4 ms·

It doesn't matter how you "rate" cops if the police union goes to bat for bad cops and gets their jobs reinstated, or they just leave one department and move to

It doesn't matter how you "rate" cops if the police union goes to bat for bad cops and gets their jobs reinstated, or they just leave one department and move to another. https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/02/us/police-unions-contracts-shielding-bad-cops-invs/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/02/us/police-unions-contracts-sh... We know who the bad cops are. There's a list of them in Philadelphia who the District Attorney (the current, and previous) will never call to the witness stand because they give unreliable testimony. https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/crime/29-philly-officers-do-not-call-list-krasner-20180306.html https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/crime/29-philly-officer... There's no need for a new rating system. We need accountability for known bad cops.

wollsmoth 4y ago
Yeah. This is what we all want I think. I want to be in a world where when some story of a cop doing something ridiculous surfaces, we're all confident that justice will be done. Unfortunately for me it's usually a sad feeling that nothing will be done about it. We gotta be more willing to fire, ban, or prosecute cops.
robonerd 4y ago
If the DA really knows who the bad cops are, the DA should prosecute them. DAs blaming cops are hoping that the public don't realize the DAs themselves are dropping the ball and letting cops get away with it.
- jcrawfordor 4y ago
  Unreliable testimony isn't a crime (in fact, on these lists, it often originates from officers having committed and been convicted of and served sentences for other crimes). Broadly speaking, protection of police officers from criminal prosecution is broad in such a way that it is difficult to prosecute police for even clear cut violations. For example, the Graham factors used to assess criminal culpability in the use of deadly force are appreciably more generous than most department policies and DoJ recommendations, meaning that there's a broad range of use of force that is in violation of department orders (including severe violations) but not criminal. Use of force on a fleeing individual is a common example. While there is definitely room for prosecutors to be more aggressive on police misconduct, the reality is that there is a huge spectrum of things for which officers ought to be fired but cannot be prosecuted for. Simple incompetence or lack of care is far from the least significant and common.
  - robonerd 4y ago
    > While there is definitely room for prosecutors to be more aggressive on police misconduct That's severely underselling it. Unless somebody dies, a prosecutor is more likely to give up before they even try. Even when somebody dies, that's still a common outcome. Prosecutors even let cops off for crimes committed off duty, wholly unrelated to any conceivable work matter.
- scotuswroteus 4y ago
  DAs who do that get recalled
  - robonerd 4y ago
    Indeed. In free and democratic societies, the electorate are the root of these problems.
EGreg 4y ago
It’s called market competition. Why can’t neighborhoods vote every year whose contract to renew? Police agencies could compete.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  >Why can’t neighborhoods vote every year whose contract to renew? Because privatization like that is not ideologically compatible with a lot of people. IMO the "basic patrol work", "standing around to dissuade anyone from trying anything" and "professional witness" duties that cops fulfill could be contracted out to private security the same way we subcontract out EMS. I'm more hesitant to contract out the investigative bits. Edit: And before any dolts show up to call me the L word I would just like to make it clear I don't advocate for this out of some love for privatization. I think that getting cops off the government "team" is the most tractable path we have to a solving a lot of the problems we have holding them accountable.
- sc68cal 4y ago
  Municipalities already vote to put people in charge, who then negotiate the contracts. However, the police unions are very good at negotiating a contract that gives them the maximal amount of latitude that they can negotiate. Which is fine, but when the Democratic party _and_ the Republican party run candidates who do not push back against police unions (primarily because the police unions fundraise for them), how does a "market" make this any better? There is not an idle set of police officers just waiting around to bid lower and win a new contract. That's not how a union works, and I doubt that any police officer would willingly give up the arbitration clauses that allow them to keep their jobs. If your response is "just privatize it", I'm sorry but you're not being realistic. The problem is that the Democratic party is not interested in pushing back against police unions. There are no elected officials that are interested in pushing back against police unions because they are a strong constituency that can make or break a campaign. There are very few politicians who go against the police and still win their elections.
  - EGreg 4y ago
    It isn’t about bidding lower. It is about innovating and being more effective. Perhaps they can get to know the locals, do pre-emptive work like Canadians, build goodwill… perhaps they can innovate on their techniques for taking down perps, use pepper spray rather than guns, or perhaps they can use bodycams and document everything. Private competition produces far better products and services than when schools and police face no market competition. At least the public should make more police work like meter-maids, carry no guns and just issue citations for dog poop or barbecuing without a license. Why come armed to the teeth when Barbecue Becky calls?
harrydehal 4y ago
For David Simon fans, there's a new mini-series called "We Own This City" that also covers a similar situation in Baltimore. Highly recommended, albeit a short spiritual successor to "The Wire." https://www.hbo.com/we-own-this-city https://www.hbo.com/we-own-this-city

wollsmoth 4y ago

Yeah. This is what we all want I think. I want to be in a world where when some story of a cop doing something ridiculous surfaces, we're all confident that justice will be done. Unfortunately for me it's usually a sad feeling that nothing will be done about it. We gotta be more willing to fire, ban, or prosecute cops.

robonerd 4y ago

If the DA really knows who the bad cops are, the DA should prosecute them. DAs blaming cops are hoping that the public don't realize the DAs themselves are dropping the ball and letting cops get away with it.

jcrawfordor 4y ago
Unreliable testimony isn't a crime (in fact, on these lists, it often originates from officers having committed and been convicted of and served sentences for other crimes). Broadly speaking, protection of police officers from criminal prosecution is broad in such a way that it is difficult to prosecute police for even clear cut violations. For example, the Graham factors used to assess criminal culpability in the use of deadly force are appreciably more generous than most department policies and DoJ recommendations, meaning that there's a broad range of use of force that is in violation of department orders (including severe violations) but not criminal. Use of force on a fleeing individual is a common example. While there is definitely room for prosecutors to be more aggressive on police misconduct, the reality is that there is a huge spectrum of things for which officers ought to be fired but cannot be prosecuted for. Simple incompetence or lack of care is far from the least significant and common.
- robonerd 4y ago
  > While there is definitely room for prosecutors to be more aggressive on police misconduct That's severely underselling it. Unless somebody dies, a prosecutor is more likely to give up before they even try. Even when somebody dies, that's still a common outcome. Prosecutors even let cops off for crimes committed off duty, wholly unrelated to any conceivable work matter.
scotuswroteus 4y ago
DAs who do that get recalled
- robonerd 4y ago
  Indeed. In free and democratic societies, the electorate are the root of these problems.

EGreg 4y ago

It’s called market competition. Why can’t neighborhoods vote every year whose contract to renew? Police agencies could compete.

throwaway0a5e 4y ago
>Why can’t neighborhoods vote every year whose contract to renew? Because privatization like that is not ideologically compatible with a lot of people. IMO the "basic patrol work", "standing around to dissuade anyone from trying anything" and "professional witness" duties that cops fulfill could be contracted out to private security the same way we subcontract out EMS. I'm more hesitant to contract out the investigative bits. Edit: And before any dolts show up to call me the L word I would just like to make it clear I don't advocate for this out of some love for privatization. I think that getting cops off the government "team" is the most tractable path we have to a solving a lot of the problems we have holding them accountable.
sc68cal 4y ago
Municipalities already vote to put people in charge, who then negotiate the contracts. However, the police unions are very good at negotiating a contract that gives them the maximal amount of latitude that they can negotiate. Which is fine, but when the Democratic party _and_ the Republican party run candidates who do not push back against police unions (primarily because the police unions fundraise for them), how does a "market" make this any better? There is not an idle set of police officers just waiting around to bid lower and win a new contract. That's not how a union works, and I doubt that any police officer would willingly give up the arbitration clauses that allow them to keep their jobs. If your response is "just privatize it", I'm sorry but you're not being realistic. The problem is that the Democratic party is not interested in pushing back against police unions. There are no elected officials that are interested in pushing back against police unions because they are a strong constituency that can make or break a campaign. There are very few politicians who go against the police and still win their elections.
- EGreg 4y ago
  It isn’t about bidding lower. It is about innovating and being more effective. Perhaps they can get to know the locals, do pre-emptive work like Canadians, build goodwill… perhaps they can innovate on their techniques for taking down perps, use pepper spray rather than guns, or perhaps they can use bodycams and document everything. Private competition produces far better products and services than when schools and police face no market competition. At least the public should make more police work like meter-maids, carry no guns and just issue citations for dog poop or barbecuing without a license. Why come armed to the teeth when Barbecue Becky calls?

harrydehal 4y ago

For David Simon fans, there's a new mini-series called "We Own This City" that also covers a similar situation in Baltimore. Highly recommended, albeit a short spiritual successor to "The Wire." https://www.hbo.com/we-own-this-city https://www.hbo.com/we-own-this-city