Red Mosquito

If one is into masochism, reading the comments for any of these unjustified police shootings one can always find apologists asserting that the person in question should have just complied. I'm sure they also feel the same about this case, but I hope that the impressive level of mental gymnastics required at least causes them some mental strain.

http://mimesislaw.com/fault-lines/james ... ights/4857

If the settlement in this case results in 'additional training', it suggests a gross negligence on the part of the agency involved. Apparently there's no constitutional right not be killed by cops for basically no reason while walking in public, but I'm pretty sure there's something about being secure in one's house. Going over this in police academy seems pretty basic, and the failure to do so is unforgivable. Of course, cops constantly need retraining in other areas of basic human decency and common sense, so maybe expecting them to understand constitutional rights is too esoteric for their steroid steeped brains.

SS,my ou (or someone else) may know this. Are police shootings/deaths of civilians/suspects on the rise, or are we getting better at reporting on and reacting to existing incidences. Is this a change in the story or the storytelling? I believe I read that violence against cops was down while violence committed by police was up but I am not certain.

stip wrote:SS,my ou (or someone else) may know this. Are police shootings/deaths of civilians/suspects on the rise, or are we getting better at reporting on and reacting to existing incidences. Is this a change in the story or the storytelling? I believe I read that violence against cops was down while violence committed by police was up but I am not certain.

I don't know if it's been tracked well enough at a nationwide level to know one way or the other. It's kind of sad that the Guardian has better numbers than the FBI (at least for this year).

stip wrote:SS,my ou (or someone else) may know this. Are police shootings/deaths of civilians/suspects on the rise, or are we getting better at reporting on and reacting to existing incidences. Is this a change in the story or the storytelling? I believe I read that violence against cops was down while violence committed by police was up but I am not certain.

I have to think that the advent of smartphones has a lot to do with where we are today. Violence in general has gone down in America, and there's a lot of proposed ideas why (my personal favorite is generational changes). But getting any of these things filmed is helping to unite people who are getting the raw end, as well as forcing those who aren't to pay attention to the problems. I think about when I was a kid, the only mass protesting against police violence I can remember was the Rodney King riots--because it was one of the rare incidents that was taped, in a day where it was more cost-prohibitive to do so.

All that said, I've come to find that it's a bit disturbing that for most people need video to act on something. Guess it's a flaw of human nature.

I wouldn't say it's a flaw. It's not unreasonable for something to become real once you can see it. It's hard to be moved by abstractions.

I believe everything people tell me, even when others tell me the opposite.

Green Habit wrote: All that said, I've come to find that it's a bit disturbing that for most people need video to act on something. Guess it's a flaw of human nature.

its the same thing as people not trusting the police. people dont trust others without solid proof and video has given folks that.

having said that they arent the worst at catching passes

I guess I need to rethink that last sentence. What I was trying to get at was the concept of credibility, since we don't have video for the grand majority of claims that are out there.

And yeah Peeps, I saw that play when it occurred live on TV, and it was awesome.

Rahm asked McCarthy to resign yesterday. So predictable, even if McCarthy also bears his part in the situation. Rahm really disgusts me on many levels.

verb_to_trust wrote:Rahm asked McCarthy to resign yesterday. So predictable, even if McCarthy also bears his part in the situation. Rahm really disgusts me on many levels.

Looks like the Illinois DA is asking the FBI to come investigate the CPD - labeling them as untrustworthy. Which is probably the nicest thing you can say about them.

I wonder if this will affect the the Chicago Blue show at all?

Fuck You Jobu wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:Rahm asked McCarthy to resign yesterday. So predictable, even if McCarthy also bears his part in the situation. Rahm really disgusts me on many levels.

Looks like the Illinois DA is asking the FBI to come investigate the CPD - labeling them as untrustworthy. Which is probably the nicest thing you can say about them.

I wonder if this will affect the the Chicago Blue show at all?

perhaps i'm blinded by cynicism, but I don't think there's any way Obama would like the justice department poke its nose around something that may ultimately lead right to Obama's right-hand man in rahm. and if he would, that investigation would be a farce (like anita alvarez's).

Chris_H_2 wrote:

Fuck You Jobu wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:Rahm asked McCarthy to resign yesterday. So predictable, even if McCarthy also bears his part in the situation. Rahm really disgusts me on many levels.

Looks like the Illinois DA is asking the FBI to come investigate the CPD - labeling them as untrustworthy. Which is probably the nicest thing you can say about them.

I wonder if this will affect the the Chicago Blue show at all?

perhaps i'm blinded by cynicism, but I don't think there's any way Obama would like the justice department poke its nose around something that may ultimately lead right to Obama's right-hand man in rahm. and if he would, that investigation would be a farce (like anita alvarez's).

Edited.

and yet when something like today happens they are the first trying to end it as quickly as possible

Let's go start an "I Like Cops" thread, Peeps.

Peeps wrote:and yet when something like today happens they are the first trying to end it as quickly as possible

that's part of their job descriptions. murdering people, covering it up, and pretending that they are immune because they carry a badge isn't.

Chris_H_2 wrote:

Peeps wrote:and yet when something like today happens they are the first trying to end it as quickly as possible

that's part of their job descriptions. murdering people, covering it up, and pretending that they are immune because they carry a badge isn't.

Can you prove that it isn't?

Fuck You Jobu wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

Peeps wrote:and yet when something like today happens they are the first trying to end it as quickly as possible

that's part of their job descriptions. murdering people, covering it up, and pretending that they are immune because they carry a badge isn't.

Can you prove that it isn't?

Yes, yes I can. I'm sure if I go to the local police station and ask for an officer's job description, that nowhere in there will it say that.

It's more of an orientation piece.

Day one: sexual harassment (incl. insurance packet info)
Day two: so you really shot that kid a lot (incl. role play and catered lunch)

We should just staple fliers to telephone poles in every city.

"WANTED - Good guys and gals to protect the rights and freedoms of every individual against all threats. Yes, even the assholes. 40k / year + benefits. Morally corrupt individuals need not apply."

That should attract all of the Andy Griffith's of the world.