LEO abuse of authority?

[5-0 Kenpo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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

 

[jks9199]

"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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

MOD NOTE

Thread locked pending admin review