4 ms·

Significant and often are clearly a matter of perspective: what's significant and how often is too often? Realistically, there will always be some incidents.

by rrmm 11y ago

Significant and often are clearly a matter of perspective: what's significant and how often is too often? Realistically, there will always be some incidents. Ideally, they should be as few as possible such that law enforcement is still effective (for whatever value of effective that society chooses). The severity also factors in: No one will probably care all that much if a cop screws up the exact wording of a miranda warning, but when the consequences are someone dead and police perjuring themselves, it takes a lot fewer of those incidents.

JustSomeNobody 11y ago
As the poster I was replying to didn't set any constraints, its clear they meant generally. I disagree that generally officers significantly overstep their bounds.
- coldtea 11y ago
  Even if just 10% of US officers "overstep their bounds", whereas in the UK or Germany only 1% do, it's still a huge problem. That it's not the "general case" it's hardly any consolation.
  - JustSomeNobody 11y ago
    Nice. Where'd you get the numbers?
    - coldtea 11y ago
      They are made-up example numbers to show that even if something is not the "general case" (e.g. majority), it can still be a huge problem if it's big enough, especially if it's bigger than the norm in other "civilized" countries. Note that you didn't provide any numbers for "most cops don't overstep their bounds" either. If we consider "killing citizens" as "overstepping their bounds" (and I'd say is the most overstepping a policeman can do), then US police does it by about 1-2 orders of magnitude (70 - 100 times) more than other western countries... Here are some actual hard numbers: For instance, an April 2007 study of the Chicago Police Department found that out of more than 10,000 police abuse complaints filed between 2002 and 2003, only 19 (0.19%) resulted in meaningful disciplinary action. The study charges that the police department's oversight body allows officers with "criminal tendencies to operate with impunity," and argues that the Chicago Police Department should not be allowed to police itself.[29] Only 19% of large municipal police forces have a civilian complaint review board (CCRB). Law enforcement jurisdictions that have a CCRB have an excessive force complaint rate against their officers of 11.9% verses 6.6% complaint rate for those without a CCRB. Of those forces without a CCRB only 8% of the complaints were sustained.[30] Thus, for the year 2002, the rate at which police brutality complaints were sustained was 0.53% for the larger police municipalities nationwide. Here are some more: According to the 2014 Legatum Prosperity Index released in November, in the measure of personal freedom, the United States has fallen from 9th place in 2010 to 21st worldwide—behind such countries as Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, Uruguay and Costa Rica. Other such rankings systems show the US as low as 46. Let’s look at our immediate neighbors to the north, Canada. The total number of citizens killed by law enforcement officers in the year 2014, was 14; that is 78 times less people than the US. If we look at the United Kingdom, 1 person was killed by police in 2014 and 0 in 2013. English police reportedly fired guns a total of three times in all of 2013, with zero reported fatalities. From 2010 through 2014, there were four fatal police shootings in England, which has a population of about 52 million. By contrast, Albuquerque, N.M., with a population 1 percent the size of England’s, had 26 fatal police shootings in that same time period. China, whose population is 4 and 1/2 times the size of the United States, recorded 12 killings by law enforcement officers in 2014. Let that sink in. Law enforcement in the US killed 92 times more people than a country with nearly 1.4 billion people. It doesn’t stop there. From 2013-2014, German police killed absolutely no one. And more: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/0... And let's not even get into BS like sending SWAT teams for any BS offense, like getting some stoned teenager... http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21599349-americas-police-have-become-too-militarised-cops-or-soldiers http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21599349-america...
      - logfromblammo 11y ago
        As with many other government enterprises, policing has become an elaborate ritual, intended to bless the participants with rewards of tax dollars. If it were an ordinary business, policing would be in a deep contraction, due to the steady drop in violent crime rates in the last two decades. Fewer people would have jobs as cops, prosecutors, public defenders, judges, bailiffs, and prison guards. Instead of either laying off unneeded personnel, stopping new hires to let the numbers drop by attrition, merging municipal police departments or turning them into sheriff subsidiaries, or giving police employees the same benefits and pension plan cuts as all other municipal workers, municipalities just send their superfluous officers out to drum up more revenue. That started out as selective enforcement. Certain crimes, if prosecuted vigorously, have enough statutory fines attached to make them actually profitable. Say hello to speeding and parking tickets. Certain towns turned themselves into speed traps to tax those passing through too quickly. More. Then governments started expanding their malum prohibitum crimes. Crimes that didn't have fines attached got minimum sentences, and the courts and prisons became machines to turn tax money into guaranteed jobs in criminal justice. After all, you can't just let those violent criminals go. You would never get reelected if you did that. More! Now, the cops just take your stuff on a civil forfeiture claim or as "evidence", and never return it (cash, vehicles), or they throw it to the ground and/or stomp on it (recording devices). Now, the courts tack on a bunch of extra fees for anyone issued a civil citation. Now, the prisons are run by for-profit corporations, with minimum occupancy agreements with the government authorities. If they want more, what could happen next? I would think that cities like Chicago would be itching to reduce their future unsustainable pension obligations by investigating every complaint vigorously, and firing the highest-paid police officers for cause if there is even a whiff of official misconduct. Wouldn't that be better than going bankrupt? It might, if there were even one uncorrupted public official left in that town able to do the job. It's long past time for the law-and-order budgets to be brought back under control. The only places in the U.S. that should be hiring more cops are the oil and gas boom towns. But it isn't about the rational course of action. It's all about the money that can't stop flowing through the system that is now too big to fail.
- enraged_camel 11y ago
  Even if most officers don't overstep their bounds themselves, they cover for and protect their buddies who do. This makes the majority of cops bad cops.
  - JustSomeNobody 11y ago
    Really? They do this? Sure... Edit: If you had said "some" and not "majority", I'd have agreed with you. But "majority" is just cockamamey, made up BS!
geggam 11y ago
Changing the mission back to peace keeping instead of law enforcement would go a long way to fixing the issue. Enforcing the law causes more problems than it solves. See : drug war
- Retra 11y ago
  There's no point in having laws you don't enforce.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    Not enforcing a law is much easier than repealing a law. I'm not sure about the US, but in UK plenty of law is enforced less rigorously before it's scrapped.

by rrmm 11y ago

JustSomeNobody 11y ago

As the poster I was replying to didn't set any constraints, its clear they meant generally. I disagree that generally officers significantly overstep their bounds.

coldtea 11y ago
Even if just 10% of US officers "overstep their bounds", whereas in the UK or Germany only 1% do, it's still a huge problem. That it's not the "general case" it's hardly any consolation.
- JustSomeNobody 11y ago
  Nice. Where'd you get the numbers?
  - coldtea 11y ago
    They are made-up example numbers to show that even if something is not the "general case" (e.g. majority), it can still be a huge problem if it's big enough, especially if it's bigger than the norm in other "civilized" countries. Note that you didn't provide any numbers for "most cops don't overstep their bounds" either. If we consider "killing citizens" as "overstepping their bounds" (and I'd say is the most overstepping a policeman can do), then US police does it by about 1-2 orders of magnitude (70 - 100 times) more than other western countries... Here are some actual hard numbers: For instance, an April 2007 study of the Chicago Police Department found that out of more than 10,000 police abuse complaints filed between 2002 and 2003, only 19 (0.19%) resulted in meaningful disciplinary action. The study charges that the police department's oversight body allows officers with "criminal tendencies to operate with impunity," and argues that the Chicago Police Department should not be allowed to police itself.[29] Only 19% of large municipal police forces have a civilian complaint review board (CCRB). Law enforcement jurisdictions that have a CCRB have an excessive force complaint rate against their officers of 11.9% verses 6.6% complaint rate for those without a CCRB. Of those forces without a CCRB only 8% of the complaints were sustained.[30] Thus, for the year 2002, the rate at which police brutality complaints were sustained was 0.53% for the larger police municipalities nationwide. Here are some more: According to the 2014 Legatum Prosperity Index released in November, in the measure of personal freedom, the United States has fallen from 9th place in 2010 to 21st worldwide—behind such countries as Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, Uruguay and Costa Rica. Other such rankings systems show the US as low as 46. Let’s look at our immediate neighbors to the north, Canada. The total number of citizens killed by law enforcement officers in the year 2014, was 14; that is 78 times less people than the US. If we look at the United Kingdom, 1 person was killed by police in 2014 and 0 in 2013. English police reportedly fired guns a total of three times in all of 2013, with zero reported fatalities. From 2010 through 2014, there were four fatal police shootings in England, which has a population of about 52 million. By contrast, Albuquerque, N.M., with a population 1 percent the size of England’s, had 26 fatal police shootings in that same time period. China, whose population is 4 and 1/2 times the size of the United States, recorded 12 killings by law enforcement officers in 2014. Let that sink in. Law enforcement in the US killed 92 times more people than a country with nearly 1.4 billion people. It doesn’t stop there. From 2013-2014, German police killed absolutely no one. And more: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/0... And let's not even get into BS like sending SWAT teams for any BS offense, like getting some stoned teenager... http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21599349-americas-police-have-become-too-militarised-cops-or-soldiers http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21599349-america...
    - logfromblammo 11y ago
      As with many other government enterprises, policing has become an elaborate ritual, intended to bless the participants with rewards of tax dollars. If it were an ordinary business, policing would be in a deep contraction, due to the steady drop in violent crime rates in the last two decades. Fewer people would have jobs as cops, prosecutors, public defenders, judges, bailiffs, and prison guards. Instead of either laying off unneeded personnel, stopping new hires to let the numbers drop by attrition, merging municipal police departments or turning them into sheriff subsidiaries, or giving police employees the same benefits and pension plan cuts as all other municipal workers, municipalities just send their superfluous officers out to drum up more revenue. That started out as selective enforcement. Certain crimes, if prosecuted vigorously, have enough statutory fines attached to make them actually profitable. Say hello to speeding and parking tickets. Certain towns turned themselves into speed traps to tax those passing through too quickly. More. Then governments started expanding their malum prohibitum crimes. Crimes that didn't have fines attached got minimum sentences, and the courts and prisons became machines to turn tax money into guaranteed jobs in criminal justice. After all, you can't just let those violent criminals go. You would never get reelected if you did that. More! Now, the cops just take your stuff on a civil forfeiture claim or as "evidence", and never return it (cash, vehicles), or they throw it to the ground and/or stomp on it (recording devices). Now, the courts tack on a bunch of extra fees for anyone issued a civil citation. Now, the prisons are run by for-profit corporations, with minimum occupancy agreements with the government authorities. If they want more, what could happen next? I would think that cities like Chicago would be itching to reduce their future unsustainable pension obligations by investigating every complaint vigorously, and firing the highest-paid police officers for cause if there is even a whiff of official misconduct. Wouldn't that be better than going bankrupt? It might, if there were even one uncorrupted public official left in that town able to do the job. It's long past time for the law-and-order budgets to be brought back under control. The only places in the U.S. that should be hiring more cops are the oil and gas boom towns. But it isn't about the rational course of action. It's all about the money that can't stop flowing through the system that is now too big to fail.
enraged_camel 11y ago
Even if most officers don't overstep their bounds themselves, they cover for and protect their buddies who do. This makes the majority of cops bad cops.
- JustSomeNobody 11y ago
  Really? They do this? Sure... Edit: If you had said "some" and not "majority", I'd have agreed with you. But "majority" is just cockamamey, made up BS!

geggam 11y ago

Changing the mission back to peace keeping instead of law enforcement would go a long way to fixing the issue. Enforcing the law causes more problems than it solves. See : drug war

Retra 11y ago
There's no point in having laws you don't enforce.
- DanBC 11y ago
  Not enforcing a law is much easier than repealing a law. I'm not sure about the US, but in UK plenty of law is enforced less rigorously before it's scrapped.