Tucson Police Chief offers to resign over police killing kept secret for two months

[Stevicus]

I suppose if you were flat-out drunk, stoned, or whatever and acting like an imbecile with the police, it might be a bit embarrassing to say the least.

Well, there's lots of videos posted online where they show people doing exactly that. Lots of crazy videos out there of people doing strange, ridiculous, or embarrassing things.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Well, there's lots of videos posted online where they show people doing exactly that. Lots of crazy videos out there of people doing strange, ridiculous, or embarrassing things.

It's why I miss Tonya Harding, Leif Garrett, Todd Bridges, and Gary Busey!

All of them knew exactly how to bring in the joy as color commentators with those doing all those crazy and outlandish things.

 

[Stevicus]

Even back then the info about abusive cops was known.
It just wasn't so prominent in the news.

A lot of it was known, but only in the abstract, since they didn't have any proof - and cops cover for each other. Cops apparently have their own version of omerta.

 

[Shaul]

They could have handled it differently. They killed the guy. Now, maybe they didn't mean to, maybe that was not their intention. But the guy still ended up dead, and they caused his death. Therefore, "police killing" seems appropriate.

They did not “kill the guy”! As I already stated in my previous post there is a grave difference between the police killing someone and someone dying while in their custody. Apparently you want to obdurately ignore the distinction.

 

[Shaul]

The "hostility" is necessary to safeguard the liberty of citizens in a free society. There's more than enough hostility to go around, in politics, in the media, on the streets, but instead of going around willy-nilly and randomly, we should direct and channel that hostility towards where it needs to be.

There has been a lot of talk about double standards, but I think the police should be held to the same standards as anyone else. No one is above the law.
.

No, there is not a need for hostility towards the police. That you think so is telling.

Speaking of double standards, apparently the police are being held to a different standard. Or aren’t they innocent until proven guilty like everyone else?

 

[Stevicus]

No, there is not a need for hostility towards the police. That you think so is telling.

Whatever you think is "telling" is not relevant. I could say the same thing about you, so let's leave that part out.

Speaking of double standards, apparently the police are being held to a different standard. Or aren’t they innocent until proven guilty like everyone else?

They're not like everyone else. Cops are routinely protected by qualified immunity, which gives them special treatment in the courts which they should not have.

Besides, when they're on duty, they're representatives of the State, and the onus is on the State to prove that they're justified in what they're doing to citizens.

The cops in this case weren't even charged with anything. There's a bigger problem with a lack of transparency. They sat on this for two months, and if it wasn't for the fact that a local news outlet got wind of it, it never would have to come to light at all.

Doesn't that bother you in the slightest?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I would be okay for a time period of secrecy only because of legalities as it may affect pending and active court cases, but after the conviction and sentencing, those videos should be declassified and released to the public.

Not sure about that either, but honestly I'm quibbling around the edges. I fully support what you're trying to achieve here, and completely agree that increased independent oversite in as timely a manner as possible is absolutely required.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

No, there is not a need for hostility towards the police. That you think so is telling.

Speaking of double standards, apparently the police are being held to a different standard. Or aren’t they innocent until proven guilty like everyone else?

Innocent of what, though?
And of course there is a substantial double standard. 'Qualified Immunity' is not generally accessible, and shooting people who are fleeing a crime scene is generally not achievable without legal ramification.

U.S. laws protect police, while endangering civilians

 

[Tambourine]

As far as I can tell, American media (newspapers, websites, news channels etc.) regularly publish images and full names of alleged criminals, and this is not seen as either a privacy or a data protection issue despite obviously leading to those people being unfairly judged in the "court of public opinion".

 

[Revoltingest]

As far as I can tell, American media (newspapers, websites, news channels etc.) regularly publish images and full names of alleged criminals, and this is not seen as either a privacy or a data protection issue despite obviously leading to those people being unfairly judged in the "court of public opinion".

Such things being common doesn't make it right.
And there has been much objection to cops & the media violating privacy.
Perhaps I just pay more attention to such issues, eh.

 

[Tambourine]

Such things being common doesn't make it right.
And there has been much objection to cops & the media violating privacy.
Perhaps I just pay more attention to such issues, eh.

Could you point to any such objections being raised?

 

[Revoltingest]

Could you point to any such objections being raised?

There's been an ongoing controversy regarding those cop reality shows
coercing unwilling "stars" into signing release forms by threatening
jail &/or prosecution if they don't.
It's not headline news, but noticeable to those keenly interested in civil liberties,

 

[Tambourine]

There's been an ongoing controversy regarding those cop reality shows
coercing unwilling "stars" into signing release forms by threatening
jail &/or prosecution if they don't.
It's not headline news, but noticeable to those keenly interested in civil liberties,

Do the people whose faces show up in the regular news sign release forms or is it just assumed that they can't sue anyways?

 

[columbus]

There's been an ongoing controversy regarding those cop reality shows
coercing unwilling "stars" into signing release forms by threatening
jail &/or prosecution if they don't.
It's not headline news, but noticeable to those keenly interested in civil liberties,

I've never had any interest in that kind of ugly media entertainment.

But I have wondered, "How does a TV show producer get legal permission to invade people's constitutional rights like that? How do they avoid getting sued later, given the litigious culture?"

Police brutality for money always seemed like the obvious answer. If a cop can extort release waivers and get support from the higher ups who get a cut of the proceeds, then the business model makes sense. Otherwise, it doesn't.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Do the people whose faces show up in the regular news sign release forms or is it just assumed that they can't sue anyways?

I don't know how the law works, especially with non-public figures.

 

[Revoltingest]

I've never had any interest in that kind of ugly media entertainment.

But I have wondered, "How does a TV show producer get legal permission to invade people's constitutional rights like that? How do they avoid getting sued later, given the litigious culture?"

Police brutality for money always seemed like the obvious answer. If a cop can extort release waivers and get support from the higher ups who get a cut of the proceeds, then the business model makes sense. Otherwise, it doesn't.
Tom

You think it's possible that the police department benefits somehow from these shows?
Oh, dear.
In one case, they went after a "frequent flyer" cuz she was entertaining.

 

[Tambourine]

I've never had any interest in that kind of ugly media entertainment.

But I have wondered, "How does a TV show producer get legal permission to invade people's constitutional rights like that? How do they avoid getting sued later, given the litigious culture?"

Police brutality for money always seemed like the obvious answer. If a cop can extort release waivers and get support from the higher ups who get a cut of the proceeds, then the business model makes sense. Otherwise, it doesn't.
Tom

You can get away with a lot if you can get people to sign waivers beforehand, and reality TV formats tend to prey on people who can't afford good lawyers anyway. If you can get these people to sign NDAs on top of that, you can even keep them from talking to the press about it.

 

[Stevicus]

There's been an ongoing controversy regarding those cop reality shows
coercing unwilling "stars" into signing release forms by threatening
jail &/or prosecution if they don't.
It's not headline news, but noticeable to those keenly interested in civil liberties,

How would they hold up in court? They could just write "under duress" next to their signature and whatever they sign would be invalid.

 

[Revoltingest]

How would they hold up in court? They could just write "under duress" next to their signature and whatever they sign would be invalid.

The "stars" aren't sophisticated criminals.
And if the cops or show runners don't like
the signature, then it's off to the pokey.