).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
