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 334

post #4996 of 6072
It's black letter law that the police are allowed to temporarily take control over crime scenes and the people who are in them. Even innocent people. It's not controversial in the slightest.
post #4997 of 6072
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

I just read the first section, like everyone else. They buried the fact that the expert was hired by an interested party a few thousand words in. That makes it less dishonest, but just barely.

EVERYONE else. NOBODY read past the first section.

Ironically, you're using the same line of attack that the prosecutors (allegedly) did.
Quote:
The hostility toward Noble, he realized, was part of a piece, reducing him to a character—hired gun for vengeful family and greedy lawyers trying to ruin brave cops—in a story that had already been laid out for the grand jurors.

It's a Trojan horse. We'll let you get your own advocates, only to discredit them as biased because you hired them.
post #4998 of 6072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

It's black letter law that the police are allowed to temporarily take control over crime scenes and the people who are in them. Even innocent people. It's not controversial in the slightest.

Just because it's been deemed legal does not mean a person might not find it controversial. There is such a thing as bad law.

Again, rounding everyone up and cuffing them just because they happened to be at event? Smacks of medieval "justice."
post #4999 of 6072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post


Of course you can have it "both ways." If the cops routinely handcuff people out of an abundance of caution (and they do), then what's the inference to be drawn from them doing it in this case? Nothing. It's routine.

Wait - so if the cops routinely do something, (even if incorrect or unlawful), then it's okay because it happens all the time?

post #5000 of 6072
Quote:
Originally Posted by venividivicibj View Post

Wait - so if the cops routinely do something, (even if incorrect or unlawful), then it's okay because it happens all the time?

What 'Turk is appealing to is that it's been ruled your 4th Amendment rights can be temporarily ignored for "officer safety." Cops have broadened that through practice to basically cover their actions at all times regarding anyone in their presence. I suppose this means cops cold handcuff and then shoot top level MMA fighters at all times as their bodies are weapons and we all know officers are allowed to shoot indiscriminately in the presence of weapons.
post #5001 of 6072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van Veen View Post

EVERYONE else. NOBODY read past the first section.

It's a well known fact that most people don't read the entire article, especially long ones. And:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole
Quote:
Ironically, you're using the same line of attack that the prosecutors (allegedly) did.
It's a Trojan horse. We'll let you get your own advocates, only to discredit them as biased because you hired them.

I have a (very) legitimate criticism of the weight of the evidence and it's somehow ironic that the prosecutors, who said they were going to present all the evidence as fairly as they could, also pointed it out? How is that supposed to be ironic. If you look far and wide enough, you can find an expert who sincerely believes pretty much anything. I briefly looked at the report while it does raise some legitimate concerns about how the cops rushed into the confrontation with Rice, if you accept his assumptions, his conclusion is dubious and wouldn't be helpful to a jury at any rate, as juries are the ones who decide whether something is ultimately reasonable or not.

And you seem to be admitting that the fact that the guy was a hired gun is relevant to the article, while simultaneously deriding the prosecutors for pointing it out to the grand jury. Which is it?

This is really obvious, or at least it should be -- but what's the problem with disclosing exculpatory evidence or context to a grand jury? Can you imagine approving of withholding information in a different case? Like there's a shooting and they find the victim covered with a blanket. They ask who put the blanket on the body, and the defendant says "I did it." Would you imagine it ethical for the prosecutors to leave out the question and just say "the accused said 'I did it'"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Just because it's been deemed legal does not mean a person might not find it controversial. There is such a thing as bad law.

Again, rounding everyone up and cuffing them just because they happened to be at event? Smacks of medieval "justice."
Quote:
Originally Posted by venividivicibj View Post

Wait - so if the cops routinely do something, (even if incorrect or unlawful), then it's okay because it happens all the time?

We're going around in a damned circle here. It doesn't matter whether it's controversial or not, just that it's routine and thus that you can't draw any conclusions about this specific case from it. Piob brought up legality, controversy, morality, whatever.

And it's not "justice"; no one is being punished. It's just a matter of practical safety for everyone. You have reports of someone with a gun, you find him, but no gun, and you have to control the scene. That includes people he's associating with. After all these cases we've seen of people being shot for not controlling their hands you'd think I wouldn't have to explain why handcuffing might be better for everyone involved and not just the cops.
post #5002 of 6072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

And it's not "justice"; no one is being punished. It's just a matter of practical safety for everyone. You have reports of someone with a gun, you find him, but no gun, and you have to control the scene. That includes people he's associating with. After all these cases we've seen of people being shot for not controlling their hands you'd think I wouldn't have to explain why handcuffing might be better for everyone involved and not just the cops.

You were not talking about "associating with" above but just being an innocent bystander and getting cuffed.
post #5003 of 6072
You're conflating a general comment about the extent of police authority and a specific one about this case. I said the cops often have the legal authority to "control" people who turn out to be innocent. The extent of that depends on the particular circumstances. If you disagree, try playing hopscotch over a corpse sometime. "But it was on a public street, officer! How dare you restrict my liberty of movement!"

Also, the fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. When temporary detentions or restrictions on free movement are reasonable, nothing has been ignored.
post #5004 of 6072
And all detentions are reasonable...
post #5005 of 6072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

And all detentions are reasonable...

Your accusing me of being biased or tedious might be more effective if you didn't fall back to it every time you argue yourself into a corner. You'd think me being completely right about this case might inspire a little more introspection.
post #5006 of 6072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post


What 'Turk is appealing to is that it's been ruled your 4th Amendment rights can be temporarily ignored for "officer safety." Cops have broadened that through practice to basically cover their actions at all times regarding anyone in their presence. I suppose this means cops cold handcuff and then shoot top level MMA fighters at all times as their bodies are weapons and we all know officers are allowed to shoot indiscriminately in the presence of weapons.

 

Don't they already do this if the current location is a 'high crime area'?

post #5007 of 6072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

And it's not "justice"; no one is being punished. It's just a matter of practical safety for everyone. 

This is incorrect. Its about safety for the cop. I somehow doubt the person who was shot (by the police) and is now cuffed and lying down on the scene thinks that he is safer now.

post #5008 of 6072
Thread Starter 
There is no point in getting tangled up in the details because grand jury proceedings are secret. It's a distraction from the real issue, which is the prosecutor covering his ass by taking the case to grand jury, knowing the proceedings are secret, so there's no public record of how hard he fought for an indictment.

There is no accountability to the public here. No checks and balances. The person who was supposed to be representing the victims' interest probably did not, though we don't have absolute proof of it. If you hate big government with consolidated power, this should be a nightmare. Everything is done behind closed doors (including the civil settlement) and swept under the rug.
post #5009 of 6072
Quote:
Originally Posted by venividivicibj View Post

This is incorrect. Its about safety for the cop. I somehow doubt the person who was shot (by the police) and is now cuffed and lying down on the scene thinks that he is safer now.

Now, here's some irony -- to be making that argument in what appears to be a bystander shooting case.

It's a totality of the circumstances issue. Cop safety is part of it but so is safety to everyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van Veen View Post

There is no point in getting tangled up in the details because grand jury proceedings are secret. It's a distraction from the real issue, which is the prosecutor covering his ass by taking the case to grand jury, knowing the proceedings are secret, so there's no public record of how hard he fought for an indictment.

There is no accountability to the public here. No checks and balances. The person who was supposed to be representing the victims' interest probably did not, though we don't have absolute proof of it. If you hate big government with consolidated power, this should be a nightmare. Everything is done behind closed doors (including the civil settlement) and swept under the rug.

The prosecutor didn't have to put the case to the grand jury in the first place. That's just how it works in every criminal case. But he did, and they decided not to indict anyway. If you want even more checks and balances for the law enforcement instance, they're already there. Don't forget that the feds can bring a case if they want to. They haven't. Wonder why...
post #5010 of 6072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Your accusing me of being biased or tedious might be more effective if you didn't fall back to it every time you argue yourself into a corner. You'd think me being completely right about this case might inspire a little more introspection.

I must of missed this...when did I get argued into a corner? I've never questioned the legality of what the cops did and this is your disconnect. The system has been rigged over the decades to make anything but the most negligent, most malfeasance filled acts by police legal, and even with negligence and malfeasance, the bar is pretty damn high for the non-cop.
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?