Jump to content

Reforming police, the Blue Wall of Silence


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

On 9/1/2017 at 10:45 AM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Defense attorneys do an incredibly difficult and necessary job.  It is their job to make sure that the State does it's job.  If they aren't there to stand as a wall between their clients and the State... there is nothing to prevent the State from abusing its power.  And people damn them ten different ways from Sunday for doing what is necessary.  

You're right.  Much of the problem with Police abuse of power comes from their belief that they must be in the right... because they are police.  I will forever remember Rust Cohle's line from True Detective, "Of course I'm dangerous... I'm Police I can do terrible things to people with impunity."  That needs to stop and it needs to stop yesterday.

If I ever (foolishly) get into a gun control argument, and I'm hearing the whole "we need guns to protect ourselves from tyrannical rule," I often try to counter with, "your best defense is not a gun, but a defense attorney." I don't get very far. I think because I've been in need of both a gun (military) and a defense attorney (unruly youth), I see the power of one over the other. Unfortunately, (or fortunately, I suppose), most people will never need either, but because of this, they foolishly put their belief in the wrong one. The symbol of power.

Defense attorneys are the only thing standing between us and the police at this point. They're god damned heroes in my opinion. 

And the story about the nurse is awful. The old "obstruction" charge in full view of the public. Whenever someone says "they just threw obstruction at me for no reason!" people always doubted them (I was the worst offender for a long time), but more and more, we see the police just abuse this term. Obstruction. He/she had a gun (I thought). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/2/2017 at 8:24 PM, DireWolfSpirit said:

Geezus this is outrageous !

I dont know what its going to take, but at some point I desperately hope Americans will realize we need to pull back the purse strings on (so called) law enforcement? We have a systemic cancer in place, we're funding badged, armed, thugs that are getting away with terrorizing innocent civillians. Yet year after year we blithely go on electing officials and supporting local governments that pour moreand more money into ever expanding police forces and police budgets. 

If there was ever an American industry that needed downsizing, this is example number one. We need to get these police off our streets! Weve been hoodwinked into thinking they were there to protect and serve, for years weve been bamboozled into believing the men in blue were the good guys. The jig is up, the spotlight is on and we see the real enemy for what it has become. Downsize these out of control poice departments. The health of innocent Americans everywhere depends on it.

I'm with you--obviously!--but SO many people still think we're nuts. I'm glad I shared my dad's story here--everyone has really been kind and supporting, but I've really been afraid to in real life. I don't know what I'd say when someone responded with, "what did he really do?" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

I'm with you--obviously!--but SO many people still think we're nuts. I'm glad I shared my dad's story here--everyone has really been kind and supporting, but I've really been afraid to in real life. I don't know what I'd say when someone responded with, "what did he really do?" 

Yeah, human nature. As an abstract, everyone knows the CJS fails, is seriously determined by  wealth, prejudiced etc. But in specific circumstances, a conviction means certain guilt and a charge means almost certain guilt in most people's minds. We know the abstract happens, but it must be constructed in all the places where it doesn't intrude on our lives. The weird part is this same mentality holds true irrespective of people's faith in the system; people in police states who KNOW the system is political will still assume 'they must have done something' about anyone subjected to specific attention. It's weird how we work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/1/2017 at 9:32 AM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I just talked to a former Prosecutor in my office.  He is livid over this.  The officer was absolute beyond the scope of his power.  What a complete load of crap.

And yet the blue wall of silence is as strong as ever.  My grandfather is a volunteer sheriffs deputy and he 100% subscribes to the thin blue line.  It's his damn profile picture 99% of the time and will never... ever admit when a police officer has abused his power.  "I'd never do that and have never seen anything like that" he says, but he also feels a part of the brotherhood and would never turn away from that.  It's a cult-like behavior that's very scary to see in a man you've respected your entire life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, aceluby said:

And yet the blue wall of silence is as strong as ever.  My grandfather is a volunteer sheriffs deputy and he 100% subscribes to the thin blue line.  It's his damn profile picture 99% of the time and will never... ever admit when a police officer has abused his power.  "I'd never do that and have never seen anything like that" he says, but he also feels a part of the brotherhood and would never turn away from that.  It's a cult-like behavior that's very scary to see in a man you've respected your entire life.

And that culture of covering for other officers is what is creating the environment wherein abuse of power flourishes.  How do we fix this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This morning, St. Louis police officer Jason Stockley was acquitted of the murder of Anthony Lamar Smith.

Before he shot Anthony, planted evidence on him, and then lied about what had transpired, he was recorded saying this:

"I'm going to kill this motherfucker, don't you know it?"

Despite the clear video evidence that Stockley had the intent to kill, it didn't matter to the judge (this was a trial by judge, instead of jury). He still acquitted him.

Sadly, the verdict is exactly what I expected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

What I still don't understand is why are the cops held to a lower standard than the civilians? It seems like it should be reversed. 

Because they are state-sanctioned dealers of violence, and thus have a much lower standard to prove, say, use of violence is warranted. This should be obvious. You cannot hold a police officer to the same standards as a civilian, because if you did then every single time they shot someone or used any force they would be liable for criminal trials. They would have to be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

I'm not sure how it would work if there wasn't qualified immunity, there would be literally millions of lawsuits if any individual acting under color of law could be held personally responsible for their actions and didn't have immunity.  It would be unworkable.

Remove qualified immunity from cases where violence has caused injury or death.  Let the government agents stand on their own actions as members of that community without the sheild of "qualified immunity".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Remove qualified immunity from cases where violence has caused injury or death.  Let the government agents stand on their own actions as members of that community without the sheild of "qualified immunity".

I don't think that is realistic.  As I said, it would result in millions of lawsuits and then who would want such a job, that puts them at risk of financial ruin any time they get into a conflict with a member of the public that turns violent or results in some type of injury?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

I don't think that is realistic.  As I said, it would result in millions of lawsuits and then who would want such a job, that puts them at risk of financial ruin any time they get into a conflict with a member of the public that turns violent or results in some type of injury?

Indeed.

 

Scot, would you be providing pro bono defense services to accused police officers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-09-15 at 7:25 PM, KingintheNorth4 said:

This morning, St. Louis police officer Jason Stockley was acquitted of the murder of Anthony Lamar Smith.

Before he shot Anthony, planted evidence on him, and then lied about what had transpired, he was recorded saying this:

"I'm going to kill this motherfucker, don't you know it?"

Despite the clear video evidence that Stockley had the intent to kill, it didn't matter to the judge (this was a trial by judge, instead of jury). He still acquitted him.

Sadly, the verdict is exactly what I expected.

Th evidence planting bit is, I've read, just a defense allegation w/o any evidence. I agree it (if you're talking about the gun between the car seats) sounds like the kind of plant cops do, but I don't think we can call it a fact at this point. The 'gonna kill this fucker' is definite fact, though it happened after he'd hit their car twice and could...I say could, not should...be simply an angry verbal response. 

The acquittal is, I agree, depressingly predictable. Not so much that I'm 100% certain the cop is guilty and the acquittal is a whitewash, but let's say that if the degree of evidence were present in a black drug-dealer accused of killing cop trial, this would almost certainly have been a conviction, imo. 

That said, 'fixing' the system is a seriously complicated proposition I'm happy not to have in my lap. I really don`t think there are 'easy' answers; it needs a culture change. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

I don't think that is realistic.  As I said, it would result in millions of lawsuits and then who would want such a job, that puts them at risk of financial ruin any time they get into a conflict with a member of the public that turns violent or results in some type of injury?

Aren't there already a rather high number of lawsuits?  Police forces pay out millions every year because they legally aren't held to a decent standard of behavior but financially apparently they can be.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Aren't there already a rather high number of lawsuits?  Police forces pay out millions every year because they legally aren't held to a decent standard of behavior but financially apparently they can be.  

Yes, but they're against the city or the department not the individual.  If a person knew they were at risk of being financially ruined as the result of a lawsuit, how or why would they even engage the public in a confrontational incident?  The U.S. is already full of frivolous lawsuits opening the door to every police officer, firefighter, or other public official being personally sued while on the job is simply not workable.  The incentives would then be to never engage no matter what.

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/city-lawsuit-legal-costs-financial-data.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...