Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
OUT OF CONTROL COPS - A SERIOUS PROBLEM IN AMERICA
Posts
Linkis
View playlists
CloseSince you want to stick with that a while....how about in place of bashing and hanging all cops, why not discuss ways to fix the problem.
This reminds me of the republicans who say want to be office because they KNOW how to fix the problem.....but don't tell us what that fix is.
Let's try to figure a way to correct the problem that so many are talking about.
You go first Max :)
This reminds me of the republicans who say want to be office because they KNOW how to fix the problem.....but don't tell us what that fix is.
Let's try to figure a way to correct the problem that so many are talking about.
You go first Max :)
do the police forces do mental screenings for their employees? also i think i remember somewhere in this thread about some police department only hiring people with low IQs?
yeah, why discuss race in a thread about police brutality! won't someone think of us white people!
yeah, why discuss race in a thread about police brutality! won't someone think of us white people!
EdgeOfChaos
1755
author=Linkis
Ya know what people, better hiring and training of police officers is really, really needed..BUT, after reading these two articles, I still feel the same BUT those people protesting for the deaths of a few who died and should not have should be locked up and retrained on those who give their lives to "serve and protect".
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/385458/cop-killed-every-58-hours-michelle-malkin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_police_officers_killed_in_the_line_of_duty
http://www.odmp.org/search/year/2014
In response to that article: While the deaths of those officers are very tragic, this still doesn't justify the "murder first and ask questions later" attitude some cops seem to have. You can NOT murder someone in "self defense" before he does anything to you, that is nonsense. If I am walking down the street and see someone who I think looks threatening, I can't simply gun him down. The cops, on the other hand, can throw grenades into the houses of suspected (nonviolent?) drug dealers without first checking who is in there.
This is the bullshit double standard with cops. Why is it acceptable to strangle a man to death because you believe he MIGHT be a threat? Why is it acceptable to throw a grenade into someone's house because you think he might be a drug dealer?
Finally, one last important distinction: they volunteered for this knowing the risks. The one-year old boy did not volunteer to get his face torn off. Being a cop means taking risks to protect others, not killing others preemptively to protect yourself.
I very much want to believe the cops are the good guys, but check out some of those links in the OP. Holy shit. Killing/maiming little kids while they sleep and literally torturing mentally ill people to death... Indefensible actions.
Whoa, let me explain something about the Oxford dictionary:
These men are the highest scholars. They are a different breed. In they personal lives, they may be racists, they may be wife beaters, they may be child molesters, but what get's written in that document comes from nobody's ass. All definitions come from the most widely accepted linguistic use of a word, based on its origins. People always say that the meaning of a word changes with culture and use. These men address such people by patting them on the heads and giving them lollipops.
Every word that goes into that document, is researched to the very first moment it appeared in the lexicon of languages that would eventually evolve into English. This document is an evolving process and painstaking research goes into it. These people accept no less than perfection. These people would go into self-imposed exile, would even kill themselves if thought their personal feelings about anything influenced the formation of this or any document. Tolkien is an example of such a scholar. In fact, he was an Oxford Professor. If "racism" is white influenced in the Oxford dictionary, then it is not because of the men and women who researched the meaning of the word; it is because the word is intrinsically "white" in it's origin.
These men are the highest scholars. They are a different breed. In they personal lives, they may be racists, they may be wife beaters, they may be child molesters, but what get's written in that document comes from nobody's ass. All definitions come from the most widely accepted linguistic use of a word, based on its origins. People always say that the meaning of a word changes with culture and use. These men address such people by patting them on the heads and giving them lollipops.
Every word that goes into that document, is researched to the very first moment it appeared in the lexicon of languages that would eventually evolve into English. This document is an evolving process and painstaking research goes into it. These people accept no less than perfection. These people would go into self-imposed exile, would even kill themselves if thought their personal feelings about anything influenced the formation of this or any document. Tolkien is an example of such a scholar. In fact, he was an Oxford Professor. If "racism" is white influenced in the Oxford dictionary, then it is not because of the men and women who researched the meaning of the word; it is because the word is intrinsically "white" in it's origin.
author=Linkis
Since you want to stick with that a while....how about in place of bashing and hanging all cops, why not discuss ways to fix the problem.
This reminds me of the republicans who say want to be office because they KNOW how to fix the problem.....but don't tell us what that fix is.
Let's try to figure a way to correct the problem that so many are talking about.
You go first Max :)
brave_frog_is_snack
the reason why so many cops are ‘out of control’ is because there is zero accountability due to police unions defending their actions, seemingly no matter how extreme, a lack of civilian community oversight boards, the militarization of the police, the for-profit prison system, and the criminalization of...being poor. not ufcking denzel washington and rap music.
http://www.policefoundation.org/content/body-worn-camera
the study done in rialto, california decreased complaints against officers by 88 percent and officers’ use of force by 60 percent in the twelve months it was conducted. as far as i know, having a camera on you doesn’t magically deter gang violence from existing, so the reason for these numbers must be something else.
or maybe there's something else stressing them out XD http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/06/201162114131825860.html
yeah, why discuss race in a thread about police brutality! won't someone think of us white people!
i didn't say 'don't discuss race' adon i said don't discuss racism vs. white people
This reminds me of the republicans who say want to be office because they KNOW how to fix the problem.....but don't tell us what that fix is.
Let's try to figure a way to correct the problem that so many are talking about.
You go first Max :)
here's some solutions sir:
1) jury trials for all cops involved, throw every charge applicable at them and see what sticks in court
2) strictest penalties available under the law for all officers convicted of anything
3) in cases similar to those presented in the OP, termination of employment without benefits even for officers that are acquited
4) prosecutors that failed to get grand juries to indict or failed to indict themselves or failed to call a grand jury should be terminated from employment without benefits, disbarred, and charged with obstruction of justice. make an example of these fucking snakes.
5) stricter screening and better training for police officers. massive retraining of the procedure for force escalation.
6) all police officers must wear body cameras according to federal law
7) federal laws enstated that harshly punishes disabling or tampering with your body camera, including automatic termination without benefits
8) restrict police access to assault weapons to appropriate situations
anyone disagree?
Example: Say there's a cop I want fired. I break his camera, and tell his superior that he broke his camera. He gets fired without ceremony. I win!
honestly every item on your list (barring 4, 5, 7. so... just over half your list.) is childishly disproportionate and I'm fairly certain you're completely aware of that fact
Officers of the law should be held to a higher standard, certainly. Only a juvenile would suggest "instant termination without due process" as a solution for anything. The entire basis of this thread is that cops should see due process, as compared to the current reality where they see no process at all.
honestly every item on your list (barring 4, 5, 7. so... just over half your list.) is childishly disproportionate and I'm fairly certain you're completely aware of that fact
Officers of the law should be held to a higher standard, certainly. Only a juvenile would suggest "instant termination without due process" as a solution for anything. The entire basis of this thread is that cops should see due process, as compared to the current reality where they see no process at all.
author=CAVE_DOG_IS_BACKauthor=Linkis
Since you want to stick with that a while....how about in place of bashing and hanging all cops, why not discuss ways to fix the problem.
This reminds me of the republicans who say want to be office because they KNOW how to fix the problem.....but don't tell us what that fix is.
Let's try to figure a way to correct the problem that so many are talking about.
You go first Max :)brave_frog_is_snack
the reason why so many cops are ‘out of control’ is because there is zero accountability due to police unions defending their actions, seemingly no matter how extreme, a lack of civilian community oversight boards, the militarization of the police, the for-profit prison system, and the criminalization of...being poor. not ufcking denzel washington and rap music.
http://www.policefoundation.org/content/body-worn-camera
the study done in rialto, california decreased complaints against officers by 88 percent and officers’ use of force by 60 percent in the twelve months it was conducted. as far as i know, having a camera on you doesn’t magically deter gang violence from existing, so the reason for these numbers must be something else.
or maybe there's something else stressing them out XD http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/06/201162114131825860.html
Aljazeera????? You read an article on U.S. police in ALJAZEERA??
Give me a fucking....JESUS H. CHRIST, what an ....
Well, again. You people still don't have a clue.
If over the years, more than 20,000 of your fellow officers are killed in the line of duty, don't you think you might want to protect yourself and your fellow officers from people always filing suit of how many times and many if not most are handled by lawyers who are ambulance chases and simply
Jesus, Max. NO, I can't agree with any of your ideas. Seems like you're simply a cop hater from way back and could not care less about having an intelligent discussion on how to fix a problem.
I think this thread needs to be locked since you people don't want to have a real discussion :( you simply want to crucify the people, white or black, who take a job to protect us and get shit on when a few bad apples show up in the barrel.
@Lou:
It's a fair point if from your opinion my solutions are an overcorrection but to be fair I do think you are overstating that point quite severely. Childishly disproportionate? That is overly harsh. But I am angry, and I should be angry, and I don't intend to deal with this matter dispassionately.
Anyone who values innocent human lives or the concept of justice and fairness should be angry about this mess.
Are you a civilian in this case or another police officer? If you're a civilian, that cop is clean to shoot or taze you or whatever... for trying to grab at him and has the footage of his body camera to sanction that shoot as a clean shoot. So...good luck? But that just seems like suicide by cop.
If you're another cop in this scenario, well that very much seems like a "my word versus his" scenario. All the cop has to do is say that you are the one who broke his camera. Then you have both cops go to court.
To clarify, tampering with a police officer's body camera would be a crime for ANYONE. Not just the officer that's registered to that camera.
Without a measure such as this, how could you reliably guarantee cops wouldn't just disable their cameras? They have a nasty fucking habit of doing that now.
To be clear, items #1, #2, and #3 refer specifically to the specific officers involved in the specific "worst of the worst" cases I have listed here not every cop every involved in a shoot or whatever needs to be dealt with that harshly but if you make an example of the worst offenders it will act as a deterrent for everyone else. Right now the message being sent to cops is "kill innocent people, no consequences". That message doesn't just need to change it needs to change DRASTICALLY.
***
Really? NONE of them? Not even number 7? Wow...you really need to ask yourself what that says about you. Because it's not fucking good.
no shit you think?
yeah that's not going to happen. you almost got me to return your ad hominem in kind, but i stopped myself at the last second because that would have pushed this thread closer to locked which is explicitly what you want.
It's a fair point if from your opinion my solutions are an overcorrection but to be fair I do think you are overstating that point quite severely. Childishly disproportionate? That is overly harsh. But I am angry, and I should be angry, and I don't intend to deal with this matter dispassionately.
Anyone who values innocent human lives or the concept of justice and fairness should be angry about this mess.
Example: Say there's a cop I want fired. I break his camera, and tell his superior that he broke his camera. He gets fired without ceremony. I win!
Are you a civilian in this case or another police officer? If you're a civilian, that cop is clean to shoot or taze you or whatever... for trying to grab at him and has the footage of his body camera to sanction that shoot as a clean shoot. So...good luck? But that just seems like suicide by cop.
If you're another cop in this scenario, well that very much seems like a "my word versus his" scenario. All the cop has to do is say that you are the one who broke his camera. Then you have both cops go to court.
To clarify, tampering with a police officer's body camera would be a crime for ANYONE. Not just the officer that's registered to that camera.
Without a measure such as this, how could you reliably guarantee cops wouldn't just disable their cameras? They have a nasty fucking habit of doing that now.
To be clear, items #1, #2, and #3 refer specifically to the specific officers involved in the specific "worst of the worst" cases I have listed here not every cop every involved in a shoot or whatever needs to be dealt with that harshly but if you make an example of the worst offenders it will act as a deterrent for everyone else. Right now the message being sent to cops is "kill innocent people, no consequences". That message doesn't just need to change it needs to change DRASTICALLY.
***
Jesus, Max. NO, I can't agree with any of your ideas.
Really? NONE of them? Not even number 7? Wow...you really need to ask yourself what that says about you. Because it's not fucking good.
seems like you're simply a cop hater from way back
no shit you think?
I think this thread
yeah that's not going to happen. you almost got me to return your ad hominem in kind, but i stopped myself at the last second because that would have pushed this thread closer to locked which is explicitly what you want.
I just wanted clarification on this in particular:
*
Some of my relatives are cops, and some of them are criminals. It happens in a big family. This means I have mixed feelings on the topic at hand, hence keeping it at arm's length.
author=Max McGee
If you're another cop in this scenario, well that very much seems like a "my word versus his" scenario. All the cop has to do is say that you are the one who broke his camera. Then you have both cops go to court.
To clarify, tampering with a police officer's body camera would be a crime for ANYONE. Not just the officer that's registered to that camera.
*
Some of my relatives are cops, and some of them are criminals. It happens in a big family. This means I have mixed feelings on the topic at hand, hence keeping it at arm's length.
author=Linkis
Aljazeera????? You read an article on U.S. police in ALJAZEERA??
Give me a fucking....JESUS H. CHRIST, what an ....
Well, again. You people still don't have a clue.
If over the years, more than 20,000 of your fellow officers are killed in the line of duty, don't you think you might want to protect yourself and your fellow officers from people always filing suit of how many times and many if not most are handled by lawyers who are ambulance chases and simply
Jesus, Max. NO, I can't agree with any of your ideas. Seems like you're simply a cop hater from way back and could not care less about having an intelligent discussion on how to fix a problem.
I think this thread needs to be locked since you people don't want to have a real discussion :( you simply want to crucify the people, white or black, who take a job to protect us and get shit on when a few bad apples show up in the barrel.
i linked to an article detailing an incident that was posted on al jazeera, and also several other sources. is your weird dislike for al jazeera going to be your only counterpointpoint to my rebuttal to your claim that this has just been a 'fuck all cops' thread and has not offered several ideas for police reform, or are you going to continue to misrepresent the views of everyone but yourself.
if you want to have an intelligent discussion, explain why the ideas proposes and put forth by max or i, and the ones such as body cameras that have results that prove their effectiveness, are actually bad ideas. you think body cameras that just...record arrests...are a bad idea, even in light of their proven effectiveness in the US and obvious use in determining fault in cases like Michael Brown's? Why? better training is a bad idea?? all you are doing now is arguing in bad faith, or, more accurately, not arguing at all.
Example: Say there's a cop I want fired. I break his camera, and tell his superior that he broke his camera. He gets fired without ceremony. I win!
cameras such as the axon ones send data automatically to wherever they are stored when connected to their battery charger. essentially, you wouldn't be able to get away with this at all.
author=CAVE_DOG_IS_BACK
cameras such as the axon ones send data automatically to wherever they are stored when connected to their battery charger. essentially, you wouldn't be able to get away with this at all.
I wasn't aware of that! That's rather reassuring.
And here's another new one...
No, Linkis, you simply think that the police and government can do no wrong, and that comes through loud and clear in your posts. You point blank, vocally refuse to accept that a single police officer would even be capable of breaking the law, as if they had some kind of superhuman ability that made them magickally incapable of breaking the law. And this is your right. You have a right to ignore the fact that police are being caught on camera inciting violence in peaceful protests, pretending to be protesters so they can start riots. You have the right to ignore the fact that a police officer murdered a sleeping 7-year-old girl in her bed. You have the right to ignore the fact that police summarily executed James Boyd, whom the police assured he was safe in their hands before shooting him at a distance with a concussion grenade, then as he flailed about disoriented, shot him with high power rifles, then as he lay on the ground, clearly dying, shot him again, and then proceeded to shoot his prone body with beanbags, and then sicked dogs on him. You have the right to ignore this. You can't tell me you're not ignoring these facts because you've already said in this very thread that you are only following the Eric Garner and Michael Brown cases because that's what's on TV.
What you don't have the right to do is to try and silence us because we disagree with you. Everyone has been behaving themselves very well in this thread. You are clearly getting angry at Max because he isn't agreeing with you.
Al-Jazeera has been a very good, very non-biased source of news for some time. That has changed recently, unfortunately. They are now a sister publication of ABC, FOX, and BBC, all subsidiaries of Walt Disney Corporation.
This is laughable. 20,000 is larger than most metropolitan police forces. Every figure for 2014 says that less than 30 police officers have died this year. In fact, I last looked four or five days ago. It was 27. Who are you calling clueless, Sherlock?
Actually, a jury trial would very forcibly bring police back down to being not above the law, but there's a good reason they don't get jury trials: police find themselves in situations in which most other people would likely be convicted of a crime, such as the case (video in the link with the James Boyd execution), of a police officer who shot an elderly man because he thought he had a shotgun. When backup arrived to help him deal with the situation, he was in no condition to assist anyone. He was too distraught. "He had a cane. I thought it was a shotgun." This was genuinely an accident. You or I would have been convicted of felony attempted murder, and rightly so. He, a police officer who thought it was a gun, was exonerated, and rightly so.
Therefore, I would change Max's number one from jury trial to Civilian Review Board. If the the board finds wrongdoing, then move on to a jury trial.
2. I would not change. Nobody should be above the law, especially not the people trusted to uphold it. I second strictest penalties.
3. I equate this double jeopardy. I do not agree with three.
4. The rules in place for prosecuting attorneys is already sufficient. They're just not being upheld. Grand Juries have no actual authority. Their pronouncements can be ignored with absolutely no ramifications. I would change this to "eliminate Grand Juries from the criminal justice system." They serve no functional purpose.
You have 4. twice. I agree, except I would change this to different training and a restructured procedure, for reasons I've already stated.
5 and 6 I am completely behind. This law is already in place for recording interrogations. That it doesn't apply to body and vehicle cameras for those officers and departments that have them is nothing short of criminal.
7. I agree completely. Handgun and tasers should be the limit. If they encounter a situation that requires assault weapons, call in a police unit that IS NOT A FIRST RESPONDER. SWAT and any assault teams should never be first responders. When a force equipped for military action is a first responder, they are the very definition of a police state. As it is, we already see how standard police act with military ordinance. Clearly, they cannot be trusted with it.
Actually he does. He's been listening to other sides of the argument and has been reasonably responding to them. Your opinion appears to be that we should ignore the criminal elements in the police because there's only a few of them and it's a rough job. Because Max doesn't agree with you, you think we should lock the thread. You're the one not willing to meet him halfway.
No, Linkis, you simply think that the police and government can do no wrong, and that comes through loud and clear in your posts. You point blank, vocally refuse to accept that a single police officer would even be capable of breaking the law, as if they had some kind of superhuman ability that made them magickally incapable of breaking the law. And this is your right. You have a right to ignore the fact that police are being caught on camera inciting violence in peaceful protests, pretending to be protesters so they can start riots. You have the right to ignore the fact that a police officer murdered a sleeping 7-year-old girl in her bed. You have the right to ignore the fact that police summarily executed James Boyd, whom the police assured he was safe in their hands before shooting him at a distance with a concussion grenade, then as he flailed about disoriented, shot him with high power rifles, then as he lay on the ground, clearly dying, shot him again, and then proceeded to shoot his prone body with beanbags, and then sicked dogs on him. You have the right to ignore this. You can't tell me you're not ignoring these facts because you've already said in this very thread that you are only following the Eric Garner and Michael Brown cases because that's what's on TV.
What you don't have the right to do is to try and silence us because we disagree with you. Everyone has been behaving themselves very well in this thread. You are clearly getting angry at Max because he isn't agreeing with you.
author=Linkis
Aljazeera????? You read an article on U.S. police in ALJAZEERA??
Give me a fucking....JESUS H. CHRIST, what an ....
Al-Jazeera has been a very good, very non-biased source of news for some time. That has changed recently, unfortunately. They are now a sister publication of ABC, FOX, and BBC, all subsidiaries of Walt Disney Corporation.
author=name
Well, again. You people still don't have a clue.
If over the years, more than 20,000 of your fellow officers are killed in the line of duty, don't you think you might want to protect yourself and your fellow officers from people always filing suit of how many times and many if not most are handled by lawyers who are ambulance chases and simply
This is laughable. 20,000 is larger than most metropolitan police forces. Every figure for 2014 says that less than 30 police officers have died this year. In fact, I last looked four or five days ago. It was 27. Who are you calling clueless, Sherlock?
author=name
Jesus, Max. NO, I can't agree with any of your ideas. Seems like you're simply a cop hater from way back and could not care less about having an intelligent discussion on how to fix a problem.
Actually, a jury trial would very forcibly bring police back down to being not above the law, but there's a good reason they don't get jury trials: police find themselves in situations in which most other people would likely be convicted of a crime, such as the case (video in the link with the James Boyd execution), of a police officer who shot an elderly man because he thought he had a shotgun. When backup arrived to help him deal with the situation, he was in no condition to assist anyone. He was too distraught. "He had a cane. I thought it was a shotgun." This was genuinely an accident. You or I would have been convicted of felony attempted murder, and rightly so. He, a police officer who thought it was a gun, was exonerated, and rightly so.
Therefore, I would change Max's number one from jury trial to Civilian Review Board. If the the board finds wrongdoing, then move on to a jury trial.
2. I would not change. Nobody should be above the law, especially not the people trusted to uphold it. I second strictest penalties.
3. I equate this double jeopardy. I do not agree with three.
4. The rules in place for prosecuting attorneys is already sufficient. They're just not being upheld. Grand Juries have no actual authority. Their pronouncements can be ignored with absolutely no ramifications. I would change this to "eliminate Grand Juries from the criminal justice system." They serve no functional purpose.
You have 4. twice. I agree, except I would change this to different training and a restructured procedure, for reasons I've already stated.
5 and 6 I am completely behind. This law is already in place for recording interrogations. That it doesn't apply to body and vehicle cameras for those officers and departments that have them is nothing short of criminal.
7. I agree completely. Handgun and tasers should be the limit. If they encounter a situation that requires assault weapons, call in a police unit that IS NOT A FIRST RESPONDER. SWAT and any assault teams should never be first responders. When a force equipped for military action is a first responder, they are the very definition of a police state. As it is, we already see how standard police act with military ordinance. Clearly, they cannot be trusted with it.
author=name
I think this thread needs to be locked since you people don't want to have a real discussion :( you simply want to crucify the people, white or black, who take a job to protect us and get shit on when a few bad apples show up in the barrel.
Actually he does. He's been listening to other sides of the argument and has been reasonably responding to them. Your opinion appears to be that we should ignore the criminal elements in the police because there's only a few of them and it's a rough job. Because Max doesn't agree with you, you think we should lock the thread. You're the one not willing to meet him halfway.
i agree with LouisCyphre as far as max's list being a little extreme... yes this issue is very important but it seems like you want to dismantle the police system rather than correct the problems within it.
police are allowed to be aggressive with people, that is a neccessary part of their job. of course not to the degree where they are maiming and murdering people.
number 3 on his list isn't actually too extreme, it is hardly double jeopardy and would naturally make sense if the officer killed someone with no reasonable justification....
police are allowed to be aggressive with people, that is a neccessary part of their job. of course not to the degree where they are maiming and murdering people.
number 3 on his list isn't actually too extreme, it is hardly double jeopardy and would naturally make sense if the officer killed someone with no reasonable justification....
Guess I need to apologize for throwing my hissy fit last night. It was late, I was tired and thought we might have a constructive discussion, then I saw Max and his ideas for correcting the problem :(
Max, #4 a little modified.
#7 would you want to enter a home of a known drug dealer or face an angry mob
who might have guns without an automatic weapon??
Really folks, I'm on the out for a relaxing afternoon so hopefully will be able to rant with a clearer head when I get home.
Everyone INCLUDING Max, have a great day :)
Max, #4 a little modified.
#7 would you want to enter a home of a known drug dealer or face an angry mob
who might have guns without an automatic weapon??
Really folks, I'm on the out for a relaxing afternoon so hopefully will be able to rant with a clearer head when I get home.
Everyone INCLUDING Max, have a great day :)
Really folks, I'm on the out for a relaxing afternoon so hopefully will be able to rant with a clearer head when I get home.
Smoke some pot man it really helps one mellow out and you seem like you could use some mellowing.
***
I fixed the list numbers after pianotm reminded me how counting works lol.
#7 would you want to enter a home of a known drug dealer or face an angry mob
who might have guns without an automatic weapon??
I enter the home of known drug dealers all the time completely unarmed no sweat. XD
Seriously tho, yeah, here's the thing. The first of those MIGHT be an appropriate situation for assault weapons/a SWAT team if intelligence indicates the suspect is armed and dangerous and guarded by others that are armed and dangerous. But the drug dealer part on its own holds no real sway...for fuck's sake Linkis most of my friends are strictly speaking "drug dealers", the cops do not need automatic weapons for dealing with them.
I can't imagine how "an angry mob who MIGHT have guns" would ever be an appropriate situation for automatic weapons. Generally speaking riot police are way too quick to deploy and use force and way too much force. Every gathering of people 'MIGHT' have guns so that's a ridiculously stupid standard to use. If you are talking about a large group of visibly armed assailants, then yes, THAT seems like an appropriate situation for assault weapons.
***
I should clarify that I phrased #3 poorly last night. I wasn't feeling very well. The word 'automatically' should be removed, and I am referring specifically only to the officers involved in the "worst of the worst" atrocities listed here. To me, it is obvious that even if they are cleared of criminal wrongdoing, all of these guys have OBVIOUSLY screwed up enough that they should be fired.
SOLUTIONS v2:
1) in the cases listed in the OP, jury trials for all cops involved, throw every charge applicable at them and see what sticks in court
2) in the cases listed in the OP, strictest penalties available under the law for all officers convicted of anything
3) in the cases listed in the OP and all cases similar to those presented in the OP, termination of employment without benefits even for officers that are acquitted. I mean this to apply in cases where it is clear that even if criminal wrongdoing is off the table, the officers have clearly and evidently FUCKED UP.
4) in all cases, prosecutors that failed to get grand juries to indict or failed to indict themselves or failed to call a grand jury should be terminated from employment without benefits, disbarred, and charged with obstruction of justice. make an example of these fucking snakes.
5) stricter screening and better training for police officers. massive retraining of the procedure for force escalation.
6) all police officers must wear body cameras according to federal law
7) federal laws enstated that harshly punishes disabling or tampering with your body camera, including automatic termination without benefits
8) restrict police access to assault weapons to appropriate situations i.e. solid confirmation of multiple suspects armed (with firearms) and dangerous
Caucasian man from my hometown of Kalamazoo, MI waves around an assault rifle (later discovered to have no ammunition inside) and is calmly handled by police
it is legal to openly carry a gun in my state, but brandishing isn't. the man was regardless not charged. i don't see any injustice here, i just think it is something to think about and compare to other events
thoughts? do you think this situation would have turned out the same way if the man with the gun was black?
i think this situation was good and this sort of behavior from the police is how to properly handle situations like that one
it is legal to openly carry a gun in my state, but brandishing isn't. the man was regardless not charged. i don't see any injustice here, i just think it is something to think about and compare to other events
thoughts? do you think this situation would have turned out the same way if the man with the gun was black?
i think this situation was good and this sort of behavior from the police is how to properly handle situations like that one
Adon, any day the police deal with something calmly and solve problems without agitating is a good day. It's the kind of thing that helps to restore faith in humanity.
(As a side note, for the majority of automatic guns, it's usually pretty easy to tell when they're not loaded. Revolvers usually aren't counted as automatic.)
(As a side note, for the majority of automatic guns, it's usually pretty easy to tell when they're not loaded. Revolvers usually aren't counted as automatic.)
do you think this situation would have turned out the same way if the man with the gun was black?
no way in fuck, they'd have wasted his ass immediately.
black white or purple I'm kind of amazed those cops managed to de-escalate a violent situation anyway. bravo I guess.
(As a side note, for the majority of automatic guns, it's usually pretty easy to tell when they're not loaded. Revolvers usually aren't counted as automatic.)
gotta disagree there on a factual basis. with something like an automatic rifle, yes it's easy to tell if it doesn't have a clip in it. i assume in the above example, that it had a clip in the magazine well but the clip was empty. with a semi-automatic handgun unless you can see inside the magazine well or are handling the weapon yourself it won't be easy to tell if it's loaded or not at a glance since the clip would go up inside the magazine well...you might actually be better off trying to ascertain if a wheelgun was loaded depending on the design.
OH well, here I go again :)
@pianotm, your remarks concerning the way I think are totally, 100% wrong.
I will give the cop the benefit of the doubt in MOST cases but not all
If caught truly injuring anyone without cause, he should be arrested, tried, convicted and jailed.
That is my true feeling. BUT, in the case of officers such as Darren Wilson who winds up killing someone, white, black or otherwise, and he had reasonable cause without a background of race problems, then NO, he gets to go free and goes back to work.
Same holds true for Panteleo?, the Eric Garner case. He was called to do what his job description called for. Eric Garner was a sick man who may have committed a crime and he resisted arrest by refusing to be cuffed, that's the law. His death should not be charged to the cop. The police department might be charged for training him to perform that takedown method. But the death was do to Garners health trouble, maybe he should have thought about that before he acted the way he did. That or make what he was doing a non-arrest crime so the cops are not forced into a situation of trying to take a man down for such a minor crime.
There was a cop I believe in Calif. who took down a woman on a median and punched her in the head several times. Was he racist? I don't know. If it can be proven he did it without cause. Jail time and firing at least.
The cop who killed the 12yr old resigned supposedly because his performance report was very poor on the last position he had. If the police force had investigated his background before hiring him, that boy would still be alive.
The officer driving the car screwed up by parking too close to the boy giving the cop doing the shooting very little time to de-escalate the situation or even evaluate it. I really don't know how to treat this one since the cop was not mentally right for the job. Maybe you could hold the town responsible for hiring a bad cop....should the cop go to jail...sometimes a sick person who is involved in a shooting even gets off. Of course, at the very least the cop will lose his job....don't forget, and yes the boy is dead :( but the cop will live for the rest of his life remembering he took the life of a 12yr old boy for no reason.
author=Max:"black white or purple I'm kind of amazed those cops managed to de-escalate a violent situation anyway. bravo I guess."
This is the reason I doubt anything constructive will be said in this thread.
Yes, I saw the "bravo I guess".
But it looks like Adon,LouisCyphr and I are the only ones who really want to give cops the benefit of the doubt and treat them as fairly as the rest of us want to be treated.
"Hand Up Don't Shoot" and "I Can't Breath" are total bullshit. Michael Brown did not have his hands up and if you can say "I can't breath", your breathing. Also, remember the EMT did do CPR so they also knew he was breathing. No one knew his health problems at the time and he died, very sad for him and the family, but not the fault of the cop as I see it.
I am so sick of the protesters. If they want things to change, stop putting the same people they complain about back into office time after time. Stop voting in the same prosecutor. Get an education and join the police force and patrol your own neighborhood.
Over and out for now, gotta play test a game for a friend.....holy crap, I actually have a friend on RMN :)
@pianotm, your remarks concerning the way I think are totally, 100% wrong.
I will give the cop the benefit of the doubt in MOST cases but not all
If caught truly injuring anyone without cause, he should be arrested, tried, convicted and jailed.
That is my true feeling. BUT, in the case of officers such as Darren Wilson who winds up killing someone, white, black or otherwise, and he had reasonable cause without a background of race problems, then NO, he gets to go free and goes back to work.
Same holds true for Panteleo?, the Eric Garner case. He was called to do what his job description called for. Eric Garner was a sick man who may have committed a crime and he resisted arrest by refusing to be cuffed, that's the law. His death should not be charged to the cop. The police department might be charged for training him to perform that takedown method. But the death was do to Garners health trouble, maybe he should have thought about that before he acted the way he did. That or make what he was doing a non-arrest crime so the cops are not forced into a situation of trying to take a man down for such a minor crime.
There was a cop I believe in Calif. who took down a woman on a median and punched her in the head several times. Was he racist? I don't know. If it can be proven he did it without cause. Jail time and firing at least.
The cop who killed the 12yr old resigned supposedly because his performance report was very poor on the last position he had. If the police force had investigated his background before hiring him, that boy would still be alive.
The officer driving the car screwed up by parking too close to the boy giving the cop doing the shooting very little time to de-escalate the situation or even evaluate it. I really don't know how to treat this one since the cop was not mentally right for the job. Maybe you could hold the town responsible for hiring a bad cop....should the cop go to jail...sometimes a sick person who is involved in a shooting even gets off. Of course, at the very least the cop will lose his job....don't forget, and yes the boy is dead :( but the cop will live for the rest of his life remembering he took the life of a 12yr old boy for no reason.
author=Max:"black white or purple I'm kind of amazed those cops managed to de-escalate a violent situation anyway. bravo I guess."
This is the reason I doubt anything constructive will be said in this thread.
Yes, I saw the "bravo I guess".
But it looks like Adon,LouisCyphr and I are the only ones who really want to give cops the benefit of the doubt and treat them as fairly as the rest of us want to be treated.
"Hand Up Don't Shoot" and "I Can't Breath" are total bullshit. Michael Brown did not have his hands up and if you can say "I can't breath", your breathing. Also, remember the EMT did do CPR so they also knew he was breathing. No one knew his health problems at the time and he died, very sad for him and the family, but not the fault of the cop as I see it.
I am so sick of the protesters. If they want things to change, stop putting the same people they complain about back into office time after time. Stop voting in the same prosecutor. Get an education and join the police force and patrol your own neighborhood.
Over and out for now, gotta play test a game for a friend.....holy crap, I actually have a friend on RMN :)
