The largest street gang in America

[SarcasticDwarf]

Ex1: An officer sees someone walking down a street who matches the description of a suspect in a murder occurring in the area only moments before. Would the officer be justified in running up and tackling the person from behind? Yes, I think so, though that should depend on how sure the officer is of the suspect's identity as it could cause serious harm to the suspect who may be innocent.
Ex2: A couple of people in their late teens are walking down the street late at night. Two officers see them cross a closed park, violating the law. The officers stop them and the teens are belligerent but not physically resisting. Some heated words (more talking back than anything and not really threatening) begin to be exchanged. Should the officers take the two people down at this point? I would think they should not for three reasons. One, there is no immediate threat as the officers are armed and the suspects have already been patted down and are showing no indication of responding with violence. Two, a physical response could very well harm the suspects. Three, since there is no indication of a physical response from the suspects the officers and public would likely be better served by talking down the situation, something they are trained to do.

Now lets examine the context of the two examples if filmed and only to climax was shown. The first video might show and officer randomly running up and tackling a person unawares. This would look bad but would be fairly easily defended and explained. Now what if the person turned around at the last minute, reacted by either trying to run away, dodge, etc and did nothing to indicate they were some hardcore murderer? This would look really, really bad and the police had better hope they tackled the right person.

The second video might show the suspects arguing with officers and then being taken down. This probably would not look too bad to the average person as two people were arguing and being belligerent towards police and were taken down. Yet looking at it more some (such as myself) would think "what triggered the takedown and what justified that level of force." This might be a case that has to be very clearly reviewed along with the history of the officers to see if the use of force was justified. It might be found that the officers used a legally justified level of force but that this tends to happen a disproportionate amount of time with these officers. Maybe the officers have to apologize and are not punished but have to go to specific training on deescalating situations.

 

[TheVrolok]

Ex1: An officer sees someone walking down a street who matches the description of a suspect in a murder occurring in the area only moments before. Would the officer be justified in running up and tackling the person from behind? Yes, I think so, though that should depend on how sure the officer is of the suspect's identity as it could cause serious harm to the suspect who may be innocent.
Ex2: A couple of people in their late teens are walking down the street late at night. Two officers see them cross a closed park, violating the law. The officers stop them and the teens are belligerent but not physically resisting. Some heated words (more talking back than anything and not really threatening) begin to be exchanged. Should the officers take the two people down at this point? I would think they should not for three reasons. One, there is no immediate threat as the officers are armed and the suspects have already been patted down and are showing no indication of responding with violence. Two, a physical response could very well harm the suspects. Three, since there is no indication of a physical response from the suspects the officers and public would likely be better served by talking down the situation, something they are trained to do.

Now lets examine the context of the two examples if filmed and only to climax was shown. The first video might show and officer randomly running up and tackling a person unawares. This would look bad but would be fairly easily defended and explained. Now what if the person turned around at the last minute, reacted by either trying to run away, dodge, etc and did nothing to indicate they were some hardcore murderer? This would look really, really bad and the police had better hope they tackled the right person.

The second video might show the suspects arguing with officers and then being taken down. This probably would not look too bad to the average person as two people were arguing and being belligerent towards police and were taken down. Yet looking at it more some (such as myself) would think "what triggered the takedown and what justified that level of force." This might be a case that has to be very clearly reviewed along with the history of the officers to see if the use of force was justified. It might be found that the officers used a legally justified level of force but that this tends to happen a disproportionate amount of time with these officers. Maybe the officers have to apologize and are not punished but have to go to specific training on deescalating situations.

I think that's a fair assessment of things.

 

[mfenn]

I'm sure the majority of those clips are out of context.

The second set shows a police officer shooting and killing a man that was laying face first on the ground in handcuffs.

You can absolutely trust police officers everyone.

You have a problem with the English language, don't you?

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Part 5 has some really interesting stuff. But I guess the cop beating the shit out of a bar lady was just "taken out of context".

 

[jlee]

With hundreds of thousands of police officers, you can't expect everyone to be perfect. If you think no one gets in trouble, you're not looking hard enough.

When's the last time you've seen a good thing done by a good officer spread all over the internet? Nobody cares - least of all the cop-haters. It's much more fun to look for the bad ones and then, as the OP does, assume that the majority of police officers are bad people.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

With hundreds of thousands of police officers, you can't expect everyone to be perfect. If you think no one gets in trouble, you're not looking hard enough.

Nobody is saying no one gets in trouble. But plenty of them don't when there is more than enough evidence to convict, and don't pretend you don't know it.

 

[jlee]

Nobody is saying no one gets in trouble. But plenty of them don't when there is more than enough evidence to convict, and don't pretend you don't know it.

You could say the same for any criminal.

 

[kinev]

Obligatory Chris Rock:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

...but, the blue wall does exist.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

You could say the same for any criminal.

So your standards for police are the same as your standards for a criminal? You heard it here first folks.

 

[jlee]

So your standards for police are the same as your standards for a criminal? You heard it here first folks.

I said that your statement could be applied to all criminals, not just officers charged with crimes.

Are you saying an officer charged with a crime does not have the same Constitutional rights as a private citizen?

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

The cop that backhanded that loud mouth at burger king should be given a medal. "my mama's be on the way"* slap * lol

 

[daniel1113]

I said that your statement could be applied to all criminals, not just officers charged with crimes.

Are you saying an officer charged with a crime does not have the same Constitutional rights as a private citizen?

Holding people to different standards does not usually implicate any constitutional rights, especially when those people are working in a public capacity.

 

[thepd7]

I said that your statement could be applied to all criminals, not just officers charged with crimes.

Are you saying an officer charged with a crime does not have the same Constitutional rights as a private citizen?

That's an interesting point I never thought of. It's really a lose/lose situation. If a cop doesn't get charged or was found innocent it's because they are a cop.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

With hundreds of thousands of police officers, you can't expect everyone to be perfect. If you think no one gets in trouble, you're not looking hard enough.

When's the last time you've seen a good thing done by a good officer spread all over the internet? Nobody cares - least of all the cop-haters. It's much more fun to look for the bad ones and then, as the OP does, assume that the majority of police officers are bad people.

I think that very few people assume that the majority are bad people. Keep in mind the following:
* Interaction with police is overwhelmingly negative. They are there because your brother was killed, you committed some crime, giving you/someone else a ticket, etc. This inevitably taints any interaction.
* Nobody has enough time to be fully informed on every topic in the world (even a moderate understanding is difficult to obtain and maintain). We don't show all the good going on in the world because we do not have time and it is not important to us. We, as a society, need to know when there are problems with the police in order to correct it.
* Police and the military are held to different standards and have different accountability than the general public, something many have trouble handling (ex: soldiers regularly kill innocent civilians unintentionally without penalty). At the same time they (police in particular) are held to a *higher* standard by the public.
* How officers who have done something wrong between when the action happens and when they are charged and brought to trial is different than a civilian. They usually are placed on leave in the meantime whereas civilians are usually arrested and charged immediately.
* Police departments and related organizations strongly defend just about any on the job action (right or wrong), which hurts their relationship with the public.

Based on this, the average person having a general level of distrust towards officers is reasonable, though not necessarily good for society.

 

[jlee]

Holding people to different standards does not usually implicate any constitutional rights, especially when those people are working in a public capacity.

What's your standard, then? You'll convict the regular guy with proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but you'll convict an officer based solely on probable cause? That's not how it works.

 

[daw123]

I think that very few people assume that the majority are bad people. Keep in mind the following:
* Interaction with police is overwhelmingly negative. They are there because your brother was killed, you committed some crime, giving you/someone else a ticket, etc. This inevitably taints any interaction.
* Nobody has enough time to be fully informed on every topic in the world (even a moderate understanding is difficult to obtain and maintain). We don't show all the good going on in the world because we do not have time and it is not important to us. We, as a society, need to know when there are problems with the police in order to correct it.
* Police and the military are held to different standards and have different accountability than the general public, something many have trouble handling (ex: soldiers regularly kill innocent civilians unintentionally without penalty). At the same time they (police in particular) are held to a *higher* standard by the public.
* How officers who have done something wrong between when the action happens and when they are charged and brought to trial is different than a civilian. They usually are placed on leave in the meantime whereas civilians are usually arrested and charged immediately.
* Police departments and related organizations strongly defend just about any on the job action (right or wrong), which hurts their relationship with the public.

Based on this, the average person having a general level of distrust towards officers is reasonable, though not necessarily good for society.

I agree with this.

The police do very little to improve their public image (I'm talking about in the UK), so it is little wonder that generally the public distrust the police (in the UK).

 

[daniel1113]

What's your standard, then? You'll convict the regular guy with proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but you'll convict an officer based solely on probable cause? That's not how it works.

That's not what I said. Perhaps you should focus more on asking questions than trying to put words in peoples' mouths.

 

[jlee]

I agree with this.

The police do very little to improve their public image (I'm talking about in the UK), so it is little wonder that the general public distrust the police (in the UK).

I agree with most of it as well.

A couple points-
Your average person isn't suspended from work while they're under investigation. An officer very well may be. Civilians aren't necessarily always arrested/charged immediately either-- hence the reason for investigations and arrest warrants.

* Police departments and related organizations strongly defend just about any on the job action (right or wrong), which hurts their relationship with the public.

By "related organizations" I assume you mean unions and attorneys? As I said earlier, officers have the same rights as anyone else...it may be frustrating for people to see, but when we screw up we're also entitled to legal representation.

It's also complicated substantially when we have to make split-second decisions with very limited information. It's easy to armchair quarterback after the fact; I think a lot of people see the big picture and get upset when someone is found not guilty, but I think a lot of people also forget that they have put themselves in the place of the officer when the decision was made. A decision I am forced to make in a matter of seconds, while lacking information, will be gone over and critiqued by attorneys who have hours, days, or weeks to analyze what I did right or wrong.

That said, cops screw up - I'm not disputing that at all.
http://officer.com/online/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=52706
http://officer.com/online/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=52715

That's just from the current front page of officer.com.

 

[jlee]

That's not what I said. Perhaps you should focus more on asking questions than trying to put words in peoples' mouths.

Did you miss the two question marks in my sentence? Perhaps you should address that and clarify your statement in the context of a criminal investigation and court process.

 

[Arkaign]

Thank God for honest and decent officers like Jlee and countless more.

I think a lot of the problems has to do with the culture changing over the decades. My family has a lot of current and retired LEOs, and in the past the community was more integrated with general society and the towns and counties of their jurisdictions. Today a lot of officers don't live in the communities they work in, and they are a lot more prone to only socializing with other cops, and spend their off-duty time talking about work.

I had a cop come over a few months ago, he was a good friend's brother-in-law, and he works for DPD. The guy was a total psychopath, within 3 minutes of entering my home in a state of obvious intoxication he was waving his loaded 9mm semi-auto Beretta pistol around. He proceeded to drink even more heavily, try to pick fights with my other guests (casual BBQ with some friends and beers), and brag about beating his two year old and four year old children. He waved his gun around in the backyard as well, which eventually earned us a visit by the county sheriff's deputies. I had a couple of mexican friends over, and of course they were cuffed on the front porch for 10 minutes while the cops figured out just what the hell was going on. The net result was that this total douchebag just got the nod from the cops after showing his badge and ID, and that was that. It's really lucky for all of us that things didn't go worse, he could have easily gotten us killed or severely injured with his idiocy. It was such a shitty experience that I told my friend I will never let that man in my home again, and if he wants to continue socializing with that dumb motherfucker then he can just forget about calling me.

 

[jlee]

Thank God for honest and decent officers like Jlee and countless more.

I think a lot of the problems has to do with the culture changing over the decades. My family has a lot of current and retired LEOs, and in the past the community was more integrated with general society and the towns and counties of their jurisdictions. Today a lot of officers don't live in the communities they work in, and they are a lot more prone to only socializing with other cops, and spend their off-duty time talking about work.

I had a cop come over a few months ago, he was a good friend's brother-in-law, and he works for DPD. The guy was a total psychopath, within 3 minutes of entering my home in a state of obvious intoxication he was waving his loaded 9mm semi-auto Beretta pistol around. He proceeded to drink even more heavily, try to pick fights with my other guests (casual BBQ with some friends and beers), and brag about beating his two year old and four year old children. He waved his gun around in the backyard as well, which eventually earned us a visit by the county sheriff's deputies. I had a couple of mexican friends over, and of course they were cuffed on the front porch for 10 minutes while the cops figured out just what the hell was going on. The net result was that this total douchebag just got the nod from the cops after showing his badge and ID, and that was that. It's really lucky for all of us that things didn't go worse, he could have easily gotten us killed or severely injured with his idiocy. It was such a shitty experience that I told my friend I will never let that man in my home again, and if he wants to continue socializing with that dumb motherfucker then he can just forget about calling me.

There was a guy in the town I grew up in who was fired (or resigned, I forget) after a similar incident (alcohol + gun, but at his own house). I'm not sure if he was charged with anything or not, but his career was gone.

 

[daniel1113]

Did you miss the two question marks in my sentence? Perhaps you should address that and clarify your statement in the context of a criminal investigation and court process.

Your "question" has a false premise because it presumes that I would convict an officer using a different standard than any civilian. You then proceed to interject that "that's not how it works" as if I had made the argument to the contrary. My point is that you should refrain from asking questions in such a manner if you want an honest answer.

There are many different "standards" at work here. You seem to be focusing on the standard of proof required in a court of law for conviction. There's no question that these standards apply to everyone equally and only differ depending on the context of the charges (criminal, civil, etc.). If I file personal charges against an officer alleging a crime, I absolutely must prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and he is not-guilty until proven otherwise.

There's also the standards of behavior within the legal system. Courts and legislatures constantly establish different standards of conduct that apply to separate groups of people. A perfect example is the treatment of minors, who are generally held to a different standard that adults. So, there is no reason why police shouldn't be held to a higher standard than non-police (I don't use the term civilians because police are civilians, too). Certain acts that society finds acceptable may not be acceptable when done by a police officer working in a professional capacity. It's important to distinguish between charges brought against an officer personally and in his professional capacity.

Additionally, there's the question of actual equality. Even when police are theoretically held to the same standard and afforded the same protections as non-police, there is a very real concern that officers are more likely to "get away" with misconduct. After all, police testimony is often given greater weight in court and the brotherhood amongst cops is very real and often works to protect its own. So, there's always some inequality.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Your average person isn't suspended from work while they're under investigation. An officer very well may be. Civilians aren't necessarily always arrested/charged immediately either-- hence the reason for investigations and arrest warrants.

Regardless of how much of a difference there is (I suspect there IS a significant difference) the bigger issue is perception. The public sees a video of an officer unjustly murdering someone and hears that the person is still walking a free man. Weeks later, despite there being video available the whole time the person is charged.

By "related organizations" I assume you mean unions and attorneys? As I said earlier, officers have the same rights as anyone else...it may be frustrating for people to see, but when we screw up we're also entitled to legal representation.

I was referring to unions and departments. They do have similar rights, and I am not saying they shouldn't. I am pointing out the perception. The average person sees some statement from the police on some other case and it seems that they are ready to utterly destroy the suspect. Then see another report on police misconduct (including the video of the action itself) with some department representative saying that they will "investigate the matter seriously" "hold people accountable" and "take this seriously."

The only thing that really matters when it comes to the public's opinion of and interaction with law enforcement is what their perception is. That perception is negatively influenced by some factors which are completely uncontrollable, but also by others which police can control.

 

[Wyndru]

I'm sure the majority of those clips are out of context.

Yeah. Regarding the go skateboarding one, the kid tried to outrun the cop before that happened. The go skateboarding day is not recognized by law enforcement, or any organization for that matter, so if you skate on someone's property, it's still illegal. A lot of kids think it's a get out of jail free day because everyone is out skating. It's actually the worst day to go skate in the city since the cops are already fired up to arrest.

My friend quit his job as a cop a few years back when a security camera caught him taking down someone in a forceful way. All the news channels showed the clip of the takedown, but there is footage prior to that showing that the drunk dude was swinging at him before that happened. Because of the public backlash and all of the heat that came down on him, he just resigned.

There is no doubt that in some of the incidents the cops are way out of hand, but most of what we see on the news is one sided.

 

[QueBert]

With hundreds of thousands of police officers, you can't expect everyone to be perfect. If you think no one gets in trouble, you're not looking hard enough.

When's the last time you've seen a good thing done by a good officer spread all over the internet? Nobody cares - least of all the cop-haters. It's much more fun to look for the bad ones and then, as the OP does, assume that the majority of police officers are bad people.

People always look for the bad in anything, this is why people who believe everything they see on the news think most cops are crooked, and most Catholic Priests are child molesting sickos.