Police misbehavior thread

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Aug 20, 2015 4:37 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Also, St. Louis Police killed Mansour Ball Bay yesterday, and shot at leas one other teenager who maybe died in the hospital. Then teargassed people on residential streets. Again. Because that keeps working out so well for them.


Anyone want to start some sort of campaign for automatic minorpunishment of killing suspects? No matter if it's justified? Like, $5000 Weregild that's only reimbursed if the cop can prove beyond a reasonable doubt it was justified? Or maybe no money back even if justified. Make them hesitate when they have their hand on the trigger.


Mansour Ball Bey was armed and allegedly pointed the gun at officers.

I don't think this is the example yall are looking for. Its one thing to be protesting the death of unarmed teenagers. But as soon as you have teenagers who are armed, the calculus of the situation changes dramatically.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Aug 20, 2015 4:52 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Also, St. Louis Police killed Mansour Ball Bay yesterday, and shot at leas one other teenager who maybe died in the hospital. Then teargassed people on residential streets. Again. Because that keeps working out so well for them.


Anyone want to start some sort of campaign for automatic minorpunishment of killing suspects? No matter if it's justified? Like, $5000 Weregild that's only reimbursed if the cop can prove beyond a reasonable doubt it was justified? Or maybe no money back even if justified. Make them hesitate when they have their hand on the trigger.
Mansour Ball Bey was armed and allegedly pointed the gun at officers.
According to the same police who teargassed nonviolent residents on their own streets?

As I've said before: police in general (and STL police in particular) have destroyed their own credibility when describing what led up to the black people they kill, so I don't trust their accounts at all without strong corroborating evidence from independent sources.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Aug 20, 2015 5:07 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:As I've said before: police in general (and STL police in particular) have destroyed their own credibility


Lemme pull one from your book and assume that the police never had credibility with you. The St. Louis Police can't have "destroyed" their credibility if it never was there to begin with.

From a more practical manner, what you're suggesting is tantamount to the Police simply not doing their work for the next few weeks, because you can't trust what they do at all. I don't think that's the right answer however.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Aug 20, 2015 5:28 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:I imagine deaths from other vehicles count as "transportation incidents", which do outnumber deaths from violence. (In fact, cops are slightly more likely to die in transportation incidents than taxi drivers and chauffeurs, which are the one group more likely to die from on-the-job violence.)


Drive a lot, running red lights, no sirens on, yeah it's going to be dangerous. And while you can say "oh well they should obey the speed limit like they make us do!", in emergency situations that doesn't apply and there are times when you have to approach without alerting the suspect.


In most situations, yes, you can say that. Cops often have exemptions to rules like driving while texting. And they certainly have a practical immunity, at least, to speeding. Cop goes 70 for no good reason, what are you gonna do, pull 'em over?

The *vast* majority of the time, nothing life or death is going on. Sure, pull out the stops when it is, but appropriate behavior in extreme situations is not appropriate for general use.

KnightExemplar wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:As I've said before: police in general (and STL police in particular) have destroyed their own credibility


Lemme pull one from your book and assume that the police never had credibility with you. The St. Louis Police can't have "destroyed" their credibility if it never was there to begin with.

From a more practical manner, what you're suggesting is tantamount to the Police simply not doing their work for the next few weeks, because you can't trust what they do at all. I don't think that's the right answer however.


I think it's at least somewhat reasonable to view uncorroborated police reports with skepticism, given a pattern of untruth to protect their own. I think disregarding their statements entirely maybe goes a little too far, but yeah, I don't give them a ton of credibility. Especially in situations where the thing they are saying clearly serves their interests.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Aug 20, 2015 5:32 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:As I've said before: police in general (and STL police in particular) have destroyed their own credibility


Lemme pull one from your book and assume that the police never had credibility with you. The St. Louis Police can't have "destroyed" their credibility if it never was there to begin with.
I stopped believing them when they repeatedly lied about finding weapons on people. If you don't find someone less credible after they've repeatedly lied, then you are being gullible and irrational.

That's totally different from the amount of "support" you had for a movement before you noticed that unconnected people were committing crimes nearby.

From a more practical manner, what you're suggesting is tantamount to the Police simply not doing their work for the next few weeks, because you can't trust what they do at all. I don't think that's the right answer however.
No, I'm suggesting not believing police reports parroted by the media unless they're corroborated by other sources. Why are you leaping from that to they shouldn't do their jobs?

Do your job, but don't expect me to take just your word that you're always doing it correctly.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby morriswalters » Thu Aug 20, 2015 5:44 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Yes, but I doubt that approaching without alerting the suspect accounts for the majority of cop transportation-related deaths, just like I doubt being shot during a traffic stop accounts for more than half of the homicide deaths.

(Which is to say, one in a million was me being *generous* to morriswalters's argument.)
I doubt so too. More like they get run over by Joe Q. Citizen while standing in the most dangerous place on earth for a pedestrian, on the roadway or median. Drivers are stupid. And since you're up on your numbers, what is the percentage of deaths of drivers from Police violence, as a percentage of the number of overall stops?
DSenette wrote:or, as is more frequently the case, you just really want to drive faster than anyone else in the area.....like when you see regular city police going 90 on the highway for 30+ miles without their lights on.....yeah, that's not about "not alerting" a suspect
I see more civilians driving like a bat out of hell than cops. And I know they are not going anywhere important although I suspect the cops aren't either.
Tyndmyr wrote:And, generally, we wouldn't consider it reasonable for taxi drivers to train a gun on their passengers.

Even if it were only on the shifty looking ones.
Yeah, they don't normally get a chance when the passenger opens up from the rear. And what you don't see doesn't frighten you. Lots of drivers think a lot like you. Being armed is the best defense!
Tyndmyr wrote:Police are bad at keeping tabs on their body count. But higher.
Until someone lights a fire under the people who set the rules, thats like saying it's raining someplace. It doesn't tell you anything.

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby DSenette » Thu Aug 20, 2015 5:56 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
DSenette wrote:or, as is more frequently the case, you just really want to drive faster than anyone else in the area.....like when you see regular city police going 90 on the highway for 30+ miles without their lights on.....yeah, that's not about "not alerting" a suspect
I see more civilians driving like a bat out of hell than cops. And I know they are not going anywhere important although I suspect the cops aren't either.

of course you see more civilians speeding...there are more of them.

this is purely anecdotal, but I RARELY see cops in my area driving the speed limit (especially on the highway). I also FREQUENTLY see them texting while they're driving, or diddling their onboard computer while texting, and speeding. comparatively, I rarely see them driving about with their lights on for any long distances (which, is typically the case for most times you see a cop with their lights on. they're not USUALLY traveling across the city to get to a call...they're USUALLY flipping the lights on to get that guy that just zoomed past them or whatever).

which is kind of the point that was being made. if their light bar isn't on, they should be driving as if they're a civilian and following the traffic laws...cuz...that's what the big fucking lights on top the car are for....letting you know when they're NOT driving like a civilian so you can safely clear the fuck out of the way.
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Aug 20, 2015 7:42 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:And, generally, we wouldn't consider it reasonable for taxi drivers to train a gun on their passengers.

Even if it were only on the shifty looking ones.
Yeah, they don't normally get a chance when the passenger opens up from the rear. And what you don't see doesn't frighten you. Lots of drivers think a lot like you. Being armed is the best defense!


I don't have a problem with being armed. For police or otherwise. Having the appropriate tool on hand for bad situations is one thing. Outright pointing it at someone is quite another.

Look, if you or I pointed a gun at a cop, they'd put us in the ground without a second thought. Hell, if we even vaguely looked like we MIGHT point a gun at them, they'd straight up shoot us. But they go around pointing guns at folks pretty routinely. And sometimes shooting, because hell, why not?

It's bewildering that people don't see an innate problem with police who are literally willing to kick your door in, shoot your dog, blow you away if you look "dangerous" on the basis of some random phone call, and the only danger they see is people potentially threatening those poor, poor policemen. The sense of danger here is just way out of whack.

Tyndmyr wrote:Police are bad at keeping tabs on their body count. But higher.
Until someone lights a fire under the people who set the rules, thats like saying it's raining someplace. It doesn't tell you anything.


The fact that they don't keep data is enough to indicate that they don't really want the data around. Anti-transparency is a warning sign. Yeah, you may not know exactly how bad the hidden data is, but it certainly is an indication of a problem.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Aug 20, 2015 8:05 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:As I've said before: police in general (and STL police in particular) have destroyed their own credibility


Lemme pull one from your book and assume that the police never had credibility with you. The St. Louis Police can't have "destroyed" their credibility if it never was there to begin with.

From a more practical manner, what you're suggesting is tantamount to the Police simply not doing their work for the next few weeks, because you can't trust what they do at all. I don't think that's the right answer however.


I think it's at least somewhat reasonable to view uncorroborated police reports with skepticism, given a pattern of untruth to protect their own. I think disregarding their statements entirely maybe goes a little too far, but yeah, I don't give them a ton of credibility. Especially in situations where the thing they are saying clearly serves their interests.


At best, you'd be making an Ecological Fallacy due to the nature of groups. What individuals do inside a group does not necessarily relate to what other individuals within that group does.

Going back to the specific case under discussion, Mansour Ball Bey was at a location where the Police had a Search Warrant. Multiple guns and cocaine were found at the scene. Now sure, you can say they were all planted there, but Search Warrants are not things the Police create unilaterally. That goes into the local judges. I'm inclined to at least suspect the individuals who got a Search Warrant signed against them, more so than am I to suspect the officers whose job was to execute said search warrant in a known gun-filled neighborhood with high crime.

In any case, a law-enforcement shooting that occurred during the execution of a search warrant is entirely different than the nature of a law-enforcement shooing that occurred during a routine stop.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Aug 20, 2015 8:10 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Also, St. Louis Police killed Mansour Ball Bay yesterday, and shot at leas one other teenager who maybe died in the hospital. Then teargassed people on residential streets. Again. Because that keeps working out so well for them.


Anyone want to start some sort of campaign for automatic minorpunishment of killing suspects? No matter if it's justified? Like, $5000 Weregild that's only reimbursed if the cop can prove beyond a reasonable doubt it was justified? Or maybe no money back even if justified. Make them hesitate when they have their hand on the trigger.


Mansour Ball Bey was armed and allegedly pointed the gun at officers.

I don't think this is the example yall are looking for. Its one thing to be protesting the death of unarmed teenagers. But as soon as you have teenagers who are armed, the calculus of the situation changes dramatically.

Also, even if he really was armed (which isn't illegal) and even if he pointed his gun at officers (which many armed white people have survived), that doesn't excuse teargassing nonviolent people who want explanations and accountability from the police. Even people who literally march in support of Adolf Hitler generally get better treatment than that.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby morriswalters » Thu Aug 20, 2015 8:14 pm UTC

DSenette wrote:which is kind of the point that was being made. if their light bar isn't on, they should be driving as if they're a civilian and following the traffic laws...cuz...that's what the big fucking lights on top the car are for....letting you know when they're NOT driving like a civilian so you can safely clear the fuck out of the way.
Actually they drive like civilians, and they should do better. But all that said I still don't see an issue where I live.
Tyndmyr wrote:It's bewildering that people don't see an innate problem with police who are literally willing to kick your door in, shoot your dog, blow you away if you look "dangerous" on the basis of some random phone call, and the only danger they see is people potentially threatening those poor, poor policemen. The sense of danger here is just way out of whack.
If I was a cop and had to kick a door down, that is exactly what I would want to do. Except about the part of shooting the dog. The fact that a thirteen year old is swatting some random face in the crowd is beyond the point. You might know that and the 13 year old might know that but the police don't. I don't want them militarized. But then again, I wouldn't be caught dead doing their job.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Aug 20, 2015 8:14 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:At best, you'd be making an Ecological Fallacy due to the nature of groups. What individuals do inside a group does not necessarily relate to what other individuals within that group does.


Necessarily, no. I am not saying that it is PROOF of misbehavior.

But it is absolutely fair to look at a pattern of lies, and question the validity of the next claim in the series. That's how evidence works. We're not saying that it IS necessarily a false claim, merely that the confidence in the police statement should be low. These are incredibly different statements.

Going back to the specific case under discussion, Mansour Ball Bey was at a location where the Police had a Search Warrant. Multiple guns and cocaine were found at the scene. Now sure, you can say they were all planted there, but Search Warrants are not things the Police create unilaterally. That goes into the local judges. I'm inclined to at least suspect the individuals who got a Search Warrant signed against them, more so than am I to suspect the officers whose job was to execute said search warrant in a known gun-filled neighborhood with high crime.

In any case, a law-enforcement shooting that occurred during the execution of a search warrant is entirely different than the nature of a law-enforcement shooing that occurred during a routine stop.


It existing at the scene of the crime is not sufficient to conclude that a valid threat existed. Police have certainly shot a bunch of folks before that haven't even had guns...the mere presence of a firearm on the premesis does not guarantee that someone tried to shoot a cop with it.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Aug 20, 2015 8:22 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Also, even if he really was armed (which isn't illegal) and even if he pointed his gun at officers (which many armed white people have survived), that doesn't excuse teargassing nonviolent people who want explanations and accountability from the police. Even people who literally march in support of Adolf Hitler generally get better treatment than that.


Glass Bottles and Bricks were thrown at the officers.

Yeah yeah, you don't believe anything the Police say. I know. No need to go through that circle again.

Tyndmyr wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:At best, you'd be making an Ecological Fallacy due to the nature of groups. What individuals do inside a group does not necessarily relate to what other individuals within that group does.


Necessarily, no. I am not saying that it is PROOF of misbehavior.

But it is absolutely fair to look at a pattern of lies, and question the validity of the next claim in the series. That's how evidence works. We're not saying that it IS necessarily a false claim, merely that the confidence in the police statement should be low. These are incredibly different statements.


But you don't make a claim without coming up with your own evidence. Otherwise the discussion goes nowhere.

Going back to the specific case under discussion, Mansour Ball Bey was at a location where the Police had a Search Warrant. Multiple guns and cocaine were found at the scene. Now sure, you can say they were all planted there, but Search Warrants are not things the Police create unilaterally. That goes into the local judges. I'm inclined to at least suspect the individuals who got a Search Warrant signed against them, more so than am I to suspect the officers whose job was to execute said search warrant in a known gun-filled neighborhood with high crime.

In any case, a law-enforcement shooting that occurred during the execution of a search warrant is entirely different than the nature of a law-enforcement shooing that occurred during a routine stop.


It existing at the scene of the crime is not sufficient to conclude that a valid threat existed. Police have certainly shot a bunch of folks before that haven't even had guns...the mere presence of a firearm on the premesis does not guarantee that someone tried to shoot a cop with it.


Well this is an issue of evidence then, which seems fair.

I know that St. Louis was supposed to have Police Cameras implemented by now. We'll know soon enough then (at least, whether or not those officers were following policy and keeping their body cams on)

EDIT: http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/04/20/ ... y-cameras/

Dotson has set up a committee to look at “best practices” from those already using them, but he says right now the city can’t afford them.

[snip]

“The initial purchase of the equipment is not the expense. It’s the ongoing storage.”


Hmm, well, maybe we'll see it. We'll see what they've got soon enough.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Thu Aug 20, 2015 8:42 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Aug 20, 2015 8:40 pm UTC

The issue I have with gas is that it's very non-selective. One guy throws a brick, cops gas the whole crowd. It's...very imprecise. I have no issue with the brick thrower being punished. I'm less than thrilled about people being punished en masse for the misbehavior of a few.

KnightExemplar wrote:But you don't make a claim without coming up with your own evidence. Otherwise the discussion goes nowhere.


The alternative possibilities are pretty obvious. "Cops shot him and he was NOT a threat" is pretty exclusive with regards to "cops shot him because he was a threat".

Considering both possibilities is fair, and when only low confidence data is available, you shouldn't just exclude everything else from consideration.

Nobody is saying that the other thing HAD to happen, we're merely saying that the available data is not sufficient to rule it out.

I know that St. Louis was supposed to have Police Cameras implemented by now. We'll know soon enough then (at least, whether or not those officers were following policy and keeping their body cams on)


One would think that, if so, getting footage to support those claims would be fairly quick and trivial.

I would not wish to bet money on the cameras being deployed, functional, and exonerating the police involved.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Aug 20, 2015 8:43 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Also, even if he really was armed (which isn't illegal) and even if he pointed his gun at officers (which many armed white people have survived), that doesn't excuse teargassing nonviolent people who want explanations and accountability from the police. Even people who literally march in support of Adolf Hitler generally get better treatment than that.
Glass Bottles and Bricks were thrown at the officers.
Before or after they showed up in riot gear and started being aggressive?

I remember a quote from around this time last year, to the effect that "violence broke out when a teargas canister was thrown back at police". As if gassing people in the first place isn't a violent act.

Yeah yeah, you don't believe anything the Police say. I know. No need to go through that circle again.
Why do you keep regurgitating what they feed you when you know others in this thread aren't buying it, then?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Aug 20, 2015 8:45 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:The issue I have with gas is that it's very non-selective. One guy throws a brick, cops gas the whole crowd. It's...very imprecise.


There's bricks and glass being thrown, burglaries getting reported and a car is on fire.

Sometimes, you gotta clear out the crowd so that the Police can do their other jobs. Like stopping the burglaries. Imprecise or not, there's a job to be done.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Aug 20, 2015 8:49 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:The issue I have with gas is that it's very non-selective. One guy throws a brick, cops gas the whole crowd. It's...very imprecise.


There's bricks and glass being thrown, burglaries getting reported and a car is on fire.

Sometimes, you gotta clear out the crowd so that the Police can do their other jobs. Like stopping the burglaries. Imprecise or not, there's a job to be done.


Why? Why does a mostly stationary crowd on a street prevent police from working on those things? Dude throws a brick, a coupla cops go and grab that dude. He can't be more than about a stone's throw away, after all.

A car on fire? Well, get the fire department there. If someone tries to cut the hoses or whatever, arrest that dude.

Crowds happen basically all the time. In some cities, they're near permanent fixtures, and somehow, the police manage to not gas them every time someone reports a crime.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Aug 20, 2015 8:56 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:The issue I have with gas is that it's very non-selective. One guy throws a brick, cops gas the whole crowd. It's...very imprecise.


There's bricks and glass being thrown, burglaries getting reported and a car is on fire.

Sometimes, you gotta clear out the crowd so that the Police can do their other jobs. Like stopping the burglaries. Imprecise or not, there's a job to be done.


Why? Why does a mostly stationary crowd on a street prevent police from working on those things? Dude throws a brick, a coupla cops go and grab that dude. He can't be more than about a stone's throw away, after all.

A car on fire? Well, get the fire department there. If someone tries to cut the hoses or whatever, arrest that dude.

Crowds happen basically all the time. In some cities, they're near permanent fixtures, and somehow, the police manage to not gas them every time someone reports a crime.


Hmm, well St. Louis Police have noted that they've begun preparing footage from their cameras. I'll go look at that when I get the chance.

For now, I'm going to go through this and then form an opinion in a bit: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/08 ... ks-thrown/

Do you know if there are any other sources of video?

In general, I don't think it is a good idea for one or two officers to run into a hostile crowd to chase people who threw bottles or bricks at them. Its not like you have an infinite number of officers, and it looks like officers have to use "line tactics" to control the crowds.

You don't want to go home as this police officer did.

gmalivuk wrote:
Yeah yeah, you don't believe anything the Police say. I know. No need to go through that circle again.
Why do you keep regurgitating what they feed you when you know others in this thread aren't buying it, then?


To see if you have a better argument than simply disagreeing with people. Some people do respond to my points logically and I do enjoy the back and forth.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Aug 20, 2015 9:37 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:In general, I don't think it is a good idea for one or two officers to run into a hostile crowd to chase people who threw bottles or bricks at them. Its not like you have an infinite number of officers, and it looks like officers have to use "line tactics" to control the crowds.

You don't want to go home as this police officer did.


See, we're back to characterizing the entire crowd as "hostile". I note that this term can describe anything from a fellow who dislikes you to an enemy army.

In short, cops treat them as one, but appear to use the standards of the other. People yelling? Gas 'em.

If the whole crowd is indeed attacking, then yes, you should treat them all as attackers. If they're not, you shouldn't. That latter part is where the failure happens. Also, the baltimore officers got clobbered by thrown objects and *didn't* make an effort, at least for some time, to apprehend folks. The issue here isn't that they were too precise in only grabbing the actual guilty folks...it's that A. they didn't have protective headgear on, and B. they let a situation escalate without promptly responding to the *actual* lawbreaking. When they did respond eventually, gas was busted out basically everywhere, and pretty much everything went to hell.

It isn't as simple as "gas the crowd or they'll beat you up".

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Aug 20, 2015 10:12 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:For now, I'm going to go through this and then form an opinion in a bit: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/08 ... ks-thrown/
Ah yes, Jim "Totally Credible Source" Hoft, who left up the "orbital blowout" nonsense about Darren Wilson for three full months after it had been debunked.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Aug 21, 2015 3:26 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:In general, I don't think it is a good idea for one or two officers to run into a hostile crowd to chase people who threw bottles or bricks at them. Its not like you have an infinite number of officers, and it looks like officers have to use "line tactics" to control the crowds.

You don't want to go home as this police officer did.


See, we're back to characterizing the entire crowd as "hostile". I note that this term can describe anything from a fellow who dislikes you to an enemy army.


The entire crowd doesn't need to be hostile for it to be too scary to go in. You've got multiple people you don't necessarily see throwing bricks at you. Why would you want to go in to get the one or two people that you managed to see actually do it?

If the whole crowd is indeed attacking, then yes, you should treat them all as attackers. If they're not, you shouldn't. That latter part is where the failure happens. Also, the baltimore officers got clobbered by thrown objects and *didn't* make an effort, at least for some time, to apprehend folks. The issue here isn't that they were too precise in only grabbing the actual guilty folks...it's that A. they didn't have protective headgear on, and B. they let a situation escalate without promptly responding to the *actual* lawbreaking. When they did respond eventually, gas was busted out basically everywhere, and pretty much everything went to hell.


Unfortunately, putting on protective head gear is called putting on riot gear.

And currently, putting on riot gear at all is interpreted as a hostile act that riles up the crowd even more.

It isn't as simple as "gas the crowd or they'll beat you up".


It certainly isn't as simple as "run into the crowd and hope to get all the guys who were throwing bricks at you" either. Look, people are literally crazy when they are in a crowd and do things they wouldn't normally do. I have perfectly peaceful, normal friends who during a fucking sports event decided to join a crowd in flipping cars and busses (because that's how you celebrate your team winning... or losing... or something) I'm not necessarily saying I agree with the Police response (skulls were literally cracked, tear gas deployed, etc. etc.) but at very least I know that a "crowd" kind of acts with a mind of its own. Things escalate quickly, information doesn't spread. And the peaceful protesters standing around get caught up in the mess.

In any case, I don't believe we can really move forward in this conversation unless we start nailing down specifics. It is likely that you and I have different imaginations, and we are looking at the reports of these protests differently.

The first step is to synchronize upon the same information. Gmal didn't seem to like the videos I found on a quick google search though, so how about you start with picking out video of St. Louis Police after the Mansour Bey shooting.

There really isn't any point talking about things in the abstract, since we both have differing abstract ideas about this situation. If we can nail things down to a concrete example, I think our discussion will actually move forward.

gmalivuk wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:For now, I'm going to go through this and then form an opinion in a bit: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/08 ... ks-thrown/
Ah yes, Jim "Totally Credible Source" Hoft, who left up the "orbital blowout" nonsense about Darren Wilson for three full months after it had been debunked.


Does it fucking matter? Its video footage. If you don't like it, give me videos of your own. Everyone these days seems to have a camera on them, so we can look at and interpret in whatever manner we want.

I'll let you know how I came up with that link. I went to google, typed in various iterations of "Mansour Ball Bey Video" (or something close to that with protesters or something in there) and went to the first link that seemed to be around the time of the Mansour Ball Bey protests. No, I didn't try very hard. No, I didn't back check the guy's bias before posting the link. But as long as I have some video footage at the scene, I do think I tried harder than you did to contribute to this conversation in a rational manner.

Primary source material dude. We live in a modern age where we can look at videos and discuss them online. There's no need for this poisoning the well bullshit: you can attack the videos directly.

Honestly, I was going to go through those videos and type up what I thought of them for you. But I'm glad you saved me the time and energy. Maybe if Tyndmyr or someone else thinks its still worth the while for me to go through and try and analyze it... then I'll do so.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Aug 21, 2015 4:11 am UTC

How am I supposed to know how you came by that site? The guy's bias apparently matches your own, so it didn't seem too unreasonable to suppose you might have specifically gone with an article written by someone who trusts police accounts as much as you seem to. (And his bias is relevant because it could affect which videos he decided to include in his article, and in what order. Sure each video is reliable, but framing and context matter as well.)

If you do care to watch videos, go to the source twitter account and watch all of that person's coverage in chronological order. Don't trust a guy who shared and left up blatant disinformation for months to entirely determine your framing for you.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Aug 21, 2015 5:29 am UTC

I do appreciate you easing off on me, so thanks. I'll leave it at that for now however.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Aug 21, 2015 2:53 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:In general, I don't think it is a good idea for one or two officers to run into a hostile crowd to chase people who threw bottles or bricks at them. Its not like you have an infinite number of officers, and it looks like officers have to use "line tactics" to control the crowds.

You don't want to go home as this police officer did.


See, we're back to characterizing the entire crowd as "hostile". I note that this term can describe anything from a fellow who dislikes you to an enemy army.


The entire crowd doesn't need to be hostile for it to be too scary to go in. You've got multiple people you don't necessarily see throwing bricks at you. Why would you want to go in to get the one or two people that you managed to see actually do it?


To de-escalate the situation. This is basically how policing always works. There's a vast mass of people, but the actual violent sorts are scattered among them. Precision in punishing only those is effective at stopping violence from spreading. Initiating violence against a mass of people who were not previously violent can be counter-productive. Now, you're the attacking entity, and they are likely to reflexively defend themselves.

Too scary, cmon...I don't care about feelings, I care about actual risk. If doing their job is too scary, maybe they shouldn't be cops. Actual police deaths/injury to violence are not very high.

If the whole crowd is indeed attacking, then yes, you should treat them all as attackers. If they're not, you shouldn't. That latter part is where the failure happens. Also, the baltimore officers got clobbered by thrown objects and *didn't* make an effort, at least for some time, to apprehend folks. The issue here isn't that they were too precise in only grabbing the actual guilty folks...it's that A. they didn't have protective headgear on, and B. they let a situation escalate without promptly responding to the *actual* lawbreaking. When they did respond eventually, gas was busted out basically everywhere, and pretty much everything went to hell.


Unfortunately, putting on protective head gear is called putting on riot gear.

And currently, putting on riot gear at all is interpreted as a hostile act that riles up the crowd even more.


It's not. Protective, defensive gear is not inherently hostile. A lot of this has to do with the aggressive actions that traditionally accompany these actions. If you're armoring up to better fight the crowd, and you're launching in tear gas, well...ya that's hostile. But wearing protective headgear isn't inherently hostile. We see folks wearing hard hats every day in construction, and nobody sees them as a danger, because they're not attacking anyone.

It ain't about the tool itself, it's about the actions of the police. People aren't gonna like the cops more because they're wearing a different kind of hat while they gas them.

It isn't as simple as "gas the crowd or they'll beat you up".


It certainly isn't as simple as "run into the crowd and hope to get all the guys who were throwing bricks at you" either. Look, people are literally crazy when they are in a crowd and do things they wouldn't normally do. I have perfectly peaceful, normal friends who during a fucking sports event decided to join a crowd in flipping cars and busses (because that's how you celebrate your team winning... or losing... or something) I'm not necessarily saying I agree with the Police response (skulls were literally cracked, tear gas deployed, etc. etc.) but at very least I know that a "crowd" kind of acts with a mind of its own. Things escalate quickly, information doesn't spread. And the peaceful protesters standing around get caught up in the mess.


That's what happens when escalation is permitted to happen. Someone throws a brick, nothing happens to that guy. Folks feel immune due to this. They join in on the lawlessness. A crowd does not inevitibly mean mass violence, but in certain contexts, people just expect to get away with violence for some reason.

Honestly, I was going to go through those videos and type up what I thought of them for you. But I'm glad you saved me the time and energy. Maybe if Tyndmyr or someone else thinks its still worth the while for me to go through and try and analyze it... then I'll do so.


*shrug* If you want. I'm looking at general trends rather than this specific case. Even if it turns out that this particular case was justified(and it may be), we still have plenty of cases that definitely were not. So, I'm more interested in fixing the known-broken problems.

gmalivuk wrote:How am I supposed to know how you came by that site? The guy's bias apparently matches your own, so it didn't seem too unreasonable to suppose you might have specifically gone with an article written by someone who trusts police accounts as much as you seem to. (And his bias is relevant because it could affect which videos he decided to include in his article, and in what order. Sure each video is reliable, but framing and context matter as well.)

If you do care to watch videos, go to the source twitter account and watch all of that person's coverage in chronological order. Don't trust a guy who shared and left up blatant disinformation for months to entirely determine your framing for you.


Ehhh, you're maybe putting too much weight on people's views. Not saying that bias doesn't matter, but evidence is still evidence. Evidence brought by people who disagree may be incomplete, but if you're not actually challenging it's validity, it's still sound.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Aug 21, 2015 4:20 pm UTC

I already said the videos themselves were reliable, but just like you can cut up and rearrange scenes from The Shining to make it look like a heartwarming family comedy, the arrangement of valid evidence, and the decision of which to include or exclude, plays a *huge* role in how that's interpreted.

As I mentioned before, one of last year's protests was described as "turning" violent after someone threw a gas canister back at police, and some of the Baltimore protests were also described as people throwing back things that had already been thrown at them. If you choose to show only the videos of things flying in one direction, or you switch the order in which they appear to happen, then you can quite easily give a completely wrong impression of reality.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Chen » Fri Aug 21, 2015 4:35 pm UTC

Who do we believe then? The police clearly have their own interests in showing that it was the protesters that started it, while the protesters have their interests in showing the police started it.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Aug 21, 2015 4:44 pm UTC

Video cuts are usually fairly obvious.

Chen wrote:Who do we believe then? The police clearly have their own interests in showing that it was the protesters that started it, while the protesters have their interests in showing the police started it.


Not everything is about identity. For instance, a nice, long, uncut video from either side is FAR more credible than a mere statement. Why? Well, it's just way harder to fake, and shows a lot more nuance. It's not perfect, no, but it's far sounder evidence. Trusting say, a police statement, in the absense of anything supporting seems to be fairly weak, especially if one discounts statements from the other side. Highlights a bias. In extreme cases, people might believe a statement from their chosen side over stronger evidence from the other. One side attempting to hide evidence is also very telling.

Usually, though, if there's a big crowd of people, evidence tends to accumulate. Can come up with a pretty good picture of what happened, bias be damned. It's just harder to cover something up when there's hundreds of people there.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Aug 21, 2015 5:00 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Video cuts are usually fairly obvious.
Sure, but the stuff on social media is usually 30s at a time or so, meaning there'll be "cuts" regardless.

Chen wrote:Who do we believe then? The police clearly have their own interests in showing that it was the protesters that started it, while the protesters have their interests in showing the police started it.
Not everything is about identity. For instance, a nice, long, uncut video from either side is FAR more credible than a mere statement. Why? Well, it's just way harder to fake, and shows a lot more nuance. It's not perfect, no, but it's far sounder evidence.
Again, long uncut videos aren't showing up on Twitter (though there are livestreams of many protests as well). But the fact that videos are being uploaded as things happen still makes them pretty reliable. It's easier to fake 30s than 30m, but it's still not something anyone can do in a couple of minutes with a smartphone.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Chen » Fri Aug 21, 2015 5:30 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Again, long uncut videos aren't showing up on Twitter (though there are livestreams of many protests as well). But the fact that videos are being uploaded as things happen still makes them pretty reliable. It's easier to fake 30s than 30m, but it's still not something anyone can do in a couple of minutes with a smartphone.


I don't think people are too concerned about fully faked videos (I imagine that's fairly uncommon) but more short videos that don't show the whole circumstance. I mean consider the example you gave earlier of protestors throwing back a tear gas cannister. Imagine the police showing a video that starts with a protestor throwing a bottle, but after the initial tear gas incident. They could use this to say "the protests were starting to get violent, so that's why the rest of this video happened". From the other side, consider a video taken that starts with an officer pepper spraying a civilian, but doesn't show the part before where the civilian is throwing a rock at the officers.

There was a story on CBC about officers shooting a dog during an arrest. It alledgedly attacked one of their K9 units. Then there was a video attached to the news story of the dog looking like it was just lying on the ground wagging its tail when an officer shoots it with a shotgun. Seemed blatently obvious their story was a lie. Except it turns out that video was taken AFTER the initial shooting, where they put the dog out of its misery. But consider seeing that video alone. You get a very distorted picture of what happened. In that case there was no evidence besides each side's testimony of what initially caused the dog to get shot, but look through the comments of that article and at least half the people there were making the point of "the dog was just lying there, why'd they shoot it?".

Constantly running body/dash cameras seem to be a better way of dealing with this type of thing. These short 30 second videos rarely seem to capture enough to give the whole story. Depending on who releases them, they always seem to just help that person's case, which, tends to lead me to be far more skeptical of them than anything else.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Aug 21, 2015 5:46 pm UTC

All of that is true, but the discussion of video reliability started based on a series of short videos posted to a single person's Twitter. Given that material to start with, watching it completely and in order is better than watching selections out of order from someone who has already demonstrated a blatant disregard for fact-checking.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Fri Aug 21, 2015 11:18 pm UTC

Campaign Zero, a new set of policy proposals aimed to end police violence.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Aug 22, 2015 2:21 am UTC

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6801
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby sardia » Sat Aug 22, 2015 4:07 am UTC


Obviously he used his beastly reflexes to spin around as he was being shot at, thus allowing him to incriminate the cops. And by incriminate, I mean be asked mildly uncomfortable questions before taking a paid vacation.

Cradarc
Posts: 455
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 11:30 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Cradarc » Sat Aug 22, 2015 6:13 am UTC

"Fuck the police"
"Look, more reason to fuck the police"
"Fuck the police"
We know some police are heartless racists, so let's reaffirm the belief that law enforcement in America is pure evil and out to hunt black people. This will totally not encourage people to run away in fear when confronted by cops, which will totally not piss off the cops who will totally not pull out their guns.

You know what will be a really powerful story?
1. Mansur stayed in the house, greeted the police politely, asked to see a warrant.
2. Cops refused to to show the warrant and rudely pushed him aside.
3. Cops find drugs in the house.
4. Mansur says he's sorry, but a man's got to to what he's got to do to make some money.
5. Cop draws gun.
6. Mansur screams "Help! Murder!"
7. Cop pulls the trigger.

Even the most racist cops will be far too stupid/lazy to go into the trouble of framing the guy after they shoot him. The tragedy is that this never happens in our society. People like Mansur and law enforcement are already far too prejudiced and antagonistic towards each other.

I want to avoid this thread, but it frustrates and saddens me that people on this fora, which I presume to be more intelligent and self-critical than the rest of the population, fall into such hypocritical mentalities.
Why can't we make this thread about tributes to those who died due to unnecessary violence by law enforcement? Why can't the discussions be about ways we, as individuals, can influence people to be more respectful and considerate to those with whom they are in social conflict ?


TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Campaign Zero, a new set of policy proposals aimed to end police violence.

Thank you.
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 300 character limit.

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby PeteP » Sat Aug 22, 2015 8:45 am UTC

What is the point of your weird little Mansur story? Are you saying you find current victims too unfriendly before they are killed? If so first how do you get that information since not every incident has video documentation that would tell you who they behaved. But aside from that, what gives you the warped idea that, that would matter to whether somebody getting killed was "powerful". Do you have some warped idea about them bringing it on themselves or something?

User avatar
Paul in Saudi
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 12:52 pm UTC
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Paul in Saudi » Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:47 am UTC

A Philadelphia policeman has been filmed offering to let a driver off easy if the driver buys some Hero Thrill Show tickets. It is like a cartoon of a police shakedown.

http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=84861&start=3760


==eta==
Here is a transcript of the exchange captured in the other video:

Officer: "You and your friend got any money to buy these Thrill Show tickets? Support your police department? Ten bucks each, man?

"Either you buy these, or I take your car. 'Cause it's unregistered. Ten bucks each, man."

Driver: "I got a couple bucks."

Officer: "Support your police department, man. You got any kids?

Driver: "I do not."

Officer (seemingly to passenger): "You have any kids? You got any sweetheart?"

Driver: "Yeah. I'd rather take my girl than this guy."

(Laughter.)

Officer: "You don't want to look like two fruitcakes, you know. All right, well, listen, my man, 10 bucks apiece."

Driver: "Pay there?"

Officer: "Nah, nah, nah, you already paid. You got these tickets, man. Go support your police department."


Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20150 ... SQsFbYG.99

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1806
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Quercus » Sat Aug 22, 2015 11:23 am UTC

A Philidelphia police officer wrote:You don't want to look like two fruitcakes, you know.

Nice

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Aug 22, 2015 11:58 am UTC

Cradarc wrote:"Fuck the police"
"Look, more reason to fuck the police"
"Fuck the police"
We know some police are heartless racists, so let's reaffirm the belief that law enforcement in America is pure evil and out to hunt black people. This will totally not encourage people to run away in fear when confronted by cops, which will totally not piss off the cops who will totally not pull out their guns.

You know what will be a really powerful story?
1. Mansur stayed in the house, greeted the police politely, asked to see a warrant.
2. Cops refused to to show the warrant and rudely pushed him aside.
3. Cops find drugs in the house.
4. Mansur says he's sorry, but a man's got to to what he's got to do to make some money.
5. Cop draws gun.
6. Mansur screams "Help! Murder!"
7. Cop pulls the trigger.

Even the most racist cops will be far too stupid/lazy to go into the trouble of framing the guy after they shoot him. The tragedy is that this never happens in our society. People like Mansur and law enforcement are already far too prejudiced and antagonistic towards each other.

What? Framing someone after they shoot him requires as little as setting a gun next to him after he's down. Sometimes it requres only *saying* they saw a gun.

You're blaming him for his own death because he ran away, but running away is not a capital offense, so fuck the police.

And fuck the victim-blaming police apologists, too.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10498
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Aug 22, 2015 5:00 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Cradarc wrote:"Fuck the police"
"Look, more reason to fuck the police"
"Fuck the police"
We know some police are heartless racists, so let's reaffirm the belief that law enforcement in America is pure evil and out to hunt black people. This will totally not encourage people to run away in fear when confronted by cops, which will totally not piss off the cops who will totally not pull out their guns.

You know what will be a really powerful story?
1. Mansur stayed in the house, greeted the police politely, asked to see a warrant.
2. Cops refused to to show the warrant and rudely pushed him aside.
3. Cops find drugs in the house.
4. Mansur says he's sorry, but a man's got to to what he's got to do to make some money.
5. Cop draws gun.
6. Mansur screams "Help! Murder!"
7. Cop pulls the trigger.

Even the most racist cops will be far too stupid/lazy to go into the trouble of framing the guy after they shoot him. The tragedy is that this never happens in our society. People like Mansur and law enforcement are already far too prejudiced and antagonistic towards each other.

What? Framing someone after they shoot him requires as little as setting a gun next to him after he's down. Sometimes it requres only *saying* they saw a gun.

You're blaming him for his own death because he ran away, but running away is not a capital offense, so fuck the police.

And fuck the victim-blaming police apologists, too.


Hey, it requires more than that; it requires they grab his hand and press his fingers on the gun and trigger to get fingerprints. One reason I REALLY like bodycams.

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby bentheimmigrant » Sat Aug 22, 2015 6:01 pm UTC

Stop making stuff up. Guns generally are terrible for fingerprints.
http://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/2013 ... -firearms/
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: orthogon and 10 guests