LEO abuse of authority?

[MJS]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

I argue about it on the internet.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-Terry Stoker
-MT Senior Moderator-

 

[SKB]

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]

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?

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.

Is the system perfect? Not by a long shot!

Then why are you arguing for it so hard?

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/

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.

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!

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]

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

Right.

 

[Empty Hands]

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]

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]

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

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.

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/

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.