• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Eric Garner all over again

Page 73 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,390
312
126
I'm picky about police reform measures in terms of which ones I think work and which do not. I support the "Cariol's law" reform she is pushing. Officers need to get in serious trouble for not intervening to stop illegal behavior on the part of other officers or at least, if a non-violent offense, reporting them for it. They also need protection from retaliation when they do come forward.

Anything which strengthens accountability of police is the key to reform. You can give them bias training 5 days a week and it won't change a thing. But make them think they're going to get into serious trouble for breaking the law and things will change.
The issue is that there currently is no duty to protect for police officers. People don't know this. There used to be duty to protect laws, but those were removed. There is a double edge sword on this issue. If there is duty to protect and officers get in legal trouble when they don't come up with exact outcomes, you are not going to have police officers anymore. Think of it this way, if fire fighters were always under law to prevent house fires, and they got into legal trouble when a house burned down they couldn't stop then you'd have no more fire fighters. No one in their right mind would do that job. Duty to protect laws for cops are the same thing. It is a hard thing to balance and provide narrow enough scope for. It is much easier to balance out what behavior cops shouldn't be allowed to do legally such as no longer doing chokeholds when there is enough officers around to subdue someone without the need for it. Also removing policies, that MN still had but most places don't, that require officers to always subdue mentally impaired individuals to wait for mental health experts to arrive on scene and not let up on their submission hold until those experts arrive. The specific policy is allowing Derik Chauvin a defense in the George Floyd case right now.

What sucks is although most places have identified the issues, like chokeholds being poroblematic, years ago not every police department has acted to fix those problems in all these years. Most don't because to them they haven't had an issue yet with those policies. That old saying, "If it isn't broke don't fix it" is typically why most government agencies are so slow to fix problematic issues.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
13,156
2,731
136
There used to be duty to protect laws, but those were removed.
If there is duty to protect and officers get in legal trouble when they don't come up with exact outcomes, you are not going to have police officers anymore.
If we at one time had a duty to protect, and we had cops during that time, that would seem to contradict your argument.

Think of it this way, if fire fighters were always under law to prevent house fires, and they got into legal trouble when a house burned down they couldn't stop then you'd have no more fire fighters.
No. No. No. What we are saying is not that all crime must be stopped by the police, only that they have a duty to stop crime when they see it happening.
The argument is that if a fire fighter sees a house burning down and says not my problem and walks away then he is responsible for failing to render aid. We already have laws like that for other things, and they work fairly well.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,390
312
126
If we at one time had a duty to protect, and we had cops during that time, that would seem to contradict your argument.
No. That is not the case. Before there were laws in many places where cops were forced to protect and serve. If they got called and didn't make it in time they were liable. If they didn't catch a robber they were liable. If they failed to stop property damage during riots they were liable. That last one is what actually got the laws removed everywhere for cops. Because cops were literally quitting over that in droves at one point in history.


No. No. No. What we are saying is not that all crime must be stopped by the police, only that they have a duty to stop crime when they see it happening.
The argument is that if a fire fighter sees a house burning down and says not my problem and walks away then he is responsible for failing to render aid. We already have laws like that for other things, and they work fairly well.
Duty to respond is not the same thing as duty to perform. You are conflating the issues.


Most states still don't have duty to acts, and even in the case of fire fighters the liable for failure to act is based upon policies of that department if they have those. Not all departments do. Same goes for other first responders. There is no all encompassing legislation across America that compells a duty to perform and in most cases a basic duty to even try to act.

Most of the few that do have some limited scope statutes are based around the individual at least making a good faith attempt in their view to do something. Which means that individuals can say the situation was too dangerous to do more than give verbal instructions by their assessment. That is why duty to act cases are so rare to come up in court and even rarer to actually convict on.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
13,156
2,731
136
No. That is not the case. Before there were laws in many places where cops were forced to protect and serve.
Well, it is what we pay them for. They are not really being forced to, that is just their job.
Just like no one is forcing me to make this spreadsheet, it is just what they pay me to do.
It seems a strange argument to say that cops should not be legally required to do their job.

Duty to respond is not the same thing as duty to perform. You are conflating the issues.
Okay, but then you are the one conflating the issues, because no one here was talking about finding police (or anyone else) liable for not being able to stop all crime, only to stop or report those that they personally had knowledge of. Cariol's law is saying that police have a duty to intervene when they witness another cop using excessive force, and if they fail to do so they become accomplices in the act.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,390
312
126
Well, it is what we pay them for. They are not really being forced to, that is just their job.
Just like no one is forcing me to make this spreadsheet, it is just what they pay me to do.
It seems a strange argument to say that cops should not be legally required to do their job.
Actually, SCOTUS and many lower courts have made this decision on a number of occasions. If there are no local laws compelling actions from police or other first responders, there is nothing else to do so. It isn't in their job description usually at all.


Okay, but then you are the one conflating the issues, because no one here was talking about finding police (or anyone else) liable for not being able to stop all crime, only to stop or report those that they personally had knowledge of. Cariol's law is saying that police have a duty to intervene when they witness another cop using excessive force, and if they fail to do so they become accomplices in the act.
The problem with either duty to act or duty to perform makes them open to legal problems should they fail to act or perform. If they have a duty to act, but not perform, it gets more complicated at where to draw the line for what constitutes trying act but just failing to perform. Most times in history have shown though that when one or the other law is on the books, the police would rather not be police as every action gets questioned and can lead to them have massive legal hassle.

The problem with Cariol's law is is that it still doesn't draw distinctions. It is a duty to act law. Does just saying "Hey knock it off" count? what if they just say it jokingly to get around the law? Because they will start doing that. If it becomes a duty to perform law how far are they expected to go in their intervention? Are we going to have cops dueling in the streets? If a problem does arise do we really want to leave a jury to decide how far the police officer should have gone to intervene? This is the problem with those types of laws and why they have all mostly been removed when at one time there were similar laws on the books.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
13,156
2,731
136
Actually, SCOTUS and many lower courts have made this decision on a number of occasions. If there are no local laws compelling actions from police or other first responders, there is nothing else to do so. It isn't in their job description usually at all.
I would agree here with one caveat, We The People think, and intend, to pay them to protect and serve. They even paint it on their cars. They might not actually be required to do so, but if so that just goes to show how corrupt the system has become.

The problem with either duty to act or duty to perform makes them open to legal problems should they fail to act or perform.
Yes, that is the point. We put a lot of trust in them, we expect them to do their job when it is needed, failure to do so should be punished.
If we can't trust the police to do their duty to protect and serve when we need them, then I have to ask why do we need them at all?
If I hire a plumber and after charging me for a few hours he tells me that he is under no obligation to actually get my toilet working, why would I hire him?

If they have a duty to act, but not perform, it gets more complicated at where to draw the line for what constitutes trying act but just failing to perform.
That is what we have courts for. They can suss out just where that line is. It is really not that complicated, as I have pointed out lots of professions have such a duty and it does not seem to be a major problem for them. Even you pointed out that it is rare for a case to be brought up. It is a law mostly needed for extreme cases where it is pretty obvious that someone did not do their duty.

Most times in history have shown though that when one or the other law is on the books, the police would rather not be police as every action gets questioned and can lead to them have massive legal hassle.
Quite frankly those are the exact people we don't want to be police.
That is a large part of the problem right now, we have a lot of people wearing a badge for the wrong reasons. We need to weed them out.
People that would quit the job because they are afraid that their actions might be scrutinized is not fit to do that job.

The problem with Cariol's law is is that it..bla bla bla
Every law is like that. All laws can be taken to an extreme, but notice how it rarely ever actually happens. Because to convict someone you have to convence a jury of their peers that what they did was not only illegal, but wrong enough that they should be punished for it.
That is why we have a jury system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brainonska511

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
4,940
4,400
136
Rudy’s lost his mind.

During an interview with Fox News host Laura Ingraham, Giuliani went on a McCarthy-esque tirade accusing “antifa, Black Lives Matter, the communists, and their allies” of “executing a plan they wrote about four or five years ago.”

Without providing a shred of evidence of his conspiracy theory, Trump’s lawyer claimed the protests were an “orchestrated effort” to “destroy our government.”
“They want to internationalize our government. They want to do away with our system of courts, and they want to take your property away and give it to other people,” Giuliani told Ingraham.

He concluded his doomsday prophecy with a stark warning.

“People who say they are favorable to Black Lives Matter: Black Lives Matter wants to come and take your house away from you,” Giuliani said. “They want to take your property away from you.”
Lol...whats next - “They’re coming for your women!!”?
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
17,836
1,889
126
Vega holstered his weapon and began approaching Guardado to cuff him, saying, “Don’t reach for the gun,” Marangell said. He said that’s when Guardado reached for the gun, and Vega opened fire.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
105,012
19,703
136
Vega holstered his weapon and began approaching Guardado to cuff him, saying, “Don’t reach for the gun,” Marangell said. He said that’s when Guardado reached for the gun, and Vega opened fire.
Guardado was face down on the ground in that moment, gun on the ground next to his hand, after dropping it....also according to the officer.

maybe you should post that part, too, since you plucked this quote out, unattributed, and underlined the only part that in your mind seems to matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: [DHT]Osiris

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
6,451
4,966
136
Guardado was face down on the ground in that moment, gun on the ground next to his hand, after dropping it....also according to the officer.

maybe you should post that part, too, since you plucked this quote out, unattributed, and underlined the only part that in your mind seems to matter.
Right-wing authoritarians are always going to be on the side of other right-wing authoritarians.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
17,836
1,889
126
Guardado was face down on the ground in that moment, gun on the ground next to his hand, after dropping it....also according to the officer.

maybe you should post that part, too, since you plucked this quote out, unattributed, and underlined the only part that in your mind seems to matter.

That is the part that matters. Maybe the police could have just shot him in the hand like in the movies.

If he had just not reached for the gun he would be alive today.

Why do you think he was reaching for the gun?

I don't think he was just getting it to hand it to the police.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
17,836
1,889
126
Guardado was face down on the ground in that moment, gun on the ground next to his hand, after dropping it....also according to the officer.

maybe you should post that part, too, since you plucked this quote out, unattributed, and underlined the only part that in your mind seems to matter.
Right-wing authoritarians are always going to be on the side of other right-wing authoritarians.

What would you have done were you the police and he was reaching for the gun?
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
32,003
10,789
146
Re: Guardado, any bodycam footage? My Google Fu hasn't yielded any.

Shot by This agency, yea...I'm gonna need some video to believe the police. Lying without consequences is part of their gig, that applies to police in general, but the LASD has a pretty bad track record
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY