Reminds me of that Lovecraft story set on a German u-boat, where, after spouting hateful crap about every other type of person, one of the officers begins ranting about the other's inferiority, because he's a Prussian and not a Rhinelander... (or vice-versa, I don't recall)
No, that sounds about right. Prussia was the biggest, most powerful state in the German Empire as well as under the Nazis and also mostly protestant. Rhinelanders are mostly catholic. The division between confessions was still rather high back then, with people in mixed marriages being looked down upon or even shunned. That made for an interesting demographic mix after WW II, when we had to integrate protestant fugitives from the East into the catholic South.
Nowadays, the ire is mostly directed at Muslims (because they're all terrorist thugs, stealing our jobs and only want to receive social security payments). Although of late it's Romanians and/or Bulgarians (because they're all thieving gypsies, are stealing our jobs and only want to receive social security payments). /snark
OK, you caught me, i took the mattress tags off!
SWAT team incoming!
I'd honestly rather be robbed at gunpoint. At least then I only loose my lunch money and no one will complain if the opportunity presents itself to smack them around.
If you ever find yourself robbed at gunpoint, say nothing to the robber. Especially do not say anything along the lines of, "If you are going to shoot me, shoot me." Those words are common last words. Two of my recent robbery murders had no rationale behind the killing; the robbers just blasted away. One guy had reached for the panic alarm button as the robber finished. The other did not get down fast enough in a Denny's. (All robbers caught, for those keeping track at home. Six criminals, counting party members.)
Here's where I think we have a fundamental disagreement. The criminal justice system has what sociologists call a disparate impact on minorities. So long as the disparate impact is the aggregate result of non-biased decisions, I am okay with it. Let's use my own history as an example. I have arrested roughly 450-500 people over the last five years from crimes ranging from $50 shoplifting (our Class C/Class B cutoff for theft) to capital murder, with just about everything in between. Were they mostly minority? Yes. But I had probable cause to arrest all of them. The people I arrested were the ones committing crimes that I was exposed to. (We have fewer Terry stops in Houston compared to NYC, because of the city's geography and climate. Most of my arrests were reactive, not proactive.) My individual decisions were untainted and reasonable, but I had a disparate impact. And I am fine with that. I see the individual reasons, not the aggregate picture, because I am exposed to them. I think that is where we are having a fundamental disconnect.
I will get to some of the questions when I am not on my phone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
every person i have ever met with the "the man is out to get me"mentality are law breakers. They do drugs, ignore traffic laws, etc.Background: I'm a short-haired, middle-aged, law-abiding white professional. No drugs; I get tested regularly (standard practice in my industry, not targeted at me, btw). I'm clean-shaven (can't wear a respirator, if needed, if scruffy). I very carefully obey the speed limits (company policy is probation up to instant termination for a motor vehicle citation).
True story:
A few years back, I was driving back through rural TX from a job, saw a sign ahead: "Entering [REDACTED] Town Limits; Speed Limit 55." I slowed to 55. My partner said, "good thing you slowed down -- they're pulling someone over." Turns out it was me they were pulling over.
Me: "Good day, officer. May I ask why you're pulling me over? Is the vehicle damaged?"
Officer: "License and registration, sir."
(Checks computer and writes a ticket)
Me: "Sir, what's this about?"
Officer: "I clocked you at 53 in 45 zone."
Me: "Officer, I don't mean to contradict you, but the sign is right there. It says 'Speed Limit 55.'"
Officer: "Well, I'm tellin' you it's forty-five now, boy."Good thing, as a law-abiding citizen, I had absolutely nothing to worry about. Although it was easily cleared up -- it just cost me about $500 and a plea of 'no contest.' The town was so far from work I'd have had to take several days off to contest it in court -- which the cop knew, as he could clearly see the rental sticker on the vehicle.
At least you weren't in one of the many jurisdictions of Texas in the news for using any traffic violation as cause for confiscating all your valuables because they were involved in "drug trafficking," despite no charges against any of the people or drugs found.
Here's where I think we have a fundamental disagreement. The criminal justice system has what sociologists call a disparate impact on minorities. So long as the disparate impact is the aggregate result of non-biased decisions, I am okay with it. Let's use my own history as an example. I have arrested roughly 450-500 people over the last five years from crimes ranging from $50 shoplifting (our Class C/Class B cutoff for theft) to capital murder, with just about everything in between. Were they mostly minority? Yes. But I had probable cause to arrest all of them. The people I arrested were the ones committing crimes that I was exposed to. (We have fewer Terry stops in Houston compared to NYC, because of the city's geography and climate. Most of my arrests were reactive, not proactive.) My individual decisions were untainted and reasonable, but I had a disparate impact. And I am fine with that. I see the individual reasons, not the aggregate picture, because I am exposed to them. I think that is where we are having a fundamental disconnect.
"I'm okay with minorities being disproportionately targeted so long as individuals aren't culpable."
I know it's a popular idea that the individual is everything but come on. You've as much as admitted that the institution of the justice system in America is racist. That doesn't have to be because individual actors in the justice system are racist (though of course some are). It could be that every single person in the justice system is a paragon of not being racist and the justice system could still be racist. The only not terrible response is to change the justice system, not to throw up our hands and say it's okay because the causes of the racism don't trace back to individual actors.
Were they mostly minority? Yes. But I had probable cause to arrest all of them
Which I have no problem with.
What I have a problem with is you, a law enforcement professional, defending stop and frisk, and the less than questionable disregard for civil liberties you use as the foundation for that defense: rationales that were emphatically and explicitly debunked by the court.
What stop and frisk is is stopping semi random people and searching them in the hopes of turning something up. No amount of legal wriggling is going to change that that is exactly what the fourth amendment exists to stop. If your reasoning somehow gets you to the conclusion that something in the bill of rights is effectively meaningless then its the height of hubris to not conclude the problem lies with your reasoning.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Running a stop sign results in anal probe
Being fired at by police for no reason who then miss and hit bystanders gets you charged with assault
Police lie to coerce false confessions
Police have a pattern of intimidation against journalists
Police escalate situations with dumb people to violence and recklessly endanger lives
Person dies in police custody after they refuse to respond to fatal allergic reaction to his food.
Police make it a habit of throwing people head first into concrete walls for mouthing off
Over half of the drug relate search warrants were falsified in this precinct. Only 4 officers removed from duty, despite a recomendation of 12 from internal affairs. Two of the fired officers now works in a new precinct.
These didn't even take long to find.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Especially do not say anything along the lines of, "If you are going to shoot me, shoot me." Those words are common last words.
While I agree that's a spectacularly unhelpful thing to say, I wonder at the source of the rest of the claim.
The victim isn't reporting that those were his last words, because he's dead.
The victim's friend(s), if close enough to hear it, are material witnesses and get blasted as well.
The perp is claiming SODDI, not replaying conversations for you.
So how exactly do we know that "those words are common last words"?
Witnesses frequently survive or don't get shot themselves. Sometimes suspects confess. Sometimes it is recorded.
My most recent murder case (MLK Day 2014) involved that statement. That guy who made it actually lived, and his sister-in-law was killed in the ensuing fracas.
BNW, I hold that Stop and Frisk is merely the formalized program of conducting Terry stops based on reasonable suspicion and documenting the results. It does take away officer discretion and likely pushes them towards acting on suspicion when he may otherwise not. Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be saying that you believe that people are being stopped without reasonable suspicion (or that the police are making up the justification ex nihilo). I think we can agree that Terry stops are reasonable police function, and that an officer should be able to articulate their reasonable suspicion before making a stop. As long as reasonable suspicion exists and no bias drives the individual actions, I see nothing wrong with disparate impact when the actions are viewed in aggregate.
You have thrown the 10% number down a few times, which I should adress. First, the function of a Terry stop is not to search. Any frisk or resulting search is secondary to the purpose of the detention, which is to learn more about the suspicious person and their behavior. Oftentimes, this will explain suspicious behavior without leading to an arrest.
Caineach, with half a million police officers, you will have some bad actions. But there is no pervasive, structural problem with integrity in police work. If there were, I would be unable to stay in it.
Is the "crack laws can't be racist because the CBC supported them" argument fatally flawed, or is it just me?
Is it true that the NY Stop and Frisk (TM) practice was unsuccessfully challenged in the courts prior to the Floyd et al... case?
How can the guidelines set down as acceptable by Terry vs. Ohio be used to support randomly stopping and searching a whole generation of black and Hispanic kids?
1. Context matters. Was the CBC racist when designing the law? Intent matters. They were reacting to a social problem in their neighborhoods. Their intent was not to make it easier to arrest black people.
2. I don't know if Stop and Frisk as a program was challenged. Its legal foundation, Terry v. Ohio, is about as bedrock as it gets. The question to ask is, does Stop and Frisk conform to the reasonable suspicion rules of Terry? Wikipedia seems to suggest that the last time it was challenged, NYC settled by updating their racial profiling policy and to increase documentation and oversight of the program.
3. I don't participate in Stop and Frisk as a program (never having been to New York), so I can't say from first-hand experience. Ideally, it's not random - but rather based on reasonable suspicion standards. I've said before and I will say again that these standards are important and should be followed. No reasonable suspicion? No stop. NYPD brass - fueled by COMPSTAT accountability meetings, the trendy policing "innovation" - likely did put undue pressure on the rank-and-file to conduct these stops. It's never a good idea when someone higher than you makes decisions that should be left to your discretion.
I know it's a popular idea that the individual is everything but come on. You've as much as admitted that the institution of the justice system in America is racist. That doesn't have to be because individual actors in the justice system are racist (though of course some are). It could be that every single person in the justice system is a paragon of not being racist and the justice system could still be racist. The only not terrible response is to change the justice system, not to throw up our hands and say it's okay because the causes of the racism don't trace back to individual actors.
The criminal justice system is predicated on the principle that an individual should be judged by the facts of their case and nothing more. As long as each individual is being judged solely on their own merits, that's all that matters. (See the DOJ's currently-floated terrible idea that schools should either punish white and Asian students more harshly or punish black and Hispanic students less harshly in order to fix 'disparate impact.') I have zero problem with disparate impact so long as the individuals receive due process and a fair day in court. Racially-biased justice is no justice at all. How would you go about changing the criminal justice system while maintaining the principle of being judged solely on one's own actions?
BNW, I hold that Stop and Frisk is merely the formalized program of conducting Terry stops based on reasonable suspicion and documenting the results.
There is no non racist way to conclude from readily available evidence that the stops are reasonable. If you are wrong more than 90% of the time your suspicions are not reasonable. Broken clocks can do better.
I think we can agree that Terry stops are reasonable police function, and that an officer should be able to articulate their reasonable suspicion before making a stop.
The frisks are and must be ancillary to other activities. They cannot be the purpose of the stop. The cart has to follow the horse. That is clearly not the case with the stop and frisk program. While I can have a grey parrot say the words "furtive movement" that is not even close to sufficient suspicion for a search and its the listed excuse for half of the searches.
As long as reasonable suspicion exists and no bias drives the individual actions, I see nothing wrong with disparate impact when the actions are viewed in aggregate.
Actions like walking while black, or sorry, walking in an area that just happens to be black?
You have thrown the 10% number down a few times, which I should adress. First, the function of a Terry stop is not to search.
The purpose of stop and frisk IS to get the frisk as a fishing expedition.
I suspect you are "up to something" Is woefully insufficient for any kind of search. It is vastly different from "I think you're casing the joint". The only way the cops even get TO the pitiful 10% success rate is to assume that the cops knew about what they found rather than simply getting lucky- which can be anything from a dime bag of weed to asprin not in a bottle to a perfectly legal pocket knife. I suspect if you randomly searched college students you'd do better than that.
The idea that these police have reasonable suspicion gives perfectly good bovine based fertilizer a bad name.
Any frisk or resulting search is secondary to the purpose of the detention
With stop and frisk the search is the point of the stop. A stretch of the 4th amendment the courts allowed for your safety is being used to circumvent it entirely.
which is to learn more about the suspicious person and their behavior. Oftentimes, this will explain suspicious behavior without leading to an arrest.
These people are doing nothing suspicious. Moving away from the cops after they've harassed you half a dozen times is neither unreasonable nor illegal.
I suspect we're going to disagree about this until the cows come home. You seem to be highly suspicious of police motives for whatever reason. Being personally familiar with police motives, I am less concerned. I do seem to have convinced you that reasonable suspicion and probable cause are two separate burdens of proof, which is good. I say that a Terry stop is a reasonable police function so long as you have reasonable suspicion, while you say that police cannot be trusted with the ability to decide what constitutes reasonable suspicion.
Let's argue about George Zimmerman or something.
Witnesses frequently survive or don't get shot themselves. Sometimes suspects confess. Sometimes it is recorded.
My most recent murder case (MLK Day 2014) involved that statement. That guy who made it actually lived, and his sister-in-law was killed in the ensuing fracas.
BNW, I hold that Stop and Frisk is merely the formalized program of conducting Terry stops based on reasonable suspicion and documenting the results. It does take away officer discretion and likely pushes them towards acting on suspicion when he may otherwise not. Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be saying that you believe that people are being stopped without reasonable suspicion (or that the police are making up the justification ex nihilo). I think we can agree that Terry stops are reasonable police function, and that an officer should be able to articulate their reasonable suspicion before making a stop. As long as reasonable suspicion exists and no bias drives the individual actions, I see nothing wrong with disparate impact when the actions are viewed in aggregate.
You have thrown the 10% number down a few times, which I should adress. First, the function of a Terry stop is not to search. Any frisk or resulting search is secondary to the purpose of the detention, which is to learn more about the suspicious person and their behavior. Oftentimes, this will explain suspicious behavior without leading to an arrest.
Caineach, with half a million police officers, you will have some bad actions. But there is no pervasive, structural problem with integrity in police work. If there were, I would be unable to stay in it.
I find it sad that you think the things I pulled out were bad apples, because they were just basic examples nof everyday occurrences. I didn't even get into instances of officers shooting dogs (those dangerous attack chiwawas) - 1 in the country every 100 minutes by conservative estimates.
When police officers stop refusing to have their behavior video taped, stop harassing, threaten prosecution, or shooting in some cases people who do video tape them, and stop losing the video tapes of evidence against them, then I may consider them more reliable witnesses. Until then, I will tell the jury selectors that I will take the criminals word over the cops every time.
Maybe once they stop using swat teams to serve warrants for minor violations, frequently killing innocent bystanders, and then sometimes having the department unable to identify even the officers involved in the raid - maybe then I would start to believe that cops don't condone when a fellow officer murders someone. Of course they would have to stop raiding the wrong homes first, or at least stop searching once they realize they are in the wrong place.
Maybe when all of the horrible stories I read about police behavior stop ending in no charges being filed against the police officers and no disciplinary actions taken, maybe then I will believe that there are no structural problems.
Instead, I get to read articles about police commissioners talking about how police are too slow to resolve situations with violence.
while you say that police cannot be trusted with the ability to decide what constitutes reasonable suspicion.
Can you explain how you can trust this group of police, acting under this policy, with the ability to decide what constitutes reasonable suspicion when they are wrong so often?
You seem to be highly suspicious of police motives for whatever reason.
I'm highly suspicious of anyone in power that seems to think the constitution effectively doesn't apply. If any cop can search anyone at any time then the 4th amendment is meaningless. The stop and frisk policy is the cops searching anyone they want at any time within certain areas.
I am even more suspicious when anyone that tries to regulate these activities gets put on a wanted poster, or is forcibly consigned to a mental institution.
Ah I finally found one of the stories I was looking for. Asset forfeiture laws are another big reason why cops should never be trusted.
I suspect we're going to disagree about this until the cows come home. You seem to be highly suspicious of police motives for whatever reason. Being personally familiar with police motives, I am less concerned. I do seem to have convinced you that reasonable suspicion and probable cause are two separate burdens of proof, which is good. I say that a Terry stop is a reasonable police function so long as you have reasonable suspicion, while you say that police cannot be trusted with the ability to decide what constitutes reasonable suspicion.
I might be more inclined to agree with you to trust law enforcement if the police did not have a long track record of closing ranks and obstructing the investigations which are the only way of weeding out the bad apples. It is not just bad apples, it is linked to systemic and chronic problems.
People with a legally given ability to attack and kill if they need to have to be held to the highest possible standard. And in the end I am not convinced that there is a high enough standard to hold them to. What certainly does not cut it is having faith in people's motives.
And that is not even getting into bullshit like the War on Drugs, which at this point has basically done more harm to our society than the drugs were doing in the first place.
I find it sad that you think the things I pulled out were bad apples, because they were just basic examples nof everyday occurrences. I didn't even get into instances of officers shooting dogs (those dangerous attack chiwawas) - 1 in the country every 100 minutes by conservative estimates.
When police officers stop refusing to have their behavior video taped, stop harassing, threaten prosecution, or shooting in some cases people who do video tape them, and stop losing the video tapes of evidence against them, then I may consider them more reliable witnesses. Until then, I will tell the jury selectors that I will take the criminals word over the cops every time.
Maybe once they stop using swat teams to serve warrants for minor violations, frequently killing innocent bystanders, and then sometimes having the department unable to identify even the officers involved in the raid - maybe then I would start to believe that cops don't condone when a fellow officer murders someone. Of course they would have to stop raiding the wrong homes first, or at least stop searching once they realize they are in the wrong place.
Maybe when all of the horrible stories I read about police behavior stop ending in no charges being filed against the police officers and no disciplinary actions taken, maybe then I will believe that there are no structural problems.
Instead, I get to read articles about police commissioners talking about how police are too slow to resolve situations with violence.
What you seem to have a problem with is the highly-publicized few-and-far-between events, most of which are well-investigated on multiple levels.
I don't care if someone tapes me, so long as they keep enough distance as to not interfere with an investigation. Most officers I know feel the same way. Maybe I hang out with a particularly high-minded crowd. Must be a problem up north, because it isn't much of a problem here. As a matter of fact, most of you guys arguing here seem to be from up north.
So theoretically, you'd have no problem with the police ignoring one demographic entirely, regardless of what crimes they were committing and only arresting and prosecuting those of other demographics, as long as those actually arrested had due process and a fair day in court?
Everyone actually punished is treated properly once they're in the system, so it's fine, right?
That's an absurd way to interpret my comment. All criminals should be brought to justice fairly and given due process in court, regardless of their race. Race should not come into the process at any point as a factor of decision-making. If you think that the police are favoring the arrest of black defendants (a popular suspicion among criminologists of the previous generation), you would do well to examine non-governmental surveys, such as the National Crime Victimization Survey, and compare them to the FBI UCR. You'll find that the demographics of suspects reported in the NCVS is nearly identical to the UCR.
I'm highly suspicious of anyone in power that seems to think the constitution effectively doesn't apply. If any cop can search anyone at any time then the 4th amendment is meaningless. The stop and frisk policy is the cops searching anyone they want at any time within certain areas.
I am even more suspicious when anyone that tries to regulate these activities gets put on a wanted poster, or is forcibly consigned to a mental institution.
Again, we seem to be at a disagreement as to how these things occur. On every Terry stop I've done and seen, it's not a search in the "go into the pockets, ring the bell" sense. I've reiterated, time and time again, what is necessary: reasonable suspicion.
I might be more inclined to agree with you to trust law enforcement if the police did not have a long track record of closing ranks and obstructing the investigations which are the only way of weeding out the bad apples. It is not just bad apples, it is linked to systemic and chronic problems.
People with a legally given ability to attack and kill if they need to have to be held to the highest possible standard. And in the end I am not convinced that there is a high enough standard to hold them to. What certainly does not cut it is having faith in people's motives.
And that is not even getting into b!$@$+&& like the War on Drugs, which at this point has basically done more harm to our society than the drugs were doing in the first place.
I must have missed that part of training where we are supposed to be closing ranks during an investigation. Maybe I work in a model department. Maybe you watch too much television based on 1970s police work. I investigate officer-involved shootings. Who knows? I'm not about to let my integrity and my livelihood go on the line to cover up a bad shooting. Contrary to popular culture's presentation, no one gets called a rat for telling the truth during an IAD investigation.
Police use of violence drops by 2/3rds when they are forced to wear cameras, complaints drop 88%
Police Union threatens legal action over requiring body mounted cameras
Oakland PD found actively avoiding using cameras -internal afairs did nothing until special investigators of the court were called in
NYPD appeals court order for body cameras that is included in Stop and Frisk ruling
While a lot of communities are embarrassing camera, many unions are actively fighting it.
I didn't know the Texas Louisiana border was "up north."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't care if someone tapes me, so long as they keep enough distance as to not interfere with an investigation. Most officers I know feel the same way.
Would that your attitude were universal, but I see stuff like this and this, and think that it shouldn't take a Supreme Court decision to allow it, if most cops actually felt as you do.
I didn't know the Texas Louisiana border was "up north."
My story was in Texas as well. For Barcas, I'll be quick to point out that it was not in Houston -- I never had a problem with police there, personally.
Again, we seem to be at a disagreement as to how these things occur. On every Terry stop I've done and seen, it's not a search in the "go into the pockets, ring the bell" sense. I've reiterated, time and time again, what is necessary: reasonable suspicion.
And I've reiterated, demonstrated, and illustrated that the new york stop and frisk program is not being done to that or any other standard. It is at the will and whim of the police. If your suspicions are 90% wrong it is not reasonable to assume that you are right.
How about a new one:
Police beat a deaf man unconcious after tasering him 3 times because he was trying to use sign language. Police chief says no new training is needed and cops acted as trained.
Ah I finally found one of the stories I was looking for. Asset forfeiture laws are another big reason why cops should never be trusted.
Here is the story that I was reminded of because of this.
Basically, someone is arrested in (misdemeanor) drug charges, for drugs the suspect has a prescription for, and when his girlfriend goes to post bail, explicitly told by police it must be in cash mind you, the cops just confiscate the cash.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems like the safest policy. It helps protect the public from police abuse and it also protects the officer from false accusations of abuse. Win/win.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, Andrew R, something we can all agree on!
That don't happen every day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Andrew R, I have to agree as well with the cameras!
I think this topic may end in agreement ^^ At least, I hope.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Andrew R, I have to agree as well with the cameras!
I think this topic may end in agreement ^^ At least, I hope.
Except that some of us think cops are basically good and cameras help stop the bad ones and others think they are basically all corrupt and need this to keep them in line
Is the "crack laws can't be racist because the CBC supported them" argument fatally flawed, or is it just me?1. Context matters. Was the CBC racist when designing the law? Intent matters. They were reacting to a social problem in their neighborhoods. Their intent was not to make it easier to arrest black people.
It's also possible the original intent was not racist, but the implementation over the decades since was. Or even the motivation for keeping it in place once the results were seen.
If the CBC has been opposed to it for decades now, is the law shielded from ever being racist just because the original intent was good?
Or putting race aside, if a theoretical law is passed to help people and it turns out to be harmful, is it still "good" to keep it from being repealed, since the original intent was good?
From what little I've been able to pick up the internet, the Congressional Black Caucus didn't design the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. From what I'm reading, Celtics player Len Bias od's, Tip O'Neill sees a way to wins points for the Dems by being "tough on crime", gets the House Judiciary Committee and a bunch of others to brainstorm a ton of shiznit and pass it in less than a month with over 300 co-sponsors. Something like only sixteen votes against it in the House, one of them being John Conyers.
But there aren't many easily found details on the webz. Would love if someone can find a good article.
I'm not wild about cameras because I find them creepy. They do wildly dissuade frivolous complaints, which is nice. (You know, I've looked for years for an exhaustive and comprehensive study about false complaints against officers, but none exists in any of the scholarly literature. I suspect the number is fairly high, based on anecdotal observations.) Camera policies need to be crafted to account for human error. I don't have any particular philosophical opposition, though. Just the creepy factor.
You won't find me defending the current state of asset forfeiture. I feel it ought to sit in escrow until a conviction is secured. It is a big hole in the law.
BNW, you have made your claim. Let me ask you a hypothetical: an officer observes a suspicious behavior related to burglary. He goes and does a Terry stop based on articulable factors. He gets the guy's info but finds no contraband in a frisk. The suspicious person is released and the stop gets documented. By your standard, this is unreasonable? What exactly should he find? A signed note tucked in his waistband saying that he intends to commit a burglary? Not all crimes or suspicious behavior patterns have weapons or contraband related.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except that some of us think cops are basically good and cameras help stop the bad ones and others think they are basically all corrupt and need this to keep them in lineAndrew R, I have to agree as well with the cameras!
I think this topic may end in agreement ^^ At least, I hope.
I think most cops are good. Or at least not bad (Lawful Neutral)
I think the question is to how many are bad, and what's an acceptable level of badness.I have a very low tolerance for bullshiznit within a police force. One bad apple spoils the whole barrel for me. They should be held to a higher standard, if for no other reason than to justify their ridiculous pay.
I'd say maybe 4% of cops are just terrible people gaming the system and extorting money or favors, and another 15-20% are probably too lazy or stupid to be reasonably considered for the position.
YMMV, of course, but every cop I run into always wants to rub his balls in my face (metaphorically) and be the alpha dog.
|
|
Except that some of us think cops are basically good and cameras help stop the bad ones and others think they are basically all corrupt and need this to keep them in lineAndrew R, I have to agree as well with the cameras!
I think this topic may end in agreement ^^ At least, I hope.
I think most cops are good. Or at least not bad (Lawful Neutral)
I think the question is to how many are bad, and what's an acceptable level of badness.I have a very low tolerance for bullshiznit within a police force. One bad apple spoils the whole barrel for me. They should be held to a higher standard, if for no other reason than to justify their ridiculous pay.
I'd say maybe 4% of cops are just terrible people gaming the system and extorting money or favors, and another 15-20% are probably too lazy or stupid to be reasonably considered for the position.
YMMV, of course, but every cop I run into always wants to rub his balls in my face (metaphorically) and be the alpha dog.
I just hate getting pulled over by small male and female cops, seen enough napoleon complex.
Camera policies need to be crafted to account for human error.
No, they don't. You have a career field where human error ends up with people beaten, shot, or even dead. Even if there was no reason for it to happen.
There is no room for human error because of the sheer level of what the mistakes could be. And if you can't handle it, then you shouldn't be in the job to begin with. Because if you can't handle it, then someday your mistakes will get someone seriously hurt or may even cost someone their life.
BNW, you have made your claim.
And your lack of a substantive response has demonstrated its merit.
You cannot be searched on a whim. The Stop and frisk allows you to do that. What possible limitation is there on the police's ability to search people when all they have to do is claim furtive movement? By your definition of articulable I could give an African gray parrot stop and frisk powers.
Let me ask you a hypothetical: an officer observes a suspicious behavior related to burglary. He goes and does a Terry stop based on articulable factors. He gets the guy's info but finds no contraband in a frisk. The suspicious person is released and the stop gets documented. By your standard, this is unreasonable?
It depends on what he saw.
What exactly should he find?
Crowbar. Large screwdriver. Hammer. Pillowcases. Duct tape. Unseasonable gloves. Wire The same thing in my kit.
ermm.. I lock myself out a lot.
Not all crimes or suspicious behavior patterns have weapons or contraband related.
And not everything that was found was reasonable to look for.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except that some of us think cops are basically good and cameras help stop the bad ones and others think they are basically all corrupt and need this to keep them in lineAndrew R, I have to agree as well with the cameras!
I think this topic may end in agreement ^^ At least, I hope.
I'm mistrustful of cops. Not because I think they're all bad people, but because I think power is a corrupting influence.
I very easily see the heroism inherent to the profession, but at the same time, it's a public service job. They are there to serve the public, not use their power to bully and control the public. Accepting the job of police officer entails the acceptance of certain risks. I think it should also include the acceptance that the public has the right to review and scrutinize your job performance.
They deserve our thanks, but not blindly.
|
|
Except that some of us think cops are basically good and cameras help stop the bad ones and others think they are basically all corrupt and need this to keep them in lineAndrew R, I have to agree as well with the cameras!
I think this topic may end in agreement ^^ At least, I hope.
I'm mistrustful of cops. Not because I think they're all bad people, but because I think power is a corrupting influence.
I very easily see the heroism inherent to the profession, but at the same time, it's a public service job. They are there to serve the public, not use their power to bully and control the public. Accepting the job of police officer entails the acceptance of certain risks. I think it should also include the acceptance that the public has the right to review and scrutinize your job performance.
They deserve our thanks, but not blindly.
Fair enough, i cannot say you are wrong there at all.
I'm not wild about cameras because I find them creepy. They do wildly dissuade frivolous complaints, which is nice. (You know, I've looked for years for an exhaustive and comprehensive study about false complaints against officers, but none exists in any of the scholarly literature. I suspect the number is fairly high, based on anecdotal observations.) Camera policies need to be crafted to account for human error. I don't have any particular philosophical opposition, though. Just the creepy factor.
You won't find me defending the current state of asset forfeiture. I feel it ought to sit in escrow until a conviction is secured. It is a big hole in the law.
BNW, you have made your claim. Let me ask you a hypothetical: an officer observes a suspicious behavior related to burglary. He goes and does a Terry stop based on articulable factors. He gets the guy's info but finds no contraband in a frisk. The suspicious person is released and the stop gets documented. By your standard, this is unreasonable? What exactly should he find? A signed note tucked in his waistband saying that he intends to commit a burglary? Not all crimes or suspicious behavior patterns have weapons or contraband related.
First you need to define suspicious behavior related to burglary. What is that? If you cannot define specific actions, then you have no cause for the search and anything you find should be inadmissible.
Second any search needs to have an idea of what it will find. If you cannot identify what a successful search is, you have no place performing a search in the first place.
Third, the things you expect to find need to actually be illegal. Catching someone before he commits a crime is a deterent, but unless you can identify what crime he was planning on committing it doesn't matter what you find. For example, BNW's B&E kit contains no contraband and therefore unless you have reason to suspect the person of a crime already committed, he should be let go.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The other part of "corrupts" is that their job brings them into repeated contact with the worst of society and it's easy and natural for them to see that worst in everyone. Thus everyone becomes suspicious. A cynical attitude, seemingly justified by the scum they deal with regularly.
There is that, and yet, they're also human. I know from my own cop / judge / prosecutor / etc. friends and / or relatives that, once the uniform is off, they roll through stop-signs and go 75 in a 65 and put additions on their houses that violate local ordinances and ignore things (like side jobs doing other stuff, like house painting or automotive repair) on their tax returns that would be a pain in the ass to mention, and, I'm sure, hundreds of other 'crimes' that, in the big picture, nobody really cares that much about, like jaywalking or making a right on red or letting their dog run around at the park without a leash or letting their teenager have a glass of champagne with them on New Years or sharing a joint with their spouse once a year on their anniversary.
It's impossible for them not to see *everyone* as a potential crook, because they know from their own lives and families and friends that everyone *is* a lawbreaker, to some degree.
I wonder if priests (particularly those who take confession, like Catholics) have a similar problem, having people come in week after week and regale them with a litany of sinful thoughts and deeds, exposing them to the secret 'dirt' in everyone, and leaving them, like Mother Theresa, at the end of her life, flatly stating that a lifetime of service to the Church has left them not even believing in God anymore.
Sort of a "Hell is other people" situation, where exposure to the ugliness we all carry around leaves those who make a living unable to avoid such exposure being rubbed raw emotionally and kind of hating everyone for being so disappointingly human, leading to cops seeing everybody as crooks, and priests seeing everybody as sinners, and psychiatrists seeing everybody as crazy.
.
Anywho, back to 'CIS privilege.' It's interesting how much, as a white straight dude, I find myself disliking the assumptions that come with being identified with such, and how I even find myself knee-jerk disliking the term 'CIS' in general, finding it off-putting and dehumanizing, in a way.
Which, yeah, isn't irony, because I'm well aware that there are huge populations of people (everyone, ever, really) who have had a bewildering assortment of labels slapped onto them that come with assumptions and generalizations that nobody wanted, whether that label was gay or Jew or immigrant or peasant or cripple. Even labels that someone might embrace, like Catholic or conservative or Communist or American gets associated with stuff we don't want people to think about us, leaving us in an awkward position of hopping in bed with what turned out to be a pig, leaving people looking at us funny, and us scrambling to disentangle ourselves from said pig and explain how we are X, but not Y, or are 'one of the good ones.'
Like the fifty or so gender labels now available on Facebook, or the murky 'race' options on the Census forms (that are increasingly useless and outdated), it seems that adding yet more labels like 'CIS' are part of a problem, not any sort of solution. (Much like Caesar deciding to render the senate impotent and irrelevant by *increasing* the number of senators, so that their power was diluted.)
Naturally, like so many problems that aren't considered problems until they start affecting middle-class straight white dudes, it's been a long time coming, and perhaps CIS then becomes part of the eventual solution, of making obvious even to the labelers how absurd (and inaccurate, and, ultimately, dehumanizing) the labeling has become, leading perhaps, in an ideal world, to us freeing ourselves from these cartoonish shorthand one-size-does-*not*-fit-all labels.
jaywalking or making a right on red or letting their dog run around at the park without a leash
These are actually some of my biggest pet peeves. If you don't have your dog on a leash I should be able to shoot it in the face without repercussion. Same if you're jaywalking, I ain't honking.
Turning right on red is legal in my state, so I actually get REALLY pissed at out of staters who don't comprehend that. F$&#ing FIBs.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Turning right on red is legal in my state, so I actually get REALLY pissed at out of staters who don't comprehend that. F#!&ing FIBs.
Same here. Sitting behind someone in the right hand lane, just waiting for a light that will never come and holding everyone up behind them, can be frustrating. It's worse when they *aren't* an out-of-stater, and are just nincompoops.
I don't generally use my horn, because I think it's rude (especially when someone honks their horn *after* something, as if it's there just to express their displeasure, and not to serve as a warning), but people who cause me to get trapped in line for another light-cycle tempt me. :)
Turning right on red is legal in my state, so I actually get REALLY pissed at out of staters who don't comprehend that. F#!&ing FIBs.Same here. Sitting behind someone in the right hand lane, just waiting for a light that will never come and holding everyone up behind them, can be frustrating. It's worse when they *aren't* an out-of-stater, and are just nincompoops.
I don't generally use my horn, because I think it's rude (especially when someone honks their horn *after* something, as if it's there just to express their displeasure, and not to serve as a warning), but people who cause me to get trapped in line for another light-cycle tempt me. :)
Same here as well. It's also encouraged; not turning right on red when there's an ambulance coming so you are out of their way can get you a ticket.
I'm often baffled when I hear that the UK (or other countries) don't have the "pull over when you see a damn siren will ya" law.