Yeah, I should've posted this a few days ago when the Cracked article mentioning this came out, but I didn't think it would do any good.
Technically, however, a slim chance of doing good is better than no chance due to doing nothing. So post it I shall.
Besides feasible ideas for what to do about bad cops (no hopeless-helpless cynicism, please), I'm curious about how the situation is for folks outside of the USA. Better? Worse? About the same? Bad, but in a different way?
I remember this story. There were major things wrong with the story he was telling on the news. I'm a new yorker myself, and while I am far from the biggest fan of the police, I am also not a fan of people using a rather horrible and shady incident to drum up business for an mma school.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
That's exactly right. What it means that the cops don't have a legal responsibility to protect you, even though it's their job to do so, is that you can't sue them for failing to protect you.
The person ultimately responsible for your security and safety is you. You only have two choices, and both involve risk: be prepared to use force in your own defense, or don't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's exactly right. What it means that the cops don't have a legal responsibility to protect you, even though it's their job to do so, is that you can't sue them for failing to protect you.
...
I'm not sure that the supreme court ruling has anything to do with cops legally protecting people.
"The theory of the lawsuit Ms. Gonzales filed in federal district court in Denver was that Colorado law had given her an enforceable right to protection by instructing the police, on the court order, that "you shall arrest" or issue a warrant for the arrest of a violator. She argued that the order gave her a "property interest" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment's due process guarantee, which prohibits the deprivation of property without due process. "
It sounds like the ruling just shot down an attempt at using the 14th amendment in a really strange way.
I think one of the best ways to encourage 'good' cops is to make it fairly exclusive (high standards of education, personality, fitness, etc.) and well paid. Also, a robust and independent monitoring and review system needs to be in place.
On a larger level, you need systems in society for dealing with drug addicts, drunks, homeless, and the physically and mentally ill. You also need laws and penalties that are equal and proportional. If the policing is seen as arbitrary or biased, there will never be a good relationship between police and society.
Amendment 14
Section 1.
All persons blah, blah, blah, of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I think you would have to prove that the police were violating the bold part, but that is real tough thing to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
On a more reality based angle, most mottos and even oaths have been little more then hot air for a long time now - probably since the dawn of time. Anything as broad as 'serve and protect' is going to be legally meaningless anyway.
In NYC the cop cars all say "CPR Courtesy Professionalism Respect" but I assure you that sometimes the police don't act accordingly.
BTW I did enjoy that Cracked article!