Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Grim Portent]

It's kinda silly that Internal Affairs is, well, internal. It'd make a lot more sense if it was a separate federal agency.

It's not so much silly as indicative of such idiocy that I'm surprised the people who made that decision were capable of breathing and walking at the same time.

'Hey, who should we get to keep an eye on the police for corruption?'

'Why not the police?'

'Brilliant!'

[wierd]

Deadly doublethink time:

On the one hand, a fully civilian agency could likewise be abused in the other direction; criminal agencies could infiltrate the third party oversight group, and cripple police actions against them through constant investigations.

Additionally, it need not be conspiratorial, simple public displeasure could result in crippling of law enforcement. 

To overcome that problem, the police created Internal Affairs, which being internal, should be isolated against tampering of that nature.

However, it also defeats the purpose of oversight-- Foxes guarding the henhouse.

What you really need, is IA, AND a legit 3rd party oversight group, and divide power between them. IA cant let somebody off the hook with a slap without going through the civilian agency's aproval process, and the civilian agency cannot directly initiate investigations that can cripple enforcement without first going through IA and getting standing.

The mutual cockblock would be beneficial.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If you're feeling suicidal, don't worry, the police will be happy to come and FUCKING EXECUTE YOU. "That's what we do."

God, fuck it. Don't call suicide hotlines. Don't call anybody related to the law enforcement structure, ever.

[Rolan7]

Edited:  On reading the article more carefully, I think I had a knee-jerk response.  It's pretty fair, actually.  Sorry.

[SirQuiamus]

If you're feeling suicidal, don't worry, the police will be happy to come and FUCKING EXECUTE YOU. "That's what we do."

God, fuck it. Don't call suicide hotlines. Don't call anybody related to the law enforcement structure, ever.

Duh, it's a suicide assistance hotline, obviously. "Quick and painless euthanasia for those in need! Don't hesitate to call – your life is in safe hands!"

Seriously, "suicide by cop" is yet another "watertight" defence for incompetent/evil cops: If you fuck wit da police, you are suicidal by definition. Catch-22, motherfucker.

[Loud Whispers]

If you're feeling suicidal, don't worry, the police will be happy to come and FUCKING EXECUTE YOU. "That's what we do."

God, fuck it. Don't call suicide hotlines. Don't call anybody related to the law enforcement structure, ever.

"You're going to shoot me if I shoot myself?!! How does that work?!!!!" - Once a joke

[nenjin]

There was a time when cops made the effort cover up what they were doing. Now they're so nonchalant about it, people with zero training except TV can point out the forensic inconsistencies at the scene of the crime.

[Loud Whispers]

There was a time when cops made the effort cover up what they were doing. Now they're so nonchalant about it, people with zero training except TV can point out the forensic inconsistencies at the scene of the crime.

I think there's that issue of the slippery slope, were it's reached the point where it happens so often it's become a new standard. They'll shoot everyone from your dog to your Nan, and then blame you for your Nans of Mass Destruction causing them to panic.

[Morrigi]

If you're feeling suicidal, don't worry, the police will be happy to come and FUCKING EXECUTE YOU. "That's what we do."

God, fuck it. Don't call suicide hotlines. Don't call anybody related to the law enforcement structure, ever.

"Hello, is this the suicide hotline? Do you deliver?"

[Loud Whispers]

"Hello, is this the suicide hotline? Do you deliver?"

We aim to serve well

[Reelya]

Still using the Mike "put my hands up" Brown excuse? Even if he never had his hands up? Isn't it nice to see people latching onto lies that support their agenda?
I am not even American and know almost nothing about other cases, but this thing is something even I know.

So what?  How central do you believe that really was to my post?

If someone doesn't have his hands up then the cops are fully entitled to murder them. Get with the program, SG.

I was addressing SalmonGod, whose retort was a screenshot of hashtags.  Like I said, if that argument convinces anyone, there's nothing I can do to help them.
Sorry, but I'm sleepy.  Signing out.

... and if you're going to completely ignore the fact that I responded to your statement of "like 2 incidents of police corruption" by effortlessly providing a far greater number of cases because there happened to be some goddamn hashtags on an image, then I have nothing to say to you, either.  Good grief.

^ This is a pet hate of mine too SG.

Sometimes people say "situation X NEVER happens". If someone makes a categorical statement like that, and someone does in fact provide even a single counter example, you're not "sort of" right by shifting the goalposts, you've just been categorically proven wrong by the same level of certainty as the certainty you expressed in your statement. People who resort to this often turn it around into a personal attack on the person who pointed out that they were wrong, too.

Police corruption is one of the oldest stories in the book. It's endemic in every nation. This is not a conspiracy theory, it's common knowledge. Pretty much every dealing I know about with my friends being involved with the police has involved the police stealing evidence or fabricating evidence. I have no direct knowledge of any friends dealing with the police which has involved the police being honest yet I know several where the police have been corrupt. It seems to infect every level of the police and both city and country cops in my experience.

[Rolan7]

It's fine if people on your side are lying about the facts...  Just mock the other side's position!  It all evens out

Here, I'll try:
"It's unfortunate that people are lying about that, but the truth is awful enough.  Wilson shouldn't have fired his gun."
Wait, that's not mocking at all.
"Whether his hands were up or not, I believe he didn't threaten Wilson and that Wilson was wrong to shoot him."
That's... a little better?
"I don't care what Brown did, Wilson's a murderer!"
Now we're making progress!
"Cops deserve what's coming to them."
There, a completely unreasonable strawman which nobody would actually say.  Er, wait...

[SalmonGod]

It's fine if people on your side are lying about the facts...

If you're referring to the Mike Wilson case, you've latched onto a single disputed fact from a single case out of many dozens, and used it to cast an entire perspective on an issue as based on lies.

Just mock the other side's position!  It all evens out

Here, I'll try:
"It's unfortunate that people are lying about that, but the truth is awful enough.  Wilson shouldn't have fired his gun."
Wait, that's not mocking at all.
"Whether his hands were up or not, I believe he didn't threaten Wilson and that Wilson was wrong to shoot him."
That's... a little better?
"I don't care what Brown did, Wilson's a murderer!"
Now we're making progress!
"Cops deserve what's coming to them."
There, a completely unreasonable strawman which nobody would actually say.  Er, wait...

... really?

[Rolan7]

Huh.  I was just joining Reelya in making fun of strawmen.  Of course, what I replied to was just this alone:

Still using the Mike "put my hands up" Brown excuse? Even if he never had his hands up? Isn't it nice to see people latching onto lies that support their agenda?
I am not even American and know almost nothing about other cases, but this thing is something even I know.

So what?  How central do you believe that really was to my post?

If someone doesn't have his hands up then the cops are fully entitled to murder them. Get with the program, SG.

Which I honestly did find amusing, enough that I wanted to join in the fun.

The rest of the post got edited in just 30 seconds after I posted.  Even I don't type so fast, so it was probably just a coincidence that it involved one of my posts...

As for the edit, what I said before was:

There have been a couple of cases in this thread where the policeman (always a man, of course) acted against the law.  A couple.

Which I still believe.  SalmonGod, you "refuted" this with a screenshot of hashtags about police brutality.  That's not an argument, and I didn't see any reason to treat it as one.

I'll explain though, since someone else seems to think you're right:

Your list wasn't taken from this thread.  I was explicitly addressing the issues discussed here, not police brutality in general.
I don't think Michael Brown was a victim of police brutality at the hands of Wilson.  Similarly, It's my opinion that all but a couple of the cases discussed here have not involved actual police brutality.  I'm sure we disagree about this, but I was sharing my opinion.  I'm NOT saying anything like "situation X NEVER happens", as Reelya decided to imply.  I really wouldn't have known that that Reelya was talking about me, except that he said these things right after quoting me.  It's bizarre.  If I had any faith in this thread anymore, I wouldn't be laughing.

I'll go ahead and say, of course police brutality occurs.  The most frustrating thing about this thread, when I still took it seriously, was that false or sketchy accusations were drawing attention from the actual problem.  Making false accusations doesn't raise awareness of a true problem, it helps people stop caring.  That makes sense, right?

Of course we mostly disagree about whether these cases were true or false.  (As I was trying to say, there a couple we probably agree are real).  I would have preferred that we could discuss the cases honestly, like we did the Michael Brown case at the time.  Quoting testimonies, making reasoned arguments.

If you prefer to dismiss all of law enforcement as "the problem" and suggest that they deserve "consequences", and can only argue against things nobody has said...  Well, I'll continue to laugh so I don't cry.  Because you're doing yourself and the actual victims a grave disservice, not to mention the people you're trying to disparage.

[SalmonGod]

If you prefer to dismiss all of law enforcement as "the problem" and suggest that they deserve "consequences"

This is the ultimate strawman.

Stating a prediction is not inciting.

It IS incredibly frustrating when a group of people seems almost immune to the consequences of their actions, but that is not the same as wishing consequences upon them.  That is only desiring fairness.  Otherwise, I only want for the institution of law enforcement to alter its behaviors and philosophies, or go away, as I explained previously.

And if this is how it's going to be, then we're better off without police.  Part of the job and the reason they command so much respect (in similar fashion to a soldier) is that they face danger and risk on behalf of society, in order to make society safer for everyone else.  But if they are trained and considered justified to kill anyone who gives them any possible reason to believe they might become dangerous, then they are having the exact opposite effect on society.  They're making it more dangerous, and obstructing reasonable justice.  If every police officer I encounter is in constant suspicion of me and looking for any slightest out of place movement as cause to shoot me, then it's perfectly reasonable for me to see them as a greater danger to my well-being than any criminal.

and can only argue against things nobody has said...

I'm just going to come straight out and call this projection on your part.

As for the edit, what I said before was:

There have been a couple of cases in this thread where the policeman (always a man, of course) acted against the law.  A couple.

Which I still believe.  SalmonGod, you "refuted" this with a screenshot of hashtags about police brutality.  That's not an argument, and I didn't see any reason to treat it as one.

I'll explain though, since someone else seems to think you're right:

Your list wasn't taken from this thread.  I was explicitly addressing the issues discussed here, not police brutality in general.

That image wasn't from this thread, but this link was.  You chose to ignore it, in favor of focusing on the presence of hashtags.  And in response to a claim that there is a lack of cases, responding with a very large list of cases is a valid argument in refutation of that claim, unless significant doubt can be cast on the legitimacy of that list of cases.  And pointing out that someone used hashtags is not sufficient.

I'm just going to quote the first post in the thread.

Here's a briefer to get you started on exactly what US police have been up to this year:
https://medium.com/@blairerickson/when-people-ask-why-i-have-a-problem-with-american-law-enforcement-its-hard-to-come-up-with-a-61c9e423b003