For Those People Who Believe Police Are Angels...Grow Up

Psycological testing isn't as effective as it seems to imply. Sort of like the lie detector test, it's really not all that well equipped to make accurate readings. Only the most blatant cases will ever get picked up. Other than that, it's mostly a review of known, chronicled personal history. Since most cops take the test relatively young and right out of college, they really haven't had the time necessary to develop overt traits of psycological problems- some of which only come out with exposure to certain kinds of stressful situations. Sadism, corruptibility, and such are hard to detect through abstract testing.

 

I'm sorry, but if your suggesting that presence of law enforcement doesn't act as a deterrent to crime, there is no argument left. It happens to be the primary purpose of even having patrols, especially street patrols in rural areas.

Most folks wanting "control" over local police department activity, have no idea how many small towns or rural areas in the US, have little to no major crime problem. The reason, I would suggest, is they (Local Sheriff/Police) are themselves residents of the community, governed by the people they serve. In trying to control or curb urban area criminal activity, should be the responsibility of those that live in the area and governed by them. If it fails, as it did in Baltimore...the blame game then goes to those in Baltimore, not the other 310 million people around the US.

 

I'd suggest, no one could pass test, to eliminate all human reaction to stress, which all cops face everyday. Probably 98% of people, would never consider being a cop in the first place and of those 2%, most already can't pass the required test. If you shrink the pool of candidates any further, the end result could only be relaxing the qualifications, the opposite of what your wanting.....additionally I don't think raising the pay rates as an incentive would draw better or more qualified people.

 

That easy two words Eric holder. Further A justice department hell bent on destroying local law enforcement and willing to do anything necessary to accomplish that goal including lying through their teeth.

 

Well, that isn't what I was suggesting.

There are systemic problems within America's criminal justice system, which deserve a most full review and the best remedies that can be applied.

None of the problems which exist within the system have come to America overnight, and the wave of a political wand here/there (partisan BS) will not resolve things as they ultimately need to be.

- - - Updated - - -

The above is 'nonsense'.

 

It is fact Holder has already been caught once with his hand in the cookie jar in New Orleans. Ferguson is more of the same. Most of it has to do with the fact that the cash strapped town is trying to raise money by raping those of its citizens that live in high crime areas - a sort of attempt to kill two birds with one stone - and it is using the cops as tools in this damnable business. This isn't about policing it's about trying to fund liberal policies through the police force. Get rid of that fact and essentially everything Holder was talking about dies.

 

While I might agree something can be done about "Crime in America" or maybe even the legal process for "so called" justice, to even think American Law Enforcement, at the local level is somehow the link to repair, is ridiculous. Police need to go by some book, things they can or cannot do and limited to who can even be arrested and how. An extreme example, would be in Texas, where police can arrest any person receiving a minor traffic ticket, if they refuse to sign the ticket. That's the book they must follow...

At this local level is where you can or should work on, but don't ignore the social problems, even permissive ones, that lead folks into criminal activity. Said another way "stop and frisk" worked in NYC, where in small town USA it will mean nothing.

 

For many people that is immoral and worthy of using police powers to punish. Puritans are long gone, but the strong puritanical streak in Americans lives on.

 

Or instead of making up an imaginary position(police are angels), you would realize that most people are more than willing to admit that some police officers in this country have acted wrongly and criminally. Some who defend the police don't do it because they honestly think the police are all angels, but because they respond to comments of the same nature from the flipside of the coin from those who attack the police, like yourself, who seem to judge them by just the bad ones. And there are most certainly bad police officers.

The police aren't perfect and they never will be. I support bringing police officers to justice who have acted wrongfully, but I will not paint all police as some kind of invading force hellbent on oppression and control. I'm just too invested in reality to be off my rocker like that.

 

Yes, I read the article. Apparently, you did not, as it clearly states that if the action is later found to be unlawful, they are shielded from prosecution and civil penalty. It is applicable if an officer *believes* that he is engaged in a lawful activity. And, you cannot deny that it sets them apart as a protected class. After all, qualified immunity doesn't apply to you. If anything, it lowers the standard by which your favorite class of government bureaucrats can operate.

If it's in accordance with department procedure, there's very little likelihood that a lethal beating will wind up in criminal court. Cases are like the one in Baltimore are infrequent exceptions and are usually due to a heavy media spotlight.
And, we aren't just talking about beatings. There are examples, like one posted today, of Santa Clara, CA police officers raiding the domicile of someone on probation ("legal") and entering a completely separate apartment to conduct an illegal search. While the taxpayer may be forced to cough up money for that, no cop will be held accountable nor lose a moment of rest over it. What they might get is "administrative leave" which is leave, with pay, while their buddies investigate them.

This sort of thing happens many times a day, all across the country. Bury your head in the sand if you want. The peace officer of your youth is long gone. They have been replaced with militarized bully boys who care only about their lives and the lives of their "brothers."

Most?

http://www.msnbc.com/ronan-farrow-daily/us-police-education-levels-and-the-use-force

Local pols are ceaseless defenders of their enforcers. It's how they get elected. After all, it's the armed government bureaucrats with arbitrary authority that the local pols rely on to enforce their legislative and administrative dictates.

Do you consider that a reasonable question? Why not set the premise as to who started the assault. Oh, I get it, cops are inviolate because they have arbitrary government authority. Next you'll tell me your conservative in favor of small government.

 

The Puritans nearly wiped themselves out by first adopting communal living which resulted in cannibalism. I wouldn't point to them as moral icons. Marijuana was basically outlawed because hemp was a big competitor to FDR's big money supporters like Dupont and Hearst.

 

10. Not really a problem with U.S. Police, but a problem in specific locales. I find it really funny that people see big strong guys and think immediately, "oh yeah, he's on drugs". Drugs help, but a person can achieve those same ridiculous looking results without steroids - it just takes more time. And spotting someone abusing roids isn't that hard - they'll generally run into other problems regardless. It's absolutely silly to think that the only real signs would be those scenes caught on camera, or to think that the police would see all of these signs and ignore them.
9. They do have a central authority - they just don't have a national authority, and no, that is not itself a bad thing.
8. Which is mostly speculation, and in the rare cases where it exists it is isolated. The majority of the hard evidence used to show that there is institutionalized discrimination is logically flawed - it is essentially, "blacks are arrested more than whites, therefore racism". Kind of like, oh I don't know, men are arrested more for murder, therefore sexism. You don't see anyone make that argument because it's silly, but somehow that kind of clutch to logic evaporates when we touch on race.
7. And does the European Union have such a definitive tally? Forcing each state to take part would be like forcing each EU member state to take part - it just isn't feasible under the system we have to ensure that it happens, however an opt-in program could work better.
6. No. Just no. They are rarely more dangerous than guns, but is it reasonable for the police to assume that people have conditions - like a serious heart condition that would cause death if tazed? Sounds kind of like blaming the police because someone experienced a traumatic event and a pistol is the trigger for that traumatic memory, and the police carry such a firearm. :/
5. That's a pretty un"robust" approach to the evidence at hand. So, only a small handful of cops account for a large number of the resist arrest charges - half of the charges were made by only 5% of the officers. And the author of the video jumps on that as if it's proof of corruption. ^_- This is the same kind of logic as "more men are arrested for committing murder therefore sexism" statements. Is it possible that crime isn't evenly distributed in NYC, and that some cops are in bad areas? And is it also possible that a majority of cops don't actually walk a beat? You know, since those two facts, taken together, make it entirely reasonable and even expected that a small minority of cops would take up an overwhelming number of the resist arrest charges.


4. No, it isn't "almost impossible". It's pretty hard - like the video actually says. Nor should it be "pretty easy", like the video seems to suggest it should be. And perhaps that's because people don't know what an indictment actually is. When it comes to indicting a police officer in a shooting, we don't look for the same thing as when we indict a civilian in a shooting. Yes, we do give preference to police officers - but it's not so grand as the statistical evidence suggests on first look. Generally speaking, prosecutors only seek indictment when they are positive that they can get one - but that is not the case with police shooting. In such cases, public pressure is such that they have to seek one even if they don't think they can get one, so this - it being "nearly impossible" to indict officers - is really more a function of public pressure pushing prosecutors to seek indictments they otherwise wouldn't.
3. The video author says that, "you should make sure you absolutely have the right people". Well, that'd be great if the police could be guaranteed that crime rings woulds stay fixed for six months without committing a crime, but that obviously isn't the case. The police should not need to attain a ridiculous level of certainty because there is a balancing factor here. What's worse - allowing a crime ring to go unchecked, or breaking into a wrong home? And then, which is more likely? It isn't like wrong targets are the norm - and they should not stop the police from pursuing what they have every reason to believe are legitimate targets. The only way in which I'd agree with the author's original statements is that the police should have a ridiculously high standard IF they have an anonymous tip.
2. No, internal procedures are not flouted. The case brought up was the Eric Garner case. Yes, chokeholds were against department policy. What went on there is that tons of people - detractors and the public in general - don't know the submission fighting techniques they like to think they're experts on. It was not a chokehold, it was a submission hold which slipped momentarily (watch the video and pay very close attention, I encourage you). Learn the difference, please.

1. Again, there's that federalism thing again. We in the states take our privacy very, very seriously - and it isn't just in cases where we think we're going to get in trouble. There are states where it is against the law to record video, audio, or both without the permission of each person being recorded (which, based on privacy rights, makes some sense). Others require only one person. It very quickly becomes a very hairy scenario, and when privacy is such a critical fundamental right in our country - including one which the right to abortion is based off of - having police carry body cameras in all states becomes a bit more hairy. There are more problems than "we don't want to get caught", but of course that's all you'd see if, like the video author, you have your conclusion and then look for your evidence.

 

MOD EDIT - Off Topic

There is a LOT that America must reform across the board. No doubt about that.

 

Trends? there are no trends mentioned in the DOJ report. In fact violence against African Americans by cops is trending downward and has been for almost a decade. even as crime against African Americans by non cops is trending upwards. Why is this rather startling fact true? Because cops aren't stupid. They figured out long before this that any sort of altercation with an African American criminal is a threat to their careers ergo such confrontations are to be avoided if at all possible. The fact is across all socio economic lines you are less likely to be shot by a cop today than you were 20 years ago.

To be sure cops aren't perfect, but they operate in a society that is also far from perfect and against a segment of society that is brutal and vicious as often as not.

 

Home of the brave is even more debatable.......Republicans send young men to fight their made up wars 10,000 miles away while their own do nothing but continue their ivy league educations.

 

I am in favor of a small federal government. The four percent of police Departments include almost all of Americas fifty largest cities. Ergo far more cops are required to have at least an associates degree.than not. a city of 1million souls have exactly the same number of police departments as cities with 1000 people, one. And many of those cities that do not require you to have a degree to start require that you take classes towards a degree in order to receive a promotion or to stay in your current position. Leave it to MSNBC to yield up a totally disingenuous report.

Are you kidding me? Every damn local Pol in Baltimore lined up to throw the cops under the bus. Same thing happened in NYC under the current mayor another socialist jackass.

And lastly thanks for your personal revelation to wit: According to you there is no circumstance under which you are not willing to find a reason to hang the cop without even bothering to look at the evidence. So yeah the question yielded exactly the answer I expected it to yield. Whattsamattababy you still butt hurt over that two years probation you got for selling an undercover cop a joint?

 

Still, those paying reasonable attention realize that the problems found in "Ferguson" are absolutely NOT exclusive to that place.

 

Actually, it's about having things the PROPER size... not making them arbitrarily "small".

 

I think this is an objective approach that seems to argue the argument, but does not really counter the point of general police malignancies like steroid/drug/alcohol abuse and the like. Discrimination in police departments is speculation? No internal procedures are flouted? I don't think I'd buy that...or the "slipped" chokehold deal, though I would say it's a pretty slick excuse.

In the end, nothing you said really seems to change the story. Like, yeah, not every policeman in every precinct is doing drugs, but it is a problem that occurs often enough to site and steroids is actually just one drug mentioned, but not the only one that can be cited.

 

Proper is small when it comes to the federal government this should be obvious to anyone that's being paying attention for the past 50 years. The larger and more complicated the federal government beomes the less useful t becomes and the more tyrannical..

 

Well, that isn't necessarily true. Sorry.

 

I have an idea shut up and do what the police tell you to do, and don't (*)(*)(*)(*) them off since they have badges, guns and largely have one law just for themselves including favoritism of the Courts and an assumption they acted right unless seriously a case of them violating the law. Seriously your not going to win if you get them pissed off.

 

94 million interactions between cops and civilians a year less than 1 in 1000 ends violently and in those the violence is initiated by the police in less than 1 in 1000 cases.

 

Eric Garner Case Is Settled by New York City for $5.9 Million



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/14/n...ed-by-new-york-city-for-5-9-million.html?_r=1




New York City reached a settlement with the family of Eric Garner on Monday, agreeing to pay $5.9 million to resolve a wrongful-death claim over his killing by the police on Staten Island last July, the city comptroller and a lawyer for the family said.

The agreement, reached a few days before the anniversary of Mr. Garner’s death, headed off one legal battle even as a federal inquiry into the killing and several others at the state and local level remain open and could provide a further accounting of how he died.

Still, the settlement was a pivotal moment in a case that has engulfed the city since the afternoon of July 17, 2014, when two officers approached Mr. Garner as he stood unarmed on a sidewalk, and accused him of selling untaxed cigarettes. One of the officers used a chokehold — prohibited by the Police Department — to subdue him, and that was cited by the medical examiner as a cause of Mr. Garner’s death.



more ....




Taxpayers pay for the crimes committed by police. And the criminal cop is still on the job.

 

I don't think they or any government employees are angels by any means.

That doesn't mean I sit around paranoid in my bunker about the impending "NWO police state" either