http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/14/nyregion/in-east-flatbush-seething-tensions-over-the-polices-constant-presence.html?_r=0
QuoteFirst came the shooting: an armed teenager was killed on Saturday night by police officers on a darkened Brooklyn street.
Then came the anger: a vigil on Monday evening was marred by an unruly young mob thrashing its way through local businesses; another protest followed the next day.
By the middle of this week, the tension in East Flatbush could be measured in the silently flashing lights of squad cars parked at tight intervals along a rain-soaked Church Avenue.
For some, the sight of extra police officers meant a potential reprieve in an area troubled by crime. For others, it was anything but reassuring.
The police said that two plainclothes officers fatally shot Kimani Gray, 16, just before 11:30 p.m. on Saturday after he brandished a revolver and pointed it at them. The police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, said Tuesday that the police had interviewed three witnesses, "two of which say that the officers said, 'Don't move.' "
"Another witness said an officer says, 'Freeze,' " he said. The officers then fired 11 shots, the police said.
A full report from the city medical examiner — detailing the nature of the gunshot wounds to Mr. Gray's abdomen and legs — had not yet been released Tuesday night. The officers who fired the shots have not been interviewed by investigators, as is department protocol.
For local residents, many of whom voiced skepticism about the official account, the situation was grimly familiar. Less than a year before, and only blocks away, a narcotics detective shot and killed an unarmed 23-year-old woman, Shantel Davis, as she fled the police in a car that had been reported stolen at gunpoint, the police said at the time.
Vigils followed that shooting as well. But soon the rhythms of daily life returned, marked by what young men and women said was a daily backbeat of police stops. "You try to put it out of your mind," said Ms. Davis's sister Crystal.
In interviews around the neighborhood, many spoke of a Police Department that, in its aggressive pursuit of gangs and informal criminal crews, has sown distrust, especially among young men and women, who feel that their encounters with officers have had racial overtones.
At a barbershop along Church Avenue, two men on Tuesday were discussing the recent shooting when an Asian delivery cyclist pulled onto the sidewalk across the street. "See that guy," said Elverton Thomas, a 39-year-old black telemarketer there for a haircut. "He can ride on the sidewalk. We can't."
His barber, Julian Clark, also black, concurred. Two years before, he said, an officer stopped him in front of the shop for sidewalk riding, and then arrested him after the officer said his identification had expired; he spent a day in custody sorting it out, he said. "They have a hard time because there's a lot of crime in the neighborhood," he said of the police. "But when they play hardball, they end up going after innocent people, too."
Anthony Murray, 15, said he was walking his girlfriend home on Snyder Avenue recently when two officers emerged from a van and searched him for weapons. When the officers grabbed Mr. Murray, his cellphone fell from his hand, he said, noting that the screen cracked on the ground.
"I showed it to him, and he said, 'Oh, that's not my problem,' " Mr. Murray said.
The seemingly constant presence of the police in the lives of many young people — both on the street and, increasingly, on social media — has left many feeling suffocated, said Shanduke McPhatter, 35, an ex-gang member who works with young men in the neighborhood. "I understand the state of mind that these youths have," he said. "The problem is there is no relationship with the police."
At the same time, he said, the situation on the streets has grown more complex for the law enforcement: gangs are less organized, replaced instead by informal crews for which the requirements are few and in which leadership is frequently up for grabs among increasingly young members.
"The police say, 'Look at these kids, they're wild,' " Mr. McThatter said. "And then they use that as an excuse to be wild themselves."
On Tuesday, police investigators could be seen dusting for fingerprints inside a Rite Aid store where, the night before, a group of at least three dozen mostly young people briefly rampaged through the aisles, turning over displays and assaulting one customer who attempted to intervene. The police released surveillance video from the store and later announced the arrest of a 19-year-old, saying he was one of three who hit the customer and took his cellphone.
"Nothing justifies that," Mr. Kelly said. He told a City Council hearing on Tuesday that the violence had been perpetrated by a disorderly group that broke away from the vigil and did not constitute a riot, as some had termed it.
"That belittles it," City Councilman Jumaane D. Williams said later, referring to the community anger in the wake of the police shooting. "So now we're going to wait for something worse, for something that meets the true definition of a riot?"
According to my twitter feed East Flatbush in Brooklyn is having something akin to a protest/riot right now...and apparently it has been happening since Monday. :hmm:
I'm confused. Is it what cops call a "righteous" shooting or not?
Because if it is, then this is just lawlessness. But if it's not, then this is only partially lawlessness.
QuoteThe seemingly constant presence of the police in the lives of many young people — both on the street and, increasingly, on social media — has left many feeling suffocated, said Shanduke McPhatter, 35, an ex-gang member who works with young men in the neighborhood. "I understand the state of mind that these youths have," he said. "The problem is there is no relationship with the police."
Comes with the drop in the crime rate.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 13, 2013, 09:48:38 PM
QuoteThe seemingly constant presence of the police in the lives of many young people — both on the street and, increasingly, on social media — has left many feeling suffocated, said Shanduke McPhatter, 35, an ex-gang member who works with young men in the neighborhood. “I understand the state of mind that these youths have,” he said. “The problem is there is no relationship with the police.”
Comes with the drop in the crime rate.
Too boring for the Cops eh?
Meh. The ghettos will do what the ghettos will do. Your population of criminal blacks will always cause these kinds of problems, especially if you pretend that it's some kind of 'protest'. As if such a thing could be legitimized.
They should have had someone shout 'they're coming right for us!' at the gathering, and then machinegunned the lot of them.
Quote from: Valmy on March 14, 2013, 07:53:39 AM
Too boring for the Cops eh?
New Yorkers can't have it both ways; either you want the zero tolerance Bloomberg has had working for the last several years dropping the crime rate, or you don't.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 14, 2013, 08:24:35 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 14, 2013, 07:53:39 AM
Too boring for the Cops eh?
New Yorkers can't have it both ways; either you want the zero tolerance Bloomberg has had working for the last several years dropping the crime rate, or you don't.
I'd guess different people have different thoughts...particularly different neighborhoods/boroughs. What's good for Manhattan isn't necessarily good for everyone.
Quote from: garbon on March 14, 2013, 08:37:42 AM
I'd guess different people have different thoughts...particularly different neighborhoods/boroughs. What's good for Manhattan isn't necessarily good for everyone.
I don't see why the approach should be any different for the muckity mucks and tourists in Manhattan than for the residents of any other borough.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 14, 2013, 08:49:48 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 14, 2013, 08:37:42 AM
I'd guess different people have different thoughts...particularly different neighborhoods/boroughs. What's good for Manhattan isn't necessarily good for everyone.
I don't see why the approach should be any different for the muckity mucks and tourists in Manhattan than for the residents of any other borough.
That's not what I said though. I can easily see why different people in different places might be on different sides of Bloomberg's zero tolerance.
Quote from: garbon on March 14, 2013, 09:02:42 AM
That's not what I said though. I can easily see why different people in different places might be on different sides of Bloomberg's zero tolerance.
They'll get over it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 14, 2013, 09:03:41 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 14, 2013, 09:02:42 AM
That's not what I said though. I can easily see why different people in different places might be on different sides of Bloomberg's zero tolerance.
They'll get over it.
Well of course. Cops killing black kids isn't something new. :mellow:
Quote from: garbon on March 14, 2013, 09:09:29 AM
Well of course. Cops killing black kids isn't something new. :mellow:
No, it's not. For the critics to think it's unique to the NYPD and young black males in New York is inaccurate.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 14, 2013, 09:13:17 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 14, 2013, 09:09:29 AM
Well of course. Cops killing black kids isn't something new. :mellow:
No, it's not. For the critics to think it's unique to the NYPD and young black males in New York is inaccurate.
Do they think that? I think they are more concerned with not having their relatives killed.
In other news:
http://gothamist.com/2013/03/13/brooklyn_woman_criticizes_stop_and.php
QuoteA Brooklyn woman says she was arrested outside a bar in Murray Hill last July simply for criticizing the NYPD's widely-criticized stop-and-frisk policies. Kaylan Pedine, who works for a non-profit that serves people with learning disabilities, was outside Mercury Bar on Third Avenue with two friends shortly before midnight on July 6th when two NYPD officers passed by, prompting Pedine to remark, "I wish they would stop stop-and-frisk." She was promptly arrested and charged with disorderly conduct for stating an opinion.
Pedine insists she did not even raise her voice at the officers, and her comment was directed to her friends, not the cops. (Nor did she give them the finger, as another man did to a group of cops before his stupid arrest.) But it seems Officer Craig Campion's feelings were so hurt that he handcuffed her, took her to the nearby precinct station house, and issued her the disorderly conduct summons, for allegedly blocking vehicular traffic.
The charges were dismissed, and now Pedine is suing the NYPD and the city. Her lawyer, Mark Taylor, argues that her First Amendment rights were violated. We asked Taylor to speculate on why Officer Campion went out of his way to arrest Pedine for stating an opinion; he says, "Officers are under a lot of pressure to make their collars. And if you've seen Ray Kelly get questioned about stop-and-frisk, you can see the department is getting pretty defensive about it."
So she agitated by "Pedine insists she did not even raise her voice at the officers, and her comment was directed to her friends, not the cops" by creating a public display anyway that attracted the attention of passersby.
Like I've said before, most people get themselves locked up. Good for her.
Yeah pretty offensive that someone might voice an opinion in public.
You create a spectacle loud enough to attract the attention of passersby, it's a disturbance of the peace.
You do it willfully to make a point about cops because you're an agitating cunt, it's a douchebaggedly stupid disturbance of the peace.
Sounds okay to me.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 14, 2013, 09:33:19 AM
You create a spectacle loud enough to attract the attention of passersby, it's a disturbance of the peace.
You do it willfully to make a point about cops because you're an agitating cunt, it's a douchebaggedly stupid disturbance of the peace.
Clearly the courts didn't think it was worth their time. ;)
Quote from: garbon on March 14, 2013, 09:37:16 AM
Clearly the courts didn't think it was worth their time. ;)
They never do. They're disposable charges. Just like assaulting a police officer. BB fucks cops over every day on that one.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 14, 2013, 09:39:08 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 14, 2013, 09:37:16 AM
Clearly the courts didn't think it was worth their time. ;)
They never do. They're disposable charges. Just like assaulting a police officer. BB fucks cops over every day on that one.
I like how you're trying to twist this into feeling bad for cops.
Quote from: garbon on March 14, 2013, 09:40:16 AM
I like how you're trying to twist this into feeling bad for cops.
I'm not. But I'm certainly not going to get twisted into feeling bad for somebody getting themselves locked up on purpose.
Quote from: garbon on March 14, 2013, 09:30:44 AM
Yeah pretty offensive that someone might voice an opinion in public.
Do you actually buy her story at face value?
Quote from: Berkut on March 14, 2013, 03:06:06 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 14, 2013, 09:30:44 AM
Yeah pretty offensive that someone might voice an opinion in public.
Do you actually buy her story at face value?
Why not? When someone says "I didn't do nuffin'" you can take that to the bank.
Quote from: derspiess on March 14, 2013, 03:19:41 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 14, 2013, 03:06:06 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 14, 2013, 09:30:44 AM
Yeah pretty offensive that someone might voice an opinion in public.
Do you actually buy her story at face value?
Why not? When someone says "I didn't do nuffin'" you can take that to the bank.
If you are a grammatically aware cop, you can take it as a
confession. :P
Quote from: Berkut on March 14, 2013, 03:06:06 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 14, 2013, 09:30:44 AM
Yeah pretty offensive that someone might voice an opinion in public.
Do you actually buy her story at face value?
No but again it doesn't seem like whatever she did was particularly important due to charges being dropped. As a taxpayer, sounds like a waste of funds all around.
Quote from: Malthus on March 14, 2013, 03:23:23 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 14, 2013, 03:19:41 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 14, 2013, 03:06:06 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 14, 2013, 09:30:44 AM
Yeah pretty offensive that someone might voice an opinion in public.
Do you actually buy her story at face value?
Why not? When someone says "I didn't do nuffin'" you can take that to the bank.
If you are a grammatically aware cop, you can take it as a confession. :P
that statement would be dripping with guilt.
Oh OWS. :lol:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BFVx4F8CYAAEsrw.jpg)
Quote from: derspiess on March 14, 2013, 03:19:41 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 14, 2013, 03:06:06 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 14, 2013, 09:30:44 AM
Yeah pretty offensive that someone might voice an opinion in public.
Do you actually buy her story at face value?
Why not? When someone says "I didn't do nuffin'" you can take that to the bank.
"These aren't my pants."
Quote from: garbon on March 14, 2013, 03:32:23 PM
No but again it doesn't seem like whatever she did was particularly important due to charges being dropped. As a taxpayer, sounds like a waste of funds all around.
Blame the lawyers.
Why? Nothing would have happened had they not arrested her.
But something did happen: a breach of the public peace.
Yeah those outside agitators in blue.
Besides like someone making noise in Manhattan is really a call for alarm. :yeahright:
You really deserve a nightsticking sometimes.
Oh, push it real good. :yawn:
Stop making it sound dirty.
Quote from: garbon on March 14, 2013, 08:18:13 PM
Why? Nothing would have happened had they not arrested her.
But something did happen, we just don't know what.
Unless you are arguing that charges not being filed are, in all cases, concrete proof that an arrest should never have been made to begin with, your argument is based on...well, nothing reallly.
She could have easily just gotten uppity and talked to the officers in a way they didn't like.
After all, the only evidence we have that something happened is that the police took action. I think that's a group that has shown in general that we should regard their actions with scrutiny and skepticism.
Quote from: garbon on March 15, 2013, 08:29:55 AM
After all, the only evidence we have that something happened is that the police took action. I think that's a group that has shown in general that we should regard their actions with scrutiny and skepticism.
We know *something* happened, the chick admitted as much.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 15, 2013, 08:48:48 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 15, 2013, 08:29:55 AM
After all, the only evidence we have that something happened is that the police took action. I think that's a group that has shown in general that we should regard their actions with scrutiny and skepticism.
We know *something* happened, the chick admitted as much.
Yeah the police arrested her and she's suing that they violated her 1st amendment rights.
Quote from: garbon on March 15, 2013, 08:29:55 AM
She could have easily just gotten uppity and talked to the officers in a way they didn't like.
After all, the only evidence we have that something happened is that the police took action. I think that's a group that has shown in general that we should regard their actions with scrutiny and skepticism.
Exactly my point - you are just speculating about what happened.
Maybe the officers were unreasonable, maybe they were not, you have no idea.
But you don't let that stop you from drawing conclusions and taking sides.
Which is the same thing that Seeds and Der did so I'm okay with that. :)
More from the Big Apple:
QuoteNYPD Now Running Criminal Checks On Domestic Abuse Victims
It's already very difficult prosecuting domestic abuse cases, because 75 percent of the time the women who were victimized stop helping prosecutors—thankfully, wifebeaters like to brag about their misdeeds, and they are really, really dumb about it. But things are going to get even harder now that the NYPD has enacted a new directive: according to the Post, officers must run criminal checks on domestic abuse victims when they come forward. And if they have any warrants, even for minor offenses like unpaid tickets, a police source says "you have no choice but to lock them up."
"This is going to deter victims of domestic violence," the police source said. "They're going to be scared to come forward." The new directive, sent out in a memo on March 5th, has been set forth by Chief of Detectives Phil Pulaski, and already seems to be controversial among the rank and file. Their source said that the memo puts undue pressure on officers to make an arrest, even if someone was clearly battered by a spouse: "We have every right to arrest that person at that moment," the source told the tabloid.
"The majority of domestic-violence cases go unreported," said defense attorney Joseph Tacopina. "This is just going to increase this percentage." Matrimonial lawyer Marilyn Chinitz agreed: "That is very, very frightening. It would absolutely dissuade people. They would not report a crime because they would fear getting locked up. It would empower the perpetrator, and there's going to be more domestic violence as a consequence, and you're endangering children."
We've contacted the NYPD for comment on the new policy.
Update: NYPD spokesman Paul Browne released this statement about the story: "While it is standard practice and policy for detectives to investigate victims' backgrounds to help lead them to the victims' assailants, the NYPD - contrary to a published report - has no "must arrest" policy that applies to domestic violence victims. In fact, the discovery of open warrants on domestic violence victims often results in their warrants being vacated."
QuoteHappy 5 Millionth Stop And Frisk, NYPD!
Today the NYPD will make history when, somewhere in New York City (most likely East New York), an officer will blow off the Constitution and stop somebody for a pat-down and I.D. check for the five millionth time since Mayor Bloomberg took office. Hundreds of balloons and streamers will fall from the sky, air horns will blast, and cops may or may not call the unlucky friskee "a fucking mutt." You never know how these stops are going to go down, but it's a pretty safe bet the five millionth customer will be black or Latino.
More than 86 percent of people stopped during the Bloomberg administration were black or Latino, according to an analysis by the NYCLU based on an extrapolation of Police Department data. And 4.4 million of these stop-and-frisk encounters, or 88 percent, were of innocent people who were not arrested or issued a summons. During Bloomberg's first year in office, the NYPD conducted 97,296 street stops; last year they racked up 533,042—down from 685,724 in 2011.
"This disturbing milestone is a slap in the face to New Yorkers who cherish the right to walk down the street without being interrogated or even thrown up against the wall by the police," NYCLU Executive Director Donna Lieberman said. "The NYPD's routine abuse of stop-and-frisks is a tremendous waste of police resources, it sows mistrust between officers and the communities they serve, and it routinely violates fundamental rights. A walk to the subway, corner deli or school should not carry the assumption that you will be confronted by police, but that's the disturbing reality for young men of color in New York City."
Mayor Bloomberg and the NYPD argue that stop-and-frisk keeps New Yorkers safe. In January, NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly warned that if the department's stop-and-frisk policy changes, "People will die as a result." (Of course, it's worth considering that both stop-and-frisks and homicides declined in 2012.)
The NYPD's milestone comes on the eve of a landmark trial in Floyd v. City of New York, a federal class-action lawsuit filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights challenging the constitutionality of the NYPD's stop-and-frisk practices. And yesterday we reported that the NYPD arrested a woman for merely saying something negative about stop-and-frisk in public.
http://gothamist.com/2013/03/15/nypd_now_running_criminal_checks_on.php
http://gothamist.com/2013/03/14/happy_5_millionth_stop_and_frisk_ny.php
and so.
That is some fine reporting right there.
"In other news, yesterday we reported that something happened, but of course all we actually reported yesterday is what someone TOLD US happened, while today we are reporting that what they said happened actually happened."
Journalistic integrity? No such thing here.
Quote from: Berkut on March 15, 2013, 02:02:19 PM
That is some fine reporting right there.
"In other news, yesterday we reported that something happened, but of course all we actually reported yesterday is what someone TOLD US happened, while today we are reporting that what they said happened actually happened."
Journalistic integrity? No such thing here.
Well it is a blog reporting on what the Post said. :D
Also, I think you stated that a little oddly with your use of pronouns. What happened is the New York Post reported what an anonymous source said could happen as a result of researching victims. Then the blog updated their story once NYPD responded and informed said what the source said could be told happened (namely that most victims who are searched and have open warrants must then be arrested), doesn't typically happen (as they have discretion).
So you posted a blog entry to the thread as if it was a actual story?
I am pretty blase about what people post, but a blog entry? Who fucking cares? It is just some guy with an internet connection and an agenda - if you want to post just pure opinion, why not post your own?
I am interested in what you think, but completely uninterested in what some random nobody thinks - I knew before you posted it that there was surely someone out their in a city of 10 million people who thinks cops are all racist pigs blahblahblah. Why bother posting that here?
Quote from: Berkut on March 15, 2013, 02:23:22 PM
So you posted a blog entry to the thread as if it was a actual story?
I am pretty blase about what people post, but a blog entry? Who fucking cares? It is just some guy with an internet connection and an agenda - if you want to post just pure opinion, why not post your own?
I am interested in what you think, but completely uninterested in what some random nobody thinks - I knew before you posted it that there was surely someone out their in a city of 10 million people who thinks cops are all racist pigs blahblahblah. Why bother posting that here?
Because I read it in the blog not in the NY Post. I'm sorry if that offends the high editorial standards you have for Languish.
Oh and the gothamist isn't one person. And I've posted articles from them before.
It has nothing to do with editorial standards, it is just that you are posting blogs in a discussion thread.
Now, if you agree with the blog, and want to post it as a stand in for having to type all that yourself, then fine - but then you should be willing to defend it as if you wrote it yourself.
If you are posting it just to let us know that there exists someone somewhere who thinks something...why? We know that before you post it, so what is the point?
There is someone out there in NYC who thinks all black people ought to be frisked with a baseball bat every time they walk out their door - so what? How does posting the idiotic ravings of some fringe dumbass advance the discussion?
It isn't news, it isn't interesting opinion, and apparently you don't even agree with enough to be willing to stand behind it in any case.
So again...why post it?
You should at least do us the favor of making it clear that this isn't an actual story, but just random bullshit you found somewhere on the internet so we can simply ignore it.
Quote from: Berkut on March 15, 2013, 03:33:04 PM
It has nothing to do with editorial standards, it is just that you are posting blogs in a discussion thread.
Now, if you agree with the blog, and want to post it as a stand in for having to type all that yourself, then fine - but then you should be willing to defend it as if you wrote it yourself.
If you are posting it just to let us know that there exists someone somewhere who thinks something...why? We know that before you post it, so what is the point?
There is someone out there in NYC who thinks all black people ought to be frisked with a baseball bat every time they walk out their door - so what? How does posting the idiotic ravings of some fringe dumbass advance the discussion?
It isn't news, it isn't interesting opinion, and apparently you don't even agree with enough to be willing to stand behind it in any case.
So again...why post it?
You should at least do us the favor of making it clear that this isn't an actual story, but just random bullshit you found somewhere on the internet so we can simply ignore it.
Except that, Mr. Snooty, it is a real story. The gothamist typically just takes an article from a mainstream outlet and re-writes it using their own words and provides updates as the story develops. I'm not really sure how if you look at their version of the article vs. the Post's you'd think that their article is more biased against cops.
Perhaps it is the word "blog" that has you bent out of shape? I'd wager that HuffingtonPost (which I don't think anyone calls a blog at this point) is much more slanted than the typical feature on the gothamist.
Also, I provided the link to where I pulled the post from. You can certainly check out the links for yourself and decide whether or not it is a source you'd like to read articles from. I'm not going to make special disclaimers for you.
OK, Timmy - carry on.
Gotta say, g: thegothamist sure sounds like badly-written-and-researched crap. Not sure why you are posting it, except maybe as a troll.
Quote from: Berkut on March 15, 2013, 04:35:15 PM
OK, Timmy - carry on.
Thanks for the permission. :)
Quote from: grumbler on March 15, 2013, 04:41:18 PM
Gotta say, g: thegothamist sure sounds like badly-written-and-researched crap. Not sure why you are posting it, except maybe as a troll.
*shrugs*
Did you read The Post article? I've now and I gotta say that I don't see much difference between what The Post had and what the Gothamist had - other than the gothamist included an update with a comment from the NYPD spokesman. :unsure:
Quote from: garbon on March 15, 2013, 04:45:19 PM
*shrugs*
Did you read The Post article? I've now and I gotta say that I don't see much difference between what The Post had and what the Gothamist had - other than the gothamist included an update with a comment from the NYPD spokesman. :unsure:
*shrugs*
I've read what you posted, including the gothamist bit that started talking about how "an officer will blow off the Constitution." That doesn't seem like journalism to me, but if that's what you go for, by all means go for it. Just don't expect me to regard you and your opinions with any seriousness at all. :huh:
Without the respect of my elders, how will I manage?
Oh and you disliked the 2nd posting not the first. Got it now. :D
For the record, I'd disagree with that characterization as well though I'm not on the Languish squad of being excited by stop and frisk.
Also, in the first article, I actually found it odd that the police would vacate (presumably minor) charges when it was a domestic abuse victim.
Quote from: garbon on March 15, 2013, 09:24:40 PM
Also, in the first article, I actually found it odd that the police would vacate (presumably minor) charges when it was a domestic abuse victim.
Happens every day all across America.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 15, 2013, 09:55:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 15, 2013, 09:24:40 PM
Also, in the first article, I actually found it odd that the police would vacate (presumably minor) charges when it was a domestic abuse victim.
Happens every day all across America.
Sounds odd. I mean something awful happened but at the same time, should that mean that you can just go around disregarding the law?
Quote from: garbon on March 15, 2013, 09:58:22 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 15, 2013, 09:55:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 15, 2013, 09:24:40 PM
Also, in the first article, I actually found it odd that the police would vacate (presumably minor) charges when it was a domestic abuse victim.
Happens every day all across America.
Sounds odd. I mean something awful happened but at the same time, should that mean that you can just go around disregarding the law?
Does it really matter that much, after the person has just got the crap beat outta them? No
First the cops were douchebag racist assholes because they checked for warrants on domestic violence victims.
Then it turns out they don't actually arrest anyone when they find warrants, and sometimes actually have the warrants vacated.
This means they are irresponsible enablers of criminals.
Yeah, it seems pretty clear that there isn't anything that is going to be "reported" in one of garbies blogs that has anything but a negative reflection on police officers.
Quote from: Berkut on March 15, 2013, 10:39:21 PM
First the cops were douchebag racist assholes because they checked for warrants on domestic violence victims.
Then it turns out they don't actually arrest anyone when they find warrants, and sometimes actually have the warrants vacated.
This means they are irresponsible enablers of criminals.
Yeah, it seems pretty clear that there isn't anything that is going to be "reported" in one of garbies blogs that has anything but a negative reflection on police officers.
Yeah could never be that I bolded the bit on the one article because I though it odd. Impossible.