[News] The USA Police State will never satisfy its lust for beating, gassing, and imprisoning minorities

[ScytheRexx]

And yet, it's the cops who're going to have to try and break it. Admitting cops are people too and make mistakes is part of that. Some mistakes may be excusable, some not; some can be explained, some are just plain dumbfuckery. Cops carry guns and go about all day in a dangerous job; accidents and wrongful deaths will happen. Always a tragedy, of course, but it'll happen no matter what. Covering up or lying is the most stupid and asinine way of dealing with it.

Exactly.

I think one of the biggest issues is that police, very rarely, apologize for wrongful death, let alone admit it in the first place when these higher profile deaths come out. They worry that the cop that took the shot will see personal backlash, or depending on the severity, go to jail themselves. So the blue shield goes up and the excuses come out, or in some cases the wall of silence, and then everyone just sees them as above the law, which leads to more distrust because now the populace feels like cops are untouchable, and how can you feel safe when the person that is supposed to keep you safe can just shoot you in broad daylight and get away with it?

Cops have hard jobs, everyone understands wrongful deaths will happen in the heat of a moment, but you admit the mistake, you apologize for it, and you give restitution to the family without forcing them to take the city into a huge annoying trial (which is probably more expensive then just giving them restitution in the first place). Most of the time they just say "Well we thought he was on PCP, so whatever", put the cop on PAID administrative leave, and hope it just all goes away, which it won't, it instead often leads to a lengthy civil trial that leads everyone through the mud. How the hell is the family supposed to get any type of closure from that?

I am not saying "fuck the police" here as I respect the hell out of many police officers, I just think as civil servants, the police need to realize that they are going to be held to higher standards then various communities in the populace. They need to show they understand that, and not to abuse it to protect themselves from situations in which they were in the wrong.

 

[Eriol]

I also thought it was interesting that the helicopter guys said in the video how they thought it was a time for a taser. Which IMO it isn't, but it's still a lot better than what actually happened! So is that better/worse that they'd escalate to that for no apparent reason? But at least he (probably) wouldn't be dead is a positive on it's own, right?

Just thinking out loud here.

 

[PatrThom]

And now the demonization by the police has begun. They are using the excuse that they thought he was "high on PCP" and said they found some in the car. And she shot him because he was reaching into the vehicle for something...even though the window was rolled up and shows that way on video.
First actual assassination and now the character assassination begins to try and cover their asses. My cop friends are really, really pissed about this. Every time something like this happens it makes their jobs harder and more dangerous.

You know what would improve the trust cops get? Less of this sort of behavior.


--Patrick

 

[strawman]

It's not just the police, our culture doesn't reward apologies. If a cashier miscounted in the customers favor, how many people would turn around and right the situation, vs how many will simply let the cashier suffer the consequences of their mistake and keep the difference?

And that's on the simple end. Consider politicians - can you imagine trump or Clinton apologizing for a recent poor decision?

We can say the police should be held to a higher standard, but they are simply a reflection of our society.

It's easy to suggest they have a problem and the rest of society shouldn't have to change, but can you imagine what would happen if everyone were honest and straightforward when approached by an officer rather than elusive and defensive?

Chicken and egg. I think we have to expect more of everyone and change our entire society if we want the police to change.

 

[PatrThom]

If a cashier miscounted in the customers favor, how many people would turn around and right the situation

Me! I would!
My record so far is $100 (plus tax).

I realize how rare* that sounds, and so much of the world operates on a sort of "screw the other guy whenever possible" mentality that I alternately wonder a) how the world at large survives as a whole when everyone seems to be secretly trying to get as much for themselves as they can get away with, and b) how I've managed to successfully survive in such a world.

EDIT: There's an episode of Babylon 5 where an injured Lennier tells those around him that Delenn sees people as better than they are, and that he would much prefer to live in that world, and he works to keep it alive in her mind. I feel like I do much the same, and then am surprised when people can only see the worst of others while deliberately ignoring the good parts.

--Patrick
*not the right word. Silly? Naïve?

 

[ScytheRexx]

Chicken and egg. I think we have to expect more of everyone and change our entire society if we want the police to change.

That is all well and good, but who starts this process? You can't flip a switch and make the whole world change, someone has to start the process, why should that be on the people, many of which are going through hard times or poverty?

Much like a father teaching his child, it's the responsibility of the person with power to set the example, not the other way around. When I grew up, I was instilled with the idea that I needed to look up to the police as peace keepers and selfless defenders, the people that would look out for me if things got bad and I was in trouble. A cops actions and the affects of those actions are going to resonate more then some guy being a jerk to a cashier.

Our society does need change, I mean just look at all the crap we now have going on in politics, but all the people can do (outside full on revolution) is try to make sure those that abuse the power they are given are held accountable. If they are above accountability, then nothing will ever improve, even if every minority in the world did exactly as they were told in every police situation.

 

[blotsfan]

And that's on the simple end. Consider politicians - can you imagine trump or Clinton apologizing for a recent poor decision?

You mean like how Hillary apologized for her "basket of deplorables" comment?

And have you considered that people tend to not be open around cops since saying the wrong thing could get you arrested or killed with nothing to protect you?

Your solution seems to be saying "both sides have problems so let's change nothing." Which is a great plan unless you're a black person that gets gunned down for no good reason.

 

[Bubble181]

If a cashier miscounted in the customers favor, how many people would turn around and right the situation, vs how many will simply let the cashier suffer the consequences of their mistake and keep the difference?

Just last week the waiter forgot to tally our aperitifs, the bill was €15 low. I informed them and they added them to the bill completely, sadly. I've often been "rewarded" by only having to pay half or part of what they forgot, though.

 

[Covar]

You mean like how Hillary apologized for her "basket of deplorables" comment?

You mean the one where every supporter of hers followed up the apology with "She should have said all"?

That is all well and good, but who starts this process? You can't flip a switch and make the whole world change, someone has to start the process, why should that be on the people, many of which are going through hard times or poverty?

Much like a father teaching his child, it's the responsibility of the person with power to set the example, not the other way around. When I grew up, I was instilled with the idea that I needed to look up to the police as peace keepers and selfless defenders, the people that would look out for me if things got bad and I was in trouble. A cops actions and the affects of those actions are going to resonate more then some guy being a jerk to a cashier.

Our society does need change, I mean just look at all the crap we now have going on in politics, but all the people can do (outside full on revolution) is try to make sure those that abuse the power they are given are held accountable. If they are above accountability, then nothing will ever improve, even if every minority in the world did exactly as they were told in every police situation.

I think the thing that gets lost in the discussion is that there is (thankfully) not a national solution, because police forces are (again, thankfully) not a national service. This is something that needs to be worked on at a local and potentially state level. But heck if I have all the answers.

 

[blotsfan]

You mean the one where every supporter of hers followed up the apology with "She should have said all"?

I don't see what that has to do with anything. It's not like she said it.

Anywhom, you're right that there isn't a quick national solution, but it me frustrating to see responses that basically say that there isn't a problem or that it's hard so why bother.

 

[MindDetective]

You mean the one where every supporter of hers followed up the apology with "She should have said all"?


I think the thing that gets lost in the discussion is that there is (thankfully) not a national solution, because police forces are (again, thankfully) not a national service. This is something that needs to be worked on at a local and potentially state level. But heck if I have all the answers.

Uh, citation needed on that obvious hyperbole. And I am not leaping to Hillary's defense here. I just think that kind of rhetoric is unhelpful.

 

[ScytheRexx]

I think the thing that gets lost in the discussion is that there is (thankfully) not a national solution, because police forces are (again, thankfully) not a national service. This is something that needs to be worked on at a local and potentially state level. But heck if I have all the answers.

While they are not a national service, they are still connected, even if just perceptually. This is one problem I see a lot where a cop in the middle of one state will support a cop five states over, regardless of the evidence. To be fair, you will see this from minorities and other groups too, it's a natural part of humanity to support those tied with us (tribalism), but it can be detrimental when you support someone even if you know they are wrong, just because of that perceptual brotherhood.

My biggest issue with that is, by their very creed, the police are to "protect and serve", and when you get so engulfed in supporting your fellow boys in blue at the determent of the citizenry, you are no longer serving anyone but yourselves (See examples of rampant abuses of Civil Forfeiture). I am a white cis male, probably the safest combo ever when it comes to police interactions, but I am not going to sit by and allow others to be abused by cops, because that is a bad slope to move down in a democratic society.

 

[strawman]

No, I wasn't talking about the simple "I misspoke" non apology most politicians use when called to the carpet for their words. I'm speaking more toward the apologies for actions or inactions, not just words.

For instance did bush ever concede that the war was based on false premises? Did Hilary concede that the earlier requests for increased security were inadequately fulfilled? Has Obama apologized for any of the executive orders that the Supreme Court has struck down as unconstitutional?

Regardless, it's just an illustration of our society's acceptance reluctance to apologize. I'm sure many examples could be shown of specific political apologies, but the point is there are many times when they probably should and don't, jay as with many other parts of society.

 

[Null]

What is an issue of police at the national level is that police departments are not universally required to report how many people die at their hands (justified or otherwise), which means that we, as a society, don't honestly know the extent of the problem since the data is missing. And that DOES have a solution at the national level - the FBI and DoJ should require all police departments to report those incidents.

And you know, when we give the police the option of using lethal force, of arresting people, of seizing property - the powers associated with enforcing the law and protecting the populace - they ABSOLUTELY MUST be held to a higher standard. Increased powers must be balanced by increased responsibilities, otherwise you're setting up a system ripe for abuse. Which pretty accurately describes the situation we're in with the police these days.

 

[strawman]

My biggest issue with that is, by their very creed

I believe that slogan (ahempropagandaahem) was created by the LAPD and while adopted by many departments throughout the US and to some degree by he officers themselves, their legal mandate isn't strictly in accordance with that slogan.

In fact I believe that one of the problems is that societal expectations of what the police are and do is different than what they actually are and do.

 

[Null]

Steinman, if you can take a moment from yet again defending murderous police, would you mind sharing with the class which of Obama's executive orders have been judged unconstitutional? The only case I can find from the Supreme Court is NLRB vs Noel Canning, in which it was ruled that Obama had overstepped his authority by appointing three people to the National Labor Relations Board without Senatorial approval.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

Did Hilary concede that the earlier requests for increased security were inadequately fulfilled?

wait, real talk, like, hold up a minute

Do you REALLY still think Hillary Clinton bears responsibility for "Benghazi"?

 

[Covar]

Uh, citation needed on that obvious hyperbole. And I am not leaping to Hillary's defense here. I just think that kind of rhetoric is unhelpful.

Fair, by every I should clarify everything that made it's way into my facebook feed, and the comments on here.

 

[blotsfan]

Fair, by every I should clarify everything that made it's way into my facebook feed, and the comments on here.

I mean, I made that bit of snark, and while I don't think she should have had to apologize, it doesn't change that she did.

 

[Null]

Also, speaking of police not being held to adequate standards, the Pittsburgh police union has filed a civil rights grievance against the city for officers being subjected to drug and alcohol testing in violation of their contract.

Fuck them. If you want to test welfare recipients for drugs, even though the rate of positive results is hovering around 3%, you should have no problem wanting cops tested, because the police deal with life and death situations. I mean, for fuck's sake, they piss test kids working the fry-o-later at McDonald's, but asking a cop to be tested a violation of his rights?

Fuck the police.

http://www.wpxi.com/news/investigates/pittsburgh-police-union-files-civil-rights-grievan/19147227

 

[ScytheRexx]

I believe that slogan (ahempropagandaahem) was created by the LAPD and while adopted by many departments throughout the US and to some degree by he officers themselves, their legal mandate isn't strictly in accordance with that slogan.

I grew up in California, so I saw the slogan all the time.

Maybe I took it too literally, but I like to think the ideas behind the words "protect and serve" still stand behind most police officers, even if not verbatim with the slogan.

 

[Null]

I grew up in California, so I saw the slogan all the time.

Maybe I took it too literally, but I like to think the ideas behind the words "protect and serve" still stand behind most police officers, even if not verbatim with the slogan.

This one is more reflective of the times:

 

[sixpackshaker]

Also, speaking of police not being held to adequate standards, the Pittsburgh police union has filed a civil rights grievance against the city for officers being subjected to drug and alcohol testing in violation of their contract.

Fuck them. If you want to test welfare recipients for drugs, even though the rate of positive results is hovering around 3%, you should have no problem wanting cops tested, because the police deal with life and death situations. I mean, for fuck's sake, they piss test kids working the fry-o-later at McDonald's, but asking a cop to be tested a violation of his rights?

Fuck the police.

http://www.wpxi.com/news/investigates/pittsburgh-police-union-files-civil-rights-grievan/19147227

Seriously you go to "Fuck the Police" over their civil rights being violated?

I know, police are wrong in every situation.

 

[Gruebeard]

wait, real talk, like, hold up a minute

Do you REALLY still think Hillary Clinton bears responsibility for "Benghazi"?

Apologizing for something doesn't have to mean you bear responsibility.

But then, I come from a society where one is expected to apologize when one's foot is stepped on.

 

[strawman]

Well I've touched a lot of nerves. I was responding via cell phone which is terrible because quoting small portions of long posts is painful.

My initial post, regarding honesty and apologies, was specifically in response to:

I think one of the biggest issues is that police, very rarely, apologize...

And that is the only aspect of the current discussion that I was addressing. There's a lot of discussions going on, all roughly relating to "the police state" topic of the thread, and it's easy to assume some of my responses apply to other discussion, but the only point I was intending to make was that our whole society sucks at accepting responsibility and apologizing for mistakes, from the individual citizen to the highest politician.

Your solution seems to be saying "both sides have problems so let's change nothing."

I didn't propose a solution. If anything I was suggesting that this is more complicated than "the cops never apologize."

Steinman, if you can take a moment from yet again defending murderous police

Hmm. I guess saying, "A majority of society avoids apologies" could be considered "defending murderous police."

I'm not interested in defending murderous police, and I'm sorry to have done so. Down with all murderous police!

I've not said anything regarding recent examples of police abuse, and I'm not interested in defending the officer(s) who committed the abuses.

, would you mind sharing with the class which of Obama's executive orders have been judged unconstitutional? The only case I can find from the Supreme Court is NLRB vs Noel Canning, in which it was ruled that Obama had overstepped his authority by appointing three people to the National Labor Relations Board without Senatorial approval.

Honestly this is getting too off topic. Ask me in an appropriate thread.

 

[Gruebeard]

By the way, that reaction of Charlie's is what @stienman is talking about.

Now, I know nothing about Benghazi (almost literally) beyond some bad thing happened, and Clinton was involved in some way. I think she was in a position of power where, if she could actually see the future, she could have made the exact right decisions to mitigate this bad thing. Not being prescient, though, she made decisions that let this bad thing occur.

Stienman is positing that if she apologized for her role in not stopping this, even though she acted in good faith when making the relevant decisions, and was not (big R) Responsible for gbe bad thing, she would be demonized by a large swath of society and her apology taken as a confession of guilt and used as fuel for attacks against her.

So society keeps her from apologizing for her role in the bad action, even if all she's apologizing for is (figuratively) not getting her foot out of the way before someone steps on it.

 

[Dei]

Yep, apologizing in a world where that can be seen as an admission of guilt means that you won't see it happen until/unless it goes to court and it plays out there.

 

[PatrThom]

Yep, apologizing in a world where that can be seen as an admission of guilt means that you won't see it happen until/unless it goes to court and it plays out there.

Worked out well for Wells Fargo, right?
EDIT for @Gruebeard, et al. Elizabeth Warren has been raking CEO John Stumpf* over the coals of late due to the actions of his employees.
tl;dr: He says he is very sorry and he accepts full responsibility.

--Patrick
*Yes, that is really his name.

 

[Null]

Seriously you go to "Fuck the Police" over their civil rights being violated?

I know, police are wrong in every situation.

Police are required to be tested after being involved in a crash or pursuit. One officer involved in a crash, though not driving, and another involved in a pursuit, were both asked to be tested. Their union is claiming that's a violation of their contract and they're calling it a violation of their rights.

And no, Fuck the Police is over the 70 pages of crimes we've discussed and their overwhelming refusal as organizations to try and improve the situation or face consequences.

 

[strawman]

wait, real talk, like, hold up a minute

Do you REALLY still think Hillary Clinton bears responsibility for "Benghazi"?

Too complicated and offtopic to approach respectfully here, and anything I offer in the way of a short statement would only be easy to misinterpret. Ask in a more appropriate thread and I'll offer my opinion.

I grew up in California, so I saw the slogan all the time.

Maybe I took it too literally, but I like to think the ideas behind the words "protect and serve" still stand behind most police officers, even if not verbatim with the slogan.

I'm sure the police officers want to protect and serve. I'm also certain that when they perform in a way that the public doesn't feel is protective or service, they will point to their legal mandate and say, "Well, we are tied to this mandate. The phrase is our intent, but the legal mandate is our actual authority and limitations."

 

[Null]

Another step towards solving the problem that does come from the nation level: using special federal prosecutors in cases where police are accused, because all too often District Attorneys and Attorney Generals are reluctant to prosecute police that they have worked with or are from departments that they work with. The difficulty, in that case, would be gaining local cooperation, but it eliminates potential conflicts of interest due to prior association. For example: a local prosecutor knows that a particular officer is a reliable witness in court, who isn't shaken by cross-examination, who jurors tend to trust, etc. Then that police officer is accused of misconduct. Not only is their personal and professional relationship strained, but the cases the local prosecutor has won by using that witness can be called into question if the officer is found guilty of misconduct. So it is in the local prosecutor's professional interest to not push the charges against the officer. Make a weak case to the grand jury. Defend the officer's actions. Fail to get an indictment. It happens frequently: Grand Juries indict at a rate of nearly 98%, but when the defendant is a police officer, the rate drops to around 11%.

 

[strawman]

But the federal government doesn't have that authority, and couldn't easily be granted that authority without a constitutional amendment.

It would be far easier and just as effective to have a separate organization perform this function that wasn't so tied to the justice department, a special prosecutor that wouldn't otherwise have to work with the police for instance.

 

[Null]

http://www.wbur.org/news/2016/09/20...men-may-have-legitimate-reason-to-flee-police

Black men who try to avoid an encounter with Boston police by fleeing may have a legitimate reason to do so — and should not be deemed suspicious — according to a ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

Given that 63% of all "Field Interrogation and Observation" ie "stop and frisk" encounters were with blacks, despite the population of the city only being 24% black, even adjusting for high crime areas showed a distinct pattern of racial bias.

"We do not eliminate flight as a factor in the reasonable suspicion analysis whenever a black male is the subject of an investigatory stop. However, in such circumstances, flight is not necessarily probative of a suspect's state of mind or consciousness of guilt. Rather, the finding that black males in Boston are disproportionately and repeatedly targeted for FIO [Field Interrogation and Observation] encounters suggests a reason for flight totally unrelated to consciousness of guilt. Such an individual, when approached by the police, might just as easily be motivated by the desire to avoid the recurring indignity of being racially profiled as by the desire to hide criminal activity. Given this reality for black males in the city of Boston, a judge should, in appropriate cases, consider the report's findings in weighing flight as a factor in the reasonable suspicion calculus."

Edit: It may be worth noting that this conclusion was drawn as a result of analysis over 200,000 FIO reports by the ACLU and two other organizations.

 

[Null]

And in more fine police work:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_e0530fba-5db7-500e-9b31-3dd4512fe5bc.html

Cop tells his partner, "I'm gonna kill this motherfucker," kills black guy, plants gun. Gets caught on video, video gets suppressed for years.

 

[GasBandit]

Tulsa Co. DA: TPD Ofc. Betty Shelby faces 1st degree manslaughter charge in Terence Crutcher death