|
wixard posted:I'm specifically asking what we lose with just judges, and no police, on the board. By not having a judge or police officer's perspective you're relying on people to make decisions about a system which they likely don't know anything about outside of TV and the vernal media, which is a terrible place to get educated on anything. Without that angle on the situation you're only giving the board one side of the story and they won't have a frame of reference for why police officers are trained the way they are, what stressors contribute to the decisions we make, or the reality of using force in the line of duty. I'm certainly not suggesting the police control the board or even coordinate it, I'm just saying that perspective needs to be represented in order to provide all the board all of the information they need to make a decision. I don't think the cops would be advising anybody on what to be concerned about but they would be available to explain why an officer may have chosen a particular course of action. I guess I don't see one member of the board being a cop as any sort of problem. I view it as another member of equal standing with a different perspective which is incredibly valuable when there is so much misinformation out there about police officers and the job they do. Maybe we're looking at the board as being different things. What do you see the board as being? What is it's goal and what are it's duties?
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:59 |
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Then clearly they need to be better trained. After all, there is a documented cost in innocent lives to not training them well. Or, if that's too much cost and effort, we could simply hold them legally accountable for bad shots, same as any civilian CCW holder would be. No, I don't think you fully understand how much the stress of shooting at a human being who may be shooting back at you affects your judgement and accuracy with a handgun. I can put all my shots in the center of mass at 15 yards with a glock 19 but that doesn't mean poo poo when we get out into the real world. There are literally tens of thousands of officer involved shootings that back this up, and you can watch hundreds of dash cam shootings where cops try to shoot a guy. The number of bullets that are fired into the ground at the targets feet alone would overwhelm you. Hand guns are really hard to accurately use in the stress of a shooting situation and no amount of training can change that fact that many of the otherwise competent officers (including ones who can pass their firing range qualifications) are huge dangers to the public in those situations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
I'll chime into Police Reform Megathread: #NotAllCops to agree with those that pin ultimate responsibility for police abuses to the love of policies that freely encourage police abuses by asking police to enforce terrible policies and then "protect" themselves from the natural reactions to those policies. I think reforming police departments is a laudable aim, but seems to be a much more difficult task than continuing to chip away at the War On Drugs policies, reducing poverty directly, and removing the cycle of fear = funding from police departments nationwide.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
So, just to be clear, your contention is that it is simply too difficult for police officers not to kill random bystanders, and thus they should hold not legal liability when they do? That's despicable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
SrgMagnum posted:By not having a judge or police officer's perspective you're relying on people to make decisions about a system which they likely don't know anything about outside of TV and the vernal media, which is a terrible place to get educated on anything. I see the board being largely a window into the workings of the police, not necessarily a direct regulating body. Their duty is to ensure that their communities are being policed as fairly and effectively as possible. Representatives of the community can look into the process of policing in their community and ask questions, make suggestions, and do some of the legwork of actual oversight. I guess right now that would be going over some random sampling of police reports (or camera footage in the future) and discussing any worrisome policies/behavior or specific incidents in their communities. With the help of a judge, they figure out which of their issues are laws that would need to change to make people happy, which are department policies that could change, and which are isolated incidents of questionable police behavior. Then they take whatever action is appropriate, asking questions about why a policy exists, offering policy suggestions, or asking for more information about a particular incident. I'm not necessarily proposing that as the best solution, but that's what I'm picturing in my head. I'm not sure what legal mechanism we could use to make sure the police department paid attention to them, and that could change the picture quite a bit. I first imagined it without any cops involved because of the quote in the OP that presents the argument that civilian oversight would be too muddled to be effective. I thought maybe there's a good way to keep all the confusion in the meetings and not have the police deal directly with a bunch of adversarial citizens.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
The role of police in a civilian advisory board should only be to appear before it, not to "advise" it. The point of view of police is already well represented by their legal counsel. Liquid Communism posted:So, just to be clear, your contention is that it is simply too difficult for police officers not to kill random bystanders, and thus they should hold not legal liability when they do? I don't think anybody is arguing that. What we're arguing is that rather than expect better aim from police, we would need to be training them to draw their gun less often in the first place. That's extremely difficult when you inculcate an adversarial mindset. To my mind there are two solutions to this problem: you can either train them to the level of air marshals or Force Recon so that they have supreme confidence in their skills and don't just resort to blasting away (and that ain't happening), or you take their guns away. Honestly it would probably be better to disarm most police.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:So, just to be clear, your contention is that it is simply too difficult for police officers not to kill random bystanders, and thus they should hold not legal liability when they do?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
I would have to say that on my list of problems with cops "accidentally wounding bystanders while shooting at a suspect in an otherwise justified shooting scenario" is pretty far down priority-wise. It happens once in a while but this is dwarfed by the systematic problems with abuse of authority and cops as revenue extraction. I can't imagine why anyone would be this focused on it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
Yes we've already seen that your priorities are a little…unusual.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:I would have to say that on my list of problems with cops "accidentally wounding bystanders while shooting at a suspect in an otherwise justified shooting scenario" is pretty far down priority-wise. It happens once in a while but this is dwarfed by the systematic problems with abuse of authority and cops as revenue extraction. I can't imagine why anyone would be this focused on it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
"Sure, every once in a while innocent bystanders get hosed down with bullets. But let's focus on what's really important here: gutting pensions and salaries!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I don't think anybody is arguing that. What we're arguing is that rather than expect better aim from police, we would need to be training them to draw their gun less often in the first place. That's extremely difficult when you inculcate an adversarial mindset. To my mind there are two solutions to this problem: you can either train them to the level of air marshals or Force Recon so that they have supreme confidence in their skills and don't just resort to blasting away (and that ain't happening), or you take their guns away. That's a pretty decent answer, although there are practicality issues with disarming the majority of police given the difficulties of response time in the non-urban parts of the country. Given that most of the bad shooting scenarios are in the urban parts, I'd be cautiously behind disarming say the LAPD and NYPD, for example. However I'm still on the side of wanting LEOs prosecuted like any other civilian when they hit a bystander or shoot someone who is not a threat (backed by the body cameras that have been suggested), and think that would do much more to reduce the police reliance on resorting to lethal force first and foremost. Edit : To clarify, I'm suggesting that bad shootings be judged based on body camera evidence and the question of appropriate use of force. So prosecution for things like shooting a handcuffed suspect in the back from four feet away, and shooting bystanders. Note the officer in that video was not charged.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
I don't think anyone is suggesting that police be held to a lower standard than CCW holders. But I don't understand your point about non-urban areas. Why should those police be armed any more than urban police? Maybe a bolt-action rifle in the trunk.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I don't think anyone is suggesting that police be held to a lower standard than CCW holders. But I don't understand your point about non-urban areas. Why should those police be armed any more than urban police? Maybe a bolt-action rifle in the trunk. They are now. A shooting that would land a CCW holder in jail and have their right to ever own a firearm again stripped gets a police officer in many jurisdictions a couple months of paid vacation and a return to work once the press furor clears. The non-urban areas note is because an officer responding in many of those areas is on his own. Calling for armed backup should it prove necessary is not practical, given that the response times out in the country can be as much as half an hour to get someone there in the first place, and that's if they're not busy elsewhere and can roll out immediately. A shotgun in the squad car would probably suffice, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:"Sure, every once in a while innocent bystanders get hosed down with bullets. But let's focus on what's really important here: gutting pensions and salaries!" Shooting are either justified or not ... right now there are a lot more people shot by the police on purpose who shouldn't be, then there are bystanders wounded in avoidable accidental situations. I hold the cops to the same standard as any civilian gun owner; if your life is being threatened you can shoot, and if someone else gets hurt, it's the fault of the person who instigated the situation. Similarly, if you want to go out and shoot someone for wielding a deadly candy bar at you, you're a murderer. The second one is what cops get away with all the time, a lot more often than this weird bystander scenario, and is a more pressing issue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Shooting are either justified or not ... right now there are a lot more people shot by the police on purpose who shouldn't be, then there are bystanders wounded in avoidable accidental situations. I hold the cops to the same standard as any civilian gun owner; if your life is being threatened you can shoot, and if someone else gets hurt, it's the fault of the person who instigated the situation. Similarly, if you want to go out and shoot someone for wielding a deadly candy bar at you, you're a murderer. The second one is what cops get away with all the time, a lot more often than this weird bystander scenario, and is a more pressing issue. They're related issues. Both have to do with inadequate training. Not even cops want to shoot somebody armed with a candy bar. They draw and shoot because of their piss-poor training, and because they have a gun on their hip combined with the requirement of their job to go out and antagonize people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
wixard posted:I agree 100%, the civilians can't organize it effectively by themselves. I'm suggesting they should be advised only by judges in their board meetings. quote:I'm not necessarily proposing that as the best solution, but that's what I'm picturing in my head. I'm not sure what legal mechanism we could use to make sure the police department paid attention to them, and that could change the picture quite a bit. I first imagined it without any cops involved because of the quote in the OP that presents the argument that civilian oversight would be too muddled to be effective. I thought maybe there's a good way to keep all the confusion in the meetings and not have the police deal directly with a bunch of adversarial citizens. All of this of course assumes that the goal of the oversight group is to collaboratively improve the life of the overall community and improve how law enforcement works, and not simply an outlet for revenge against cops.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:They are now. A shooting that would land a CCW holder in jail and have their right to ever own a firearm again stripped gets a police officer in many jurisdictions a couple months of paid vacation and a return to work once the press furor clears. Back to your point, I can think of no legitimate reason to not implement the always on personal video/audio recorders for LEOs. Dash cams have been an amazing tool for both prosecuting the guilty/protecting honest cops and exposing police brutality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Enid Coleslaw posted:Well what percentage of people shot by cops are shot "for no reason"? I don't think that's actually a thing that happens regularly. Sadly, data on police shootings in the U.S. doesn't appear to be collected by the FBI, who are the normal go to for this sort of data. They also don't have any racial breakdowns for crimes except 1 on 1 murders. DailyKos asserts that 136 unarmed black people were killed by police officers, security guards, and vigilantes in 2012 alone. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/24/1226172/-Police-Guards-Vigilantes-shot-down-136-Unarmed-African-Americans-on-2012 But I mean google "black people shot by police" and you shouldn't have a terribly hard time finding enough credible examples to realize it happens a WHOLE LOT. I mean unless you consider holding a cellphone or wallet or just kinda standing there to be a reason to shoot someone. Edit: If anyone knows where I can read some good data on police use of force and specifically lethal shootings, then that'd be pretty great. paragon1 fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Jun 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
cheese posted:Agreed. The idea that police must 24/7 be STRAPPED with their trusty 9mm is loving hogwash and has led to Cosmos knows how many fatal shootings. I bring this up in part because (incoming anecdote) my great Uncle retired a number of years ago as a deputy in one of Missouri's tiny Sherrif's departments and is very proud that he never had to draw his pistol in ~27 years of service. Honestly, given the proliferation of cheap cell phone cameras, you'd think the police with nothing to hide would be demanding their own cameras so that they could provide objective evidence of their actions from their viewpoint to oppose a video that doesn't see everything if they ever have to go to court.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
I love it because it's turning the favorite argument of people who support a police state back on them. Why be against the cameras if you have nothing to hide?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
It's an honest question. I have yet to hear any justification for not having cameras on all officers at all times when they are on duty that don't amount to 'but then they can't use extralegal means to get arrests'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
That's the nice thing about operating with impunity, you don't have to explain yourself. The ACLU has some good reasoning for having very sound policies in place regarding the collected data. Of course that's not an argument against having them, it's an argument for good policies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:As soon as unions get to much power the quality of service will decline. This is why your small town police department has not to much problems but the police forces of a bigger city will be pretty bad. It's basicly the same problem that teacher unions create for the education system. Teachers don't carry and use guns on innocent people. Go gently caress yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:It's an honest question. I have yet to hear any justification for not having cameras on all officers at all times when they are on duty that don't amount to 'but then they can't use extralegal means to get arrests'. The one justification that I heard from a retired federal prosecutor was that it would hurt police performance because of the constant scrutiny and make them unwilling to go above and beyond when doing their jobs, which probably means exactly what you just said.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Zachack posted:I don't think a judge provides a window into the workings of the police. I'm not a cop but I am currently involved in my "field enforcement" role with my organization's "enforcement lawyers" and their perspective is wholly different. At a city level this would change (but then what about county and state), and I think law enforcement has fewer barriers than I do between cops and lawyers, but a judge would likely be only able to say "this is what the law says" and not "this is what our process of enforcement is", and the latter is pretty crucial for an advisory/watchdog group because that's where you can make the most effective changes without having to rewrite law (which can be very hard for very good reasons). Can your average cop in a patrol car even speak conclusively on department policy, or would they end up having to go back and ask up the chain like the board would have to without them? I don't mean that disparagingly, I mean it like a science teacher might not know anything about scheduling of the school janitors. Is a practical civilian "policy" question like "Why are cops patrolling this block more than that one?" or "Why are a bunch of people in this neighborhood being picked up and released without charges all of a sudden?" something that a department representative is going to answer in a meeting, or is it going to need an "official response" anyway? They're probably talking to people who live on the blocks in question, so specifics will be important.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Hey, here's some content for the thread."Washington Post posted:As it turns out, a number of SWAT teams in the Bay State are operated by what are called law enforcement councils, or LECs. These LECs are funded by several police agencies in a given geographic area and overseen by an executive board, which is usually made up of police chiefs from member police departments. In 2012, for example, the Tewksbury Police Department paid about $4,600 in annual membership dues to the North Eastern Massachusetts Law Enforcement Council, or NEMLEC. (See page 36 of linked PDF.) That LEC has about 50 member agencies. In addition to operating a regional SWAT team, the LECs also facilitate technology and information sharing and oversee other specialized units, such as crime scene investigators and computer crime specialists. Massachusetts SWAT teams are claiming exemption from open records laws because they're administered by 501(c)(3)s. I don't even
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
Having these boards would be amazing, but it's not going to happen, or at least not in a capacity where police officers will be transparent or truthful regarding force activities. There is a giant structural problem to overcome, wherein police officers see themselves as a special group, and the citizens as "other" from them. I'm not defending it or saying every single cop is like that, but it's there: Every time they lie about each others activities, participate in cover-ups, haze or conspire against officers who do not follow illegitimate orders, one gets a hint about how problematic their organizational culture has become. Before that is dealt with in a meaningful fashion, actual cooperation with communities will be hard to implement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
door Door door posted:Hey, here's some content for the thread. If they're private companies, then they are in violation of the law for claiming to be peace officers, no?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:"Sure, every once in a while innocent bystanders get hosed down with bullets. But let's focus on what's really important here: gutting pensions and salaries!" I'd be more likely to gun down an innocent person if my pension and/or salary got hosed up so it's pretty relevant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
Are there any practical steps that can be done to reduce police funding?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
wixard posted:If it's someone employed by the police department, empowered by them to speak conclusively on their policies but who doesn't actually work in the field, I have less of a problem with that. But I see less utility and more problems involving cops who work in the street whose own behavior would necessarily be discussed at some point. Assuming we do the logical thing and make random reviewing part of the process. quote:Can your average cop in a patrol car even speak conclusively on department policy, or would they end up having to go back and ask up the chain like the board would have to without them? I don't mean that disparagingly, I mean it like a science teacher might not know anything about scheduling of the school janitors. Is a practical civilian "policy" question like "Why are cops patrolling this block more than that one?" or "Why are a bunch of people in this neighborhood being picked up and released without charges all of a sudden?" something that a department representative is going to answer in a meeting, or is it going to need an "official response" anyway? They're probably talking to people who live on the blocks in question, so specifics will be important.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
door Door door posted:Hey, here's some content for the thread. 501(c)(3)s don't have qualified immunity last time I checked, nor are they immune to discovery requests if there's an actual case (as opposed to a FOIA request) filed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Hi, meat sweats is right -- correctly pointing out that any police reform is predicated on reforming how police unions operate is not a call to fascism. This argument can be applied to most (if not all) public sector unions. You can support unions on principle while still having legitimate complaints about how they do business. I think you could go so far to say that unions are a good thing but current public sector unions should be razed to the ground and rebuilt.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:I think you could go so far to say that unions are a good thing but current public sector unions should be razed to the ground and rebuilt.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Are there any practical steps that can be done to reduce police funding? Politically impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Short of outlawing asset forfeiture or explicitly earmarking those funds to go into, say, a trust for compensating innocent bystanders shot by police instead of funding SWAT teams and being used to buy more surplus military arms and vehicles, no.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Are there any practical steps that can be done to reduce police funding? TheImmigrant posted:Politically impossible. Liquid Communism posted:Short of outlawing asset forfeiture or explicitly earmarking those funds to go into, say, a trust for compensating innocent bystanders shot by police instead of funding SWAT teams and being used to buy more surplus military arms and vehicles, no.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Asset forfeiture is indeed hosed, but most of those surplus goodies are free. Nobody is actually buying an MRAP. The DoD and DHS are giving that poo poo away, often with a fat grant. Free for the department, but not the country.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:59 |
|
|
door Door door posted:Free for the department, but not the country. Welcome to federalism. Also, the maintenance on those things probably greatly exceeds the purchase price as a share of TCO, even if the departments did pay retail.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 22:13
|
|