- This topic has 162 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 7 months ago by scaredyclassic.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 22, 2015 at 12:52 AM #785123April 22, 2015 at 12:57 AM #785125CA renterParticipant
[quote=FlyerInHi]CAr just has the typical union mentality that wants to backup a union cop, no matter what.
There was an interesting article in NYT about some police unions rethinking supporting cops all the time, comes hell or high water. When it’s wrong, it’s wrong. There’s no defending.[/quote]
Nonsense, Brian. It has nothing to do with any kind of “union mentality” (as you put it). Far from it, as a matter of fact; I’ve strongly advocated for unions to disavow those who make all of the members look bad.
As I’ve posted before, here and in other threads, police officers can indeed be power-hungry thugs who will go way beyond what’s legal in order to either “do the right thing” (fight crime and defend the innocent) or because they are every bit as psychopathic as some of the criminals they claim to fight; but I still think that these cops are in the minority. Yes, we need to hold them fully accountable, but we should not go on witch hunts because it’s the thing to do in today’s political climate.
April 22, 2015 at 1:00 AM #785126CA renterParticipant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=CA renter]
It’s still reasonable for people to stand at a distance to make sure things are kosher, but they do NOT need to be in cops’ faces when they are working.[/quote]
As if the cops would let people get in their faces.
As you said, it’s reasonable for passersby to film. It’s no different than witnesses of the past. Now, people just have smart phones they can use.[/quote]
As it stands, they are legally required to let people “get in their faces.”
The question is one of distance and whether or not the people are interfering with the cops’ ability to do their jobs.
April 22, 2015 at 1:01 AM #785127CA renterParticipant[quote=spdrun]CA Renter –
It’s not always practical to avoid certain locales. Given a “bad” police department, you could end up being assaulted or killed as a mere passer-by. Thus the need for scrutiny from the public, to get rid of the bad apples. Everyone can be affected, not just people who choose to live or work somewhere.
Read up on the poor guy from India who was visiting his son in Alabama, and got his neck broken for being the wrong color and walking on the street. Fortunately, the local police chief manned up and disavowed the actions of his officer. But public scrutiny and film evidence can serve to root out bad apples BEFORE they kill or maim someone.[/quote]
Please understand that I believe in transparency and accountability, but oppose people who try to interfere with police officers who are simply trying to do their jobs.
April 22, 2015 at 1:02 AM #785128CA renterParticipant[quote=Blogstar]Either make the claim that you want to abolish police completely, or play fair with them. You can’t give them the dirty work and expect them not to mess with “uncivilized” elements, or to do a perfect job at it. Further more , I know Obama did not abolish the secret service so as not to hamper the “uncivilized” who would do him in. He must be a conservative.
It looks a lot like hate.[/quote]
Well said, Russ.
April 22, 2015 at 7:00 AM #785130scaredyclassicParticipant[quote=Blogstar][quote=spdrun]Trials are already public.
Teachers aren’t typically armed and don’t have the power to kill someone essentially at will.
As far as hospitals, most surgery requires the patient’s informed consent. A bunch of cops jumping on someone, not so much.
Police need special oversight. If they don’t like it, they’re free to find another job. Over the top? Maybe. But we’ll have to agree to disagree.[/quote]
I can agree to disagree, However, a bunch of cops NOT jumping someone is the norm. A bunch of cops even when arresting a black man do not jump him or do anything violent if at all possible, that is the norm. Also unfortunately, too often when a mob sees something between a black man and a cop , or cops, they are hysterically mental and ready to go ballistic in favor of the black man when they don’t know a damn thing . It has been proven , when asked after the fact , that large numbers in these mobs lie about what has occurred. No justification for hordes on the backs of crime fighters.[/quote]
“Not the norm” is a pretty low bar to meet. I’ll give you that one …
I know that 20 years ago, if you described some of the things in the tapes here, and asked a random pool of jurors if such a thing were plausible, jurors would say “no way”, or perhaps “possible but EXTREMELY unlikely”. Normal people really believe in the police. Trust can get eroded pretty quick as the official narrative of what a “police officer” is like changes…
think about what the odds were of catching the walter scott killing on tape, or that horesback beatdown . think about how probably it is that many other such situations are not taped. seems like that there are many many many others.
Not the norm. But jeez, if it were the norm, no one would ever run or surrender. they’d just stand and prepare to fight or die.
April 22, 2015 at 7:10 AM #785133scaredyclassicParticipant“not the norm” reminded me a little of the closing in this article on how law schools are failing. Some researcher did not find evidence of law school graduate “homelessness”. phew. not homeless yet, people who had enough social capital to get into law school and make it through college. really setting the old bar high.
probably will be seeing more of that soon, though…though i doubt it will be the norm. just one not superunlikely outcome…
April 22, 2015 at 7:37 AM #785134scaredyclassicParticipantso, in the news today, trek recalls one million bikes because one rider was paralyzed due to a faulty quick release. is that hysteria? Only one died. Is the quick release really all that dangerous? Are there ways the user could mitigate the risk by correctly closing the quick release?
is there anything we could do to make police work safer? is it all the users fault? Or do we just say, that is the nature of police work, a few people are gonna get caught in the wheels of justice…
April 22, 2015 at 8:53 AM #785136NotCrankyParticipantYou aren’t really drawing any parallels to what I am talking about.
Just don’t go around feeding hysteria unjustly. Most people of all races really want a reasonably effective police force and giving the mob the upper hand or fueling low level vigilante civic behavior because of your feelings over some problems, even tragic ones, doesn’t really do that. It’s certainly not about building bridges or anything like that. I just see you ranting and raving and stirring up the pot, more akin to the hysterical looters and what not than to what one would expect of a legal professional.
A friend the other day pointed out that MLK would be quite pleased to see how many blacks and whites are sincere friends or how well we are functioning together in many arenas. I say build on that , don’t tear it down for whatever motivation you may have. I think you guys might inadvertently be on the wrong side of that.
April 22, 2015 at 10:14 AM #785137FlyerInHiGuestThe police does work reasonably well.
What’s so hard about coming down hard on abusive police officers? We shouldn’t give dirty cops a pass simply because the other cops do their jobs well.
Nobody is talking about “getting in the cops’ faces” any more or any less.
Technology (namely portable cameras that witnesses can activate quickly) is now available that is revealing to extent of the lying and collusion among dirty cops — lying to cover up despicable behavior. We didn’t have positive proof before, but now we do.
We have the information and we should use it to reform policing, and to punish criminals to the full extend of the law.
April 22, 2015 at 10:24 AM #785140NotCrankyParticipantYou are not coming down on abusive police officers in a very level handed way , that’s what’s wrong. For instance, you want to infer that a random guy you almost hit with your car is a highly desirable target to be killed by the police just to clean up the gene pool. Your input isn’t respectable. So many people carry on like you or worse and they are more influential to really problematic potential outcomes in our society.
April 22, 2015 at 10:39 AM #785142FlyerInHiGuestI didn’t infer that. I said that that i didn’t wish that a cop would take him out. Read my post again.
We should act on the evidence/information that we have. New technology is giving us more information to improve our society.
April 22, 2015 at 11:01 AM #785144NotCrankyParticipant[quote=FlyerInHi]I didn’t infer that. I said that that i didn’t wish that a cop would take him out. Read my post again.
We should act on the evidence/information that we have. New technology is giving us more information to improve our society.[/quote]
I re-read it , you did infer that your wish not to see the man harmed was counter to what police have in mind.
April 22, 2015 at 11:29 AM #785145FlyerInHiGuestYou inferred the state of mind of the police. Not me.
I don’t pretend to read the mind of the police. From conversation with people, I do however know that many who support the police want the police to have the discretion to “take losers out of the gene pool.” I certainly don’t want the police to have such power.
Videos are becoming ubiquitous. Buildings and people will soon have cameras that automatucally record without getting in “the police’s faces”. You inferred that filming equals getting in the way/getting in faces/low level vigilantism. Not the case at all.
There was a recent case in NY where police got private security video and doctored it to cover their asses. More proof of lying and collusion among police officers and others within the department.
Prior to positive proof of police lying, we mostly assumed that the police was truthful. Police lying was anecdotal and easily dismissed away.
April 22, 2015 at 1:03 PM #785146NotCrankyParticipant[quote=FlyerInHi]You inferred the state of mind of the police. Not me.
I don’t pretend to read the mind of the police. From conversation with people, I do however know that many who support the police want the police to have the discretion to “take losers out of the gene pool.” I certainly don’t want the police to have such power.
Videos are becoming ubiquitous. Buildings and people will soon have cameras that automatucally record without getting in “the police’s faces”. You inferred that filming equals getting in the way/getting in faces/low level vigilantism. Not the case at all.
There was a recent case in NY where police got private security video and doctored it to cover their asses. More proof of lying and collusion among police officers and others within the department.
Prior to positive proof of police lying, we mostly assumed that the police was truthful. Police lying was anecdotal and easily dismissed away.[/quote]
I didn’t infer anything of the sort , I directly responded to a comment like , “tough shit if camera user are in the way” and my comment was followed up by more” tough shit if camera users are in the way”, public servants etc. That’s vigilante.
I think the activities of filming cops especially with voice needs to be really well debated. Lots of potential problems , what if the discussions tip off entire gangs as to what the police hope to do in favor of law in order. Let’s say you want to know if your stadium bombing or bank robbery is a bust , just put a camera on your bomber or someone following him and film the cops. Drive by and shoot cops and your bomber so nobody talks. Sort of messing around but I hope better minds, for this topic, do look things over very well.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.