here's an article talking about an SLC program that the chief is pushing. (http://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=22965087&nid=148&title=glasses-equipped-with-camera-create-transparency-for-slcpd&s_cid=featured-1)
He wants eye level action cams on every cop.
curious about the opinions here on the topic.
some cops are resistant the chief says, but he thinks it's the future of law enforcement. it seems that it could provide some accountability. if there is video evidence of all police interaction with the public, surely that would dissuade at least some egregious police abuses of power.
a cynical objection is that the police will simply not have the video recording during an event (where they are in the wrong), but if it were required, it could be seen as evidence of malpractice in court, right? i would think that legislation would be required in addition to police department policy in order for it to avoid being one sided (i.e. guarantee of accessibility).
another objection is privacy. some people said they simply don't want to be recorded by the cops. i don't know how much stock i put in this one...
an interesting objection i heard is that it would then only be a matter of time before facial recognition software is incorporated into the system. that certainly plucks an emotional cord. hmm....
what say you guys?
I'm against it. Any potential abuse stopped by accessibility would be offset by people being publicly humiliated or having their careers ruined by footage, with or without a trial.
i'm not quite sure what you're getting at...
are you referring to police having their careers ruined? or them taping citizens and 'leaking' it to ruin them?
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 15, 2012, 05:09:28 PM
i'm not quite sure what you're getting at...
are you referring to police having their careers ruined? or them taping citizens and 'leaking' it to ruin them?
If the tapes aren't accessible to the public, then oversight isn't achieved.
If the tapes are accessible to the public, then people detained, pulled over, or questioned are at risk of enormous social and career damage before charges are even filed, if they are even filed.
We have enough cameras.
the tapes should be accessible as court evidence, same as dash cams*. it would certainly be bad form for them to simply be made open to the public.
*it occurs to me that i'm making two wild assumptions here; that dash cams are handled that way, and that these action cams are intended to be also.
I can never think of a good argument for MORE surveillance.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 16, 2012, 07:46:32 AM
I can never think of a good argument for MORE surveillance.
But . . . but . . . it makes us SAFER! Don't you want to be SAFE?
Yeah, sorry, I can't even type that shit with a straight face.
exactly. that's why i think this is interesting to think about.
every time the enforcers add another camera, it's another chip off our privacy, right?
but, when people monitor the authorities, it's called a watchdog group, and that gives no heebie-jeebies intrinsically. usually it's a comfort.
when a governance is set up, checks and balances are generally agreed to be a good thing.
if set up improperly, this is utterly dystopian.
if set up well, it could help alleviate police abuse of power.
if not set up at all.....well. actually, i don't think that's an option.
we're in an age of ubiquitous recording, and although a very big part of me wants to thrash and screech, it feels that wishing this away is about as useful as wishing away nuclear bombs.
right now, the only people that have a 24/7 record or their lives are MIT geeks that like to pretend that they live on a giant cubic spaceship and have blinking LEDs on their clothes and 15 pounds of computing hardware in their fanny pack. oh wait. that was years ago. now it's feasible for it to be done without looking much like a dork if you put some effort into it. pretty soon, it'll be no more than a choice to pay .99$ for the app that utilizes the hardware that's already in place. when this happens, i imagine just about everyone will opt for it, except for luddites and people that feel important from being contrary.
with that in mind, it would seem odd to have everyone's perspective be a matter of personal record that they can access, and yet police be required to act in a metaphorical oubliette. from that perspective, it kinda sounds sinister for them to not have cameras.
so a new question in that context then isn't, 'should this be done?', but how should it be done...
a quick googling shows that San Jose had a test program for this a few years ago.
it failed, not due to public response, but due to cost and ability to handle that much data.
those are two things that will evaporate with incremental technology improvement.
Seattle, apparently was looking to do a test program last year, but i didn't see anything indicating that it went through...
Yeah, there's no way the SPD would ever agree to that. Or anything else that makes it harder for them to murder the occasional uppity smudgy person.
Even if it was a good idea, realistically, it isn't workable for the reasons you mentioned Ip around technology and the demands on such a system. Only large cities with the financial resources would even be able to entertain such a system, and I think it would be prone to all kinds of technical issues, let alone the privacy issues.
The possible advantage of the video is that you blunt the "he said-he said" scenario where you are pitting the word of a suspect against an officer of the law. However, I think what you would need is a quasi-public system for review. That is, put together some kind of review board that consists of members of the public along with enforcement officials. Kind of a hybrid Internal Affairs that gives the public a seat at the table.
I get the motivation behind such a proposal, but it's difficult to think of a system that would actually carry the intent through with fidelity.
Eye level cams are not watching the copper, they're watching the human. Important distinction. If you can't see what's going on behind the camera then you don't know who pulled the trigger. I can't see it making the filth any more honest so it's pretty fucking pointless, until there's eye-level cams on all civilians. Then you'll have the whole picture. Google glass, some time in the next couple of years - sorted! Bent filth will be unable to get away with any shit unless it's state-sanctioned and, even then, it'll be a lot fucking harder to keep a lid on 8)
i get what you're saying, but.... you get what i'm saying, right?
If you were forced to wear an eye level cam as part of your job, i'm pretty sure you would consider it 'being watched'.
maybe not as good for accountability as an autonomous quad copter providing 3rd person action game view of the cops, but a bit more workable at the moment. :)
definitely, it'll be interesting what changes will be brought about by ubiquitous, continuous, POV recording. which is inevitable, imo.
Glass will hopefully pan out, but even now, i see there's a bluetooth headset with cam called Looxie that's been on the market for a few years. i would imagine that it could probably be made a bit better now. (less bulky, better resolution)
you don't know many cops, do you? :lulz:
No. can't say that I do.
As far as I can recall, I've only ever personally known one cop, who was moonlighting at the pizza joint that I delivered at.
Young guy about the same age as me. I got along with him, but he had some bad wiring. Had stories of his own abuses that were amusing, but sinister in that you know he's gonna rack up more horrifying examples during his career. He was a large influence that led me to not trust police as a general rule.
Assuming that your question was to indicate that my view of cops is naïve to their corruption, or perhaps their sophistication in scheming?
Is the implication that mechanisms for monitoring law enforcement that has them in the loop at all are doomed? If that is the argument, it seems overly general from what I know.
If this is the case, why is there pushback from some cops? My guess is it's, at least in part, because it represents another hurdle that they would have to overcome in order to abuse their power. That's a good thing, no?
Being on camera won't stop them from doing shit. Because the thing is, the people who are gonna see that footage? Also cops. They just don't like that it will mean more paperwork.
Google "Shandy Cobane".
i just read a couple of the news articles on Cobane and the stomping incident. (which seemed odd that the point of focus seemed more on his racist shouting than the fact that he was stomping a subdued guy!)
so, it was videoed, but i didn't see by who. was it the dash cam? or a citizen?
i also saw an article about him beating on some guy in the back of the squad car, but the case there has attention paid to the fact that the camera on the car was turned off at the time the incident is alleged to have happened. it is presented as evidence of foul play. so it seems that they had to review the police policy of their discretion in turning it on or off, which i guess is pretty vague.
perhaps this will prompt legislation to mandate specific use of the cameras.
The point is, Cobane knew he was being taped "stomping the mexican piss" out of the guy and just didn't care. Even if one is willing to accept the "record everything" mentality (I'm not), the fact remains that getting civilian oversight of police departments with any meaningful authority over said departments is the closest thing to impossible. Which means that all the camera footage int he world is utterly meaningless.
he knew he was being taped?
who taped him?
More cameras = bad.
Everyone and their grandmother has a cell phone that can record events. This is good. Police having more cameras is bad.
I am amazed, Iptuous, that I have to say this to you, of all people.
:lol:
I amaze myself with my own inconsistency, sometimes. (out of curiosity, which particular uniform did you have me in that this position doesn't work with?) it feels like we're moving to a world where privacy is a quaint anachronism. part of me wants to screech, and part of me wants to embrace.
i guess, the distinction i'm seeing here is that if a system is put in place such that the footage is accessible to the court, and they are required to use them, i don't see it as the police 'having' cameras. it seems like the courts 'having' the cameras and stapling them to the cops' heads.
police transparency = good.
as far as potential for abuse, i agree that it's possible inevitable if this isn't addressed now with the public at the table in regards to how it is implemented.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 19, 2012, 09:39:03 PM
:lol:
I amaze myself with my own inconsistency, sometimes. (out of curiosity, which particular uniform did you have me in that this position doesn't work with?)
It's that GIM thing. I'm sort of stuck on that, have been for years.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 19, 2012, 09:39:03 PM
it feels like we're moving to a world where privacy is a quaint anachronism. part of me wants to screech, and part of me wants to embrace.
Have the part that wants to screech grab the part that wants to embrace, drag it out behind the portapotties and thrash the shit out of it until it stops being so damn submissive.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 19, 2012, 09:39:03 PM
i guess, the distinction i'm seeing here is that if a system is put in place such that the footage is accessible to the court, and they are required to use them, i don't see it as the police 'having' cameras. it seems like the courts 'having' the cameras and stapling them to the cops' heads.
police transparency = good.
Unless it's a live feed on youtube, it's not transparent.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 19, 2012, 09:39:03 PM
as far as potential for abuse, i agree that it's possible inevitable if this isn't addressed now with the public at the table in regards to how it is implemented.
And how many times has the public NOT fucked something like this up?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 19, 2012, 09:43:59 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 19, 2012, 09:39:03 PM
:lol:
I amaze myself with my own inconsistency, sometimes. (out of curiosity, which particular uniform did you have me in that this position doesn't work with?)
It's that GIM thing. I'm sort of stuck on that, have been for years.
the tinfoil hat survivalist CT schtick? i got bored with that brand of crazy. it got repetitive.
been a couple years now...
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 19, 2012, 09:43:59 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 19, 2012, 09:39:03 PM
it feels like we're moving to a world where privacy is a quaint anachronism. part of me wants to screech, and part of me wants to embrace.
Have the part that wants to screech grab the part that wants to embrace, drag it out behind the portapotties and thrash the shit out of it until it stops being so damn submissive.
the part that wants to embrace doesn't see it as submission, but rather liberation. it sees the part that rejects the notion as an outmoded fool that wants to wallow in its imperfections and hide in shame and fear.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 19, 2012, 09:43:59 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 19, 2012, 09:39:03 PM
i guess, the distinction i'm seeing here is that if a system is put in place such that the footage is accessible to the court, and they are required to use them, i don't see it as the police 'having' cameras. it seems like the courts 'having' the cameras and stapling them to the cops' heads.
police transparency = good.
Unless it's a live feed on youtube, it's not transparent.
that kind of all or nothing is rarely correct. particularly in something as nuanced as privacy and violence in the context of governance.
is finance a relevant analogy in some sense?:
should all your financial information be private? yes. should it be available in court proceedings? yes, if warranted. should it be publicly viewable in realtime? no.
frankly, i'm a little surprised that you take such a hard line on this.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 19, 2012, 09:43:59 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 19, 2012, 09:39:03 PM
as far as potential for abuse, i agree that it's possible inevitable if this isn't addressed now with the public at the table in regards to how it is implemented.
And how many times has the public NOT fucked something like this up?
same as anything ever. sometimes we do things as a society and it works. well, we do it right until we don't. then it fails. maybe we can get it going again sometime if it's worth it. sometimes it fails right off.
unless there's a particular reason so say it
can't be accomplished, then "it's never worked in the past" doesn't argue much because
everything we've accomplished was in that position at some point.
and in a context like this, where the future's coming whether you want it or not i gotta bet on us being able to do it right, because what's the point in ignoring or denying it?
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 20, 2012, 12:50:59 AM
frankly, i'm a little surprised that you take such a hard line on this.
Why? I'm not bashful about my distrust of anyone carrying a badge.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 20, 2012, 02:24:32 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 20, 2012, 12:50:59 AM
frankly, i'm a little surprised that you take such a hard line on this.
Why? I'm not bashful about my distrust of anyone carrying a badge.
on matters of public utilization you seem to be more measured and deliberative.
for instance, you distrust anyone carrying a badge, but you recognize their necessity.
the capacity for abuse is present, and significant, but the inevitability and potential for benefit indicate that we should focus on doing it right rather than on denying that it will or should happen.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 20, 2012, 03:21:11 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 20, 2012, 02:24:32 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 20, 2012, 12:50:59 AM
frankly, i'm a little surprised that you take such a hard line on this.
Why? I'm not bashful about my distrust of anyone carrying a badge.
on matters of public utilization you seem to be more measured and deliberative.
for instance, you distrust anyone carrying a badge, but you recognize their necessity.
the capacity for abuse is present, and significant, but the inevitability and potential for benefit indicate that we should focus on doing it right rather than on denying that it will or should happen.
At this point, I shall direct you to Cain for an in-depth analysis on the utility of the British CCTV system.
Unhelpful cynical input:
1) Think of all the possible outcomes of implementing this technology on a wide scale.
2) Now pick the worst, most abusive, ethically warped of those outcomes. The kind of blatant horrible that would make headlines everywhere and result in effectual public outcry.
3) Now pick an outcome that is slightly less egregiously abusive: That is what will happen.
4) Watch a portion of the public get mad on Facebook, then forget about it without any meaningful policy changes being made to correct the potential for abuse.
Quote from: Cainad on November 20, 2012, 03:55:22 PM
Unhelpful cynical input:
1) Think of all the possible outcomes of implementing this technology on a wide scale.
2) Now pick the worst, most abusive, ethically warped of those outcomes. The kind of blatant horrible that would make headlines everywhere and result in effectual public outcry.
3) Now pick an outcome that is slightly less egregiously abusive: That is what will happen.
4) Watch a portion of the public get mad on Facebook, then forget about it without any meaningful policy changes being made to correct the potential for abuse.
Cainad speaks truth.
Roger,
i would say that there is a significant difference between police cameras for the purpose of monitoring police behavior and a public surveillance system.
the fact that the former could possibly be used as another component to the latter is something that should be checked, but doesn't inherently invalidate it.
also, do you mention the CCTV system as a cautionary tale on how it can be done wrong, or as evidence that we should fight the tide of pervasive recording on principle?
Cainad,
the only abuse that i see is selective recording (or retention) to misrepresent events. I see this as coming down the pipe, unless we either set up the system with checks to ensure, as best we can, that this is prevented. Or, we ban police from using cameras. that strikes me as a particularly odd thing.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 20, 2012, 04:15:23 PM
Roger,
i would say that there is a significant difference between police cameras for the purpose of monitoring police behavior and a public surveillance system.
If the cameras aren't aimed at the police, then they're monitoring something else.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 20, 2012, 04:15:23 PM
Cainad,
the only abuse that i see is selective recording (or retention) to misrepresent events.
Yes.
Quote
I see this as coming down the pipe, unless we either set up the system with checks to ensure, as best we can, that this is prevented.
Won't happen. Anyone who tries to make it happen will be shouted down as someone who hates our boys in blue.
Quote
Or, we ban police from using cameras. that strikes me as a particularly odd thing.
Unnecessary. I doubt most cops would bother with recording equipment if they weren't made to carry it.
Sorry for being pithy about this. Unless this system does some kid of weird web-streaming thing that uploads footage directly to a database accessible to a civilian agency, it will be abused.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 20, 2012, 04:16:08 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 20, 2012, 04:15:23 PM
Roger,
i would say that there is a significant difference between police cameras for the purpose of monitoring police behavior and a public surveillance system.
If the cameras aren't aimed at the police, then they're monitoring something else.
if the argument is that a POV camera doesn't monitor the behavior of the person whos POV it is from, then i've got no response.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 20, 2012, 04:27:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 20, 2012, 04:16:08 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 20, 2012, 04:15:23 PM
Roger,
i would say that there is a significant difference between police cameras for the purpose of monitoring police behavior and a public surveillance system.
If the cameras aren't aimed at the police, then they're monitoring something else.
if the argument is that a POV camera doesn't monitor the behavior of the person whos POV it is from, then i've got no response.
Can't tell who's wearing it.
If you had it set up in a way that every officer was assigned a camera, with a specific serial number or other identification, you could tell who WASN'T wearing it.
If Officer Jones was wearing camera S-370 and John Doe said Officer Jones shoved him to the ground, and the camera shows the person with the POV shoving someone to the ground, the officer has to either say, "yeah, that was me" OR that it wasn't him, at which point he has to explain who the fuck has his camera and why.
Of course this could be abused, but if a lot of thought and planning is put into it you can make it very difficult to abuse which gives an officer minimal loop holes to weasel out of complaints.
Quote from: Cainad on November 20, 2012, 04:26:26 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 20, 2012, 04:15:23 PM
I see this as coming down the pipe, unless we either set up the system with checks to ensure, as best we can, that this is prevented.
Won't happen. Anyone who tries to make it happen will be shouted down as someone who hates our boys in blue.
i think there's a large enough percent of the population (and growing) that believes more controls need to be put on our police. i don't think that the majority put blind trust in them anymore.
Quote from: Cainad on November 20, 2012, 04:26:26 PM
Quote
Or, we ban police from using cameras. that strikes me as a particularly odd thing.
Unnecessary. I doubt most cops would bother with recording equipment if they weren't made to carry it.
I'm arguing from the standpoint that technology will render recording so easy and invisible as to be the default with the majority of the population within our lifetimes. right now, it is an effort to put this in place. it will eventually be an effort to prevent it.
Quote from: Cainad on November 20, 2012, 04:26:26 PMSorry for being pithy about this. Unless this system does some kid of weird web-streaming thing that uploads footage directly to a database accessible to a civilian agency, it will be abused.
that is something that would be horribly abused, and i would oppose.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 20, 2012, 04:16:08 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 20, 2012, 04:15:23 PM
Roger,
i would say that there is a significant difference between police cameras for the purpose of monitoring police behavior and a public surveillance system.
If the cameras aren't aimed at the police, then they're monitoring something else.
Boom. Roger nails it.
I'm a fan on cameras for monitoring the police. Put cameras on top of all the cop cars, and make it a Federal offense to interfere with video recording an officer on duty so that cops are forced to stop spotlighting people with cameras.
That'll never happen, though. This is just another tool for cops to use against the public.
Iptuous, are you just playing Devil's Advocate here?
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 20, 2012, 04:38:55 PM
Quote from: Cainad on November 20, 2012, 04:26:26 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 20, 2012, 04:15:23 PM
I see this as coming down the pipe, unless we either set up the system with checks to ensure, as best we can, that this is prevented.
Won't happen. Anyone who tries to make it happen will be shouted down as someone who hates our boys in blue.
i think there's a large enough percent of the population (and growing) that believes more controls need to be put on our police. i don't think that the majority put blind trust in them anymore.
Quote from: Cainad on November 20, 2012, 04:26:26 PM
Quote
Or, we ban police from using cameras. that strikes me as a particularly odd thing.
Unnecessary. I doubt most cops would bother with recording equipment if they weren't made to carry it.
I'm arguing from the standpoint that technology will render recording so easy and invisible as to be the default with the majority of the population within our lifetimes. right now, it is an effort to put this in place. it will eventually be an effort to prevent it.
Quote from: Cainad on November 20, 2012, 04:26:26 PMSorry for being pithy about this. Unless this system does some kid of weird web-streaming thing that uploads footage directly to a database accessible to a civilian agency, it will be abused.
that is something that would be horribly abused, and i would oppose.
Point. I retract that statement; it was pretty dumb.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 20, 2012, 04:39:49 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 20, 2012, 04:16:08 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 20, 2012, 04:15:23 PM
Roger,
i would say that there is a significant difference between police cameras for the purpose of monitoring police behavior and a public surveillance system.
If the cameras aren't aimed at the police, then they're monitoring something else.
Boom. Roger nails it.
I'm a fan on cameras for monitoring the police. Put cameras on top of all the cop cars, and make it a Federal offense to interfere with video recording an officer on duty so that cops are forced to stop spotlighting people with cameras.
That'll never happen, though. This is just another tool for cops to use against the public tweaker pedo terrorists.
BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 20, 2012, 04:42:02 PM
Iptuous, are you just playing Devil's Advocate here?
I don't know.
:|
I don't think the technology, in terms of cost, reliability, etc., is really in a place yet where this could be done in a workable way. But I see nothing wrong with the intent and philosophy behind it. I mean, really, police aren't all a bunch of jacked up, scheming, and coniving babboons. And I can assure you they WANT the bad apples weeded out because it makes the test of them look bad.
Now, that said, there probably would be some consternation from the Unions, but I bet that could be negotiated in a lot of cases.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 20, 2012, 05:01:56 PM
I mean, really, police aren't all a bunch of jacked up, scheming, and coniving babboons.
No, but I can say from experience that it only takes a couple.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 20, 2012, 05:01:56 PM
I don't think the technology, in terms of cost, reliability, etc., is really in a place yet where this could be done in a workable way. But I see nothing wrong with the intent and philosophy behind it. I mean, really, police aren't all a bunch of jacked up, scheming, and coniving babboons. And I can assure you they WANT the bad apples weeded out because it makes the test of them look bad.
Now, that said, there probably would be some consternation from the Unions, but I bet that could be negotiated in a lot of cases.
:lulz: But that one guy can't run the whole police department by himself.
Seriously, though, the problem isn't the individuals, it's the institution. You give a bunch of apes weapons and tell them that everyone else is the enemy, and you have the police force.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 20, 2012, 05:15:30 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 20, 2012, 05:01:56 PM
I don't think the technology, in terms of cost, reliability, etc., is really in a place yet where this could be done in a workable way. But I see nothing wrong with the intent and philosophy behind it. I mean, really, police aren't all a bunch of jacked up, scheming, and coniving babboons. And I can assure you they WANT the bad apples weeded out because it makes the test of them look bad.
Now, that said, there probably would be some consternation from the Unions, but I bet that could be negotiated in a lot of cases.
:lulz: But that one guy can't run the whole police department by himself.
Seriously, though, the problem isn't the individuals, it's the institution. You give a bunch of apes weapons and tell them that everyone else is the enemy, and you have the police force.
There's another side to that, of course.
"The public" is a zoo full of animals that want to kill each other only slightly less than they want to kill anyone who tries to stop them from killing each other.
The truth, of course, usually lies somewhere in the middle. Unless you're in Portland, Oakland, LA, or Houston, in which case Nigel's post applies accurately.
Law Enforcement culture will vary from department to department and community to community. The ones I work with don't view the public as enemies or animals and are doing what they do precisely because they value the public and want it protected, which is why I think, in theory, the idea of recording police interactions is one that would receive less resistance than one might think.
yeah, and the way cops are in a largely rural state full of tight-knit communities (i.e. the cops know almost everyone they interact with) is totally representative of how cops are in the rest of the country.
There certainly differences between law enforcement in cities vs rural areas, but it's also not like Maine has a monopoly on rural, tight-knit communities. There's a lot of rural America out there. But, I bristle, in general, to the generalization that is often made in popular culture of law enforcement.
In this particular case, there's a huge friggin' kernel of truth behind the stereotyping of cops. Say what you want, but the fact is that "policeman" is a job filled exclusively by the kind of people who WANT to have authority over the general populace and the ability to impose that authority with deadly force. The very fact that someone would WANT to be in that position makes them suspect as being fit to hold that position.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 20, 2012, 05:33:09 PM
Law Enforcement culture will vary from department to department and community to community. The ones I work with don't view the public as enemies or animals and are doing what they do precisely because they value the public and want it protected, which is why I think, in theory, the idea of recording police interactions is one that would receive less resistance than one might think.
:lulz: Yeah, in communities that don't
really need it.
Yeah, the point is to have police in environments where there's not the accountability of familiarity being monitored.
it doesn't have to be a notoriously violent location or with notoriously corrupt/abusive cops, however, to be beneficial.
since this article got me thinking about the subject, there have been a few cases around here that made me think, "i bet they wish the cop was recording when that happened so the court could subpoena the footage". for instance, some lady in one of the mid city burbs (that happens to be on the route to my kids kindergarten. shitneck cops in a speedtrap town, but not a dangerous place by any means) got pulled over for some traffic citation, and according to her testimony, the cop had her hands behind her back and when she complained that he was hurting her, he replied "it's not supposed to be comfortable". Although she didn't say as much, i'm sure she was at least a little uncooperative when told this, because he felt it was necessary to be stern enough that he popped her breast implant shoving her against her car!
now, i'm thinking that the he said/she said might give this bastard enough wiggle room that he's not punished as harshly as he deserves assuming that what she told the media is true. (and i'm pretty sure that a POV camera would provide the necessary evidence, even though it's not from a 3rd person perspective...)
Another question regarding the notion that it is simply a matter of not wanting to be further observed by the authorities. (i.e. more cameras=bad argument):
is it the observation, or the recording of the observation that is objectionable? we aren't arguing that police patrols are inherently bad, are we? because if patrols are fine, then we currently have a situation where you are being monitored just as much, yet if there is an accusation of wrong doing leveled at you from the cop, responding "prove it!" is considered unreasonable, as the cop's word is considered proof. If they are required to record interaction with the public, then "prove it" seems perfectly legitimate.
so, no real additional monitoring, and reduction of police privilege in a sense.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 20, 2012, 07:05:37 PM
There certainly differences between law enforcement in cities vs rural areas, but it's also not like Maine has a monopoly on rural, tight-knit communities. There's a lot of rural America out there. But, I bristle, in general, to the generalization that is often made in popular culture of law enforcement.
Rural cops are ten times worse than urban cops. 169% of the time.
Talking from direct experience, here.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 20, 2012, 08:43:20 PM
In this particular case, there's a huge friggin' kernel of truth behind the stereotyping of cops. Say what you want, but the fact is that "policeman" is a job filled exclusively by the kind of people who WANT to have authority over the general populace and the ability to impose that authority with deadly force. The very fact that someone would WANT to be in that position makes them suspect as being fit to hold that position.
Not arguing this one. Worst job ever.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 20, 2012, 09:52:20 PM
Another question regarding the notion that it is simply a matter of not wanting to be further observed by the authorities. (i.e. more cameras=bad argument):
is it the observation, or the recording of the observation that is objectionable? we aren't arguing that police patrols are inherently bad, are we? because if patrols are fine, then we currently have a situation where you are being monitored just as much, yet if there is an accusation of wrong doing leveled at you from the cop, responding "prove it!" is considered unreasonable, as the cop's word is considered proof. If they are required to record interaction with the public, then "prove it" seems perfectly legitimate.
so, no real additional monitoring, and reduction of police privilege in a sense.
I still don't agree, but this is the first reasonable argument I've heard from anyone in favor of this sort of thing.
Of course, I also take the position that police patrols ARE inherently bad. But I understand that puts me in a tiny minority.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 20, 2012, 04:37:18 PM
If you had it set up in a way that every officer was assigned a camera, with a specific serial number or other identification, you could tell who WASN'T wearing it.
If Officer Jones was wearing camera S-370 and John Doe said Officer Jones shoved him to the ground, and the camera shows the person with the POV shoving someone to the ground, the officer has to either say, "yeah, that was me" OR that it wasn't him, at which point he has to explain who the fuck has his camera and why.
Of course this could be abused, but if a lot of thought and planning is put into it you can make it very difficult to abuse which gives an officer minimal loop holes to weasel out of complaints.
Only it wouldn't be too hard to subvert that system. Who do you think would maintain the register of who checked out what? Furthermore, how would you prove that the camera was in fact worn by the person who signed it out?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 20, 2012, 09:55:59 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 20, 2012, 07:05:37 PM
There certainly differences between law enforcement in cities vs rural areas, but it's also not like Maine has a monopoly on rural, tight-knit communities. There's a lot of rural America out there. But, I bristle, in general, to the generalization that is often made in popular culture of law enforcement.
Rural cops are ten times worse than urban cops. 169% of the time.
Talking from direct experience, here.
Some are, some aren't.
Quote from: American Jackal on November 20, 2012, 10:28:50 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 20, 2012, 04:37:18 PM
If you had it set up in a way that every officer was assigned a camera, with a specific serial number or other identification, you could tell who WASN'T wearing it.
If Officer Jones was wearing camera S-370 and John Doe said Officer Jones shoved him to the ground, and the camera shows the person with the POV shoving someone to the ground, the officer has to either say, "yeah, that was me" OR that it wasn't him, at which point he has to explain who the fuck has his camera and why.
Of course this could be abused, but if a lot of thought and planning is put into it you can make it very difficult to abuse which gives an officer minimal loop holes to weasel out of complaints.
Only it wouldn't be too hard to subvert that system. Who do you think would maintain the register of who checked out what? Furthermore, how would you prove that the camera was in fact worn by the person who signed it out?
You could do it through a third party, mandate that that responsibility isn't housed within the police department. And you could make the cameras standard equipment, much like their badge and gun. They are assigned a camera and also assigned responsibility for that camera, including if it ends up with someone else.
Forgive me for being a BIT cynical, here in my pretty little green city where police have an entire division openly devoted to racial profiling, a woman was killed recently in my neighborhood for walking down the street while black, a popular restaurant owner (who happened to be gay) was beaten to death in police custody, numerous people have been killed by police recently for being mentally ill in public, the consequence for calling the cops if you have a burglar is that they will destroy your house and beat you, and the Feds conducted an investigation on police violence that concluded with "Listen, you guys need to figure out a way to stop killing unarmed innocent civilians, OK?" (http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012/09/federal_findings_on_portland_p.html) but the ONLY way I can see something like that being implemented here is if the police force is absolutely assured that they will be able to circumvent any aspects that might be to their disadvantage, and use other aspects to their advantage. Our police force is notoriously violent and racist, and I don't see that changing anytime soon, Federal directive or not.
perhaps a state law mandating use of technology like this which cannot be circumvented (easily) is called for in scenarios just like what you describe?
these police abuses... do they go unpunished? did the Feds have insufficient evidence to prosecute them?
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 21, 2012, 03:07:55 AM
perhaps a state law mandating use of technology like this which cannot be circumvented (easily) is called for in scenarios just like what you describe?
these police abuses... do they go unpunished? did the Feds have insufficient evidence to prosecute them?
The police launch an inquiry, and find the involved officers innocent of wrongdoing.
The Feds haven't gotten involved before, and probably won't again. They certainly aren't going to prosecute. It's not what they do.
So, i'm ignorant here. how does the police heirarchy of accountability go?
i would have thought that municipal police are accountable to the state's AG and the state police. i figured if there was police injustice at the state level that the fbi would get involved.
This is not how it works?
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 21, 2012, 03:27:41 AM
The Feds haven't gotten involved before, and probably won't again. They certainly aren't going to prosecute. It's not what they do.
The bolded seems confusingly contradictory.
the italicized confuses me because it was my understanding that they (i'm assuming the fbi) did precisely that (prosecute criminal activity). Or is that to say they just won't prosecute those in the fraternal order?
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 21, 2012, 03:52:52 AM
So, i'm ignorant here. how does the police heirarchy of accountability go?
i would have thought that municipal police are accountable to the state's AG and the state police. i figured if there was police injustice at the state level that the fbi would get involved.
This is not how it works?
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 21, 2012, 03:27:41 AM
The Feds haven't gotten involved before, and probably won't again. They certainly aren't going to prosecute. It's not what they do.
The bolded seems confusingly contradictory.
the italicized confuses me because it was my understanding that they (i'm assuming the fbi) did precisely that (prosecute criminal activity). Or is that to say they just won't prosecute those in the fraternal order?
It's not criminal action if the officers involved were exonerated by the investigators tasked with inquiring into the case.
investigators as in internal affairs of the department?
at what point does the state AG get involved?
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 21, 2012, 04:02:44 AM
investigators as in internal affairs of the department?
at what point does the state AG get involved?
Maybe you could look it up. I don't know that much about how insane internal corruption and lack of accountability works.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 21, 2012, 01:16:35 AM
Quote from: American Jackal on November 20, 2012, 10:28:50 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 20, 2012, 04:37:18 PM
If you had it set up in a way that every officer was assigned a camera, with a specific serial number or other identification, you could tell who WASN'T wearing it.
If Officer Jones was wearing camera S-370 and John Doe said Officer Jones shoved him to the ground, and the camera shows the person with the POV shoving someone to the ground, the officer has to either say, "yeah, that was me" OR that it wasn't him, at which point he has to explain who the fuck has his camera and why.
Of course this could be abused, but if a lot of thought and planning is put into it you can make it very difficult to abuse which gives an officer minimal loop holes to weasel out of complaints.
Only it wouldn't be too hard to subvert that system. Who do you think would maintain the register of who checked out what? Furthermore, how would you prove that the camera was in fact worn by the person who signed it out?
You could do it through a third party, mandate that that responsibility isn't housed within the police department. And you could make the cameras standard equipment, much like their badge and gun. They are assigned a camera and also assigned responsibility for that camera, including if it ends up with someone else.
Yes, and while you're at it you could ride a unicorn to go visit the tooth fairy.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 21, 2012, 02:53:09 AM
Forgive me for being a BIT cynical, here in my pretty little green city where police have an entire division openly devoted to racial profiling, a woman was killed recently in my neighborhood for walking down the street while black, a popular restaurant owner (who happened to be gay) was beaten to death in police custody, numerous people have been killed by police recently for being mentally ill in public, the consequence for calling the cops if you have a burglar is that they will destroy your house and beat you, and the Feds conducted an investigation on police violence that concluded with "Listen, you guys need to figure out a way to stop killing unarmed innocent civilians, OK?" (http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012/09/federal_findings_on_portland_p.html) but the ONLY way I can see something like that being implemented here is if the police force is absolutely assured that they will be able to circumvent any aspects that might be to their disadvantage, and use other aspects to their advantage. Our police force is notoriously violent and racist, and I don't see that changing anytime soon, Federal directive or not.
Yeah, and then the ONE time the Mayor takes a stand and decides unilaterally to fire an officer for killing a civilian, the Police Union throws a fit, gets an arbitrator and the Employee Relations Board to reinstate the officer, and threatens to sue the city. Feel free to google "Ron Frashour".
"Your honor, that cop punched me in the face for no reason, and then planted cocaine in my pocket!"
"The suspect was resisting arrest, and the contraband fell out of his pocket while subduing him."
"Well, let's let the tape show us what happened. Where is the recording, officer Murphy?"
"I'm sorry, your honor. It was malfunctioning at the time."
"Then we'll just have to take your word for it. Five years mandatory sentence."
Repeat as necessary.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 21, 2012, 01:16:35 AM
And you could make the cameras standard equipment, much like their badge and gun. They are assigned a camera and also assigned responsibility for that camera, including if it ends up with someone else.
Badges don't need maintenance, and guns are generally user-maintained. Cameras, like radar guns, would need regular maintenance to keep them running correctly.
I mention this, because, while I was working for an attorney's office, we had a case where somebody was protesting a speeding ticket. Got tagged doing a buck ten... He got off clean, because the attorney (who happened to be an ex-police chief) requested a copy of the noted radar gun's maintenance records. Turned out that, according to the records, the gun used to tag the guy speeding was, on the day of the ticket, in the shop.
Wouldn't take long for there to be irregularities regarding who had which camera.
so, the general agreement here is that:
1 law enforcement attracts corrupt individuals
2 therefore law enforcement will always abuse its power
3 law enforcement is essentially immune from prosecution due to privilege
4 there is no method of structuring the system to check their power because the people directly above them will exonerate them, and it's turtles all the way up.
sounds kind of fatalistic to me...
Quote from: Luna on November 21, 2012, 02:33:19 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 21, 2012, 01:16:35 AM
And you could make the cameras standard equipment, much like their badge and gun. They are assigned a camera and also assigned responsibility for that camera, including if it ends up with someone else.
Badges don't need maintenance, and guns are generally user-maintained. Cameras, like radar guns, would need regular maintenance to keep them running correctly.
I mention this, because, while I was working for an attorney's office, we had a case where somebody was protesting a speeding ticket. Got tagged doing a buck ten... He got off clean, because the attorney (who happened to be an ex-police chief) requested a copy of the noted radar gun's maintenance records. Turned out that, according to the records, the gun used to tag the guy speeding was, on the day of the ticket, in the shop.
Wouldn't take long for there to be irregularities regarding who had which camera.
so, the end result in this case was that the citizen was exonerated because the records were available for court purposes and the policeman was caught? the irregularities weren't able to be swept under the rug by the policeman?
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 21, 2012, 02:56:34 PM
so, the general agreement here is that:
1 law enforcement tends to attract corrupt individuals
2 therefore some law enforcement will always abuse its power
3 Often, law enforcement is essentially immune from prosecution due to privilege
4 there is no blanket, one-fix method of structuring the system to check their power without compromising the privacy of citizens and being used cross-purposes to exert more personal power and control because the people directly above them will generally exonerate them, and it's turtles all the way up.
Sort of cleaned that up. It's not a case of a 100% corrupt, power-mad police state; it's more that this solution breaks more than it fixes.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 21, 2012, 02:56:34 PM
so, the general agreement here is that:
1 law enforcement attracts corrupt individuals
2 therefore law enforcement will always abuse its power
3 law enforcement is essentially immune from prosecution due to privilege
4 there is no method of structuring the system to check their power because the people directly above them will exonerate them, and it's turtles all the way up.
sounds kind of fatalistic to me...
You can call it whatever you want, but it's just how it is. I have to admit, I'm having a hard time understanding why some people cling so hard to the myth of "protect and serve" in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 21, 2012, 03:15:39 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 21, 2012, 02:56:34 PM
so, the general agreement here is that:
1 law enforcement tends to attract corrupt individuals
2 therefore some law enforcement will always abuse its power
3 Often, law enforcement is essentially immune from prosecution due to privilege
4 there is no blanket, one-fix method of structuring the system to check their power without compromising the privacy of citizens and being used cross-purposes to exert more personal power and control because the people directly above them will generally exonerate them, and it's turtles all the way up.
Sort of cleaned that up. It's not a case of a 100% corrupt, power-mad police state; it's more that this solution breaks more than it fixes.
agreed. i was, however, getting the sense that most here are viewing things in more superlative terms.
superlatives are seldom correct, and i wouldn't advance this as a 'blanket, one-fix' solution. but it does seem to me that it could help.
as for it breaking more than if fixes, i would say that's the debate here, and it is far from being proven one way or the other, as there have only been a couple test cases that were discontinued only due to cost or logistics issues (that will likely evaporate with technology)
There's also the "breaking" in the ideology/Principle vein. As in, "warrentless wiretapping has only led to a small amount of questionable prosecutions", while at the same time brutally fisting the 4th Amendment.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 21, 2012, 03:18:24 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 21, 2012, 02:56:34 PM
so, the general agreement here is that:
1 law enforcement attracts corrupt individuals
2 therefore law enforcement will always abuse its power
3 law enforcement is essentially immune from prosecution due to privilege
4 there is no method of structuring the system to check their power because the people directly above them will exonerate them, and it's turtles all the way up.
sounds kind of fatalistic to me...
You can call it whatever you want, but it's just how it is. I have to admit, I'm having a hard time understanding why some people cling so hard to the myth of "protect and serve" in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
I can understand that. cops make me nervous, in general. hell, i'm not ashamed to admit it; they make me fear.
I think that's a pretty standard reaction these days, more or less.
so, it's probably not so much that people 'cling to the myth', as much as they observe the social requirement (you do believe they are necessary, right?) and cling to the
notional requirement that they protect and serve. that doesn't seem irrational to me.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 21, 2012, 04:01:02 PM
There's also the "breaking" in the ideology/Principle vein. As in, "warrentless wiretapping has only led to a small amount of questionable prosecutions", while at the same time brutally fisting the 4th Amendment.
i think i understand what you're saying, but what is this breaking?
i mean, it certainly plucks the chord that Roger pointed out (i.e. more cameras=bad), however this doesn't seem to really hold up to scrutiny in my opinion, because there is no more monitoring going on than before. there's just record of the monitoring.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 21, 2012, 02:16:30 PM
"Your honor, that cop punched me in the face for no reason, and then planted cocaine in my pocket!"
"The suspect was resisting arrest, and the contraband fell out of his pocket while subduing him."
"Well, let's let the tape show us what happened. Where is the recording, officer Murphy?"
"I'm sorry, your honor. It was malfunctioning at the time."
"Then we'll just have to take your word for it. Five years mandatory sentence."
Repeat as necessary.
Incidentally, we have a case right now where:
Police: Oh yea, he totally confessed during his interrogation.
Client: Um, no.
Counsel: Please provide recording.
Police: OOPSRECORDERWASN'TONLOL!!!!11!
and the Counsel's response?
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 21, 2012, 04:02:16 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 21, 2012, 03:18:24 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 21, 2012, 02:56:34 PM
so, the general agreement here is that:
1 law enforcement attracts corrupt individuals
2 therefore law enforcement will always abuse its power
3 law enforcement is essentially immune from prosecution due to privilege
4 there is no method of structuring the system to check their power because the people directly above them will exonerate them, and it's turtles all the way up.
sounds kind of fatalistic to me...
You can call it whatever you want, but it's just how it is. I have to admit, I'm having a hard time understanding why some people cling so hard to the myth of "protect and serve" in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
I can understand that. cops make me nervous, in general. hell, i'm not ashamed to admit it; they make me fear.
I think that's a pretty standard reaction these days, more or less.
so, it's probably not so much that people 'cling to the myth', as much as they observe the social requirement (you do believe they are necessary, right?) and cling to the notional requirement that they protect and serve. that doesn't seem irrational to me.
Actually I don't believe they're necessary, at least not in their current configuration. But as stated before, I understand that this view puts me in a tiny minority and that the vast majority of people would not be comfortable being responsible for their own security (even though they really are anyway since the cops only come after the bad shit has already happened).
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 21, 2012, 04:50:49 PM
Actually I don't believe they're necessary, at least not in their current configuration. But as stated before, I understand that this view puts me in a tiny minority and that the vast majority of people would not be comfortable being responsible for their own security (even though they really are anyway since the cops only come after the bad shit has already happened).
not to mention that the courts have ruled that police do not have any obligation to protect the individual citizen. (as i understand it)
So, i'll just attempt to threadjack my own thread here and ask if you could explain on your view of the role and how law enforcement
should be structured. (and whether you think it is a practical/possible set up, or an idealization)
TBH, I'm not sure I have an idea of how I think it should be set up, just a reasonable certainty that the way it is NOW is not set up to benefit the average citizen. I will think on it though and see what I can come up with. It will obviously be more idealized than practical but it sounds like an interesting mental exercise.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 21, 2012, 04:44:04 PM
and the Counsel's response?
That they had a pretty weak argument then, given several other factors in the case.
Went to trial once - short 1 person of finding him not guilty. Round 2 coming soon since the prosecutor's being pretty stubborn on this one.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 21, 2012, 03:15:39 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 21, 2012, 02:56:34 PM
so, the general agreement here is that:
1 law enforcement tends to attract corrupt individuals
2 therefore some law enforcement will always abuse its power
3 Often, law enforcement is essentially immune from prosecution due to privilege
4 there is no blanket, one-fix method of structuring the system to check their power without compromising the privacy of citizens and being used cross-purposes to exert more personal power and control because the people directly above them will generally exonerate them, and it's turtles all the way up.
Sort of cleaned that up. It's not a case of a 100% corrupt, power-mad police state; it's more that this solution breaks more than it fixes.
Eh, again, I really think this varies from community to community and I really don't think it is a fair generalization to place on all police departments everywhere. I've worked with well over a dozen different departments, as well as law enforcement on a state and national level,and maybe I'm just lucky, but I have run into hardly any of these power-hungry, corrupt cops. I have run into more than a few who probably aren't motivated enough and often look the other way for certain things, but I just don't see the stereotype in reality.
I'm not saying it's not there, but I just challenge the accuracy of the general picture that has been painted of all law enforcement everywhere.
Of course, the prevalence of bad apples in the police force is not the issue really, since, as was pointed out, it doesn't take much to cause some real damage. we invest these guys with a monopoly on violence within their jurisdiction, so no level of corruption is acceptable.
hence, my argument that we should leverage technology to help leash them as best we can.
I think our counter arguments mostly stem from the unintending consequences of that leash, vis-a-vis privacy concerns, a false sense of security/confidence, manipulation of public opinion, etc.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 21, 2012, 05:26:41 PM
TBH, I'm not sure I have an idea of how I think it should be set up, just a reasonable certainty that the way it is NOW is not set up to benefit the average citizen. I will think on it though and see what I can come up with. It will obviously be more idealized than practical but it sounds like an interesting mental exercise.
I hate the scum as much as the next guy. I was brought up that way but I gotta admit, for all the fact that they're generally bent bastards who will fuck you over if you give them half a chance, the net result still looks better to me than Somalia. The fact of the matter is, they do make it much harder for Joe Bastard to just walk into an old couples house, shoot them in the head and take all their stuff. I'm pretty sure things would be worse if there were none of them.
It would be nice if they could clean up their act a bit but who the fuck are we kidding here? They only recruit human beings and you know how fucking useless those things are.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 21, 2012, 08:42:18 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 21, 2012, 05:26:41 PM
TBH, I'm not sure I have an idea of how I think it should be set up, just a reasonable certainty that the way it is NOW is not set up to benefit the average citizen. I will think on it though and see what I can come up with. It will obviously be more idealized than practical but it sounds like an interesting mental exercise.
I hate the scum as much as the next guy. I was brought up that way but I gotta admit, for all the fact that they're generally bent bastards who will fuck you over if you give them half a chance, the net result still looks better to me than Somalia. The fact of the matter is, they do make it much harder for Joe Bastard to just walk into an old couples house, shoot them in the head and take all their stuff. I'm pretty sure things would be worse if there were none of them.
It would be nice if they could clean up their act a bit but who the fuck are we kidding here? They only recruit human beings and you know how fucking useless those things are.
How does the existence of police stop crimes from being committed?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 20, 2012, 09:55:59 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 20, 2012, 07:05:37 PM
There certainly differences between law enforcement in cities vs rural areas, but it's also not like Maine has a monopoly on rural, tight-knit communities. There's a lot of rural America out there. But, I bristle, in general, to the generalization that is often made in popular culture of law enforcement.
Rural cops are ten times worse than urban cops. 169% of the time.
Talking from direct experience, here.
Ding ding ding. I have better luck with random beat cops in Chicago than I do with the cops who live down the street from me and I've known a majority of my life. I have known precisely one (1) police officer in my entire area that was not a complete power-tripping asshole. In fact, there is a certain town in about 10 miles south of me that is constantly monitored by State Police, because the local cops are notorious assholes.
I wonder if it has ever occurred to RWHN that the reason he gets along so well with cops has nothing to do with cops and everything to do with him. :lulz:
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 21, 2012, 05:50:31 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 21, 2012, 01:16:35 AM
Quote from: American Jackal on November 20, 2012, 10:28:50 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 20, 2012, 04:37:18 PM
If you had it set up in a way that every officer was assigned a camera, with a specific serial number or other identification, you could tell who WASN'T wearing it.
If Officer Jones was wearing camera S-370 and John Doe said Officer Jones shoved him to the ground, and the camera shows the person with the POV shoving someone to the ground, the officer has to either say, "yeah, that was me" OR that it wasn't him, at which point he has to explain who the fuck has his camera and why.
Of course this could be abused, but if a lot of thought and planning is put into it you can make it very difficult to abuse which gives an officer minimal loop holes to weasel out of complaints.
Only it wouldn't be too hard to subvert that system. Who do you think would maintain the register of who checked out what? Furthermore, how would you prove that the camera was in fact worn by the person who signed it out?
You could do it through a third party, mandate that that responsibility isn't housed within the police department. And you could make the cameras standard equipment, much like their badge and gun. They are assigned a camera and also assigned responsibility for that camera, including if it ends up with someone else.
Yes, and while you're at it you could ride a unicorn to go visit the tooth fairy.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 21, 2012, 05:54:53 AM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 21, 2012, 02:53:09 AM
Forgive me for being a BIT cynical, here in my pretty little green city where police have an entire division openly devoted to racial profiling, a woman was killed recently in my neighborhood for walking down the street while black, a popular restaurant owner (who happened to be gay) was beaten to death in police custody, numerous people have been killed by police recently for being mentally ill in public, the consequence for calling the cops if you have a burglar is that they will destroy your house and beat you, and the Feds conducted an investigation on police violence that concluded with "Listen, you guys need to figure out a way to stop killing unarmed innocent civilians, OK?" (http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012/09/federal_findings_on_portland_p.html) but the ONLY way I can see something like that being implemented here is if the police force is absolutely assured that they will be able to circumvent any aspects that might be to their disadvantage, and use other aspects to their advantage. Our police force is notoriously violent and racist, and I don't see that changing anytime soon, Federal directive or not.
Yeah, and then the ONE time the Mayor takes a stand and decides unilaterally to fire an officer for killing a civilian, the Police Union throws a fit, gets an arbitrator and the Employee Relations Board to reinstate the officer, and threatens to sue the city. Feel free to google "Ron Frashour".
Fuck, I think I blocked that from my memory.
The other day no fewer than FOUR cop cars circled my classmate as he was walking across the street after getting off work, right down the street from school. The officers proceeded to get out and mock and taunt him, and when he asked them why they stopped him they started laughing and said "You could be a murder suspect!". They carried on like that for a while, and then got back in their cars and drove away.
Being harassed by the police for walking around being black in public is not uncommon here, at all. The only people who think racism isn't a problem in the police force are white people who haven't been exposed to it.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 21, 2012, 02:16:30 PM
"Your honor, that cop punched me in the face for no reason, and then planted cocaine in my pocket!"
"The suspect was resisting arrest, and the contraband fell out of his pocket while subduing him."
"Well, let's let the tape show us what happened. Where is the recording, officer Murphy?"
"I'm sorry, your honor. It was malfunctioning at the time."
"Then we'll just have to take your word for it. Five years mandatory sentence."
Repeat as necessary.
Bingo.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 22, 2012, 02:52:50 AM
I wonder if it has ever occurred to RWHN that the reason he gets along so well with cops has nothing to do with cops and everything to do with him. :lulz:
Well, sure, obviously I have many partnerships with them working towards some similar goals, and by that token, given that we are partners, they are more comfortable to be themselves and show their true colors, and what I can tell you, in my experience, is that they aren't all a bunch of jacked-up monkeys with guns looking to make trouble.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 22, 2012, 02:52:50 AM
I wonder if it has ever occurred to RWHN that the reason he gets along so well with cops has nothing to do with cops and everything to do with him. :lulz:
This reminds me of the interesting disconnect, bordering on animosity, between criminologist PhD students and social work PhD students where I work, and the fact that so far I have met three PhD students who started out in criminology with the intention of helping to change the system to prevent crime, and ended up switching to social work.
The impression I've gotten from the conversations I've had there is that criminology studies are permeated with the philosophy that criminals are bad people who need to be caught and punished. They have little patience for either theories of prevention or theories of rehabilitation, outside of a punishment-as-deterrent context, and have very little respect for the efforts of social workers.
It's an interesting phenomenon, and hearing all of this has really made me wonder if the general philosophy of the field of criminology as it stands today is fundamentally antisocial, and that antisocial training is being passed on, in the form of bad memes, to everyone who trains in any branch of law enforcement.
In my experience, it isn't siloed like that, and in fact two of the criminal justice programs in my area have reached out to me to place interns in my agency precisely to give them that more well-rounded, and yes nuanced view, of dealing with people who are at-risk. So I don't believe that it is fundamentally anti-social training, and seems tombe quite the opposite. Concerted efforts to make sure students realize there is more to law enforcement than cuffing bad guys.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 22, 2012, 03:54:52 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 22, 2012, 02:52:50 AM
I wonder if it has ever occurred to RWHN that the reason he gets along so well with cops has nothing to do with cops and everything to do with him. :lulz:
Well, sure, obviously I have many partnerships with them working towards some similar goals, and by that token, given that we are partners, they are more comfortable to be themselves and show their true colors, and what I can tell you, in my experience, is that they aren't all a bunch of jacked-up monkeys with guns looking to make trouble.
Translation: as long as you're buddies with them and agree with their agenda (oh, and are white), they probably won't look to capriciously ruin your life.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 22, 2012, 04:22:40 AM
In my experience, it isn't siloed like that, and in fact two of the criminal justice programs in my area have reached out to me to place interns in my agency precisely to give them that more well-rounded, and yes nuanced view, of dealing with people who are at-risk. So I don't believe that it is fundamentally anti-social training, and seems tombe quite the opposite. Concerted efforts to make sure students realize there is more to law enforcement than cuffing bad guys.
It's good that your experiences have been different. I haven't had enough direct experience with the criminology program here to really know what's going on in it.
I do know that our police (and, for that matter, our city) are insanely corrupt.
But it's so
nice here.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 22, 2012, 04:23:15 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 22, 2012, 03:54:52 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 22, 2012, 02:52:50 AM
I wonder if it has ever occurred to RWHN that the reason he gets along so well with cops has nothing to do with cops and everything to do with him. :lulz:
Well, sure, obviously I have many partnerships with them working towards some similar goals, and by that token, given that we are partners, they are more comfortable to be themselves and show their true colors, and what I can tell you, in my experience, is that they aren't all a bunch of jacked-up monkeys with guns looking to make trouble.
Translation: as long as you're buddies with them and agree with their agenda (oh, and are white), they probably won't look to capriciously ruin your life.
No, not at all.
Oh? Well you should come down here or go out to Portland and spend a day being black. Or just poor and not well-dressed. Or mentally ill. Or basically anything but a middle-class white guy who buddies up to and agrees with the cops.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 21, 2012, 08:57:57 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 21, 2012, 08:42:18 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 21, 2012, 05:26:41 PM
TBH, I'm not sure I have an idea of how I think it should be set up, just a reasonable certainty that the way it is NOW is not set up to benefit the average citizen. I will think on it though and see what I can come up with. It will obviously be more idealized than practical but it sounds like an interesting mental exercise.
I hate the scum as much as the next guy. I was brought up that way but I gotta admit, for all the fact that they're generally bent bastards who will fuck you over if you give them half a chance, the net result still looks better to me than Somalia. The fact of the matter is, they do make it much harder for Joe Bastard to just walk into an old couples house, shoot them in the head and take all their stuff. I'm pretty sure things would be worse if there were none of them.
It would be nice if they could clean up their act a bit but who the fuck are we kidding here? They only recruit human beings and you know how fucking useless those things are.
How does the existence of police stop crimes from being committed?
Deterrent? They don't stop all crimes being comitted but are you seriously telling me that if the police all disappeared in a puff of smoke tomorrow there'd be no increase in crime? Like for reals? You're one of those anarchists?
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 22, 2012, 04:21:03 PM
Oh? Well you should come down here or go out to Portland and spend a day being black. Or just poor and not well-dressed. Or mentally ill. Or basically anything but a middle-class white guy who buddies up to and agrees with the cops.
A middle-class white guy who also buddies up with people who spend their days being black, the mentally ill, the poor and not well-dressed....and those same police buddy-up with those types as well, volunteer their time to support those same people, are out there putting their lives at risk to serve and protect those people....
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 22, 2012, 07:54:33 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 21, 2012, 08:57:57 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 21, 2012, 08:42:18 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 21, 2012, 05:26:41 PM
TBH, I'm not sure I have an idea of how I think it should be set up, just a reasonable certainty that the way it is NOW is not set up to benefit the average citizen. I will think on it though and see what I can come up with. It will obviously be more idealized than practical but it sounds like an interesting mental exercise.
I hate the scum as much as the next guy. I was brought up that way but I gotta admit, for all the fact that they're generally bent bastards who will fuck you over if you give them half a chance, the net result still looks better to me than Somalia. The fact of the matter is, they do make it much harder for Joe Bastard to just walk into an old couples house, shoot them in the head and take all their stuff. I'm pretty sure things would be worse if there were none of them.
It would be nice if they could clean up their act a bit but who the fuck are we kidding here? They only recruit human beings and you know how fucking useless those things are.
How does the existence of police stop crimes from being committed?
Deterrent? They don't stop all crimes being comitted but are you seriously telling me that if the police all disappeared in a puff of smoke tomorrow there'd be no increase in crime? Like for reals? You're one of those anarchists?
I don't see how thinking that Police don't do much to stop crime makes me an anarchist.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 22, 2012, 07:54:33 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 21, 2012, 08:57:57 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 21, 2012, 08:42:18 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 21, 2012, 05:26:41 PM
TBH, I'm not sure I have an idea of how I think it should be set up, just a reasonable certainty that the way it is NOW is not set up to benefit the average citizen. I will think on it though and see what I can come up with. It will obviously be more idealized than practical but it sounds like an interesting mental exercise.
I hate the scum as much as the next guy. I was brought up that way but I gotta admit, for all the fact that they're generally bent bastards who will fuck you over if you give them half a chance, the net result still looks better to me than Somalia. The fact of the matter is, they do make it much harder for Joe Bastard to just walk into an old couples house, shoot them in the head and take all their stuff. I'm pretty sure things would be worse if there were none of them.
It would be nice if they could clean up their act a bit but who the fuck are we kidding here? They only recruit human beings and you know how fucking useless those things are.
How does the existence of police stop crimes from being committed?
Deterrent? They don't stop all crimes being comitted but are you seriously telling me that if the police all disappeared in a puff of smoke tomorrow there'd be no increase in crime? Like for reals? You're one of those anarchists?
Interestingly, there is a fair amount of evidence that increases and decreases in police coverage don't have much correlation with increases and decreases in crime. Social conditions have a much greater bearing on crime levels than police force.
So we really don't need the police? At all? Zero effect on crime whatsoever? Can't help feeling just a tad sceptical. I'm pretty sure there's at least a couple of people in the world, who're in jail and deserve to be because the police caught them doing something bad. Maybe I'm just being naive and drinking Kool Aid, tho.
So is the whole justice system a waste of time then? I mean with no one to investigate, capture and bring to trial, I don't suppose there's any point having courts and prisons and shit?
Of course they have an impact and effect on crime, but they also aren't superheroes meant to stop every crime from happening ever. If you didn't have police there would be more crime, period. Criminals will still be criminals, yes, but they will deter the person who isn't normally a criminal. They also make it harder for criminals to commit crimes, AND, get away with it and CONTINUE to commit crimes. This is a very straightforward concept that is evident by the simple fact that pretty much every community everywhere has law enforcement and has had it for a long time. Because, it DOES have a positive impact on communities.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 23, 2012, 09:25:27 AM
So we really don't need the police? At all? Zero effect on crime whatsoever? Can't help feeling just a tad sceptical. I'm pretty sure there's at least a couple of people in the world, who're in jail and deserve to be because the police caught them doing something bad. Maybe I'm just being naive and drinking Kool Aid, tho.
So is the whole justice system a waste of time then? I mean with no one to investigate, capture and bring to trial, I don't suppose there's any point having courts and prisons and shit?
Oh, yeah, that's exactly what I said. :roll:
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 23, 2012, 04:21:22 AM
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Perhaps it's funny, but it's true. I live it every day.
Rural Maine: MULTICULTURAL PARADISE!
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 21, 2012, 01:12:57 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 20, 2012, 09:55:59 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 20, 2012, 07:05:37 PM
There certainly differences between law enforcement in cities vs rural areas, but it's also not like Maine has a monopoly on rural, tight-knit communities. There's a lot of rural America out there. But, I bristle, in general, to the generalization that is often made in popular culture of law enforcement.
Rural cops are ten times worse than urban cops. 169% of the time.
Talking from direct experience, here.
Some are, some aren't.
Of course. Of course.
RWHN is now an expert on police.
As I said before, I've worked with many police departments in my career, local, state, and federal, so yeah, I think I have a pretty good working knowledge.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 23, 2012, 02:29:49 PM
As I said before, I've worked with many police departments in my career, local, state, and federal, so yeah, I think I have a pretty good working knowledge.
I have worked with many EMTs. This makes me an expert on EMTs.
Well, given that I haven't worked with a lot of EMTs, I certainly would put more stock in your experience compared to my own.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 23, 2012, 02:32:38 PM
Well, given that I haven't worked with a lot of EMTs, I certainly would put more stock in your experience compared to my own.
Given that I did the police thing, but you worked with a bunch of cops, I certainly would put more stock in your experience compared to my own.
I worked in a home improvement store in Portland, Oregon
That means I'm an expert on building contractors NATIONWIDE.
:lol:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 23, 2012, 02:33:42 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 23, 2012, 02:32:38 PM
Well, given that I haven't worked with a lot of EMTs, I certainly would put more stock in your experience compared to my own.
Given that I did the police thing, but you worked with a bunch of cops, I certainly would put more stock in your experience compared to my own.
Shut up, Roger... just because you used to be a police officer doesn't mean you know anything! Certainly not compared to someone who works with rural Maine police sometimes.
Why are you always so uppity?
I see, you two (and I think ECH too) seem to want to start up another pissing match with me, but call it Holiday Spirit, jadedness, or simply being in a place where I simply don't give a fuck, I am not going to indulge you guys. I am simply sharing what I've observed andmy opinion that I think the overly-cynical "the police are all corrupt" viewpoint is, well, overly cynical. Take it or leave it, but I'm not going to play stupid games with you guys. Go find a noob to bludgeon to get your hate out.
BREAKING NEWS: Guy who works with cops declares that police racism and corruption are just a myth; millions of black people heave a collective sigh of relief. :lol:
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 23, 2012, 02:39:06 PM
I see, you two (and I think ECH too) seem to want to start up another pissing match with me, but call it Holiday Spirit, jadedness, or simply being in a place where I simply don't give a fuck, I am not going to indulge you guys. I am simply sharing what I've observed andmy opinion that I think the overly-cynical "the police are all corrupt" viewpoint is, well, overly cynical. Take it or leave it, but I'm not going to play stupid games with you guys. Go find a noob to bludgeon to get your hate out.
Translation:
"I made a fool out of myself so I'm leaving the conversation in a huff rather than just admit that I said something dumb".
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 23, 2012, 02:36:29 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 23, 2012, 02:33:42 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 23, 2012, 02:32:38 PM
Well, given that I haven't worked with a lot of EMTs, I certainly would put more stock in your experience compared to my own.
Given that I did the police thing, but you worked with a bunch of cops, I certainly would put more stock in your experience compared to my own.
Shut up, Roger... just because you used to be a police officer doesn't mean you know anything! Certainly not compared to someone who works with rural Maine police sometimes.
I accept this fact. It's intuitively obvious.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 23, 2012, 02:39:06 PM
I see, you two (and I think ECH too) seem to want to start up another pissing match with me, but call it Holiday Spirit, jadedness, or simply being in a place where I simply don't give a fuck, I am not going to indulge you guys. I am simply sharing what I've observed andmy opinion that I think the overly-cynical "the police are all corrupt" viewpoint is, well, overly cynical. Take it or leave it, but I'm not going to play stupid games with you guys. Go find a noob to bludgeon to get your hate out.
And just who said "the police are all corrupt"?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 23, 2012, 02:44:39 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 23, 2012, 02:39:06 PM
I see, you two (and I think ECH too) seem to want to start up another pissing match with me, but call it Holiday Spirit, jadedness, or simply being in a place where I simply don't give a fuck, I am not going to indulge you guys. I am simply sharing what I've observed andmy opinion that I think the overly-cynical "the police are all corrupt" viewpoint is, well, overly cynical. Take it or leave it, but I'm not going to play stupid games with you guys. Go find a noob to bludgeon to get your hate out.
And just who said "the police are all corrupt"?
Why, Roger, it was you, me, and ECH. We've said nothing but that since the beginning of the thread, don't you remember?
Oh wait.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 23, 2012, 02:41:09 PM
BREAKING NEWS: Guy who works with cops declares that police racism and corruption are just a myth; millions of black people heave a collective sigh of relief. :lol:
Then who has been shooting people in the back of squad cars?
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 23, 2012, 02:47:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 23, 2012, 02:44:39 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 23, 2012, 02:39:06 PM
I see, you two (and I think ECH too) seem to want to start up another pissing match with me, but call it Holiday Spirit, jadedness, or simply being in a place where I simply don't give a fuck, I am not going to indulge you guys. I am simply sharing what I've observed andmy opinion that I think the overly-cynical "the police are all corrupt" viewpoint is, well, overly cynical. Take it or leave it, but I'm not going to play stupid games with you guys. Go find a noob to bludgeon to get your hate out.
And just who said "the police are all corrupt"?
Why, Roger, it was you, me, and ECH. We've said nothing but that since the beginning of the thread, don't you remember?
Oh wait.
I am old; my memory cannot be trusted in these matters.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 23, 2012, 02:48:01 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 23, 2012, 02:41:09 PM
BREAKING NEWS: Guy who works with cops declares that police racism and corruption are just a myth; millions of black people heave a collective sigh of relief. :lol:
Then who has been shooting people in the back of squad cars?
You know criminals; things just happen. It's probably the drugs.
I'm glad I've been able to give you two the opportunity to get your jollies off this morning. I'll be sending you each an invoice for my services. :lulz:
:lulz:
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 23, 2012, 01:45:22 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 23, 2012, 09:25:27 AM
So we really don't need the police? At all? Zero effect on crime whatsoever? Can't help feeling just a tad sceptical. I'm pretty sure there's at least a couple of people in the world, who're in jail and deserve to be because the police caught them doing something bad. Maybe I'm just being naive and drinking Kool Aid, tho.
So is the whole justice system a waste of time then? I mean with no one to investigate, capture and bring to trial, I don't suppose there's any point having courts and prisons and shit?
Oh, yeah, that's exactly what I said. :roll:
No, I'm not fucking with you. Just trying to get my head around what yours and ECH's argument is. I'm the first one to say the whole shit needs fixed. First time I got hit by a copper was when I was about 13 or 14 but I still think the net result is positive, ie they do (slightly) more good than harm. If you think this is not the case then surely you're in favour of a no coppers scenario, which strikes me as bizarrs? Like I said - not fucking with you - just trying to work out what your position actually is.
I'm not speaking for Nigel or ECH, but I think it's kind of like water: If you don't drink any, you will die; and if you drink to much... you will die.
The the problem being we live in a fear-based society where the probablities of danger and crime being blown completely out of proportion, and politicians constantly running on "tough on crime" platforms, which when combined allow the police force to swell to potentially harmful levels.
Do police deter crime?
Depends what you mean by crime. I suspect crimes like muggings, burgalry, car theft and similar can be deterred by regular patrols and CCTV.
But what about rape? Murder? As a rule, police aren't so helpful when it comes to premeditated crimes.
As such, a police presence is only going to be helpful up to a point. Beyond that, social factors are going to play an increasingly large role. The UK keeps cutting police numbers, for example, and yet crime keeps on dropping. Crime is lower now than at any point in the last 20 years, and while part of that has to do with people not having anything worth nicking anymore, it's also because, as a society, we have better prevention measures and safety nets so people don't turn to crime in the first place.
The US police numbers, by contrast with the UK, seem to increase year on year, along with their budgets. Local police offices have more military hardware than some third world countries, including attack helicoptors, tanks and anti-aircraft missiles. One US police department has an intelligence arm so large and well developed it is considered an arm of the CIA and one of the USA's 19 intelligence agencies (Bloomberg's private army, aka the NYPD). Yet they don't actually seem to do much, except shoot people for no good reason, plant drugs on minority suspects, taze children and carry out paramilitary raids on the wrong houses.
In that situation, I would find myself erring on the side of "less police is better" as well.
Good point and something I hadn't considered. The US is a vastly different creature I guess. Our filth generally concern themselves with catching villains and haven't really been used as Sturmtruppen since Thatcher decided the miners needed sorted out, unless you count stomping on anti-capitalist protesters (which I don't - twats were clearly asking for it)
It really isn't an accurate portrayal as far as I'm concerned. This isn't the wild west anymore. Most police officers become police officers to do the right thing. To serve and protect. Unfortunately, the actions of a minority have been built up into legend to the point where your lazy layman just assumes they're all bad guys. It just isn't true.
Really? Because according to a shiny United Nations Human Rights Committee report I have here, the War on Terror has "created a generalized climate of impunity for law enforcement officers, and contributed to the erosion of what few accountability mechanisms exist for civilian control over law enforcement agencies. As a result, police brutality and abuse persist unabated and undeterred across the country."
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/docs/ngos/usa/USHRN15.pdf
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 23, 2012, 07:35:09 PM
It really isn't an accurate portrayal as far as I'm concerned. This isn't the wild west anymore. Most police officers become police officers to do the right thing. To serve and protect. Unfortunately, the actions of a minority have been built up into legend to the point where your lazy layman just assumes they're all bad guys. It just isn't true.
No one is asserting this. You've claimed this several times, and several times you've been corrected. You appear to be arguing against a position no one else here is holding.
Cain, while I appreciate the data (as do several others I would assume), we both know RWHN will refuse to address it and pretend it doesn't exist since it doesn't fit his narrative. After all, his experiences with a handful of cops in rural Maine are clearly weightier evidence than a UNHRC report.
tl;dr version: :owned:
Really?
"Yet they don't actually seem to do much, except shoot people for no good reason, plant drugs on minority suspects, taze children and carry out paramilitary raids on the wrong houses."
That argument was just made by Cain, which to me, comes across precisely as they are all bad guys, or at best, they are all useless. I know that's bullshit.
Really? Because I don't see you linking to any sources to back up YOUR assertions.
To prove the negative, that most police actually just do the jobs they are hired to do? Where do you suppose that kind of information is kept? I shouldn't have to explain why the majority of instances when the police are just doing their normal day to day job doesn't make the papers.
Or the UN Human Rights Commission report. Even though that's a report on the systemic problems with the institution.
with some of the institutions, yes.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 23, 2012, 06:37:33 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 23, 2012, 01:45:22 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 23, 2012, 09:25:27 AM
So we really don't need the police? At all? Zero effect on crime whatsoever? Can't help feeling just a tad sceptical. I'm pretty sure there's at least a couple of people in the world, who're in jail and deserve to be because the police caught them doing something bad. Maybe I'm just being naive and drinking Kool Aid, tho.
So is the whole justice system a waste of time then? I mean with no one to investigate, capture and bring to trial, I don't suppose there's any point having courts and prisons and shit?
Oh, yeah, that's exactly what I said. :roll:
No, I'm not fucking with you. Just trying to get my head around what yours and ECH's argument is. I'm the first one to say the whole shit needs fixed. First time I got hit by a copper was when I was about 13 or 14 but I still think the net result is positive, ie they do (slightly) more good than harm. If you think this is not the case then surely you're in favour of a no coppers scenario, which strikes me as bizarrs? Like I said - not fucking with you - just trying to work out what your position actually is.
That they have far too much power and are allowed to get away with murder, and that in addition giving them more power or throwing more police officers at high crime rates in an attempt to reduce crime is ineffective at best, and that, because of the amount of power and privilege they have, measures such as camera monitoring are highly unlikely to succeed at reining in their abuses of power, and if they are implemented at all are highly likely to be misused to skew the power balance even further in favor of police abuse.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 23, 2012, 07:04:45 PM
I'm not speaking for Nigel or ECH, but I think it's kind of like water: If you don't drink any, you will die; and if you drink to much... you will die.
The the problem being we live in a fear-based society where the probablities of danger and crime being blown completely out of proportion, and politicians constantly running on "tough on crime" platforms, which when combined allow the police force to swell to potentially harmful levels.
Yes, pretty much this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/chicagos-top-cop-says-he-wont-tolerate-code-of-silence-that-jury-found-in-womans-beating/2012/11/14/77d6214e-2eb2-11e2-b631-2aad9d9c73ac_story.html
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 23, 2012, 08:44:51 PM
with some of the institutions, yes.
Translation: I didn't actually read the UNHRC report so I'm going to try to keep being vague and clinging to my completely unsupported assertions.
Because if you DID read the report, you would have known that it was addressing the entire institution of policehood in the USA, how it is structured, and what it is used for.
QuoteOfficial studies, as well as those of domestic and international civil and
human rights organizations, have consistently found that people and communities of color are
disproportionately subjected to human rights violations at the hands of law enforcement officers,
ranging from pervasive verbal abuse and harassment, racial profiling, routine stops and frisks
based solely on race or gender to excessive force, unjustified shootings, and torture.
QuoteIn
2000, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, an independent, bipartisan agency established by
Congress in 1957, reviewed the findings of its 1981 report Who is Guarding the Guardians: A
Report on Police Practices, and concluded that "many of its findings and recommendations
still ring true today," noting that "reports of alleged police brutality, harassment, and
misconduct continue to spread throughout the country. People of color, women, and the poor are
groups of Americans that seem to bear the brunt of the abuse..."
QuoteSystemic abuse of people of color by law enforcement
officers has not only continued since 2001 but has worsened in both practice and severity.
According to a representative of the NAACP, "the degree to which police brutality occurs...is
the worst I've seen in 50 years."
QuoteIt is clear from the statistics and cases discussed in this section that disproportionate use of
excessive force by law enforcement officers against people of color remains endemic across the
U.S. While the U.S. government acknowledges the existence of police brutality in its current
report to the Committee, it maintains that existing judicial remedies are sufficient to meet its
obligations under the Convention.
In reality, law enforcement officials enjoy impunity with respect to the use of excessive force
against people of color. Criminal investigations are rarely convened, charges are seldom brought
and convictions are rarely sought or obtained against officers responsible for such violations.
The Federal Department of Justice, limited by the high standard of intent imposed by
legislation, as well as the limited resources devoted to investigation and prosecution of law enforcement misconduct, is often unable or unwilling to bring federal criminal charges against
law enforcement officers who engage in race-based policing and abuse, or to initiate civil actions
where a pattern and practice of such abuse exists. Police Department disciplinary investigations
are often conducted by the very same law enforcement agencies which employ the offending
officers, or by civilian review agencies with little or no authority to discipline officers. Given
the likely lack of any criminal, civil or professional repercussions, law enforcement officers feel
free to commit racist acts of violence and to engage in disproportionate use of force against
people of color on a daily basis.
Moreover, complaints of police misconduct remain private and confidential, and governmental
agencies resist efforts to obtain full disclosure or transparency in agency investigations. Thus,
members of the public do not have access to the information necessary to determine the
effectiveness, or lack thereof, of law enforcement departments' training, monitoring and
disciplinary systems.
Thus, it is clear that the U.S. has failed to satisfy its obligations under the Convention to "prevent
and severely punish," and to take effective measures to prevent and eliminate, racially
discriminatory violence by law enforcement officials.
I read it but it was a piece focusing on racial profiling and police brutality which focused on specific case studies in cities (e.g. Chicago), and does support the notion there are issues with some law enforcement institutions, but it was not a piece purporting to ascribe that to every law enforcement agency everywhere. And I know there are plenty out there who do the right thing. I'm not just talking about my personal experience, which is quite varied, but also the experience of my colleagues across the country who do similar work, and who foster the same partnerships with law enforcement.
And we are all out there working for the at risk, those who have mental health issues, non-whites. Do you really think if law enforcement were regularly savaging and oppressing the people we are being FUNDED to serve that we would partner with them? That would be completely counterproductive to our work.
But hey, who needs evidence of systemic widespread abuses including torture? We have RWHN's gut feeling that cops are really good guys.
Hands-on experience, not gut feeling.
But, just for a moment, let's pretend it is actually as pervasive as you seem to believe. So then what? These are LOCAL agencies. It is up to the LOCALITIES to police the police. Certainly if and when they break federal or state law, the feds or the state come in. But beyond that, the power to change the culture is within the towns. There is nothing that can be mandated from upon high. And so, ultimately, each law enforcement agency is going to be something of a reflection upon the values of its community.
And that is why, further, it is ludicrous to believe that every law enforcement agency, or even a majority of them, are the same because each community is different.
Hands-on experience....with less than 1% of the total of US law enforcement. In a setting where they're not actually on patrol or responding to a call. So yeah, your incredibly limited and completely anecdotal evidence totally outweighs the data collected by the UN.
By the way, you say you read that report. You DO know the meaning of the words "systemic" and "endemic", right? So I'll just safely assume that's more of you ignoring the stuff that doesn't fit your narrative.
you seem to have missed this the first time around:
QuoteThe Federal Department of Justice, limited by the high standard of intent imposed by
legislation, as well as the limited resources devoted to investigation and prosecution of law enforcement misconduct, is often unable or unwilling to bring federal criminal charges against
law enforcement officers who engage in race-based policing and abuse, or to initiate civil actions
where a pattern and practice of such abuse exists. Police Department disciplinary investigations
are often conducted by the very same law enforcement agencies which employ the offending
officers, or by civilian review agencies with little or no authority to discipline officers.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 24, 2012, 06:14:18 PM
Hands-on experience....with less than 1% of the total of US law enforcement. In a setting where they're not actually on patrol or responding to a call.
Okay, see, your credibility is pretty much shot right here. You have NO idea what's going on in downtown L/A these days. We have gangs coming in to recruit the disenfranchised Somali kids, downtown is rife with drug trafficking, prostitution, and yes, we even have some human trafficking going on. It may not be New York City or Detroit but it sure as fuck ain't Mayberry.
This is incredibly cringe-inducingly embarrassing to watch. Please stop digging in and screeching, RWHN. I'm not even getting a kick out of watching it, it's painful.
Try being on my side of it. For me, it is kind of sad to see just how deep the unquestioning cynicysm goes around here these days. I mean, I get it, it's easier to just buy that everything is shit and everything is awful. But it isn't the truth. Is there awful shit that needs to be fixed? Absolutely! Is there too much of it? Yes!
But, there ARE good people out there doing good. There are law abiding, law-upholding officers of the law out there who took an oath to serve and protect their citizens. They aren't all pigs. And I don't think it is fair to even say they are mostly pigs. Maybe they are in your city. But that's your city. There are a lot of cities in America. Ther is a lot of America that isn't Portland, or Tuscon, or whatever other Horrormirthville, USA location you live in.
Jeebus, speaking as someone who has lately enjoyed many more dark days than I would ever care for, try expanding your horizons a bit beyond your dank, dark boxes.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 24, 2012, 06:22:57 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 24, 2012, 06:14:18 PM
Hands-on experience....with less than 1% of the total of US law enforcement. In a setting where they're not actually on patrol or responding to a call.
Okay, see, your credibility is pretty much shot right here. You have NO idea what's going on in downtown L/A these days. We have gangs coming in to recruit the disenfranchised Somali kids, downtown is rife with drug trafficking, prostitution, and yes, we even have some human trafficking going on. It may not be New York City or Detroit but it sure as fuck ain't Mayberry.
:lulz: Aside from the fact that I was there about 2 weeks ago, yeah.
It may be the "ghetto of Maine", dude, but that just speaks to how nice Maine is. I've lived in middle-class suburbs with worse crime and gang problems than L/A. But you go on thinking your incredibly limited experience (in terms of both geography and professional setting) is somehow relevant to what we're discussing. I've presented my view and quoted linked sources as evidence. You can ignore that or not as you choose but once again it's obvious that there's little point in debating with you. This is an otherwise interesting subject, however, so I hope the other people ITT are still as interested as I am.
What part of L/A exactly were you visiting?
The "L" part of L/A. Mostly Sabbattus St.
Right around the corner from the part where I'm done debating this with you.
By the way, people who refer to it as L/A in conversation should have their Maine card revoked. I trust you're only doing that to protect your privacy.
I see, well, the actual downtown portion of "L" has plenty going on that not only requires the police to patrol, they have an additional sub-station located in the area. And, one of my friends is giving up his cushy community policing job and voluntarily taking that, overnight, patrol position precisely because he wants to serve and protect. , including the Somali's, the mentally ill, the poor....there are good joes out there doing these jobs, there are lots of them.
Soooooo....
i just saw that the Looxcie bluetooth headset camera that i had previously seen has a new version (Looxcie 2, creatively).
it's $150 msrp
480p
seems pretty intuitive to use from a scan of the user manual.
weighs less than an ounce
and barely looks goofy, relative to other socially unquestioned (for the most part) bluetooth headsets.
(http://cdn.androidcommunity.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/looxcielifestylemale2.png)
ubiquitous POV recording is getting closer
Seems like that could pretty easily be knocked out in any moderate scruffle.
....yeeeah.
i think it's geared more for people taking videos of their kids playing t-ball, or just for the pure nerdgasm of it.
although they have actioncam clips that you can stick on your helmet, even that is for, perhaps hiking or mountain biking.
i haven't seen headcams marketed to the MMA crowd yet, perhaps they could stick one in their mouthguards.
That would be interesting.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 24, 2012, 08:12:01 PM
I see, well, the actual downtown portion of "L" has plenty going on that not only requires the police to patrol, they have an additional sub-station located in the area. And, one of my friends is giving up his cushy community policing job and voluntarily taking that, overnight, patrol position precisely because he wants to serve and protect. , including the Somali's, the mentally ill, the poor....there are good joes out there doing these jobs, there are lots of them.
Translation: SHIT IS REAL OUT HURR IN MAINE, DAWG. Y'ALL DON'T EVEN KNOW 'BOUT HOW WE BE GETTIN' DOWN IN THESE MEAN STREETS.
So in a nutshell what did I miss? What's RWHN on about?
From what I've gathered, he thinks that, as an institution, cops aren't racist, etc. This is based on hands on experience (in one city as a white middle class man in Maine, I might add), while ECH has linked to evidence to support the fact that, as an institution, cops are racist, etc. There has been screeching and heel-digging.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on November 25, 2012, 12:06:40 AM
So in a nutshell what did I miss? What's RWHN on about?
The clumsy generalization that has been made of law enforcement in the US. i strongly disagree with it based on my experiences working with various departments at various levels throughout my career. More often than not, I've met and partnered with commited individuals who took the job to make their communities safer for its citizens. The city I work in has a large refugee, immigrant population and the police have worked tirelessly to try to make their community safer for them which includes working WITH, not against, the elders and the Mosque leaders.
But, nutshell is I think there is far too much cynicism with respect to the police. Not that there aren't problems, but that they aren't as endemic as being purported.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 12:44:05 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on November 25, 2012, 12:06:40 AM
So in a nutshell what did I miss? What's RWHN on about?
The clumsy generalization that has been made of law enforcement in the US. i strongly disagree with it based on my experiences working with various departments at various levels throughout my career. More often than not, I've met and partnered with commited individuals who took the job to make their communities safer for its citizens. The city I work in has a large refugee, immigrant population and the police have worked tirelessly to try to make their community safer for them which includes working WITH, not against, the elders and the Mosque leaders.
But, nutshell is I think there is far too much cynicism with respect to the police. Not that there aren't problems, but that they aren't as endemic as being purported.
What about the evidence that ECH linked to that Garbo mentioned?
Do you have experience with authorities that aren't the authorities in your current city?
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 24, 2012, 08:03:45 PM
By the way, people who refer to it as L/A in conversation should have their Maine card revoked. I trust you're only doing that to protect your privacy.
If he is, it didn't work.
Twid,
Google
ETA: insofar as to mask what city was being talked about.
Yes. I have colleagues and partners in my work who are in dozens of police departments across the state, which includes sherriffs, chiefs of police, lieutenants, officers, etc. I work with individuals at the local, county, and state level. I have partners in the DEA, the Maine DEA. Through national conferences, conventions, etc., I have colleagues in other police departments in other states including New York, Pennsylvania, Florida, etc.
I will definitely put my actual hands on experience up against anyone on this board. Law enforcement are key partners in the work I do, and I'm not just talking about arresting people for drug violations. They are also there along side me as I do the community building work to make our communities safer and to help those who are at risk.
The link, which actually Cain provided, is an interesting study that looked at racial profiling which obviously does exist and was obviously present in the case studies reviewed in that paper. But, they were just that, case studies. I don't believe you can take that and cast it upon every other department in every other community because all communities are different. I personally think it is a fairly lazy and clumsy generalization which definitely differs from the balance of my experience and the experience of others inmy field from across the country. And we are all in the business of helping the minority sub-populations in our communities whether it be ethnic, orientation, behavioral health, etc.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on November 25, 2012, 01:25:18 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 24, 2012, 08:03:45 PM
By the way, people who refer to it as L/A in conversation should have their Maine card revoked. I trust you're only doing that to protect your privacy.
If he is, it didn't work.
Twid,
Google
ETA: insofar as to mask what city was being talked about.
No, but it IS a common short-hand used for the twin cities here in Maine.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 01:31:57 AM
Yes. I have colleagues and partners in my work who are in dozens of police departments across the state, which includes sherriffs, chiefs of police, lieutenants, officers, etc. I work with individuals at the local, county, and state level. I have partners in the DEA, the Maine DEA. Through national conferences, conventions, etc., I have colleagues in other police departments in other states including New York, Pennsylvania, Florida, etc.
I will definitely put my actual hands on experience up against anyone on this board. Law enforcement are key partners in the work I do, and I'm not just talking about arresting people for drug violations. They are also there along side me as I do the community building work to make our communities safer and to help those who are at risk.
The link, which actually Cain provided, is an interesting study that looked at racial profiling which obviously does exist and was obviously present in the case studies reviewed in that paper. But, they were just that, case studies. I don't believe you can take that and cast it upon every other department in every other community because all communities are different. I personally think it is a fairly lazy and clumsy generalization which definitely differs from the balance of my experience and the experience of others inmy field from across the country. And we are all in the business of helping the minority sub-populations in our communities whether it be ethnic, orientation, behavioral health, etc.
Sounds like a complex bit of stuff then, the police and whether they are this or that.
Well, just to throw in the Boston experience, the Boston police are notoriously racist, homophobic and anti-democratic, if their union newsletter is any indication of general attitudes.
The question I would throw out (to anyone) is, how certain are you that the notoriety matches up 100% with reality? Not whether or not there are racial incidences, but how kany officers in those departments are put there doing the right thing? Doing what they swore an oath to do? If your answer is anything along the lines of " I don't know", I would challenge you to rethink your conclusions, and perhaps, find out a little more about the ins and outs of your local department. Not just whatever awful story makes the headlines, but what are the rest of them doing?
The newspapers and the 6 O'Clock news aren't going to report on the good things they are doing. They aren't going to report on the routine actions that are part of their jobs. Are you (I'm using the general "you") really basing your conclusions on ALL of the information, or just what you see in paper and on the internet. If you think that is the WHOLE story, well, I don't know what to tell you.
Fresno PD was notorious for killing smudgy people for years (it got better when they brought in an independent police auditor, though) and my city's PD had to be taught how not to racially profile people (they're still hella racist and I've had a couple friends when they were over here be told to get back on the Fresno side of the freeway).
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 01:31:57 AM
Yes. I have colleagues and partners in my work who are in dozens of police departments across the state, which includes sherriffs, chiefs of police, lieutenants, officers, etc. I work with individuals at the local, county, and state level. I have partners in the DEA, the Maine DEA. Through national conferences, conventions, etc., I have colleagues in other police departments in other states including New York, Pennsylvania, Florida, etc.
I will definitely put my actual hands on experience up against anyone on this board. Law enforcement are key partners in the work I do, and I'm not just talking about arresting people for drug violations. They are also there along side me as I do the community building work to make our communities safer and to help those who are at risk.
The link, which actually Cain provided, is an interesting study that looked at racial profiling which obviously does exist and was obviously present in the case studies reviewed in that paper. But, they were just that, case studies. I don't believe you can take that and cast it upon every other department in every other community because all communities are different. I personally think it is a fairly lazy and clumsy generalization which definitely differs from the balance of my experience and the experience of others inmy field from across the country. And we are all in the business of helping the minority sub-populations in our communities whether it be ethnic, orientation, behavioral health, etc.
I'm just going to point out that the default in our society is "bigot", across the board. Even if a person does not mean to be, unless they are actively and constantly hacking their programming, they're going to do and say bigoted shit.
I am still not understanding why Roger's experience as a cop doesn't count.
It does count, but it doesn't count SO much that it can indict every other department in the country.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 25, 2012, 02:03:47 AM
Fresno PD was notorious for killing smudgy people for years (it got better when they brought in an independent police auditor, though) and my city's PD had to be taught how not to racially profile people (they're still hella racist and I've had a couple friends when they were over here be told to get back on the Fresno side of the freeway).
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 01:31:57 AM
Yes. I have colleagues and partners in my work who are in dozens of police departments across the state, which includes sherriffs, chiefs of police, lieutenants, officers, etc. I work with individuals at the local, county, and state level. I have partners in the DEA, the Maine DEA. Through national conferences, conventions, etc., I have colleagues in other police departments in other states including New York, Pennsylvania, Florida, etc.
I will definitely put my actual hands on experience up against anyone on this board. Law enforcement are key partners in the work I do, and I'm not just talking about arresting people for drug violations. They are also there along side me as I do the community building work to make our communities safer and to help those who are at risk.
The link, which actually Cain provided, is an interesting study that looked at racial profiling which obviously does exist and was obviously present in the case studies reviewed in that paper. But, they were just that, case studies. I don't believe you can take that and cast it upon every other department in every other community because all communities are different. I personally think it is a fairly lazy and clumsy generalization which definitely differs from the balance of my experience and the experience of others inmy field from across the country. And we are all in the business of helping the minority sub-populations in our communities whether it be ethnic, orientation, behavioral health, etc.
I'm just going to point out that the default in our society is "bigot", across the board. Even if a person does not mean to be, unless they are actively and constantly hacking their programming, they're going to do and say bigoted shit.
I think that is a very cynical view and one I personally believe is incorrect. There is more good in this world than you give credit.
Institutionalized prejudice is institutionalized, RHWN. It doesn't have to come with malice or intent to be prejudice.
Garbo's right. Even we have to keep messing around with our wiring in order to get closer to right.
And, you say lining up 100% with reality. Nothing does that. But I'm willing to trust the UN's assessment on the situation, since they're an independent observer. Thing is man, there's this whole sort of thing where we know that racism is wrong and we pretend it's not there. And a lot of racists will pretend that they are not, maybe even fool themselves into thinking that they are not, unless they're flat out Neo-Nazis or Klansmen. I'm sure your experience with the po-po has been very positive. That does not mean that other people have had the same positive experiences, even with the same officers. I've never had a problem with the police except for one time where they kept asking me if I took a piss in the alleyway because I was walking around at 1 am (asking if I was sure and all that. Mind you it was dead winter, so, no, pretty sure I don't want to whip my dick out right now). But then again, I'm a fairly harmless looking white male.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 01:55:38 AM
The question I would throw out (to anyone) is, how certain are you that the notoriety matches up 100% with reality? Not whether or not there are racial incidences, but how kany officers in those departments are put there doing the right thing? Doing what they swore an oath to do? If your answer is anything along the lines of " I don't know", I would challenge you to rethink your conclusions, and perhaps, find out a little more about the ins and outs of your local department. Not just whatever awful story makes the headlines, but what are the rest of them doing?
The newspapers and the 6 O'Clock news aren't going to report on the good things they are doing. They aren't going to report on the routine actions that are part of their jobs. Are you (I'm using the general "you") really basing your conclusions on ALL of the information, or just what you see in paper and on the internet. If you think that is the WHOLE story, well, I don't know what to tell you.
I could tell you that I know, personally, that every single police officer in my local department, and in two towns in every direction, is a certified sociopath. There's a particularly giant prick of a cop who, a few months ago, busted into a man's house, and beat the holy shit out of him in front of his young grandson. Why? Turns out, that the dude's girlfriend's dad didn't like him, and was friends with a few of the honest, hard-working boys in blue. So he had them go and rough up a man who did not a goddamn thing. The police claimed that when they got there, he was beating the ever-loving shit out of the kid. kid goes to hospital, DCFS investigates. Not a damn mark on the kid. What happens to the officers in question? Not a goddamn thing.
In the next town over, there's a particularly nasty cop who likes to beat the unholy hell out of tweakers and extort them for money or drugs. This is well known by pretty much everyone. Not a damn thing is done about it. Because he's doing it to "the right people."
Little town up the way? If you're black and on the wrong side of town, if you don't get beaten, tased, or even shot you better thank your lucky stars that weren't any patrol cars around that day.
The sad part is. I know, personally, most of the people responsible for all of that shit. Grew up and went to school with more than a few. Know their families, kids, brothers and sisters... and guess what? Half of them are the nicest people you ever did meet. Unless they decide that they don't like you. Or who you hang out with. Or what color your sneakers are.
But we can sit here and trade anecdotes all day, RWHN. I could tell you about how my parents were treated in NC. Or what happened to me in PA. Or any of a thousand other little instances of police abuse that I have borne witness to in my short little life. I can tell you what goes on in the backrooms of some of the local stations. I've had the pleasure of being in a few myself. And not on the receiving end, either. Just as an observer.
But where does that really get us? I, personally, have first-hand experience with this. In my experience, the smaller the town, and the more localized the agency, the worse it is. Your average Chicago beat cop is less likely to to beat you to a pulp for looking at him the wrong way than a Christopher boy. The IL State police won't breakdown your door at 10 am on a Saturday and shoot you while you sit on your couch. The FBI, DEA, and whatever else won't drag you to your basement meth lab slam your head through all of your glass ware, and set the place on fire leaving you in it, bloody and semi-conscious. Or would they? Can't say I have that much experience with the Feds, to be honest.
Damn.
I dunno what to say guys, I just think this place has just sunk so far into the tales of horrormirth that it is all you guys can see, even when it isn't there. And the problem with that, is you end up unwittingly forsaking allies, which I think is very unfortunate.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 02:33:29 AM
It does count, but it doesn't count SO much that it can indict every other department in the country.
By the same turn, your positive experience with the cops in a number of places doesn't mean that a significant portion of the rest of the country is so graced as to experience them the way you do. They don't. Listen to the poor, PoC, women, and other underprivileged groups. They'll tell you what the UN is saying, pretty much.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 03:25:26 AM
I dunno what to say guys, I just think this place has just sunk so far into the tales of horrormirth that it is all you guys can see, even when it isn't there. And the problem with that, is you end up unwittingly forsaking allies, which I think is very unfortunate.
I don't think you realize how lucky you are, when it comes to this (and I don't think anyone has said ALL COPS R BAD!!!). You're almost guaranteed to have a relatively positive experience; not everyone else is.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 03:25:26 AM
I dunno what to say guys, I just think this place has just sunk so far into the tales of horrormirth that it is all you guys can see, even when it isn't there. And the problem with that, is you end up unwittingly forsaking allies, which I think is very unfortunate.
Nothing mirthful about administering first aid to a guy who stumbled out of a now-burning building after that nice police officer who tipped his cap to you as he drove off, and you know damn well, there's not a thing that anyone can do to save that eye. Just sayin'.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 03:25:26 AM
I dunno what to say guys, I just think this place has just sunk so far into the tales of horrormirth that it is all you guys can see, even when it isn't there. And the problem with that, is you end up unwittingly forsaking allies, which I think is very unfortunate.
On the contrary. I'm an optimist. And I don't think I'm forsaking allies by saying that while not all cops are racist, and not all cops are not racist, the fact that there is still enough racism in American law enforcement for the UN to make note of it shows that it's a problem.
Hell, even if there is only one racist cop in the United States, that's still a problem. Maybe not a stereotype, but still a problem.
If anything I think you're tinting your glass a certain pink color. Which is fine, but just remember that you did it.
Replying to Garbo
You believe it because you want to believe it. But think about it, if so many police departments all over the country are so awful, why do their citizens put up with it? After all, it is their tax dollars funding their salaries. And all of those people you talk about DO have power, if they wish to exercise it. Or, maybe, it is because on balance their police departments do what they are supposed to do. For sure, as with any institution that employs humans (read: every institution everywhere) the humans fuck up. And in some cases that is at the top which yes will insulate lower level fuck-ups. And that shit should be stamped out.
But I just don't see any practical evidence, not theories based on case-studies, but actual city-to-city, community-to-community evidence that the majority of law enforcement agencies are broken. It just isn't there. It's a belief based on an unbending dour outlook on the world.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 03:44:19 AM
You believe it because you want to believe it. But think about it, if so many police departments all over the country are so awful, why do their citizens put up with it? After all, it is their tax dollars funding their salaries. And all of those people you talk about DO have power, if they wish to exercise it. Or, maybe, it is because on balance their police departments do what they are supposed to do. For sure, as with any institution that employs humans (read: every institution everywhere) the humans fuck up. And in some cases that is at the top which yes will insulate lower level fuck-ups. And that shit should be stamped out.
But I just don't see any practical evidence, not theories based on case-studies, but actual city-to-city, community-to-community evidence that the majority of law enforcement agencies are broken. It just isn't there. It's a belief based on an unbending dour outlook on the world.
We're giving you the data. The data on Boston, the data on Fresno, the data on Phox's neck of the woods, Roger's old precinct....
Also, think about it, if the government was so awful, why do their citizens put up with it?
What RWHN is trying to say is, if your elected officials are so terrible, why do people put up with them? After all, your tax dollars pay for them and they are responsible to you. You do have power, if you wish to exercise it.
:lulz:
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 03:44:19 AM
Replying to Garbo
You believe it because you want to believe it. But think about it, if so many police departments all over the country are so awful, why do their citizens put up with it? After all, it is their tax dollars funding their salaries. And all of those people you talk about DO have power, if they wish to exercise it. Or, maybe, it is because on balance their police departments do what they are supposed to do. For sure, as with any institution that employs humans (read: every institution everywhere) the humans fuck up. And in some cases that is at the top which yes will insulate lower level fuck-ups. And that shit should be stamped out.
But I just don't see any practical evidence, not theories based on case-studies, but actual city-to-city, community-to-community evidence that the majority of law enforcement agencies are broken. It just isn't there. It's a belief based on an unbending dour outlook on the world.
Right, because codes of silence, "protecting your own", and good old intimidation don't work out so well? And of course, the "I pay your salary" argument makes cop LESS inclined to mace you in the face for not having your license hanging out the window by the time they get there, right? :lulz:
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on November 25, 2012, 03:42:32 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 03:25:26 AM
I dunno what to say guys, I just think this place has just sunk so far into the tales of horrormirth that it is all you guys can see, even when it isn't there. And the problem with that, is you end up unwittingly forsaking allies, which I think is very unfortunate.
On the contrary. I'm an optimist. And I don't think I'm forsaking allies by saying that while not all cops are racist, and not all cops are not racist, the fact that there is still enough racism in American law enforcement for the UN to make note of it shows that it's a problem.
Hell, even if there is only one racist cop in the United States, that's still a problem. Maybe not a stereotype, but still a problem.
If anything I think you're tinting your glass a certain pink color. Which is fine, but just remember that you did it.
But one must consider the chicken and the egg. I would want the UN to look a little deeper and consider the community level racism with the departments in question. As I said earlier in this thread, LEAs are going to some degree be reflections of their communities. In other words, in a community that on balance tends to be hostile to minorities, it wouldn't be surprising to see officers hired from that town harboring those same feelings.
But, in the city where I work, the department has largely been able to escape that and NOT harbor any institutional racism against the refugee population.
I feel very strongly that my view on this is open and very well informed.
Quote from: Cain on November 25, 2012, 03:49:05 AM
What RWHN is trying to say is, if your elected officials are so terrible, why do people put up with them? After all, your tax dollars pay for them and they are responsible to you. You do have power, if you wish to exercise it.
:lulz:
And if they're not doing their job we can vote in someone
more competent next time around, whether that be 2, 4, or 6 years.
Well this thread has turned fabulous and all, but really....
the only way that we're going to definitively answer the question about whether all cops are sociopathic douchebags or only 90% of the cops are sociopathic douchebags is to staple some fucking cameras to their heads that they can't turn off, and stream to a server farm for use in court cases.
am i right, or am i right?!
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on November 25, 2012, 03:47:09 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 03:44:19 AM
You believe it because you want to believe it. But think about it, if so many police departments all over the country are so awful, why do their citizens put up with it? After all, it is their tax dollars funding their salaries. And all of those people you talk about DO have power, if they wish to exercise it. Or, maybe, it is because on balance their police departments do what they are supposed to do. For sure, as with any institution that employs humans (read: every institution everywhere) the humans fuck up. And in some cases that is at the top which yes will insulate lower level fuck-ups. And that shit should be stamped out.
But I just don't see any practical evidence, not theories based on case-studies, but actual city-to-city, community-to-community evidence that the majority of law enforcement agencies are broken. It just isn't there. It's a belief based on an unbending dour outlook on the world.
We're giving you the data. The data on Boston, the data on Fresno, the data on Phox's neck of the woods, Roger's old precinct....
Which still makes up only a small slice of America.
Quote from: Cain on November 25, 2012, 03:49:05 AM
What RWHN is trying to say is, if your elected officials are so terrible, why do people put up with them? After all, your tax dollars pay for them and they are responsible to you. You do have power, if you wish to exercise it.
:lulz:
Golly, what are we doing sitting around here, then?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 03:44:19 AM
Replying to Garbo
You believe it because you want to believe it. But think about it, if so many police departments all over the country are so awful, why do their citizens put up with it? After all, it is their tax dollars funding their salaries. And all of those people you talk about DO have power, if they wish to exercise it. Or, maybe, it is because on balance their police departments do what they are supposed to do. For sure, as with any institution that employs humans (read: every institution everywhere) the humans fuck up. And in some cases that is at the top which yes will insulate lower level fuck-ups. And that shit should be stamped out.
But I just don't see any practical evidence, not theories based on case-studies, but actual city-to-city, community-to-community evidence that the majority of law enforcement agencies are broken. It just isn't there. It's a belief based on an unbending dour outlook on the world.
I believe it because I fucking listen (I was part of a phone survey, asking people about, among other things, police brutality, and damn near every person of color I talked to had caught shit from the cops. And you know what? If you're interested, I can post the data from that survey relevant to this discussion tomorrow evening). I've had friends lose people to the cops. I also pay attention to recent history.
:lulz: They put up with it because the people whose voices matter - the people with money - are well treated. Other groups protest and do what they can (Cop Watch (http://www.copwatch.org/), for instance) but they don't have money and communities are, often enough, set up to silence them.
In other words, RWHN believes in a world where political power operates according to the rules laid out in a high school civics class, rather than everything actually taught to us by groupthink, institutional bias, the Iron Law of Oligarchy, the Pareto Principle etc. and every study you mention to him is going to be dismissed, because he's working from the conclusion (there is not widespread police corruption and brutality) to justify his belief in a world which operates in such a way, instead of the cruel reality of power politics.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 03:51:55 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on November 25, 2012, 03:42:32 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 03:25:26 AM
I dunno what to say guys, I just think this place has just sunk so far into the tales of horrormirth that it is all you guys can see, even when it isn't there. And the problem with that, is you end up unwittingly forsaking allies, which I think is very unfortunate.
On the contrary. I'm an optimist. And I don't think I'm forsaking allies by saying that while not all cops are racist, and not all cops are not racist, the fact that there is still enough racism in American law enforcement for the UN to make note of it shows that it's a problem.
Hell, even if there is only one racist cop in the United States, that's still a problem. Maybe not a stereotype, but still a problem.
If anything I think you're tinting your glass a certain pink color. Which is fine, but just remember that you did it.
But one must consider the chicken and the egg. I would want the UN to look a little deeper and consider the community level racism with the departments in question. As I said earlier in this thread, LEAs are going to some degree be reflections of their communities. In other words, in a community that on balance tends to be hostile to minorities, it wouldn't be surprising to see officers hired from that town harboring those same feelings.
But, in the city where I work, the department has largely been able to escape that and NOT harbor any institutional racism against the refugee population.
I feel very strongly that my view on this is open and very well informed.
So you admit that your open and well informed opinion is reflective of the city where you work, not necessarily representative of the rest of the country.
Because as far as I can tell, we're also not saying that Maricopa or Los Angeles is representative either.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 25, 2012, 03:53:14 AM
Well this thread has turned fabulous and all, but really....
the only way that we're going to definitively answer the question about whether all cops are sociopathic douchebags or only 90% of the cops are sociopathic douchebags is to staple some fucking cameras to their heads that they can't turn off, and stream to a server farm for use in court cases.
am i right, or am i right?!
Sure, I'd say so.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 03:54:10 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on November 25, 2012, 03:47:09 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 03:44:19 AM
You believe it because you want to believe it. But think about it, if so many police departments all over the country are so awful, why do their citizens put up with it? After all, it is their tax dollars funding their salaries. And all of those people you talk about DO have power, if they wish to exercise it. Or, maybe, it is because on balance their police departments do what they are supposed to do. For sure, as with any institution that employs humans (read: every institution everywhere) the humans fuck up. And in some cases that is at the top which yes will insulate lower level fuck-ups. And that shit should be stamped out.
But I just don't see any practical evidence, not theories based on case-studies, but actual city-to-city, community-to-community evidence that the majority of law enforcement agencies are broken. It just isn't there. It's a belief based on an unbending dour outlook on the world.
We're giving you the data. The data on Boston, the data on Fresno, the data on Phox's neck of the woods, Roger's old precinct....
Which still makes up only a small slice of America.
As does L/A. You don't see the logical fallacy?
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on November 25, 2012, 03:47:50 AM
Also, think about it, if the government was so awful, why do their citizens put up with it?
Um, if you looked at many of the local races across the country, keeping this at the same level as the local police departments, they don't. We just kicked out a bunch of state legislators here because they were awful. So, yeah, it actually DOES happen.
I mean, the proletariat control the means of production, so if the bourgeoise are so terrible, why do people put up with them? After all, their labour provides them with wealth and political influence. You can throw off your chains and cause the state to wither away, if you chose to exercise that power.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 03:54:10 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on November 25, 2012, 03:47:09 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 03:44:19 AM
You believe it because you want to believe it. But think about it, if so many police departments all over the country are so awful, why do their citizens put up with it? After all, it is their tax dollars funding their salaries. And all of those people you talk about DO have power, if they wish to exercise it. Or, maybe, it is because on balance their police departments do what they are supposed to do. For sure, as with any institution that employs humans (read: every institution everywhere) the humans fuck up. And in some cases that is at the top which yes will insulate lower level fuck-ups. And that shit should be stamped out.
But I just don't see any practical evidence, not theories based on case-studies, but actual city-to-city, community-to-community evidence that the majority of law enforcement agencies are broken. It just isn't there. It's a belief based on an unbending dour outlook on the world.
We're giving you the data. The data on Boston, the data on Fresno, the data on Phox's neck of the woods, Roger's old precinct....
Which still makes up only a small slice of America.
I can tell you about rural areas in 3 other states, and cities in 4. Let's not forget the additional data from ECH's travels, Portland, and Texas. Which makes a hell of a lot better sample than Maine. :lulz:
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on November 25, 2012, 03:56:38 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 03:51:55 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on November 25, 2012, 03:42:32 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 03:25:26 AM
I dunno what to say guys, I just think this place has just sunk so far into the tales of horrormirth that it is all you guys can see, even when it isn't there. And the problem with that, is you end up unwittingly forsaking allies, which I think is very unfortunate.
On the contrary. I'm an optimist. And I don't think I'm forsaking allies by saying that while not all cops are racist, and not all cops are not racist, the fact that there is still enough racism in American law enforcement for the UN to make note of it shows that it's a problem.
Hell, even if there is only one racist cop in the United States, that's still a problem. Maybe not a stereotype, but still a problem.
If anything I think you're tinting your glass a certain pink color. Which is fine, but just remember that you did it.
But one must consider the chicken and the egg. I would want the UN to look a little deeper and consider the community level racism with the departments in question. As I said earlier in this thread, LEAs are going to some degree be reflections of their communities. In other words, in a community that on balance tends to be hostile to minorities, it wouldn't be surprising to see officers hired from that town harboring those same feelings.
But, in the city where I work, the department has largely been able to escape that and NOT harbor any institutional racism against the refugee population.
I feel very strongly that my view on this is open and very well informed.
So you admit that your open and well informed opinion is reflective of the city where you work, not necessarily representative of the rest of the country.
Because as far as I can tell, we're also not saying that Maricopa or Los Angeles is representative either.
I dunno, it really feels like that is the argument being made.
Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on November 25, 2012, 04:00:39 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 03:54:10 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on November 25, 2012, 03:47:09 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 03:44:19 AM
You believe it because you want to believe it. But think about it, if so many police departments all over the country are so awful, why do their citizens put up with it? After all, it is their tax dollars funding their salaries. And all of those people you talk about DO have power, if they wish to exercise it. Or, maybe, it is because on balance their police departments do what they are supposed to do. For sure, as with any institution that employs humans (read: every institution everywhere) the humans fuck up. And in some cases that is at the top which yes will insulate lower level fuck-ups. And that shit should be stamped out.
But I just don't see any practical evidence, not theories based on case-studies, but actual city-to-city, community-to-community evidence that the majority of law enforcement agencies are broken. It just isn't there. It's a belief based on an unbending dour outlook on the world.
We're giving you the data. The data on Boston, the data on Fresno, the data on Phox's neck of the woods, Roger's old precinct....
Which still makes up only a small slice of America.
I can tell you about rural areas in 3 other states, and cities in 4. Let's not forget the additional data from ECH's travels, Portland, and Texas. Which makes a hell of a lot better sample than Maine. :lulz:
Now now, Phox. All of that plus the others we mentioned aren't representative of the US. There is Lewiston, after all.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on November 25, 2012, 03:58:04 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 03:54:10 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on November 25, 2012, 03:47:09 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 03:44:19 AM
You believe it because you want to believe it. But think about it, if so many police departments all over the country are so awful, why do their citizens put up with it? After all, it is their tax dollars funding their salaries. And all of those people you talk about DO have power, if they wish to exercise it. Or, maybe, it is because on balance their police departments do what they are supposed to do. For sure, as with any institution that employs humans (read: every institution everywhere) the humans fuck up. And in some cases that is at the top which yes will insulate lower level fuck-ups. And that shit should be stamped out.
But I just don't see any practical evidence, not theories based on case-studies, but actual city-to-city, community-to-community evidence that the majority of law enforcement agencies are broken. It just isn't there. It's a belief based on an unbending dour outlook on the world.
We're giving you the data. The data on Boston, the data on Fresno, the data on Phox's neck of the woods, Roger's old precinct....
Which still makes up only a small slice of America.
As does L/A. You don't see the logical fallacy?
No, see, here is where I think you guys are getting lost. My position, is without evidence to the contrary, I give LEAs the benefit of the doubt that they do what they swore oaths to do. The position I'm feeling from many of you, is that without evidence to the contrary, the assumption is that LEAs are racist/crooked/corrupt/whatever. My anecdotes are to serve the purpose of illustrating that good LEAs do exist. I feel the cynicism here runs far too deep and is unfairly indicting institutions before they are proven guilty.
It's amazing how RWHN is giving the exact same arguments the defenders of the Metropolitan Police have over the last few years. You know, before reality blew up in their faces in the form of institutional arrangements between them, a criminal foreign cartel (News International) and the Tory Party being exposed, covering up crimes by members of Parliament, witness intimidation and criminality which has caused entire departments to be shut down and investigated, drug and gun running, beating peaceful protestors and lying about the final moments of people it has shot dead in the streets.
You know, that it's a few bad apples and anyone suggesting the police are institutionally criminal or corrupt are suggesting every single police officer is violent and corrupt, and besides you don't have any studies besides all those ones which show people dying every week in police custody with no officers having being arrested in over a decade for such deaths, or that black and Asian people are 30 times more likely to be stopped by the police, to back up any of your claims.
Just saying.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 04:00:59 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on November 25, 2012, 03:56:38 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 03:51:55 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on November 25, 2012, 03:42:32 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 03:25:26 AM
I dunno what to say guys, I just think this place has just sunk so far into the tales of horrormirth that it is all you guys can see, even when it isn't there. And the problem with that, is you end up unwittingly forsaking allies, which I think is very unfortunate.
On the contrary. I'm an optimist. And I don't think I'm forsaking allies by saying that while not all cops are racist, and not all cops are not racist, the fact that there is still enough racism in American law enforcement for the UN to make note of it shows that it's a problem.
Hell, even if there is only one racist cop in the United States, that's still a problem. Maybe not a stereotype, but still a problem.
If anything I think you're tinting your glass a certain pink color. Which is fine, but just remember that you did it.
But one must consider the chicken and the egg. I would want the UN to look a little deeper and consider the community level racism with the departments in question. As I said earlier in this thread, LEAs are going to some degree be reflections of their communities. In other words, in a community that on balance tends to be hostile to minorities, it wouldn't be surprising to see officers hired from that town harboring those same feelings.
But, in the city where I work, the department has largely been able to escape that and NOT harbor any institutional racism against the refugee population.
I feel very strongly that my view on this is open and very well informed.
So you admit that your open and well informed opinion is reflective of the city where you work, not necessarily representative of the rest of the country.
Because as far as I can tell, we're also not saying that Maricopa or Los Angeles is representative either.
I dunno, it really feels like that is the argument being made.
Well what is the case being made? That every precinct is a dystopian nightmare? Or that enough cops are shitty people, even if only sometimes, that it's a problem?
I honestly don't know, this thread was started when I was at work, and it seemed too heavy for me to read on my phone. Now it's Saturday and I'm feeling kinda lazy to go back and read it. But what I'm getting out of this is that your argument seems to be that cops can't be nearly as bad because of the cops I know and dealt with (anecdotal evidence) and even though everyone else knows about or has had experienced police corruption in their areas doesn't count because it's anecdotal.
Even though that anecdotal evidence seems to far outnumber yours. As far as what I'm telling you about Boston, it's right there in their union newsletter. You can read what Boston cops think. That's not anecdotal. That's from the horse's mouth. I don't know what goes on with the police in other parts of the country. Hell, I'm in a city next to Boston and I don't know what the cops here are like. In my head, I'm still a Bostonian. So the best I can do is say, "hey, this is what it's like in Boston, what's it like there?" I don't expect it to be like Boston, like you seem to think it would be like Lewiston. That's the problem that people are having, as far as I can tell. That cops can't be bad because the cops you know aren't all that bad. They all have to be like the cops you know, and even though there's a vastly negative opinion of cops, that must be incorrect because it doesn't line up with your expectations.
Hey guys, I know three guys who are cops on a personal level, and all are decent human beings who I never known to act dishonourably (truthfully).
I guess all those black kids who keep on dying in London jail cells are just killing themselves!
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 04:07:12 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on November 25, 2012, 03:58:04 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 03:54:10 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on November 25, 2012, 03:47:09 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 03:44:19 AM
You believe it because you want to believe it. But think about it, if so many police departments all over the country are so awful, why do their citizens put up with it? After all, it is their tax dollars funding their salaries. And all of those people you talk about DO have power, if they wish to exercise it. Or, maybe, it is because on balance their police departments do what they are supposed to do. For sure, as with any institution that employs humans (read: every institution everywhere) the humans fuck up. And in some cases that is at the top which yes will insulate lower level fuck-ups. And that shit should be stamped out.
But I just don't see any practical evidence, not theories based on case-studies, but actual city-to-city, community-to-community evidence that the majority of law enforcement agencies are broken. It just isn't there. It's a belief based on an unbending dour outlook on the world.
We're giving you the data. The data on Boston, the data on Fresno, the data on Phox's neck of the woods, Roger's old precinct....
Which still makes up only a small slice of America.
As does L/A. You don't see the logical fallacy?
No, see, here is where I think you guys are getting lost. My position, is without evidence to the contrary, I give LEAs the benefit of the doubt that they do what they swore oaths to do. The position I'm feeling from many of you, is that without evidence to the contrary, the assumption is that LEAs are racist/crooked/corrupt/whatever. My anecdotes are to serve the purpose of illustrating that good LEAs do exist. I feel the cynicism here runs far too deep and is unfairly indicting institutions before they are proven guilty.
No one's saying there aren't good cops or good agencies. Of course there are. Except for NYPD, which doesn't give a shit about its jurisdiction and has basically become the FBI terror squad.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 04:07:12 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on November 25, 2012, 03:58:04 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 03:54:10 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on November 25, 2012, 03:47:09 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 03:44:19 AM
You believe it because you want to believe it. But think about it, if so many police departments all over the country are so awful, why do their citizens put up with it? After all, it is their tax dollars funding their salaries. And all of those people you talk about DO have power, if they wish to exercise it. Or, maybe, it is because on balance their police departments do what they are supposed to do. For sure, as with any institution that employs humans (read: every institution everywhere) the humans fuck up. And in some cases that is at the top which yes will insulate lower level fuck-ups. And that shit should be stamped out.
But I just don't see any practical evidence, not theories based on case-studies, but actual city-to-city, community-to-community evidence that the majority of law enforcement agencies are broken. It just isn't there. It's a belief based on an unbending dour outlook on the world.
We're giving you the data. The data on Boston, the data on Fresno, the data on Phox's neck of the woods, Roger's old precinct....
Which still makes up only a small slice of America.
As does L/A. You don't see the logical fallacy?
No, see, here is where I think you guys are getting lost. My position, is without evidence to the contrary, I give LEAs the benefit of the doubt that they do what they swore oaths to do. The position I'm feeling from many of you, is that without evidence to the contrary, the assumption is that LEAs are racist/crooked/corrupt/whatever. My anecdotes are to serve the purpose of illustrating that good LEAs do exist. I feel the cynicism here runs far too deep and is unfairly indicting institutions before they are proven guilty.
Umm. You're asking us to go out and personally shadow every single officer of the law because about 45% of them are not complete fucking monsters. Nobody said that every police officer ever is a poorly disguised terrorist. You, however, did say that your experience is that police are not generally corrupt, and that you believe that we are getting caught up in stories about statistically miniscule happenings. You say this, despite the anecdotal and statistical data provided. Okay then. :lulz:
All I'm saying is the bleakness you perceive doesn't permeate every facet of our society. With respect to our specific discussion, I believe the same. There are a lot of good people out there doing their best to protect their communities, and I might add, getting fairly shitty pay (and giving up tons of family time) for what they are tasked to do.
Quote from: Cain on November 25, 2012, 04:15:49 AM
Hey guys, I know three guys who are cops on a personal level, and all are decent human beings who I never known to act dishonourably (truthfully).
I guess all those black kids who keep on dying in London jail cells are just killing themselves!
:lulz: :horrormirth:
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 03:54:10 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on November 25, 2012, 03:47:09 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 03:44:19 AM
You believe it because you want to believe it. But think about it, if so many police departments all over the country are so awful, why do their citizens put up with it? After all, it is their tax dollars funding their salaries. And all of those people you talk about DO have power, if they wish to exercise it. Or, maybe, it is because on balance their police departments do what they are supposed to do. For sure, as with any institution that employs humans (read: every institution everywhere) the humans fuck up. And in some cases that is at the top which yes will insulate lower level fuck-ups. And that shit should be stamped out.
But I just don't see any practical evidence, not theories based on case-studies, but actual city-to-city, community-to-community evidence that the majority of law enforcement agencies are broken. It just isn't there. It's a belief based on an unbending dour outlook on the world.
We're giving you the data. The data on Boston, the data on Fresno, the data on Phox's neck of the woods, Roger's old precinct....
Which still makes up only a small slice of America.
Let's dissect this a little. Police brutality complaints are often handled by the department itself and while I can think of two instances in which it lead to a decrease in complaints being filed (LA and Fresno), having complaints handled by an outside source often means the board/auditory doesn't actually have much power to enforce their decisions on complaints.
As a phenomena, it is often under reported (http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/fighting-police-abuse-community-ac#getting), and here are 2010's stats on police brutality (http://www.policemisconduct.net/2010-npmsrp-police-misconduct-statistical-report/#_Misconduct_Per_Capita), with this highlight: "The current US average projected police misconduct rate is an estimated 977.98 officers per 100,000 officers (mean 909.31 per 100k) as calculated using data gathered from all of 2010."
I think the general gist, RWNH, is that all police departments across the country are problematic. They have shitty officers. There are perfectly good, just, upright cops out there, but most are, well, products of the society that made them and institutional culture. Which does not produce Good Cops very often, imo.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 04:25:06 AM
All I'm saying is the bleakness you perceive doesn't permeate every facet of our society. With respect to our specific discussion, I believe the same. There are a lot of good people out there doing their best to protect their communities, and I might add, getting fairly shitty pay (and giving up tons of family time) for what they are tasked to do.
There sure are! But the vast majority of them are not going to be Good Cops. They're going to be medicore cops, who are the products, as I said, of the society and institutions that made them.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 04:25:06 AM
All I'm saying is the bleakness you perceive doesn't permeate every facet of our society.
Is anyone making an argument for that?
QuoteWith respect to our specific discussion, I believe the same. There are a lot of good people out there doing their best to protect their communities, and I might add, getting fairly shitty pay (and giving up tons of family time) for what they are tasked to do.
Is anyone disagreeing with that?
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on November 25, 2012, 04:33:41 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 04:25:06 AM
All I'm saying is the bleakness you perceive doesn't permeate every facet of our society.
Is anyone making an argument for that?
QuoteWith respect to our specific discussion, I believe the same. There are a lot of good people out there doing their best to protect their communities, and I might add, getting fairly shitty pay (and giving up tons of family time) for what they are tasked to do.
Is anyone disagreeing with that?
It would seem to me the debate wouldn't have gone this far if there weren't people disagreeing with that.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 04:39:50 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on November 25, 2012, 04:33:41 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 04:25:06 AM
All I'm saying is the bleakness you perceive doesn't permeate every facet of our society.
Is anyone making an argument for that?
QuoteWith respect to our specific discussion, I believe the same. There are a lot of good people out there doing their best to protect their communities, and I might add, getting fairly shitty pay (and giving up tons of family time) for what they are tasked to do.
Is anyone disagreeing with that?
It would seem to me the debate wouldn't have gone this far if there weren't people disagreeing with that.
It would seem to me the debate wouldn't have gone this far if you weren't denying that there are institutionalized culturally supported police abuses. Aside from your anecdotes, and your seeming refusal to address half the people posting ITT, what evidence to the contrary do you offer?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 01:31:57 AM
Yes. I have colleagues and partners in my work who are in dozens of police departments across the state, which includes sherriffs, chiefs of police, lieutenants, officers, etc. I work with individuals at the local, county, and state level. I have partners in the DEA, the Maine DEA. Through national conferences, conventions, etc., I have colleagues in other police departments in other states including New York, Pennsylvania, Florida, etc.
I will definitely put my actual hands on experience up against anyone on this board. Law enforcement are key partners in the work I do, and I'm not just talking about arresting people for drug violations. They are also there along side me as I do the community building work to make our communities safer and to help those who are at risk.
The link, which actually Cain provided, is an interesting study that looked at racial profiling which obviously does exist and was obviously present in the case studies reviewed in that paper. But, they were just that, case studies. I don't believe you can take that and cast it upon every other department in every other community because all communities are different. I personally think it is a fairly lazy and clumsy generalization which definitely differs from the balance of my experience and the experience of others inmy field from across the country. And we are all in the business of helping the minority sub-populations in our communities whether it be ethnic, orientation, behavioral health, etc.
1) There are members of this forum who have actually BEEN the police. Hope that doesn't cramp your assumed expertise on the subject.
2) That UNHRC report was about a WHOLE LOT MORE than racial profiling, which you would know if you had actually read it.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 01:34:01 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on November 25, 2012, 01:25:18 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 24, 2012, 08:03:45 PM
By the way, people who refer to it as L/A in conversation should have their Maine card revoked. I trust you're only doing that to protect your privacy.
If he is, it didn't work.
Twid,
Google
ETA: insofar as to mask what city was being talked about.
No, but it IS a common short-hand used for the twin cities here in Maine.
Only by complete douchewits. LA is a city in southern California. Where you are is "Lewiston-Auburn". Say it with me now: "Lew-is-ton-Au-burn"
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 03:25:26 AM
I dunno what to say guys, I just think this place has just sunk so far into the tales of horrormirth that it is all you guys can see, even when it isn't there. And the problem with that, is you end up unwittingly forsaking allies, which I think is very unfortunate.
:genius:
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 04:07:12 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on November 25, 2012, 03:58:04 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 03:54:10 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on November 25, 2012, 03:47:09 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 03:44:19 AM
You believe it because you want to believe it. But think about it, if so many police departments all over the country are so awful, why do their citizens put up with it? After all, it is their tax dollars funding their salaries. And all of those people you talk about DO have power, if they wish to exercise it. Or, maybe, it is because on balance their police departments do what they are supposed to do. For sure, as with any institution that employs humans (read: every institution everywhere) the humans fuck up. And in some cases that is at the top which yes will insulate lower level fuck-ups. And that shit should be stamped out.
But I just don't see any practical evidence, not theories based on case-studies, but actual city-to-city, community-to-community evidence that the majority of law enforcement agencies are broken. It just isn't there. It's a belief based on an unbending dour outlook on the world.
We're giving you the data. The data on Boston, the data on Fresno, the data on Phox's neck of the woods, Roger's old precinct....
Which still makes up only a small slice of America.
As does L/A. You don't see the logical fallacy?
No, see, here is where I think you guys are getting lost. My position, is without evidence to the contrary, I give LEAs the benefit of the doubt that they do what they swore oaths to do. The position I'm feeling from many of you, is that without evidence to the contrary, the assumption is that LEAs are racist/crooked/corrupt/whatever. My anecdotes are to serve the purpose of illustrating that good LEAs do exist. I feel the cynicism here runs far too deep and is unfairly indicting institutions before they are proven guilty.
Nevermind that comprehensive and detailed UN report, guys, RWHN has some extremely compelling anecdotes!
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 25, 2012, 04:20:38 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 04:07:12 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on November 25, 2012, 03:58:04 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 03:54:10 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on November 25, 2012, 03:47:09 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 03:44:19 AM
You believe it because you want to believe it. But think about it, if so many police departments all over the country are so awful, why do their citizens put up with it? After all, it is their tax dollars funding their salaries. And all of those people you talk about DO have power, if they wish to exercise it. Or, maybe, it is because on balance their police departments do what they are supposed to do. For sure, as with any institution that employs humans (read: every institution everywhere) the humans fuck up. And in some cases that is at the top which yes will insulate lower level fuck-ups. And that shit should be stamped out.
But I just don't see any practical evidence, not theories based on case-studies, but actual city-to-city, community-to-community evidence that the majority of law enforcement agencies are broken. It just isn't there. It's a belief based on an unbending dour outlook on the world.
We're giving you the data. The data on Boston, the data on Fresno, the data on Phox's neck of the woods, Roger's old precinct....
Which still makes up only a small slice of America.
As does L/A. You don't see the logical fallacy?
No, see, here is where I think you guys are getting lost. My position, is without evidence to the contrary, I give LEAs the benefit of the doubt that they do what they swore oaths to do. The position I'm feeling from many of you, is that without evidence to the contrary, the assumption is that LEAs are racist/crooked/corrupt/whatever. My anecdotes are to serve the purpose of illustrating that good LEAs do exist. I feel the cynicism here runs far too deep and is unfairly indicting institutions before they are proven guilty.
Nevermind that comprehensive and detailed UN report, guys, RWHN has some extremely compelling anecdotes!
He's already dismissed that report as just being case studies.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 25, 2012, 04:27:27 AM
Quote from: Cain on November 25, 2012, 04:15:49 AM
Hey guys, I know three guys who are cops on a personal level, and all are decent human beings who I never known to act dishonourably (truthfully).
I guess all those black kids who keep on dying in London jail cells are just killing themselves!
:lulz: :horrormirth:
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 03:54:10 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on November 25, 2012, 03:47:09 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 03:44:19 AM
You believe it because you want to believe it. But think about it, if so many police departments all over the country are so awful, why do their citizens put up with it? After all, it is their tax dollars funding their salaries. And all of those people you talk about DO have power, if they wish to exercise it. Or, maybe, it is because on balance their police departments do what they are supposed to do. For sure, as with any institution that employs humans (read: every institution everywhere) the humans fuck up. And in some cases that is at the top which yes will insulate lower level fuck-ups. And that shit should be stamped out.
But I just don't see any practical evidence, not theories based on case-studies, but actual city-to-city, community-to-community evidence that the majority of law enforcement agencies are broken. It just isn't there. It's a belief based on an unbending dour outlook on the world.
We're giving you the data. The data on Boston, the data on Fresno, the data on Phox's neck of the woods, Roger's old precinct....
Which still makes up only a small slice of America.
Let's dissect this a little. Police brutality complaints are often handled by the department itself and while I can think of two instances in which it lead to a decrease in complaints being filed (LA and Fresno), having complaints handled by an outside source often means the board/auditory doesn't actually have much power to enforce their decisions on complaints.
As a phenomena, it is often under reported (http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/fighting-police-abuse-community-ac#getting), and here are 2010's stats on police brutality (http://www.policemisconduct.net/2010-npmsrp-police-misconduct-statistical-report/#_Misconduct_Per_Capita), with this highlight: "The current US average projected police misconduct rate is an estimated 977.98 officers per 100,000 officers (mean 909.31 per 100k) as calculated using data gathered from all of 2010."
I think the general gist, RWNH, is that all police departments across the country are problematic. They have shitty officers. There are perfectly good, just, upright cops out there, but most are, well, products of the society that made them and institutional culture. Which does not produce Good Cops very often, imo.
Your opinion is well-supported by the evidence and literature, and is shared by many prominent sociologists. You don't need me to tell you this, but I can confirm that most American sociologists (Stanley Eitzen, Erik Olin Wright, Howard Zinn, Maxine Baca Zinn, Richard Schaefer, etc.) agree that police racism, corruption, and misconduct is epidemic in the US, and that not only is it epidemic, but also systemic, in that it is built into the structure of the law enforcement system from the ground up. The process of becoming a police officer is designed, from the very first class they take, to weed out people who are sympathetic to the public and to reinforce the perspective that the world is full of scum who need to be punished. By the time most people become a police officer, they are fully enculturated into a brotherhood that dominantly views the public as the enemy. It is a huge and very well-recognized problem, and ever more so with the increasing militarization of the police force.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on November 25, 2012, 04:55:28 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 25, 2012, 04:20:38 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 04:07:12 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on November 25, 2012, 03:58:04 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 03:54:10 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on November 25, 2012, 03:47:09 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 25, 2012, 03:44:19 AM
You believe it because you want to believe it. But think about it, if so many police departments all over the country are so awful, why do their citizens put up with it? After all, it is their tax dollars funding their salaries. And all of those people you talk about DO have power, if they wish to exercise it. Or, maybe, it is because on balance their police departments do what they are supposed to do. For sure, as with any institution that employs humans (read: every institution everywhere) the humans fuck up. And in some cases that is at the top which yes will insulate lower level fuck-ups. And that shit should be stamped out.
But I just don't see any practical evidence, not theories based on case-studies, but actual city-to-city, community-to-community evidence that the majority of law enforcement agencies are broken. It just isn't there. It's a belief based on an unbending dour outlook on the world.
We're giving you the data. The data on Boston, the data on Fresno, the data on Phox's neck of the woods, Roger's old precinct....
Which still makes up only a small slice of America.
As does L/A. You don't see the logical fallacy?
No, see, here is where I think you guys are getting lost. My position, is without evidence to the contrary, I give LEAs the benefit of the doubt that they do what they swore oaths to do. The position I'm feeling from many of you, is that without evidence to the contrary, the assumption is that LEAs are racist/crooked/corrupt/whatever. My anecdotes are to serve the purpose of illustrating that good LEAs do exist. I feel the cynicism here runs far too deep and is unfairly indicting institutions before they are proven guilty.
Nevermind that comprehensive and detailed UN report, guys, RWHN has some extremely compelling anecdotes!
He's already dismissed that report as just being case studies.
Which is, in fact, not the case. And which proves that he didn't actually bother to read the report.