Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

...unarmed does not mean benign, or harmless.

Quite true, but unarmed is still less dangerous than fully-armed. Shooting people because they might be dangerous and might be carrying a gun is a watertight defence in a state with lax gun control and lots of animosity towards the police: If every person is potentially armed and dangerous, then you can justifiably shoot anyone at the first sign of misdemeanour. Sure, that kind of trigger-happy environment warrants pre-emptive use of force just for self-defence, but not without a huge number of false alarms – which is precisely why the force should be less-than-lethal whenever possible.

You cannot just legally justify shooting someone because they could have been armed, you can only justify killing in self-defence if you can verify beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a reason for you to fear for your life. Fear itself is not a justification, fearing because you were being attacked, or being shot at, or anything along those lines - that's proof. I would appreciate if you used less euphemisms and just stated what you intend to state.
What do you mean by 'fear-driven and arbitrary pre-emptive use of force,' with especial clarification appreciated on what you mean by 'pre-emptive' and what you'd class as 'use of force.' Whether that be restraining, tackling, tazing, macing or shooting. I also assume that you mean 'false alarms' to be innocent persons shot? In which case, the police are lacking in training. And is your gripe with lax gun control laws, with self-defence laws, or with police above the laws, considering a great deal of the worst police incompetence and brutality come from states with the strictest gun laws as exemplified in the most authoritarian states? Or that irregardless of state law, police will go as far as to plant or remove evidence to pervert justice accordingly? Do you sincerely believe that the police can be persuaded to enforce the law on themselves simply by making the laws stricter on citizens? I ask these mostly rhetorically... Though I am disturbed after meeting people who answered yes anyways.
Also, I must clarify, as it seems I have also failed to make a few things clear.
When I said that 'unarmed does not mean benign or harmless,' I meant that. I did not say 'unarmed does not mean unthreatening.' Mankind has killed mankind since before the invention of firearms, and it's perfectly easy to kill someone without using a firearm. In one rather recent case that the American media would not shut up about, constant dubious coverage was made of how an unarmed man was shot by an armed man, whilst ignoring that the unarmed man was smashing the head of the armed man in the pavement. Being more or less dangerous does not justify criminal behaviour. If you say, are incredibly fit and you are mugged. You defend yourself, and they die because you broke something in their skull. How would this be any better than if you did the same with a gun, just because an unarmed man is less dangerous than an armed one? Hell, why don't we go further with this. If you are a skinny manlet and you are mugged, and somehow you end up killing your mugger in self defence (I don't know, maybe you pushed them over and they broke their neck on a lamppost). Is the skinny manlet more justified, because he is less dangerous than the fit man? We can go even further with this. Let's say you are not being mugged, but you see someone openly carrying a handgun. That is a person who could be dangerous. Yet you would not be justified in shooting "pre-emptively" unless you have reason to believe your life is in danger (i.e., the gun has been drawn/there was a threat made/there was a previous violent altercation). Making it illegal to defend yourself does not stop police who don't follow the law from tenderizing its citizens, and this bizarre inversion of might-makes-right has no function in this discourse.

What comes to using firearms in a not-quite-lethal fashion, I remember a case where some loon spooked people with a starting pistol in Helsinki: The police arrived within a few minutes and shot the guy in his leg – he survived. Would it have been better procedure to aim at his ribcage, just because they'd have had a slightly lower chance of missing?

And it seems I haven't made myself clear enough on this point. There is no such thing as a 'not-quite-lethal' use of a firearm. It is a weapon designed to kill. You cannot non-lethally shoot someone without expecting them to die, unless you're full of delusions as to what the purpose of a gun is. If the police had missed his leg and hit bystanders (as the NYPD have done), no. If the police had missed his leg and the loony shot them, no. If the police were in such a position to take him down non-lethally, they should never have used lethal force to begin with. Furthermore, the fact that he survived is an outlier, people surviving being shot in the leg, head, torso or shoulder does not change the outcome of shooting someone in the leg, head, torso or shoulder - they're going to die, unless they're lucky, or perhaps they get to a hospital in time.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

If the police had nicked that, that'd be a dead loony. The only non-lethal usage of a lethal weapon is one used to shoot inanimate objects, or nothing at all. He was lucky to survive. Trying to aim for the leg or shoulder in an attempt to not kill someone is idiotic on so many levels. If you are a police officer and you are shooting someone because they pose a threat to you or someone else, you are deliberately increasing your chance of failure, and the chance that innocents will die.
If you're shooting them under the impression that they will fall down and not bleed to death. This is a dangerous fantasy, and you should not be a police officer, as you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what 'lethal' means.

[Zangi]

Nearly universal watertight justification in Merrican courts: I feared for my life.

[SirQuiamus]

You cannot just legally justify shooting someone because they could have been armed, you can only justify killing in self-defence if you can verify beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a reason for you to fear for your life. Fear itself is not a justification, fearing because you were being attacked, or being shot at, or anything along those lines - that's proof. I would appreciate if you used less euphemisms and just stated what you intend to state.

Yet, the American courts seem to think that trigger-happy cops should be allowed to get off scot-free in cases where there clearly wasn't any proof of immediate danger to their lives. Plenty of examples already listed in this thread.

What do you mean by 'fear-driven and arbitrary pre-emptive use of force,' with especial clarification appreciated on what you mean by 'pre-emptive' and what you'd class as 'use of force.'

"Pre-emptive" was just a quip on the above legal procedure, "fear-driven" means "shooting someone because they got jumpy and I'm scared," and "arbitrary" means "shooting someone because they asked for it and my finger's itching." I realize that the latter two cannot happen at the same time, so my post was a bit ambiguous in that regard.

There is no such thing as a 'not-quite-lethal' use of a firearm. It is a weapon designed to kill. You cannot non-lethally shoot someone without expecting them to die, unless you're full of delusions as to what the purpose of a gun is.

I still maintain that there is a vast difference between aiming for the head, and aiming for a limb. Another difference is the number of shots – the difference between force and excessive force. It takes a buttload of sangfroid to be able to make that decision, but yes, it can be done. 

Is there really any disagreement here, I wonder? In situations where there is an actual choice between using lethal and less-than-lethal force, all other things being equal, why would anyone choose the former option, if not out of sheer evilness? I know that tasers and rubber bullets are bloody dangerous, but they are still less dangerous than bloody hollow-point bullets. I'm taking an intentionalist stance here: If you tase a potentially dangerous person, your intention is to stop them with a moderate risk to their health. If you shoot them in the chest with a .357, your intention is to kill them outright. In the latter case, you are acting as a pre-emptive executor, and everyone here agrees that it isn't right.

[Rolan7]

If tasers were as useful and reliable as actual pistols, armed forces would use them as sidearms.  They aren't.  Bringing a taser to a gunfight is only a bit better than bringing a knife.

About proof of immediate danger, I want to point out that it's based on what the cop can observe at the time.  If a suspect is uncooperative and reaches into their pocket, then the officer either makes a right decision or a wrong one.  The actual contents of the pocket don't retroactively make the decision right or wrong.

Of course, if it was a stick of gum, the officer has to live with that, and with being vilified for shooting an unarmed person.  A person who *turned out* to be unarmed.

Off topic, but here's an old police training video which I've always found fascinating:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9igSoJHEdUo

[Loud Whispers]

Nearly universal watertight justification in Merrican courts: I feared for my life.

I've got an old post about Merican self-defence laws:

"SECOND DEGREE MURDER:
To prove the crime of Second Degree Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. The victim is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of the defendant.
3. There was an unlawful killing of the victim by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life."

And if the accused would be found not guilty, the jury would also have to see if he is guilty of lesser crimes, mainly:
"MANSLAUGHTER
To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. The victim is dead.
2. The defendant intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of the victim. The defendant cannot be guilty of manslaughter by committing a merely negligent act or if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide:
Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence."

EXCUSABLE HOMICIDE:
The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the three following circumstances:
1. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or
2. When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or
3. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the attempted killing is not done in a cruel and unusual manner.

This is separate from self defence:

JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE
It is a defence to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of Manslaughter, if the death of the victim resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.
“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.
  A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to themself. In deciding whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge them by the circumstances by which they were surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real. If the defendant was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where they had a right to be, they had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand their ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if they reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to themself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. In considering the issue of self-defence, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of the defendant and victim. If in your consideration of the issue of self-defence you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.
However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find them guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

Nearly universal watertight justification in Merrican courts: I feared for my life.

I'll just lift this out:

The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force.

Go out on the streets, shoot someone and claim you feared for your life. Fail to substantiate that fear, congratulations, you've fulfilled all charges and are now a legally convicted murderer.

Yet, the American courts seem to think that trigger-happy cops should be allowed to get off scot-free in cases where there clearly wasn't any proof of immediate danger to their lives. Plenty of examples already listed in this thread.

irregardless of state law, police will go as far as to plant or remove evidence to pervert justice accordingly

Ahem... I don't believe the law court is to blame here. If you would be so kind as to list the examples you are referring to, I would appreciate it greatly. I mean no offense to Bay12 forumites but I've seen them link to some pretty fucking unreliable news sources, especially when it comes to things like these before.

What do you mean by 'fear-driven and arbitrary pre-emptive use of force,' with especial clarification appreciated on what you mean by 'pre-emptive' and what you'd class as 'use of force.'

"Pre-emptive" was just a quip on the above legal procedure, "fear-driven" means "shooting someone because they got jumpy and I'm scared," and "arbitrary" means "shooting someone because they asked for it and my finger's itching." I realize that the latter two cannot happen at the same time, so my post was a bit ambiguous in that regard.

I find we are in agreement on the morality of shooting people because they could be threats, or because "I am the law" mentality. We both agree it is heinous. We disagree however, on the environment that surrounds this. A minor disagreement, I find.

There is no such thing as a 'not-quite-lethal' use of a firearm. It is a weapon designed to kill. You cannot non-lethally shoot someone without expecting them to die, unless you're full of delusions as to what the purpose of a gun is.

I still maintain that there is a vast difference between aiming for the head, and aiming for a limb. Another difference is the number of shots – the difference between force and excessive force. It takes a buttload of sangfroid to be able to make that decision, but yes, it can be done.

I maintain that the similarity between aiming for the head and aiming for a limb is that you're far more likely to miss either way than if you'd just aim for the bloody torso.

Is there really any disagreement here, I wonder? In situations where there is an actual choice between using lethal and less-than-lethal force, all other things being equal, why would anyone choose the former option, if not out of sheer evilness?

There is no disagreement here.

I know that tasers and rubber bullets are bloody dangerous, but they are still less dangerous than bloody hollow-point bullets.

Some police departments don't allow hollow-points, but on the whole American police use hollow-point bullets so that the bullets stay within their target. This minimizes the risk of the bullet exiting the target and hitting innocent bystanders. Tasers and rubber bullets are much less dangerous, but the former requires you to be up close, the latter does not have stopping power, both will result in dead police officers any time they come up against armed criminals.

I'm taking an intentionalist stance here: If you tase a potentially dangerous person, your intention is to stop them with a moderate risk to their health. If you shoot them in the chest with a .357, your intention is to kill them outright. In the latter case, you are acting as a pre-emptive executor, and everyone here agrees that it isn't right.

If there is a potentially dangerous person, they have the capacity or potential to kill anyone around them. If you are in such a situation and all other possible actions are exhausted, there is no 'execution' taking place, it is a simple case of self-defence.

To better explain police doctrine, delusions of safe bullet wounds aside, look at police sniper doctrine. These are people who are excellent marksmen, who are payed to hit only what they aim for. While they don't exactly get the luxury of all the time in the world, they usually have enough time to aim, as that is what they are trained for, unlike regular LEOs. They work in teams and when they have a clear shot on the criminal, give a signal to the coordinator. When the coordinator confirms that all snipers have their targets in clear shot, and by this time all other avenues of mediation have failed, he gives the order and all the criminals are killed outright, with bullets to the head. They don't aim for the torso, in this case they aim for what will stop a criminal outright. Blow up the brains and a criminal can't pull a trigger, no one else gets hurt, everyone is safe. This difference between what a police sniper and what a police officer has to deal with in America is that the police sniper knows that whoever they're shooting at is dangerous, is likely to kill someone, and they have the benefit of being unlikely to be shot. And they also know that they have the capability to guarantee that a dangerous criminal will be incapable of hurting anyone else. 100% certainty - something a rubber bullet will not have by a long shot (no pun intended). A police officer on the ground? They're on the ground and they don't have the benefit of certainty, in judgement or in action. To add to the pressure, their life is also on the line.

[SalmonGod]

About proof of immediate danger, I want to point out that it's based on what the cop can observe at the time.  If a suspect is uncooperative and reaches into their pocket, then the officer either makes a right decision or a wrong one.  The actual contents of the pocket don't retroactively make the decision right or wrong.

Of course, if it was a stick of gum, the officer has to live with that, and with being vilified for shooting an unarmed person.  A person who *turned out* to be unarmed.

And if this is how it's going to be, then we're better off without police.  Part of the job and the reason they command so much respect (in similar fashion to a soldier) is that they face danger and risk on behalf of society, in order to make society safer for everyone else.  But if they are trained and considered justified to kill anyone who gives them any possible reason to believe they might become dangerous, then they are having the exact opposite effect on society.  They're making it more dangerous, and obstructing reasonable justice.  If every police officer I encounter is in constant suspicion of me and looking for any slightest out of place movement as cause to shoot me, then it's perfectly reasonable for me to see them as a greater danger to my well-being than any criminal.

If that's the case, then I can't help but suspect that you're the type who doesn't see anything wrong with a suspect ending up dead if they so much as breath in some way that displeases an officer. 

And I'm the one trolling here?
I mean, I sorta am, in that I'm offering a dissenting (moderate, really) position in thread dominated by the other position - And yes, I'm seeking a response.  But I'm hoping that the entrenched position will be disrupted, and maybe actual discussion will start again.

But no, that absurd strawman isn't my position.  I'm sorry if that's where I'm required to fall in your personal narrative.

I've been paying very close attention to and debating the topic of police corruption and brutality for a long time.  There are generally a few camps and the comparisons between them are normally quite stark.

Camp 1:  Those who believe there's something wrong with the police.  Whether it's training, culture, the very concept of police, or whatever.  And yes, most in this camp are not graceful in how they express it, and that's unfortunate.

Camp 2:  Victim-blamers.  Their response to every single case will be to analyze the suspect's behavior, and if there is the slightest twitch that isn't perfect, their final unmovable thought will be "The suspect shouldn't have done this.  That's what you get when you ____ around police."  Even the most blatant abuse of force cases will have these people.  If the suspect so much as hesitates to ask what they're being arrested for, there will be people whose comment will be "Well yeah, maybe the officer shouldn't have fired 10 shots into them and then waited an hour to call for medical help while the victim was still alive and bleeding.  But if they hadn't hesitated to ask the officer a question, instead of dropping straight to the ground, then the officer wouldn't have done that."

Camp 3:  The police are human, too!  "This whole thing makes me uncomfortable, so let's just move on, ok?  I know that this really LOOKS like a case of cold-blooded murder, and it's the 10th one this month.  And that several cases were closed this month where overwhelming evidence indicated that the officer lied egregiously to the courts and media, his buddies planted evidence, the officer has a deep history of racism that effected his policing, and his legal defense that he feared for his life was accepted on the basis that the suspect advanced on the officer half a step while turning around to face him.  But you're not a police officer, so you can't judge what it's like for them to face so much stress and danger every day, and you can't let cases like these, even though they're alarmingly common and always receive the support of fellow officers, color your perception of the whole police force."

And let me just throw this out there about the argument that law enforcement is dangerous work, and therefor police are justified in being fearful.  When law enforcement makes it onto this list, I will accept that argument.  As far as I'm aware, it's never been on that list.

Furthermore, the fact that he survived is an outlier, people surviving being shot in the leg, head, torso or shoulder does not change the outcome of shooting someone in the leg, head, torso or shoulder - they're going to die, unless they're lucky, or perhaps they get to a hospital in time.

Ok, for the most part I agree with your statements about the use of guns, LW.  But I have to correct you on this one.  I've read multiple times that survival rates for gunshot wounds are actually pretty high.  Something like 2/3rds.  I know you won't accept this without some citation, so here's a quick one.  Top result if you google "gunshot survival rates".

What does this mean for us?  In my opinion, it means that when police decide to shoot, that they aren't automatically justified in unloading their clip as quick as they can.  If they're actually in a gunfight, then sure.  But if it was just a reaction to some aggressive motion or an unknown like reaching into a pocket or something, then rapid fire is not justified and shooting should cease as soon as the suspect stops acting threateningly.  In all these stupid cases where the officer misread of suspect's actions and there was zero threat, this would ideally mean the suspect only gets shot once or twice.  And once the suspect has been shot, they should stop treating them as if they're already dead.  Almost every case I've seen has police officers not even checking the victim's wounds and placing a higher priority on handcuffing the incapacitated suspect and putting up tape than calling for medical attention.

There was one case some years ago, I believe I talked about it here, where a mentally ill teenager was shot and killed in front of his family.  The kid was still alive, begging and bleeding on their living room floor.  And the officer didn't tend to him whatsoever.  Didn't summon medical assistance for a very long time.  And refused to allow the family anywhere near him.  Other officers showed up and blocked off the area outside, while the officer who did the shooting stayed inside and literally guarded over the kid as he died, forcing the family to watch helplessly.  IIRC, it was about 2 hours before the kid received medical attention, and then it was too late.  Later on, the father supposedly dug up that it was official department policy to refuse medical treatment to a severely wounded suspect, basically because it's easier to defend the case in court when the victim is dead.

[Loud Whispers]

And if this is how it's going to be, then we're better off without police.  Part of the job and the reason they command so much respect (in similar fashion to a soldier) is that they face danger and risk on behalf of society, in order to make society safer for everyone else.  But if they are trained and considered justified to kill anyone who gives them any possible reason to believe they might become dangerous, then they are having the exact opposite effect on society.  They're making it more dangerous, and obstructing reasonable justice.  If every police officer I encounter is in constant suspicion of me and looking for any slightest out of place movement as cause to shoot me, then it's perfectly reasonable for me to see them as a greater danger to my well-being than any criminal.

Well said. The way I see it; there is only one issue. The American police do not operate on the same level as a civilian citizen. Perhaps the golden standard, British police are disarmed and deal with a disarmed populace, following the same laws that they enforce, with the law applying equally to police and civilian. When the police have the ability to conduct an internal investigation and ensure police misconduct doesn't even reach the court, or tamper with evidence so much that when it reaches court justice is perverted, and you can't do anything about it because the state doesn't particularly want to lose any power over its citizens? What *can* you do? The populace wishes to disarm itself while the police militarize, the populace wishes for justice when they are its enforcers and arbiters, the populace wastes its time defending and attacking who the politicians say they should instead of addressing far more worrying cases, that is frustrating.

Furthermore, the fact that he survived is an outlier, people surviving being shot in the leg, head, torso or shoulder does not change the outcome of shooting someone in the leg, head, torso or shoulder - they're going to die, unless they're lucky, or perhaps they get to a hospital in time.

Ok, for the most part I agree with your statements about the use of guns, LW.  But I have to correct you on this one.  I've read multiple times that survival rates for gunshot wounds are actually pretty high.  Something like 2/3rds.  I know you won't accept this without some citation, so here's a quick one.  Top result if you google "gunshot survival rates".

*Or perhaps they get to a hospital in time

Survival Rates Similar for Gunshot, Stabbing Victims Whether Brought to the Hospital by Police or EMS, Penn Medicine Study Finds

Medicine's great

What does this mean for us?  In my opinion, it means that when police decide to shoot, that they aren't automatically justified in unloading their clip as quick as they can.  If they're actually in a gunfight, then sure.  But if it was just a reaction to some aggressive motion or an unknown like reaching into a pocket or something, then rapid fire is not justified and shooting should cease as soon as the suspect stops acting threateningly.  In all these stupid cases where the officer misread of suspect's actions and there was zero threat, this would ideally mean the suspect only gets shot once or twice.  And once the suspect has been shot, they should stop treating them as if they're already dead.  Almost every case I've seen has police officers not even checking the victim's wounds and placing a higher priority on handcuffing the incapacitated suspect and putting up tape than calling for medical attention.

At the very least you know, they should be seriously reviewed as to whether they're fit for action.

There was one case some years ago, I believe I talked about it here, where a mentally ill teenager was shot and killed in front of his family.  The kid was still alive, begging and bleeding on their living room floor.  And the officer didn't tend to him whatsoever.  Didn't summon medical assistance for a very long time.  And refused to allow the family anywhere near him.  Other officers showed up and blocked off the area outside, while the officer who did the shooting stayed inside and literally guarded over the kid as he died, forcing the family to watch helplessly.  IIRC, it was about 2 hours before the kid received medical attention, and then it was too late.  Later on, the father supposedly dug up that it was official department policy to refuse medical treatment to a severely wounded suspect, basically because it's easier to defend the case in court when the victim is dead.

This website is invaluable in that regard. I do recall seeing one case in there where EMTs did reach a gunshot victim (guess who shot him), but the police officers actively blocked the EMTs from saving that man's life. Also, by far the worst cases I've seen in the archives were when:

• A police officer shot a man in a wheelchair because he was menacingly wheeling them into a corner.
• A SWAT team threw a flashbang grenade at a baby, causing severe burns. Not sure if the baby survived.

[Loud Whispers]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Jesus Christ they're not even trying

[Xantalos]

'Fuck dude, how dare your bones be so rigid and supportive! I broke my own bones on them, you fucker!'

[Dorsidwarf]

https://medium.com/@blairerickson/when-people-ask-why-i-have-a-problem-with-american-law-enforcement-its-hard-to-come-up-with-a-61c9e423b003

laaand of hooope and glooOoOooryyyy....

[SirQuiamus]

'Fuck dude, how dare your bones be so rigid and supportive! I broke my own bones on them, you fucker!'

More like: "Johnny keeps headbutting my fist, Mommy!"

[UXLZ]

Do you Murricans have Ombudsmen?

[Frumple]

Sure. I couldn't tell you how much actual power they have, though. Personally, I don't really hear much about them doing anything, which sorta' makes sense considering most of 'em in the states seem more internal than anything.

Not sure if there's any for law enforcement, though. Those... well, it should be obvious by now they're kinda' just a wee titch rampant at the moment, without much in the way of actual reigns.

[Sheb]

Well, it's also an institutional problem, with America's myriad of tiny PD, they don't have the manpower for Internal Affairs departments. Most of the time, supervision mean sitting in front of a couple of your buddies.

Most state aren't big enough to justify have PD below state level.

[DJ]

It's kinda silly that Internal Affairs is, well, internal. It'd make a lot more sense if it was a separate federal agency.