Police misbehavior thread

[CorruptUser]

Or you get rid of the capital gains and count it as pure income, with perhaps only a reduction for inflation, to discourage people from investing in it. Actually, get rid of capital gains on everything, should be pure income. Why should I pay 40% after paying a bunch of stealth taxes for working harder, but only pay 15/25% on gains from not working at all?

[Grop]

You just need to keep increasing supply until people realize that houses aren't suppose to be investments.

In my country, one of the most efficient ways for the middle class to pay less taxes (in a legal manner and without leaving country) consists in buying new secondary homes and having someone else (who is not part of their family) rent it. They get tax reduction for several years.

This is a way for government to encourage building (and make it easier to rent a home if you can't buy), but then buyers hope that their investment won't lose value over time.

(Also I think there are much more many renters and landlords here than in the US, and that the average age for buying your home is higher, and maybe we pay more taxes and that wouldn't work in the US for whatever reason).

[Coyne]

You just need to keep increasing supply until people realize that houses aren't suppose to be investments.

In my country, one of the most efficient ways for the middle class to pay less taxes (in a legal manner and without leaving country) consists in buying new secondary homes and having someone else (who is not part of their family) rent it. They get tax reduction for several years

What a concept. Meanwhile, Republicans are making sure that most people in the United States are no longer be able to deduct the tax on their primary homes, much less any secondary home.

[CorruptUser]

I'm actually in favor of eliminating the deduction. If it doesn't cause new homes to be built, it just raises the price of existing ones by exactly the amount of money the taxpayer deducts, making it a subsidy of the banks and the realtors. If it does cause more homes to be built, it better not be on top of farmland and it better not be more suburbs.

[Zohar]

I'm actually in favor of eliminating the deduction. If it doesn't cause new homes to be built, it just raises the price of existing ones by exactly the amount of money the taxpayer deducts, making it a subsidy of the banks and the realtors. If it does cause more homes to be built, it better not be on top of farmland and it better not be more suburbs.

In the meantime, I and everyone else who's bought a house in recent years get majorly screwed.

[morriswalters]

I'm actually in favor of eliminating the deduction. If it doesn't cause new homes to be built, it just raises the price of existing ones by exactly the amount of money the taxpayer deducts, making it a subsidy of the banks and the realtors. If it does cause more homes to be built, it better not be on top of farmland and it better not be more suburbs.

Me to, my house is paid for. However millions of mortgage holders vote. I suppose that historically speaking houses have always been built on farmland. Except maybe Las Vegas. Or beach houses.

[CorruptUser]

I'm actually in favor of eliminating the deduction. If it doesn't cause new homes to be built, it just raises the price of existing ones by exactly the amount of money the taxpayer deducts, making it a subsidy of the banks and the realtors. If it does cause more homes to be built, it better not be on top of farmland and it better not be more suburbs.

In the meantime, I and everyone else who's bought a house in recent years get majorly screwed.

I still support grandfathering it in for those that already bought.

[ObsessoMom]

Women claim deputy was allowed to carry on with groping long after first complaint

Most of the alleged unwanted attention and groping occurred when the victims were in a vulnerable state, just after a medical emergency or burglary or other call for help.

[...]

San Diego attorney Dan Gilleon represents the nine women who filed claims and lawsuits resulting from their contacts with Fischer. He says he sees at least one constant.

“I’ve been dealing with these law enforcement agencies and officers for quite a while,” Gilleon said by telephone. “The one theme that comes back time and time again is that sex in the workplace is a lot more common than in most organizations.

“There’s some sort of adrenaline rush, a lot of power and it’s a very male-dominated industry,” he said.

Each claim against the county seeks in excess of $6 million in damages. They also request punitive damages against [San Diego County Sheriff Deputy Richard] Fischer himself “in an amount sufficient to punish him and his evil conduct, and to deter others from doing what he did.”

More:

Spoiler:

According to a San Diego Superior Court lawsuit filed last month, the woman identified only through her initials was arrested for possession of a trace amount of drugs and repeatedly groped by Deputy Richard Fischer.

“This second search Fischer conducted was prolonged and invasive,” the lawsuit said.

Later, the deputy transported the woman to the Las Colinas jail in Santee by way of the old entrance, where lighting was scarce and a fence shielded oncoming cars from view, the complaint said.

“Fischer was chuckling and asked K.P. if she was scared yet and then remarked that he wanted to get to know her better,” the lawsuit states. “When they pulled up at the entrance of Las Colinas, Fischer unbuckled K.P.’s seatbelt and smirked at her as he ran his hands across her breast.”

K.P. scraped together $500 and bailed out by mid-afternoon, but the deputy continued to stalk her, the lawsuit alleged.

“Fischer would drive by K.P.’s home slowly at night, shining his lights into her home ensuring that his presence there was known,” the complaint says. “On another occasion, Fischer pulled up to K.P. while she was at a stoplight, revved his engine loudly next to her, then raced past her when the light turned green and flickered his lights.”

[...]

K.P. was so afraid of Fischer’s stalking, she says, that she warned the Sheriff’s Department by letter six months after her arrest.

“Please contact me for more details, as it’s not fair to be taken advantage of and he is a predator not an officer,” her handwritten note concludes.

The Sheriff’s Department said it has no record of receiving the letter, which K.P. kept a copy of.

[...]

In early 2016, a husband and wife were driving home from Arizona when Fischer pulled them over, according to another claim. The woman had placed her medicine into baggies — absent the prescription bottles — and Fischer ended up arresting her for drug possession.

The deputy “rubbed L.R.’s breasts up and down” a half dozen times during the arrest, the claim said. At one point, her blood pressure was so high from stress she required medical attention, her complaint states.

Fischer was tasked with driving her to a hospital, but that’s not where they went.

“L.R. was terrified, wondering why Fischer was parking where he did,” the claim said. He assaulted her once more before writing her a ticket and telling her to go, the complaint states.

In August 2016, a San Marcos woman whose home was burglarized said Fischer returned to her house hours after completing his initial report. He said he wanted to make sure she was all right and requested a hug.

“Fischer’s hug was unsolicited and unwanted,” the lawsuit said.

In November 2016, Fischer responded to a 911 call accidentally placed by a San Marcos woman whose mother had just suffered a stroke and whose father died two days earlier.

“Fischer walked in and quickly assessed the vulnerability of his next victim,” states a claim filed against the department last month. “Without her consent, he then hugged (the woman) with a full embrace that included fondling of her buttocks with his hands and inappropriate massaging of her breasts with his own chest.”

The alleged victim said she pushed Fischer away but he persisted, and tried to kiss her. She insisted he leave, the claim adds, but before he complied he said he would be in the neighborhood “watching out for her.”

* * *

This past May, a Vista woman was pulled over for a missing taillight and claims she was hugged against her will. Her claim says Fischer followed her home — for her own safety, he said — then walked toward her front gate and backed off only when the woman’s male landlord appeared.

“Claimant entered the building and then returned outside to gather some belongings and Dep. Fischer was still present,” the claim said. “After some further conversation, Dep. Fischer eventually left the claimant’s house.”

A week later, a 58-year-old nurse claims, Fischer handcuffed her in Escondido and sat her on a curb. Then he “shoved his groin area close to her and said ‘You don’t look 58. If I was older would you date me?’,” her claim said.

In June, another claims alleges, Fischer stopped a woman for a missing taillight, discovered she had a suspended license and rubbed her genitals and backside during a search.

Then he had her drive her car to a nearby parking lot, followed in his own car and asked if she wanted to “make out,” the claim said. The woman declined; just then, a timely radio call summoned Fischer away.

The deputy sexually assaulted another woman in August after he responded to a call seeking a welfare check, her claim alleges.

“Fischer’s hands rubbed and fondled Jane Doe’s torso, shoulders, arms, back and buttocks,” the claim said. “After the hug was over, Fischer looked at her and commented again that he thought she was good looking.”

Days before he was placed on desk duty in October, according to yet another claimant, Fischer answered a 911 emergency call. He ended up groping the 61-year-old woman and running her hand over his genitals, she claimed.

[CorruptUser]

I think I have more rage at the chief than the stalker, if it's been that severe.

[freezeblade]

spoilered for more development and urban planning based conversation (warning, rant-y)

Spoiler:

How many neighbourhoods are small enough that 'down the street' is a different one?

Urban ones. Neighborhoods in tightly-packed metropolitan areas are typically small and can easily change character entirely within a few blocks.

You just need to keep increasing supply until people realize that houses aren't suppose to be investments.

Good luck with convincing people of that. Chinese (and other) Investors have been snatching up condos and houses throughout the bay area as investments (http://www.sfgate.com/business/networth/article/How-and-why-buyers-from-China-are-snatching-up-5924991.php) sometimes as a hedge against the volatility of the Chinese economy/market (http://news.theregistrysf.com/san-francisco-luxury-homes-attracting-wealthy-foreign-buyers/). Part of why we have this problem is because people don't want "lower end" housing in their neighborhoods, and building "market rate" high-end buildings which will be snatched up by foreign investors as investments for easy money is much more profitable.

Arguments about a nightclub being built next to a residence are not relevant or realistic, as that is a matter of zoning. If you buy into a neighborhood, and the lot next to you is zoned for commercial use, then you have to know/expect that eventually a commercial use building might pop up next to you, and you really have no room to complain about when it does (as long as city/county/zoning codes and laws are followed). If the lot was zoned for straight residential, and a developer wants to build a nightclub there, then the proper channels will have to be followed (discounting illegal palm-greasing), including a community feedback period, and review by governing bodies. In the latter case, I absolutely am on the side of the homeowner's (and communities') right to petition for say or direction of the proposed zoning change (to sane extents). To sane extents of course, as this petition process has been used by many a community to stop all forms of development in some areas via stalling tactics and lawsuits, causing more housing shortages and urban sprawl, not to mention wasting tax payer money on years of hearings and lawyers (in some cases).

</rant> Sorry. A combination of my major, and living in the bay area have produced strong opinions about this sort of thing, as I watch it play out in real time everywhere around me.

[CorruptUser]

Wouldn't having property taxes result in a huge disincentive to investing in real estate?

Wait I've got it! Double property tax on property you don't live in. Not like they don't do that already in NYC, where townhouses are taxed at 1% and apartments at 5%.

[Pfhorrest]

Or just tax income from rent (and use that money to give renters a tax credit), making it more profitable to sell real estate off than to rent it out. (At prices that people buying it to live in can pay, since nobody else is going to want to buy it to rent it out either, since that wouldn't be profitable to them).

Also, keep letting people deduct their mortgage interest, but offset that with a corresponding tax on the banks collecting the interest, so it's not just welfare for banks.

[CorruptUser]

Won't that second piece just result in higher interest rates?

[Tyndmyr]

I'm actually in favor of eliminating the deduction. If it doesn't cause new homes to be built, it just raises the price of existing ones by exactly the amount of money the taxpayer deducts, making it a subsidy of the banks and the realtors. If it does cause more homes to be built, it better not be on top of farmland and it better not be more suburbs.

In the meantime, I and everyone else who's bought a house in recent years get majorly screwed.

That's what makes it so hard to fix(much like ending many other programs). Folks count on them, and it's hard to come up with any plan that doesn't screw *some* people over. Grandfathering is probably fairest, but even then, you'll have market changes as suddenly housing values drop due to lack of buyers. It's better than no grandfathering, but it's still imperfect.

[Thesh]

Officers, looking for a 40 year old white woman, encounter an 11 year old black girl who they decide needs to be stopped at gunpoint and handcuffed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... 70657c1b5c

[eran_rathan]

I know this was a few pages back that we were discussing the 'cities bussing undesirables away', but here is a new report regarding exactly that:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng- ... are_btn_fb


The town I work in (Bangor, ME) has an enormous population of homeless given its size, mainly due to bussing in from NYC, Boston, and other points south, which really sucks for them, considering how hard our winters can be and how little we have available for aid.

[Tyndmyr]

I mean, on the one hand, giving them some mobility is kind of nice, as that's something the homeless may lack....

But it's certainly a poor substitute for fixing the problem. And it *seems* to be used as a substitute for that. Giving a ticket together with a ban from shelter seems...well, if it's not dumping your problems elsewhere, I don't know what it is.

I also find it interesting that folks are largely sent somewhere poorer. The wealthier cities are essentially dumping their castoffs on already impoverished areas. I mean, if you're looking for class warfare, this is kind of it.

[ObsessoMom]

An update on San Diego County Sheriff Deputy Richard Fischer, who still hasn't been arrested despite numerous accusations of his having groped and intimidated women he'd arrested, and also women who had been victims of crimes:

As sexual misconduct case deepens, accusers worry deputy is being protected

I'm not usually a conspiracy theorist, but the inaction is so baffling that it makes me wonder what kind of dirt he's got on the Sheriff and District Attorney, that keeps them from going after this guy.

[CorruptUser]

Maybe it's one of those cases like where if a forensic scientist gets caught fudging data and then 500 cases get brought back for review, so to avoid that the police pretend nothing is wrong.

[addams]

An update on San Diego County Sheriff Deputy Richard Fischer, who still hasn't been arrested despite numerous accusations of his having groped and intimidated women he'd arrested, and also women who had been victims of crimes:

As sexual misconduct case deepens, accusers worry deputy is being protected

I'm not usually a conspiracy theorist, but the inaction is so baffling that it makes me wonder what kind of dirt he's got on the Sheriff and District Attorney, that keeps them from going after this guy.

This kind of thing is Too common!
I had women tell me, they have grown to accept it.

THIS is where the Sexual and many other kinds of misconduct happen.

[natraj]

police kill a six year old child when they start a shootout in a trailer park (in otder to shoot an unarmed fleeing suspect, who they also killed) and shoot through the wall of his mobile home.

[Coyne]

police kill a six year old child when they start a shootout in a trailer park (in otder to shoot an unarmed fleeing suspect, who they also killed) and shoot through the wall of his mobile home.

From the story...

Somehow, the woman was able to flee the residence into some nearby woods where the deputy lost her and called for backup, Salazar said.

Well, of course she was able to flee. Just doing a Monday in a rest is no fun

[Coyne]

police kill a six year old child when they start a shootout in a trailer park (in otder to shoot an unarmed fleeing suspect, who they also killed) and shoot through the wall of his mobile home.

From the story...

Somehow, the woman was able to flee the residence into some nearby woods where the deputy lost her and called for backup, Salazar said.

Well, of course she was able to flee. Just doing a mundane arrest is no fun. We must have a car chase that spans three counties, so we can all get on Cops.

[Mutex]

Just doing a Monday in a rest is no fun

Yeah... wait, what?

Just doing a mundane arrest is no fun.

Oh I see what happened.

[CorruptUser]

Ducking autocorrect.

[Mutex]

Looks more like a speech recognition error to me?

[Coyne]

It seems that autocorrect, voice recognition, and text readers are all out to "normalize" those of us who know how to write. (At least, I think I know how to more or less write.) A sad normal it is, too.

So of course the speech recognizer fouled up, because no one would ever want to use the word "mundane". And I have no idea how I managed to double post. But it was clearly tied in somehow.

[Liri]

My phone will try to change the tense of words for no reason. It's rather frustrating. By "phone", I mean "bent cop".

[Dauric]

Cod am pizza ship!

[Coyne]

Cod am pizza ship!

Good thing I wasn't drinking milk. When I figured that out, I laughed until the tears came.

And it did not spoil the comic, I laughed again.

[CorruptUser]

For those that aren't native English speakers...

Spoiler:

god-damned piece of shit

[jewish_scientist]

police kill a six year old child when they start a shootout in a trailer park (in otder to shoot an unarmed fleeing suspect, who they also killed) and shoot through the wall of his mobile home.

Did you read the article or watch the video?

[natraj]

yes, i have read both the article that i posted as well as a whole lot of other articles about this

[gmalivuk]

police kill a six year old child when they start a shootout in a trailer park (in otder to shoot an unarmed fleeing suspect, who they also killed) and shoot through the wall of his mobile home.

Did you read the article or watch the video?

Did you think part of the article contradicted that take?

[rivulatus]

Police shoot innocent man in cold blood, and are successfully blaming it on "Gamer"

http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192111974.html

[CorruptUser]

So, legal question regarding the above.

If A files the false police report, how responsible is A for the damage that follows? Obviously A is guilty of lying to the police, probably some other stuff, but I'm wondering if calling the police on an innocent man which results in a death is a "foreseeable consequence" and thus can be held liable in either civil or criminal court.

If B provides A a false address, is B in any way responsible for damage that happens at that address?

[sardia]

So, legal question regarding the above.

If A files the false police report, how responsible is A for the damage that follows? Obviously A is guilty of lying to the police, probably some other stuff, but I'm wondering if calling the police on an innocent man which results in a death is a "foreseeable consequence" and thus can be held liable in either civil or criminal court.

If B provides A a false address, is B in any way responsible for damage that happens at that address?

You can't charge A with murder because (at least I hope it works this way) you're not supposed to assume police are murderbots. A gets charged with false police report, and the cop gets charged with one of the murder charges. I'm guessing the cop wanted to save everybody the trouble of due process, and gave out the death penalty right then.

[natraj]

i don't know, if they manage to come up with a significantly hefty charge for A (i don't know what they could charge them with that would be felony-level but i wouldn't be surprised if there's something that'd qualify if they tried hard enough) then you could definitely also charge A with felony murder. people have been successfully convicted in the past several times for killings that the cops unequivocally did, because the cops killed someone while a crime was happening.

imo it's a stretch and obviously the police should be charged with murder, but there are probably ways they could weasel out of it (aside from, you know, the regular way of "just don't bother to even charge them at all because Reasons")

[CorruptUser]

I wouldn't be surprised if swatting is the same crime as a hoax bomb threat, so I think the felony charges are already there.

[Thesh]

So, legal question regarding the above.

If A files the false police report, how responsible is A for the damage that follows? Obviously A is guilty of lying to the police, probably some other stuff, but I'm wondering if calling the police on an innocent man which results in a death is a "foreseeable consequence" and thus can be held liable in either civil or criminal court.

If B provides A a false address, is B in any way responsible for damage that happens at that address?

You can't charge A with murder because (at least I hope it works this way) you're not supposed to assume police are murderbots. A gets charged with false police report, and the cop gets charged with one of the murder charges. I'm guessing the cop wanted to save everybody the trouble of due process, and gave out the death penalty right then.

I remember the New York case where an unarmed man was charged for wounding bystanders the police shot.

I'd guess murder or manslaughter charges for the person who called the hoax, and forced resignation for the officer.