Tyre Nichols death - discussion as the video comes out

Well, we said it, and yet it’s not done, so it is obviously harder to do than say.

The hiring, screening, and training for the police in my city is fairly decent, so there are fewer incidents of “controversial encounters”, though that number is still far from zero. However, that has nothing to do with the police in Memphis. Would you get behind a national standard to be imposed on every police department? One that is regulated and monitored for compliance? I would conditionally, but I’d also be very worried about what exactly that looks like, and how it could be corrupted or abused.

You sue both. The department has deeper pockets to remedy the harm that has been done, but the individual who violated your rights should be made to pay as well.

Mostly, but that’s a whole different topic, that media is entertainment, most especially telivised media, and it needs to be exciting and engaging, even if it gives an entirely skewed view of the world.

You could have a nearly perfect world in every way, but you’d still be able to find enough negative material to fill a nightly news broadcast, meaning that your audience will never perceive a change in the amount of negative material they are being presented with.

The problems there are in many ways more complex and intransigent than the issues of police abusing their positions, and certainly outside the scope of this thread. Could be an interesting spin-off if anyone is interested.

Eh, I don’t know that we need more cops. Get rid of ticketing as a revenue source and traffic stops as a pretense for catching someone with drugs, and you cut the number of needed uniforms substantially. Have actual appropriate services respond to people in mental health crises, rather than people with at most a couple seminars knowledge in how to deal with it, with violence being their only and easy alternative.

Would the city of Memphis have been better or worse off if these 5 individuals were never on the force, and their positions never filled?

Having an unmarked car for “scouting” is reasonable. But they should not make stops or arrests. If someone needs to be approached, it should be done by someone in as official and obvious markings as possible.

Armed men in plain clothes coming out of an unmarked car and demanding you to get out of your car is a car-jacking.

I would argue that having paramilitary organizations like this actually increases crime, as it causes the people it oppresses to lose any respect for law enforcement, so they ignore laws they don’t care about, as well as enforce laws the police don’t.

Over policing doesn’t lower crime, it just criminalizes more things. If a teen in a middle class neighborhood is caught smoking weed, the cops are probably going to call their parents. If a teen in one of these over policed neighborhoods gets caught, they will probably be arrested. This can have a severe impact on someone’s life, closing a lot of potential doors for having a successful future.

Even as, and maybe especially as an adult, having an encounter with the police can destroy your life. If I had a traffic stop that escalated into me spending the night in jail, that would be fairly damaging. If I spent more than a few days, It’d be catastrophic. If I was incarcerated for a couple months, I’d have to start my life back over with nothing but debts and a criminal record.

As I said, it needs to be codified into legislation by congress. It’s all based on case law and precedent, which leaves the question of whether something is covered by qualified immunity in a permanent “it depends” category.

It would be complex legislation, but in the end, it could actually simplify things.

Unless one of those people used their position to violate your constitutional rights.

People winning against the city can be waived away as the city settling with them to make them go away. If the person or persons directly involved in the violation are part of the suit, then they will be forced to acknowledge liability. From a punishment as deterrence perspective, if discourages cops, or any officials for that matter, from abusing their position, as they may be personally financially punished for doing so. From a victim or family of victim perspective, this may provide some level of closure.

The FBI could do that. Or Homeland Security.

Yeah, and it is something that could lead to a shoot out. In this case, it led to thugs killing a man for who maybe a ticket might be in order.

I mean, if an unmarked SUV pulled you over and guys in black hoodies with guns piled out?

You are quite possibly right. Clearly it was a very Bad Idea.

Everyone Can we drop the Qualified Immunity thing in this thread? It has nothing directly to do with what happened, and could be a good debate in another thread. It’s kinda a hijack.

I can see Congress authorizing that…without increasing the FBI’s budget.

I just read per Yahoo that two of the cops were only hired after Memphis lowered their hiring standards.

See, that is clearly an issue.

And what about the others? Those hired before lowering their standards.

Apparently their hiring standards were already bad enough to let a “few bad apples” through.

It seems protests asking for change to the systemic problems the police are foisting on their communities are called for, even if these particular individuals are held accountable.

What were the specific standards that were lowered? If it’s physical ability, then maybe that’s not a bad thing. It might be better if cops had to rely on something other than physical strength when dealing with the public. Is it education standards? I know lots of kind people who could make decent cops, but don’t have a college degree.

Hiring standards make little difference. The qualities they select for once someone comes in the door for an interview are much more important, and I’ll be they still look favorably at authoritarian personalities.

Think about that for a moment. Mace, tasers, and clubs would fit that criteria.

…nah.

Consider the source. Consider the narrative. The “they were diversity hires” is a tired, lazy, racist trope that they are using here for obvious reasons.

And if you think about it for more than a moment, I’m sure you can come up with better approaches to policing than that.

As Action 5 News reported, MPD recruits no longer needed an associate’s degree or 54 college credit hours, and could just get by with only five years of work experience.

In 2021 and 2022, recruitment was struggling so badly that the department offered $15,000 signing bonuses. Last year, the department also reportedly lowered the fitness requirements, doing away with the timed physical ability test. The department even offered waivers for felons to join the force, according to the New York Post.

Who said that? Nothing indicates that. Memphis just lowered their standards for recruitment.

…everything indicates that.

When I clicked on the cite that you provided I got a pop-up that said that they: “take on corrupt politicians, the far-left, and the corrupt corporate media.”

That doesn’t inspire any confidence that your cite is anything but clickbait.

But from your cite:

I mean, that isn’t objectively a bad thing, right? Does anyone think that having an associates degree would have prevented this? Or 54 college credit hours?

Plenty of people with only five years of work experience don’t go out and beat somebody to death on the job.

And that’s it.

There is nothing else.

Did these officers actually have associates degrees? Who knows? The reporting was so lazy that they didn’t even bother to find out.

The agenda here is so blatantly obvious that the Professor of Obvious at Obvious University, but has moved on and is now working for the UN at the High Commission of International Obvious Planning would have noticed it.

Mandatory LEO malpractice/liability insurance has been floated on these boards before. I’ve always thought it was an interesting idea.

~Max

Like as in, Hey if I beat an innocent citizen to death, I’ve got a policy that covers that?

I was thinking the exact same thing. You don’t go to college to learn how not to murder people. Usually the curriculum has more of an academic focus.

The New York Post does say that they were offering waivers to convicted felons. I’ll say that I am in favor of offering opportunities to people with prior convictions, but I’m not so sure about law enforcement.

Taxpayers paying group insurance premiums would not be much different from taxpayers paying large settlements. Is the idea that the insurance would be on an individual basis, and a private insurance company might be better than police departments at identifying specific “high risk” individuals and denying them coverage - and effectively kicking them out of the force?

As in, now there’s a set of commercial entities that have a financial incentive to keep track of your misconduct, and to price bad apples out of the field.

~Max

…yeah, but again, this would only be relevant if any of the five were convicted felons.

Cities and counties have this kind of liabiliity insurance in case someone sues them, maybe it could work for individuals officers too.

No argument from me. There is probably no relevance at all to this particular case. I’m just saying that’s the only part of the relaxed requirements that stands out to me as a potential problem for the department as a whole.

I’m opposed to pretty much any fixed criteria for hiring. Sure, there are plenty of former felons that are not suitable for law enforcement. But some are, and rigid policies eliminate those too. People should be judged by their own specific circumstances.

The problem is when their means of judging who will be a good cop are shit, the people they hire will be shit. That’s what needs a change in standards, not some generic physical test or education requirement.

It’s a terrible idea. Offer them protection for their actions? The goal is to get them to stop beating people, not simply ensure payment for the beaten.

I kind of like the idea that all citizen payouts come from the police pension fund and directly reduce the pension amounts all officers receive. I think you’d see a big change in how many officers are willing to cover for others’ bad behavior.