[Brooklyn Nine-Nine] - The next time you see me I'm going to be all out of orgasms.

1151617181921»

Posts

  • NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Usually if they do something wrong the show will outright say they did .

    In that example Jake was called out for being impulsive and possibly tanking the case early on by his superiors.

    Was he fired? Demoted? Succesfully sued by the person whose rights they violated?
    It's not enough to say "this is bad", there needs to be consequences.
    And having the person whose rights are violated be guilty in the end just reinforces the "regulations bad" idea.

    What rights were violated?


    He was an ex felon with a history of robbery, arrested on suspicion of armed robbery that matched his MO.

    afaik he was provided his attorney and was held for as long as the law said he could be held on suspicion, and was in the process of being released at the end of that timeframe.

    Jake was given an administrative punishment because he jumped the gun on the arrest before completing the investigation.

    Not every single infraction of procedure requires a demotion or termination.
    Let me quote myself.
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    I have not watched the show, but from discussions about it i have seen, it is my understanding that the B99 do, on occasion, violate peoples rights.
    Like arresting someone in order to get time to go fish for evidence, when there is a supreme court case that explicitly makes it something not allowed.

    I think, if they decide to continue as cops, the writing team should have a team of defense lawyers go through everything the cops do, mark anything that they should not do, and then have those actions be pointed out as wrong in the show.
    None of the "we know they are guilty, if we were just allowed to go and <insert illegal and/or against regulations thing here>" shit, ever.
    Make sure to add lot of innocent suspects that do call for a lawyer.

    and so on and so forth...
    It does not matter he was an ex felon, he still has rights.
    None of this "i'm gonna throw them in jail because i got a hunch" bullshit.
    That you are excusing the thing with "but they were guilty, what's the harm" is the exact reason why cop shows are so toxic.

    RingoMr Rayqwer12Kristmas Kthulhu
  • Ninja Snarl PNinja Snarl P My helmet is my burden. Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered User regular
    Something big to keep in mind is that it's a comedy cop show done by comedy writers and is in no way trying to present itself as the grim arbiter of all things right and wrong for cops. They always pick up guilty people because them picking up innocents and fucking them over isn't funny. The showmakers are also not, as a rule, going to be expertly knowledgeable on Supreme Court rulings regarding the minutiae of police operations; they're going to know cop show tropes to write from.

    And the fact that the cops at the 99 aren't corrupt is, while unrealistic, one of the reasons I even enjoy the show. I couldn't give two shits about "realistic" cop shows these days for a lot of reasons. Having the 99 crew raked over the coals for what they did in the past despite being absurdly better than the average precinct full of cops would be neither productive for the BLM movement or for making a interesting season. A situation which causes them all to leave the police force in protest would be infinitely more in line with their qualities as individuals.

    All the shows where the cops involved should have their actions reviewed and get fired (or, more likely, get prison time) are also all trying to crank up that gritty drama dial and probably don't give a shit about how cops act in their show as long as people watch.

    Gnome-InterruptusObiFettShadowhopeThawmusbowenDemonStacey
  • ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    The more I think about it, the more I hope they can strike a balance.

    Yes, having copious shows glamorizing and humanizing cops are part of the problem, but casting aside a show that is full of a diverse cast with a directorial/writing team willing to throw out however much work went into those first few episode scripts in order to have a new take on it seems, to me at least, to be worth hearing them out.

    Maybe they can't solve that problem and it'll just end up being the full fledged finale of the series. Maybe they can find a way to be self aware and referential to the change of public opinion, and even better, might be in a position to help sway public opinion in a positive direction (again, through input of those knowledgeable in these things).

    Doesn't mean every episode needs to be over half 'most cops are shit and fuck the police and seriously FUCK THE POLICE, also wacky hijinx!', but if we can't even imagine and portray a better view of the police interacting with a community, it's going to be a lot harder to sell people on.

    Cops and LivePD or whatever the fuck were propaganda for the polices.

    What if Mike Schur and the team make entertaining propaganda towards better ends and policies?

    I would respect them if they just admitted they couldn't thread that needle and walked away with the last season being the literal last season, but I think B99 has potential to do some good in a way other than just ending its run because it deals with policing.

    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
    Shadowhope
  • NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    So, if you need the suspects to be guilty to keep the show light hearted, but having cops always be right spreads toxic ideas about police...
    Is it even possible to ethically make a cop comedy show?

    I'm going to go and state the bold and controversial position of, yes.
    But it will be difficult.
    Like, the violation of suspects rights i mentioned earlier, those need to either go, and land the cop in real trouble for doing, and the show must make it clear that this was wrong, no matter how guilty or innocent the person whose rights were violated was.
    And as mentioned, writers are not lawyers, so hire some lawyers, specifically defense lawyers, to go through the scripts and mark out where stuff got wrong.

  • evilmrhenryevilmrhenry Registered User regular
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    So, if you need the suspects to be guilty to keep the show light hearted, but having cops always be right spreads toxic ideas about police...
    Is it even possible to ethically make a cop comedy show?

    I'm going to go and state the bold and controversial position of, yes.
    But it will be difficult.
    Like, the violation of suspects rights i mentioned earlier, those need to either go, and land the cop in real trouble for doing, and the show must make it clear that this was wrong, no matter how guilty or innocent the person whose rights were violated was.
    And as mentioned, writers are not lawyers, so hire some lawyers, specifically defense lawyers, to go through the scripts and mark out where stuff got wrong.

    The problem is that showing a police force that rigorously follows the law and isn't a tool of white supremacy is inherently propaganda, because it makes people think the actual police are like that. Now, I trust the B99 writers to be able to say things that need to be said despite that, but the very premise of the show has issues that need to be addressed.

    FencingsaxGnome-InterruptusRingoCantide
  • BethrynBethryn Unhappiness is Mandatory Registered User regular
    I can think of a few cop comedy shows that don't portray cops as gun-toting heroes chasing down bad guys in extremely dramatic situations, but makes them behave much more like normal people.





    Maybe B99 can draw from those sorts of styles.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Bethryn wrote: »
    I can think of a few cop comedy shows that don't portray cops as gun-toting heroes chasing down bad guys in extremely dramatic situations, but makes them behave much more like normal people.





    Maybe B99 can draw from those sorts of styles.

    The fact that neither of those shows are American should give you a clue.

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
    evilmrhenryMorganVautono-wally, erotibot300TofystedethHacksawThawmusSyphonBlueElvenshaeKristmas Kthulhu
  • NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    So, if you need the suspects to be guilty to keep the show light hearted, but having cops always be right spreads toxic ideas about police...
    Is it even possible to ethically make a cop comedy show?

    I'm going to go and state the bold and controversial position of, yes.
    But it will be difficult.
    Like, the violation of suspects rights i mentioned earlier, those need to either go, and land the cop in real trouble for doing, and the show must make it clear that this was wrong, no matter how guilty or innocent the person whose rights were violated was.
    And as mentioned, writers are not lawyers, so hire some lawyers, specifically defense lawyers, to go through the scripts and mark out where stuff got wrong.

    The problem is that showing a police force that rigorously follows the law and isn't a tool of white supremacy is inherently propaganda, because it makes people think the actual police are like that. Now, I trust the B99 writers to be able to say things that need to be said despite that, but the very premise of the show has issues that need to be addressed.
    And showing cops who don't follow the law and are white supremacist as anything but villains is also cop propaganda.
    Having "good cops" constantly interact with bad cops and showing how toxic the police are might work.
    I mean, the whole problem is how to show cops who people can, and should, like, yet do not act as PR for actual cops.

  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    It's definitely a tough needle to thread.

    I guess it does help a little that, whether or not intentional, B99 has a bit of an undercurrent of "Most of the NYPD that isn't the 99 is incompetent/corrupt".
    Still a long way to go, but the show at least has a basis to deal with the current climate.

    ShadowhopeCantide
  • King RiptorKing Riptor Registered User regular
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Usually if they do something wrong the show will outright say they did .

    In that example Jake was called out for being impulsive and possibly tanking the case early on by his superiors.

    Was he fired? Demoted? Succesfully sued by the person whose rights they violated?
    It's not enough to say "this is bad", there needs to be consequences.
    And having the person whose rights are violated be guilty in the end just reinforces the "regulations bad" idea.

    What rights were violated?


    He was an ex felon with a history of robbery, arrested on suspicion of armed robbery that matched his MO.

    afaik he was provided his attorney and was held for as long as the law said he could be held on suspicion, and was in the process of being released at the end of that timeframe.

    Jake was given an administrative punishment because he jumped the gun on the arrest before completing the investigation.

    Not every single infraction of procedure requires a demotion or termination.
    Let me quote myself.
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    I have not watched the show, but from discussions about it i have seen, it is my understanding that the B99 do, on occasion, violate peoples rights.
    Like arresting someone in order to get time to go fish for evidence, when there is a supreme court case that explicitly makes it something not allowed.

    I think, if they decide to continue as cops, the writing team should have a team of defense lawyers go through everything the cops do, mark anything that they should not do, and then have those actions be pointed out as wrong in the show.
    None of the "we know they are guilty, if we were just allowed to go and <insert illegal and/or against regulations thing here>" shit, ever.
    Make sure to add lot of innocent suspects that do call for a lawyer.

    and so on and so forth...
    It does not matter he was an ex felon, he still has rights.
    None of this "i'm gonna throw them in jail because i got a hunch" bullshit.
    That you are excusing the thing with "but they were guilty, what's the harm" is the exact reason why cop shows are so toxic.

    Jake was supposed simpl
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    So, if you need the suspects to be guilty to keep the show light hearted, but having cops always be right spreads toxic ideas about police...
    Is it even possible to ethically make a cop comedy show?

    I'm going to go and state the bold and controversial position of, yes.
    But it will be difficult.
    Like, the violation of suspects rights i mentioned earlier, those need to either go, and land the cop in real trouble for doing, and the show must make it clear that this was wrong, no matter how guilty or innocent the person whose rights were violated was.
    And as mentioned, writers are not lawyers, so hire some lawyers, specifically defense lawyers, to go through the scripts and mark out where stuff got wrong.

    The problem is that showing a police force that rigorously follows the law and isn't a tool of white supremacy is inherently propaganda, because it makes people think the actual police are like that. Now, I trust the B99 writers to be able to say things that need to be said despite that, but the very premise of the show has issues that need to be addressed.
    And showing cops who don't follow the law and are white supremacist as anything but villains is also cop propaganda.
    Having "good cops" constantly interact with bad cops and showing how toxic the police are might work.
    I mean, the whole problem is how to show cops who people can, and should, like, yet do not act as PR for actual cops.

    Every season has done this though either as a major plotline or through one off episodes.
    The first NBC season was showcasing how the commisioner was corrupt and spying on his subordinates and civilians.

    The NYPD in the 99 universe is just as bad as the real thing

    I have a podcast now. It's about video games and anime!Find it here.
    Shadowhope
  • Ninja Snarl PNinja Snarl P My helmet is my burden. Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered User regular
    Eh, the B99 setting seems to have far better police as a rule. The corruption almost entirely limited to internal politics, and the B99 crew spends zero time trying to cover up the crimes of their fellow officers (which we know now is basically a completely normal and ongoing thing for most precincts at this point).

    The worst thing you actually see a cop doing in the B99 setting is trying to arrest somebody for being black, and then the next-worst thing is somebody from another precinct planting drugs to frame a known drug dealer. If it were just as bad as the real world, the 99th Precinct would all but certainly be trying to coverup at least a couple racist murders a year, plus a mountain of thefts, framings, and assaults on innocent civilians. And that would be them as good guys, nevermind the crap that would happen at other precincts.

  • ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Western coastal temptressRegistered User regular
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Usually if they do something wrong the show will outright say they did .

    In that example Jake was called out for being impulsive and possibly tanking the case early on by his superiors.

    Was he fired? Demoted? Succesfully sued by the person whose rights they violated?
    It's not enough to say "this is bad", there needs to be consequences.
    And having the person whose rights are violated be guilty in the end just reinforces the "regulations bad" idea.

    What rights were violated?


    He was an ex felon with a history of robbery, arrested on suspicion of armed robbery that matched his MO.

    afaik he was provided his attorney and was held for as long as the law said he could be held on suspicion, and was in the process of being released at the end of that timeframe.

    Jake was given an administrative punishment because he jumped the gun on the arrest before completing the investigation.

    Not every single infraction of procedure requires a demotion or termination.
    Let me quote myself.
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    I have not watched the show, but from discussions about it i have seen, it is my understanding that the B99 do, on occasion, violate peoples rights.
    Like arresting someone in order to get time to go fish for evidence, when there is a supreme court case that explicitly makes it something not allowed.

    I think, if they decide to continue as cops, the writing team should have a team of defense lawyers go through everything the cops do, mark anything that they should not do, and then have those actions be pointed out as wrong in the show.
    None of the "we know they are guilty, if we were just allowed to go and <insert illegal and/or against regulations thing here>" shit, ever.
    Make sure to add lot of innocent suspects that do call for a lawyer.

    and so on and so forth...
    It does not matter he was an ex felon, he still has rights.
    None of this "i'm gonna throw them in jail because i got a hunch" bullshit.
    That you are excusing the thing with "but they were guilty, what's the harm" is the exact reason why cop shows are so toxic.

    This is specifically very dangerous because of sort of unexpected tangential effects that people don't realize. I remember reading a blog post that I'm going to roughly paraphrase, on why these are exactly the kind of cases there the cops need to be slapped down. In short, a woman was driving the speed limit, violating no traffic rules, with a car that had nothing wrong with it. She violated no laws, but was pulled over because the officer thought she was driving too smoothly (down a known drug corridor), and people generally are not that careful and speed at least a little or something, so he pulled her over and searched the car on suspicion of drug smuggling. I cannot remember if she was white or if her race factored in at all. But the question: should the court allow that? What if she actually had pounds of heroin stashed in the car? Because she did, she was smuggling a fuckton of very hard drugs. So the case goes to court, and the judge has to decide whether or not this is admissible evidence, if anything was really violated, or whatever.

    But this is the only kind of case that goes to court. If the woman wasn't smuggling heroin, what would happen? She'd be illegally stopped, be kind of pissed off, and go about her day, because she's not going to fight this stop all the way to the supreme court, or wherever it needs to go. Even if I were arrested for some totally bullshit thing, and held for a few days, I would probably not fight it, because once it's done I can just leave. And so the cop will continue to pull people over for being suspiciously rule following. No one is going to fight it unless they are very extremely guilty. In order to have a functioning system, in order for police not to be allowed to have the power to do whatever, either people need to sue police departments over every time they are inconvenienced, or we need to support people who are guilty of trafficking heroin when they complain about police profiling. It is the (perhaps unfortunate) reality of the situation.

  • SeñorAmorSeñorAmor !!! Registered User regular
    Jackie Chan/Chris Tucker cameo, but Jackie is a loudmouth smartass and Chris is the laid-back dude who rarely talks.

  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Usually if they do something wrong the show will outright say they did .

    In that example Jake was called out for being impulsive and possibly tanking the case early on by his superiors.

    Was he fired? Demoted? Succesfully sued by the person whose rights they violated?
    It's not enough to say "this is bad", there needs to be consequences.
    And having the person whose rights are violated be guilty in the end just reinforces the "regulations bad" idea.

    What rights were violated?


    He was an ex felon with a history of robbery, arrested on suspicion of armed robbery that matched his MO.

    afaik he was provided his attorney and was held for as long as the law said he could be held on suspicion, and was in the process of being released at the end of that timeframe.

    Jake was given an administrative punishment because he jumped the gun on the arrest before completing the investigation.

    Not every single infraction of procedure requires a demotion or termination.
    Let me quote myself.
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    I have not watched the show, but from discussions about it i have seen, it is my understanding that the B99 do, on occasion, violate peoples rights.
    Like arresting someone in order to get time to go fish for evidence, when there is a supreme court case that explicitly makes it something not allowed.

    I think, if they decide to continue as cops, the writing team should have a team of defense lawyers go through everything the cops do, mark anything that they should not do, and then have those actions be pointed out as wrong in the show.
    None of the "we know they are guilty, if we were just allowed to go and <insert illegal and/or against regulations thing here>" shit, ever.
    Make sure to add lot of innocent suspects that do call for a lawyer.

    and so on and so forth...
    It does not matter he was an ex felon, he still has rights.
    None of this "i'm gonna throw them in jail because i got a hunch" bullshit.
    That you are excusing the thing with "but they were guilty, what's the harm" is the exact reason why cop shows are so toxic.

    This is specifically very dangerous because of sort of unexpected tangential effects that people don't realize. I remember reading a blog post that I'm going to roughly paraphrase, on why these are exactly the kind of cases there the cops need to be slapped down. In short, a woman was driving the speed limit, violating no traffic rules, with a car that had nothing wrong with it. She violated no laws, but was pulled over because the officer thought she was driving too smoothly (down a known drug corridor), and people generally are not that careful and speed at least a little or something, so he pulled her over and searched the car on suspicion of drug smuggling. I cannot remember if she was white or if her race factored in at all. But the question: should the court allow that? What if she actually had pounds of heroin stashed in the car? Because she did, she was smuggling a fuckton of very hard drugs. So the case goes to court, and the judge has to decide whether or not this is admissible evidence, if anything was really violated, or whatever.

    But this is the only kind of case that goes to court. If the woman wasn't smuggling heroin, what would happen? She'd be illegally stopped, be kind of pissed off, and go about her day, because she's not going to fight this stop all the way to the supreme court, or wherever it needs to go. Even if I were arrested for some totally bullshit thing, and held for a few days, I would probably not fight it, because once it's done I can just leave. And so the cop will continue to pull people over for being suspiciously rule following. No one is going to fight it unless they are very extremely guilty. In order to have a functioning system, in order for police not to be allowed to have the power to do whatever, either people need to sue police departments over every time they are inconvenienced, or we need to support people who are guilty of trafficking heroin when they complain about police profiling. It is the (perhaps unfortunate) reality of the situation.

    To be honest? I think that's fundamentally sound logic...

    ...in a Sherlock Holmes novel or a game of Mafia/Werewolf/Phalla.

    I don't really think that should be a legitimately accepted reason for justified police suspicion in reality because it's too abusable.

    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238
    Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
    Playing: Persona 5 Royal (PS4), Animal Crossing (SW), FF7remake (PS4)
    Fencingsax
  • NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Usually if they do something wrong the show will outright say they did .

    In that example Jake was called out for being impulsive and possibly tanking the case early on by his superiors.

    Was he fired? Demoted? Succesfully sued by the person whose rights they violated?
    It's not enough to say "this is bad", there needs to be consequences.
    And having the person whose rights are violated be guilty in the end just reinforces the "regulations bad" idea.

    What rights were violated?


    He was an ex felon with a history of robbery, arrested on suspicion of armed robbery that matched his MO.

    afaik he was provided his attorney and was held for as long as the law said he could be held on suspicion, and was in the process of being released at the end of that timeframe.

    Jake was given an administrative punishment because he jumped the gun on the arrest before completing the investigation.

    Not every single infraction of procedure requires a demotion or termination.
    Let me quote myself.
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    I have not watched the show, but from discussions about it i have seen, it is my understanding that the B99 do, on occasion, violate peoples rights.
    Like arresting someone in order to get time to go fish for evidence, when there is a supreme court case that explicitly makes it something not allowed.

    I think, if they decide to continue as cops, the writing team should have a team of defense lawyers go through everything the cops do, mark anything that they should not do, and then have those actions be pointed out as wrong in the show.
    None of the "we know they are guilty, if we were just allowed to go and <insert illegal and/or against regulations thing here>" shit, ever.
    Make sure to add lot of innocent suspects that do call for a lawyer.

    and so on and so forth...
    It does not matter he was an ex felon, he still has rights.
    None of this "i'm gonna throw them in jail because i got a hunch" bullshit.
    That you are excusing the thing with "but they were guilty, what's the harm" is the exact reason why cop shows are so toxic.

    This is specifically very dangerous because of sort of unexpected tangential effects that people don't realize. I remember reading a blog post that I'm going to roughly paraphrase, on why these are exactly the kind of cases there the cops need to be slapped down. In short, a woman was driving the speed limit, violating no traffic rules, with a car that had nothing wrong with it. She violated no laws, but was pulled over because the officer thought she was driving too smoothly (down a known drug corridor), and people generally are not that careful and speed at least a little or something, so he pulled her over and searched the car on suspicion of drug smuggling. I cannot remember if she was white or if her race factored in at all. But the question: should the court allow that? What if she actually had pounds of heroin stashed in the car? Because she did, she was smuggling a fuckton of very hard drugs. So the case goes to court, and the judge has to decide whether or not this is admissible evidence, if anything was really violated, or whatever.

    But this is the only kind of case that goes to court. If the woman wasn't smuggling heroin, what would happen? She'd be illegally stopped, be kind of pissed off, and go about her day, because she's not going to fight this stop all the way to the supreme court, or wherever it needs to go. Even if I were arrested for some totally bullshit thing, and held for a few days, I would probably not fight it, because once it's done I can just leave. And so the cop will continue to pull people over for being suspiciously rule following. No one is going to fight it unless they are very extremely guilty. In order to have a functioning system, in order for police not to be allowed to have the power to do whatever, either people need to sue police departments over every time they are inconvenienced, or we need to support people who are guilty of trafficking heroin when they complain about police profiling. It is the (perhaps unfortunate) reality of the situation.

    Except most of the time it is not someone smuggling a ton of drugs, and instead it is someone with a tiny amount of weed, or selling cigarettes, or did nothing but the cops say they did and it's their word against the person they arrested (and/or beat up/killed).
    The supposed benefit of the idea that "well they were guilty" is utterly minuscule compared to harm that is done.
    The rights are there for a reason, and someone (allegedly) breaking the law does not remove them.

  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Usually if they do something wrong the show will outright say they did .

    In that example Jake was called out for being impulsive and possibly tanking the case early on by his superiors.

    Was he fired? Demoted? Succesfully sued by the person whose rights they violated?
    It's not enough to say "this is bad", there needs to be consequences.
    And having the person whose rights are violated be guilty in the end just reinforces the "regulations bad" idea.

    What rights were violated?


    He was an ex felon with a history of robbery, arrested on suspicion of armed robbery that matched his MO.

    afaik he was provided his attorney and was held for as long as the law said he could be held on suspicion, and was in the process of being released at the end of that timeframe.

    Jake was given an administrative punishment because he jumped the gun on the arrest before completing the investigation.

    Not every single infraction of procedure requires a demotion or termination.
    Let me quote myself.
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    I have not watched the show, but from discussions about it i have seen, it is my understanding that the B99 do, on occasion, violate peoples rights.
    Like arresting someone in order to get time to go fish for evidence, when there is a supreme court case that explicitly makes it something not allowed.

    I think, if they decide to continue as cops, the writing team should have a team of defense lawyers go through everything the cops do, mark anything that they should not do, and then have those actions be pointed out as wrong in the show.
    None of the "we know they are guilty, if we were just allowed to go and <insert illegal and/or against regulations thing here>" shit, ever.
    Make sure to add lot of innocent suspects that do call for a lawyer.

    and so on and so forth...
    It does not matter he was an ex felon, he still has rights.
    None of this "i'm gonna throw them in jail because i got a hunch" bullshit.
    That you are excusing the thing with "but they were guilty, what's the harm" is the exact reason why cop shows are so toxic.

    Since you couldn’t actually articulate what rights were violated, nor could you address how there are a range of punishments in a workplace beyond termination and demotion...............*sigh*

    Also, a fishing expedition in the parlance is when the police go looking for evidence of a crime without any reasonable expectation of what they will find. So investigating someone who used similar methods in the past to a crime that you are currently investigating and was found to be in the area of the newly committed crime would not fit the bill of a fishing expedition.

    Or should Holt also be terminated or demoted for the time he held a suspect in interrogation while they built their case against him by going over his testimony every which way looking for how it didnt add up? Does that also count as a fishing expedition?

    How do these scenarios differ if they do at all?

    A bit of trivia for you, every single suspect that is arrested or even just held, is innocent, as the police do not determine guilt or innocence, that is for the courts to decide, and the courts nominally hold the position that all suspects are innocent until found guilty.

    So by definition, the police or any investigative body must be given tools that interfere with citizen rights in order to obtain evidence to determine guilt or innocence. Searches, seizures, detention, interviews, interrogation, DNA tests, are all intrusive or invasive to an extent, but without which make the finding of any kind of truth next to impossible.

    So I am going to stop here because fuck doing a goddamn effort post explaining the basic underpinnings of the justice system in a thread about a fucking workplace comedy set in a police station, that by your own admission you dont watch.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • Mr RayMr Ray Sarcasm sphereRegistered User regular
    It would have been nice if the episode had subverted the trope is all; the mafia guy turns out to be innocent and is genuinely trying to turn over a new leaf, and the 99 misses the actual perp because they spent so long fixating on the "obviously guilty" guy instead of following procedure. Then Holt chews them all out for letting their bias affect the investigation and we end the episode with the moral being "you can't just assume someone is guilty because they look suspicious".

    Space.
    NyysjanKristmas Kthulhu
  • NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    Or should Holt also be terminated or demoted for the time he held a suspect in interrogation while they built their case against him by going over his testimony every which way looking for how it didnt add up? Does that also count as a fishing expedition?
    If this was done against regulations and supreme court decision.
    Absolutely yes.

    One of the biggest problems with cop shows is how they try to show cops breaking rules as a "good thing".

  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Usually if they do something wrong the show will outright say they did .

    In that example Jake was called out for being impulsive and possibly tanking the case early on by his superiors.

    Was he fired? Demoted? Succesfully sued by the person whose rights they violated?
    It's not enough to say "this is bad", there needs to be consequences.
    And having the person whose rights are violated be guilty in the end just reinforces the "regulations bad" idea.

    What rights were violated?


    He was an ex felon with a history of robbery, arrested on suspicion of armed robbery that matched his MO.

    afaik he was provided his attorney and was held for as long as the law said he could be held on suspicion, and was in the process of being released at the end of that timeframe.

    Jake was given an administrative punishment because he jumped the gun on the arrest before completing the investigation.

    Not every single infraction of procedure requires a demotion or termination.
    Let me quote myself.
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    I have not watched the show, but from discussions about it i have seen, it is my understanding that the B99 do, on occasion, violate peoples rights.
    Like arresting someone in order to get time to go fish for evidence, when there is a supreme court case that explicitly makes it something not allowed.

    I think, if they decide to continue as cops, the writing team should have a team of defense lawyers go through everything the cops do, mark anything that they should not do, and then have those actions be pointed out as wrong in the show.
    None of the "we know they are guilty, if we were just allowed to go and <insert illegal and/or against regulations thing here>" shit, ever.
    Make sure to add lot of innocent suspects that do call for a lawyer.

    and so on and so forth...
    It does not matter he was an ex felon, he still has rights.
    None of this "i'm gonna throw them in jail because i got a hunch" bullshit.
    That you are excusing the thing with "but they were guilty, what's the harm" is the exact reason why cop shows are so toxic.

    Since you couldn’t actually articulate what rights were violated, nor could you address how there are a range of punishments in a workplace beyond termination and demotion...............*sigh*

    Also, a fishing expedition in the parlance is when the police go looking for evidence of a crime without any reasonable expectation of what they will find. So investigating someone who used similar methods in the past to a crime that you are currently investigating and was found to be in the area of the newly committed crime would not fit the bill of a fishing expedition.

    Or should Holt also be terminated or demoted for the time he held a suspect in interrogation while they built their case against him by going over his testimony every which way looking for how it didnt add up? Does that also count as a fishing expedition?

    How do these scenarios differ if they do at all?

    A bit of trivia for you, every single suspect that is arrested or even just held, is innocent, as the police do not determine guilt or innocence, that is for the courts to decide, and the courts nominally hold the position that all suspects are innocent until found guilty.

    So by definition, the police or any investigative body must be given tools that interfere with citizen rights in order to obtain evidence to determine guilt or innocence. Searches, seizures, detention, interviews, interrogation, DNA tests, are all intrusive or invasive to an extent, but without which make the finding of any kind of truth next to impossible.

    So I am going to stop here because fuck doing a goddamn effort post explaining the basic underpinnings of the justice system in a thread about a fucking workplace comedy set in a police station, that by your own admission you dont watch.

    Well the issue here is that the basic underpinnings of the Justice system in this country is completely broken yet you're here stanning for them

    Indefinitely detaining an innocent person before you have any evidence other than "well he committed crimes before" so you can go fish for evidence IS the rights violation, my dude

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
    NyysjanFencingsaxElvenshaeKristmas Kthulhu
  • KamarKamar Registered User regular
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Usually if they do something wrong the show will outright say they did .

    In that example Jake was called out for being impulsive and possibly tanking the case early on by his superiors.

    Was he fired? Demoted? Succesfully sued by the person whose rights they violated?
    It's not enough to say "this is bad", there needs to be consequences.
    And having the person whose rights are violated be guilty in the end just reinforces the "regulations bad" idea.

    What rights were violated?


    He was an ex felon with a history of robbery, arrested on suspicion of armed robbery that matched his MO.

    afaik he was provided his attorney and was held for as long as the law said he could be held on suspicion, and was in the process of being released at the end of that timeframe.

    Jake was given an administrative punishment because he jumped the gun on the arrest before completing the investigation.

    Not every single infraction of procedure requires a demotion or termination.
    Let me quote myself.
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    I have not watched the show, but from discussions about it i have seen, it is my understanding that the B99 do, on occasion, violate peoples rights.
    Like arresting someone in order to get time to go fish for evidence, when there is a supreme court case that explicitly makes it something not allowed.

    I think, if they decide to continue as cops, the writing team should have a team of defense lawyers go through everything the cops do, mark anything that they should not do, and then have those actions be pointed out as wrong in the show.
    None of the "we know they are guilty, if we were just allowed to go and <insert illegal and/or against regulations thing here>" shit, ever.
    Make sure to add lot of innocent suspects that do call for a lawyer.

    and so on and so forth...
    It does not matter he was an ex felon, he still has rights.
    None of this "i'm gonna throw them in jail because i got a hunch" bullshit.
    That you are excusing the thing with "but they were guilty, what's the harm" is the exact reason why cop shows are so toxic.

    Since you couldn’t actually articulate what rights were violated, nor could you address how there are a range of punishments in a workplace beyond termination and demotion...............*sigh*

    Also, a fishing expedition in the parlance is when the police go looking for evidence of a crime without any reasonable expectation of what they will find. So investigating someone who used similar methods in the past to a crime that you are currently investigating and was found to be in the area of the newly committed crime would not fit the bill of a fishing expedition.

    Or should Holt also be terminated or demoted for the time he held a suspect in interrogation while they built their case against him by going over his testimony every which way looking for how it didnt add up? Does that also count as a fishing expedition?

    How do these scenarios differ if they do at all?

    A bit of trivia for you, every single suspect that is arrested or even just held, is innocent, as the police do not determine guilt or innocence, that is for the courts to decide, and the courts nominally hold the position that all suspects are innocent until found guilty.

    So by definition, the police or any investigative body must be given tools that interfere with citizen rights in order to obtain evidence to determine guilt or innocence. Searches, seizures, detention, interviews, interrogation, DNA tests, are all intrusive or invasive to an extent, but without which make the finding of any kind of truth next to impossible.

    So I am going to stop here because fuck doing a goddamn effort post explaining the basic underpinnings of the justice system in a thread about a fucking workplace comedy set in a police station, that by your own admission you dont watch.

    Well the issue here is that the basic underpinnings of the Justice system in this country is completely broken yet you're here stanning for them

    Indefinitely detaining an innocent person before you have any evidence other than "well he committed crimes before" so you can go fish for evidence IS the rights violation, my dude

    Is a matching MO not evidence?

    I genuinely don't know, I would have assumed it was.

  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    Kamar wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Usually if they do something wrong the show will outright say they did .

    In that example Jake was called out for being impulsive and possibly tanking the case early on by his superiors.

    Was he fired? Demoted? Succesfully sued by the person whose rights they violated?
    It's not enough to say "this is bad", there needs to be consequences.
    And having the person whose rights are violated be guilty in the end just reinforces the "regulations bad" idea.

    What rights were violated?


    He was an ex felon with a history of robbery, arrested on suspicion of armed robbery that matched his MO.

    afaik he was provided his attorney and was held for as long as the law said he could be held on suspicion, and was in the process of being released at the end of that timeframe.

    Jake was given an administrative punishment because he jumped the gun on the arrest before completing the investigation.

    Not every single infraction of procedure requires a demotion or termination.
    Let me quote myself.
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    I have not watched the show, but from discussions about it i have seen, it is my understanding that the B99 do, on occasion, violate peoples rights.
    Like arresting someone in order to get time to go fish for evidence, when there is a supreme court case that explicitly makes it something not allowed.

    I think, if they decide to continue as cops, the writing team should have a team of defense lawyers go through everything the cops do, mark anything that they should not do, and then have those actions be pointed out as wrong in the show.
    None of the "we know they are guilty, if we were just allowed to go and <insert illegal and/or against regulations thing here>" shit, ever.
    Make sure to add lot of innocent suspects that do call for a lawyer.

    and so on and so forth...
    It does not matter he was an ex felon, he still has rights.
    None of this "i'm gonna throw them in jail because i got a hunch" bullshit.
    That you are excusing the thing with "but they were guilty, what's the harm" is the exact reason why cop shows are so toxic.

    Since you couldn’t actually articulate what rights were violated, nor could you address how there are a range of punishments in a workplace beyond termination and demotion...............*sigh*

    Also, a fishing expedition in the parlance is when the police go looking for evidence of a crime without any reasonable expectation of what they will find. So investigating someone who used similar methods in the past to a crime that you are currently investigating and was found to be in the area of the newly committed crime would not fit the bill of a fishing expedition.

    Or should Holt also be terminated or demoted for the time he held a suspect in interrogation while they built their case against him by going over his testimony every which way looking for how it didnt add up? Does that also count as a fishing expedition?

    How do these scenarios differ if they do at all?

    A bit of trivia for you, every single suspect that is arrested or even just held, is innocent, as the police do not determine guilt or innocence, that is for the courts to decide, and the courts nominally hold the position that all suspects are innocent until found guilty.

    So by definition, the police or any investigative body must be given tools that interfere with citizen rights in order to obtain evidence to determine guilt or innocence. Searches, seizures, detention, interviews, interrogation, DNA tests, are all intrusive or invasive to an extent, but without which make the finding of any kind of truth next to impossible.

    So I am going to stop here because fuck doing a goddamn effort post explaining the basic underpinnings of the justice system in a thread about a fucking workplace comedy set in a police station, that by your own admission you dont watch.

    Well the issue here is that the basic underpinnings of the Justice system in this country is completely broken yet you're here stanning for them

    Indefinitely detaining an innocent person before you have any evidence other than "well he committed crimes before" so you can go fish for evidence IS the rights violation, my dude

    Is a matching MO not evidence?

    I genuinely don't know, I would have assumed it was.

    I am not a lawyer, but what we're saying is that simply matching an MO should not be valid justification to hold someone indefinitely while you go fishing

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • King RiptorKing Riptor Registered User regular
    Eh, the B99 setting seems to have far better police as a rule. The corruption almost entirely limited to internal politics, and the B99 crew spends zero time trying to cover up the crimes of their fellow officers (which we know now is basically a completely normal and ongoing thing for most precincts at this point).

    The worst thing you actually see a cop doing in the B99 setting is trying to arrest somebody for being black, and then the next-worst thing is somebody from another precinct planting drugs to frame a known drug dealer. If it were just as bad as the real world, the 99th Precinct would all but certainly be trying to coverup at least a couple racist murders a year, plus a mountain of thefts, framings, and assaults on innocent civilians. And that would be them as good guys, nevermind the crap that would happen at other precincts.

    The worst thing regluar cops do is the secret police crime ring that frame Jake and Rosa for a bank robbery . Also Jakes former partner who plants evidence. Also The lady who became a cop to destroy evidence for a drug lord

    I have a podcast now. It's about video games and anime!Find it here.
    AuralynxGnome-Interruptus
  • GnizmoGnizmo Registered User regular
    Eh, the B99 setting seems to have far better police as a rule. The corruption almost entirely limited to internal politics, and the B99 crew spends zero time trying to cover up the crimes of their fellow officers (which we know now is basically a completely normal and ongoing thing for most precincts at this point).

    The worst thing you actually see a cop doing in the B99 setting is trying to arrest somebody for being black, and then the next-worst thing is somebody from another precinct planting drugs to frame a known drug dealer. If it were just as bad as the real world, the 99th Precinct would all but certainly be trying to coverup at least a couple racist murders a year, plus a mountain of thefts, framings, and assaults on innocent civilians. And that would be them as good guys, nevermind the crap that would happen at other precincts.

    The worst thing regluar cops do is the secret police crime ring that frame Jake and Rosa for a bank robbery . Also Jakes former partner who plants evidence. Also The lady who became a cop to destroy evidence for a drug lord

    Or the commissioner being involved in illegal surveillance. Or the cop destroying evidence in a crime to cover for the prosecutor who didn't want to go to trial. You don't get the full depths of depravity that is in a normal police department, but the show very much owns that cops do shitty things. It is notable to me that the vast majority of shitty cop behaviors from the show's main cast came very early on. Around season 3 the writers more or less own on screen the NYPD as a whole sucks and needs to improve.

    I won't say it is the perfect model of what police need to be, but I am confident the writers and actors would be willing to commit to moving drastically in that direction. I am excited to see where they roll with it honestly. They may not have gone far enough with their shitty cop stories, but I think they are certainly willing to.

    ShadowhopeAuralynxForarKing Riptor
  • TofystedethTofystedeth veni, veneri, vamoosi Registered User regular
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Kamar wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Usually if they do something wrong the show will outright say they did .

    In that example Jake was called out for being impulsive and possibly tanking the case early on by his superiors.

    Was he fired? Demoted? Succesfully sued by the person whose rights they violated?
    It's not enough to say "this is bad", there needs to be consequences.
    And having the person whose rights are violated be guilty in the end just reinforces the "regulations bad" idea.

    What rights were violated?


    He was an ex felon with a history of robbery, arrested on suspicion of armed robbery that matched his MO.

    afaik he was provided his attorney and was held for as long as the law said he could be held on suspicion, and was in the process of being released at the end of that timeframe.

    Jake was given an administrative punishment because he jumped the gun on the arrest before completing the investigation.

    Not every single infraction of procedure requires a demotion or termination.
    Let me quote myself.
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    I have not watched the show, but from discussions about it i have seen, it is my understanding that the B99 do, on occasion, violate peoples rights.
    Like arresting someone in order to get time to go fish for evidence, when there is a supreme court case that explicitly makes it something not allowed.

    I think, if they decide to continue as cops, the writing team should have a team of defense lawyers go through everything the cops do, mark anything that they should not do, and then have those actions be pointed out as wrong in the show.
    None of the "we know they are guilty, if we were just allowed to go and <insert illegal and/or against regulations thing here>" shit, ever.
    Make sure to add lot of innocent suspects that do call for a lawyer.

    and so on and so forth...
    It does not matter he was an ex felon, he still has rights.
    None of this "i'm gonna throw them in jail because i got a hunch" bullshit.
    That you are excusing the thing with "but they were guilty, what's the harm" is the exact reason why cop shows are so toxic.

    Since you couldn’t actually articulate what rights were violated, nor could you address how there are a range of punishments in a workplace beyond termination and demotion...............*sigh*

    Also, a fishing expedition in the parlance is when the police go looking for evidence of a crime without any reasonable expectation of what they will find. So investigating someone who used similar methods in the past to a crime that you are currently investigating and was found to be in the area of the newly committed crime would not fit the bill of a fishing expedition.

    Or should Holt also be terminated or demoted for the time he held a suspect in interrogation while they built their case against him by going over his testimony every which way looking for how it didnt add up? Does that also count as a fishing expedition?

    How do these scenarios differ if they do at all?

    A bit of trivia for you, every single suspect that is arrested or even just held, is innocent, as the police do not determine guilt or innocence, that is for the courts to decide, and the courts nominally hold the position that all suspects are innocent until found guilty.

    So by definition, the police or any investigative body must be given tools that interfere with citizen rights in order to obtain evidence to determine guilt or innocence. Searches, seizures, detention, interviews, interrogation, DNA tests, are all intrusive or invasive to an extent, but without which make the finding of any kind of truth next to impossible.

    So I am going to stop here because fuck doing a goddamn effort post explaining the basic underpinnings of the justice system in a thread about a fucking workplace comedy set in a police station, that by your own admission you dont watch.

    Well the issue here is that the basic underpinnings of the Justice system in this country is completely broken yet you're here stanning for them

    Indefinitely detaining an innocent person before you have any evidence other than "well he committed crimes before" so you can go fish for evidence IS the rights violation, my dude

    Is a matching MO not evidence?

    I genuinely don't know, I would have assumed it was.

    I am not a lawyer, but what we're saying is that simply matching an MO should not be valid justification to hold someone indefinitely while you go fishing

    Were they holding him indefinitely? I thought they were on the strict 24 limit that was the whole point of the episode.

    I'm not a lawyer, but matching MO is not evidence (or at least definitely not enough on its own) but it might be probable cause for detaining and investigation.

    steam_sig.png
    Gnome-Interruptus
  • ShadowhopeShadowhope Baa. Registered User regular

    I think that the opening episode of the next season should have some repercussions from last season’s finale:

    That old lady who shot and assaulted the guy working with the bank robbers? Jake and Charles get sued by the guy for being present and allowing her to do so. Due to qualified immunity, Jake and Charles are protected, because there has never been a case exactly like that before, where an old lady has shot and then assaulted a person in police custody while on a peddle pub. But it leads to a rethinking about where the crew stands and what they stand for.

    Wash your hands like you've been cutting habaneros and need to put in your contacts.
  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Usually if they do something wrong the show will outright say they did .

    In that example Jake was called out for being impulsive and possibly tanking the case early on by his superiors.

    Was he fired? Demoted? Succesfully sued by the person whose rights they violated?
    It's not enough to say "this is bad", there needs to be consequences.
    And having the person whose rights are violated be guilty in the end just reinforces the "regulations bad" idea.

    What rights were violated?


    He was an ex felon with a history of robbery, arrested on suspicion of armed robbery that matched his MO.

    afaik he was provided his attorney and was held for as long as the law said he could be held on suspicion, and was in the process of being released at the end of that timeframe.

    Jake was given an administrative punishment because he jumped the gun on the arrest before completing the investigation.

    Not every single infraction of procedure requires a demotion or termination.
    Let me quote myself.
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    I have not watched the show, but from discussions about it i have seen, it is my understanding that the B99 do, on occasion, violate peoples rights.
    Like arresting someone in order to get time to go fish for evidence, when there is a supreme court case that explicitly makes it something not allowed.

    I think, if they decide to continue as cops, the writing team should have a team of defense lawyers go through everything the cops do, mark anything that they should not do, and then have those actions be pointed out as wrong in the show.
    None of the "we know they are guilty, if we were just allowed to go and <insert illegal and/or against regulations thing here>" shit, ever.
    Make sure to add lot of innocent suspects that do call for a lawyer.

    and so on and so forth...
    It does not matter he was an ex felon, he still has rights.
    None of this "i'm gonna throw them in jail because i got a hunch" bullshit.
    That you are excusing the thing with "but they were guilty, what's the harm" is the exact reason why cop shows are so toxic.

    Since you couldn’t actually articulate what rights were violated, nor could you address how there are a range of punishments in a workplace beyond termination and demotion...............*sigh*

    Also, a fishing expedition in the parlance is when the police go looking for evidence of a crime without any reasonable expectation of what they will find. So investigating someone who used similar methods in the past to a crime that you are currently investigating and was found to be in the area of the newly committed crime would not fit the bill of a fishing expedition.

    Or should Holt also be terminated or demoted for the time he held a suspect in interrogation while they built their case against him by going over his testimony every which way looking for how it didnt add up? Does that also count as a fishing expedition?

    How do these scenarios differ if they do at all?

    A bit of trivia for you, every single suspect that is arrested or even just held, is innocent, as the police do not determine guilt or innocence, that is for the courts to decide, and the courts nominally hold the position that all suspects are innocent until found guilty.

    So by definition, the police or any investigative body must be given tools that interfere with citizen rights in order to obtain evidence to determine guilt or innocence. Searches, seizures, detention, interviews, interrogation, DNA tests, are all intrusive or invasive to an extent, but without which make the finding of any kind of truth next to impossible.

    So I am going to stop here because fuck doing a goddamn effort post explaining the basic underpinnings of the justice system in a thread about a fucking workplace comedy set in a police station, that by your own admission you dont watch.

    Well the issue here is that the basic underpinnings of the Justice system in this country is completely broken yet you're here stanning for them

    Indefinitely detaining an innocent person before you have any evidence other than "well he committed crimes before" so you can go fish for evidence IS the rights violation, my dude

    I didn’t realize that 24 hours counted as indefinite detentions, but fuck you very much too.

    And every one is innocent until proven guilty so is your contention that no person should ever be detained until a guilty verdict is delivered?

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    edited June 30
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Usually if they do something wrong the show will outright say they did .

    In that example Jake was called out for being impulsive and possibly tanking the case early on by his superiors.

    Was he fired? Demoted? Succesfully sued by the person whose rights they violated?
    It's not enough to say "this is bad", there needs to be consequences.
    And having the person whose rights are violated be guilty in the end just reinforces the "regulations bad" idea.

    What rights were violated?


    He was an ex felon with a history of robbery, arrested on suspicion of armed robbery that matched his MO.

    afaik he was provided his attorney and was held for as long as the law said he could be held on suspicion, and was in the process of being released at the end of that timeframe.

    Jake was given an administrative punishment because he jumped the gun on the arrest before completing the investigation.

    Not every single infraction of procedure requires a demotion or termination.
    Let me quote myself.
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    I have not watched the show, but from discussions about it i have seen, it is my understanding that the B99 do, on occasion, violate peoples rights.
    Like arresting someone in order to get time to go fish for evidence, when there is a supreme court case that explicitly makes it something not allowed.

    I think, if they decide to continue as cops, the writing team should have a team of defense lawyers go through everything the cops do, mark anything that they should not do, and then have those actions be pointed out as wrong in the show.
    None of the "we know they are guilty, if we were just allowed to go and <insert illegal and/or against regulations thing here>" shit, ever.
    Make sure to add lot of innocent suspects that do call for a lawyer.

    and so on and so forth...
    It does not matter he was an ex felon, he still has rights.
    None of this "i'm gonna throw them in jail because i got a hunch" bullshit.
    That you are excusing the thing with "but they were guilty, what's the harm" is the exact reason why cop shows are so toxic.

    Since you couldn’t actually articulate what rights were violated, nor could you address how there are a range of punishments in a workplace beyond termination and demotion...............*sigh*

    Also, a fishing expedition in the parlance is when the police go looking for evidence of a crime without any reasonable expectation of what they will find. So investigating someone who used similar methods in the past to a crime that you are currently investigating and was found to be in the area of the newly committed crime would not fit the bill of a fishing expedition.

    Or should Holt also be terminated or demoted for the time he held a suspect in interrogation while they built their case against him by going over his testimony every which way looking for how it didnt add up? Does that also count as a fishing expedition?

    How do these scenarios differ if they do at all?

    A bit of trivia for you, every single suspect that is arrested or even just held, is innocent, as the police do not determine guilt or innocence, that is for the courts to decide, and the courts nominally hold the position that all suspects are innocent until found guilty.

    So by definition, the police or any investigative body must be given tools that interfere with citizen rights in order to obtain evidence to determine guilt or innocence. Searches, seizures, detention, interviews, interrogation, DNA tests, are all intrusive or invasive to an extent, but without which make the finding of any kind of truth next to impossible.

    So I am going to stop here because fuck doing a goddamn effort post explaining the basic underpinnings of the justice system in a thread about a fucking workplace comedy set in a police station, that by your own admission you dont watch.

    Well the issue here is that the basic underpinnings of the Justice system in this country is completely broken yet you're here stanning for them

    Indefinitely detaining an innocent person before you have any evidence other than "well he committed crimes before" so you can go fish for evidence IS the rights violation, my dude

    I didn’t realize that 24 hours counted as indefinite detentions, but fuck you very much too.

    And every one is innocent until proven guilty so is your contention that no person should ever be detained until a guilty verdict is delivered?
    There are rules about when and why and for how long people can be detained.
    The whole original point i had that the rules were broken, and the series fails to adequately deal with it, and making the victim a "bad guy" even condones it to a degree.

    Nyysjan on
    Phoenix-DFencingsaxElvenshaeKristmas Kthulhu
  • SatanIsMyMotorSatanIsMyMotor Registered User regular
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Usually if they do something wrong the show will outright say they did .

    In that example Jake was called out for being impulsive and possibly tanking the case early on by his superiors.

    Was he fired? Demoted? Succesfully sued by the person whose rights they violated?
    It's not enough to say "this is bad", there needs to be consequences.
    And having the person whose rights are violated be guilty in the end just reinforces the "regulations bad" idea.

    What rights were violated?


    He was an ex felon with a history of robbery, arrested on suspicion of armed robbery that matched his MO.

    afaik he was provided his attorney and was held for as long as the law said he could be held on suspicion, and was in the process of being released at the end of that timeframe.

    Jake was given an administrative punishment because he jumped the gun on the arrest before completing the investigation.

    Not every single infraction of procedure requires a demotion or termination.
    Let me quote myself.
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    I have not watched the show, but from discussions about it i have seen, it is my understanding that the B99 do, on occasion, violate peoples rights.
    Like arresting someone in order to get time to go fish for evidence, when there is a supreme court case that explicitly makes it something not allowed.

    I think, if they decide to continue as cops, the writing team should have a team of defense lawyers go through everything the cops do, mark anything that they should not do, and then have those actions be pointed out as wrong in the show.
    None of the "we know they are guilty, if we were just allowed to go and <insert illegal and/or against regulations thing here>" shit, ever.
    Make sure to add lot of innocent suspects that do call for a lawyer.

    and so on and so forth...
    It does not matter he was an ex felon, he still has rights.
    None of this "i'm gonna throw them in jail because i got a hunch" bullshit.
    That you are excusing the thing with "but they were guilty, what's the harm" is the exact reason why cop shows are so toxic.

    Since you couldn’t actually articulate what rights were violated, nor could you address how there are a range of punishments in a workplace beyond termination and demotion...............*sigh*

    Also, a fishing expedition in the parlance is when the police go looking for evidence of a crime without any reasonable expectation of what they will find. So investigating someone who used similar methods in the past to a crime that you are currently investigating and was found to be in the area of the newly committed crime would not fit the bill of a fishing expedition.

    Or should Holt also be terminated or demoted for the time he held a suspect in interrogation while they built their case against him by going over his testimony every which way looking for how it didnt add up? Does that also count as a fishing expedition?

    How do these scenarios differ if they do at all?

    A bit of trivia for you, every single suspect that is arrested or even just held, is innocent, as the police do not determine guilt or innocence, that is for the courts to decide, and the courts nominally hold the position that all suspects are innocent until found guilty.

    So by definition, the police or any investigative body must be given tools that interfere with citizen rights in order to obtain evidence to determine guilt or innocence. Searches, seizures, detention, interviews, interrogation, DNA tests, are all intrusive or invasive to an extent, but without which make the finding of any kind of truth next to impossible.

    So I am going to stop here because fuck doing a goddamn effort post explaining the basic underpinnings of the justice system in a thread about a fucking workplace comedy set in a police station, that by your own admission you dont watch.

    Well the issue here is that the basic underpinnings of the Justice system in this country is completely broken yet you're here stanning for them

    Indefinitely detaining an innocent person before you have any evidence other than "well he committed crimes before" so you can go fish for evidence IS the rights violation, my dude

    I didn’t realize that 24 hours counted as indefinite detentions, but fuck you very much too.

    And every one is innocent until proven guilty so is your contention that no person should ever be detained until a guilty verdict is delivered?

    This seems a little unnecessarily heated in a conversation about a comedy sitcom on NBC.

    Mr RayElvenshae
  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Fighting The Rising Odds Registered User, Moderator mod
    Hey! Disagree about this silly TV show politely or leave.

  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Usually if they do something wrong the show will outright say they did .

    In that example Jake was called out for being impulsive and possibly tanking the case early on by his superiors.

    Was he fired? Demoted? Succesfully sued by the person whose rights they violated?
    It's not enough to say "this is bad", there needs to be consequences.
    And having the person whose rights are violated be guilty in the end just reinforces the "regulations bad" idea.

    What rights were violated?


    He was an ex felon with a history of robbery, arrested on suspicion of armed robbery that matched his MO.

    afaik he was provided his attorney and was held for as long as the law said he could be held on suspicion, and was in the process of being released at the end of that timeframe.

    Jake was given an administrative punishment because he jumped the gun on the arrest before completing the investigation.

    Not every single infraction of procedure requires a demotion or termination.
    Let me quote myself.
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    I have not watched the show, but from discussions about it i have seen, it is my understanding that the B99 do, on occasion, violate peoples rights.
    Like arresting someone in order to get time to go fish for evidence, when there is a supreme court case that explicitly makes it something not allowed.

    I think, if they decide to continue as cops, the writing team should have a team of defense lawyers go through everything the cops do, mark anything that they should not do, and then have those actions be pointed out as wrong in the show.
    None of the "we know they are guilty, if we were just allowed to go and <insert illegal and/or against regulations thing here>" shit, ever.
    Make sure to add lot of innocent suspects that do call for a lawyer.

    and so on and so forth...
    It does not matter he was an ex felon, he still has rights.
    None of this "i'm gonna throw them in jail because i got a hunch" bullshit.
    That you are excusing the thing with "but they were guilty, what's the harm" is the exact reason why cop shows are so toxic.

    Since you couldn’t actually articulate what rights were violated, nor could you address how there are a range of punishments in a workplace beyond termination and demotion...............*sigh*

    Also, a fishing expedition in the parlance is when the police go looking for evidence of a crime without any reasonable expectation of what they will find. So investigating someone who used similar methods in the past to a crime that you are currently investigating and was found to be in the area of the newly committed crime would not fit the bill of a fishing expedition.

    Or should Holt also be terminated or demoted for the time he held a suspect in interrogation while they built their case against him by going over his testimony every which way looking for how it didnt add up? Does that also count as a fishing expedition?

    How do these scenarios differ if they do at all?

    A bit of trivia for you, every single suspect that is arrested or even just held, is innocent, as the police do not determine guilt or innocence, that is for the courts to decide, and the courts nominally hold the position that all suspects are innocent until found guilty.

    So by definition, the police or any investigative body must be given tools that interfere with citizen rights in order to obtain evidence to determine guilt or innocence. Searches, seizures, detention, interviews, interrogation, DNA tests, are all intrusive or invasive to an extent, but without which make the finding of any kind of truth next to impossible.

    So I am going to stop here because fuck doing a goddamn effort post explaining the basic underpinnings of the justice system in a thread about a fucking workplace comedy set in a police station, that by your own admission you dont watch.

    Well the issue here is that the basic underpinnings of the Justice system in this country is completely broken yet you're here stanning for them

    Indefinitely detaining an innocent person before you have any evidence other than "well he committed crimes before" so you can go fish for evidence IS the rights violation, my dude

    I didn’t realize that 24 hours counted as indefinite detentions, but fuck you very much too.

    And every one is innocent until proven guilty so is your contention that no person should ever be detained until a guilty verdict is delivered?

    This seems a little unnecessarily heated in a conversation about a comedy sitcom on NBC.

    How would you feel if some silly goose accused you of ‘stanning’ for the American justice system as currently implemented?

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Usually if they do something wrong the show will outright say they did .

    In that example Jake was called out for being impulsive and possibly tanking the case early on by his superiors.

    Was he fired? Demoted? Succesfully sued by the person whose rights they violated?
    It's not enough to say "this is bad", there needs to be consequences.
    And having the person whose rights are violated be guilty in the end just reinforces the "regulations bad" idea.

    What rights were violated?


    He was an ex felon with a history of robbery, arrested on suspicion of armed robbery that matched his MO.

    afaik he was provided his attorney and was held for as long as the law said he could be held on suspicion, and was in the process of being released at the end of that timeframe.

    Jake was given an administrative punishment because he jumped the gun on the arrest before completing the investigation.

    Not every single infraction of procedure requires a demotion or termination.
    Let me quote myself.
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    I have not watched the show, but from discussions about it i have seen, it is my understanding that the B99 do, on occasion, violate peoples rights.
    Like arresting someone in order to get time to go fish for evidence, when there is a supreme court case that explicitly makes it something not allowed.

    I think, if they decide to continue as cops, the writing team should have a team of defense lawyers go through everything the cops do, mark anything that they should not do, and then have those actions be pointed out as wrong in the show.
    None of the "we know they are guilty, if we were just allowed to go and <insert illegal and/or against regulations thing here>" shit, ever.
    Make sure to add lot of innocent suspects that do call for a lawyer.

    and so on and so forth...
    It does not matter he was an ex felon, he still has rights.
    None of this "i'm gonna throw them in jail because i got a hunch" bullshit.
    That you are excusing the thing with "but they were guilty, what's the harm" is the exact reason why cop shows are so toxic.

    Since you couldn’t actually articulate what rights were violated, nor could you address how there are a range of punishments in a workplace beyond termination and demotion...............*sigh*

    Also, a fishing expedition in the parlance is when the police go looking for evidence of a crime without any reasonable expectation of what they will find. So investigating someone who used similar methods in the past to a crime that you are currently investigating and was found to be in the area of the newly committed crime would not fit the bill of a fishing expedition.

    Or should Holt also be terminated or demoted for the time he held a suspect in interrogation while they built their case against him by going over his testimony every which way looking for how it didnt add up? Does that also count as a fishing expedition?

    How do these scenarios differ if they do at all?

    A bit of trivia for you, every single suspect that is arrested or even just held, is innocent, as the police do not determine guilt or innocence, that is for the courts to decide, and the courts nominally hold the position that all suspects are innocent until found guilty.

    So by definition, the police or any investigative body must be given tools that interfere with citizen rights in order to obtain evidence to determine guilt or innocence. Searches, seizures, detention, interviews, interrogation, DNA tests, are all intrusive or invasive to an extent, but without which make the finding of any kind of truth next to impossible.

    So I am going to stop here because fuck doing a goddamn effort post explaining the basic underpinnings of the justice system in a thread about a fucking workplace comedy set in a police station, that by your own admission you dont watch.

    Well the issue here is that the basic underpinnings of the Justice system in this country is completely broken yet you're here stanning for them

    Indefinitely detaining an innocent person before you have any evidence other than "well he committed crimes before" so you can go fish for evidence IS the rights violation, my dude

    I didn’t realize that 24 hours counted as indefinite detentions, but fuck you very much too.

    And every one is innocent until proven guilty so is your contention that no person should ever be detained until a guilty verdict is delivered?
    There are rules about when and why and for how long people can be detained.
    The whole original point i had that the rules were broken, and the series fails to adequately deal with it, and making the victim a "bad guy" even condones it to a degree.

    The rules weren’t really broken is sort of the point.

    They arrest and detained the suspect on suspicion.

    They had 24 hours to formally charge them or release them, and if they released them any further investigation would be considered legally actionable harassment, which is why his defence lawyer was there salivating at the deadline counting down.

    It was a screw up, and portrayed as a screw up, but it was not a violation of rights or the cops breaking the law.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
    Shadowhope
  • NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Usually if they do something wrong the show will outright say they did .

    In that example Jake was called out for being impulsive and possibly tanking the case early on by his superiors.

    Was he fired? Demoted? Succesfully sued by the person whose rights they violated?
    It's not enough to say "this is bad", there needs to be consequences.
    And having the person whose rights are violated be guilty in the end just reinforces the "regulations bad" idea.

    What rights were violated?


    He was an ex felon with a history of robbery, arrested on suspicion of armed robbery that matched his MO.

    afaik he was provided his attorney and was held for as long as the law said he could be held on suspicion, and was in the process of being released at the end of that timeframe.

    Jake was given an administrative punishment because he jumped the gun on the arrest before completing the investigation.

    Not every single infraction of procedure requires a demotion or termination.
    Let me quote myself.
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    I have not watched the show, but from discussions about it i have seen, it is my understanding that the B99 do, on occasion, violate peoples rights.
    Like arresting someone in order to get time to go fish for evidence, when there is a supreme court case that explicitly makes it something not allowed.

    I think, if they decide to continue as cops, the writing team should have a team of defense lawyers go through everything the cops do, mark anything that they should not do, and then have those actions be pointed out as wrong in the show.
    None of the "we know they are guilty, if we were just allowed to go and <insert illegal and/or against regulations thing here>" shit, ever.
    Make sure to add lot of innocent suspects that do call for a lawyer.

    and so on and so forth...
    It does not matter he was an ex felon, he still has rights.
    None of this "i'm gonna throw them in jail because i got a hunch" bullshit.
    That you are excusing the thing with "but they were guilty, what's the harm" is the exact reason why cop shows are so toxic.

    Since you couldn’t actually articulate what rights were violated, nor could you address how there are a range of punishments in a workplace beyond termination and demotion...............*sigh*

    Also, a fishing expedition in the parlance is when the police go looking for evidence of a crime without any reasonable expectation of what they will find. So investigating someone who used similar methods in the past to a crime that you are currently investigating and was found to be in the area of the newly committed crime would not fit the bill of a fishing expedition.

    Or should Holt also be terminated or demoted for the time he held a suspect in interrogation while they built their case against him by going over his testimony every which way looking for how it didnt add up? Does that also count as a fishing expedition?

    How do these scenarios differ if they do at all?

    A bit of trivia for you, every single suspect that is arrested or even just held, is innocent, as the police do not determine guilt or innocence, that is for the courts to decide, and the courts nominally hold the position that all suspects are innocent until found guilty.

    So by definition, the police or any investigative body must be given tools that interfere with citizen rights in order to obtain evidence to determine guilt or innocence. Searches, seizures, detention, interviews, interrogation, DNA tests, are all intrusive or invasive to an extent, but without which make the finding of any kind of truth next to impossible.

    So I am going to stop here because fuck doing a goddamn effort post explaining the basic underpinnings of the justice system in a thread about a fucking workplace comedy set in a police station, that by your own admission you dont watch.

    Well the issue here is that the basic underpinnings of the Justice system in this country is completely broken yet you're here stanning for them

    Indefinitely detaining an innocent person before you have any evidence other than "well he committed crimes before" so you can go fish for evidence IS the rights violation, my dude

    I didn’t realize that 24 hours counted as indefinite detentions, but fuck you very much too.

    And every one is innocent until proven guilty so is your contention that no person should ever be detained until a guilty verdict is delivered?
    There are rules about when and why and for how long people can be detained.
    The whole original point i had that the rules were broken, and the series fails to adequately deal with it, and making the victim a "bad guy" even condones it to a degree.

    The rules weren’t really broken is sort of the point.

    They arrest and detained the suspect on suspicion.

    They had 24 hours to formally charge them or release them, and if they released them any further investigation would be considered legally actionable harassment, which is why his defence lawyer was there salivating at the deadline counting down.

    It was a screw up, and portrayed as a screw up, but it was not a violation of rights or the cops breaking the law.
    I very specifically stated that the Supreme Court had very specifically ruled that you do not get to do that.
    The "formally charge or release" is because sometimes it takes time to get the formal charge through, paperwork takes time.
    It is not there so you can just arrest someone you have not enough to charge them with, and then hope to find something to charge them with.

    Phoenix-DFencingsaxKristmas Kthulhu
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Samberg while promoting his Hulu movie that releases on Thursday:
    “We’re taking a step back, and the writers are all rethinking how we’re going to move forward, as well as the cast,” Samberg said. “We’re all in touch and kind of discussing how you make a comedy show about police right now, and if we can find a way of doing that that we all feel morally okay about.”

    He thinks they'll find a way.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    Shadowhope
  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    Samberg while promoting his Hulu movie that releases on Thursday:
    “We’re taking a step back, and the writers are all rethinking how we’re going to move forward, as well as the cast,” Samberg said. “We’re all in touch and kind of discussing how you make a comedy show about police right now, and if we can find a way of doing that that we all feel morally okay about.”

    He thinks they'll find a way.

    There's also the possibility he's doing it for the rest of the cast during the enforced hiatus. While he, Crews and Braugher aren't as likely to have monetary woes (having been relatively successful for years), the rest of the cast, and most of the crew, possibly do. And there may be distinction between a show being on hiatus and a show that's been cancelled with regards any income, insurance or other benefits that might accrue.

    If he were to publicly doubt that the show isn't coming back and is probably done, and it causes NBC to axe it, then those people are for sure out on their asses, with no real chance of working in the near future.

    Thawmus
Sign In or Register to comment.