Police cameras

[Elder Iptuous]

and the Counsel's response?

[East Coast Hustle]

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).

[Elder Iptuous]

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)

[East Coast Hustle]

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.

[trippinprincezz13]

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.

[AFK]

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.

[Elder Iptuous]

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. 

[LMNO]

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.

[P3nT4gR4m]

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.

[East Coast Hustle]

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?

[Phox]

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.

[East Coast Hustle]

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.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

"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.