Print

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

[MetalSlimeHunt]

"Bad apples."

Every time something horrid like this happens, half the internet seems ready to jump around yelling how it's just a "bad apple". Stuff like this does not happen frequently and go unpunished because of "bad apples", it happens because the whole tree is rotting and dead.

[MadocComadrin]

This specifically is (at least part of) what you're being questioned on, MC. If you're a suspect of violent crime or an extreme negligent act, but genuinely did nothing of the sort, you still "deserve what you get?" There's been plenty of cases where actually innocent -- not just claiming to be, but literally unconnected with the crime they're suspected off -- people have been pulled down as suspects. These people deserve to be harassed, arrested, etc.?

And this comes to the issue, if you're innocent, why resist? You'll get your day in court--or even before then if a grand jury has to indict you. I suppose I should have been more clear, if you're the criminal as well as the suspect, you deserve what you get. If you're innocent, it's unfortunate, but it happens.

Reasonable according to whom, MC? What measure are they being held to? You are free to go afterward, yes, but until that point if you screw up -- trip, make an unfortunate movement due to the stress of the situation -- it can end up terribly for you. That's worrying.

"reasonable" here is not a qualifier, but part of the whole term, "reasonable suspicion." It is often set by precedent in court.

I'm not going to say it's what you're saying, but what I'm hearing here is that any officer at any time can stop you for any reason, so long as they can justify it after the fact as "reasonable." It doesn't actually have to be...

I understand what you're saying here, but that falls outside of normal circumstances. Perjury coming from a police officer is as much of a crime as coming from a citizen, actually more so.

I'm guessing you realize how this line bothers people who have committed no crime but fit into often harassed categories.

And we need to determine if this is the fault of the police, or the fault of society in general. It tends to be the latter.

You're saying to me, a long-haired fellow, that if a cop pulls me over on the road (which, in my state, they can do with literally no justification), arrests me on probable cause (Not telling to me at the time, of course, and asking would have a disturbing chance of getting me assaulted. Sure, that'd probably get thrown out of a courtroom, but until then...?), and throws me in jail until morning, I should just... go quietly. That the situation as described above is how things should work, and is a good thing.

I said that's how the police should work. You're more than free to take the issue to court if you feel wronged. It IS possible to prove that a police offer was lying/acted outside of the accepted threshold.

Certainly, if I don't want to get beaten and possibly shot, then yes, I should go quietly... but gods alive, that's a terrible situation. It's also the situation the states are currently in.

It's the situation we were always in. It just seems to be worse due to the rapid increase in technology causing various incidents.

The police officer in the tasing incident apparently got off with absolutely no repercussion. We've seen many cases, a few mentioned in this thread, where police committed similar acts and... nothing happened to them. There was no responsibility for their actions on the part of the police officer. It would seem that, even if being shot (or beaten, or what have you) for doing an everyday thing may not be an everyday thing, the message being told to the public is that it's definitely trivial.

This is mainly because police can't be held responsible in hindsight--not all of the possibilities can be covered in the spur of the moment. It's also why it's important to adjust for the future.

Salmon's insinuating that every police officer has a chance (and a disturbingly high one, even if the absolute numbers are still quite low) of being "reckless" -- and that that is sufficient reason to treat every encounter with law enforcement as potentially life threatening.

And I'm saying that reacting disproportionately isn't the best idea either. There's a possibility of getting a deadly disease from a doorknob, that doesn't mean you need to worry about getting one each time you touch one: that's called an anxiety disorder.

Policy being changed for the future doesn't help you when you're bleeding out or you had your skull cracked open 

No, but it does stop the next person from having their skull cracked open and start bleeding out. This is the best we can do most of the time.

Yeah, that's not exactly what's being worried about here. It's the general trend, that something like what occurred is something that people don't blink an eye at and police officers suffer no repercussions for. That's terrifying when you project that trend into the future, yanno'?

Somewhat later edit: MC, no intention to come off a little harsh -- I understand where you're coming from, really, but it seems more and more like the amount of faith you're suggesting we place in our law enforcement is either misplaced or only applicable to certain subsets of our population. We're being shown time and time again that, for at least part of our population -- not even the criminals, mind, but simply portions that don't fall in or around the middle-class (or above) WASP category -- that level of faith is being abused.

"Time and time again" is a matter of perception. We tend to hear more of the horror stories than the sweeping majority of the good because the good is boring. Unless you keep track of every police action in a sample area, there really is no good way to determine factually the probability of these things happening or their rates of occurrence. I tend to view things like this as normal distribution, with the extremes being the least likely.

[SalmonGod]

I honestly don't mean to grind on this one case so hard.  There are plenty out there, and I've had essentially this same debate several dozen times, four or five times on this forum.  I've also brought up one new case since the debate over the tasered girl began.  I would have brought up more, but between crackdown on internet activity at work and a lot of drama currently at home, I haven't been following as much news.

But here.  I suspected a website like this would probably exist, so here's a daily news feed of abusive police behavior I found on a five second google search.

Hey look... at the top of the list today is someone getting beaten because they had a soda bottle in their pocket and it was mistaken for a gun...

It IS possible to prove that a police offer was lying/acted outside of the accepted threshold.

I don't even know what to say... it's hard not to just laugh at this...

Look at the Oscar Grant shooting.  Multiple angles of video show this guy pinned to the ground with an officer kneeling on each shoulder for an extended period of time, putting up no struggle that could be picked up by cameras a short distance away, before being shot in the back... and there's no warrant put out for arrest of the person responsible for a whole two weeks, and only after multiple riots. 

Looking at it now:  the guy who shot Oscar Grant only served two years?  My god.  Compare to this guy, whose offense carries a minimum of two years.  Summary:  An female undercover cop posed as a student and developed a relationship with this kid for months.  He had never had an interest in drugs in his life, but promised to find her some because she said she wanted to try it.  After being nagged repeatedly for it, he finally gave her a small amount as a gift, even refusing to take the money she offered in return, and got arrested for it.

But I don't really need to go so far.  I've got examples right next door.  Where I live, as I've pointed out already, officers can flagrantly disregard procedure to help out a fellow officer in a highly publicized case of running people over while drunk on duty and get promoted.

It's the situation we were always in. It just seems to be worse due to the rapid increase in technology causing various incidents.

I don't really see how technology has much to do with the general culture of disregard for people's well-being that has corrupted law enforcement.  You can make a case for taser policy needing adjustment, but that doesn't say anything for the footage you can find from almost every protest event of the last few years of some random guy doing nothing but holding a camera being slammed into the concrete and then a knee ground into their non-resisting neck as they're handcuffed.

I'm saying that reacting disproportionately isn't the best idea either. There's a possibility of getting a deadly disease from a doorknob, that doesn't mean you need to worry about getting one each time you touch one: that's called an anxiety disorder.

This is a complete disconnect. 

First, nobody's intentional behavior puts diseases on doorknobs, and we have many cultural expectations, workplace policies, and medical regulations put towards preventing this from happening.  You could argue that the same applies to police behavior, but my response is that cultural expectations holding them accountable are eroding (the reason we're having this discussion right now) and policies of prevention are disregarded alarmingly often without consequence. 

Second...

Policy being changed for the future doesn't help you when you're bleeding out or you had your skull cracked open 

No, but it does stop the next person from having their skull cracked open and start bleeding out. This is the best we can do most of the time.

Many policies of prevention are being altered or removed in recent years in ways that amount to intentional diseasing of doorknobs for a select portion of the populace.  Many basic human rights protections are disappearing in the U.S., allowing police to abuse freely according to the whims of those in power.  I have plenty of reason to be concerned about this, because I've hung out with my local Occupy group before and would like to do so again.  I'd like to participate in an actual event and have a voice in public without fearing for my safety.  Should I witness or be faced with corrupt behavior, I'd like to be able to document it without being attacked (which does not happen in isolated cases, it is near-universal and actually policy in some places now).

And this isn't conspiracy theory.

Bruce Nestor, president of the Minnesota chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, told me: “St. Paul actually negotiated a special insurance provision with the Republican host committee so that the first $10 million in liability for lawsuits arising from the convention will be covered by the host committee. ... It basically means we (the city) can commit wrongdoing, and we won’t have to pay for it.”

Powerful groups can even say "Here!  Have a party with these people's rights!  We'll clean up the mess later!"... and there's nothing we can do about it.

"Time and time again" is a matter of perception. We tend to hear more of the horror stories than the sweeping majority of the good because the good is boring. Unless you keep track of every police action in a sample area, there really is no good way to determine factually the probability of these things happening or their rates of occurrence. I tend to view things like this as normal distribution, with the extremes being the least likely.

It is hard to track the rates of negative, abusive encounters as compared to positive ones... but there are other indicators one can look to for an idea of the nature and scope of the problem.  Their internal culture is one.  The reactions of other officers when one of their co-workers does something wrong is another.  The application of the law to police officers as compared to the rest of the population is yet another.  All these indicators look pretty grim lately.

Edit:

Spoiler: Speaking of police states... (click to show/hide)

Photos of riot police at a peaceful protest against that bill recently passed in Virginia requiring women to get an ultrasound before having an abortion.  A bit much, perhaps?...

I can't remember if I've made the comparison on this forum before but more and more often this is what police riot gear reminds me of.

[Mr. Palau]

Police have pretty much always been abusive, thats what ahppens when you give one segment of your society increased amounts fo money in order to protect the others. I don't really see the militarilization of the police as a concern because I doubt that giving them more weapons will change teh frequency of abuse, or teh intensity of the abuse. They don't abuse people with riot guns, most of the time, and medivel cops beat people just as much if not more.

I still don't balme the cop for tasing the girl, he was clearly just to unfit to catch her and because there was no law saying cops need to be fit, as indicated by the fact that the rest of the cops are also fat, was a regulatury failure. specificly failure to regulate that all cops must be fit enough to catch a fleeing suspect. With only one option left he choose to taze the victim over letting her run onto the highway, I think the tazing had a higher probability of insuring her survivel given her psychological condition at the time than letting her run highway. the tazing would not have assured her death, the highway, although also not assured, would be a greater chance in my mind. If she had run onto the highway however I doubt we would be talking about it as it would have been seen as a tragic case of an escaped drug addict running unto a highway.

By the way that T-shirt is kinda funny even though it seems like the police are stomping on your rights, would probably be much funier if I was a police officer.

I think madoc is right about it sometimes being society's fault, a lot of people are very suspicious of minorities when it comes to crime even though it is unjustified. The police have the same impressions as everyone else in society and thus are not alone in their racial biases.

[sluissa]

Let's put it another way. Say a police officer needed to restrain someone, but forgot their handcuffs and instead simply chose to shoot them in the kneecap.

Would this also be a regulatory failure, since the officer wasn't given enough pressure to ensure they were carrying their cuffs?

Also, "Police are abusive because that's what happens." Is only a step or two away from "Women are inferior because that's how it's supposed to be."

I could seriously pull out a ton of justifications for bad things throughout history that occurred just because "that's how it is."

Police can do their job correctly. It does happen. It's just that more and more they're given less incentive to.

[kaijyuu]

Also, "Police are abusive because that's what happens." Is only a step or two away from "Women are inferior because that's how it's supposed to be."

It's pretty much identical, if people are actually saying "they are just cause they are." Which I hope no one is.

There's actually logic and reason for why the police might be abusive, though. Power corrupts, for one. Another is the fact that use of force, any use of force, is easily mishandled; a minor slipup elsewhere becomes a major slipup here, where people's lives are on the line.


Certainly it isn't a reason to arbitrarily judge any particular officer of course (associative fallacy ahoy), but is good reason for why scrutiny needs to be applied, precautions taken place, regulations implemented, etc. We watch the watchers, as they're unlikely to watch themselves.

[Zangi]

Don't forget that an us vs them mentality could easily be fostered by a group like that.

On the ground, cops are more willing to cover for each other... since ya know, 'comrade in arms'.  Experiences that is generally shared by most if not all of them.
The police chief may also start to think along the lines of 'my people, so I'll take care of em'...
Independent Police Investigators can be hampered and information can be whitewashed.  While the person in question could be put on paid leave or transferred somewhere else as 'punishment'.

[kaijyuu]

Indeed. The idea of "snitching" being somehow a bad thing sickens me, and it definitely applies to the vast majority of police and armies. You'd think comrades in arms would value the integrity of their members, but nope.

[darkflagrance]

Indeed. The idea of "snitching" being somehow a bad thing sickens me, and it definitely applies to the vast majority of police and armies. You'd think comrades in arms would value the integrity of their members, but nope.

Perhaps part of the problem is that even if you're "snitching" for the sake of the greater good of society, you don't snitch to an ideal.

Instead, you have to report to external, rival, human organizations that have abused their power and meddled in your affairs in the past, which may also jeopardize the composition and reputation of the organization and everyone within during the investigation. You're also betraying the bonds of trust and camaraderie that bonded you together during your work and inviting invasive intervention instead of letting your organization handle things internally.

[Mr. Palau]

Let's put it another way. Say a police officer needed to restrain someone, but forgot their handcuffs and instead simply chose to shoot them in the kneecap.

Would this also be a regulatory failure, since the officer wasn't given enough pressure to ensure they were carrying their cuffs?

Also, "Police are abusive because that's what happens." Is only a step or two away from "Women are inferior because that's how it's supposed to be."

I could seriously pull out a ton of justifications for bad things throughout history that occurred just because "that's how it is."

No that would be a personal failure on the part of the officer because a) the officer is already required to carry handcuffs and there is no greater way of applying pressure than an absolute mandate b) there are better weapons to restrain a person even if handcuffs are not present that are included in an officers arsenal, making this a failure of judgment.  c) given they had other methods of restraint at their desposal, that would be execessive force and hence a crime, regulatory success.

"Police are abusive because that's what happens." conveys a logical method that based on how it always has been, it will continue to be so. "Women are inferior because that's how it's supposed to be." is a major step away because it implies that woman are inferior, and that it is the morally and logicaly right thing, and not based on current or past status. Unless you are using it in the sense that "supposed to be" means "has always been common knowledge". I think you really just meant to say "Women are inferior because they always have been in our society." which is the same type of justication as the police justification mentioned before. However that was not meant as a way of saying we should not attempt to have police who are not abusive, but rather that militarizing the police doesn't increase the level they abusive people. If anything the modern police man is on average much less abusive than a police man from the turn of the last century, and it gets worse in almost all places the farther you go back. Today a modern police man has more technology at his disposal than a police man in the early 20th century, but are still less abusive thus denying a cause-effect conection between increasing the amount of technology at the disposal of the police, in the form of weapons, and thier becoming more abusive.

[SalmonGod]

NYPD Officer Sent To Psych Ward By Superiors After Reporting Corruption

[alway]

NYPD Officer Sent To Psych Ward By Superiors After Reporting Corruption

Same story has a 40 minute piece on This American Life podcast which goes much more in detail.
Act 2 of Episode 414:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/414/right-to-remain-silent

[scriver]

Nice. That's really all I have to say.

An event recently happened her in Sweden where a policeman lost his nerves and apparently started firing wildly at through a shopping window, with people inside the shop. I'm going to try to remember to look up what happens to him to see how this stuff is handled over here. The official stance is that he risks being charged for "endangering other peoples lives" (whatever the juridical term is), but who knows if they actually plan that or if they just say it to appease the media. Or, well, that's why I want to follow up on this, to find out I guess.

Also just remembered one time when police were called out to a burglary scene, and the "burglar" started running and the police opened fire at him - and then it turned out it was just the house owner who had arrived late at night and couldn't unlock the door. I should check that out as well.

These are both rather high-profile cases, by the way, because the cops very rarely use their guns over here, so I really wonder what is going to happen/happened to them.

[Mr. Palau]

this is kinda off topic but since this thread is about police brutality now anyway just htought Iw oudl mention that a Us soldier went beserk in Afganistan, forget the specific region, went out earlly in the morning today to a village outside of town, and just started shooting at people. don't know how many he killed.

[SalmonGod]

this is kinda off topic but since this thread is about police brutality now anyway just htought Iw oudl mention that a Us soldier went beserk in Afganistan, forget the specific region, went out earlly in the morning today to a village outside of town, and just started shooting at people. don't know how many he killed.

Just saw this a few minutes ago.  He killed 18 civilians.