Police abuse and citizens

[The Progressive]

Is there any penalty for people making fraudulent complaint against law enforcement agents? I mean I could see plenty of reason why a cop would punch tormund in the face (for refusing to leave walmart while openly carrying a gun), shot his dog (because it was about to maul some kid), or tazed his wife (because she was about to beat the shit out of someone else).

[Borsabil]

This is such a load of bullshit that the only proper response is to quote this great post from peterbound:

This is such a load of bullshit that the only proper response is to quote this great post from peterbound:

Top 10 most dangerous professions in the United States (by mortality rates)

1. Commercial fishing

2. Lumberjack

3. Pilot

4. Iron/steel worker

5. Sanitation worker

6. Agricultural worker

7. Construction

8. Electrical power technicians

9. Commercial vehicle drivers

10. Taxi drivers

Neither firefighters or police officers make the top ten.

Of the cops who do die on the job the vast majority are killed in motor vehicle accidents.

Being a cop can be an unpleasant and dangerous job at times I'm sure, but for the most part it's a well paid and safe profession. I have no idea how this myth has arisen that police officers 'put their lives on the line' every time they put on the uniform, I guess movies and TV shows are to blame.

[Gramsci]

Also, this quote made me chuckle. I love internet tough guys.

The presence of PD is enough of a deterrent in most cases for the protection in place. T

I laughed at that quite a bit myself.

It reminds me of a really unfortunate story. In my junior year of college I had met a friend of a friend and for one reason or another we got to talking about insurance and health care. He made the rather bizarre comment along the lines of, "I am extremely healthy and have never once needed even a check up. People are destroying our country's economy by receiving too much health care." A few years later he was diagnosed with Stage 3 non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Very very sad story.

You never realize how much you need something until you are in a moment of true desperation.

[Borsabil]

Absolutely incorrect.

If I kill someone, as a medic, and it's determined to be negligent, the first thing that happens is I go before a review board. if that board determines it's at all my fault, it will then be handed over to law enforcement. Same for any level of medical care. PD is excluded in this activity.. hence the term preclude.

The investigation of the individual by the professional body is used to determine criminal activity, much like an IA investigation. At which time it will be delivered to them.

Errant nonsense. If a criminal complaint is made to the police they are obligated to investigate it. You are taking exceptional cases of alleged professional incompetence, that may constitute criminal negligence, and conflating this with criminal acts. For example if a doctor is accused of physically assaulting one of his patients you can be damned sure the investigating officers will not be sitting around waiting for the medical board to determine his case before investigating and charging him.

[peterbound]

Top 10 most dangerous professions in the United States (by mortality rates)

1. Commercial fishing

2. Lumberjack

3. Pilot

4. Iron/steel worker

5. Sanitation worker

6. Agricultural worker

7. Construction

8. Electrical power technicians

9. Commercial vehicle drivers

10. Taxi drivers

Neither firefighters or police officers make the top ten.

Of the cops who do die on the job the vast majority are killed in motor vehicle accidents.

Being a cop can be an unpleasant and dangerous job at times I'm sure, but for the most part it's a well paid and safe profession. I have no idea how this myth has arisen that police officers 'put their lives on the line' every time they put on the uniform, I guess movies and TV shows are to blame.

You might want to look up Mortality.

Mortality doesn't equal danger.

Walk into a room that is filled with people that hate you (although based on my limited interaction with you, i'm sure that happens more than you think)

Walk into a room on fire.

Fire and PD have learned a lot from what kills us. We monitor the shit out of ourselves, and have internal and external watchdogs that keep tabs on everything that we do. Making our job less likely to kill us. Thats not to say the side effects of our job won't kill us in the long run. Exposure to cancer, increased risk of heart attacks, sleep depravation, over stress, over work. Just because a dude doesn't get a bullet in the chest and die, doesn't mean he isn't in danger.

eta: fuck autocorrect

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

any reasonable individual would expect an investigation to occur to determine if the dog needed to be shot or your wife tazed, or if you needed to be punched in the face.

Sometimes these things need to happen. And sometimes they need to happen to you and your dog, or your wife. The need has to be determined. If the officer was acting within his bounds, and performing his job, shit needs to go down.

I agree that there should be an investigation. If someone called the cops and said that I assaulted them or shot their dog, or tazed their wife, I would be arrested and then the investigation would commence. Is it so bizarre to desire a single standard of justice?

[peterbound]

I agree that there should be an investigation. If someone called the cops and said that I assaulted them or shot their dog, or tazed their wife, I would be arrested and then the investigation would commence. Is it so bizarre to desire a single standard of justice?

Hmmm... I might agree with that, if complaints weren't so rampant, and they didn't have a suspension system in place.

eta: fuuuuukkkkk autocorrect

[Brandon Stark]

Neither firefighters or police officers make the top ten.

Of the cops who do die on the job the vast majority are killed in motor vehicle accidents.

Being a cop can be an unpleasant and dangerous job at times I'm sure, but for the most part it's a well paid and safe profession. I have no idea how this myth has arisen that police officers 'put their lives on the line' every time they put on the uniform, I guess movies and TV shows are to blame.

And 2011 Buruea of Labor stats say:

1. Fisherman (121.2)
   
   
2. Loggers (102.4)
   
   
3. Pilots (57.0)
   
   
4. Farmers and Ranchers (25.3)
   
   
5. Police Officers (18.6)
   
   
6. Construction Workers (15.7)
   
   
7. National Average (3.5)
   
   
8. Firefighters (2.5)
   
   
9. Cashiers (1.6)
   
   
10. Office Admin (0.6)
    
    
11. Business and Finance Staff (0.5)
    

The numbers fluctuate.

More to the point, those statistics only factor in when the police officer was actuall killed - they show nothing in regard to the number of incidents in which they're targeted by potentially deadly attacks, or diffuse a sitaution involving a firearm or deadly weapon before it gets to that point.

EDIT: Scooped by PeterBound

[Borsabil]

I laughed at that quite a bit myself.

It reminds me of a really unfortunate story. In my junior year of college I had met a friend of a friend and for one reason or another we got to talking about insurance and health care. He made the rather bizarre comment along the lines of, "I am extremely healthy and have never once needed even a check up. People are destroying our country's economy by receiving too much health care." A few years later he was diagnosed with Stage 3 non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Very very sad story.

You never realize how much you need something until you are in a moment of true desperation.

I'm sorry what part of my post didn't you get? The supreme court has ruled time and again that there is no expectation or legal obligation for any police officer to protect a member of the public from criminal wrongdoers, including violent offenders, up to and including murder. 'To Serve and Protect' is a marketing slogan.

[Brandon Stark]

I agree that there should be an investigation. If someone called the cops and said that I assaulted them or shot their dog, or tazed their wife, I would be arrested and then the investigation would commence. Is it so bizarre to desire a single standard of justice?

I think you really overestimate the number of people arrested on the spot for anything other than domestic violence, in which federal statute takes away most of the discretion on the officer's part. Usually we investigate and seek warrants, unless there's a ton of probably cause or other mitigating circumstances.

I'm sorry what part of my post didn't you get? The supreme court has ruled time and again that there is no expectation or legal obligation for any police officer to protect a member of the public from criminal wrongdoers, including violent offenders, up to and including murder. 'To Serve and Protect' is a marketing slogan.

And yet they do, all the damn time. Funny, that.

Also, could you cite those rulings if you didn't upthread? I know I'd be out on my butt for displaying cowardice and dereliction of duty if I just let someone get shot in front of me without acting.

I think one thing that's been missing from this conversation is the absolute terror most department administrators live in from being targeted by lawdsuits. Law enforcement is a liability-driven field, and people are disciplined every single day for policy breaches and unacceptable actions that fall well below anything that's been linked in this series of threads. If a normal department believes its officer(s) are engaging in civil rights violations, excessive force, or anything else that falls under the umbrella of misconduct, it's a lot easier for them to get rid of that officer and hire a new one than be looking over their shoulders for legal action all the time. The idea that they'd risk their own jobs covering things up on a regular basis is not one I've seen proven in my own experiences at departments in Michigan.

[Sci-2]

I'm sorry what part of my post didn't you get? The supreme court has ruled time and again that there is no expectation or legal obligation for any police officer to protect a member of the public from criminal wrongdoers, including violent offenders, up to and including murder. 'To Serve and Protect' is a marketing slogan.

Are there huge numbers of police who don't intervene and protect the public?

I think we'd need those numbers to judge how accurate "protect & serve" is.

[Borsabil]

I think you really overestimate the number of people arrested on the spot for anything other than domestic violence, in which federal statute takes away most of the discretion on the officer's part. Usually we investigate and seek warrants, unless there's a ton of probably cause or other mitigating circumstances.

And yet they do, all the damn time. Funny, that.

Also, could you cite those rulings if you didn't upthread? I know I'd be out on my butt for displaying cowardice and dereliction of duty if I just let someone get shot in front of me without acting.

I think one thing that's been missing from this conversation is the absolute terror most department administrators live in from being targeted by lawdsuits. Law enforcement is a liability-driven field, and people are disciplined every single day for policy breaches and unacceptable actions that fall well below anything that's been linked in this series of threads. If a normal department believes its officer(s) are engaging in civil rights violations, excessive force, or anything else that falls under the umbrella of misconduct, it's a lot easier for them to get rid of that officer and hire a new one than be looking over their shoulders for legal action all the time. The idea that they'd risk their own jobs covering things up on a regular basis is not one I've seen proven in my own experiences at departments in Michigan.

Your a serving officer and you're unaware of this? I'm not sure whether to be shocked or relieved

Go look up Castle Rock vs Gonzalez.

[Borsabil]

Are there huge numbers of police who don't intervene and protect the public?

I think we'd need those numbers to judge how accurate "protect & serve" is.

I'm telling you what the law in the United States is, as ruled by the Supreme Court. Don't worry, most folk who first hear about this are like wtf? That CAN'T be true. Police officers in the US are under no obligation whatsoever to protect a member of the public against criminals. And yet in the media all I hear are talking heads telling us to lay down the guns and let the brave boys in blue protect us against those nasty gangsters and home invaders. Em no thanks.

[Gramsci]

I'm sorry what part of my post didn't you get? The supreme court has ruled time and again that there is no expectation or legal obligation for any police officer to protect a member of the public from criminal wrongdoers, including violent offenders, up to and including murder. 'To Serve and Protect' is a marketing slogan.

If it were possible for me to gag over gross arrogance and cynicism over the internet, I would have done so.

As Sci already stated, simply because law enforcement isn't OBLIGATED to defend you, doesn't mean they don't.

And yet in the media all I hear are talking heads telling us to lay down the guns and let the brave boys in blue protect us against those nasty gangsters and home invaders. Em no thanks.

Ahhh! This makes much more sense now. You are another Wayne LaPierre acolyte.

[The Progressive]

Go look up Castle Rock vs Gonzalez.

Wow you're such an internet tough guy and reeking of rugged american exceptionalism!

Go look up Las Vegas police officer David Vanbuskirk.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

A police force is necessary for any society with so many people--but the point of all this is, the police force should not be above the law itself. Massive reform is needed. Even soldiers have a special law they are supposed to follow that often their enemies do not follow.

It's part of the responsibility of carrying a weapon that you could potentially use on other people.

[Borsabil]

Wow you're such an internet tough guy and reeking of rugged american exceptionalism!

Go look up Las Vegas police officer David Vanbuskirk.

I'm nothing of the sort, I'm merely citing the law of the land, which I note none of the cop lovers on here, for all their talk, can deny. Police officers are under zero obligation to protect your life or property from criminals, that is a fact.

[Borsabil]

If it were possible for me to gag over gross arrogance and cynicism over the internet, I would have done so.

As Sci already stated, simply because law enforcement isn't OBLIGATED to defend you, doesn't mean they don't.

Ahhh! This makes much more sense now. You are another Wayne LaPierre acolyte.

No I'm not. We are being told on the one hand that gun ownership is dangerous and pointless, that instead of an individual relying on their own wits and proficiency in fire arms to defend themselves against the criminal class they should instead call the police. I am merely pointing out that it is black letter law of the land that the police force are not required to protect anyone against criminals. Of course I'm correct which is why you have descended into rude ad hominem personal insults, always a sign of someone losing an argument :)

[peterbound]

I'm nothing of the sort, I'm merely citing the law of the land, which I note none of the cop lovers on here, for all their talk, can deny. Police officers are under zero obligation to protect your life or property from criminals, that is a fact.

So I drove through castle rock today, on the way down i decided to stop by a local police station and ask about this. No one really knew the actual implications that you speak of, and most of them were under the impression that they just didn't have to enforce restraining orders, although, they will now if needed.

Colorado upheld the idea that they did, indeed, need to enforce the order. And as a state guy, i'm glad they did. However, I can see the issue with not acting on a restraining order. However, I think what most people view as protecting and serving is witnessing a crime, or being notified of a crime (which I know a restraining order violation is) and acting to stop it.

[peterbound]

Of course I'm correct which is why you have descended into rude ad hominem personal insults, always a sign of someone losing an argument :)

Hello Mr Pot, I'm Mr. Kettle.