What am I missing here?

[phanatic]

Okay, quick backstory. Cops in Fullerton, CA, beat a crazy homeless guy so badly he goes into a coma and dies in the hospital a few days later. Police chief's since gone on medical leave, there's the standard bit where the folks on one side think the cops were justified in using the force they did, the folks on the other side who think these guys

Comments

[kittles]

I don't understand this policy either. Why rely on what you think you might remember about what happened when you can refresh your memory from what DID actually happen? Everyone involved should get to do this.

It's actually a somewhat recent practice in our state to start taking victims back to the scene of a crime and have them walk you through it and act it out, whereas it seems like that would be common sense for jogging memory.

[shannon_f_r]

So who do you call when the cops are beating a guy to death?

[phanatic]

Ghostbusters!

[shannon_f_r]

That seems as good an answer as any.

[arthur_sc_king]

This smells so much like the Dziekanski affair.... Fuck, y'know, there are good cops out there, but it seems like the institutional problems with self-investigation are, sadly, universal.

[achinhibitor]

I expect the process to be optimized to minimize the damages that victims win when suing. Maybe they're not optimal about it, but those're the incentives they face. And I expect that there are consultants out there who make their money teaching police departments the procedures that make it harder to sue them for violence. I mean, get to be friends with an city councilman and ask him whether the council cares more about a homeless guy getting killed, or about the $5 million his cousin (who hasn't talked to him in 15 years, heh) might win in court.

[smjayman]

One of our officers got fired after he was shown video of an incident, and he then denied it all. After. They. Showed. Him. The. Fucking. Video. He was a "nice" guy, too, but he did some really dumb shit and wouldn't even admit to it.