Print

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

[Osmosis Jones]

Nah, we're greedy, and China is becoming more profitable for us by the day. Our shared heritage with the States (and China's rights abuses are still a bit too strong for comfort) will prevent us getting too close to China/too far from the States, but I wouldn't be surprised if we start drifting towards a more neutral position in the next few years.

[Mr. Palau]

it is an officer's job to put their own safety on the line to protect innocents

*snip,Snip,SNIP*

This also mean that you can't protest (specific points I hope! Protesting the whole summit would be silly). The world has become a lot smaller in the past 20-30 years. It might be easier and more effective to organize various protests in many major cities than one protests at the site of the event.

yeah I could see this new law as a potentail threat to the first amendment but givin the reletively small restriction, I think it is entirely just. I don't think having protester's outside when our ambassador's meet with foreign dignataries(forgive my spelling there) looks very good. I also don't think they should interupt meetings and such because that over steps freedom of speach I think. There is no freedom to disrupt goverment meetings, although this is a frequent tactic to draw attetention. Although you could still use that tactic, interrupt their meeting by shouting whatever it is you want people to hear and get arrested. Much more dramatic.

On the subject of the cop, yeah there should be some sort of fitness requirment for the job. You'd think there would be already but evidently there isn't. It's likely true that if that guy wasn't over weight he would have caught the girl. given that there was no sort of fitness requirment for the job when he applied however, we can't blame him for being fat. He likely couldn't have tackled her either, she was mcuh faster than he was. the only way i could have seen him subdueing (don't know how to spell that with Ing, forgive me) was to leap and try and grab her legs, thats probably the only part of her he could have reached. I still see that resulting with her being in a vegetative state. Given that we can't blame him for being fat, because there was no law saying police officers can't be, we can't blame him for using the taser, as that was the only way he could subdue the suspect given how overweight he was.

SRY have no idea how to fix quote...

[MadocComadrin]

You might want to fix that. I also fixed a typo in my post to make it more clear.

[SalmonGod]

I think I wasn't specific enough. The police need to protect society as a whole: that does include protecting individuals. It does not mean they must protect every individual with equal or any effort. Answering the second part, as well as the person who said pretty much anyone can be a suspect: a suspect (at least one they're bringing in) is a person who has probably cause established against them. While people can become suspects more easily than they can be convicted in court, the purpose of being a suspect isn't to convict them at arrest: it's to stop potential threats to society.

This is where protecting society as a whole comes in: the best way to do this is to remove suspects from society. Habeas corpus, due process, and right to a speedy trial prevent this from being abused. Note that these are individual rights granted by a "higher government power" to balance out the role of the police, not something the police themselves give. Once a person is out of the hands of police and into the courts, this is where probably cause becomes lacking and we move to guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt.

So in the interest of protecting society as a whole, individuals who get slapped with the label "suspect" are subject to unequal protection at the hands of police from the rest of society.  Being stuck with this label, no matter how temporarily, is an inherently dangerous situation to be in, because of the way police are allowed to treat suspects compared to other people... for the protection of society.

However, any individual in society can be labeled as a "suspect" at basically any time, for circumstances completely beyond one's own control.  Taking this into consideration, police actually pose equal threat to everyone in society, in much the same way as a natural disaster.  Granted it's unlikely, but every single one of us could get shot at any moment because... let's say we happen to be found lifting a soda can at just the wrong moment.  Every single member of society is subject to that danger every minute of every day... for the protection of society?  It still doesn't make sense to me.  (and god help you if you happen to fit a common cultural image associated with criminal behavior, such as being poor and/or non-white)

Note that this isn't an anti-police rant.  Yes, I'm an anarchist, but if this were about anarchy, I would be using some very different arguments.  I just disagree with this attitude towards policing. 

You might argue that having a reckless attitude towards the life of an individual suspect can provide some amount of safety for everyone besides that suspect person, but that temporary measure with temporary benefits carries with it the implicit consequence that anybody at any time could be so unlucky.

About the summit moving to Camp David: Camp David has always been used for various things regarding diplomacy. I was in DC during one of the summits (I think it might have been a G20 summit) and it was pretty much a disaster trying to get around in the city. Sometimes more progress can be made when you don't have a city full of people yelling at you.

This also doesn't mean that you can't protest (specific points I hope! Protesting the whole summit would be silly). The world has become a lot smaller in the past 20-30 years. It might be easier and more effective to organize various protests in many major cities than one protests at the site of the event.

And I'm aware of this.  I still don't like the message it sends.

I feel like I can't justify raising my kids here anymore.  To put off fleeing the country much longer isn't fair to them.

Come to Australia. We have hot weather, cold beer, and our cops don't usually tase fleeing girls. Also our government is too lame-duck to be overly corrupt. We're like, mildly corrupt at best.

While I think Australia is really cool in every other respect, I've seen some nasty behavior from the police there also, along with serious internet censorship motions in parlaiment.  I'll be exploring other options first.

[MadocComadrin]

So in the interest of protecting society as a whole, individuals who get slapped with the label "suspect" are subject to unequal protection at the hands of police from the rest of society.  Being stuck with this label, no matter how temporarily, is an inherently dangerous situation to be in, because of the way police are allowed to treat suspects compared to other people... for the protection of society.

Yes, in a sense. Then again, assuming you're a suspect of violent crime or an extreme negligent act, you pretty much deserve what you get. Individual rights are protected mostly in court, as I said before.

However, any individual in society can be labeled as a "suspect" at basically any time, for circumstances completely beyond one's own control.

No, they cannot. Reasonable suspicion can cause an officer to stop you. If they cannot find anything overt (or you pass a sobriety test), you are free to go. When it comes to suspects of crimes already committed, there has to be probably cause to arrest someone. This is usually affirmed in the form of an arrest warrant. The treatment the suspect gets is usually dependent on the crime and how the person reacts at the scene of arrest. A white-collar criminal who goes quietly is going to get a lot better treatment than say, a drug dealer who takes a couple shots at the police. The girl fits in the grey in-between the extremes.

  Taking this into consideration, police actually pose equal threat to everyone in society, in much the same way as a natural disaster.  Granted it's unlikely, but every single one of us could get shot at any moment because... let's say we happen to be found lifting a soda can at just the wrong moment.  Every single member of society is subject to that danger every minute of every day... for the protection of society?  It still doesn't make sense to me.  (and god help you if you happen to fit a common cultural image associated with criminal behavior, such as being poor and/or non-white)

That's a bit of a slippery slope, eh? Nonetheless, while officers are human and do make mistakes and/or can be corrupted, you're acting as if being shot for doing an everyday thing in an everyday manner is non-trivial. This is simply not the case. You're also insinuating that every police officer is going to be "reckless" all the time, and that even when "reckless" things happen, policy isn't changed to account for issues in the future: this is also not the case.

For the case we're discussing, could there have been a better outcome? Yes, of course. Are such outcomes going to happen the majority of the time, or even with a significant enough minority that we should worry in our daily lives? No. Most likely, the use of tasers in general will come under much more scrutiny, but it's not something that every person in the country needs to lose sleep over.

[Lagslayer]

Think of it this way. if someone is suspected in the rape-murder of a dozen little girls, would you let them roam the streets until their trial date? What if they are seen going to a public playground? What if letting this man go free while the case is being sorted out leads to more victims?

Judgement calls come into place all the time because the law and the situation must be interpreted before it means anything. The entire reason the judiciary branch exists is to re-affirm or reverse these judgement calls made by the executive. So it all comes down to what you believe. Do you think the suspect is likely to cause more problems if left unchecked? Do you believe that the officer was acting with good intent? Do you trust the judgement of the judiciary? The meaning and necessary execution of the law are not set in stone.

I for one am willing to give the policeman the benefit of a doubt on this one. As to weather or not he should have been in better shape is another issue entirely.

[scriver]

I believe the officer was acting with good intent. Hence is why I only think he is guilty of "cause of death of other through carelessness" (whatever the exact term is in American legal lingo) and not "manslaughter" or "murder".

[Frumple]

Yes, in a sense. Then again, assuming you're a suspect of violent crime or an extreme negligent act, you pretty much deserve what you get.

This specifically is (at least part of) what you're being questioned on, MC. If you're a suspect of violent crime or an extreme negligent act, but genuinely did nothing of the sort, you still "deserve what you get?" There's been plenty of cases where actually innocent -- not just claiming to be, but literally unconnected with the crime they're suspected off -- people have been pulled down as suspects. These people deserve to be harassed, arrested, etc.?

No, they cannot. Reasonable suspicion can cause an officer to stop you. If they cannot find anything overt (or you pass a sobriety test), you are free to go.

Reasonable according to whom, MC? What measure are they being held to? You are free to go afterward, yes, but until that point if you screw up -- trip, make an unfortunate movement due to the stress of the situation -- it can end up terribly for you. That's worrying.

I'm not going to say it's what you're saying, but what I'm hearing here is that any officer at any time can stop you for any reason, so long as they can justify it after the fact as "reasonable." It doesn't actually have to be -- and in some areas the states, at least, "reasonable suspicion" doesn't actually have to exist -- reasonable. The cop just has to be vetted as being reasonable, probably by someone who you'll never see face-to-face and doesn't, themselves, have to justify their reasons for giving the police officer that suspects you a by.

A white-collar criminal who goes quietly is going to get a lot better treatment than say, a drug dealer who takes a couple shots at the police. The girl fits in the grey in-between the extremes.

I'm guessing you realize how this line bothers people who have committed no crime but fit into often harassed categories.

You're saying to me, a long-haired fellow, that if a cop pulls me over on the road (which, in my state, they can do with literally no justification), arrests me on probable cause (Not telling to me at the time, of course, and asking would have a disturbing chance of getting me assaulted. Sure, that'd probably get thrown out of a courtroom, but until then...?), and throws me in jail until morning, I should just... go quietly. That the situation as described above is how things should work, and is a good thing.

Certainly, if I don't want to get beaten and possibly shot, then yes, I should go quietly... but gods alive, that's a terrible situation. It's also the situation the states are currently in.

That's a bit of a slippery slope, eh? Nonetheless, while officers are human and do make mistakes and/or can be corrupted, you're acting as if being shot for doing an everyday thing in an everyday manner is non-trivial. This is simply not the case.

The police officer in the tasing incident apparently got off with absolutely no repercussion. We've seen many cases, a few mentioned in this thread, where police committed similar acts and... nothing happened to them. There was no responsibility for their actions on the part of the police officer. It would seem that, even if being shot (or beaten, or what have you) for doing an everyday thing may not be an everyday thing, the message being told to the public is that it's definitely trivial.

You're also insinuating that every police officer is going to be "reckless" all the time, and that even when "reckless" things happen, policy isn't changed to account for issues in the future: this is also not the case.

Salmon's insinuating that every police officer has a chance (and a disturbingly high one, even if the absolute numbers are still quite low) of being "reckless" -- and that that is sufficient reason to treat every encounter with law enforcement as potentially life threatening.

Policy being changed for the future doesn't help you when you're bleeding out or you had your skull cracked open 

For the case we're discussing, could there have been a better outcome? Yes, of course. Are such outcomes going to happen the majority of the time, or even with a significant enough minority that we should worry in our daily lives? No. Most likely, the use of tasers in general will come under much more scrutiny, but it's not something that every person in the country needs to lose sleep over.

Yeah, that's not exactly what's being worried about here. It's the general trend, that something like what occurred is something that people don't blink an eye at and police officers suffer no repercussions for. That's terrifying when you project that trend into the future, yanno'?

Somewhat later edit: MC, no intention to come off a little harsh -- I understand where you're coming from, really, but it seems more and more like the amount of faith you're suggesting we place in our law enforcement is either misplaced or only applicable to certain subsets of our population. We're being shown time and time again that, for at least part of our population -- not even the criminals, mind, but simply portions that don't fall in or around the middle-class (or above) WASP category -- that level of faith is being abused.

[darkflagrance]

Hey, maybe if all the long-haired, scruffy guys and old men lying in beds watching tv were shot and killed by police based on probably suspicion, people would be more careful about who exactly they interacted with. Everyone would try to maintain a squeaky clean appearance and enforce personal hygiene. People would shun criminals for fear that they would become collateral damage from the police. It would be a highly legalistic and fear-filled but law-abiding and clean-looking society 

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I say this as a long-haired guy myself

[Frumple]

But where does it stop, flag? Where does it stop? First they take our long-haired and scruffy alongside our elderly, then they go after our bearded brethren. After that... those who wear jeans? Boots and tennis shoes as general wear? Perhaps the left-handed will be culled next, for who can trust a sinistral? Soon there will be none left alive but the police, for everyone else would have become collateral damage.

Is this the world you seek!? A world of police uniforms for everyone or death?

[darkflagrance]

But where does it stop, flag? Where does it stop? First they take our long-haired and scruffy alongside our elderly, then they go after our bearded brethren. After that... those who wear jeans? Boots and tennis shoes as general wear? Perhaps the left-handed will be culled next, for who can trust a sinistral? Soon there will be none left alive but the police, for everyone else would have become collateral damage.

Is this the world you seek!? A world of police uniforms for everyone or death?

It would be harder for them to dodge taxes and break laws, and there would be less population and environmental problems. With a more homogeneous society, you might also eliminate racial and ethnic tension.

Really, it's just like cutting back on welfare. Even though it would be a good thing in the long run, we can't do reform the system because people who live in the old system would suffer tremendously. But once they have suffered and the cost has been paid, there's no reason to go back - you have reached a new equilibrium/local maximum in terms of human society.

[kaijyuu]

Once again, it has to be emphasized: No matter how heinous the crime, no matter how horrible a thing happened, never, EVER, drop "innocent until proven guilty" in your pursuit of justice/vengeance/whatever.

You wanna take precautions? Sure, that's fine. But anything resembling a judgement call on the person's character should be reserved until after guilt has been determined. Prevent the possibility of repeat offense, but hold back from spitting on them with shit like saying "they deserve what they get."

[SalmonGod]

but hold back from spitting on them with shit like saying "they deserve what they get."

Or... you know... when you're standing there next to someone who is in the process of slipping into a coma from a massive head injury (because of your mistake), don't let the last words they hear be "You're an idiot.  Please don't get up.", and don't just stand around idly watching them struggle for several minutes as if they're a spider drowning in your toilet.  Stuff like this kind of ruins those pretenses of good intention.

[kaijyuu]

Running from a police officer IS pretty stupid, and I'm pretty sure they always tell people to stay down once they've been detained.


One thing that occurred to me: Everyone's saying he should've tackled her, but what's saying he could've caught up to her? Taking the assumption that he "must've been out of shape if he couldn't" implies that any reasonably in-shape man should be able to catch any women, which is an... unfortunate assumption about women. Let's instead just not make assumptions; not about him, not about her.


I still don't know enough about the situation to make any judgement calls on either the police officer or the suspect, but really it just boils down to this: If he violated standard procedure, he's guilty of at least negligent homicide, what with all the incompetence. If he didn't violate any procedure and was just following his training, then he's not guilty of anything and the blame should be shifted to badly written procedure.


Besides, what does demonizing this one dude accomplish? We can harp on bad apples... or we can discuss how to prevent the bad apples from doing damage like what happened here. The former is pointless and reeks of vengeance. The latter is actually useful.

[Frumple]

One thing that occurred to me: Everyone's saying he should've tackled her, but what's saying he could've caught up to her? Taking the assumption that he "must've been out of shape if he couldn't" implies that any reasonably in-shape man should be able to catch any women, which is an... unfortunate assumption about women. Let's instead just not make assumptions; not about him, not about her.

*cough* There was a video. The suspect wasn't moving very fast, but the officer was moving even slower. That assumption or implication isn't happening. It's one of those things, y'know? I'm in shit-poor shape, but for a short period I could move -- have moved -- faster than she was. I've walked faster than that police officer was moving. Any reasonably in-shape person, gender irregardless, could have caught that suspect.

That being said, a cursory search is turning up that at least some states apparently don't have fitness requirements for active police officers, or at least not standardized ones. That definitely needs to change.

I still don't know enough about the situation to make any judgement calls on either the police officer or the suspect, but really it just boils down to this: If he violated standard procedure, he's guilty of at least negligent homicide, what with all the incompetence. If he didn't violate any procedure and was just following his training, then he's not guilty of anything and the blame should be shifted to badly written procedure.

Not guilty in the legal sense, definitely. Part of what's been said has been noting that even if the officer wasn't legally in the wrong, he was definitely guilty of immoral action -- especially in relation to the duties and responsibilities he's supposed to have

If he wasn't capable of doing the job, he shouldn't have it -- there is a moral burden for a person in a situation they're not forced in to to remove themselves from that situation if they're incapable of doing what needs to be done in regards to it. If you accept a job you can't do and fail at it, you are morally culpable for that; you've violated your promise. Lied to your employer, essentially. As a moral individual, the officer should have realized he was not physically able to perform at the standard necessary to uphold his duty -- regardless as to if that standard is written into law or not.

Stronger blame does fall on badly written procedure and poorly executed training, though, that's definitely true. The officer should not have been hired or allowed to stay hired, and whoever allowed that to happen has failed, professionally and morally.

Besides, what does demonizing this one dude accomplish? We can harp on bad apples... or we can discuss how to prevent the bad apples from doing damage like what happened here. The former is pointless. The latter is not.

There's actually a degree of point to showing social approbation for something seen as undesirable, but definitely finding a way to prevent stuff like that from occurring is both more important and more productive. We need some more accountability with this stuff, I guess.