TG posted:

as someone who fancies himself a wordsmith, im a big fan of the creative euphemisms that cops use to minimize their brutal behavior.

of all these euphemisms, my favourite (by which i mean the one most likely to drive me to another massive breakdown one day after i see it one too many times) has got to be "officer-involved shooting". it feels like something that only really rose to prominence in the last decade. it is a specifically american term, i never hear it outside reporting on yank incidents, though i am probably jinxing it by saying that and a breakdown will be just round the corner when i hear it in local strayan news.

i did a quick google just now to try and work out when it started but all i found was a guy who did a book on "bureaucratic language" who seems to be inspired by orwell (bleugh!!) and a law professor calling for the death of the phrase with insightful wit:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-martin/time-to-kill-the-term-off_b_7428072.html posted:

There was a shooting, the police were involved, and someone died, but the relationship among these concepts is blurred, if not entirely disconnected. But that too is false. The police were not “involved” and the relationship is not uncertain - on the contrary, they did the shooting, they were the actors who did the killing, they were the cause of the violent and untimely death. The relationship and the direction of causation are crystal clear. If a dog bites a child, we would not describe the incident as a “dog involved biting”, and we would find it odd to hear it stated this way. We would simply say that a dog bit a child, and would expect to hear it reported that way.

swampman posted:

TG posted:

but they can technically rule that a witness is incredible as a matter of law, finding that the testimony is so flagrantly false that nothing the witness says can be trusted. its one of my main career goals to get a judge to find a cop incredible as a matter of law

ha thats pretty cool. i got called up for jury duty and they told me about the case and i said "well, i don't trust the testimony of police" and they did a good job not rolling their eyes. i was being honest though, if you're going to have a bunch of cops "tell us what happened" you might as well flip an expensive coin of some sort and use the even chance that it might land with either side facing up to determine the trial outcome

your honesty was appreciated im sure but if you can ever afford to be off work for the duration of a trial and want to help a brother (more likely than not) out, the key to getting on a jury is to keep your head down and act as nondescript as possible. there are always a few jurors who both sides dont kick because they know next to nothing about them. then once you get in the jury room you can vote not guilty and dig your heels in until either everyone else capitulates or the judge declares a mistrial. as the saying goes, justice delayed is justice served. this is a joke, but there are several strategic reasons that a mistrial is a good thing for the defendant

i desperately want to get on a jury, if only to see what the dynamic is like in the jury room. how do they pick a foreperson (in my experience it is always the oldest white male, at least up to around 70)? do they even bother reading the legal instructions that the judge gives them? can a strong personality just overcome everyone else and make whatever they want happen? unfortunately i am statutorily barred from criminal jury service, at least until i stop doing this job. even then, no lawyer wants a lawyer on their jury unless its a complex case with nuanced legal issues

also, its pretty nice practicing in a town with a history of municipal corruption because even your average middle class white person doesnt trust the police or prosecutors

TG posted:

your honesty was appreciated im sure but if you can ever afford to be off work for the duration of a trial and want to help a brother (more likely than not) out, the key to getting on a jury is to keep your head down and act as nondescript as possible. there are always a few jurors who both sides dont kick because they know next to nothing about them. then once you get in the jury room you can vote not guilty and dig your heels in until either everyone else capitulates or the judge declares a mistrial. as the saying goes, justice delayed is justice served. this is a joke, but there are several strategic reasons that a mistrial is a good thing for the defendant

this is a cool tip, I'm going to note this in case I ever get jury duty

Caesura109 posted:

Fuck remember that video where the cops strapped that kid down and tased him 40 times while restrained

ah, that one

Sources say it started when two special ops officers from the 12th Precinct were operating a "push off" on Andover near Seven Mile. That is when two undercover officers pretend to be dope dealers, waiting for eager customers to approach, and then arrest potential buyers and seize their vehicles.

But this time, instead of customers, special ops officers from the 11th Precinct showed up. Not realizing they were fellow officers, they ordered the other undercover officers to the ground.

FOX 2 is told the rest of the special ops team from the 12th Precinct showed up, and officers began raiding a house in the 19300 block of Andover. But instead of fighting crime, officers from both precincts began fighting with each other.

Sources say guns were drawn and punches were thrown while the homeowner stood and watched.

"You've gotta have to have more communication, I guess," said the resident. "I don't understand what happened about that - communicate."

FOX 2 is told one of the units had body camera video that detailed the entire incident. That is now part of the internal investigation and we are working to get our hands on it.

We're told top brass doesn't plan to comment on this until next week.