Suit: Seattle police say use-of-force policies unconstitutional

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Comments

  • JonnyRoccIT
    JonnyRoccIT Members Posts: 14,389 ✭✭✭✭✭
    That ? said "? ." Ron Smith lmaooo
  • JonnyRoccIT
    JonnyRoccIT Members Posts: 14,389 ✭✭✭✭✭
    But this Lawsuit could create a long standing Tension and could lose a little support from the City & Federal Government .
  • VIBE
    VIBE Members Posts: 54,384 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Seattle has been making a lot of good moves.
  • SneakDZA
    SneakDZA Members Posts: 11,223 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Since they're using the constitution as the basis for their lawsuit then if they win wouldn't whatever precedent set apply to everyone and not just cops?

    I could be wrong since I'm no lawyer or anything but ? those pigs regardless. I hope they all reap what they sow.
  • jono
    jono Members Posts: 30,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Without knowing what they are protesting against specifically it's hard to make decision of fair or foul.

    What's the new rules vs the old ones?
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0 Regulator
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • CP203
    CP203 Members Posts: 10,421 ✭✭✭✭✭
    So basically they wanna ? ? up and not worry about it
  • jono
    jono Members Posts: 30,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    No. It's necessary in their line of work to ? heads from time to time. I'm cool with limitations on it definitely, and I think this applies to everyone, you don't want that too lax or too stringent because you put people in danger either way.

    There will always be radicals on either side, so I can't make a judgment without knowing what they can and cannot do.
  • achewon87
    achewon87 Members Posts: 5,464 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Anytime the police lose power I am all for it...

    Wouldn't have been this way if they didn't abuse that power since forever...

    You reap what you sow...
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0 Regulator
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0 Regulator
    edited May 2014
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • Meta_Conscious
    Meta_Conscious Members Posts: 26,227 ✭✭✭✭✭
    jono wrote: »
    No. It's necessary in their line of work to ? heads from time to time. I'm cool with limitations on it definitely, and I think this applies to everyone, you don't want that too lax or too stringent because you put people in danger either way.

    There will always be radicals on either side, so I can't make a judgment without knowing what they can and cannot do.

    nah brother. employees should not be dictating policy to their bosses (i.e. the people). simple as that.
  • jono
    jono Members Posts: 30,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The new 10-page policy — accompanied by nearly 70 pages of new procedural manuals — replaces a five-page policy that was in place during the time the DOJ conducted its investigation. For the first time, it defines “force” (“any physical coercion by an officer in the performance of their duties”) and advises when it can be used and how much is appropriate under the circumstances. It requires that officers report all but the most minimal use of force to supervisors.

    It states specifically that officers shall “use only the force necessary to perform their duties” and “with minimal reliance upon the use of physical force.”
    It requires them, if circumstances allow, to attempt to de-escalate tense situations through “advisements, warnings, verbal persuasion, and other tactics” to reduce the need for force.

    When using force is unavoidable, the policy cautions officers to use only the force necessary to make the arrest, and says that their conduct before force was used may be considered by the department in determining whether force was appropriate.

    The policy also requires all officers be armed with one “less-lethal” tool, such as a Taser, pepper spray or a “beanbag” shotgun, in addition to their sidearm.

    The procedural manuals lay out weapon-by-weapon guidance, new reporting guidelines and the policies for the new Force Investigation Team (FIT), which will roll out on incidents involving the highest levels of force and officer-involved shootings
    .

    From what I see here it's good ? . These cats suing the DOJ are probably extremist morons that believe they should have carte blanche to cave skulls because they having a bad day.

    Nothing unreasonable about anything here.
  • h8rhurta
    h8rhurta Members Posts: 1,119 ✭✭✭✭✭
    jono wrote: »
    The new 10-page policy — accompanied by nearly 70 pages of new procedural manuals — replaces a five-page policy that was in place during the time the DOJ conducted its investigation. For the first time, it defines “force” (“any physical coercion by an officer in the performance of their duties”) and advises when it can be used and how much is appropriate under the circumstances. It requires that officers report all but the most minimal use of force to supervisors.

    It states specifically that officers shall “use only the force necessary to perform their duties” and “with minimal reliance upon the use of physical force.”
    It requires them, if circumstances allow, to attempt to de-escalate tense situations through “advisements, warnings, verbal persuasion, and other tactics” to reduce the need for force.

    When using force is unavoidable, the policy cautions officers to use only the force necessary to make the arrest, and says that their conduct before force was used may be considered by the department in determining whether force was appropriate.

    The policy also requires all officers be armed with one “less-lethal” tool, such as a Taser, pepper spray or a “beanbag” shotgun, in addition to their sidearm.

    The procedural manuals lay out weapon-by-weapon guidance, new reporting guidelines and the policies for the new Force Investigation Team (FIT), which will roll out on incidents involving the highest levels of force and officer-involved shootings
    .

    From what I see here it's good ? . These cats suing the DOJ are probably extremist morons that believe they should have carte blanche to cave skulls because they having a bad day.

    Nothing unreasonable about anything here.

    This should be standard. Since they've been getting away with it for so long, they think that the rules were correct because they were so heavily favored for the officer. 95% of their excessive force complaints were dismissed or met with bare minimum reprimands. Just as 98% of all deadly force complaints find the officer gets off with a NO-BILL or NOT GUILTY.
  • BelovedAfeni
    BelovedAfeni Members Posts: 8,647 ✭✭✭✭✭
    the people united will never be defeated
  • mryounggun
    mryounggun Members Posts: 13,451 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Here's the thing, working in a job where you have to determine policy and weigh the risk against the benefit - and judging from the language they're using to describe the rules...I agree that the rules probably put them in a position to be less safe than they were before.

    But ? , cops all around the country made that bed by going WAY overboard with the use of force, so I don't really give a ? that the courts are now telling some of them the they can't go far enough. They beat the ? outta Rodney King on tape and got off, but now they things are trending on the opposite direction, they want to cry about the ? ?

    Dry your eyes, ? . No one cares.
  • h8rhurta
    h8rhurta Members Posts: 1,119 ✭✭✭✭✭
    mryounggun wrote: »
    Here's the thing, working in a job where you have to determine policy and weigh the risk against the benefit - and judging from the language they're using to describe the rules...I agree that the rules probably put them in a position to be less safe than they were before.

    But ? , cops all around the country made that bed by going WAY overboard with the use of force, so I don't really give a ? that the courts are now telling some of them the they can't go far enough. They beat the ? outta Rodney King on tape and got off, but now they things are trending on the opposite direction, they want to cry about the ? ?

    Dry your eyes, ? . No one cares.

    *CLOSE THREAD*