If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
1) Most countries in Europe not needing to concern themselves with having militaries actually powerful enough to provide for their defense.
2) An inability to be aggressive towards one's neighbors due to lacking said military.
The above conditions exist because of NATO.
No, you got that wrong: NATO was the counterweight to the Warsaw Pact (and now other external threats), it didn't drive political and economic integration in Europe. The European project is the reason why there aren't tensions over territory (as there are no borders, free movement of goods, services, money and people), why there is much more to gain in political and economic collaboration than in military conflict. It gave European nations a mechanism to overcome conflict in a peaceful fashion. Besides, Europe still has enough weapons to self destruct (both, France and Great Britain are nuclear powers). You could argue that NATO allowed what would eventually become the European Union to thrive because in defense matters Germany wouldn't be able to dominate on the continent. But the absence of weapons is definitely not it.
There are contributing factors which helped European integration, though: it is fair to say that in the beginning the US shepherded the blossoming of post-war democracies (in particular Germany, Austria and Italy). And the existence of an external threat gave the initial impetus of European integration, but even in the 1980s Europe had long outgrown an alliance of necessity and convenience to a marriage of choice.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
My off-the-cuff analogy is NATO contributed as much to Europe's success as being able to plant in good soil contributes to a farmer growing a successful crop.
Not the primary driver, yet vital if the farmer wants to make best use of their efforts.
subego: Are we discussing the mistake, or is this not a mistake?
Dakar: This is totally a mistake!
Dakar: I guess the question is whether this is a mistake.
subego:
I answered your question, then added one of my own. There's a reason they're two separate posts. I'll retract the philosophical one if it'll make this discussion easier for you.
No retraction necessary, just another situation where I wasn't given enough information to understand the intent.
Yes people go to prison for innocent mistakes, there are also people who don't. How should we determine where the bar rests?
The arguments I'm hearing is it crosses the bar because what the cop said before the warning compelled Castile to continue getting his wallet. I have made my argument for why I feel this is incorrect.
I repeat my earlier questions. Why is the natural term for what Castile did a "warning" and not a "notification"? Under what other circumstances do citizens give legitimate warnings to the police? Is this a common enough occurrence the expectation is for a cop to react casually to it?
No retraction necessary, just another situation where I wasn't given enough information to understand the intent.
Yes people go to prison for innocent mistakes, there are also people who don't. How should we determine where the bar rests?
The arguments I'm hearing is it crosses the bar because what the cop said before the warning compelled Castile to continue getting his wallet. I have made my argument for why I feel this is incorrect.
I repeat my earlier questions. Why is the natural term for what Castile did a "warning" and not a "notification"? Under what other circumstances do citizens give legitimate warnings to the police? Is this a common enough occurrence the expectation is for a cop to react casually to it?
The problem with your argument is that it requires the civilian to have better judgment than the damn cop.
It's hard enough to be so panicked you shooot a Middle Ages white housewife by mistake. But across your partner and through the door of the police car. With all the recording equipment switched off.
And the police department feels themselves "unable to compel" the officer to explain events?
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
The recording equipment is almost always switched off when it matters.
It seems like maybe the recording equipment should be on 100% of the time. No exceptions.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Perhaps this simply highlights the huge amount of firearms incompetence many police officers possess? If you mix this incompetence with more "high stress" encounters it probably explains the large number of shootings thesein more tense situations.
Less "cops are racist" more "cops are really useless with firearms"?
In a 100%armed police force perhaps better training is needed.
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
There's also this case which is odd... parents call for help with suicidal son, the police swarm the place and the guy kills himself. I can see containing the situation, but they made it worse.
Baltimore police officers film themselves planting drugs. The cop in question is a witness in 53 other active cases - I expect they'll all have to be dismissed. And his two buddies who stood around - they're probably associated with cases too. All are very cool doing it - this isn't their first time. Just their first screwup with a camera.
Apparently the bodycam records full time (no sound) but discards at 30 seconds. When the officer turns the camera "ON", it begins recording with sound. Plus the last 30 seconds before it was activated. They didn't know, but someone at the Public Defender's office caught it.
What I don't get is why this cop and his colleagues aren't in jail: where I come from planting evidence is a serious crime, and it taints not just this arrest but all past and present cases this guy was involved in.
And if you are a good cop, don't you despair from looking at this?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
That's what should happen, but that rarely happens in the US. The police chief has already floated the idea they were "recreating evidence". Hint: that's still multiple felonies. Faking evidence and/or tampering with evidence, followed by lying under oath to mislead a court about it.
^^ Baltimore has been one of the most corrupt cities in the USA for a long time, and has only gotten worse over the last decade.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
They've run Baltimore for a lot longer than 10 years. Also, it doesn't change the truth, no matter how much it may ruffle your feathers. The city is almost as bad as Detroit.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
What I don't get is why this cop and his colleagues aren't in jail: where I come from planting evidence is a serious crime, and it taints not just this arrest but all past and present cases this guy was involved in.
And if you are a good cop, don't you despair from looking at this?
In theory it's a serious crime here, too.
I've posited the reason such behavior is more common here is due to a separation of powers problem. Cops and prosecutors are part of the same branch of government here. I gather in Germany they're split.
What I find strange is that despite clear video evidence to at the very least start an investigation, this is dealt with as an internal police matter — as if the law that is on the books does not exist. I don't presume to know drug law, but as a result of the cops' (his colleagues were right there) criminal behavior the person who was accused of drug possession didn't just spend several months in jail, but also would have spent multiple years in jail if convicted. And doesn't seem as if this was their first time. Needless to say, this calls into question every case these cops were involved in.
Originally Posted by subego
I've posited the reason such behavior is more common here is due to a separation of powers problem. Cops and prosecutors are part of the same branch of government here. I gather in Germany they're split.
In Germany the prosecution is also part of the executive branch. And while there are some police scandals, they are much, much more rare.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
One week after an unarmed Minneapolis woman was killed in an officer-involved shooting, street signs criticizing "easily startled" police have popped up in the Twin Cities.
The orange traffic sign lookalikes depict a police officer jumping in the air, discharging a gun with each hand. "Warning," the signs read, "Twin Cities Police easily startled."
St. Paul Police Department spokesman Steve Linders confirmed there was at least one sign in St. Paul and another in Minneapolis. Linders didn't comment on any reaction from officers to the signs.
"We are aware of the signs and Minneapolis Public Works is removing them," Minneapolis Police Department spokeswoman Sgt. Catherine Michal said. "We have no further comment at this time."
he sign appeared about a week after Minneapolis police shot and killed Justine Ruszczyk, who had called 911 to report a possible assault. Minneapolis Police Chief Janeé Harteau stepped down six days later.
Ruszczyk's death was the latest of several fatal officer-involved shootings in Minnesota. Philando Castile was shot and killed by a St. Anthony officer during a traffic stop in July 2016, sparking nationwide protests. Less than a year earlier, a Minneapolis officer fatally shot Jamar Clark after a scuffle with officers in front of an apartment building.
Addy Free spotted the St. Paul sign at a busy intersection Sunday morning on his way home from work. He snapped a photo, which has since been shared over 18,000 times on Facebook.
"I wish there weren't so much truth to the sign," Free said. "Police are given a challenging job, with not enough training to counter overreaction and implicit bias."
The next morning, when Free went by the place where the sign had been, it was gone. The sign was taken down because it was attached to a legitimate street sign, Linders said, but he was unsure if the incident was being investigated as vandalism.
Free said the sign appeared to be made of metal and that it had the same thickness as the real street sign above it.
"It was not painted," he said. "It looked like a high quality decal or print like the sign above it."
An employee at Advantage Signs and Graphics, a Minnesota company that creates custom street signs, said the sign wasn't produced or ordered through their business.
"I don't know if the owner would have allowed us to make something like that because of how completely inappropriate it is, so we probably would've denied the job," she said.
Nice one. I disagree with the sign-company employee: it's fully appropriate. Innocent people have died, and there is no law against making fun of police. Especially when they did it.
They certainly kept shooting the man after he was clearly down which is troubling. But at the same time this dude got out the car and was clearly shooting at the police repeatedly. We aren't talking about a guy who just got out of the vehicle and was immediately gunned down. This isn't a scenario where I would expect people to be protesting in the streets.
"Today, Judge Susan Bolton violated the United States Constitution by issuing her verdict without even reading it to the Defendant in public court. Her verdict is contrary to what every single witness testified in the case. Arpaio believes that a jury would have found in his favor, and that it will," Jack Wilenchik said in a written statement,
"Judge Bolton found that an order by her fellow Judge G. Murray Snow, who is in the same building and sits on the same Arizona court, clearly said something that it did not even say: that the MCSO was prohibited from turning illegal aliens over to Border Patrol or ICE. Every witness in the case testified that the order was not clear, even though Judge Bolton and her fellow judge say so. Numerous law enforcement agencies also continue to do this. In fact, the DOJ now goes after agencies that refuse to do this."
They certainly kept shooting the man after he was clearly down which is troubling. But at the same time this dude got out the car and was clearly shooting at the police repeatedly. We aren't talking about a guy who just got out of the vehicle and was immediately gunned down. This isn't a scenario where I would expect people to be protesting in the streets.
He was still holding the gun. Good riddance.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Baltimore police officers film themselves planting drugs. The cop in question is a witness in 53 other active cases - I expect they'll all have to be dismissed. And his two buddies who stood around - they're probably associated with cases too. All are very cool doing it - this isn't their first time. Just their first screwup with a camera.
Apparently the bodycam records full time (no sound) but discards at 30 seconds. When the officer turns the camera "ON", it begins recording with sound. Plus the last 30 seconds before it was activated. They didn't know, but someone at the Public Defender's office caught it.
They certainly kept shooting the man after he was clearly down which is troubling. But at the same time this dude got out the car and was clearly shooting at the police repeatedly. We aren't talking about a guy who just got out of the vehicle and was immediately gunned down. This isn't a scenario where I would expect people to be protesting in the streets.
OAW
There was an incident in London recently where a young man ran from the cops but was caught and apprehended in a corner shop. CCTV showed him being arrested but before he was grabbed he puts something in his mouth. He subsequently died.
There have been protests in the streets, bottles and rocks thrown at police etc. No data has really been released about the incident yet. No cause of death, no confirmation of what was swallowed, nothing about use of excessive force (doesn't really appear to be an issue from the footage). People are protesting without any injustice having been done. If the cops had announced no charges, or CoD of the deceased's own doing, I could understand it but they just seem to want to pick a fight regardless of who was in the wrong.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
The Maryland Office of the Public Defender said that charges against at least one suspect were dropped on Monday in light of the new video that they said shows officers "working together to manufacture evidence." The development comes days after the state's top prosecutor announced Friday that 34 prosecuted or pending drug or weapons cases were dropped or dismissed because they were connected to three officers seen in a different body cam video showing one officer planting drugs.
The discovery of the latest video brings to three the number of body cam videos in which police have recently staged a crime scene.
The third one is from Pueblo, Colorado, in which an officer staged a drug-find in a vehicle. Charges were dismissed against the suspect, but no public action was taken against Pueblo Police Department Officer Seth Jensen.
The Baltimore Police Commissioner has issued a new order to police, forbidding "recreation of evidence". Ars has hosted the letter in their story.
In the event your body worn camera is not activated during the recovery of evidence, under no circumstances shall you attempt to recreate the recovery of evidence after re-activating your body worn camera. If you must deactivate your body worn camera during an incident, merely explain the reasoning on camera (e.g., to protect the identity of a witness who wishes to remain anonymous, etc.).
Notably missing: creation of evidence. I love how it automatically assumes the evidence existed before. And police can still work within the new order:
"Um, central - I have to turn my camera off now. We didn't find enough evidence, so we have to cut the feed while we plant more. Will resume filming in a few minutes."
It does direct officers to activate their cameras by default. Though I don't know if there are penalties for violations. Since it's now an order, insubordination is on the table. Which does carry penalties. Snark aside, this is a good thing. You can't fix a problem until you at least recognize it.
"In the event the gun is no longer in the deceased's hand, under no circumstances shall you attempt to recreate it being in his hand, nor should you fire the gun in his hand in an attempt to recreate powder residue."
Some of us have said these type of shenanigans have been going on for YEARS. Never have claimed that all or if even most cops are dirty like this. But this is by no means a "rare" situation as some would like to believe. Especially in certain neighborhoods where it's rather commonplace.
The Baltimore Police Commissioner has issued a new order to police, forbidding "recreation of evidence". Ars has hosted the letter in their story.
Notably missing: creation of evidence. I love how it automatically assumes the evidence existed before. And police can still work within the new order:
"Um, central - I have to turn my camera off now. We didn't find enough evidence, so we have to cut the feed while we plant more. Will resume filming in a few minutes."
It does direct officers to activate their cameras by default. Though I don't know if there are penalties for violations. Since it's now an order, insubordination is on the table. Which does carry penalties. Snark aside, this is a good thing. You can't fix a problem until you at least recognize it.
This is one of those it should go without saying things
Why is it ok for cops to turn their cameras off? Totally defeats the object of having them. It should be a serious offence for any one camera to be turned off and if more than one goes off at once in the same place, all officers should be sacked and/or prosecuted.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Beats the shit out of me. They should be required to keep them on the entire time they're on duty, esp in cities like Baltimore that have so many problems with corruption, period. Same goes for all vehicle and precinct cams.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
A Cobb County police lieutenant has been moved to administrative duty for making what the department deemed were “inappropriate racial comments” during a traffic stop last year.
Channel 2 Action News reported that its request for body camera footage of the incident prompted an internal investigation of Lt. Greg Abbott.
The footage shows a white female driver pulled over during a DUI traffic stop telling Abbott that she was scared to move her hands in order to get her cellphone because “I’ve just seen way too many videos of cops ... ”
At that point, she is cut off by Abbott.
“But you’re not black. Remember, we only shoot black people,” the police veteran of nearly three decades can be heard saying. “Yeah. We only kill black people, right? All the videos you’ve seen, have you seen the black people get killed?”
The footage is from July 2016, before Mike Register took over as chief of Cobb police.
He said that Abbott will remain on administrative duty pending the outcome of the investigation, for which he didn’t give a timeline.
A statement Wednesday from the department said Register just found out about the recording Friday.
Possibility of sarcasm? Still inappropriate, but sarcasm? (reads article) Yes, that's the claim. Seriously though, why would a white woman be freaking out about a traffic stop?
It's obvious he making a joke from the context but Jesus have some self awareness. Someone who walks around with the power of life and death in his hands every day should grasp the message his 'joke' sends.
This one's disturbing, but I wouldn't fire him. I'd rather see firings and prosecutions for cops who kill people unnecessarily rather than those who say dumb things. Stupidity is not a crime; murder is.
In a rather interesting combination of bravery, stupidity, and just being plain fed up AF ... this guy has become a hero of black men around the country after a cop pulled a gun on him for failing to use a turn signal.
And the best part ...
What happened? They f*cked you up in school they used to beat you up? You didn't get p*ssy in school? What made you feel bold to do that?
Definitely not. Hopefully STL doesn't explode today because a cop can be recorded saying his was going to kill this dude during a high speed chase .... he went ahead and did that very thing when the case was over ... and a judge still found the cop "not guilty".