Recent comments in /f/news

SsurebreC t1_je692e2 wrote

> I get their jobs are tough

Let's say someone is working as a nurse or a care-giver and they beat up their patients. Not all of them but a certain amount. Say 5%. Should that person still be employed in that capacity? No. Should they be charged with abuse? Yes.

It's just that simple.

And the solution to this is also simple. Get mandatory malpractice insurance for the police like they have for those same nurses and surgeons. This insurance is what's used to pay out all the lawsuits that will be filed. A shitty police officer will have higher premiums and will ultimately be out of a job anywhere in the country rather than being protected now or moving to another department whlie keeping their job.

If police officers believe they're the military and it's them vs. civilians then they should then be required to follow the rules of engagements that actual soldiers do (and the related code of conduct) which is significantly harsher than what the police have now.

266

AudibleNod OP t1_je690kf wrote

FOP:

The Fraternal Order of Police / Ohio Labor Council, the largest law enforcement labor organization in the state, said in a statement Thursday the 11 officers “are entitled to due process like all citizens” and encouraged “everyone to reserve judgment until facts are known.”

Also FOP:

he defended the mob of largely white Trump supporters and white supremacists who stormed the U.S. Capitol, saying they are “entitled to voice their frustration.

++++

I guess the question is are citizens allowed to voice their frustration against the bad police officers are are we supposed to reserve judgement?

410

houtex727 t1_je68exh wrote

Separate reply because don't want to taint that hopefully helpful video for y'all.

Yeah. I get their jobs are tough (Edit: see below), being as I have ridden along with my BIL police officer, and my brother's tales of his police work, but respect of suspects needs to be a thing, no matter how pissed off you are. What's worse is I can't know if this is taught to be this brutal and awful to others, or if they are just off the hinge and shouldn't have been police officers in the first place.

Edit: So the thing was more pointing to the fact that the tough jobs they do (and it is, do not think otherwise) causes stresses, and therefore anger, and therefore anger management issues, and therefore raging beatings and such ensue. Potentially, because it could be they are just assholes looking for a job that lets them be the true assholes they are. But anyway, the former was all I meant. That they were allowing rage to control them and that's wrong, obviously. Beyond that, shitting on my poor choice of words and assuming something else it pretty bad form, but that's reddit for you. Buncha Conan the Grammarians about, y'all need a new hobby. :p

21

financequestionsacct t1_je67psh wrote

I'm in the Seattle Metro area and had a similar experience. I was taking my infant to physical therapy a few years ago. We were headed to our car and a semi truck was parked in the valet roundabout handing out food, diapers, formula. We said no thank you, we are okay. They told us we could pull our car around and they'd load the trunk for us. They said that the cancer treatments, NICU, etc is often so expensive on families they can't afford disposable diapers or the parents will often go without essentials. In response, the county setup this mobile refrigerated grocery truck and went to where the families would be so there'd be no shame. That broke my heart.

5

Artanthos t1_je67as6 wrote

That’s not how facial recognition works, and it’s not how the technology is used.

All this does is compare images from a camera connected to a crime with a database of publicly accessible photos. When it finds matches, it provides the match locations, e.g. Facebook.

Police investigators then use those leads to identify potential suspects.

You still have the rest of the investigation, and human eyes on the images and the potential suspects.

2

bananafobe t1_je64ry9 wrote

And when the AI generates a face from a partially obscured or low-resolution photograph, and presents that as a scientifically accurate representation with 99.9% validity in clinical studies (or whatever), how easy is it going to be for the average public defender to explain to a jury that what they're seeing is basically a computer drawing, even though it looks like a photograph, and that 99.9% actually refers to a statistical probability about some obscure metric, and not that it's 99.9% likely that this is the right person?

1