Police abuse power, again

[Sturn]

@Scot and @Great Unwashed:

Is there a point that can be reached where the police are so hamstrung trying to prevent harassment and detainment of innocents, that cops become a completely useless aparatus? At what point along the prevent-abuse versus effective-tool continuum does it eventually lead to more innocents being more violently abused by criminals that can never be caught versus the harm done by police?

I'm going to use a completely made up scenario with completely made up numbers, please don't hold me accountable for the stats, I'm making it up only to show what I mean.

Let's say 5 in 100 police interactions harm an innocent in some way (spare me the "it's more like 90 in 100!" responses please). By harm I mean harass, detain unreasonably, actually physically harm during a false arrest of an innocent, etc. Then, let's say 40 in 100 violent crimes (murder, rape, robbery, etc) are solved by an arrest. With passing of some new laws and policies restraining police (you can't lie during an interview, you need PC not just reasonable suspicion to detain someone, the only possible way left to search is with 100% consent after reviewal by a judge, etc), I could imagine the harmful interactions with innocents dropping to 1 in 100. BUT, I could also imagine the violent crimes solved by an arrest dropping to something like 10 in 100 with the police so greatly restrained.

Would that, overall, be good for society? Could it actually indirectly cause more innocents to be harmed in a worse way?

Again, I of course made up these numbers, but I'm hoping you get my point and certain members here can restrain themselves with starting a tangent on how my stats are so wrong.

[BloodRider]

Is there a point that can be reached where the police are so hamstrung trying to prevent harassment and detainment of innocents, that cops become a completely useless aparatus? At what point along the prevent-abuse versus effective-tool continuum does it eventually lead to more innocents being more violently abused by criminals that can never be caught versus the harm done by police?

I submit to you that there is no prevent-abuse versus effective-tool continuum. That the idea that there is such a thing is part of what allows cops to excuse thier abuse of power. It is completely possible for a police force to be very effective and not abuse power in any way.

[Ranger275]

Most cops I've had to deal with have been professional and courteous. Guess I'm just lucky.

[Summah]

Sturn,

First of all, I just want to say that even though I don't agree with about 90% of your views on law enforcement related matters, you stick around in an often hostile environment and manage to often provide useful points of view, and I can respect that.

Second, wherever that imaginary tipping point is on the prevent-abuse-against-innocents/violent-abuse-due-to-handicapped-police scale, at this point in time, we are nowhere near equilibrium on that scale.

Finally, to turn the question around, is there a point at which multiple data points showing evidence of police abuse of useful tools that end up harming innocents actually make it so much more difficult for even the "good ones" to do their jobs, due to a generalized, public distrust of law enforcement, that it would be better to not have those useful tools at all, thus helping to restore the public trust? I know from experience that this is a huge problem with inner city and minority populations. It seems to me that restoring public trust in law enforcement is an infinitely more valuable tool to being able to effectively police the population than is the ability to lie to a suspect during questioning.

I don't think you can restore trust if the trust was never there to begin with. That said I really can't imagine trusting the police. I absolutely dread any potential contact with the police and actively avoid it, because of the potential for escalation, and for black men it's much, much worse.

[karaddin]

@Scot and @Great Unwashed:

Is there a point that can be reached where the police are so hamstrung trying to prevent harassment and detainment of innocents, that cops become a completely useless aparatus? At what point along the prevent-abuse versus effective-tool continuum does it eventually lead to more innocents being more violently abused by criminals that can never be caught versus the harm done by police?

I'm going to use a completely made up scenario with completely made up numbers, please don't hold me accountable for the stats, I'm making it up only to show what I mean.

Let's say 5 in 100 police interactions harm an innocent in some way (spare me the "it's more like 90 in 100!" responses please). By harm I mean harass, detain unreasonably, actually physically harm during a false arrest of an innocent, etc. Then, let's say 40 in 100 violent crimes (murder, rape, robbery, etc) are solved by an arrest. With passing of some new laws and policies restraining police (you can't lie during an interview, you need PC not just reasonable suspicion to detain someone, the only possible way left to search is with 100% consent after reviewal by a judge, etc), I could imagine the harmful interactions with innocents dropping to 1 in 100. BUT, I could also imagine the violent crimes solved by an arrest dropping to something like 10 in 100 with the police so greatly restrained.

Would that, overall, be good for society? Could it actually indirectly cause more innocents to be harmed in a worse way?

Again, I of course made up these numbers, but I'm hoping you get my point and certain members here can restrain themselves with starting a tangent on how my stats are so wrong.

As others have said not only is this continuum rubbish, but even if it existed you in the US are an awful fucking lot further to the "police abusing people" than the "safeguards making you ineffective" end of the spectrum.

Even if we accept your 5 in 100 police interactions being harmful, that's a fucking ridiculously high number not an acceptably low one. When nice cis straight white men from middle class backgrounds are afraid to interact with police, what the fuck does that say about how minorities are going to view police? In the past when I was living as a man I was always confident that if needed I could contact the police in Australia, in the UK etc - I remember getting help with directions from police in London in 2004 (I had a map, they showed me where I needed to go)...I'd be more cautious about engaging with those police now because you never know when you are going to run into a bigot. Police in the US though? Would have avoided wherever possible even as a guy, and I'll be very concerned about any potential engagement with them if I ever visit again.

If you have a child with a mental illness of some kind or another and they are having a violent or particularly difficult episode in this country, you can call the police and be confident they will do their best to help. If I was in the US I'd be too scared to call them because of multiple incidents of police arriving and straight up executing the mentally ill child.

How the fuck can you consider that a remotely effective police force? All of these massive abuses should be getting punished by heavy jail time if you want to try and redeem the view of police, instead they are almost always protected from consequences which gives the very clear impression that the higher ups are both approving and complicit.

[Sturn]

I'm going to use a completely made up scenario with completely made up numbers, please don't hold me accountable for the stats, I'm making it up only to show what I mean.

......

Again, I of course made up these numbers, but I'm hoping you get my point and certain members here can restrain themselves with starting a tangent on how my stats are so wrong.

Followed by...

Even if we accept your 5 in 100 police interactions being harmful, that's a fucking ridiculously high number not an acceptably low one.

You've got to be fucking kidding me.

Sturn,

First of all, I just want to say that even though I don't agree with about 90% of your views on law enforcement related matters, you stick around in an often hostile environment and manage to often provide useful points of view, and I can respect that.

Thank you.

Finally, to turn the question around, is there a point at which multiple data points showing evidence of police abuse of useful tools that end up harming innocents actually make it so much more difficult for even the "good ones" to do their jobs, due to a generalized, public distrust of law enforcement, that it would be better to not have those useful tools at all, thus helping to restore the public trust?

Oh I completely agree it can also be a negative factor in my work and I have no idea where the sweet spot is on my continuum. Policies which prevent harmful interactions increase cooperation even while the same policies are hampering arrest rates of actual criminals. I have no idea which affect is overall better for society. But, I believe arresting the violent offenders is just as important for the safety of our society as re-instilling trust and cooperation towards police. Stop and Frisk of New York City comes to mind. The public was getting pissed off at the policy while shootings were down. With it's repeal some trust may be regained, but shootings may also be on the rise again. Those NYPD cops speeding their way towards me, I sure like them better now without this Stop & Frisk nonsense, I hope those nice guys get here before I bleed out?

If there are policies to increase arrest rates while also increasing public-police trust, I'm all ears.

Great Unwashed your point I quoted above is probably the single most infuriating thing about my job, which has quite a few infuriations (real word?). I go to work knowing there is a small portion of society out there that if given the opportunity, would dearly love to not just harm me, but kill me. And I've never once personally met them or slighted them in any way. A friend of mine was killed by a cop hater and I think that one of the things (there were others) that fueled that rage was social media hatred against cops due to things a minority of us do. This cop hater had never once met or talked to my friend, a good, fair cop, when he shot him in the back of the head. Monday through Friday I go to work and literally sit in what once was my friend's office, in his last desk chair. So yes, your point commonly pops into my mind when I go to work.

[karaddin]

Followed by...

You've got to be fucking kidding me.

No, you've got to be fucking kidding me. In your magic numbers you presented "most people might say 90%" and countered with the hypothetical of 5%. 5% is still way fucking obscenely high, and under your hypothetical with it's spectrum it's very much at the end of the "police are abusing people" not "restrictions are hampering police ability to do their job". The idea of the actions of police being too restrained to do their job is so far away I don't think you'd even be able to see it from where you are.

But nice dodge on ignoring the rest of my post and being a martyr about my "ignoring" that you weren't claiming the numbers weren't real.

[Summah]

Sturn,

There was no trust before stop and frisk at least in my community, when being a black male is a crime and wallets and cell phones are repeatedly mistaken for guns resulting in shooting and killing young black men by police, people are beaten half to death for no reason with no repercussions for the police who do any of those things, there is no trust.

[paddington]

@Scot and @Great Unwashed:

Is there a point that can be reached where the police are so hamstrung trying to prevent harassment and detainment of innocents, that cops become a completely useless aparatus? At what point along the prevent-abuse versus effective-tool continuum does it eventually lead to more innocents being more violently abused by criminals that can never be caught versus the harm done by police?

I'm going to use a completely made up scenario with completely made up numbers, please don't hold me accountable for the stats, I'm making it up only to show what I mean.

Let's say 5 in 100 police interactions harm an innocent in some way (spare me the "it's more like 90 in 100!" responses please). By harm I mean harass, detain unreasonably, actually physically harm during a false arrest of an innocent, etc. Then, let's say 40 in 100 violent crimes (murder, rape, robbery, etc) are solved by an arrest. With passing of some new laws and policies restraining police (you can't lie during an interview, you need PC not just reasonable suspicion to detain someone, the only possible way left to search is with 100% consent after reviewal by a judge, etc), I could imagine the harmful interactions with innocents dropping to 1 in 100. BUT, I could also imagine the violent crimes solved by an arrest dropping to something like 10 in 100 with the police so greatly restrained.

Would that, overall, be good for society? Could it actually indirectly cause more innocents to be harmed in a worse way?

Again, I of course made up these numbers, but I'm hoping you get my point and certain members here can restrain themselves with starting a tangent on how my stats are so wrong.

Sturn don't you need co-operation from the people to effectively solve crime? If no-one trust the police, whos going to talk to them or provide information.

Maybe less confrontation, abuse and lying would help in the reporting and stopping of crime.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Strun,

If the officers involved in the 5 abusive or harrasing actions were seriously disciplined or better yet fired and prosecuted I think that would be a reasonable number. But you and I both know how difficult it is to hold an officer liable for abusive actions.

[Sturn]

But nice dodge on ignoring the rest of my post and being a martyr about my "ignoring" that you weren't claiming the numbers weren't real.

Since you ignored my repeated simple request, yes I barely skimmed (ignored?) the rest of your post too.

Sturn,

There was no trust before stop and frisk at least in my community, when being a black male is a crime and wallets and cell phones are repeatedly mistaken for guns resulting in shooting and killing young black men by police, people are beaten half to death for no reason with no repercussions for the police who do any of those things, there is no trust.

Sturn don't you need co-operation from the people to effectively solve crime? If no-one trust the police, whos going to talk to them or provide information.

Maybe less confrontation, abuse and lying would help in the reporting and stopping of crime.

Yes this is deplorable and I completely agree this is ALSO a problem.

Policies which prevent harmful interactions increase cooperation even while the same policies are hampering arrest rates of actual criminals. I have no idea which affect is overall better for society. But, I believe arresting the violent offenders is just as important for the safety of our society as re-instilling trust and cooperation towards police.

If there are policies to increase arrest rates while also increasing public-police trust, I'm all ears.

[Sturn]

Most cops I've had to deal with have been professional and courteous. Guess I'm just lucky.

Did you record any of these interactions, post them on youtube, then tell all of your friends, family, and co-workers what happended? Because that's what happens when cops aren't professional and courteous or anyone deems what they did was wrong (even though sometimes they are wrong). That's my beef with the rise of social media and its affect on law enforcement. If you go by what makes the news and the internet, you of course are going to think almost every single cop is an asshole even though news and chatworthiness does not create a good sampling of reality.

Strun,

If the officers involved in the 5 abusive or harrasing actions were seriously disciplined or better yet fired and prosecuted I think that would be a reasonable number. But you and I both know how difficult it is to hold an officer liable for abusive actions.

Agree.

[KiDisaster]

Did you record any of these interactions, post them on youtube, then tell all of your friends, family, and co-workers what happended?

First of all, some people do. I've seen quite a few videos of good cops being good people. I'll find some links for you if you want. Second, the reason this doesn't happen as often as is you don't get a medal for just doing what you're supposed to do. You don't tip the guy at McDonald's everytime he doesn't piss in your coffee.

I've always taken issue with this idea that social media makes cops out to be monsters. No, you make yourselves out to be monsters. Every time you beat a man when he's down, sit on some guys chest until he suffocates while he's apologizing and screaming for help, leave someone in their cell for days with no food or water and gun down homeless people in cold blood with assault rifles. And all of this with little to no consequences for the officers involved. It's the entire infrastructure of law enforcement in the United States that makes it nearly impossible for a cop to be held accountable for their actions and enforces the idea that you are above us and that you can do anything you want to us without fear because God forbid we defend ourselves even verbally. Disrespecting an officer being the highest crime in the country.

Until that changes there will be no trust in the cops from most people. Even though I know most cops wouldn't do anything to hurt me unnecessarily the possibility that they could exists, and they likely wouldn't be held accountable for it because of this "Blue Wall" bullshit. Even 'good' cops lie to cover up the bad ones and the organizations that investigate corruption within law enforcement are looked down on in contempt.

All social media has done is finally give us mere mortals a means to defend ourselves and some of you even want to take that away from us.

As far as I'm concerned laws like the one in some California town (I think it was California) requiring all officers to wear chest cameras and turn them on when interacting with civilians should be enforced at the federal level. Until that day I'm gonna have my phone on.

[awesome possum]

Great. What happens when they just refuse to answer? There are no "one trick phrase to get you out of harassment! Cops hate it!" words. They can just ignore your question, coincidentally keeping you there. Because when you leave, you were being detained, and now you're resisting. Why do people keep thinking that officers who already flout the law will suddenly be bound by it when you invoke your magic words at them?

Yes, there are things you should do. Saying nothing besides the above phrase and the follow-up "I'm would like to speak to an attorney" are good ideas. But they're individual answers, not societal ones, and a person taking the smart route with an officer is still going to have significant problems.

That's why I said make sure you're recording. There are even apps that will upload a video directly to the internet so cops can't try to delete the evidence afterward. That video of you knowing and asserting your rights, if something goes wrong, is the difference between being harassed/beaten/jailed and dealing with it and being harassed/beaten/jailed and then hiring a lawyer to get a check from the city.

Is it some type of fucking magical cure-all? Did I claim it to be?

Did you record any of these interactions, post them on youtube, then tell all of your friends, family, and co-workers what happended? Because that's what happens when cops act in illegal, bullying manners befitting a gang of street thugs.

Fixed that for you. I know you enjoy the internet fellatio you get for sitting here and "dealing" with such horrific abuse, but don't let that boost your ego into the realm of complete bullshit as opposed to mostly bullshit.

[DanteGabriel]

Want to stop being blamed for the actions of the "bad apples?" Stop protecting them from the consequences of their abuses.

Oh, but it's all the media's fault for daring to reveal abuses.

[lessthanluke]

Most cops I've had to deal with have been professional and courteous. Guess I'm just lucky.

Same. Yay us. I'll actually change that to all cops for me. Never had one bad experience.

[Summah]

And let me guess, you're both white men?

[KiDisaster]

And let me guess, you're both white men?

And at least one of them lives outside the US.

[lessthanluke]

And let me guess, you're both white men?

Yeah white and in the UK. Living the dream.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

There has been so many obvious police abuses of power video taped over the last few years that I feel strangely optimistic. After 2001, the American police power expanded way too much due to widespread fear. Back then when I talked about it I was mostly regarded as a conspiracy theorist, or a loon, but now it seems pretty common to find groups of people with a large mistrust of the police.

This keeps me optimistic because I do believe that means the pendulum is about to swing back. While we won't ever hit the sweet middle spot and stay there, our country is fueled by knee jerk reactions it seems, the good news is I think we are about to head in the direction of police power being minimized.

The videos of vicious officer assaults are just too much and too frequent for nothing to continue to happen.

I do still subscribe to the idea that our police officers need to be rebranded as public servants again, not just enforcers of the law. It would take a fundamental shift in philosophy to achieve this. All new officers, for example, should be required in their first year of service to work a service beat before going into the enforcement aspect of the job. They could patrol roads and help change tires, give them a set of tools, assist people who need help, etc. It would set a precedent of service first and if the whole argument of: "there are just a few bad apples spoiling it for everyone" is true, then this would be a good way to weed them out of the process.

Maybe it could even get back to the good old days like when you'd be eating in a small family diner and a cop would walk in, and you'd smile when you saw him.

Got to get the Marine mentality out of law enforcement first though.