Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chicago fires investigator who found cops at fault in shootings

wbez.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 113 posts

Re: Chicago fires investigator who found cops at fault in shootings

#81

Post by bmelton »

dragontamer wrote: post #75
bmelton wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asking for the police to be less discriminatory, less violent in their counters, and more accountable for their actions is normal, routine and given in every other profession. That we allow any exception for the police to violate those aspects as a matter of respecting their pride means that we're giving their pride FAR more weight than it deserves.

When did I say we have an exception? You should just word things that jives well with the Police Force. Otherwise, you turn it into us vs them politics, and that never goes well.

Apologies if I misunderstood.

I'm just trying to fathom a situation in which another type of employee could use 'pride' as an excuse for failing to do the job they are tasked to do in a way that is not injurious to their customers.

I think there are good arguments in support of the police in the way they effectuate their job responsibilities, but "pride" is, in my opinion, not a terribly good one.

Re: Chicago fires investigator who found cops at fault in shootings

#82

Post by late2part »

rquantz wrote: post #64
vaadu wrote: post #13

This is why all officer involved shootings should be investigated and prosecuted(if necessary) by people with no skin in the game for any outcome.

Specifically, investigation of police should the purview of the Federal Justice Department.

I disagree. We need more state rights and autonomy, we don't need the Feds to come in and babysit a state.

What Chicago needs to do is get managed by IL. And IL needs to realize that the corrupt people are getting voted in by IL citizens.

Re: Chicago fires investigator who found cops at fault in shootings

#83

Post by rosser »

zo1 wrote: post #78
rosser wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess it depends on exactly how "Libertarian" a view one is espousing. "Why should I have to pay for a fire department? My house isn't on fire!" Yeah, that guy needs to move to Somalia. Not so he can experience what that degree of government-free state is actually like, but rather so the rest of us don't have to put up with that kind of idiocy.

Just because you can't conceive up voluntary methods of community-funded fire-protection services, doesn't mean the concept is "idiotic". I'm going to pass on getting into another Freedom discussion, seeing as you're already off to referring to certain ideas as "idiocy". Hardly the platform for a decent, logical debate on the topic.

Who funds the "community-funded" fire protection services if not the community? That is, the people who would stand to benefit from those services, should they ever find their house on fire.

The most "libertarian" example of a community funded fire service I've ever heard of is the one where you pay "dues" to the fire department, and they'll come put out the fire if your house ever catches. If you don't, they'll come up to your property line and make sure the fire doesn't spread, but otherwise just stand there, watching your shit burn.

This actually happens, and I have exactly zero sympathy for the people who don't pay in.

That's what I'm talking about when I say "idiocy": people who claim to be Libertarian, but whose attitude is more, "Fuck you, I've got mine!" punctuated by, "Oh, shit! Someone expend community resources to help me with this!" You don't get to have it both ways; either you contribute meaningfully to the upkeep of the society whose membership you wish to benefit from, or you don't get to benefit from participation in that society.

EDIT: Sorry, I guess, if my tone is dismissive or offensive. I'm just sick to death of people walking around, talking a "Taxes Я theft!" position, but who expect to benefit from the things that those taxes pay for.

Re: Chicago fires investigator who found cops at fault in shootings

#84

Post by ectoplasm »

rosser wrote: post #83
zo1 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because you can't conceive up voluntary methods of community-funded fire-protection services, doesn't mean the concept is "idiotic". I'm going to pass on getting into another Freedom discussion, seeing as you're already off to referring to certain ideas as "idiocy". Hardly the platform for a decent, logical debate on the topic.

Who funds the "community-funded" fire protection services if not the community ? That is, the people who would stand to benefit from those services, should they ever find their house on fire. The most "libertarian" example of a community funded fire service I've ever heard of is the one where you pay "dues" to the fire department, and they'll come put out the fire if your house ever catches. If you don't, they'll com…

How do you handle housing where owners share at least one wall with their neighbors?

Re: Chicago fires investigator who found cops at fault in shootings

#85

Post by rosser »

ectoplasm wrote: post #84
rosser wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who funds the "community-funded" fire protection services if not the community ? That is, the people who would stand to benefit from those services, should they ever find their house on fire. The most "libertarian" example of a community funded fire service I've ever heard of is the one where you pay "dues" to the fire department, and they'll come put out the fire if your house ever catches. If you don't, they'll com…

How do you handle housing where owners share at least one wall with their neighbors?

If it were up to me, I'd make owning property with a "party wall" contingent upon membership in some form of home-owner's association, the dues of which are used to pay the dues to such a community fire brigade, as well as things like insurance on the common parts of the building, and such.

I'm not sure how you'd handle delinquency in paying those dues, but it would probably be somehow legally actionable.

EDIT: It's probably somewhat moot, anyway, as the overwhelming majority of these dues-based fire brigades exist in predominantly rural areas, where party walls aren't typically a thing.

Re: Chicago fires investigator who found cops at fault in shootings

#86

Post by justwannasing »

colechristensen wrote: post #28
justwannasing wrote: post #10

Gonna give you guys a few quick blurbs. First, a chief of police was interviewed on CBS News a while back. He said there are thousands upon thousands of police interactions with citizens every day but all anyone ever hears about is the one bad one that happened one time. Second, and this might sound off-topic but I hope you get my point. I was helping a guy move, a few months back, along with one of his friends who's…

Police profile cars. That is, in edge cases like a bit of swerving, 10 over the limit, newly expired tags, etc; police will look at the car and what they can tell about who is driving it and where they are to determine if they pull over or not. A cop told me this directly. I don't remember his exact conditions – but they included things like a young guy driving a real nice car or a car that seem like maybe it was his…

Of the thousand killed by cop, how many were holding a gun to the head of someone, or came out shooting before that happened?

Re: Chicago fires investigator who found cops at fault in shootings

#87

Post by rosser »

justwannasing wrote: post #86
colechristensen wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Police profile cars. That is, in edge cases like a bit of swerving, 10 over the limit, newly expired tags, etc; police will look at the car and what they can tell about who is driving it and where they are to determine if they pull over or not. A cop told me this directly. I don't remember his exact conditions – but they included things like a young guy driving a real nice car or a car that seem like maybe it was his…

Of the thousand killed by cop, how many were holding a gun to the head of someone, or came out shooting before that happened?

I'll bet you the cash I have on my person that there were more unarmed people in that thousand than had a gun to someone's head.

Re: Chicago fires investigator who found cops at fault in shootings

#88

Post by tzs »

Zikes wrote: post #50
theseatoms wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Though I'm tempted to say that this problem isn't getting worse and that our awareness is only becoming more acute, the existence of digital information increases the potential for abuses of power. (No specific cases come to mind at the moment, but I'd wager that it happens more than occasionally.) So what can we do about it? Record the police. EDIT: Typo..

Recording is a step, however that only addresses a small part of the issue: proof of wrongdoing. Even in clear-cut cases with recordings, such as the Eric Garner incident, it does not seem to lead to real justice. Every other day I'm reading an article about cases where there are no doubts as to the events, but no charges are ever brought. I think the first thing that needs to be addressed is the lack of independent,…

> He mentioned that he was pulled over for speeding, but once he told the officer who he was he was let go, and he was very proud of it.

It's not uncommon to be let off with a warning for speeding if you aren't argumentative, don't try to make bullshit excuses, were not going dangerously fast, aren't in some intentional revenue-generating speed trap, and your record comes back reasonably clean when they run a check on your license.

There was an AskReddit where someone asks cops what makes them decide whether to give a ticket or a warning that gives some interesting insights [1].

I've been let off with no ticket a couple times, and got the ticket a couple times.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/16zweo/cops_of_r...

Re: Chicago fires investigator who found cops at fault in shootings

#89

Post by Zikes »

tzs wrote: post #88
Zikes wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recording is a step, however that only addresses a small part of the issue: proof of wrongdoing. Even in clear-cut cases with recordings, such as the Eric Garner incident, it does not seem to lead to real justice. Every other day I'm reading an article about cases where there are no doubts as to the events, but no charges are ever brought. I think the first thing that needs to be addressed is the lack of independent,…

> He mentioned that he was pulled over for speeding, but once he told the officer who he was he was let go, and he was very proud of it. It's not uncommon to be let off with a warning for speeding if you aren't argumentative, don't try to make bullshit excuses, were not going dangerously fast, aren't in some intentional revenue-generating speed trap, and your record comes back reasonably clean when they run a check o…

I've also been let off with a warning a few times myself, but in this case he made it quite clear that it was his "status" that got him out of it, which seemed to be a point of pride for him.

As I mention below, I could not provide a transcript for this incident, only my account.

Re: Chicago fires investigator who found cops at fault in shootings

#90

Post by dragontamer »

mbrameld wrote: post #56
dragontamer wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've got cops in my Family... and any cop will tell you that bad cops exist. Only with proper independent review panels can justice be served against a bad cop. I'm not necessarily "anti-cop", but I know the importance of a robust cop investigation unit.

If your cop family members are aware of bad cops but do nothing about it then they are bad cops too.

Erm... like support a robust independent police review board?

Did you even read my post?

Post reply on HN