Lets fix the police

[BabaYaga 15304]

2 minutes ago, Samson's Wig said:

lol.  Good luck.

Yep, this is where the entire thing is going to crumble into an ineffective cluster fuck where police fall back on the action of inaction to avoid blow-back and communities suffer from the inevitable escalation in crime.  

[VABuckeye 2472]

Young people that want things to change need to get involved in the change.  Not just protesting but choosing a career on that side of the fence wherever that target may land.  Those in law enforcement need to be involved in the communties they police.  Get to actually know the community and be active in community activities.

Walk a mile in each others shoes.

[BabaYaga 15304]

27 minutes ago, VABuckeye said:

Young people that want things to change need to get involved in the change.  Not just protesting but choosing a career on that side of the fence wherever that target may land.  Those in law enforcement need to be involved in the communties they police.  Get to actually know the community and be active in community activities.

Walk a mile in each others shoes.

Lately you have seen a lot of that - just not plastered on the nightly news as it doesn't move the rating needle nearly as much.  Most precincts have spent considerable time and efforts int outreach programs and from what I've seen, the results have been positive.

[VABuckeye 2472]

Exactly.  It all starts with communication.  Not screaming but dialogue.  The police needs to see the community as human beings and vice versa.  A little compassion goes a long way.

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

Following on from a post on another thread by @atomheartbevo

Quote

When I was in, it was drilled over and over into your head that if you fuck up something that was preventable, you are going to get reamed out 10 different ways. And depending on how long you've been in and how big the fuckup is, you could have your career ended.

We see Navy and Air Force officers who have been in for quite a while, have solid records, and they fuck up something fundamental to their responsibilities (say nukes in the Air Force, ships in the Navy, or even something like adultery) and then boom, their careers are over. We see Army soldiers who murder civilians end up in prison. We constantly see military officers being the equivalent of fired when their superiors lose faith in them.

There was no union bending over backwards to make sure those people were bridged to their retirement/pensions, and that their pensions were protected, even if they didn't appear to be eligible on paper.

There was no going to another military service when you got booted out of one, unlike cops going to different departments when they get fired or have to resign in disgrace.

And the military has a mechanism for booting you out if you aren't up to standards, and things that you fucked up don't just drop off your records over time. Meanwhile, many cops get their internal records expunged of complaints and the like every so many years (saw in Minneapolis that it happened with Chauvin).

If you fuck up, there was no union to come in and tell the NCOs and officers above you to "fuck off, you can't punish him" and said union proceeds to go to the local media telling them how the NCOs and officers above you are shitheads and you are an amazing human being who is "only trying to get home to his family."

All of the problems I keep seeing with these cops all seem to come back to the unions being too powerful and being able to protect their members from reform and punishment. They are acting far too heavy-handed, and we are seeing this across the country, and they can lean on elected officials and threaten to slow down responses, because they've developed an arrogance that ignores who their employers actually are.

Here follows my crazy idea:

So maybe the idea would be not less militarization of the police but more, albeit not with weaponry but with its culture and its place in society.

Take away their tanks and drones.

Decertify the unions. And then decertify them again, and again, and then set the union hall on fire and salt the earth on which it stood.

Divorce police from the political process as much as possible -- you don't see active duty generals dangling out potential endorsements in exchange for favors, nor holding out protection racket-style threats if they don't get what they want. It is time for the police to be removed from politicking -- it has corrupted both their internal workings and their relationship with the community.

If they want to be an occupying army, let them be, but they must adhere to a uniform code of peacekeeping justice. Call them the Civilian Peace Army or something; do away with tough-guy lingo like "law enforcement" and replace it with "peacekeeping." Provide more training for recruits and offer incentives along the lines of the GI Bill. Mental health screening of recruits and periodic re-testing of those in the most high-stress positions. Steroid testing out the wazoo. 

You could offer recruits a range of MOS's to choose from so they could sign up straight out of HS and learn trades: IT, auto mechanics, clerks etc. Patrol would be the equivalent of infantry. 

But out in the public  -- you make them win hearts and minds instead breaking heads and snapping spines.

Oh yeah, and they swear the same oath the military does, adjusted somewhat, but in the main, to the Constitution. No more questions about who they are serving and who they are protecting (from whom?). As it stands now, they are an authorized mafia with a legal monopoly on violence, answerable to nobody

Equality under the law, equality before the upholding of the law.

Also, blend in all of Brisket's suggestions on reforming drug laws, mental health responses, and traffic enforcement. 

[Parliament 14283]

[hobbes2702 13052]

3 minutes ago, Parliament said:

 

You call 911 just like now. That city council member clearly did not get informed before she voted or went on this interview. She too concerned with virtue signaling which misses the point here entirely 

Edited June 8, 2020 by hobbes2702

[Rougarou 594]

Poor guy, that mayor MSP was doing his best and saying all the right things and is super liberal and progressive and yet it's not enough. They want full anarchy or else it's "SHAME!" chanting. It's like there are no adults in the room.

[dcar00 14330]

2 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

Poor guy, that mayor MSP was doing his best and saying all the right things and is super liberal and progressive and yet it's not enough. They want full anarchy or else it's "SHAME!" chanting. It's like there are no adults in the room.

dont worry Hobbes and Fauci are here

[Michael Knight 12990]

1 hour ago, Parliament said:

 

I mean has anyone ever actually had the police help them in a home robbery? Either end the robbery or get their shit back?

[Gene Parmesan 4011]

28 minutes ago, Michael Knight said:

I mean has anyone ever actually had the police help them in a home robbery? Either end the robbery or get their shit back?

My wife's car was stolen out of our garage several years back.  Either the garage was left open or they used the opener from my unlocked car in the driveway.  That's was certainly stupid on us.  Filed the police report and a month later a couple knocks on our door saying their landlord is fixing to tow a car that's been parked in front of their duplex.  They saw car seats in the car and thought something was off, so they got our address from the registration in the glovebox and came to our house asking if it was our car.  I am guessing that most recovered property is blind luck like that.

[Parliament 14283]

I'll say something that offends all the people in this thread that aren't offended already:

Combine this with solid Stand Your Ground and Constitutional Carry laws, and it could just work.  

[Brisketexan 105213]

11 minutes ago, Parliament said:

I'll say something that offends all the people in this thread that aren't offended already:

Combine this with solid Stand Your Ground and Constitutional Carry laws, and it could just work.  

I have no problem with people having guns in their home for home defense.  The open carry bullshit creates a shitload of problems.

But for the jillionth time, the goal is NOT to reduce the ability of agents of the gov't to respond to calls and threats to life and property.  That should absolutely be, and remain the job of the police as a law enforcement agency.  Oh, and note that when we stop the war on drugs, they won't be spending time enforcing THOSE laws, which takes up plenty of time and resources.

But there's a whole lot more that police do that doesn't fall under that umbrella -- protect life and property.  So, have other folks do that.  Devote resources to those thing, getting bang for our buck.

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

Art Acevedo done fixed the po-leece

Photo at Yates High School in Houston's Third Ward. Art is chunkin' up double-treys there -- the three-finger hand signs represent Third Ward. 

[dcar00 14330]

for brisket if he wants to continue, how do we get rid of the racism in the police force as they interact with the public?

[dcar00 14330]

for brisket.. the city police work for the mayor/city council who hires the city manager.  we hold the mayor/city council accountable by election.  we don't hold the police accountable unless we as a private citizen file a lawsuit.  the DA can hold police accountable.

[Brisketexan 105213]

1 hour ago, dcar00 said:

for brisket if he wants to continue, how do we get rid of the racism in the police force as they interact with the public?

The first step is a universal one -- ratchet down their power significantly.

The second follows -- allow and provide for significant disciplinary action, including dismissal, for acts of racial bias.

[Brisketexan 105213]

1 hour ago, dcar00 said:

for brisket.. the city police work for the mayor/city council who hires the city manager.  we hold the mayor/city council accountable by election.  we don't hold the police accountable unless we as a private citizen file a lawsuit.  the DA can hold police accountable.

The working relationship between DAs and the police, as it stands, is not workable for the DA to hold them accountable.  Third party enforcement is a must.

[dcar00 14330]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The working relationship between DAs and the police, as it stands, is not workable for the DA to hold them accountable.  Third party enforcement is a must.

agree. thats where the mayor/city manager/city council come in.

[Brisketexan 105213]

1 minute ago, dcar00 said:

agree. thats where the mayor/city manager/city council come in.

Depends on the actual authority of the municipality.  Some have greater power than others (varies by state, type of municipality/county, etc.).  In some cases, it requires action by the state.  But in any case....yes, local level action is where it should mostly happen.  And pressure should be put on local governments (and it is happening, right now, all over).

However, the DOJ should have a greater role in enforcement of civil rights violations as well -- because not every local jurisdiction is going to get on board (not even close).  Between those two layers -- local independent oversight and enforcement, and the backstop of federal enforcement when necessary, that would go a long way.

[Brothahorn 10087]

Art Acevedo done fixed the po-leece

Photo at Yates High School in Houston's Third Ward. Art is chunkin' up double-treys there -- the three-finger hand signs represent Third Ward. 

Fuck Art.

It’s the 5th 4 Life!!!

Even Swayze know what it is.

[dcar00 14330]

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Depends on the actual authority of the municipality.  Some have greater power than others (varies by state, type of municipality/county, etc.).  In some cases, it requires action by the state.  But in any case....yes, local level action is where it should mostly happen.  And pressure should be put on local governments (and it is happening, right now, all over).

However, the DOJ should have a greater role in enforcement of civil rights violations as well -- because not every local jurisdiction is going to get on board (not even close).  Between those two layers -- local independent oversight and enforcement, and the backstop of federal enforcement when necessary, that would go a long way.

Is that not what we have? except for the local level failure FUBAR of course.

[Brisketexan 105213]

3 hours ago, dcar00 said:

Is that not what we have? except for the local level failure FUBAR of course.

No, it's not what we have.  The state overrides local municipalities/ties their hands in many cases (state civil service laws, etc.).  And even where it doesn't, we have long been captive -- regardless of party -- to an ethos of anyone who is not "tough on crime" has to be booted.  It's one of the rare "bi-partisan" faults out there, and it has functionally meant that proposing anything other than more cops, being tougher on crime, would get you booted from office posthaste. 

And as for the DOJ....don't get me started.  See the guidance Sessions issued on the way out of the DOJ.  It gutted the DOJ's consent decree authority.  It was one of the most shameless things I've seen the DOJ do, and I've been dealing with them for a long time.  The DOJ HAD been stepping up its enforcement, specifically including enforcement against PDs that had some clear racial issues.  Well, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions didn't care for that, so he put a stop to it.

Edited June 12, 2020 by Brisketexan

[immortal13 4059]

On 6/8/2020 at 2:22 PM, Parliament said:

I'll say something that offends all the people in this thread that aren't offended already:

Combine this with solid Stand Your Ground and Constitutional Carry laws, and it could just work.  

It would be more lawless in my opinion, like the old west. I say let's do it.

[dcar00 14330]

6 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

No, it's not what we have.  The state overrides local municipalities/ties their hands in many cases (state civil service laws, etc.).  And even where it doesn't, we have long been captive -- regardless of party -- to an ethos of anyone who is not "tough on crime" has to be booted.  It's one of the rare "bi-partisan" faults out there, and it has functionally meant that proposing anything other than more cops, being tougher on crime, would get you booted from office posthaste. 

And as for the DOJ....don't get me started.  See the guidance Sessions issued on the way out of the DOJ.  It gutted the DOJ's consent decree authority.  It was one of the most shameless things I've seen the DOJ do, and I've been dealing with them for a long time.  The DOJ HAD been stepping up its enforcement, specifically including enforcement against PDs that had some clear racial issues.  Well, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions didn't care for that, so he put a stop to it.

state civil service laws work that way for any civil service right?  can't the mayor/city council/city manager fire the police chief?

[SHOOTER12 8819]

Missouri woman killed by sheriff’s deputy was on way to work, didn’t carry gun: family

 

Hannah Fizer was driving to her job at an Eagle Stop convenience store in Sedalia when she was pulled over by a Pettis County sheriff’s deputy about 10 p.m. Saturday.

 

The 25-year-old had recently been promoted to assistant manager, her family said, and she was working the night shift that evening.

During traffic stop, the deputy shot and killed Fizer.

It was unclear Sunday if Fizer had a gun, according to the Missouri Highway Patrol, which is investigating the shooting at the request of the Pettis County Sheriff. The patrol has said the deputy pulled Fizer over near U.S. 50 and Winchester Drive, and that Fizer “refused to identify herself, stated she was armed & verbally threatened to shoot the deputy.”

The situation escalated and the deputy shot Fizer, said Missouri Highway Patrol spokesman Sgt. Andy Bell. Fizer died a short time later. The deputy was not injured.

Fizer’s family said this behavior doesn’t sound like the young woman they knew. Fizer’s stepmother, Lori Fizer, 51, said she’s never known Hannah to carry a gun.

It just doesn’t make sense, Lori Fizer said.

“We need to know exactly how everything went down,” she said. “She weighed a whole 145 pounds and she was by herself.”

Asked why the deputy pulled Fizer over to begin with, Bell directed questions to the Pettis County Sheriff’s Office.

Sheriff Kevin Bond could not immediately be reached Sunday.

Family described Fizer, who’d been living in Sedalia with her boyfriend of several years, as quiet, kind and generous.

Hannah Fizer spent Saturday swimming with friends and visiting with her parents before heading to work that evening, Lori Fizer said.

The young woman leaves behind many family members, friends and an English Bulldog Pitbull mix named Titus.

“He was her baby and she spoiled him rotten,” Lori Fizer said. “He doesn’t know he’s a dog.”

 

[Iceman 2725]

It'd be weird as fuck if there was video of the ordeal...

 

I've felt for a long time that video protects citizens AND it protects cops.  In this case the lady's family SAID she never had guns.  Sure would be nice to see what the deputy saw...

[BNB 100]

A few years ago, my neighbor graduated from UT, and he thought of being a cop.  He played it safe and went in the car rental business, but I think he told me Austin required a degree.  I don't think that is  common,  We need to require that at least IMHO.

We need people like him, less cops, but more educational requirements, more pay right away if they have a degree?

Edited June 15, 2020 by BNB

[Brisketexan 105213]

One thing we also really, really need to do is to get rid of the mindset among the public of "well, that guy deserved it" (whatever the cops do to him).  The cops are not the courts, and they never can be, and never should be.  This isn't a new fucking concept.  Today is Magna Carta day, so here's something for you:

805 years ago today at Runnymede. Arguably THE foundational document in establishing the rule of law, including this clause: "No free man shall be imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land." June 15, 1215.

You think a suspect deserves punishment?  Cool.  Then go get a fucking lawful judgment.  Until then, the state has ZERO fucking authority to exact any punishment.  ANY punishment.

[BabaYaga 15304]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

One thing we also really, really need to do is to get rid of the mindset among the public of "well, that guy deserved it" (whatever the cops do to him).  The cops are not the courts, and they never can be, and never should be.  This isn't a new fucking concept.  Today is Magna Carta day, so here's something for you:

805 years ago today at Runnymede. Arguably THE foundational document in establishing the rule of law, including this clause: "No free man shall be imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land." June 15, 1215.

You think a suspect deserves punishment?  Cool.  Then go get a fucking lawful judgment.  Until then, the state has ZERO fucking authority to exact any punishment.  ANY punishment.

So we're disarming all LE in this country then?  What then is the purpose of them being armed is this is the new model?

[Brisketexan 105213]

Just now, BabaYaga said:

So we're disarming all LE in this country then?  What then is the purpose of them being armed is this is the new model?

Several logical fallacies in your post, as well as incomplete information.  Define "disarm?"  I agree that not every person performing every function we have LEOs doing does NOT need to have a firearm.

Yet I also believe that there should still be units of LEOs who DO carry firearms.  The purpose of being armed should be connected with the limited role of these units -- interdiction of real-time threats, 

Finally, you missed my point.  The police can use force as any citizen can -- to protect themselves from death/serious bodily injury (although I believe that they should have an additional layer of restraint so that they avoid harming/killing a suspect if at all possible -- they should do all they can to err on the side of NOT killing members of the public).  What we CAN'T do is have a cultural ethos of "well, the dude he shot got what he deserved."  Nope, for a given crime, only a court can decide "what he deserves."  Extrajudicial killings are not and cannot ever be part of the criminal justice system.  Yet in our American mind, we regularly rationalize them that way.  We have to get rid of that thinking, it's poison.

[dcar00 14330]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Several logical fallacies in your post, as well as incomplete information.  Define "disarm?"  I agree that not every person performing every function we have LEOs doing does NOT need to have a firearm.

Yet I also believe that there should still be units of LEOs who DO carry firearms.  The purpose of being armed should be connected with the limited role of these units -- interdiction of real-time threats, 

Finally, you missed my point.  The police can use force as any citizen can -- to protect themselves from death/serious bodily injury (although I believe that they should have an additional layer of restraint so that they avoid harming/killing a suspect if at all possible -- they should do all they can to err on the side of NOT killing members of the public).  What we CAN'T do is have a cultural ethos of "well, the dude he shot got what he deserved."  Nope, for a given crime, only a court can decide "what he deserves."  Extrajudicial killings are not and cannot ever be part of the criminal justice system.  Yet in our American mind, we regularly rationalize them that way.  We have to get rid of that thinking, it's poison.

define "real-time threats"

[BabaYaga 15304]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I agree that not every person performing every function we have LEOs doing does NOT need to have a firearm.

Yet I also believe that there should still be units of LEOs who DO carry firearms.  The purpose of being armed should be connected with the limited role of these units -- interdiction of real-time threats, 

What happens when a non-armed LE is put into a dangerous situation requiring protection?  Not disagreeing with, but they are going to be in harms way.  It's inevitable.  This is why LE has become more and more non-specialized, because of the endless scenarios they are required to respond to; especially those misdiagnosed on the front end that turn sideways upon arrival.

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Finally, you missed my point.  The police can use force as any citizen can -- to protect themselves from death/serious bodily injury (although I believe that they should have an additional layer of restraint so that they avoid harming/killing a suspect if at all possible -- they should do all they can to err on the side of NOT killing members of the public).  What we CAN'T do is have a cultural ethos of "well, the dude he shot got what he deserved."  Nope, for a given crime, only a court can decide "what he deserves."  Extrajudicial killings are not and cannot ever be part of the criminal justice system.  Yet in our American mind, we regularly rationalize them that way.  We have to get rid of that thinking, it's poison.

Not disagreeing here either - it's the bodily harm part I was referring to.  Which is the reason they are armed.  Not to protect us, but themselves.  

"well, the dude he shot got what he deserved." - from my experience, this lines up with the above sentiment.  People making moves on LE, trying to take their guns, etc.  Every other scenario not involving a bodily harm threat, they need training and practice on restraint

[BabaYaga 15304]

5 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

define "real-time threats"

And define then in half a second or so.  I remember my CDL training and talk of the FBI "21 ft rule".  The gist being someone with a knife/melee weapon can cover 21ft faster than the average person can un-holster and acquire a target.  Giving some measure on context on how quickly things can spin out of control and how to understand the complexities of distance.  

[Brisketexan 105213]

3 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

What happens when a non-armed LE is put into a dangerous situation requiring protection?  Not disagreeing with, but they are going to be in harms way.  It's inevitable.  This is why LE has become more and more non-specialized, because of the endless scenarios they are required to respond to; especially those misdiagnosed on the front end that turn sideways upon arrival.

Those persons will be at some risk.  There is no perfect elimination of risk.

You know what profession regularly deals with belligerent, dangerous, and hostile people every day?  ER nurses.  I know several.  They probably deal with combative people MORE often than the average cop.  Sometimes, they even get hurt -- I've seen black eyes, bruises, etc.  But they don't need to shoot them.

And many scenarios will require both types of people to respond: mental health pros AND cops (in the background).  Nothing will be perfect.  Nothing.  Members of the public will still be hurt.  Police officers and other gov't officers will still be hurt., but let's acknowledge this: the profession is not nearly as dangerous as they'd make it out to be.  It's significantly more dangerous to be a farmer.

[Brisketexan 105213]

8 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

And define then in half a second or so.  I remember my CDL training and talk of the FBI "21 ft rule".  The gist being someone with a knife/melee weapon can cover 21ft faster than the average person can un-holster and acquire a target.  Giving some measure on context on how quickly things can spin out of control and how to understand the complexities of distance.  

Cool, I don't disagree.  Then when considering a possible threat (see the ABQ situation with the potentially armed homeless guy), do your best to keep some distance when possible.  Hell, let's say you ARE dealing with someone who is mentally unstable and is armed.  Showing up and being aggressive, with weapons drawn, CREATES an armed confrontation.  Clearing the area, and trying to talk him down from a distance, as well as giving you time to use potentially non-lethal means to reduce the threat, is a better tactic (and note, in many cases, law enforcement does exactly that - that's the hell of it, we can actually look to SOME law enforcement agencies that show us the right way).  

Armed Crazy Joe is most likely going to react much better to Officer Friendly, in a non-intimidating uniform, with no firearm on or out (have backup covering you), than he is to a platoon of geared up Marines pretending to clear houses in Fallujah.  If you create the air of combat and armed confrontation....that's what you are very likely to get.

De-escalation and minimizing confrontation should always be Job 1.  And by the way, putting yourself at some heightened risk is literally part of the job.  It is with firefighters, and you don't hear them constantly bitching about how they need to make it home alive.  Instead, they run in to burning buildings, knowing there is some risk to them.  The police need to stop trying to make every situation ZERO risk to them -- the only way to do that is to treat every human you encounter as a deadly threat, and to neutralize that threat.  Which really sucks when that "deadly threat" was just a dude driving home in a bad mood because he just lost the Witherspoon account.

[dcar00 14330]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Those persons will be at some risk.  There is no perfect elimination of risk.

You know what profession regularly deals with belligerent, dangerous, and hostile people every day?  ER nurses.  I know several.  They probably deal with combative people MORE often than the average cop.  Sometimes, they even get hurt -- I've seen black eyes, bruises, etc.  But they don't need to shoot them.

And many scenarios will require both types of people to respond: mental health pros AND cops (in the background).  Nothing will be perfect.  Nothing.  Members of the public will still be hurt.  Police officers and other gov't officers will still be hurt., but let's acknowledge this: the profession is not nearly as dangerous as they'd make it out to be.  It's significantly more dangerous to be a farmer.

you significantly more likey to die of the flu than of being killed by a cop while unarmed.  

[Brisketexan 105213]

1 minute ago, dcar00 said:

you significantly more likey to die of the flu than of being killed by a cop while unarmed.  

Groovy.  I'm glad (of course, we're not just talking about people being killed by cops -- for every person killed, there are lord knows how many who get the crap beaten out of them etc.).

Same things go for the cops as well, by the way.  They're more likely to die in a car wreck on the way to the call, than be shot by the subject of the call.

Dial it down.  Stop treating so many interactions like Fallujah.  Treat people like people.  Some of them are bad.  Many of them are just having a bad day.  If there's a guy itching to take a swing at a cop, it's a much better outcome to spend 30 minutes talking him down, then it is to rush in after 30 seconds to show him who's boss.  That's it.  Completely change the way of approaching the world.  If you are roided up, with Punisher tats all over, and your daily motto is "GIT SOME!", you're going to be a lot rougher with the public than if your approach includes the ethos of protecting life, including any "suspect," who again, may well be a dude just having a bad day.  Maybe he just got fired, maybe he's having a mental break, maybe he got drunk and passed out in a Wendy's drive-thru.  If he's doing something dangerous, then the cop should work to stop that activity, but he should do so in a way that preserves the life of the dude having a bad day, too.

[crash_davis 23114]

this probably needs it's own thread but the idea of a few bad apples is complete horseshit. 

https://www.knoxnews.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2019/04/24/usa-today-revealing-misconduct-records-police-cops/3223984002/

The records of their misconduct are filed away, rarely seen by anyone outside their departments. Police unions and their political allies have worked to put special protections in place ensuring some records are shielded from public view, or even destroyed.

Reporters from USA TODAY, its affiliated newsrooms across the country and the nonprofit Invisible Institute in Chicago spent more than a year creating the biggest collection of police misconduct records.

Obtained from thousands of state agencies, prosecutors, police departments and sheriffs, the records detail at least 200,000 incidents of alleged misconduct, much of it previously unreported. The records obtained include more than 110,000 internal affairs investigations by hundreds of individual departments and more than 30,000 officers who were decertified by 44 state oversight agencies.

Among the findings:

- Most misconduct involves routine infractions, but the records reveal tens of thousands of cases of serious misconduct and abuse. They include 22,924 investigations of officers using excessive force, 3,145 allegations of rape, child molestation and other sexual misconduct and 2,307 cases of domestic violence by officers.

- Dishonesty is a frequent problem. The records document at least 2,227 instances of perjury, tampering with evidence or witnesses or falsifying reports. There were 418 reports of officers obstructing investigations, most often when they or someone they knew were targets.

- Less than 10% of officers in most police forces get investigated for misconduct. Yet some officers are consistently under investigation. Nearly 2,500 have been investigated on 10 or more charges. Twenty faced 100 or more allegations yet kept their badge for years.

 

 

But the boot lickers will say that this represents a small number of the total police force. My question is where are the "good" officers speaking out against their "bad apples", or what happens to "good" officers who speak out against their gang?

[dcar00 14330]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Groovy.  I'm glad (of course, we're not just talking about people being killed by cops -- for every person killed, there are lord knows how many who get the crap beaten out of them etc.).

Same things go for the cops as well, by the way.  They're more likely to die in a car wreck on the way to the call, than be shot by the subject of the call.

Dial it down.  Stop treating so many interactions like Fallujah.  Treat people like people.  Some of them are bad.  Many of them are just having a bad day.  If there's a guy itching to take a swing at a cop, it's a much better outcome to spend 30 minutes talking him down, then it is to rush in after 30 seconds to show him who's boss.  That's it.  Completely change the way of approaching the world.  If you are roided up, with Punisher tats all over, and your daily motto is "GIT SOME!", you're going to be a lot rougher with the public than if your approach includes the ethos of protecting life, including any "suspect," who again, may well be a dude just having a bad day.  Maybe he just got fired, maybe he's having a mental break, maybe he got drunk and passed out in a Wendy's drive-thru.  If he's doing something dangerous, then the cop should work to stop that activity, but he should do so in a way that preserves the life of the dude having a bad day, too.

groovy, yes better training and more cops so that they don't have to work nearly as long hours in a very high stress environment. that's a reasonable take but comparing them to ER nurses(yes it is stressful but for a different reason) and farmers is..whatever and why I mentioned the flu.  guys that want to resist arrest, fight with cops are taking a risk. why do you keep putting quotes around suspect?  its a normal word for a person who may be suspected of doing something.

AGAIN, there are 1000 people in the US killed by cops every year in a country of 330M.  you act like they are killing tons of people(armed or unarmed, with unarmed being much lower) just having a bad day that are standing around minding their own business.  

 

[dcar00 14330]

16 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

this probably needs it's own thread but the idea of a few bad apples is complete horseshit. 

https://www.knoxnews.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2019/04/24/usa-today-revealing-misconduct-records-police-cops/3223984002/

The records of their misconduct are filed away, rarely seen by anyone outside their departments. Police unions and their political allies have worked to put special protections in place ensuring some records are shielded from public view, or even destroyed.

Reporters from USA TODAY, its affiliated newsrooms across the country and the nonprofit Invisible Institute in Chicago spent more than a year creating the biggest collection of police misconduct records.

Obtained from thousands of state agencies, prosecutors, police departments and sheriffs, the records detail at least 200,000 incidents of alleged misconduct, much of it previously unreported. The records obtained include more than 110,000 internal affairs investigations by hundreds of individual departments and more than 30,000 officers who were decertified by 44 state oversight agencies.

Among the findings:

- Most misconduct involves routine infractions, but the records reveal tens of thousands of cases of serious misconduct and abuse. They include 22,924 investigations of officers using excessive force, 3,145 allegations of rape, child molestation and other sexual misconduct and 2,307 cases of domestic violence by officers.

- Dishonesty is a frequent problem. The records document at least 2,227 instances of perjury, tampering with evidence or witnesses or falsifying reports. There were 418 reports of officers obstructing investigations, most often when they or someone they knew were targets.

- Less than 10% of officers in most police forces get investigated for misconduct. Yet some officers are consistently under investigation. Nearly 2,500 have been investigated on 10 or more charges. Twenty faced 100 or more allegations yet kept their badge for years.

 

 

But the boot lickers will say that this represents a small number of the total police force. My question is where are the "good" officers speaking out against their "bad apples", or what happens to "good" officers who speak out against their gang?

Unions are a bad idea all the way around.

[Brisketexan 105213]

2 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

groovy, yes better training and more cops so that they don't have to work nearly as long hours in a very high stress environment. that's a reasonable take but comparing them to ER nurses(yes it is stressful but for a different reason) and farmers is..whatever and why I mentioned the flu.  guys that want to resist arrest, fight with cops are taking a risk. why do you keep putting quotes around suspect?  its a normal word for a person who may be suspected of doing something.

AGAIN, there are 1000 people in the US killed by cops every year in a country of 330M.  you act like they are killing tons of people(armed or unarmed, with unarmed being much lower) just having a bad day that are standing around minding their own business.  

 

First bolded text -- dude, "suspect" is a self-fulfilling prophecy.  If a cop interacts with you, you are immediately treated as a "suspect."  That includes every person who is minding their own fucking business, walking down the street, etc.  How many damned stories do you need to read about black guys who end up shoved down to the ground in cuffs while the cops treat him as a "suspect" because he "meets a description" that often is vague as shit?  And we could go on and on.  So, yes, it belongs in quotes, because it's not the fucking cops' job to determine whether I am guilty of a crime and treat me of it.  Until they have legit probable cause, I am just another citizen, just like they are.  That's the fucking problem -- the entire "us" v. "them" mentality.

Second bolded text -- you keep going back to this red herring.  This issue is not ONLY about police killings.  It's about violent arrests and beatings.  And when it comes to race, damned right it's about their tendency to cast a wide net when the "subject description" is a black dude, and it's about how they treat that black dude they accost compared to how they treat a white dude who they "just want to talk to for a moment."  It's a top-to-bottom problem with how they interact with the public.  The killings are just the most obvious and egregious examples that call our attention to the problem -- kind of like how a fucking tumor bursting out of your skull really brings cancer home.  But fighting cancer also includes all of those internal tumors as well - you don't say "cancer isn't a problem because tumors bursting out of your skull are really rare."

[dcar00 14330]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

First bolded text -- dude, "suspect" is a self-fulfilling prophecy.  If a cop interacts with you, you are immediately treated as a "suspect."  That includes every person who is minding their own fucking business, walking down the street, etc.  How many damned stories do you need to read about black guys who end up shoved down to the ground in cuffs while the cops treat him as a "suspect" because he "meets a description" that often is vague as shit?  And we could go on and on.  So, yes, it belongs in quotes, because it's not the fucking cops' job to determine whether I am guilty of a crime and treat me of it.  Until they have legit probable cause, I am just another citizen, just like they are.  That's the fucking problem -- the entire "us" v. "them" mentality.

Second bolded text -- you keep going back to this red herring.  This issue is not ONLY about police killings.  It's about violent arrests and beatings.  And when it comes to race, damned right it's about their tendency to cast a wide net when the "subject description" is a black dude, and it's about how they treat that black dude they accost compared to how they treat a white dude who they "just want to talk to for a moment."  It's a top-to-bottom problem with how they interact with the public.  The killings are just the most obvious and egregious examples that call our attention to the problem -- kind of like how a fucking tumor bursting out of your skull really brings cancer home.  But fighting cancer also includes all of those internal tumors as well - you don't say "cancer isn't a problem because tumors bursting out of your skull are really rare."

you are the king of red herrings and using inane/ridiculous comparisons.  that's rich.  look you don't like the police and think the vast majority of them are shitty people.  its fine.  Like you I am for them to start equally doing patrols by neighborhood.   same number of cops and patrols and time in each neighborhood.  responding to calls should be done from a safe distance say 30 to 40 feet and they should never get close to a person.  if that person doesn't want to walk toward them to be arrested then they call someone else to come deal with it.

[Brisketexan 105213]

1 minute ago, dcar00 said:

you are the king of red herrings and using inane/ridiculous comparisons.  that's rich.  look you don't like the police and think the vast majority of them are shitty people.  its fine.  Like you I am for them to start equally doing patrols by neighborhood.   same number of cops and patrols and time in each neighborhood.  responding to calls should be done from a safe distance say 30 to 40 feet and they should never get close to a person.  if that person doesn't want to walk toward them to be arrested then they call someone else to come deal with it.

Well, then, see.....cut through the bullshit, and we can agree on some things.  And honestly, a "finding of fact" that the vast majority of cops are shitty (I say so, because even the "good ones" let the bad ones operate with impunity), or that the vast majority of them are actually good, doesn't matter.  We both know that we have a problem.  And the solutions should probably be similar whether the percentage of "bad cops" is 20% or 90%.

"Community policing" is one step.  And no, I don't necessarily think that the extreme of how they respond to ALL calls.  It depends on the nature of the call.  Not every call is a nail that requires a hammer to show up.  And again, changing the mindset of those community cops as to how they interact with people to be non-confrontational, not to ratchet up tensions, and to do everything possible to de-escalate a situation, would be huge.  There are a shitload of things you and I probably agree on if you take the inflammatory conversational buzzwords out of the mix.

[dcar00 14330]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Well, then, see.....cut through the bullshit, and we can agree on some things.  And honestly, a "finding of fact" that the vast majority of cops are shitty (I say so, because even the "good ones" let the bad ones operate with impunity), or that the vast majority of them are actually good, doesn't matter.  We both know that we have a problem.  And the solutions should probably be similar whether the percentage of "bad cops" is 20% or 90%.

"Community policing" is one step.  And no, I don't necessarily think that the extreme of how they respond to ALL calls.  It depends on the nature of the call.  Not every call is a nail that requires a hammer to show up.  And again, changing the mindset of those community cops as to how they interact with people to be non-confrontational, not to ratchet up tensions, and to do everything possible to de-escalate a situation, would be huge.  There are a shitload of things you and I probably agree on if you take the inflammatory conversational buzzwords out of the mix.

I'm sure you understand that you only see the hammer call on the news.  and yes cutting through your bullshit analogy stories will help.  the interesting thing is that Live PD actually showed "conflict resolution" stuff along with the "this one is going to 11" stuff but we needed to cancel it.  I really don't care that it was cancelled but it was interesting viewing if I wasn't doing anything.

yes, we agree it depends on the nature of the call but my solution is don't give them a choice because of course, as you point out, they are too shitty at their job to be given a choice.

[Brisketexan 105213]

27 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

I'm sure you understand that you only see the hammer call on the news.  and yes cutting through your bullshit analogy stories will help.  the interesting thing is that Live PD actually showed "conflict resolution" stuff along with the "this one is going to 11" stuff but we needed to cancel it.  I really don't care that it was cancelled but it was interesting viewing if I wasn't doing anything.

yes, we agree it depends on the nature of the call but my solution is don't give them a choice because of course, as you point out, they are too shitty at their job to be given a choice.

It ain't just "on the news."  I know that it gives you comfort to blame MSNBC or whatnot for the world's problems, but due to my profession and just my life in general, I've been aware of these issues for DECADES.  Not just on the news, but from real life, in the real world, on an ongoing and repeated basis.

You call my approach to this "bullshit analogy stories," yet you absolve the bulk of police based on.....no evidence whatsoever.  In another thread, I simply pointed to 3-4 recent interactions with police that featured 1) 1-2 bad cops doing bad cop things, AND 2) dozens upon dozens of cops who stood by and either did nothing or protected the bad cops.  I mean, you can keep insisting that those are crazy outliers.....but where's the support for that?

And yes, I'm not saying that every PD on every call utterly fails with de-escalation and whatnot.  Some of them are actually deliberately reasonably good at it.  But we go back to the problem with the "hundreds of interactions, why do you have to focus on the bad ones?" being a TERRIBLE defense for misconduct.  Nobody is going to let a rapist off if his argument is "hey, I have had sex with a hundred women with their consent -- why are you focusing on the one time I raped a woman?"  Or a thief saying "I've gone shopping a thousand times and paid for what I took, why are you focusing on the one time I shoved 6 ipads in my coat?"  To top it off, these aren't just random people we're talking about -- they are sworn law officers.  They literally have the highest duty to uphold the law.  So, yeah, we can and should hold them to a higher standard than a random dude off the street.

[dcar00 14330]

33 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It ain't just "on the news."  I know that it gives you comfort to blame MSNBC or whatnot for the world's problems, but due to my profession and just my life in general, I've been aware of these issues for DECADES.  Not just on the news, but from real life, in the real world, on an ongoing and repeated basis.

You call my approach to this "bullshit analogy stories," yet you absolve the bulk of police based on.....no evidence whatsoever.  In another thread, I simply pointed to 3-4 recent interactions with police that featured 1) 1-2 bad cops doing bad cop things, AND 2) dozens upon dozens of cops who stood by and either did nothing or protected the bad cops.  I mean, you can keep insisting that those are crazy outliers.....but where's the support for that?

And yes, I'm not saying that every PD on every call utterly fails with de-escalation and whatnot.  Some of them are actually deliberately reasonably good at it.  But we go back to the problem with the "hundreds of interactions, why do you have to focus on the bad ones?" being a TERRIBLE defense for misconduct.  Nobody is going to let a rapist off if his argument is "hey, I have had sex with a hundred women with their consent -- why are you focusing on the one time I raped a woman?"  Or a thief saying "I've gone shopping a thousand times and paid for what I took, why are you focusing on the one time I shoved 6 ipads in my coat?"  To top it off, these aren't just random people we're talking about -- they are sworn law officers.  They literally have the highest duty to uphold the law.  So, yeah, we can and should hold them to a higher standard than a random dude off the street.

you are the self appointed expert, we get it. you know exactly what happened in buffalo don't you.  you are pissed and slightly unhinged about all this and everyone must bow to your knowledge.  more bullshit analogy stories and now comparing cops to rapists who rape once and thieves who steal once to try to fucking say I am defending misconduct. complete bullshit.  I never once defended misconduct.  I expect the police to do their job as trained as sworn law officers.

my Mayor Brisket deal was kind of a joke but with all your knowledge and insight you really should do it or at least try to apply for city manager where you can affect the change you are looking for.

you need to get REALLY pissed at the people who manage and set the training for the city police, the swat teams, rapid response teams, etc. and the people that are responsible for those managers.  Maybe your ire is focused at the wrong set of people.  There are a lot of shitty dumbass leaders everywhere(past and present)maybe try to hold those shitheads accountable once.

And lets break the union while we are at it but don't be selective about it.

 

 

Edited June 15, 2020 by dcar00

[UncleCharlie 334]

1. Get rid of qualified immunity.

2. Give police a way to turn in bad cops without fear of retribution.

 

Or go with Daniel Tosh's idea. Cops can only be black. Firemen can only be white.

 

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

[RPM 26338]

Take away their sidearm or give them the Barney Fife treatment. You get to carry a sidearm, but you have to keep your bullet (1) in your front left shirt pocket. You can give them 5 more locked in the trunk. Remove the crutch and they will stop relying on it.

[Brisketexan 105213]

56 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

you need to get REALLY pissed at the people who manage and set the training for the city police, the swat teams, rapid response teams, etc. and the people that are responsible for those managers.  Maybe your ire is focused at the wrong set of people.  There are a lot of shitty dumbass leaders everywhere(past and present)maybe try to hold those shitheads accountable once.

Cool...but you don't understand the org chart of government.  I agree with you, state and local management of law enforcement has been for shit.  But what you aren't getting to is the fact that it is that way BECAUSE THEIR CONSTITUENTS WANT IT THAT WAY.  Politicians do what loud and powerful constituencies demand that they do, because otherwise, they get tossed out on their ass.

You and I both know that for the last 20-40 years, functionally every state and city official would have been summarily tossed out on their ass next election if they came out with a plan to reform policing and subject cops to greater oversight and discipline.  The problem isn't just the police, it isn't just gov't leadership -- the problem is that they have been operating the way that a loud percentage (and often majority) of voters WANTED them to.  That's a huge point here -- that's why shifting public opinion matters.  I am focused on EXACTLY the right people -- we the people.  We need to demand better, and not accept the same shitty order.  Politicians will respond to that, or find themselves looking for new work.  Cops will respond to that, or find themselves looking for new work.