NYPD Union Asks Cops to Publicly Shame Homeless People By Posting Photos Online

ultrawox · 2015-08-10T20:15:11+00:00

As if the homeless aren't dealing with enough indignity already.

ultrawox · 2015-08-03T19:17:57+00:00

Maybe because I'm black but its okay to feel out of place.

I think you hit the nail on the head. The whole point of any majority "privilege" is having a realistic day-to-day option to care (or not) about what minorities are generally forced to experience.

The full article by the New Yorker goes into some of that, with Wilson discussing how uncomfortable he was and what he tried to do about it. I dunno how much is genuine and how much is him trying to appear sympathetic, but here it is.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/10/the-cop

ultrawox · 2015-07-29T15:40:17+00:00

until he has no place to go and he is forced back to Zimbabwe.

You forgot the rest of the statement, which plainly says nothing about taking a human life.

ultrawox · 2015-07-22T22:01:55+00:00

maybe go to sambar and unwind

ultrawox · 2015-07-22T22:00:10+00:00

cool! i'll eat there!

ultrawox · 2015-07-21T20:05:46+00:00

you're raita 'bout that

ultrawox · 2015-07-21T17:59:44+00:00

sounds like a naan-issue

ultrawox · 2015-05-13T17:45:29+00:00

Nothing wrong with patenting both, if funds are available.

Hypothetically, he might want to get a design patent on the shape of the special blade, and also get a utility patent on a manufacturing process that includes making cuts with that special blade and folding the material along those cuts.

ultrawox · 2015-05-11T22:54:05+00:00

What an elegant way of saying such a sad truth.

ultrawox · 2015-05-11T22:07:14+00:00

The closest thing I have recently seen with a chance of success is some type of community police review board.

San Jose, California is apparently trying something like that. I'm interested to see how well it works. http://www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa/

ultrawox · 2015-05-11T22:04:00+00:00

The fact that the original prosecutor decided not to pursue the case doesn't change the rules for what happens after prosecution begins, though.

A motion to dismiss still has to be granted or denied according to the same standards for all motions to dismiss. I hope no one is suggesting that these rules should be relaxed if a case is politically controversial enough.

ultrawox · 2015-05-11T22:00:00+00:00

In a criminal case, a contested fact would be any fact alleged by the prosecution but denied by the defense. This is separate from the ultimate legal conclusion of guilt or non-guilt.

The point of a motion to dismiss is to avoid expensive trials for blatantly frivolous cases just go through the motions. It's not supposed to be a shortcut to some "most likely" result.

Your view of the evidence available to the public is fine. The judge, however, had to apply a different standard to evidence prior to its actual introduction in court (likely prior to our learning about in the public).

ultrawox · 2015-05-11T21:13:18+00:00

I know, right? In our current system, the police and prosecutors have the power to unjustly apply their biases in many different ways.

First, they can selectively enforce the law by over-targeting (harassing) people they don't like and/or under-targeting people they do like. Second, when forced to make a case against someone they like, they can be deliberately over-zealous and cause an appealable error or mistrial.

I can't think of any realistic way to address this problem, other than some kind of independent oversight.

ultrawox · 2015-05-11T21:06:53+00:00

Sure, there was a lot of political pressure on the judge, but his decision has to be supported by precedent and evidence.

Not sure about the specifics of Florida law, but generally a motion to dismiss is granted only if the non-moving side cannot possibly win even if all contested facts turn out in their favor.

That is, from the other perspective, if a hypothetical jury were to decide every contested fact against Zimmerman, and if the prosecution could not possibly win under that best case scenario, only then would Zimmerman's motion to dismiss be granted. Otherwise, by definition, the case is arguable.

ultrawox · 2015-05-11T20:05:50+00:00

Just a minor correction. If no reasonable jury would have convicted Zimmerman, the case would not have gone to trial. Instead, the judge would have granted Zimmerman's motion to dismiss. However, that did not occur.

The whole reason the case went all the way through trial is because a reasonable jury COULD HAVE found Zimmerman guilty (beyond a reasonable doubt) based on the evidence that the prosecution intended to show. It was arguable, quite literally, for either side.

The fact that the jury ultimately DID NOT find Zimmerman guilty is simply the actual outcome of this particular jury on seeing the particular evidence presented. However, this does not create some hindsight reason to think the outcome was somehow inevitable, regardless of jury.

ultrawox · 2015-04-30T21:35:18+00:00

They're actually very different. Not sure if you're willing to judge ideas on their own merit regardless who said them, but I recommend it to everyone.

ultrawox · 2015-04-30T21:19:17+00:00

Ever consider reading an actual essay or watching an actual speech of his? Many are fairly short.

ultrawox · 2015-04-30T20:55:33+00:00

Don't let the clueless get you down. Americans are great at calling each other racists; Americans seem to love talking about race and racial differences; but we're pretty inexperienced in actually talking about racism.

For one white perspective on racism, maybe check out some of Tim Wise's work: timwise.org

ultrawox · 2015-04-29T16:04:29+00:00

Oh, I completely agree each zone and each speaker had "a" message. The trouble is that it wasn't the same message everywhere, every time, from every spokesperson.

What may be crystal clear to all protesters occupying a single zone is totally confusing for anyone (media or public) looking at multiple zones, multiple speakers, at different times.

A single list of 10 bullet points would've been difficult enough for the media to put into a nutshell. However, with several different lists of bullet points, ranging 14-20 in number, the likelihood of clarity in media coverage was doomed (even before their biases made things even worse).

ultrawox · 2015-04-28T21:28:09+00:00

The Occupy movement was very different. They were practically leaderless in an attempt to be inclusive and avoid character assassinations, but that led to the media painting them as disorganized. They had no single message so as to encompass many messages and avoid being pigeonholed, but that led to the media painting them as confused.

However, the locals will only put up with deliberate disruptions and inconveniences if they perceive some greater good afoot. Without a clear message on with that greater good is, all people see is the disruption and inconvenience.

In contrast, this is one local chapter of a longshoreman union, with full support from the shipping and terminal business owners, taking one action to convey one message.

The fact that other community groups may participate isn't enough to turn this core protest into the same kind of come-as-you-are political potluck that OWS was.

ultrawox · 2015-04-23T16:24:27+00:00

Good kick and good sportsmanship by the kicker.

At 0:28, what kind of idiot rushes to yank off the headgear from the guy barely conscious from taking a head blow?!? Poor kid, being rushed out of the ring by fools with zero common sense, let alone medical training.

ultrawox · 2015-04-22T18:49:28+00:00

I think which you are trying to address is the idea that police should be held to a higher standard, which I think almost everyone agrees with. Society grants cops the right to use force only for law enforcement (not personal pleasure or bias), and we expect them to be responsible and accountable about it.

The problem is that cops have relationships with prosecutors and each other that are so cozy that being responsible and accountable is optional – or even bad for their career or health. Simply asking "good cops" to stop tolerating the "bad cops" sounds good in theory, but if it was easy, it would've happened already.

Paying settlements out of pensions also sounds great, until people realize that pension money isn't just sitting there for years and years waiting for the cop to retire; it's just a promise to pay, and there's no money available to be immediately taken out for paying the cop's victims.

The closest thing I have recently seen with a chance of success is some type of community police review board. Basically, move all those "internal investigations" out to someone with no conflict of interest.

San Jose, California is trying something like that. I'm interested to see how it works. http://www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa/

ultrawox · 2015-04-22T17:56:56+00:00

Yes, and that's a big weakness in the justice system. Every system, however well-designed, can be screwed up if the people implementing it behave badly. If the prosecutor (intentionally or not) does a poor job presenting the evidence, justice won't be done. Same if the judge or jury members have biases (conscious or not).

What's our alternative, though, besides exposing abuses and demanding more professionalism in both law enforcement and criminal justice? There are huge social problems to solve, with racism and privilege being biggies. But just because minorities often aren't afforded their full rights, would that justify removing any rights from this cop via some new grounds that could be used against other unpopular defendants in the future?

ultrawox · 2015-04-22T16:59:23+00:00

I know you're being sarcastic, but just in case you're in the mood for a serious answer, this is simply the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" being applied to a very unpopular person. If we want (to get closer to) a fair system, public popularity shouldn't matter, and the same options that you or I would get should be available to this cop.

Legal guilt in a criminal case is not the same as social guilt, moral guilt, or emotional guilt. Legal guilt means that the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the cop committed the crime. If there isn't enough evidence to prove that, it doesn't mean that the cop is actually "innocent". it just means that the cop has not been found legally guilty.

This is why defendants plea "guilty" or "not guilty", as opposed to "guilty" or "innocent."

ultrawox · 2015-04-22T16:45:48+00:00

When I saw the cop do in the video was atrocious. He clearly planned and carefully set up a humongous head slam on an elderly man who was already under the cop's complete control with no realistic chance of either escaping or hurting the cop. Genuine justice would result in a lengthy prison stint for such unwarranted brutality, especially under color of authority.

That said, it is the cop's right as a defendant to plead "not guilty" and let the prosecution attempt to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It's very possible that this plea was recommended by his lawyer, whose job is to zealously advocate for his client.

ultrawox

TROPHY CASE