Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-06-2020, 01:35 PM
Yankees 1996 Champs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 186

How would you fix American policing? (UPDATED)


I'll put it in this Great Debates thread.

How would you fix policing, especially with minority communities the most?

It is a bigger issue than abortion, climate change in my opinion, because public safety is a big issue.
  #2  
Old 02-06-2020, 02:14 PM
D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankees 1996 Champs View Post
I'll put it in this Great Debates thread.

How would you fix policing, especially with minority communities the most?

It is a bigger issue than abortion, climate change in my opinion, because public safety is a big issue.
What is the update?
  #3  
Old 02-06-2020, 02:14 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 8,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankees 1996 Champs View Post
I'll put it in this Great Debates thread.

How would you fix policing, especially with minority communities the most?

It is a bigger issue than abortion, climate change in my opinion, because public safety is a big issue.
How could it possibly be bigger than climate change? You realize that affects every single thing on this planet, right?
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.
  #4  
Old 02-06-2020, 02:15 PM
Horatius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,341
There's probably nothing we can do directly about how the police deal with minority communities. Racism is a problem in all of society, so it's no surprise that it's a problem in police work.

What I would do is change the things we can, because they are problems unique to the police.

First and foremost, end the war on drugs. Every problem you can name in the relationship between the police and the community is at least made worse by, if not directly caused by, the war on drugs. The erosion of 5th amendment rights under things like Stop&Frisk, out of control asset forfeiture, and routine traffic stops being used as excuses to search vehicles and their passengers comes almost entirely from the search for drugs.

As part of that, I'd add a "Did I fucking stutter?" level of clarification to the 5th amendment protections. Make it a positive policy that things like traffic stops are to be used only for traffic control. No one should have to wonder if they'll be going to jail just because they were doing 5 over the limit. Pull them over, write the ticket, and move on.

There also has to be comprehensive changes to US police officer's use of force guidelines. Paranoid overreaction has become so standardized as policy that far too many Americans actually defend it as being normal. It's not normal, and needs to be burned to the ground and completely rebuilt.
__________________
Where am I going, and why am I in this handbasket?

Last edited by Horatius; 02-06-2020 at 02:16 PM.
  #5  
Old 02-06-2020, 02:32 PM
Jasmine's Avatar
Jasmine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 2,593
Total accountability and complete transparency would do just fine with me. I am completely aware of the need for quality law enforcement and for strong community support of law enforcement, and that support will only get stronger as trust gets stronger.

Bad cops don't deserve the support they gain from "the code of silence" because, ultimately, it penalizes all the good cops and all of law enforcement in general because it allows the bad instead of the good to color the overall view of law enforcement in the eyes of many people.
__________________
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge."
--Daniel J Boorstin
  #6  
Old 02-06-2020, 02:47 PM
Yankees 1996 Champs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
What is the update?
I put this topic in the BBQ pit thread. My error.
  #7  
Old 02-06-2020, 03:07 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,888
1) Eliminating unreasonable civil asset forfeiture - basically stealing from the public in absence of any crime. This sets the tone of law enforcement that it is ok to abuse the public without any accountability.

2) Eliminate qualified immunity if the action is unreasonable. If it is reasonable fine but have you seen these stories of cops destroying houses of innocent people and stealing, raping and killing people? Qualified immunity should not be carte blanche to do whatever.
And I'm also speaking of de facto qualified immunity including protection from the DA and the force when an officer commits a crime.
And in addition, ignorance of the law is not an excuse for civilians right? If a cop makes up a law (you can't video me, you need to show ID), any actions after that cannot result in a crime like resisting arrest. Any action the cop takes based on the made up law is subject to criminal & civil sanctions like false arrest, stealing (seizing a phone, etc.)
I know the argument is how can a cop act if they don't have immunity? The problem is that a cop is immune from ANY repercusion no matter if their actions are reasonable or unreasonable. It is reasonable to expect cops to not make up laws, to not destroy innocent people's homes, or actively break the law.

3) ANY proven abuse of power results in losing the ability to be a cop ANYWHERE in the US.


That's a start.
__________________
When I was a boy, a mere lad, A FAERIE APPEARED UNTO ME AND TOLD ME I WOULD BE BOTH POPE AND KING! But … I am a bastard. And a pretender.

-Richard Hariss
  #8  
Old 02-06-2020, 05:28 PM
LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 391
I would make "dealing with law enforcement" a mandatory part of high school curriculum and what to do when a law enforcement officer pulls you over part of obtaining a driver's license.

As part of the driving test, everyone would be pulled over by an officer with flashing lights, the officer would scream at the top of his lungs for the test taker to get out of the car in the prescribed manner. I mean everything. Hands in the air, walking backwards, falling to you knees. All of it.

It seems to me most of these people who get shot by police officers either don't know how to handle an encounter with law enforcement or are uncooperative. I think that if everyone is on the same page there would be a lot less officer involved shootings.
  #9  
Old 02-06-2020, 05:38 PM
GreysonCarlisle's Avatar
GreysonCarlisle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
It seems to me most of these people who get shot by police officers either don't know how to handle an encounter with law enforcement or are uncooperative. I think that if everyone is on the same page there would be a lot less officer involved shootings.
I can see how not knowing how to handle such an encounter can get you shot if you're hiding your hands or otherwise looking like you have a weapon. But killing someone for not cooperating? That's beyond the pale.
  #10  
Old 02-06-2020, 06:18 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreysonCarlisle View Post
I can see how not knowing how to handle such an encounter can get you shot if you're hiding your hands or otherwise looking like you have a weapon. But killing someone for not cooperating? That's beyond the pale.
Sounds like an admission that the U.S. is a police state and a suggestion that citizens be trained to submit to authority from an early age.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #11  
Old 02-06-2020, 06:50 PM
Odesio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 11,693
My father gave me pretty good advice on what to do when pulled over by a police officer:
  • Pull over as quickly as is reasonably possible.
  • Roll down the window.
  • Turn off the engine.
  • If it's dark outside turn on the interior lights.
  • Keep your hands on the steering wheel until the officer asks for driver's license and proof of insurance.

I think this is pretty reasonable and it actually got me out of a ticket once. If we're at the point where we have to teach people how to obey an officer's orders with a gun to their head I'd say we have a serious policing problem. I've seen some videos where suspects hesitate because they're given contradictory orders "SHOW ME YOUR HANDS! DON'T MOVE!" It's the police who need better training.

But this isn't really a police problem it's a society problem. The police behave this way because most of us don't really mind.
__________________
I can be found in history's unmarked grave of discarded ideologies.
  #12  
Old 02-06-2020, 06:58 PM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,761
Recruit police officers from all parts of society. So many cops come from extended feed families where everyone is military, then LEO. If they aren't a cop, they are a prison guard. The wives stay home or work in law enforcement in a support role. These families are often incredibly patriarchal, racist, abusive incubators of the us vs them mentality. Drown out people from those dd's families with police officers of all sorts of backgrounds and experiences.
  #13  
Old 02-06-2020, 07:18 PM
Llama Llogophile is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: 50% chord point
Posts: 4,152
I have a friend who is retired from a federal branch of law enforcement. He surprised me when I asked what he thought of the problems we see today. I thought he’d immediately stick up for his colleagues, but instead he thought for a moment and said, “You know... there are a lot of people who shouldn’t be cops.”

He went on to say that he felt the main problem was that de-escalation is not a skill many police possess and it should be more actively taught and encouraged. Sounds reasonable to me as a start.
  #14  
Old 02-06-2020, 11:22 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,233
Police need to be held accountable for their actions. Certainly they should get some leeway given the nature of the job but the usual "paid leave while we figure it out" (read paid vacation) is not sufficient. We can throw case after case after case out here where police behave badly and suffer no repercussions.

Make police accountable for their actions and things will start to change. I would suggest anytime a police department loses a malfeasance case at least half of the payout is deducted from the police retirement fund. As it is now, when the police get sued and lose, you, Joe/Jane Taxpayer, are the ones paying the plaintiff. The police suffer no downside. Not their money...why would they care?
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 02-06-2020 at 11:23 PM.
  #15  
Old 02-06-2020, 11:27 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Llama Llogophile View Post
I have a friend who is retired from a federal branch of law enforcement. He surprised me when I asked what he thought of the problems we see today. I thought he’d immediately stick up for his colleagues, but instead he thought for a moment and said, “You know... there are a lot of people who shouldn’t be cops.”
I agree there are "good" cops and "bad" cops out there. Just like in any profession.

We are often told to remember this. My problem with it is the "good" cops (almost) never go after the "bad" cops. They turn a blind eye and let it be.

Don't seem like good cops to me anymore.

(SEE: The movie "Serpico"...better still read what really happened to a good cop trying to bust bad cops...I think to this day he suffers repercussions).
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #16  
Old 02-07-2020, 12:09 AM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 84,436
Bringing my comments over form the other thread.

We should have mandatory camera laws.

There should be independent agencies that are separate from police control and influence that investigate allegations of police misconduct.
  #17  
Old 02-07-2020, 12:33 AM
Odesio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 11,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Make police accountable for their actions and things will start to change. I would suggest anytime a police department loses a malfeasance case at least half of the payout is deducted from the police retirement fund. As it is now, when the police get sued and lose, you, Joe/Jane Taxpayer, are the ones paying the plaintiff. The police suffer no downside. Not their money...why would they care?
Aside from collective punishment being wrong, you might want to rethink that idea. Implementing such a policy would prove a strong disincentive for any individual willing to speak out against their fellow officers. Officer Fudd is less likely to testify against Officer Bluto if it means everyone on the force and those who retired will lose some of their retirement money. You'd be strengthening that blue wall of silence.
__________________
I can be found in history's unmarked grave of discarded ideologies.
  #18  
Old 02-07-2020, 01:40 AM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 11,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Make it a positive policy that things like traffic stops are to be used only for traffic control. No one should have to wonder if they'll be going to jail just because they were doing 5 over the limit. Pull them over, write the ticket, and move on.
So if during that traffic stop the Officer becomes aware that an actual crime is/was/is about to occur you would have him/her completely ignore that suspicion because it wasn't related to the reason for the stop?
  #19  
Old 02-07-2020, 09:20 AM
BeagleJesus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 318
Just spit balling here so take it with a grain of salt....

- Every person employed as a law enforcement officer will be removed from the criminal justice system completely. Local civilian review boards will be in charge of policing all law enforcement officers regardless of rank and tenure.
- The civilian review board will be primarily comprised of members of the local minority communities and they will have the power to arrest, conduct trials, convict and sentence.
- No member of the civilian review board can ever have worked as a LEO or have a living family member who has worked as a LEO.
- All appeals will be conducted by a civilian review board from a different part of the country and at no time will the cop be allowed to enter the traditional criminal justice system for any reason.
- Any LEO found guilty of aiding, abetting or ignoring another LEO who has committed a crime will automatically share the sentence of the guilty party in addition to another 5 years to whatever sentence was passed down.
- Any LEO sentenced to prison will receive no protective custody and no special treatment. Any prison officers or officials found to violate this will automatically receive the same sentence as the guilty party plus 5 years.

I figure if the cops are being held accountable by the people who they are most likely to abuse instead of the people they consider friends and collogues then we should see a remarkable improvement in community relations.

Last edited by BeagleJesus; 02-07-2020 at 09:21 AM.
  #20  
Old 02-07-2020, 09:28 AM
DrCube is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 7,600
Step number one is to get rid of the vast majority of laws. It shouldn't even be possible for a cop to kill someone over selling loose cigarettes because that's not the type of thing that should ever be considered wrong or even questionable in a free society. Murder, rape, theft, assault, arson, vandalism, breaking and entering... that's about it. The police simply shouldn't be enforcing anything else.
  #21  
Old 02-07-2020, 09:36 AM
Isosleepy's Avatar
Isosleepy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,100
In a market economy, if we want better cops, we need to attract better candidates- that means paying them more.
We need a massive culture change. There needs to be zero tolerance for “thin blue line” bs. The problem isn’t bad cops, it’s good cops covering for bad cops. So, if you knew of bad acts and didn’t say anything: there needs to be a consequence to that. To career opportunities if minor, firing of major.
A national database of bad LEOs. If you were fired for cause, you should never be a cop again
An zero tolerance for “professional courtesy”. If you pull over a speeding off-duty cop, you ticket him. You especially ticket him, they should know better and be held to a higher standard.
The culture of: no cop gets hurt at any cost needs to change. They will need to use judgement when firing a weapon. We will need to pay them both for using this judgement, and for the extra risk that not shooting first, figuring it out later brings with it.
Cops should periodically be audited. If you make 80k a year, but live in a million dollar house, you should be asked how, exactly, you do that. Say every 5 years or so.
  #22  
Old 02-07-2020, 09:52 AM
LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 391
Break up police unions. Don't allow police to unionize at all. Treat them like the military.
  #23  
Old 02-07-2020, 10:10 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,873
Outlaw any public sector union. Because unions have a duty to all members they end up being used to protect the worst officers. There is no way to improve policing and governance without haivng the ability to get rid of bad apples.
  #24  
Old 02-07-2020, 10:21 AM
Kovitlac is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
Step number one is to get rid of the vast majority of laws. It shouldn't even be possible for a cop to kill someone over selling loose cigarettes because that's not the type of thing that should ever be considered wrong or even questionable in a free society. Murder, rape, theft, assault, arson, vandalism, breaking and entering... that's about it. The police simply shouldn't be enforcing anything else.
Police shouldn't be pulling someone over going 80 in a school zone? C'mon, now.

I get the sentiment, and do agree that we could do without many of the laws we have now. But there are some things cops would absolutely be useful for that aren't the heavy-hitters you mentioned. Pulling over and dealing with drunk drivers. Harassment and domestic disturbances, even if they don't escalate to assault. Hit and runs (even if no one is hurt. If my car is damaged by someone else and I'm filing a claim, I need a police report). There simply isn't another option, unless you want to rework everything.
  #25  
Old 02-07-2020, 10:28 AM
Jasmine's Avatar
Jasmine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 2,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odesio View Post
But this isn't really a police problem it's a society problem. The police behave this way because most of us don't really mind.
I think that's true for a small segment of our society, but not society as a whole. The fact is that most of us simply didn't know the extent of the problem until the Internet was flooded with videos showing appalling police behavior aimed particularly at minorities.
__________________
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge."
--Daniel J Boorstin
  #26  
Old 02-07-2020, 10:38 AM
MikeF is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,694
Qualified immunity is not carte blanche for the police to do whatever they want. From Wikipedia:

Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine in United States federal law that shields government officials from being sued for discretionary actions performed within their official capacity, unless their actions violated "clearly established" federal law or constitutional rights.

So, if the actions violate the law or constitutional rights, QI does not apply. Also, QI protects the individual, not the organization. Individuals can still sue the department. It might be more of a deterrent if individuals were held liable but there has to be an allowance for making reasonable mistakes.
  #27  
Old 02-07-2020, 10:48 AM
Dark Sponge's Avatar
Dark Sponge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 52
I don't believe racism is the issue here. The cops I've been friends with (both white and minority) targeted the people groups which commit the majority of crimes. They do this because it is effective, not because of hate.

In single race communities they target people in their teens & twenties and use an especially soft hand with those over 50. It is discrimination but not racism.
  #28  
Old 02-07-2020, 11:04 AM
Joey P is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 29,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Police need to be held accountable for their actions. Certainly they should get some leeway given the nature of the job but the usual "paid leave while we figure it out" (read paid vacation) is not sufficient. We can throw case after case after case out here where police behave badly and suffer no repercussions.
I just saw another one on the news. Officer, on duty, gun on his hip, in his patrol car, engine running, in drive with his foot on the brake, passed out, shitfaced drunk with a BAC of .430 (more than 5x the legal limit).
Due to a technicality, no charges filed against him.
The technicality being that the blood work wasn't admissible in court.
It wasn't admissible in court because the officers didn't pursue it as a DUI.

Yes, he got demoted and had an unpaid leave. But lets keep in mind that any of us would have been charged with a DUI.
https://fox6now.com/2019/12/16/body-...in-patrol-car/

Last edited by Joey P; 02-07-2020 at 11:04 AM.
  #29  
Old 02-07-2020, 11:19 AM
MikeF is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreysonCarlisle View Post
I can see how not knowing how to handle such an encounter can get you shot if you're hiding your hands or otherwise looking like you have a weapon. But killing someone for not cooperating? That's beyond the pale.
This is a false argument. In the vast majority of cases, people are not killed for merely not cooperating. When people are killed (statistically, very rare) it is usually because part of their behavior while not cooperating was reasonably construed by the officer to present a threat of death or serious bodily harm. I know that there are far too many examples of officers using force when it is not legally justified and that is a real problem. That said, I've seen this false logic time and time again. One can't equate the reason for the initial contact as the reason the person was shot, tased, sprayed etc. Officers are trained, and rightly so, that the single greatest indicator that they may be assaulted or have to employ force is a lack of compliance by the subject.

Society has determined, by way of the law, that citizens do not have a right to refuse an officers lawful orders. As Americans, however, individual freedoms are highly valued and there seems to be some sort of belief that non-compliance/resistance to some degree or another is O.K. Officers often tolerate this, to a degree, but if the subjects pushes things he is going to be arrested. This will probably result in physical confrontation or worse, as non-compliant people rarely become compliant when they are told that they are under arrest. Quite the opposite.

There are plenty of videos of police shootings (or other uses of force) available on the internet. Pick ten or twenty or 100 at random and see how many involved compliant individuals. You may not like it but the fact of the matter is that almost all police force could be avoided if the subject simply complied with the officer's lawful commands, orders or whatever you want to call them. Settle it in court, not on the street.

Now, let me go grab my flame suit.
  #30  
Old 02-07-2020, 12:27 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 14,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
It seems to me most of these people who get shot by police officers either don't know how to handle an encounter with law enforcement or are uncooperative.
As MikeF noted, shootings happen because the officer believes they are at immediate risk of injury or death. They may come to that belief incorrectly, or too swiftly for the situation at hand, but that belief is the overwhelming reason shooting happen in the first place.

I would fix this aspect of policing by reducing the need for officers to believe everyone they come into contact with may have a hidden deadly weapon. Perhaps, if they didn't feel at risk of being shot every time they interacted with the populace, they wouldn't need to escalate interactions with violence.

I believe this would work better than trying to educate 300 million people in how to act "correctly" during the most stressful and disturbing moments of their life.
  #31  
Old 02-07-2020, 12:44 PM
DCnDC's Avatar
DCnDC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Dueling Grounds
Posts: 13,519
Take away their guns.
  #32  
Old 02-07-2020, 01:24 PM
GreysonCarlisle's Avatar
GreysonCarlisle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
This is a false argument.
It's only false after you move the goalposts. The poster I replied to was implying, if not stating outright, that noncompliance was grounds for police to shoot. That is what is false.

Quote:
In the vast majority of cases, people are not killed for merely not cooperating. When people are killed (statistically, very rare) it is usually because part of their behavior while not cooperating was reasonably construed by the officer to present a threat of death or serious bodily harm.
Which is exactly what I stated.

Quote:
There are plenty of videos of police shootings (or other uses of force) available on the internet. Pick ten or twenty or 100 at random and see how many involved compliant individuals. You may not like it but the fact of the matter is that almost all police force could be avoided if the subject simply complied with the officer's lawful commands, orders or whatever you want to call them.
That's blaming the victim. Police ought to be better trained, and the ones who shoot unarmed fleeing suspects ought to go to jail for murder.

Quote:
Settle it in court, not on the street.
That's optimal, but while resistance might be a crime, it does not carry a death sentence.
  #33  
Old 02-07-2020, 01:46 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
As MikeF noted, shootings happen because the officer believes they are at immediate risk of injury or death.
And that is because it is THE OFFICER that escalates the situation into one where deadly force is "needed".
  #34  
Old 02-07-2020, 02:52 PM
MikeF is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,694
Officers who shoot unarmed fleeing suspects who present no threat SHOULD be charged. No argument from me. That is the current law. Same for the drunk referred to by JoeyP.

I am blaming the victim IF the victim/suspect resists in a manner that that can reasonably considered a threat. Who is responsible for the suspect's actions? The police or the suspect?

Also, you are once again making a leap in logic: resistance does not carry a death sentence (paraphrased), implying that it does. Resistance will likely result in some type of force. In a very small minority of cases that force will be deadly force. In almost all of those cases, the resistance was such that the officer had reason to believe his life was in danger. So resistance, per se, does not carry a death sentence. However, when one resists with what can reasonably be perceived as deadly force, one is rolling the dice as to the outcome.

Saint Cad - please expound. Maybe cite some examples. While doing so, be aware that it is well established law that officers will be judged on the basis of "was the force reasonable at the moment it was used?" not what could/should the officer have done differently leading up to that moment. Officers have no obligation to retreat or de-escalate when faced with resistance.
  #35  
Old 02-07-2020, 03:01 PM
GreysonCarlisle's Avatar
GreysonCarlisle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
Also, you are once again making a leap in logic: resistance does not carry a death sentence (paraphrased), implying that it does. Resistance will likely result in some type of force. In a very small minority of cases that force will be deadly force. In almost all of those cases, the resistance was such that the officer had reason to believe his life was in danger. So resistance, per se, does not carry a death sentence. However, when one resists with what can reasonably be perceived as deadly force, one is rolling the dice as to the outcome.
And again, you are moving the goalposts to find this supposed leap in logic since what you just said is exactly what I said in my other posts.
  #36  
Old 02-07-2020, 03:06 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankees 1996 Champs View Post
I'll put it in this Great Debates thread.

How would you fix policing, especially with minority communities the most?

It is a bigger issue than abortion, climate change in my opinion, because public safety is a big issue.
While police shootings are not more common with black victims than other races, studies show that police engage in much higher rates of police brutality (unnecessary and uncalled for use of force) against blacks (and to a lesser extent, hispanics). This is after you correct for SES, gang affiliation, prior criminal history, etc.

It seems like this is driven at least in part by fear. Cops are more afraid of violent behavior from blacks (including black women, who account for the vast majority of female police brutality victims) than otherwise identical hispanics, whites and Asians. I don't know how you fix that sort of hind brain response.
  #37  
Old 02-07-2020, 03:20 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 14,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
Officers have no obligation to retreat or de-escalate when faced with resistance.
This is a choice, not an inherent part of the concept of policing. Given that firearms are widely available, perhaps de-escalation is a better choice than escalating to the point of violence.
  #38  
Old 02-07-2020, 03:40 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,880
Police who bully or act cowardly should be dismissed.

Let me repeat that in a larger font:
Police who bully or act cowardly should be dismissed.

Evidence is lacking? Two independent complaints == Dismiss.


If fewer civilians had guns, police would be less eager to draw and fire. The obsessive need so many unworthy Americans have to carry arms is the big elephant in the room.

I previously posted this video of Thai police defusing a situation. If the same thing happened in the U.S., the distraught civilian would have been left to bleed out on the floor.
  #39  
Old 02-07-2020, 03:44 PM
LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
I would fix this aspect of policing by reducing the need for officers to believe everyone they come into contact with may have a hidden deadly weapon. Perhaps, if they didn't feel at risk of being shot every time they interacted with the populace, they wouldn't need to escalate interactions with violence.

I believe this would work better than trying to educate 300 million people in how to act "correctly" during the most stressful and disturbing moments of their life.
This is why I can't take "Black Lives Matter" seriously.

If they really wanted to save Black lives, they would educate Black men on how to handle interactions with law enforcement as well as let them know that law enforcement has a necessary role in society and that these interactions are not a form of disrespect. I'd like to see Black celebrities film PSAs and educate people on what to do when they do encounter law enforcement. Of course not everyone will get the message but at least some will. This education will also deescalate conflicts.
  #40  
Old 02-07-2020, 03:47 PM
GreysonCarlisle's Avatar
GreysonCarlisle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
This is why I can't take "Black Lives Matter" seriously.

If they really wanted to save Black lives, they would educate Black men on how to handle interactions with law enforcement as well as let them know that law enforcement has a necessary role in society and that these interactions are not a form of disrespect. I'd like to see Black celebrities film PSAs and educate people on what to do when they do encounter law enforcement. Of course not everyone will get the message but at least some will. This education will also deescalate conflicts.
Like the Hands Up, Don't Shoot movement?
  #41  
Old 02-07-2020, 04:04 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
Saint Cad - please expound. Maybe cite some examples. While doing so, be aware that it is well established law that officers will be judged on the basis of "was the force reasonable at the moment it was used?" not what could/should the officer have done differently leading up to that moment. Officers have no obligation to retreat or de-escalate when faced with resistance.
Gladly. Here is a video that shows all the problems in one. A few things to notice
They do not ask the white woman to identify herself (although that could have been before the video started)
In California, you are not required to identify yourself in this situation. Also in the United States, I have the right to refuse to talk to police.
So the cops had no right to grab her or her phone or manhandle her AND they certainly had no right to arrest her since she broke no crime.

And here is the followup which is part of the problem. A cop comes up to you and says it's a crime for wearing red shoes (it's not). While asking about it he suddenly grabs you without warning (like "You're under arrest.") and you struggle because you don't know what's going on. Congratulations, you just resisted arrest and even though the original charge won't hold (because it's not a crime) and even though the police did not announce their intentions ("We are arresting you.) and they escalate the situation (Putting your body in fight or flight mode) you have now commited a crime so they are totally justified in what they did.
Quote:
On Sunday, the Barstow Police Department issued the following statement:

“The City of Barstow has reviewed the video link regarding Charlena Cook’s arrest. It is apparent that Ms. Cook actively resisted arrest.

The Barstow Police Department continues to be proactive in training its officers to assess and handle interactions with emotionally charged individuals while conducting an investigation, for the protection of everyone involved. This incident was in no way racially motivated, as implied by the ACLU.

Isolated incident right?
Let's head back to Barstow.
Quote:
The City of Barstow has reached a settlement agreement with the ACLU Foundation of Southern California (ACLU SoCal) on behalf of two brothers who were arrested for refusing to identify themselves to police officers.
The agreement calls for training Barstow officers to recognize that a refusal to identify is rarely sufficient reason to make an arrest. Shortly before the settlement was reached this week, video surfaced of a Barstow Police Officer wrestling a pregnant woman to the ground for refusing to show her identification.
So Barstow is the outlier right? Let's just have cops come onto you property (that's the escalation, they were the aggressors) and arrest a guy for legally videotaping from his porch.
Tell me in this video the cop did not go up expecting to shoot.
Great video here. Look at time 2:26. Again in The US you have the right to not talk to police. He provided ID with his name earlier yet the cop said the (black) man is obstructing a police officer. Look at 3:34 onward. Will you try to convince me the cop is NOT escalating the situation?

To your point, cops escalate the situation INTO a confrontation then use that confrontation to justify their unreasonable actions. That's not right.
  #42  
Old 02-07-2020, 04:10 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
Saint Cad - please expound. Maybe cite some examples. While doing so, be aware that it is well established law that officers will be judged on the basis of "was the force reasonable at the moment it was used?" not what could/should the officer have done differently leading up to that moment. Officers have no obligation to retreat or de-escalate when faced with resistance.

So under that logic
I feel you cut me off going into a parking lot.
We get out and I start yelling at you and get in your face.
I make threats against you.
You try to walk away as is your right and I follow you yelling at you.
You do something and I "feel threatened"
Well MikeF I have no obligation to retreat or de-escalate. So I beat the ever-loving shit out of you and get away with it. That makes sense
  #43  
Old 02-07-2020, 07:32 PM
Horatius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
As part of the driving test, everyone would be pulled over by an officer with flashing lights, the officer would scream at the top of his lungs for the test taker to get out of the car in the prescribed manner. I mean everything. Hands in the air, walking backwards, falling to you knees. All of it.

And following my suggestion, we wouldn't need that, because cops wold almost never be yelling at the driver, pulling their guns, taking them out of the car, making them walk on their knees, or any of that shit. In the relatively few cases where such actions are actually justified, the people involved would know that they're criminals, and would be expected to know how to deal with cops already.



Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
So if during that traffic stop the Officer becomes aware that an actual crime is/was/is about to occur you would have him/her completely ignore that suspicion because it wasn't related to the reason for the stop?

Serious question: How many "actual crimes" could they become aware of without doing all that "pull you out of your car and search everything" routine? I suspect that most of them fall under the category of "DUI", which is a legitimate primary enforcement role for traffic police.

But aside from that, yes, for a few years at least, we need to make this a zero-tolerance kind of thing, because US cops as they exist now have shown that they can't be trusted to use their judgement. If a traffic cop has reason to suspect an "actual crime" based on a routine traffic stop, then they need to route that suspicion to a higher authority. Follow the guy until a higher ranked cop with a warrant shows up to do a real search. Yes, some bad guys will get away if we do this, but that's the price we have to pay to have cops stop killing innocent people over stupid shit. Once they've proven they have learned how to do their job properly, we can re-visit this rule.

Oh, and I'd like to give a shout-out to those up-thread who are proving the point I made when I wrote "Paranoid overreaction has become so standardized as policy that far too many Americans actually defend it as being normal."
  #44  
Old 02-07-2020, 07:47 PM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,761
I feel what you are saying, but if a cop pulls a person over and there's two kids in the back seat with bruised and battered faces, one nursing what looks like a broken arm, I'd like him to be able to follow up right then. Same thing if he's a felon amd there's a gun on the passenger seat.
  #45  
Old 02-07-2020, 08:50 PM
MikeF is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,694
I agree that the officer in Barstow had no right to ask to ask for identification and freely admit that I am unfamiliar with California law. There would be no QI in this case because the officer is violating well established law. In some states, including New Jersey, it is unlawful to resist an unlawful arrest. Like I said, comply. Submit to the arrest and then sue, if there is reason.

Guy on the porch - police are wrong. Guy picking up trash - same. Clearly, these cops need better training. I believe no QI in either case.

What I said in post #29 was people have to follow LAWFUL orders. In the vast majority of police use of force cases, the suspects fail to do so.

Greyson - I don't understand what you are on about with the moving of the goalposts. Doesn't that mean the changing of some standard by which something or someone is judged? I really don't think I've done that. "But killing someone for not cooperating? That's beyond the pale." These are your words. I was pointing out that people are not killed for merely not cooperating.

"That's optimal, but while resistance might be a crime, it does not carry a death sentence." Again, your words. In both of these quotes you imply that police are killing people for relatively minor transgressions. Yes, this does happen but it is extremely rare and certainly not commonplace.
If police stop a jaywalker and during the course of the encounter he does something that can reasonably perceived as a deadly threat and is subsequently killed, the hue and cry is often, "Jaywalking in not punishable by death!" As if the person was killed for jaywalking. You have argued, by implication, in the same manner. I'm sure that here is some term for this kind of thinking but I don't know what it is.

Saint Cad - POLICE have no obligation to retreat when faced with resistance or a threat. In your hypothetical you are the aggressor and, even in "stand your ground states", I think you would be in trouble. When the police employ force they have to so "reasonably". That is, they have to state specific, objective observations that led them to employ force. "Feeling threatened", alone, won't cut it. It seems that there is a general belief out there that that's all cops have to say to "get away with killing someone". I've seen and heard it countless times but it is, simply, not true. Now, if in your scenario you are a cop, you would equally be in trouble because you have not acted lawfully - making threats for one. If you beat "the ever loving shit" out of me, you'd better have a damn good reason for employing that level of force. That certainly implies that I was defenseless at some point. Are you saying that the police should be required to retreat or try to de-escalate when faced with a threat? When the courts rule that on "at that moment", what they are trying to do is prevent Monday morning quarterbacking. "They could have parked further away. They could have stayed behind cover. They could have waited or a dog etc., etc." The USSC specifically addresses this in Graham v Connor.

The fact of the matter is that cops routinely de-escalate situations. Probably thousands or tens of thousands of time every day across the country. It also a fact that vast majority people who fall victim to police use of force (of all types) are either non-compliant, resisting or presenting some sort of threat. Given the huge numbers of police-citizen interactions that take place on a daily basis, there will probably be a steady stream of videos of cops acting inappropriately or even criminally. They need to be dealt with in the appropriate legal manner. At the same time, people need to realize that the best way to avoid police use of force is to simply comply with the officers lawful orders. OP asked how we could improve policing. Perhaps, I'll address that when I have more time.
  #46  
Old 02-07-2020, 09:27 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,134
I once read that the attitudes of cops who actually run the place (Lt and up) are the ones who decide if abuse is acceptable or not. If they condone it, the patrolmen will do it. If they don't, they won't.

So you have to find a way to hold the brass accountable for the criminal and civil infractions of those under them.

One idea would be making police lawsuits come out of police pension funds rather than the general public funds.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #47  
Old 02-07-2020, 09:54 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 42,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
This is why I can't take "Black Lives Matter" seriously.

If they really wanted to save Black lives, they would educate Black men on how to handle interactions with law enforcement...
All young black men are taught this. They know it far, far better than you do.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #48  
Old 02-07-2020, 11:07 PM
Odesio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 11,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
One idea would be making police lawsuits come out of police pension funds rather than the general public funds.
This would likely do the opposite of what's intended. Every police officer on the force, no matter how "good" they might be, will be extremely hesitant to break the blue wall of silence knowing every officer, even those who have retired, are going to be punished in the event of a suit.
__________________
I can be found in history's unmarked grave of discarded ideologies.
  #49  
Old 02-07-2020, 11:23 PM
GreysonCarlisle's Avatar
GreysonCarlisle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
Greyson - I don't understand what you are on about with the moving of the goalposts. Doesn't that mean the changing of some standard by which something or someone is judged? I really don't think I've done that. "But killing someone for not cooperating? That's beyond the pale." These are your words. I was pointing out that people are not killed for merely not cooperating.

"That's optimal, but while resistance might be a crime, it does not carry a death sentence." Again, your words. In both of these quotes you imply that police are killing people for relatively minor transgressions. Yes, this does happen but it is extremely rare and certainly not commonplace.
If police stop a jaywalker and during the course of the encounter he does something that can reasonably perceived as a deadly threat and is subsequently killed, the hue and cry is often, "Jaywalking in not punishable by death!" As if the person was killed for jaywalking. You have argued, by implication, in the same manner. I'm sure that here is some term for this kind of thinking but I don't know what it is.
First, learn to use the quote feature. Please.

Second, as I've pointed out to you already, I was responding to what someone else said, namely that it's OK to shoot someone for not cooperating with the police. You're arguing against points that I've never, ever raised. Please stop. Thanks.
  #50  
Old 02-08-2020, 12:04 AM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odesio View Post
Aside from collective punishment being wrong, you might want to rethink that idea. Implementing such a policy would prove a strong disincentive for any individual willing to speak out against their fellow officers. Officer Fudd is less likely to testify against Officer Bluto if it means everyone on the force and those who retired will lose some of their retirement money. You'd be strengthening that blue wall of silence.
So they speak out against their fellow officers a lot now do they? (Hint: No they don't)

I would rather Officer Fudd stop Officer Bluto before he/she does something awful.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:20 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017