22 ms·
The article doesn't mention how the police disconnected his security cameras and stole $400 (which they later returned). Also, it seems to fail to link to the s
The article doesn't mention how the police disconnected his security cameras and stole $400 (which they later returned). Also, it seems to fail to link to the source video itself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oponIfu5L3Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oponIfu5L3Y
https://www.complex.com/music/afroman-sued-by-ohio-sheriffs-deputies-who-raided-his-home-say-hes-using-them-to-sell-merch https://www.complex.com/music/afroman-sued-by-ohio-sheriffs-...
I thought it was legal to film police?
Especially in your own house...
The funny thing is this is basically the exact same story for J. Cole's "Neighbors"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nfVWiXY3WY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nfVWiXY3WY
Basically he moved to a new bougie neighborhood and the neighbors called the cops on him accusing him of "selling dope" (the primary hook of the 1 minute song). So he took his security footage and made a music video out of it
You can see the SWAT team members casually talking to the neighbors peeking over the fence too lol
There have been states trying to ban it
That is American privacy! Evidence of illegal search made illegal because blue camera shyness matters.
It will be difficult for states to ban something that is protected by the constitution. Public servants doing public service have zero expectation of privacy and citizens have and absolute right to photograph and record them.
Many states aren't outright banning it, but making filming from "too close" a form of interference.
Picking an officer's head with a big ass pole microphone is not acceptable? Not standing close.
> but making filming from "too close" a form of interference.
They are trying to, but these laws will likely fail to be constitutional because so far they are completely arbitrary and do not respect freedom of press.
Some states already require two party consent for recordings. Ohio isn't one of them.
The article doesn’t read as if they are claiming they were filmed illegally.
It looks mostly like a claim about using their likeness commercially —- their personality rights. i.e. the rights someone would sign over in a modeling contract.
…Like how you can’t put Tom Hanks face on a box of cigarettes and sell it without permission. He may sue and claim that you’ve tarnished his image.
But yeah, it’s a stretch here too given the circumstances, but these laws vary by state so I have no clue how this state handles it.
That's ridiculous. If someone breaks into a house, the homeowner has the right to do whatever they want with the video, including monetizing it. Especially since they stole from him and damaged his property.
I agree with what you’re saying but not the reason. The actions of the police don’t grant Afroman any additional rights. He had the right (at least to the music video) regardless of whether the police were right or wrong.
I believe the reason he has a right to publish this work is because he is not profiting from their likeness. He is profiting from his work of criticism. (Edit: a sibling comment points out that Ohio exempts audiovisual and political works)
Also, as a public servant in official duty, in a place where they found themselves likely to be recorded, they had no reasonable expectation of privacy.
If someone breaks into a house, the homeowner has the right to do whatever they want with the video, including monetizing it
I disagree, mostly because it isn't hard to get fringe cases. Drunk folks, folks with memory issues, and so on. Even if they break in, I don't think this is the sort of thing they should face public ridicule for.
I think the homeowner has the right because the folks breaking in are cops. If a cop cannot handle these facets of their job being public, they should act better. A cop in uniform is a public figure, even if they are in a private residence. An ununiformed cop is a public figure if they are doing cop stuff, especially if they are in your house.
They should be acting like someone is always watching. They should be able to handle being told bad words from people. They should be expected to always act professional. That is part of the standard we set for call center employees, after all, and we should expect folks that can ruin other people's lives to live up to better standards.
I guess the "damages" claims don't arise from filming them, but from making the video public.
Still, it seems to me (IANAL) that the suit doesn't stand a snowflake's chance in hell. In particular, they reckon their damages not based on any actual damage, but on the earnings Afroman made from publicising them.
Well, that's what the report says; but it's from The Grauniad, and the quality of reporting in that organ has been declining rather quickly (whatever Wikipedia says about "reliable sources").
It does mention it: “Stealing your money and disconnecting your home video security surveillance system…”
It actually does:
> Afroman responded to the lawsuit, telling TMZ the deputies have no grounds to sue, especially since they lifted a stack of money from his property and at first, didn’t return $400 of the seized cash.
Not to mention whatever was in their paperwork for the warrant was a fabrication, apparently!
That should be the entire story: if a raid is performed and the warrant doesn’t pan out the cops behind the warrant should be immediately investigated by another agency (which, they’re cops too so who knows if this would help).
For the curious, here's the judge who signed the "kidnapping" warrant:
https://www.adamscountycourts.com/images/REG.jpg https://www.adamscountycourts.com/images/REG.jpg
Of course his warrant didn't make sense, he was wearing David Byrne's Stop Making Sense suit.
Whoa how did you get a picture of Peter Griffin?
"Kidnapping" basically allows you to legally SWAT someone as long as you're in earshot of their house. Some years back a friend of mine had a SWAT team show up because someone "heard a girl screaming"; when he refused to answer the door, they flashbanged his apartment and busted in (then he was evicted because of a clause that said your landlord can kick you out for being merely suspected of a crime).
Wow. That’s nuts.
I had something similar happen to me once. The police claimed to have seen a "girl in distress" when they knocked on the door of a house party and spoke to the host. They came back 15 minutes later with an EMT and forced entry. They arrested only me (paraphernalia and possession charges -- though none of it was actually mine). I was released that night on my own recognizance, they kept my clothing "as evidence," and I had to walk to a friends (3/4 of a mile) wearing only my boxers in December. The charges were later dropped.
I was targeted that night because the sergeant on duty had a real thing against my older brother (who was, admittedly, a hell raiser), but my brother had left town a couple of years earlier after joining the Army and so he directed his bullshit at me. This was back in the '90s in a small rural area in Ohio. A place very similar to where Afroman lives today, in fact only 2 counties away.
>and stole $400 (which they later returned)
Afroman says they confiscated ~$5,000 and returned it $400 short.[0]
An 'independent' investigation (by another sheriff's office, two counties over) claims the bags were miscounted multiple times and the correct amount of money was returned.[1]
Strap in, Afroman's next single is gonna be wild...
[0] https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2022/12/01/afroman-home-raided-400-dollars-missing/69689666007/ https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2022/12/01/afroman-hom...
[1] https://www.fox19.com/2023/02/16/investigation-into-afromans-alleged-missing-money-concludes/ https://www.fox19.com/2023/02/16/investigation-into-afromans...
[flagged]
There were quite a few videos on Afroman's youtube channel relying on the security cam footage. I'm perusing these and it seems to me Will You Help Me Repair My Door (the one you linked to) works best as a video, but Lemon Pound Cake (sung to the melody of Under The Boardwalk) seems like the best song. Funny stuff.
There is also: I'm A Have a Good Time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwZxxa8f-HA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwZxxa8f-HA
And: Lemon Pound Cake
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xxK5yyecRo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xxK5yyecRo
The instagram link
https://www.instagram.com/p/CqIRTkgukr2/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y= https://www.instagram.com/p/CqIRTkgukr2/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
That pertains to audio, not anyone’s image. Which is why many security camera systems do not record audio or have settings to disable it.
> > Some states already require two party consent for recordings. Ohio isn’t one of them.
> That pertains to audio, not anyone’s image.
Approximately the same states are all-party consent for video recording any place that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, reasonable expectation of privacy is different between audio of a conversation, and video.
That's the thing that pisses me off. If someone talks to me and I can remember it in my head, there is already a recording. Putting this recording on tape only makes it more accurate. It doesn't change the nature that recollection in one form or another has been made. So the real effect is when there is a dispute, the evidence which could otherwise be solid, becomes instead a "he said, she said" type of evidence and justice instead of being precise becomes a flip of a coin
It's even dumber than that. You're legally allowed to remember what people say to you. You're also legally allowed to go write down what someone just said to you; when you do that, it magically becomes much stronger evidence.
But you can't record it; that's not evidence at all.
Of course a recording would be stronger evidence than written notes. It just wouldn’t be legal evidence unless it was obtained legally.
One could potentially collect lots of very good evidence if permitted to ignore laws in the process.
Usual reminder that fruit of the poisonous tree is a US special
I'd like to believe that there's already a sort of balance in place created by the fact that with enough evidence of someone doing something really really wrong, even if that evidence couldn't be used in a court room, that can still be presented to the public who will use that information to reach something approaching justice.
I'd like to think that if someone, especially someone in a position of power, were caught doing something truly evil that society would find an appropriate response regardless of some legal technicality and that there will always be someone willing to risk the personal legal consequences for letting the rest of us know about it. That that same risk of legal consequences would also prevent people from exposing others over trivial matters.
I'm not sure that works out in reality though. We have lots of evidence of people who have done very terrible things but have fully gotten away with it, and plenty of evidence that society is as terrible at evaluating evidence as mobs are at coming up with just responses.
> You're also legally allowed to go write down what someone just said to you; when you do that, it magically becomes much stronger evidence.
That isn't just magic. The longer a memory stays in your head, and the more times it's called up, the more likely that recollection is to be changed by your own brain. A written account of events shortly after they occur is a good way to protect against future damage to the memory.
It doesn't mean that what's written is accurate to start with, we know how little eye witnesses and even our own senses can be trusted, but it's probably going to be a lot better than what we think happened days/weeks/years later.
> That isn't just magic. The longer a memory stays in your head, and the more times it's called up, the more likely that recollection is to be changed by your own brain. A written account of events shortly after they occur is a good way to protect against future damage to the memory.
> It doesn't mean that what's written is accurate to start with, we know how little eye witnesses and even our own senses can be trusted, but it's probably going to be a lot better than what we think happened days/weeks/years later.
This is great if you assume everyone is always telling the truth to the best of their ability, but that's not such a great assumption in court. Giving greater weight to notes mostly means that someone who plans to screw you over benefits from automatic victories against people who didn't plan not to get screwed.
I think there's a substantive difference between something you experience and recollect from the input of your own senses and something digitized, recorded, and preserved in perfect form in a format that is easily shared in every detail and easily repurposed in endless ways.
I do think that people should be able to record events that occur on their own properly, and even their own phone calls without consent of another person, but I worry about the implications of saying that our ability to remember events and the ability to log data are basically the same. Feels like a loophole that a lot of evil people and companies would happily jump through.
Generally though, I don't really see an ethical problem with data collected strictly for an individual's personal use and I guess in theory we could have two party consent laws that acknowledge that but still offer some protections.
That doesn't apply to recording public officials doing their job.
The constitution means what conservative judges say it means. It also can't stop the police carrying out violent retaliation against dissidents.
> The constitution means what conservative judges say it means.
I'm not sure to word conservative applies. In the US you are just as likely to get a liberal judge as a conservative one in a local trial court. Most cases are never appealed, at the state level, it depends on the state if it's conservative/liberal, and at the Federal level we have judges appointed by both conservative, moderate and liberal presidents.
> It also can't stop the police carrying out violent retaliation against dissidents.
It can, however make violence expensive. We're seeing case after case cost local governments hundreds of thousands of dollars for civil rights violations and excessive force. The great equalizer has been cameras.
I don't know what the exact test is, but if there is legitimate fundamental constitutionally protected free speech (Criticizing the government) the fact that its also commercial speech is irrelevant in my mind.
Advertising, sure. But other uses appear specifically allowed (emphasis mine):
> Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2741.09 (A)(1): Right Of Publicity In Individual's Persona: Exceptions.
> (A) This chapter does not apply to any of the following:
> (1)(a) A literary work, dramatic work, fictional work, historical work, audiovisual work, or musical work regardless of the media in which the work appears or is transmitted, other than an advertisement or commercial announcement not exempt under division (A)(1)(d) of this section;
> (b) Material that has political or newsworthy value;
> ...
Source: https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2741.09 https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2741.09
Yeah I was just using the archetypal advertising example as a demonstration of the angle they’re taking. I figured it was not legally sound.
Although, that might not cover the T-shirts…
>or newsworthy
These count as news, right?
https://www.wlwt.com/article/afroman-adams-county-home-raid/41037184 https://www.wlwt.com/article/afroman-adams-county-home-raid/...
https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2022/08/23/afroman-house-ohio-raided-rapper-posts-instagram-adams-county-sheriffs-office/65415829007/ https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2022/08/23/afroman-hou...
https://reason.com/2022/12/05/cops-return-cash-seized-from-afroman-in-bogus-drug-raid-with-400-missing/ https://reason.com/2022/12/05/cops-return-cash-seized-from-a...
https://hightimes.com/news/afromans-ohio-residence-raided-by-local-law-enforcement/ https://hightimes.com/news/afromans-ohio-residence-raided-by...
https://www.tmz.com/2022/08/22/afroman-home-raided-police-ohio-drugs/ https://www.tmz.com/2022/08/22/afroman-home-raided-police-oh...
https://www.tmz.com/2022/11/30/afroman-cops-stole-missing-money-police-raid/ https://www.tmz.com/2022/11/30/afroman-cops-stole-missing-mo...
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/afroman-calls-police-raid-home-220641351.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/afroman-calls-police-raid-hom...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-11135971/Afroman-shares-video-photos-police-raiding-home.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-11135971/Afrom...
All prior to releasing the song (the "commercial use"). This isn't exhaustive.
Afroman just might have a case...
It's comforting to imagine applying some justice to these gangs of violent home invaders, but as the second degree murder of Breonna Taylor demonstrated, adding self defense to the equation just makes the bastards feel that their shooting sprees are even more justified. Like sure I can imagine some kind of home defense product that uses a camera and robotic gun to dispense justice in the event of a home invasion, but really we just need to get back to having the rule of law in this country (where the violent home invaders go to jail with the other bad people) rather than thinking that becoming more adversarial creates a meaningful check.
> A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State
The second amendment protects organized armed resistance against state-level tyranny, whether external or internal.
Can't have a militia of one.
(IMO) Unfortunately the current supreme court (as in, the precedent set like a hundred years ago that still stands) decided that english doesn't work that way.
I especially dislike how people will point to the private writings of certain founding fathers to support their 2A opinions, even though what was ratified by the states was NOT those private writings, but rather the very very short amendment.
You're misreading: the existence of private, individual arms is what regulates (or if you wish, what necessitates regulation of) the militia (which includes police). There is no grammatical ambiguity.
There is. One of the best ways to do it is through your city, through Civilian Oversight Boards with the ability to suspend or fire officers that harm the public trust in the police force: https://www.nacole.org/community_oversight_paves_the_road_to_police_accountability https://www.nacole.org/community_oversight_paves_the_road_to...
Individual officers benefit from this, too. It keeps the relationship between citizens and police much healthier.
I haven't heard of this working very well in practice.
We need to end QI and make the police earn their keep. In general, they've cozied up too close with any potential oversight for a reasonable person to have faith in them being held accountable for misdeeds.
(I say this as someone who's been grateful for police presence before)
Lmao our city (Louisville, KY) got one of these a while ago and the police department just straight up refuses to cooperate. What are we gonna do arrest them?
Doesn’t work. Try again
It can make it more difficult, but I don't think you can say impossible or we'd never hear of people winning lawsuits for police misconduct. Here's a big one from a few days ago.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/21/us/philadelphia-police-misconduct-settlement/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/21/us/philadelphia-police-miscon...
The concept of qualified immunity being a road block in this context is a bit weird to me. In my country, the local government is responsible for maintaining and operating a functional police force. While citizen can't sue the individual cops or the local police organization, they can sue the government for the actions of the police force. This also happens fairly regularly, and generally citizens do get compensation when the police makes mistakes. When a mistake is large enough (and costly), there will generally be a new regulation to address that in the future, and in some cases a local politician will have lost enough trust by voters and be forced to leave.
Is this impossible to do in the US?
Yes, civil suits against government are common and cost cities and other local jurisdictions millions of dollars a year:
https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/wrongful-death-by-police.html https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/w...
It's generally not expensive enough to create enough economic pain to break through the 2 party (or 1 party in many locales) political system.
Maybe someone can sue them, and maybe win, but that isn't the issue. The issue is corrupt cops, or cops that did something bad, never being held accountable and often being rewarded instead.
> It's not possible to have checks and balances with cops due to qualified immunity.
This is a red herring. Qualified immunity only protects individual cops from civil liability, not from criminal liability. And above all, proper check for police is neither civil nor criminal liability, but independent institution for investigation of criminal and professional misconduct (like police IA division, but independent and ideally under different level of government - e.g. state or federal for checking municipal police).
>Qualified immunity only protects individual cops from civil liability, not from criminal liability.
Then why is literal theft protected by qualified immunity?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2019/09/17/federal-court-cops-accused-of-stealing-over-225000-have-legal-immunity/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibill...
You guys have an insanely large territory but I always found it very confusing with all the complaints about police conduct why is no one there pushing for a federal level single training institution and increased academy training.
Most other places in the world cops have to train for +24 months and most of it is focused on physical conditioning, descalation/conflict psychology, and Law.
I mean knowing my local government incompetence I would be pretty nervous in having people with guns being trained by a local institution. It needs to be federal, standardized, and just longer than the few months training US cops have.
They get trained by state institutions usually but the program in my state is sixteen weeks. For reference, a lot of work in Afghanistan is more policing than war fighting and we trained for a year plus. The issues around policing are somewhat complex city to city. For instance, my city is fairly large and has ~300 cops and calls that aren't actively violent typically go unanswered and crimes go unprosecuted for a litany of reasons. No matter what city you go to, it's near ubiquitous that there is some kind of major problem with policing. I say policing in the context of the DA + police.
It's also important that we care about what kind of training. Our state requires standardized police academy training for 18 weeks but you still get pumped full of garbage like killology. My friend's husband became a cop and within a month of his training he picked up bullshit like "always sit facing the exit in public places" and literally playing with his service M4 like a damn nerf gun, sweeping their living room and "clearing" the other rooms in their apartment. Even my actual gun nut brother knows that's bad.
Yeah, if he's practicing sweeps and draws in his house that's not good gun culture. From everything I've read and heard, cops are being taught the violent parts of what we're taught in the military but they're not being trained on warrior culture and ethos, which involves a lot of restraint and regulation alongside situational awareness. Pair that with not learning basic weapon safety rules and it's a recipe for disaster.
They are trained to be aggressive and escalate. More of such training won't make them better.
Improving training might be a good idea, but why make it federal?
<< why is no one there pushing for a federal level single training institution and increased academy training.
Well at least here the answer is somewhat simple.
There is a deep ingrained level of distrust for federal government. It has been there since country's foundation and the past few decades have done nothing to lower it ( and one can reasonably argue it has only increased ). In a sense, the reason is structural.
<< It needs to be federal, standardized, and just longer than the few months training US cops have.
FWIW, FBI is effectively federal police. I think you will agree that they had their fair share of, uhm, not great behavior.
<< I mean knowing my local government incompetence I would be pretty nervous in having people with guns being trained by a local institution.
The whole point of cop that is local is that people will not, ehkm, revolt, because random guy from NY got plopped in AK and does not understand the basic environment they are in.
I personally prefer local. I think last year I went to our local quarterly neighbors/cops outreach and I was largely happy with what the sheriff had to say, because it dealt with MY local issues and not some pre-ordained stuff from the top.
Like I said, the issue is structural, because US is a massive country.
Why federal level? State level would more than suffice.
"You ask for miracles, I give you the F.B.I."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93King_suicide_letter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93King_suicide_lette...
The country was founded by the largest landowner in the colonies. It's always been a farce in service of the landowning class.
The system is working as designed.
The entire endeavor was a power grab by wealthy people. Even if some of them had high ideals about democracy and such, that clearly did not make it into the ratified constitution, as only wealthy people could vote.
It was also founded on slavery..
Institutions change over time.
And completely retaliation for Afroman nagging them about the status of a case where he was previously the _victim_ of a burglary.
As far as I'm concerned, the Ohio state government should step in and entirely dismantle this county's police department and replace everyone.
Yeah I'm sure new replacement cops will be awesome at respecting civil rights
Losing your job is disrupting to anyone. Having the entire previous department fired as an example should be a deterrent. Anyone taking the job knows that they're under a microscope.
All we can do is try.
We can try to abolish police.
I'm sure thats going to work.
As long as we also make sure people aren't driven to violent crime under threat of starvation and loss of home, I am all for it. Police won't protect us from the pathologic thiefs and murderers anyway. Those have installed it.
Last time I had to call cops was when two drunk people started brawling in a bus. One fell asleep and the second, driven to desperate acts by prolonged homelessness tried to steal his phone. In the end, the victim decided that the best course of action after reclaiming his phone was to kick now lying down thief until satisfied.
I and another passenger have stepped in, restrained the aggressive phone owner. We have gotten 4 of us out of the bus. We told the phone owner repeatedly to verify that his phone is OK, in order for him to realize that no harm has been done. We have talked him down. He was still inclined to (way less fervently) take revenge. I had to choose between getting confrontational and sending him home to sleep it off "or else" and calling the cops. Since the first option would put me at risk of being caught breaking the law, I had to call cops.
Cops came in sirens blazing, 3 cars, acting all high and mighty. "Your IDs" and shit. In the end, the phone owner has not even been told not to kick other people. The homeless person has not been checked by a medical professional. He was drunk, might have had some ribs broken, but none of those 7 "public servants" bothered to check. I asked if they were at least giving him a lift to wherever he was residing. "We are not taxi."
Fucking useless.
This hurts poor communities, who generally don’t support defending police when asked.
This can quickly turn very political so without me assuming, would you be willing to elaborate a little bit on that proposal? How do you see it work out in practice and what would be your plan for the day after?
Firing cops is a step. Replacing cops with the same breed of cops with no difference in training is just a show.
The fired cops will just get jobs in other departments. Cops won't be better trained, procedures that lead to this won't be changed. No real change is going to happen.
Firing cops at this point is just theater. It isn't trying, it is honestly just more of the same. It isn't likely that they fire the entire department either, and it will do nothing to take care of the folks that were elected in (sherriff and prosecutor, for example).
As parent points out, there is a difference in training: the previous department would've been fired in its entirety. That's a fairly impactful piece of training.
What changes in training do you think would have prevented this? Do you think the cops didn't know that it was wrong for them to use home invasions to intimidate critics?
>it will do nothing to take care of the folks that were elected in (sherriff and prosecutor, for example).
I won't deny that rot starts at the top, but part of that rot is never firing misbehaving employees. You emphasise training, I emphasise learning, and the only way to learn is not fiddling around with the curriculum, it's not giving cops an extra year of training. What helps people learn is bad cops fucking around and finding out.
You can give people as much training as you want, but if they see other cops getting away with this gang nonsense, they will learn that you can do that and nothing bad will come of it.
If we assume there was a criminal conspiracy among the police to knowingly use fabricated evidence, then the issue is not so much with training (through an ethics class might help). The main issue would be structural in the police organization that allowed a criminal conspiracy to exist, and a significant lack of effective regulations.
Agreed, but don't expect any big change until they completely rethink the selection methods adding deep psychological profiling. Albeit to a different degree, this happens in many countries as well, including mine, and having known several officers I'm sure it's related to the lack of proper selection: they very often hire people who apply because they "need" to wear an uniform and exercise power over others, then they give them some sort of immunity, which can only lead to disasters.
Eh. Maybe? I personally want to say it has something to do with Douglas Adams principle of power:
“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
I will use myself as an example. I absolutely do not want to be a cop despite having a relatively strong moral compass, because I know for a fact that I will agonize over small things and believe most excuses thrown at me. More than that, I do not think taxpayers would want me to be a cop, because I am lenient ( which also why I did not really enjoy having a position of authority in my previous job ). I mostly assume everyone will do what has to be done.
And sadly, that is not nor has ever been the case. Uniform is just a symbol of that power.
If the whole department was fired rather then the guilty why this be a strong indication anyone is individually monitoring your behaviour?
Why the sarcasm? Someone does a bad job, get rid of them. How do you imagine cop culture will change? By letting them get away with everything and sticking your head into the sand?
Ah and before you answer: most of use who are not in the US live in places where police misconduct is much less of an problem, so obviously it can work better. The entire German police force fires less bullets during their patrols and missions in a year than e.g. the NYC police force alone. Sometimes single cops in the US fire more bullets alone than the entire German police force. This is even hard to compare, because the Germans have numbers for every bullet fired at a person during service, bullets fired for warning shots, bullets that hit, bullets that did not etc. That data is wildly mixed and unreliable in the US depending on the state.
If you want to have a police force you can trust they must not be above the law and the law must be even stricter, the standards even higher for them than for the rest of the population. That means longer and better education and training, knowing the law, but also strict measures when police officers break the rules or there is even just the slightest doubt about their version of events.
In many police departments in the US the problem is essentially that there are so many bad apples that every good apple that comes is spoiled or cannot do good. This can only be changed be decisive action from the top.
Whether or not any new police force is better or worse is by-the-by. The current department isn’t for for purpose and needs to be disbanded.
Replacing them would be better than doing nothing.
It's Ohio, a backwater state. The kind of place where AGs claim fabrication for any story that might embarrass them. I wouldn't hold my breath. If the state government stepped in, the outcomes might well be worse.
I think that soothes our outrage.
But it’s like firing the whole development team because we all keep ignoring lint errors and our bugs crash the system.
I think there’s systemic changes to make.
Maybe for cases like this if the judge or person that approves the warrants has a high failure rate they can no longer approve warrants.
The problem is that power corrupts.
Same issue with nearly every place people have power. It feels particularly acute in the US because of reverent attitudes to police force.
But doctors, nurses, teachers, priests... Good people will do bad things given half a chance.
Observe from the names in the suit and a cursory search that the agency appears to have a nepotism problem.
> And completely retaliation for Afroman nagging them about the status of a case where he was previously the _victim_ of a burglary.
Heh, so because he was the victim of a burglary the police decided to do burgle him again.
Looking at the political positions and history of the governor and leaders of the state general assembly, I'm willing to bet the Ohio state government takes a look at this and wouldn't do anything but "back the blue".
> if a raid is performed and the warrant doesn’t pan out the cops behind the warrant should be immediately investigated by another agency (which, they’re cops too so who knows if this would help).
As long as we're talking about shoulds, we should have an independent body reviewing police misconduct and major screw ups. There should be very little "police policing themselves".
Police can police themselves when it comes to the kinds of things any other workplace handles themselves, like people showing up late for their shifts, or stealing office supplies. When police end up violate the rights of Americans though, let police handle that however they want internally, but that should always be in addition to what an outside body decides.
Honestly, the police should welcome the idea too. I'm sure there are plenty of officers who would rather be doing their job than spending time busting down the doors of innocent people and searching for fake kidnapping victims they'll never find.
Independent body(s) correctly incentivized to review misconduct and major screw ups.
The court and prosecutor’s office currently exists and are working as ill-incentivized, clueless, codependent body that mostly post-hoc justify actions.
I believe this is an unsolved problem, not inherent to US or any country.
> .. but that should always be in addition to what an outside body decides.
I.e. civil society.
The UK has the IOPC (Independent Office for Police Conduct) which is the latest version of oversight that has only existed for about 20 years, once it became increasingly clear how bias, corrupt and insular policing was. No system is perfect but it is having a good effect. They are independent and can investigate whatever they want and take referrals from the public and within the police. Any police interaction that results in a death or serious injury of anyone immediately triggers an investigation.
I’m not sure that they are that highly regarded - especially given that one goal is to protect public confidence in the police.
The criticism is pretty strong.
https://novaramedia.com/2022/11/21/why-are-we-still-pretending-this-police-watchdog-is-independent/ https://novaramedia.com/2022/11/21/why-are-we-still-pretendi...
Not sure that's really helped with the recent reports about the Met.
How did the IOPC handle the disappearance of all of the documents implicating high level officials in pedophilia, kidnapping, and murder?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_paedophile_dossier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_paedophile_dossier
I don't understand that scandal. It sounds like in 1981 this Dickens guy claimed to have discovered a ring of pedos, and using some special free speech power he publicly named one of the members, then assembled a 40 page document that listed 8 super powerful people who were supposedly involved in the ring because he wanted them all exposed. So a few years later in 1984 he hands his dossier over to another guy in Parliament, and it was supposed to go to the police, but then a bunch of it went "missing" so now everyone wants to know who the 8 people were and who covered it up, but why is there even a mystery about the people named in that dossier?
For like 11 years after Dickens handed over the dossier he could have just said who they were. He still had that same immunity he used to name the first one and could have told the world, but he apparently just decided not to even after seeing nothing came from his "explosive" report that was supposed to change everything, and even after having previously threatened to do exactly that and use his immunity to name the others.
So, why didn't he just do it? Why is the question all about where this guys one pedo report went. He knew what it said. Why didn't he just type up another one? Why not a bunch of them? How did he end up being the only person to get this information in the first place?
He said that he'd been threatened after naming that first guy, but that didn't stop him from compiling and turning over his dossier. I guess maybe the 8 powerful mystery people threatened him harder until he shut up, but if we can't blame him for not just saying who they were because of those threats, how can the IOPC or anyone else who tried to investigate it later be blamed. Couldn't they have been threatened into silence the same way?
It's really messed up if its all true, but the whole thing seems full of holes and uncertainty. Then again, that's just what I managed to get out of Wikipedia so what am I missing?
And lose their pension. That’s the only thing which motivates cops. There should be a citizen review board that has the power to hand down the verdict. I’m primarily thinking of the Daniel Shaver incident in Mesa AZ, where Daniel was effectively murdered by a Mesa police officer. The officer had to leave the force, but he’s still collecting his pension. Effectively an early retirement plan.
That was more or less my first thought, but most likely the result would be that it would never happen, because it is not so difficult for someone with a warrant to search your house, to "find" something there. Right now, there's no motive, but if you knew that coming up empty would be, not embarrassing, but legally dangerous, the temptation to make sure you always bring backup evidence to be "found", would be large. I think it would make things worse, not better.
I have been saying this for a long time, as in, why are other police departments investigating the police departments. This is one of the few agencies where the agency investigate themselves, and the government just let it happen.
I guess he just wanted some lemon pound cake also.
Looks like he really like Lemon Pound Cake too.
is that where Boss Hogg wound up. It's a small world.
That guy looks even more like Peter Griffin than the lemon pound cake cop.
No matter how good a person you start out as, when you enter an environment where
- A large percentage of the people are already bad
- Anyone who pushes back against bad behavior is shunned, fired, or left "without backup" in bad situations
- There are no repercussions for bad behavior
- There are positive reinforcements for bad behavior
Eventually, you're either going to be driven out, or you're going to turn. So wiping the place clean and starting from scratch, while drastic (and _certainly not appropriate everywhere) can be a valid approach when the problem is rampant across the entire department.
That's the thing, the statement "there are no good cops" doesn't mean that no individual person that is police can be an ok person, it means that police as an institution will make people bad.
My understanding is that it should be seen more as the starrtng point of a reflexion about the police (what should we therefore do?) rather than a conclusion.
I see it as a fundamental problem of humanity - we cannot trust people to do "good" by themselves, because doing "good" often requires giving up personal benefits that would be gained from doing "bad".
The best example I know is videogames. Ever see anyone play GTA without shooting everyone on the street? In GTA, there are no real consequences for your actions, so our true nature comes out. I imagine that, in the real world, when a person has power without consequences, it starts feeling like a game of GTA to them after a while - not exercising the power available just feels "lame".
> what should we therefore do?
Restrict power, increase accountability. The only way to train (human) animals is through punishment when they piss on the rug.
Voting, lying, moderating.
That's certainly a more immediately relevant answer. Here in social media land.
They are the corrupting powers and avenues of expression for this bad human nature, here.
> Ever see anyone play GTA without shooting everyone on the street?
I disagree. The game is built to favor this behavior. If you wanted to, say, make a living in the game by selling pancakes, the scenario would not be supported to the same degree (in this case: not at all).
Look at flight simulators. Most people try to fly properly. Occasionally, people explore "what if" scenarios. But most certainly most people do not use it to practice or experience another 9/11.
I don't know how comparable the examples are
Ignorig the what if's
The "enjoyment" of playing a FlightSim is trying to be as much of a competent pilot as you can, in GTA you derive said enjoyment by acting as someone with complete disregard for consequences. (Both steer you to something, still, because no consequences people try the alternatives, like everyones short lived attempt to follow laws in GTA)
People intentionally torturing the Sims seems a lot more appropiate, and comparably common
Removing consequence from action means that the only thing stopping you is your own morality, which is dangerous (Would you rather destroy the life of a random no one you will never see, or that of a lifelong colleague/partner/friend?)
> That's the thing, the statement "there are no good cops" doesn't mean that no individual person that is police can be an ok person, it means that police as an institution will make people bad.
Yes, that's exactly what I meant -- thank you.
Power does corrupt. But more than that, it attracts authoritarians who live for power abuse. And the top authoritarians are the ones who hire low-status authoritarian thugs and give them a uniform and (more or less) free reign to bully, abuse, and intimidate.
Police abuse starts at the top of the culture, not the bottom. Replacing the people on the ground will do nothing without also replacing the people who use police power for their own ends.
That won't happen without political and economic change. A traditional redistribution of wealth and power won't be enough. The problem needs a new political system with checks and balances that provide strong immunity to authoritarian capture by narcissists and sociopaths of all labels and persuasions.
The only upper hand we have in Europe is far less reverence to the police and armed forces in general.
The military is so intertwined with US national identity that it's embedded in just about everything from sports to science. The US police forces are the closest to military turned inwards.
Armed forces are a pretty big deal in Finland and Switzerland as well as far as I can tell. South Korea probably, too.
For the German situation in regards to sport and the military, see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sportsoldat https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sportsoldat (You might need Google Translate or so, if you don't speak German.)
>and Switzerland as well as far as I can tell.
Where on earth did you get that from?
Armed forces are definitely not a big deal, in fact there's hardly any mention of them in public discourse, no parades or events involving the military, you hardly see them except occasionally you'll see soldiers going to their training on weekends on the train since Switzerland has national service.
There's also very little jingoism or mention of historical military activities. Really, hardly at all. And that's a good thing, and as far as I can tell that's how the Swiss like it.
I’m an American. I lived in Switzerland. There is no glorification of the military. It’s a job that people have to do. It’s less, “I proudly serve my country,” and much more, “Aw crap. It’s time for my annual marksmanship certification.”
Well, the popular and deep support for armed forces did not, by and large, make Europe any better off. On the contrary, last time we glorified armed forces it led to some 80 million dead and unimaginable destruction across the continent (and world). On the other hand, the US seems to have been served well by their army, so it's not strange for normal people to support soldiers and such.
The US was in the unique situation of never having to face existential consequences for its nationalism and militarism the way the rest of the world did after World War 2, having escaped the war relatively unscathed. We see ourselves as Superman punching Hitler, instead of the middleman who bought up every Nazi and Japanese war criminal we could get our hands on, and parleyed the world's losses into superpower status through loans and asserting military and business hegemony.
Unfortunately the fetish for violence in American culture is baked into the core of American identity and has been since the Second Amendment and the archetype of the armed American revolutionary patriot was seared into the zeitgeist. Americans love Dirty Harry and Jack Bauer and the gritty, no-nonsense cowboy who shoots first and asks questions never.
I mean, just look at our response to 9/11. That should have been an opportunity to reflect on the policies that brought that kind of retribution about, and a chance to reconsider our assumptions about the world and our effect on it. Or at least to bring the world together under a rare common bond of global unity and do something good. Instead our jackass cowboy President said "you're either with us or with the terrorists" and went all Yosemite Sam across Iraq. We'll put a boot in yer ass 'cause it's the American way.
We're insulated as a culture (despite our bragging about our guns and revolutionary spirit, it's mostly bravado) and depressingly immature. It's no wonder our police are the way they are.
> Lucky you. I live in France and police "misconduct", brutality, utter incompetence and systematic lies are a huge problem, compounded by the fact that all politicians refuse to even consider the possibility that not everything is perfectly fine.
Everything is relative. Hearing comments and watching investigations in police abuses in France is chilling (e.g. there was recently a video of a cop, without his number prominently shown on the uniform, which is illegal for them dragging away and beating a protester), until you look into comments and investigations about police abuses in the US, and you're downright reassured things aren't that bad. Yeah, reforms are needed, the IGPN (authority that surveils and investigates the French Police) needs to be redone from scratch, and the first steps for that are non-crazies running the Interior Ministry (the last two guys were... special and hardliners), but seeing that extreme care needs to be taken, I completely get why no active politician wants to touch this issue. Remember when police were protesting due to working way too many hours without pay (basically they have an overtime budget for the year, and due to multiple long running protests, the budget was blown through in the first couple of months of the year and they had to work weekends for free) and how tense the situation was, with the Gendarmerie having to police the police protest? Nobody wants to piss off the police forces, because they are necessary and powerful.
> Because there are no good cops?
Do people honestly believe this? Maybe in your country police force is completely broken, but it's still statistical impossibility. In my country, I believe, police is generally good and does their job reasonably. Of course they're not the most beloved job, because if you have to deal with them you probably have a problem, but given that situation they're OK. Maybe fix your police, fire the incompetent ones and replace your polititians that allow this instead of generalising.
I live in US and I might be a little biased, because I have cops in my extended family and my parents were friends with local sheriff equivalent in the old country.
In short, I agree with you. It is unreasonable to claim to that there are no issues ( and maybe even systemic issues ), but it is also unreasonable to claim that there is no such thing as a good cop. Cops are just people and people respond to the environment they are in. I think parent may exaggerating for brevity ( or at least I hope so ).
The solution is what it has always been, correct to the extent that you can until you get what you want in terms of results.
Naturally, this line of thinking opens rather uncomfortable set of questions, because:
What if the system works as intended given current incentives?
And that is a hard question I have no idea how to answer.
One question I consider: is a cop that never violates anyone’s civil rights, but also does nothing when their coworkers do, considered a good cop?
For instance, are there any good cops in Louisville? Any good state cops in Kentucky? Seems to me they would’ve done something, anything, about the Breonna Taylor case instead of waiting for the feds to come in.
There were even active coverups, Kentucky’s Attorney General went to great lengths to push the idea that the entire thing was perfectly legal!
Edit: and maybe the federal charges are to some extent the result of an actual good cop in KY blowing a whistle, hopefully we’ll know someday
There are bad cops, and cops who choose to look away, and I'm sure these are all perfectly wonderful people off the clock, but my example of a good cop is Adrian Schoolcraft and look what they did to him.
It depends on what a cop does when he sees misconduct by others. Christopher Dorner reported misconduct, but was ostracized afterward. He sought justice in his own way afterward:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Dorner_shootings_and_manhunt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Dorner_shootings_a...
Not really relevant, but the ridiculous (and secret) police response once they knew they were being targeted had bad consequences for others too. I have a house near where this multi-agency incident (links below) occurred and there was so much gunfire for such a long period that I knew it had to be cops doing the shooting.
https://www.kpcc.org/2014-01-15/la-district-attorney-torrance-cop-who-fired-at-wro https://www.kpcc.org/2014-01-15/la-district-attorney-torranc...
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-no-charges-lapd-shooting-newspaper-delivery-women-dorner-manhunt-20160127-story.html https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-no-charges-lapd...
Dorner murdered two people who had nothing to do with the LAPD. One was a campus security guard at the University of South Carolina and the other wasn't any sort of cop at all, she was a basketball coach. Even if you believe all of Dorner's allegations against the LAPD, Dorner was still a mass murdering psychopath who targeted and murdering innocent people. In light of that, why would you believe any of his allegations in the first place? Hero worship of Dorner is an insane 4chanism, shame on you. Dorner was nothing more than another murderous cop.
I'm pretty sure that I did not express any sympathy or support for what Dorner did in my post. I do believe though that it's more likely than not that the excessive force he reported actually occurred. His record up to that point was exemplary. After he snapped, his murderous rage was not typical behavior for law enforcement, but it is a fact that psychopathy is far more prevalent in police officers than in the general population. One could argue about whether this is because psychos are drawn to the police profession, or that the nature of the work the police do causes mental problems.
https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1166&context=jj_etds https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1...
<< One question I consider: is a cop that never violates anyone’s civil rights, but also does nothing when their coworkers do, considered a good cop?
It is not a bad question to ask. Lets do what lawyers do: change one fact and see how it affects the case at hand.
Issue at hand is bad behavior of individuals in a group. Is individual guilty of actions committed by other individuals while being part of that group?
I suppose it depends.
Is a random US citizen guilty of actions of their politicians?
Is a random US citizen guilty of actions of their sheriffs?
Is a random US citizen guilty of actions of their neighbors?
Is a random US citizen guilty of actions of their partners?
Is a random US citizen guilty of actions of their kids?
I have problem with either of those despite seeing clearly what you are getting at. Starting from the bottom, I have a problem with 'sins of the father' justification all the way to the politician. I see an abstract reasoning that can take us to 'yes, inaction is a choice too', but is it in the same category? Does it even have the same weight?
<< There were even active coverups, Kentucky’s Attorney General went to great lengths to push the idea that the entire thing was perfectly legal!
Chicago is not better. Some stories are heart-wrenching and, as I stated before, I would not be able to be a cop just based on those alone, but I personally think you are trying to spread sin way too thin, which, contrary to what you think you are doing, is only distributing accountability even further and alienate even those, who could reasonably agree with you otherwise.
In very simple terms, if you are gonna define me as bad apple anyway by association only, I might as well stick to my tribe, where at least I will have some level of protection from the outside.
And that, I think, is the true problem.
Do you think it's difficult to consider the cops in family might be bad? It's not like they are going to tell you the horrible things they may have done.
You think the cops in your family are good because they are in your family and are nice to you. That's probably the extent of the details about their job you know
This sounds like mental gymnastics at this point.
"Have you considered the average hn user is a rapist, of course they deny it and they dont talk about it. You think HN users are good because theyre nice to you!"
Im as anti-authoritarian as they come, but I really dont like hyperbolic arguments.
I think pointing out “I have cops in my family, therefore there are good cops” is inherently poor counterpoint because obviously the cops aren’t going to admit to wrongdoings to civilians (although the poster didn’t mention any domestic violence happens in the home, which is shockingly high in cop families…) is not mental gymnastics.
Agreed, I think it was an honest disclosure that one obviously may have bias, but also that one might have more exposure to police than most. My dad spent about a decade as an undercover narc, some pretty interesting stories, including when he had to deal with police while undercover.
Getting pulled over leaving a bar on the way to a buy, with gun and badge in motorcycle roll. "I'm not unrolling that..." to prove he was who he said, "I think my boss would be more upset about dropping a buy than me blowing over on an alcohol test."
Or, getting caught in the middle of a shootout between the Feds and a biker gang.
Edit: My dad also quit two positions along the way, one because his boss was a clear racist, and another that had some other issues in the dept.
My mom was a dispatcher, and when retired was head of combined dispatch for a region. She mostly dealt with people in trouble, distress, or sometimes the absurd.
I think you're overextending the context of "cop".
A cop ceases to be a cop when they take off the uniform. They can be perfectly nice people in outside life (although they can also not) but when the uniform goes on, they're contributors to a system of abuse.
"No good cops" does not mean good people don't go into policing. It means that those who insist on trying to meaningfully change the system get forced out, leaving only those who contribute to it.
In recent cases, off duty cops have shot strangers and benefited from the incestuous cop dynamic and been protected from any consequences, so no, even when they take off the uniform, they are still a cop.
There will never be a good cop until accountability is an actual thing in policing.
Even a "justified" shooting by a cop should be considered a horrific failure of process.
<< Even a "justified" shooting by a cop should be considered a horrific failure of process.
I think this is where we might disagree. I can't comment for other countries. I can comment a little about Chicagoland. If there is a failure, it is not the failure of the process ( here understood as policing ). At this point, 'justified shooting' is merely what I would classify as 'necessary violence'. I am not using that word lightly, because actual violence only creates problems.
It is the failure of:
1. Society that allowed a given issue to fester long enough to move beyond tension
2. Individuals' environment that contributed to it
3. Individuals' family and fiends
4. The individual
Police merely deals with the aftermath. I think you got it wrong.
Yes, a lot of people believe this - and with ample cause.
Try googling ACAB, and you'll see just how popular this view is, and the justifications behind it.
The origins of police, the purpose they serve, the actions they take, and don't take - the beatings, the broken cameras, the gang behaviour, the covering of asses, the nepotism, the shitty training, the domestic abuse, the collusion and corruption, the straight up murders: It's all the tip of the iceberg really.
I believe that "there are no good cops" is a reasonable and useful shorthand for a complex situation, yes.
Capricious violence, racism, and corruption are so endemic to american policing that every cop is either an active participant, or aware of specific instances and complicit in this lawlessness. The internal culture of policing enforces this through peer pressure, hazing, and threats and violence if necessary. Good people can become police but they can't stay police: they ultimately either warp their morals to conform to this system or leave it entirely.
Considering this a problem of individual cop incompetence is naive honestly. This "problem" is so widespread, so universal, that you can't understand the role of police in society without accounting for it. They aren't incompetent and failing at their job: this is their job! Terrorism against the dispossessed is an important part of what they do, and they are doing it.
Fine, maybe some individual cops somewhere are good in their heart of hearts. I'm even willing to entertain that the ones in Germany are mostly so (at least this decade), but the real meaning of ACAB is that /it is not possible to be a good cop, even if you are a good person/. The /concept of policing/, however implemented, is inherently fascistic, classist, and racist. Police are tasked with keeping order among the hoi polloi but not the ruling class. They are always and everywhere an instrument of entrenched power (private, public, or mixed as befits the particular time and place).
The concept of policing is to be measured against the alternative, which is a state that does not have a monopoly on violence. The warlordism that emerges in such a scenario makes the low grade fascism of a police force seem absolutely utopian in comparison. The police, however corrupt, need to at least superficially appear to uphold law and justice. Warlords do not.
In many police departments in the US the problem is essentially that there are so many bad apples that every good apple that comes is spoiled or cannot do good. This can only be changed be decisive action from the top.
How many bad apples does it take, to spoil the whole barrel?
I'm not disagreeing with the comment I'm replying to, just trying to challenge the perception that there's anything ok with "just" a few bad apples. The acceptable number of bad apples is zero.
> The acceptable number of bad apples is zero.
This is obviously idealistic and impossible in the real world (given the size of a police force). What is needed is a system that gets rid of bad apples with time, instead of letting them thrive and corrupting other apples.
Nobody even knows the saying.
How many bad apples does it take, to spoil the whole barrel?
It doesn't just take apples, it takes time. If you remove the bad apple as soon as possible, the rest of the barrel can still be fresh and healthy. If you leave it to rot, you spoil the entire batch.
Yep - they always say it's a "few bad apples" but the original saying is "one bad apple can spoil the barrel".
> The acceptable number of bad apples is zero.
Should we defund and abolish public schools since more than zero teachers are child molesters? Should we defund and abolish fire departments since more than zero firefighters are arsonists?
What I meant by that is that any police department should be able to handle one officer that falls out of line. One person that has an impedance mismatch with the general culture of an organization should never be an issue. We all know that from our work places: one highly motivated guy won't change the lazy majority, one lazy guy won't change the highly motivated majority etc. If you have one such person in your organisation the rest of the organsation will either work around it, or try to contain/get rid of that person. This self-correction works only up to a certain fraction however.
Where that cutoff percentage is, depends on the single organisation and the individuals within it. But I believe that in this case it is a combination of police culture ("we always did it that way, we need to protect our own") and systemic incentives ("if we hide bad behaviour we look better than if we expose it") are the key to understanding this.
Correct, but also many German police are associated with hard right-wing / Nazi adjacent political beliefs.
These are deep rooted issues that are not as easily quantified and discouraged. Reducing gun misuse is one thing, but reducing police discrimination, selective policing, and misconduct is a much larger ball of wax.
Many police in the US are associated with far right wing white supremacy, basically the same as those nazis
And in Norway the police had to be told to quit strip searches, "squat and cough", searching homes, and other invasive practices just for catching someone with a joint. They have never been allowed to use means so disproportional to the crime like this, but have been for years.
And people think that they need those means (which they never had) "back."
Also institutional racism and all the other shit that's true for most police across the world.
ACAB.
The police in Germany burned Oury Jalloh to death (or burned his corpse after he died in police custody) and every officer involved got away with it.
The German government decided there doesn't need to be an external investigation into police violence because the police can be trusted to have correctly investigated itself finding that police violence is not a problem.
The NRW state minister of the interior abolished ID badges for riot police, then insisted that there had been no evidence of misconduct during police riots because no individual officers (wearing full helmets and no individually identifying features) had ever been charged despite video evidence of excessive use of force.
Demonstrators hospitalized due to police violence routinely receive police visits in hospital because their injuries are taken as evidence of resisting arrest as all police violence is presumed to be justified.
The NRW police literally used the energy company's transport vehicles to detain and transport arrested demonstrators during the raid on Lützerath, where the police was explicitly instructed to show full force to deter future protests at similar sites.
Police officers were found to be part of a neo-nazi group called Combat18 (18 = Adolf Hitler) that had maintained kill lists using police records and a stash of assault weapons and body bags.
It's a whole thing, yes.
Body cams have been so hard, if it were not for cell phones there would be no accountability at all.
I seems reasonable to expect the police force of a country where the populace is heavily armed to shoot more people.
I don't know. Maybe?
We can look at statistics from eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g... and compare with statistics on police shootings.
There has been a downward trend in gun ownership since at least the 1980s.
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/gun-ownership.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/gun-ownership.html
https://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gun%20Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf https://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gu...
I think we should get into the habit of changing leadership on the basis of results alone. So a serious incident would result in the commander being reassigned or demoted. And leadership would be held directly accountable for events regardless of their own culpability.
There is a consistency in Republican attitudes towards government: they trust the parts of government they feel they control and wish to destroy the parts they fear they do not control. Lionize the police and the military. Kill the EPA , NOAA, HUD, the IRS, and the FDA. The only time they hate law enforcement is when it is used to enforce a law against them, see Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, etc. And then boy do they hate it, because they see this as disloyalty, as treason.
This attitude goes way back. It is characterological. See the Fugitive Slave Act versus states' rights.
That’s because you don’t consume U.S.-based right-wing media. The reverence/disgust for police splits right down party lines. Team red supports the “boys in blue” but hates team blue. What a weird situation!
More generally, if you don’t/haven’t lived in the United States (or have only ever visited/lived in a large city,) and only consume “mainstream” US-based news, like the New York Times, Washington Post, NPR, etc., you’ll get a center-left-slanted view of the United States.
The first problem with that, from the perspective of forming an accurate view of the populace, is that, as a whole, the US leans ever-so-slightly center-right[0].
The second problem is that much of our political news is a circus whereby both political parties attempt to paint a picture that the “majority” of the country is behind more extreme interpretations of their platforms — that the country leans more heavily to the left or the right than it really does. The Republican Party has been doing this for more than a generation; its a more recent phenomenon with the Democrats.
0 - https://news.gallup.com/poll/275792/remained-center-right-ideologically-2019.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/275792/remained-center-right-id...
…unless the police are investigating Team Red, in which case they are part of the vast left wing conspiracy.
…and except when Team Red needs to justify owning military grade weapons, in which case it’s all about deterring tyranny by being prepared to shoot cops and soldiers.
It’s a very… situational reverence. Like, as long as the situation is the police attacking the correct demographics.
It's hilarious when conservatives and cops get really uppity about the 2nd amendment. Who the fuck do they think they would be shooting at if the state ever came for their guns? Or you can look at how they view the ATF, completely ignoring that every other LEO organization in the country is very very similar in structure.
>The reverence/disgust for police splits right down party lines. Team red supports the “boys in blue” but hates team blue. What a weird situation!
I think that's starting to break down. Conservatives are not happy with the ATF's self evaluation of congressional law right now and they are certainly an armed police force with arresting power. Also, poor people who are conservative are also on the receiving end of police violence quite frequently as well.
There are plenty of police abuse videos out there, against citizens of all colors and they're all over YouTube. The more people watch them, the more that support will break down.
Of course the other irony is some of the worst police departments are in cities run by the Democratic Party. New York, LA, Chicago, Louisville, New Orleans. The abuses aren't limited to a single party, so it's difficult to politicize.
What you see online is very unrepresentative. Both of people's views (which often breaks along party lines) and the actual dangerousness of USA cops (which varies wildly depending on location and department).
Power does corrupt but systems can overcome it. A lot of good research out there about mistakes in hospitals arising from the power dynamic between doctors and nurses. How nurses would be afraid to challenge doctors when they make mistakes.
And how changing the systems and culture can fix it. Think the book checklists discusses this in detail .
You're confusing a person's job title with thier morality.
Rather, it's like firing the whole development team because they retaliate against stakeholders.
These are not comparable situations.
Ideally everyone should do a good job, sure, but cops are in an entirely different position in terms of power and responsibility.
as part of the executive arm of government they are tasked with holding the monopoly on violence and egregious mistakes in doing so are a fundamental violation of basic rights and the peaceful order of society.
When they screw up it's not a bad product being delivered, it's trust in society being eroded, lives being destroyed and the door to tyranny being opened just a little further.
severe deterrence against misbehavior, loosing a job honestly seeming VERY weak compared to the scale of responsibility at play here, should simply be par for the course in this context.
As part of the executive arm of government, they are under the responsibility of the government. When they screw up it reflects on the ability of the government to organize, regulate and fund that executive arm, and also the trust that people have put into those politicians.
If people no longer trust that executive arm of government, then hold those in power responsible for it. Start at the top and replace those politicians. An elected politician can only remain in office if they continue to receive support by voters.
Sure, replace the politicians at the top who aren't willing to cull and replace dysfunctional and corrupt members of the police force. And if it's systemic, the entire police force, which is what's being suggested.
Sure politicians should also be held accountable for policy failures but I don't think it absolves the people enacting an injustice from responsibility.
"just following orders" is not a valid excuse and "just vote different" is not a valid way to hold people accountable (in all cases).
When everything works in the spirit of the law and the output is still bad it makes sense to just vote for different laws/people to make new legislation, sure, but when rights are being violated there need to be harsh consequences.
It is important that those responsible for the police force can not just simply wash themselves clean of the problem by firing the lowest level employees. I do not disagree that individuals need to be held responsible for their own actions, through most blames should lie on those who hold power to create real change in the organization. As an generalization, a good model is one where blames travels upward and praise travel downward.
Just voting differently is naturally not the only way a government can be held responsible. Political assigned jobs is a job description based on trust, and there should be mechanism to remove individuals who do not fulfill that trust. Governments should also be liable to their citizens, so when injustice occurs people should have the option to demand compensation from the government. This in turn put pressure on politicians to avoid injustice caused by the police.
A police force that protects citizens rights should be viewed as an asset to local government, and the opposite should be a harsh liability that local governments can feel.
True, but how does firing the whole department solve the problems? I don't think just firing the bad apples is a good long term solution. Mainly because these types of mistakes continually happen in multiple departments in multiple counties and countries. Whenever things keep happening over and over again, it is likely the system itself that causes the problems. Perhaps we should look at countries with the lowest police mistakes and emulate them.
I try to solve problems from a systems perspective. For example the common automobile stop and warrantless search allows officers to more easily abuse power and escalate situations quickly as cops no longer required a warrant from a judge. This was by design by the Supreme Court who ruled in 1925 to allow this exception in times of prohibition when an individual ran away from police with alcohol and they didn't have time to go get a warrant. Stop and frisk was an extension of this case law.
Your comparison is poor.
A more accurate comparison would be firing the whole team for inserting intentional backdoors and collecting fractional pennies from each transaction and depositing them in personal accounts.
Accidents happen to everyone. We often make trade offs. In the cases we're talking about, these weren't accidents or appropriate judgement calls.
>And completely retaliation for Afroman nagging them about the status of a case where he was previously the _victim_ of a burglary.
Then people wonder why black people don't talk to (or call) the police. It has nothing to do with "snitching". It's about the fact that It never ends well, no matter which side you're on. Best to avoid the beasts entirely.
Both my parents worked and retired PD... most cops are mostly good, like most people. It only takes a handful of bad guys to have an outsized effect, and the protections for govt employees in general, and police in particular is way too strong imo...
The aversion to police altogether, while I understand is akin to being overprotective as a parent, which can be more than just counterproductive but harmful as a whole.
Few people dispute that there are some good peace officers.
However, there appear to be no good police unions. The unions bend over backwards to protect bent cops almost regardless of their actions. The "good cops" also support these unions - if they didn't, and if the "good cops" where the majority, then the police unions would reflect that
And one of the misunderstood things about ACAB is that it doesn't have to be literally true, if there are enough bad cops (and we know by now that there are), and if the bad cops are protected by the good cops (which we also know to be the case most of the time) then as a civilian you don't know which you're going to be dealing with in an interaction. The only safe thing to do is to assume that any given cop that you interact with is a bad cop.
Thank you for putting it better than I could have.
The problem is a lot of it cuts both ways... a lot of cops see misconduct investigations and a LOT of them are either unsubstantiated or lies. It's really impossible to know from the outside and onset. In the case of Floyd, for example, I don't know anyone, cop or not, that didn't think that was excessive force and completely wrong.
The union is supposed to serve the police, and that includes legal protection... your lawyer is going to back you, that's how the system works. Would you want a defense lawyer that was against you?
I know it's pretty simplistic, but that's largely what it comes down to... I'm not supporting police misconduct at all. I think that civil asset forfeiture is a crime, I think that police spend too much time trying to make criminals out of innocent people... Once at an accident where I was rear ended, "why is your seatbelt unbuckled?" I was kind of pissed, because, "I needed to get my insurance and registration from the glove box."
In the end, I get it... I do feel, however, that the ACAB is oversized because a lot of it is over-reported or misrepresented.
I'm also not that inclined to generally and blindly support police. They are agents of the govt's interests and not yours. They serve the govt and the govt is too split from general good and in favor of the wealthy and powerful. And I also think that enforcing draconian lockdowns in many places didn't gain them any favor with anyone these past few years.
Again, most cops are mostly good, like most people. And like most people they will bend to peer pressure, anxiety, stress and their environment. You really want to see people with a bent personality, talk to the guys that have to clean up traffic accidents sometime... They're quasi police and complete alcoholics for the most part. That's a job nobody should have for an extended period of time. It's extreme, but only to show that one's own experiences will shape their perception.
Of course, I am biased, I just make an effort to be level headed as much as possible.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
> The union is supposed to serve the police, and that includes legal protection... your lawyer is going to back you, that's how the system works. Would you want a defense lawyer that was against you?
That's an interesting perspective and nuance! It gets really interesting when the same group is both responsible for "protecting the individual" and "protecting the profession". In most legal situations, you have a lawyer of your own and it's very crystal clear that their role is to protect your best interests. And I am one of the people who strongly strongly believe that, in the general legal perspective, "he got off on a technically" should almost always be replaced with "the legal system failed to do their job". For example, if someone is acquitted of a crime because of a poor chain of custody with the evidence, the fault 100% is on the people who failed to do their jobs correctly. When the state wants to strip someone of their most basic right (freedom), they had better dot their Ts and cross their Is.
> In the end, I get it... I do feel, however, that the ACAB is oversized because a lot of it is over-reported or misrepresented.
With the lawyer situation, I am paying my lawyer to represent me the best they can. With the police union situation, the good guys are paying union dues that go directly towards the defence fund for the bad guys. There's a very significant conflict of interest here as well; if a video leaks where I'm beating the shit out of someone while wearing my company uniform, my employer is almost certainly going to put out a statement about how my actions don't represent the company values and that I've been terminated. With the police and police unions, there's often complete silence or even support.
I have more thoughts, thank you for triggering a really interesting line of thought for me. Will try to come back to this but work's getting busy again...
> In the case of Floyd, for example, I don't know anyone, cop or not, that didn't think that was excessive force and completely wrong.
That was after the civilian world had already reacted publicly. All of the police involved helped kill him or cover it up until the video came out.
> ...there are some good peace officers
"A bad system will beat a good person every time." -- W. Edward Deming
> The only safe thing to do is to assume that any given cop that you interact with is a bad cop.
True.
I was swatted. I had a puppy who was still in the barking and biting phase. My starting assumption was they'd shoot my dog.
Then I got conflicting instructions ("freeze!" and "lie down on the ground!"). And I thought, "Whelp, here it is."
Fortunately, we both lived. But it's sad that being shot in my driveway while wearing my PJs would be a "disappointed, but not surprised".
Christ. I'm glad you and the pup made it through that scary situation.
Due to the potential for an extreme outcome, I've long though Swatting should cop the 'prankster' an attempted murder charge. Which is in itself probably excessive, but hey.
[dead]
Who you are what you will allow.
Part of the problem is that police departments seem to have a culture of circling the wagons when one the "bad guys" is revealed. Whistleblowers are also often fired, harassed, and treated like the enemy[1]. If the good majority of the cops maintain this kind of culture, are they not at least partly responsible for the continued existence of the handful of bad guys?
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/what-police-departments-do-whistle-blowers/613687/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/what-polic...
It's a mixed bag though, how many civil calls for police misconduct are falsely made? I'm an avid supporter of body cams for cops, wouldn't mind seeing this for all public officials/offices tbh, and kind of wish it was all live streamed for anyone/everyone to capture.
The unions are literally the legal defense for the police... they are supposed to do that. And police protect their own, like most people in any tribalistic group. The power and repercussions for those that are bad guys in the system is definitely outsized in terms of influence and effect.
Again, and I feel I have to repeat this... I do not condone, or favor misconduct. I think police, generally speaking have too much power and gov't employees as a whole too much protection from liability for their actions. I'd like to see govt, and police reduced as much as reasonably possible, and strongly favor 2A and self defense.
You didn't answer your own question, how many civil complaints are fake?
>how many civil calls for police misconduct are falsely made?
According to a 2006 report [1] from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (part of the DOJ), 25% of allegations of use of excessive force were unfounded. (This contradicts statements made elsewhere in the comments that "most allegations against police are falsified.") Keep in mind that these numbers are reported by the police agencies themselves.
(In the interest of beimg complete: In 23% of cases the officer involved was exonerated, meaning the "incident occurred, but the officer’s action was deemed lawful and proper". In 34% of cases the police agency didn't find enough evidence to either sustain the allegation or exonerate the officer. 8% of allegations ended with disciplinary action.)
Interestingly, when surveying citizens, the BJS found that 75% of citizens who experienced use of force thought it was excessive, although only about 10% filed a complaint with the agency employing the officer(s).
I wasn't able to find very much info on this, and I suspect there are probably some pretty big biases, so if anyone else has any info, please share.
[1]: https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/ccpuf.pdf https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/ccpuf.pdf
Both of my parents were police as well. That is why I believed them when they told me never to talk to cops.
It is not a matter of good cops and bad cops. The issues are systemic and often complicated.
My dad would generally have said the same... most of it is BS. And the incentivization in a LOT of places is just warped. You definitely need to be mindful of what you say/volunteer... you should definitely report crimes. When stopped by police, you should be respectful and offer the minimum required, ask clarifying questions, "am I required by law to answer that?" and only give what you have to.
That doesn't mean you have to be an asshole, and that doesn't condone asshole cops either. The point is, that broad brush strokes definitely don't help.
Personally, I'd like to see most govt minimized, including police and standing down the military. I'd like to see far more community engagement, and strongly support 2A and self defense, I don't like seeing that eroded for larger/stronger govt.
most cops are mostly good
This is ironic reasoning for defending a body with a history of racial profiling, i.e. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/us-department-justice-charges-police-racial-profiling-columbus-ohio https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/us-department-justice-ch...
So Ohio is literally everyone, everywhere?
Look, my initial response to this is here[1]... I don't condone misconduct... but I am at least attempting to have a level head and see more sides to this. I'm someone who would generally like to see most of the govt including police and military end.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35289247 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35289247
If most cops are mostly good, why dont they stop the bad cops in cases such as this?
Tribalism, peer pressure, and the fact that most allegations against police are falsified.
In this case, it's f'd up, and the police in question, from what I recall were dismissed. The lawsuit itself is anything but okay imo, and they shouldn't have any expectation of privacy while on duty, period. And was my very first response in this post, if you care to look/check.
I'm a minimal govt libertarian, and that includes police. I'm just pointing out facts. How many times have you ratted someone out in an environment with oversized peer pressure? MOST people historically won't and don't.
If a good cop doesn't stop the bad cops from doing bad things, they are, by definition, a bad cop.
> How many times have you ratted someone out in an environment with oversized peer pressure?
Why has this culture of oversized peer pressure been permitted to continue unabated for so long?
When I was in the military, there was an incident where someone witnessed another serviceman committing a war crime. The commander dragged us all out, stood us at attention, and made 3 things abundantly clear: 1) if we committed a war crime we would be punished. 2) if we witnessed a war time we were expected to report it. 3) failure to report is a UCMJ violation and will also be punished.
What's so special about cops? Why do they get held to a lower standard than the military?
Then they aren't good cops.
> most cops are mostly good
A police force that won’t expel and arrest one corrupt cop is an entirely corrupt force.
Aversion to police is just aversion to risk. You never know why a cop is asking you a question or what they are really investigating so even answering innocuous questions is massively risky. You never know if you match the description of someone they are looking for or if something minor like answering a question during a traffic stop. “I’m just headed home from the grocery store officer” could put you at the scene of a crime you didn’t even know about.
Misunderstandings are usually easy to clear up with most people but if a cop decides you are under arrest it would have catastrophic consequences for most people and everything you said prior to that arrest would immediately be stacked against you.
If YOU get pulled over and the cop is aware that you have police family they may give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are “one of them” and not “one of us”, for everyone else take the advice that every defense attorney agrees on: just don’t talk to them.
How do you know your parents were good cops? Did you work with them?
Would they really come home and mention all the shitty things they did to their child?
Since the IOPC wouldn't exist for another four years, I'd imagine they didn't handle it at all.
How independent is it ... i.e. how staffed by ex-police is it ?
Donner is a really terrible example. Adrian Schoolcraft or Stephen Mader (fired for deescalating a situation instead of shooting) are cut and dry.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Schoolcraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Schoolcraft
[2] https://features.propublica.org/weirton/police-shooting-lethal-force-cop-fired-west-virginia/ https://features.propublica.org/weirton/police-shooting-leth...
Have you considered the average hn user is a rapist, of course they deny it
Unless you can show me that HN users are part of a structured organization notorious for rape, this isn't even remotely analogous.
Police are part of a hierarchy and brotherhood that is very well known to abuse its authority, act outside the law, and protect its own, all without legal repercussion.
Are we talking about hn users? Did someone say "Hackernews as an organization of people is bad" then another person said "well, I know a few people and they are good"
<< Do you think it's difficult to consider the cops in family might be bad?
Not at all..I accept we are all humans.
That said, define bad for me so that we are not talking about fairly relative and abstract terms and can be easily misconstrued.
For example, I do not want to get into specifics and you are certainly right that they would be foolish to disclose their own transgressions if any were committed for several different reasons.
However, the conversations we did have on some events[1] they were not involved in painted a relatively close picture of their thought process and considerations at play. I am going to paraphrase and try to capture the gist of that conversation in sentences that follow where 'they' refers to the cops on the scene ( and to an extent the blue shield/line phenomenon ).
In short, one of their own fucked up. They knew he fucked up, but they tried to protect him from immediate fallout. As related, they said family was paid off, but 'could not keep their mouths shut', which is where the resentment was with those who did not hold up their end of the bargain that was supposedly struck. And naturally, when the case made national news, everyone was pissed, because assumption was that money bought silence on the matter ( who footed the bill for that silence was not clear, but, presumably taxpayer ).
Now, the political fallout makes it more complicated, because the rank and file has had the impression that case was informally settled and, from their perspective, it was 'over'. Rank and file finds out they get no cover from leadership and so the thin blue line only grows stronger as a result.
Now, you might be thinking: "This is exactly what I am talking about. If you participate in any way in this, you are the bad guy.'
I urge you to consider what you would have done. This case was a clearly fucked up case. I would like to think I would have stood up.
That said, as a cop, just like when you are a doctor, or a lawyer or any other high stakes job, you will eventually make a mistake that will result in someone dying. You will fuck up. And in some extreme cases, you will kill someone. That is the reality of that job. And it is a lot to take in.
There are logical consequences to what I just said and I absolutely recognize it can be horrifying. There is a reason I compared cops to doctors and lawyers, because I think this could help offset some of the issues should we ever get to an actual working improvement of police in US, but I don't want to get too far ahead of this conversation.
With that in mind lets go through some of the scenarios:
'if you know your actions in the course of work may end up killing someone are you automatically a bad person?'
'if you identify with a group, because you understand the toll it takes, are you automatically a bad person?'
'if you become a member of that group, because $absolute_number_of_members did $bad_thing, are you automatically a bad person?'
I have more questions along those lines, but I worry that I already threw out a lot into the ether so I am curious of your response.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Laquan_McDonald https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Laquan_McDonald
I'm specifically talking about the video... as I mentioned at the top of my reply, many/most civil complaints are made up, and I'm a proponent of filming and body cams, it's the best way to know (unedited, full-length content). It didn't take more than the video to see it and only took the video. It didn't matter the commentary around it.
As far as I understand it, the responsibility is on you to know the law and your rights.
If you are required by law to answer a question, you must do so. If you are not required to, you do not have to. What the police tell you has nothing to do with it.
There are very few occasions when you can be required by law to answer a question without a lawyer present (and without a judge compelling you to do so). These questions tend to be very limited, such as name and address, and may be even more limited in states without a stop and identify statute. You should research these questions before you need them.
The police are not required to teach you the law (with a very specific exception of reading you your rights when you are arrested) and are allowed to lie to you. They may also be simply mistaken about the legality of compelling you to answer a question. This may or may not impact the admissibility of anything you say, but generally provided the police officer reasonably believes what they’re saying is true, they will have qualified immunity and you will not be able to (successfully) take action against a police officer for lying to you.
In any case, you should take personal responsibility for learning what questions you must answer, and any questions other than that you should respond to with some formulation that makes it clear that a) you are aware of your legal right to refuse to answer the question, for example under the fifth amendment and b) you are exercising that right. You should answer all questions this way, even seemingly innocuous questions, as inferences may be drawn from your choice to stop answering questions. Courts have also established that if you are unaware of your fifth amendment rights, then they do not protect you. You should get legal advice at the earliest opportunity, but certainly before answering any question you are not required to answer. Police also receive training on how to make it seem as though you are required to answer the question without necessarily saying so. For example “how many people live in your house?” may be the question.
You might respond with something like “I would prefer not to answer that question”.
The police officer might then respond with something like “I need to know how many people live in your house so I can record it in the report/make sure my colleagues are aware that there are people at home/because I need that information to perform a proper investigation”. They may even threaten you with arrest for obstruction, but at this point they have likely crossed a threshold and anything you say past that point is probably inadmissible.
Although I’m not a lawyer, the above is my understanding of the recommendations of pretty much every lawyer about everything. You should do your own research or engage your own lawyer rather than listening to some loon on the internet with a Wikipedia degree.
> My understanding is that it's mixed... I think it's supposed to be along the lines of, "am I being compelled to answer against my will?" or some such, in which case it can be inadmissible as evidence (IANAL).
Your understanding is absolutely wrong. There are no magic words that make your voluntary confession inadmissible whether intentional or not. l
The closest thing would be refusing to answer questions. Then, if arrested, demand your attorney and continue to refuse. Never try to rely on a Miranda violation.
Also, folks, find out if your state has a Stop & ID law and understand the details of when they can apply. You are always required to ID yourself if stopped for a traffic infraction.
That's correct, US cops lie to people all the time in order to get information
>You definitely need to be mindful of what you say/volunteer...
Alec Baldwin, the actor, may have voluntarily talked his way into prison by saying too much after the recent accidental shooting on a film set.[0].
[0]https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/04/26/alec-baldwins-sad-strange-revelations-to-police-hurt-his-case-legal-experts-say/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/04/26/alec-baldwins-sad-str...
> the fact that most allegations against police are falsified
I'm curious as to where you got this information. After a quick search, a source of information said that 25% of allegations against police are falsified [1]. This is far from "most allegations against police". (I wouldn't be surprised if there were bias in favor of police in presenting this information either, as the organization putting it out states that a big part of their mission is "working to protect innocent law enforcement officers ... from wrongful allegations and convictions".)
It also doesn't make sense to me if most allegations are falsified, why aren't police unions in favor of more transparency and turning cases over to more objective parties to be investigated and cleared (i.e. civilian over-site boards instead of other police officers)? It's a bit alarming that an organization whose job it is, is to investigate crimes, wasn't able to either clear an officer or find him guilty of the allegation in 65% of situations (according to the statistics from the website [1]). (It's not worded the best in the report, so again, if you have other evidence that's both more objective and clear, I'd appreciate seeing it.)
I get that police shouldn't be automatically seen as the "bad guy", and I think it's sad that we live in a society (at least in the U.S.) where that is often the case. However, I think there are reasons for the distrust and defending against those reasons is counter-productive and not moving us in the right direction.
> they shouldn't have any expectation of privacy while on duty, period.
I agree with this (aside from minor exceptions), but police who destroy private surveillance systems and then sue when information gets out, presumably to create a chilling effect, go against what you seem to be arguing for: giving the police a chance at objective judgement. In my eyes, they do this to themselves.
> How many times have you ratted someone out in an environment with oversized peer pressure? MOST people historically won't and don't.
Just because most of us have fallen victim to peer pressure, doesn't mean it's right, and I don't think you are arguing that, but ignoring it in your plea towards empathy for police. I don't think claiming the police deserve more empathy in this story, than a man who was falsely accused of kidnapping and faced unfair repercussions because of it, is the right balance to strike. I would argue that we should be working to break down peer pressure and tribalism within the justice system, instead of excusing it.
> I'm just pointing out facts.
Again, I think the facts that you present are wrong (esp. that most allegations are falsified), and I'd genuinely like to see some evidence to back them up. I've seen plenty of evidence that police brutality and dishonesty is a problem in the past few years, and seems to me to be the bigger problem, so I have a hard time seeing from your point of view. (I'm often wrong about things, so I'd like help seeing it from a different perspective.) If you could present some evidence that might change my mind, I'd really like to look into it.
Anyway, thank you for the thoughtful discussion.
[1]: https://www.uncufftheinnocent.org/post/wrongful-allegations-against-law-enforcement https://www.uncufftheinnocent.org/post/wrongful-allegations-...
>If most cops are mostly good, why dont they stop the bad cops in cases such as this?
Because most cops are bad. Plenty of good people become cops every day. But good cops have a half life of just a few years. The moment a good cop thinks "well I'll just overlook this one thing so that the guys will still like me" he becomes a bad cop. Whereas good cops treat it as a moral line and become former cops.