Print

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

[smjjames]

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/14/602556973/starbucks-police-and-mayor-weigh-in-on-controversial-arrest-of-2-black-men-in-ph
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/15/602598119/black-teenager-shot-at-after-asking-for-directions

Here we go again.

The second one wasn't a police officer though, but it's pretty clearly a racist based reaction.

[redwallzyl]

We don't really have a general thread for hate crimes so I put it here.

[SalmonGod]

Buzzfeed obtained about 1,800 NYPD internal disciplinary action records, and published them.

It's... kinda hilarious.  The first couple pages of names feature sexual harassment, multiple officers performing hit & runs with police vehicles and not reporting it, and falsification/sabotage of records to cover misconduct.  Most of the penalties are loss of vacation days.  Some are dismissal, but every single time it's followed with judgement has been suspended and they're really just being put on "dismissal probation" for a year.  I haven't come across any actual solid dismissals yet.

[Rolan7]

To clarify, there are ~1,800 suspects.  There are 2,123 pages, but the pages are merely chronological.  Since most pages seem to involve multiple suspects, I assume some suspects appear on several pages.

So there are a lot more reports than just 1,800.
However, that first page includes someone who filed a suspicious number of sick days (Ada Moore, the first one I clicked on), so that sort of thing counts.  They also date back to 2007, which I feel gives necessary scale.

Also this is not a list of people who faced a jury of their peers, but internal review...
And whether they were found innocent or guilty, they're on this list.

Behold, a list of suspected criminals compiled by the police.  Which judgement are we supposed to jump to, in this case?

[SalmonGod]

The numbers aren't supposed to mean anything.  It's reading the records themselves.  Yeah, there's a lot of mundane stuff.

But there's also stuff like this -- driving drunk and threatening people with his issued firearm while off duty (1 year dismissal probation).

More generally, the number of people getting drunk and/or into fights almost feels like reading a dwarf fortress log.

It's mostly entertaining to read about these behaviors in this vernacular.  The interesting thing is seeing what consequences are being issued.  I've just been skimming through briefly and not retaining highlights, but I definitely saw one incident that clearly described a rape ("forced sexual contact on an individual known to the department without that individual's consent" is how I believe it read), which resulted in another... 1 year dismissal probation.

The judgment I'm jumping to is confirming the perception long-held by many that police officers get away with behaviors that civilians would face prison time for.  Unless these people are facing criminal charges in addition to these internal penalties, in which case the vacation days and probation periods are an odd thing for law enforcement to bother officiating against people who are facing criminal trial.

[Rolan7]

Buzzfeed certainly cared about the "1,800 employees" figure.  But that's Buzzfeed

I'm not surprised at how many law enforcement get drunk and/or in fights.  With popular opinion of law enforcement as it is (even I go on alert around cops, despite my privilege) it's no surprise that it triggers PTSD.  Without the Post, I suppose.  Especially in places like New York City!

Really hits my "maybe we should use piloted drones more" button - the same officer might act a lot more empathically if they're not in mortal danger.  But drones are expensive and even more irrationally feared.

[redwallzyl]

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/17/603171567/video-shows-police-tackling-punching-black-harvard-student

Another one. Quite an odd one. Also witnessed by a bunch of lawyers.

[Doomblade187]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/17/diante-yarber-police-fatal-shooting-barstow-california

Not lots of concrete info yet, but apparently police aren't supposed to fire on vehicles. Looks really bad.

[SalmonGod]

Video has arisen of the man in Toronto who killed a bunch of people with his rented van trying really hard to commit suicide by cop, and the officer arresting him without firing a shot.

US experts chiming in saying that the officer had a duty to kill the guy 

[Zangi]

Duty to execute.  Murrican police institutions aspire to Mega City One's judicial framework.

[Rolan7]

Video has arisen of the man in Toronto who killed a bunch of people with his rented van trying really hard to commit suicide by cop, and the officer arresting him without firing a shot.

US experts chiming in saying that the officer had a duty to kill the guy 

"May have" had that duty.  Specifically:
"Assuming the suspect is holding a gun and pointing it toward officers, it is concerning that the officer is not engaging the suspect with deadly force,"
Is that really a controversial statement? 
I know the line that cops shouldn't defend their own lives because they "signed up for the job", so what about innocent bystanders?  You know... more than were already murdered by the apparently armed and suicidal maniac?

Even though everything turned out okay (initial murders aside), it doesn't justify the cop's actions.  You can do a reckless thing and it turn out okay. 
The officer is certainly very brave, though.

Canadian police certainly have a better track record for nonlethal arrests, but that's a different conversation.  Frankly, I don't think their methods would work in our trouble areas.

[Zangi]

Eh, there is somewhere in between acting as if you are invincible and always assuming they have a gun or some sort of lethal kungfu.

I think it is assessing the situation and acting upon that knowledge based on your experience/training. 
Which I guess is 'reckless' in the US.  Just make sure you kill them, less legal hurdles, less questions.

[SalmonGod]

It's a situation where I wouldn't have argued with the officer's actions if he had shot the guy.

But describing it as a duty is dangerous as hell.  It's that kind of language which feeds the culture of callous behavior that has so many pissed off at and afraid of law enforcement.

And my interpretation of the video is the officer just properly read the obvious signs of it being an attempted suicide by cop.  He didn't fire a gun at all after vacating his vehicle, which it's obvious to assume he would have done if he'd had one and was intent on pursuing body count.  He blatantly asks the officer to kill him.  Has an object pointed at the officer as if it's a gun, but doesn't fire (if he were going to he would have already at the point the video started).  And while pointing this object, says he has a gun in his pocket -- basically admitting the object in his hand is not a gun.  And then makes exaggerated motions to provoke a reaction only after verbal attempts to provoke a reaction. 

There's no need to be able to see the object in the guy's hand to read this situation.  The officer just kept a cool enough head to study his behavior, listen, and think a little.  And most crucially, he approached cautiously enough to be able to do this.  Yes, there was still some risk and bravery involved in calling the bluff.  But I believe that's what we should be able to expect of police.  To properly gauge a situation for the appropriate level of urgency and risk before deciding how to act, so they don't just recklessly kill people when it could have been avoided.

In contrast, almost all of the cases of U.S. police killing people involve the officers rushing into an encounter recklessly, when there's often no initial urgency to do so.  This is what creates the situation where they have an excuse to panic.  I've seen dozens of stories of police encounters with people brandishing a knife, where the knife-wielder posed no immediate threat to anyone but themselves.  But police rush right in and thus create the situation where they are at risk and have an excuse to shoot.  I've heard the line a million times about the lunge range of a knife wielder.  So why would they immediately enter into the situation by putting themselves in that range?  Yet they so often do.

If the guy really had a gun, yeah, he could have killed a bystander.  But do you really think with the number of people U.S. police kill that they prevent the deaths of a proportionate number of bystanders?  Because looking at the types of situations which turn into deadly encounters with police, I highly doubt it.

[Reelya]

Eh, there is somewhere in between acting as if you are invincible and always assuming they have a gun or some sort of lethal kungfu.

I think it is assessing the situation and acting upon that knowledge based on your experience/training. 
Which I guess is 'reckless' in the US.  Just make sure you kill them, less legal hurdles, less questions.

This, and also we should definitely not forget that dead guys turn into martyrs. e.g. point in case that the Toronto van guy cited Elliot Rodgers as an influence.

It's better to have people put in prison, studied, go on trial rather than giving them the "blaze of glory" thing that guarantees their name is immortalized. e.g. if O.J. Simpson had been blown up during his infamous police chase, because that's "safer" for the police, then you might well today have black activists blowing things up and saying "Remember O.J.!"

[Loud Whispers]

This, and also we should definitely not forget that dead guys turn into martyrs. e.g. point in case that the Toronto van guy cited Elliot Rodgers as an influence.

It's better to have people put in prison, studied, go on trial rather than giving them the "blaze of glory" thing that guarantees their name is immortalized. e.g. if O.J. Simpson had been blown up during his infamous police chase, because that's "safer" for the police, then you might well today have black activists blowing things up and saying "Remember O.J.!"

Plenty of dead murderers and terrorists who aren't martyrs because they didn't end up covered by the news 24/7. People like the Tsarnev brothers or Eliot Rodgers are rather anomalous in that after their initial coverage by the news, they also received an enduring legacy from their adoption by sexual fan clubs, and should not be taken as typical of the reception of most killers. A good comparison would be with another meme'd serial killer, the one who shot up a supermarket after a combination of head injury and mental illness caused the dude to go around killing people in the name of his Butch Hartman inspired ghost waifus. His killing spree was covered by local news and focused on the victims, not the killer, and no one knows his name - even I've forgotten it, despite the obvious attempt at grabbing attention by the killer. Meanwhile this incel killer, very comparable with the ghost waifu killer, despite not killing himself or getting killed by cops, is already more famous despite surviving because of the media coverage. There are a lot of dead terrorists in yurop right now who are forgotten, for example, while their live counterparts continue to recruit in prison