thoughts on police and black men dying - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Crime and prevention thereof. Loopholes, grey areas and the letter of the law.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15167737
Pants-of-dog wrote:How much does it cost?

Also: Minneapolis spends about 35% of its budget on police. No other service costs nearly this much.


Note that I'm speaking of small localities. There, a $20k system can actually be costly.

For large cities, I agree there is no excuse for not having bodycams. They even cut per-unit costs by having large departments.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I was not discussing arresting people.


What were you referring to then?
#15167870
wat0n wrote:Note that I'm speaking of small localities. There, a $20k system can actually be costly.

For large cities, I agree there is no excuse for not having bodycams. They even cut per-unit costs by having large departments.


At 20K$, the DoD could easily fund small localities, and even buy them in bulk from the manufacturer to get economies of scale. And the final amount would be about what they spend on pencils and stationery.

This is entirely feasible. Cost is not an issue.

What were you referring to then?


I was referring to the court practice of discarding presumption of innocence when the cops says one thing and the civilian says another. So, if the civilian claims that the cop stole their phone because they were filming the cop and the cop did not like it, and the cop says this never happened and the civilian was interfering, they believe the cop.

This provides a tacit support for cops who want to stop people from filming them.
#15167872
Pants-of-dog wrote:At 20K$, the DoD could easily fund small localities, and even buy them in bulk from the manufacturer to get economies of scale. And the final amount would be about what they spend on pencils and stationery.

This is entirely feasible. Cost is not an issue.


It's $20k in operating costs per year...

Pants-of-dog wrote:I was referring to the court practice of discarding presumption of innocence when the cops says one thing and the civilian says another. So, if the civilian claims that the cop stole their phone because they were filming the cop and the cop did not like it, and the cop says this never happened and the civilian was interfering, they believe the cop.

This provides a tacit support for cops who want to stop people from filming them.


That claim would not be hard to check, though. If the cops took the phone, then the cops will have it.

The interference part is different though. If you film and block the cops' way in doing so, you are interfering, and they'll tell you to stop. If filming serves to escalate the incident, they will also tell you to stop.
#15167885
wat0n wrote:It's $20k in operating costs per year...


I assumed that.

This does not change my argument at all.

That claim would not be hard to check, though. If the cops took the phone, then the cops will have it.

The interference part is different though. If you film and block the cops' way in doing so, you are interfering, and they'll tell you to stop. If filming serves to escalate the incident, they will also tell you to stop.


Why would a cop incriminate themselves by giving up the stolen phone, instead of simply lying? When you argue that a cop would do that, or that the court would actually search all the cop’s belongings, it seems incredibly unrealistic.
#15167889
Pants-of-dog wrote:I assumed that.

This does not change my argument at all.


It does imply a reassignment, it doesn't come for "free". And it's a permanent thing.

But yes, in the big scheme of things, the feds can deal with it. It just needs to be appropriated by Congress.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Why would a cop incriminate themselves by giving up the stolen phone, instead of simply lying? When you argue that a cop would do that, or that the court would actually search all the cop’s belongings, it seems incredibly unrealistic.


Why? You are accusing them of theft...
#15167900
wat0n wrote:https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/st-louis-police-officer-charged-in-theft-of-cellphone/article_24c95877-c273-5087-bcf5-c92131f9a4dd.html

Go on


That does not support your claim.
#15167903
Why not? The cop was charged for stealing a phone during a traffic stop.

If a cop claimed your filming is illegal and took your phone away, you would have a right to get it back once the cop's claims were sorted out. It would be stored by the PD under the "evidence" label.

If it's not there, then you'd have a right to sue and, well, you could get something like the above example.
#15167905
wat0n wrote:Why not? The cop was charged for stealing a phone during a traffic stop.

If a cop claimed your filming is illegal and took your phone away, you would have a right to get it back once the cop's claims were sorted out. It would be stored by the PD under the "evidence" label.

If it's not there, then you'd have a right to sue and, well, you could get something like the above example.


1. The cop was never at a traffic stop.

2. The cop was not arresting her.

3. They never searched the cop.

4. The civilian never tried filming anything.

5. The civilian never gave testimony and the court therefore did not act on her testimony.

6. You are still not understanding that the cops can lie and no one will dispute that unless there is irrefutable evidence otherwise.
#15167906
Pants-of-dog wrote:1. The cop was never at a traffic stop.

2. The cop was not arresting her.

3. They never searched the cop.

4. The civilian never tried filming anything.

5. The civilian never gave testimony and the court therefore did not act on her testimony.

6. You are still not understanding that the cops can lie and no one will dispute that unless there is irrefutable evidence otherwise.


None of that negates what I mentioned. The fact that her testimony wasn't even necessary doesn't help your case, at all.

And yes, the thief wasn't at the traffic stop and didn't arrest her, I misspoke there. It has no effect on the fact that cops can be charged for stealing cell phones while performing their duties, and that they can and will expect the phone to be in the "evidence box" (or "inventory sheet", if you want).
#15167912
wat0n wrote:None of that negates what I mentioned. The fact that her testimony wasn't even necessary doesn't help your case, at all.


You did not understand the claim being made.

You were unable to find an example of a court that searched a cop’s private property based solely on the testimony of a person that the cop is accusing of a crime, which was the claim.
#15167915
Pants-of-dog wrote:You did not understand the claim being made.

You were unable to find an example of a court that searched a cop’s private property based solely on the testimony of a person that the cop is accusing of a crime, which was the claim.


How so? The investigation began when she reported her cell phone was missing, and it turned out it hadn't been listed in the inventory.
#15167923
@wat0n

I think you have misunderstood the scenarios I was describing. But no matter, since we have arrived at an inconsequential point in that tangent.

The latest in the trial of Mr. Floyd’s killer is the continuing portrayal of Mr. Floyd as a drug addict and therefore a violent criminal.

This portrayal of black drug addicts as people who justifiably receive lethal treatment from cops is worrying. Not only the racism, but the criminalization of people who need medical care.
#15167926
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

I think you have misunderstood the scenarios I was describing. But no matter, since we have arrived at an inconsequential point in that tangent.


No, I don't really think I misunderstood your hypothetical scenario. I just don't think the differences between that scenario and the example I provided are all that relevant in what the final outcome of the latter was, i.e. a cop who stole a cell phone was charged.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The latest in the trial of Mr. Floyd’s killer is the continuing portrayal of Mr. Floyd as a drug addict and therefore a violent criminal.

This portrayal of black drug addicts as people who justifiably receive lethal treatment from cops is worrying. Not only the racism, but the criminalization of people who need medical care.


I'm pretty sure the defense would be tempted to play that game. I doubt the jury will follow, but let's see how it goes.
#15167927
wat0n wrote:No, I don't really think I misunderstood your hypothetical scenario. I just don't think the differences between that scenario and the example I provided are all that relevant in what the final outcome of the latter was, i.e. a cop who stole a cell phone was charged.


Yes, it is clear that you think you have understood. That does not change what I have said. The example you gave had nothing to do with preventing someone from filming the cop, which was the topic of conversation.

I'm pretty sure the defense would be tempted to play that game. I doubt the jury will follow, but let's see how it goes.


It is indicative of how police view black drug addicts. And how they want the public to see black drug addicts.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
Hartlepool By-Election

Worcester = Wooster, like Rooster. Worcestershir[…]

The serpent used to (unironically) complain abo[…]

A question for our Marxists

Or maybe the same person can actually be both a c[…]

Does any other country allow people to act in thi[…]