Do you support our current president? by canttakesky

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
My SOs headlights were broken by a cop simply because my SO was a "hairbag". It's one thing to respond to what people DO. it's entirely another to prejudge an individual based on extraneous circumstances.

But, if you're telling me that's OK, then what you're saying is that police-work makes people prejudiced.

I’ve already been through this Signym. Numerous times in this discussion alone. You’re not saying anything more then rehashing the same unsupported generalizations - except your now claiming that generalization includes claims of racism as well.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Finn, Finn, Finn ... once again your distortion of the common english langauge boggles the sane mind.

Tasers are sold AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO GUNS. In other words, where you would once pull out your gun, you pull out a Taser. They are NOT sold as an alternative to batons.

Rue, I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to understand this and it certainly doesn‘t require any distortion of the English language. In simple terms: Guns are very high on the force continuum; tasers are very low. They are not in the same category. If your ideology will not allow you to think beyond simplistic jingles, then that’s your lack of understanding.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 14, 2008 1:12 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I’ve already been through this Signym. Numerous times in this discussion alone. You’re not saying anything more then rehashing the same unsupported generalizations - except your now claiming that generalization includes claims of racism as well.

Finn, I'm merely restating what you've already said. Your contention seems to be

Quote:
As I said, many people don’t really care about the real issues here. They have decided to adopt this simplistic view that police are bullies, and that‘s all there is to it. You simply will not even entertain the idea that there could possibly be another dimension, and neither will many others.

but then you undercut your own argument by saying

Quote:
Due to the likelihood of a criminal being black, as opposed to white, it’s probably true that more officers are more likely to exceed appropriate behavior with a black person then with a white person...

and

Quote:
How an officers deals with an 80 year old woman in a relatively safe neighborhood should be completely different from how they deal with a 25 year man in a rough neighborhood. I don’t really see anything wrong with that.

And that, friend, is prejudice. You may not see anything wrong with it, but that's what it is: reacting to people not on the basis of what they're doing, but on the basis of extraneous circumstance. Have you ever heard of being pulled over for DWB? I'll let you figure that out, but for the moment let's say that you have fully agreed that police are, and should be, prejudiced.

Now consider that everyone on this board - except you- has either had a/several negative encounter(s) with police, personally knows someone who's had a/several negative encounter(s), or personally knows a police officer (or other law enforcement officer) who has either admitted to harassing, assaulting, raping or robbing civilians or who knows someone who has. That's damn near 100%, Finn, and not a statistical anomaly. Chris, Frem, my SO and my cop friends, Rue and her family member.... you start totaling up personal experiences and then you start to realize it's not cherry-picking ... it's a widespread experience.

So maybe you live in an exceptionally nice place and your own personal bubble, and you have never personally experienced or personally know someone who's experienced a crime against their person/ property by a uniformed officer, but you can't deny the personal, direct experiences of so many people from such a diverse population. (well, okay, maybe you "can" but that would put you in the realm of Auraptor-land and not the rational person I believe you are.)

But lets' take this conversation in a different direction... let's assume that these crimes- which are widespread enough that this population of intelligent and mostly white folk knows about them- are committed by a small minority of officers who besmirch the reputation of police everywhere.

What then?

How does the average COP react to a fellow officer who's a bully, or worse? Do they report them? Turn them in? And if not- why not?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 14, 2008 6:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
I’ve already been through this Signym. Numerous times in this discussion alone. You’re not saying anything more then rehashing the same unsupported generalizations - except your now claiming that generalization includes claims of racism as well.
Finn, I'm merely restating what you've already said.

No, what you are doing is taking statements out of context and manipulating them to make your own point.

Let's restate a point I made in a different way:

A woman is walking down the street in a safe neighborhood, she sees ahead of her an 80 year old woman walking towards on the same side of the street. Is this woman going to feel threatened in this situation? Very likely not.

A woman is walking down the street in a rough neighborhood, she sees a young man walking towards her on the same side of the street. Is this woman going to feel threatened in this situation? Very likely she is. Many woman would claim that they would even change what side of the road they are walking on.

So considering the point you just tried to make, it stands to reason that you think woman suffer from a culture of bullying. Is that really what you think? Or more likely, there’s simply no way to logically and honestly get from what I’ve said to what you’re trying to claim I said.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 14, 2008 6:31 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Let's look at this a little differently:

A woman is walking down the street in a safe neighborhood, she sees ahead of her an 80 year old woman walking towards on the same side of the street. The woman is shabby, waving her arms wildly, and mumbling to herself.

A woman is walking down the street in a rough neighborhood, she sees a young man walking towards her on the same side of the street. The man is pushing a baby stroller.

Now this:

A man is driving through (in a more or less straight line) a rich white part of town at 2 AM. He's following all of the rules of the road, but he's black.

A white man is driving slowly through a very poor part of town at 2 AM. He circles the same block several times.

Or this:

A well-dressed young black man is walking out of the Chemistry building at 2PM, laptop in-hand.

A young white man is jogging at 6 AM through a neighborhood of apartments.

-------------------------------
Situational awareness should encompass what people are doing as well as the color of their skin and their neighborhood. I have been threatened by young black men who made a POINT of acting threatening. I've also been around young black men who made a point of behaving oppositely. I know people who grew up in very violent neighborhoods who were never part of a gang. For every young man who is a criminal, there are at least three who are not, even in the worst neighborhoods. So the idea that one should treat everyone according to a stereotype is not only prejudicial but also dangerous.

Quote:
So considering the point you just tried to make, it stands to reason that you think woman suffer from a culture of bullying. Is that really what you think?

Actually, I do, altho I can't figure out how you got that from my statement. How did you reach that conclusion?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 14, 2008 6:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Situational awareness should encompass what people are doing as well as the color of their skin and their neighborhood. I have been threatened by young black men who made a POINT of acting threatening. I've also been around young black men who made a point of behaving oppositely. I know people who grew up in very violent neighborhoods who were never part of a gang. For every young man who is a criminal, there are at least three who are not, even in the worst neighborhoods. So the idea that one should treat everyone according to a stereotype is not only prejudicial but also dangerous.

No. It’s not. If you are in a part of town where there is a reasonable likelihood that a person will be a criminal or just pose a danger to a person, then you would be foolish to ignore the potential danger, just because of some high-minded nonsense about prejudice. You’ll find it to be very difficult to preach on the RWED board about racism and the evils of authority, if your on the side of the road dead because you decided to apply some high-minded pseudo-morality to a situation that required a rational judgment.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Actually, I do, altho I can't figure out how you got that from my statement. How did you reach that conclusion?

So you think women are bullies? I disagree. I don’t think that there is anything bullying or racist about a woman who makes a judgment to avoid a potentially dangerous situation. In fact, I think it is a smart thing to do.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 14, 2008 7:26 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
No. It’s not. If you are in a part of town where there is a reasonable likelihood that a person will be a criminal or just pose a danger to a person, then you would be foolish to ignore the potential danger, just because of some high-minded nonsense about prejudice. You’ll find it to be very difficult to preach on the RWED board about racism and the evils of authority, if your on the side of the road dead because you decided to apply some high-minded pseudo-morality to a situation that required a rational judgment.

Finn, I've lived in some dangerous neighborhoods and been victimized more than once, tussled with one person and.. actually managed to survive.

Quote:
If you are in a part of town where there is a reasonable likelihood that a person will be a criminal or just pose a danger to a person...

Don't forget that statistically the person most likely to be dangerous is someone of your own family not a stranger on the street. Familiarity does not equal safety. That by itself should break down stereotypes, although I know it won't.

So let's get back to the part where I asked about the honest cop who knows someone on the force who is a bully, or worse. What does that honest officer do?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 14, 2008 10:02 AM

With proper situational awareness, race, age and gender are *irrelevant*, always have been.

The only thing that makes a difference is BEHAVIOR, and sometimes, not even that.

Remember folks, I make a de-facto policy of operating via psychological blind spots and the ability to enter a situation, act upon it and leave the area utterly unseen and unnoticed.

People see what they want to, and do not watch closely enough as a general rule, wasn't that long ago I discreetly followed and had pulled in a burglar who was using a UPS truck and uniform to case his targets around here, cause his observed behavior triggered my suspicions, and further investigation revealed the truck in question had been reported as stolen.

(By nature, I waited till that point to involve the Police, cause it's an asshole thing to sic them on someone without damn good cause.)

You don't have to succumb to fear, paranoia, or racism to protect yourself, all you have to do is know HOW.
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/pyramid.html
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/five_stages.html
And be willing to do so - and fear of arrest for merely acting in your own defense has so discouraged it that the general reaction is numb, meek compliance, something criminals DEPEND on to lower the risk of their actions and make what they do profitable.

And this behavior is sanctioned, encouraged, and abetted by the very police departments responsible for mitigating crime, yet encouraging cooperation over resistance actually encourages crime - and it sure doesn't do the folks who did cooperate and got dead anyway one whit of good.

The best way to prevent crime against you is to make the criminal UNABLE to obtain what he wants from you, by movement, positioning, or superior firepower - but mostly by recognizing his BEHAVIOR and acting in a fashion as to effectively deny him an easy mark.

I take this a little further, myself - when marked for an "interview" and the perp starts positioning, I return the favor, setting my OWN "interview" and by keeping the initiative and positioning on MY terms and timing, convince them they've just yanked the tail of a shark instead of a goldfish, while acting in such a fashion as to convey the concept that I mean to rob/mug/mangle THEM.
(While adopting through posture, gesture and facial expression the impression that perhaps their intended mark has a few very nasty screws loose upstairs...)*

Crooks may be stupid, but when it comes to their own little world they're not THAT dumb, most of em, and *will* realize what's going on at that point and withdraw, quickly - damn quickly in most cases.

It's a lot like diplomacy in that regard, he's spying you, your spying him, grinning all the while with really sharp knives behind your back waiting for the other to blink - nothing really happened, and nothings GOING to happen, unless you let it.

And yeah, sure, no one is 100% perfect all the time, but proper situational awareness is a zero-maintanence item once you make it habit.

-Frem
*Heh, Fremgirl refers to that as "flipping the creepy switch", it works real well if you study and emulate various items from the DSM-IV.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 14, 2008 10:35 AM

Frem, what you said has all kinda sense to it. I grew up in an environment where you'd get mugged if you looked uneasy or scared.
But truthfully- I play the part of the unsuspecting innocent 'cause I'm usually itching for some action...

Bad Buddha Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 14, 2008 1:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Don't forget that statistically the person most likely to be dangerous is someone of your own family not a stranger on the street. Familiarity does not equal safety. That by itself should break down stereotypes, although I know it won't.

It’s irrelevant for one thing, and it has nothing to do with stereotypes. The fact of the matter is, however much you want to dance around it, you’re more likely to encounter a threat from a young man in a rough neighborhood then you are an old woman in a safe neighborhood.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So let's get back to the part where I asked about the honest cop who knows someone on the force who is a bully, or worse. What does that honest officer do?

I suppose he does what any honest officer does - either confronts the other person or reports them, if the actions of the other officer warrant attention.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 14, 2008 4:48 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I suppose he does what any honest officer does - either confronts the other person or reports them, if the actions of the other officer warrant attention.

And if bullying/ corrupt cops are NOT reported, what does that make the "honest" cop? An accomplice?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 14, 2008 6:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
I suppose he does what any honest officer does - either confronts the other person or reports them, if the actions of the other officer warrant attention.
And if bullying/ corrupt cops are NOT reported, what does that make the "honest" cop? An accomplice?

Signym, there is no reason to play your little condescending question game. We are all aware that you assume all cops are bullies. You have made that point clear before. But I don't except it. It is an unfair generalization.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 14, 2008 7:07 PM

Quit dodgin the question Finn.

How culpable do you consider the officer who is aware of his comrades misdeeds but either refuses to act, or actively covers for them ?

It's a real question, and worth an honest answer.

Because it is at the very root of the problem we are discussing.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 14, 2008 7:12 PM

On a lighter note, and especially for Chrisisall...

A very useful doormat to avoid the endless shakedown hassles.
http://www.amazon.com/High-Cotton-Come-Warrant-Doormat/dp/B00020O572

-F

*Oh, how interesting!
I did not know Amazon was carrying Larry's book!

if you ever sat through a horror movie cussing the stupid mistakes of the characters, you definately wanna read MHI.
http://www.amazon.com/Monster-Hunter-International-Larry-Correia/dp/07
41444569/
ref=pd_sbs_k_img_3/102-1115175-1958554
(spaced link)
I, err.. kinda know the guy, if THAT tells you anything, heh heh heh...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 14, 2008 7:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quit dodgin the question Finn.

It’s not a real question. Signym’s first question starts off asking what an “honest officer” does. Signym second question then defines an “honest officer” as an accomplice to corruption and bullying. Those aren't honest questions - that’s manipulation.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
How culpable do you consider the officer who is aware of his comrades misdeeds but either refuses to act, or actively covers for them ?

That depends on how much he knows and the nature of misdeeds.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 14, 2008 7:25 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Signym, there is no reason to play your little condescending question game. We are all aware that you assume all cops are bullies. You have made that point clear before. But I don't except it. It is an unfair generalization.

I assume no such thing. Whether "all cops are bullies" would then depend on how many unreported corrupt cops actually exist, and the number of "honest" cops that left the abuse unreported. If you add those numbers together and it reaches a substantial percentage of a PD.... well, then you have a serious problem.

Now I personally don't know what percent of police participate in corrupt or abusive practices, and "how many" knew about it but didn't report. I'm sure that there have been a number of thoughtful studies with all kinds of facts and figures. But even a cursory glance thru the internet indicates that although only about 5% of a PD is corrupt or abusive, these corrupt officers are seldom reported, investigated, or punished.

Quote:
According to the new report, rogue police officers abuse victims without fear of punishment, and the lack of accountability has tainted the entire department, resulting in a loss of public confidence. Patterns of abuse and disciplinary neglect were worst in low-income minority neighborhoods, said the authors, Craig B. Futterman, H. Melissa Mather and Melanie Miles.

The national average among large police departments for excessive-force complaints is 9.5 per 100 full-time officers. For a department of Chicago’s size (13,500, second only to New York), that would correspond to 1,283 complaints a year. From 1999 to 2004, however, citizens filed about 1,774 brutality complaints a year against Chicago officers. Less than 5 percent of the department was responsible for nearly half of abuse complaints, from 2001 to 2006.

In other words, a small percent of the PD commits abuse over and over

Quote:
Although a great majority of the department is not abusive, the report said, “This does not mean that it bears no responsibility,” adding, “The police code of silence contributes to the machinery of denial.”

www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/us/15chicago.html?ex=1195794000&en=fb78be01
b21b078b&ei=5070

AND

Quote:
In its report on the Los Angeles police department in the aftermath of the March 1991 beating of Rodney King, the Christopher Commission confirmed a long held suspicion: a small number of officers are involved in an extraordinarily high percentage of use of force incidents. Ten percent of the officers accounted for 33.2% of all use of force incidents. The Commission was able to identify 44 such officers who were not disciplined despite the fact that they were the subjects of numerous citizen complaints.

So although "all" police aren't bullies, there seems to be a PD culture that tolerates abuse.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 14, 2008 7:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So although "all" police aren't bullies, there seems to be a PD culture that tolerates abuse.

In fact, according to this study only 5% are. I would say 5% makes sense, since about 5% of people I know are assholes - which further suggest that police officers are people, not assholes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 5:26 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

OTOH, in an anonymous survey, about 50% of police officers said they WITNESSED acts which could be considered as "excessive use of force", and that's not counting little shit like harassment.

So why aren't those 50% coming forward? When the CHP testified against the LAPD in the Rodney King case it was a big, big deal. You'd think that in an organization that has - literally- the power of life and death there would be proactive institutional measures to weed out those out-of-control, violent officers. And what does that make that roughly 50% who know what's going on but don't stop it? Because very very few officers will actually report or testify against a fellow officer. So what is going on that is inhibiting these guys from doing what an honest human being should do?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 5:48 AM

I don’t know, but according to your own references, less then 5% of Chicago police officers are assholes and this is apparently a department that has some problems (according to this reference) where you might expect that number to be larger. Yet, it is still very small.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 6:57 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yes, but you're avoiding the other 50% who apparently won't step forward to stop that 5% (or in the case of LAPD 10%).

Put yourself in the mind of that "other" officer: You've seen your colleague throw down an unresisting civilian... beat them or tase them repeatedly for apparently no reason whatsoever. Or worse, order them to get up and THEN beat them and charge them for "resisting". Or be part of a "stomp circle" in which several "officers" beat and kick and unresisting civilian. Or plant drugs, steal and sell evidence, or rape and rob women.

And you do..... what?

Nothing?

What does that make you?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 7:28 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Put yourself in the mind of that "other" officer: You've seen your colleague throw down an unresisting civilian... beat them or tase them repeatedly for apparently no reason whatsoever. Or worse, order them to get up and THEN beat them and charge them for "resisting". Or be part of a "stomp circle" in which several "officers" beat and kick and unresisting civilian. Or plant drugs, steal and sell evidence, or rape and rob women.

And you do..... what?

Nothing?

What does that make you?

What are you currently doing to ensure that matters of police brutality go reported across the country besides railing at Posters on this internet forum?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 7:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What does that make you?

Not an abusive officer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 7:42 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, if you see someone committing a crime... and that's what the abusive officers are doing... as a police officer aren't you suposed to DO something about it?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 7:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

http://www.amazon.com/High-Cotton-Come-Warrant-Doormat/dp/B00020O572

*biggest LOL on this thread!!!*

That's priceless!!!

Gotta get oneisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 7:48 AM

Who says so-called abusive officers are necessarily committing crimes? Most of the officers in the Rodney King case didn't commit any crimes until the federal government decided to exchange justice for appeasement.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 7:50 AM

Ah yes, now we get to the meat of the matter...

Of *course* the great majority of police behavior is committed by a relatively few individuals, turn it around and compare with Vachss studies on "lifestyle-violent" offenders, the great majority of crime is committed by relatively few individuals also, you see.

That same dynamic applies to a lot of human behavior, military studies have determined that a mere 4-5% of the troops do more than 70% of the killin, so this is something that applies across the board.

It's not the 5% that concern me so much, were it not for the culture of corruption that covers for them, be it fear of retaliation, job solidarity, the us and them mentality or what have you, they would be charged, discliplined and expelled in short order, a general and ongoing housecleaning effect you need in any profession, really.

It is the officers who won't step up to the plate and clean their own house, but close ranks and cover for, defend these guys, a tacit complicity that encourages or supports that behavior and thus allows it to continue - coloring the perception of the police as a whole by anyone ever witnessing or affected by that abuse.

The issue is, what do we do about them, and how - while they did not actively participate in the abuse much of the time (although I cite Milgram here, and point out that once an event is initiated by an abusive officer, most others will join in rather than put a stop to it) they know about it and chose not to act, or even willingly help in the coverup.

That is the keystone of the whole issue, right there, and just like the military concept of illegal orders, while a lot of legal butt covering and lip service is given to the topic of taking issue with a fellow officers misbehavior, the reality is in fact quite different, and in spite of that lip service the training, procedure and policy tends to severely discourage it.

This cycles, also, to some degree, back to the respect issue, a cop should have the self-respect and respect of his profession to not want to tolerate such behavior even for a minute, but due to the self-feeding cycle of this behavior and the lack of consequences causing the public as a whole to lose respect for the police force, there is also that impact upon their own self respect, as is the impact of often having to enforce petty and ridiculous bullshit the officers themselves can barely stomach.

Add to that the problem of holding them to a lower legal and ethical standard than non police, and you've created the perfect recipe for this problem to exist.

That would be the first element required to address this issue - a police officer who knowingly and willfully violates the law should recieve no privledge or tolerance for it, but should in fact be held to a higher standard with an increased set of penalties given that they swore to uphold it as a profession.

And their fellow officers should be also penalized for such events, in minor form, as a discouragement to allow both such abuses, and those they can obviously determine are likely to commit them, within the ranks in the first place.

Also, the double-standard of enforcement has to go, police officers should be subject to every single little nitpick rule, regulation and law that citizens are, with the aforementioned increased penalties - that would result in short term trouble, but in the end would bring to light the impossibility of enforcing ALL those rules, ALL the time, against everyone, it's just not possible and to even try one opens the door to abuses of the process.

As a benefit, we would finally get to address HOW we want the law enforced, and some decisions would have to be made as to whether or not we really want to waste police time and resources on enforcing some of the really ridiculous shit we currently waste it on.

Add in better training more focused on community protection and crime prevention instead of law enforcement, and shift responsibility for triaging the decision to enforce a misdemeanor crime or not back where it belongs, to the officer in question - this might lead to some short term abuses, I am well aware, but if we cannot trust them with the responsibility we hired them for in the first place we have no business having them, and it's a key point towards police having a enough sense of self respect and respect to the profession to be intolerant of abuses.

And finally, cease discouraging individual self protection and defense, over time that has resulted in a parasitic dependancy on a force that can only respond after the fact, causing a lot of needless social friction on both ends of the transaction, simply acknowledge the plain fact that police cannot respond till they have been contacted, informed, and reach the event, while making allowances for citizens to act in their own protection and defense up to that point without fear of arrest or harrassment.

Not only is throwing the whole responsibility of social protection onto an officer in a reactive, instead of pro-active, stance idiotic on the face of it, taking it away from the citizen who is nose to nose with an assailant is insane.

I guess what I am saying is give some Honor and Respect back to the profession internally, make them WANT to clean their own house, and with appropriate penalties for not doing so.

That's all I can add at the moment, cause I got work to do, folks...

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 7:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, if you see someone committing a crime... and that's what the abusive officers are doing... as a police officer aren't you suposed to DO something about it?

Yeah. Report it.
Then get ready for the sh*tstorm.

Way I see it, good officers reserve that action for their goodbye from the force, so they save it for something big, or, they just try to do the right thing without looking at what others are doing (Tryin' to see it from their side here...).

Personally, I couldn't stand by and do nothing in the face of corruption, hence my not being a PO. I'd be known as "Chrisisall The (dead) Rat".
Hell, if my own SON was being bad, I'd nail him.
I guess I'm just black & white in a world of gray.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 8:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Yeah. Report it.
Then get ready for the sh*tstorm.

Way I see it, good officers reserve that action for their goodbye from the force, so they save it for something big, or, they just try to do the right thing without looking at what others are doing (Tryin' to see it from their side here...).

Personally, I couldn't stand by and do nothing in the face of corruption, hence my not being a PO. I'd be known as "Chrisisall The (dead) Rat".
Hell, if my own SON was being bad, I'd nail him.
I guess I'm just black & white in a world of gray.

I think most officers would agree with you on this. The vast majority of officers probably wouldn’t hesitate to intervene, obstruct or report a situation in which egregious abuse was obvious. The problem is that abusive officers don’t make it obvious. These kinds of people operate in the shadows. They may use disproportionate force or other inappropriate tactics, but they won’t advertise it, even to their fellow cop, and the victims of these kinds of tactics are people who are suspected of or none to be less then scrupulous themselves. Other officers may find themselves between their loyalty to what they believe to be right and defending what they believe to wrong based on an uncertain memory of events. The situation can become very grey, even for people who think they have their ethics solid.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 8:09 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I think most officers would agree with you on this. The vast majority of officers probably wouldn’t hesitate to intervene, obstruct or report a situation in which egregious abuse was obvious. The problem is that abusive officers don’t make it obvious. These kinds of people operate in the shadows

This is exactly opposite of what surveys and studies show, so my guess is that you're simply in denial and no amount of factual information is going to change your mind.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 9:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
This is exactly opposite of what surveys and studies show

I think we have to define some things here...a cop who writes a bogus ticket to fill a quota or show who's in control is an irritant, but hardly dangerous...would you call him 'corrupt'?

Is a cop that pockets some drug money-evidence corrupt?

Certainly ones that plant evidence on innocent peeps, or ones that physically abuse peeps (meaning blood and/or broken bones) are...right?

There's always gonna be minor abuses, but how prevalent is the serious mob-type stuff?

Enquiring Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 9:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
This is exactly opposite of what surveys and studies show
I think we have to define some things here...a cop who writes a bogus ticket to fill a quota or show who's in control is an irritant, but hardly dangerous...would you call him 'corrupt'?

Is a cop that pockets some drug money-evidence corrupt?

Certainly ones that plant evidence on innocent peeps, or ones that physically abuse peeps (meaning blood and/or broken bones) are...right?

Corruption is corruption. I think writing bogus tickets is probably pretty bad, because one imagines that it’s probably being done to exploit money. I might be very suspicious of that kind of activity. Pocketing drug money? Pocketing drug money is also pretty bad. Planting evidence on innocent people or causing serious physical abuse disproportionate with the response is also pretty bad. You want me to pick a corruption and say it’s okay, but I can’t do that.

On the other hand, it’s the details that get you. Let’s say, Officer Finn and Officer Isall goes to arrest a perp known as shithead who sells drugs to minors and enjoys playing out his twisted fantasies on little girls. Officer Finn walks into the room and starts beating the shit out of Mr. Shithead, then to cover his tracks officer Finn plants a knife on Mr. Shithead so that it looks like he was attacked. Officer Isall witnesses the abuse, but because Officer Finn is crafty, he doesn’t witness the knife being planted. However, Officer Isall isn’t stupid and knows there was no knife when he walked in the room. Officer Isall is surprised by Officer Finn’s actions because just yesterday he was over at Officer Finn’s house watching him dote on his little girls like they were the only thing on earth that mattered to him. Now Officer Isall has a choice to make. Does he report an event that he can’t know was actual abuse to defend a worthless fuck up like Mr. Shithead and potentially ruin the job of an Officer whom Officer Isall knows to be a good guy. Officer Isall knows what the rules are, but he also knows that Mr. Shithead deserved every lump he got. Now what? The grey area bites.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
There's always gonna be minor abuses, but how prevalent is the serious mob-type stuff?

Probably only a fraction of the previous mentioned 5% would really be considered “mob-type stuff.”

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 10:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Now Officer Isall has a choice to make. Does he report an event that he can’t know was actual abuse to defend a worthless fuck up like Mr. Shithead and potentially ruin the job of an Officer whom Officer Isall knows to be a good guy. Officer Isall knows what the rules are, but he also knows that Mr. Shithead deserved every lump he got. Now what? The grey area bites.

In that instance Officer Isall takes Officer Finn aside and tells him what he suspects (knows) went down, and explains that Mr. Shithead isn't worth losing a job over, but that he'd like that to be the last time he has to deal with excessive force being used around him (except with actual child abusers, of course

).

No gray here Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 11:50 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

For clarification: The survey that I found (and danged but I can't find it again... such is the internet!) is that 53% of police officers witnessed what they thought could be considered "excessive use of force".

I think the problem is not so much that police misconduct is subtle... that 5-10% beat people up so there's nothing subtle about THEM... it's just that moral clarity disappears with fear of consequences. A cop who "rats" on other cops is pretty much blacklisted: nobody talks to him/her, and they're always left wondering what'll happen if they need backup. But if the vast majority of cops are "honest", why does such a culture of coverup and retribution persist?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 11:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
For clarification: The survey that I found is that 53% of police officers witnessed what they thought could be considered "excessive use of force".

But, is that like, half surveyed have seen it once, or five times, or as an ongoing thing, or what. Not clear here...

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 17, 2008 11:29 PM

Police Car Camera Plan Stalls in Union Dispute
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/21/AR2008
032102982.html

"The tension between union and management became evident this month with the disclosure that scores of officers, following the union's advice, have refused to pay speed camera citations after being caught speeding on routine patrols or while off duty. The union says the citations are issued not to individual officers, but to the vehicles' owner -- in this case, the county.

Last year, when prosecutors charged 10 officers for allegedly billing part-time employers for hours that overlapped with their county shifts, some supervisors and even some union members lamented that the only tool commanders had to remove officers from the force was prosecution.

As in most police departments, the chief had the authority to increase the punishment recommended by a board that hears cases of alleged officer misconduct. But in July, as a result of the contract negotiations, the chief lost that power."

"The union says police managers should be able to review images captured on the cameras only during the course of criminal or administrative investigations, the sources said. Supervisors should not be permitted to use evidence of misconduct recorded by the cameras unless it is "egregious" or directly linked to the investigation, the union says."

I say again, this culture of corruption, deliberate sabotage of accountability, and double standards are the actions of a mafia, not a police force.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2008 3:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Supervisors should not be permitted to use evidence of misconduct recorded by the cameras unless it is "egregious" or directly linked to the investigation, the union says."

Maybe they need to define "egregious".
Or, hey- maybe the camera shouldn't be catching anyone doing something wrong in the first place...?

See, I think as long as our supreme leader endorses torture & public disinformation, there's no reason to believe the little cultures of police corruption out there should see anything wrong with themselves. The example starts from the top.

Truth & Justice Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2008 3:37 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

glad Frem resurrected the thread 'cause I didn't want to have to go digging for it.

Quote:
But, is that like, half surveyed have seen it once, or five times, or as an ongoing thing, or what. Not clear here...

Chris, exactly how many times do you need to see someone beaten into near-unconsciousness before you decide to "do something"?

If it doesn't "bother" a police officer the first time, then that means that MOST police (53%) are damn callous to violence. Maybe it s an effect of the job (I've said this quite often) or maybe it's because certain personality types are attracted to police-work, but if a cop doesn't report unwarranted violence on the part of his fellow-officer each and every time there is something damn screwed-up about police, police-work, and the police culture.

My personal belief is that ... aside from the small percentage (5-10%) of police who get off on violence.... which BTW is a much higher percentage than in the civilian population... most officers are prolly suffering from chronic PTSD. And like children in a dysfunctional family, they cling together really really tightly and hide "the family secrets" by mutual consent.

And unlike EMTs who often deal with the very same people but from a vastly different viewpoint, a cop's job is punitive. Other people who also have life-and-death control over people: nurses, therapists, doctors- also approach their job with a very different perspective.

I think that the way police-work is constituted- the way they view their role, the way they're organized- is all screwed up. They have never prevented any of the crimes that I've been victimized by, and in fact have never actually resolved any of them after-the-fact either. They almost always show up too late to catch the perp and obviously waaaaaaay too late to prevent the crime. Personally, I think we should be sending out squads of therapists, EMTs, criminalists and detectives. The only role that I see "police work" being good for is the enforcement of minor laws: traffic cops etc. People break minor laws after they calculate the cost versus the benefit. People break MAJOR laws because they're screwed up, and they're not into calculating cost/ benefit.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2008 3:57 AM

Personally, I find the Police extremely useful for dragging away near-violent drugged-up nutcases from the place I work...if not for them, I'd be icing my fists on an almost daily basis (they closed the asylum some years back here, and let 'em all loose on the streets, which makes this town a little more interesting than it needs to be).

Battling Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2008 4:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Chris, exactly how many times do you need to see someone beaten into near-unconsciousness before you decide to "do something"?

Sorry, forgot to answer the question- once should be enough.

SHOULD Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2008 6:54 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Personally, I find the Police extremely useful for dragging away near-violent drugged-up nutcases from the place I work...

Chris, I know what you mean. But when you're facing a hostile but weaponless drunk/ druggie what you REALLY need is a couple of very burly EMTs and a good detox/ psych program. Police and jails are often they way we "treat" schizos, druggies, drunks, the mentally retarded, PTSD sufferers (which IMHO make up most of the population of our more violent areas) etc etc.

Of course, if you're dealing with someone with a weapon, bring in the SWAT team! And if you're serving an arrest warrant, you obviously need the police, not a doctor. So I'm not saying that police have no role whatsoever, but if your main job is rolling around in a police car looking with a suspicious eye at everything and everyone around you, it messes with your head.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2008 7:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Of course, if you're dealing with someone with a weapon, bring in the SWAT team!

If it ain't a gun, I got no worries. I'm a God-damned one-man slaughterhouse. (love that line from Blade Runner)

Quote:
if your main job is rolling around in a police car looking with a suspicious eye at everything and everyone around you, it messes with your head.

The coolest cop I ever knew used to say that line from the Lethal Weapon movie, "Ya gotta know when to say I don't give a f**k..."
He stayed sane that way.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2008 11:14 AM