Pants-of-dog wrote:The article to which I linked links to a case where that particular interpretation of third degree murder was used.
And what would that case be? The article to which I linked considers other cases where that interpretation hasn't been used.
Pants-of-dog wrote:And the choke hold that the murdering cop used was perfectly legal. In Minnesota.
Seems rather unlikely, although we'll find out in a few months. It should be noted that even the Minneapolis PD doesn't encourage that maneuver, in the same way the Justice Department does not. It's up to you then to think whether that's legal or not.
Pants-of-dog wrote:I have already discussed how the initial autopsy report can be used to create reasonable doubt.
By misquoting from it, yes.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Provide evidence for the claim that grand juries are responsible for letting all these unjustified cop killings go unpunished.
I don't have to, given that I didn't claim that. If anything, I also showed some of these cops get away without criminal punishment due to mistrials and acquittals by petit juries as well, to the point of naming specific instances of this.
Pants-of-dog wrote:By the way, in the context of this thread, it looks like you are trying to pretend that systemic racism is not one of the reasons for impunity.
That's what you want to make it look like, because it turns out you are running out of arguments
Pants-of-dog wrote:How does this relate to the fact that systemic racism is a large reason for police impunity when it comes to police brutality and killings?
It relates to it, because it suggests the problem has been going away ever since it rose to the forefront of the American national conversation due to the Black Lives Matter movement and brought changes that have been shown to decrease police violence, such as the use of bodycams:
NIJ wrote:Current Research Findings
The increasing use of body-worn cameras by law enforcement agencies has significantly outpaced the body of research examining the relationship between the technology and law enforcement outcomes. As detailed below, although early evaluations of this technology had limitations, some notable recent research has helped advance our knowledge of the impact of body-worn cameras.
In a 2014 study funded by the Office of Justice Programs Diagnostic Center, researcher Michael White noted that earlier evaluations of body-worn cameras found a number of beneficial outcomes for law enforcement agencies. The earliest studies conducted in the United Kingdom indicated that body-worn cameras resulted in positive interactions between officers and citizens and made people feel safer. Reductions in citizen complaints were noted, as were similar reductions in crime. The studies found that the use of body-worn cameras led to increases in arrests, prosecutions, and guilty pleas. From an efficiency standpoint, the use of the technology reportedly enabled officers to resolve criminal cases faster and spend less time preparing paperwork, and it resulted in fewer people choosing to go to trial.
Studies that followed in the United States also provided support for body-worn cameras; however, a number of them were plagued with dubious approaches that called the findings into question. According to White, the few studies that were conducted between 2007 and 2013 had methodological limitations or were conducted in a manner that raised concerns about research independence. For example, several studies included small sample sizes or lacked proper control groups to compare officers wearing body-worn cameras with officers not wearing them. Some studies were conducted by the participating law enforcement agency and lacked an independent evaluator. Finally, a number of the studies focused narrowly on officer or citizen perceptions of body-worn cameras instead of other critical outcomes, such as citizen compliance and officer or citizen behavior in instances involving use of force.
Over time, scientific rigor improved, and studies conducted in U.S. law enforcement agencies produced findings that indicated promising support for body-worn cameras. For example, in 2014, researchers at Arizona State University (funded through the Bureau of Justice Assistance’s Smart Policing Initiative) found that officers with body-worn cameras were more productive in terms of making arrests, had fewer complaints lodged against them relative to officers without body-worn cameras, and had higher numbers of citizen complaints resolved in their favor. Another study conducted with the Rialto (California) Police Department noted similar decreases in citizen complaints lodged against officers wearing body-worn cameras as well as decreases in use-of-force incidents by the police. In addition, Justin Ready and Jacob Young from Arizona State University found that officers with body-worn cameras were more cautious in their actions and sensitive to possible scrutiny of video footage by their superiors. Also, contrary to initial concerns, officers who wore cameras were found to have higher numbers of self-initiated contacts with community residents than officers who did not wear cameras.
Recent randomized controlled trials, which are considered the scientific gold standard for evaluating programs, have also been conducted on body-worn cameras. Of the various scientific methods available, these trials have the greatest likelihood of producing sound evidence because random assignment is able to isolate a specific treatment of interest from all of the other factors that influence any given outcome. In a 2016 global, multisite randomized controlled trial, Barak Ariel and colleagues found that use-of-force incidents may be related to the discretion given to officers regarding when body-worn cameras are activated during officer-citizen encounters. The researchers found decreases in use-of-force incidents when officers activated their cameras upon arrival at the scene. Alternatively, use-of-force incidents by officers with body-worn cameras increased when the officers had the discretion to determine when to activate their cameras during citizen interactions.
In 2017, with NIJ support, researchers from CNA conducted a randomized controlled trial on 400 police officers in the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. The research team found that officers with body-worn cameras generated fewer use-of-force reports and complaints from citizens compared to officers without body-worn cameras. Additionally, officers with body-worn cameras issued higher numbers of arrests and citations compared to officers without body-worn cameras.
It would seem that indeed the evidence
is showing an improvement. One that doesn't happen overnight, unfortunately, but is going on and there is no reason to assume these trends will change.
Pants-of-Dog wrote:You seem to have trouble conversation.
Here we are talking about the ubiquitous nature of police beating up protesters.
The last few days gave shown an incredibly huge amount of this, as well as highlighting how the cops get away with shooting and beating press, children, innocent bystanders, medical staff et cetera.
Do they have “latitude” to shoot the press with rubber bullets for filming them?
Weird, and I thought we were talking about unjustified police killings. Do you want to change the topic, now that you are running out of arguments?
As for riot control: Peaceful protests should be allowed to proceed as usual. But if the protest turns into a riot, then it will need to be dispersed using whatever means necessary, and if the government doesn't do it, then people who are hit by looters and arsonists (let alone people who are attacked by these and the rioters) will do so on their own. And yes it's already began.
Pants-of-Dog wrote:....like non striking police. Anyway, your evidence supports the claim that the police are the main cause of violence in these situations.
And so it would significantly reduce the violence to disband all police forces right now.
You clearly didn't read the source:
Boston Police Strike Project wrote:...
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1919
DAY 1 OF STRIKE: POLICEMEN REPORT TO STATIONS IN THE MORNING BUT WALK OUT AT 5:45 P.M. ROLL CALL
Only 24 patrolmen of the usual 700 report to duty, and less than 200 uniformed men remain in the city. Captains and superior officers remain on duty.
Boston Post, Wednesday, September 10, 1919, page 1
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1919
DAY 1 OF STRIKE: GENERAL LAWLESSNESS AND CHAOS OVERTAKES BOSTON
Numerous incidents of petty crime escalate into looting and violence. Crowds gather and grow in Scollay, Haymarket, and Adams squares. By 9:00 p.m., mobs descend on the Washington Street retail district, smashing windows and looting storefronts, resulting in 159 arrests. Women are attacked and sexually assaulted by street mobs on Atlantic Avenue and in the North End. Volunteer guards shoot five rioters. The most concentrated mob violence occurs in South Boston. Crowds jam in along Broadway and swell to an estimated peak of 10,000 by 11:00 p.m. The Massachusetts State Guard stands by, waiting to be called out by city or state officials.
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1919
DAY 2 OF STRIKE: MAYOR PETERS CALLS OUT MASSACHUSETTS STATE GUARD AND TOWN MILITIA UNITS
Civilian volunteers try in vain to restore order. Police Commissioner Curtis grants Mayor Peters the authority to call out the Massachusetts State Guard under Brigadier General Samuel Parker, the 10th Regiment under Colonel Sullivan, the First Cavalry Troop, the First Motor Corps, and the Ambulance Corps. Soldiers arrive by 5:00 p.m. Peters calls for additional troops of the 11th, 12th and 15th and 20th regiments, plus the 14th machine gun company, totalling 4,768 men.
Boston Daily Globe, September 12, 1919
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1919
DAY 2 OF STRIKE: FIRST CASUALTIES OCCUR
By late afternoon, an armed mob of 5,000 malcontents and criminals gather in Scollay Square and block traffic, overwhelming the Massachusetts State Guard. Arthur McGill (31) from the South End is shot on Howard Street, the first casualty of the strike. Gertrude Lewis, is shot in the arm. By 10:00 p.m., the State Guard regains control, clearing Scollay Square. In South Boston, by late evening, a mob of 2,000 escalates the conflict, lethally. On West Broadway near E Street, State Guard shoots Robert Sheehan 16 of L Street, who dies in Carney Hospital. Anthony Czar (24) of Broadway is also shot dead. Robert Lallie, 21, is shot and dies Friday. Thomas Flaherty, shot in leg, recovers. Helen Keeley, buckshot to head, recovers. In Roxbury, striking officer Richard Reemts flees the scene of an attempted robbery with fellow striking policeman Shea, and is shot dead at Columbus Avenue and Buckingham Street by storekeeper Abraham Karp in self defense.
SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1919
DAY 5 OF STRIKE: FOUR CIVILIANS SHOT, 1 BAYONETED, 1 KILLED
Gustave Geist, twenty-one-year-old World War I veteran, is shot and killed by guardsman at Brimstone Corner after a violent argument, and dies just before noon. Guardsmen shoot four other civilians, but they recover. One is wounded by a bayonet.
Pants-of-Dog wrote:Thus is stupid.
It is completely unrealistic to claim that the cops would be called on the average white guy for this.
Then why don't you do it and report back? You will get free stuff
Pants-of-Dog wrote: But if cops do get called on white peoplefor this and react this way, that would mean that the cops are actually brutal to everyone and should be defunded and disarmed.
Or it needs to be reformed so this will not repeat itself again. Indeed, that's what's been going on and I hope the trend continues.
Thankfully, these cases have been gradually becoming less frequent which shows the reforms are working. Of course, this doesn't mean that it's impossible to go farther or that there isn't much yet to do, but it's an improvement.