Self Defence AGAINST an officer

[Tez3]

I appreciate that your coming to the defense of Law Enforcement everywhere like a cyber-superhero, making sure that we all know that not all Police let power go to their heads and so on, that does speak to what I was saying earlier about how people in the LE community will usually cover for each other no matter what and down play any wrong on their part, so this actually helps make my point but you have definitely made your point that we should be careful not to generalize 100% of the police in a given department as being corrupt and who knows maybe their are departments that have no corruption and also never, ever make any mistakes when dealing with the heat of the moment, I don't know of any but perhaps you do.

Oh dear, that's quite the rant isn't it? I hope you feel better now having got all that off your chest. I'm sure all the police officers on here will feel suitably chastened after that. I shall contact the Civil Nuclear Constabulary at once to tell them they have corrupt and violent officers, then I'll move onto the Royal Parks Police, there's only 108 of them, they will be very surprised to know they are corrupt bless them. After that it will be onto the Royal and Diplomatic Protection Squad, you know the ones. One of their police constables went forward, unarmed, to stop a terrorist who had already killed people by ramming them with a car. The PC died bravely though.

Get off your soapbox and come down into the real world, your faux indignation is tiresome. You clearly have little idea of policing, that police officers hate corrupt police probably more than anyone, that not everyone is the same and conspiracy theorists should stay in their bedrooms and not bother decent people. You won't change your mind, that's fine, living in ignorance is a choice I'm sure that suits some. Perhaps though you may want to think about prejudice working both ways.

 

[Sami Ibrahim]

Oh dear, that's quite the rant isn't it? I hope you feel better now having got all that off your chest. I'm sure all the police officers on here will feel suitably chastened after that. I shall contact the Civil Nuclear Constabulary at once to tell them they have corrupt and violent officers, then I'll move onto the Royal Parks Police, there's only 108 of them, they will be very surprised to know they are corrupt bless them. After that it will be onto the Royal and Diplomatic Protection Squad, you know the ones. One of their police constables went forward, unarmed, to stop a terrorist who had already killed people by ramming them with a car. The PC died bravely though.

Get off your soapbox and come down into the real world, your faux indignation is tiresome. You clearly have little idea of policing, that police officers hate corrupt police probably more than anyone, that not everyone is the same and conspiracy theorists should stay in their bedrooms and not bother decent people. You won't change your mind, that's fine, living in ignorance is a choice I'm sure that suits some. Perhaps though you may want to think about prejudice working both ways.

Seems like you still don't get what I am saying, not all cops are corrupt but many are and many that are not corrupt still make mistakes like getting carried away and using excessive force on a detained subject, if you think they are all saints your lying to yourself and by going back and forth with me your really derailing the original question which is how to defend yourself from them, a question that is being asked because of the increase in law enforcement abuses in recent years, don't shoot the messenger.

 

[Steve]

I think cops make mistakes, as they are human. And by virtue of the nature of their job, a cop's mistakes have a higher stake. And, some cops are more competent than others.

But there is an interest in never acknowledging cops' mistakes, I believe because there is concern that it would undermine credibility. And the same goes for acknowledging incompetence.

 

[Juany118]

I think cops make mistakes, as they are human. And by virtue of the nature of their job, a cop's mistakes have a higher stake. And, some cops are more competent than others.

But there is an interest in never acknowledging cops' mistakes, I believe because there is concern that it would undermine credibility. And the same goes for acknowledging incompetence.

Actually the last is a clear misapprehension. Let's start with the first part you mentioned though, that all cops are human. Let's look at the consequences of that...

I start with actual systemic issues...

1. Like any human system, the larger the system (police force in this case) the harder it is to select/weed out the incompetent, if you notice the vast majority of issues actually come from the larger sized police Departments, hundreds if not thousands of officers.
2. Human systems also often suffer from corruption created by nepotism, patronage etc., Essentially top down corruption. This used to be a HUGE problem in Police departments, especially large ones. In order to try and eliminate that issue Civil Service Systems were created. The problem there is that it is a two edged sword. It helped mitigate the top down corruption BUT it creates a series of procedural hurdles to discipline which the incompetent/corrupt officer can exploit. Then you add in Federal Labor Laws which make the release of certain actions against employees Civily Liable and you may never know that the PD actually did address the issue at earlier points in a particular officer's career. This last part I think is important. In erms of labor protections of any employee and then add in additional protection from civil service rules that were created to address political corruption and then, in some cases, protections created by collective bargaining agreements and you have an issue that is not so much a "police officer" issue but one that can only be resolved by statute.
3. Incompetence, is not always incompetence per se, it can be a training/hiring issue. The public essentially wants high levels of protection for rock bottom prices. A simple example, last week I did my annual firearms qualification. Not only is this the only time the PD will have me shoot my weapon on "company time" for the entire year, it also is done on duty time so as not to cost OT. Thing is that during that time the street was short multiple officers, creating higher stress and thus greater chances for mistakes of those officers covering the town for the 5 hours we were out of service. We would not have been able to effectively respond to an emergency because the range is 30 minutes from town.

Because of this lack of training you can tell who shoots on their own time. I scored a 296 out of 300, I have seen other officers have to qualify twice just to get the minimum score (240).

4. A misunderstanding of the law. I am not talking about her people who don't actually understand how the 4th amendment works, that I can detain you and have it legally not constitute a siezure, rather the difference between Criminal and Civil Liability and actual standards for the use of force.
A. For liability there can be times when an officer violated a procedure that results in a bad out come BUT that violation of policy doesn't constitute a crime. You sue them.
B. Use of force. The use of force is determined by using a legal construct of whether the use of force as seen as objectively reasonable given what the officer knew AT THE TIME and without the use of 20/20 hind sight. So maybe afterwards they find out the gun was a novelty lighter or a BB gun... Their shooting was still legally justifiable.

What does all the above amount to? The system I'm bears the most responsibility. Police are one of the most visible symbols of the system. People often think that you can't "fight the system", so they instinctively make the Police the goat for the system's short comings.

The individual officer element.
1. I will be the first to admit that if an officer does not personally know if the officer is good or bad they may well initially defend an officer, barring compelling evidence. Few ever ask "why" though. It's not different than any other community. How often do we see people reflexively defending a member of their circle (family, community, etc), especially if there is an "us against them" attitude, whether that attitude is justified or not?

The "us against them" dynamic is as much a part of LE culture as any other. There are a great many circumstances where Officers were relexively accused of wrong doing based on some edited or editorialized video and then it turns out the officers were actually in the right. As an example I remember a YouTube video where someone was narrating a video of an officer involved shooting saying "look they just threw a drop gun, look another what the hell!!!" Thing is they were actually flapping as they fell, guns don't flap. What were they? Nitrile gloves that the officer who pulled the trigger was struggling to put on to render first aid. He was still dealing with the adrenaline and after shock of pulling the trigger and was shaking so bad he couldn't get the gloves on. Then you have cases like this as well...

Yet all too often if the evidence does clear the officers the people who raged over a viral video never know this is the case. They continue thinking it was unjustified because media coverage like the one in the video is fairly rare since the media has moved onto the next click bait headline. For months, even years later they keep hearing a case that was truly justifiable raised as a rallying cry for injustice. What effect do you think this has?

Rushes to judgement based on limited information and then that false judgement persisting regardless of the facts feeds an "us vs them" mentality. Is this mentality "right"? Of course it isn't, but if people would actually wait until everything investigated before marching, calling for arrests etc. Officers would be less apt to jump instinctively to the defense of another officer because they would not be able to point to the numerous rushes to judgement as a justification that certain segments of the population are "out to get them."

Again none of this is to say there are not incompetent, even out right racist and corrupt LEOs. In the end though I think society needs to consider what this article explains better than I ever could if you really want police reform...

Is America ready for the true cost of police reform?

What everyone wants, even LEOs, to have happen is going to cost money. How many Americans though do you think would say "sure" to their taxes being raised to pay for it.

 

[Tez3]

Seems like you still don't get what I am saying, not all cops are corrupt but many are and many that are not corrupt still make mistakes like getting carried away and using excessive force on a detained subject, if you think they are all saints your lying to yourself and by going back and forth with me your really derailing the original question which is how to defend yourself from them, a question that is being asked because of the increase in law enforcement abuses in recent years, don't shoot the messenger.

Oh I understand you very well, I'm sure we all do so don't get snotty with me.

 

[Buka]

I sometimes envision a world without police. Everyone just getting along, without being hassled.

 

[Tez3]

That is a very good post from Juany, the experience in the UK is somewhat different, we don't routinely arm police ( only two forces are armed all the time and only one of them carries weapons off duty as well) we have armed response units whose job is just to be armed so training is different and includes psychological testing and training.
I don't know how long police training is in the UK nor do I know how they choose the officers. Here you have to go through interviews and testing before you are selected to join a force then you go away training for at least three months then you are a probationary officer for two years.
We don't have a constitution to work from, the main focus for the police is the Police and Criminal Evidence Act which guides most things, for actually taking people to court on criminal charges the Crown Prosecution Service leads.
Now it is taken for granted that when you have a group of people there will most likely be bad apples, it's human nature but rigorous selection and oversight does keep it down to a minimum, as far as is possible. 'corrupt' is a strange word, it means different things to different people, is a police officer corrupt because after years of dealing with scum they lose it when they have to deal with yet one more? After scraping young drivers off the road because they have been speeding and crashed, they lose it when dealing with yet another young speeder? Or most traffic officer's pet hate, drunk drivers.
I think one thing which some may think is semantics but isn't, is that in the US you call them law enforcement officers and we call ours police officers. I think it indicates how we see the job. Our police also do the work of many other professionals, ( I'm sure the ones in the US do as well but it may not be as evident to people) as part of their everyday job, enforcing laws is actually a far smaller part of the job than many think. for most of the people there isn't that them and us divide because they are part of the community, of course the criminal parts of our society regard them as very much 'not us' lol.

Before I get accused as I surely will by at least one person, this isn't that UK officers are 'better' than US ones but that because of historical differences, social differences, differences in laws and procedures etc they are obviously different. That difference is also apparent as you go around the world, some police forces are there primarily to back up the government, to squash any resistance. Some police forces like one I know (and we have tried to train up), being a police officer is a low paid menial job with no respect from the populace, they were mostly on drugs, and a couple of times actually killed their Allied trainers and soldiers. However many police forces are excellent and do a very good job, however and I don't know if this is the same in the US, when British citizens get arrested for something in foreign countries people are always appalled, it's 'how dare they' and 'the police are corrupt'! No, these people broke the law and were arrested the same as they would be here but always it's the foreign country that is wrong. it's an amazing attitude. Dubai is one of the places this happens a fair bit. A man and a woman having drunk a bit too much got in a taxi and started having sex, the driver reported it to the police and the couple were arrested, as they would be in many countries including the UK, but the outcry here was huge, how dare the Dubai police do this, they are corrupt, nasty and picking on Brits who of course were 'doing nothing wrong'. Of course the fact that these two weren't married made it more difficult in Dubai but that's a local thing, the couple would have been arrested for breaking decency laws here too, something overlooked by most people. Other people have been arrested for drink driving, having sex on the beach in public as well as other crimes, yet the perception is that it's the police who are corrupt, that ex pats never do anything wrong. (Just a quick note here...one I find wryly amusing. Brits when they move abroad are 'ex pats', never, heaven forbid, immigrants! this means they regard themselves as somewhat above the local laws at times. 'But I'm British! is heard in police stations all around the world) Drug smuggling is also a big bone of contention as they never understand that it is illegal in most countries if not all.
So, responsibility.... understanding the laws of where you are and how police view them is the most obviously thing, some police forces use physical force a lot more than others, however it doesn't mean you didn't break the law. It doesn't mean you are being beaten up because they just fancy it, many countries view violence as acceptable because they are societies that are a lot harsher than many of ours. By their lights they are doing the job properly, they aren't 'corrupt', know the laws and the police before you go there. Can you defend yourself, it's probably arrogant to think you can in these places so don't go there.
Police officers in the UK more and more are wearing body cams, many thought it would show 'police violence' and heavy handedness but have been instead shocked to see the amount of violence directed against the police. It's opened up a lot of people's eyes.

 

[Tez3]

I sometimes envision a world without police. Everyone just getting along, without being hassled.

So who would direct traffic, sort out accidents, find lost people, return dementia sufferers to their homes, wait with people on the motorway when they breakdown, give you directions when you're lost, round up animals and all the other jobs police officers do?

 

[Buka]

So who would direct traffic, sort out accidents, find lost people, return dementia sufferers to their homes, wait with people on the motorway when they breakdown, give you directions when you're lost, round up animals and all the other jobs police officers do?

I agree with you a hundred percent, sistah, I was being factitious. Figured you would know that, me being a cop and all. Geesh, smoke a joint or something, chill out

 

[drop bear]

I think cops make mistakes, as they are human. And by virtue of the nature of their job, a cop's mistakes have a higher stake. And, some cops are more competent than others.

But there is an interest in never acknowledging cops' mistakes, I believe because there is concern that it would undermine credibility. And the same goes for acknowledging incompetence.

It think the opposite.

Acknowledging cops mistakes lead to better credibility.

This is our local cop shop by the way.

 

[Juany118]

It think the opposite.

Acknowledging cops mistakes lead to better credibility.

This is our local cop shop by the way.

Exactly. I noted in my wall of text that the main issue is an us vs them dynamic which is fed by both sides of the debate, as most such things are.

 

[Tez3]

I agree with you a hundred percent, sistah, I was being factitious. Figured you would know that, me being a cop and all. Geesh, smoke a joint or something, chill out

This isn't a conversation just between the two of us though is it? People reading don't know that your comment was facetious nor that you are a police officer, you need to see the wider picture dear. I wasn't replying with any amount of emotion, just replying with a rhetorical question so I'd suggest that you are the one who needs to chill. I'm retired, sat by a nice log fire drinking good coffee, cat on lap, I'm very chilled.

 

[Steve]

Actually the last is a clear misapprehension. Let's start with the first part you mentioned though, that all cops are human. Let's look at the consequences of that...

I start with actual systemic issues...

1. Like any human system, the larger the system (police force in this case) the harder it is to select/weed out the incompetent, if you notice the vast majority of issues actually come from the larger sized police Departments, hundreds if not thousands of officers.
2. Human systems also often suffer from corruption created by nepotism, patronage etc., Essentially top down corruption. This used to be a HUGE problem in Police departments, especially large ones. In order to try and eliminate that issue Civil Service Systems were created. The problem there is that it is a two edged sword. It helped mitigate the top down corruption BUT it creates a series of procedural hurdles to discipline which the incompetent/corrupt officer can exploit. Then you add in Federal Labor Laws which make the release of certain actions against employees Civily Liable and you may never know that the PD actually did address the issue at earlier points in a particular officer's career. This last part I think is important. In erms of labor protections of any employee and then add in additional protection from civil service rules that were created to address political corruption and then, in some cases, protections created by collective bargaining agreements and you have an issue that is not so much a "police officer" issue but one that can only be resolved by statute.
3. Incompetence, is not always incompetence per se, it can be a training/hiring issue. The public essentially wants high levels of protection for rock bottom prices. A simple example, last week I did my annual firearms qualification. Not only is this the only time the PD will have me shoot my weapon on "company time" for the entire year, it also is done on duty time so as not to cost OT. Thing is that during that time the street was short multiple officers, creating higher stress and thus greater chances for mistakes of those officers covering the town for the 5 hours we were out of service. We would not have been able to effectively respond to an emergency because the range is 30 minutes from town.

Because of this lack of training you can tell who shoots on their own time. I scored a 296 out of 300, I have seen other officers have to qualify twice just to get the minimum score (240).

4. A misunderstanding of the law. I am not talking about her people who don't actually understand how the 4th amendment works, that I can detain you and have it legally not constitute a siezure, rather the difference between Criminal and Civil Liability and actual standards for the use of force.
A. For liability there can be times when an officer violated a procedure that results in a bad out come BUT that violation of policy doesn't constitute a crime. You sue them.
B. Use of force. The use of force is determined by using a legal construct of whether the use of force as seen as objectively reasonable given what the officer knew AT THE TIME and without the use of 20/20 hind sight. So maybe afterwards they find out the gun was a novelty lighter or a BB gun... Their shooting was still legally justifiable.

What does all the above amount to? The system I'm bears the most responsibility. Police are one of the most visible symbols of the system. People often think that you can't "fight the system", so they instinctively make the Police the goat for the system's short comings.

The individual officer element.
1. I will be the first to admit that if an officer does not personally know if the officer is good or bad they may well initially defend an officer, barring compelling evidence. Few ever ask "why" though. It's not different than any other community. How often do we see people reflexively defending a member of their circle (family, community, etc), especially if there is an "us against them" attitude, whether that attitude is justified or not?

The "us against them" dynamic is as much a part of LE culture as any other. There are a great many circumstances where Officers were relexively accused of wrong doing based on some edited or editorialized video and then it turns out the officers were actually in the right. As an example I remember a YouTube video where someone was narrating a video of an officer involved shooting saying "look they just threw a drop gun, look another what the hell!!!" Thing is they were actually flapping as they fell, guns don't flap. What were they? Nitrile gloves that the officer who pulled the trigger was struggling to put on to render first aid. He was still dealing with the adrenaline and after shock of pulling the trigger and was shaking so bad he couldn't get the gloves on. Then you have cases like this as well...

Yet all too often if the evidence does clear the officers the people who raged over a viral video never know this is the case. They continue thinking it was unjustified because media coverage like the one in the video is fairly rare since the media has moved onto the next click bait headline. For months, even years later they keep hearing a case that was truly justifiable raised as a rallying cry for injustice. What effect do you think this has?

Rushes to judgement based on limited information and then that false judgement persisting regardless of the facts feeds an "us vs them" mentality. Is this mentality "right"? Of course it isn't, but if people would actually wait until everything investigated before marching, calling for arrests etc. Officers would be less apt to jump instinctively to the defense of another officer because they would not be able to point to the numerous rushes to judgement as a justification that certain segments of the population are "out to get them."

Again none of this is to say there are not incompetent, even out right racist and corrupt LEOs. In the end though I think society needs to consider what this article explains better than I ever could if you really want police reform...

Is America ready for the true cost of police reform?

What everyone wants, even LEOs, to have happen is going to cost money. How many Americans though do you think would say "sure" to their taxes being raised to pay for it.

I think you misunderstood my intent. I wasn't commenting on how things should be,but rather how they often are. Cops protect their own.

 

[Juany118]

That is a very good post from Juany, the experience in the UK is somewhat different, we don't routinely arm police ( only two forces are armed all the time and only one of them carries weapons off duty as well) we have armed response units whose job is just to be armed so training is different and includes psychological testing and training.
I don't know how long police training is in the UK nor do I know how they choose the officers. Here you have to go through interviews and testing before you are selected to join a force then you go away training for at least three months then you are a probationary officer for two years.
We don't have a constitution to work from, the main focus for the police is the Police and Criminal Evidence Act which guides most things, for actually taking people to court on criminal charges the Crown Prosecution Service leads.
Now it is taken for granted that when you have a group of people there will most likely be bad apples, it's human nature but rigorous selection and oversight does keep it down to a minimum, as far as is possible. 'corrupt' is a strange word, it means different things to different people, is a police officer corrupt because after years of dealing with scum they lose it when they have to deal with yet one more? After scraping young drivers off the road because they have been speeding and crashed, they lose it when dealing with yet another young speeder? Or most traffic officer's pet hate, drunk drivers.
I think one thing which some may think is semantics but isn't, is that in the US you call them law enforcement officers and we call ours police officers. I think it indicates how we see the job. Our police also do the work of many other professionals, ( I'm sure the ones in the US do as well but it may not be as evident to people) as part of their everyday job, enforcing laws is actually a far smaller part of the job than many think. for most of the people there isn't that them and us divide because they are part of the community, of course the criminal parts of our society regard them as very much 'not us' lol.

Before I get accused as I surely will by at least one person, this isn't that UK officers are 'better' than US ones but that because of historical differences, social differences, differences in laws and procedures etc they are obviously different. That difference is also apparent as you go around the world, some police forces are there primarily to back up the government, to squash any resistance. Some police forces like one I know (and we have tried to train up), being a police officer is a low paid menial job with no respect from the populace, they were mostly on drugs, and a couple of times actually killed their Allied trainers and soldiers. However many police forces are excellent and do a very good job, however and I don't know if this is the same in the US, when British citizens get arrested for something in foreign countries people are always appalled, it's 'how dare they' and 'the police are corrupt'! No, these people broke the law and were arrested the same as they would be here but always it's the foreign country that is wrong. it's an amazing attitude. Dubai is one of the places this happens a fair bit. A man and a woman having drunk a bit too much got in a taxi and started having sex, the driver reported it to the police and the couple were arrested, as they would be in many countries including the UK, but the outcry here was huge, how dare the Dubai police do this, they are corrupt, nasty and picking on Brits who of course were 'doing nothing wrong'. Of course the fact that these two weren't married made it more difficult in Dubai but that's a local thing, the couple would have been arrested for breaking decency laws here too, something overlooked by most people. Other people have been arrested for drink driving, having sex on the beach in public as well as other crimes, yet the perception is that it's the police who are corrupt, that ex pats never do anything wrong. (Just a quick note here...one I find wryly amusing. Brits when they move abroad are 'ex pats', never, heaven forbid, immigrants! this means they regard themselves as somewhat above the local laws at times. 'But I'm British! is heard in police stations all around the world) Drug smuggling is also a big bone of contention as they never understand that it is illegal in most countries if not all.
So, responsibility.... understanding the laws of where you are and how police view them is the most obviously thing, some police forces use physical force a lot more than others, however it doesn't mean you didn't break the law. It doesn't mean you are being beaten up because they just fancy it, many countries view violence as acceptable because they are societies that are a lot harsher than many of ours. By their lights they are doing the job properly, they aren't 'corrupt', know the laws and the police before you go there. Can you defend yourself, it's probably arrogant to think you can in these places so don't go there.
Police officers in the UK more and more are wearing body cams, many thought it would show 'police violence' and heavy handedness but have been instead shocked to see the amount of violence directed against the police. It's opened up a lot of people's eyes.

Regarding your first point one of the issues, imo, with US LE is the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. This results in all 50 States having different standards in terms of hiring and that can even drop down to the local level and THEN you get advocacy groups influencing there. Examples, some PDs use polygraph testing at hiring others don't. Some advocacy groups, in order to promote diversity actually lobby for what I see as detrimental changes as well. Example Philadelphia in the 80's had a written test that was written at the Associates College Degree reading level, by the late 90's it was "dumbed down" to the 10th grade level. Recently groups have been calling for Philadelphia to remove polygraph testing, only count felony arrests after a background check (which would eliminate crimes like simple assault, stalking, prohibiting an offensive weapon, and certain levels of Indecent Assault [short form grabbing someone or having that person come in contact with bodily fluids for the purpose of sexual desire]) AND the driver's license requirement. Our system s so Balkanized its ridiculous.

As for the duties of other professionals absolutely. My town is a perfect example. We have a department of ~50 Officers, a population of almost 30,000 and a per capita crime rate for everything but homicide equal too or higher than cities like Philadelphia and Chicago. We are also one of two centers in the County for Social Services which means we have a disproportionate amount of mental health consumers living alone or in group homes. Our resources do not permit us to have 24 hour access to people whose sole duty is assisting those with mental health issues so individual officers get trained and certified as "Crisis Intervention specialists" of which I am one. What might happen if one of us isn't on duty though?

As for body cameras and dash cams exactly. The video I posted is a perfect example. Most cops I know want body cameras, we just want to be able to eat and go to the latrine without it being recorded (some advocacy groups want them on for the entire duty shift).

As for knowing the laws? Absolutely!!!!! That is, imo, half the problem. Everyone thinks they know the law when in reality it is so dang complex if you do not study the law in the way a legal professional does you likely have no clue. This is even worse in the US because, as an example, in the US my Commonwealth used to be the only of the 50 to say you have an expectation of Privacy in the air surrounding your vehicle, ergo to have a drug dog sniff you needed a search warrant. Forget calling the dog just get the warrant and tear the car apart. It has since been lowered to just needing reasonable suspicion and so the dog can be part of your probable cause BUT there are other States where case law says you can run a drug dog on every car stop because there is no expectation of privacy outside the "walls" of the vehicle. This difference is because the individual States can restrict the authority of the State itself more than Federal Law does, they just can't restrict the Rights of the people more.

Gotta love the USA

 

[Juany118]

I think you misunderstood my intent. I wasn't commenting on how things should be,but rather how they often are. Cops protect their own.

That's too simple a comment though. To fix a problem one has to understand the causes. If one does not address the causes and only the symptom, the illness persists. Hence my wall of text explaining the dynamics/causes from my perspective.

 

[Steve]

That's too simple a comment though. To fix a problem one has to understand the causes. If one does not address the causes and only the symptom, the illness persists. Hence my wall of text explaining the dynamics/causes from my perspective.

It's not a problem I'm trying to fix. Maybe I haven't had enough coffee yet this morning to track where you're headed.

It seems that issues are as likely to happen in rural areas, with smaller police forces as with larger. Sure, a larger police force in an urban area will have more issues, but that's as much a function of context as it is systemic issues within the police force itself. But to suggest that smaller departments are a nexus of enlightened policing seems to be a "too simple" comment.

But regardless, there is a universal effort on the part of police forces to protect their own.

I'll also add that there's a distinction to be drawn between discussing issues, learning about them, and trying to solve them. I'm not trying to solve any issues. The less interaction I have with police officers while on duty, the better. I trust individual cops, but I don't trust the institution very much. It's too insular and self protective. And as I said before, even acknowledging that bad cops (bad because they're evil, incompetent, cowardly, bigoted or some other reason) are a rare minority, the power cops have to ruin a person's life is pretty significant. As we discussed earlier in this thread, a person can be doing nothing wrong, and by virtue of a chance encounter with a douchebag cop, that person could be arrested. And we have learned in this thread from cops exactly how you guys go about doing that, and why you're allowed to do that under the law.

 

[Steve]

Actually the last is a clear misapprehension. Let's start with the first part you mentioned though, that all cops are human. Let's look at the consequences of that...

I start with actual systemic issues...

1. Like any human system, the larger the system (police force in this case) the harder it is to select/weed out the incompetent, if you notice the vast majority of issues actually come from the larger sized police Departments, hundreds if not thousands of officers.
2. Human systems also often suffer from corruption created by nepotism, patronage etc., Essentially top down corruption. This used to be a HUGE problem in Police departments, especially large ones. In order to try and eliminate that issue Civil Service Systems were created. The problem there is that it is a two edged sword. It helped mitigate the top down corruption BUT it creates a series of procedural hurdles to discipline which the incompetent/corrupt officer can exploit. Then you add in Federal Labor Laws which make the release of certain actions against employees Civily Liable and you may never know that the PD actually did address the issue at earlier points in a particular officer's career. This last part I think is important. In erms of labor protections of any employee and then add in additional protection from civil service rules that were created to address political corruption and then, in some cases, protections created by collective bargaining agreements and you have an issue that is not so much a "police officer" issue but one that can only be resolved by statute.
3. Incompetence, is not always incompetence per se, it can be a training/hiring issue. The public essentially wants high levels of protection for rock bottom prices. A simple example, last week I did my annual firearms qualification. Not only is this the only time the PD will have me shoot my weapon on "company time" for the entire year, it also is done on duty time so as not to cost OT. Thing is that during that time the street was short multiple officers, creating higher stress and thus greater chances for mistakes of those officers covering the town for the 5 hours we were out of service. We would not have been able to effectively respond to an emergency because the range is 30 minutes from town.

Because of this lack of training you can tell who shoots on their own time. I scored a 296 out of 300, I have seen other officers have to qualify twice just to get the minimum score (240).

4. A misunderstanding of the law. I am not talking about her people who don't actually understand how the 4th amendment works, that I can detain you and have it legally not constitute a siezure, rather the difference between Criminal and Civil Liability and actual standards for the use of force.
A. For liability there can be times when an officer violated a procedure that results in a bad out come BUT that violation of policy doesn't constitute a crime. You sue them.
B. Use of force. The use of force is determined by using a legal construct of whether the use of force as seen as objectively reasonable given what the officer knew AT THE TIME and without the use of 20/20 hind sight. So maybe afterwards they find out the gun was a novelty lighter or a BB gun... Their shooting was still legally justifiable.

What does all the above amount to? The system I'm bears the most responsibility. Police are one of the most visible symbols of the system. People often think that you can't "fight the system", so they instinctively make the Police the goat for the system's short comings.

The individual officer element.
1. I will be the first to admit that if an officer does not personally know if the officer is good or bad they may well initially defend an officer, barring compelling evidence. Few ever ask "why" though. It's not different than any other community. How often do we see people reflexively defending a member of their circle (family, community, etc), especially if there is an "us against them" attitude, whether that attitude is justified or not?

The "us against them" dynamic is as much a part of LE culture as any other. There are a great many circumstances where Officers were relexively accused of wrong doing based on some edited or editorialized video and then it turns out the officers were actually in the right. As an example I remember a YouTube video where someone was narrating a video of an officer involved shooting saying "look they just threw a drop gun, look another what the hell!!!" Thing is they were actually flapping as they fell, guns don't flap. What were they? Nitrile gloves that the officer who pulled the trigger was struggling to put on to render first aid. He was still dealing with the adrenaline and after shock of pulling the trigger and was shaking so bad he couldn't get the gloves on. Then you have cases like this as well...

Yet all too often if the evidence does clear the officers the people who raged over a viral video never know this is the case. They continue thinking it was unjustified because media coverage like the one in the video is fairly rare since the media has moved onto the next click bait headline. For months, even years later they keep hearing a case that was truly justifiable raised as a rallying cry for injustice. What effect do you think this has?

Rushes to judgement based on limited information and then that false judgement persisting regardless of the facts feeds an "us vs them" mentality. Is this mentality "right"? Of course it isn't, but if people would actually wait until everything investigated before marching, calling for arrests etc. Officers would be less apt to jump instinctively to the defense of another officer because they would not be able to point to the numerous rushes to judgement as a justification that certain segments of the population are "out to get them."

Again none of this is to say there are not incompetent, even out right racist and corrupt LEOs. In the end though I think society needs to consider what this article explains better than I ever could if you really want police reform...

Is America ready for the true cost of police reform?

What everyone wants, even LEOs, to have happen is going to cost money. How many Americans though do you think would say "sure" to their taxes being raised to pay for it.

I think this is a very interesting post. Overall, it makes a lot of sense. One thing stood out, and that's when you distinguish the system from the police. I, and I believe most people, consider the police to be a major part of the system, not victims of it.

One other quick note is that it seems you distinguish between incompetence and other things. If a person isn't performing or able to perform their job, they are incompetent. Reasons for incompetence are unsuitability, lack of training, or whatever else. There are a lot of possible reasons a person can be incompetent. Some are fixable. Others are not. But on a micro level, if we get into a specific situation, why a person is incompetent is irrelevant.

 

[Buka]

I'm sure we've all heard of the fiasco regarding the passenger who was forcibly removed from a United Airlines plane, to the point where he was knocked nearly unconscious and dragged down the plane by airport security. For those who don't know about this yet, here's the video of the event:

Now this brings up an interesting question. If you believe you are being treated unfairly by any kind of law enforcement, or experience violence from an officer, are you allowed to physically defend yourself? For example, let's say for example that when the security guards grabbed that passenger, and the passenger lashed out against them, stopping their advance, what would happen? If it went to court would the passenger have had reasonable grounds to defend themselves? Of course I know it depends on the situation, but if a law enforcement officer or security guard attacked you, could you legally defend yourself from them?

EDIT: As a side note, I have a friend who is ex-military and suffers from PTSD, to the point where if someone lays a hand on him in a threatening way he will instinctively strike them without warning. It's a completely reflexive action that he has very little control over. I can imagine him being that passenger, and the moment the security guards touched him he would knock them down. How would the courts treat that kind of scenario?

Heard at work that United settled out of court yesterday. Haven't heard how much yet, but I'll bet it's pretty.

 

[Tez3]

Heard at work that United settled out of court yesterday. Haven't heard how much yet, but I'll bet it's pretty.

They are also supposed to be offering several thousand dollars now to give up your seat. perhaps looking at the overbooking and planning for staff seats would also be a good idea.

 

[Juany118]

They are also supposed to be offering several thousand dollars now to give up your seat. perhaps looking at the overbooking and planning for staff seats would also be a good idea.

I think United has already changed their staff seating policy. Overbooking may stop as a consequence of the $$$ need to pay someone off. If I need to pay someone $1000+ to deal with a $200.00 seat?