|
Dead Reckoning posted:So officers would be allowed to keep and bear arms as private citizens, but not while on duty? Do you think that officers having less capacity for force than the people they are supposed to police might be a problem? If faced with a school shooter or armed robber, would officers need to wait for the firearms unit, even though rapid action can often save lives? Considering that 99% of all policing doesn't involve physical violence, or even the threat of violence, I think the good ones will manage. For the <1% of other times, those are actually cases where specialized units should be, not Molly the Meter Maid waving her gun around trying to help. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDfNV9bJoSg
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 12:53 |
|
|
I'm surprised this hasn't been posted: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/26/san-francisco-jail-gladiator-fights_n_6952220.html quote:Inmates at a San Francisco jail were forced into "gladiator-style fights" by sheriff's deputies who bet on the outcomes, according to a public defender. But that's not all! quote:Inmates also allege that Neu liked to gamble with them -- but the stakes would often be their own possessions and food. But how could anyone have known that this deputy was such a loving psycho? quote:Neu was accused of forcing a male and female inmate to perform sex acts on him in a 2006 case that was settled out of court, the public defender's office said. Oh...yeah, that definitely sounds like someone that shouldn't be in jail themself, or at the very least fired. Let's let them keep their job!  The SF Sheriff's dept. is no stranger to gently caress ups though. Recently: -a deputy robbed a bank -a deputy beat a crippled old man in the hospital with no provocation, and then filed a false police report claiming he was assaulted -a lieutenant was arrested for missing court-mandated domestic violence training -a prisoner with federal drugs/weapons charges escaped from county jail after being accidentally assigned to a low-security detail taking out the trash with no restraints. -prisoners getting abused -the sheriff roughed up his wife And then there's the SFPD bag of poo poo: -the current police chief, Greg Suhr, was demoted years ago from deputy chief to captain, because he helped cover up an abuse scandal (some cops beat up some dudes and stole their fajitas) and more recently he fired an SFPD lawyer and her supervisor after she exposed Suhr's mishandling of a domestic violence case involving his friend. -homicide inspectors immediately classified the murder of a French citizen as a suicide and neglected to investigate at all, which lead to french investigators, coroners from neighboring counties, and private investigators all looking into it, and saying "it's a murder, you loving idiots", and the SFPD responding with "no it's not"  (PS: the medical examiner who was supposed to determine cause of death was the girlfriend of the lead inspector on the case)-letting an evidence warehouse get overrun with feral cats -shooting innocent bystanders -the usual beating and intimidating people, and taking years to fire a problem officer who was known to constantly beat and intimidate people -plain clothes officers conducting searches with no warrant, falsifying records, and stealing money and drugs from suspects -losing a dead body in their own impound lot for a month while the murder suspects escaped to Mexico . Was it the SFPD's hard work that caught the suspects finally? Nope, it was some random dude from San Diego, who spent $150 on wanted posters, and drove to Mexico and handed them out . -a crime lab technician stole cocaine from evidence and caused -another tech altered DNA evidence, and repeatedly failed proficiency tests (and the supervisor supposedly didn't notice), jeopardizing 1,400 cases...the SFPD is saying they were barred from handling evidence after failing the test, so why were they allowed to keep handling evidence? -officers got caught sending racist and homophobic texts to each other What else? They also manipulated violent crime statistics to the extent that the total violent crime rate appeared 20% lower on any given year, by intentionally misclassifying all aggravated assaults involving domestic violence...meaning that SF's true violent crime rate over the past decade or more has often been on par/higher than places like Newark and Dallas, and almost as high as cities like Richmond California, and even New Orleans once or twice (it's extra funny because of the weird misconception many people have that SF is extra non-violent for a big US city). This was revealed back in 2009 by the police chief himself (George Gascon, who was new on the job and supposedly wanted to reform things. He's now the DA), but I only ever found two small articles about it in free local papers that not many people read; the SF Examiner and the SF Weekly.....which are both gone from the internet now ( I saved the stats from the articles though if anyone wants to see them). So it was 99% ignored by the media, and the two articles that did exist are no longer available. It wouldn't surprise me if there was massive pressure from the police commission or city government, or something, to try and keep it under wraps. It's not like similar cover ups haven't happened before in this city (the biggest ones i can think of are suppressing news coverage of the huge VJ-day WWII riot, and massively downplaying the death toll from the 1906 earthquake so investors wouldn't be scared away). What else could explain a big story like that getting almost zero media attention, even after the chief himself brought it up? I thought the media usually tripped over themselves to report on click-bait money-making poo poo like that? The SFPD seems to still be loving with the stats too, because the aggravated assault rate never spiked upwards after this was admitted, and actually dropped instead (which is one hell of a convenient coincidence for the SFPD, if it wasn't the result of continued stats-screwing). No one I've ever met knows about this, and now that the articles are gone, it makes me feel like a crazy person.  I guess the alternative explanation is that George Gascon was high as gently caress when he revealed the crime-stats screwing, and was actually wrong about it all, so it became a non-story. Hell, several years ago the fraud unit was so overworked that they were expediting cases involving elderly victims, so that they wouldn't die before there was an investigation (the backlog of cases was so big that it would take months/years of work to investigate them all). Thankfully they eventually got more manpower but goddamn. The SFPD recently had one of the lowest homicide clearance rates for a big US city too. In 2007 and 2008 it was about on par with Detroit, at 25%-30%. The national average at the time was around 50%. The SFPD's clearance rate is now up to 60%-70% though, which is quite an improvement. http://www.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/once-a-joke-sfpd-is-actually-solving-murders-these-days/Content?oid=2174812 There obviously needs to be some reform when it comes to policing and the justice system as a whole. And on that note, the DA is opening an investigation into law enforcement misconduct in SF: http://abc7news.com/news/sf-da-to-investigate-law-enforcement-misconduct-allegations/590304/
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Spun Dog posted:I know. There's never money for anything that they don't want to do, is there? Body cameras, rape kits, ethics classes...no problem on the MRAP though, it's a bargain.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:MRAPS are free and the reason they are free is because nobody wants them. DoD tried to sell them and even the sort of tinpots that are usually all over a deal on armored peasant-murder-machines wouldn't touch them. Police departments mostly just park them on a backlot somewhere and bring them out once a year for the county fair. I know. There's never money for anything that they don't want to do, is there?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
I'm sure if you got everyone to agree to a tax hike in order to hire trainers and pay officers overtime to come in on their off duty days in order to take anti-racism training or force-on-force classes, there would be no problem, but for some reason that proposition is unpopular.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Ugh if only we could use this massive military budget to send experts to train local police forces not to act like scared white gun owners, but alas, all the money is tied up producing equipment no one needs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Mavric posted:Ugh if only we could use this massive military budget to send experts to train local police forces not to act like scared white gun owners, but alas, all the money is tied up producing equipment no one needs. *Puts two wars on a credit card*
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
I know, maybe we can cut all funding to food stamps and welfare programs so we can hire them. God knows they will need the extra training for the coming race riots.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm sure if you got everyone to agree to a tax hike in order to hire trainers and pay officers overtime to come in on their off duty days in order to take anti-racism training or force-on-force classes, there would be no problem, but for some reason that proposition is unpopular.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:And since America doesn't have a national police force you'd have to convinced about 15,000 individual localities separately. America has many agencies full of LEOs who operate at a national level, like the marshal service, secret service, FBI, etc 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
Mavric posted:Ugh if only we could use this massive military budget to send experts to train local police forces not to act like scared white gun owners, but alas, all the money is tied up producing equipment no one needs. I don't know where you think the military is keeping this highly trained division of conflict de-escalation experts, but I haven't met any of them yet. Putting a whole lot of bullets in someone is among the less destructive ways the military responds to holstile actions or intentions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
Arnold of Soissons posted:America has many agencies full of LEOs who operate at a national level, like the marshal service, secret service, FBI, etc
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
Rah! posted:
Thanks for this post. It's horrifying and depressing, but the effort is appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I don't know where you think the military is keeping this highly trained division of conflict de-escalation experts, but I haven't met any of them yet. Putting a whole lot of bullets in someone is among the less destructive ways the military responds to holstile actions or intentions. Ugh too bad we can't reallocate the military budget to things other than the military. Edit: Oh I know! We can pay those European police to train ours, they seem to be on the ball. Mavric fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Apr 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
Rah! posted:I'm surprised this hasn't been posted: Jesus. Christ. I mean, goddamn goddamn e. also, quoted in order to make these links easier to find in the future blunt for century fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Apr 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:Actually if the speeding guy is a cop it does. That's what the bear sticker is for, so you don't even have to bother pulling them over.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So officers would be allowed to keep and bear arms as private citizens, but not while on duty? Do you think that officers having less capacity for force than the people they are supposed to police might be a problem? If faced with a school shooter or armed robber, would officers need to wait for the firearms unit, even though rapid action can often save lives? If you're asking whether it would be better for society as a whole if police had to find solutions to problems other than the standard draw gun and scream orders then the answer is yes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
ozmunkeh posted:If you're asking whether it would be better for society as a whole if police had to find solutions to problems other than the standard draw gun and scream orders then the answer is yes. "I don't want to answer the question you asked, so I'm going to answer the question I wish you had asked instead."
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
Do you see no difference between a person with the legal authority to start confrontations and then kill the person if they fight back and a regular citizen who is defending themselves from an unprovoked attacker?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So officers would be allowed to keep and bear arms as private citizens, but not while on duty? Do you think that officers having less capacity for force than the people they are supposed to police might be a problem? If faced with a school shooter or armed robber, would officers need to wait for the firearms unit, even though rapid action can often save lives? Yes. No. Yes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
I find this rather funny, don't gun rights advocates want to own guns to protect themselves from government tyranny? Yet here is one concerned that the government might not be on equal footing as them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
Spun Dog posted:Thanks for this post. It's horrifying and depressing, but the effort is appreciated. Seconded. I was worried the post might get overlooked due to length but the effort really is appreciated. I can't figure out the angle with the Hugues de la Plaza story though. Why the hell are they so insistent? I can't get over the fact that not only did French investigators get involved it actually got to the point where they managed to get a court ruling that the evidence must be sent to France. How does that even happen? How do you gently caress up so badly that "Did the investigators just put in a request or were they on the verge of France v San Francisco Police Department? Did they just pack it up and send it or did French agents come and take it away from them?" become serious questions?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
blunt for century posted:Jesus. Christ. Also, you shouldn't think that is unique to SFPD. SF just has a stronger Public Defender's office, IA, and the political will to do it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Who is going to pay for it? Regular force-on-force classes aren't cheap, and are going to difficult to justify in the context of limited budgets when most police will never fire their guns outside the range.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
Rah! posted:Inmates at a San Francisco jail were forced into "gladiator-style fights" by sheriff's deputies who bet on the outcomes, according to a public defender. That said, apparently warnings from history dont work so the obvious solution is to gut the entire prison staff en masse and hang them beside the road on the off ramps. edit: Corcoran: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Prison,_Corcoran#History http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/staged-fights-betting-guards-gunfire-and-death-for-the-gladiators-1310849.html quote:Violent inmates at California's top maximum-security jail were paired off in staged fights as watching prison guards bet on the outcomes, the Los Angeles Times reported yesterday. Oh wait! They did learn their lesson! http://articles.latimes.com/2000/jun/10/news/mn-39555 quote:Eight Corcoran prison guards accused of setting up inmate gladiator fights were acquitted Friday of federal civil rights abuses, a resounding verdict that all but ends one of the most troubled chapters in California prison history. Lesson learned. FRINGE fucked around with this message at 06:48 on Apr 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 06:43
|
|
|
Mavric posted:Do you see no difference between a person with the legal authority to start confrontations and then kill the person if they fight back and a regular citizen who is defending themselves from an unprovoked attacker? twodot posted:These are so easy to answer I figured they were rhetorical, but if you really want them:
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 07:04
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Considering the police exercise authority on behalf of the state, your question doesn't make a lot of sense. The hell are you talking about, what doesn't make sense? We are talking about only allowing certain members of the police to have guns. The police exercise the authority on behalf of the state, meaning the state can define the extent of that authority, i.e. no gun for normal officers who aren't trained to handle more dangerous situations. Police are allow to, in effect, start "fights". Yes no one should attack an officer and they should respect their authority, but not every aggressive action or indigent behavior warrants a gun even being drawn. Tamir Rice didn't loving start anything, but the cop exercised his authority to blow him away. Too bad we couldn't afford better training, guess we'll just have to shrug it off. Mavric fucked around with this message at 08:07 on Apr 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 07:28
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I don't know where you think the military is keeping this highly trained division of conflict de-escalation experts, but I haven't met any of them yet. Putting a whole lot of bullets in someone is among the less destructive ways the military responds to holstile actions or intentions. Using the military as a police force is one of the prime reasons the Iraqi and Afghan insurgencies gathered so much popular support - the primary purpose of an army is (theoretically) bringing about peace rather than maintaining it. Calls to bring in the army during the London riots were slapped down pretty hard by academics, military and police officers, since no-one wanted Royal Irish Constabulary Reserve Force 2011 Edition: 2Black 2Tan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 09:54
|
|
|
Rah! posted:the current police chief, Greg Suhr, was demoted years ago from deputy chief to captain, because he helped cover up an abuse scandal (some cops beat up some dudes and stole their fajitas Goddamn. I thought any kind of blemish, like an officer gets one complaint about a racist speeding ticket, and they're totally disqualified from getting promoted to command. This motherfucker gets DEMOTED and now he's the chief of police?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 10:27
|
|
|
Chief of police is appointed and has often nothing to do with the organizational promoting. Someone can be appointed chief for a dept who has never worked there before and vice versa, you don't often promote to chief at all, just topping out at LT or Captain or whatever is highest. Chief, deputy chief and commissioners, various departmental Chiefs and what have you are political appointments. In other words, the top brass often didn't ride there through ranks. Just like head of DoJ has never been a federal agent. In this case, blemishes will block his promotions through regular pay grades (from Lt. to Capt), but have gently caress all to do with political appointing. (Chief) Vahakyla fucked around with this message at 10:42 on Apr 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 10:38
|
|
|
Murderion posted:Using the military as a police force is one of the prime reasons the Iraqi and Afghan insurgencies gathered so much popular support - the primary purpose of an army is (theoretically) bringing about peace rather than maintaining it. No the primary purpose of an army is to kill people. That's what makes an army good or lovely, it's ability to kill people. Your point is still correct, that it's not the job of enforcing laws and protecting civil society, but it's stupid to say that armies exist for peace.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 10:41
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Chief of police is appointed and has often nothing to do with the organizational promoting. Ah, I see. Even still, how do the politicians that appoint someone with that in their past not take an enormous amount of poo poo for it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 10:49
|
|
|
Arnold of Soissons posted:No the primary purpose of an army is to kill people. That's what makes an army good or lovely, it's ability to kill people. I think that's the point he was making. Armies exist to create the peace (by killing people), but are bad at keeping the peace (by killing people)
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 10:53
|
|
|
Right but they don't "exist to create peace" they exist to kill other people, so that the powers that make the strategic decisions about where the army is sent can impose their will. That could be "stay out of my mountains" or "no more Kurds alive" or "gently caress you I'm taking over this island" or "no one get's to fight here and I'm enforcing my law"
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 11:01
|
|
|
Usually those strategic objectives don't include "and we'll have to keep fighting forever and never win" and if that happens then the army was not successful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 11:10
|
|
|
I said "theoretically" to sidestep this argument, but your point is valid. Armies do not exist for peacetime, except as an implicit threat - peace through superior firepower. Military force starts at "threaten to kill a dude" and rapidly escalates to "kill thousands of dudes with high explosives". It's an achievement if you only kill people who you want to kill. The fact that American police tactics start at gun-waving and threats is the problem.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 11:21
|
|
|
Mavric posted:Do you see no difference between a person with the legal authority to start confrontations and then kill the person if they fight back and a regular citizen who is defending themselves from an unprovoked attacker? Cop initiates verbal contact with citizen not suspected of any crime Citizen is not interested in chit chat (a natural reaction) Cop initiates physical contact with citizen Citizen recoils from physical contact (a natural reaction) Cop initiates violent take down (non-instantaneous compliance is resisting) Citizen is shocked by the violent behavior tries to push cop off them (a natural reaction) Cop pull firearm to gain control of situation Citizen tries to push away barrel of gun from being pointed at him (a natural reaction) Cop pulls trigger and kills citizen It's a clean shoot, "they reached for my gun" defense mode activate!
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
nm posted:Also, you shouldn't think that is unique to SFPD. I know it's not. It's just horrifying to see all that bullshit at once. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Ah, I see. Even still, how do the politicians that appoint someone with that in their past not take an enormous amount of poo poo for it? I'd be surprised if the average person in San Francisco even know who Greg Suhr is and given his political appointment status, the Mayor (or whoever) obviously approved of his past actions, so there ya go.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 12:53 |
|
|
Mavric posted:Do you see no difference between a person with the legal authority to start confrontations and then kill the person if they fight back and a regular citizen who is defending themselves from an unprovoked attacker? Whats nauseating is people (not you) think cops starting a confrontation is perfectly fine when I'm pretty sure the intent is for them to try and END confrontations by some means other than gunfire. People called the cops because there was some kind of issue or fight going on to try and stop the situation but nowadays people are starting to rightfully be frightened of calling the cops because the new method of ending a situation is to kill someone and arrest anyone who took a cellphone video of the murder. That miami incident a few years back where the cops emptied like 200 bullets into a fleeing car in the middle of a crowd (While standing around the car in a loving circle) went around yanking peoples SSIDs out of their phones, they only reason a video got out is one guy saw them doing it and swallowed his before they got to him. Never mind that not complying with a cop or resisting for a non-violent crime isn't supposed to a death sentence by Judge Dredd wannabes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 17:50
|
|
