tl;dr- A 1950's law aimed at banning switchblades and related knives in NY, has become a way to make possession of any knife illegal and fill out arrest quotas for NYC cops.
Oh hey
Anecdotally, many defense attorneys report that the suspects most often arrested are black or Hispanic, a hunch supported by our analysis of stop-and-frisk data. If almost every knife out there is a potential crime, the only thing standing between home and jail is the discretion of an officer -- to flick, or not to flick? And in the aggregate, a Voice data analysis shows, officers are nearly twice as likely to arrest non-white suspects, while letting their white counterparts go.
Charney, of CCR, says that this, too, comports with the broader picture of policing in New York City, where racial minorities are far more likely to be prosecuted for crimes of all types. When an officer has discretion, Charney says, "that's where a lot of these implicit racial and ethnic biases come into play."
But remember kids, racism is over!
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
+1
Options
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
The threat of papercuts will force officers to draw their weapons toward their desks, thus creating more paperwork, with more papercut threats.
the chief of police is arguing that having to officially record when a cop pulls a gun will cause cops to die because they will be too afraid of paperwork to unholster their weapon in a crisis
Exactly how often does this guy think guns will need to be drawn
And what is so scary about some paperwork
Clearly you've never seen what government paperwork looks like.
I'm only half joking btw. Sometimes paperwork means ALOT of annoying paperwork.
Sweet. It should be a lot of annoying paperwork to use anything that could end a human life.
If its really bad enough, it will perhaps get people to think twice before ending a life.
User name Alazull on Steam, PSN, Nintenders, Epic, etc.
the chief of police is arguing that having to officially record when a cop pulls a gun will cause cops to die because they will be too afraid of paperwork to unholster their weapon in a crisis
Exactly how often does this guy think guns will need to be drawn
And what is so scary about some paperwork
Clearly you've never seen what government paperwork looks like.
I'm only half joking btw. Sometimes paperwork means ALOT of annoying paperwork.
Sweet. It should be a lot of annoying paperwork to use anything that could end a human life.
If its really bad enough, it will perhaps get people to think twice before ending a life.
Well yeah. One would hope.
My point was that, yes, paperwork is actually a disincentive all on it's own.
If there's so much paperwork that it would literally deter a police officer from defending himself in a legitimate crisis, then, yes, the amount of paper should also probably be reformed. However, I doubt this is the case as police officers have been filing paperwork for how long? and how many police deaths were due to paperwork?
As recent police killings have shown us, the mandatory paperwork doesn't get filled out when the police kill someone. So I doubt compulsory paperwork for unholstering will be followed either.
It's fine, we were only helping him with a suicide by cop? You'd understand if you were up on the hip trends in dying?
0
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
edited May 2015
Bullshit. Cops are fine with paperwork, because lots of paperwork means overtime hours. Please goddess let someone tell me that they will pay me time and a half to sit at a desk and type.
Just_Bri_Thanks on
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Bullshit. Cops are fine with paperwork, because lots of paperwork means overtime hours. Please goddess let someone tell me that they will pay me time and a half to sit at a desk and type.
Honestly. From personal experience (though as a teacher) writing incidentreports is one of the most souldestroying tasks ever. It's just insanely hard to write about an incident that you've been personally involved with, regardless of the severity. I can only imagine if that incident report had involved the words "I shot someone" (paraphrased somehow).
It's not "sit at a desk and type", and personally I completely understand people reluctance to do it.
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Arresting people because they "look suspicious," arresting people because they're in a high crime area, arresting people without cause at all, arresting people for resisting arrest, beating people because they had it coming, shooting people solely because they felt threatened, arresting people because they deserve it, giving people "rough rides," shooting people for not following orders immediately, shooting people because they did follow orders immediately, seizing whatever property they want because it's related to a crime and never returning it, using torture as a interrogation method, threatening anyone with any of the above for any reason, etc.
That's only the stuff immediately off the top of my head but it's pretty much what the citizens of Baltimore have been dealing with for the last few decades. So I'm not especially sympathetic to the police that have been allowing it to happen.
I thought you were one of those nutters who wanted police free zones like those folks in NYC. I believe they were called Disarm NYPD. All though I haven't shot anyone, I've certainly been shot at. I have arrested people for resisting arrest, because it is still against the law in most states. Also can't say I've ever used torture to interrogate anyone or any of the other things so guess I'm doing alright?
This might be a silly question, but how do you arrest someone for resisting arrest?
You start hassling someone until they show resistance and then you arrest them.
It's so easy any cop can do it.
When you go to arrest someone for an offense, be it drugs, assault, warrant, or whatever and they resist said arrest by trying to fight you or push/pull away. You end up in handcuffs one way or the other. Up to them if they want to add the resisting charge.
Arresting people because they "look suspicious," arresting people because they're in a high crime area, arresting people without cause at all, arresting people for resisting arrest, beating people because they had it coming, shooting people solely because they felt threatened, arresting people because they deserve it, giving people "rough rides," shooting people for not following orders immediately, shooting people because they did follow orders immediately, seizing whatever property they want because it's related to a crime and never returning it, using torture as a interrogation method, threatening anyone with any of the above for any reason, etc.
That's only the stuff immediately off the top of my head but it's pretty much what the citizens of Baltimore have been dealing with for the last few decades. So I'm not especially sympathetic to the police that have been allowing it to happen.
I thought you were one of those nutters who wanted police free zones like those folks in NYC. I believe they were called Disarm NYPD. All though I haven't shot anyone, I've certainly been shot at. I have arrested people for resisting arrest, because it is still against the law in most states. Also can't say I've ever used torture to interrogate anyone or any of the other things so guess I'm doing alright?
This might be a silly question, but how do you arrest someone for resisting arrest?
You start hassling someone until they show resistance and then you arrest them.
It's so easy any cop can do it.
When you go to arrest someone for an offense, be it drugs, assault, warrant, or whatever and they resist said arrest by trying to fight you or push/pull away. You end up in handcuffs one way or the other. Up to them if they want to add the resisting charge.
Except here we are talking about an arrest where the sole charge is resisting arrest.
There is no underlying charge.
No drugs, assault or warrant.
Like that defense attorney who was arrested (on camera!) for speaking to her client. The charge was "resisting arrest". It was piss obvious to anyone watching the video that it was an unlawful arrest, which is why there was no underlying charge. She was arrested because the police wanted to shut her up and get her away from her client.
Just more cops acting outside the law and getting away with it.
Arresting people because they "look suspicious," arresting people because they're in a high crime area, arresting people without cause at all, arresting people for resisting arrest, beating people because they had it coming, shooting people solely because they felt threatened, arresting people because they deserve it, giving people "rough rides," shooting people for not following orders immediately, shooting people because they did follow orders immediately, seizing whatever property they want because it's related to a crime and never returning it, using torture as a interrogation method, threatening anyone with any of the above for any reason, etc.
That's only the stuff immediately off the top of my head but it's pretty much what the citizens of Baltimore have been dealing with for the last few decades. So I'm not especially sympathetic to the police that have been allowing it to happen.
I thought you were one of those nutters who wanted police free zones like those folks in NYC. I believe they were called Disarm NYPD. All though I haven't shot anyone, I've certainly been shot at. I have arrested people for resisting arrest, because it is still against the law in most states. Also can't say I've ever used torture to interrogate anyone or any of the other things so guess I'm doing alright?
This might be a silly question, but how do you arrest someone for resisting arrest?
You start hassling someone until they show resistance and then you arrest them.
It's so easy any cop can do it.
When you go to arrest someone for an offense, be it drugs, assault, warrant, or whatever and they resist said arrest by trying to fight you or push/pull away. You end up in handcuffs one way or the other. Up to them if they want to add the resisting charge.
Arresting people because they "look suspicious," arresting people because they're in a high crime area, arresting people without cause at all, arresting people for resisting arrest, beating people because they had it coming, shooting people solely because they felt threatened, arresting people because they deserve it, giving people "rough rides," shooting people for not following orders immediately, shooting people because they did follow orders immediately, seizing whatever property they want because it's related to a crime and never returning it, using torture as a interrogation method, threatening anyone with any of the above for any reason, etc.
That's only the stuff immediately off the top of my head but it's pretty much what the citizens of Baltimore have been dealing with for the last few decades. So I'm not especially sympathetic to the police that have been allowing it to happen.
I thought you were one of those nutters who wanted police free zones like those folks in NYC. I believe they were called Disarm NYPD. All though I haven't shot anyone, I've certainly been shot at. I have arrested people for resisting arrest, because it is still against the law in most states. Also can't say I've ever used torture to interrogate anyone or any of the other things so guess I'm doing alright?
This might be a silly question, but how do you arrest someone for resisting arrest?
You start hassling someone until they show resistance and then you arrest them.
It's so easy any cop can do it.
When you go to arrest someone for an offense, be it drugs, assault, warrant, or whatever and they resist said arrest by trying to fight you or push/pull away. You end up in handcuffs one way or the other. Up to them if they want to add the resisting charge.
What's your opinion of the Blue Line?
Does it exist in your area?
Absolutely. We all support each other. But at the same time, when someone fucks up and does something outside the scope of their job they get fired or face criminal charges if applicable. At least in AZ anyway and my personal experiences. My dept has fired officers for getting DUI off duty, lying in police reports and violations of civil rights. I dont blindly support every cop because I know not all cops are good. I really do believe that a large majority do their job and do it well and within the law.
To give an idea of the paperwork involved for mundane things, like talking to someone who was mugged:
Locally the police moved to a new reporting scheme in the early aughts. Any investigation or interaction that wasn't moving/non moving violation without incident(accidents and/or anything else where someone is charged or investigation (chase but not caught) happens), the officer had to fill out 6 pages of forms. They do it right then. you can't wait until the end of your shift to do it, because it's just so much you can't let it wait. The 6 pages includes 1 handwritten page for the account of what happened. There are pages to tack on for additional information(which is common). a 5-15 minute standard interaction is 15-45 minutes of paperwork. For a car accident, they have to get drafting tools and templates out to redraw the accident from a top down view, to very close scale.
The point being the paperwork can absolutely be oppressive, even if it is necessary.
However, drawing your weapon most likely already involves filling out paperwork because it falls under investigating(lack of a better word) something which would already detail your actions. If you are talking about filling out separate paperwork for drawing, it's useless. It's just going to default to the level that they are already documenting. If their reports suck, they're never going to fill out forms saying they drew. Why would they bother? If their reports are good, it will already detail that.
Regina, in that state "resisting arrest" also includes interfering with a police investigation. She stood between the police and a target of investigation. Not trying to legitimize the charges, and I doubt they stuck. But police wanting to talk to someone on government property and you get in the way, you are probably going to get locked up.
Regina, in that state "resisting arrest" also includes interfering with a police investigation. She stood between the police and a target of investigation. Not trying to legitimize the charges, and I doubt they stuck. But police wanting to talk to someone on government property and you get in the way, you are probably going to get locked up.
She wasn't screening like a football player for the guy to make an escape, she was undertaking her legal and ethical duty to represent her client's best interests in a formal criminal matter as a defense attorney. There's no penalty too severe for that cop's actions, they are anathema to the most foundational principles of American society and the criminal justice system. Doubly so because he's a repeat offender, because of course he is.
Best update I can find is charges were dropped, and a formal complaint was filed against the officer, but as of now, the jackbooted thug is still on the streets.
Regina, in that state "resisting arrest" also includes interfering with a police investigation. She stood between the police and a target of investigation. Not trying to legitimize the charges, and I doubt they stuck. But police wanting to talk to someone on government property and you get in the way, you are probably going to get locked up.
You know that once someone has an attorney the police can't question them outside the presence of their attorney, right?
Their angle was that they wanted to question him about some other thing, which is an excellent way to ensure that everything they spoke to him about will be thrown out of any court in the land.
The irony is she was actually protecting their investigation with her "interference" because what they were doing was hilariously unacceptable.
the chief of police is arguing that having to officially record when a cop pulls a gun will cause cops to die because they will be too afraid of paperwork to unholster their weapon in a crisis
Exactly how often does this guy think guns will need to be drawn
And what is so scary about some paperwork
Clearly you've never seen what government paperwork looks like.
I'm only half joking btw. Sometimes paperwork means ALOT of annoying paperwork.
Yeah, sorry - @shryke is absolutely correct here, and if you think it's an insignificant gripe, I invite you to go to the DMV every time you need something done. That is, encapsulated, the process by which government paperwork is completed and submitted.
*ninja edit: I am all for something that makes police more - restrained isn't the word. Judicious? - in when they make the decision to draw their firearm(s), but I think this is one of those cases where, while something needs to be done, the proposed solution does not address the actual problem.
the chief of police is arguing that having to officially record when a cop pulls a gun will cause cops to die because they will be too afraid of paperwork to unholster their weapon in a crisis
Exactly how often does this guy think guns will need to be drawn
And what is so scary about some paperwork
Clearly you've never seen what government paperwork looks like.
I'm only half joking btw. Sometimes paperwork means ALOT of annoying paperwork.
Yeah, sorry - @shryke is absolutely correct here, and if you think it's an insignificant gripe, I invite you to go to the DMV every time you need something done. That is, encapsulated, the process by which government paperwork is completed and submitted.
*ninja edit: I am all for something that makes police more - restrained isn't the word. Judicious? - in when they make the decision to draw their firearm(s), but I think this is one of those cases where, while something needs to be done, the proposed solution does not address the actual problem.
You could just add a checkbox and a field on the existing paperwork they already submit.
Did you draw your weapon Y/N?
Brief justification:
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
According to the article, she was arrested for 'resisting a police officer'. So I guess there's a legal basis for respect my authoritay.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Regina, in that state "resisting arrest" also includes interfering with a police investigation. She stood between the police and a target of investigation. Not trying to legitimize the charges, and I doubt they stuck. But police wanting to talk to someone on government property and you get in the way, you are probably going to get locked up.
You know that once someone has an attorney the police can't question them outside the presence of their attorney, right?
Their angle was that they wanted to question him about some other thing, which is an excellent way to ensure that everything they spoke to him about will be thrown out of any court in the land.
The irony is she was actually protecting their investigation with her "interference" because what they were doing was hilariously unacceptable.
They were trying to get a photograph of him for an investigation(this is all on video), and she continuously physically blocked it from happening. The person had a right to have the lawyer there, the lawyer doesnt have the right to block the police from interacting with someone. The lawyer is just going to advise the person not answer/comply if they have a choice(or say "hes not answering questions" for their clients).
I think Chong was just attempting to answer the base question, not really defend the action of the police in that video.
It's half and half, she was being a goose and overstepped, she could stand to the side and instruct him not to answer or go, she physically restrained him(I think, its been a while) then prevented the police from proceeding. She should have followed along with him and told him not to allow the photograph/questions if they had happened. I get the honor of what she did, I just think you have 2 sides being jerks to each other so I don't have much sympathy. She really went down the wrong path here and was a disservice to her client, as soon as she was arrested, the police were just going to do what they wanted with the guy. She could have followed and been a witness and advised, then objected legally later.
You could just add a checkbox and a field on the existing paperwork they already submit.
Did you draw your weapon Y/N?
Brief justification:
It can't be brief. Not when someone lost their life and the situations can be complicated to how they got there. edit: It also makes it harder to cover up.
I really think the attitude that the reaction to police doing illegal things should be to let them and then argue about it in court later is one of privilege.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
I really think the attitude that the reaction to police doing illegal things should be to let them and then argue about it in court later is one of privilege.
Especially since sometimes there is no court later. This stuff happens then there end up being no charges filed and they are released. Meanwhile they've lost their jobs for missing those days of work.
Aistan on
+4
Options
AlazullYour body is not a temple, it's an amusement park.Enjoy the ride.Registered Userregular
the chief of police is arguing that having to officially record when a cop pulls a gun will cause cops to die because they will be too afraid of paperwork to unholster their weapon in a crisis
Exactly how often does this guy think guns will need to be drawn
And what is so scary about some paperwork
Clearly you've never seen what government paperwork looks like.
I'm only half joking btw. Sometimes paperwork means ALOT of annoying paperwork.
Yeah, sorry - @shryke is absolutely correct here, and if you think it's an insignificant gripe, I invite you to go to the DMV every time you need something done. That is, encapsulated, the process by which government paperwork is completed and submitted.
*ninja edit: I am all for something that makes police more - restrained isn't the word. Judicious? - in when they make the decision to draw their firearm(s), but I think this is one of those cases where, while something needs to be done, the proposed solution does not address the actual problem.
Okay, I'm going to post the following quote from the article we are actually discussing.
Officers could be hesitant to draw their guns because doing so would result in more paperwork under the terms of the agreement, Cleveland Police Patrolman's Association president Steve Loomis said Wednesday. The agreement requires an officer to complete a report each time he or she points a gun at a suspect.
"It's going to get somebody killed," Loomis said. "There's going to be a time when someone isn't going to want to do that paperwork, so he's going to keep that gun in its holster."
So yeah, I get that the whole thing of it being a pain in the ass, but dude I have to do paperwork working in a professional kitchen. I have waste sheets, order forms, costing, menus to write and re-write and layout. It can take hours, and I have to do it while taking care of customer orders and prep work. Oh, and don't get me started on what I have to do to be able to serve shellfish, because we have to be so slavish to detail its insane at times because guess what? Someone could potentially die! So I do it, because not only is it what I'm required to do but it A.) covers my liability in case of an accident and B.) is the law.
So cry me a fucking river that drawing a gun means paperwork. Maybe if the police department had done more to engender trust in their practices, they wouldn't be required to do this by the Department of Justice.
User name Alazull on Steam, PSN, Nintenders, Epic, etc.
They don't already have to cut paper when they draw their gun? We've been doing that at least since I've been working in 2007. It's a couple of check boxes and maybe a page documenting why I did it and what the result was. I have at least thirty or forty cases where I've had to draw my gun on somebody and have never actually fired it. The documentation of all those incidents, showing why I had to point my gun at someone is helpful to show that I'm not a trigger happy cop who shoots at people just because.
In the event, I do end up in a situation where I shoot/kill someone, the documentation is there to show I've drawn 30-40 times in the past and never shot. Why all agencies aren't doing this already is kind of baffling to me.
Its because police departments are like everything else. Some are doing things right and some are not. Its just a much bigger deal than if your local subway has some mook pouring on too much dressing.
I used to do data security for the state. Every time I took a key card to a room it was a four page report.
Gods forbid I touched or accessed anything. That was like another six pages.
I still think their excuse is stupid. There really isn't any justification why every department doesn't do these reports, in detail, after any incident good or bad.
The fact that I was held far more accountable because i might see someone's bank account number or something... You know, as opposed to killing them, is just utterly depressing to me.
This isn't exactly science but it doesn't appear to me that the CHP lacks for paperwork. I'm pretty sure I more often see them parked in the shade doing paperwork than with people pulled over or running speed traps.
You could just add a checkbox and a field on the existing paperwork they already submit.
Did you draw your weapon Y/N?
Brief justification:
It can't be brief. Not when someone lost their life and the situations can be complicated to how they got there. edit: It also makes it harder to cover up.
I'm speaking solely about the idea that they should have to document it if their weapon is even drawn (as they apparently do in Canada).
Obviously a shooting or fatality would require something else.
+3
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
It would be awesome to me if every cop had a handler on the other side of the uniform mounted camera filling out the paperwork as the incident progressed. Never happen, yes. But I would find it kind of awesome anyway.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Chicago area Burger King turns over security footage to the authorities from an incident where a cop shot a 17 year old kid sixteen times. Guess what happened?
McDonald was shot 16 times by a Chicago police officer on the night of October 20, 2014. Nine of the shots struck McDonald in the back, according to the Medical Examiners report.
...
After the shooting, according to Jay Darshane, the District Manager for Burger King, four to five police officers wearing blue and white shirts entered the restaurant and asked to view the video and were given the password to the equipment. Three hours later they left, he said.
The next day, when an investigator from the Independent Police Review Authority asked to view the security footage, it was discovered that the 86 minutes of video was missing.
Posts
Oh hey
But remember kids, racism is over!
It is a vicious cycle.
Sweet. It should be a lot of annoying paperwork to use anything that could end a human life.
If its really bad enough, it will perhaps get people to think twice before ending a life.
Well yeah. One would hope.
My point was that, yes, paperwork is actually a disincentive all on it's own.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Honestly. From personal experience (though as a teacher) writing incidentreports is one of the most souldestroying tasks ever. It's just insanely hard to write about an incident that you've been personally involved with, regardless of the severity. I can only imagine if that incident report had involved the words "I shot someone" (paraphrased somehow).
It's not "sit at a desk and type", and personally I completely understand people reluctance to do it.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
When you go to arrest someone for an offense, be it drugs, assault, warrant, or whatever and they resist said arrest by trying to fight you or push/pull away. You end up in handcuffs one way or the other. Up to them if they want to add the resisting charge.
Except here we are talking about an arrest where the sole charge is resisting arrest.
There is no underlying charge.
No drugs, assault or warrant.
Like that defense attorney who was arrested (on camera!) for speaking to her client. The charge was "resisting arrest". It was piss obvious to anyone watching the video that it was an unlawful arrest, which is why there was no underlying charge. She was arrested because the police wanted to shut her up and get her away from her client.
Just more cops acting outside the law and getting away with it.
What's your opinion of the Blue Line?
Does it exist in your area?
Absolutely. We all support each other. But at the same time, when someone fucks up and does something outside the scope of their job they get fired or face criminal charges if applicable. At least in AZ anyway and my personal experiences. My dept has fired officers for getting DUI off duty, lying in police reports and violations of civil rights. I dont blindly support every cop because I know not all cops are good. I really do believe that a large majority do their job and do it well and within the law.
Locally the police moved to a new reporting scheme in the early aughts. Any investigation or interaction that wasn't moving/non moving violation without incident(accidents and/or anything else where someone is charged or investigation (chase but not caught) happens), the officer had to fill out 6 pages of forms. They do it right then. you can't wait until the end of your shift to do it, because it's just so much you can't let it wait. The 6 pages includes 1 handwritten page for the account of what happened. There are pages to tack on for additional information(which is common). a 5-15 minute standard interaction is 15-45 minutes of paperwork. For a car accident, they have to get drafting tools and templates out to redraw the accident from a top down view, to very close scale.
The point being the paperwork can absolutely be oppressive, even if it is necessary.
However, drawing your weapon most likely already involves filling out paperwork because it falls under investigating(lack of a better word) something which would already detail your actions. If you are talking about filling out separate paperwork for drawing, it's useless. It's just going to default to the level that they are already documenting. If their reports suck, they're never going to fill out forms saying they drew. Why would they bother? If their reports are good, it will already detail that.
Regina, in that state "resisting arrest" also includes interfering with a police investigation. She stood between the police and a target of investigation. Not trying to legitimize the charges, and I doubt they stuck. But police wanting to talk to someone on government property and you get in the way, you are probably going to get locked up.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
She wasn't screening like a football player for the guy to make an escape, she was undertaking her legal and ethical duty to represent her client's best interests in a formal criminal matter as a defense attorney. There's no penalty too severe for that cop's actions, they are anathema to the most foundational principles of American society and the criminal justice system. Doubly so because he's a repeat offender, because of course he is.
Best update I can find is charges were dropped, and a formal complaint was filed against the officer, but as of now, the jackbooted thug is still on the streets.
You know that once someone has an attorney the police can't question them outside the presence of their attorney, right?
Their angle was that they wanted to question him about some other thing, which is an excellent way to ensure that everything they spoke to him about will be thrown out of any court in the land.
The irony is she was actually protecting their investigation with her "interference" because what they were doing was hilariously unacceptable.
Yeah, sorry - @shryke is absolutely correct here, and if you think it's an insignificant gripe, I invite you to go to the DMV every time you need something done. That is, encapsulated, the process by which government paperwork is completed and submitted.
*ninja edit: I am all for something that makes police more - restrained isn't the word. Judicious? - in when they make the decision to draw their firearm(s), but I think this is one of those cases where, while something needs to be done, the proposed solution does not address the actual problem.
Ah yes, arresting someone for resisting arrest.
If you don't want to be arrested, you should just let the cop arrest you!
You could just add a checkbox and a field on the existing paperwork they already submit.
Did you draw your weapon Y/N?
Brief justification:
In Canada, if an officer even unbuttons the clip to pull his gun, but doesn't actually pull his gun.
Even that gets a report, and they manage to do their paperwork.
They were trying to get a photograph of him for an investigation(this is all on video), and she continuously physically blocked it from happening. The person had a right to have the lawyer there, the lawyer doesnt have the right to block the police from interacting with someone. The lawyer is just going to advise the person not answer/comply if they have a choice(or say "hes not answering questions" for their clients).
It's half and half, she was being a goose and overstepped, she could stand to the side and instruct him not to answer or go, she physically restrained him(I think, its been a while) then prevented the police from proceeding. She should have followed along with him and told him not to allow the photograph/questions if they had happened. I get the honor of what she did, I just think you have 2 sides being jerks to each other so I don't have much sympathy. She really went down the wrong path here and was a disservice to her client, as soon as she was arrested, the police were just going to do what they wanted with the guy. She could have followed and been a witness and advised, then objected legally later.
As it's been said, "resisting arrest/ a police officer" is the same as, or includes "obstruction" in some places.
It can't be brief. Not when someone lost their life and the situations can be complicated to how they got there. edit: It also makes it harder to cover up.
Especially since sometimes there is no court later. This stuff happens then there end up being no charges filed and they are released. Meanwhile they've lost their jobs for missing those days of work.
Okay, I'm going to post the following quote from the article we are actually discussing.
So yeah, I get that the whole thing of it being a pain in the ass, but dude I have to do paperwork working in a professional kitchen. I have waste sheets, order forms, costing, menus to write and re-write and layout. It can take hours, and I have to do it while taking care of customer orders and prep work. Oh, and don't get me started on what I have to do to be able to serve shellfish, because we have to be so slavish to detail its insane at times because guess what? Someone could potentially die! So I do it, because not only is it what I'm required to do but it A.) covers my liability in case of an accident and B.) is the law.
So cry me a fucking river that drawing a gun means paperwork. Maybe if the police department had done more to engender trust in their practices, they wouldn't be required to do this by the Department of Justice.
In the event, I do end up in a situation where I shoot/kill someone, the documentation is there to show I've drawn 30-40 times in the past and never shot. Why all agencies aren't doing this already is kind of baffling to me.
I used to do data security for the state. Every time I took a key card to a room it was a four page report.
Gods forbid I touched or accessed anything. That was like another six pages.
I still think their excuse is stupid. There really isn't any justification why every department doesn't do these reports, in detail, after any incident good or bad.
The fact that I was held far more accountable because i might see someone's bank account number or something... You know, as opposed to killing them, is just utterly depressing to me.
Just some people pointing out to the person who originally asked that, yes, paperwork is actually scary.
I'm speaking solely about the idea that they should have to document it if their weapon is even drawn (as they apparently do in Canada).
Obviously a shooting or fatality would require something else.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Chicago area Burger King turns over security footage to the authorities from an incident where a cop shot a 17 year old kid sixteen times. Guess what happened?