# LEO abuse of authority?



## tellner (Oct 17, 2007)

JKS, if a cop is being rude I don't like it, but I've had bad days and can deal. Someone abusing his authority may rest assured that I'll find a predatory lawyer, people in the press and so on to make life miserable enough for his superiors that it rains down on him for a long time. And I'll have enough money to pay the medical bills for whatever he did to me. It's all good. 

It's the criminal conduct under color of law that bothers me. Just one case currently making the rounds here...

Two off duty police were at a downtown Greek restaurant here. They grabbed a customer's dinner according to witnesses. When the customer objected they hit him. He hit back. They drew on him and showed their badges, threatening to arrest the customer and several others. OK, drunken *******s are drunken *******s, and nobody is immune. What bothers me is that the entire precinct covered it up. They altered records, "lost" witness reports, and didn't refer it to IA. It was only when one officer couldn't believe what was happening and anonymously raised a flag that action was taken. His anonymity was broken, and last I heard he was being forced out of his job.

Or the State Troopers who for years stopped migrant families at the end of the harvest season, confiscated all of their earnings from the season and left them by the road without even their cars. And without turning the money in, by the bye It got so bad that the State Legislature finally got involved. It culminated in a referendum that overwhelmingly overturned civil forfeiture.

Or the case of one of our students whose cousin was getting married at 14 (not in Oregon). Pregnant. By the officer who arrested her for underage and drunk. In the back of his cruiser the night he arrested her. And didn't get fired much less charged even though 15 will get you 20 in that State.

Or the vice cop who was frequenting prostitutes. I don't know whether he got a discount.

Or a student of ours who was a cadet with a local sheriff's department. She came to us in tears because a bunch of the deputies had been roughing up a confused old man and then cuffed him hand and foot to a chair. She made the career-ending mistake of not going along with it. She called for first aid and gave him water. The next week she started getting sent alone on domestic violence calls with no partner and no gun in the rural part of the county. 

We told her to complain. She said she was afraid because she'd seen complaints shredded in front of her. Besides, the sheriff had been screwing underage explorer scouts on company time during training exercises. He was finally convicted, by the bye. So we told her to talk to someone in the AoJ department and to ditch the hicks and take the summer internship with the FBI. I prayed over that decision and don't know if I gave her the right advice.

Or Abner Louima. The whole precinct covered up for the torture and near murder of an innocent man, intimidation of witnesses and death threats against the victim, the nurses and the doctor who treated him. In the end all but one or two walked. Most are still with the NYPD. A couple long-time NYPD officers assure me that their careers are stalled and they won't be promoted for a long time. 

Well whoop-de-****ing-doo. If a bunch of Haitian immigrants had done that to a cop the Department wouldn't have rested until every one of them was dead or behind bars.

And a thousand others. I know that anecdotes are not data. But one sees a pattern after a couple decades. Police have broad powers of discretion. Due to the close working environment and danger they face they have (according to an retired police captain AoJ professor I had) a clan-type organizational structure. They will tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the people they rely on. And they are hostile to outside scrutiny or judgment by anyone other than another LEO. 

To some degree that's understandable although not good. You have to trust people to use their discretion with discretion up to a certain point and save the big hammer for the big problems. But there is always a danger that tolerance for the little sins will turn into the covering up the big ones. Solidarity becomes secrecy. It doesn't take much, just a few influential training officers taking a bunch of rookies slightly the wrong way during their first year. Accepting a little gratuity here and there. And so it goes. The same thing happens in every walk of life, but most people don't have the powers and prestige of a police officer.

I am absolutely confident that people like you and Drac would not do anything like that. But that's because I have some idea of what you guys are like personally. I'm less willing to extend the same courtesy to everyone wearing a badge these days. Every time an officer looks the other way there's a risk that it will diminish the average citizen's respect for the law and its servants just a little bit. And when that reaches a certain critical threshold no amount of guns, badges or laws will suffice. Law enforcement is one of those magic things that only works because people believe in it. If they stop believing the magic goes away forever.

It's tough. The majority of cops are good people just like the majority of all people. I don't know how to answer the guy's question when it's an officer doing something criminal under the protection of his uniform. I'm afraid the answer will have to come from the police themselves. A willingness to hold police to the same or higher standards, better _esprit de corps_, less hostility towards Internal Affairs and civilian review would go a long way. Beyond that, I don't know. I just don't know.


----------



## SKB (Oct 18, 2007)

JKS you have a good way of putting so people can understand. You folks have to remember every group of people has bad apples. When they are police it makes the news. 

Almost everyone has a bad attitude toward the police. Even I hate to get pulled over but guess what? I know what I look like so I put my hands on the dash and wait for them to tell me what to do. I tell them what I am about to do before I do it. I got to reach down to get my wallet. And wait till they say ok. Cops are people and they want to go home at the end of their shift! 

As far as making a list of things I got one I work in a Federal Prison, have you ever heard one story about a prison guard (the correct term is Corrections Officer) having urine thrown on them or feces or being spit on or being punched or kicked or how about stabbed?

How about my friend who was stabbed in the neck and killed! Or the three other officers who were stabbed in the same incident or how about his murder has still not gone to court after over ten years! Or how about the Officer in New York who is almost a vegetable after a terrorist drove a comb into his head or a female Officer two grown men went after and cut her throat after she was knocked out or all the rest of us the bad guys have stabbed or have tried to stab? Or how about all the Officers on the street who are assaulted or shot at? Or maybe the Border Patrol guys who are shot at by drug dealers or even the Mexican Army? 

I could sit here and make a list of lawyers, doctors, carpenters, store owners and any other profession and find rapist, thieves and all the rest. O-wait a minute I spend eight hours or more a day with people who could fill that list. 

I believe the question in this thread is valid but cut out the cop bashing! A lot of the problems people have with cops is the persons own attitude. How do I prove that.. well when I wrote Im a prison guard you already have an idea in your head of what I am like, right? And when I wrote my list some of you thought.. Well that is part of your job.  Ok now Ill take a deep breath..


----------



## Primal Kuen (Oct 18, 2007)

Look, I don't see any cop bashing here...only the bashing of the overall corruption of the systems we are supposed to be able to trust...INCLUDING CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES AND THEIR OFFICERS. Don't even get me started on them. When your co-workers do stupid **** , and treat inmates the way they do...it's no wonder more of you are'nt killed. and if you are'nt one of them, then you become guilty by association. 

 I've been in prison, and I know what I'm talking about. Talk about abusing power... I was never in trouble in prison, and when I came up for parole this officer that did'nt like me decided to not open my door when it was time for me to go to my vocational class ( a class that I volunteered to take ) . why would he do that ? Because he then called his buddy at the school building, who the wrote a major disciplinary case on me for being 15 minutes late to school...a major disciplinary case is an automatic 1 year parole set-off in the state of texas. In short this guy with a ged education basically decided I needed to stay for another year in prison...and I did. he did that to me and my family.   So, when you talk about your co-workers getting stabbed and pissed on, I know there is more to the story...even if other ppl don't.  Correctional facilities are the worst when it comes to corruption and gross abuse of power and authority.


----------



## Primal Kuen (Oct 18, 2007)

To clear up a couple of things on my last post....

  First of all we all know prison is a bad place, and if you don't want to go thru that then don't put yourself there...blah blah...  Well, there are many good ppl in prison that should'nt be there, and even if you do put yourself there ...that's not a right for the officers to **** with your life and beat you etc.


 Secondly, I don't condone killing officers, it's just a wonder to me that  more of them are'nt killed and pissed on/whatever. Given the amount of abuse and the amount of hardcore criminals ... = dangerous game.


----------



## tellner (Oct 18, 2007)

SKB, your attitude is precisely what I was talking about. Any suggestion that some cops are less than perfect and that the institutions they belong to aren't either is "cop bashing". Suddenly it's The Thin Blue Line. If someone doesn't wholeheartedly support everything your tribe does it must be his fault because he's ignorant or bad or has a bad attitude.

Once someone is a "cop basher" you can safely ignore anything he says forever after.

If you'll look at what I actually wrote instead of the haze of your own rage you will see all the correct qualifiers. But you immediately closed ranks and attacked. 

Thank you for so effectively demonstrating my point.


----------



## SKB (Oct 18, 2007)

Well of course I closed ranks! Comes with the job, no wait the way of life! Some of us walk this plane doing the right thing, some do the wrong thing and there is the rest of the people. All cops are not saints. Some folks are quick to point this out. Just wanted to say there is more to what happens in the world then this narrow view which was being shown. Of course we all have "list" of things we can write down here to show our side of an issue. But I would ask one question............ If any of you can do a better job then the LEO's around you how about you step up to the plate? I really don't want to hear the silly reasons. "I make sooo much money doing what I do now." Go and sign up to be a reserve officer! Show the rest of us how it is supposed to be done! Put your life on the line, because guess what? Someone has to do it, why not you? Or maybe you should join the military and go do that for awhile? Someone has to? But better yet, sit at home and throw stones at others! Why? Because some one out there is holding that thin blue line for you!

For the other response.............. I'd get tossed off of here for what I want to say! But here is what I will say. Nothing happens in a bubble. I'm positive the CO had some reason for his action or your perception of his actions. Also real quick like, parole is not a right. You might want to say what YOU did to be put in prison and what YOU did to your family? That would be interesting. Of course we are supposed to care about the family of a convicted felon but not a law abiding CO? Kind of proves my point about people assuming 'prison guards' are evil and corrupt, does it not?

So after those fun replies people can start to see why Officers might act in a manner you do not like? Trying to stay on the topic of the thread..... keep this in mind when your dealing with someone, they are people also and have a job most do not want to do. So don't come off as an *** and maybe your dealings with them will be better? Also when you dealing with a cop "we" all have supervisors. Ask to speak to one of them! 

O you might also want to take a moment today and thank "whoever" you live in the US and not some other countries were the "police" really are as bad as the bad guys?


----------



## Primal Kuen (Oct 18, 2007)

It does'nt matter why... most gaurds are all pissed off because they could'nt make it in the police acadamy, thus they became what they believe is an equal task. when in reality, all you need is a GED and a willingness to work in a ****** invironment to do what you do. most were picked on in younger years/repeatedly failed police acadamy and desperately seek out a position of authority in a corrections facility. 

 You are NOT in the same line of work as the police officers, though you repeatedly put yourself in the same catagory. You...are a babbysitter of grown men. Your attitude tells me that you are one in the same with the gaurds that believe it is there job to inflict further sentencing  beyond what the judge has already declared...and thus bring about the inmates own sentencing on you and your co-workers. If I were you, I'd check my attitude before it's too late.

  You are correct that parole is not a right. But completing the sentence that the judge has declared without constant abuse of authority is a right, even if that right is not inforced...and so some choose to inforce it themselves. 

  The gaurd in my case did what he did because I filed a grievance on him, which achieved nathing but more abuse of authority by him...resulting in more time for me. I chose not to react as some would, but with that way of thinking and acting I'm sure he has learned his lesson by now.


----------



## Primal Kuen (Oct 18, 2007)

This is turning to something with personal ties to me...so I will back off of this thread.

  I will add, Thank you to all of you law inforcement officers who put your life on the line every day with integrity.


----------



## Carol (Oct 18, 2007)

*Moderator Note

**ATTENTION ALL USERS!

Please keep the conversation to a polite and respectful tone.

- Carol Kaur - 
- MT Moderator
*


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 18, 2007)

Primal Kuen said:


> I've been in prison, and I know what I'm talking about. Talk about abusing power....


 
I knew it. And I dont meant that as a shot. I even alluded to that possibility a few posts up. Whenever I hear stories like this, or the inevitable list of "bad cop" stories that go with threads like this, a piece of me wonders what that persons criminal history is like. While seeing a cop make make me nervous in that "Catholic Guilt" style of wondering "what did I do?" or "is he about to kick my ***?" (In Chris Rock voice), I dont have any fear that hes corrupt, or go around telling "bad cop" stories. Not that abuse of power isnt out there. Im shure it is. I just dont go around saying that "most cops are good" but all those bad cops are the "tip of the iceburg" either. I think a part of this is that us guys dont like having other people who are tougher, richer, better looking, more powerful, etc. than us around. To soothe our self-esteem we look for reasons to dislike them.


----------



## bydand (Oct 18, 2007)

Well I must say this is going to be a first here for me.  Usually if there is a bit of heat in a thread, I go running for a fan and gas  :angel: 

I think there are good points made on both sides of the argument here.  I also think that both sides are overly protective of their stance.  First off I come from a family that has had LEO's in it, My Father was a cop in Lansing, MI during the race tensions of the mid/late 60's, my Sister was a cop in Battle Creek, MI and was in a rather crappy section of town.  By the same token, my best friend from Kindergarten on has spent time behind bars for stupid actions on his part, and several other friends have been there too.  The original question I'll paraphrase down to my take on it was: What to do if you see an abuse of power by an LEO in uniform?  Man, one of the toughest questions I have seen on this forum really.   First instinct would be to react like it was anybody else... BUT, then again, you cannot discount the uniform and the solidarity behind it.  I think it is great when officers stand up for one another, God knows few others will, but that is often a misplaced sense of loyalty when it come to covering up situations.  Do I have an answer?  Not really, I will have to think more on the matter and get back with one.  Off hand I would say if you seen the situation from the start and are an IMPARTIAL bystander, you need to do something, up to and including restraining the aggressor, but you had better be able to keep said person from further abuse by anybody else present.  If you are in ANY way involved with either side in the conflict you need to stay the hell out of it because your actions will taint the outcome further.  

Let me think a bit more about it...


----------



## SKB (Oct 18, 2007)

Well let me clear a few things up............. Most of the youngsters we hire now days have degrees. I am one on the few who does not, never did finish the degree thing. But wait that means I have more then just a GED if I can put "some" done on an application right?  

I never did try to go to a police academy? I found something I woke up one day to realize I am good at. Not everyone can do the job. 

So I have all the rights and responsiblities as any other law enforcment officer but some how I am not one. Might be diffrent in Texas but here in California I am a LEO same as everyone else? Also you might want to ask a few street cops. Most don't know how we do it and most of us do not understand how they do it. At least I know who the bad guys are!!!!

I really was not the kid you picked on in school, I was the kid who pulled you off the guy you were picking on. I also learned about authority and leadership while I was in the United States Marine Corps. Not sitting at home wishing people would stop picking on me and trying to find a job where I could have some authority.

Speaking of being able to tell alot about what they write....... "inmate" my job is to keep people locked up for the time the judge sentances them to. In the most secure and safe enviorment I can. Not to punish anyone for what they did to end up in the prison. You coming to prison is punishment. Of course most people do not like being in prison since there are rules and cops around you all the time. Maybe soceity should re-think the system. If you can not follow the rules in "free" society, society puts you in a place with more rules and cops? 

Now if you knew me you would know you are barking up the wrong tree about my attitude. I am the one the "convicts" and you "inmates" come to when they have a problem that needs fix'in. I am also the one the bosses come to when they have a problem which needs fix'in! And most the time I can fix the problem by talking to the problem. By the way, folks have tried what you are alluding to and I have taken my share of **** downs, been attacked, straight out fought dudes, got in a few fights were the other guy had a knife, etc. etc. Inmates threatening me with physical violance wore off a long time ago!

So let me translate some of this "conversation" for those who do not understand what you and I are talking about. 



> You...are a babbysitter of grown men.


 
Old prison joke. A lot of the time we stand around doing nothing more then making sure supposedly grown men have toilet paper, get feed and be where they are supposed to be when they are supposed to be. It is a mild insult by the way.



> and thus bring about the inmates own sentencing on you and your co-workers. If I were you, I'd check my attitude before it's too late.


 
What he is saying is the inmates will not like something or feel disrespected and throw stuff at us or attack us. Most take the easy way and just throw their own **** at us. Yes they put their own **** in a cup and throw it at us. "Check'in" my attitude means I should be really nice to them and not ENFORCE any rules or they will beat me up or kill me. This is one of the weakest attempts an inmate can make to intimidate an Officer. 

So my next question would be what did the CO do that you wrote him up? I wonder if it was bad enough to warrent the Officer losing his job, not being able to pay his bills or feed his family? Maybe he searched your stuff and did not put the lid back on a pen? Then you thought he would never repay the favor????? 

Well I have another question, since you won't say why soceity thought you broke a rule and had to go to prison. 

How many times did the Officers beat the snot out of you? If they beat you everyday, made you sleep in your own ****, did not feed you, did not give you your mail, did not let you have visits, did not let you go outside to socialize or workout, did not let you call home, refuse to let you see a lawyer or something along those lines you might have a case to sue the agency which held you? But if your complaint is the company they kept you with......... sorry we can't do anything about that!

So once again trying to stay on what I thought the idea of this thread was........ When you are dealing with the police but your ideas of who and what they are to the side and deal with them as people. kind of like the police have to do when dealing with you. Or even closer to home, like I have to do when some dirtbag comes to my prison.


----------



## Primal Kuen (Oct 18, 2007)

Well, I guess I will reply after all...

  First I'm not an "inmate"....that was 17 years ago, and the only time I've ever been in trouble. Kids do stupid things...most do not get caught.

  Beyond your flawed translation of what I said... It was not about "rules" and guards enforcing them, or prisoners "not liking their company" etc. what are you talking about ?

  It's about ABUSE OF AUTHORITY. You know it exists in every correctional facility in our country... from "small" things like beatings and planting evidence , "throwing away " mail marked as legal documents....to rape and "paying off " or blackmailing inmates into murder  ( and betting on the results ).     All of these things occur on a daily basis, and have made the news many times... why you do not want to admit it is beyond me. 

  when you speak of gross or violant things that happen to correctional officers... ppl need to know that these instances, while completely wrong, pale in comparison to the gross and violant things done by the officers in both ferocity and number of instances.

  Many ppl will not believe that...many ppl choose to be blind. And so it will continue.


----------



## bydand (Oct 18, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> What you want to do is, stick your finger right in his face and say, "Hey, you!  I pay your salary!"  Works every time.





Blotan Hunka said:


> Ive often wondered about that little ditty. Dont cops pay taxes too?



This actually happened to my Father. he replied "I guess that makes me self-employed, here's your ticket."  I still chuckle when I think of that.


----------



## Primal Kuen (Oct 18, 2007)

Since you are so insistant on me telling you what I did wrong, I will. 

 I had just turned 17, and decided to go to a party with a friend of mine. While there, he ran into his x-girlfriend who had recently left him, and took much of his belongings in the process. So he decides to take her money and jewelry he had bought her in retaliation... I told him I was leaving before a fight broke out, so he came with me. on the way to take him home we get pulled over...and charged with "strong armed robbery" , I was included because " I was the driver ". 

  Being a scared kid, and just wanting to get out of jail, I quickly ( and stupidly ) signed papers for 10 years probation rather than fighting it in court, and staying in jail all that time.   

  About 4 months into it, and not missing a single report date, I found myself without a way to go to my probation meeting. I called my probation officer who told me if I was'nt there in 30 minutes I would be revoked. I begged him, saying that even if I called a cab I would'nt be able to make it in that time...not that I had the money for a cab. When I got there 3 hours later they arrested me.

 from there I was sent to prison on that "10 year sentence" . The judge said "don't worry, you'll do a turn-around...get right back out on parole "

6 years later, getting turned down every time I came up for parole, my famiy hired a lawyer and found out that each time I was comming up for parole the parole board was looking at someone elses file with a much worse case. Someone with the same name as me....meanwhile he was released years earlier ...because of my file.... The lawyer said we could'nt sue, because after all I had not been kept longer than 10 years.  However an investigation was launched and the entire parole board was fired.

  After 6 years of ********, about to be released...I get the "major disciplanary case " for being 15 minutes late to school....which was an automatic 1 year parole set-off. The guard purposley did not let me out of my cell in time.      So, on my 7th year I finally get released...having watched many killers and child molesters come and get released long before me.

  So you tell me, am I some dirtbag criminal,  or a victim of one hell of a screwed up system ?


----------



## MJS (Oct 18, 2007)

Primal Kuen said:


> It does'nt matter why... most gaurds are all pissed off because they could'nt make it in the police acadamy, thus they became what they believe is an equal task. when in reality, all you need is a GED and a willingness to work in a ****** invironment to do what you do. most were picked on in younger years/repeatedly failed police acadamy and desperately seek out a position of authority in a corrections facility.
> 
> You are NOT in the same line of work as the police officers, though you repeatedly put yourself in the same catagory. You...are a babbysitter of grown men. Your attitude tells me that you are one in the same with the gaurds that believe it is there job to inflict further sentencing beyond what the judge has already declared...and thus bring about the inmates own sentencing on you and your co-workers. If I were you, I'd check my attitude before it's too late.
> 
> ...


 
Well, I'd like to say a few things.

1) Many police depts. only require a high school diploma or GED, so the comment about the COs is really moot.  Of course, if one intends on moving up the ladder, then a college education is most likely going to be required.

2) I worked in Corrections.  I currently am a dispatcher for a PD, so I can relate to both.  

I will agree with you.  I saw corrupt things back then, and I see it now, with this job.  I've taken calls from people, sent a cop, the cop clears the call, and the person calls back telling me they don't like the way the cop treated them, spoke to them, etc.  Unfortunately, there are some bad apples, but there are also some very good, dedicated LEOs and COs that put their life on the line every day.  I have very good friends in Corrections and that are cops.  I tip my hat to them for the job they do.  Like I said, just because there are a few bad ones, doesnt mean they're all like that. 

I still stand by my comments I made earlier.  If you feel you're getting singled out, I'd cooperate at the time, but file a complaint later.  I don't know your entire story with your dealings with the CO, so I won't comment on that.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 18, 2007)

tellner said:


> It's the criminal conduct under color of law that bothers me. Just one case currently making the rounds here...
> 
> <litany deleted for conciseness>
> To some degree that's understandable although not good. You have to trust people to use their discretion with discretion up to a certain point and save the big hammer for the big problems. But there is always a danger that tolerance for the little sins will turn into the covering up the big ones. Solidarity becomes secrecy. It doesn't take much, just a few influential training officers taking a bunch of rookies slightly the wrong way during their first year. Accepting a little gratuity here and there. And so it goes. The same thing happens in every walk of life, but most people don't have the powers and prestige of a police officer.
> ...


 
I do believe it was you who trotted out that school shootings are rare, and that's why they make the news.  Might I suggest that a similar principle applies here?

Again, I also must note that as long as we hire human beings to be cops, there'll be a few who do incredibly stupid things.  Just like any other profession... It's just more likely to be *NEWS* when it involves a cop.



bydand said:


> The original question I'll paraphrase down to my take on it was: What to do if you see an abuse of power by an LEO in uniform? Man, one of the toughest questions I have seen on this forum really. First instinct would be to react like it was anybody else... BUT, then again, you cannot discount the uniform and the solidarity behind it. I think it is great when officers stand up for one another, God knows few others will, but that is often a misplaced sense of loyalty when it come to covering up situations. Do I have an answer? Not really, I will have to think more on the matter and get back with one. Off hand I would say if you seen the situation from the start and are an IMPARTIAL bystander, you need to do something, up to and including restraining the aggressor, but you had better be able to keep said person from further abuse by anybody else present. If you are in ANY way involved with either side in the conflict you need to stay the hell out of it because your actions will taint the outcome further.



LEOs are human; get even the best on a bad day, and they might do something stupid.  And, yes, we do sometimes look out for each other, and handle problems out of the public view.  Do you like your dirty laundry aired in public?  Handling something in-house is not the same as ignoring or tolerating it!

What should you do if you WITNESS what you believe is criminal behavior by the cops?  Report it.  Contact their agency; speak to a supervisor.  If it's life threatening, call 911.  Guess what?  If I've had the lousiest day in hell and my last straw snaps, and I don't realize it and I'm doing something like beating someone beyond their resistance (I've left work some days because I realized I was becoming a danger to the public; so have many other cops I know) -- stop me.  But, unless there's no other way, I wouldn't intervene directly as a civilian.  Too much can go too wrong jumping in the middle like that!  And, if the agency involved doesn't seem inclined to deal with the problem -- contact your state police, or state attorney general, or even the FBI.  They'll at least guide you in what to do.

What should you do if you believe that you're the victim of police misconduct?  As I said, generally, endure it for the moment, and deal with it later, as above.


----------



## bydand (Oct 18, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> LEOs are human; get even the best on a bad day, and they might do something stupid.  And, yes, we do sometimes look out for each other, and handle problems out of the public view.  Do you like your dirty laundry aired in public?  Handling something in-house is not the same as ignoring or tolerating it!



I never said it was the case, and wasn't even trying to imply that it was.  If it came across that way, I didn't do my job as a poster in making my views clear.  I think it is GREAT when LEO's stand up for each other, but sometimes it can be misplaced.  If a cover up of wrongdoing happens, then it is misplaced loyalty.  IA inquiries are not a cover-up and I didn't mean that they were.



jks9199 said:


> What should you do if you WITNESS what you believe is criminal behavior by the cops?  Report it.  Contact their agency; speak to a supervisor.  If it's life threatening, call 911.  Guess what?  If I've had the lousiest day in hell and my last straw snaps, and I don't realize it and I'm doing something like beating someone beyond their resistance (I've left work some days because I realized I was becoming a danger to the public; so have many other cops I know) -- stop me.  *But, unless there's no other way, I wouldn't intervene directly as a civilian.*  Too much can go too wrong jumping in the middle like that!  And, if the agency involved doesn't seem inclined to deal with the problem -- contact your state police, or state attorney general, or even the FBI.  They'll at least guide you in what to do.
> 
> What should you do if you believe that you're the victim of police misconduct?  As I said, generally, endure it for the moment, and deal with it later, as above.



I added the bold to what I feel is the single biggest thing here.  I agree and I thought that is what I said.  Re-reading that part, I didn't say it directly, but did imply it earlier in my post.  Just like any other dispute we might happen across.  Unless something dire is going to happen to one of the involved parties, we could (and most probably will) make it a worse situation with intervention.

I truly think we are on the same side here, just a bit of that flash of anger when we read something that at first glance sounds like conflict to our stand.  Re-read what I posted.  I didn't mean to imply somebody should willy-nilly interfere with a LEO's job.  Just as a *LAST* resort to a gross injustice where someone may be hurt very severely, or worse and there is NO other alternative.  Standing by and giving clear, concise testimony later is better than getting involved physically, because you WILL spend time in the clink until things get straightened out.  At least that is what I have always been taught.


----------



## tellner (Oct 18, 2007)

JKS, I believe that we are in almost complete agreement on all of the facts and the underlying reasons. A lot of it is a matter of perspective. You are part of the Brotherhood, so your experience causes you to shade things one way. I'm not, and I'm constitutionally mistrustful of authority unless it is carefully controlled. It might come from tribal history. Being Jewish and the descendant of refugees in so many places gives one an ambivalent attitude towards whoever is holding the sword. To make a long story - the source of thousands of pages of learned and experienced debate on both sides - very short, let's say this...

Most police officers are decent civil servants, albeit with a little more gung-ho and a greater tolerance for adrenaline than your average desk-pilot  _*The average recruit wants to help people and protect them from bad people. And no matter how cynical an old cop can be that's still the core belief. *_For the most part people trust them. For the most part they are deserving of that trust except in really egregious cases like Bull Connor's spiritual children and the astoundingly corrupt New Orleans area departments. I'm sorry, anyone who defends the NOLAPD as an institution needs professional help and a light horsewhipping 

But there are institutional issues because of the way we hire, train and organize police. There could be a lot more institutional accountability to outside review which would add a degree of transparency to the process. As it is, many good people are mistrustful because of the a nearly universal hostility to all such checks and balances. 

We see what we see and hear what we hear. If that were (for the most part) the extent of the criminally bad abuses we could say "That's that. This is what we have to do to get it down to an acceptable level." But since it's murky and nothing real is done to dispel those doubts people will assume (rightly) that there is more and that they are being stonewalled. The more resistance there is to open investigation and external accountability the more people will assume is being hidden. When the people so defended have tremendous discretion to permanently mess up or end a person's life with seeming impunity the need for openness and responsibility is even greater. The amount of grief the whistleblowers in these cases got and the degree of institutional resistance to shining lights on the roaches is troubling.

It is not an easy problem to solve, but I believe that it is an important one. Again, I don't have cites, but in a couple AoJ graduate seminars we read papers - some sponsored by the FOP - that indicated police officers were more likely than the norm to be alcoholic, divorced, and have a psychological profile more at risk for domestic violence. They were also several times as likely to give a brother or sister officer a pass on a speeding ticket than they were to extend the same courtesy to a regular citizen. That's _*not*_ to say that police officers are a bunch of lonely drunken wife beaters who cover up for each other. *Not for a minute. Not a bit.* It does indicate that the stresses of the job put one at risk for some serious damage. It requires monitoring. And it must be taken into account and nipped in the bud before it blossoms into something unfortunate. 

I'm open to suggestions. "Don't worry about it, nothing is going on," isn't a very good one, especially when there's evidence to the contrary. "Police are held to a higher standard" just isn't true. "Screw the Pigs!" is stupid and childish (at best).


----------



## Drac (Oct 18, 2007)

MJS said:


> 1) Many police depts. only require a high school diploma or GED, so the comment about the COs is really moot.


 
That's all I got..A GED...


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 19, 2007)

tellner said:


> JKS, I believe that we are in almost complete agreement on all of the facts and the underlying reasons. A lot of it is a matter of perspective. You are part of the Brotherhood, so your experience causes you to shade things one way. I'm not, and I'm constitutionally mistrustful of authority unless it is carefully controlled. It might come from tribal history. Being Jewish and the descendant of refugees in so many places gives one an ambivalent attitude towards whoever is holding the sword. To make a long story - the source of thousands of pages of learned and experienced debate on both sides - very short, let's say this...
> 
> Most police officers are decent civil servants, albeit with a little more gung-ho and a greater tolerance for adrenaline than your average desk-pilot  _*The average recruit wants to help people and protect them from bad people. And no matter how cynical an old cop can be that's still the core belief. *_For the most part people trust them. For the most part they are deserving of that trust except in really egregious cases like Bull Connor's spiritual children and the astoundingly corrupt New Orleans area departments. I'm sorry, anyone who defends the NOLAPD as an institution needs professional help and a light horsewhipping
> 
> But there are institutional issues because of the way we hire, train and organize police. There could be a lot more institutional accountability to outside review which would add a degree of transparency to the process. As it is, many good people are mistrustful because of the a nearly universal hostility to all such checks and balances.


 
I think we have some agreement -- but that there are very significant differences, which are largely point of view.  You begin from a premise that government is something to barely be tolerated; I'd hazard a guess that you're probably pretty libertarian in bent.  I begin from a premise that government is a necessity because most people won't play nice unless they're told to; I'm conservative.  That doesn't mean I believe in big government; I believe very much in individual responsibility.  Beyond that -- on the specific issue of law enforcement, you are basically pessimistic, as I see it.  You look for incidents that support your suspicion that anyone with authority will eventually abuse it.  I look at misconduct as the exception that proves the rule that most people who voluntarily accept the burdens and responsiblities of law enforcement in the US for the rather paltry direct rewards.



> We see what we see and hear what we hear. If that were (for the most part) the extent of the criminally bad abuses we could say "That's that. This is what we have to do to get it down to an acceptable level." But since it's murky and nothing real is done to dispel those doubts people will assume (rightly) that there is more and that they are being stonewalled. The more resistance there is to open investigation and external accountability the more people will assume is being hidden. When the people so defended have tremendous discretion to permanently mess up or end a person's life with seeming impunity the need for openness and responsibility is even greater. The amount of grief the whistleblowers in these cases got and the degree of institutional resistance to shining lights on the roaches is troubling.
> 
> It is not an easy problem to solve, but I believe that it is an important one. Again, I don't have cites, but in a couple AoJ graduate seminars we read papers - some sponsored by the FOP - that indicated police officers were more likely than the norm to be alcoholic, divorced, and have a psychological profile more at risk for domestic violence. They were also several times as likely to give a brother or sister officer a pass on a speeding ticket than they were to extend the same courtesy to a regular citizen. That's _*not*_ to say that police officers are a bunch of lonely drunken wife beaters who cover up for each other. *Not for a minute. Not a bit.* It does indicate that the stresses of the job put one at risk for some serious damage. It requires monitoring. And it must be taken into account and nipped in the bud before it blossoms into something unfortunate.
> 
> I'm open to suggestions. "Don't worry about it, nothing is going on," isn't a very good one, especially when there's evidence to the contrary. "Police are held to a higher standard" just isn't true. "Screw the Pigs!" is stupid and childish (at best).


 
I believe that each agency should, on a regular (probably annual basis) disclose to the public, or at least the elected officials of their jurisdiction, basic facts about complaints and internal investigations.  I'm not suggesting that every case needs to be spelled out -- but enough data to know what's happening, and to encourage police chiefs or heads of LE agencies to vigorously fight to maintain a clean agency, or to address problems.  

But I don't like and don't agree with civilian discipline boards or review panels.  Bluntly, if you ain't been there, you don't know what it's like.  All the research, all the ride alongs, all the schooling is not the same as really being there.  It's like the difference between sparring and a real fight; until you've been there, you don't know what it's like.  A cop makes literally life or death decisions in the heat of the moment, with little data, in lousy conditions -- and then is judged on that by someone sitting comfortably, with time to assess all the details, even those that weren't immediately apparent.  When it's someone who's been there -- I feel that I've got a better chance of a fair decision.  Otherwise, we get silliness like "why didn't they shoot the gun out of their hand?"  Bill Lewinsky and the Force Science Institute have done incredible research into what happens during a use of force incident.  You (or the public; not necessarily you specifically, Tellner) read in the paper that the suspect was shot in the back, and leap to the conclusion that "the cops executed that boy!"  But, verifiable, peer reviewed research has found that human reaction time makes it very easy for a cop, firing as soon as he perceives that the suspect is shooting at him, stands an excellent chance of shooting that fleeing suspect in the back, even though they were face-on when the cop decided to pull the trigger...

I don't at all suggest that cops shouldn't be held accountable, even including criminal charges when appropriate.  But it does take a special level of understanding to hold them accountable.


----------



## tellner (Oct 19, 2007)

JKS, I'm trying to figure out where you got a couple of your misconceptions about my views. Government to be barely tolerated? If you look at what I've written in a number of other places I'm for more government involvement in a number of areas than most. Probably more than you truth be told. What I object to is unaccountable authority, particularly in areas where it is not transparent and where it is wielded by people who can kill me and will, not might, but _will_ walk. 

Why do I say will? Let's take my city for example. In the last half century there has not been a single bad shoot by a cop. Not one. There hasn't been a single indictment let alone a conviction. As you say, we are only human. If that's the case then by sheer probability there would have been at least one. It should be obvious that there's a severe accountability and responsibility problem. The pattern is not confined to Oregon. If you wanted to we could delve into the statistics.

Let's consider the issue of records. When a doctor screws up he is investigated by a medical review board, certainly. But their deliberations are public record. And doctors do get convicted for negligence and other such things in criminal court. With the police there is a review by other police - similar but not identical - and the records are closed off. I believe that law enforcement should meet the same standards of accountability and transparency as the zoning board, water and sewers or the records department.

That's not "barely tolerating" government. That's not some sort of wild anarchist crap. That's a fundamental principle of the Republic. The greater the power, the greater the oversight. Your view that cops are self policing and need to be accountable only to their own is rather more frightening. It seems to be in direct opposition to openness and transparency both of which are vital to good government.

Even if only 1% of police are not good people - a much lower percentage than the general population - there is enough room for the roaches to hide behind the good ones. It's bad for the public. It's bad for the police. It's bad for the country and respect for the Law.


----------



## kaizasosei (Oct 19, 2007)

> So the question is how do you defend yourself from a "bad cop" ? How do you enforce your own right to protect yourself, when the person paid to protect you is in fact the offender ? I have no idea....but the chances of you not doing time for it is very, very slim. It's a sad thing.




difficult question i guess.  it sort of polarasizes cops vs. people but i can totally understand the question.  
  my strategy is, to act human and comply.  - fighting would be one of my last options.  before that i would try to escape without getting shot.
  i mean, police are human, one shouldn't forget that.  dealing with scary people, it is comforting to know that it is the duty of the police officer to serve and protect.  because if you play your cards right and not tick the officer off-even kissing up if you must, may help you a great deal...getting all argumentative doesn't help things i think...
basically i would play a role. go with the flow. - try to explain myself as a lawabiding policefriendly individual.  
  if it were a really nasty cop that blatantly hurts or murders, theres no telling what i would do....

however, i try connect on a human level.  - as a citizen, you  are not the enemy of the police  unless you make it that  way.   sure there are bad people everywhere.  every wolf is looking for just the right deer to sink his teeth into...this could go both ways.

it would help to understand the pressure that police are sometimes under.  does that excuse their frequent rudeness and stuckupness, no, but one should nevertheless understand. police are trained to be paranoid.  there are many criminals out there that are good at what they do.  police could easily become the victims in such cases, and often do.  -

in my opinion, many police are not aware or capable of handeling the great responsibility that has been placed on them.  authority is something really tricky.  people tend to abuse it to fullfill their irrational desires.
on the other hand, their are many who try to be good...i think sometimes, it is those that are prone to 'losing it' at some point.  
a really good person, disregarding what his line of work or position is, is someone who is spiritually aware and benevolent.  that is where the real power is.

   guns dont kill people, people kill people


j


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 19, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> While seeing a cop make make me nervous in that "Catholic Guilt" style of wondering "what did I do?" or "is he about to kick my ***?" (In Chris Rock voice), I dont have any fear that hes corrupt, or go around telling "bad cop" stories.



Are you a white person living in America?  That might have something to do with that.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 20, 2007)

tellner said:


> JKS, I'm trying to figure out where you got a couple of your misconceptions about my views. Government to be barely tolerated? If you look at what I've written in a number of other places I'm for more government involvement in a number of areas than most. Probably more than you truth be told. What I object to is unaccountable authority, particularly in areas where it is not transparent and where it is wielded by people who can kill me and will, not might, but _will_ walk.
> 
> Why do I say will? Let's take my city for example. In the last half century there has not been a single bad shoot by a cop. Not one. There hasn't been a single indictment let alone a conviction. As you say, we are only human. If that's the case then by sheer probability there would have been at least one. It should be obvious that there's a severe accountability and responsibility problem. The pattern is not confined to Oregon. If you wanted to we could delve into the statistics.
> 
> ...


 
My impression of your views is based on your posts, as I've read them; obviously, this is nowhere near the same as sitting down and talking or really getting to know someone.  I'm sure there are many posts of yours I haven't read that might have changed my impressions.  And perhaps my phrasing wasn't as clear as I hoped.  I wasn't at all suggesting that you're a "wild anarchist", and I apologize if it came across that way.  Libertarians, as a general rule, are not anarchists, at least in my experience.  (Yes, I do have some libertarian tendencies, myself.)  

But I think that you and I do look at this issue -- police conduct or misconduct -- from rather different viewpoints.  Part of it is the simple fact that I'm a cop, and you're not.  But, more fundamentally, I don't start by looking for the abuses or misconduct of police officers in general, and you seem to.  You'll never find me denying that there are crooked cops, and, sadly, even crooked departments.  One of the most fundamentally flawed issues, in my opinion, about law enforcement in Virginia is the power that elected sheriffs have over their deputies; it's possible for a sheriff to be elected, and fire every single deputy.  This has the potential to promote several types of corruption, but I also know deputies in several agencies.  Few sheriff's office experience widespread corruption at the line level.  (In fact, the most corrupt agencies I'm personally aware of are police departments where the local elected executives either fail to control the chiefs or influence too much of the day to day function of the agency.)

With regard to the issue of transparency...  Many professions police themselves, with little publicity or openness.  Some have become more open in response to public demand in the fairly recent past -- but many of them still hide behind their own administration.  I'm not opposed to all public review of police action, but most civilian review boards become tools for those with political or personal axes to grind against law enforcement.  Instead, entrust your elected leaders and their agents (town or city managers, etc) to supervise the police chief.  I think every agency should make public the general nature of complaints made against officers -- but not the specifics.


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 20, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> But, more fundamentally, I don't start by looking for the abuses or misconduct of police officers in general, and you seem to.  You'll never find me denying that there are crooked cops, and, sadly, even crooked departments.



Perhaps you would have more of this mindset if you truly felt or feared that it might affect you.  You are a cop - you will never be shaken down by another cop for sex or money. You never have to fear that a cop will beat you because he doesn't like the look of you and then the court will presume to believe him, even if there is documentary evidence.  Perhaps if you understood that we are almost completely powerless against bad cops that might impact our lives you might begin looking for the "bad apples" instead of shrugging your shoulders and saying "Hey, most of 'em are good guys."  Try to look at it from that perspective.

And hey, I'm a privileged white guy who makes decent money and works and lives in nice areas.  Try asking a poor black guy what his opinions about crooked cops are.


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 20, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> Perhaps you would have more of this mindset if you truly felt or feared that it might affect you. You are a cop - you will never be shaken down by another cop for sex or money. You never have to fear that a cop will beat you because he doesn't like the look of you and then the court will presume to believe him, even if there is documentary evidence. Perhaps if you understood that we are almost completely powerless against bad cops that might impact our lives you might begin looking for the "bad apples" instead of shrugging your shoulders and saying "Hey, most of 'em are good guys." Try to look at it from that perspective.
> 
> And hey, I'm a privileged white guy who makes decent money and works and lives in nice areas. Try asking a poor black guy what his opinions about crooked cops are.


 
Neither will you, paleface.  And without that first-hand experience, you may be just as offbase in one direction as you think jks is in the other.  

Right, someone got beaten because the cop didn't like the look of him.  And all those fine folks in prison are innocent to the last one - just ask them.  :rofl:


----------



## tellner (Oct 20, 2007)

Yes Cory, people do get beaten up because a cop "didn't like the look of him". It happens. You don't have to be a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist or nigra lovin' commie librul queer to figure it out. 

Your attempt at ridicule is amateurish. 

1) There are guilty people in prison
2) There are guilty people in prison who claim they are innocent
3) There are people who claim to have been beaten up unjustly by cops
4) Therefore everybody who claims to have been unjustly beaten up by cops is lying
5) Therefore we should laugh at anyone who believes that it ever happens

That doesn't even pass muster as RNC talking points logic.


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 20, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> Neither will you, paleface.  And without that first-hand experience, you may be just as offbase in one direction as you think jks is in the other.



While my face may be pale, it hasn't affected my ears.  I have the ability to listen to the experiences of minorities.

In any case, I don't actually think jks is offbase in his basic point.  Most cops are decent people.  I think we've all established that.  What I can't get behind is the easy acceptance of the "bad apples" argument.  This lets people off the hook and keeps them from making basic changes.  It also reeks of privilege - the ones making the argument are the ones who won't have to deal with the consequences.  Also, look where that argument got us with Abu Ghraib.



CoryKS said:


> And all those fine folks in prison are innocent to the last one - just ask them.



Why don't you ask these poor bastards who almost paid with their lives for the mistakes of the justice system?
http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/Browse-Profiles.php


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 20, 2007)

Since when is "bad apples" an "argument"?? The way I read it, some people prefer to believe corruption is widespread and pervasive amongst police in our country and some believe that they are mostly good with a few "bad apples". NOBODY argued that because there are only a few "bad apples" that means that we should do nothing about them. Franky, if those words were being put in my mouth I would be insulted. 

I think there are (mostly) a few "bad apples" out there and that departments should do their best to be rid of them. While you say you think that most cops are good people. It sounds like you subscribe to the belief that most cops are bad.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 20, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Since when is "bad apples" an "argument"?? The way I read it, some people prefer to believe corruption is widespread and pervasive amongst police in our country and some believe that they are mostly good with a few "bad apples". NOBODY argued that because there are only a few "bad apples" that means that we should do nothing about them. Franky, if those words were being put in my mouth I would be insulted.
> 
> I think there are (mostly) a few "bad apples" out there and that departments should do their best to be rid of them. While you say you think that most cops are good people. It sounds like you subscribe to the belief that most cops are bad.


In fact, I've said that I, and most cops I know, have less than zero tolerance for the true corrupt and dirty indivuals who manage to get badges.  They are embarassments to our profession; depending on the misconduct, we want them prosecuted.  If someone can't see past their own biases to be fair in their dealings with people, they need to find a job where it doesn't matter.


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 20, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Since when is "bad apples" an "argument"??



It is not presented as such, but it is nonetheless.  When someone says "This stinks and something needs to change." and the reply is "Hey, it's just a few bad apples screwing everything up, we don't need to change anything." then the "bad apples" person is presenting an argument for stasis.



Blotan Hunka said:


> NOBODY argued that because there are only a few "bad apples" that means that we should do nothing about them.



No, they argue against things like transparency and civilian review boards, or for things like better politicians to rein in our problem police.  The problem is, that's what we have now, so it is essentially an argument to do nothing.  As tellner has shown, the system as it is now protects the corrupt cops amongst the decent ones.  JKS may want all the crooked cops prosecuted and gone, and I believe him, but that isn't what is happening.



Blotan Hunka said:


> While you say you think that most cops are good people. It sounds like you subscribe to the belief that most cops are bad.



I think the system is bad, which isn't the same thing as saying cops themselves are bad.  Poor systems will produce poor outcomes even with mostly good individuals running the show.  For instance, I think you are a conservative if I remember correctly from other posts, and you probably think our government does a crappy job running our society.  In that, I agree with you.  However, would it be fair for me to accuse you of thinking that all governmental employees are bad people?


----------



## Carol (Oct 21, 2007)

*Moderator Note:

These posts discussing abuse of authority by law enforcement were split from the Self Defense Against Cops thread.  

- Carol Kaur - 
- MT Moderator -*


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 21, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> No, they argue against things like transparency and civilian review boards, or for things like better politicians to rein in our problem police.  The problem is, that's what we have now, so it is essentially an argument to do nothing.  As tellner has shown, the system as it is now protects the corrupt cops amongst the decent ones.  JKS may want all the crooked cops prosecuted and gone, and I believe him, but that isn't what is happening.



You make an allegation that cannot be proven or disproven; I can say that I (and every cop I know) wants the criminals with badges to, at the very least, be fired, and often prosecuted, and I can support this by showing instances where this has happened.  (Including a person who worked for my agency, and whom I'd counted as a friend, but was later prosecuted for actions he'd taken after he went to a different agency.  And, yeah, I do wonder if we missed anything before he left.)  But there's no way I can show you that other misconduct isn't being covered up.  After all, the essence of a cover up is that nobody finds out!  It's just another case of disproving conspiracy theories.  Only, it's harder, because I will admit that some agencies or individuals have indeed tried to cover up misconduct of various levels.  I still argue that these instances are rare, and the exception to the rule... but I doubt I can prove this to your satisfaction.  Just as you can't prove to my satisfaction that there is a widespread pattern of corruption throughout US law enforcement.

With regard to civilian review boards, oversight panels, and similar ideas...  I don't like them.  Too often, they become political tools, not true oversight panels.  They sit in judgment with the aide of 20/20 hindsight (and all to often, blinders of anti-police bias) and leisure to consider all possibilities on the actions of someone working with limited data, having to make decisions on the fly, in response to a developing situation, in lousy conditions.  I've never said that police agencies shouldn't be subject to supervision, or that officers and agencies as a whole shouldn't be held accountable for their actions.  I work for a town agency; my chief reports to the town council and mayor through the town manager.  He's expected to report major discipline issues (in other words, the TM doesn't care if I got written up for being late or having an unkempt uniform... but definitely does care if I wreck a cruiser, shoot someone, or even get a major complaint).  We have an established internal investigations process, and the chief advises the TM and council of the IAs conducted each year.  If there's a problem -- it's the job of the TM to either assure that the chief fixes it, or replace the chief.



> I think the system is bad, which isn't the same thing as saying cops themselves are bad.  Poor systems will produce poor outcomes even with mostly good individuals running the show.  For instance, I think you are a conservative if I remember correctly from other posts, and you probably think our government does a crappy job running our society.  In that, I agree with you.  However, would it be fair for me to accuse you of thinking that all governmental employees are bad people?




So... what have you done to address the problem?  How are you trying to fix the system?  I think our current government deserves about a C+, at all levels (local, state, and federal).  I think we haven't paid attention to some problems nearly well enough (immigration, education, roads) while paying way too much attention to others (public health care, for one).  And I think the current election system for Congress gives incumbents too much of an advantage, and encourages some forms of corruption (I don't think there's a governmental operation Robert Byrd hasn't tried to -- and often succeeded in moving to West Virginia!).  But, I haven't seen a better system anywhere else...  Robert Heinlein's been on my mind of late.  In *Starship Troopers*, he justifies their government very simply -- because it works!  Our government isn't great, it isn't perfect, and it doesn't run without problems... but it works!


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 21, 2007)

> Again, I also must note that as long as we hire human beings to be cops, there'll be a few who do incredibly stupid things. Just like any other profession... It's just more likely to be *NEWS* when it involves a cop.



I think that JKS sums this up pretty well.

I have met some cops who have done dumb ****. I have met some cops, and have had to personally deal with cops who really suck at their jobs, and on 2 occassions with 2 different officers (one a chief, actually) they were fired for abuse (not cause of me specifically, just their general conduct caught up with them).

So, abuse does happen. However, it is very interesting to see how people make their own realities based on what they choose to focus on. I think it is really important to take each incident and each officer on an individual basis, and to be objective. A lack of doing so will color ones experiences. To put it another way, if one walks into every interaction with the police with the mindset that cops are corrupt, or out to get them, then I believe that will become a self-fulfilling prophacy. And it will be that way because of how that biased individual acts towards the police, not the other way around.

When looking at these things objectively, I find that most cops are simply doing their jobs. And the motivations they have for doing their jobs are generally altruistic; they have a drive to serve the public and better the communities in which they work everyday.

But like in a lot of cases, we are appalled at the "human" element of mistakes, or even "bad people" in professions of which we hold conduct to a higher standard. And because of that standard, people tend to focus on the negative disproportionately, even though "bad cop" incidences are isolated and few in comparison to the norm.

C.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Oct 22, 2007)

Primal Kuen said:


> Since you are so insistant on me telling you what I did wrong, I will.
> 
> I had just turned 17, and decided to go to a party with a friend of mine. While there, he ran into his x-girlfriend who had recently left him, and took much of his belongings in the process. So he decides to take her money and jewelry he had bought her in retaliation... I told him I was leaving before a fight broke out, so he came with me. on the way to take him home we get pulled over...and charged with "strong armed robbery" , I was included because " I was the driver ".
> 
> ...


 

I find it interesting that you say that cops / corrections officers should be "guilty by association" when you make your argument about a screwed up system as to how this whole thing started.

What about your "guilt by association" for being friends with someone who robbed a victim?  

What's good for the goose, after all.  I'm not passing judgement on you or LEO's.  Just showing you the bias in your argumentation.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Oct 22, 2007)

The problem with civilian review boards is that most of them do not understand a thing about what law enforcement officers do or go through.  You would be amazed at how many people, including senior city, state, and federal executives believe that cops are all martial artists, snipers, and psychologists.  We should be able to subdue people with a dirty look, shoot guns out of hands, and solve all of lifes problems in five minutes.

I personally don't have a problem with civilian reviews.  But what I have a problem with is a person uneducated about what we do, the training we go through, etc., passing judgement on something they know nothing about.  Being a police officer is different from any other job.  Not even the military can relate.  Hell, they get to shoot first.  Cops don't really have that option.

If a civilian review panel had to go through at least some training in arrest and control / defensive tactics, firearms training, legal procedure, etc., and then do several ride-alongs to see what actual police officers do during their day in dealing with the, mostly angry, public, then what could I say.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 22, 2007)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> The problem with civilian review boards is that most of them do not understand a thing about what law enforcement officers do or go through.  You would be amazed at how many people, including senior city, state, and federal executives believe that cops are all martial artists, snipers, and psychologists.  We should be able to subdue people with a dirty look, shoot guns out of hands, and solve all of lifes problems in five minutes.
> 
> I personally don't have a problem with civilian reviews.  But what I have a problem with is a person uneducated about what we do, the training we go through, etc., passing judgement on something they know nothing about.  Being a police officer is different from any other job.  Not even the military can relate.  Hell, they get to shoot first.  Cops don't really have that option.
> 
> If a civilian review panel had to go through at least some training in arrest and control / defensive tactics, firearms training, legal procedure, etc., and then do several ride-alongs to see what actual police officers do during their day in dealing with the, mostly angry, public, then what could I say.


Training review boards would help.  But it seems that way too many "police review panels" become political tools, filled with appointees who not only don't know about police work, but are anti-police.


----------



## MJS (Oct 22, 2007)

As far as I'm concerned, a review board should know something about what they're reviewing.  Do the people have any law experience?  Are they current officers from another dept?  Are they retired officers?  Are they lawyers?  The list can go on, but my point is, the person reviewing a case should not be an average Joe.  Then again, when the court is looking for people to serve on a jury, its average citizens.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 22, 2007)

MJS said:


> As far as I'm concerned, a review board should know something about what they're reviewing. Do the people have any law experience? Are they current officers from another dept? Are they retired officers? Are they lawyers? The list can go on, but my point is, the person reviewing a case should not be an average Joe. Then again, when the court is looking for people to serve on a jury, its average citizens.


 

But the people making arguments for each side are lawyers, who bring in experts to testify. The jurors are not seated as "experts" in the fields they are judging.


----------



## MJS (Oct 22, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> But the people making arguments for each side are lawyers, who bring in experts to testify. The jurors are not seated as "experts" in the fields they are judging.


 
True, but in a jury trial, isn't it the jurors who decide guilty or innocent?  Like the civilian panel, isn't it Average Joes who are deciding whether or not the officer is in the right or wrong?

I realize the lawyers bring in experts, but I'd also think the cops would have some sort of evidence regarding the actions that they took.

Not trying to argue with you here, just trying to better understand how this process works. 

Mike


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 22, 2007)

MJS said:


> True, but in a jury trial, isn't it the jurors who decide guilty or innocent? Like the civilian panel, isn't it Average Joes who are deciding whether or not the officer is in the right or wrong?
> 
> I realize the lawyers bring in experts, but I'd also think the cops would have some sort of evidence regarding the actions that they took.
> 
> ...


 
Dunno..we dont have them around here. Another difference with juries is that each side gets to kick off jurors they think are biased. And some jurors are even booted off or mistrials called and juries reseated. It sounds like these review boards are political appointees.


----------



## MJS (Oct 22, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Dunno..we dont have them around here. Another difference with juries is that each side gets to kick off jurors they think are biased. And some jurors are even booted off or mistrials called and juries reseated. It sounds like these review boards are political appointees.


 
Thanks for your reply.  Like I said, I'm no expert on juries or review boards.  Its possible they are political appointees.  In any case, I still feel that the person or persons responsible for making a decision on the action of a LEO, should have knowledge of what being a LEO is all about.  I not a cop, so I don't think I should decide whether or not a cop was in the right or wrong if he was to shoot someone.   Kinda hard for me to judge when I havent walked in their shoes.

Just my .02


----------



## tellner (Oct 22, 2007)

The problem is that I've seen what "training" review boards turns into in several cities. It's pretty much pure indoctrination with "The Thin Blue Line" playing in the background filled with quotes like "Cops are held to a higher standard" - demonstrably false and bordering on a lie from one side or the other of the border - and transparent attempts to stack the boards with relatives of police, prosecutors and former police officers. It becomes something akin to a Grand Jury in reverse. All the evidence is provided by the defense. 

That's why Satanically Liberal Boston hasn't passed a single thing out of it's review board in, what, eight years. No matter how good officers are someone is going to screw up badly in any group that size in 2800 days. The number zero speaks volumes.

Now, if you want to talk about how it's just a few bad apples and other cops would root out corruption in their ranks, consider something that appeared today in a decidedly Conservative pro-Law and Order paper, the New York Post. Yes, some were caught. But the NYPD is still closing ranks and making it as difficult as possible for even a normally friendly paper to even find out who the guilty are.

I've noticed the same sort of thing when it comes to videotape. When a "civilian" films a cop it's always, _always_ "prejudicial" or "out of context". That's why several jurisdictions have passed laws making it illegal for anyone who doesn't carry tin from doing it. But police are encouraged to record interactions which may lead to prosecutions such as catching incriminating statements during interrogation.

By the way, the next time I hear a cop of any sort refer to "police" and "citizens" as two separate things, I've got an S.O.P. If you aren't a civilian, grab a rifle and head over to Baghdad. The Marines are looking for a few good men, and you could probably get a job with the Army. You're as much of a civilian as anyone else as long as you're not wearing green. Adjust the context lenses. Police organizations evolved to a paramilitary structure for a variety of historical reasons. So did the Boy Scouts and the Civil Air Patrol. Get over it.

We can argue forever about particular cases and who is more hostile to whom. But it is ironic. These days police are demanding unfettered power to search, seize, question, confiscate, implement ubiquitous surveillance and even (recent Supreme Court case) overturn Tennessee vs. Garner and shoot _anyone_ who runs (not just those who pose an immediate danger). But individually and collectively they are positively allergic to any sort of scrutiny by anyone who isn't in the Club and personally loyal to them.

It's a lot like the ideal of knighthood or the samurai. The Warrior is loyal to his Lord and his Brothers, chivalrous to his honorable foes (well, strike that these days), and has a bunch of covenants that say he's the greatest thing since crunchy peanut butter. He is bound to respect his Lord and anyone of that class (e.g. the Chamber of Commerce). But how he treats the peasants is another thing entirely. He can cut them down and walk away without fear. He gets a pass on a lot of the law as long as he's serving his Lord or at least not causing too much of a fuss. And he is of a different caste. It would be as unthinkable for the peasants to judge him as it would be for him not to judge the peasants. 

That is very much the attitude here. Police are a separate caste. They are loyal to the government and their Brothers. They not only serve the Law, they embody it. So it would be as ridiculous for "civilians" to judge them as it would be for them _not_ to judge the peasants. They can kill the peasants without fear of legal problems unless they are actually doing mob hits as in NOLA or NYC. They might have promotions held back, but _they will walk_ as long as it's vaguely part of the job. 

It doesn't matter how good the people chosen to be police officers are, and most of them start off very good indeed. Even saints can fall. An institution which keeps its sins secret and its virtues public will breed corruption, arrogance and a sense of superior entitlement. That's just how human beings behave. As Philip Zimbardo of the Stanford Prison Experiment said "You can't be a sweet cucumber in a pickle barrel."

We saw the same thing with civil forfeiture. While seizure has been around for a long time the Reagan era saw a dramatic expansion of the doctrine that police could seize "crime-related" property and keep the proceeds. It was originally supposed to be (according to Ed Meese) to "hit the drug kingpins in the pocketbook." 

Amazingly, it didn't stay that way. It was applied to a wide variety of things and ended up hitting the small and weak such as the migrant farm workers much disproportionately. Departments like Orange County took to compiling lists of homes according to market value and confiscating them without ever charging anyone with anything. Those affected did not have to be convicted or even charged. Under a bizarre legal theory it isn't their property. It's property that doesn't really belong to anyone which is accused of being related to crime. The normal legal niceties do not apply. Police use of the money is almost always off-budget. It is not subject to the same accounting and justification that a Department has to provide for the money the government gives it to operate.

There have been efforts to reform this legalized plunder - confiscation only upon conviction, money going into the State's General Fund and so on. Departments tend to fight these like a mother cat defending her kittens. Once again we see resistance to oversight, an institutional desire for power not subject to normal laws and a tendency to close ranks and demand that special privileges be considered Sacred Rights.

The polite word for the practice is tax-farming. The more honest one is banditry. How can people, even good ones, remain uncorrupted by this? The simple answer is that they can't. 

The usual police responses are "elect better politicians" and "give us more money for training", "you don't know what it's like to be a police officer" and "if you criticize us you must be anti-cop and anti-government". Every one of these is a way of saying "We are above your judgment. But we have judged that you, personally, are deficient." It demonstrates the root of the problem very neatly.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 22, 2007)

Sounds like the same argument the gun grabbers use to take our weapons away.

While "most" of the gun owners out there are "good guys" (read: They are all trigger happy gun nuts but I wont come out and say that). There are so many cases gun crimes out there that we need to start passing laws to limit them....its for the children after all (read: I want all guns outlawed because I just dont like them and anyone who likes them must be bad).


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 22, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> You make an allegation that cannot be proven or disproven; I can say that I (and every cop I know) wants the criminals with badges to, at the very least, be fired, and often prosecuted, and I can support this by showing instances where this has happened.


I already said I believed you.  That doesn't mean that it doesn't happen elsewhere, or even that you would give undue deference to the actions of the police all other things being equal.  It's perfectly natural; they are your friends and co-workers.  That is why it is a bad idea to have the police (anyone, really) police themselves.  Of course civilian review boards are an imperfect tool, so is everything else.  At the very least, they will have a set of different biases which cover for the biases that police review boards have.  



jks9199 said:


> So... what have you done to address the problem?  How are you trying to fix the system?



I argue about it on the internet.



jks9199 said:


> In *Starship Troopers*, he justifies their government very simply -- because it works!  Our government isn't great, it isn't perfect, and it doesn't run without problems... but it works!



I find it a bit troubling that you would use this argument and this justification.  The government in "Starship Troopers" was a military fascistic dictatorship waging a war of genocide against another species that posed no real risk to it.  

Maybe our government "works", but it can always be made better.


----------



## Primal Kuen (Oct 22, 2007)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I find it interesting that you say that cops / corrections officers should be "guilty by association" when you make your argument about a screwed up system as to how this whole thing started.
> 
> What about your "guilt by association" for being friends with someone who robbed a victim?
> 
> What's good for the goose, after all. I'm not passing judgement on you or LEO's. Just showing you the bias in your argumentation.


 
 First of all, I did'nt say he "should" be guilty by association, just that he becomes guilty by association. 

  I drive a guy to a party, then drive him hame after he does something stupid...the line gets blured and I go to jail with him. This corrections officer is seen with the bad apples, hanging out with them, laughing with them etc., the line gets blured and he gets **** thrown on him.

After all, what's good for the goose....


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 23, 2007)

Primal Kuen said:


> This corrections officer is seen with the bad apples, hanging out with them, laughing with them etc., the line gets blured and he gets **** thrown on him.




Call me old fashion, but I find it incredibly difficult to come to anyones defense who is the kind of person that would throw **** on anyone to make a point.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Oct 23, 2007)

tellner said:


> The problem is that I've seen what "training" review boards turns into in several cities. It's pretty much pure indoctrination with "The Thin Blue Line" playing in the background filled with quotes like "Cops are held to a higher standard" - demonstrably false and bordering on a lie from one side or the other of the border - and transparent attempts to stack the boards with relatives of police, prosecutors and former police officers. It becomes something akin to a Grand Jury in reverse. All the evidence is provided by the defense.
> 
> That's why Satanically Liberal Boston hasn't passed a single thing out of it's review board in, what, eight years. No matter how good officers are someone is going to screw up badly in any group that size in 2800 days. The number zero speaks volumes.
> 
> ...


 
I can't say what goes on in Boston. Don't live there and don't know anything about it. And I agree with you. I believe that most police review boards are political tools. But I don't believe the answer to police review is to have a set of people who are anti-police on a panel to balance the odds. That's not solving the problem.

And alot of the things you are referring to such as asset forfeiture laws are the products of politicians and administrators, not line level police officers of which this thread is talking about. Just because I arrest a drug dealer, and the politicians decide to take his stuff, that policy has nothing to do with me. And quite frankly, if you don't like asset forfeiture laws (which I absolutely hate, by the way), you do need to elect better politicians.



> Originally posted by *Empty Hands*
> I find it a bit troubling that you would use this argument and this justification. The government in "Starship Troopers" was a military fascistic dictatorship waging a war of genocide against another species that posed no real risk to it.


 
Tell the people of Buenos Aires that the bugs posed no risks.

And for both sides of the argument on this one, we dont really see the government of this movie. All we know is that in order to vote and hold office, be a citizen, is be in the military. In other words, you have to earn your citizenship. And I dont necessarily see a problem with that.




> Originally posted by *Primal Kuen*
> First of all, I did'nt say he "should" be guilty by association, just that he becomes guilty by association.


 
You specifically said, "and if you arent one of them, then you become guilty by association". That sounds like your opinion. If you work with officers who are corrupt, then you are guilty by association. Then, according to your thesis, dont be upset when officers do the same back to you.


----------



## Primal Kuen (Oct 23, 2007)

You specifically said, "and if you arent one of them, then you become guilty by association". That sounds like your opinion. If you work with officers who are corrupt, then you are guilty by association. Then, according to your thesis, dont be upset when officers do the same back to you.[/quote]

  Actually, it's a fact...not an opinion.  Becoming guilty and "should be" guilty are two different things.
  Secondly I never said I was upset by being guilty by association...It's just an unfortunate fact of life we ALL have to live with. Including Correctional officers who choose to work along side corrupt officers every day, that abuse authority in a gross manor. Then, as wrong as it is, they get stabbed or whatever...then act like it's amazing that an inmate would do that. Please,   as I said before...it's amazing it does'nt happen more often.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 23, 2007)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Tell the people of Buenos Aires that the bugs posed no risks.
> 
> And for both sides of the argument on this one, we dont really see the government of this movie. All we know is that in order to vote and hold office, be a citizen, is be in the military. In other words, you have to earn your citizenship. And I dont necessarily see a problem with that.


 
Just a note regarding *Starship Troopers.*  It was a book long before it was a movie, and the book never really showed much about the civilian government, other than the idea that you had to earn full citizenship and voting rights by government service, which was NOT limited to the military.  Some professions required citizenship, but many did not.  It is clear that there is some form of representative, elected government (one character in the book was doing his term so that he could go into politics).  Nothing in the book actually suggested fascism; the movie essentially has a few characters and events in common with the book, but little more.

Nor was I suggesting that either our government our government or criminal justice system couldn't be improved.  I've become quite in favor of some form of term limits in Congress; we've got congressmembers who have been serving longer than some new members have been alive!  Similarly, the campaign system needs reform; the current system demands so much money to run that we've eliminated many people from the realistic hope of ever actually competing in the race.  

I don't have a problem with reasonable transparency in law enforcement.  There are a very few investigative techniques I won't discuss publicly, but by and large I have no problem with revealing what we do, and why we do it.  And I've got no problems with an aggressive, free press monitoring law enforcement (or any other part of government).  But I refuse to start from the premise that there are so many cops (either in one jurisdiction or nationwide) that they MUST be screwing up.  As I've said before -- it's a fundamental difference in mindset.  

I accept that there will always be cops who make mistakes, and that some LEOs will succomb to the temptation, and even that some small number of criminals will slip through the cracks, and get badges.  After all, one of the best tools a cop has is the ability to think like the criminal.  Sometimes, that line is awfully thin...

And I'm in favor of general information regarding misconduct investigations being released.  But I'm not in favor of releasing everything; IA results are hard to understand if you are a cop; they can be almost incomprehensible if you're not.  (Not sustained is not the same as not guilty, and sustained is not the same as guilty...)  Often, they'd needlessly and inappropriately undermine faith in the PD because of that lack of clarity.

Let me use the following example.  Every year, in just about every city, the papers do an article about the highest paid cops.  There's always somebody on the list making more than the chief...  and more than most people ever see.  Of late, it's often in the $100,000 or even $200,000 or more range.  What's seldom shown is where that money came from...  The guy had no life; he worked every OT detail he could, especially ones that are paid at a higher rate than his base salary.  He's often also close to being topped out on the pay scale through time & longevity.  (Some places you can top out in a handful of years...)  Many times, it's not even been "voluntary" overtime.  For example, in Washington, DC, if a cop on midnights makes almost any arrest, they're not going home before noon because of mandatory court appearances.  And it's often later...  Add a few more days of court time when he's supposed to be "off", and it starts adding up fast.  So... in the interests of "transparency", we publish the salaries.  But, because of the outliers, the public gets the impression that the working cops are making these insane amounts of money; they don't see why their making that much.  And they don't see why that guy with a year on, who's nowhere near topped out, and who's got a wife and kid that he's hardly seeing, wants a pay raise.

Again, I absolutely agree that LEOs and law enforcement agencies must be held accountable for their conduct.  But I believe that most agencies have, as a rule, effective methods of supervision and investigation in place, and that they ARE monitored by the governments that that create them.  Most large agencies have standing Internal Affairs or Professional Standards offices; most small agencies assign someone to a case when needed.  No agency should be afraid to go outside (for example, to the state's attorney's general or even the FBI) for a neutral investigation, especially in the case of serious allegations.


----------



## tellner (Oct 23, 2007)

OK, let's be serious.

A work of fiction does not prove anything. Fiction is 

*Things Which Did Not Happen*

The moment you use fiction as evidence of something in the real world, other than the real state of the author's mind or some vague statement about the popular mythology nobody can take you seriously. "I want it to be true, so it must be true" is for three year olds, not grown men and women. Anyone got a problem with that?

No?

Good.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 24, 2007)

So are you trying to tell me that starship troopers isn't real!? 

You sir, have not seen the size of the Cochroaches and wolf spiders in Georgia!

 Seriously, I think that the movie was originally used as an analogy, not "evidence."


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 24, 2007)

_*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*

_Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-Terry Stoker
-MT Senior Moderator-


----------



## SKB (Oct 24, 2007)

So I was gone for a few days but now I think I have caught up with the thread. 

First off, people are always going to have the impression the po'lice are out to get them. So few people want to be responsible for what their actions in life have caused they need to blame everyone else. If I walk into a biker bar full of one club and start pop'in off about how much that club sucks and I try hitting on every women in the joint???? Odds are I'm going to have a bad night, right? Maybe some folks should look back, using that 20/20 hindsight, and see that just maybe they did a few things which could of been the root cause of the problem?

Not all police are honest, trustworthy, etc. Neither are ever lawyer, doctor, salesman, carpenter, janitor, etc. How do I know? Well prison is full of a lot of people who are not ex-police? So I can use the same arguments people are using here against any profession. Once again, if it is law enforcement involved the action makes the news. If you are going to keep citing cases then point your anger at that person or department. Saying all of us are evil is a joke. I know lawyers who are child rapist, does that make all lawyers child rapist?

Is the system perfect? Not by a long shot! 

Is there a thin blue line? Yes. Want to find out why? Come and do the job. And on that thought, I did my time in the military, USMC, I spent my time in foreign countries with folks wanting to do me harm? Most people go through their day not realizing how many people are out there making sure you can have the day you are having. All the way from the military to the police to the ambulance drivers who come get you if your hurt. I also must include the Firemen who fight the fires since they are on my mind with my state half burned down! Instead people sit back and throw stones at everyone. What have you done lately to make your city a safer and happier place?

As far as abuse of power in corrections, it is some peoples idea of what power is and how it should be used. Again I ask if you have all this first hand knowledge why have you not done something about it about?!? 

It is urban legend a lot of what you hear about prison. Inmates are feed three times a day, have a roof over their heads, get medical treatment and a lot of other things our troops don't get and inmates have it better then the homeless!!!! And regardless of how you might try to make it sound 99% of the reasons officers are assaulted are just plain stupid!!!! Why are there not officers being killed every day? One reason is the officers are not doing anything worth killing them over!!! Why? Because prison is not the urban legend some folks try to make it out to be! 

If some of you hate the police here so much you might want to get out and travel the world a bit. Other countries law enforcement are so much different then what we have here..............


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 24, 2007)

SKB said:


> Maybe some folks should look back, using that 20/20 hindsight, and see that just maybe they did a few things which could of been the root cause of the problem?



Maybe that woman shouldn't have worn that short skirt, then she wouldn't have been raped, eh?



SKB said:


> Neither are ever lawyer, doctor, salesman, carpenter, janitor, etc.



The point, which has been made many times and which you seem to be ignoring, is that your average lawyer or salesman can't break into your home in the middle of the night, shoot you dead in your bed, and be commended by the government for doing so.  The position comes with enormous immediate power over other peoples' lives that no other position has.  Thus, just as lawyers and doctors are called to account for their bad actions, so should police.  



SKB said:


> Is the system perfect? Not by a long shot!



Then why are you arguing for it so hard?



SKB said:


> Is there a thin blue line? Yes. Want to find out why? Come and do the job.



Oh please.  Policeman doesn't even make it in the top 10 for dangerous jobs.  If you want to cover for your brothers' illegal behavior, you had better come up with a better justification for it.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/26/pf/jobs_jeopardy/



SKB said:


> What have you done lately to make your city a safer and happier place?



Even if I had done nothing, it would not justify police misconduct.



SKB said:


> As far as abuse of power in corrections, it is some peoples idea of what power is and how it should be used.



Tolerating rape, smuggling drugs, or taking bribes is wrong, m'kay?  It is not just another "idea" about the proper use of authority.  If it was, it wouldn't be illegal!



SKB said:


> Other countries law enforcement are so much different then what we have here..............



So we should just tolerate what we have because it could be worse?  OK, how about I come over to your house, steal all your stuff, and sell your children into sex slavery.  What, don't like it?  Hey, what's your problem, it could be worse!

Your entire post summarizes and symbolizes every wrongheaded, authoritarian, and frightening argument in this debate.  By your own words you justify and defend abusive behavior by the police, and the coverup behavior of fellow officers.  Since you apparently live in the same state I do, I hope to God I never meet you in your official capacity "Officer."  I don't want to be the next Abner Louima with you standing by and justifying the whole damn thing.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 24, 2007)

Ohhh no youre not "anti-cop" at all.

Right.


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 24, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Ohhh no youre not "anti-cop" at all.
> 
> Right.



Was that supposed to be directed at me?  Can you honestly tell me and tell yourself with a straight face that defending misconduct by saying it could be worse elsewhere or that it's hard to be a policeman is an honorable stance?  I would be horrified to have such allies.

Consider it the ultimate pro-cop stance - I don't infantilize them with the soft bigotry of low expectations.  They should be responsible for their actions just like everyone else.

ETA: Does it make me anti-martial artist if I say that MAists should not misuse their arts?  Does it make me anti-MAist if I refuse to accept excuses for those misusing their art?  Does it make me anti-MAist if I take seriously the pledges I recite at each belt level?  Why does the logic change so drastically when it comes to the police?


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 24, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> Was that supposed to be directed at me?  Can you honestly tell me and tell yourself with a straight face that defending misconduct by saying it could be worse elsewhere or that it's hard to be a policeman is an honorable stance?  I would be horrified to have such allies.
> 
> Consider it the ultimate pro-cop stance - I don't infantilize them with the soft bigotry of low expectations.  They should be responsible for their actions just like everyone else.
> 
> ETA: Does it make me anti-martial artist if I say that MAists should not misuse their arts?  Does it make me anti-MAist if I refuse to accept excuses for those misusing their art?  Does it make me anti-MAist if I take seriously the pledges I recite at each belt level?  Why does the logic change so drastically when it comes to the police?



It's not that you are saying that we shouldn't tolerate cops that misues authority. It's all your other assumptions. Out of all the cops I know, I don't know any of them who could, "_break into your home in the middle of the night, shoot you dead in your bed, and be commended by the government for doing so._" Or how about your assumption that "cops" "tolerate abuse and take bribes"?  

It is you other assumptions that are kind of silly and unfounded. Sure, there are abuses of power in any profession where one is an authority figure. But your presentation paints an extremely disproportionate and inaccurate picture. That would be like me saying, as a result of some isolated incidences, something like "look out, teachers are out to bang your kids, so we better do something about it or the next kid could be yours!" 

C.

P.S. A final but incidental note: Those surveys about the "most dangerous jobs" are usually very disproportionate. For example, I didn't see "soldier" listed. But, most soldiers are not deployed in a direct combat environment. If we took the survay as a ratio from Infantry soldiers on the ground in Iraq (as opposed to all military personel), the figures would look quite different. Similarly, there is a huge difference between being a Cop in Detroit or Flint Michigan Vs. a low cime suburb like Lake Orion. If the survey was "cop in detroit," it would look much different.

Further, these surveys only take into account death. Fisherman in Alaska are at great risks for death. But they don't face the level of injuries or psychological difficulties that our soldiers face in Iraq (with almost 30,000 injured), or the physical and mental strain that cops face daily from having to deal with the dark elements of society. 

And yes, there is professional courtesy, or "a thin blue line" that shouldn't/doesn't allow you to be unethical and harmful, but that you do get to enjoy if your in such a job that most people would not do well in.


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 24, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Out of all the cops I know, I don't know any of them who could, "_break into your home in the middle of the night, shoot you dead in your bed, and be commended by the government for doing so._"



Nonetheless...
http://reason.com/blog/show/118723.html



Cruentus said:


> Or how about your assumption that "cops" "tolerate abuse and take bribes"?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampart_Scandal

In any case, these remarks by you are a strawman argument.  I never "assumed" that "cops" did anything.  I have already acknowledged that most cops are not corrupt, although clean cops covering for dirty ones is still a problem.  I have pointed out that current remedies to address these abuses are insufficient, and that those making the argument to do nothing are usually the ones not affected by the problems.

I strongly challenge you to produce a statement by me claiming that all or most cops do anything.  Absent that, the rest of your comments are reading into my words what you want to see.



Cruentus said:


> Similarly, there is a huge difference between being a Cop in Detroit or Flint Michigan Vs. a low cime suburb like Lake Orion. If the survey was "cop in detroit," it would look much different.



Detroit PD has lost 6 officers in the last 8 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_police
Meanwhile, 38 fishermen died in one year.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/26/pf/jobs_jeopardy/



Cruentus said:


> And yes, there is professional courtesy, or "a thin blue line" that shouldn't/doesn't allow you to be unethical and harmful, but that you do get to enjoy if your in such a job that most people would not do well in.



Well, we have seen how quickly and systematically this "professional courtesy" can turn unethical and harmful.  Where is the line?  Even letting other cops out of traffic tickets is immoral and unethical IMO.  I don't get to give other scientists (my profession) a pass on their scientific mistakes just because we are both scientists.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Oct 24, 2007)

What most people fail to realize is that Internal Affairs investigations are considered personnel issues.  And as such, are not generally open to public scrutiny, unless a level of criminality is achieved.  This is the same for any personnel file from any company in the U.S.

I would venture to say that the public is unaware of the punishments metted out by agencies to their police employees because of this reason, perhaps other than the offended party themselves, or as a general announcement without naming specific officers.

As far as the only the police investigating themselves, there are many instances of outside scrutiny.  In Los Angeles County, any homicide conducted in the line of duty is investigated by the District Attorneys Office for criminality.  And, even if no criminality is found, the officer may still be punished for policy violations.  This is the side that the public usually never sees.

Also, the FBI has an entire section devoted to investigating police officer misconduct and civil rights abuses.  Many states have similar sections.  And these are lawyers who, IMO, are out to make a name for themselves.  Not other police officers.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 24, 2007)

The last refuge of the cop bashers is the "fishermen die more than cops" argument. As if a person giving their life in service to their community (or country in the case of a soldier) equates. 

As to the tickets. Perhaps cops shouldnt be allowed to give..oh say...YOU a warning from now on either.


----------



## SKB (Oct 24, 2007)

OK I have been looking at this the wrong way! You are just trying to see how far you can tick some of us off right? Everyone of us has said the same thing, there are dirty cops but not all are dirty. Some police abuse their power but not all. The rest of us do not spend all day covering for those who do something wrong. 

So let's see........ what happen to you to make you figure all of us are evil? From the sounds of it you have to be a lawyer or collage teacher?


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 24, 2007)

SKB said:


> OK I have been looking at this the wrong way! You are just trying to see how far you can tick some of us off right? Everyone of us has said the same thing, there are dirty cops but not all are dirty. Some police abuse their power but not all. The rest of us do not spend all day covering for those who do something wrong.
> 
> So let's see........ what happen to you to make you figure all of us are evil? From the sounds of it you have to be a lawyer or collage teacher?


 
Now you've got it!  Unless you agree that the entire system is irredeemably broken because a few bad guys manage to get a badge, you are an apologist and enabler for evil.  Evil.  EVIL!


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 24, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> Detroit PD has lost 6 officers in the last 8 years.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_police
> Meanwhile, 38 fishermen died in one year.
> http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/26/pf/jobs_jeopardy/



I don't mean to be rude, but I don't know how else to put this: your discourse here is insufferable and irrational.

38 Fishermen died in one year, but there are thousands of fishermen. The death rate for fishermen is 86.4/100,000.

There are only 700 officers in Detroit PD. That data was compiled over 7 years, making the death rate for Police Officers during that period in Detroit 122.4/100,000; more dangerous then ANY of the jobs listed in your little article. And that doesn't include injury, and that doesn't include the psychological ramifications from dealing with dirtbags all day. [I should also mention that the deathtoll for soldiers in Iraq for 2006 is 618.05/100,000, and it will be worse this year. But of course that wasn't mentioned in the article either.]

Your wrong, and so in your information, and so are your illogical assumptions and biases. Your argument has no integrity at this point. Furthermore, as I said before, the big problem is in how you present the information, not the semantics. You clearly illustrate how you feel by the manner in which you say things here.

So I'll go away now. This conversation is clearly in the toilet at this point.


:flushed::bs:


----------



## tellner (Oct 25, 2007)

"The last refuge of the anti cop"?

Please. That one doesn't even make sense.

You made an assertion - police work is so terribly dangerous that whatever they are accused of doing was justified. Other people have used facts to prove that this is not true. If nobody has said it already I'm sure it's only a little while before someone will pipe up with "and they're barely making minimum wage." That is, of course, another lie. 

If the truth is "anti-cop" it says something pretty ugly about the people who blindly worship the police.


----------



## SKB (Oct 25, 2007)

Ok let's try this again......... why do you dislike the police so much? What happen to you?


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 25, 2007)

tellner said:


> "The last refuge of the anti cop"?
> 
> Please. That one doesn't even make sense.
> 
> ...


In my opinion -- neither view is justified.  Police work is physically, mentally, and emotionally dangerous.  So are many other jobs.  It's tough to honestly establish any job is "more dangerous" than another, because it's hard to quantify injuries (other than death), since many workers in all fields don't report all injuries.  

LEOs aren't angels.  In fact, some of my colleagues are absolute *******s.  Nor are LEOs all crooks.  Most fall somewhere in the middle, and a variety of pressures (personal, professional, community, and peer, among others) keep them honest when they're tempted. 

But, given a choice, I'm going to start by giving a cop the benefit of the doubt.  It's entirely your choice to do the opposite.

As to police wages... That's highly variable.  I make pretty damn good money, all things considered.  Especially when you add in perks like my company car due to my current assignment.  But, in some other areas in Virginia, cops are making less than a grocery clerk does where I live.  The broad salary ranges are typically available on-line; off the top of my head, the lowest starting pay I've heard was in the $6 or $7/hour range.  But, at the other end of the scale, most cops can retire after 20 or 25 years.  To me, the bottom line on pay is simple: neither our cops, our teachers, nor our soldiers are paid enough.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 25, 2007)

Another internet law?

...As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

...If the discussion is with someone who "doesnt hate cops but........" the probability of bringing up "your job aint that dangerous" stats approaches one.

It happens all over the internet. Personally, Ive had experience with it from the serviceman side of the house. If your with a group, and one of the guys there has a self-esteem issue (read: he wishes he had enlisted or he feels like "less of a man" because someone else seems more "macho" or "cooler" than him), and he finds out you are in the military, its a matter of time before the "I can shoot better than you", "Im fitter than you", and "anti-soldier" rhetoric (illegal shoots, Abu Graib, etc. etc.) starts up. If theres enough beer around it may come to blows.

I think that theres a component of that in some of the "anti-cop" stuff on the net too. Some of it is from legit people who may have gotten a raw deal at the hands of a "bad apple". But IMO, some of it is the "Ive gotta knock you down a peg so I can feel better" too. Ive always noted that most of the biggest complainers are other men. Its a macho thing.

Just what I think.


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 25, 2007)

I'm done with this thread.  If my interlocutors don't have the basic honesty to respond to the words and arguments I actually make, then my presence here is futile.

For the record, I don't hate cops, I never said I did, and I never said "all" or "most" cops are anything but clean.  Your collective continual insistence that I did says more about you than it does about me.


----------



## tellner (Oct 25, 2007)

Well, let's cover a few things here....

First, to the anonymous coward - I tried polite on that point a few times. But do you know what? There are things that just go beyond the pale of anything resembling debate, argument or discourse. One of them is saying that thigns that are made up are as good as the truth. That is just wrong. It's a transparent attempt to get rid of pesky things like facts and reason and go straight for the emotions. And when someone knows better it makes him look even worse. By the bye, I wish you would grow a little courage and at least be willing to put your own name to what you say.

Second, someone has been watching Bill O'Reilly a little too much in his "Why do you hate America?" shtick moments. Do I "hate cops"? No. Do I think they shouldn't exist, that there shouldn't be laws or ways to enforce them? No. And I've said it way too many times for anyone honest to say otherwise. The proper, adult response to "Here are the facts. Here is the problem as I see it," isn't "You hate cops. You hate America. You hate puppies and kittens and baseball and everything good." The thing that a mature and responsible person would do is find the points of disagreement in matters of fact and interpretation and try to get closer to the truth. This isn't a War between Good and Evil where there has to be a winner and a loser. This is supposed to be adults trying to figure out what is true and what isn't and come up with ways to deal with the reality.

As I've said, again a tedious number of times, most police officers are no better or worse than anyone else. Many start off idealistic. Some few stay that way. Most keep some of the ideals even when reality grinds them down. The job is stressful, often boring, sometimes dangerous and necessary. The selection process rewards certain personality traits and the institutions have traditions. Some of them are good. Some of them are bad. One of the bad parts is that bad people are sheltered out of the same sort of loyalty that protects the good ones. And rotten departments pass their sins on to the next generation of officers.

JKS, the points about danger and pay were counters to the usual thing that blind - and *only* blind - defenders of everything police do say and in fact have said. The job isn't as dangerous as others in which we do not excuse murder, rape, drug dealing and other felonies. And while we do not excuse these crimes in the general population on account of poverty there are some here who say they excuse crimes by police officers because police pay is so low. As mentioned, it isn't sumptuous, but it's pretty darned good and comes with extraordinary benefits. 

The basic problem is laid bare here. And most who have set themselves up as Defenders of the Thin Blue Line against the barbarous hordes (me and empty hands) have walked right into it. "Anyone who isn't 100% for everything I say is the enemy. The enemy is against everything good. The enemy hates us. We must attack the enemy." Look over this thread and the one that spawned it. It's the standard Party line. And it just keeps getting repeated.

In other walks of life from medicine and the maritime to government and grave digging there's a saying "Roaches fear the light." The way to prevent abuses is to shine light on them. Transparency, accountability, oversight and responsibility. Of course everyone feels that it isn't necessary for people like him (not just cops, everyone feels this way). But most are willing to abide by the idea. Police departments as institutions don't like this. I could go into the reasons again. If you want to see, take a look at other posts. I've had to repeat them a lot. They go for accountability only to themselves, a clannish style of operation and an "us vs. them" approach to many issues. That means "Cops are the good guys. Anyone who wants to take a close look at us must be the bad guys." So oversight is difficult. This allows the bad to flourish and the good to get lazy. 

The rise of organized wholesale theft, also known as civil forfeiture, has institutionalized corruption. There's no doubt about it. When you give good people an incentive to steal and to do it without any sort of responsibility or accounting you will turn good people bad. 

So I'll say it again. You don't have to worship the police to think that they do an important job. You don't have to hate cops to recognize that there are structural and individual problems with the profession. And the use of facts isn't a "refuge". It should be the first thing a person turns to on serious matters. Anyone who believes that the truth shouldn't be brought into these matters sure as hell shouldn't be trusted with a gun and badge.


----------



## SKB (Oct 25, 2007)

You guys have got to be kidding right? You just repeat your arguments, call people names and ignore questions you feel like you can not bend in your direction, and then say the conversation is going no where????????

tellner you keep talking about oversight.... police have the most of any group. People are always looking over our shoulders. The point is the people looking over our shoulders should know what it is we do! Do you want me looking over your doctors shoulder telling him how to do things?

Empty Hands.... nice talking to you...... bye!


----------



## tellner (Oct 26, 2007)

SKB, saying something is true is not the same thing as it being true. Let's take a number of professions with which I am somewhat familiar - doctor, lawyer, engineer, accountant, contractor and engineer. In every single case the practitioner is subject to several government bodies. None of them is made up of his coworkers. None of them employs him. That is not the case for the police. 

Next, let's take a look at results. Most of the oversight bodies mentioned above can and do sanction people under their authority. The building inspector can and does say "That was wrong. Tear it out." The State Medical Board can lift or curtail a doctor's license. The Bar can do the same thing. And so on. Where there is independent review of the police there isn't a single case I'm aware of where they can take direct action. The most they can do is recommend that the cop's boss do something. And they almost never do. Liberal cop-hating Boston? Not once in over eight years. Portland? No bad shoots in living memory. No sanctions for the "Don't choke 'em, smoke 'em". And I could go on and dig up the rates for a couple dozen major metropolitan areas if you really want me to.

In any organization made up of human beings people will screw up badly once in a while. When years and years go by and it doesn't happen you can bank on something being systematically wrong.

But since you say that the guys you work with are cool we should trust you and not rock the boat ever anywhere. I'm sorry, but that's right down there with "Starship Troopers proves I'm right." It doesn't wash. Let's turn it around. If I say "I know a lot of bad police officers, so you should just trust me and slap them all down," you wouldn't accept that. Nor should you. Let's hold the police to at least the same standard as everyone else, not an artificially low one.

The next bit "You hate cops, you're anti-cop! You hate the government, you're some kind of anarchist!" is known as the _ad hominem_ attack. It's unworthy. It's a sure sign of intellectual bankruptcy. But it's the standard tactic of the _unreserved _cop-supporters here. 

I can come up with more facts, more figures and so on. What standard


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Oct 26, 2007)

I will just point out that I posted a perfectly rational reply that no one seems to want to debate points about. I think people on both sides of this issue are getting way too emotional about it. Perhaphs somewhat rightly so, considering the level of discourse thus far. Dont know if it will do any good, but I will point out a few things:

1. For those who want to say that cop and civilian are synonymous:

Civilian (as defined by websters.com)
a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.

Therefore, police are not civilians for purposes of this discussion.

2.


> Originally posted by *Tellner*
> SKB, saying something is true is not the same thing as it being true. Let's take a number of professions with which I am somewhat familiar - doctor, lawyer, engineer, accountant, contractor and engineer. In every single case the practitioner is subject to several government bodies. None of them is made up of his coworkers. None of them employs him. That is not the case for the police.


 
I dont know how you reconcile this. First, the police are part of the government, so by definition (to some degree) all government employees are co-workers. Who then to investigate the police if you require government oversight?

But even so, I would say, as I said before, that local police agencies are overseen by other outside agencies. The district attorneys office for police shootings. The FBI and state organizations for civil rights abuses. As a local police officer, I am neither employed by, nor co-workers with any of those agencies. So your supposition is incorrect. 




> Originally posted by *Tellner*
> Next, let's take a look at results. Most of the oversight bodies mentioned above can and do sanction people under their authority. The building inspector can and does say "That was wrong. Tear it out." The State Medical Board can lift or curtail a doctor's license. The Bar can do the same thing. And so on. Where there is independent review of the police there isn't a single case I'm aware of where they can take direct action. The most they can do is recommend that the cop's boss do something. And they almost never do.


 
Again, the only people with any real authority over the police is another governmental agency. You tell me how to resolve this problem.

The government can press charges or convict officers that conduct criminal acts. That is an independent review that can take direct action.

And have you never seen or heard of a police officer going to prison? That is an action that can be taken against a police officer? Or police officers, and their organizations, being sued, and losing, due to actions while serving in an official capacity? These are all cases of independent oversight.

Perhaps you were referring to the aforementioned civilian review panels. In San Fransisco, such a panel exists as can punish police officers independent of the agencies Internal Affairs section. 

So, having these points in mind, how would those of you who would like to see some type of independent review chose to solve the problem if you were in charge?


----------



## Kreth (Oct 26, 2007)

*MOD NOTE

Thread locked pending admin review*


----------

