Forum Comments

I'm not sure if it's the same programs i was taught, but there is a program called "crime streets and trips" etc. which create weather pattern like "hot zone" maps detailing where crimes are committed broken down by any one of hundreds of factors (time of day or week is a big one) and even what might look like wind patterns that show what the average direction of flight from criminal activity is. It's all supposedly very scientific and all, but the issue is, police don't catch and catalogue every crime, and the crimes they do stop and catalogue that therefore end up being plugged into crime streets and trips may not even be a reflection of increased criminal activity in a specific area, it could JUST AS LIKLEY be a reflection of OVERPOLICING of minority communities who commit the very same number of drug and other offenses as their more affluent white neighbors. So, in the long run overpolicing justifies more overpolicing. This might be something different than the program i learned about 10 years ago, but it sounds very similar. The public is very accepting of data based science, and they are that way without examining how the data may be skewed...so this one is one that needs a much deeper conversation and a much deeper citizen understanding before we can even begin to push back on the half truths that justify crap like this.

Police are allowed to call it "less-lethal" meaning "less lethal than a gun" (but still lethal) Here is an article from the ACLU. Tasers No Longer a Non-Lethal Alternative for Law Enforcement | American Civil Liberties Union (aclu.org)

I took a class called "crime trends and patterns," at the masters level back in 2009. It was clear that there is no way to prevent a biased person from making the data lie. And data that creates "high crime" or "drug trafficking" areas can be created by police deployment patterns. Eg. Racist police deployment justifies more racist police deployment.

In some states that might work, unfortunately, Georgia has defined "serious bodily harm" as including "extreme pain." But that definition doesn't apply to things cops do as long as those things have not been explicitly prohibited by at least an appeals court. (Qualified Immunity).

It's a reference to the historical statistics of who juries in the USA trust. Thus, as a statement highlighting systemic racism I see the combination of words as being anti-racist.

Especially a problem because the current standard that the Supreme Court has made for an INDIVIDUAL to sue for discrimination they must prove SYSTEMIC bias. State laws may be different, but if the state hasn’t changed it in favor of the citizen, that’s the default. Can’t remember the case name at the time, it was a black dude who got pulled over in Maryland,

Anya and Patrick are lawyers with the institute for justice (IJ). Patrick has argued at the Supreme Court against QI. Here is a recording of The Supreme Court's summary of it's opinion in this case.

I actually just finished up training with an organization called "The National Lawyers Guild" an anti-racist, people-first organization of lawyers who (along with a lot of other cool things) provide training in how to be a "legal observer" during protests, so you can show up, and bear witness to police abuse of protesters and appear in court as a credible witness. While police are rarely held accountable at least a legal observer can show up in court and say that a protester did not do the things police said provoked them to use violence. another barrier to police being held accountable is the fact that cops charge anyone they beat up with a litany of "crimes," if a civilian victim of police violence is found guilty of even a minor crime it's pretty much a bar to any lawsuit. So, often an essential "step zero" in a lawsuit is winning a not guilty verdict in criminal court. ACAB. Fuck 12.

very VERY few cases. Logically there should be a lot more cases, but even where qualified immunity is denied most juries are exceptionally deferential to law enforcement. The people who have seen law enforcement abuse, for the most part, either are not able to serve on a jury, or are quickly hand-picked from the jury and told to leave by government lawyers. Many "good" jobs will pay an employee their normal daily rate while they serve on a jury, but most folks don't read that in their employment contract and thus do whatever they can to get out of jury duty. We need more people who actually know the police are full of crap to sit on a jury...the problem is if you mention you think they are full of crap you'll be excluded from jury service by a government lawyer.

The Supreme Court basically made it up. There is a statute called §1983 that congress made specifically for the purpose of citizens suing government when government trampled on their constitutional rights. The Supreme Court, basically made qualified immunity up based on some old common law doctrine. the current test for qualified immunity is from about 40 years ago. There really is no rational basis for the law, especially where congress explicitly made a law for a the opposite purpose, the Supreme Court is only SUPPOSED to interpret the laws--not make them up out of thin air. The only reason QI has survived for so long is that for the longest time it was political suicide to come out against "Law and Order" on either side, democrat or republican. It is only very recently that we as a society have begun to recognize "Law and Order" as the racist, classist dog whistle that it is.

limiting the power of police unions and ending qualified immunity. ending QI will make sure that SOMEONE faces consequences for bad behavior, it most likely won't be the actual cop, but it will be people who can fire the cop (part one). and Limiting police union power to bargaining over working conditions and wages will allow that person who is being held responsible for the actions of bad cops to actually get rid of them. For a source about ending QI that even your crazy right wing friends will accept see CATO's UnlawfulShield.com Ending QI is one of the few issues in Criminal "Justice" circles that I am aware of that has support from BOTH the far left and far right, (I use ACLU and CATO as examples of that but there are many others). That's the "front end" of the problem. If you want to fix the fact that private corporations are making a lot of money on prisoners' slave labor, the 13th amendment has to be modified to remove its exception for convicted criminals--but that's a long shot argument.

@AhmadZid1999 I've just now noticed that my reply to you is not a direct reply, please see my comment below yours in the thread. In essence it's a voter guide. A lot of folks are throwing around the words "progressive prosecutor" as a way to harvest votes from the uninformed and keep the broken system the way it is. this is just a paper that might help you figure out who's full of it, and who actually wants to change something.

My Mentor Professor Schuman (Penn State Law) is a nationally recognized expert in and has some very good writing on abuses of the probation and parole system. He's a former public defender. "Revocation of community supervision is a defining feature of American criminal law. Nearly 4.5 million people in the United States are on parole, probation, or supervised release, and 1/3 eventually have their supervision revoked, sending 350,000 to prison each year. Academics, activists, and attorneys warn that “mass supervision” has become a powerful engine of mass incarceration." -Schuman, Jacob, Revocation and Retribution (February 15, 2021). Washington Law Review, Vol. 96, p. 881, 2021, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3786353

There should be an immediate change, retroactivity is another question (eg. does this law count for cases that STARTED, or even in some cases ENDED before the Supreme Court's ruling). Usually, the court does not go full retroactive and extend the right for people already imprisoned for the commission of a crime where police violated this 4th Amendment principle. More often it's allowed in cases that are ongoing. for reference, In cases of Constitutional Law at the Supreme Court the Court is setting the lowest possible level of protection afforded by the Federal Constitution, which applies to the entire USA. There may be states that already have this level of protection each state also has it's own constitution, those can always ADD Citizen's protection above the level of the federal constitution, but not subtract from it. (My home state of Montana has a stronger 4a than the federal system).

Today where it seems very clear that "money can buy 'truth,' if you play lies enough on the TV", i actually think responsible spending of money is more effective than voting. Buy local from people who don't have the profit margins to give money to causes, or find big companies who share your ethics...if you can afford it.

Great, now I'm gonna hear the muppets character "Beaker" in my head for the rest of the day.

You should also know, there may actually be no video, because cops are allowed access to the on/off buttons on their camera, so it should surprise no one that the camera is always off for some reason when the cops are doing something shady. THAT should be a super easy thing to fix, all we need there is a rule of evidence that says the judge should instruct the jury to consider it suspicious every time a camera is off.

The penalties are what they say they are, I suspect they "promised" to release the videos, and did not make it legally binding on themselves. So most likely no consequences. Furthermore many police unions have established legally binding restrictions on the timelines of when video may be released if the police union deems the video could damage the officer's reputation. So really, they have no penalty for releasing late, and could run afoul of already negotiated police union contracts by releasing "early" without the union's permission. They make a lot of empty promises, but i suspect they made this promise to the public knowing full well that they would be legally unable to fulfil their promise. Police unions are another huge thing that needs reform they have way too much power, they protect the bad cops until they become bad police leadership, and create an environment where good cops, and cops who intend to have integrity are either not promoted or not even welcome on the force.

I don’t feel like cops are any worse than they have been in the past 20 years, they just happen to be on camera more often now.