Jump to content

Reforming police, the Blue Wall of Silence


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

If I knew that I could be held financially liable every time that I killed an unarmed black man then I never would have become a cop.

/sarcasm

Sometimes its worthwhile to at least acknowledge the problem that a solution is attempting to solve as opposed to ... supporting the thick blue line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/16/2017 at 2:28 PM, Cas Stark said:

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

 

I suppose I'm a little confused or maybe we are talking past one another.  Police - as in the force, not individuals - are already very frequently financially liable for their misdeeds.  Surely there is a reasonable way to make them also criminally liable as well?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I suppose I'm a little confused or maybe we are talking past one another.  Police - as in the force, not individuals - are already very frequently financially liable for their misdeeds.  Surely there is a reasonable way to make them also criminally liable as well?  

I thought you were talking about removing the limited liability, which would open public employees up to civil lawsuits.  Criminal behavior can and is already prosecuted.  The fact that LE rarely get convicted is more a function of the grey area in which they function, although you may disagree, and less about the need for changes to the law.

If we want police to stop shooting people then we need to change the rules of engagement and change the way police are currently trained and probably also raise the requirements to be a cop.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/15/2017 at 5:28 PM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It is called "qualified immunity" agents of the State acting on behalf of the State have it because the State hates to be held responsible for its screw ups or the screw ups of its agents.

I understand that. My point is that if you give police immunity, they’re bound to abuse it, and if you hold them accountable for their actions, they’ll behave better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I understand that. My point is that if you give police immunity, they’re bound to abuse it, and if you hold them accountable for their actions, they’ll behave better.

No argument.  I'd like to see qualified immunity curtailed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No argument.  I like to see qualified immunity curtailed.

What confuses me is that people say it would be unworkable. From my perspective, it would be super easy to implement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

What confuses me is that people say it would be unworkable. From my perspective, it would be super easy to implement.

Sure, it would technically be easy to implement.  But, if you are a public employee, and you can be personally sued by the public, what is your motivation to engage in any interaction? What kind of ripple effect is there when I can sue the DMV staffer for verbal abuse? or negligence? or whatever comes into my head? 

For police, then if they break up a fight on the street as a cop, they can be sued. If they mistakenly think you're a suspect, you can sue them.   Then they have to hire a lawyer or the taxpayers will pay for their lawyer [$ better spent elsewhere] and they fight it in court.  So, what is the motivation to break up a fight, attempt to find a suspect or engage with the public at all and not simply drive on by or stay at the station?    What about the firefighters?  They come to your house and grandma doesn't get out.  Now you can sue them, individually, same thing, they all have to get lawyers, fight it in court.  Maybe they stop trying to save people at all.  

It's a terrible solution for a problem that can be much more successfully treated by improving police training, since this is really about police, and no other public employees, including the rules that they operate under from their own departments.  ETA...and it's all well and good to say that police should continue to do pro active police work even without immunity and that not having immunity would cause them to perform "better"....but human nature responds to incentives, and being open to personal civil suits would be a huge incentive to act in a way that would minimize vulnerability to lawsuits, which would mean minimizing pro active police work,  and as I said it would take huge resources that are better spent elsewhere.  There is also a fair chance that a police force that minimizes it's contact with street criminals is going to cause a rise in street crime and that will affect the residents of these areas more than anyone else.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cas Stark said:

Sure, it would technically be easy to implement.  But, if you are a public employee, and you can be personally sued by the public, what is your motivation to engage in any interaction? What kind of ripple effect is there when I can sue the DMV staffer for verbal abuse? or negligence? or whatever comes into my head? 

For police, then if they break up a fight on the street as a cop, they can be sued. If they mistakenly think you're a suspect, you can sue them.   Then they have to hire a lawyer or the taxpayers will pay for their lawyer [$ better spent elsewhere] and they fight it in court.  So, what is the motivation to break up a fight, attempt to find a suspect or engage with the public at all and not simply drive on by or stay at the station?    What about the firefighters?  They come to your house and grandma doesn't get out.  Now you can sue them, individually, same thing, they all have to get lawyers, fight it in court.  Maybe they stop trying to save people at all.  

It's a terrible solution for a problem that can be much more successfully treated by improving police training, since this is really about police, and no other public employees, including the rules that they operate under from their own departments.  ETA...and it's all well and good to say that police should continue to do pro active police work even without immunity and that not having immunity would cause them to perform "better"....but human nature responds to incentives, and being open to personal civil suits would be a huge incentive to act in a way that would minimize vulnerability to lawsuits, which would mean minimizing pro active police work,  and as I said it would take huge resources that are better spent elsewhere.  There is also a fair chance that a police force that minimizes it's contact with street criminals is going to cause a rise in street crime and that will affect the residents of these areas more than anyone else.  

You’re taking it to the extremes though. Nobody is going to argue that a police officer should be sued for merely breaking up a fight, but if in the process the officer uses an unnecessary level of violence then they should be open to being sued. And that’s the point, the era of almost complete immunity must end if citizens are going to trust the police again. You know there is a serious problem when masses of people are afraid to call the police when they’re being victimize.

45 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Cas,

I'd like to see higher standards for who is allowed to serve as a Police officer.  

https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-court-ruled-you-can-be-too-smart-to-be-a-cop/5420630

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You’re taking it to the extremes though. Nobody is going to argue that a police officer should be sued for merely breaking up a fight, but if in the process the officer uses an unnecessary level of violence then they should be open to being sued. And that’s the point, the era of almost complete immunity must end if citizens are going to trust the police again. You know there is a serious problem when masses of people are afraid to call the police when they’re being victimize.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-court-ruled-you-can-be-too-smart-to-be-a-cop/5420630

When police can be sued, then "unnecessary level of violence" is something that would be decided by a judge or a jury, that would be the point of law at issue.  It's also somewhat in the eye of the beholder, as we see from these existing criminal cases where people see the exact same video and come to diametrically opposite conclusions.    We already have a ton of frivolous lawsuits in this country. I just think this is opening a pandora's box it's one of those ideas that "sounds good" but in practice it would be a nightmare for everyone, police, court system, taxpayers, even the plaintiffs, because then they would need lawyers, unless we're going to provide those at the taxpayer expense too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

You’re taking it to the extremes though. Nobody is going to argue that a police officer should be sued for merely breaking up a fight, but if in the process the officer uses an unnecessary level of violence then they should be open to being sued. And that’s the point, the era of almost complete immunity must end if citizens are going to trust the police again. You know there is a serious problem when masses of people are afraid to call the police when they’re being victimize.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-court-ruled-you-can-be-too-smart-to-be-a-cop/5420630

Tywin,

That case is what prompted my comment.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/16/2017 at 1:52 PM, James Arryn said:

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. 

If the gun wasn't planted, there really wasn't any case....which is probably why the Obama DOJ didn't bring charges and why it was several years before a new DA brought charges.  I tend to agree w/the judge here...I don't see based on the video, that he did plant a gun, and I believe his partner had yelled "gun" at the chicken place.  I can see the prosecution's rationale, although it's pretty flimsey, and what it really makes me wonder is how flimsey are the cases and the theories against regular people, not cops, not people who have a union and their colleagues to back them up.  This is really my worry.  If the DA will bring a bad case against an cop, then bad cases against civilians must be everywhere, all around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Cas,

I'd like to see higher standards for who is allowed to serve as a Police officer.  

I totally agree.  Higher standards.  Longer training.  Longer probationary period.  Different training.  No more cops patrolling alone either.  Partner known good cops with proven ability to defuse situations with younger cops.  The crazy military reactions are not because they are bad people, but because their training teaches them to react this way, and there is probably a good number of people who don't have the personality/nerve to be police.  I don't see how anyone can watch that Minnesota shooting and think that officer was properly trained, and didn't simply completely lose it and panic.  This doesn't make him a bad person, but a person who shouldn't be a police officer, or at best who needed MUCH MUCH more training. 

And also, we as a society have to decide where we want the line to fall, right now it falls hard on law and order and crime prevention, if we want it to fall somewhere else, where police are less pro active, then the training should reflect that.  Crime rates may reflect it as well, it's really an unknown.  There are individual cities that have had good results from changing their training focus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

When police can be sued, then "unnecessary level of violence" is something that would be decided by a judge or a jury, that would be the point of law at issue.  It's also somewhat in the eye of the beholder, as we see from these existing criminal cases where people see the exact same video and come to diametrically opposite conclusions.    We already have a ton of frivolous lawsuits in this country. I just think this is opening a pandora's box it's one of those ideas that "sounds good" but in practice it would be a nightmare for everyone, police, court system, taxpayers, even the plaintiffs, because then they would need lawyers, unless we're going to provide those at the taxpayer expense too.

But all that already occurs, and continues to occur, in part because the police know that the bar is so low for them. Raise it and I can all but guarantee that the police will conductive themselves in a better manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

I totally agree.  Higher standards.  Longer training.  Longer probationary period.  Different training.  No more cops patrolling alone either.  Partner known good cops with proven ability to defuse situations with younger cops.  The crazy military reactions are not because they are bad people, but because their training teaches them to react this way, and there is probably a good number of people who don't have the personality/nerve to be police.  I don't see how anyone can watch that Minnesota shooting and think that officer was properly trained, and didn't simply completely lose it and panic.  This doesn't make him a bad person, but a person who shouldn't be a police officer, or at best who needed MUCH MUCH more training. 

Two things. First, I agree with your list, but it's missing something very important. We have to end the practice of police being prosecuted by people they work with every day. It needs to be done by a completely independent party. Second, one of the main reasons why police have lately been behaving like a military force is because they heavily recruit veterans, and veterans in the post 9/11 era were trained correctly to deal with Iraq and Afghanistan, but they've brought that training back home and it's counterproductive to police citizens like they're in a war zone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Two things. First, I agree with your list, but it's missing something very important. We have to end the practice of police being prosecuted by people they work with every day. It needs to be done by a completely independent party. Second, one of the main reasons why police have lately been behaving like a military force is because they heavily recruit veterans, and veterans in the post 9/11 era were trained correctly to deal with Iraq and Afghanistan, but they've brought that training back home and it's counterproductive to police citizens like they're in a war zone.

Absolutely.  There need to be independent boards who investigate police shootings.  Keeping those investigations internal to departments just begs for cover ups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, r'hllor's red lobster said:

Do police have no training in dealing with situations with anything other than firearms?  This woman should not have died.

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...