How would you fix American policing? (UPDATED)

Great Debates
41

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.

Isolated incident right?
Let’s head back to Barstow.

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 mein 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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

47

All young black men are taught this. They know it far, far better than you do.

48

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.

49

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

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.

51

So if Officer Bluto does wrong and the police are sued and lose how is that not collective punishment? If the taxpayers ultimately pay that bill how is that not collective punishment?

52

So you would take an action that would provide even more of an incentive for them to speak out against their fellow officers? Imagine you’re an officer prepared to testify that Officer Jenkins’ reckless action led to many unnecessary injuries. In fact, you and a few other officers are prepared to testify that Jenkins’ actions were dangerous, against department policy, and unnecessary. How forthcoming are you going to be if speaking out against Jenkins is going to have a negative effect on your pension, the pension of current officers, and the pension of retired officers?

As would I. But going after pensions isn’t going to improve the situation. I can’t think of any industry where you can go after pensions for the actions of an employee or management. But for some of you it looks like this thread is more about revenge fantasies rather than finding a solution.

53

A police officer’s career should end if and when they bring disrepute to the profession.

54

  1. Body cameras, all the time.

  2. Anytime a police officer uses lethal force, he/she has to write up a lot of paperwork and give a thorough explaining to a review board of why.

  3. Pay them more (in case any are underpaid; Mexican cops, for instance, are often corrupt because underpaid; don’t know if maybe rural American cops are too)

  4. Break the blue wall of silence

55

It’s called ‘the talk’ and it disgusts me that certain young men in my country need to be trained in how to avoid being killed by police. My son doesn’t. If anything, my talk with him will center on how to use his whiteness to help protect his black friends from police abuse.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

56

What I’ve told my sons is exactly what I would advise any Black person. Cooperate and be respectful when dealing with law enforcement. Stay alive to fight in court.

Please explain how your son’s whiteness will protect his black friends from police abuse? I’d like to tap into this superpower that my sons and I apparently have but are unaware of.

Thanks in advance.

57

(Emphasis added.)

I would agree if these cops did not know their actions were unlawful. But I believe they do know their actions are unlawful, and they simply don’t care.

Additional training isn’t going to change a bad cop into a good cop.

58

It happens all the time. I’ve pulled over cars that had items in the back seat or truck bed that clearly match those that were listed in a recent burglary. I’ve pulled over cars where a parent was speeding to the hospital with their child’s broken arm or scald burn that they caused. I’ve pulled over felons with pistols on the floor. Drugs and/or paraphernalia in direct view. People who came back with warrants. And etc, etc, etc. How long do you need me to go on? I’ll see your stupid idea and raise you 38 years over 2 separate careers.

Having law enforcement officers with limited authority is grossly inefficient, unnecessarily costly to tax payers, and detrimental to public safety. I use the existence of parking checkers as evidence #1. Why are tax payers paying a separate agency to do what municipal police should be doing? Evidence #2 is state/highway patrol. Why have a separate agency doing what every Sheriffs Office in the country is already doing? The main change in policing in America I’d make is elimination of redundancy.

59

In order to solve the problem, we first have to define it. Like last night in the debate where Mayor Pete was hammered because the police in his town while he was mayor arrested blacks at 7 times the rate of whites for marijuana possession, and the implication was that such a thing could only happen because of the KKK racist cops in his town that he did not adequately rein in. That begs the question. Several possibilities:

  1. Maybe blacks use marijuana at 7 times the rate of whites.
  2. Maybe blacks are involved in other criminal activity at a higher rate than whites, causing police attention and Terry frisks where the marijuana is found.
  3. Maybe the economic situation between whites and blacks mean that whites can use marijuana in their own home making detection unlikely but as blacks must share living space with family members due to poverty, they are forced to use marijuana in public places.

I mean, the list could go on, but instead of having any real discussion about this or any other police issue, the default, the irrefutable assumption is that it is racist police officers.

60

You are incorrect. Police officers have QI even if they blatantly break the law. There are many cites for this. Here’s one

So police can claim ignorance of the law to escape consequences for their actions although civilians cannot.
Here’s another case of law enforcement escaping accountability. From the headline “A court ruled that officers did not have enough information to know whether or not stealing violates the Constitution.” So while your theory of holding cops to the law when they “violate rights that are ‘clearly established’ in light of existing case law.”, actual decisions ignore that standard.

There are many videos where cops attack a person without announcing their arrest and giving them a chance to submit. They unexpectedly grab the person and since they didn’t submit - they call it resisting arrest.

You are ignoring the point. When the police escalate the situation into using force, they may be in the wrong but they are rarely held accountable for it. THAT is the issue - accountability.