LEO abuse of authority?

[jks9199]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.