Print

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

[redwallzyl]

Chicago police caught on video high-fiving, joking about desk duty after shooting a n*****, talking about turning their body cameras off, and stomping on the dead body of Paul ONeal.

But because this was the aftermath of a car chase, I don't think police will have any trouble avoiding repercussions for this one.

And they wonder why people don't trust them.

[Rolan7]

I hope you're wrong, but there are some truly awful rulings about civilians filming officers.  Presumably even officers who turned off their cameras (which should be the most obvious, damning thing ever).

[MetalSlimeHunt]

"Officers" are civilians.

[SOLDIER First]

Not when they’re carrying a badge, they’re not.

[Rolan7]

They're citizens, but not civilians.  At least by my understanding, and the first reference I found.

[NullForceOmega]

They are technically agents of their respective states but they are civilian officials, only military personnel are not.

To clarify:  Every member of our elected government excepting the President is a civilian, every single person in the United States of America who is not a member of The Armed Forces is a civilian.  Only members of The Armed Forces are not civilians.

Edit: Errg, feel like I'm going to have to explain in more detail.

Okay, it works like this:

Civilians are everybody who isn't some form of military personnel; they empower certain individuals via election to government positions with defined powers and responsibilities; those elected officials empower other individuals or groups with specific powers to carry out tasks necessary to the operation of the government as agents; the military exists in a separate but conditionally subordinate power structure that acts as the 'monopoly of force' (a clear but typically unspoken threat to ensure compliance with the government's needs.)

You could think of the military as a form of agent, but they really don't function that way in practice.

tldr: police officers are agents of their respective governments, but in the U.S.A. are still defined as civilians.

[Strife26]

They are technically agents of their respective states but they are civilian officials, only military personnel are not.

To clarify:  Every member of our elected government excepting the President is a civilian, every single person in the United States of America who is not a member of The Armed Forces is a civilian.  Only members of The Armed Forces are not civilians.

Edit: Errg, feel like I'm going to have to explain in more detail.

Okay, it works like this:

Civilians are everybody who isn't some form of military personnel; they empower certain individuals via election to government positions with defined powers and responsibilities; those elected officials empower other individuals or groups with specific powers to carry out tasks necessary to the operation of the government as agents; the military exists in a separate but conditionally subordinate power structure that acts as the 'monopoly of force' (a clear but typically unspoken threat to ensure compliance with the government's needs.)

You could think of the military as a form of agent, but they really don't function that way in practice.

tldr: police officers are agents of their respective governments, but in the U.S.A. are still defined as civilians.

Decent definition, but still unclear for Law of War principles. When exactly do members of the National Guard or Inactive Ready Reserve flip between being civilian and non-civilian?

[NullForceOmega]

To the best of my recollection, they become military personnel as soon as they are armed.  But it's been fifteen years so I can't say my memory is going to be accurate.  I'm pretty certain they have to be uniformed and armed to meet the definitions of military personnel.  Tho' I know it's common to play fast & loose with that definition and an either/or is usually the norm in a theater of combat.

Should I end that with a "Drill Sergeant"?  I kind of feel like you're testing me for some reason.

[Strife26]

To the best of my recollection, they become military personnel as soon as they are armed.  But it's been fifteen years so I can't say my memory is going to be accurate.  I'm pretty certain they have to be uniformed and armed to meet the definitions of military personnel.  Tho' I know it's common to play fast & loose with that definition and an either/or is usually the norm in a theater of combat.

Should I end that with a "Drill Sergeant"?  I kind of feel like you're testing me for some reason.

Nah, I just had a long argument with a professor over it, essentially over the questions of legally killing military band members vs killing Oppenheimer.

[NullForceOmega]

Hmm, fair enough.  It can kind of turn into a significant ethical dilemma if you don't have a clear definition of what constitutes "military" I suppose.

I'm fairly down with the, "In uniform and armed" making a viable target, and "Armed in a combat environment" being adequate for self-defense (a soldier's duty is to stay alive as long as possible in order to effectively fight the enemy).  But some people think I'm a monster (and I am one of those people).

[Baffler]

So this fella got off today.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa-breaking/2017/12/07/philip-brailsford-verdict-daniel-shaver-killing/927052001/

That bodycam video was preemptively ruled 'inadmissible in court,' and only admitted later. Really makes you think.

[Jopax]

Why the fuck even wear bodycams if you're just gonna not use the footage in court?

Furthermore, how the fuck is it okay to hide stuff like the engraving on his gun saying "You're fucked" from the jury? It would prejudice them against the dude? So his character does not factor into this at all then? The fact that he appears to be a trigger happy fuckwad with no place in a police organization should not factor at all into a trial of his actions while part of that police force?

[Urist McScoopbeard]

I mean, the American justice system is pretty fucked up.

[Maximum Spin]

The fact that he appears to be a trigger happy fuckwad with no place in a police organization should not factor at all into a trial of his actions while part of that police force?

Er, well, no? If he didn't do it, would you say he should be punished for it anyway because of that fact? Just because he probably did do it doesn't change that only the question of whether or not he did it should factor into the trial.

[Jopax]

But the trial wasn't about wether he did it or not since it's pretty freaking clear he did do it. It's about wether or not he should be considered guilty and responsible for his actions that night. And having a piece of evidence that shows that maybe he's a bit too damn happy when using guns on potential criminals should absolutely factor into that.