Police brutality

[Jagos]

So I had a story recently about one cop that was doing quite well in respecting people.

Well, here's the other foot. I will warn people that the link I put up is quite graphic, so you have been warned.

Link (http://reason.com/blog/2011/07/29/homeless-man-dies-after-being)


*****************************************

Kelly Thomas' father, a retired Orange County police officer, did not recognize his own son when he went watch him die at the UC Irvine Medical Center after police beat him into a coma on July 5. The officers were responding to a call about vandalized cars when they found Thomas, a homeless schizophrenic, and attempted to search him. Thomas' father says his son may have been off his meds, which would explain why he resisted arrest. Nothing explains the gang-style murder committed by Fullerton cops.

While there's a Youtube of this, it doesn't show the beating, instead showing the screams from him being tasered after a fifth time. How police came to be SO worked up as to beat the ever loving crap out of a homeless man, is beyond me. It's a sad state of affairs when the ones meant to protect and serve, are the ones taking away your liberties.

RIP Thomas...

[pochercoaster]

This is extremely upsetting even though it's unsurprising. Nothing excuses that kind of force, but society is all about band-aid solutions (more police to "fix" crime) rather than taking the time to come up with solutions to complex social problems.

And no one cares about homeless people or the mentally ill. They are stigmatized and blamed for circumstances and problems that are beyond an individual's control. If they can't get the professional help and support they need they end up either on the streets or in prison.

There was an article in the Toronto Star a couple days ago about how numerous youths (kids under 18) in Ontario with mental health problems were shunted off to prisons that didn't have the necessary care workers and ended up killing themselves. These kids weren't even homeless in the first place but the system failed in so many ways that it just made things a whole lot worse for some kids who just desperately needed some help.

I don't even know what else to say, it makes me so angry. There is so much corruption going on here, among the police, among the government for cutting spending towards programs that would help disadvantaged people, among the general populace for its bootstraps attitude towards the homeless, among corporations for running prisons. It's disgusting and depressing.

Edit: Which is to say, an approach to "solve" police brutality, which is in itself is completely inexcusable, has to be multi-faceted. There won't be an improvement in this area until there's an improvement made in other areas as well. Particularly with the whole affordable and accessible support for disadvantaged people.

[Aerozord]

So I had a story recently about one cop that was doing quite well in respecting people.

Well, here's the other foot.

what do you mean? there are already other stories you've linked to about "police brutality" or "police violating rights". Abit silly calling this the other side when that story was the exception in a series of anti-police threads

[Jagos]

My last thread in regards to police was literally about a police officer respecting someone's rights. You don't see that everyday.

[Aerozord]

My last thread in regards to police was literally about a police officer respecting someone's rights. You don't see that everyday.

thats the thing that confuses me. If you think police being respectful is so rare it requires special mention, then doesn't that mean this isn't news but just business as usual? Unless you are saying police brutality is a rarity as well.

[Jagos]

All I'm saying is that my last thread was about one other police incident. Literally. I'm not even going further back in history to say otherwise. I'm taking the last thread that I had on police and saying this thread is the exact opposite.

[Fenris]

My last thread in regards to police was literally about a police officer respecting someone's rights. You don't see that everyday.You're right. You don't see a thread about the 98% of police officers that do their job the right way very often.

thats the thing that confuses me. If you think police being respectful is so rare it requires special mention, then doesn't that mean this isn't news but just business as usual? Unless you are saying police brutality is a rarity as well.

You're really gonna call police brutality business as usual?

Dude, quit trollin'.

[Jagos]

*Rise from your grave*

It seems that the police have been charged (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/09/kelly-thomas-beating-death.html) with the murder of Kelly Thomas.

I'm at a loss how you can have SO many police officers at a scene, but only TWO get charged. Seeing as how Alyona (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi7CNp5x-FM&feature=relmfu) is also saying what their counts are, it just doesn't feel right that other people are escaping justice when they could have stopped this at any time.

[Bells]

that's probably because any legal system in most civil countries is made of shades of Grey, and even if you are found bloodsoaken in a alley with a gun on your hand with a body next to you killed by said gun you are STILL innocent until proven guilty... and even then, if you're proven guilty, we still have room to debate "why" you did something and "how" it got to that, before defining a fitting punishment... it's societies rulebook, love it or hate it...

As for Police brutality, it's not as "Epidemic" as people make it seem sometimes. There are bad professionals in any give trade, even is it's law and order. The Power, the authority of being a police officer, does indeed draw out some bad seeds (or turns good ones around) from time to time. The only "normal" thing about out of this is that we can call this a consequence of having the institution. The ebst we can do, is maintenance. To make sure that you don't keep around the bad ones for too long.

Police Brutality is as common as brutality itself, because sometimes people just do really, really stupid things. But when it's behind the shield of a Society-approved institution that is meant to provide order, it's just hurts more to look at it.

[Jagos]

And on the next episode of police brutality...

Would you tase this boy? (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110923/12354816075/police-caught-tasing-teen-without-warning.shtml)

[Magus]

This one about Thomas was pretty heavily covered on the news, quite grotesque. It's just straight-up criminality on the part of the officers, there's no wiggle room for them which is why they're getting charged with a crime (for once).

Also Jagos I know you like reason.com but I've found their journalism to be somewhat suspect. For example, in the case of Sal Culosi for instance they went out of their way to make it appear as if the police had no reason to investigate him in the first place. According to the police report I found in the article they referenced from the Washington Post he was indeed a bookie, though, having made bets in the sum of around $28,000 dollars with the undercover officer over the course of two months. There was clearly a reason to be investigating him or conducting a sting operation.

Obviously that doesn't excuse the fact that they shot him during their raid when he wasn't armed and was just guilty of taking illegal bets, but since half the article's basis for outrage was that they were investigating him at all was that he wasn't a bookie but just someone making small bets with acquaintances, when in fact he was probably a bookie, I personally don't think reason.com is maintaining the proper level of journalistic integrity.

[Kim]

So this is relevant (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meT8CJgEBQw)

Police brutality at the Wall Street protests.

Also, Fenris, police brutality doesn't need to be the majority to be business as usual. It's a fact of life and a common occurrence. That *most* officers are decent does not change that fact.

[Azisien]

Jesus fucking wept.

[Jagos]

Non, I had talked about that here (http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=40782), actually. Nothing major, yes it's relevant. But it seems that the protest is getting larger because of the Youtube coverage.

s I know you like reason.com but I've found their journalism to be somewhat suspect. For example, in the case of Sal Culosi for instance they went out of their way to make it appear as if the police had no reason to investigate him in the first place. According to the police report I found in the article they referenced from the Washington Post he was indeed a bookie, though, having made bets in the sum of around $28,000 dollars with the undercover officer over the course of two months. There was clearly a reason to be investigating him or conducting a sting operation.

Looking up the story, I don't see a reason that the SWAT had to go in guns blazing. Most SWAT in LA should be carrying less lethal alternatives, but at the very least, he showed no evidence of ever carrying a weapon. How is the journalism circumspect in that regard? I understand that some journalists maintain a certain objective bias on stories, but I'm not sure if that's reason.tv's MO.

[Magus]

Looking up the story, I don't see a reason that the SWAT had to go in guns blazing. Most SWAT in LA should be carrying less lethal alternatives, but at the very least, he showed no evidence of ever carrying a weapon. How is the journalism circumspect in that regard? I understand that some journalists maintain a certain objective bias on stories, but I'm not sure if that's reason.tv's MO.

Yeah, that was the half of the criticism that was good, they did a good job there, since there's not a lot of reason to use a SWAT team on a non-violent offender, it was just trying to obfuscate that there was a reason for them to investigate him at all, which indeed there clearly was. It was biased. Not to say that all the other newspapers aren't also slanted and biased, I just don't think it's anything to be emulated.

[Jagos]

I disagree. I think reporters and journalists should have a bias*. But they should tell the color of their skin and where they're coming from if they're showing an argument.

The problem in most reports are that they are literally no more than press releases. No reporter asks hard hitting questions of the people interviewed. So the stories just feel wrong in a sense. It's because when I read the NY Times, or the Washington Post, I'm looking to see why this story, this columnist, or this reporter feels that the story is worth my attention. If they don't feel the same way, why? If the article only repeats what two parties have said without the reporter weighing in, it's damn near boring. It's a three way conversation and if the reporter isn't willing to show the problems inherent in it, then I have no business reading that article.

Bear in mind, if my past posting history is anything, I read blogs a lot more than I read places like the news. Reason.tv has a known bias and I can instantly take that away and get objectivity.

When I read about Jose Guerana (http://abcnews.go.com/US/tucson-swat-team-defends-shooting-iraq-marine-veteran/story?id=13640112) in mainstream news vs blog type news (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/25/jose-guerena-arizona-_n_867020.html), I seem to get more bang for my buck with the blogs. They go into details that I might not have thought about in figuring out the whole problem with specialized police in the first place.

So maybe there's more to it than just the bias, but I see more interest from the smaller channels like reason.tv and alternet than I do with larger places.

* Bear in mind, I have no negative connotations with a bias. Everyone has one and I just don't feel that those choosing to report the news should forget their own views on a subject because they're given canned news articles to post.

[shiney]

It's because when I read the NY Times, or the Washington Post, I'm looking to see why this story, this columnist, or this reporter feels that the story is worth my attention. If they don't feel the same way, why?
Given the posts you bring to the table you should be very concerned by this line of thought. You shouldn't be actively searching for people you agree with or who agree with you. You should be considering viewpoints and objective reporting. I'd rather have a milquetoast reporter that allows people to form their own opinions about a subject than a bold and assertive reporter who makes the judgment for me. Critical thinking and all that.

What they should do is objective and strong reporting, challenging questions and follow-ups, rather than the handjobs and lip-service that occur nowadays in journalism. But I do not want my opnions formed for me, and I do not want someone promoting their own viewpoints through the lens of journalism.

[Jagos]

What they should do is objective and strong reporting, challenging questions and follow-ups, rather than the handjobs and lip-service that occur nowadays in journalism. But I do not want my opnions formed for me, and I do not want someone promoting their own viewpoints through the lens of journalism.

I agree and don't put up places that are mainly rhetoric without some type of warning usually. But even with Ars or Wired, you get places that have a bias on a given story. And sometimes it does come to haunt them (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/06/activision-esaactivision-benefits-from-supreme-court-decision-didnt-help-pay-for-it.ars) if it's kind of biased (read the comments because Ben got blasted here...).

Point is, I doubt I've shown a lot of places that are filled with rhetorical writing without at least giving facts in the interim. And if you're going to have a bias for or against something why not just tell them up front and allow them to make a choice about what you'll be talking about?

And what happens when a journalist becomes the story? (http://www.thirteen.org/metrofocus/news/2011/09/observations-of-a-jailed-journalist/)

I don’t know precisely why I was arrested, though I have been charged with disorderly conduct. But what I realized is that in a sudden burst of urban chaos, how can the police distinguish between passersby and protesters who may be committing civil disobedience or any other type of punishable offense? Or between citizen journalists and professional journalists?

[Betty Elms]

I disagree. I think reporters and journalists should have a bias*. But they should tell the color of their skin and where they're coming from if they're showing an argument.

The problem in most reports are that they are literally no more than press releases. No reporter asks hard hitting questions of the people interviewed. So the stories just feel wrong in a sense.

...

Bear in mind, if my past posting history is anything, I read blogs a lot more than I read places like the news. Reason.tv has a known bias and I can instantly take that away and get objectivity.

A journalist trying to prove a point via their work is just dandy. Presenting information framed within their opinion can be great, especially if, as you said, their opinion motivates them to present information that many less biased sources wouldn't think to bring up or investigate. But once they start obscuring the news that doesn't back up their opinion, then they've failed on at least some level. If you're a journalist and "concealing the truth" is a necessary step in the act of presenting your beliefs through your work, then you need to consider finding either new beliefs or a new job.

And no, you can't instantly strip away bias just because you know it's there, especially when it so often takes the form of what's not there.

On the main topic at hand: yeah that's pretty fucked.

[Loyal]

Related (I think), but things seem to be going pretty well in Boston. (http://www.metro.us/boston/local/article/986837--occupy-boston-boston-officials-have-soft-spot-for-protesters)
Boston officials have no problem with the Tent City Square occupiers who have embedded themselves in the center of the Financial District.

On day three of Occupy Boston, Nancy Brennan, the executive director of the Rose Kennedy Greenway, said the organization is not upset that hundreds of makeshift shelters and increased foot traffic have trampled the grass at Dewey Square.

“This is a civic park and it welcomes the expression of First Amendment rights,” said Brennan. “Wet weather and tents will do damage to the lawn and that is something [we] anticipated. [We] will take care of it and restore it.”

She said organizers have been in constant contact with park staff, and agreed to re-seed the lawn when the occupation ends.

The crowded camping ground, housed next to South Station, hasn’t been an issue for the MBTA either, according to officials.

T spokesman Joe Pesaturo said, “It's had no adverse impact on MBTA services.”

Even police have been helping the “occupods,” herding their protests and shutting down street lanes to keep them safe while marching.

We respect their right to protest as long as we are able to maintain a safe environment,” said Boston Police spokesperson Elaine Driscoll, adding the occupation has been “largely without incident” since day one last week.

Katie Ward, spokeswoman for the mayor’s office, also said the city has had no issues with the protesters and would only step in if overcrowding or illness became an issue.

“As long as protests remain peaceful and safe, we will respect their right to protest,” she said. “They have done a great job of keeping it that way so far.”The protests aren't over so things could change, but judging by how things have been going over the past few days it seems unlikely. I'm pleased.

[CABAL49]

I don't think any officer is rushing to be the next Tony Bologna.