It's way easier to weed out bad cops then we thought (police violence)

[DrCube]

“Personnel”?

[Drunky_Smurf]

@AHunter3

than

than

None of the rest of the title is bolded.

[handsomeharry]

@Czarcasm

But you can’t root out the bad ones because of your supposedly otherwise decent ones.

Yep; and, to me, the operative word is “otherwise”, showing that, no, these cops, then, are NOT decent.

[handsomeharry]

@Zsofia

That isn’t how it works.

Methinks that that was a whoosh.

[someguy_1]

This is hilarious. It operates on the assumption that people obviously file complaints about every single instance that occurs, and those complaints are obviously always taken seriously and put on record as they should have been.

I suppose unemployment numbers are also accurate in your world, because the only people who are without jobs are the ones actively receiving compensation?

[JackieLikesVariety]

@Roderick_Femm

Yes, but.

There are a lot of reasons why otherwise-decent cops might cover up for the bad ones. If we could get rid of the bad ones, the others wouldn’t have anything to cover up.

Also, on the idea that we have to start somewhere, why not start with the bad ones first? If you really try to root out every ounce of complicity there won’t be anything left. Is there any profession that is perfect, and that wouldn’t be better for removing actual offenders? Teachers, doctors, pastors, plumbers, you name it. They all have bad apples, and they all tend to stick together, even if sometimes reluctantly.

This seems to be an example where the cliché works: don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

this makes sense to me

[Maastricht]

@someguy_1

This is hilarious. It operates on the assumption that people obviously file complaints about every single instance that occurs, and those complaints are obviously always taken seriously and put on record as they should have been.

Well, even if only a percentage of justified complaints are filed, and even if only a percentage of those complaints are put on record, the relative number still indicates cops who are likely to overreact.

[TriPolar]

@Czarcasm

The ones that look the other way, cover for them, lie for them, the ones that allow them to exist in the first place-those are bad cops, too. An accessory to a crime is also a criminal, so what is the real number of bad cops?

@Roderick_Femm

Yes, but.

There are a lot of reasons why otherwise-decent cops might cover up for the bad ones.

It’s a tough situation for a lot of cops. I think almost all cops have a pretty good idea who the truly bad cops are, but that doesn’t mean they know for sure by witnessing abuse directly. Even when they do they’ll be inclined to think it may be an isolated instance or a gray area. And even where they know for sure they’ll be disinclined to charge a friend and colleague with a crime just as any of us might be under some circumstances.

However, even with that kind of understanding, I tend to agree with Czarcasm, this is a self perpetuating cycle where the good cops become bad themselves by covering for the bad ones.

And let’s not forget the root of this, the bulk of the populace doesn’t really care. They want the police to be their pit bulls out on the streets, they believe the dogs won’t attack their masters.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@puddleglum

That is why you need a procedure to separate legitimate complaints from phony complaints. That procedure needs to be independent and not controlled by the cops. This is another reason why public employee unions should be banned and mandatory unionism should be ended.

The unions have nothing to do with the regulated controlling the regulators.