Police Reform

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Police Reform

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

LGD posted:

I'm pretty sure that actually isn't the logical conclusion of my argument. Saying that police and corrections unions are a major impediment to reform efforts and that in the long term they likely cause more social harm than they do social good, is not the same thing as suggesting that they're the root cause of most police corruption and abuse, or that non-unionized departments are going to be inherently superior/less bad/less corrupt.

Well actually it is. If unions are a major impediment to reform then wouldn't you see more reform in places with no/weaker unions? Such as the South.

Unions are just a tool that gets used by corrupt police. When you remove unions, they use other tools. Removing unions would be just a distraction from real reforms. I'm all in favor of weakening police unions in particularly abusive areas (e.g. firings), but getting rid of them won't get the results you want and the South is the proof.

Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Aug 18, 2014

# ? Aug 18, 2014 23:38

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 30, 2024 10:56

Magres: Jul 14, 2011

Having reform happen requires two things - an impetus for reform, and a lack of barriers to reform.

The former is not present anywhere in the US.

Like I still don't support busting police unions because I think collective bargaining is a basic human right that follows directly from free speech, but police unions absolutely act as a barrier to police reform.

# ? Aug 18, 2014 23:40

LGD: Sep 25, 2004

Trabisnikof posted:

Well actually it is. If unions are a major impediment to reform then wouldn't you see more reform in places with no/weaker unions? Such as the South.

No, because there are clearly other factors at work. Such as people in the South with political influence not seeing the present behavior of the police as an issue. But if reform became a genuine political priority in the South, the lack of strong police unions would make implementing and maintaining such reforms significantly easier.

# ? Aug 18, 2014 23:43

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Magres posted:

Like I still don't support busting police unions because I think collective bargaining is a basic human right that follows directly from free speech, but police unions absolutely act as a barrier to police reform.

Teamsters get charged with racketeering all the time, the same should be possible for police unions who abuse their authority to escape justice. All the same I agree with you, there is no impetus.

# ? Aug 18, 2014 23:45

Magres: Jul 14, 2011

SedanChair posted:

Teamsters get charged with racketeering all the time, the same should be possible for police unions who abuse their authority to escape justice. All the same I agree with you, there is no impetus.

Hell yes. Frankly, I'm all for throwing the book as hard as possible at corrupt unions, they cut the legs out from under ethical unions and hurt American workers with their despicable crap.

# ? Aug 18, 2014 23:52

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

LGD posted:

No, because there are clearly other factors at work. Such as people in the South with political influence not seeing the present behavior of the police as an issue. But if reform became a genuine political priority in the South, the lack of strong police unions would make implementing and maintaining such reforms significantly easier.

And I'd argue that if reform was a genuine political priority that you wouldn't need to get rid of unions to do it. Police wield political power with or without a union.

How would getting rid of union protection for police have helped Michael Brown, Oscar Grant, or Jose Guerena?

How would getting rid of union protection for police reduce the number of minorities unfairly searched, unfairly treated, and unfairly punished?

How would getting rid of union protections for police stop police departments from using civil forfeiture as a shakedown?

Edit: I also think the fact that the discussion is always "get rid of unions" rather than "reform unions" is a key part of what makes this so absurd. I'm all in favor of restricting police unions in ways that plumbers unions are not, for example firings.

Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Aug 19, 2014

# ? Aug 18, 2014 23:55

30.5 Days: Nov 19, 2006

Another barrier to reform is the a cop's right to an attorney. Without all these lawyers, we'd convict bad cops more often and then there'd be more reform, so obviously they shouldn't get one. Or maybe abolishing human rights for people who are abusing power is a really dumb and bad idea.

# ? Aug 19, 2014 00:22

LGD: Sep 25, 2004

Trabisnikof posted:

And I'd argue that if reform was a genuine political priority that you wouldn't need to get rid of unions to do it. Police wield political power with or without a union.

They wield less power, and less coordinated power without a union.

quote:

How would getting rid of union protection for police have helped Michael Brown, Oscar Grant, or Jose Guerena?

How would getting rid of union protection for police reduce the number of minorities unfairly searched, unfairly treated and unfairly punished?

How would getting rid of union protections for police stop police departments from using civil forfeiture as a shakedown?

It isn't a panacea, and I don't think anyone has argued that it is. Abolishing police unions doesn't cause a thousand flowers to bloom simultaneously, it just means that it becomes more possible to implement things like (genuine) civilian review boards, require police suspected of crimes to play by the same rules as others, and actually face consequences for their actions (without being reinstated with back pay a year later). It's one thing among many things that likely needs to be done, but by its nature it's something that would likely make those other things far easier to accomplish, and significantly reduce any subsequent pressure to undo those reforms.

quote:

Edit: I also think the fact that the discussion is always "get rid of unions" rather than "reform unions" is a key part of what makes this so absurd. I'm all in favor of restricting police unions in ways that plumbers unions are not, for example firings.

Well "impose heavy but carefully tailored restrictions on what police and corrections unions can do" isn't exactly the most inspiring rallying cry, and abolishing something is always easier than finding the right combination of reforms. I don't think most of the people in this thread are super-opposed to the police being able to collectively bargain for wages, retirement and health benefits. But it's also important to acknowledge the social cost of law enforcement being able to negotiate the terms by which it will deign to allow its members to engage with the justice system when they come under suspicion in a way no one else does, and being able to put such high barriers on dismissal that the notion a cop might be fired for merely committing blatant perjury in a felony case is usually laughable. I don't think recognizing these problems requires you to come to the conclusion that police unions should be abolished, but I do think it require you to look at the role police and corrections unions play in society with significantly more skepticism than some in this thread are doing.

# ? Aug 19, 2014 00:40

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

LGD posted:

They wield less power, and less coordinated power without a union.

Police wield just as much power on a daily basis with or without a union. The union is only how they coordinate on an employee/employer level, the cops coordinate just fine without one on the street and in our homes.

LGD posted:

It isn't a panacea, and I don't think anyone has argued that it is. Abolishing police unions doesn't cause a thousand flowers to bloom simultaneously, it just means that it becomes more possible to implement things like (genuine) civilian review boards, require police suspected of crimes to play by the same rules as others, and actually face consequences for their actions (without being reinstated with back pay a year later). It's one thing among many things that likely needs to be done, but by its nature it's something that would likely make those other things far easier to accomplish, and significantly reduce any subsequent pressure to undo those reforms.

So why do you propose getting rid of unions instead of these other meaningful reforms? Why must civilian review boards require banning police unions for them to work? There are cities with strong civilian accountability and police unions. Also, its not the police union that chooses not to press charges against cops, its the prosecutor (and they don't have an evil union).

Its a false idea that before we can engage in meaningful reforms we have to eliminate police unions.

LGD posted:

Well "impose heavy but carefully tailored restrictions on what police and corrections unions can do" isn't exactly the most inspiring rallying cry, and abolishing something is always easier than finding the right combination of reforms.

This is exactly what makes your arguments disingenuous. You try to claim that unless we support police unions in all their actions, its better to just get rid of them because "reform is hard" yet I don't heard you arguing for dismantling the justice system. Then of course you later chide us for needing to look at unions with "significantly more skepticism", yet hand-wave away the union reforms that solve your (stated) complaints. I'm in favor of reforming police unions alongside reforming police departments, sheriffs, prosecutors, judges and the lack of real public defense.

Look how effectively you've distracted the conversation from real police reform and ignored the meaningful reforms people have proposed. Instead, until we appease the anti-union crowd, all discussion of meaningful police reform must wait.

# ? Aug 19, 2014 01:09

30.5 Days: Nov 19, 2006

Look until cops have to represent themselves against murder charges, we won't have meaningful police reform.

# ? Aug 19, 2014 01:29

LGD: Sep 25, 2004

Trabisnikof posted:

Police wield just as much power on a daily basis with or without a union. The union is only how they coordinate on an employee/employer level, the cops coordinate just fine without one on the street and in our homes.

The power they wield on a daily basis is a function of the legal and political environment they operate in. Part of the reason they currently have such massive leeway is because of the political pressure police unions have exerted over time. From the standpoint of the average citizen, most of the political goals of police and corrections unions are malign. The only ones that aren't are some half-assed general pro-union solidarity, and if you look at recent history I think you'll see that this doesn't go very far- for example Republicans in the midwest have been happy to engage in extended campaigns of union busting, while treating the police and correction unions with massive deference.

quote:

So why do you propose getting rid of unions instead of these other meaningful reforms? Why must civilian review boards require banning police unions for them to work? There are cities with strong civilian accountability and police unions. Also, its not the police union that chooses not to press charges against cops, its the prosecutor (and they don't have an evil union).

Its a false idea that before we can engage in meaningful reforms we have to eliminate police unions.

Ok, and can you point to where I advocated removing police unions as a substitute for other reforms? I mean the whole argument is that removing their influence enables those reforms, and prevents retrenchment.

And obviously the prosecutor needs to decide to press charges, but do you think it's more likely that they be able to do so if police suspected of crimes don't get special, contract-mandated treatment like 72-hour cooling off periods to get their poo poo together before they're interviewed? Do you think it might be a good idea if police could actually be dismissed for misconduct that fell short of full-blown felonies with incontrovertible evidence?

quote:

This is exactly what makes your arguments disingenuous. You try to claim that unless we support police unions in all their actions, its better to just get rid of them because "reform is hard" yet I don't heard you arguing for dismantling the justice system. Then of course you later chide us for needing to look at unions with "significantly more skepticism", yet hand-wave away the union reforms that solve your (stated) complaints. I'm in favor of reforming police unions alongside reforming police departments, sheriffs, prosecutors, judges and the lack of real public defense.

No? Reforming them would be fine- it's acknowledging the problem and addressing it. The first line was an aside that was attempting to explain why abolition is the most commonly proposed solution- because it's easy to understand and doesn't require nuance. And apparently because it's the only position that anyone can believe people who think police unions are usually malign organizations can have- I didn't stake out hardcore abolition as my position, said it was reasonable for people to feel differently and you're still assuming that abolishing police unions forever is the only thing I can possibly be after.

Like I said, you can take multiple approaches to solving the problems police unions introduce- but people were pretending the problem doesn't exist in the first place. The post I originally responded to was a suggestion that unions had no effect one way or the other and we could attribute everything to bad a "police culture" that was totally independent of unionization, absent which the good cop unions would be falling over themselves to protect whistleblowers. That was patently ridiculous, for reasons I hope I made clear. This was followed by a challenge asking if I thought any union could be a harmful organization that protects bad actors. I do, because any union can be such an organization- the vast majority aren't, but police unions are in a unique position and I think they're structurally inclined to engage in behaviors that are socially harmful and a major impediment to reform. Unless I'm arguing in bad faith because my real secret goal is to undermine unions at every turn, what is disingenuous about this?

I mean this probably comes off as overly defensive, but you are seriously reading a bunch of poo poo into my statements that isn't there.

quote:

Look how effectively you've distracted the conversation from real police reform and ignored the meaningful reforms people have proposed. Instead, until we appease the anti-union crowd, all discussion of meaningful police reform must wait.

Would reducing police union influence over firing decisions not be a real or meaningful reform? Have I suggested this must take first priority over other reforms discussed in this thread? The only reason the conversation has "derailed" (if it actually has) is because some people in this thread think that treating unions as anything but an unalloyed good at all times is literal heresy. It isn't- unions are organizations of people and can contextually be just as harmful and shitheaded as any corporation/government body/fraternal organization you care to name. We could absolutely use more union influence in society in general at this moment, but that doesn't change my view that police and corrections unions have incentive structures that makes them far more likely to engage in behavior that is deeply harmful to the public's interest.

LGD fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Aug 19, 2014

# ? Aug 19, 2014 02:37

30.5 Days: Nov 19, 2006

LGD posted:

Would reducing police union influence over firing decisions not be a real or meaningful reform? Have I suggested this must take first priority over other reforms discussed in this thread? The only reason the conversation has "derailed" (if it actually has) is because some people in this thread think that treating unions as anything but an unalloyed good at all times is literal heresy. It isn't- unions are organizations of people and can contextually be just as harmful and shitheaded as any corporation/government body/fraternal organization you care to name. We could absolutely use more union influence in society in general at this moment, but that doesn't change my view that police and corrections unions have incentive structures that makes them far more likely to engage in behavior that is deeply harmful to the public's interest.

All unions have incentive structures that make them likely to engage in behavior that is harmful to their employer's interest. That is because workers by nature have an adversarial relationship with their employers. The choice is between voting that the employer in this case should be allowed to hand down whatever mandates they like just because we're the employer, or realizing that all human beings have the right to professional representation in the workplace. The argument you're making is that police unions are too effective at what they do- yeah, they're pretty drat effective. But they're effective because the employer of police, i.e. us, is not actually negotiating against the demands of the union. That's on us, not on unionization. And that fact is at the root of why ACAB, not unionization.

The only way this argument works is if you don't actually believe that union representation is a human right- after all, if we start stripping any human rights that increase the ability of police to commit crimes without punishment, very nearly all the rights of due process would apply.

# ? Aug 19, 2014 07:19

MiddleOne: Feb 17, 2011

Swedish police just announced they're looking into getting in on the hot police drone action American PD's have been dabbling in. :sweden:

# ? Aug 19, 2014 07:44

LGD: Sep 25, 2004

30.5 Days posted:

All unions have incentive structures that make them likely to engage in behavior that is harmful to their employer's interest. That is because workers by nature have an adversarial relationship with their employers. The choice is between voting that the employer in this case should be allowed to hand down whatever mandates they like just because we're the employer, or realizing that all human beings have the right to professional representation in the workplace. The argument you're making is that police unions are too effective at what they do- yeah, they're pretty drat effective. But they're effective because the employer of police, i.e. us, is not actually negotiating against the demands of the union. That's on us, not on unionization. And that fact is at the root of why ACAB, not unionization.

The only way this argument works is if you don't actually believe that union representation is a human right- after all, if we start stripping any human rights that increase the ability of police to commit crimes without punishment, very nearly all the rights of due process would apply.

But structurally it's nearly impossible for "us" to effectively negotiate with police for all of the same reasons special interest groups typically dominate policy in their particular areas. A police union's ultimate goal can be described as regulatory capture of the agency whose workers it represents, and the odds of it succeeding are quite high. This is bad enough when it happens to other regulatory agencies, but in those cases the harm is often confined to low-level damage to the public as a whole. The harms that a captured law enforcement agency can do to individual rights and the social structure as a whole are substantially worse. You're saying that police unions are organizations whose existence is fundamentally inimical to the public interest, but that any problems they create are in fact the fault of the public because the right of police officers to have collective professional representation trumps any concerns that said professional representation will forever be engaged in a long term project to create conditions that hurt society as a whole, and the public should constantly be stopping what they're trying to do. Which seems grossly wrongheaded to me- police are in a somewhat unique social position as guardians, guarantors and enforcers of other's fundamental rights and responsibilities. If their right to professional representation is interfering with the fundamental rights of other citizens (in terms of things like being guaranteed due process, or knowing that there will be consequences for a power-tripping thug that assaults you), and by its very nature will continue to interfere with those rights on an ongoing basis, it seems like we have a problem that should be addressed. I really don't have any qualms about saying "law enforcement is special, you're genuinely expected to be a public servant that adheres to a higher standard of behavior, and by virtue of choosing to enter this line of work you have restrictions placed upon your actions that do not apply to the average person." Snarkily pretending that this is tantamount to calling for police to be stripped of their right to legal representation isn't going to convince me that this is a wrongheaded position to take.

# ? Aug 19, 2014 08:14

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

LGD posted:

But structurally it's nearly impossible for "us" to effectively negotiate with police for all of the same reasons special interest groups typically dominate policy in their particular areas. A police union's ultimate goal can be described as regulatory capture of the agency whose workers it represents, and the odds of it succeeding are quite high. This is bad enough when it happens to other regulatory agencies, but in those cases the harm is often confined to low-level damage to the public as a whole.

Hold your horses there. Employers are not regulators. Sure a union wants to control the rules of its workplace, but that's not "regulatory capture". The lawmakers and government rulemakers are the regulators. Just because a union strives to control the rules of its workplace doesn't mean they get to define the rules and regulations of a trade. The lack of proper police reform lays squarely in the hands of legislatures. Which leads me to...

The equivalent to special interest groups dominating police is pro-police lobbying. I agree pro-police lobbying is problematic and that police unions engage in it, but there are countless examples of police special interest groups in states without strong police unions. Likewise a lot of lobbying from other more corporate pro-police groups that are just as impactful.

# ? Aug 19, 2014 08:46

Tias: May 25, 2008; Pictured: the patron saint of internet political arguments (probably)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

e:

Arguing over whether or not it is the "logical end point" of an argument that non-unionized forces are less corrupt totally misses the point. Even the most rah-rah union soldier can agree that cop unions help protect police from being held to account for their actions.

Perhaps the solution is to completely dismantle police unions, perhaps the solution is reform, but police unions do have bad aspects in them, and they should be dealt with.

Xoidanor posted:

Swedish police just announced they're looking into getting in on the hot police drone action American PD's have been dabbling in.

Fear not, Danish drones will undercut any offers the yanks can make. And then they will fall apart on the runway, securing the future skies :denmark:

Tias fucked around with this message at 09:27 on Aug 19, 2014

# ? Aug 19, 2014 09:23

PostNouveau: Sep 3, 2011; VY till I die; Grimey Drawer

The DA is impaneling a grand jury in Eric Garner's death.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/staten-island-da-convene-grand-jury-death-eric-garner-article-1.1908722

# ? Aug 19, 2014 19:12

Magres: Jul 14, 2011

Tias posted:

e:

Arguing over whether or not it is the "logical end point" of an argument that non-unionized forces are less corrupt totally misses the point. Even the most rah-rah union soldier can agree that cop unions help protect police from being held to account for their actions.

Perhaps the solution is to completely dismantle police unions, perhaps the solution is reform, but police unions do have bad aspects in them, and they should be dealt with.

Fear not, Danish drones will undercut any offers the yanks can make. And then they will fall apart on the runway, securing the future skies

Yeah I pretty much fit the bill as a rah-rah union soldier and I'd love to see police union reform.

# ? Aug 19, 2014 19:14

white sauce: Apr 29, 2012; by R. Guyovich

I wonder how quickly the law enforcement field adopts automation of it's officers.

# ? Aug 20, 2014 00:50

Cichlid the Loach: Oct 22, 2006; Brave heart, Doctor.

Habersham County, GA, officials say they won't pay the medical bills for Bounkham Phonesavah ("Baby Boo Boo"), the toddler they blew up with a flashbang granade during a SWAT raid for drugs.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/lawyer-county-refuses-pay-medical-bills-toddler-hu/ng3s9/?__federated=1

quote:

Habersham County�s attorney provided the following statement, saying: "The question before the board was whether it is legally permitted to pay these expenses. After consideration of this question following advice of counsel, the board of commissioners has concluded that it would be in violation of the law for it to do so."

I'm incapable of forming a response to this.

# ? Aug 20, 2014 04:21

justsharkbait: Dec 20, 2013; HOO HA HA; Grimey Drawer

SedanChair posted:

So presumably you were going to college in order to become a police officer. Did it cause you any misgivings that you were going into a line of work where your co-workers would apparently cover their law-breaking tracks by assassinating their fellow officers?

I always looked up to police officers growing up, so i wanted to spend some time giving back to the community. I found that it was not what i expected.

I was a cop while in college, left to finish my degree, and did not go back. But the only reason i was able to leave was because my parents are stable and i live with them.

If I had moved out when i became a cop i would now be stuck regardless of how right/wrong things were because there are no other jobs that start out that decently paid.

I was actually going to college to be a lawyer, had to take criminal justice classes, liked it, so became a cop. Then i realized what was up. I loved the job of being a cop, but everything that goes on outside of and around that is in need of reform.

justsharkbait fucked around with this message at 16:20 on Aug 20, 2014

# ? Aug 20, 2014 16:17

PostNouveau: Sep 3, 2011; VY till I die; Grimey Drawer

Cichlid the Loach posted:

Habersham County, GA, officials say they won't pay the medical bills for Bounkham Phonesavah ("Baby Boo Boo"), the toddler they blew up with a flashbang granade during a SWAT raid for drugs.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/lawyer-county-refuses-pay-medical-bills-toddler-hu/ng3s9/?__federated=1

I'm incapable of forming a response to this.

This is so messed up.

# ? Aug 20, 2014 16:50

KernelSlanders: May 27, 2013; Rogue operating systems on occasion spread lies and rumors about me.

justsharkbait posted:

I always looked up to police officers growing up, so i wanted to spend some time giving back to the community. I found that it was not what i expected.

I was a cop while in college, left to finish my degree, and did not go back. But the only reason i was able to leave was because my parents are stable and i live with them.

If I had moved out when i became a cop i would now be stuck regardless of how right/wrong things were because there are no other jobs that start out that decently paid.

I was actually going to college to be a lawyer, had to take criminal justice classes, liked it, so became a cop. Then i realized what was up. I loved the job of being a cop, but everything that goes on outside of and around that is in need of reform.

What do you think are the likely targets of reform that are plausible given the current culture of the police and the political situation at large? Of those which do you think are the most important?

# ? Aug 20, 2014 16:53

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

Cichlid the Loach posted:

I'm incapable of forming a response to this.

It very well may not be legal - a law hasn't been passed releasing funds for it and no court is ordering them to do so. Yet.

# ? Aug 20, 2014 17:47

kaynorr: Dec 31, 2003

PostNouveau posted:

This is so messed up.

Paying the medical bills probably makes them vulnerable to more lawsuits, so I'm assume they're following the advice of their legal counsel. It's messed up, but only in the way that almost anything involving lawyers tends to be.

# ? Aug 20, 2014 17:54

Cichlid the Loach: Oct 22, 2006; Brave heart, Doctor.

hobbesmaster posted:

It very well may not be legal - a law hasn't been passed releasing funds for it and no court is ordering them to do so. Yet.

I wonder if it really is that, or more:

kaynorr posted:

Paying the medical bills probably makes them vulnerable to more lawsuits, so I'm assume they're following the advice of their legal counsel.

# ? Aug 20, 2014 18:00

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

kaynorr posted:

Paying the medical bills probably makes them vulnerable to more lawsuits, so I'm assume they're following the advice of their legal counsel. It's messed up, but only in the way that almost anything involving lawyers tends to be.

I'm sure its something like this, which shows part of what is so hosed up in this country. Need medical attention after police assault your small child? Better hope you have the time and money to hire a good lawyer!

(and of course, hope your life is perfectly clean because expect a few child welfare visits "randomly" after you file suit.)

# ? Aug 20, 2014 18:03

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

^^ maybe your own insurance could cover it then subrogate the county's? idk

Cichlid the Loach posted:

I wonder if it really is that, or more:

Likely both, the "not legal" part would only be because there isn't a line item in the budget for paying victims of police brutality. Other wise it'd be "counsel has advised us not to do this"

hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Aug 20, 2014

# ? Aug 20, 2014 18:08

Sir Tonk: Apr 18, 2006; Young Orc

quote:

a line item in the budget for paying victims of police brutality

Sounds like a good idea to me. Let's just make it a federal requirement for all municipalities.

# ? Aug 20, 2014 20:02

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

So, NYPD covers up an officer running over and killing a pedestrian: http://gothamist.com/2014/08/20/ryo_oyamada_video.php

Not too shocking. But the question I pose is, why won't this get prosecuted and what would have to change to fix that? Why can't something like this be blood in the water to a prosecutor like political corruption or governmental fraud?

# ? Aug 21, 2014 08:50

white sauce: Apr 29, 2012; by R. Guyovich

Trabisnikof posted:

So, NYPD covers up an officer running over and killing a pedestrian: http://gothamist.com/2014/08/20/ryo_oyamada_video.php

Not too shocking. But the question I pose is, why won't this get prosecuted and what would have to change to fix that? Why can't something like this be blood in the water to a prosecutor like political corruption or governmental fraud?

Because prosecuting something like this would send a clear signal that cops can be brought to justice?

# ? Aug 21, 2014 13:08

Johnny Cache Hit: Oct 17, 2011

Trabisnikof posted:

Why can't something like this be blood in the water to a prosecutor like political corruption or governmental fraud?

The local prosecutor who has the power to bring charges exists in a symbiotic relationship with the local police. Both require the other to function.

So if you prosecute the police you risk angering the police... and angering the police has bad consequences for a prosecutor.

I think the best thing to do would be for states to have dedicated prosecutors and investigators at the state level tasked with investigating local government. I think some do, but it's not universal, and in many cases they focus on corruption.

So when the NYC cop kills a cyclist a state-level team immediately takes over the investigation, no exceptions.

# ? Aug 21, 2014 13:38

notthegoatseguy: Sep 6, 2005

The problem with that is there's no complete universal system of government corruption investigation in all 50 states. Some states empower their Attorney General to pursue those actions. But in my state, the AG doesn't have the power to prosecute and press charges but he is the state's de facto lawyer if the state is sued or is party to a lawsuit. Rather the Marion County Prosecutor has the ability to prosecute most state government officials since the capitol city is in his county.

I'd also have concerns since a lot of government corruption investigation involves government resources and finance. Those people probably aren't familiar with investigating a crime scene where someone has been shot.

I think the feds can serve an important role in the most extreme police corruption cases but it involves the US attorney in that district not being a hack who wants to run for office some day.

# ? Aug 21, 2014 14:51

Johnny Cache Hit: Oct 17, 2011

notthegoatseguy posted:

The problem with that is there's no complete universal system of government corruption investigation in all 50 states. Some states empower their Attorney General to pursue those actions. But in my state, the AG doesn't have the power to prosecute and press charges but he is the state's de facto lawyer if the state is sued or is party to a lawsuit. Rather the Marion County Prosecutor has the ability to prosecute most state government officials since the capitol city is in his county.

I'd also have concerns since a lot of government corruption investigation involves government resources and finance. Those people probably aren't familiar with investigating a crime scene where someone has been shot.

I think the feds can serve an important role in the most extreme police corruption cases but it involves the US attorney in that district not being a hack who wants to run for office some day.

Yeah from an investigative standpoint that's probably an issue.

I guess what really needs to happen is for a federal investigative group to handle this poo poo. Like if the police shoot a person the investigation goes to the FBI immediately, no questions. It's far too easy for the local cops to circle the wagons, the local DA to immediately jump behind the police, lather rinse repeat.

# ? Aug 21, 2014 15:03

Fruity Rudy: Oct 8, 2008; Taste The Rainbow!

If this hasn't been posted yet, massive piece with many of the recent cases that show exactly why reform is needed urgently: "When people ask why I have a problem with law enforcement in the U.S., it's hard to come up with a single answer."

# ? Aug 22, 2014 02:52

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

Yeah the big problem with cops is that the justice system reinforces their behavior through absurd levels of complicity. If cops have are literally above the law they have no reason to follow it. Police militarization is a small part of the issue since they don't need tanks and body armor to drive up to a person's house, kill them, and then have the "investigation" clear them of wrong doing. The military gear is just the physical representation of the corruption that have been our police force and criminal justice system for at least a century.

# ? Aug 22, 2014 03:35

Pohl: Jan 28, 2005; In the future, please post shit with the sole purpose of antagonizing the person running this site. Thank you.

Fruity Rudy posted:

If this hasn't been posted yet, massive piece with many of the recent cases that show exactly why reform is needed urgently: "When people ask why I have a problem with law enforcement in the U.S., it's hard to come up with a single answer."

http://www.ryot.org/police-beat-man-to-death-wife-and-kids/709565

Holy poo poo. They killed her husband, they knew he was dead. They didn't try to do anything for him at all, they just propped him up like it was all ok. Then, the cop talking to her was a complete condescending prick to her. I don't even know what the gently caress I just watched, that was loving horrible.

# ? Aug 22, 2014 03:38

Fruity Rudy: Oct 8, 2008; Taste The Rainbow!

Pohl posted:

http://www.ryot.org/police-beat-man-to-death-wife-and-kids/709565

Holy poo poo. They killed her husband, they knew he was dead. They didn't try to do anything for him at all, they just propped him up like it was all ok. Then, the cop talking to her was a complete condescending prick to her. I don't even know what the gently caress I just watched, that was loving horrible.

That video is a nightmare to watch. Guy wasn't even involved, the cops just snapped and crushed his head in. Apparently they managed to cave his skull in, right in front of his kids.

quote:

Lunahi Rodriguez said that five officers beat her father to death right in front of her, in the parking lot of the movie theater.

"When they flipped him over you could see all the blood on his face, it was, he was disfigured, you couldn't recognize him."

By the time it was all over, Nair Rodriguez said that she knew her husband was dead.

"I saw him. His [motionless] body when people carry it to the stretcher," she explained. "I knew that he was dead."

But yeah. That whole list is a nightmare to read. That's just the first one. There's even worse stuff on there.

# ? Aug 22, 2014 04:03

KernelSlanders: May 27, 2013; Rogue operating systems on occasion spread lies and rumors about me.

It's kind of amazing that they're yelling at a dead guy to stop resisting while trying to pull his arms backwards in a way they don't bend even if you're dead.

# ? Aug 22, 2014 05:26

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 30, 2024 10:56

Fruity Rudy: Oct 8, 2008; Taste The Rainbow!

KernelSlanders posted:

It's kind of amazing that they're yelling at a dead guy to stop resisting while trying to pull his arms backwards in a way they don't bend even if you're dead.

The common theme I noticed was how often, according to official reports, all these police victims are supposedly taking the "Can I Grab the Cop's Gun" Challenge. If you're to believe American cops, there's an epidemic of people who decided to not only fight the police with their bare hands, but then further tried to gamble their life unsuccessfully and reach for the police firearm to try and become a cop killer. Everyone's taking the challenge, including apparently tiny teenage girls.

# ? Aug 22, 2014 05:45

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Police Reform

«‹›166 »