Likes: 
Faceplams: That's an interesting idea, but as long as people are willing to accept the status quo then nothing is going to change.Originally Posted by DigitalChaos
Bite me
That's an interesting idea, but as long as people are willing to accept the status quo then nothing is going to change.
Active Member
Well, since it started as an example that counters the idea that this huge issue only impacts white people, I'd say John Geer's situation isn't representative of a national issue with a size anywhere near the police profit machine situation happening in Ferguson. It seems separate and much less common. The only possible tie-in would be the hair-trigger nature of cops, but the underlying cause isn't apparent.
As much sense as it did when originally posted. My issue was with the nonactionable statements behind it. Almost every item is super subjective and any politician could sit on a podium and explain how they currently are satisfying all those requirements even though its not being done to the (unspecified) bar of the people who authored the demands.
Captain Rustleboots
Early reports are saying the ferguson police chief U.S. resigning and he will be officially announcing it in about 45 minutes.
Active Member
yes, believe there will be change just by creating a new leader to oversee the corrupt bullshit that is the entire structure they are built on.
if the people fall for this, we will get nowhere.
Captain Rustleboots
People are simple minded, just like those thinking Obama not getting re-elected will do fuck all for anything.
Bite me
I think you're mixing up the issues, here. Ferguson is an example of profit-generation using minorities, yes. Which is a completely separate issue from Michael Brown being killed. Cops collecting tickets by preying on minorities generally doesn't including KILLING the minorities. So we need to separate out the issue of cops killing citizens and cops collecting revenues from citizens; two separate, but equally important issues.
I don't think you always read all of the responses before you respond, which is a fault of yours, sorry. @aggroculture and I were discussing cops killing citizens, and he said, specifically, that we need to do something about cops killing black people. And I countered that we need to do something about cops killing ALL PEOPLE; brown people, yellow people, white people, all people. And until people stop looking at cops killing citizens as an "other" issue, or people "othering," and not seeing it as an issue THAT AFFECTS US ALL, or an issue that is acceptable because cops have carte blanche to kill people because they have difficult jobs and, hey, shit happens so sometimes some innocent people get killed, WHICH IS A FUCKING CROCK OF SHIT, and if we all just sit around and accept that laws and the US Supreme Court back the police having this carte blanche power, not just to arrest black people, or ANY minority -- latinos, Indians, whatever -- but also white people, you, me, whomever, for whatever fucking reason they want, then nothing will change. Because one reason why the giant "civil disobedience movement" happened in the 60s wasn't JUST for civil rights but because young people saw how this affected EVERYONE; that cops not only abused black people, but they were beating the fucking shit out of Ivy League students at Columbia; and once that happened, you had the Black Panthers joining up with the SDS and the Yippies and it was a solidarity that created one force that realized that this affects us all, that we are all one, and it's not just "those guys" (in the ghetto, which frankly most of America doesn't give TWO FUCKS about, trust me, I live in Chicago, kids die every week, America doesn't fucking care).
See, for instance, Graham vs. Connor, wherein the SCOTUS backed the cops who arrested this guy and roughed him up for nothing, although the Opinion did lead to the four-factor test currently in use in police force training:
U.S. Supreme Court Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)
Graham v. Connor
No. 87-6571
Argued February 21, 1989
Decided May 15, 1989
490 U.S. 386
Syllabus
Petitioner Graham, a diabetic, asked his friend, Berry, to drive him to a convenience store to purchase orange juice to counteract the onset of an insulin reaction. Upon entering the store and seeing the number of people ahead of him, Graham hurried out and asked Berry to drive him to a friend's house instead. Respondent Connor, a city police officer, became suspicious after seeing Graham hastily enter and leave the store, followed Berry's car, and made an investigative stop, ordering the pair to wait while he found out what had happened in the store. Respondent backup police officers arrived on the scene, handcuffed Graham, and ignored or rebuffed attempts to explain and treat Graham's condition. During the encounter, Graham sustained multiple injuries. He was released when Connor learned that nothing had happened in the store. Graham filed suit in the District Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against respondents, alleging that they had used excessive force in making the stop, in violation of "rights secured to him under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983."
The District Court granted respondents' motion for a directed verdict at the close of Graham's evidence, applying a four-factor test for determining when excessive use of force gives rise to a § 1983 cause of action, which inquires, inter alia, whether the force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain and restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm. Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028. The Court of Appeals affirmed, endorsing this test as generally applicable to all claims of constitutionally excessive force brought against government officials, rejecting Graham's argument that it was error to require him to prove that the allegedly excessive force was applied maliciously and sadistically to cause harm, and holding that a reasonable jury applying the Johnson v. Glick test to his evidence could not find that the force applied was constitutionally excessive.
Held: All claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force—deadly or not—in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard, rather than under a substantive due process standard. Pp. 490 U. S. 392-399.
(a) The notion that all excessive force claims brought under § 1983 are governed by a single generic standard is rejected. Instead, courts must identify the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed by the challenged application of force, and then judge the claim by reference to the specific constitutional standard which governs that right. Pp. 490 U. S. 393-394.
(b) Claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen are most properly characterized as invoking the protections of the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees citizens the right "to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable seizures," and must be judged by reference to the Fourth Amendment's "reasonableness" standard. Pp. 490 U. S. 394-395.
(c) The Fourth Amendment "reasonableness" inquiry is whether the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation. Pp. 490 U. S. 396-397.
(d) The Johnson v. Glick test applied by the courts below is incompatible with a proper Fourth Amendment analysis. The suggestion that the test's "malicious and sadistic" inquiry is merely another way of describing conduct that is objectively unreasonable under the circumstances is rejected. Also rejected is the conclusion that, because individual officers' subjective motivations are of central importance in deciding whether force used against a convicted prisoner violates the Eighth Amendment, it cannot be reversible error to inquire into them in deciding whether force used against a suspect or arrestee violates the Fourth Amendment. The Eighth Amendment terms "cruel" and "punishment" clearly suggest some inquiry into subjective state of mind, whereas the Fourth Amendment term "unreasonable" does not. Moreover, the less protective Eighth Amendment standard applies only after the State has complied with the constitutional guarantees traditionally associated with criminal prosecutions. Pp. 490 U. S. 397-399.
827 F.2d 945, vacated and remanded.
REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, and KENNEDY, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which BRENNAN and MARSHALL, JJ., joined, post, p. 490 U. S. 399.
Last edited by allegro; 03-11-2015 at 07:00 PM.
Bite me
I don't think any of those are "non-actionable" and a lot of them are realistic.
For instance:
Demand #2: A Special Prosecutor automatically being required instead of a Grand Jury: Federal Congressional Act.
Demand #3: Police held accountable, that could be done by a Federal Congressional Act. There is no reason why that John Geer case, above, is sitting there without that police department filing the REQUIRED FEDERAL REPORTS after the police homicide. There has to be some required accountability and some kind of PUNISHMENT for the force if that doesn't happen. Right now, there isn't any. It isn't until the family of the dead person files a CIVIL SUIT that anything happens, but nothing CRIMINAL is happening at all. For every one John Geer there are hundreds of others in this country, most of them black and most of them nobody gives a shit about and they're forgotten and assumed to be worthless to the American people; just as worthless and assumed guilty as John Geer, whose case would be forgotten if it hadn't been picked up by the Washington Post.
Demand #5: That's already happening through the demands of these DOJ investigative reports in various cities; if those PD's don't comply, the DOJ sues them and can fine them and ultimately shut them down for non-compliance.
Demand #7: The DOJ needs help to expedite the investigations into these corrupt aggressive use-of-force or racist PDs it's already investigating throughout the country. Easy to do.
Demand #8: This one needs to be reinforced all the time; When you look at footage from the 60s with college students getting the fucking shit beat out of them by cops, or black people getting the fucking shit beat out of them by cops in Selma, it's disturbing; now, a billy club to the head would be nice, since we're more afraid of getting SHOT AND KILLED.
Last edited by allegro; 03-11-2015 at 07:02 PM.
Bite me
Last edited by allegro; 03-11-2015 at 06:53 PM.
Active Member
A lot of people resigning in Ferguson. The right blasted the DOJ report but I guess they were right on the mark.
Will things truly change or will it be more of the same but with different actors?
Last edited by Deepvoid; 03-12-2015 at 09:51 AM. Reason: Changed phrasing in light of new developments
Alt-Left Leaning Cunt
Two cops were shot in Ferguson last night.
Something drastic needs to happen, and it needs to happen now.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/police-offi...ry?id=29573803
Bite me
It's going to take a while for this to all shake out, with the possible dissolution of the Ferguson PD altogether and the County taking over (which was suspected long ago).
Alt-Left Leaning Cunt
Alt-Left Leaning Cunt
http://news.yahoo.com/pa-officer-cha...ons&soc_trk=tw
Oh wow. One of them is finally being charged with something.
Active Member
Aaaaand the only one actually charged is a woman officer. Figures.
Well sure, you wouldn't want that. Rather than assess the situation, let's keep on shooting indiscriminately, you're bound to end up killing someone who was an actual threat, statistically...Her attorney, Brian Perry, said Mearkle acted in self-defense, and he warned the case could cause police officers to hesitate in high-pressure situations.
Alt-Left Leaning Cunt
And he was white, so someone has to be held accountable.
Active Member
Ahahahaha right, a woman shot a white male, that's a clear cut fuckup, the kind of which cannot be tolerated in the force...
Edit : I'm well aware that they may be trying to actually do good, and take this kind of behavior seriously, for all I know they would have reacted exactly the same if the officer was male, for instance... But the coincidence is almost darkly comedic...
Last edited by Khrz; 03-26-2015 at 09:52 AM.
Active Member
Trollhunter
This is what they do and what they'll continue to do if they consistently get away with it. Hopefully this sack of pig shit actually being charged with murder sends a message that we are ready to be fucking done with this nonsense but I doubt it. What do you want to bet that Fox Not News and other shitty excuses for "news" outlets will smear the dead guy. HE SMOKED THE POT AND WAS A THUG!
http://www.vice.com/read/a-white-cop...=vicetwitterus
Last edited by Swykk; 04-07-2015 at 08:06 PM.
Active Member
Here's the video in question.
Active Member
I'd be pretty impressed if Fox News manages to spin it for the cop considering he not only shot him in the back, but planted evidence too. They will probably just not cover it or somehow downplay it.
Last edited by DigitalChaos; 04-08-2015 at 12:35 AM.
Captain Rustleboots
Is this appropriate here? I figured you guys would like this.
Active Member
Another day, another case.
Active Member
I was about to post this. Just horrible. Listen to the Sheriff say that he doesn't want to jump to conclusions. Not sure how you can justify a beating like that.
I was nobody. Nothing.
Another day another case is right, @Deepvoid .
a couple of weeks ago my wife was watching the news and i asked "what's this?"
she said "oh, just another unarmed kid getting killed by the cops."
that's what it's coming down to!
Active Member
What were we saying?
Active Member
oh man. 73yo half-cop accidentally shoots perp who had just tried to make an illegal gun sale to a cop. Where are you going to land on this Deepvoid? :P
Last edited by DigitalChaos; 04-13-2015 at 05:18 PM.
Active Member
I know right? It's a bit of a clusterfuck.
At the end of the day, it's the end result that matters.
From what I gathered, the guy was going for his taser but mistakenly went for his going for his gun?
Not sure if I get this right.
In any case, I'm starting to believe that, maybe, cops aren't properly trained? One of the greatest quality a cop must have is to be able to make a quick decision based on a series of events happening in real-time. Not everyone has the ability to do that. Is the threshold for recruitment too low?
The above shooting was clearly not racially motivated. It's just some douche millionaire who actually paid to be "cop for a day".
Last edited by Deepvoid; 04-14-2015 at 08:48 AM.
Active Member
So many comments are unfortunately hilarious..
"Leeeerrrrooyyyyy Jeeeeenkiiiinnsssssss"
"hold my donut, I got this."
Bite me
He is an OLD MAN who should NOT have a gun. I guess he PAID them to let him be a reservist. A taser and a gun aren't even HELD the same way, they don't feel the same way.
Active Member
His training report was allegedly forged so he could carry a gun.
Last edited by Deepvoid; 04-16-2015 at 05:12 PM. Reason: typo
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
