72 Philly Police Officers off patrol after Racist Posts

[Scomagia]

That's true with any crime.

Unlike most crimes, we have the means to watch them-and public servants are members of the government, and thus, held to a higher standard.
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/ ... -20101.pdf
That still doesn't mean you get to punish people for things they might possibly do to someone, sometime, somewhere.
Take it up with the legal system. It’s got a bunch of those built in.

Higher standards does not mean unique standards. No one should be punished for possibly doing something to someone somewhere. And no, the legal system does not have that "built in". You can't be punished for maybe being willing to do some unspecified thing.

Also, stop breaking the damn quote tree.

[Kowani]

Higher standards does not mean unique standards. No one should be punished for possibly doing something to someone somewhere. And no, the legal system does not have that "built in". You can't be punished for maybe being willing to do some unspecified thing.

No flight-list, bail, terrorism watch list, custody defaults, etc.

[Scomagia]

Fix the mess you've created with the quotes before we continue.

[Kowani]

Fix the mess you've created with the quotes before we continue.

I took a hatchet to it.

[Scomagia]

Fix the mess you've created with the quotes before we continue.

I took a hatchet to it.

Good deal.

Anyhow, the no flight list isn't a punishment, it's a removal of privileges. Bail is not punitive. Terrorism watchlist is not punitive. You'll have to clarify what you mean about custody.

[Barboneia]

Sounds like Philly alright.

I knew this was going to be bad when the next word after "Philly" wasn't "cheese."

Hey, not everything Philly is terrible. We also have... Uh... pretzels.

[Kowani]

I took a hatchet to it.

Good deal.

Anyhow, the no flight list isn't a punishment, it's a removal of privileges.

Just like employment.

Bail is not punitive.

No, but the denial of it is.

Terrorism watchlist is not punitive.

Right to privacy.

You'll have to clarify what you mean about custody.

In this case, the default of custody to mothers in the case of a divorce.

[Cekoviu]

That's true. But holding a position of power in which you're sanctioned to act on those prejudices make it far, far easier to do so.

And when you do, you should be punished. Enough with this Crimethink bullshit.

Instead of watching for signs of depression, withdrawal, and other markers in teenagers, we should wait until they actually attempt suicide to take them to a therapist. Can't have punishing wrongthink, after all.

[Rojava Free State]

Some folks will tell you that the guy who said he can't wait to shoot a darkie should totally be trusted with a gun and that you're violating his first amendment right by taking away his job.

Cause his right to encourage violence and potentially act out said violence matters more I guess than the right of civilians to not get killed or injured by a deranged madman with a badge and gun.

[Scomagia]

Good deal.

Anyhow, the no flight list isn't a punishment, it's a removal of privileges.

Just like employment.

Bail is not punitive.

No, but the denial of it is.

Terrorism watchlist is not punitive.

Right to privacy.

You'll have to clarify what you mean about custody.

In this case, the default of custody to mothers in the case of a divorce.

If you think that removal of flight privileges is the same as being fired without cause...I can't help you.

[Scomagia]

And when you do, you should be punished. Enough with this Crimethink bullshit.

Instead of watching for signs of depression, withdrawal, and other markers in teenagers, we should wait until they actually attempt suicide to take them to a therapist. Can't have punishing wrongthink, after all.

That's just a shit comparison. Mental health treatment and criminal penalties aren't the same thing.

Incidentally, though, being depressed and having suicidal thoughts also doesn't mean you'll act on those thoughts. That's why some kind of overt action is usually required before you can place psychiatric holds. I've had suicidal thoughts, for instance, but that still doesn't mean I'll eat my 12 gauge, nor that I should be forced to receive treatment.

[The Emerald Legion]

And when you do, you should be punished. Enough with this Crimethink bullshit.

Instead of watching for signs of depression, withdrawal, and other markers in teenagers, we should wait until they actually attempt suicide to take them to a therapist. Can't have punishing wrongthink, after all.

I actually would have greatly appreciated that as a teenager. I wasn't depressed. I just hated my peers and didn't want to interact with them.

[Cekoviu]

Instead of watching for signs of depression, withdrawal, and other markers in teenagers, we should wait until they actually attempt suicide to take them to a therapist. Can't have punishing wrongthink, after all.

That's just a shit comparison. Mental health treatment and criminal penalties aren't the same thing.

Incidentally, though, being depressed and having suicidal thoughts also doesn't mean you'll act on those thoughts. That's why some kind of overt action is usually required before you can place psychiatric holds. I've had suicidal thoughts, for instance, but that still doesn't mean I'll eat my 12 gauge, nor that I should be forced to receive treatment.

But why take the risk? What does their boss or our hypothetical child's caregiver have to lose by placing their employee on probation or taking the kid to see a psychiatrist, when they have everything to lose by not doing so?

[Scomagia]

That's just a shit comparison. Mental health treatment and criminal penalties aren't the same thing.

Incidentally, though, being depressed and having suicidal thoughts also doesn't mean you'll act on those thoughts. That's why some kind of overt action is usually required before you can place psychiatric holds. I've had suicidal thoughts, for instance, but that still doesn't mean I'll eat my 12 gauge, nor that I should be forced to receive treatment.

But why take the risk? What does their boss or our hypothetical child's caregiver have to lose by placing their employee on probation or taking the kid to see a psychiatrist, when they have everything to lose by not doing so?

I never said there shouldn't be a review of the officers or similar. I said they shouldn't be fired. Just like I never said not to take the hypothetical kid to a shrink, rather you shouldn't forcibly commit them for thinking "wrong".

And in the case of the child, you can't force them to see a shrink. They can absolutely refuse to talk, as is their right.

[The South Falls]

Stereotyping prejudice and discrimination, page 3 talks about subtle racism. In 44% of studies, whites, when chosen to give help to whites or blacks, gave less help or less helpful help to blacks. That is prejudice, which manifested in discrimination.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Su ... 1dd2de.pdf

Which still doesn't make holding prejudice lead to prejudiced actions. We shouldn't be firing people for something they might possibly do to someone someday. Actions matter.

So we should then wait till those actions happen? If I say I think that people who go with the first three letters of "SCO" should be shot, do we wait till I shoot you? Or do we arrest me, for my violent intentions?

[Scomagia]

Which still doesn't make holding prejudice lead to prejudiced actions. We shouldn't be firing people for something they might possibly do to someone someday. Actions matter.

So we should then wait till those actions happen? If I say I think that people who go with the first three letters of "SCO" should be shot, do we wait till I shoot you? Or do we arrest me, for my violent intentions?

Wait until you shoot. It's a non-specific threat.

Be warned, though, I'll shoot back.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Say stupid shit, win stupid prizes.

According to the Slate article posts consisted of "officers commenting that apprehended suspects— black men— ‘should be dead’ or ‘should have more lumps on his head.

Direct calls to violence are not good.

[The Sherpa Empire]

It is definitely cause for concern when cops are posting that sort of thing.

[Scomagia]

Say stupid shit, win stupid prizes.

According to the Slate article posts consisted of "officers commenting that apprehended suspects— black men— ‘should be dead’ or ‘should have more lumps on his head.

Direct calls to violence are not good.

Whether those are direct call to violence or not is definitely open to debate.

[Scomagia]

It is definitely cause for concern when cops are posting that sort of thing.

Yes. It definitely merits observation and review.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Say stupid shit, win stupid prizes.



Direct calls to violence are not good.

Whether those are direct call to violence or not is definitely open to debate.

If you state that someone "should be dead" or "should have more lumps on his head" then yeah that's a call to violence.

[Cekoviu]

But why take the risk? What does their boss or our hypothetical child's caregiver have to lose by placing their employee on probation or taking the kid to see a psychiatrist, when they have everything to lose by not doing so?

I never said there shouldn't be a review of the officers or similar. I said they shouldn't be fired. Just like I never said not to take the hypothetical kid to a shrink, rather you shouldn't forcibly commit them for thinking "wrong".

That is an absolutely valid general approach, but when the comments of officers gets to the point where they are explicitly advocating for illegal and unethical police behavior (as some of these did), that is cause for more than a mere disciplinary review. Also keep in mind that they are the face of the local government as law enforcement officers, and like it or not, their bigoted statements reflect on the police, not just them. The same way that the US UN ambassador should not say "France is a nation of frogs and Russia ought to trample it with all of their military might", even if that is their genuine personal opinion.

[Scomagia]

Whether those are direct call to violence or not is definitely open to debate.

If you state that someone "should be dead" or "should have more lumps on his head" then yeah that's a call to violence.

Not really. If you say that about someone specific, sure, but as a blanket statement...nah. Especially on social media, which is notorious for bringing out the worst in people. People say a lot of shit on FB that they don't actually mean.

[Scomagia]

I never said there shouldn't be a review of the officers or similar. I said they shouldn't be fired. Just like I never said not to take the hypothetical kid to a shrink, rather you shouldn't forcibly commit them for thinking "wrong".

That is an absolutely valid general approach, but when the comments of officers gets to the point where they are explicitly advocating for illegal and unethical police behavior (as some of these did), that is cause for more than a mere disciplinary review. Also keep in mind that they are the face of the local government as law enforcement officers, and like it or not, their bigoted statements reflect on the police, not just them. The same way that the US UN ambassador should not say "France is a nation of frogs and Russia ought to trample it with all of their military might", even if that is their genuine personal opinion.

In cases where their speech breached the law, obviously they should face disciplinary action.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

If you state that someone "should be dead" or "should have more lumps on his head" then yeah that's a call to violence.

Not really. If you say that about someone specific, sure, but as a blanket statement...nah. Especially on social media, which is notorious for bringing out the worst in people. People say a lot of shit on FB that they don't actually mean.

I don't think it was a blanket statement in this case.