Politics XXXVI (will catch up to superbowls soon)

[Gorth]

1 hour ago, majestic said:

So, hm, @Gorth, you're from Denmark, then went on to win Microsoft awards and are an ERP developer. You don't happen to have worked at Damgaard, Navision or the combined NavisionDamgaard at some point in your life, have you? Or... say, still work with their product(s)?

(Pretty please just say no)

Sadly, a slave to Microsoft. The cloud is where it's at these days, but that's a discussion for a different thread

 

[Gfted1]

LA Mayor Slashes LAPD Budget As Calls To ‘Defund Police’ Slowly Pick Up Steam.

 

[Malcador]

https://twitter.com/WBFO/status/1268712530358292484?s=1

Cops are saying he tripped and fell.  

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

There's video of it from another angle across the street. The old man clearly falls after being pushed and the guy cops grap jumps up to try to help him. The cop who pushed the old man has already been identified.

[Orogun01]

1 hour ago, Malcador said:

https://twitter.com/WBFO/status/1268712530358292484?s=1

Cops are saying he tripped and fell.  

Obviously he didn't but it didn't seem like it was entirely intentional, like they just wanted to push him back and it turned out wrong. It's bad that they weren't allowed to help but it might be protocol to stay out of the way and let a medical professional handle it. You could do more harm than good if you don't know what you're doing, might be that cops need some medical training to handle situations like this.

[Skarpen]

Police officer was suspended after posting the meme below. Seems like with the defunding US will test that theory:

[Gromnir]

3 hours ago, Orogun01 said:

Obviously he didn't but it didn't seem like it was entirely intentional, like they just wanted to push him back and it turned out wrong. 

well, that is near enough the definition o' intentional. the cop intended to push the older civilian gentleman. weren't an accident. fact the results were far more extreme than anticipated is not making the action unitenional. 

consequences unintended? sure, but is not unforeseen consequences. is not act of god unlikely. if orogun pushed vol as the cop pushed the old guy, then orogun would be on the hook for battery-- civil and criminal. makes sense, no? pushing the old guy were not a mistake. we rare punish mistake in this country. however, we do punish consequences, even unintended consequences, from intended bad acts. particular with civil penalties, we hold folks accountable for consequences.

am believing what gd were asking earlier in the thread is why the cop standard is different than the ordinary person standard. in the present circumstance with the buffalo video, unlawful touching is less clear precise 'cause is a cop. the old guy in the video appeared to touch an officer with the phone in his right hand. like it or not, technical, that action by the old man would be unlawful and potential battery as a harmful/offensive/illegal touching. even such a small and insignificant gesture may make a physical response by the cops legal. as disconcerting as it may be to hear it, in the crowd control scenario being shown, particular after the old guy actual touched the cop, is quite possible the cop's actions would not be found as a matter o' law to be unlawful.

regardless, if you defy a cop and fail the attitude test, then there is a high probability the cop will use violence if any excuse to do so is provided. legal it takes very little to legitimize cop force.  resist arrest. physical contact initiated by plaintiff/suspect. fleeing felon rule. etc.

we should, as a nation, examine the issues o' appropriate use o' police force, but is an extreme complex issue. is no simple Court decision or piece o' obvious legislation which is gonna fix. 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited June 5, 2020 by Gromnir

[Raithe]

For other considerations:

Fox9 - 2 Officers involved in George Floyd death were rookies, one was on his 4th day on the job

It does raise a few points, you work your ass off to get into your career, a couple of days after you start the 20-year veteran you've been told to follow is telling you what to do...  How much can you question?

[Malcador]

9 hours ago, Orogun01 said:

Obviously he didn't but it didn't seem like it was entirely intentional, like they just wanted to push him back and it turned out wrong. It's bad that they weren't allowed to help but it might be protocol to stay out of the way and let a medical professional handle it. You could do more harm than good if you don't know what you're doing, might be that cops need some medical training to handle situations like this.

True, they did not consider what shoving elderly people may result in.  And yes, I wasn't expecting a mere cop to be capable of assisting someone medically, looks like some NG medics came to help. 

Speaking of NG, a somewhat amusing incident - https://old.reddit.com/r/Military/comments/gwqm2n/close_the_gap_exmilitary_protester_in_dc_teaches/

 

Edited June 5, 2020 by Malcador

[Raithe]

Buzzfeed - DEA given permission to investigate people protesting George Floyd's Death

The Justice Department gave the agency the temporary power “to enforce any federal crime committed as a result of the protests over the death of George Floyd.”

[213374U]

4 hours ago, Malcador said:

Speaking of NG, a somewhat amusing incident - https://old.reddit.com/r/Military/comments/gwqm2n/close_the_gap_exmilitary_protester_in_dc_teaches/

What is this, 330 BC? Only chumps make phalanxes. A few well-led maniples and an elephant or two and their day is going to be ruined.

[Keyrock]

15 hours ago, Malcador said:

https://twitter.com/WBFO/status/1268712530358292484?s=1

Cops are saying he tripped and fell.  

The delicious irony is that this is the exact story cops get told when they arrive at the scene of a domestic call and find a woman with a black eye.

[Volourn]

"It does raise a few points, you work your ass off to get into your career, a couple of days after you start the 20-year veteran you've been told to follow is telling you what to do...  How much can you question? "

 

I agree. I think two of the officers have great defenses. At least one of them is shown on video asking the superior officer  to flip him over/try something else. The heavy handed approach by the DA is gonna backfire . The one guy who is undisputably guilty though is the actual killer. He has no excuse. And, whoever decided to let him stay on the force despite all his prior reprimands should be, at minimum, fired.

 

"The Justice Department gave the agency the temporary power “to enforce any federal crime committed as a result of the protests over the death of George Floyd.”

Is this really noteworthy? Afterall, murders have occurred. Shouldn't THOSE victims have justice?

[Malcador]

20 minutes ago, Volourn said:

"The Justice Department gave the agency the temporary power “to enforce any federal crime committed as a result of the protests over the death of George Floyd.”

Is this really noteworthy? Afterall, murders have occurred. Shouldn't THOSE victims have justice?

More of the War on Drugs theater, I think.

 

5 hours ago, Raithe said:

For other considerations:

Fox9 - 2 Officers involved in George Floyd death were rookies, one was on his 4th day on the job

It does raise a few points, you work your ass off to get into your career, a couple of days after you start the 20-year veteran you've been told to follow is telling you what to do...  How much can you question?

So the rookies were too cowardly to do the right thing then.

[Volourn]

Says the guy spamming on the internet in a country with PM Blackface.Cowardice is our country revoting PM Blackface into office, and we'll do it again.

[Malcador]

8 minutes ago, Volourn said:

Says the guy spamming on the internet in a country with PM Blackface.Cowardice is our country revoting PM Blackface into office, and we'll do it again.

I didn't vote Liberal, so yes, I can call the two cops being bullied by mere seniority cowards.   And depends on who the Tories put up, if it's another soulless husk like Scheer - then yeah Trudeau'll get re-elected.

Edited June 5, 2020 by Malcador

[Hurlshort]

I used to be very pro-police. Then I took a 12-week community outreach course hosted by our local police department, and it changed my opinion completely. I still believe your average law enforcement officer wants to do the right thing. I still know a ton of cops in different branches, and they aren't bad people. But there are massive flaws in the entire systems.

1. Accountability: How many police involved shootings were there last year? How many officers drew a weapon on someone? You can't find the data. We do not track it. Police departments and unions have consistently stood in the way of collecting the very data that would allow them to recognize problematic trends on a local, state, and federal level. We track crime, we do not track law enforcement. I don't understand this at all. I want to see data driven changes and results.

2. Training: Law enforcement is a drill and kill environment. That makes sense in emergency response situations. When you are dealing with life and death, you want training to override panic. But it also makes for complete inability to think critically. There is not enough time spent training conflict resolution and restorative justice and too much emphasis on using weapons and force. If you had reliable data, you could direct your training properly.

3. Militarization: Is the job to protect and serve the people? Or is it to enforce the law? I believe the police should be serving the community first and foremost. The law is a tool towards serving that community. It's not Judge Dredd, it shouldn't be the other way around. Most of these police brutality situations are very clearly not serving the community. George Floyd was accused of using a fake $20 bill. Why was use of force necessary there? If it was true, it didn't serve the store to have him physically handled in that manner. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/26/trump-administration-says-that-militarizing-police-reduces-crime-is-that-true/   

[Orogun01]

13 hours ago, Gromnir said:

well, that is near enough the definition o' intentional. the cop intended to push the older civilian gentleman. weren't an accident. fact the results were far more extreme than anticipated is not making the action unitenional. 

consequences unintended? sure, but is not unforeseen consequences. is not act of god unlikely. if orogun pushed vol as the cop pushed the old guy, then orogun would be on the hook for battery-- civil and criminal. makes sense, no? pushing the old guy were not a mistake. we rare punish mistake in this country. however, we do punish consequences, even unintended consequences, from intended bad acts. particular with civil penalties, we hold folks accountable for consequences.

am believing what gd were asking earlier in the thread is why the cop standard is different than the ordinary person standard. in the present circumstance with the buffalo video, unlawful touching is less clear precise 'cause is a cop. the old guy in the video appeared to touch an officer with the phone in his right hand. like it or not, technical, that action by the old man would be unlawful and potential battery as a harmful/offensive/illegal touching. even such a small and insignificant gesture may make a physical response by the cops legal. as disconcerting as it may be to hear it, in the crowd control scenario being shown, particular after the old guy actual touched the cop, is quite possible the cop's actions would not be found as a matter o' law to be unlawful.

regardless, if you defy a cop and fail the attitude test, then there is a high probability the cop will use violence if any excuse to do so is provided. legal it takes very little to legitimize cop force.  resist arrest. physical contact initiated by plaintiff/suspect. fleeing felon rule. etc.

we should, as a nation, examine the issues o' appropriate use o' police force, but is an extreme complex issue. is no simple Court decision or piece o' obvious legislation which is gonna fix. 

HA! Good Fun!

I think cops should be judged (morally not legally) by  reasonable expectation of what action judgments are acceptable based on the situations they find themselves in. If you're a cop involved in a riot your emotions run high, you might be hearing about people you know being gunned down by protesters and are in a state of heightened tension. Within that state it is very easy to make a bad call that ends up in tragedy.  We seem to hold cops to an unrealistic standard of what they should be; a soldier that shoots civilians that's just collateral damage, a doctor that kills a patient with the wrong treatment, malpractice. These thing happen but because they're outside of our periphery we don't judge them as harshly as police videos of events that are a minor percent of the sum of all police interactions across the country.

It's also true (and I agree with you) that cops need to have more accountability, politicians and bankers too for that matter. This whole situation could have been easily avoided if that cop with a long history of unlawful events was out of the force. The question then its, who's signing in to fill that void? Definitively not many people are eager to join a job where everyone will hate you, doesn't pay well and you could die. For the higher ups that only have the mandate of close cases, they don't care who does it or how it gets done. I'm just assuming this based on my own experiences in corporate jobs but it might be worth entertaining the thought that we don't have a policing problem so much as bad police management problem.

Also, If I push Vol and he dies I was protecting myself by enforcing social distancing.

[Volourn]

Social distancing is racism. Are you racist?

[Gromnir]

2 hours ago, Orogun01 said:

I think cops should be judged (morally not legally) by  reasonable expectation of what action judgments are acceptable based on the situations they find themselves in. If you're a cop...

the problem from a legal standpoint is that the cop job is inherently scary and frightening. is almost no situation where a cop cannot get decent expert testimony to back her/him up and support notion they were in a state o' heightened anxiety. 

beyond a reasonable doubt is also an extreme forgiving standard. is tough to fail a person on beyond a reasonable doubt when at issue is a split-second value judgement during a necessarily tense encounter. folks look at extreme low conviction rates o' cops as proof o' something skeevy but is not genuine surprising. juries do not like to convict cops, but beyond such is the reality o' beyond reasonable doubt criminal standard being applied to a high intensity situation with almost zero time for reflection by the cop.

and cop training tends to be suspect. force, up to and including deadly, is complete justified by cop training if there is any threat o' injury to self, other cops or otherwise innocent civilians. juries hear what cops is trained to do in situations and then already muddled situation becomes more opaque. 

reasonable is the standard for torts-- civil. defendant in a civil case need be reasonable and is only o' a preponderance o' evidence required for a jury/judge to find liability. beyond a reasonable doubt is a much more difficult standard than preponderance, and even for manslaughter you need recklessness as 'posed to unreasonable. 

@Hurlshot  mentions accountability, but to whom is police accountable? why is there no good statistics for police shooting and excessive force encounters? we have answered this previous and we keep mentioning, but am thinking it ain't ever gonna be accepted 'cause it feels wrong. regardless, those state and municipal police departments, o' which there is near 15k in the US, don't owe any accounting to the federal government. the Constitution, for better or worse, specific reserves police power to states, which is why US is almost unique in not having a national police force.

'cause o' Constitution, no national accounting enforceable and no national training standard.

there is south dakota v. dole, which we has also mentioned previous, but am thinking such complicates matter unnecessarily. nevertheless, if any is interested in how fed might plausible enforce police standards and accountability, do a search for south dakota v. dole. while recognizing yet again that there is 15k police departments which need be monitored and for training and accountability and we ask for persons to think o' practicality o' such on top o' obvious legal hurdles. nevertheless, google south dakota v. dole if interested.

and arrest somebody who does not wanna be arrested, regardless o' crime, raises potential for force to be applied. unfortunate am thinking hurl has this aspect reversed. there is no good reason to resist arrest. particular if you believe cops is racist or prone to violence, why would you resist arrest? we will mention homelessness and mental health in a bit which complicates, but is a culture in this country which promotes being confrontational with cops which is profound dumb given recognition o' police willingness to use use force. why arrest somebody for passing funny money? why not? is a crime with, in theory, big penalties. has nothing whatsoever to do with shop owner where bad money were passed 'cause in criminal is always State v. Defendant. oddly enough, pass a bad check under a thousand dollars, in most jurisdictions, is only a misdemeanor. however, pass bad currency carries up to 20 freaking years o' fed time. frame the infraction so it appears so trivial an arrest is unnecessary is a failure to recognize actual nature o' the potential crime. arrest is perfect legit and resist is almost always stoopid.

admission:

back when we were a freshman at Cal, we almost got arrested. had the misfortune, for various reasons, o' being on streets o' danville at 2:00 am. a minority with a hoodie at 2:00 am were enough to attract police attention, so when the cop cruiser pulled up and police asked Gromnir for id and demanded an explanation for what we were doing, we provided the id and then suggested the cops engage in physical impossible sexual self gratification if they desired any additional information... at which point alpha cop got outta car and advanced towards us threatening. luckily alpha's partner intervened. instead o' the confrontation escalating, the cops got back in their car... at which point they followed us for twenty minutes until we arrived at a gas station where our ride picked us up and drove us back to campus. 

in retrospect we knew how close we were to being f'd up by police, which woulda' changed our life trajectory considerable. why did we get mouthy with cops? answer: 'cause we were so smart and we knew our rights and we were offended at being targeted by cops. grow up on reservation and then go to a rather rough high school on south side of chicago for four years had ingrained in us fundamental contempt o' cop. should we have been feeling threatened by cops for getting chippy with them at 2am? no. law were on our side, but we knew the reality o' the situation and nevertheless put our self in a bad situation. the thing is our behaviour, while ill-advised, were hardly unique to Gromnir. 

if cops justifiable or unjustly seek to arrest you, there is no good reason for resisting save to protect a family member from immediate harm. none. nevertheless, in spite o' cop casual brutality, too many persons give cops the excuse they want.

*shrug*

this is an exceeding complex issue and is no Court case or single legislative action which is gonna fix the problem. is a deep issue with historical, cultural and legal obstacles which complicate. am not suggesting do nothing 'cause is difficult, but am knowing many people feel frustrated 'cause governments ignore the problems and do nothing no matter how many times we see examples o' police violence perpetrated on otherwise innocent citizens. ordinary and everyday police violence is particular troublesome considering US homelessness and mental health issues in this country which has our most vulnerable populations understandably failing the attitude test almost before a police encounter begins. the problem is vast and complicated by Constitutional limits which means achieving change should not be expected save at local level. local level is where folks should focus efforts. but is unsatisfactory.

HA! Good Fun! 

Edited June 6, 2020 by Gromnir

[Orogun01]

I wonder if a better solution wouldn't be to instead of protests that can be derailed by looters a recall vote campaign wouldn't have been more effective.

[Gromnir]

17 minutes ago, Orogun01 said:

I wonder if a better solution wouldn't be to instead of protests that can be derailed by looters a recall vote campaign wouldn't have been more effective.

there is no leader o' a movement to frame protests. such gatherings is visceral and unspecific expressions o' frustration and anger. protesters want change, whatever that means.

would be nice if there were some kinda unifying voice and leadership for the protests. somebody in Congress?  then again, am suspecting anybody who would step forward to be face/voice o' the 2020 protests would get labeled as a terrorist by the current administration.

HA! Good Fun!

[Orogun01]

17 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

there is no leader o' a movement to frame protests. such gatherings is visceral and unspecific expressions o' frustration and anger. protesters want change, whatever that means.

would be nice if there were some kinda unifying voice and leadership for the protests. somebody in Congress?  then again, am suspecting anybody who would step forward to be face/voice o' the 2020 protests would get labeled as a terrorist by the current administration.

HA! Good Fun!

If there's no leader how do they pick the places to protest, or even to start a protest? Someone said, we are going to protest at this place and other peopled joined in. If they said, lets try to get enough signatures to do a recall vote, it would have taken a different direction. Likely wouldn't have gotten nowhere since funding for BLM depends of visibility and a riot its far louder than a petition. Plus BLM and Antifa receive funding, they're organized.

[Guard Dog]

Wow... I thought this was the dystopian future we were heading towards:

 

Who knew it would be this?

 

 

LOL, who ami kidding? I always knew it would be this

 

[Guard Dog]

@Gromnir you were correct a few pages ago. I did not have a clear understanding of QI or it's history or complexities. That has been rectified, as much as the internet can rectify any gap in knowledge. It's not going anywhere. Just like Civil Asset Forfeiture they will never, ever give that up. They will just say the right things until attention is distracted elsewhere.