311–320 of 369 posts
No, this is not Russia, North Korea, China. This is the US, 2020.
Have you ever had an encounter with the police in China, North Korea, or Russia as a black person? way way worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, extrajudicial murder to protect physical property, that's justice. When you care more about stuff than you do about actual human lives, your evil is showing.
Depends where you live. The duty to retreat is different depending on location. Shooting someone over dollar store items is dumb. But defending your sole proprietorship you have built up and is the only thing you have, understandable.
Secondly, this is a single, solitary reason out of the myriad of other reasons, why we, as as a species, invented insurance.
Please, give up your childish John Wayne fantasies, which, to be honest are barbaric and counter to the very essence of civilization, and join the adults who build societies and systems that protect people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, were did he say "to shoot looters"? That's just one possible interpretation, if you really want to understand him that way.
No, it isn't one of several reasonable interpretations, it's what he quite plainly wrote. What else could 'shooting' possibly refer to, if not the shooting of looters?
But discussion about it isn't possible, sorry. I am heavily downvoted for not following groupthink, so I am rate limited when it comes to posting.
Oh well.
Why aren't people over there more upset about those reporters getting arrested by state police on the street? That was pretty f'ed up. But I guess when it can't be blamed on Trump, people over there just don't care.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The New York Times appears to me and many others misguided on the issue of race. The 1776 Wikipedia page does not appear to be slated for deletion, I'm not sure what you're talking about there.
It says it on the talk page. When a group of white people and a group with a black person are doing the exact same thing (reporting for cable news), positioned equidistant on opposite sides of a group of police offers and one group gets arrested and the other does not, how is that not racism? It is literally a natural experiment with a single variable (race) changed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, it happened live on air, they were clearly identified as CNN and willing to comply with police orders - making the police's claim laughable. I wonder what those officers were thinking, arresting a reporter on live camera.
My first hunch is the arresting officers were scrubs, brought in from other jurisdictions to staff up in response to the riots. In the after math of the 1999 WTO riots, many of the worst abuses were committed by LEOs brought in from the outlying areas. Scrubs who didn't have the same training as the locals (and state patrol). Nor have any kind of personal regard for the city and its people. Even so, at the time, I wa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have 24 hours to articulate that or let you go.
They still have to explain why you have been detained, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who does?
It will depend on the type of police force. In the case of a state police, it would be a combination of the state legislature and state judiciary. The real answer is surely lengthy and complicated, but suffice to say the mayor (thankfully) does not control the police... just as thankfully the president does not control the military.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Police can break the law too. An officer's actions may or may not be legal and that's determined after the fact in a court of law. This doesn't happen all the time, but when police do break the law, or don't follow it correctly their actions come under scrutiny, data collected can be discarded from court, and even suffer personal blowback. What you're asking is how did it happen? That's because it's illegal for a cit…
> As someone else said, this will probably cost the police and city in a settlement. It probably won't cost the police anything, it'll come out of the taxpayer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't believe they are opening themselves up to any legal liability. See [1] and links for a disturbing list of recent examples of police receiving qualified immunity. One example from the article: > On May 18, the court turned away three of these appeals, including a jaw-dropping case in which police were granted qualified immunity after literally stealing $225,000. (There is no clearly established right not to be…
There's not enough liability, perhaps, but there's certainly some. Here[0] is a list of police department settlements and another[1] of individual police officers being tried and/or convicted for recent high-profile killings. Note that media coverage is inherently sensational and therefore not reflective of reality--just because the media gives much more attention to killings than to the legal repercussions doesn't m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good point, I retract my blanket statement of "no legal liability." I should have said that they are not criminally liable. Your link [1] shows how rarely police officers are found criminally liable for murder even in the most egregious of circumstances (only the most egregious ones are prosecuted at all and even most of those result in acquittals). On the other hand you are right that link [0] shows that it is much…
I agree. There needs to be more accountability for police. > Not personally, of course, the payments will come out of liability insurance (and, therefore, taxpayer coffers). I think this might actually be eminently desirable that the taxpayer is on the hook. We shoulder a lot of responsibility for our police (not the actions of any given officer, but the system that either fails to weed out 'bad apple' officers or fa…
Just put the officers on the hook instead, reform done.
Doctors are on the hook for medical malpractice, works quite well and we still have doctors.