This got boring with a capital B and that rhymes with T and that stands for troll.
The Steophan Show suffers from the same problem The Dio Show did. There’s never any character development.
People getting shot in their bed is not acceptable. It may be something that happens, but it should not be considered “the price we pay”. We should do what we can to minimize or even eliminate such things, and taking any step towards improving that system is seen by you as wishing to do away with laws and cops and judges.
Like I’ve said a couple of times, just eliminating no-knocks for non-violent crimes would reduce the butcher’s bill considerably. Double checking the warrant would help as well. You do realize that many of these raids are on the wrong address, right? That the warrant specified an address that the police did not go to. But you don’t want the police to take a few seconds to double check the warrant against the house they are at, if they bust down the wrong door and kill the innocent civilians inside, then that’s just “the price we pay”.
And I have pointed out that the shootings are almost always investigated by the shooter’s friends and colleagues. Not the best way to get a fair assessment of the situation. The only times the victims get any sort of recompense or justice is when the federal govt gets involved.
Since you agree that the labor law protections wouldn’t exist if unions had not fought for them, why do you think that labor law protections would continue to exist if unions stopped fighting for them? As labor unions have gotten weaker, labor law protection has gotten weaker as well. People are just completely blatantly breaking labor laws these days, as they know that there is little that an employee can do about it.
Police union is a bit different than the other labor unions. Police are a bit different than most other jobs. The problem is not that the union advocates for bad cops, even bad cops deserve representation, the problem is, is that unlike virtually any other union, the police union can hold the city completely hostage to its demands. Don’t reinstate this cop who was convicted of sexually abusing a woman in his patrol car, your city descends into anarchy.
Unions are not some nebulous foreign entity that is imposed from afar, unions are made of the union members. If the cops did not want to work with corrupt, incompetent, or otherwise unfit cops, they would go to their union and vote for leaders who would not insist that bad cops stay on. Unfortunately, enough cops are willing to turn a blind eye to their corrupt colleagues that the union protects them.
The discussion, such as it is, started from the claim that cops should be checking and rechecking the warrant whilst they are at the door waiting to break it down. What you think should happen before the team even goes out is irrelevant, and the reason I gave assumed you are discussing what should be done immediately prior to entering the house is because THAT IS WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT.
Also, any checks are inherently disruptive, even if the disruption is minor. This is exactly what I mean about you constantly ignoring the consequences.
The reason I keep talking about wanting to redo the investigation is that is the only way the warrant could have been shown to be wrong in the case where the baby was hit by a flash bang. IF the deputy who claimed the suspect lived there, based on her informant, had been telling the truth, the raid would have been fine.
Discussions naturally branch out into many different related topics and side-topics. I suggested a specific alternative, and you constantly (and you’re still doing it!) mischaracterized it. Why not just address what I’ve actually said? Okay, maybe it would very slightly disruptive in some circumstances – but I think that small amount of disruption, which about an hour of work would only very occasionally provide, would be worth a significant reduction in the mistakes made, which I think my suggestion might also provide.
So how about it? Why don’t we look at the mostly non-disruptive and mostly very easy checks that I’ve suggested? Feel free to ask any questions about it. All I’m asking for is a reasonable discussion, not rote dismissal. Unless you believe there’s no possibility of reasonable and rational discussion and disagreement.
Actually, I CAN and I DO. What other unions routinely protect people who are authorized to use deadly force as a means to force compliance, and then misuse it? What other unions routinely fight for bad cops who by rights should have gone to federal prison, (for MURDER in the worst cases)?
The Teamsters, the Electricians union, the AFGE, etc don’t repeatedly fight to reinstate people who have committed extortion, frame-ups, excessive force, brutality, and murder.
YOU are the hypocrite, with your “but other people/unions do it too.” The problem is the police unions. Plain and simple. We see right through you.
That literally makes you a hypocrite. If it’s wrong for the police union to do it, it’s wrong for all unions to do it, and if it’s fine for other unions to do it, it’s fine for the police union to do it.
If that’s the case you’ll have no problem with banning all unions from doing those things.
Obviously the problem is police unions, as we’re talking about the police… But it’s hypocritical to say it’s fine for other unions to act in a certain way, but not the police.
I have done so, every time I’ve responded to you. But your vague posts, constant goalpost shifting, and refusal to acknowledge that actions have consequences - still, in your last post, you dismiss the idea that the consequences could possibly matter - prevent any reasonable discussion.
I’ll ask it straight out, so there can be no confusion. When the SWAT team are at the door of the address on the warrant, about to kick it in, what extra checks beyond ensuring the address of the house matches the warrant, should they take?
If a medicine cures 99% of people but kills 1% of them, and is for a disease that destroys their ability to function, should it be banned? Because that is exactly equivalent to what you are saying.
The first is a political question, and not the business of the police. The second is something I’ve continually advocated in this thread. Try to keep up.
That’s simply not true.
The employee can take the employer to court. That’s how these things are supposed to be dealt with. Unions can, and do, pay for that
Many unions can fuck up a city. It may be less direct and immediate than with the police, but what you claim only the police do is what all unions are designed to do - get things for their members and fuck everyone else - it’s just more obvious with them.
They would soon find themselves without jobs if they tried that, at best. You are forgetting your complaint that the union controls the hiring and firing.
Does the swat team just magically appear at the front door, ready to kick it in?
If not, then there are plenty of steps before that happens where they care able to double check the detail of the warrant.
Why do you consider the only time that one could check on the details as being at the time the swat team is about to kick in the door?
I’m happy to talk about consequences. I’ll make it clear yet again – this is all I’m suggesting: I think there might be very easy and non-disruptive checks that police officers could do before they conduct raids that might minimize mistakes made by courts in warrants and such, and that perhaps such easy and mostly non-disruptive checks ought to be required. Not in the immediate seconds before a raid, but back in the office, hours and days before.
No idea. I stand with you against the nonexistent people advocating that SWAT teams perform special checks in the midst of or seconds before a raid. I’ve never suggested this and I don’t think anyone else has either.
I’ll give it one more chance, and you’ll probably disappoint me. How do you address the actual thing I’m suggesting – nothing else, just these words: I think there might be very easy and non-disruptive checks that police officers could do before they conduct raids that might minimize mistakes made by courts in warrants and such, and that perhaps such easy and mostly non-disruptive checks ought to be required. Not in the immediate seconds before a raid, but back in the office, hours and days before.
No, I’m saying that you shouldn’t give that medcine to healthy people.
The first is a political question sure, but it still does relate to the police. You made it relevant to the thread when you asked if I thought no-knock warrants should be eliminated. (Well, really demanded that I acknowledge that that was what I want.)
It is the business of the police, as they are the ones who actually carry out any warrants, and their voices are important in the political considerations as well. If the police piped up, and said, “Hey, delivering no-knocks on non-violent offenders is putting us in danger, potentially putting the public in danger when there are mistakes, and damaging our relationship with the community.” then they would be listened to, and the policies would be changed much more rapidly than when the police claim to have done no wrong, and that they have to have these tools, otherwise, the city will descend into chaos.
The second is not something you have advocated. You have advocated the exact opposite. You have advocated that when the police receive their no-knock warrant, they should just mechanically go to the address on the warrant and bust down the door. You do not condemn the actions of officers that bust down the wrong door, even if they are at an address that is not on the warrant, you instead condemn the people inside the home for defending themselves.
Don’t lie and say you have advocated for something that you have explicitly said that the cops do not need to do.
Okay then, you tell me who investigates a police shooting? You show me that it is not other police on the same force as the shooter. You show me that the prosecutor is not the same prosecutor that usually is questioning the officer in court in order to put someone else away.
You categorically deny that police get special treatment when they are investigated and prosecuted by their own?
If the employee can afford attorney fees, sure, they can take their employer to court. If they can afford a more expensive attorney than their employer can, then they may even manage to get a settlement that pays their attorney.
Without a union, an employee really has very few protections.
Most unions do not have the same negotiating power as the police do. A union stopping or slowing work may cost money, it may cost time. The police union stopping or slowing work will cost lives.
Do you not get that? Is there an easier way to explain it to you? You seem to acknowledge that police are more important than plumbers, but you don’t acknowledge that the police walking off the job is a bigger threat than plumbers walking off the job?
You claim that the union can fire police officers unilaterally? I doubt that very very much. Now, if you piss of the union, then you may not get as good representation in a controversial employment issue, but that’s about it.
You are absolutely wrong that the union controls firing, and pretty much entirely wrong about it controlling hiring too, but I’m not sure why you think that would matter to someone who has already been hired.
You are also forgetting that the union is made of union members. It is voted on by union members. If the union has policies or protections for bad cops, then the union members can vote for leaders who will advocate for policies that do not protect bad cops in their ranks.
Apparently there is a meaning of the term “seriously” with which I have not been familiar.
I don’t. That’s the whole fucking point of what I’ve been saying…
It’s never been in dispute – I’ve never suggested any checks (aside from making sure the address matches the warrant) that must be performed in the seconds prior to a raid. The checks I’ve suggested would be performed in the hours and days prior to the raid.
There may well be, in fact I’d be amazed if such checks weren’t performed already.
Such checks would make no difference in cases such as the ones we have been discussing here, such as teams going to a different address than the one on the warrant, or someone (in the specific case, a deputy sheriff) deliberately providing false information.
What specifically do you think could be caught by the easy and mostly non-disruptive checks you propose? The only one I can think of is clerical errors, and I’d be surprised if that isn’t already checked for (or at least, procedures exist that, if followed properly, would ensure it’s checked for).
With modern forensics, it doesn’t matter whether or not you give them time to flush the drugs; a simple analysis of a water sample from the bowl (which inevitably contains a significant residue of the pre-flush water, even after two or three flushes, much less the one flush they’d be able to do if the cops used the simple expedient of turning off the master water valve) is quite sufficient.
“The fact that stuff goes wrong does not prove that we are not sufficiently careful to prevent stuff from going wrong.”
Hokaaaayyyyy…
General problem with this argument: If it’s impossible to obtain evidence, how the hell are the cops going to know they should investigate, much less pull a stormtrooper raid, in the first place?
Specific cyber-crime problem with this argument: The raid will either catch the criminal asleep or otherwise not online, in which case the system will already be locked down and inaccessible (presuming a “vaguely compentent criminal” who has taken obvious security precautions), or else the raid will catch the criminal at the keyboard (in which case it will not be quick enough to prevent “a keypress” unless the cops can lock a transporter beam on him or some such thing).
Clerical errors may already be checked for, but they might not be checked by the actual SWAT team/cops involved (unless you have a cite otherwise), who have the most to lose. My experience and common sense tells me that those who have the most to lose do the most thorough checks and verifications.
But clerical errors can be extremely common, and may not just be typoes – maybe the wrong address was requested by the investigating cops/DA, maybe the investigators are relying on out-of-date information (say, an old address that’s now occupied by new residents) that a public-records search would catch, etc., and all of these could be caught by the checks I’m suggesting.
False positives happen. If a test is 98% successful, and has 1% false negatives and 1% false positives, would you still not give the medicine to those who test positive?
If the police felt that, I’m sure they would say that. But even if they did, the time to voice that concern is not during an approved raid.
No, I’ve repeatedly said that they should check that they are at the right address, and that people should not attack the police. The police doing their job is not something you have a right to defend against.
I won’t. I wish everyone else would live up to that standard.
It may be other police on the same force, it may be different local, state, or federal police. Equally, it may or may not be the same prosecutor depending on jurisdiction.
It may also be an internal investigation, or a private investigation prior to a civil suit. There are lots of possible options.
I’m sure it sometimes happens. The opposite has happened recently, where clear-cut cases of self defence have been sent to a grand jury when that wouldn’t have happened to a civilian.
If unions stuck to paying for lawyers, and ensuring that health and safety protections are followed and employees not put in danger, I’d have far less of a problem with them. But if someone has a decent case, they’ll be able to find someone to represent them, as it will be an easy payday for the lawyer.
Firstly, the police aren’t allowed to strike, so that’s irrelevant. Secondly, there are many other people who’s work is vital to life, if not so immediate. If construction workers fuck up, buildings collapse and people die. If electricians fuck up, power doesn’t get to hospitals and people die. If plumbers fuck up, people get poisoned by their water supply. I don’t want incompetent or malicious employees protected in any of those cases.
You are hilariously naive. They can’t unilaterally fire people, they can - and do - get people fired. And worse, people who go against unions get attacked and have their families threatened. Just look at what happens whenever people cross picket lines.
In many unions, there is rampant intimidation and vote fixing, not to mention that they control the hiring process to ensure only people who agree with them and will join the union as it stands can get a union job in the first place.