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

[iiandyiiii]

@Steophan

You are excluding a fucking enormous middle here, with your continued assumptions that anyone who doesn’t want to shoot cops on sight must worship the very ground they walk on.

I’m not making this assumption. I don’t believe this – there’s a lot of nuance on this issue. I think your nuance on this issue is monstrous and extremely harmful to people and to society.

Even if cops are doing their job badly, they are doing their job. Don’t shoot them, challenge it in court later. It’s neither difficult nor complicated to understand that.

Most of the time, I agree. Yet there are instances in which such easy-sounding rules will be impossible to safely implement. And I believe that if cops break down the wrong door and are shot in doing so, they bear most of the blame (or all of the blame in some circumstances – like if it’s late at night, or if they don’t continually and very, very clearly announce themselves).

And perhaps learn to recognise what a police uniform looks like. Again, not particularly difficult.

Most of the time, it won’t be. But there will be instances in which it isn’t possible in the moment, and instances in which criminals might have their own police uniforms.

The onus should be on the trained professionals – cops – to never break down the wrong doors. Any time they do, anyone involved – the cops who didn’t check the warrant, or didn’t check the warrant against the accusation, or didn’t check the public records against the warrant, plus the supervisors who didn’t check, etc. – should be fired and prosecuted.

Cops should be absolutely terrified of making such a colossal mistake. If they thought their careers and even their freedom was at risk, they probably never would. They’d be unbelievably careful and make sure they had the right house each and every time. Every cop on the team would personally want to check and make sure the warrant was correct, that it matched the number on the door, that the name in public records matched the name on the warrant, etc.

That’s the standard we should demand.

[Hocus_Pocus]

@Smapti

Tighten up the standards for when no-knock warrants can be executed.

Doesn’t that sound nice…

WTF do you mean (provide specifics)?

[Hocus_Pocus]

@UCBearcats

and the free Whoppers they get in uniform,

Most cops (especially veterans) know better than to eat at fast food joints in uniform. They’re afraid you’ll fuck with their food.

[UCBearcats]

@Hocus_Pocus

Most cops (especially veterans) know better than to eat at fast food joints in uniform. They’re afraid you’ll fuck with their food.

So they get extra special sauce for free. Bonus!!

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Steophan

Don’t shoot them, challenge it in court later.

Whoops! Sorry, you’re dead, and they won’t find your daughter’s cum-and-blood-stained corpse for another week! The person who burst in through your window at 5:30 AM was not, in fact, a law-abiding member of the local police force (despite his shouts of, “POLICE! DON’T RESIST!”), but was instead a child-raping serial killer! Better luck next time.

(Alternatively: Whoops! Sorry, you’re dead! The person who burst in through your window at 5:30 AM were the police, but they saw you holding a gun and hesitating, and the rookie shot you 11 times before his superior officer could finish saying, “POLICE! ON THE FLOOR!”. Oh, and someone flashbanged your infant for good measure, and no, they’re not going to pay the medical bills.)

It’s neither difficult nor complicated to understand that.

And I’m not going to rehash the fact that it is virtually impossible to convict a cop of nearly any crime. It’s hard to even fire bad cops. We couldn’t even get a murder conviction on Michael Slager, despite video evidence that he pulled his gun, aimed, and shot a fleeing civilian in the back. Expecting the court to punish the police is a fool’s errand. Expecting the court to be willing to restitute the damage the police did to you is not always a fool’s errand, but it’s often the case - the cops aren’t willing to foot the medical bills for the infant they maimed with a flashbang.

And perhaps learn to recognise what a police uniform looks like. Again, not particularly difficult.

At 5:30 AM. In the dark (technically: “astronomical twilight”). With potentially seconds to spare before the person breaking into your home kills or incapacitates you. With absolutely no reason to believe that the police would raid your home.

Remember that last bit - it’s not like Marvin Guy was a crackhead who could expect the cops to come down on him. They didn’t find any drugs on the property. There was no evidence that he was dealing drugs, and only circumstantial evidence that he had, at some point, used marijuana. This was not a person expecting a no-knock, break-in-through-the-windows police raid. Like most people in the country, Guy was not expecting a raid from the police.

But it gets worse.

Home

An estimated 3.7 million household burglaries occurred each
year on average from 2003 to 2007. In about 28% of these
burglaries, a household member was present during the burglary.
In 7% of all household burglaries, a household member
experienced some form of violent victimization (figure 1).

https://www.cato.org/policy-report/novemberdecember-2008/should-no-knock-police-raids-be-rare-or-routine

In July 2006, I wrote the Cato White Paper Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids, a study of 180 botched raids. Since that paper came out, there have been a couple dozen more botched raids. The raids themselves are not rare occurrences. One criminologist says they occur to 40,000 to 50,000 people per year in this country. The vast majority of those are to serve drug warrants, and the vast majority of those are to serve warrants on nonviolent offenders.

So if you notice people people breaking into your house, what are the odds that it’s a no-knock raid?

1/75.

If we want to be generous, and assume the cops only raid when you’re at home, we can say 1/21.

If we want to be really generous, and just ignore all the home invasions that don’t end with violent victimization of someone within the house (i.e. the cases where a violent response is absolutely justified in retrospect), then the number we come up with is… 1/5.25

That is, if you are the subject of something which you cannot immediately distinguish between a home invasion and a no-knock raid, you are more than five times as likely to subject someone in your household to violent victimization if you simply surrender as you advocate.

Of course, this is ignoring that most people will generally know whether or not they’re at risk for a police raid. Guy probably didn’t think that, given that the raid was based on the idea that he was dealing cocaine, and there was no drugs found on the premises (and the paraphenelia didn’t imply cocaine either). So that’s another problem.

[Steophan]

@iiandyiiii

And I believe that if cops break down the wrong door and are shot in doing so, they bear most of the blame (or all of the blame in some circumstances – like if it’s late at night, or if they don’t continually and very, very clearly announce themselves).

You don’t get to shoot them whether or not it’s the right door. I’m assuming you are talking about a warrant that contains an error, or one that has been misread by the cops. They are still doing their jobs in that case.

If there is no warrant, no probable cause, and it’s just cops breaking down your door for shits and giggles, then yeah, they are home invaders in that case. That may well have actually happened at some point, but none of the cases referred to in these threads have been like that.

The whole point of these no-knock warrants and early morning raids and such is to allow searches or arrests without giving the suspect chance to destroy evidence or escape. Saying the police are to blame when doing a necessary part of their job is ridiculous.

[Steophan]

@UCBearcats

If a cop is doing their job poorly, the person might not be able to challenge it in court due to being DEAD!

The answer to that is not to suggest shooting cops who are doing their jobs, however poorly.

You ready to take back your false claim about me yet, or are you still going to ignore that?

[iiandyiiii]

Way to ignore the rest of my post. It’s perfectly reasonable to have very high standards for cops in their use of tactics like no-knock raids.

@Steophan

You don’t get to shoot them whether or not it’s the right door. I’m assuming you are talking about a warrant that contains an error, or one that has been misread by the cops. They are still doing their jobs in that case.

Cops can still double-check warrants to the facts of the case, and to public records, to verify that they’re actually at the right house.

That’s a standard we should demand. If they fail to do this, and get it wrong, they should be fired and prosecuted. And if they get shot in doing so, they bear most or all of the blame.

The whole point of these no-knock warrants and early morning raids and such is to allow searches or arrests without giving the suspect chance to destroy evidence or escape. Saying the police are to blame when doing a necessary part of their job is ridiculous.

Double and triple-checking to make sure they have the right door is (or should be) part of the job of the cops. If they fail to do so, and get the wrong house, then they bear most or all of the blame for what happens.

Why are you so unwilling to demand higher standards for the cops? Shouldn’t they double and triple check warrants to records every single time? If they don’t, shouldn’t they be fired and prosecuted for endangering themselves and the public?

[UCBearcats]

@Steophan

The answer to that is not to suggest shooting cops who are doing their jobs, however poorly.

You ready to take back your false claim about me yet, or are you still going to ignore that?

What do you consider to be a false claims?

[Steophan]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Whoops! Sorry, you’re dead, and they won’t find your daughter’s cum-and-blood-stained corpse for another week! The person who burst in through your window at 5:30 AM was not, in fact, a law-abiding member of the local police force (despite his shouts of, “POLICE! DON’T RESIST!”), but was instead a child-raping serial killer! Better luck next time.

If they’re not a cop, then you can defend yourself. This isn’t a complicated matter.

(Alternatively: Whoops! Sorry, you’re dead! The person who burst in through your window at 5:30 AM were the police, but they saw you holding a gun and hesitating, and the rookie shot you 11 times before his superior officer could finish saying, “POLICE! ON THE FLOOR!”. Oh, and someone flashbanged your infant for good measure, and no, they’re not going to pay the medical bills.)

So don’t threaten the cops with a gun, this still isn’t complicated.

And I’m not going to rehash the fact that it is virtually impossible to convict a cop of nearly any crime. It’s hard to even fire bad cops. We couldn’t even get a murder conviction on Michael Slager, despite video evidence that he pulled his gun, aimed, and shot a fleeing civilian in the back. Expecting the court to punish the police is a fool’s errand. Expecting the court to be willing to restitute the damage the police did to you is not always a fool’s errand, but it’s often the case - the cops aren’t willing to foot the medical bills for the infant they maimed with a flashbang.

Slager is awaiting sentencing for the crime he actually committed, to which he pleaded guilty. Your claim that cops almost never get convicted is demonstrably false.

It’s also false that the parents of Bounkham Phonesavah haven’t been compensated, they were awarded $3.6 million.

I agree that it’s too hard to fire bad cops, the same as it’s always too hard to fire bad employees in unionised jobs. There’s an obvious solution, but it’s one that leftie idiots like you always object to, despite the consequences

That is, if you are the subject of something which you cannot immediately distinguish between a home invasion and a no-knock raid, you are more than five times as likely to subject someone in your household to violent victimization if you simply surrender as you advocate.

I’m not advocating “surrender”, unless you consider allowing yourself to be legally detained or arrested as surrender. I’m saying don’t shoot cops who are doing their jobs.

Of course, this is ignoring that most people will generally know whether or not they’re at risk for a police raid. Guy probably didn’t think that, given that the raid was based on the idea that he was dealing cocaine, and there was no drugs found on the premises (and the paraphenelia didn’t imply cocaine either). So that’s another problem.

You are ignoring that most people will generally know what a police uniform looks like. Still. For no reason whatsoever.

[Steophan]

@iiandyiiii

Cops can still double-check warrants to the facts of the case, and to public records, to verify that they’re actually at the right house.

That’s a standard we should demand. If they fail to do this, and get it wrong, they should be fired and prosecuted. And if they get shot in doing so, they bear most or all of the blame.

Prosecuted for what, exactly? Even for firing, it needs to be the one actually responsible - so, if the warrant had a mistake on it but the cops actually carrying out the raid follow it to the letter they are utterly blameless.

And no, they don’t bear any blame for being shot whilst doing their job. Even if they’re doing it badly. You don’t get to resist arrest even if the arrest is illegal. You don’t get to shoot cops because you don’t believe they have a warrant. You deal with it later in court, and no-one, neither you or the cops, are harmed.

Double and triple-checking to make sure they have the right door is (or should be) part of the job of the cops. If they fail to do so, and get the wrong house, then they bear most or all of the blame for what happens.

That’s simply false. The person who shoots a cop who is doing their job bears the blame.

Why are you so unwilling to demand higher standards for the cops? Shouldn’t they double and triple check warrants to records every single time? If they don’t, shouldn’t they be fired and prosecuted for endangering themselves and the public?

Not for that particular crime, no, as they’re not actually doing that, they are attempting to make the public safer. What about that do you not get?

If they were truly reckless, that may well be a crime, and if they were merely incompetent they should be at best carefully retrained and monitored, or if that’s not reasonable or realistic sacked. But they shouldn’t be punished for something they didn’t in fact do.

[Steophan]

@UCBearcats

What do you consider to be a false claims?

Don’t be an idiot. You’ve repeatedly claimed that I could only possibly hold the positions I do due to being a cop, which is false on every level.

[Scumpup]

At this point, it should be obvious to all of you that Steophan is trolling you.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Steophan

If they’re not a cop, then you can defend yourself. This isn’t a complicated matter.

You know, you act like you speak english, so I’m not going to explain this to you again. If you’re that fucking stupid, there’s no point in communicating with you. Either **Scumpup **is right or you’re the dumbest poster on the board other than maybe Clothahump.

[iiandyiiii]

@Steophan

Prosecuted for what, exactly? Even for firing, it needs to be the one actually responsible - so, if the warrant had a mistake on it but the cops actually carrying out the raid follow it to the letter they are utterly blameless.

Everyone involved is responsible. I served in the Navy. We learned that every big mistake is preventable, and almost always involved multiple smaller mistakes in the lead up. For example – suppose there’s an accidental death due to heavy machinery on a navy vessel. This happened because person A (the technical documentation librarian), responsible for updating technical procedures, forgot to put a new update he received into the procedural manual and get rid of the old pages. Person B (the maintenance supervisor) forgot to check that the procedure was the latest version. Person C, who actually did the procedure, also forgot to check that the procedure was the latest version, and didn’t use his own mechanical and machinery knowledge to ensure that all personnel were clear of the area that could be at risk of injury. All of these mistakes were preventable, and failure to follow procedures that mandate these checks was punishable with severe consequences up to and including jail time.

Similarly, for a no-knock warrant that is for the wrong door, there are multiple points at which the mistake could have been prevented – the investigators and/or court officers who requested or issued the wrong information for the warrant, and the police officers and supervisor who didn’t do homework and match the warrant to the case information and to public records for who lives where (and other available information).

Why is it so wrong to demand that cops actually check records against warrants before they go ahead with a no-knock warrant? Why are you so resistant to higher standards?

IMO, the law should be changed (if it doesn’t already account for this) such that cops’ failure to double-check warrants against public records is a felony.

And no, they don’t bear any blame for being shot whilst doing their job.

Checking warrants for mistakes is (or should be) doing their job. Breaking down the wrong doors is not their job.

Even if they’re doing it badly. You don’t get to resist arrest even if the arrest is illegal. You don’t get to shoot cops because you don’t believe they have a warrant. You deal with it later in court, and no-one, neither you or the cops, are harmed.

And once again your philosophy fails to account for criminals who pretend to be cops (this has actually happened!) or for circumstances in which the cops are not identifiable by the homeowners.

These might be rare occurences, but they’re still possible things that could happen in real life.

That’s simply false. The person who shoots a cop who is doing their job bears the blame.

Yes, put no blame on professionals who make idiotic mistakes. God you’re easy on the cops. Would you be so easy on them if they broke your door down and killed a family member because of their own idiocy? Wouldn’t you have rather shot them so that your family member would still be alive?

Not for that particular crime, no, as they’re not actually doing that, they are attempting to make the public safer. What about that do you not get?

If they’re not checking warrants, they’re not making the public safer. Failing to do their homework is making the public less safe.

If they were truly reckless, that may well be a crime, and if they were merely incompetent they should be at best carefully retrained and monitored, or if that’s not reasonable or realistic sacked. But they shouldn’t be punished for something they didn’t in fact do.

The law should be changed such that high standards are demanded and there are legal consequences for failing to meet them.

Suppose a family member of yours was killed due to police idiocy. Wouldn’t you want to know that cops are raising their standards to make this less likely? Would you object to legal requirements that mandated high standards, with felonies for penalties for not meeting them?

[UCBearcats]

@Steophan

Don’t be an idiot. You’ve repeatedly claimed that I could only possibly hold the positions I do due to being a cop, which is false on every level.

Ok you are not a cop, you are just an idiot who thinks a cop’s life is more important than a regular citizen.

[Clothahump]

@UCBearcats

It has become apparent to me in the several threads regarding cops and their impact on society how little they and their unions actually care about the citizens in their community.

There is one cop who keeps claiming that anything a cop does is ok. A citizen should never resist or defend against the cop as he or she is just doing their job. The only recourse is to go to court afterward if you are not dead first.

There is another thread regarding pensions. Cops (and firefighters and sanitation workers and others) are bankrupting cities with generous pensions that are still structured from 100 years ago when the retiree would only collect for 15-20 years instead of 30-40.

There are numerous other posts pointing out the “crimes” committed by the people in blue that do not results in loss of job, pension or freedom to those who are supposed to protect us. The common thread throughout all of these are the entitlement mindset of cops, the reluctance of them to make the right decision and turn in dirty and rogue cops, and the union to not think what is in the best interest of all and have a collaborative view point.

Bullshit much?

Police officers do not have an “entitlement mentality”. Is there an “us vs. them” mentality? Sadly, yes, but it is quite understandable. I don’t know what you do for a living, but if your profession meant that people would try to kill you simply because you worked in that profession, you’d develop the same mentality.

As far as the pensions go…hey, if the city or county or state devised the pension plan, why are you complaining about the officers who went to work under that plan and then retired?

[iiandyiiii]

@Scumpup

At this point, it should be obvious to all of you that Steophan is trolling you.

I’m starting to think that you’re right. I’ll try to stop taking the bait.

[Steophan]

I’m sure you would have done well in the Navy if every time you were given an order you got out the manual to check it was given according to the proper procedure, Googled the place you were ordered to go to to confirm it was what your commanding officer actually said it was, and otherwise fucked about instead of doing your job.

It’s not the job of officers actually performing a raid to check that the address on that warrant matches particular records, it’s their job to do the raid. You are, once again, targeting the wrong people.

And even if, through a genuine mistake, reckless disregard, or outright malice, they kick down the wrong door you still don’t get to shoot them. Because you have no way of knowing, nor no reason to assume they are wrong, or that they are a threat.

[Steophan]

@Scumpup

At this point, it should be obvious to all of you that Steophan is trolling you.

It’s trolling to say police uniforms are easily recognisable, and that you shouldn’t shoot cops who are doing their job? It’s ridiculous to say that those are not reasonable and extremely common positions to take, to the point that on any board that wasn’t full of people who are insanely left wing it would be trolling to take the opposite view.