or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WTF over-zealous police? - Page 92

post #1366 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

It is obvious that Wilson and the man are not interacting just because he was recording. So your taking Wilson's command without that context is, frankly, bullshit. By all appearances the man was using the pretext of recording to disobey Wilson's lawful orders, and Wilson had every right to order him to comply or face arrest. Perhaps Wilson would have phrased the command better had he known it would be the only part of the encounter you would consider in judging it.
Again, you have no idea what happened, so these comments are completely unfounded. Really--does the fact that the video is just fifteen seconds not inspire the slightest bit of skepticism on your part?

I'm pretty skeptical. If you remember I called that Bosnian women in St. Louis as a fake hate crime when it first happened and turned out I was correct. I'm also skeptical Wilson is a good guy and not an asshole.

Rnoldh, you really do have a weird fixation on certain black men.
post #1367 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by sacafotos View Post

Totally agree. Not saying Brown didn't put Wilson's safety in jeopardy. I'm asking if it was possible for Wilson to use a taser in close quarters and get away with NOT killing Brown.

At what point would you grant Wilson the ability to use deadly force? We've already established that Brown assaulting him and trying to steal his firearm does not warrant the immediate use of deadly force, in your opinion. One is only left to assume that you feel the starting point for the use of deadly force, in this situation, would have been for Brown to assault Wilson, steal his gun and have it pointed at him. Wilson, assuming he was carrying one, could have then gone for his backup weapon and attempted to use deadly force while staring down the barrel of his own weapon that's now in the hands of the criminal who just assaulted him - something that would have most certainly got Wilson killed.

I'm still taken aback by this politically correct narrative that says a "tragedy" occurred here. The tragedy was whatever shitty parenting job, or lack thereof, Brown received as a child that lead him to engage in such behavior. By the time the altercation took place between Brown and Wilson, Brown was clearly a dangerous person who caused his own death. Yeah, it would have been great if Brown would have turned his life around and became a law abiding, productive member of society, but unfortunately Brown took that opportunity away from himself.
post #1368 of 6095
So, just because I called a death a "tragedy" and asked if non lethal force would've been sufficient to disarm Brown, means Im trumpeting some "PC narrative" ?

Dude, I'm not on these forums to argue, so relax.

Wilson had a RIGHT to use deadly force IN THAT SITUATION...but I'm asking if he could've used a taser instead and still incapacitated Brown.

Seems like you're saying Brown was a lost caused and got what he deserved. Sound right to you?

Brown wasn't an angel. I don't buy the version of the story that Wilson woke up that day wanting to kill a black kid. I do think Brown brought it upon himself.

I'm asking—again—if Wilson could've used non lethal force in that situation and gotten away with incapacitating Brown. Not when Brown reached for the gun, but say when they had some distance between them and Brown rushed him.

Why does that make me PC? We are discussing the merits of law enforcement procedure. Brown wasn't innocent in any way, yet the media has been having fun with this joy ride. Even if he brought on his own death, why can't we ask if law enforcement can use non lethal force before pulling a gun? Or for Christ's sake have body cams so we don't waste money with investigations?

Anyway. Curious how the investigation will pan out for the Antonio Martin case. Where is his buddy who was with him?
post #1369 of 6095
According to google, this is Wilson's report from that incident. http://www.scribd.com/doc/246727189/Ferguson-police-incident-report-Darren-Wilson-arrests-Mike-Arman

Summary: The guy was arrested because he was refusing to accept service of a summons because he doesn't think having four unregistered, inoperable cars in his driveway is anybody's business but his.

For flavor, he fakes a seizure once they get to the jail.
post #1370 of 6095
If a cop were trying to give me a summons for having unregistered inoperable cars on my own personal property, I'd tell him to fuck off also. While I'm not a lawyer, I'm pretty sure having unregistered inoperable cars on your own personal property isn't against the law in Texas.
post #1371 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

According to google, this is Wilson's report from that incident. http://www.scribd.com/doc/246727189/Ferguson-police-incident-report-Darren-Wilson-arrests-Mike-Arman

Summary: The guy was arrested because he was refusing to accept service of a summons because he doesn't think having four unregistered, inoperable cars in his driveway is anybody's business but his.

For flavor, he fakes a seizure once they get to the jail.

I love it.

Report: I advised Arman that I would not comply with his demand and to remove the camera from my face...

Video: If you take one more picture of me I'm going to lock your ass up.

Report: I advised Arman that voice recording would be acceptable...

Video: You do not have the right to record...

So why should I believe Wilson's account of anything again now?
post #1372 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

But the cop certainly doesn't have a right to "lock your ass up" for the act of recording...which is exactly what Wilson is threatening to do. Now, you want this put into context. Sorry, Turk, there's no context that can excuse that threat. Wilson was acting like an asshole and tossing the weight of his badge around. He was acting exactly like the type of cop Brown would punch.

OBEY
post #1373 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

I love it.

Report: I advised Arman that I would not comply with his demand and to remove the camera from my face...

Video: If you take one more picture of me I'm going to lock your ass up.

Report: I advised Arman that voice recording would be acceptable...

Video: You do not have the right to record...

So why should I believe Wilson's account of anything again now?

Again--the clip is just 15 seconds long. It does not capture the whole encounter.
post #1374 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Again--the clip is just 15 seconds long. It does not capture the whole encounter.

I'm not disagreeing with that statement. Can we also say Wilson's report does not capture the whole encounter? I think we can also say the report and the video give us two different versions. The thing is the video actually happened...the report sort of did.
post #1375 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by sacafotos View Post

So, just because I called a death a "tragedy" and asked if non lethal force would've been sufficient to disarm Brown, means Im trumpeting some "PC narrative" ?

What was the tragedy, exactly? The tragedy I see happened long before Brown met Wilson.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sacafotos View Post


Wilson had a RIGHT to use deadly force IN THAT SITUATION...but I'm asking if he could've used a taser instead and still incapacitated Brown.

Alright, we agree on that, but you're still glossing over my point. At one moment or another, the immediate use of deadly force is required to protect your life, and there is no point in asking if a taser was an option. Would you still be asking if a taser was an option if Brown had successfully taken Wilson's firearm and was pointing it at him?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sacafotos View Post


Seems like you're saying Brown was a lost caused and got what he deserved. Sound right to you?

Yes, the bolded parts sum up my position perfectly. Brown initiated his own death. I have no idea if he was a lost cause.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sacafotos View Post


Brown wasn't an angel.

Right, he was a violent criminal. Why are you describing him as "not an angel" instead of calling it like it is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sacafotos View Post

Why does that make me PC?

I see the whole "tragedy" and Brown "not being an angel" as a politically correct way of saying that a violent person attacked a cop and got shot.
post #1376 of 6095
SMILE NOW CREEP COP! NYPD officer turns himself in for vicious Bronx subway attack on female MTA worker

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/nypd-turns-attacking-female-mta-employee-article-1.2063013
post #1377 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by ter1413 View Post

SMILE NOW CREEP COP! NYPD officer turns himself in for vicious Bronx subway attack on female MTA worker

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/nypd-turns-attacking-female-mta-employee-article-1.2063013

Probably nothing will happen to him. The union will back him and they might even end up charging the MTA worker at the end.
post #1378 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/the-statistical-debate-behind-the-stop-and-frisk-verdict

Raw report
http://ccrjustice.org/files/Expert_Report_JeffreyFagan.pdf


They did look at age. The strongest correlations were against race.


I was persuaded by this report. Thanks for posting. I think you might be underselling the last point. In all of their tests against racial bias, they controlled for age demographics. Their inclusion or otherwise seemed to have no effect on the results.
post #1379 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

A reply to some of the statistical arguments against active policing (stats are for NYC):


http://www.city-journal.org/2010/eon0514hm.html
yu
This seems like a fair point. The case that New York makes is that they are aggressively patrolling the most violent neighborhoods of NYC. This means that the racial demographics of their searches are likely to match the racial demographics of the most violent criminals. The police exercise a caution for safety, and perhaps they err on the side of caution, but that means they search a lot of innocent people for weapons and come up empty. But when they do come up with something, it is serious enough to make an arrest and with violent felons that will mean a forcible arrest. There are obvious negative impacts of this approach,so you can think of this approach as you will. The voters of NYC have apparently decided to vote for a mayor who rejects this approach, so fair enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

You're trying to refute a statistical argument, but not providing any numbers that would make your point.

They did the analysis against age. That includes the disproportionate number of young minorities. That correlation was weaker than the correlation against race. I don't see what's ambiguous about that. If you'd like to present some actual evidence, let's see it
Alternative phrasing: minorities (of all ages) who had done nothing wrong were Stop and Frisked at double the rate of whites. How does "there are more young minorities" counter this?

But this is the part that persuaded me. Or I would restate it. Though the racial demographics of searches match those of violent felons, actually the age demographics do not. Almost all violence is committed by men under 30y.o and the vast majority by men 16-25. And though stop and frisk skewed young, it did not skew young nearly as much as violent crime does. Which means that the police were doing far more searches of older black men than would be indicated by the danger they pose to the public or the police. I was persuaded that the extent to which this was going on merited federal scrutiny.
post #1380 of 6095
A fun story about Italian policing: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/08/-sp-the-murder-that-has-obsessed-italy

Basically, a girl is murdered and their response is to DNA test literally thousands of people from the surrounding villages. When they have a suspect (they find a relative, then the killer's father, but the mother isn't the father's wife so it takes forever to figure out who she is) they stage a fake roadblock to get his DNA from a fake breathalyzer test.

Amusingly they had taken the mom's DNA during one of their gattaca-style DNA roundups, but the lab had screwed up the test.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?