hepatizon posted:

Do you think it's good for a cop to prioritize external validation (being called a hero) over the internal validation that comes from upholding the law?

Cole posted:

Being in a profession that casts you in the public eye, yes. I do think cops doing good things should be reported more than regular people doing good things, if only for the fact that police, as a whole, are paid by your tax dollars. Its nice to see where the money is going.

This isn't to say corruption should be ignored. But cops definitely need to be pat on the back so the community can have assurance that there are good cops out there. Nobody needs to know that Larry down the street and his buddies of bikers helped an old lady down the street, because nobody really relies on them for anything.

Cole posted:

What incentive does a cop have in coming forward? If this corruption is so rampant, then you're definitely putting your career in jeapordy.

Cole posted:

What incentive does a cop have in coming forward? If this corruption is so rampant, then you're definitely putting your career in jeapordy.

Bel Shazar posted:

Isn't putting your personal success and well-being above doing what your job requires of you a mark of corruption? Thus anyone doing so moves from that "good" category into the "bad" category.

hepatizon posted:

Do you think it's newsworthy when an EPA bureaucrat fills out some paperwork? That's a good thing too. Why is police work different?

Jack of Hearts posted:

The logic is that he somehow regards the good cops as battered women.

Cole posted:

No, but its also not fair to paint all cops as corrupt because of what someone else does.

Why is a cop in Tampa, FL corrupt for covering up poo poo a cop in Newark, NJ is doing?

Cole posted:

If the policy is to stand at a protest in plain clothes to ensure safety, which it probably was because I don't think now is the time for policies to be written saying anything that could look like it's green lighting abuse, then its fine.

Cole posted:

My logic is read the thread because I admitted it was an unfair comparison you twat. Stop just trying to get the "own."

Cole posted:

Does the paperwork positively affect my life? Is it part of a bigger project? Because yes, I do think the EPA doing something good should be reported on.

Why am I so bad for thinking news reporting shouldn't focus so much on the negative? People live in fear in the United States and the media helps perpetuate it better than anything else.

hepatizon posted:

Okay, here we have two statements:
- Cops should prioritize upholding the law over being called a hero.
- It's not fair to paint all cops with the same brush.

What is the connection between these statements? If a cop prioritizes upholding the law, then being called corrupt shouldn't affect them anyway.

Cole posted:

Does the paperwork positively affect my life? Is it part of a bigger project? Because yes, I do think the EPA doing something good should be reported on.

Why am I so bad for thinking news reporting shouldn't focus so much on the negative? People live in fear in the United States and the media helps perpetuate it better than anything else.

AreWeDrunkYet posted:

If there were EPA bureaucrats who were (for example) filing enforcement actions for illegal reasons while other EPA bureaucrats knew and ignored this corruption, and other branches of government systematically swept this corruption under the rug, do you think that the news should expose this or just pretend it isn't happening?

Cole posted:

I've addressed this repeatedly. Seriously, how many of my posts do you actually read just looking to get a zinger in?

hepatizon posted:

It positively affects your life by making sure that a pond in Wisconsin is a little bit cleaner, yes. And of course it's part of a bigger project -- it's the EPA. So, you really think that every time an EPA bureaucrat files paperwork that helps keep the environment clean, it should be in the news?

I don't think you understand the nature of news, or are being deliberately disingenuous about it. Public employees doing their jobs isn't news. Public employees violating the principles of their job is news.

Cole posted:

Why can't public employees get a public pat on the back for doing a good job?

Cole posted:

Why am I so wrong for believing the news should report more on good things?

Why can't public employees get a public pat on the back for doing a good job?

hepatizon posted:

They can. It's called a goddamn salary.

Panzeh posted:

I don't get a pat on the back for doing a good job. I get a paycheck. So do they. Time to man up.

Cole posted:

Hahaha so don't thank a public employee because they are getting paid for it. Don't ever thank anyone just for doing their job.

Cole posted:

What do you do? How is it comparable to protecting a population?

Cole posted:

Hahaha so don't thank a public employee because they are getting paid for it. Don't ever thank anyone just for doing their job.

Cole posted:

In all seriousness, do you really think its as simple as just telling on your coworkers? Especially in an environment you paint as nothing more than a big street gang?

Really? You don't see why someone wouldn't?

Really?

hepatizon posted:

No, that's you putting words in my mouth. I didn't say "don't ever thank anyone," I said that individuals and the media don't have an obligation to lionize public employees for doing their job. There's a big difference between "lack of obligation" and "prohibition".

Cole posted:

The media is ratings driven. Their only obligation is ratings. If you think the media isn't ratings driven, then we should move on to another topic.

Panzeh posted:

It's a grown man world out there.


I keep your loving parking garages and luxury condos from falling on your head. I protect plenty of people. I don't need thank-you letters from people who buy expensive as gently caress properties.

Cole posted:

Youre also not in the spotlight like cops and other public service jobs are. Which is something I said was one of the reasons cops should be reported on for doing good things: because they are in the public eye all the time.

Untagged posted:

The media certainly doesn't help things. Like around here recently where 150+ local cops volunteered on their day off to take 200+ underprivileged kids and their families Christmas shopping for gifts and much needed winter clothing. Not one media person showed up. But the next day when they had an "anti-police protest" downtown and (maybe) 5 people showed up there was two TV trucks and several newspapers present. Only one newspaper article about the shopping event, and it was a copy-paste of a local department press release. The "protest" got a ton of coverage, and that certainly goes a long way in perpetuating the narrative.

Cole posted:

What incentive does a cop have in coming forward? If this corruption is so rampant, then you're definitely putting your career in jeapordy.

hepatizon posted:

Yup, they're a business. What does that have to do with anything? Please explain how the media's pursuit of their mission (profit) prevents the police from upholding theirs (the law).

Rookersh posted:

So in case ya'll don't know, Seattle had some really bad police problems in the past. Racism, brutality, etc, pretty much everything this thread goes over.

The Justice Department was eventually called in by the City Council/inquest reports ( police crime in Seattle isn't investigated by the police for obvious reasons, instead it's handled by external agencies/inquest http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Casey-Seattle-gets-it-right-on-police-killings-5955169.php. After a particularly bad incident, the inquest sent for the Justice Department. ) , and they fired pretty much everyone who they thought wasn't fit for duty based on previous reports, and forced all the remaining officers to go through extreme empathy training. On top of that, they've changed the training exercises for Washington police officers into a new program designed to put the citizens before the cops. ( http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021389398_policeacademyxml.html )

Since then, the City Council has spent more money on dash cams/body cams then they have military gear for our cops, which has led to a pretty decent amount of videos. The problem was they couldn't figure out a proper pipeline to give these videos to the public, despite public inquiry, since many videos had faces/SS numbers/the interiors of peoples homes inside. After a particularly bad inquest by a Seattle citizen asking for literally every video they had so he could reupload them on youtube, they decided to instead turn to the tech/programming community of Seattle for help, asking them to come up with programs to get around these issues. The requester came up with a quick hack version, and they've since given him access to a decent chunk of the videos, which you can find on youtube now ( https://www.youtube.com/user/policevideorequests ). The SPD is hosting a hackathon later this month specifically to try and fix this issue entirely, so they can just offer an open pipeline of police cam videos to the public without them sifting through to make sure everything is safe to view by the public first.

On top of this, Ferguson/national outcry has convinced Seattle it needs to get better at recording it's information. They recently bought several advanced cams and gave them to 16 officers that volunteered to test them, all of different makes and models. Once they've chosen which ones work best, they'll be spending all that money that'd normally have gone to assault rifles on outfitting every officer with his own camera, which has to be on at all times. The Chief of Police, several police unions, and multiple officers have all mentioned they are excited for these things to go into effect, because it completely removes all questions from what happened. Instead you can just watch the video and see who was in the right. For once, activist organizations and the police are trying to get something into circulation as soon as possible, as it benefits both sides.

There's also smaller things they've done as well. They realized their public information channel wasn't very good, so they hired police watchdogs/investigate journalists to take over their twitter/facebook page, which has led to the SPD twitter/app being SUPER useful. All events in the city are immediately recorded and brought up, and they give constant advice during times of tragedy. During the SPU shooting earlier this year, the twitter/app buzzed into action, warning parents not to call loved ones, as it could set their phones off during a bad time, to not rush to the university, but to meet the police at a nearby area where the evacuations were happening, etc etc. Pretty much everyone I know that lives in Seattle follows that twitter, just because it's such a useful tool for keeping safe.

Why am I saying all this? Because it's all worked great. The public opinion isn't fully changed yet, but to be fair they are attempting to change years worth of bad behavior here, and it's only been 3 years. I'd bring up the numbers here, but "police brutality seattle" only seems to bring up protest stuff, so you'll have to trust me on this until I can find it again, but crime hasn't risen, more cops haven't died, but police brutality reports have gone down considerably. We've always been able to charge the "bad apples" thanks to our inquest system, but fewer and fewer bad apples show up every year, probably because they've stopped being welcome, and now they realize they can't pull their stunts as easily anymore.

And that's the thing. You can say bad apples all you want, they aren't the problem. The problem is the system isn't designed to find them and remove them from the overall basket of proverbial officers, and there is little to no reason not to be a bad apple. Trusting individual officer morality has led to tragedy after tragedy, and doesn't seem to give any benefit to the police force in their day to day job. Oversight, mixed in with proper support structures and accountability protocols have already shown massive changes here in Seattle, and will likely clean up the problem entirely within the next few years. So uh, why not just do it? Why not adopt these principles over the entire country?

Cole posted:

Now what situation do you think is going to breed more corruption: reporting on cops doing great poo poo (nothing will measure up to 9/11, but give just a fraction of the coverage 9/11 got to cops doing every day good things) or constantly talking about how corrupt cops are?

Cole posted:

Jack of Hearts posted:

The former. Jesus Christ. Pro-police propaganda just gives them even greater leeway to get away with crimes. If the media were constantly saying nice things about the police, then the assumption that the unarmed civilian getting shot by the cops was asking for it would be even greater than it is now, and right now it's still massively widespread.

hepatizon posted:

I didn't say "don't ever thank anyone," I said that individuals and the media don't have an obligation to lionize public employees for doing their job. There's a big difference between "lack of obligation" and "prohibition".

Cole posted:

The media is ratings driven. Their only obligation is ratings. If you think the media isn't ratings driven, then we should move on to another topic.

hepatizon posted:

Yup, they're a business. What does that have to do with anything? Please explain how the media's pursuit of their mission (profit) prevents the police from upholding theirs (the law).

Cole posted:

You've been asking me what I think the media should and shouldn't cover. Sorry for answering the question you asked and not the one you wanted to ask.

Cole posted:

The media controls peoples' widespread perception of things. My perception of Ferguson is based on the reports I've read, because I wasn't there and its all I have to go on.

The media sensationalizes negative news because unfortunately, thats what sells. Its the reason George Zimmerman became a national story. Was it a race issue? Yes. But when is the last time the national news picked up a story like that? One that didn't involve race, I mean.

Race has become a huge topic in the US right now. And it should come up until racism is somehow fixed (it never will be I don't think). Which explains why racial incidents in small towns blow up nationally. Was the Michael Brown shooting racially motivated? I'm certain race was a factor, whether or not the officer was consciously aware of it.

Now the media picks up on it. All we hear is racist cops on the news (there are people who are supportive, but the louder group is the one screaming corruption -- on television at least). Good cops are ignored. Michael Brown dominated the news media for a while.

People watch it and all they are hearing about is how racist this cop is. And then he doesn't get indicted. Now, somehow, all cops have become corrupt.

Now imagine that regional story stayed regional. And for several weeks all we hear about is how great cops are. People's perception of the police will change.

The media controls that. If you don't believe it, look at how well cops got treated for several years immediately following 9/11.

Now what situation do you think is going to breed more corruption: reporting on cops doing great poo poo (nothing will measure up to 9/11, but give just a fraction of the coverage 9/11 got to cops doing every day good things) or constantly talking about how corrupt cops are?

Cole posted:

I didn't say not to report corruption. I said do more reporting on the good things cops do.

hepatizon posted:

Looking through these recent posts, I have no idea what you mean by "the question you asked and not the one you wanted to ask". What question was that? Am I only allowed to ask one question?


So what you're saying is that talking about corruption, whether real or imagined, actually creates more corruption. The only way to fix corruption is not to talk about it. Interesting.

Cole posted:

I didn't say not to report corruption. I said do more reporting on the good things cops do.