You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
24

[–] Shammyhealz 0 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:

Requiring that uniformed cops provide their full name, rank and precinct, as well as the CCRB number, during any traffic stop or property search.

Obviously a good idea. Accountability is important when you're given the legal authority to kill or essentially kidnap (arrest) someone.

A measure that would allow police to use “injurious physical force” only “as is proportionally necessary,” but that does not define how proportionality will be determined.

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.

Making the NYPD report the precincts of the 200 cops with the most CCRB complaints filed against them.

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.