It's the sixth version of The Swamp. What could possibly go wrong?
http://www.sportsfrog.net/phpbb/
Because when they were firing back in the direction of the gunfire they were taking, that’s legally defensible, at least arguably. But if they were firing wildly enough to endanger others in their homes, that’s not.
Yeah these no knock cases are more about drug enforcement policy than police brutality or racism. If you havent read up on Kathryn Johnston its worthwhile. Not a new situation. This is an 92 yr old lady that lived in such a fucked up part of town that she had a gun ready to go when the cops served a warrant on bad info. To cut to the end, the cops fared badly and she fared worse. Drug enforcement has failed for so long now we really ought to try something different.
But it's the primary way to subjugate and control lower-income black communities. So until you rid the systemic racism/for-profit prison and justice system, they have no incentive to change that approach. It makes money, and it keeps cops busy with "cop stuff" instead of focusing on real issues in their community.HaulCitgo wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:43 amDrug enforcement has failed for so long now we really ought to try something different.
If we're talking about that "reckless endangerment by creating a situation where lethal force is likely to become necessary" law I was suggesting, yes I think you prosecute the people involved in deciding to ask for the no-knock warrant.Shirley wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:30 am I think you guys are agreeing with me. The problem here is really the no-knock warrant and the mindset it creates in both the cops and the citizens. But are you going to put a judge in prison for approving the warrant? The detective who asked for it? (I'm not 100% sure how these things happen.)
Steve, I didn't quote your post that I'm responding to in order to declutter, but I'm saying there wasn't even a thought into it other than "shoot". Your "four seconds" implies they took the time to actually give an order.DSafetyGuy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 3:20 pmPolice car stops at 8:38, Rice is on the ground by 8:40. That is in no way self defense.Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 1:20 pmThe Tamir Rice shooting falls into that category - the cops drove right up to the kid and then "had to" shoot him in reasonable self defense when he didn't drop his toy in four seconds.
Defund the police.
Defund the police.BSF21 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:46 amThe overwhelming issue I have is regardless of the tangle web of justified or tragic accident or execution or what, police who get into tactical units that I have personally encountered have a very "us or them" mentality. They don't view it as protecting/serving their community. The job is to get bad guys, they've got their mind made up that this is a bad guy and know that they're overwhelmingly protected over any civilian they might hurt or kill, guilty or not. And when it works they get to high five their buddies and feel good about "getting drugs off the street" or whatever when all of that effort and waste and senseless violence could be channeled back into the community. In to social workers being able to respond to non-threatening calls. In to walking the beat of a community that you as an officer are responsible for. Into education of the disadvantaged areas to help lift those people up. But instead we promise these guys cars and guns and limitless protections by their peers and when you grow up watching COPS that's what you get.
And in case there are any judges out there reading sportsfrog.com, no you do not prosecute the judge. She only knows what she is being told by the party seeking the warrant.Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 11:18 amIf we're talking about that "reckless endangerment by creating a situation where lethal force is likely to become necessary" law I was suggesting, yes I think you prosecute the people involved in deciding to ask for the no-knock warrant.Shirley wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:30 am I think you guys are agreeing with me. The problem here is really the no-knock warrant and the mindset it creates in both the cops and the citizens. But are you going to put a judge in prison for approving the warrant? The detective who asked for it? (I'm not 100% sure how these things happen.)
I think I've come around to Disarm the Police.
From reading the timeline of events that led to the warrants, I don't think a warrant for Taylor's home was unreasonable. A no-knock one probably was though, particularly because they already seemed to know where her ex-boyfriend was going to be. In fact, they'd already arrested him something like 20 minutes before kicking down her door and shooting her.Rex wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 11:50 amAnd in case there are any judges out there reading sportsfrog.com, no you do not prosecute the judge. She only knows what she is being told by the party seeking the warrant.Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 11:18 amIf we're talking about that "reckless endangerment by creating a situation where lethal force is likely to become necessary" law I was suggesting, yes I think you prosecute the people involved in deciding to ask for the no-knock warrant.Shirley wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:30 am I think you guys are agreeing with me. The problem here is really the no-knock warrant and the mindset it creates in both the cops and the citizens. But are you going to put a judge in prison for approving the warrant? The detective who asked for it? (I'm not 100% sure how these things happen.)
Some states (maybe all of them, I don't know) have a mechanism in place to investigate ethics violations by judges, which can include incompetence or bias in handling matters like this.
Pretty good breakdown of things in the WaPost:HaulCitgo wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 12:36 pm And the cop only knows what the witness told them and the prosecutor knows even less who knows more than the judge. So hard to apportion blame. Even with Kathryn Johnston it was the cover up that got them not the false informant info that got the warrant. That's still allowed.
Yeah, me too. My dad’s a Canadian citizen so I might be able to actually do it. Don’t know what I’d do for work though. Starting over at 55 sounds pretty daunting.govmentchedda wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 8:43 amThis conversation comes up in my house more than you would imagine.
Of course, Americans aren’t even allowed to visit at the moment.
That country has such a laid back image in the west.brian wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 12:36 pm Tens of thousands taking to the streets in Thailand to protest "emergency restrictions" put in place by the Prime Minister, who also led the military junta that took power in a 2014 coup.
You know what, we are. I prefer to use the term bias rather than prejudice, but yeah. It's impossible not to be. I came here to procrastinate from preparing materials for an Unconscious Bias training and it all comes full circle.
^^ And this is why purity tests are bullshit. It's all a matter of where your personal "I'm uncomfortable" line is. Which is a terrible thing to admit about humanity but here we are.Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:45 am We're all biased, we're all prejudiced, and we're all racist. It's all a matter of degree.
No, I think the rebuke would deal with the fact they interpreted this as a first amendment issue, where faith healers and therapists are now free to use pseudoscience to trample on the constitutional rights of children / patients.
All leading professional medical and mental health associations reject “conversion therapy” as a legitimate medical treatment. In addition to the clinical risks associated with the practice, the means through which providers or counselors administer change efforts violate many important ethical principles, the foremost of which: “First, do no harm.”
A health care provider’s nonjudgmental recognition of and respect for patients’ sexual orientations, sexual behaviors and gender identity are essential elements in rendering optimal patient care in health, as well as in illness. This recognition is especially important to address the specific health care needs of people who are or may be LGBTQ as these patients often experience disparities in access to care. Yet administering change efforts is an inherently discriminatory practice often administered coercively and fraught with ethical problems, such as:
- Uninformed consent: change efforts are often prescribed without full descriptions of risks and disclosure of lack of efficacy or evidence
- Breaches of confidentiality: content of treatment, sexual orientation and gender identity may be shared with family, school or religious leaders without proper consent
- Patient discrimination: change efforts reinforce bias, discrimination and stigma against LGBTQ individuals
- Indiscriminate and improper treatment: change efforts are recommended regardless of evidence
It is clinically and ethically inappropriate for health care providers to direct mental or behavioral health interventions, including SOCE and GICE, with a prescriptive goal aimed at achieving a fixed developmental outcome of a child’s or adolescent’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.
- Patient blaming: the failure of treatment may be blamed on the patient