Police misbehavior thread

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Carlington
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:46 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Carlington » Wed Apr 29, 2015 2:18 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Carlington wrote:morriswalters, I don't think you believe that police should never face trial for their use of violence.
I'm not going to be polite. Crap. However I am of the mind to fix the problem in a way that works rather than use feelgood solutions that don't. If it were up to me I would remove handguns out of the equation and change the rules of engagement so that you don't chase people who rabbit, without some kind of reason. You can imagine how popular that makes me in some circles. But given that there are around 350 million guns at large in the US it isn't going to happen. Anyway we'll see what the morning brings.
I don't mean to be rude, but I don't understand your response. I can't tell whether you're responding to my entire post, or just the line you've quoted. I'm assuming "Crap." means you disagree with something I've said, but I don't know what part you're disagreeing with. Is it the line you've quoted - that is, do you think that police should never face trial for their use of violence? (Or, do you disbelieve me when I say I don't think you think that? I'd be slightly put out if that were the case.)
As for the latter part of your post, regarding changing the rules of engagement, I agree with you. Remove guns from the equation where they're not necessary, only engage in pursuit when it's safe to do so (or when the weight of necessity is overwhelming). Certainly this can happen, it would just take a rather large shift of opinion.
Kewangji: Posdy zwei tosdy osdy oady. Bork bork bork, hoppity syphilis bork.

Eebster the Great: What specifically is moving faster than light in these examples?
doogly: Hands waving furiously.

Please use he/him/his pronouns when referring to me.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26606
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Apr 29, 2015 2:26 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:@Gmalivuk
It could be greater than that, how would we know? But for convenience I'll accept that number.
Which number could be greater than that? The current number or the resulting number if homicides all go to court?

This website lists 1100 for 2014. That's what I based my statement on.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Apr 29, 2015 3:43 am UTC

I dunno about how that system would work realistically... who would be the prosecutor? What would their job be?

I've already posted what I think would be ideal: an independent citizen's review board with the power to subpoena cops to testify in court. In this case, the job of the prosecutor is to represent the victim of police brutality absolutely, and any other citizen who comes up to complain about the cops. NYC has one, so they at least have a process for moving forward with complaints. It'd also be the job of the review board to prioritize complaints and all that good stuff.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby morriswalters » Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:00 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
morriswalters wrote:@Gmalivuk
It could be greater than that, how would we know? But for convenience I'll accept that number.
Which number could be greater than that? The current number or the resulting number if homicides all go to court?

This website lists 1100 for 2014. That's what I based my statement on.
Your list includes at least one killed by being run over by a car. The least itself includes all deaths involving a policeman, not just ones when police had custody. Since it is culled from news reports without regard to the facts of the matter it is relatively useless insofar as I'm concerned. But it is not out of the realm of possibility that the number is either greater or less than that. I accepted it as a point for discussion. The utility of going to court is debatable, since the local prosecutor is still required to try the case. That relationship between cop and prosecutor is rather incestuous. But at least it would happen in public before a judge.

@Carlington
What is crap is the idea that I don't want to make police responsible for their behavior.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:27 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:quote="Carlington"]morriswalters, I don't think you believe that police should never face trial for their use of violence.
I'm not going to be polite. Crap. However I am of the mind to fix the problem in a way that works rather than use feelgood solutions that don't. If it were up to me I would remove handguns out of the equation and change the rules of engagement so that you don't chase people who rabbit, without some kind of reason. You can imagine how popular that makes me in some circles. But given that there are around 350 million guns at large in the US it isn't going to happen. Anyway we'll see what the morning brings.[/quote]

I don't think "remove handguns out of the equation" is a real option. But, as a substitute, I would suggest requiring that police be limited to the same firepower as the general populace wherever they are. IE, if the citizens can't have armored vehicles with machine guns on top, the cops can do without them as well. It keeps a sort of balance to counteract militarization. Disarming police in an armed society seems unworkable, but at least a degree of balance seems appropriate. And it's probably still weighted in the cops favor, because even if you CAN buy crazy gear in your jurisdiction, finances are probably more of a limitation for the average guy than the cops.

Hell, a lot of gun laws even exempt all ex-cops. That seems hard to justify out of necessity, it seems like just giving extra power to a given class.

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Generally a prosecutor decides. You are probably worried about whether prosecutors will zealously pursue cases against police officers, but it's not clear to me why an automatic trial would solve that problem. Prosecutors also get accused of deliberately throwing trials. (Not as often, since usually they can just decline to prosecute if they don't want to convict someone.)


Yeah, it does not solve all problems. However, taking deliberate action to throw a trial is more active than simply opting to not prosecute. Harder to hide. And the more exposed it is, the more you can hold the individuals involved responsible.

User avatar
Diemo
Posts: 396
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:43 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Diemo » Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:48 am UTC

Everytime a cop uses violence to solve a problem, they should be taken to court. In my mind, the court would work just like a regular court does, with the major exception that you can only be on the jury once a year. The cop gets to present his side of things, the victims get to present theirs, and the jury decides if the use of force is justified.

This is assuming that the jury is chosen randomly out of the population.

I can understand changing the time before your allowed back on the jury. This is basically to insure that the same 12 people don't judge all of the cops.

(I'm also not sure how juries work in the US, but in Ireland, you have a duty to jury service. If you are self-employed and your attendance would mean that you can't earn a living then you can be excused. If you are employed, then the employer must by law pay you as if you were at the job. There is no payment or travel expenses for jurors, but lunch will be provided.)

So, this will mean that you will get some stupid cases. It will also mean that the cops will want to wear their body cameras, because that will make the case go very quickly (was force justified? Yes, see this video). And it should be relatively cheap, especially if you decide beforehand what the punishment for the cop is (and then you can get rid of the need for a judge).
In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
--Douglas Adams

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:50 am UTC

Juries work pretty similarly in the US. And yeah, the idea is to have the general public overseeing the police. And of course, a static council or similar is somewhat different from juries.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby morriswalters » Wed Apr 29, 2015 11:34 am UTC

Employers have no obligation to pay you for your time spent on jury duty. You receive a stipend for expenses. On my notification it's 5 dollars per day and 7.50 for expenses. 12.50 US. Welcome to American justice.
Diemo wrote:And it should be relatively cheap, especially if you decide beforehand what the punishment for the cop is (and then you can get rid of the need for a judge).
Consider why you might need a judge other than to decide the punishment. Also in the US consider that there is a whole bureaucracy in support of the process. If the police are expected to bear the same burden as society in general, then consider that societies obligation is to provide the police with precisely the same protections as the public at large. Trials are expensive, so is justice.

User avatar
Diemo
Posts: 396
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:43 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Diemo » Wed Apr 29, 2015 11:40 am UTC

No, it is not society's obligation to provide the police with the same protections as the public at large. Police work is a dangerous job, and police get paid for doing that dangerous job.

Police should face a higher burden than the public at large, because police have a higher rate of power than the public at large. Power without responsibility sounds like a recipe for corruption.

And why would you need a judge other than to give out the punishments?

In terms of jury duty, that sucks. I would guess that it has not been changed in quite a long time, when 5 dollars was a fair wage for a day.
In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
--Douglas Adams

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Apr 29, 2015 12:12 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:Employers have no obligation to pay you for your time spent on jury duty. You receive a stipend for expenses. On my notification it's 5 dollars per day and 7.50 for expenses. 12.50 US. Welcome to American justice.


Yeah, that part's different. And seriously, it should be at least minimum wage. Some companies do compensate the difference, but..for those that don't, or for those not currently employed, that time does have value, and $12.50 a day isn't really reasonable.

Diemo wrote:No, it is not society's obligation to provide the police with the same protections as the public at large. Police work is a dangerous job, and police get paid for doing that dangerous job.


In the sense of a fair trial, sure. Police should get defended same as everyone else.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby morriswalters » Wed Apr 29, 2015 12:17 pm UTC

Diemo wrote:No, it is not society's obligation to provide the police with the same protections as the public at large. Police work is a dangerous job, and police get paid for doing that dangerous job.
Just to be clear. I'm not talking about who pays. I am talking their constitutional rights as individuals. Rights to due process, trial by peers and so on. The issue of who pays is another can of worms altogether.
Diemo wrote:And why would you need a judge other than to give out the punishments?
The Wiki is better at this than me.
The judge is supposed to conduct the trial impartially and in an open court. The judge hears all the witnesses and any other evidence presented by the parties of the case, assesses the credibility and arguments of the parties, and then issues a ruling on the matter at hand based on his or her interpretation of the law and his or her own personal judgment. In some jurisdictions, the judge's powers may be shared with a jury.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Apr 29, 2015 12:21 pm UTC

This entire hypothetical isn't making a lick of sense. Who will be the prosecutor of these hypothetical trials?

It is clear that an individual officer will be the defendant. It is clear you think you want a jury trial. A judge is still needed to throw out bad evidence or to call for a mistrial. (If the Jury hears illegal evidence, the trial is null and void. The Judge makes the decision on whether or not the trial is being conducted fairly.) The only purpose of the jury is to have a representation of "the general public" and force them to make a judgement on a particular case. But the people who actually _run_ the trial are the Prosecutor, the Judge, and the Defendant. Calling up witnesses, presenting evidence, etc. etc. etc.

If you want someone to prosecute cops at a trial, then you create an organization who's sole purpose is to prosecute cops. IE: A Citizens Review Board. I'm not entirely sure what else you'd want. Then you allocate funds to the review board as necessary for them to get the job done.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Diemo
Posts: 396
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:43 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Diemo » Wed Apr 29, 2015 12:46 pm UTC

We may be talking about slightly different things. The trial I am talking about is not criminal proceedings, that can be taken in an ordinary court. So the punishments that this court could give would be things such as disciplinary hearings, mandatory counseling, etc., with the biggest judgement being that the police officer is fired. As such, there doesn't need to be the same standard of prosecution/defense as there is in an ordinary case.

Still, it seems like there would be a prosecutor needed. But I would imagine that the vast majority of the time the policeman would be cleared quickly, because most of the time when people use force it is relatively justified. Of course, I had not considered the ways that (in the US, and possibly others, but I only know about the US) the police are given to get a story together about why this was justified. But on the other hand, there is already an internal affairs dept., so they could take this over.

Anyway, if you need to create an organisation to overview the prosecution of the cops, then create it. The important part of the equation is the choosing of the jury at random, and the fact that you can only be on the jury once per time period of choice.

Also, this is pretty clearly not a finalised proposal, as you would need to put in an appeals process, and I am sure other things that I am not thinking of in the 30 minutes consideration that I have given this.
In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
--Douglas Adams

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Apr 29, 2015 12:59 pm UTC

I'm gonna play devil's advocate for a sec.

Diemo wrote:Anyway, if you need to create an organisation to overview the prosecution of the cops, then create it. The important part of the equation is the choosing of the jury at random, and the fact that you can only be on the jury once per time period of choice.


The Eric Garner case was presided over a grand jury. Civilian Complaint Review Board exists in the city and was involved in the case. So are you satisfied with Eric Garner?
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6715
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby sardia » Wed Apr 29, 2015 1:46 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:I'm gonna play devil's advocate for a sec.

Diemo wrote:Anyway, if you need to create an organisation to overview the prosecution of the cops, then create it. The important part of the equation is the choosing of the jury at random, and the fact that you can only be on the jury once per time period of choice.


The Eric Garner case was presided over a grand jury. Civilian Complaint Review Board exists in the city and was involved in the case. So are you satisfied with Eric Garner?


That's a fair point, it reminds me of how hard it was to arrest kkk members during the bad old days of Jim Crow. How did they solve that?

I don't think "remove handguns out of the equation" is a real option. But, as a substitute, I would suggest requiring that police be limited to the same firepower as the general populace wherever they are. IE, if the citizens can't have armored vehicles with machine guns on top, the cops can do without them as well. It keeps a sort of balance to counteract militarization. Disarming police in an armed society seems unworkable, but at least a degree of balance seems appropriate. And it's probably still weighted in the cops favor, because even if you CAN buy crazy gear in your jurisdiction, finances are probably more of a limitation for the average guy than the cops.

Weren't you the one who said that civilians could own all these things, except most don't because of the bureaucracy and cost? I agree that the cops shouldn't need so much heavy firepower, but the specific comparison level isn't appropriate. Civilians can walk around with semi-automatic rifles and body armor too. Cops should be outfitted according to the threat level, which is low to nil.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby morriswalters » Wed Apr 29, 2015 2:54 pm UTC

sardia wrote:That's a fair point, it reminds me of how hard it was to arrest kkk members during the bad old days of Jim Crow. How did they solve that?
Did we solve that? The Klan still exists. And of course we didn't arrest most of them. We arrested some of them. And of course they don't parade around so much in robes any more. Now racist's wear suits and sit in boardrooms and give money to foundations and teach their children how to act like a sheep while really being a wolf.

User avatar
Diemo
Posts: 396
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:43 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Diemo » Wed Apr 29, 2015 5:21 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:I'm gonna play devil's advocate for a sec.

Diemo wrote:Anyway, if you need to create an organisation to overview the prosecution of the cops, then create it. The important part of the equation is the choosing of the jury at random, and the fact that you can only be on the jury once per time period of choice.


The Eric Garner case was presided over a grand jury. Civilian Complaint Review Board exists in the city and was involved in the case. So are you satisfied with Eric Garner?


No, not really. But the fact that the Eric Garner case did not choose to prosecute is still better than not having a system in place to try to stop police violence at all.
In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
--Douglas Adams

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:07 pm UTC

natraj wrote:update: completely peaceful demonstration, the cops have broken out the riot gear and an lrad and are kettling us.

and no, morriswalters, before you ask, i don't have a citation, i am currently standing in the middle of the street with a bunch of riot cops surrounding people for the crime of chanting w/o a permit


WTOP was reporting last night that a "tense moment" came up when the Police line advanced due to a medical emergency. The crowd misunderstood the intent of the Police, but nothing crazy happened. WTOP's website is down right now btw. Don't got a citation either.

-----

Overall, 10 arrests total were made. Seven for breaking curfew, two for looting and one for arson.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryla ... story.html

It is clear that the Police are continuing to allow protests to continue. The Mayor and the Governor are giving conflicting messages over how strict the police / national guard should be. A number of news stories are calling the Mayor too soft in the wake of last night and the night before.

-----

I'm definitely getting a number of stories covering the "peaceful protests". If your group is large enough natraj, you might want to contact local news like WTOP or whatnot to cover your side of the protests. Especially if you know an area where protests are happening but the press does not. The news is looking very quiet and tranquil, possibly due to the massive soldier / police presence now in the city.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Apr 29, 2015 7:17 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
I don't think "remove handguns out of the equation" is a real option. But, as a substitute, I would suggest requiring that police be limited to the same firepower as the general populace wherever they are. IE, if the citizens can't have armored vehicles with machine guns on top, the cops can do without them as well. It keeps a sort of balance to counteract militarization. Disarming police in an armed society seems unworkable, but at least a degree of balance seems appropriate. And it's probably still weighted in the cops favor, because even if you CAN buy crazy gear in your jurisdiction, finances are probably more of a limitation for the average guy than the cops.

Weren't you the one who said that civilians could own all these things, except most don't because of the bureaucracy and cost? I agree that the cops shouldn't need so much heavy firepower, but the specific comparison level isn't appropriate. Civilians can walk around with semi-automatic rifles and body armor too. Cops should be outfitted according to the threat level, which is low to nil.


Federally, a civilian can own many of these things. Exact rules vary by locality. For instance, in MD, there is a long list of banned firearms. These are, of course, not banned for police. Or retired police. Hell, even the legislators automatically recieve special permits, bypassing normal restrictions.

I'm not a great fan of gun control as a whole, but if you're gonna do it, at least do it fairly, not create a special tier of power.

As for Baltimore, it's a lot calmer today. Still tense, and I wouldn't rule out a flare-up if say, they announce they're not going to charge any of the cops or something, but for now at least, we've got some improvement. That said, curfews still seem a strangely antiquated and authoritarian measure.

maybeagnostic
Posts: 643
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:34 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby maybeagnostic » Thu Apr 30, 2015 6:57 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Federally, a civilian can own many of these things. Exact rules vary by locality. For instance, in MD, there is a long list of banned firearms. These are, of course, not banned for police. Or retired police. Hell, even the legislators automatically recieve special permits, bypassing normal restrictions.

I'm not a great fan of gun control as a whole, but if you're gonna do it, at least do it fairly, not create a special tier of power.

Isn't the whole idea of gun control to regulate who can and who can't have certain guns? Creating tiers of power (i.e. right to gun ownership) is the whole point. As for cops and ex-cops having the right to own personal firearms, I don't see that as a problem. You want to only allow trained people with experience in firearm use and safety to own guns but surely all US cops should be a part of that group since they get mandatory training as part of their job. Besides, the issue right now isn't cops shooting people with their personal firearms in their personal time so even if you forbade retired cops from owning firearms you won't address any of the current problems.
T: ... through an emergency induction port.
S: That's a straw, Tali.
T: Emerrrgency induction port.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Apr 30, 2015 10:25 am UTC

maybeagnostic wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Federally, a civilian can own many of these things. Exact rules vary by locality. For instance, in MD, there is a long list of banned firearms. These are, of course, not banned for police. Or retired police. Hell, even the legislators automatically recieve special permits, bypassing normal restrictions.

I'm not a great fan of gun control as a whole, but if you're gonna do it, at least do it fairly, not create a special tier of power.

Isn't the whole idea of gun control to regulate who can and who can't have certain guns? Creating tiers of power (i.e. right to gun ownership) is the whole point. As for cops and ex-cops having the right to own personal firearms, I don't see that as a problem. You want to only allow trained people with experience in firearm use and safety to own guns but surely all US cops should be a part of that group since they get mandatory training as part of their job. Besides, the issue right now isn't cops shooting people with their personal firearms in their personal time so even if you forbade retired cops from owning firearms you won't address any of the current problems.


Well, the goal here isn't to discuss gun control in general, more just as it related to police...but police are not particularly extensively trained. It varies widely, from a coupla weeks of training to none. Of course, ex-cops don't get trained, either. Cops like to portray themselves as experts on many things. They're not. Your average beat cop is no more a firearms expert than he is a forensics expert, hostage negotiator, or anything else he's portrayed at on TV.

And the quality of training where it occurs, generally sucks. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/04/robert-farago/study-why-police-firearms-training-sucks/ This is why you so frequently see police shoots where shots fired approach the amount of rounds carried, despite the situation really not calling for it.

In short, everyone assumes police are somehow better than your average person but...based on what data? Do they tend to be smarter than average? Hell, in some cases, they specifically select against cops that are too intelligent. Are they more honest? Kinder? Less prone to abuse of power? I would *love* to see data backing that up.

If we're going to create a special, empowered class, and give them special rights to do violence to the rest of us...why? Why should we emphasize that? What do we get for doing so? Note that this isn't just guns...that just happens to be one case I can point to where the additional status/rights is commonly made explicit in law. There are other areas where police enjoy additional benefits for no apparent operational reason.

User avatar
Diemo
Posts: 396
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:43 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Diemo » Thu Apr 30, 2015 12:22 pm UTC

Diemo wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:I'm gonna play devil's advocate for a sec.

Diemo wrote:Anyway, if you need to create an organisation to overview the prosecution of the cops, then create it. The important part of the equation is the choosing of the jury at random, and the fact that you can only be on the jury once per time period of choice.


The Eric Garner case was presided over a grand jury. Civilian Complaint Review Board exists in the city and was involved in the case. So are you satisfied with Eric Garner?


No, not really. But the fact that the Eric Garner case did not choose to prosecute is still better than not having a system in place to try to stop police violence at all.


Actually, I have been thinking about this, and I think that I have changed my mind.

The illusion of justice is actually worse than having nothing at all because then people can point to the illusion and claim that that is enough justice.

[Note: I am speaking generically, and not about the Garner case specifically because I don't really know anything about it.]

[edit: I made a thread
Last edited by Diemo on Thu Apr 30, 2015 12:41 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
--Douglas Adams

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Apr 30, 2015 12:34 pm UTC

It appears that in Baltimore, we're going with "Freddie did it to himself". No video, no evidence, save for an anonymouse testimony, evidently. I predict that this will satisfy precisely nobody.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Apr 30, 2015 1:29 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:It appears that in Baltimore, we're going with "Freddie did it to himself". No video, no evidence, save for an anonymouse testimony, evidently. I predict that this will satisfy precisely nobody.


The testimony is allegedly from the other prisoner in the van. That's a pretty neutral party to come from. Also, "The Baltimore Sun" hasn't published that rumor yet. Washington Post seems reputable though.

However, I thought the timeline suggests that Freddie was by himself when he was injured. I thought the 2nd prisoner was loaded up after Freddie Gray's back was broken?? In any case, the results of the investigation (whether or not they'll prosecute the officers) are due tomorrow, so we might as well just sit tight and wait for the official word. Just one more day, after all.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3972
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Dauric » Thu Apr 30, 2015 1:58 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:It appears that in Baltimore, we're going with "Freddie did it to himself". No video, no evidence, save for an anonymouse testimony, evidently. I predict that this will satisfy precisely nobody.


The testimony is allegedly from the other prisoner in the van. That's a pretty neutral party to come from. Also, "The Baltimore Sun" hasn't published that rumor yet. Washington Post seems reputable though.

However, I thought the timeline suggests that Freddie was by himself when he was injured. I thought the 2nd prisoner was loaded up after Freddie Gray's back was broken?? In any case, the results of the investigation (whether or not they'll prosecute the officers) are due tomorrow, so we might as well just sit tight and wait for the official word. Just one more day, after all.


I don't know that another prisoner is really a neutral party, or rather a party that is immune to duress (they are after all incarcerated by the same department that is under investigation for the death. Maybe someone is more versed in anatomy than I, but i'd imagine that it's not an easy task to sever one's own spine by throwing oneself unaided at the interior of a prison van.

NPR had an article this morning about Baltimore's $5.4 million in payments to settle suits of police brutality over a 4-year period. Given the city settled over arrests with no charges of otherwise random bystanders, I would not put it past the same people to intimidate a prisoner to fabricate so-called-testimony saying that Freddie's injuries were self inflicted.

Edit: at the time I post the link is audio-only.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Apr 30, 2015 2:08 pm UTC

In any case, CNN has the timeline: http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/20/us/freddi ... index.html

So it looks like Gray was injured sometime between 9:00 and 9:25am. Which means if a "rough ride" did in fact take place, the other prisoner would be a witness to it. If the case goes forward, the prosecution will definitely get to the witness, and probably have a testimony ready.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Apr 30, 2015 2:29 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:It appears that in Baltimore, we're going with "Freddie did it to himself". No video, no evidence, save for an anonymouse testimony, evidently. I predict that this will satisfy precisely nobody.


The testimony is allegedly from the other prisoner in the van. That's a pretty neutral party to come from. Also, "The Baltimore Sun" hasn't published that rumor yet. Washington Post seems reputable though.

However, I thought the timeline suggests that Freddie was by himself when he was injured. I thought the 2nd prisoner was loaded up after Freddie Gray's back was broken?? In any case, the results of the investigation (whether or not they'll prosecute the officers) are due tomorrow, so we might as well just sit tight and wait for the official word. Just one more day, after all.


Washington post is quite reputable in general. However, NBC disputes their reporting in this instance. http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/baltimore-unrest/report-freddie-gray-hurt-himself-police-van-n350831 Perhaps somewhat different information was received by the different reporters.

The second prisoner was only in the van for the final five minutes of the ride, and they are physically separated with a partition, so he didn't have eyes on. So, even if we accept that noise was happening, there's still a fair number of open questions. The second prisoner cannot have observed everything.

Chen
Posts: 5524
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Chen » Thu Apr 30, 2015 2:50 pm UTC

I'm curious as to how they consider that a "disputed report". Almost everything in the NBC article is exactly the same as the Washington Post one. The only dispute I see is that they say their timelines don't match and don't go on to explain how they don't match at all. There doesn't seem to be any dispute at all towards the fact that there was a police report where the other prisoner allegedly said that Gray was trying to harm himself. Of course just because it's in a police report doesn't mean it's true, but neither article is speaking to the veracity of that document.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby morriswalters » Thu Apr 30, 2015 3:40 pm UTC

It's a sideshow. He got to the point were he was arrested walking and breathing. After he got arrested and taken away he ended up dead with a broken neck. He shouldn't have been able to hurt himself in that fashion with officers just feet away. The report is a diversion, intentional or not.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Apr 30, 2015 3:44 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:It's a sideshow. He got to the point were he was arrested walking and breathing. After he got arrested and taken away he ended up dead with a broken neck. He shouldn't have been able to hurt himself in that fashion with officers just feet away. The report is a diversion, intentional or not.


Diversion or not, the prosecution was likely relying on the witness testimony of the 2nd prisoner in the van.

If the 2nd prisoner won't testify that they got a "rough ride" during the time of death, then no case can be made against the six officers. Unless one of the six officers confesses to the rough ride or something... but given 5th amendment rights, that seems unlikely.

EDIT: The Police have handed the case over to Marilyn Mosby. One of the youngest city prosecutors ever, African American 34 years old. It will be interesting to see how she handles her first major case with international attention. Whereas Ferguson / NYC cases were criticized for having prosecutors with conflicts of interest handle their cases, Marilyn Mosby's platform was explicitly about the distrust between police officers and the citizens.

"As a black woman who understands just how much the criminal justice system disproportionately affects communities of color, I will seek justice on your behalf"


Marilyn Mosby in her acceptance speech, earlier this year.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Chen
Posts: 5524
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Chen » Thu Apr 30, 2015 4:24 pm UTC

Even if the second witness doesn't specify there was a rough ride, it could still have happened before. Depending on what banging around he was hearing it could be as simple as Gray hitting the divider and stuff while already unconscious. Still, that witness does appear to be the key piece here since there doesn't seem to be any other witnesses/cameras showing what was happening in the van. Has there been a full autopsy report done/released yet? I see only second hand reports as to the nature of the injuries he received varying from "neck trauma" to "80% severed spinal cord".

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby morriswalters » Thu Apr 30, 2015 4:27 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Diversion or not, the prosecution was likely relying on the witness testimony of the 2nd prisoner in the van.

If the 2nd prisoner won't testify that they got a "rough ride" during the time of death, then no case can be made against the six officers. Unless one of the six officers confesses to the rough ride or something... but given 5th amendment rights, that seems unlikely.
The other prisoner isn't in a position to know that, or much of anything useful. This isn't "was the ride rough enough to injure both", it is instead "was the ride rough enough to injure Grey", if indeed the ride had anything at all to do with it. The other prisoner never had a view of Grey so he can't speak to it at all. And if he could hear Grey trying to hurt himself one might assume the the officers in the van could hear as well.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Apr 30, 2015 4:52 pm UTC

Chen wrote:Has there been a full autopsy report done/released yet? I see only second hand reports as to the nature of the injuries he received varying from "neck trauma" to "80% severed spinal cord".


The attorney for the Gray family made the "80%" remark. The preliminary autopsy allegedly only notes the spinal cord injury, no other bruises or cuts.

It'd be up to the prosecutor whether or not she wants to release data with regards to the case.

Chen wrote:Even if the second witness doesn't specify there was a rough ride, it could still have happened before.


Unlikely. The van stopped 3 times according to the officers involved, and Freddie Gray's condition was reported on in each of the stops. Based on the timeline, the fatal spinal injury happened after the 2nd prisoner was picked up.

There is camera footage of a 4th stop that no one has talked about yet however. But this is well past 9:00am (which means both prisoners were in the back of the van).

Depending on what banging around he was hearing it could be as simple as Gray hitting the divider and stuff while already unconscious.


Mind you, Freddie Gray was not buckled, had leg restraints AND was cuffed with hands behind his back. He didn't need to be unconscious to be bouncing around in the back of the van.

The FoP have noted that the policy to buckle prisoners on the back of the van was not officially in effect yet. The policy was apparently announced on April 3rd-ish, and would have gone in effect soonish after (like a week or so). So the officers were notified of the policy change, forcing all officers to buckle prisoners properly in the back of vans. However, it may have not gone into effect in time for the policy to actually be an official part of this case.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Thu Apr 30, 2015 4:57 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Apr 30, 2015 4:57 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
morriswalters wrote:It's a sideshow. He got to the point were he was arrested walking and breathing. After he got arrested and taken away he ended up dead with a broken neck. He shouldn't have been able to hurt himself in that fashion with officers just feet away. The report is a diversion, intentional or not.


Diversion or not, the prosecution was likely relying on the witness testimony of the 2nd prisoner in the van.

If the 2nd prisoner won't testify that they got a "rough ride" during the time of death, then no case can be made against the six officers. Unless one of the six officers confesses to the rough ride or something... but given 5th amendment rights, that seems unlikely.


*shrug* They only have six blocks of shared travel time, and didn't even see each other. I agree that making a case would be rough, but proving the negative also seems quite difficult, given the distinct lack of coverage on the time when the injury appears to have happened.

And it's hard to envision a scenario that doesn't have at least some police culpability. At a minimum, they ignored the requests for medical care(and if they stopped to pick up someone else, were obviously not in a hurry to get him to a hospital), and failed to restrain him properly. And it's really hard to argue that the injury happened outside of the van. So, regardless of exact details, it ends up looking really bad for those officers.

Plus, it's not as if they even had a particularly good reason to scoop him up to begin with. It's not as if he was posing an immediate danger to someone.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Apr 30, 2015 4:59 pm UTC

But the rioters in the street want a criminal prosecution.

I'm thinking one won't happen at this rate. This might be an offense where these officers will lose their job. The civil case will almost certainly go through as well. But I don't think that's enough to quell the anger.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Apr 30, 2015 5:14 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:But the rioters in the street want a criminal prosecution.

I'm thinking one won't happen at this rate. This might be an offense where these officers will lose their job. The civil case will almost certainly go through as well. But I don't think that's enough to quell the anger.


Statements on the TV says that they(police) will probably not reccomend that the prosecutor pursue this at all, and any report will not be made public. I agree, this seems unlikely to result in a criminal prosecution, and will result in very unsatisfied rioters/protestors.

I do not plan to visit Baltimore this weekend, either.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby morriswalters » Thu Apr 30, 2015 6:11 pm UTC


Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Apr 30, 2015 6:42 pm UTC



Makes sense. Our era didn't invent it. We just care about it now. Brutality has always been with us.

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tirian » Thu Apr 30, 2015 6:59 pm UTC

Society has matured to the point that we don't automatically distrust the victim's testimony against a hallowed institution. A generation ago, it was allegations that the Catholic church covered up the truth about pedophile priests. This time, it will be bigger, more painful, and longer to burn out all of the corruption.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Apr 30, 2015 10:26 pm UTC

Referring to herself, Ms. Mosby, and the nation’s new attorney general, Loretta Lynch, the mayor said Thursday, “If, with the nation watching, three black women at three different levels can’t get justice and healing for this community, you tell me where we’re going to get it in our country.”


Ms. Rawlings-Blake: Baltimore City Mayor (African American Woman)
Ms. Mosby: Baltimore City Prosecutor (African American Woman)
Loretta Lynch: United States Attorney General (African American Woman. Just sworn in, replacing Eric Holder. Leader of DoJ, FBI, ATF, DEA, US Marshals, etc. etc.)

Anthony Batts: Baltimore City Police Commissioner (African American, Male)

There are a surprising number of black women in very powerful positions in this case. I don't think there's a single white-dude in the entire leadership. Closest you got is Anthony Batts, who's an African American dude. Or the FoP leader (Gene Ryan) is the only white-guy who seems to be involved. And only as the FoP's leader, he really doesn't have any power in the situation outside of maybe helping the six officers involved get defense attorneys.

This case is in strong-contrast to Ferguson, which was more or less a white-wash leadership outside of the mayor and then Attorney General Eric Holder.

--------------------

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/baltim ... ay-n351321

A Baltimore man has come forward to talk about his April 12 ride in a police van with Freddie Gray, saying in an interview that he heard his fellow prisoner briefly making noise on the other side of a metal barrier.

"All I heard was a little banging for like four seconds," 22-year-old Donte Allen told local NBC affiliate WBAL. "I just heard a little banging."


Even with Allen's account, it remains unclear what Gray was doing on the other side of the partition. Sources have told WBAL that Gray was unconscious by the time that Allen was loaded inside.


The obvious, grim, interpretation of this... is that Mr. Gray was unconsciously bouncing around in the back of the van. There is recorded footage (from some convenience store) of an unwarranted, unreported stop at some point. So the "rough ride" very well could have occurred before the 2nd prisoner stepped foot into the van.

As far as the "Gray was intentionally hurting himself" report...

Asked if he told police that he heard Gray banging his head against the van, Allen [allegedly the 2nd prisoner] provided WBAL with a conflicting reply: "I told homicide that. I don't work for the police. I didn't tell the police nothing."


A good prosecutor might be able to hit them with "tampering with evidence". All Mr. Allen needs to do is swear this fact in front of a judge. Mrs. Mosby has a chance here IMO.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bbluewi, mashnut and 16 guests