Crimes should be charged more seriously, not less, when they're committed by police. This is only reasonable - any crime committed by an on-duty officer is inherently more harmful that the same crime committed by a civilian, because in addition to the damage of the actual crime, the officer's commission of it also does harm to the public trust in the police and our society.
Beyond that, the police should be held to a higher standard because we as a society acknowledge that they are trained well enough to walk around with guns and the ability to deprive people of their freedom (even those who are innocent - if you're locked in a cell and later not charged, you don't get that time you spent in a cell back). We should be able to charge Chauvin with first degree murder despite a lack of premeditation, because he was trained to know not to do precisely what he did. If I kneel on a guy's neck and kill him unintentionally it's manslaughter, but if a cop does it, it should be worse because that cop should be expected to know that doing so is not an acceptable form of restraint.
I agree. An arrest on its own, even without a conviction or even any charges being laid, can have an enormous negative effect on one's life. Another example is that having been ever arrested, even if not charged or convicted, can bar you from entering the US without going through an expensive, difficult, discretionary process to get a waiver, that then needs to be periodically redone. And it follows you for the rest of your life, it does not expire for example 30 or 50 years after the arrest.
I’ve applied to companies who ask on their application whether you have ever been arrested, regardless of conviction—presumably as a way to disqualify you.
100%. It's crazy to act as though a fair trial (even if you can get one of those, which you probably can't if you're black) somehow provides recourse against arrest. Beyond the time in jail, you might have to spend thousands and thousands on lawyers in order to avoid being punished for a crime you're not guilty of.
A police officer is allowed to "panic and fear for their life" and shoot me as a result. I, as a private citizen, am expected to remain cool, calm and composed in the face of multiple guns in my face.
Even more mundane things: if I break a law, "ignorance is no excuse". When cops arrest photographers for shooting in public spaces, I have literally heard government officials explain it away as "We cannot expect our police officers to be constitutional lawyers".
I as a private citizen, am expected to remain cool, calm and composed in the face of multiple guns in my face.
Have you seen that scene from the demonstration in Salt Lake City, where MAGA-man pointed a hunting bow at demonstrators? He was taken down and handed over to law enforcement unharmed. The bystanders displayed extraordinary restraint, no doubt because everything was filmed, and anyone who used deadly force would be harassed for the rest of their lives.
We'd like to see that same standard applied to cops.
This is what I read about that event. “In response, people at the protest tackled the man and attacked him. At least 15 people pinned the man against his vehicle to punch, kick and throw things at him. His face was left bloody and his vehicle was looted and flipped, according to 2News reporter Kelly Vaughen“
There need to be consequences for threatening people with a deadly weapon. An overturned truck is mild in such a situation. I'd have expected at least a broken bone, but, no, only a bloody face. Try that with the cops.
This is not unharmed. You clearly knew about the case yet you deliberately obfuscated the facts until you were called out on it.
Instead of backpedaling own up to why you would try to distort the facts.
This is not to say the fellow with the bow and arrow isn't a complete imbecile, and didn't deserve what was coming. On that I have no view.
Wow, that guy is lucky he didn't accidently flag a cop with his bow; they would have beat him with truncheons, pepper sprayed him, then killed him with a blood choke!
> According to video captured by TheBlaze's Elijah Schaffer, violent protesters descended on the man after he chased looters with a large sword. The man did not, however, attack the looters.
In my world, "chasing someone with a large sword" sounds like initiating a fight, no? Is the complaint that... he lost it? Because it seems clear that he started it.
A meta point: this is why you need to stay away from sites like The Blaze. The guy with the lethal weapon was "beaten", but it's the protestors who were "violent".
I mean I'm pretty sure that hitting someone with a fucking rock in the head with full force qualifies as "violent". I'm sure you wouldn't like it, sword or no sword. Nor would you like to protect your property from looters unarmed.
The article doesn't allege he was hit with a rock unbidden though. It says he was attacked after "chasing" "looters" with a sword. I'm sorry, but at that point combat has been engaged. Every 2A advocate here would agree that anyone in that circumstances would be entitled to stand their ground and fight back. And apparently they did.
So if looters get shot, that's OK in your book as well? Or, if a store owner catches a looter, would it be OK to "engage combat" and bash their head in with a rock? Best I can tell he was just chasing them away, he hasn't done harm to anybody.
If I see someone chasing another down with a quote, "large sword", then they turn and start running at me with this sword, I am sure that in that moment I would be afraid for my life. I think many if not most agree deadly force can be used in direct defense of your own life.
I would argue no person can know "the law" unless they have read it. All of it. Constitutions, statutes, case law / jurisprudence, common law, HOA bylaws, etc. for every jurisdiction they are in.
I have no expectation that the average police officer "knows the law", but that same problem should not be used against civilians.
It does stand, however, that an officer should be reprimanded for trying to enforce a law where they don't know the law.
I think that is the idea. If people can be convicted for breaking laws they don't know about, then cops can be convicted for enforcing laws that don't exist.
I'm a critic of all of the foundations of the US legal system, but I would want to know more about the effects of something like "abolish common law" before we jump right in.
I see that a little like someone yelling "let's abolish gravity" without stopping to consider: "what continues to exist if gravity no longer applies?"
I've spent more than a decade working in the courts. Also there is an entire section of the Wikipedia page on common law called "alternatives to common law systems".
Imagine a system in which every time you encounter a new problem or a new variation on a known problem, the only acceptable response is one which comports with what you've done before. That's common law.
A police officer may be required to put his life on the line tens of times a year. A private citizen may have his life on the line maybe once or twice in their entire lifetime.
Violent crime is a scourge on America, with 15,292 homicides last year, not including non fatal shootings and/or other violent crime. As part of their job, police officers are called to deal with hardened criminals. There is a high level of risk involved. Can we stop for a second and be a tad grateful to the people that keep our neighborhoods reasonably safe?
'You've got a split second to decide whether the suspect is reaching for a gun or not. Make a mistake one way and we'll send condolences to your family, make a mistake another way and we'll throw you in jail for two decades. Make the right choice, and we'll throw another one your way next week'. Who in their right mind would take that kind of a deal? And if nobody in their right mind would do, who's going to keep the tough guys from imposing their own rule at gun point?
A police officer chooses to put his life on the line tens of times a year. Black people don't get that choice.
Anyway this is an idiotic bullshit argument in the context of George Floyd. The man was on the ground, unarmed with four police there. That police officer wasn't being asked to put his life on the line, so what you're saying is irrelevant.
> Anyway this is an idiotic bullshit argument in the context of George Floyd. The man was on the ground, unarmed with four police there.
To be fair, that officer was both fired and was arrested + charged, which in my understanding means neither the (mayor? department?) and the prosecutor do not think qualified immunity is merited in this case.
It does drive us to the important point: where is the threshold where qualified immunity is forfeited?
Really? You don't think an arresting officer should be legally protected against frivolous lawsuits because they accidentally bruised the wrists of a non-compliant suspect in the act of handcuffing?
I'm more interested in hearing level-headed proposals.
I'm for removing it entirely. We can build a new legal standard. The reasonable professional standard works fine for doctors.Seems like it should work fine for cops.
I don't know much about it, but taking "qualified immunity", which is evaluated by prosecutors and DAs, and moving it to a police organization (expecting police to police the police) doesn't sound like an improvement.
Perhaps it would work if it was coupled with some sort of a complete overhaul in the culture of policing, but I don't see how the "culture" changes from the outside.
As a firefighter/paramedic, I entirely understand the perspective of being willing to put your life on the line for the community. I have attended three line-of-duty death funerals.
There are justified situations, and there are grey areas.
And then there are situations whereby a man will have his hands on the top of his head, be kneeling still in the street. And he'll be shot 8+ times by the police.
I can be entirely grateful to the police who do an honorable job. And to those in uniform who condemn egregious injustices by their own. They are doing honorable, good work.
I can simultaneously have a depth of derision and anger for those who see a badge, a uniform, and a gun as an excuse to exercise their latent psychological weaknesses, aggression, etc.
Being a police officer is less dangerous than driving a taxi, but I don't see an epidemic of taxi drivers killing people. We need to stop excusing horrific crimes because of the relatively minor dangers that police face.
The occupation of police officer in the US is roughly as dangerous as being a construction worker. Police aren't even in the top 10 most dangerous occupations [1]. So this type of fear is not really justified and probably contributes to the problem.
considering the comparison to a well known and broad job description -construction worker, the list being used for this top 10 number does not have a large number of occupations. and considering that you clearly undersdand that, your comment is pushing a false narrative using misinformation. and considering that this forum is not a place for calling people losers and purposely dense clowns, i won't.
On the assumption that you are arguing in good faith (which is a core guideline of this site)...
> You've got a split second to decide whether the suspect is reaching for a gun or not.
What are your goal posts for this excuse?
For example: what would an officer have to do to you or your family to make you turn on the officer's actions and demand accountability? It's important to remember that officers frequently demand to see something from your wallet or phone (both of which are located around your belt, where you might have a gun stored).
Also ironic is that police are completely capable of restraining themselves when other officers have guns and when white men carry guns into a state capitol. It's not simply the presence of a gun that police are reacting to.
> make a mistake another way and we'll throw you in jail for two decades.
This is literally the law for civilians. I don't see how you can expect an officer to enforce a law that they, themselves, are not willing to be subject to.
Personally, I think the only question is how much good faith should we give officers in questionable cases of use of force.
> Who in their right mind would take that kind of a deal?
I think every public school teacher in America asks themselves that question every week, but it's still one of the most common professions. People weigh their personal values against the value of their job.
> And if nobody in their right mind would do, who's going to keep the tough guys from imposing their own rule at gun point?
Logical fallacy. The people that are currently officers wouldn't suddenly vanish from the face of the Earth. We would still have private security and parents and teachers and neighbors and business owners and good samaritans.
Police officers are generally very strong proponents of the 2A, whose lobbies love to repeat the mantra "When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away". Without police, the average person would step up and defend themselves more than they do now. Game theory.
I think the biggest problem with US policing in the US is that there are always people who post what you did. It's not a balanced evaluation of what would actually happen if there were more reasonable accountability on police actions but rather "do whatever police unions want because otherwise morale will fall and chaos will reign". Maybe you should consider the morale of the people who see police in their neighborhoods and houses as the same people who are "imposing their own rule at gun point".
And we certainly could still end up with that charge, but my point is that the police committing a crime should act as an enhancement to force prosecutors to charge it more seriously. If a random person commits a crime that would be third-degree, the same crime committed by an on-duty police officer should be charged as second-degree or higher.
It's not a matter of proportionality, it's a matter of context.
You cannot say: "Here's a gun, go into that house, physically get that guy to come out, dead or alive, but - if you do it just a little bit wrong, and you kill him the wrong way, you're going to jail forever"
The laws absolutely have to be different for police because we (and that includes you) are compelling them into situations of possible extreme violence, and in some case, constant low level aggression and toxicity.
Officers have to be held to account, but that account is definitely a different.
The argument however, completely misses the point - what matters more is a) the extreme high level of baseline violence in communities which necessitates all sorts of precautions otherwise unnecessary b) guns everywhere and c) just a general attitude towards over-policing and obvious unfamiliarity with the exact nature of how people should be apprehended or not. For example, the fact that 3 officers were on camera while 1 of them was kneeling on someone's neck AND they were knowingly being filmed, means that 'de-facto' it was allowed, ie they felt there would be no repercussions, in which case, the police chief should be out to dry first.
The problem is mass violence, pervasive weaponry and over-aggressive policing - most other things are secondary, if you solve the core problems, much if it goes away.
Surely in most other jurisdictions, like Canada, UK, Germany, Japan etc. the police are treated differently under the law and somehow it works out.
Holding them "to a higher standard" is verbal masterbation; feels good, conclusion is a climax of moral splooge, you even get to nap after, but it sets no defined goals and says nothing anyone hasn't already heard.
Police have immunity because many cops come from military backgrounds, have operated in chaotic urban and rural environments and know how fragile life is, so they formed a union to protect their interests and skins from the legislative, judicial, executive branches and the public, all of whom from time to time looks for the easiest party to scapegoat; the police.
The public, and you especially, need to understand cops are not gun-wielding process-following soldier robots, they are human beings. If the milwaukee cop saved 100 lives in his career and takes one by accident and there are riots, that's one hell of a double standard to set. The first step to a root cause analysis is taking the officer to a padded room for a thorough psych evaluation.
When you end up with a SWAT Raid of someone's house that goes wrong and their chihwuawua gets shot, that's half the story. A lot of the time the reason you only hear half of the story is to protect someone. A lot of the story is, the population is not as intelligent or well-to-do as the hackernews demographic; to a military strategist, shows of force are an essential mechanism for gaining compliance, and they are probably right about that to an extent.
You have a demographic that is not doing themselves any favors; rioting, assaulting people, looting businesses, burning buildings. This is not a civil way to handle the situation. What I find very interesting this time around is the willingness of the public, especially young kids, to take up arms and defend their neighbors businesses and back up the police. That there is the start of something.
It is precisely because cops are human beings that we cannot allow them to operate in an effectively consequences-free environment.
Also; the idea that any cop would have "saved 100 lives in his career" is ludicrous. But even if it were true, it would not justify allowing them to murder without consequence.
In actuality, the pattern we see with Derek Chauvin is more common; 18 complaints on his official record, involvement with 3 police shootings, and never any consequences beyond a reprimand. Until he just casually crushes a dude to death, and people like you are _still_ arguing there shouldn't be consequences.
I am european, and police in the US really is something else: the mindset, the culture, the engagements. There needs to be a nation-wide police reformation.
Uhh what? The instigating event which founded our country was a monarchy.
I would argue that slaves and indigenous populations experienced a violent dictatorship.
I don't think it's actually too much to expect that our officers fix their own culture. I just think it won't happen because they have a toxic tradition of ignoring the cultural cues given by civilian leadership (except the ones that praise police forces no matter how bad they act).
> There needs to be a nation-wide police reformation.
I don't think you can convince a rural Montana rancher that their local Sheriff needs to be retrained because (as they likely see it) gang bangers in Chicago "force" police to be more heavy handed.
I'm all for incentivizing police to improve their own culture, but I'm cynical that it won't happen. I'm all for giving police more funding and better tools to do their job more politely, but they already chew up 40% of all local government spending.
I think the solution can't be "expect policing to change" and has to be something more like "change the policy and show America civilians how our policing expectations are broken".
Americans call the police because a dog is off-leash in a large grassy park. Until we figure out how to tolerate small infractions or at least deal with them without involving law enforcement, there will always be a risk of violence during escalation.
I was with you until the last point. If someone is legitimately afraid of dogs, and deliberately go to a park where dogs have to be on leash, and someone shows up with a dog running around, and just don't listen to polite requests? What are they supposed to do? Out here in the UK, I wouldn't call the police (I'm not that bothered), but I can imagine it being a legitimate concern.
As a general guideline, you shouldn’t call the police in the US unless it is serious enough that you are willing to risk having your situation be escalated into (sometimes deadly) violence. POSIWID.
We should start by repealing the 2nd amendment. It is a bad law.
Edit: This along with arm confiscation would limit force in police interactions and thus lower aggression.
The United States of America has an oppressive government if they wanted to use their weapons to protect against tyranny today would be that day. But they don't the 70 million gun owners of America march in support of tyranny not against it.
Well I didn't say you couldn't fight. My proposal includes confiscation. Assume very aggressive pursuit of criminals with an unlicensed firearms. Like multi-county dragnet with blocked roads. Like we get O(100) cops for one gun. Most criminals will just probably keep it to cold arms.
People with guns lose fights too. Cold Arms are easier to assess and much easier to run from. Who said anything about a crime that's like asking in the current regime cocaine users what crime did they commit. I'm not suggesting arresting them. I want their weapons. They aren't using them to defend against tyranny so what good are they.
Another suggestion: Bolster social programs that is being hamfisted through the justice system, necessitating larger police forces who don't have deescelation training and are not legally obligated to know the law they enforce.
Police don't need to bust someone for drugs if we have robust social programs that adequately address poverty and addiction.
Police don't need to harass homeless people if we have robust social programs that adequately address homelessness.
Police don't need to deal with severely mentally ill people who are unpredictable and potentially dangerous if we have robust social programs that adequately address the mental healthcare crisis in this country.
I think you are actually talking about dismantling more than half of the existing criminal statutes. I agree that we should do it, but there's a reason it hasn't been done before: there are still a ton of citizens who believe the only way to deter crime/poverty is a bigger stick, not swapping a stick for a carrot.
Police officers, given that they have the power of life or death over others' lives, should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one. Apparently, this is still extremely controversial in America, where our culture insists that it be the opposite way: hold police to a lower standard, let them steal, beat, rape, and murder almost at will. In a sick society like this, one shouldn't wonder why the masses are cheering on the burning of police stations and courthouses. In a society like this, police are just the biggest gang and frankly, any action against them is defensible ethically, if not legally.
We ask cops to be part social worker, part solider, part lawyer, part investigator, part paramedic - and we pay them a salary for just one of those professions at best. Law enforcement is a small part of the job many days.
It's time to create mission specialist in large police forces with depth in these areas and to deploy them as teams of 2-4. Yes, there will be shortages in coverage and that is okay.
"We" didn't ask them to be any of these things, especially soldiers - this is power that they actively pushed for, there was no crime wave in the early 2000s when the militarization of police began in full swing - just a post-9/11 power opportunism and the need to find jobs for discharged soldiers.
Mission specialists always existed, they're called detectives.
> there was no crime wave in the early 2000s when the militarization of police began
I would argue we started the militarization of police in the 1970s-1980s when NYC was a festering hotbed of crime and when Miami drug dealers were shooting automatic weapons during turf wars (which was when we started Civil Asset Forfeiture... which allowed police/prosecutors to essentially steal assets from civilians without a criminal conviction).
We gave surplus DoD weapons to police for cheap after 9/11 and judges started rubber-stamping no-knock warrants around 2001, but I don't think that was the only inflection point.
I'm not sure about this. Maybe qualified immunity should be reduced in scope, but I don't know about doing away with it. A police officer that tasers a violent suspect should be immune from prosecution if that suspect falls and hits their head, or has a heart attack. I don't see a way that police could do their jobs without some version of qualified immunity.
I think that at least part of solution lies in better training on use of force, massively increase training on deescalation techniques, better psychological screening and continuous followups, full-time body cams that don't turn off and are tamper resistant with appropriate logging of metadata to detect misuse-- to the extent that if a complaint is made against an officer and the camera is mysteriously not functional, the disciplinary burden should be moved to favor the complaint. And probably other things too-- this is not meant to be an exhaustive list of reforms.
That might be an improvement in many places, but it would probably create problems for San Francisco and San Jose, where cost of living is largely unsustainable for people who make starting police salaries unless they lucked into a family house.
We sometimes forget that officers get to choose where they want to work and will migrate to the best place for them. The ratio between housing costs and salary (among other quality of life factors) is pretty important to lots of officers and we may end up lowering the quality of officers by only restricting the pool of eligible employees.
I have a few small complaints with your details, but generally I'm similarly wary of flipping a switch on qualified immunity without knowing the unintended consequences. I would like to hear from countries which do not have such protections of their LEOs.
How about focussing more on teaching police officers to learn how to be calm and composed as much as possible instead of going on the offensive too quickly. Yes, there are times when you will "fear for your life" and have to act with force but far too often our police officers are casual in going on the offense. In many cases, it is just a case of being pissed off because the guy/gal they pulled over is rude or verbally abusive or is not complying to a request. Can you take a deep breath and agree that it is part of your job to deal with idiots/crackheads/vulgar people as well and learn how to deal with them without always flashing your gun or tasers ?
One thing the police do where I live is to do community get togethers to get to know the actual people. It helps to reduce anxiety and stress. Yes I live in a "nice" neighborhood so it is easy for me to say may be. But can we not try similar police and public get togethers in the "not so nice" neighborhoods ? Is it not even worth a try ?
Also, be more strict in getting rid of bad apples which I believe this article touches upon a bit. This specific police officer had a history of violence and he should have been under more scrutiny that he was.
Until the respect is mutually created between police and public, no law on the books can prevent these types of unfortunate incidents.
> How about focussing more on teaching police officers to learn how to be calm and composed as much as possible instead of going on the offensive too quickly.
Most police departments do. In the area I work as a paramedic, they certainly are trained in de-escalation.
I also know that some of them just... don't... care.
I've been dealing with mental health patients, got them calmed down, got a plan for dealing with their issues. And then had a cop march back over (who was on scene, saw the initial incident, the de-escalation), and start shouting at the patient over the destruction of property. The patient's property. "Who the fuck do you expect to clean up that broken glass? Selfish asshole. I should make _you_ get on your knees and clean it".
End result? The patient who was compliant and willing to go for evaluation in the back of my ambulance needed to be sedated and narrowly avoided being tased. In the grand scheme of things, worse things have happened. But this was a situation actively under control. And a situation this officer, and only this officer, actively worked to make worse.
That incident resulted in a complaint, though I have no idea what the resolution was.
But that is the problem then right ? Conduct like that should have consequences and today there is none. Cops should not abuse anyone even verbally, period. That is their job to handle, descalate as much as possible. Yes there are many good ones but I feel like there are many bad apples too and it is not just a few anymore. It is the culture and mindset of "how dare you challenge my authority or disrespect me".
I personally have come up against one cop like that many years ago and funny thing is that I was actually trying to be compliant. He was just on his own high horse and had made up his mind that I was drunk and forced me to take the breath analyzer test. I remember specifically him asking me in a pissed off condescending way "So you are telling me that this machine is going to show 0 reading??" and I was brave enough to say "yes sir since I didn't have any alcohol for last few days at least". I guess I was lucky he didn't do more. But man, he was pissed when he pulled me over for supposedly tailgating him/his partner (It was 2 AM at night and I was coming home from a long drive and was a bit tired and may have gotten a bit closer than reasonable to his car from behind). He punished me hard for that. We went to court. He argued that I seemed drunk and all I could do was like WTF. The point is that he could have easily pulled me over and just asked me "sir is everything ok since you got closer to my vehicle. " I anyway said "Officer I am sorry that I didn't realize as I am coming from a long drive but I am now prompt and aware". His whole premise was he had assumed I must be high/drunk since it was late at night. That is a bad cop to me.
Absolutely it's the problem. It should have consequences. And often, not only does it not, but there is a non-negligible group of police who will "defend their brother" over "doing what is right".
There are bad apples in Fire and EMS. We are not perfect. But Fire is proud of a heritage cultivated over many long years of honor and trust, and when someone in the Fire Service abuses that trust (be it theft, assault, otherwise), the "thin red line" doesn't fold in to defend him against all insult, real or imagined, but instead ostracize him.
> teaching police officers to learn how to be calm and composed
Try yelling at a Walmart cashier. They won't punch you. Try it with your Applebee's waitress. Try it with the towel boy at the car wash. None of them will hit you. This has nothing to do with training and mutual respect, and everything to do with accountability.
I agree with the sentiment of your point, but I would argue it very much is a problem of training.
Police in the USA are (were?) taught to always assert dominance to control the situation. Part of that is with voice and presence/stance, but part of it is escalation of force. If you raise your voice and stand off at an officer, their (traditional) training tells them not to leave your body language unanswered.
I whole-heartedly agree with the lack of individual and department accountability, but comparing to a WalMart cashier does skip over some relevant facts.
The root problem is not the cops. Well, the abusive cops seriously aggravate the problem. And the police is the enforcement arm of the system.
But the root cause is the economic system on which America is built, and which it enforces throughout the world with its military, and enforces domestically with its militarized police.
Predatory capitalism has run its course for the past 500 years. It’s all about extracting from the poor, and feeding it to the rich, the well connected, and the powerful. In this case, the rich are the white wealthy Americans, and they have been at the top of the ladder for the past 300 years in America.
America needs a new economic system.
What’s the point of making $15/hour, or $30,000/year, when your rent costs you $15,000/year, or 50% of your gross income? You barely have any money left over for other mandatory necessities.
Meanwhile, the oligarchs that owns the stock market and Wall Street, and Fortune 1000 companies, lives lofty lives, and Bezos is about to become the world’s first Trillionaire. And if they fail, and screw up the economy for everyone else, then well, they’ll just get another bailout. The poor ends up paying for it, since costs go up for everyone.
But in an alternate universe, Floyd was arrested because he was suspected of using a fake $20 bill. But somehow, he drives a Mercedes Benz SUV, which is a rather fancy vehicle for someone to be driving, who’s suspected of using a counterfeit $20 bill.
The rents are too high. The cost of living is too high.
The wealth distribution is not even. And what we have right now in America, is run-away capitalism, where the rich takes all the money. And the poor, the destitute, and especially the minorities continue to suffer.
This fosters a society where poor people are destitute, And they resort to unlawful things, and the larger society mandates tougher cops and tougher predatory criminal laws. Which feeds ever more on itself, in a vicious cycle, until something finally breaks. And that’s what we have this week, with the death of Floyd, and the nationwide protests.
If you can solve the economic system, then maybe, you can get cops who are not afraid of minorities. But to be honest, I have little hope of either issues ever being solved.
TLDR: any society which refuses to provide social democratic floors to people will increasingly rely on violence to maintain its social order. You can’t expect policing to be the primary means with which we deal with things like the housing and healthcare crisis without disastrous consequences.
> You can’t expect policing to be the primary means with which we deal with things like ...
I don't buy this argument because it removes agency from law enforcement officers, who -- as a class of people -- very highly buy into the concept of free will.
Right now, police departments have a significant amount of moral hazard. They are expected to behave in a very legal and upright manner, but not all do and those who don't are very rarely held legally or civilly liable. I think doing something like removing qualified immunity (or at the very least just giving DAs tools and directives to prosecute more egregious use of force problems) or putting more of the police officers' wealth at risk (by tying their retirement programs to the funds which pay out for violations of civilian rights).
Crimes should be charged more seriously, not less, when they're committed by police. This is only reasonable - any crime committed by an on-duty officer is inherently more harmful that the same crime committed by a civilian, because in addition to the damage of the actual crime, the officer's commission of it also does harm to the public trust in the police and our society.
Beyond that, the police should be held to a higher standard because we as a society acknowledge that they are trained well enough to walk around with guns and the ability to deprive people of their freedom (even those who are innocent - if you're locked in a cell and later not charged, you don't get that time you spent in a cell back). We should be able to charge Chauvin with first degree murder despite a lack of premeditation, because he was trained to know not to do precisely what he did. If I kneel on a guy's neck and kill him unintentionally it's manslaughter, but if a cop does it, it should be worse because that cop should be expected to know that doing so is not an acceptable form of restraint.
> you don't get that time you spent in a cell back
You also got fingerprinted (and probably DNA tested) and your mugshot was publicly distributed and those actions aren't undone.
I agree. An arrest on its own, even without a conviction or even any charges being laid, can have an enormous negative effect on one's life. Another example is that having been ever arrested, even if not charged or convicted, can bar you from entering the US without going through an expensive, difficult, discretionary process to get a waiver, that then needs to be periodically redone. And it follows you for the rest of your life, it does not expire for example 30 or 50 years after the arrest.
I’ve applied to companies who ask on their application whether you have ever been arrested, regardless of conviction—presumably as a way to disqualify you.
Some countries thats illegal, should be in US.
There are landlords in my area who put in the lease that you can be evicted for just being arrested
100%. It's crazy to act as though a fair trial (even if you can get one of those, which you probably can't if you're black) somehow provides recourse against arrest. Beyond the time in jail, you might have to spend thousands and thousands on lawyers in order to avoid being punished for a crime you're not guilty of.
So many double standards.
A police officer is allowed to "panic and fear for their life" and shoot me as a result. I, as a private citizen, am expected to remain cool, calm and composed in the face of multiple guns in my face.
Even more mundane things: if I break a law, "ignorance is no excuse". When cops arrest photographers for shooting in public spaces, I have literally heard government officials explain it away as "We cannot expect our police officers to be constitutional lawyers".
I as a private citizen, am expected to remain cool, calm and composed in the face of multiple guns in my face.
Have you seen that scene from the demonstration in Salt Lake City, where MAGA-man pointed a hunting bow at demonstrators? He was taken down and handed over to law enforcement unharmed. The bystanders displayed extraordinary restraint, no doubt because everything was filmed, and anyone who used deadly force would be harassed for the rest of their lives.
We'd like to see that same standard applied to cops.
This is what I read about that event. “In response, people at the protest tackled the man and attacked him. At least 15 people pinned the man against his vehicle to punch, kick and throw things at him. His face was left bloody and his vehicle was looted and flipped, according to 2News reporter Kelly Vaughen“
https://www.google.com/amp/s/kutv.com/amp/news/local/slc-pro...
There need to be consequences for threatening people with a deadly weapon. An overturned truck is mild in such a situation. I'd have expected at least a broken bone, but, no, only a bloody face. Try that with the cops.
This is not unharmed. You clearly knew about the case yet you deliberately obfuscated the facts until you were called out on it. Instead of backpedaling own up to why you would try to distort the facts. This is not to say the fellow with the bow and arrow isn't a complete imbecile, and didn't deserve what was coming. On that I have no view.
At least the fellow still has all his teeth, unlike that physician that Chicago transport cop pulled off that plane.
Still should have at least said something like “nearly unharmed” instead of “unharmed”?
So your definition of unharmed is somewhere between unharmed, and the beating by the Chicago transport cop of a physician on a plane.
We're talking apples and oranges, HarryHirsh, and I don't think you're willing to view this discussion in good faith. Good day.
Wow, that guy is lucky he didn't accidently flag a cop with his bow; they would have beat him with truncheons, pepper sprayed him, then killed him with a blood choke!
No, he's white. He might have been arrested at most.
Now do this one: https://www.theblaze.com/news/violent-mob-brutally-beats-dal...
Only if you do these first: https://nypost.com/2020/05/30/nypd-officer-plows-into-crowd-...
> According to video captured by TheBlaze's Elijah Schaffer, violent protesters descended on the man after he chased looters with a large sword. The man did not, however, attack the looters.
In my world, "chasing someone with a large sword" sounds like initiating a fight, no? Is the complaint that... he lost it? Because it seems clear that he started it.
A meta point: this is why you need to stay away from sites like The Blaze. The guy with the lethal weapon was "beaten", but it's the protestors who were "violent".
I mean I'm pretty sure that hitting someone with a fucking rock in the head with full force qualifies as "violent". I'm sure you wouldn't like it, sword or no sword. Nor would you like to protect your property from looters unarmed.
This comment and others like it reminds me of this gem right here: https://twitter.com/Whateverlmao/status/1267132165935923201/...
Reddit has something to say about this man: https://www.reddit.com/r/Dallas/comments/gu5eal/machetewield...
It thinks he was a total fuckwit.
The article doesn't allege he was hit with a rock unbidden though. It says he was attacked after "chasing" "looters" with a sword. I'm sorry, but at that point combat has been engaged. Every 2A advocate here would agree that anyone in that circumstances would be entitled to stand their ground and fight back. And apparently they did.
So if looters get shot, that's OK in your book as well? Or, if a store owner catches a looter, would it be OK to "engage combat" and bash their head in with a rock? Best I can tell he was just chasing them away, he hasn't done harm to anybody.
If I see someone chasing another down with a quote, "large sword", then they turn and start running at me with this sword, I am sure that in that moment I would be afraid for my life. I think many if not most agree deadly force can be used in direct defense of your own life.
Why lie? The guyt threated people, but was not unharmed and his car was burned. https://twitter.com/MsDBZbabe/status/1266904275785056262?s=2...
> "We cannot expect our police officers to be constitutional lawyers".
If police do not know the law, then they should not be allowed to enforce it.
I would argue no person can know "the law" unless they have read it. All of it. Constitutions, statutes, case law / jurisprudence, common law, HOA bylaws, etc. for every jurisdiction they are in.
I have no expectation that the average police officer "knows the law", but that same problem should not be used against civilians.
It does stand, however, that an officer should be reprimanded for trying to enforce a law where they don't know the law.
I think that is the idea. If people can be convicted for breaking laws they don't know about, then cops can be convicted for enforcing laws that don't exist.
Another good reason to abolish common law.
I'm a critic of all of the foundations of the US legal system, but I would want to know more about the effects of something like "abolish common law" before we jump right in.
I see that a little like someone yelling "let's abolish gravity" without stopping to consider: "what continues to exist if gravity no longer applies?"
I first encountered Chesterton’s Fence [0] in an HN thread about a year ago. I think your comment echoes that principle nicely.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fen...
I've spent more than a decade working in the courts. Also there is an entire section of the Wikipedia page on common law called "alternatives to common law systems".
Imagine a system in which every time you encounter a new problem or a new variation on a known problem, the only acceptable response is one which comports with what you've done before. That's common law.
A police officer may be required to put his life on the line tens of times a year. A private citizen may have his life on the line maybe once or twice in their entire lifetime.
Violent crime is a scourge on America, with 15,292 homicides last year, not including non fatal shootings and/or other violent crime. As part of their job, police officers are called to deal with hardened criminals. There is a high level of risk involved. Can we stop for a second and be a tad grateful to the people that keep our neighborhoods reasonably safe?
'You've got a split second to decide whether the suspect is reaching for a gun or not. Make a mistake one way and we'll send condolences to your family, make a mistake another way and we'll throw you in jail for two decades. Make the right choice, and we'll throw another one your way next week'. Who in their right mind would take that kind of a deal? And if nobody in their right mind would do, who's going to keep the tough guys from imposing their own rule at gun point?
A police officer chooses to put his life on the line tens of times a year. Black people don't get that choice.
Anyway this is an idiotic bullshit argument in the context of George Floyd. The man was on the ground, unarmed with four police there. That police officer wasn't being asked to put his life on the line, so what you're saying is irrelevant.
> Anyway this is an idiotic bullshit argument in the context of George Floyd. The man was on the ground, unarmed with four police there.
To be fair, that officer was both fired and was arrested + charged, which in my understanding means neither the (mayor? department?) and the prosecutor do not think qualified immunity is merited in this case.
It does drive us to the important point: where is the threshold where qualified immunity is forfeited?
Who cares where the line is? It shouldn't exist.
Really? You don't think an arresting officer should be legally protected against frivolous lawsuits because they accidentally bruised the wrists of a non-compliant suspect in the act of handcuffing?
I'm more interested in hearing level-headed proposals.
> frivolous lawsuits
Let judges decide what lawsuits are frivolous.
Look at this guy that thinks judges can be trusted... LOL.
It's literally their job title, lol.
I'm for removing it entirely. We can build a new legal standard. The reasonable professional standard works fine for doctors.Seems like it should work fine for cops.
> The reasonable professional standard
I don't know much about it, but taking "qualified immunity", which is evaluated by prosecutors and DAs, and moving it to a police organization (expecting police to police the police) doesn't sound like an improvement.
Perhaps it would work if it was coupled with some sort of a complete overhaul in the culture of policing, but I don't see how the "culture" changes from the outside.
As a firefighter/paramedic, I entirely understand the perspective of being willing to put your life on the line for the community. I have attended three line-of-duty death funerals.
There are justified situations, and there are grey areas.
And then there are situations whereby a man will have his hands on the top of his head, be kneeling still in the street. And he'll be shot 8+ times by the police.
I can be entirely grateful to the police who do an honorable job. And to those in uniform who condemn egregious injustices by their own. They are doing honorable, good work.
I can simultaneously have a depth of derision and anger for those who see a badge, a uniform, and a gun as an excuse to exercise their latent psychological weaknesses, aggression, etc.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Being a police officer is less dangerous than driving a taxi, but I don't see an epidemic of taxi drivers killing people. We need to stop excusing horrific crimes because of the relatively minor dangers that police face.
The occupation of police officer in the US is roughly as dangerous as being a construction worker. Police aren't even in the top 10 most dangerous occupations [1]. So this type of fear is not really justified and probably contributes to the problem.
[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/01/08/most-dangero...
Considering the number of occupations that is not really a good number.
considering the comparison to a well known and broad job description -construction worker, the list being used for this top 10 number does not have a large number of occupations. and considering that you clearly undersdand that, your comment is pushing a false narrative using misinformation. and considering that this forum is not a place for calling people losers and purposely dense clowns, i won't.
Yeah, no joke. There are several hundred occupations in the original report: https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0326.htm
They likely picked the most dangerous ones.
On the assumption that you are arguing in good faith (which is a core guideline of this site)...
> You've got a split second to decide whether the suspect is reaching for a gun or not.
What are your goal posts for this excuse?
For example: what would an officer have to do to you or your family to make you turn on the officer's actions and demand accountability? It's important to remember that officers frequently demand to see something from your wallet or phone (both of which are located around your belt, where you might have a gun stored).
Also ironic is that police are completely capable of restraining themselves when other officers have guns and when white men carry guns into a state capitol. It's not simply the presence of a gun that police are reacting to.
> make a mistake another way and we'll throw you in jail for two decades.
This is literally the law for civilians. I don't see how you can expect an officer to enforce a law that they, themselves, are not willing to be subject to.
Personally, I think the only question is how much good faith should we give officers in questionable cases of use of force.
> Who in their right mind would take that kind of a deal?
I think every public school teacher in America asks themselves that question every week, but it's still one of the most common professions. People weigh their personal values against the value of their job.
> And if nobody in their right mind would do, who's going to keep the tough guys from imposing their own rule at gun point?
Logical fallacy. The people that are currently officers wouldn't suddenly vanish from the face of the Earth. We would still have private security and parents and teachers and neighbors and business owners and good samaritans.
Police officers are generally very strong proponents of the 2A, whose lobbies love to repeat the mantra "When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away". Without police, the average person would step up and defend themselves more than they do now. Game theory.
I think the biggest problem with US policing in the US is that there are always people who post what you did. It's not a balanced evaluation of what would actually happen if there were more reasonable accountability on police actions but rather "do whatever police unions want because otherwise morale will fall and chaos will reign". Maybe you should consider the morale of the people who see police in their neighborhoods and houses as the same people who are "imposing their own rule at gun point".
You act as though due process doesn't exist. The rest of us have to depend on that so should cops. It's a blank check that we can't afford.
[1] argues that a second degree murder charge would be more appropriate
[1] https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/05/31/opinion/minnesota-pro...
And we certainly could still end up with that charge, but my point is that the police committing a crime should act as an enhancement to force prosecutors to charge it more seriously. If a random person commits a crime that would be third-degree, the same crime committed by an on-duty police officer should be charged as second-degree or higher.
It's not a matter of proportionality, it's a matter of context.
You cannot say: "Here's a gun, go into that house, physically get that guy to come out, dead or alive, but - if you do it just a little bit wrong, and you kill him the wrong way, you're going to jail forever"
The laws absolutely have to be different for police because we (and that includes you) are compelling them into situations of possible extreme violence, and in some case, constant low level aggression and toxicity.
Officers have to be held to account, but that account is definitely a different.
The argument however, completely misses the point - what matters more is a) the extreme high level of baseline violence in communities which necessitates all sorts of precautions otherwise unnecessary b) guns everywhere and c) just a general attitude towards over-policing and obvious unfamiliarity with the exact nature of how people should be apprehended or not. For example, the fact that 3 officers were on camera while 1 of them was kneeling on someone's neck AND they were knowingly being filmed, means that 'de-facto' it was allowed, ie they felt there would be no repercussions, in which case, the police chief should be out to dry first.
The problem is mass violence, pervasive weaponry and over-aggressive policing - most other things are secondary, if you solve the core problems, much if it goes away.
Surely in most other jurisdictions, like Canada, UK, Germany, Japan etc. the police are treated differently under the law and somehow it works out.
Holding them "to a higher standard" is verbal masterbation; feels good, conclusion is a climax of moral splooge, you even get to nap after, but it sets no defined goals and says nothing anyone hasn't already heard.
Police have immunity because many cops come from military backgrounds, have operated in chaotic urban and rural environments and know how fragile life is, so they formed a union to protect their interests and skins from the legislative, judicial, executive branches and the public, all of whom from time to time looks for the easiest party to scapegoat; the police.
The public, and you especially, need to understand cops are not gun-wielding process-following soldier robots, they are human beings. If the milwaukee cop saved 100 lives in his career and takes one by accident and there are riots, that's one hell of a double standard to set. The first step to a root cause analysis is taking the officer to a padded room for a thorough psych evaluation.
When you end up with a SWAT Raid of someone's house that goes wrong and their chihwuawua gets shot, that's half the story. A lot of the time the reason you only hear half of the story is to protect someone. A lot of the story is, the population is not as intelligent or well-to-do as the hackernews demographic; to a military strategist, shows of force are an essential mechanism for gaining compliance, and they are probably right about that to an extent.
You have a demographic that is not doing themselves any favors; rioting, assaulting people, looting businesses, burning buildings. This is not a civil way to handle the situation. What I find very interesting this time around is the willingness of the public, especially young kids, to take up arms and defend their neighbors businesses and back up the police. That there is the start of something.
It is precisely because cops are human beings that we cannot allow them to operate in an effectively consequences-free environment.
Also; the idea that any cop would have "saved 100 lives in his career" is ludicrous. But even if it were true, it would not justify allowing them to murder without consequence.
In actuality, the pattern we see with Derek Chauvin is more common; 18 complaints on his official record, involvement with 3 police shootings, and never any consequences beyond a reprimand. Until he just casually crushes a dude to death, and people like you are _still_ arguing there shouldn't be consequences.
I am european, and police in the US really is something else: the mindset, the culture, the engagements. There needs to be a nation-wide police reformation.
It is a little different, we don't have a history of socialism, communism, or violent dictatorships or monarchies.
Uhh what? The instigating event which founded our country was a monarchy.
I would argue that slaves and indigenous populations experienced a violent dictatorship.
I don't think it's actually too much to expect that our officers fix their own culture. I just think it won't happen because they have a toxic tradition of ignoring the cultural cues given by civilian leadership (except the ones that praise police forces no matter how bad they act).
> There needs to be a nation-wide police reformation.
I don't think you can convince a rural Montana rancher that their local Sheriff needs to be retrained because (as they likely see it) gang bangers in Chicago "force" police to be more heavy handed.
I'm all for incentivizing police to improve their own culture, but I'm cynical that it won't happen. I'm all for giving police more funding and better tools to do their job more politely, but they already chew up 40% of all local government spending.
I think the solution can't be "expect policing to change" and has to be something more like "change the policy and show America civilians how our policing expectations are broken".
Americans call the police because a dog is off-leash in a large grassy park. Until we figure out how to tolerate small infractions or at least deal with them without involving law enforcement, there will always be a risk of violence during escalation.
I was with you until the last point. If someone is legitimately afraid of dogs, and deliberately go to a park where dogs have to be on leash, and someone shows up with a dog running around, and just don't listen to polite requests? What are they supposed to do? Out here in the UK, I wouldn't call the police (I'm not that bothered), but I can imagine it being a legitimate concern.
As a general guideline, you shouldn’t call the police in the US unless it is serious enough that you are willing to risk having your situation be escalated into (sometimes deadly) violence. POSIWID.
We should start by repealing the 2nd amendment. It is a bad law. Edit: This along with arm confiscation would limit force in police interactions and thus lower aggression.
> We should start by repealing the 2nd amendment
How should people protect their houses/shops when armed criminals try to rob your place?
Call the police and have insurance.
And what about when response rates are 40 minutes?
What about the gov being oppressive? HK would be diff.
The United States of America has an oppressive government if they wanted to use their weapons to protect against tyranny today would be that day. But they don't the 70 million gun owners of America march in support of tyranny not against it.
What should you do till the police don't come and who will help you out till you get the insurance payout which is not a guarantee.
Well I didn't say you couldn't fight. My proposal includes confiscation. Assume very aggressive pursuit of criminals with an unlicensed firearms. Like multi-county dragnet with blocked roads. Like we get O(100) cops for one gun. Most criminals will just probably keep it to cold arms.
How exactly are you going to fight armed criminals with just your hands or a knife?
Confiscation from lawful gun owners, why, what crime did they commit?
People with guns lose fights too. Cold Arms are easier to assess and much easier to run from. Who said anything about a crime that's like asking in the current regime cocaine users what crime did they commit. I'm not suggesting arresting them. I want their weapons. They aren't using them to defend against tyranny so what good are they.
People can lose if they are armed or not armed so that is not valid argument for not taking up arms.
> They aren't using them to defend against tyranny so what good are they.
They are using it to protect their homes and stores from rioters so they are atleast doing something.
Its very easy to say take away their weapons but you dont provide a realistic solution for defending life and property.
Another suggestion: Bolster social programs that is being hamfisted through the justice system, necessitating larger police forces who don't have deescelation training and are not legally obligated to know the law they enforce.
Police don't need to bust someone for drugs if we have robust social programs that adequately address poverty and addiction.
Police don't need to harass homeless people if we have robust social programs that adequately address homelessness.
Police don't need to deal with severely mentally ill people who are unpredictable and potentially dangerous if we have robust social programs that adequately address the mental healthcare crisis in this country.
> Bolster social programs
I think you are actually talking about dismantling more than half of the existing criminal statutes. I agree that we should do it, but there's a reason it hasn't been done before: there are still a ton of citizens who believe the only way to deter crime/poverty is a bigger stick, not swapping a stick for a carrot.
Police "don't need to (bust someone for drugs|harass homeless people)" period.
> and are not legally obligated to know the law they enforce.
They should be.
I do agree that we need better social programs, but that doesn't excuse police thuggery.
Police officers, given that they have the power of life or death over others' lives, should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one. Apparently, this is still extremely controversial in America, where our culture insists that it be the opposite way: hold police to a lower standard, let them steal, beat, rape, and murder almost at will. In a sick society like this, one shouldn't wonder why the masses are cheering on the burning of police stations and courthouses. In a society like this, police are just the biggest gang and frankly, any action against them is defensible ethically, if not legally.
We ask cops to be part social worker, part solider, part lawyer, part investigator, part paramedic - and we pay them a salary for just one of those professions at best. Law enforcement is a small part of the job many days.
It's time to create mission specialist in large police forces with depth in these areas and to deploy them as teams of 2-4. Yes, there will be shortages in coverage and that is okay.
"We" didn't ask them to be any of these things, especially soldiers - this is power that they actively pushed for, there was no crime wave in the early 2000s when the militarization of police began in full swing - just a post-9/11 power opportunism and the need to find jobs for discharged soldiers.
Mission specialists always existed, they're called detectives.
> there was no crime wave in the early 2000s when the militarization of police began
I would argue we started the militarization of police in the 1970s-1980s when NYC was a festering hotbed of crime and when Miami drug dealers were shooting automatic weapons during turf wars (which was when we started Civil Asset Forfeiture... which allowed police/prosecutors to essentially steal assets from civilians without a criminal conviction).
We gave surplus DoD weapons to police for cheap after 9/11 and judges started rubber-stamping no-knock warrants around 2001, but I don't think that was the only inflection point.
Not the only, but 1970s-1980s had a real crime emergency, the 2000s didn't nearly as much.
I'm not sure about this. Maybe qualified immunity should be reduced in scope, but I don't know about doing away with it. A police officer that tasers a violent suspect should be immune from prosecution if that suspect falls and hits their head, or has a heart attack. I don't see a way that police could do their jobs without some version of qualified immunity.
I think that at least part of solution lies in better training on use of force, massively increase training on deescalation techniques, better psychological screening and continuous followups, full-time body cams that don't turn off and are tamper resistant with appropriate logging of metadata to detect misuse-- to the extent that if a complaint is made against an officer and the camera is mysteriously not functional, the disciplinary burden should be moved to favor the complaint. And probably other things too-- this is not meant to be an exhaustive list of reforms.
I think that might be the logical end goal: Remove police from street policing, and let communities police themselves.
> let communities police themselves
This happened in the wild west and didn't work out so well.
At least, we should reinstate requirements that police should come from their own communities...
That might be an improvement in many places, but it would probably create problems for San Francisco and San Jose, where cost of living is largely unsustainable for people who make starting police salaries unless they lucked into a family house.
We sometimes forget that officers get to choose where they want to work and will migrate to the best place for them. The ratio between housing costs and salary (among other quality of life factors) is pretty important to lots of officers and we may end up lowering the quality of officers by only restricting the pool of eligible employees.
I have a few small complaints with your details, but generally I'm similarly wary of flipping a switch on qualified immunity without knowing the unintended consequences. I would like to hear from countries which do not have such protections of their LEOs.
How about focussing more on teaching police officers to learn how to be calm and composed as much as possible instead of going on the offensive too quickly. Yes, there are times when you will "fear for your life" and have to act with force but far too often our police officers are casual in going on the offense. In many cases, it is just a case of being pissed off because the guy/gal they pulled over is rude or verbally abusive or is not complying to a request. Can you take a deep breath and agree that it is part of your job to deal with idiots/crackheads/vulgar people as well and learn how to deal with them without always flashing your gun or tasers ?
One thing the police do where I live is to do community get togethers to get to know the actual people. It helps to reduce anxiety and stress. Yes I live in a "nice" neighborhood so it is easy for me to say may be. But can we not try similar police and public get togethers in the "not so nice" neighborhoods ? Is it not even worth a try ?
Also, be more strict in getting rid of bad apples which I believe this article touches upon a bit. This specific police officer had a history of violence and he should have been under more scrutiny that he was.
Until the respect is mutually created between police and public, no law on the books can prevent these types of unfortunate incidents.
unfortunate incidents
WTF? Srsly, now?
> How about focussing more on teaching police officers to learn how to be calm and composed as much as possible instead of going on the offensive too quickly.
Most police departments do. In the area I work as a paramedic, they certainly are trained in de-escalation.
I also know that some of them just... don't... care.
I've been dealing with mental health patients, got them calmed down, got a plan for dealing with their issues. And then had a cop march back over (who was on scene, saw the initial incident, the de-escalation), and start shouting at the patient over the destruction of property. The patient's property. "Who the fuck do you expect to clean up that broken glass? Selfish asshole. I should make _you_ get on your knees and clean it".
End result? The patient who was compliant and willing to go for evaluation in the back of my ambulance needed to be sedated and narrowly avoided being tased. In the grand scheme of things, worse things have happened. But this was a situation actively under control. And a situation this officer, and only this officer, actively worked to make worse.
That incident resulted in a complaint, though I have no idea what the resolution was.
But that is the problem then right ? Conduct like that should have consequences and today there is none. Cops should not abuse anyone even verbally, period. That is their job to handle, descalate as much as possible. Yes there are many good ones but I feel like there are many bad apples too and it is not just a few anymore. It is the culture and mindset of "how dare you challenge my authority or disrespect me".
I personally have come up against one cop like that many years ago and funny thing is that I was actually trying to be compliant. He was just on his own high horse and had made up his mind that I was drunk and forced me to take the breath analyzer test. I remember specifically him asking me in a pissed off condescending way "So you are telling me that this machine is going to show 0 reading??" and I was brave enough to say "yes sir since I didn't have any alcohol for last few days at least". I guess I was lucky he didn't do more. But man, he was pissed when he pulled me over for supposedly tailgating him/his partner (It was 2 AM at night and I was coming home from a long drive and was a bit tired and may have gotten a bit closer than reasonable to his car from behind). He punished me hard for that. We went to court. He argued that I seemed drunk and all I could do was like WTF. The point is that he could have easily pulled me over and just asked me "sir is everything ok since you got closer to my vehicle. " I anyway said "Officer I am sorry that I didn't realize as I am coming from a long drive but I am now prompt and aware". His whole premise was he had assumed I must be high/drunk since it was late at night. That is a bad cop to me.
Absolutely it's the problem. It should have consequences. And often, not only does it not, but there is a non-negligible group of police who will "defend their brother" over "doing what is right".
There are bad apples in Fire and EMS. We are not perfect. But Fire is proud of a heritage cultivated over many long years of honor and trust, and when someone in the Fire Service abuses that trust (be it theft, assault, otherwise), the "thin red line" doesn't fold in to defend him against all insult, real or imagined, but instead ostracize him.
> teaching police officers to learn how to be calm and composed
Try yelling at a Walmart cashier. They won't punch you. Try it with your Applebee's waitress. Try it with the towel boy at the car wash. None of them will hit you. This has nothing to do with training and mutual respect, and everything to do with accountability.
> nothing to do with training
I agree with the sentiment of your point, but I would argue it very much is a problem of training.
Police in the USA are (were?) taught to always assert dominance to control the situation. Part of that is with voice and presence/stance, but part of it is escalation of force. If you raise your voice and stand off at an officer, their (traditional) training tells them not to leave your body language unanswered.
I whole-heartedly agree with the lack of individual and department accountability, but comparing to a WalMart cashier does skip over some relevant facts.
This has been described as the "Warrior" problem [1]
[1] https://harvardlawreview.org/2015/04/law-enforcements-warrio...
Radley Balko[1] has been reporting on that kind of thing for years. It's quite disheartening.
[1] https://www.amazon.co.uk/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Ame...
Malpractice insurance and touchy premiums, fuck up, and you can't afford to be a cop and a dept can't afford to hire you.
Or at least make it actually qualified.
Was there a higher voted story about the same thing which just disappeared?
Or should we discuss some Javascript framework instead?
The root problem is not the cops. Well, the abusive cops seriously aggravate the problem. And the police is the enforcement arm of the system.
But the root cause is the economic system on which America is built, and which it enforces throughout the world with its military, and enforces domestically with its militarized police.
Predatory capitalism has run its course for the past 500 years. It’s all about extracting from the poor, and feeding it to the rich, the well connected, and the powerful. In this case, the rich are the white wealthy Americans, and they have been at the top of the ladder for the past 300 years in America.
America needs a new economic system.
What’s the point of making $15/hour, or $30,000/year, when your rent costs you $15,000/year, or 50% of your gross income? You barely have any money left over for other mandatory necessities.
Meanwhile, the oligarchs that owns the stock market and Wall Street, and Fortune 1000 companies, lives lofty lives, and Bezos is about to become the world’s first Trillionaire. And if they fail, and screw up the economy for everyone else, then well, they’ll just get another bailout. The poor ends up paying for it, since costs go up for everyone.
But in an alternate universe, Floyd was arrested because he was suspected of using a fake $20 bill. But somehow, he drives a Mercedes Benz SUV, which is a rather fancy vehicle for someone to be driving, who’s suspected of using a counterfeit $20 bill.
The rents are too high. The cost of living is too high.
The wealth distribution is not even. And what we have right now in America, is run-away capitalism, where the rich takes all the money. And the poor, the destitute, and especially the minorities continue to suffer.
This fosters a society where poor people are destitute, And they resort to unlawful things, and the larger society mandates tougher cops and tougher predatory criminal laws. Which feeds ever more on itself, in a vicious cycle, until something finally breaks. And that’s what we have this week, with the death of Floyd, and the nationwide protests.
If you can solve the economic system, then maybe, you can get cops who are not afraid of minorities. But to be honest, I have little hope of either issues ever being solved.
Verso has also made the ebook edition of Alex Vitale’s excellent “The End of Policing” free:
https://www.versobooks.com/books/2426-the-end-of-policing
TLDR: any society which refuses to provide social democratic floors to people will increasingly rely on violence to maintain its social order. You can’t expect policing to be the primary means with which we deal with things like the housing and healthcare crisis without disastrous consequences.
> You can’t expect policing to be the primary means with which we deal with things like ...
I don't buy this argument because it removes agency from law enforcement officers, who -- as a class of people -- very highly buy into the concept of free will.
Right now, police departments have a significant amount of moral hazard. They are expected to behave in a very legal and upright manner, but not all do and those who don't are very rarely held legally or civilly liable. I think doing something like removing qualified immunity (or at the very least just giving DAs tools and directives to prosecute more egregious use of force problems) or putting more of the police officers' wealth at risk (by tying their retirement programs to the funds which pay out for violations of civilian rights).
The textualism of the conservative justices is primarily just a rational instrument for unwinding the liberal reforms of the Warren court.