is murdering the elderly some kind of new thing police do in their downtime to help morale? I can't go a god damn week without hearing about some new elderly victim, bedridden or incapable of being a threat to anyone, being murdered by police.
And they always have a knife that no one ever finds, and that only the police see.
Buttcleft on
0
Options
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
Did he think the shoe horn was a butter knife?
Did he go to the TSA school of weapons identification?
What tactic would this be? Altering evidence to obtain a conviction?
Because that's not exactly something they're trained to do, or meaningfully occurs.
Then again, you've already demonstrated some pretty clear ignorance of what your average officer thinks or does so I'd be curious where exactly you're getting all your information. I mean you do appreciate Luther or Sherlock Holmes is a work of fiction right. 8->
Sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of Irishmen having their heads held underwater until they admit to being terrorists.
Also the background noise of the Met being well known to be absolutely bent as fuck doesn't help at all.
is murdering the elderly some kind of new thing police do in their downtime to help morale? I can't go a god damn week without hearing about some new elderly victim, bedridden or incapable of being a threat to anyone, being murdered by police.
And they always have a knife that no one ever finds, and that only the police see.
Hey, I saw at least one story of an old man carving wood with a real blade being shot in the back.
These are quantum knives, they only exist when both a police officer is looking at them and no one else is.
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
Back on track though, my real problem with the "tiny minority" argument is that the vast majority, the so-called "good" policemen are only too willing to close ranks to protect those 'bad apples' and ensure that they never face the conseuquences for their crimes that mere pubbies like me would. As long as this culture remains, then all the police are only one step above any other band of thugs in my eyes. Crips, Bloods, Cops: I know which group is more likely to shit all over my life.
I understand full well that it's a natural human instinct, but it's one that they can be educated and trained to ignore. Until that time they can deal with the consequence that they're increasingly despised and feared by the general public.
Oh yeah the "Well you need the police to keep law and order" excuse.
You know who else used to justify themselves as protecting their people. All gangsters ever.
Ok, what do you propose as an alternative?
Modern civilized society without law enforcement just doesn't work. At some level, be it vigilantism, 'protection' rackets, private security / military, civilian law enforcement, military law enforcement / martial law, there will have to be some group responsible for maintaining order. Out of all possible options, I'd much prefer civilian law enforcement that - with all its flaws - is still better than the alternatives.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I'm shocked the police department isn't saying, "Are you saying a 95 year old man can't be physically fit? WHY ARE YOU DISCRIMINATING?"
I'm shocked the police department isn't saying, "Are you saying a 95 year old man can't be physically fit? WHY ARE YOU DISCRIMINATING?"
They had that quote in the article actually, but it was from an outside officer. something along the lines of "we dont have the whole story, anyone can be dangerous!". When theres a magical knife and walkers are left out of the police report, yeah.......
Oh yeah the "Well you need the police to keep law and order" excuse.
You know who else used to justify themselves as protecting their people. All gangsters ever.
Ok, what do you propose as an alternative?
Modern civilized society without law enforcement just doesn't work. At some level, be it vigilantism, 'protection' rackets, private security / military, civilian law enforcement, military law enforcement / martial law, there will have to be some group responsible for maintaining order. Out of all possible options, I'd much prefer civilian law enforcement that - with all its flaws - is still better than the alternatives.
How about law enforcement where the enforcers themselves obey - as a matter of everyday practicality - the same laws we have to?
I mean just as a thought experiment it seems like that could work out pretty well rather than having this burgeoning Samurai class who are allowed to kill us peasants whenever they feel like testing out their weapons.
V1m on
+4
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
Civilian oversight could fix many of the problem areas, but as was said before; the last time they tried that the cops rioted.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Back on track though, my real problem with the "tiny minority" argument is that the vast majority, the so-called "good" policemen are only too willing to close ranks to protect those 'bad apples' and ensure that they never face the conseuquences for their crimes that mere pubbies like me would. As long as this culture remains, then all the police are only one step above any other band of thugs in my eyes. Crips, Bloods, Cops: I know which group is more likely to shit all over my life.
I understand full well that it's a natural human instinct, but it's one that they can be educated and trained to ignore. Until that time they can deal with the consequence that they're increasingly despised and feared by the general public.
How's that for 'empathy'?
Maybe it's just middle class privilege talking, but I the real kicker for me is that gang bangers at least don't tend to fuck with people outside their territory. Sucks for those that live there, but cops are everywhere. Fucking everywhere. Their territory is "wherever you are, always."
Like, shitty as my neighborhood is, and it is, the only "gang" issue I see is a couple bikers from one of the high-profile gangs wearing their cuts. But I think they just live here, never heard of any issues.
Oh yeah the "Well you need the police to keep law and order" excuse.
You know who else used to justify themselves as protecting their people. All gangsters ever.
Ok, what do you propose as an alternative?
Modern civilized society without law enforcement just doesn't work. At some level, be it vigilantism, 'protection' rackets, private security / military, civilian law enforcement, military law enforcement / martial law, there will have to be some group responsible for maintaining order. Out of all possible options, I'd much prefer civilian law enforcement that - with all its flaws - is still better than the alternatives.
How about law enforcement where the enforcers themselves obey - as a matter of everyday practicality - the same laws we have to?
I mean just as a thought experiment it seems like that could work out pretty well rather than having this burgeoning Samurai class who are allowed to kill us peasants whenever they feel like testing out their weapons.
Ok, so you aren't opposed to law enforcement and conclude that it's necessary. Your issue isn't with law enforcement itself.
Right now, in theory anyway, police are bound by the same laws as the rest of us, except where special accommodations legitimately need to be made for them to do their jobs. Police responding to a call turn on lights / sirens and legally run lights. Police can detain and arrest people they suspect of committing a crime. Police can carry guns in some places civilians can't. Police can use deadly force in circumstances civilians couldn't, etc.
Do you have any fundamental disagreement with the above statement or policies? In general, if those powers were never misused and only used where justified and necessary, would you still object to police having those powers / accommodations in the law?
This is a pretty fundamental part of issues people have with police. Are they opposed to law enforcement in general, or just abuse of power. If someone is opposed to law enforcement in general, there isn't much to debate / discuss. If someone is opposed to the abuse of power, even if they can make a compelling argument there should be certain checks on some of the status quo police powers, there is a lot to discuss.
Personally, I feel that a large number of abuses could be combated by a few simple steps.
First, the FBI or another Federal Agency should be mandated to audit all police departments in the country (and their disciplinary process / policies) regularly - every 3-5 years or so. They should investigate the local IA group to make sure that police misconduct is properly investigated and punished according to policy.
Second, the same agency should be mandated to complete a full investigation / evaluation of every firearm discharge by a police officer to determine if it was a justified / legitimate shooting, an accident, or misconduct that requires further independent investigation.
Third, that same agency should be empowered to investigate any reported Civil Rights / Liberty violation that is reported to them, including every death or hospitalization that occurs while someone is in police custody.
Forth, every police officer should be required to wear a camera / mic at all times when on duty, this setup uploads to a secure Federal data repository for investigation into police misconduct, and tampering with this device is a Federal felony.
Fifth, every police officer should be required - as teachers are in many states - to receive a set number of hours of 'continuing education' or retraining in areas where their department is lax or has violations annually.
Sixth, the findings of this agency should be reported / published regularly in a 'police corruption / misconduct' report.
While this won't fix everything, adding a layer of Federal oversight and always-on monitoring to all police activity would provide a huge chilling effect on many types of police misconduct. I'd especially like to see the above extended to Corrections Officers and people incarcerated in public or private prisons.
I think it would be a relatively expensive program, but if nothing else the savings in lawsuits / settlements would probably help cover a big chunk of the costs. Of course, big government, infringing on local police / sheriffs, etc...make a lot of those concepts infeasible.
Really, we should not be that far away from every officer just having a fucking Google Glass like object to constantly record every thing that happens from their perspective.
Of course, that doesn't address the cultural issues surrounding police corruption. Like this evidence that should be immediately uploaded to a remote server being "lost" and such.
Really, we should not be that far away from every officer just having a fucking Google Glass like object to constantly record every thing that happens from their perspective.
Of course, that doesn't address the cultural issues surrounding police corruption. Like this evidence that should be immediately uploaded to a remote server being "lost" and such.
There are some credible issues that come up with putting a camera & mic on every officer at all times, but especially in an era where dash-cams are ubiquitous, I think it's inevitable and generally a step forward. Personally, I think it's a service that should be entirely in the hands of the Federal Government and tampering with those records should be a major Federal felony...but the way people shit a brick over any sort of government surveillance, I can see that's a non-starter.
So it'll probably be private companies who do it for many times the cost of a centralized national system.
It blows my mind that there are cases where a police can question a suspect in a police interrogation room, in 2013, and the officer's word is accepted as fact without supporting audio or video. Personally, I think that any - absolutely any - questioning should be recorded, and the suspect being questioned should have to be read and acknowledge that they are waiving their rights on that record.
When it comes to technical details like videos being 'lost' and such, I think there should just be a clear chain of evidence, and if stuff is 'lost', someone needs to lose their jobs and be charged with destruction of evidence or a similar crime.
There are a few feasibility issues with constant streaming - like rural areas without coverage - but I would think in most cases there could be a 'black box' that creates a buffer of the stream until a signal is available for an instant upload. It's not THAT much data, and in theory there could be a lower quality 'stream' and a higher quality 'record', so if the 'record' is lost or tampered with there would still be evidence. That alone would probably keep most tampering to a minimum.
Oh yeah the "Well you need the police to keep law and order" excuse.
You know who else used to justify themselves as protecting their people. All gangsters ever.
Ok, what do you propose as an alternative?
Modern civilized society without law enforcement just doesn't work. At some level, be it vigilantism, 'protection' rackets, private security / military, civilian law enforcement, military law enforcement / martial law, there will have to be some group responsible for maintaining order. Out of all possible options, I'd much prefer civilian law enforcement that - with all its flaws - is still better than the alternatives.
How about law enforcement where the enforcers themselves obey - as a matter of everyday practicality - the same laws we have to?
I mean just as a thought experiment it seems like that could work out pretty well rather than having this burgeoning Samurai class who are allowed to kill us peasants whenever they feel like testing out their weapons.
Ok, so you aren't opposed to law enforcement and conclude that it's necessary. Your issue isn't with law enforcement itself.
Right now, in theory anyway, police are bound by the same laws as the rest of us, except where special accommodations legitimately need to be made for them to do their jobs. Police responding to a call turn on lights / sirens and legally run lights. Police can detain and arrest people they suspect of committing a crime. Police can carry guns in some places civilians can't. Police can use deadly force in circumstances civilians couldn't, etc.
Do you have any fundamental disagreement with the above statement or policies? In general, if those powers were never misused and only used where justified and necessary, would you still object to police having those powers / accommodations in the law?
This is a pretty fundamental part of issues people have with police. Are they opposed to law enforcement in general, or just abuse of power. If someone is opposed to law enforcement in general, there isn't much to debate / discuss. If someone is opposed to the abuse of power, even if they can make a compelling argument there should be certain checks on some of the status quo police powers, there is a lot to discuss.
Personally, I feel that a large number of abuses could be combated by a few simple steps.
First, the FBI or another Federal Agency should be mandated to audit all police departments in the country (and their disciplinary process / policies) regularly - every 3-5 years or so. They should investigate the local IA group to make sure that police misconduct is properly investigated and punished according to policy.
Second, the same agency should be mandated to complete a full investigation / evaluation of every firearm discharge by a police officer to determine if it was a justified / legitimate shooting, an accident, or misconduct that requires further independent investigation.
Third, that same agency should be empowered to investigate any reported Civil Rights / Liberty violation that is reported to them, including every death or hospitalization that occurs while someone is in police custody.
Forth, every police officer should be required to wear a camera / mic at all times when on duty, this setup uploads to a secure Federal data repository for investigation into police misconduct, and tampering with this device is a Federal felony.
Fifth, every police officer should be required - as teachers are in many states - to receive a set number of hours of 'continuing education' or retraining in areas where their department is lax or has violations annually.
Sixth, the findings of this agency should be reported / published regularly in a 'police corruption / misconduct' report.
While this won't fix everything, adding a layer of Federal oversight and always-on monitoring to all police activity would provide a huge chilling effect on many types of police misconduct. I'd especially like to see the above extended to Corrections Officers and people incarcerated in public or private prisons.
I think it would be a relatively expensive program, but if nothing else the savings in lawsuits / settlements would probably help cover a big chunk of the costs. Of course, big government, infringing on local police / sheriffs, etc...make a lot of those concepts infeasible.
Of course I don't object to law enforcement. The whole problem I have is the existence of a large, powerful, armed group who are almost entirely above the law in practice. The fact that this group is the very organisation which is entrusted with huge powers to enforce the law, but which in practice substantially evades responsibility for following those laws themselves except for some (but not all) of the the most utterly blatant, uncoverupable incidents is the issue.
With respect to "disappearing evidence" of police misconduct, a simple rule that the penalty for losing that evidence in a case of misconduct is automatically cause for instant dismissal with loss of all accrued benefits and pension rights might work wonders. Even for "obviously" bent policemen I'm not in favour of presumption of guilt. But they can certainly be sacked for gross misconduct and incompetence under suspicious circumstances.
There are a few feasibility issues with constant streaming - like rural areas without coverage - but I would think in most cases there could be a 'black box' that creates a buffer of the stream until a signal is available for an instant upload. It's not THAT much data, and in theory there could be a lower quality 'stream' and a higher quality 'record', so if the 'record' is lost or tampered with there would still be evidence. That alone would probably keep most tampering to a minimum.
I was thinking about this just now and the Police have nice chunks of the radio spectrum devoted solely to their use. I'm already proposing a massive capital investment, what's a bit more?
Oh yeah the "Well you need the police to keep law and order" excuse.
You know who else used to justify themselves as protecting their people. All gangsters ever.
Ok, what do you propose as an alternative?
Modern civilized society without law enforcement just doesn't work. At some level, be it vigilantism, 'protection' rackets, private security / military, civilian law enforcement, military law enforcement / martial law, there will have to be some group responsible for maintaining order. Out of all possible options, I'd much prefer civilian law enforcement that - with all its flaws - is still better than the alternatives.
How about law enforcement where the enforcers themselves obey - as a matter of everyday practicality - the same laws we have to?
I mean just as a thought experiment it seems like that could work out pretty well rather than having this burgeoning Samurai class who are allowed to kill us peasants whenever they feel like testing out their weapons.
Ok, so you aren't opposed to law enforcement and conclude that it's necessary. Your issue isn't with law enforcement itself.
Right now, in theory anyway, police are bound by the same laws as the rest of us, except where special accommodations legitimately need to be made for them to do their jobs. Police responding to a call turn on lights / sirens and legally run lights. Police can detain and arrest people they suspect of committing a crime. Police can carry guns in some places civilians can't. Police can use deadly force in circumstances civilians couldn't, etc.
Do you have any fundamental disagreement with the above statement or policies? In general, if those powers were never misused and only used where justified and necessary, would you still object to police having those powers / accommodations in the law?
This is a pretty fundamental part of issues people have with police. Are they opposed to law enforcement in general, or just abuse of power. If someone is opposed to law enforcement in general, there isn't much to debate / discuss. If someone is opposed to the abuse of power, even if they can make a compelling argument there should be certain checks on some of the status quo police powers, there is a lot to discuss.
Personally, I feel that a large number of abuses could be combated by a few simple steps.
First, the FBI or another Federal Agency should be mandated to audit all police departments in the country (and their disciplinary process / policies) regularly - every 3-5 years or so. They should investigate the local IA group to make sure that police misconduct is properly investigated and punished according to policy.
Second, the same agency should be mandated to complete a full investigation / evaluation of every firearm discharge by a police officer to determine if it was a justified / legitimate shooting, an accident, or misconduct that requires further independent investigation.
Third, that same agency should be empowered to investigate any reported Civil Rights / Liberty violation that is reported to them, including every death or hospitalization that occurs while someone is in police custody.
Forth, every police officer should be required to wear a camera / mic at all times when on duty, this setup uploads to a secure Federal data repository for investigation into police misconduct, and tampering with this device is a Federal felony.
Fifth, every police officer should be required - as teachers are in many states - to receive a set number of hours of 'continuing education' or retraining in areas where their department is lax or has violations annually.
Sixth, the findings of this agency should be reported / published regularly in a 'police corruption / misconduct' report.
While this won't fix everything, adding a layer of Federal oversight and always-on monitoring to all police activity would provide a huge chilling effect on many types of police misconduct. I'd especially like to see the above extended to Corrections Officers and people incarcerated in public or private prisons.
I think it would be a relatively expensive program, but if nothing else the savings in lawsuits / settlements would probably help cover a big chunk of the costs. Of course, big government, infringing on local police / sheriffs, etc...make a lot of those concepts infeasible.
I think most people don't oppose how law enforcement should happen in theory. How things are supposed to work de jure is not the issue. It's de facto law enforcement. To the layman it doesn't matter diddly squat what the laws in the books say, if in practice those laws are completely powerless, or enforced with glaring exceptions. In such a case the law of the land is not what is written down, but how it works in practice.
But really, the steps you outlined would be a good start for correcting the situation. I would add that the agency doing investigation of the police force should have minimal ties to the police departments in question. This would be in order to reduce both the reliance on the co-operation of the local PD, and to reduce possible conflicts of interest. The agency should also be sufficiently empowered that they could conduct said investigations without having to rely on the police they are investigating in any way. Earlier in the thread someone suggested compiling such an agency from lawyers and ex-military, as in such a case both the physical side and the legal side of relevant policework could be evaluated well without having to rely on former officers.
Oh yeah the "Well you need the police to keep law and order" excuse.
You know who else used to justify themselves as protecting their people. All gangsters ever.
Ok, what do you propose as an alternative?
Modern civilized society without law enforcement just doesn't work. At some level, be it vigilantism, 'protection' rackets, private security / military, civilian law enforcement, military law enforcement / martial law, there will have to be some group responsible for maintaining order. Out of all possible options, I'd much prefer civilian law enforcement that - with all its flaws - is still better than the alternatives.
How about law enforcement where the enforcers themselves obey - as a matter of everyday practicality - the same laws we have to?
I mean just as a thought experiment it seems like that could work out pretty well rather than having this burgeoning Samurai class who are allowed to kill us peasants whenever they feel like testing out their weapons.
Ok, so you aren't opposed to law enforcement and conclude that it's necessary. Your issue isn't with law enforcement itself.
Right now, in theory anyway, police are bound by the same laws as the rest of us, except where special accommodations legitimately need to be made for them to do their jobs. Police responding to a call turn on lights / sirens and legally run lights. Police can detain and arrest people they suspect of committing a crime. Police can carry guns in some places civilians can't. Police can use deadly force in circumstances civilians couldn't, etc.
Do you have any fundamental disagreement with the above statement or policies? In general, if those powers were never misused and only used where justified and necessary, would you still object to police having those powers / accommodations in the law?
This is a pretty fundamental part of issues people have with police. Are they opposed to law enforcement in general, or just abuse of power. If someone is opposed to law enforcement in general, there isn't much to debate / discuss. If someone is opposed to the abuse of power, even if they can make a compelling argument there should be certain checks on some of the status quo police powers, there is a lot to discuss.
Personally, I feel that a large number of abuses could be combated by a few simple steps.
First, the FBI or another Federal Agency should be mandated to audit all police departments in the country (and their disciplinary process / policies) regularly - every 3-5 years or so. They should investigate the local IA group to make sure that police misconduct is properly investigated and punished according to policy.
Second, the same agency should be mandated to complete a full investigation / evaluation of every firearm discharge by a police officer to determine if it was a justified / legitimate shooting, an accident, or misconduct that requires further independent investigation.
Third, that same agency should be empowered to investigate any reported Civil Rights / Liberty violation that is reported to them, including every death or hospitalization that occurs while someone is in police custody.
Forth, every police officer should be required to wear a camera / mic at all times when on duty, this setup uploads to a secure Federal data repository for investigation into police misconduct, and tampering with this device is a Federal felony.
Fifth, every police officer should be required - as teachers are in many states - to receive a set number of hours of 'continuing education' or retraining in areas where their department is lax or has violations annually.
Sixth, the findings of this agency should be reported / published regularly in a 'police corruption / misconduct' report.
While this won't fix everything, adding a layer of Federal oversight and always-on monitoring to all police activity would provide a huge chilling effect on many types of police misconduct. I'd especially like to see the above extended to Corrections Officers and people incarcerated in public or private prisons.
I think it would be a relatively expensive program, but if nothing else the savings in lawsuits / settlements would probably help cover a big chunk of the costs. Of course, big government, infringing on local police / sheriffs, etc...make a lot of those concepts infeasible.
I think most people don't oppose how law enforcement should happen in theory. How things are supposed to work de jure is not the issue. It's de facto law enforcement. To the layman it doesn't matter diddly squat what the laws in the books say, if in practice those laws are completely powerless, or enforced with glaring exceptions. In such a case the law of the land is not what is written down, but how it works in practice.
But really, the steps you outlined would be a good start for correcting the situation. I would add that the agency doing investigation of the police force should have minimal ties to the police departments in question. This would be in order to reduce both the reliance on the co-operation of the local PD, and to reduce possible conflicts of interest. The agency should also be sufficiently empowered that they could conduct said investigations without having to rely on the police they are investigating in any way. Earlier in the thread someone suggested compiling such an agency from lawyers and ex-military, as in such a case both the physical side and the legal side of relevant policework could be evaluated well without having to rely on former officers.
Yeah, there would definitely need to be major steps made to keep the evaluators isolated from the groups they are evaluating. You would pretty much have to create a IA type adversarial relationship off the bat between the local PDs and the Feds to minimize bias, but at the same time you would need cooperation to avoid being stonewalled.
There is also a big issue when it comes to Federal overreach...which, is going to be pretty intractable for all the people thinking FEMA is stockpiling bullets and that's why they can only buy ten cases of ammo at a time. The Fed can do a lot, but when every pissant rural sheriff across the country is going to make a name for himself 'standing up to the fed and their UN plot to take over bumfuck Wyoming', it's going to create some problems. Doing it as a certification system for Federal money may work - you've got the sweet sweet Federal money hose to shut off, plus insurance companies aren't going to provide municipalities without certifications liability insurance - hell, they might even put some weight on local homeowners / voters by charging highly elevated rates for homeowners.
One concern I do have - and no offense to the (ex-)military on here - is that I'm not quite sure I want the people evaluating acceptable use of force to be people whose primary experience / qualifications are surviving in a war zone. Spending a few years manning a checkpoint / riding in a convoy where any car that doesn't immediately follow orders is assumed to be a bomb doesn't tend to make people more critical of use of deadly force.
0
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
County governments are typically self insured.
As for cameras, there have been camera systems built into radio hand mics for years.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Oh yeah the "Well you need the police to keep law and order" excuse.
You know who else used to justify themselves as protecting their people. All gangsters ever.
Ok, what do you propose as an alternative?
Modern civilized society without law enforcement just doesn't work. At some level, be it vigilantism, 'protection' rackets, private security / military, civilian law enforcement, military law enforcement / martial law, there will have to be some group responsible for maintaining order. Out of all possible options, I'd much prefer civilian law enforcement that - with all its flaws - is still better than the alternatives.
A lot of nations use young kids on their public service as police officers. While they are generally shit as cops, useful mostly for standing around making sure no one crosses police lines, their real utility is that they are part-time outsiders embedded in police culture. You are not going to bury your soul by keeping quiet for a temporary service job.
The U.S. could do the same, instituting a version of Teach for America for law enforcement. Let young kids spend a year working as a cop in exchange for college money.
Not sure if this really belongs in this thread or the one on NSA surveillance, but the DEA is kind of straddling the line by both going crazy with surveillance and covering it up to prevent it from being barred as evidence in court.
A former federal agent in the northeastern United States who received such tips from SOD described the process. "You'd be told only, ‘Be at a certain truck stop at a certain time and look for a certain vehicle.' And so we'd alert the state police to find an excuse to stop that vehicle, and then have a drug dog search it," the agent said.
Because that doesn't encapsulate a huge problem that people have with cops already, and now they are doing it with security intercepts.
Yeah, that parallel construction is very troublesome. If the government is actively covering up sources of evidence, there are all kinds of possible issues, especially if the tip was gathered unlawfully and the evidence wouldn't have been found otherwise. Fruit of the poisoned tree and all that.
I've cross posted that topic to the 'Surveillance' thread as I think it's pretty relevant there as well. Those revelations in that article - if they end up being supported - have really struck a relatively large blow to my position of (generally) supporting the US Government surveillance / intelligence activities.
Yeah, that parallel construction is very troublesome. If the government is actively covering up sources of evidence, there are all kinds of possible issues, especially if the tip was gathered unlawfully and the evidence wouldn't have been found otherwise. Fruit of the poisoned tree and all that.
I've cross posted that topic to the 'Surveillance' thread as I think it's pretty relevant there as well. Those revelations in that article - if they end up being supported - have really struck a relatively large blow to my position of (generally) supporting the US Government surveillance / intelligence activities.
Let's be honest - parallel construction has been going on for quite a while. Laundering sources is nothing new.
Yeah, that parallel construction is very troublesome. If the government is actively covering up sources of evidence, there are all kinds of possible issues, especially if the tip was gathered unlawfully and the evidence wouldn't have been found otherwise. Fruit of the poisoned tree and all that.
I've cross posted that topic to the 'Surveillance' thread as I think it's pretty relevant there as well. Those revelations in that article - if they end up being supported - have really struck a relatively large blow to my position of (generally) supporting the US Government surveillance / intelligence activities.
Let's be honest - parallel construction has been going on for quite a while. Laundering sources is nothing new.
While that's true, the problem is that this is an actual government program dedicated specifically to that purpose.
This is a big problem as a matter of 4th, 5th and 14th amendment jurisprudence. Even though we use parallel construction concepts to manage evidentiary problems (such as inevitable discovery) that is simply not the same thing as hiding information from criminal defendants. To me this is unconstitutional absent further information.
We need both federal oversight and local civilian review boards with investigative power. Even if all the civilian oversight can do is send information to a prosecutor it would still be miles ahead of what we have now.
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
Not sure if this really belongs in this thread or the one on NSA surveillance, but the DEA is kind of straddling the line by both going crazy with surveillance and covering it up to prevent it from being barred as evidence in court.
Posts
is murdering the elderly some kind of new thing police do in their downtime to help morale? I can't go a god damn week without hearing about some new elderly victim, bedridden or incapable of being a threat to anyone, being murdered by police.
And they always have a knife that no one ever finds, and that only the police see.
Did he go to the TSA school of weapons identification?
Sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of Irishmen having their heads held underwater until they admit to being terrorists.
Also the background noise of the Met being well known to be absolutely bent as fuck doesn't help at all.
Hey, I saw at least one story of an old man carving wood with a real blade being shot in the back.
I understand full well that it's a natural human instinct, but it's one that they can be educated and trained to ignore. Until that time they can deal with the consequence that they're increasingly despised and feared by the general public.
How's that for 'empathy'?
You know who else used to justify themselves as protecting their people. All gangsters ever.
Ok, what do you propose as an alternative?
Modern civilized society without law enforcement just doesn't work. At some level, be it vigilantism, 'protection' rackets, private security / military, civilian law enforcement, military law enforcement / martial law, there will have to be some group responsible for maintaining order. Out of all possible options, I'd much prefer civilian law enforcement that - with all its flaws - is still better than the alternatives.
They had that quote in the article actually, but it was from an outside officer. something along the lines of "we dont have the whole story, anyone can be dangerous!". When theres a magical knife and walkers are left out of the police report, yeah.......
How about law enforcement where the enforcers themselves obey - as a matter of everyday practicality - the same laws we have to?
I mean just as a thought experiment it seems like that could work out pretty well rather than having this burgeoning Samurai class who are allowed to kill us peasants whenever they feel like testing out their weapons.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Maybe it's just middle class privilege talking, but I the real kicker for me is that gang bangers at least don't tend to fuck with people outside their territory. Sucks for those that live there, but cops are everywhere. Fucking everywhere. Their territory is "wherever you are, always."
Like, shitty as my neighborhood is, and it is, the only "gang" issue I see is a couple bikers from one of the high-profile gangs wearing their cuts. But I think they just live here, never heard of any issues.
Guess the cops have this block locked down.
Ok, so you aren't opposed to law enforcement and conclude that it's necessary. Your issue isn't with law enforcement itself.
Right now, in theory anyway, police are bound by the same laws as the rest of us, except where special accommodations legitimately need to be made for them to do their jobs. Police responding to a call turn on lights / sirens and legally run lights. Police can detain and arrest people they suspect of committing a crime. Police can carry guns in some places civilians can't. Police can use deadly force in circumstances civilians couldn't, etc.
Do you have any fundamental disagreement with the above statement or policies? In general, if those powers were never misused and only used where justified and necessary, would you still object to police having those powers / accommodations in the law?
This is a pretty fundamental part of issues people have with police. Are they opposed to law enforcement in general, or just abuse of power. If someone is opposed to law enforcement in general, there isn't much to debate / discuss. If someone is opposed to the abuse of power, even if they can make a compelling argument there should be certain checks on some of the status quo police powers, there is a lot to discuss.
Personally, I feel that a large number of abuses could be combated by a few simple steps.
First, the FBI or another Federal Agency should be mandated to audit all police departments in the country (and their disciplinary process / policies) regularly - every 3-5 years or so. They should investigate the local IA group to make sure that police misconduct is properly investigated and punished according to policy.
Second, the same agency should be mandated to complete a full investigation / evaluation of every firearm discharge by a police officer to determine if it was a justified / legitimate shooting, an accident, or misconduct that requires further independent investigation.
Third, that same agency should be empowered to investigate any reported Civil Rights / Liberty violation that is reported to them, including every death or hospitalization that occurs while someone is in police custody.
Forth, every police officer should be required to wear a camera / mic at all times when on duty, this setup uploads to a secure Federal data repository for investigation into police misconduct, and tampering with this device is a Federal felony.
Fifth, every police officer should be required - as teachers are in many states - to receive a set number of hours of 'continuing education' or retraining in areas where their department is lax or has violations annually.
Sixth, the findings of this agency should be reported / published regularly in a 'police corruption / misconduct' report.
While this won't fix everything, adding a layer of Federal oversight and always-on monitoring to all police activity would provide a huge chilling effect on many types of police misconduct. I'd especially like to see the above extended to Corrections Officers and people incarcerated in public or private prisons.
I think it would be a relatively expensive program, but if nothing else the savings in lawsuits / settlements would probably help cover a big chunk of the costs. Of course, big government, infringing on local police / sheriffs, etc...make a lot of those concepts infeasible.
Of course, that doesn't address the cultural issues surrounding police corruption. Like this evidence that should be immediately uploaded to a remote server being "lost" and such.
There are some credible issues that come up with putting a camera & mic on every officer at all times, but especially in an era where dash-cams are ubiquitous, I think it's inevitable and generally a step forward. Personally, I think it's a service that should be entirely in the hands of the Federal Government and tampering with those records should be a major Federal felony...but the way people shit a brick over any sort of government surveillance, I can see that's a non-starter.
So it'll probably be private companies who do it for many times the cost of a centralized national system.
It blows my mind that there are cases where a police can question a suspect in a police interrogation room, in 2013, and the officer's word is accepted as fact without supporting audio or video. Personally, I think that any - absolutely any - questioning should be recorded, and the suspect being questioned should have to be read and acknowledge that they are waiving their rights on that record.
When it comes to technical details like videos being 'lost' and such, I think there should just be a clear chain of evidence, and if stuff is 'lost', someone needs to lose their jobs and be charged with destruction of evidence or a similar crime.
There are a few feasibility issues with constant streaming - like rural areas without coverage - but I would think in most cases there could be a 'black box' that creates a buffer of the stream until a signal is available for an instant upload. It's not THAT much data, and in theory there could be a lower quality 'stream' and a higher quality 'record', so if the 'record' is lost or tampered with there would still be evidence. That alone would probably keep most tampering to a minimum.
I trust that said cops were brutally contained, gassed, beaten and given exemplary sentences ahahahahaha no seriously though
Of course I don't object to law enforcement. The whole problem I have is the existence of a large, powerful, armed group who are almost entirely above the law in practice. The fact that this group is the very organisation which is entrusted with huge powers to enforce the law, but which in practice substantially evades responsibility for following those laws themselves except for some (but not all) of the the most utterly blatant, uncoverupable incidents is the issue.
With respect to "disappearing evidence" of police misconduct, a simple rule that the penalty for losing that evidence in a case of misconduct is automatically cause for instant dismissal with loss of all accrued benefits and pension rights might work wonders. Even for "obviously" bent policemen I'm not in favour of presumption of guilt. But they can certainly be sacked for gross misconduct and incompetence under suspicious circumstances.
I was thinking about this just now and the Police have nice chunks of the radio spectrum devoted solely to their use. I'm already proposing a massive capital investment, what's a bit more?
I think most people don't oppose how law enforcement should happen in theory. How things are supposed to work de jure is not the issue. It's de facto law enforcement. To the layman it doesn't matter diddly squat what the laws in the books say, if in practice those laws are completely powerless, or enforced with glaring exceptions. In such a case the law of the land is not what is written down, but how it works in practice.
But really, the steps you outlined would be a good start for correcting the situation. I would add that the agency doing investigation of the police force should have minimal ties to the police departments in question. This would be in order to reduce both the reliance on the co-operation of the local PD, and to reduce possible conflicts of interest. The agency should also be sufficiently empowered that they could conduct said investigations without having to rely on the police they are investigating in any way. Earlier in the thread someone suggested compiling such an agency from lawyers and ex-military, as in such a case both the physical side and the legal side of relevant policework could be evaluated well without having to rely on former officers.
Yeah, there would definitely need to be major steps made to keep the evaluators isolated from the groups they are evaluating. You would pretty much have to create a IA type adversarial relationship off the bat between the local PDs and the Feds to minimize bias, but at the same time you would need cooperation to avoid being stonewalled.
There is also a big issue when it comes to Federal overreach...which, is going to be pretty intractable for all the people thinking FEMA is stockpiling bullets and that's why they can only buy ten cases of ammo at a time. The Fed can do a lot, but when every pissant rural sheriff across the country is going to make a name for himself 'standing up to the fed and their UN plot to take over bumfuck Wyoming', it's going to create some problems. Doing it as a certification system for Federal money may work - you've got the sweet sweet Federal money hose to shut off, plus insurance companies aren't going to provide municipalities without certifications liability insurance - hell, they might even put some weight on local homeowners / voters by charging highly elevated rates for homeowners.
One concern I do have - and no offense to the (ex-)military on here - is that I'm not quite sure I want the people evaluating acceptable use of force to be people whose primary experience / qualifications are surviving in a war zone. Spending a few years manning a checkpoint / riding in a convoy where any car that doesn't immediately follow orders is assumed to be a bomb doesn't tend to make people more critical of use of deadly force.
As for cameras, there have been camera systems built into radio hand mics for years.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
A lot of nations use young kids on their public service as police officers. While they are generally shit as cops, useful mostly for standing around making sure no one crosses police lines, their real utility is that they are part-time outsiders embedded in police culture. You are not going to bury your soul by keeping quiet for a temporary service job.
The U.S. could do the same, instituting a version of Teach for America for law enforcement. Let young kids spend a year working as a cop in exchange for college money.
DEA Group "Recreates" Investigative Procedures to Hide Sources of Evidence
I've cross posted that topic to the 'Surveillance' thread as I think it's pretty relevant there as well. Those revelations in that article - if they end up being supported - have really struck a relatively large blow to my position of (generally) supporting the US Government surveillance / intelligence activities.
Let's be honest - parallel construction has been going on for quite a while. Laundering sources is nothing new.
While that's true, the problem is that this is an actual government program dedicated specifically to that purpose.
It wasn't a butter knife, it was a foot-long butcher knife...probably whipped it straight out of hammerspace. Old people are magic like that.
- John Stuart Mill
They don't need swordcanes. One of them once pulled a quarter out of my ear.
- John Stuart Mill
I'm sure that only a tiny rogue minority are involved
Imagine the possibilities of a walker.
Well look at a bat'leth; you're practically there already.