Correct. It is impossible to prevent anything ever going wrong, whilst still doing anything at. A balance needs to be found with an acceptable error rate that allows the thing you are doing to be done.
I mean, there’s an easy way to stop cops shooting people - don’t allow them to have guns. It’s not a good solution, because of the consequences, but if all you look at is one specific end result, it would work.
To be slightly fair on that, one of the heads of one of the iterations of silk road was busted in a no-knock raid, and he was not directly in front of his computer at the time. He dove for it to turn it off (which would have meant a password would be needed to get any data) but was prevented from doing so.
So, yeah, in that case, suprise helped.
OTOH, in the process of just finding him in the first place, they already had enough on him to put him away, so getting the laptop was just a bit of icing on the cake.
OTGH, I heard this on a youtube video from one of the defcons, and the recommendation was to set your computer to require regular password checks or lock itself down when dealing with anything incriminating, so even if things worked out exactly the same, if he was following the new advice, they wouldn’t have gotten access to it.
I’m still going to say that all those checks should be performed before the warrant is given to the SWAT team. That doesn’t mean that one or more members of the team can’t be involved in the checks, assuming they are not constantly on raids - which I doubt. Really, all those checks should be performed before it goes to the judge to be signed off.
There – reasonable discussion! All I was asking for all along. See how easy that is?
There’s a lesser standard of proof required to authorise a raid than to get a conviction.
It’s not all that easy to lock down a system in such a way that it wouldn’t be accessible to an expert, but would be usable on a day to day basis. You’d need to be more that vaguely competent to do it. Simply password protecting it wouldn’t suffice as the court can compel you to provide the password or be imprisoned for contempt. Cite, and note that this is actually a former cop they have imprisoned.
Actually destroying data takes longer than hiding it, and the process can be stopped by unplugging the hard drive.
That’s an answer that bayesian statistics can solve for you.
If the disease is in 1% of the population, and the test is 99% accurate, then when the test comes back positive, what are the chances that you actually have the disease?
Hint: If you say 99%, then you are wrong.
That’s why we do followup testing before giving people medicine with potentially bad side effects. We don’t just rely on one test.
Basically, doctors do what we are saying that cops should do, so using medicine as an analogy for the police only works if you feel the police should be up to the standards of medicine. (Or if you feel that medicine should be held to the low standard of cops.)
No, but they also do not voice those opinions between raids. That’s the problem, the police don’t want to give up the raids, because they enjoy them. They enjoy being part of them, they enjoy the population being cowed by them, they enjoy the oppression that results from the knowledge that the police can kill you at any time, at any place, for any reason, and be almost certain to face no consequence for it.
We need to start hearing from cops that do not get pleasure from terrorizing their communities, I assume such exist.
Nah, you’ve said that if the police are at the wrong address, then that’s just the “price we pay” for having a police force. That any attempts to get them to check to ensure that they are at the wrong address would e reinvestigating the crime, and would take too long and be disruptive.
You’ve also said that if the police go to the wrong address, they are not responsible for any civilians harmed by their action, “they are just doing their jobs.”
You wish that the cops would live up to the standard of insuring that they are breaking down the right door, but you don’t want them to check that they are breaking down the right door.
Ouch.:dubious:
It is almost always the local police investigating their own. It is only when it become a big deal that the state gets involved, and that rarely actually has any teeth to the investigation. It is only when the feds get involved that the bias is lessened enough that cops are occasionally held to account.
Private investigations are often when all kinds of police corruption gets turned up. Unfortunately, most suspects or other victims of police brutality (that survive), do not have the resources to hire private investigators. It’s only when the police are kinda stupid, and forget to hide the evidence that a lowly public defender comes across video of a cop planting evidence.
Can you provide some examples of times that cops have been responsible for the death of someone, and that went to a grand jury (your not even claiming an indictment, just tat a grand jury heard the case) when a civilian in a similar situation would have gotten off.
You can’t really give the lawyers a big payday when you don’t have much in the way of money to pay them.
If you are talking about lawyers on contingency, maybe they will take your case. But, two issues, they are usually not your best lawyers, they are the ones that are looking for work, and they aren’t going to take it unless they actually think that they will make a decent enough profit on it to insure against it losing.
No matter how good your case, you still have a chance at losing.
Your faith that someone with a decent case will be able to find a lawyer that will zealously represent them and win back money in exchange for employment violations is ridiculously naive.
Firstly, you ever hear of the blue flue? Not “being allowed to strike”, does not mean you cannot be causing work stoppages and slowdowns. Cops will call in “sick”. Cops will be slow to respond to calls. This is what they do when the police union is not getting its way.
Secondly, labor unions for construction or plumbing do not have nearly as strong protections. You can fire them for doing shoddy work. You cannot fire a police officer for doing shoddy work.
You can fire a plumber for being convicted of a sexual abuse crime, even if it happens off the clock. You cannot fire a cop for being convicted of a sexual abuse crime, even if it was on duty in a patrol car.
You said that they were in charge of hiring and firing, now you are chasing the goal posts to they have influence over firing?
And worse, I’ve seen plenty of people go against unions and not have any of that happen. I worked at UPS during the strike back in 1997. There were alot of bad words bandied about, and some heated exchanges, but there were no threats to people or their families. There were no threats of physical violence to the scabs.
Now, if you are talking about the police union, you are probably correct that going against the police union may mean a bit more threat, as the union is made of people with guns. But, once again, that is separating the police union as being substantially different than other trade unions.
Once again, that’s also something that the cops have decided that they want as representation when they voted for the leaders and policies of their union.
If there is intimidation and vote fixing, then they are police, they can investigate and arrest anyone performing these actions. Unions don’t have as much control over the hiring process as you think. I am not sure how, even if they had to actually interview and sign off on every candidate, they would achieve ensuring that only people who agree with them will join the job. Even more, I have no idea how that could even start to work in a right to work state.
But, yeah, I’ll agree that the police union provides too much protection for bad cops, and if you are insisting that the police union also threatens it’s members to stay in line, then I’ll believe you on that, it makes a bit of sense. But you also have to remember that unions are made of their members, so if enough cops didn’t like what the union was doing, then they could vote in different leaders who would not be intimidating the union members into falling in line.
It will depend which way, if any, the test is biased.
I want to say a 98% chance, but from both the way you phrase the question and a nagging something I can’t quite remember I doubt it is.
I’m saying the equivalent of those followup tests should be done well before the point the patient is to take the medicine, not after it’s been given to them.
They do face consequences, up to and including life in prison.
We do, daily, including from cops who post on this board.
The right door, in the context I have said that, is the one of the address on the warrant. I expect the cops on the raid to carefully check they match. I don’t expect them to second guess the warrant itself.
Nonsense.
If they had a case, people would be queueing up for it. Governments have deep pockets, and the payouts are large.
Darren Wilson. It was clear from the start there was no case to answer, that Michael Brown attacked him.
Well yes, you should only be taking it to court if you expect to win. That’s not a flaw.
So change the law so that anyone can be sacked for those things, don’t aim it just at the police. I’m not defending cops doing shoddy work from anything apart from being killed.
No, they can’t vote them in (or more accurately, won’t) because of the intimidation. The only reason it’s less common now in other unions is because it’s easier for many people to leave and get a non-union job. But there are still closed shops and effective closed industries, where union leaders have more power than even the most corrupt politician or capitalist. Because people like you naively support them.
What the police union is doing is exactly what other unions do, or at least try to do. Your talk of voting for the leaders is ironic, as unions are fundamentally undemocratic, as they attempt to go against what politicians elected by everyone, not just a minority group with a vested interest, try to do.
And when I do it, you don’t actually respond to it but give this patronising response. You’re pathetic, and you’ve just proven you have no interest in an actual discussion.
But it was a reasonable response. I apologize if you found it patronizing – I was actually pleased by the possibility of reasonable discussion.
I’d agree that such checks should occur before being sent to the SWAT team, but then perhaps they should be checked again by those going in – again, they have the most to lose, and would have the most motivation to be thorough.
But we’re not far apart on this at all – it was only because you kept, again and again, responding to straw men rather than my actual arguments that it appeared so.
Again, apologies if you found it patronizing. I’m really, honestly, just trying to have a reasonable discussion.
It seems your hole fucking point is to lick the boots of the bad cops. And that’s it.
All of the above, and then some…
And yet, it’s OTHER unions that are part of the problem (the “but other people do it too” part). Uh huh :smack: