[–] 1Q84 0 points 11 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago
I'm all for stricter, more non-partisan regulation of police, but this headline is from the New York Post and, as it follows, is quite sensationalized.
Nothing in the article suggests anyone is "livid" or "fuming", which I guess should be expected in a NYPost article.
[–] escapefromredditbay 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
far better then the bloody NYPD.
[–] Subvert-Thoughts 0 points 7 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago
As a bureaucrat and ignorant person I find that statement triple offensive!
[–] Shammyhealz 0 points 24 points 24 points (+24|-0) ago
The fact that anyone is upset over these measures is very suspect. The three the news article mentions are:
Obviously a good idea. Accountability is important when you're given the legal authority to kill or essentially kidnap (arrest) someone.
Hold on, was proportionality not required before? That's always important in civilian cases. It's not phrased that way, but in most states you are only allowed to use lethal force in the face of a force that would reasonably also be called lethal. You cannot shoot someone for throwing sticks at you, but you could shoot someone for trying to stab you. That should always be a requirement in the event that they use lethal force. Let's not forget that they should be trained and armed to use non-lethal force. Pepper spray, tasers and batons are things that police carry that the average citizen would not. Use those unless you fear for your life.
Again, I'm surprised this wasn't done before. It's not a good idea to release the names of specific officers, but for statistics purposes it would be a great idea to be able to figure out where most of these violations are occurring. I wish they would release more like the time of the incident, the area of the incident, and age/gender/race of the complainer.
The only ones who oppose this are opposing transparency in their authority, which is concerning to say the least.