If they're a private organization, they also lose all authority vested in them by the government. They just turn into a paramilitary group, and should be subjected to all the relevant limitations regarding weaponry etc. that apply to normal citizenry. Potentially placed on a watch list as well, as with any paramilitary group. They should also lose all public funding, and all equipment bought with public funds should be repossessed.
They've basically gone rogue.
Rhan9 on
+7
Options
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
edited June 2014
I was going to make a comment about them being a 501(c)(3) but they wouldn't have bothered to file a form 990, but they actually did.
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
From Lowering the Bar comes a pretty astonishing story (details from WaPo):
The case began in January when a 15-year-old girl sent photos of herself (presumably in some state of undress) to her 17-year-old boyfriend, who in turn sent her a video of his erect penis. The girl's mother filed a complaint about the video.
He was charged with two felony charges, manufacturing and distributing child pornography. If found guilty he could go to jail until he's 21 and be on the sex offender registry for life.
In June, after the case was dismissed on a technicality, prosecutors refiled the charges. This time, Manassas City police arrested him and took photos of his genitals against his will, Foster [the defendant's attorney] said.
The case was set for trial on July 1, at which time, Foster said, Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Claiborne Richardson II told her that her client must either plead guilty or police would obtain another search warrant for comparison to the evidence from his cellphone. Foster asked how that would be accomplished and said she was told that “we just take him down to the hospital, give him a shot and then take the pictures that we need."
In case it's not clear, the first picture the police took of his genitals, they (the genitals, but hopefully also the police) were not erect. ACA Richardson is talking about giving the defendant an injection to force him to attain an erection so that they can photograph it for a closer comparison with the video.
The defendant declined to plead guilty; the prosecutor then got a warrant to perform this procedure.
Foster had filed a motion to allow her client to travel out of state to visit family. Richardson wanted the teen to comply with the search warrant before he left. Juvenile Court Judge Lisa Baird declined to order that and allowed the teen to leave the area. But he has another court date Tuesday.
Carlos Flores Laboy, appointed the teen’s guardian ad litem in the case, said he thought it was just as illegal for the Manassas City police to create their own child pornography as to investigate the teen for it.
“They’re using a statute that was designed to protect children from being exploited in a sexual manner to take a picture of this young man in a sexually explicit manner,” Flores Laboy said. “The irony is incredible.”
Prince William County, Virginia, State’s Attorney Paul Ebert
This Paul Ebert’s third nomination. Ebert, you may remember, made the list several years ago for refusing to investigate the massive corruption among public officials in Manassas Park, Virginia in their efforts to shut down David Ruttenberg’s Rack & Roll pool hall. In 2008 and 2009, Ebert was the special prosecutor in the Ryan Frederick case. Frederick shot and killed Chesapeake, Virginia Det. Jarrod Shivers during a drug raid on Frederick’s home. Frederick had no prior criminal record, and says he thought he was being robbed. Which is credible, given that police informants had broken into Frederick’s home days earlier to obtain probable cause for the raid, part of a possible pattern of illegality among police informants Ebert found unimportant.
Ebert tried Frederick for capital murder. He attempted to change the venue, arguing that bloggers and Internet writers had made it difficult for the state to get a fair trial. He told jurors Frederick was a pot-crazed killer, then sought to exclude video of Frederick’s post-raid interviews at the police station, where a clearly despondent Frederick bursts into tears and vomits upon being told that he had killed a cop. Best of all, Ebert put on the stand a perfectly-named jailhouse snitch named Jamal Skeeter who claimed that during their one hour per day of rec time at the jail, Frederick repeatedly boasted about killing Shivers and mocked Shivers’ widow. Skeeter was so utterly devoid of credibility, fellow Virginia State’s Attorney Earle Mobley made the admirable and rare move of speaking up in mid-trial to say that he and other area prosecutors had determined Skeeter was a professional liar, and had stopped using him years ago. You’d think that’s something a prosecutor might look into before using a witness to help put a man in prison for the rest of his life.
Ebert makes the list again this year after getting reprimanded by a federal judge in a death penalty case. In August, U.S. District Judge Raymond A. Jackson vacated all charges against Justin Wolfe, whom Ebert convicted in a 2002 murder-for-hire case. The hit man who testified that Wolfe had hired him recanted in 2005, claiming police told him he’d get the death penalty unless he implicated Wolfe. Even though the state’s entire case hinged on the hit-man’s testimony, Ebert fought another six years to protect his conviction. From Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick:
Jackson’s 57-page memorandum opinion is scathing in its findings of prosecutorial misbehavior by Ebert and his assistant, Richard A. Conway. Conduct evidently included choreographing and coordinating witness testimony, withholding tapes of witness interviews from the defense, and knowingly allowing false testimony to be introduced at trial. Jackson finds that prosecutors failed to turn over a report showing that it was police detectives who first introduced the idea to Barber that Wolfe had masterminded the killing, and who gave him the option of implicating Wolfe or receiving the death penalty. He finds that they suppressed evidence that Barber confessed to his roommate that he’d acted alone.
Ebert’s incredible justification for withholding exculpatory evidence: He feared that it would have allowed Wolfe’s attorneys to “fabricate a defense around what is provided.” Ebert is the longest serving prosecutor in Virginia. He also leads the state in capital convictions, with 13.
Prosecutorial misconduct needs to be grounds for disbarrment.
Ebert’s incredible justification for withholding exculpatory evidence: He feared that it would have allowed Wolfe’s attorneys to “fabricate a defense around what is provided.”
This is
It's just
I mean
no shit that's what the defense would do with exculpatory evidence
I want every single police officer and attorney and doctor etc. involved to suffer the full punishment for manufacturing child pornography and end up on a sex offender list for the rest of their lives.
Because unlike a private distributions between two consenting legal minors is a silly thing to ruin a kid's life over, but to actually classify actual sex offenders (which these police officers are after performing such an action) as such.
That is absolutely fucking absurd.
+5
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
So supposedly the cops are backing off from taking pictures of a monitor's penis.
Ebert’s incredible justification for withholding exculpatory evidence: He feared that it would have allowed Wolfe’s attorneys to “fabricate a defense around what is provided.”
This is
It's just
I mean
no shit that's what the defense would do with exculpatory evidence
That was the bit that made me go "WTF?" - he literally defended his behavior by saying "but if I gave them the evidence, then the defense attorney would do his job!"
That should have been the point the VA Bar ran his license through a crosscut shredder.
The state's former top law enforcement officers were charged in 3rd District Court with pattern of unlawful activity, a second-degree felony; and three counts of receiving or soliciting bribes by a public official, a third-degree felony. In addition, Shurtleff was charged with illegally accepting gifts or loans, a second-degree felony; and two counts of receiving bribes by a public official, a third-degree felony; witness tampering, a third-degree felony; tampering with evidence, a class A misdemeanor; and obstruction of justice, a class A misdemeanor. Swallow was also charged with accepting a gift or loan when prohibited, a second-degree felony; giving false or inconsistent statements, a second-degree felony; three counts of evidence tampering, a third-degree felony; obstruction of justice, a third-degree felony; falsifying or altering government records, a class B misdemeanor; failing to disclose a conflict of interest, a class B misdemeanor; and misuse of public money, a third-degree felony.
What the hell? I grew up running around all over the neighborhood (which could be anywhere from 100 meters from my house to half a dozen kilometers away). That sort of babying benefits nobody.
Not the police, but they caught a drunk driving judge, who demadned special treatment because otherwise it will ruin her life if she was brought in.
“Please let me go home," she said, according to the Valley Morning Star. "I live a couple of miles away ... you are going to ruin my life. I worked hard for 25 years to be where I am today."
They needed to put her in cuffs and basically she resisted and refused until they threatened to start stacking more charges on.
69 in a 55 sounds like 'you were doing wreckless, but we will cut it down to go easy on you' in the first place.
Someone needs to ground all the helicopter parents.
It's more like she left her kid in the park with a cellphone for the 8 hours she was at work.
Which still shouldn't lead to being arrested but is more a comment on American being a randian hellscape with no support for a single-mother.
As part of a two-income household with kids, the daycare hellscape is not exclusive to single mothers only, although they undoubtedly get the shaft way worse than anyone else.
Shown is the view a condemned inmate would have from a table inside the death chamber of the new lethal injection facility at San Quentin State Prison. The facility cost $853,000 and the work was performed by the inmate ward labor program.
Something about that is really really horrible.
In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.
Shown is the view a condemned inmate would have from a table inside the death chamber of the new lethal injection facility at San Quentin State Prison. The facility cost $853,000 and the work was performed by the inmate ward labor program.
Something about that is really really horrible.
The fact that it's the state doing something uncomfortably akin to a man made to dig his own grave?
Edit: This post has a disturbingly appropriate number.
Someone needs to ground all the helicopter parents.
It's more like she left her kid in the park with a cellphone for the 8 hours she was at work.
Which still shouldn't lead to being arrested but is more a comment on American being a randian hellscape with no support for a single-mother.
Not so much left her kid, but allowed her kid to go play for eight hours. Which, isn't at all bizarre to me, the only difference for me was that when I spent a day running around the neighborhood as a child I didn't have a device with me at all times that could summon help.
Except other than calling the police there was no one she could call for help because her mom was at work and no one else was available to watch her. Its still abandonment.
Three bank robbery suspects led police on an hour-long chase through Northern California on Wednesday, spraying patrol cruisers with bullets and shooting at least two of the three hostages they took.
In the end, two of suspects were killed by police and a third was wounded. One of the three hostages died, while two others were injured.
I feel that of particular interest to the policing thread is how it played out and - specifically - how it ended.
The suspects stole a bank employee's SUV and raced out of the parking lot. Officers chased the vehicle.
One hostage, a bank employee, was either thrown or jumped from the vehicle after a few blocks, police said. She had been shot and was taken to the hospital. She is expected to survive.
Police knew from the outset that there were hostages in the vehicle with the armed suspects.
The chase continued as the suspects sprayed bullets, racing through neighborhoods and along Interstates. The California Highway Patrol joined the pursuit. One of their helicopters followed in the air.
It took authorities from Stockton to Lodi to Acampo and back to Stockton again.
Jones called the gunfire "relentless," saying suspects fired on officers throughout the chase. "They put our entire community and nearby communities at risk for a very long time," he said. At least one of their weapons was an AK-47.
The chase ended in north Stockton shortly after a second hostage, who was also shot, either was thrown or jumped from the SUV.
Obviously without fucking ridiculously Heat-style insane bank robbers, no one is at risk, but do the police and CHP not shoulder some of the responsibility for putting the "entire community at risk for a very long time"? The suspects fired constantly through out the entire chase, and houses were hit by gunfire as they passed. At what point do you consider backing the fuck off? You have helicopters.
Officers closed for a final showdown after shooting out the vehicle's tires.
A firefight erupted as police approached. One of the hostages was still inside.
"It sounded like five minutes of straight gunfire," Sam York told CNN affiliate KCRA. "It seemed like it wasn't real."
When gunfire ended, one of the suspects was dead. A second later died at a local hospital. The remaining hostage was found dead inside the SUV.
Again, the police knew there were hostages in the vehicle. There were officers on-scene when the suspects left the bank with 3 of them. Two jumped/were thrown from the vehicle. One was already shot. This is what the SUV looked like.
"It will not be clear for some time when the hostage was shot or by whom," said Jones, who expressed his condolences to the hostage's family.
I can hazard a guess.
Obviously situations like this are unlikely to end well. Did the police do the right thing? Did they exacerbate it?
Early Wednesday evening, friends and relatives began posting emotional messages on a Facebook page belonging to Holt-Singh (Cog ed: the hostage who was killed, she was a customer at the bank during the robbery. Her 12 year old daughter was waiting in the car), a 1990 Franklin High School graduate. Later, a girl who identified herself as Holt-Singh's daughter posted a picture of herself and her mother on Instagram with the following words:
"This is misty. She is the most amazing person u will ever meet, she is also my mom. Today she went to the bank where there was a robbery (and) she was held hostage. Sadly she was killed.
"Mommy I'm so sorry. I should of went into the bank with you. This should of never happened. i remember how we would always sing songs on the radio and you would take funny snapchats with me, and how you always chewed ice. Mommy you were my best friend. No one would be able to replace you. Your in a better place now. No matter how much I want u back I know u can't. I love you so so much mom."
I have to say that it's hard to fault police for pursuing heavily armed bank robbers that have already shot and thrown one hostage from their vehicle. Especially when they are shooting from their vehicle with complete disregard for the public and have other hostages.
This seems to be as clear-cut a situation as you get where the police need to respond aggressively and in force. Pretty much on a par with shutting down Boston after they cornered the shithead bomber.
The only good outcome in this situation is the robbers surrender to police or are otherwise incapacitated. There would be a possible argument about backing off if the robbers didn't have hostages, but - from the tenor of this thread - I think people would be criticizing the police if they had backed off and the hostages ended up dead. Lose / lose.
I have to say that it's hard to fault police for pursuing heavily armed bank robbers that have already shot and thrown one hostage from their vehicle. Especially when they are shooting from their vehicle with complete disregard for the public and have other hostages.
This seems to be as clear-cut a situation as you get where the police need to respond aggressively and in force. Pretty much on a par with shutting down Boston after they cornered the shithead bomber.
The only good outcome in this situation is the robbers surrender to police or are otherwise incapacitated. There would be a possible argument about backing off if the robbers didn't have hostages, but - from the tenor of this thread - I think people would be criticizing the police if they had backed off and the hostages ended up dead. Lose / lose.
Except that there are ways to pursue that don't require provoking a potentially deadly car chase (remember how Oculus lost their CEO a year back?) Nobody is saying to back off, but chases are severely counterproductive.
I have to say that it's hard to fault police for pursuing heavily armed bank robbers that have already shot and thrown one hostage from their vehicle. Especially when they are shooting from their vehicle with complete disregard for the public and have other hostages.
This seems to be as clear-cut a situation as you get where the police need to respond aggressively and in force. Pretty much on a par with shutting down Boston after they cornered the shithead bomber.
The only good outcome in this situation is the robbers surrender to police or are otherwise incapacitated. There would be a possible argument about backing off if the robbers didn't have hostages, but - from the tenor of this thread - I think people would be criticizing the police if they had backed off and the hostages ended up dead. Lose / lose.
Except that there are ways to pursue that don't require provoking a potentially deadly car chase (remember how Oculus lost their CEO a year back?) Nobody is saying to back off, but chases are severely counterproductive.
I think we have nowhere near enough details at the moment. From the article it sounds like there was one cop nearby who practically watched them drive away but didn't interfere because of the hostages. Did he start to pursue? Did they open fire? Did he open fire? Which first? When exactly in this did they shoot a hostage and dump her out of the car?
Because once they start murdering hostages it is not the time to start pursuing low conflict resolution strategies.
Except other than calling the police there was no one she could call for help because her mom was at work and no one else was available to watch her. Its still abandonment.
The police are not a babysitting service.
You think her mother would not have left work if her daughter was in trouble?
Should we make it illegal to leave a kid home for 8 hours?
Make a maximum distance you are allowed to let children move from their parents?
What's the issue here?
This is for this specific case. California all but has stopped executions anyways. I think the theory here is that the system is flawed, you can't have a speedy trial if the standard for the sentence is to wait 25 years for appeals to finish because of the severity of the punishment. This in the end may just make other pro death penalty states put in an express lane.
Except other than calling the police there was no one she could call for help because her mom was at work and no one else was available to watch her. Its still abandonment.
The police are not a babysitting service.
You think her mother would not have left work if her daughter was in trouble?
Should we make it illegal to leave a kid home for 8 hours?
Make a maximum distance you are allowed to let children move from their parents?
What's the issue here?
It actually is illegal to leave a kid home by themselves for 8 hours. It's abandonment. Minors are expected to have adult supervision.
But besides the technicality that flies in the face of 1980's forward latch key children, I'm of mixed feelings on the kid being in the park. This thread said the park is both next to, and 10 minute walk from the mcdonalds. I mean, this is probably fine in a good area, if the park is next to the mcdonalds, Especially if the mother is going out at each break and lunch to spend time with the kid.
I'd liken it to the idea of playing in a neighborhood by myself as a kid, but theres a huge difference, its a neighborhood because you are all neighbors, and presumably you know each other and are going to help if you see something awful happen.
Indeed. You can't leave a 9-year old at home alone all day either. Apparently even the mother seems aware of this, since she used to bring the kid to work with her instead of leaving her at home.
Except other than calling the police there was no one she could call for help because her mom was at work and no one else was available to watch her. Its still abandonment.
The police are not a babysitting service.
You think her mother would not have left work if her daughter was in trouble?
Should we make it illegal to leave a kid home for 8 hours?
Make a maximum distance you are allowed to let children move from their parents?
What's the issue here?
It actually is illegal to leave a kid home by themselves for 8 hours. It's abandonment. Minors are expected to have adult supervision.
But besides the technicality that flies in the face of 1980's forward latch key children, I'm of mixed feelings on the kid being in the park. This thread said the park is both next to, and 10 minute walk from the mcdonalds. I mean, this is probably fine in a good area, if the park is next to the mcdonalds, Especially if the mother is going out at each break and lunch to spend time with the kid.
I'd liken it to the idea of playing in a neighborhood by myself as a kid, but theres a huge difference, its a neighborhood because you are all neighbors, and presumably you know each other and are going to help if you see something awful happen.
Holy fuck... o.0
I mean, if she was like 5 or 6, maybe even 7, i could understand, but a 9 year old with a phone and ability to use it, sheesh...
I'm fine with this sort of case being abandonment. I also strongly believe that we, as a community, should then have her ask us, "Well what the fuck do you want me to do? I have a job and no resources to secure childcare." And we should answer that question.
Posts
They've basically gone rogue.
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/africa/police-officer-shoots-aggressive-tortoise-dead-30419096.html
Words fail me.
No, "paramilitary" is what you call a bunch of thugs who are better prepared and more professional than you'd normally expect from a bunch of thugs.
These guys are "dysmilitary".
What about those guys? Are they "datmilitary"?
I'll see myself out.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
The case began in January when a 15-year-old girl sent photos of herself (presumably in some state of undress) to her 17-year-old boyfriend, who in turn sent her a video of his erect penis. The girl's mother filed a complaint about the video.
He was charged with two felony charges, manufacturing and distributing child pornography. If found guilty he could go to jail until he's 21 and be on the sex offender registry for life.
In case it's not clear, the first picture the police took of his genitals, they (the genitals, but hopefully also the police) were not erect. ACA Richardson is talking about giving the defendant an injection to force him to attain an erection so that they can photograph it for a closer comparison with the video.
The defendant declined to plead guilty; the prosecutor then got a warrant to perform this procedure.
(all emphasis mine, all quotes from WaPo)
Prosecutorial misconduct needs to be grounds for disbarrment.
This is
It's just
I mean
no shit that's what the defense would do with exculpatory evidence
hitting hot metal with hammers
Because unlike a private distributions between two consenting legal minors is a silly thing to ruin a kid's life over, but to actually classify actual sex offenders (which these police officers are after performing such an action) as such.
That is absolutely fucking absurd.
You don't say
That was the bit that made me go "WTF?" - he literally defended his behavior by saying "but if I gave them the evidence, then the defense attorney would do his job!"
That should have been the point the VA Bar ran his license through a crosscut shredder.
*Walks out.*
More from Mr. Pierce.
Someone needs to ground all the helicopter parents.
They needed to put her in cuffs and basically she resisted and refused until they threatened to start stacking more charges on.
69 in a 55 sounds like 'you were doing wreckless, but we will cut it down to go easy on you' in the first place.
It's more like she left her kid in the park with a cellphone for the 8 hours she was at work.
Which still shouldn't lead to being arrested but is more a comment on American being a randian hellscape with no support for a single-mother.
As part of a two-income household with kids, the daycare hellscape is not exclusive to single mothers only, although they undoubtedly get the shaft way worse than anyone else.
A federal district court judge just ruled that California's death penalty is unconstitutional.
The fact that it's the state doing something uncomfortably akin to a man made to dig his own grave?
Edit: This post has a disturbingly appropriate number.
Not so much left her kid, but allowed her kid to go play for eight hours. Which, isn't at all bizarre to me, the only difference for me was that when I spent a day running around the neighborhood as a child I didn't have a device with me at all times that could summon help.
The police are not a babysitting service.
MWO: Adamski
I feel that of particular interest to the policing thread is how it played out and - specifically - how it ended.
Police knew from the outset that there were hostages in the vehicle with the armed suspects.
Obviously without fucking ridiculously Heat-style insane bank robbers, no one is at risk, but do the police and CHP not shoulder some of the responsibility for putting the "entire community at risk for a very long time"? The suspects fired constantly through out the entire chase, and houses were hit by gunfire as they passed. At what point do you consider backing the fuck off? You have helicopters.
Again, the police knew there were hostages in the vehicle. There were officers on-scene when the suspects left the bank with 3 of them. Two jumped/were thrown from the vehicle. One was already shot. This is what the SUV looked like.
I can hazard a guess.
Obviously situations like this are unlikely to end well. Did the police do the right thing? Did they exacerbate it?
Also, I hate to be depressed with all of humanity alone.
Abloo.
This seems to be as clear-cut a situation as you get where the police need to respond aggressively and in force. Pretty much on a par with shutting down Boston after they cornered the shithead bomber.
The only good outcome in this situation is the robbers surrender to police or are otherwise incapacitated. There would be a possible argument about backing off if the robbers didn't have hostages, but - from the tenor of this thread - I think people would be criticizing the police if they had backed off and the hostages ended up dead. Lose / lose.
Except that there are ways to pursue that don't require provoking a potentially deadly car chase (remember how Oculus lost their CEO a year back?) Nobody is saying to back off, but chases are severely counterproductive.
I think we have nowhere near enough details at the moment. From the article it sounds like there was one cop nearby who practically watched them drive away but didn't interfere because of the hostages. Did he start to pursue? Did they open fire? Did he open fire? Which first? When exactly in this did they shoot a hostage and dump her out of the car?
Because once they start murdering hostages it is not the time to start pursuing low conflict resolution strategies.
You think her mother would not have left work if her daughter was in trouble?
Should we make it illegal to leave a kid home for 8 hours?
Make a maximum distance you are allowed to let children move from their parents?
What's the issue here?
If I have to wallow in abject misery, I'm taking you all with me.
This is for this specific case. California all but has stopped executions anyways. I think the theory here is that the system is flawed, you can't have a speedy trial if the standard for the sentence is to wait 25 years for appeals to finish because of the severity of the punishment. This in the end may just make other pro death penalty states put in an express lane.
It actually is illegal to leave a kid home by themselves for 8 hours. It's abandonment. Minors are expected to have adult supervision.
But besides the technicality that flies in the face of 1980's forward latch key children, I'm of mixed feelings on the kid being in the park. This thread said the park is both next to, and 10 minute walk from the mcdonalds. I mean, this is probably fine in a good area, if the park is next to the mcdonalds, Especially if the mother is going out at each break and lunch to spend time with the kid.
I'd liken it to the idea of playing in a neighborhood by myself as a kid, but theres a huge difference, its a neighborhood because you are all neighbors, and presumably you know each other and are going to help if you see something awful happen.
Holy fuck... o.0
I mean, if she was like 5 or 6, maybe even 7, i could understand, but a 9 year old with a phone and ability to use it, sheesh...