4 ms·

The biggest problem with police is it's the sort of job where the more a given person wants that job, the less they should probably have it. For their sake and

The biggest problem with police is it's the sort of job where the more a given person wants that job, the less they should probably have it. For their sake and others.

pc86 2y ago
Another huge problem is that law allows union bargaining agreements to dictate what happens to disciplinary records, that officers are allowed to resign when there are investigations happening that effectively kills them, etc. Once an investigation starts you shouldn't be allowed to resign, or at the very least the investigation should still continue and you should still be able to be punished after. Any union contract requiring the deletion/obfuscation of any disciplinary records for any reason other than clerical error or pardon should be illegal.
- aidenn0 2y ago
  > Another huge problem is that law allows union bargaining agreements to dictate what happens to disciplinary records, that officers are allowed to resign when there are investigations happening that effectively kills them, etc. Once an investigation starts you shouldn't be allowed to resign, or at the very least the investigation should still continue and you should still be able to be punished after. I don't think requires any union pressure; the department is happy to be both rid of a problem officer and not have to put it in the public record just how bad the problem officer was. I have a friend who is a cop in Indiana (a "right to work" state), and after talking with him, I've realized that the department, as an organization, can largely be modeled as an entity that takes action to minimize its liability (individual officers are mostly shielded from civil liability, but the department is much less so). Apropos to this subject: - They want to minimize the number of apparent past bad actors that will be revealed during discover because a lot of past bad actors could be presented as a pattern of poor hiring and/or training. Allowing officers to resign to kill an investigation is golden). - When something bad happens and it makes it into a courtroom with sufficient evidence that it happened, they want every officer in the department to testify that the action in question is definitely not common practice and completely contrary to training. Such testimony would be greatly undermined by a subpoena that revealed several investigations finding officers to have engaged in such behavior in the past. Again anything that stops the investigation before it can find anything material could potentially save the department millions of dollars in future liability.
  - chaps 2y ago
    "the department is happy to be both rid of a problem officer and not have to put it in the public record just how bad the problem officer was." ...have you not seen the extents that LE agencies and the FOP will go to make sure these folk aren't fired? There's a reason LE have FOP cards in their wallets that include a statement to be read verbatim into a transcript for disciplinary meetings. - When something bad happens and it makes it into a courtroom with sufficient evidence that it happened, they want every officer in the department to testify that the action in question is definitely not common practice and completely contrary to training. Such testimony would be greatly undermined by a subpoena that revealed several investigations finding officers to have engaged in such behavior in the past. Again anything that stops the investigation before it can find anything material could potentially save the department millions of dollars in future liability. You have a very rose-stained perception into these things. I highly recommend you do some court watching to really understand how these systems work. These sorts of retrospective analyses of misconduct truly don't exist as deeply or as strong as you think they are. I recommend reading: https://chicagoreader.com/news/police-misconduct-brady/ https://chicagoreader.com/news/police-misconduct-brady/ (disclaimer: I'm one of the authors)
    - defrost 2y ago
      As a US outsider (Australia) I see the Tulsi Gabbard hearing has stirred a barely tangential can of worms re: disclosure and keeping secrets. It's national security related, Was Snowden a traitor or a whistleblower and pokes the bear on whistleblowers and duty to disclose poor and outright illegal behaviour. Not sure if that's your beat or interest as a reporer .. but it goes to a core issue wt public institutions. related: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/30/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-confirmation-hearing-intelligence.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/30/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard...
      - chaps 2y ago
        Transparency is indeed a large focus of mine, but it's mostly focused on local transparency and not federal.
jl6 2y ago
Why? Most police spend their time keeping the peace and catching bad guys. That seems an intrinsically rewarding activity. No need to posit any character flaw to explain why someone would want to do that. Maybe you are thinking “power over other people” is the issue, but I think most cops see that as a necessary tool rather than the chief reward.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- codr7 2y ago
  Could have fooled me! I'm more worried about the Police than any other class of criminals.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I think that is a pretty privileged position. You might feel different if there were homicides and armed burglaries in your neighborhood
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
      Personally, I’m not so sure. That’s not to say I welcome the burglars and murderers but it would be comedy to say, “At least it can’t get any worse,” and then the police show up.
- fn-mote 2y ago
  > I think most cops see that as a necessary tool rather than the chief reward. The problem with this view is that there are a lot of high profile cases that are examples of people abusing their power. I am happy to believe that “most cops” see it that way. I am less familiar with those police officers supporting reforms that would either expose or suppress the bad behavior of the minority.
- darioush 2y ago
  This is not the problem. The problem is a higher portion of people who just want to power trip apply to these positions, even if they are not the majority of the police force. Basically, it is the dream job for a bully. It seems there should be severe penalties for "power tripping" (aka misuse of authority and databases for special purposes); slap of the wrist fine, suspended paychecks and internal investigations will not deter this group of people. I don't see how these crimes are considered less than drug dealing. Specifically the punishment should include mandatory jail time and permanent ban from jobs where they have any form of authority over others including management, teaching, and all government positions.

The biggest problem with police is it's the sort of job where the more a given person wants that job, the less they should probably have it. For their sake and others.

pc86 2y ago

Another huge problem is that law allows union bargaining agreements to dictate what happens to disciplinary records, that officers are allowed to resign when there are investigations happening that effectively kills them, etc. Once an investigation starts you shouldn't be allowed to resign, or at the very least the investigation should still continue and you should still be able to be punished after. Any union contract requiring the deletion/obfuscation of any disciplinary records for any reason other than clerical error or pardon should be illegal.

aidenn0 2y ago
> Another huge problem is that law allows union bargaining agreements to dictate what happens to disciplinary records, that officers are allowed to resign when there are investigations happening that effectively kills them, etc. Once an investigation starts you shouldn't be allowed to resign, or at the very least the investigation should still continue and you should still be able to be punished after. I don't think requires any union pressure; the department is happy to be both rid of a problem officer and not have to put it in the public record just how bad the problem officer was. I have a friend who is a cop in Indiana (a "right to work" state), and after talking with him, I've realized that the department, as an organization, can largely be modeled as an entity that takes action to minimize its liability (individual officers are mostly shielded from civil liability, but the department is much less so). Apropos to this subject: - They want to minimize the number of apparent past bad actors that will be revealed during discover because a lot of past bad actors could be presented as a pattern of poor hiring and/or training. Allowing officers to resign to kill an investigation is golden). - When something bad happens and it makes it into a courtroom with sufficient evidence that it happened, they want every officer in the department to testify that the action in question is definitely not common practice and completely contrary to training. Such testimony would be greatly undermined by a subpoena that revealed several investigations finding officers to have engaged in such behavior in the past. Again anything that stops the investigation before it can find anything material could potentially save the department millions of dollars in future liability.
- chaps 2y ago
  "the department is happy to be both rid of a problem officer and not have to put it in the public record just how bad the problem officer was." ...have you not seen the extents that LE agencies and the FOP will go to make sure these folk aren't fired? There's a reason LE have FOP cards in their wallets that include a statement to be read verbatim into a transcript for disciplinary meetings. - When something bad happens and it makes it into a courtroom with sufficient evidence that it happened, they want every officer in the department to testify that the action in question is definitely not common practice and completely contrary to training. Such testimony would be greatly undermined by a subpoena that revealed several investigations finding officers to have engaged in such behavior in the past. Again anything that stops the investigation before it can find anything material could potentially save the department millions of dollars in future liability. You have a very rose-stained perception into these things. I highly recommend you do some court watching to really understand how these systems work. These sorts of retrospective analyses of misconduct truly don't exist as deeply or as strong as you think they are. I recommend reading: https://chicagoreader.com/news/police-misconduct-brady/ https://chicagoreader.com/news/police-misconduct-brady/ (disclaimer: I'm one of the authors)
  - defrost 2y ago
    As a US outsider (Australia) I see the Tulsi Gabbard hearing has stirred a barely tangential can of worms re: disclosure and keeping secrets. It's national security related, Was Snowden a traitor or a whistleblower and pokes the bear on whistleblowers and duty to disclose poor and outright illegal behaviour. Not sure if that's your beat or interest as a reporer .. but it goes to a core issue wt public institutions. related: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/30/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-confirmation-hearing-intelligence.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/30/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard...
    - chaps 2y ago
      Transparency is indeed a large focus of mine, but it's mostly focused on local transparency and not federal.

jl6 2y ago

Why? Most police spend their time keeping the peace and catching bad guys. That seems an intrinsically rewarding activity. No need to posit any character flaw to explain why someone would want to do that. Maybe you are thinking “power over other people” is the issue, but I think most cops see that as a necessary tool rather than the chief reward.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
codr7 2y ago
Could have fooled me! I'm more worried about the Police than any other class of criminals.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I think that is a pretty privileged position. You might feel different if there were homicides and armed burglaries in your neighborhood
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
    Personally, I’m not so sure. That’s not to say I welcome the burglars and murderers but it would be comedy to say, “At least it can’t get any worse,” and then the police show up.
fn-mote 2y ago
> I think most cops see that as a necessary tool rather than the chief reward. The problem with this view is that there are a lot of high profile cases that are examples of people abusing their power. I am happy to believe that “most cops” see it that way. I am less familiar with those police officers supporting reforms that would either expose or suppress the bad behavior of the minority.
darioush 2y ago
This is not the problem. The problem is a higher portion of people who just want to power trip apply to these positions, even if they are not the majority of the police force. Basically, it is the dream job for a bully. It seems there should be severe penalties for "power tripping" (aka misuse of authority and databases for special purposes); slap of the wrist fine, suspended paychecks and internal investigations will not deter this group of people. I don't see how these crimes are considered less than drug dealing. Specifically the punishment should include mandatory jail time and permanent ban from jobs where they have any form of authority over others including management, teaching, and all government positions.