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.
Break up police unions. Don’t allow police to unionize at all. Treat them like the military.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Take away their guns.
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.
Which is exactly what I stated.
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.
That’s optimal, but while resistance might be a crime, it does not carry a death sentence.
And that is because it is THE OFFICER that escalates the situation into one where deadly force is “needed”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?