General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMy wife wasn't fond of cops before this past year now she has no respect for them.
She views them as legalized bullies. She wouldn't trust them with her life and if someone came in to rob our house she would be more willing to believe she would be placed in less danger from them than from a cop.
She tells me to remember the poem "First they came" . She said yes, right now they are doing this to African Americans men and I am a white female BUT how soon will they start doing this to not only Black males but they start doing it to Asians, Latinos and whites. Not only men but women.
We see those body cams are a joke with the most recent events showing with the dash camera and body camera of 2 officers off.
she has known 3 officers on a personal level at different times in life and ALL THREE have acted like arrogant bullies. they used the power of their badges to get their way EVEN when off the clock.
What do I do?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
_Blue_
(106 posts)It sounds like she would benefit from that experience.
diabeticman
(3,121 posts)
easychoice
(1,043 posts)all they want to do is find a way to arrest people.Their take a ride trip is bullshit.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)
whathehell
(29,067 posts)and is suggesting she broaden her perspective.
For what it's worth, I've had both good AND bad experiences with the cops (I
hit a cop once and spent a night in jail for it), but I wouldn't want to live in a world
without a police force, though I agree that many of the current group suck and need
serious reform.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)bad experiences with cops.
I have been given more than my share of traffic tickets because I have a lead foot and those were my fault - other than some roads around here which have purposefully low speed limits (there are parts of the freeway in Milwaukee that have a 50 mph speed limit and most of the rest is 55 which is utter nonsense). There were many others like I said which I more than deserved and sometimes was let go with a warning or a reduced ticket.
I've been detained by cops, had my person and car (actually friend's car, I was the passenger) searched with zero probable cause, been accused of being drunk/stoned/high on both that detention and several other times even though I do not drink and have never even tried illegal drugs or semi-legal marijuana...
Of course this pales in comparison to people who have been beaten or killed or falsely imprisoned by cops. I do not need their help and I do not want it. I'd prefer to live and die on my own please.
Anyway my other point is this: yes the whole good and bad experience argument. I honestly find this argument as a general point stupid. Yes you can have bad teachers, bad customer service reps, bad salespeople, bad bosses, bad (insert profession here) - but no profession holds your life and freedom in their fingertips.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)So you want a society WITHOUT cops?
Thanks, bro, but having had my life saved by cops, I'd say THAT idea is 'stupid' 
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)having a bad salesperson and a bad cop are somehow equivalent is a stupid argument - because they are not comparable at all.
Arguments for having a police force can be made that aren't stupid but "there are good cops and bad cops, like everyone else" is indeed a stupid argument.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)You didn't say "the argument is usually framed that way", you said it's "generally
stupid" and I never made the "like everyone else" argument. Maybe you should
respond to people as individuals...Just a thought.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)whathehell
(29,067 posts)It can be rare around here, at times.
Are you serious?!
Yeah, lets all go ride along with the psychos.
Fuck that.
branford
(4,462 posts)Last edited Mon Dec 29, 2014, 07:44 AM - Edit history (1)
in connection with my studies in college and law school, as well as while working for the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. They were most enlightening and gave me a perspective I certainly would never have experienced before or since.
Many here could gain from seeing policing from the perspective of urban police officers rather than regurgitate stereotypes and generalizations like they accuse close-minded conservatives of doing about minorities and others.
The experience may confirm some biases, but I assure you that it will challenge a great many of your preconceived notions.
Riding with the cops isn't going to change my mind about the massive numbers of innocent people who have been beaten, tased, terrorized, framed, and murdered. It's not going to change my mind about the hundreds and hundreds of beloved dogs who have been murdered by these assholes. It's not going to change my mind about how they all close ranks to protect the most violent, psychopathic scum in their ranks which makes the good cops complicit in those crimes. I don't give a damn if most cops are nice or face a world of dirtbags out there. I care about the fact that we live in an out of control police state. There are enough bad cops that we have non stop atrocities on a regular basis. Do I need post the hundreds of youtubes showing these atrocities? Moreover, that doesn't mean that I don't also feel badly when I hear of some officer murdered or that I don't agree with you about generalization. I do. I am talking, though, about a systemic problem in this country that is danger to all of us and that trumps cops having hard jobs or the fact they deal with bad people, themselves.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)When I drove a cab and when a drunk fall asleep before I got there, we were required to just call the cops since touching them opens me up to battery charges. The preconceived notion of them going into the situation I saw a remarkable difference in behavior.
Most other encounters and remember, they have no idea what the factual truth is but depending on the preconceived notions of the situation they're entering into and saw very disrespectful behavior. There are also well documented issues (New Orleans) if other people's experiences aren't good enough.
I understand their job isn't an easy or they see humans at their worst, etc. However, that doesn't justify "bending" the law to convict the bad guy the whole neighborhood knows is bad but can't prove which police do all the time because they rationalize it and a good understanding of the challenges will never lead me to accept that.
branford
(4,462 posts)I mention a couple of my more memorable police ride along stories in this post and thread.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6014753
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)ride alongs or 'controlled public visits' like our Federal DOI has is not the same as the reality.
branford
(4,462 posts)and I certainly witnessed a number of incidents that were "unflattering," at best, for the police. My ride alongs were also in two cities, NYC and Washington, D.C., and arranged through multiple programs and individually. If you read my linked stories, I even noted that the police in D.C. repeatedly offered to procure me drugs.
Moreover, watching a video is hardly the same as being personally present as the police perform their jobs, to speak nothing of the potential privacy violations of witnesses, suspects and bystanders that would result from constant video surveillance.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)it gives them the enough experience they need. (Not saying this statement applies to her but I've seen cops talk more shit than anyone)
I don't know people can't accept they have valid experiences of cops hiding behind their badges to treat people as if they aren't humans who generally try to do the right thing meanwhile the cops are far from Saints where ruining jobs is part of their job description. OMG the empathy & sympathy they show when one of their own is facing charges or when a cop angry at being arrested for DUI says "I'd never fuck over another police officer".
whathehell
(29,067 posts)MANY times, but as she told me, there's no such thing as "assault by mouth", so she
couldn't arrest them, and no, she's not a 'pig' who beat anyone.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Police will be on their best behavior with a civilian in the car. The behavior police should already have 24/7 and they do not.
With a camera on 24/7 police will no longer be able to get away with as much disrespect, bullying or brutality.
branford
(4,462 posts)I'm sure the Republicans would agree that ALL public employees, federal, state and local, should be monitored by video 24/7, particularly when they interact with the public. I think we should even support a federal law supplanting all union collective bargaining agreements and a constitutional amendment exempting police from any rights to privacy. As you acknowledge, the level of disrespect, bullying, brutality, as well as corruption, politicking, and a host of other legal violations, among our public workforce would virtually disappear. Heck, maybe everyone needs to be monitored to ensure we all act "properly."
The police ride along suggestion was not meant as a means of monitoring or offered sarcastically. Rather, the idea was a good faith suggestion for the OP's wife to better understand the nature and duties and her local police department and interact with its officers. A better understanding of who they are and what they do might help alleviate her fears. I should know, I participated in many police ride alongs, and they certainly were enlightening.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)They all work for us. All of them should be under public observation.
I'm sure ride alongs are fun to watch the "zoo of troublemakers that is regular humanity"...but police act differently when under observation.
That's why cameras 24/7 would help everyone.
branford
(4,462 posts)Ubiquitous monitoring of all public employees sounds frighteningly Orwellian, and if actually proposed by elected Democratic officials would rip the Democratic Party asunder due to absolute union opposition.
I do, however, respect the fact that you are not just singling-out the police, and would universally apply your ideas.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)
applegrove
(118,636 posts)too is that homeland security has thinned out the pool of available trainees and it is hard to fill positions. So too many poorer suburbs can‘t afford to attract the best of the best. We have amalgamated our big cities in Canada and we get the best of the best. We try to break up slums. We have less gun crime. Maybe the police are just less afraid here. Projecting power is an important part of the job when dealing with felons. Some may not be so good at turning it off. But I worked at a detension centre and the guards and wardens were super assertive. That is how they have to be. It is part of the job.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Let's say a prospective bank robber walked into the bank and saw six uniformed police officers in the lobby. Our prospective robber would be terrified of robbing the bank knowing that the robbery would last a handful of seconds before he was dead, or in custody wouldn't he?
Yet we hear that it's the good cops who are afraid to speak out from fear of retribution. So how could a few bad apples manage to intimidate the vast majority in that way?
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Mollen Commission - NYPD 1994.
New Orleans police department -- the most corrupt & incompetent police department
What do both have in common? Both departments feature police unlikely to rat on their own.
few bad apples -- the biggest problem is more than just a few a bad apples.
Understanding the Psychology of Police Misconduct
Most law enforcement professionals are, at their core, good, ethical, and caring people. Despite the overuse of a popular cliché, many officers do in fact enter law enforcement because they want to make a positive difference in their communities. Officers frequently espouse strong, positive moral values while working diligently—in many cases, at great personal risk—to bring dangerous criminals to justice. Doing so provides officers with a strong sense of personal satisfaction and self-worth. As a result, most officers do not—and in many cases cannot—engage in unethical conduct unless they can somehow justify to themselves the morality of their actions.3
Decades of empirical research have supported the idea that whenever a person’s behaviors are inconsistent with their attitudes or beliefs, the individual will experience a state of psychological tension—a phenomenon referred to as cognitive dissonance. 4 Because this tension is uncomfortable, people will modify any contradictory beliefs or behaviors in ways intended to reduce or eliminate discomfort. Officers can reduce psychological tension by changing one or more of their cognitions—that is, by modifying how they think about their actions and the consequences of those behaviors—or by adjusting their activities, attitudes, or beliefs in ways that are consistent with their values and self-image. Generally speaking, an officer will modify the cognition that is least resistant to change, which, in most cases, tends to be the officer’s attitudes, not behaviors.
One of the simplest ways that officers can reduce the psychological discomfort that accompanies misconduct is to cognitively restructure unethical behaviors in ways that make them seem personally and socially acceptable, thereby allowing officers to behave immorally while preserving their self-image as ethically good people. The following is a partial list of common rationalizations that officers can use to neutralize or excuse unethical conduct:
<snip>
Victim of circumstance. Officers who utilize this method convince themselves that they behaved improperly only because they had no other choice. Officers may claim that they were the victims of peer pressure, an unethical supervisor, or an environment where “everyone else is doing it,” so what else could they possibly have done? Regardless of the context, these officers excuse their conduct by alleging that they had no alternative but to act unethically.
http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=2290&issue_id=12011
The article explains how the situation can both snowball. The search function the link above and the words "noble cause corruption" would give fair well researched articles that detail a good understanding of the most common police misconduct problem -- unconstitutional policing.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)is that each bad (moldy) strawberry usually means that four or five more around it will be untrustworthy enough to have to be thrown out as well.
And tossing out analogies, I disagree with the notion that 'being super assertive' is needed in most interactions. I'm sure there are some people who will react to nothing else, but that 'super assertiveness' is showing up as lots of brutalized and dead people who don't need or deserve it. Your message (and your actions) have to fit your audience. Life is not just 'one size fits all'.
applegrove
(118,636 posts)The police already have changed the way they police demonstrations to be more dynamic. It is the word of this decade.
dynamic:
1. (of a process or system) characterized by constant change, activity, or progress.
LuvNewcastle
(16,844 posts)Police power is a major problem in this country, and what we're seeing them do to black men right now is just a prelude to what we're all going to get if we don't do something about it.
However, she shouldn't hate all cops. Show her that article about the Nashville Chief of Police. There are some fine cops out there doing great work. Besides, it's irrational to judge a whole group by the actions of a minority.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)I fear that one day some asshole pig will misinterpret my odd mannerisms as me "disrespecting" him and murder me for it.
branford
(4,462 posts)as "asshole pigs" that might go a long way to improving your overall safety, or at least demonstrably reduce hostility. To put the matter in perspective, how do you feel about people making derogatory remarks about your autism without knowing anything about you, or worse, unfairly assuming that you may be hostile or unintelligent? Stereotypes are not acceptable from either the right or left.
In fact, many police officers, particularly from large urban centers like the NYPD, have a great deal of experience with people various disabilities, and would be far more likely to understand any social difficulties relating to your autism than many shopkeepers, other citizens, and most certainly, criminals.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)A sane and honorable post relating to the police?!?!
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)so true
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)...how about those civil servants treat the people that are paying their fucking salaries with the care and respect that they themselves are now currently demanding of us?
After all, as you suggest, it's a two-way street...
whathehell
(29,067 posts)here is arguing against that -- It's a matter of painting ANY group with a broad brush.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)your other posts in this thread indicate that I'm interpreting this one correctly.
branford
(4,462 posts)The poster indicated that he fears his "odd mannerisms" due to his autism will be mistaken for "disrespect" and that he therefore will be killed by police. First, there is absolutely no actual statistical data supporting his claim, despite the fears and hatred of many here on DU supported by a few anecdotes among nearly one million American police officers and innumerable interactions with the public. In any event, prior to and irrespective of any interactions with police officers, he already believes they are "asshole pigs," and apparently these beliefs will guide his interactions with any police officers. That certainly seems like a terrible recipe for a negative self-fulfilling prophecy, and characteristic of someone with a social-related disability.
Simply, one does not need advance degrees in psychology or social work to realize if one goes looking for trouble they will find it, and aggression and disrespect will be met in kind (although hardly murder). If you believe that suggesting to the autistic poster that treating another humans being who is a stranger, police officer or otherwise, no less someone in authority, with respect and amicability, is generally a good idea and reduces incidences of misunderstanding that could lead to poor outcomes, is the equivalent to "justifying someone getting hurt for thinking the wrong thing," I respectfully suggest you work on your reading comprehension and basic social skills.
You also apparently ignored my observation that police officers in large urban forces often have significant experience with persons with disabilities, including specialized training, and that many officers might be better equipped to assist him than others with no such experience or understanding.
The vast majority of police officers, despite what you may think, are entirely professional. However, it you believe that your interactions with them should be based on and guided by an "asshole pigs" foundation, I'm beginning to understand why your own police interactions may have been unfortunately memorable.
The poster can think anything he wishes, and such thoughts certainly do not justify violence against him. Nevertheless, regardless of one's thoughts and feelings, respectful and common sense behavior should guide interactions with all strangers and authority figures, if for no other reason that undue and unjustified aggression often leads to needless misunderstanding.
unblock
(52,205 posts)the general collective was clearly referred to as "cops".
the term "asshole pig" was applied specifically to the one and only one cop who hypothetically murders the poster.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Reading comprehension issue or willful misinterpretation? Only one person knows for sure.
branford
(4,462 posts)represents an unknown and unanticipated police officer that could be any police officer anywhere, particularly since "asshole pig" was immediately preceded by the generic "some," as you appear to acknowledge.
Are you suggesting that the poster was actually not referring to police officers generally as "asshole pigs" in his confrontation scenario?
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)...and "asshole pig" and which one(s) are...
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/york-man-detained-choked-thrown-ground-nypd-dancing-street/
Thanks!
branford
(4,462 posts)and it would change absolutely none of what I wrote. Small samples of bad actors among large groups cannot and should not be used to demean and stereotype an entire group.
For example,
Shall I compile a long list of public school teachers convicted for sexual crimes against students, and discuss how all public teachers and their unions are pedophiles or their supporters?
A list of elected Democrats convicted for a myriad of corruption related crimes to prove all elected Democrats are corrupt?
How about citing statistics showing that the per capita rate of violent crime among young black males is demonstrably higher than other groups, no less numerous horrendous crime photos of murders committed by black youth, to show that minority youth are dangerous and prone to crime, even possibly substantiating the racial prejudice of some police officers.
The above are arguments used often by Republicans, and they are wrong and misleading for the same reasons as your cited video.
Anecdotes, no matter how vile, are not proof of much of anything about very large and diverse groups, other than the apparent preconceived notions of far too many.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)many of the beaten, injured or killed by police were disabled persons.
branford
(4,462 posts)If it was only a matter of concern about police interactions with the disabled, the "asshole pig" rhetoric would have never entered into the discussion.
He's also posted other comments about the police that are far more consistent with the "asshole pig" ideology than anything to do with autism.
In any event, my advice was essentially that if you do not presume an officer or any other stranger is an "asshole pig," you'll probably have a much more amicable and professional interaction.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)As I basically indicated in post # 84 in this thread, individual stories, no matter how vile, are not proof of much of anything about very large and diverse groups, other than the apparent preconceived notions of many here. It changes none of my earlier comments at all.
Despite the very unfortunate circumstances, the police in the story might actually have done nothing wrong, and certainly not criminal. It is far too easy to judge the conduct of officers after the fact with extended investigation from the comfort of our desks and couches, rather than from when the actual events were unfolding with only the information known to the officers at the time and with their training. The police were investigating gunshots, approached a potential suspect or witness, he was unresponsive, put his hands in his pockets and then began to flee. The police had no idea about any disability at the time.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)I have known three police officers and all have been great people, even when treated like shit. A father of a friend of my middle son has always shopped for kids with money the police officers pool. This year, they did a news story on them and he was the center of it. People said a LOT of God awful shitty stuff about him. I asked him if he saw the comments and he just shrugged them off and said something to the effect of "you can't please everyone."
Over 18 years I encountered hundreds of street cops. There were certainly a few assholes, most were honorable people trying to be fair.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)A police officer can behave like a saint in all situations.
But if that same officer doesn't do anything about the bad cops in his department, he is going to reap the reward of doing nothing.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Assuming every police officer works with said person in their department, is aware of what is going on and does nothing is a pretty big fucking leap.
Warpy
(111,254 posts)I know how to talk to them. I know how to defuse tense situations. I have a fair amount of confidence that any contact with them will not leave me dead or injured.
However, I've known too many women in horrific marriages with them to trust them that far. If you are married to a cop and he beats you and his children (or worse), there is no one you can call. The rest of the department will close ranks and all you can do is put away nickels and dimes until you've got enough money to get out of Dodge and hope he doesn't follow.
Most of the cops I've known as a nurse were decent enough guys doing a tough job. However, there were bad ones here and their kill rate was bad enough to attract the attention of the DOJ. That had to happen so we could get rid of them.
The problem is and has been that they cannot police themselves. There has to be civilian oversight and a mechanism to get rid of bad cops quickly. IA has not been willing to do this.
This is the reform we need and we need it now. Oh, and do test any cop who overreacts for steroids, willya? That will stop a lot of the carnage, right there.
Boreal
(725 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
Ino
(3,366 posts) branford
(4,462 posts)Like any large group of people, such as teachers, doctors, lawyers, military members, IRS agents, insurance salesmen, etc., some are great people, some terrible or criminal, and most just want to do their jobs professionally and competently and come home safe to their families. There are close to a million police officers in the USA from innumerable jurisdictions performing diverse jobs for even more diverse communities. The number of peaceful and productive interactions with the public are beyond measure compared to the tragic instances you hear about on the news.
It is no more appropriate or enlightened to negatively stereotype all police, as it is to negatively stereotype or generalize all minority youth, who actually have a higher per capita rate of crime and violence. Unless you wife is a committed criminal or makes a habit of aggressively and suddenly confronting police officers, her fears are irrational and more akin to a phobia.
Since my area of expertise is not psychology and I certainly do not know you or your wife, I would not hazard a suggestion on how to deal with the issue. However, I dearly hope you or those you care about do not become victims of crime where interaction with the police would essentially be mandatory to any resolution.
I might suggest, however, that you turn off the television news. They amplify and concentrate on the worst stories and people for ratings, no matter the social cost.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)various and sundry sexual crimes involving children. When teachers go bad, they're real, real bad, and fellow teachers are not known for turning in or testifying against other teachers, and their unions still provide a zealous defense (as they should), just like the police unions. And as for the few convictions you hear about, there are more instances where nothing happens, the individual just retires early with their pension, the matter is pleaded down to insignificance, or the penalty, particularly with female offenders, is so minor as to be shocking.
Also, before you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, know that I used to practice labor law and dealt with such matters, and have friends and colleagues that still do so today. There's a reason why teachers are the favorite target of anti-union Republicans.
Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of teachers are caring people of excellent character (including both of my retired NYC unionized public schoolteacher parents), and such a large group should never be judged by the few rotten apples. Police officers are no different.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)But please, let's keep desperately trying to deflect.
I hear there once was a shoe salesman who did something bad. Let's talk about him instead of bad cops.
branford
(4,462 posts)I stated that no large group should be judged by a small minority of its worst members. You were the one who tried to single out police officers because they purportedly alone committed heinous crimes.. I simply noted that another large group beloved by Democrats has its own fair share of pretty horrible people that are often protected by the group, yet we don't judge them by their worst members. In response, you simply reiterated your original argument, failed to dispute my point, and dare I say, deflected about some shoe salesman nonsense. However, I also would not judge all shoe salesman nationwide based on the criminal acts of a small minority, just as I would not with teachers and police officers.
You might not want to confront the hypocrisy, but many here and certainly the public at large are not so willfully blind.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)It's that they, as a group, are the most likely to be able to use their power and position to shield each other from justice for committing crimes. No other group has that inherent advantage. It's 'who watches the watchers'. They alone are in a unique position to pervert justice by virtue of their position.
branford
(4,462 posts)Assuming, arguendo, that you are correct about police more easily being able to shield one another from crimes (which is most certainly not given), are you then stating that's it's acceptable to infer that all of the nearly one millions American police officers are malfeasants or have or will shield other officers who commit crimes?
If so, as I stated before, such broad generalizations will then inevitably be used by Republicans and other opponents of police reform to similarly paint minority youth with broad stokes, using very clear but still incomplete and misleading data, and justifying many of the racist beliefs and actions of this statistically tiny number of officers.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)But what I said was what I meant. Had I meant to issue the statement that you inferred, I would have actually said it.
So it's not my broad generalization, it's your own imagination.
branford
(4,462 posts)Do you believe that the nearly one millions American police officers are malfeasants or have or will shield other officers who commit crimes?
Is it acceptable to generalize and stereotype all police officers based on the conduct of the very few?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I believe that percentage to be somewhere between 0.000001% and 99.999999%.
Ie, I have no idea what percentage of them will actually try to 'protect' their fellow police officers from 'harm' if they step over the line and do something they shouldn't.
Given that I have no idea whether the true percentage is low or high, I can't make any real judgment as to whether or not it is thus reasonable to stereotype them thusly. But the actions of the NYPD of late sure as heck seem to suggest that at least in that department, the number is closer to the 99% end of things than the 1% end.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)There may be a small minority that is truly "bad". But they are protected by the majority. That actually makes the majority bad, since the police are supposed to enforce the law, even when the criminal is a cop.
If police don't like being likened to their worst members, then they need to get to work on enforcing the law upon their worst members.
The two big differences you leapt over are:
1) your other group is not responsible for enforcing the law.
2) your other group is not armed by the state and given special privileges regarding using those weapons.
It's easy to scream hypocrisy. It's a lot harder to actually show it. Find me teachers that could have arrested a "bad" teacher and failed to do so. Then you'll finally have a point.
branford
(4,462 posts)I would just note a few quick points.
1. Most teachers have actual strict and severe legal obligations to protect children and report abuse and abusers. In fact, these duties might well exceed most officers obligations to report other officers. In a great many of the abuse cases, other teachers were quite willfully ignorant, just didn't care or did not want to get involved, or were actually dissuaded from reporting due to pressure from the union and loyalty and ostracization concerns, just like "rats" in the police department.
2. The argument that "if police don't like being likened to their worst members, then they need to get to work on enforcing the law upon their worst members," applies to any large group, particularly unionized public employees with distinct legal and ethical obligations. Again, the teachers are sadly always the best example, but it also applies to inspectors, revenue collection agents, social services, etc., groups known to have had legal problems in the past that proved deadly. (I'm reminded of a huge crane collapse in my Manhattan neighborhood a few years ago and the huge scandal concerning multiple inspectors and supervisors. The matter is still not resolved, and the union is fighting tooth and nail).
3. Not every "good" officer knows what the "bad" officers are doing. Many threads have been discussing the NYPD. The department has over 34,000 officers patrolling 8 million citizens, and is comprised of 5 or more unions, and that's not accounting for all the civilians and politicos in the department.
Ino
(3,366 posts)Studies have shown that at least 40% of police officers engage in domestic violence (4 times the general population).
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/09/police-officers-who-hit-their-wives-or-girlfriends/380329/
So that leaves at most only 60% who may be good people. Of these 60%, there are probably a fair amount with cushy jobs who spend their days writing tickets & eating doughnuts and are never really put to the test.
But how many of those 60% who ARE put to the test see wrongdoing by their fellow officers and say nothing, look the other way, lie to help them cover it up, do not report the wrongdoing to their superiors? Most of them, IMO. Maybe they are “good cops” who would never engage in brutality themselves, but they are well aware of the repercussions that ratting out their partners would have to themselves. So they would rather watch someone get beaten, tazed, shot, arrested, jailed, humiliated & ruined than stop it. Their cowardice and weak moral center make them complicit, accessories, perjurers.
http://www.civil-rights-law.com/how-to-complain-about-police-m/
There are precious few cops who would or do speak up. A statistically insignificant amount. They are the good ones. They are the small minority.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)tell us more
branford
(4,462 posts)I'm 100% strongly pro-union. I am neither pro or anti cop or teacher. I'm pro-teacher and police unions, and anti-bad teacher and bad cop. If you cannot make those distinctions, it is unfortunate.
I've worked in the NLRB (Region 29 - Brooklyn) and practiced labor law, and I'm neither blind nor a hypocrite. Simply, all unions protect their members, by dint of law and loyalty, and by necessity, sometimes those they defend are pretty loathsome individuals or positions they advocate unpopular to many. This is true among popular unions like the teachers (btw, both my parents were unionized NYC elementary schoolteachers) or more conservative unions like the police. The history of unions (like most other large organizations) is also rife with criminality, individual and organized. These small number of bad acts and actors do not diminish the importance of unions, historically and now, only emphasizes what they are, organizations by members for members, and that the individuals who are members are all too human.
However, some here claim to be pro-labor, yet throw those purported convictions go right out the window when it comes to the police because they may espouse more conservative positions or oppose liberal leaders. Unions do not lose their legitimacy based on whether you agree with them, despite conservative claims to the contrary, Feel free to oppose the conservative positions, but recognize the importance of the unions themselves.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)If you don't want to watch videos of police abuses on the internet to see what she's upset about, and all you're planning on doing is trying to talk her out of it. Well, I'd say find a divorce attorney. IF her fear/feelings was unreasonable, then I could see your post asking for advice. If she climbed chairs shrieking at the top of her lungs when a mosquito entered the house, showing her that they were a minor annoyance would be the right thing to do. However, when she has the proper outlook, then that attempt to moderate her view is dangerous, and insulting.
Now, let me guess. Those five cops were all just bad apples. Because all four of them had to be willing to look the other way when the first one planted the drugs on the accused. Perhaps the four were afraid the one would take some revenge on them.
I could post videos all day. I could post videos from now to Labor Day, and some people would refuse to believe it. You may be one of them. In the eyes of the court, the Police can do no wrong. They can torture you, and nobody will slap them on the wrist or say boo to them.
They can beat you and the people who do oppose it are told they don't understand the tough job the police have. They can murder you, and the department will say they did everything right. They can lie, and nobody cares. They can steal and be told that all they have to do is apologize.
So who has the wrong impression about police? Your wife, or you? If you still think it's your wife, get a divorce attorney.
Boreal
(725 posts)Asians, Latinos and whites, too. Where has your wife been??? Tell her to go on Youtube and start searching:
"Cops beat"
"Cop kills"
"SWAT team kills"
"Cop shoots dog" (yes, that too)
"Kelly Thomas"
etc
There are THOUSANDS of videos of police beating, molesting, tasing, shooting, terrorizing people of all races. That should make her head explode.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)She is extremely intelligent.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)How would that work?
Seriously, is there someone here who can actually make a case
for a society without law enforcement?
If anyone can make that case, I'm listening.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Either we have to accept brutality, arbitrary assassinations, and individuals who lie constantly as a necessary evil. Or we have to embrace anarchy? There is no way to hold police accountable short of absolute disbanding of the principles of law and order? Either we accept the violations of the bill of rights for social order, or we devolve into absolute chaos?
What an asinine concept. There is a principle, a fairly simple principle, that all of us are equal before the law. This principle is that no one is above the law, and no one is beneath it. What those of us who detest the behavior of Law Enforcement want is not anarchy, but that principle to be applied. That police are held accountable for their actions. When they lie, they be charged with the lie and sent to prison. When they plant evidence, they be charged with possession with intent to distribute, and sent to prison for the next twenty years. We want them to be held to the same standards that the rest of us are. You see, we believe they are not above the law, they are supposed to enforce it, without prejudice, and without malice.
Apparently though, you think this is not a workable solution. Apparently holding the police accountable for their actions is just beyond the reasonable expectation of a society.
branford
(4,462 posts)the government apparently sought indictments, and the grand juries refused. It's also highly unlikely that the federal investigations will lead anywhere.
Your comment about equality under the law is noble, and I certainly concur in the abstract, but I think you would agree that the problem is far more complicated in practical terms.
atreides1
(16,076 posts)It's not a question of the government seeking indictments, as much as it is how the evidence was presented to grand juries and how much effort was put into presenting the case by the prosecutor!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/04/1349421/-Missouri-AG-Confirms-Michael-Brown-Grand-Jury-Misled-by-St-Louis-DA
sendero
(28,552 posts)... DAs who are are closely allied with the police departments threw the correct bullshit at the grand juries to avoid an indictment.
DAs generally get 90+% of the indictments they seek (because it is so damn easy to do so, the standard for indictment is very low) but they couldn't do it in these high profile cases.
You are either very ignorant or very much trying to mislead.
We need true civilian oversight of the police. What we have now is a rubber stamp for misconduct up to and including murder.
branford
(4,462 posts)We are not really in disagreement.
The poster in the sub-thread appeared to indicate that somehow enforcing principles of equal protection is all that is necessary for adequate reform. My point about the grand juries was to demonstrate that constitutional platitudes are insufficient to overcome more practical difficulties. It does not matter if the grand juries chose not to indict because they were unconvinced or because the assistant district attorney was not sufficiently motivated. The end result is the same, no state indictments, with little to no chance of federal action.
I would definitely support independent or special prosecutors handling allegations of police misconduct, so long as the independence of such prosecutors could be reasonably assured, both against interference from the police and district attorney as well as mayors and other political officials. I would note, however, even when there are indictments against police officers and zealous good-faith prosecutions, juries are still often very sympathetic and believing of the police.
As to whether I'm ignorant of the constitutional or related legal and practical issues or procedures, I'm a practicing trial attorney in NYC and I've worked at the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Dept. of Justice, researching some of these very issues.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)you might have tried to CONFIRM my meaning before attacking me with a lot of insults for things I never said and don't believe -- Just a thought.
This must be the first post of mine you've read -- You could have even checked the rest of my posts on this thread for a clearer understanding, but you didn't even bother doing that before Jumping the Shark.
The fact is, I've addressed your "simple principle" multiple times here and elsewhere in saying I KNOW there are too many bad, racist cops and of COURSE, I support Equal Treatment by them, but when I read posts here saying that people "have no respect for cops", without qualification, and "Don't. Trust. Any. Cops. Ever" it shouldn't be hard for you to see how one could interpret that as not supporting ANY cops at ANY time.
Get it now?
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Are they the ones who murder people, or are they just the ones who remain silent and allow the murders to happen? Is the cop in front of me one who plants evidence? Or one who watches it planted and writes the reports and swears on the stand that the drugs were found on the suspect by the other cop?
I posted that video above, where the cops plant the evidence right in front of their own camera. Brazenly planting evidence. The other four don't go. "Hey man, you can't do that." Nope, they nod and smile and go along. So which of them is the good cop you can trust? How do you know which one is a cop who won't do that?
You don't. You don't know which of the cops won't do that. You can pretend that the one in front of you won't, and perhaps he won't this time, but perhaps he will next time.
But your post was worthy of derision. It was worth of little more than that. The absolutes. Well ask your wife how she would handle a world without cops. It is an asinine argument. And it deserves nothing but derision.
So tell me, is there some subtle sign that will let me know that this cop will batter or pepper spray me for standing on the sidewalk quietly and watching the arrest? Is there a sign that says this cop will shoot me without any thought about it?
So which cops will we get? The cops who will murder us for standing up, or the ones who will only batter us with a billy club? Or will we get lucky and get a cop who will bring us milk? How can you tell the difference? I know, if we end up dead, then we got the brutal cop, if not, then we got the nice one.
In this video, the police said that the mentally disturbed man in the street lunged at them. Do you see a lunge? Do you see him acting in anything approaching an aggressive manner? Guess what, the shooting was considered justified by the department. That is despite the video showing that they obviously lied on the reports. Well, perhaps cops are too busy to get the details right.
The only safe course of action is to be safe. You teach your children not to talk to strangers, while all strangers aren't going to abduct your child and do something horrible, there is no way to teach your child which stranger will do it. Women are taught not to open their doors to anyone they do not know at night for fear it may be a rapist. Certainly every stranger isn't a rapist, but again, there is no way to know. Similarly, the only safe course of action is to not trust the police. Because there is no way to know if the cop showing up is going to be a knock off of Adam 12, or if you're getting brutality incarnate. Unless you prefer the your own death proves he was a bad cop technique. Of course, the bad cop will be backed up by the good cops who will swear you lunged at him.
Until the police start policing their own, my advice to everyone is simple. Never trust a cop.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)I never offered "absolutes", except that a lot of cops are bad and racist and need serious reform -- Care to argue with that 'absolute'?
In additon, you've again given me a very short list of negative "options" regarding cops..All are bad, in your view, until proven otherwise -- good luck with that.
I'm guessing you think I'm a cop "apologist", so I'll tell you something I'm fairly sure will surprise you -- I once punched a cop in the face..Yup, punched him in the face and went to jail overnight for it.
You see, I've had both good AND bad experiences with cops.
As to your advice, which is obviously based on the idea that ALL cops, or most, are bad, your advice to just "try and keep safe" may be the best that YOU can do, but the fact is, most people "try to keep safe" but sometimes that's not enough, so who you gonna call when THAT happens?
As to the asinine assertion that my post was "worthy of derision" I'll consider the source, while I laugh at your paranoia. 
BubbaFett
(361 posts)He was a wife-beating alcoholic piece of shit.
branford
(4,462 posts)nationwide are also "wife-beating alcoholic pieces of shit" or basically the equivalent?
If so, that is exactly the type of attitude and stereotyping Republicans use to paint all minority youth as violent criminals, with a plethora of selective and misleading statistics, and is used to justify the actions of racist cops. Neither your apparent implication, nor that of Republicans, is acceptable.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)if you can call it "thinking".
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)Again, please tell us how we are supposed to determine the ones that are "good" versus the ones that will kill you...last time I checked they all wear the same uniforms...
Thanks!
branford
(4,462 posts)Many Republicans would argue, how are cops supposed to know which ones are the "good" ones versus the bad ones that will kill you, how do you know who's who, it's not like they're wearing uniforms . . . 
The reasoning is as offensive and wrong as it applies to young minority men as to the police.
Stereotyping and broad generalizations of large and diverse groups are a counterproductive dead end street, and the same reasoning will always be used by our opponents, except it will now be legitimized.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts).. the majority of young black males aren't armed, and can't pull you over, or arrest you on a whim... but other than that your comparison is exactly spot on...
branford
(4,462 posts)Furthermore, police cannot pull you over and arrest you on a "whim." There are actual laws and procedures, and citizens have ample civil legal remedies against department for civil rights violations, and when appropriate criminal penalties are available. Also, unlike the vast majority of young black males, the departments are not effectively judgment-proof.
You can keep trying to differentiate, and we can play this foolish game for hours. Would you rather discuss bad teachers who abuse children and the other teachers who look the other way in violation of their reporting obligations, and how we can't tell the good teachers from the bad?
Remember, I'm a fairly liberal Democrat who actually believes the generalizations, stereotypes and comparisons are stupid, I just refuse to make an arbitrary exception to common decency and applicable law because some are hypocrites when it comes to the police. How do you think most of everyone else not on DU feels, and why the police are still so very popular among a great many Americans.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)... pull you over.... they can do it any damn time they please thanks to this ruling...
branford
(4,462 posts)The court ruled, 8-1, that a consensual search based on a traffic stop grounded in a reasonable mistake of law does not violate the 4th Amendment. The search was consensual, the stop was made in good-faith, states and localities are free to tighten the requirements, as are the policies of departments.
When you have Ginsberg, Breyer and Kagan agreeing with Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and Kennedy, that really tells you something.
The case was mostly bark, and little bite. Most officers who try to use it will still be slapped down in both federal and state courts
http://www.npr.org/2014/12/15/370995815/supreme-court-rules-traffic-stop-ok-despite-misunderstanding-of-law
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)The cop. Next?
You keep viewing the bullies in blue with your rose-coloured glasses, and I'll stay here in reality.
Cheers.
branford
(4,462 posts)There is a whole body of related law on determining the reasonableness of the beliefs of police officers.
I'm a trial attorney in NYC. I earn my living arguing over precisely these sorts of questions and issues.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)And I must say that I'm a lot less wary of a random black man than a random cop.
branford
(4,462 posts)It is the rare individual who has the resources to truly compensate someone for a civil rights violation or similar intentional tort loss, which usually is also uninsurable. To the extent one can even procure a judgment against someone, it is often very expensive and time consuming to actually collect.
In regards to the specific reference in my post, I was referring to young black males who allegedly in engaged in crime, and a victims practical ability to seek financial compensation in court from them, particularly as compared to someone seeking civil redress from a town or city for civil rights violation. In our society, as a statistical matter, young black males as a group are some of the poorest people in the nation, and those engaged in crime, even more so, and hence making them effectively judgment-proof for would-be victims.
My post was also in the context of my argument that no one from a large group should be stereotyped or generalized because of the malfeasance of a tiny minority of its members, regardless of whether the group is minority youth, as is consistent with the bigoted views of many conservatives, or police, as reflected in the opinions of many on DU.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)you're saying. Thanks for the clarification. 
BubbaFett
(361 posts)you're projecting.
Sophistry.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)and she was not a spouse-beating alcoholic piece of shit.
damnedifIknow
(3,183 posts)"Research suggests that family violence is two to four times higher in the law-enforcement community than in the general population. So where's the public outrage? "
whathehell
(29,067 posts)Hopefully catching up to the outrage over the NFL and their abuses.
damnedifIknow
(3,183 posts)"I'd urge everyone who believes in zero tolerance for NFL employees caught beating their wives or girlfriends to direct as much attention—or ideally, even more attention—at police officers who assault their partners. Several studies have found that the romantic partners of police officers suffer domestic abuse at rates significantly higher than the general population. And while all partner abuse is unacceptable, it is especially problematic when domestic abusers are literally the people that battered and abused women are supposed to call for help.
If there's any job that domestic abuse should disqualify a person from holding, isn't it the one job that gives you a lethal weapon, trains you to stalk people without their noticing, and relies on your judgment and discretion to protect the abused against domestic abusers?"
whathehell
(29,067 posts)LeftOfWest
(482 posts)thank you for that link.
_Blue_
(106 posts)I don't think that will help us here.
BubbaFett
(361 posts)whathehell
(29,067 posts)and serve she did, saving more lives than most will ever have the chance to.
Sorry if it doesn't fit some preconceived narrative.
BubbaFett
(361 posts)and attributing to me?
whathehell
(29,067 posts)You approached me with a snide, unsolicited remark and I responded. I owe you nothing
by way of explanation.. Take the attitude elsewhere.
BubbaFett
(361 posts)You should take your own advice vis a vis "attitude," cowboy.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)the word "unsolicited", before, I'd suggest some time with a dictionary.
BubbaFett
(361 posts)I suggest you stop having control issues.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)I suggest you try Anger Management.
BubbaFett
(361 posts)whathehell
(29,067 posts)That's not a suggestion.
Turbineguy
(37,322 posts)Some of them are delicate flowers who are easily frightened if they don't get respect.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)Trust and respect need to be earned, in both directions.
Trust and respect are attributes of the individual, not of the group.
mstinamotorcity2
(1,451 posts)She is right to distrust the police. And civilians too. There are some Great police officers who do a hell of a job. But the ugly few give the whole force a bad name. These officers get blanket cover from those same good cops. Look I know that police officers don't make the kind of money they should, but the citizens of the cities, towns, and counties they serve pay their salary through public funding. How is it we are paying them to execute our citizens in the street like animals. How is it that citizens who are in an unarmed protest with their hands up be greeted with military hardware. And I am not just talking about Ferguson, Missouri. http://www.metatube.com/es/videos/cid42/Noticias-y-Politica/81345/Veteran-shot-in-the-face-by-police-projectile-Oakland/ and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/17/occupy-photos-wall-street-anniversary_n_5835948.html and they started before then https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AiPDWsfT0bMr2iTLgRBCTSKbvZx4?p=Pictures+of+riot+at+kent+state&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-250&fp=1 and of course you have this http://madefrom.com/history/america/iconic-photos-civil-rights-movement/ Now she can try and give the police the benefit of the doubt but be watchful because in the end they will do what they are told to do. I may have not helped any but this is how I see them.
tritsofme
(17,377 posts)Someone who refuses to seek help from the authorities when in trouble or when life is at risk can be very dangerous to themselves and those around them.
