The old saying is “There is no honor among thieves.”
I guess in ‘gang of criminals’ we have to include the entire Baltimore PD.
This is a lot like the Rampart Scandal in the LAPD.
Yeah, because members of gangs never turn states-evidence (term I saw on TV) or turn anyone in, or anything like that.
I’m not sure how there are even any witnesses to any crime that testify, since apparently its human nature to just keep your mouth shut when crimes are committed.
It’s human nature to look after yourself and those close to you. And I mean that very literally, it is our nature, evolved over billions of years, and a few thousand years of society have merely covered a little of that up. Part of that is done by extending the view of “those close to you” to a larger community, up to in some cases the whole world, but no matter how much you believe in and fight for universal human rights and equal treatment of everybody, you will necessarily feel a strong instinct to look out for those close to you before those you don’t know. That this needs explaining to you is, frankly, mind-boggling.
As for why eyewitnesses will appear, there are a few reasons. The most obvious is the reason that fits with selfishness - the criminal is dangerous to you or those who are close to you, and you feel minimal risk in testifying. Other times, people feel an obligation to society, or are persuaded that they need to testify and offered incentives of one kind or another, whether that is witness protection or better treatment in their own trials.
What you also see is someone who, upon realising that someone formerly close to them is a criminal, changes their opinion of them and will either be neutral or actively hostile to them and willing to testify.
But if someone still wants a person as part of their community - whether that’s as a coworker, friend, lover, family member or whatever, that will overpower any desire to bear witness against them and they won’t. This happens all the fucking time, and is one reason that domestic abuse cases are so hard to prosecute. There are many other examples, but that’s the most clear cut.
Finally, none of what I’ve written has to do with morality, with right or wrong. It has to do with how people actually act in the real world - and if you want to change the way people act you need to understand that. You also need to understand that you do it too. You are human, with the same basic urges and nature as the rest of us, and the protestations of superior morality don’t count for much.
Sorry, but I don’t think “Cops shouldn’t punch people in the face, especially when they are handcuffed” is a protestation of superior morality.
The fact that you think it is shows much more about YOUR morality than mine.
With calm and peaceful friendliness and respect, humans in the real world are capable of making moral choices, including doing the right thing and reporting terrible behavior (like the famous case of Serpico) among their compatriots. It’s entirely reasonable to hold our fellow humans, especially those with the power to use deadly force, to a high standard that requires them to report bad behavior, as is indeed possible for humans to do.
I served in the military, and reporting bad behavior is actually mandatory and usually actually occurs. The consequences for not doing so are severe. Cover ups in the military don’t occur as often, and rarely go on as long, as they do in law enforcement.
He probably thinks Serpico was a dirty snitch.
Yes, covering up crimes, especially in the classified realm, is a big deal. Hard to believe that someone doesn’t understand that.
Though it was originally mentioned in Stupid Gun News, the story of the FBI agent whose gun fell out of his waistband while doing a backflip on the dance floor might be worth mentioning here as well. He has turned himself in. He may face second-degree assault charges for shooting someone in the leg and hitting an artery. Sounds more like reckless endangerment to me.
So you mean people don’t just do it out of the goodness of their hearts? Explain to me how that doesn’t fit in precisely with what I wrote.
I’ve said in a few posts that having military disciple in the police would lead to improvements in this sort of thing - but I’m far from convinced that it would be desirable overall.
In general, as I’ve also said before, expecting people to report minor misbehaviour by their colleagues or neighbours on pain of severe consequences is what strong authoritarians want. It destroys trust and community for what I could best describe as an equality of misery.
There seems to be no understanding here that people often respond better to positive reinforcement, especially when you’re expecting them to go against their nature or their desire. Just saying “it’s the right thing to do, that’s reward enough” is not going to work.
To pick a specific example, you’ve spoken before about handling classified information, in one of the threads about Hiliary Clinton, and said that almost everyone involved doesn’t follow procedures to the letter. Why didn’t you report all of them? Apologies if that wasn’t you, I haven’t been back to check, but I don’t recall anyone else who I’ve discussed that with here.
Serpico is a great example of how badly whistleblowers are treated in the real world. I understand he still gets threats to this day. And he was one of the luckier ones, he’s still alive and free, and his reports were actually investigated and acted upon.
Perhaps they are treated badly because people think “if you snitch on your coworkers, you are a dirty piece of trash”?
You know, people like you?
or a LACK of any morality
If I remember, he doesn’t even live here. So his “picture” of how things are, is pure shit.
Yes, exactly. That, whether you like it or not, is how people think.
Yes, people like me, like you, like everyone. We all draw the line in slightly different places, but are still fundamentally tribal.
If your wife told you she drove over the speed limit one day, would you report her to the police? If not, then you are the same.
With calm friendliness, peace, and respect, the military mandates strong penalties for failing to follow the rules because the military has so much power, and when things go wrong people can die. It should be the same law enforcement.
And it is the same as a military civilian. Mishandling by accident classified and controlled information is quite common, and I always report it when I see it. I’ve reported it probably dozens of times in my career. And the consequences are usually relatively significant, at least after a first offense - long retraining, temporary loss of classified access, and if it happens frequently, loss of one’s job. But no one died or went to the hospital in these cases. If that is the risk, as it is when law enforcement mistreats people, then the consequences should be even more severe. And no one should defend those who stay silent - it’s wrong, and our own history, and the behavior of departments around the world, shows that it doesn’t have to be common.
So, you want a police force trained to military standards, effectively. Do you think people will be willing to pay for that? And how will it help reduce the us-vs-them issue? Military discipline works by instilling and strengthening that worldview, which is why “peacekeeping” operations are so problematic, as the soldiers are trained to view those there as the enemy. Even then, there are huge problems with PTSD and similar caused by the disconnect between that training and natural empathy for the people they’re dealing with
I’m far from convinced that the unintended consequences of this would be less bad than the problems you’re trying to remove. At best, I think, you’d end up with everyone being treated equally badly.
So, were you in favour of Clinton being punished? I seem to recall you weren’t, correct me if I’m wrong.
My ex-wife? Sure I would. 
Perhaps it could be paid with all the settlement money cities have had to pay to victims of police forces that are trained to horrible standards?
Sure, I’m in favor of Clinton being punished. Who do you think should render that punishment? And what form should that punishment take?
I want law enforcement as accountable for their actions in the US as in other countries that don’t have the problem of routine mistreatment, especially for minorities. That probably doesn’t require military discipline, since those other countries don’t require it, but it’s one possibility.
As far as military worldview, with calm respect, you don’t appear to understand it.
I never had any problem with appropriate consequences for Clinton. Retraining, temporary loss of access, and if there was a trend that these measures were not fixing her problem, than the loss of her job, are all appropriate consequences (and are in fact usually the consequences) for careless mishandling of classified and controlled information.
With calm respect, your memory of my posts is so consistently incorrect that I’d recommend you stop trying.
This perfectly illustrates your sense of proportion on this whole issue. You seem to be one of those people who think that a rain shower is the same as a hurricane.