Why cops and their unions don't care about the public

[SteveG1]

@Steophan

So, you think it’s wrong for people who aren’t expecting a police raid to shoot the cops who are performing the raid? That’s a good start. Hopefully all the other nutjobs here will agree.

I think YOU are the nut job here. Look how long it took for you to stop putting those “kill da police” words in my mouth.

Now, do YOU understand how, fi they do a no knock on my house - instead of next door - due to a typo or a deliberately false statement to a judge, I might get upset JUST A LITTLE?

Do you understand my ummm “misgivings” about getting shot in my house, at night, during such a raid even if Ihave done nothing wrong and I try to comply?

They shot that one guy sixteen times for trying to show them the ID they demanded. Another wrong victim, they claim was shot multiple times through the door.

Do you understand the response of “oops your fault for being there we ain’t paying shit” would cause me to be back later with an army of news people feds, and lawyers? That I would never ever stop?

They raid the wrong house by mistake, or by gross negligence, or due to false statements BY A COP. They shoot the wrong guy. TOO OFTEN. And then the only way to get them to even pretend to do right by the victim is when the FBI and federal judges FORCE them to.

And you think that is acceptable risk? Get the fuck out.

In every other job in the world, if you fuck up bigly, or fuck up too much, you get FIRED. Why not the same for bad cops? Protect the good ones to the bitter end. But do SOMETHING about the bad ones, the badge heavy ones, the trigger happy ones.

[iiandyiiii]

@Steophan

Are you really not aware that warrants can’t be issued on a whim, they have to be approved by a judge? You seem to think that cops just show up randomly, guns blazing, and anyone with any sense knows that’s not the case.

This has nothing to do with what I’m saying.

You are not suggesting anything reasonable, you are suggesting that the police should not do their jobs as there’s a tiny possibility their instructions may be incorrect.

This has nothing to do with what I’m suggesting.

It’s abundantly clear that no amount of checks would be enough for you. Why don’t you come out and say that you think no-knock warrants generally are an unacceptable risk? There is no way to make them perfect, wasting hours or days failing to make them perfect is pointless. Either accept that sometimes they will go wrong or say they shouldn’t happen at all.

The same applies to everything. Nothing is without risk, a balance always must be found between safety and practicality.

I think no-knock warrants are overused, but I’m not going to say they should never be used – there may be circumstances in which they are appropriate. When they are used, I think there are common-sense procedures that should be implemented to provide additional checks beyond just the court’s check for the warrant, because I think there are too many mistakes made nowadays and I think that mistake-rate could be reduced.

But you’ve mischaracterized my argument again and again, and I no longer think you’re actually interested in real discussion and exchange of ideas on this issue. I really have put thought into it and made reasonable suggestions and all you do is mischaracterize them again and again and go after straw men.

It’s a real shame, especially when we’ve had worthwhile discussions before. I don’t know why you’re unwilling to have one at this time.

I’ll suggest one last time that maybe you could take a breath and consider that we might be reasonable people offering reasonable and thoughtful suggestions. Maybe it really is reasonable to think that the mistake-rate right now for no-knock raids is too high and could be improved, and maybe it really is reasonable to suggest that additional verifications by the cops executing the raid might be helpful.

[SteveG1]

@k9bfriender

Well, no, the purpose of conducting a raid is not to kill children, you just think of that as a bonus.

To be fair, you don’t just like seeing dead children, you also enjoy seeing them disfigured.

Don’t shoot them! Here, take this (a grenade). :smack:

[k9bfriender]

@Steophan

Why don’t you come out and say that you think no-knock warrants generally are an unacceptable risk? There is no way to make them perfect, wasting hours or days failing to make them perfect is pointless. Either accept that sometimes they will go wrong or say they shouldn’t happen at all.

I don’t know if iiandyiiii has said whether no-knock are unacceptable, but I have certainly said so in the cases of drug enforcement or other non-violent crimes. I don’t really care if they don’t get all the evidence that they needed, they should have had enough evidence to convict before they got the warrant anyway.

You got hostages or kidnapping victims or possibly a good known location on a serial killer or terrorist or something, then catching them by surprise is useful, and may save lives.

Catching a drug dealer by surprise just means that they don’t have as much time to get rid of evidence. So? Who cares? They aren’t going to be able to flush significant quantities of drugs down the toilet between the time you deliver your “announce and enter” warrant and the time you get to the bathroom. Really, if they are any sort of dealer in volume at all, it’s gonna take them several minutes to dispose of the evidence, and that is assuming that they are that organized. (Most drug dealers don’t get into the business because they have excellent skills that can be used in other place of the workforce.)

Worst case scenario if you disallow no-knocks for non-violent criminals is a few more drug dealers that don’t get convicted.

Are you really willing to trade the lives of innocent people and children in order to get a slightly higher conviction rate on low level drug dealers?

[Steophan]

@k9bfriender

I don’t really care if they don’t get all the evidence that they needed, they should have had enough evidence to convict before they got the warrant anyway.

If they had that they wouldn’t need the warrant :smack: You fucking moron.

[Steophan]

@SteveG1

In every other job in the world, if you fuck up bigly, or fuck up too much, you get FIRED. Why not the same for bad cops? Protect the good ones to the bitter end. But do SOMETHING about the bad ones, the badge heavy ones, the trigger happy ones.

Yes, that’s ostensibly the point of this thread. Get rid of the fucking unions that protect bad employees and fuck over good ones.

Instead, we’ve somehow got an argument about whether or not it’s OK to shoot the goof cops, and somehow I’m in the wrong for saying perhaps that’s a bad idea.

[k9bfriender]

@Steophan

If they had that they wouldn’t need the warrant :smack: You fucking moron.

Then they can get an announce and enter warrant. You do realize that there are other police procedures that can be followed other than no-knock entry, right?

My point is that before they should get a warrant that has that level of danger to both the cops and to the public, then they should have plenty of evidence to present to the judge.

You consider enough evidence for a no-knock warrant to be that someone called in a tip that they saw an occupant of the house smoking a joint. I think if they are going to break down your door, they need a bit more than that.

In any case, I directly answered the question that you asked, and you snipped it out in order to take a line out of context to pathetically try to insult me. I wonder if you will continue to think that your question has gone unanswered.

Are you sure you’re not a cop? You have to tell me if you’re a cop.

[Steophan]

@iiandyiiii

Maybe it really is reasonable to think that the mistake-rate right now for no-knock raids is too high and could be improved, and maybe it really is reasonable to suggest that additional verifications by the cops executing the raid might be helpful.

It’s quite clear that no-one is interested in reasonable suggestions, as every time I point out that the proposed extra checks will have consequences, because everything has consequences, I’m accused of everything from being unreasonable to wanting to see children die.

A reasonable amount of checks should be made. Where you and many others go wrong is deciding that, because some mistakes are made, there must not currently be a reasonable amount of checks. And not only that, but expecting individual cops to ignore the procedures and do additional checks that are not required or planned for. Both of those things are fucking ridiculous.

Mistakes will happen. The only way to prevent them is not to do anything in the first place. Yes, do a thorough investigation when a serious mistake happens, but if the investigation finds that the procedures were adequate, let that be the end of it.

[Steophan]

@k9bfriender

You consider enough evidence for a no-knock warrant to be that someone called in a tip that they saw an occupant of the house smoking a joint. I think if they are going to break down your door, they need a bit more than that.

Drug dealers are probably a bad example, but as long as prohibition continues they are going to be prosecuted.

A much better example would be non violent cyber-crime, where a vaguely competent criminal could destroy the evidence, or hide it beyond recovery, with a keypress. In that case, gathering evidence might well require seizing computers and drives unannounced.

Those are also the crimes that are probably easiest to hide from whoever lives with you, so the argument that everyone in the house would be expecting a raid falls down.

[Wolf333]

@Steophan

We are not talking about a slight inconvenience, we are talking about expecting SWAT teams to redo an entire investigation to make sure there’s been no mistake. Then someone else to recheck that. And so on.

Or, we accept that there will be some mistakes, and attempt to reduce them as much a we can without making it impossible for the police to do their job.

As nothing is perfect, and as the US is full of guns, sometimes people will get killed. When that happens, it needs to be investigated, and if anyone is professionally or legally responsible they need to be dealt with appropriately.

But we will never reach perfection, deal with it.

Actually, I’m talking about a simple task that is performed pizza delivery folks thousands of times per day.
Oh, and I’m far from being a military expert, but I was in for 23 years and your ideas about how the military works are just as wrong as everything else you’ve said here.

Let’s use a hypothetical:

If I were ordered to change a forward transmitter on the aircraft on spot A21, there are several things I’m going to check before I even leave the building. Then there are several more when I get to the spot. Oh, and one of the things that I will check is that it’s the right fucking aircraft.

If I do not do those checks, and I change a transmitter on the wrong aircraft, they are not going to say, “Hey, you were on the right spot, so everything is okay.” No, they are going to say “Are you an idiot? Why didn’t you verify the tail number?”

[iiandyiiii]

@Steophan

It’s quite clear that no-one is interested in reasonable suggestions, as every time I point out that the proposed extra checks will have consequences, because everything has consequences, I’m accused of everything from being unreasonable to wanting to see children die.

But this isn’t what you did. You didn’t suggest some possible issues (which would be entirely reasonable), you immediately insisted that it would be stupid and unworkable despite my willingness to actually discuss tweaks and alternate suggestions.

A reasonable amount of checks should be made.

Are you 100% certain that the current number of checks is enough? Is it unreasonable to think there’s some non-zero chance that more checks might help?

Where you and many others go wrong is deciding that, because some mistakes are made, there must not currently be a reasonable amount of checks.

Another bullshit straw man. I’ve said maybe there isn’t, not that there definitely isn’t.

And not only that, but expecting individual cops to ignore the procedures and do additional checks that are not required or planned for. Both of those things are fucking ridiculous.

And another. I’ve suggested possible new procedures, not ignoring any procedures.

Mistakes will happen. The only way to prevent them is not to do anything in the first place. Yes, do a thorough investigation when a serious mistake happens, but if the investigation finds that the procedures were adequate, let that be the end of it.

This doesn’t dispute anything I’ve said.

I’m still trying, but maybe it’s a total wasted effort. Maybe you’re just unwilling to even consider that there might be some tiny shred of reasonableness in anything I’ve said.

If so, what a shame. I thought you were capable of reasonable discussion even when we disagreed. So far, you’re proving me wrong.

[begbert2]

@Steophan

A reasonable amount of checks should be made. Where you and many others go wrong is deciding that, because some mistakes are made, there must not currently be a reasonable amount of checks. And not only that, but expecting individual cops to ignore the procedures and do additional checks that are not required or planned for. Both of those things are fucking ridiculous.

So what you’re saying is that cops NEVER go to a different house than what’s on the warrant or what they received the call for, because double-checking that is really simple and thus a fully justified procedure that they clearly already have in place and follow to the letter.

Well, that or you’re saying that they do occasionally go to the wrong house, but always deliberately and with the intent to murder innocent people.

Got it.

[SteveG1]

@Steophan

Yes, that’s ostensibly the point of this thread. Get rid of the fucking unions that protect bad employees and fuck over good ones.

Instead, we’ve somehow got an argument about whether or not it’s OK to shoot the goof cops, and somehow I’m in the wrong for saying perhaps that’s a bad idea.

As long as we agree I wasn’t the one who supports cop killing.

The unions are supposed to be there, to protect the cops from bad policies and bad management decisions, and to generally protect their interests. When they are used for protecting and reinstating bad cops - unqualified, untrainable, bullies, the “really really scared” ones who want to shoot right away, the corrupt ones, or the just plain unhinged ones, they need to be fixed or they need to go.

There is something horribly wrong, if someone with a documented record of numerous excessive force, or inability to follow simple direction, or corruption, can get protected and/or reinstated.

That type should have never gotten the job. Departments have tests and screening, but they still sneak in. Well, get rid of them. And tighten up the screening process.

Cleveland policeman who shot Tamir Rice is fired, but not because of the...

Police Chief Calvin Williams announced that Timothy Loehmann was fired for having lied on his job application and not disclosing that he had resigned from his previous position as a police officer in Independence, Mo., to avoid being fired for insubordination, emotional immaturity, dishonesty and mishandling his gun. … “I am relieved Loehmann has been fired because he should have never been a police officer anyway,” … “It does make a difference why he was fired. They fired him for lying on his application. I wish they fired him for killing Tamir.”

Fired officer who shot Tamir Rice could be back at another police department

Fired Officer Who Shot Tamir Rice Could Be Back at Another Department…
But the axing is not necessarily a career-ender for Loehmann, legal experts said. The state has no regulations that bind fired cops, so Loehmann — who was terminated by the department Tuesday — can be back on the job at another department.

Loehmann hid the fact that he had an “emotional breakdown” during a state qualification course, and that his former employer, the Independence Police Department, concluded he was unable “to emotionally function” in a job application for Cleveland’s police force. But this omission is not grounds for decertification in Ohio. … The Commission confirmed to NBC News that Loehmann has not been decertified and still carries a license to be an officer.

Case in point. He should have washed out, and stayed out.

[Scumpup]

@Steophan

It’s quite clear that no-one is interested in reasonable suggestions, as every time I point out that the proposed extra checks will have consequences, because everything has consequences, I’m accused of everything from being unreasonable to wanting to see children die.

I, for one, appreciate how you are reminding everyone what a frustrating, bullshit waste of time The Dio Show was. If you’re going to adopt this schtick as your own, I hereby propose that we officially rename this kind of trolling The Steophan Show.
Fish gotta fly, birds gotta swim, Steophan gotta chug that LE cock.

[UCBearcats]

@SteveG1

As long as we agree I wasn’t the one who supports cop killing.

The unions are supposed to be there, to protect the cops from bad policies and bad management decisions, and to generally protect their interests. When they are used for protecting and reinstating bad cops - unqualified, untrainable, bullies, the “really really scared” ones who want to shoot right away, the corrupt ones, or the just plain unhinged ones, they need to be fixed or they need to go.

There is something horribly wrong, if someone with a documented record of numerous excessive force, or inability to follow simple direction, or corruption, can get protected and/or reinstated.

That type should have never gotten the job. Departments have tests and screening, but they still sneak in. Well, get rid of them. And tighten up the screening process.

Cleveland policeman who shot Tamir Rice is fired, but not because of the 12-year-old's death

Police Chief Calvin Williams announced that Timothy Loehmann was fired for having lied on his job application and not disclosing that he had resigned from his previous position as a police officer in Independence, Mo., to avoid being fired for insubordination, emotional immaturity, dishonesty and mishandling his gun. … “I am relieved Loehmann has been fired because he should have never been a police officer anyway,” … “It does make a difference why he was fired. They fired him for lying on his application. I wish they fired him for killing Tamir.”

Fired Officer Who Shot Tamir Rice Could Be Back at Another Department

Fired Officer Who Shot Tamir Rice Could Be Back at Another Department…
But the axing is not necessarily a career-ender for Loehmann, legal experts said. The state has no regulations that bind fired cops, so Loehmann — who was terminated by the department Tuesday — can be back on the job at another department.

Loehmann hid the fact that he had an “emotional breakdown” during a state qualification course, and that his former employer, the Independence Police Department, concluded he was unable “to emotionally function” in a job application for Cleveland’s police force. But this omission is not grounds for decertification in Ohio. … The Commission confirmed to NBC News that Loehmann has not been decertified and still carries a license to be an officer.

Case in point. He should have washed out, and stayed out.

Great article how these fucking turds get rehired. How the DOJ or FBI doesn’t have a Clearinghouse that they have to go through is amazing.

How problem cops stay on Michigan's streets

[Steophan]

@begbert2

So what you’re saying is that cops NEVER go to a different house than what’s on the warrant or what they received the call for, because double-checking that is really simple and thus a fully justified procedure that they clearly already have in place and follow to the letter.

No, I’m saying that precisely that is what the cops performing the raid *should *be checking. It’s not up to them, when they are at the door (that they have checked matches the address on the warrant) to start questioning whether that address is actually the one the judge meant to have them raid, whether the informants were actually telling the truth to the detectives who asked the judge to sign the warrant, or any other things that should have been checked before they went out.

[Steophan]

@SteveG1

There is something horribly wrong, if someone with a documented record of numerous excessive force, or inability to follow simple direction, or corruption, can get protected and/or reinstated.

That type should have never gotten the job. Departments have tests and screening, but they still sneak in. Well, get rid of them. And tighten up the screening process.

This needs yo apply to every job, not just the police. Too many people here and elsewhere support the corrupt unions in general, because the consequences are somewhat hidden. Here, they are out in the open, but the police union aren’t doing anything other unions don’t.

Unions these days spend far too much time helping bad workers and harming good ones. Whatever you think needs to be done to rein in the police union should be done to the rest of them.

[Steophan]

@iiandyiiii

If so, what a shame. I thought you were capable of reasonable discussion even when we disagreed. So far, you’re proving me wrong.

You are not attempting to have a reasonable discussion, you are basically saying “something is wrong here so things must be changed” with no thought to the consequences. That attitude is why Trump was elected.

[Steophan]

@Scumpup

Fish gotta fly, birds gotta swim, Steophan gotta chug that LE cock.

And here come the homophobic insults, lovely.

I’ll have you know I’m quite capable of disagreeing with someone and also sucking them off.

[iiandyiiii]

@Steophan

You are not attempting to have a reasonable discussion, you are basically saying “something is wrong here so things must be changed” with no thought to the consequences. That attitude is why Trump was elected.

Again, where did I say that? I offered a possible suggestion, and I welcome discussion about it. But you dismissed it out of hand, even though it was entirely non-extreme, non-drastic, and as I described it, non-disruptive.