6 ms·

The author is citing real events. When some cops are corrupt, does it matter that the rest might be decent? An individual police officer represents the entire

The author is citing real events. When some cops are corrupt, does it matter that the rest might be decent? An individual police officer represents the entire force. They wear the colours and the badge as a representative of the whole establishment. Would you call the police if you knew there were such troubling corruption issues? It would definitely make me think twice - you just don't know which officer will turn up. Zero tolerance is the only way forwards when it comes to this, otherwise the few destroy trust for the masses.

weberc2 9y ago
> When some cops are corrupt, does it matter that the rest might be decent? Yes. Of course it matters.
- talldan 9y ago
  And what's your argument?
  - weberc2 9y ago
    Generalizing a huge population on the basis of a tiny, curated group invites bad policy and general ignorance.
    - talldan 9y ago
      I agree with that. There are always shades of grey to every argument. However the point that I'm trying to make (maybe badly) is that the Police are different to most other organisations. They're probably closest to healthcare in that the population, or maybe even distinct communities of a country needs to be able to trust the entire police force has its interest at heart. From an outside perspective, this is failing in a bad way in the US. It is more than likely the actions of a few that is causing it. That failure has bad repercussions, things get worse because people start taking justice into their own hands ... it leads to riots, clashes and worse. That's why you can never tolerate any corruption in a justice system. I've witnessed first hands the riots here in London that resulted from questionable Police actions (we still don't know the full story of those events). It feels like society is crumbling when things get that bad.
      - weberc2 9y ago
        I agree that law enforcement policy in the US needs to be reformed, but the idea that police en masse are murderous is wildly inaccurate and generally damaging to police, to communities, and to any potential law enforcement reform (how can you make good reforms if your understanding of the problem is ridiculously flawed? How can you mobilize support for your reforms when more than half of the country rightly opposes you?). To be clear, this is directed at those who put forth these ridiculous generalizations, and I trust that you're not among them.
Maken 9y ago
> When some of them are corrupt, does it matter that the rest might be decent? That argument can be used to attack virtually any minority.
- talldan 9y ago
  A minority? I don't understand where that argument comes from. A minority generally doesn't hold power - police hold far reaching powers. Minorities normally do not choose to be part of a minority. From wikipedia: "A police force is a constituted body of persons empowered by a state to enforce the law, protect property, and limit civil disorder" If there are a corrupt few breaking the law, the body of persons cannot be said to be performing its duty. It's worth reading about police accountability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_accountability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_accountability Generally the focus of reform is to hold the entire agency/force accountable.
krapp 9y ago
>When some cops are corrupt, does it matter that the rest might be decent? Of course, if you replaced "cops" here with "black people", you basically arrive at the attitude of the corrupt cops themselves, and those who justify their "zero tolerance" policies, including those mentioned in TFA.
- talldan 9y ago
  But I didn't replace "cops" with "black people", you did. An ethnicity is a completely different thing to a law enforcement agency. edit: If you want me to explain why, I can. A law enforcement agency is a group of people who have decided to perform a particular duty. An ethnicity is a group of people who are born that particular way. A law enforcement agency has a strict set of rules governing behaviour, which when broken purposely constitute corruption. An ethnicity does not a have a particular set of rules, they follow the same rules as wider society. If they did have a specific set of rules, it would be considered an apartheid style society. A member of a law enforcement agency has far reaching powers beyond a typical citizen. A member of an ethnicity is supposed to have the same powers as everyone else. What's interesting is that by comparing the two you get a good idea of why police corruption is a terrible thing.
  - krapp 9y ago
    The same rationale used to blame police as a whole for the corruption of a few is also used to justify the attitudes of the police presented in this article, on the basis that any random black individual is more likely to be violent or prone to criminal activity. That the police and black people are not precisely the same sort of entity is irrelevant.
    - talldan 9y ago
      Just because you can't see the difference, it doesn't make it irrelevant. By the way - the law agrees with me. Please read about police accountability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_accountability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_accountability "The 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act authorized the United States Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division to bring civil ("pattern or practice") suits against local law enforcement agencies, to reign in abuses and hold them accountable.[9] As a result, numerous departments have entered into consent decrees or memoranda of understanding, requiring them to make organizational reforms" Now apply your logic to black people, and you'll find that your views are worrying. The basic issue is, that when the department/agency as a whole is not held accountable, they're able to avoid reforms that circumvent the issues in the future. Punish just the one police officer, and another later is able perform the same levels of corruption. It's systematic abuse of power. This is why we must hold 'cops' or 'Baltimore cops' responsible, not just the few perpetrators.

weberc2 9y ago

> When some cops are corrupt, does it matter that the rest might be decent? Yes. Of course it matters.

talldan 9y ago
And what's your argument?
- weberc2 9y ago
  Generalizing a huge population on the basis of a tiny, curated group invites bad policy and general ignorance.
  - talldan 9y ago
    I agree with that. There are always shades of grey to every argument. However the point that I'm trying to make (maybe badly) is that the Police are different to most other organisations. They're probably closest to healthcare in that the population, or maybe even distinct communities of a country needs to be able to trust the entire police force has its interest at heart. From an outside perspective, this is failing in a bad way in the US. It is more than likely the actions of a few that is causing it. That failure has bad repercussions, things get worse because people start taking justice into their own hands ... it leads to riots, clashes and worse. That's why you can never tolerate any corruption in a justice system. I've witnessed first hands the riots here in London that resulted from questionable Police actions (we still don't know the full story of those events). It feels like society is crumbling when things get that bad.
    - weberc2 9y ago
      I agree that law enforcement policy in the US needs to be reformed, but the idea that police en masse are murderous is wildly inaccurate and generally damaging to police, to communities, and to any potential law enforcement reform (how can you make good reforms if your understanding of the problem is ridiculously flawed? How can you mobilize support for your reforms when more than half of the country rightly opposes you?). To be clear, this is directed at those who put forth these ridiculous generalizations, and I trust that you're not among them.

Maken 9y ago

> When some of them are corrupt, does it matter that the rest might be decent? That argument can be used to attack virtually any minority.

talldan 9y ago
A minority? I don't understand where that argument comes from. A minority generally doesn't hold power - police hold far reaching powers. Minorities normally do not choose to be part of a minority. From wikipedia: "A police force is a constituted body of persons empowered by a state to enforce the law, protect property, and limit civil disorder" If there are a corrupt few breaking the law, the body of persons cannot be said to be performing its duty. It's worth reading about police accountability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_accountability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_accountability Generally the focus of reform is to hold the entire agency/force accountable.

krapp 9y ago

>When some cops are corrupt, does it matter that the rest might be decent? Of course, if you replaced "cops" here with "black people", you basically arrive at the attitude of the corrupt cops themselves, and those who justify their "zero tolerance" policies, including those mentioned in TFA.

talldan 9y ago
But I didn't replace "cops" with "black people", you did. An ethnicity is a completely different thing to a law enforcement agency. edit: If you want me to explain why, I can. A law enforcement agency is a group of people who have decided to perform a particular duty. An ethnicity is a group of people who are born that particular way. A law enforcement agency has a strict set of rules governing behaviour, which when broken purposely constitute corruption. An ethnicity does not a have a particular set of rules, they follow the same rules as wider society. If they did have a specific set of rules, it would be considered an apartheid style society. A member of a law enforcement agency has far reaching powers beyond a typical citizen. A member of an ethnicity is supposed to have the same powers as everyone else. What's interesting is that by comparing the two you get a good idea of why police corruption is a terrible thing.
- krapp 9y ago
  The same rationale used to blame police as a whole for the corruption of a few is also used to justify the attitudes of the police presented in this article, on the basis that any random black individual is more likely to be violent or prone to criminal activity. That the police and black people are not precisely the same sort of entity is irrelevant.
  - talldan 9y ago
    Just because you can't see the difference, it doesn't make it irrelevant. By the way - the law agrees with me. Please read about police accountability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_accountability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_accountability "The 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act authorized the United States Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division to bring civil ("pattern or practice") suits against local law enforcement agencies, to reign in abuses and hold them accountable.[9] As a result, numerous departments have entered into consent decrees or memoranda of understanding, requiring them to make organizational reforms" Now apply your logic to black people, and you'll find that your views are worrying. The basic issue is, that when the department/agency as a whole is not held accountable, they're able to avoid reforms that circumvent the issues in the future. Punish just the one police officer, and another later is able perform the same levels of corruption. It's systematic abuse of power. This is why we must hold 'cops' or 'Baltimore cops' responsible, not just the few perpetrators.