Should the police be above the law?

Great Debates
1

(NEW and IMPROVED, with 0% sarcasm and more explanation! Also contains 3 links added to the old thread! Now on the real SDMB! Offer void where prohibited)

Should the police be allowed to ignore the law with impunity, suffering minor administrative penalties for comitting what would be felonies for other people? I’m not talking here about special laws which directly govern police powers (such as exemptions to ‘duty to retreat’ laws or expanded arrest powers), but rather the idea that the police can engage in grossly negligent or outright criminal conduct and suffer no significant consequence for it. Despite what some people (such as BlackHawk00 in the previous thread) think, there are clearly people who do think that the police should be immune to the laws that mere ‘civilians’ must follow, as shown by the conduct of the police themselves, the difficutly of obtaining a conviction when a cop commits a crime, and the opinions I’ve seen expressed by people in the past.

Needs a gun safety course
Were I to take a pistol into school, show it off to a bunch of kids, then pass it around loaded, and end with one of the kids shot, I would be arrested and slapped with several felonies. But somehow, if a cop does the same thing, she should only be subject to a few weeks without pay and a minor bad mark on her record.
FBI shoots Eagle Scout in the face
Clearly, the FBI needs to detain bank robbers. But, when attempting to arrest someone who kind-of matches the description of a bank robber, they certainly don’t need to shoot him in the face for reaching for the door handle when he’s ordered to get out of the car.

Should the police be able to just walk away with a slap on the wrist for both of the above incidents?

NYPD rectal interrogation techniques
And the police in some areas seem to be secure enough in their immunity to the laws that govern the rest of us that they can, in the middle of a police station, feel safe shoving a toilet plunger into the anus of a guy who looked like someone who insulted them. I hardly think that all of the other officers in such a police station are upholding their duties as law enforcement officers, and I am disgusted that they refused to come forward and testify about what went on. While I’m sure that people will say that this incident shouldn’t have happened, how many will say that any cop found to have kept silent should be kicked off the force and charged with obstruction of justice or something similar? They are, after all, charged with enforcing the law.

2

Have you got cites for any of your examples, that they actually happened, or is this just a purely theoretical debate?

Especially concerning what actually happened to the police officers involved, and in what way they were punished (or not punished, as you seem to be saying).

3

Bad cops are protected by the same infrastructure that protects innocent cops.

Should they be allowed to get off? Nope. But you have people who have learned to work the system from the inside, plus powerful unions which earn support by standing up for even the most bone-headed goofs. Law enforcement officials (LEO’s) often get some of the best lawyers to get themselves out of charges, not dissimilar from other moneyed defendants. There are many more civilians not in jail due more to superior legal representation rather than pure guilt/innocence than there are LEO’s (Of course, there are many more civilians tried, so percentages would be better if they were available). I’m wondering what kind of deal the NYC cop who confessed made with the other cops, union, etc. It’s not right, no doubt about it.

ON THE OTHER HAND, 95% of reporting on LEO’s is about the bad stuff they do (not empirical data, but I’ve no doubt the stories are majorly slanted against - prove me wrong). The public is given the wrong impression. If all we hear is bad stuff, we will tend to think bad stuff of all of them, rather than the minority of miscreants and idiots. Unions and their lawyers automatically back LEO’s because they know that the possibility of an unfair trial in the court of public opinion can taint even the fairest of juries. One situation that sticks out in my mind, from years ago: My local paper, Newsday, had a front page story about some Suffolk cops indicted on some charges, and basically told the prosecutor’s story. Granted, their arrest at the time was front page news. However, as the trial progressed, either the prosecutors were grossly incompetent, or heaven forbid, the cops were actually innocent. The story of their complete (and quick) acquital was buried deep within the paper, a three paragraph filler story. Another more infamous NY case: Tawana Brawley.

Now, a last nit to pick. For an ambitious LEO, even a minor mark can scuttle a career. The career desk sargeant need not worry; the special agent looking to become a director has now put a sizable hurdle in front of her. These marks stay with you, and when you are competing for promotions with so many, a little ding can be instant disqualification (I’m looking at it from more of a military background, but to the best of my knowledge, it is not too different).

4

On the last case (NYPD), one officer, Justin Volpe, confessed and was given a 30 year sentence. One was just released on $1,000,000 bail awaiting a retrail http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/03/07/police.torture.hearing/index.html and the others were free on bond and won’t face a new trial. http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/02/28/police.torture.overturn/index.html?related . This was a truly disgusting show of brutality compounded by the silence of the entire precint. This is one of those cases where the media got the story right, as I can’t see a good angle in any of this. Every cop in the stationhouse at the time should be on trial.

5

The underlined headings are links, even though they are the same color as the text.

6

Police above the law? Well, some act that way and get caught. Some act that way and have yet to be caught.

But should police act above the law and be protected while doing so?

Shall we throw out the Constitution as well?

7

A police officer has the power to change a person’s life, or even take it. He can manufacture evidence, lie in court, or just beat the hell out of you. The fact that these rogue cops sometimes get caught is a mixed blessing to those that are trying to do a good job. On the one hand, it tarnishes their image, but on the other hand, it demonstrates that the police are not a law onto themselves.

A police officer should not be held to the same standards of behaviour as the man in the street.

His standards must be higher.

8

One wonders whether police officers are statistically more likely to break the law than citizens…

9

Okay, I couldn’t tell that those were links. Gaudere said somewhere that they’re still tinkering with the color schemes.

10

Follow the links. Apparently they show as black if you haven’t followed them yet, but the underlined text over each example is a link to an article about the topic.

Precisely. Instead of being punished for their crimes, they get protected, which is exactly what I’m objecting to.

The first two incidents that I cited were not cases where maybe the cop did something bad, maybe they did something good. In both of those cases, we have the details of what happened and neither the officers nor the victims are contesting what happened.

Actually, the media ignores a lot of bad stuff that LEOs do (compare media reporting on police using deadly force with the rest of us using deadly force); for example, I’ve never seen the mainstream media report on the numerous incidents of the BATF launching a raid on a man’s house, forcing his family down at gunpoint, then going through his collection and discovering that it’s completely legal. But I don’t really want to get into media bias, especially since it’s not relevant.

This is not about public opinion. It’s about some specific facts on some specific cases. Should a man be allowed to point a rifle at me, then shoot me for following his directions, merely because I look like someone else? The FBI case is saying that, yes, he can as long as he’s a cop. I really don’t think that a society in which it is de facto perfectly legal for someone to shoot me dead in the street when I have done nothing wrong is one I want to live in, but ours seems to have become that. Not ‘I was only reaching for a wallet’, not ‘I ran away from him’, not ‘but I was only ditching the dope,’ but ‘I was having a slurpy and followed the cops directions when he pointed a rifle at me.’

Except that I’m not talking about a having a ‘bad impression’ of cops. I’m talking about the verifiable fact that when a cop grossly violates the law, he is not held to the same standard as I would be. Show me a single justification for the use of deadly force in the FBI case, or any kind of justification for the show and tell case. Since absent justification either one of those involves at least one felony, I have to ask why neither of those LEOs are on trial.

Oh, cry me a river. A felony conviction scuttles a whole lot of career paths, as well as landing you in jail for years. Some minor administrative penalty is nothing compared to rotting in a cell and having most jobs closed off to you, especially when we’re talking about out-and-out murder like the FBI case. I’ll take ‘might have to get another line of work, but stay free and can still vote and own guns’ over ‘am locked out of a lot of jobs, spend time in jail, and can’t vote or own guns’.

11

This brings up a point about what I’m trying to debate here (not that you’re going that way)- this really isn’t about what percentage of cops do bad things, or how much investigation should be done of cops who might be doing something bad. It’s about what happens in cases where a LEO does something which is normally a felony, with no question over the chain of events, and with no justification at all for his actions, then gets off with some minor slap on the wrist instead of prison time.

I probably shouldn’t have brought up the NYPD case; it is a strong sounding thing, but might lead away from what I’m hoping to get at here.

12

Should a police officer not receive equal protection under law?

From the first article:

Tried and guilty already in your mind? Or perhaps, just perhaps, there will be departmental hearings and civil trials. Unfortunately, the results of these often never make the rounds.

I’ve never liked how quickly the agencies clam up in these instances, but this happened just last week, yet your post implies that the agent has already been declared innocent and sent upon his/her merry way with a wrist slap.

Fine, I’ll leave this topic alone.

However, make your point with items that happened further back, and let us know all the follow up, especially the resolution of the issues, if publicly available. Nothing in these articles indicates that the officers are only “suffering minor administrative penalties for comitting what would be felonies for other people” Justin Volpe is serving 30 years in prison. Charles Schwarz is going back on trial. And this is despite the lack of cooperation on the part of the precint and other officers.

No they are not. They say they are investigating. Unfortunately, the results of these investigations are often not made publicly available (or, if publicly available, not widely disseminated nor reported). That is not good. The newspapers often will not follow up on civil cases arising from these matters. So we probably will not find out 6-9 months or more from now exactly what happens to this agent. But nowhere did it say that the agent was in the clear.

Yes, you do have a bad impression. One is one month old, the other is only one week old yet you write as if it is a foregone conclusion that they did it (pretty certain) and that nothing will happen to them. I’m willing to place all my (negative) net worth on the line that both families are in touch with lawyers, figuring out their criminal and civil solutions. I’m even willing to bet that the FBI agent is on desk duty, despite the lack of FBI communication. But neither case is anywhere near going to trial, or even gaining criminal indictment. That’s why neither of these LEO’s are on trial. As for the third link, one cop is behind bars until he’s a senior citizen, another is up for trial again, and two more had to have convictions overturned on appeal (not saying that they didn’t do anything or that other cops weren’t involved in the abuse and the following cover-up, just that they can’t prove that these two cops were involved - it sucks, but it happens for non-LEO’s all the time also).

(1) Unless something changed from the March 3 date in the article you linked, he is not dead. As a matter of fact, no one died in any incident linked.
(2) I was picking a nit, not justifying the department’s reactions.

You alluded to the Amadou Diallo case in NYC in your post. IIRC, in that case, none of the officers was convicted of any crime, much to the outrage of the community and many other NYers, self included. This would be a much better case to try and make your point with. For the life of me, I can’t understand how those cops weren’t guilty of something (I believe civil trials are ongoing). But these things, like many trials, take months and years to go through the system. Blowing steam because an agent who had an incident last week isn’t in a cell across from Terry Nichols is quite premature.

13

Um, D_Odds, there is no “equal protection” or “due process” rights involved in removing a cop (or indeed anybody in any job) from active duties. A cop may have contractual (or possibly statutory civil service) protections against suspension without pay or firing, but that’s it - and, you will note, neither of those disciplinary actions have happened yet, or will happen until after the investigation is completed.

So, the cop in question has more protection than you or I do against firing or suspension.

As for the comment by the Commissioner:

  1. The cop could sue for slander, but, ya know, I really, really don’t think she’ll win - opinions are largely exempt from slander and, in this case, the opinion is justifiable.

  2. If the Commissioner makes the final decision on whether this cop gets fired, after internal due process, the cop has a basis to seek the Commissioner’s recusal. Again, nice and lovely due process.

Sua

14

Admonished and accepted regarding their position on the force or in the agency. Still, at no point does it say that these officers have not committed crimes and will not be punished for them (which I’m fairly certain qualifies for removal).

Considering current head count reductions (and no unionization) in my workplace and industry, I’ll certainly cede that point.

So, unless I’ve been whooshed, you are saying the same thing I am; the officers are not yet in the clear and are subject to departmental hearings. I’ll also add they are subject to possible criminal prosecution and near-certain civil litigation.

My arguments against Riboflavin’s posts concerned the assertion that these officers and agents were “allowed to ignore the law with impunity, suffering minor administrative penalties for committing what would be felonies for other people”. As of this time, that is not the case. If he wishes to prove his point, I suggest he research the Amadou Diallo case; however, I’m sure one can find officers and agents who get through the ‘system’, just like one will find a plethora of civilians who do the same. I don’t think, however, we can adequately quantify the numbers to prove that officers and agents have a significantly easier time of breaking the law and escaping the consequences.

15

Of course, there’s no way to prove this, but my suspicion is that if the classroom incident would have involved anyone except a police officer, they’d have been taken into custody at the school.

16

I totally agree. However, it is probably illegal for any non-law officer to carry a gun into the school under any circumstances (and, in this instance, the officer should not have been using the gun in her demonstrations). But, if they legally owned the gun and had no record, I doubt they would have spent long in prison. And from the reading, I doubt a civilian would really get that much in trouble criminally (depending on the penalty for carrying a weapon into a school). Of course, I can’t get into the site right now to see if the article addresses any of these issues

17

Volpe was NOT released. Please keep your facts straight. He is still in jail. The officer released was accused of holding the victim. However Volpe testifyed that a different office who looks like the man convicted did that. Just because there was something going on in the bathroom does not mean that every at the stationhouse knew about it. The idea of having trial for each of them is ridiculous and a tremendous of taxpayer money. An investigation leads to people likely to ‘have known’ about it took place and a trial took place. However Federal judges have sent him back for a new trial.
To get back to the OP. Nobody in a democracy is above the law. Nobody.

18

At no point did I say, or in my opinion, intimate that Volpe was released or that he will be. The linked articles did not say Volpe was released. Charles Schwarz was released and will be retried. The other two were released and may or may not face further criminal prosecution. My facts were absolutely straight, and I believe my use of the written language accurately portrayed that.

And you are correct, the entire stationhouse did not know, could not know, and it would be restrictively expensive to try each and every one, and, considering the results thus far, probably fruitless. I knew that when I engaged in my bit of hyperbole. I should stop engaging in such, as what seems obvious to me just whooshes over everyone else. Back to the hyperbole minors for me. [Still, only one man is currently in jail for the heinous assault on Mr. Loiuma, and few, if any, think only one man was wholly responsible. Volpe’s not cooperating any more, and neither is anyone else. I’m with Riboflavin that I’m disgusted that no others came forward in the interests of justice.]

19

Why is it that the F.B.I. in paticular never have to talk about one of their own when they do something wrong? They hide behind that “For reasons of nantional security we will not release that information at this time” bullshit a little too much.

20

well, let’s see - an employer declines to elaborate publically about the potential consequences/events of a situation, in which an employee of theirs is involved, until some later time, specifically will not comment until after some internal investigation has been done.

yep, I see conspiracy all over that.