Tearful Atlanta Cops Express Remorse for Shooting 92-Year-Old Kathryn Johnston, Leaving Her To Bleed to Death in Her Own Home While They Planted Drugs in Her Basement, Then Threatening an Informant So He Would Lie To Cover It All Up
I liked Radley Balko's headline for this story (about three Atlanta police officers who are going to prison) so much that I copied it above.
From the Atlanta Journal Constitution:
The trio of officers was involved in a Nov. 21, 2006, drug raid at the Neal Street home of 92-year-old Kathryn Johnston.Do you think they rooted all the bad apples off the force?She was killed by officers after they used a no-knock warrant — obtained with falsified evidence — to storm into her house in search of drugs an informant had inaccurately told them were inside. Apparently thinking the officers were robbers, Johnston fired a shot through the door. Officers responded with 39 shots, five or six of which struck her.
The officers initially sought to cover up their actions in obtaining the warrant, but their story eventually unraveled. All three pleaded guilty to conspiring to violate Johnston’s civil rights.
the latest
latest episodes
Remorse for getting caught, no doubt.
well, at least he said he's sorry, and after all, isn't that all that counts?
Guilty of violating civil rights? Not murder and falsifying evidence? Is that even a real charge?
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/distanceresult.html%3Fp1=25&p2=494
I dunno, could be the same guys, only 686 miles.
Only 39 shots at a 92 year old lady? They're giving overkill a bad name.
I'm sure they have a perfectly good explanation for their behavior.
I smell promotions!
I don't think I saw this in the article but was Kathryn's gun LEGALLY obtained? Did the police enter the house and announce who they were? Were the officers in plain clothes or uniformed?
I think if a situation arises where armed mem broke into my house I would have responded the same way. I would use my registered firearm to protect myself and my family.
i think the fact that they were fired on first, were officers, and thought they were dealing with a drug dealer means murder would not stick.
falsifying evidence though, that sounds about right. also, filing a false police report.
Lock them up......and in General Population...none of this "we -gotta-protect-them-because-their-cops" bullsh*t.
who says she fired first? Them?
Rem@7: And you'd be dead now too.
hey, doing better than Canada; those four RCMP that murdered the Polish guy at the airport all walked.
"who says she fired first? Them?"
You think it's more likely they were shooting her for the fun of it, and she managed to get a gun and return fire despite multiple gunshot wounds and the fact that she was 92?
Anyway, the particularly awful consequence of their corruption doesn't make their corruption any worse, but corrupt cops deserve to be made very public and very nasty examples of anyway. Which they have been, so all is well. They're going to be lifelong objects of universal scorn (as evidenced by this very headline), and they're about to have a *really* rough time in prison for the next few years.
Isn't the real silver lining here that one more nasty (albeit 92 year old) drug pushing fiend is of the streets? Isn't that what we here in America want, need from our law enforcers - to use their god given right to use whatever necessary force to keep those drug using scum buckets off the streets?
@ErikO23 #8:
It is my understanding that if someone dies as a direct result of a felony, the person who committed the felony can be charged with murder whether they intended that person to die or not.
Killing a woman in "self defense" during the commission of an illegal search should hold no more sway in court than if the police had been actual robbers.
All three pleaded guilty to conspiring to violate Johnston’s civil rights.
Not murder?
Not conspiracy?
Not falsifying evidence?
Not purgery?
Shameful.
These guys sound more stupid than corrupt. My dad is on the job and he always made that distinction: Idiots vs Crooked Cops. The idiots make a giant mistake and abuse they're power to cover it up, the crooked cops do it for fun and profit. These guys are clearly the former. Idiots straight up.
Either way the good cops want to get rid of both. Corrupt guys need to be in prison and idiots will get your ass shot (if they don't end up in prison/sued first).
but corrupt cops deserve to be made very public and very nasty examples of anyway. Which they have been, so all is well.
No, they received reduced sentences for a subset of possible charges.
Maybe legalization of all drugs used "recreationally" by Americans, and the social control of drug use by means other than armed force and the attendant deprivation of the citizen's job/liberty/money/family may be better, eh?
But the police don't agree, huh?
who says she fired at all? Maybe they put one through the door after they killed her and got inside.
Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown.
No, Moriarty, I'm pretty sure Takuan thinks (as I do) that it's entirely likely that the cops fired through the door multiple times, killing her. Then, when they discovered that their victim was a 92 year old woman, they pulled out their "drop gun", put it in her dead hand, raised it and squeezed her dead finger until the gun fired, making it look like she had shot at them.
Then they went ahead and planted the drugs to make it look like she had a reason to shoot at cops.
but...but that would be wrong!
#20 and #22
You beat me to it.
The only thing that surprises me about this story is that none of the cops were found to be high on amphetamines and/or PCP.
Which, I think, means someone forgot to collect urine samples.
Does that mean I'm cynical?
You can never get all the bad apples, there will always be some bad cops, but we should try to make sure the system isn't geared towards making them bad, or protecting them when they've gone bad.
I don't know if GA has a law that makes it legal to shoot at intruders in your home without recourse (I know FL has a law like that), but clearly that kind of law and no-knock warrants can't exist side-by-side without serious problems like this.
A guy trying to bang down your door in the night is always suspect, even if he says "POLICE! OPEN UP" as he's knocking down your door-- you can't see him, you don't know if he's a cop or just a criminal pretending to be one (and in this case both applied).
I know its fun to be cynical, but lets look at this from a different angle.
Are there shit bag cops? sure, lots of em.
But as a ratio of shit bag-to-honest citizen, I'd say that the cops are still way ahead of the general population. If you live in a major metropolitan area, there's no way you can dispute that part. The lowering of shitbag-to-honest-citizen is done through the screening and profile work that police departments do to screen their applicants (me included once upon a time).
So, if i have to arm a group of people to protect me (which i unfortunately do), then I'd prefer it were the people that went through the screening process at the police department rather than just a bunch of jerk offs with guns.
As this article proves, shit bags still get through the hiring process at some (if not all) police departments, but I'm not as pessimistic about the police as a lot of you apparently.
You know... all of these sorts of things are just so disgustingly horrible, it boggles a human mind. We should be using technology to collar public servants to insure that they are properly performing the job we are electing and paying for them to do. Why aren't all of our politicians and police wearing digital "lifecorders" that see what they see, and hear what they hear (and say) while they are on duty? They get back to the desk, it connects via secure bluetooth or miniUSB to a secured storage device with public key cryptography, and if ever something comes up that needs a second look, all we have to do is check the archived video/audio file for that day. No more blagojevichs, bushs, burisss, crooked cops, etc. And maybe shareholders will eventually demand that CEOs and their ilk sport the same tech while they are on the clock. WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY, LETS GET THE WILL AND DO IT!!!.... Why should we be the only ones to be constantly surveilled? There are way more of us then them, it makes more budget sense to tether them.
The civil rights charges are to keep it in federal court. In far too many cases, prosecutions in state courts resulted in perps being let off the hook by sympathetic local juries. The feds learned this one the hard way during the civil rights days of the fifties and sixties.
digital "lifecorders" that see what they see, and hear what they hear (and say) while they are on duty?
At the very least, police firearms should have video recorders that activate when drawn.
Any time the police do a raid, every cop on site should have a video camera on their police cap or riot helmet.
Tampering with the equipment should be an automatic prison sentence, and disqualification from ever being a cop again.
Tell Obama to put it in the next stimulus package.
The unfortunate thing here as far as we BoingBoing readers are concerned is that there very likely are no police/law enforcement people reading this list. If there were, not only would that be pretty enlightened of them, but they might be able to spread a bit of that enlightenment with other members of their profession. Wishful thinking I guess...
UPDATE: Via the AJC:
U.S. District Judge Julie Carnes sentenced former officer Gregg Junnier to six years in prison, Jason Smith to 10 years in prison and Arthur Tesler to 5 years in prison.
If you ask me, "shtbg" is an apt description of the sort of people who are attracted to law enforcement as a profession in the first place.
And the only thing unusual or out of the ordinary about this is the cops didn't get away with it this time.
@#7
"was Kathryn's gun LEGALLY obtained?"
that's really, really, really irrelevant.
"Did the police enter the house and announce who they were?"
TFA says it was a "no-knock" warrant.
_______________________________
Expect to see more of this sort of thing as officers are increasingly pressured to make arrests or risk losing their jobs. This kind of behavior is an unavoidable byproduct of an arbitrarily prohibitionist society, which is the root of the problem.
How much money is wasted putting Johhny Dimebag and Timmy Twolines in jail, from enforcement to prosecution to incarceration to the lasting negative economic effects inflicted on ex inmates? It drives me fucking nuts, knowing that you and I are funding this blatant violation of basic human rights - the right to own ones body - when there are many, many other better ways of distributing my wealth by way of force. If you're going to tax me illegally, you can at least do something CONSTRUCTIVE with the money.
I'm so sick of hearing about all the innocent people that have been killed in drug raids. It's good that people report on it, but I wish it never happened.
#3 posted by Phikus
From what I understand, the "civil rights" charge is one that's used by the feds when they don't think they can get any local yokels to press real charges. I believe the first use of that might have been with the freedom riders that were killed in 1963 or thereabouts.
Then again, I could be completely wrong.
Law enforcement is a very necessary thing, because not all people are reasonable all of the time.
It's just a real shame that the profession seems to attract criminals, much like the fire department attracts pyromaniacs.
Better screening of applicants, by individuals not already on the force, would be a good start.
#28 - That is such a great idea. Now, all we have to do is to get the elected leaders (who would, of course, wear these devices) to approve it! :)
@#37
I think not allowing the police to 'pick their own teams' is a wonderful idea!
and, actually, i think we ought to hold elections for the bastards.
#21 posted by shannou
Good timing! I just watched that Sunday night.
@ #30 posted by GregLondon
Hell, the cameras are small enough now that they can be placed right behind their badges and they can shoot through a small hole. Basically just a cell phone camera.
Atlanta isn't the redneck south of 1955.
The state accepted plea bargains for
manslaughter, violation of oath, criminal solicitation, and perjury charges from two of the cops and tried and sentenced the 3rd to 4 years for lying to investigators.
The family of the victim and the black community as a whole WANTED a federal civil rights charge IN ADDITION because they wanted the entire department and particularly the pseudo-military Red Dog drug unit investigated
#31: "The unfortunate thing here as far as we BoingBoing readers are concerned is that there very likely are no police/law enforcement people reading this list. If there were, not only would that be pretty enlightened of them, but they might be able to spread a bit of that enlightenment with other members of their profession. Wishful thinking I guess..."
With no disrespect to the enlightened ones who comment on BB, I think law enforcement folks who drop in on BB's posts and threads about their chosen profession would not be receptive to whatever wisdom is imparted since these small nuggets of enlightenment are wrapped in yards of contempt. The BB editors consistently chum the waters with Bad Lieutenant news items. Sadly, many law enforcement agencies are all too helpful in providing plenty of harrowing tales, as bad or worse than this one. I've never read a good cop story here, though some may have been posted. So, I agree, wishful thinking for sure.
No knock warrants should be illegal.
Hey it appears that some of your politicians do have sense, and are growing a pair. Link:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-pottax24-2009feb24,0,7534269.story
Too bad prohibition is profitable enough that funds for pro-prohibition lobbying groups are commonplace. (Hi prison guard unions! Hi jail owners! Hello pharmacos, hello brewers, hello distillers! hello, police "associations"[unions] , parole agents and drug-test-labs! And you sniffer-dog trainers, too!)
And anti-prohibition activists are subject to state surveillance, harassment and arrest.
D'ya think that that maybe dissuades some from expressing their sentiments on the issue in public outside the voting booth?
Nah....why would people be afraid of drug cops?
I think it's worth pointing out that there's a severe confirmation bias at work here. There are about a million cops in this country (by a fairly conservative definition of the term), which means that if the Internets are catching and trumpeting even a small percentage of the really truly rotten apples, then the police in general are actually surprisingly clean.
Of course, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be outraged what those seriously bad apples do, or give serious thought to what allowed the rot to take root in the first place. But if we're going to do that on the internets (all the while patting ourselves on the back for our Contribution to the Discourse) then I think we have to start by asking ourselves the questions:
Are police abuses the result of something inherent in the powers we grant the police?
If so, then we need to radically restructure the way we ask for our laws to be enforced, a change that cannot and should not come from police agencies themselves.
If not, then the problem is acute and not chronic, and all the talk of "eh, cops are corrupt" in the abstract is just a slur on people who chose a different line of work. It's one thing to say "this old lady got shot because 11 patrolmen, 2 sergeants, a lieutenant and the sheriff acted criminally, encouraged by sloppy management and a general disregard for ethics within this particular force." It's another just to say, "Ah, you know cops, I bet they planted that gun on her."
#43 posted by Teller
I agree with you. Although BB is one of my favorite daily sites (multiple times a day), I also don't consider it "fair and balanced." (180 degree reference to Fox news intended.) I count myself, overall, as a liberal, but I keep my eyes open and realize that liberals don't have everything right, nor do the conservatives.
There are good cops and bad cops, despite what some may say here, but the nine-to-five special forces wannabees need to go.
Without the drug laws, cops would have very little reason to raid anyone, except crooked business guys.
A lot of violence associated with drugs arises simply from the unavailability of the usual dispute resolution mechanisms in the drug business due to prohibition - which is the way the prohibitionists and the more brutal dealers want it.
The violence arises because there is great profit to be made - profit which is possible ONLY because of prohibition.
The policy clearly increases the level of violence in society, predictably causing a call for yet more cops, yet more prisons, ever-harsher sentences and fewer legal rights for the accused.
It's a policy that deeply estranges communities from the forces whose job os to protect people, not harass and punish people.
It's a vicious policy supported by the mob and the cops, only by those who profit from it, and those ignorant of the state of play on the streets.
Nobody else.
In 2009 ignorance is no longer an excuse.
Leagalize regulate tax and GENTLY discourage.
#47 posted by dbarak
In response to myself, and in all fairness to BB, I don't think there's any reason they need to be balanced, since they don't (as far as I know) claim to be. So I wasn't knocking BB.
Yeah a make-work program for police, cause there is not enough paid work for the rest of us.
Teller, there actually are a few law enforcement types here, although you are correct that most posters are pretty hard on them. The ones that stick around have thick skin I guess.
Although BB is of course just a list of stuff the boingers found interesting, and the rest of us just bats in their belfry, I think Mark is deeply concerned with social justice and wishes to bring greater public awareness to bear on systemic social problems. If we can agree that some thing is broken, that is a small step towards fixing it.
In the United States and the UK, where the principal boingers reside, there are many unjust laws. In order to be a policeman in these places, one must swear to uphold the law; not just some laws, but the entire body of the law. Therefore, a policeman must either lie under oath, or honestly intend to support an unjust system. Either way, they sacrifice any claim to morality when they make the oath. This is the fault of the society as a whole, since the UK and the USA are republics with elected legislative bodies that do not prevent dissenters from emigrating; we force all our policemen to become immoral as a prerequisite to service. The cure must be to eliminate unjust laws, not to demonize the police. I'm sure many of the police would like to be moral and ethical men, and honestly wish to serve justice.
But I should not speak for others, please do not take my words as anyone's but my own.
And hey these were bad cops but the system, the laws and the policies behind those laws, are what killed this old lady. That's what got these guys in her door, after all.
And in a democracy, where the people can influence and change the laws by their organized efforts, the inference must be that we are all responsible for this tragedy, and countless others great and small, scarring America's soul.
Speak out against prohibition and its violent enforcement. Demand an end to the killings, the violence, and the suffering and tears, caused by these ill-advised and manifestly unjust laws.
Ugly Canuck, incumbent politicians may also benefit from harsh drug laws.
A person taking illegal drugs is more likely to vote for legislative change than a person who only uses legal drugs. Therefore, depriving persons caught with contraband of their voting rights helps keep sitting legislators in power.
Or at least, that's what a local politician once told me. He also said that it's easy to defeat a political opponent in favor of drug legalization, you just dig up some horrific news story of a crime committed by a drug user.
Another vicious cycle!
@ #51 posted by Ito Kagehisa
I don't think anyone could have said it better than you.
Good night all!
Jeez, in my country we do not think that depriving people of their right to vote is a very useful way to get them re-integrated back into society, and thereby less likely to re-offend.
I am often shocked to learn how truly vicious and mean-spirited American drug laws and their enforcement are and have been.
But I understand that in America, the drug laws have an element of race entwined, so I guess it's another way for the fascists to try to keep liberty-lovers out of office.
Drug laws used to disenfranchise voters...how evil is that?
Ito Kagehisa wins my happy vote today. Thank you.
I personally need the police.
I am unhappy about the drug laws (and laws made to enforce them) in this country, but I also agree to abide by them, as the police do.
I just hope we can find a coalition of folks that agree to change the laws are better than to keep them.
A no-knock warrant issued on the residence of a geriatric woman.
Bravo.
Seems the judicial branch deserves at least some of the scorn.
I've never read a good cop story here
How many have you submitted via Suggest A Link?
Probably not. However, police abuse is a long tail phenomenon. A small minority of individuals are responsible for the vast majority of cases. Removing a few bad apples has a disproportionate effect. It's well worth doing.
This case reminds of one I read about some years ago. I think it was in Philadelphia, or at least reported by Philadelphia papers.
The cops were using unreliable informants - again. The informant gave them the address of a house which HE thought was empty because there was no furniture in it. However, in this case the owner had a messy divorce and his wife got the furniture - and he was still living there.
The cops bust in with their no-knock warrant. This time there is no gun involved on the part of the owner - he just makes a "suspicious move" and gets shot.
Then the cops leave him lying there for half an hour without medical assistance while they ransack the empty house for nonexistent drugs.
Unbeknownst to the cops, this guy is still conscious.
He overhears them discussing whether they should FINISH HIM OFF TO COVER UP THEIR BAD BUST!
In the end, they decide not to do that because it would be hard to cover it up WITH FIVE SEPARATE JURISDICTIONS IN ON THE BUST (local, state, Feds, etc.)
This is how your police work in this country.
Anybody who says most cops are clean needs to explain how the New York commission back in the '70's found out that every single cop in New York was on the take from somebody.
Or explain the LA house cleaning that involved cops faking charges, shooting people for no reason, etc., ad infinitum.
cp s PS.
"It's one thing to say "this old lady got shot because 11 patrolmen, 2 sergeants, a lieutenant and the sheriff acted criminally, encouraged by sloppy management and a general disregard for ethics within this particular force." It's another just to say, "Ah, you know cops, I bet they planted that gun on her.""
They may not have planted the gun on her, but they DID plant the drugs on her.
I would have to vote for systemic problems considering the frequency with which Radley Balko posts drug raid gone bad stories.
ANT:
Never submitted a single link.
Mostly I bitch.
Sometimes I praise.
C+ for me.
Ito Kagehisa, I know this is a nitpick, but the UK is a parliamentary constitutional monarchy, and not a republic in the common sense of the word.
Otherwise, well said etc.
@ RemTheWanderer:
I think if a situation arises where armed mem broke into my house I would have responded the same way. I would use my registered firearm to protect myself and my family.
You forgot one detail: you'd be dead and if your family had been with you in the house they'd be hurt too, for the least. Not fun.
Which would not have likely happened if you didn't have a gun in the first place; still it's your choice.
But more than anything else this would not have happened if more people understood that civil rights come before stopping crime at all cost exactly for protecting the innocent.
@ #62 posted by Richard Steven Hack
"A cop is a POS."
Blanket statements like that pretty much invalidate anything else you have to say. Like I was discussing with a friend earlier today, most people are too lazy to realize the world is various shades of gray, not black and white. I think you might be one of those. Don't get me wrong, the actions of the Philadelphia mentioned makes me want to go berserk (paraphrasing Billy Jack).
Aside from all that, after having read the CNN article, this tidbit stood out:
"Prosecutors have said that the officers regularly presented false information to obtain warrants and that they cut corners to make more time for lucrative side jobs providing additional security to businesses, often while on duty, and receiving cash payments."
I have found a disturbing trend of this kind of thing going on, with police officers and firefighters scratching to pull in any extra cash they can, often skirting on the edge of being ethical or just plain silly. Not ALL, not MOST, but some of them.
While I was looking up my Billy Jack quote, I found this other quote from that series of movies:
Billy Jack: You're illegally on Indian land.
Mr. Posner: I'm sorry about that. I guess we just got caught up in the chase and crossed over without knowing it.
Billy Jack: You're a liar.
Mr. Posner: We got the law here, Billy Jack.
Billy Jack: When policemen break the law, then there isn't any law - just a fight for survival.
Let's just be thankful that we live in countries where an event like this makes headlines, and dirty cops are imprisoned.
In Mexico, the penalty for a crime often amounts to how much cash you can scrape up. I know; BT/DT.
Ugly Canuck said:
Hell yes.
Treat substance abuse as a medical condition. Decimate organised crime.
when did cops become the jailers of society anyway?
What comes through more than anything else is their sense of entitlement. I'm at the point where I think I might be better off buying a gun and doing my own policing. Let them shift for themselves.
hey troofseeker mexico needs to legaliZe drugs more than America does. Link:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123518102536038463.html?mod=most_emailed_day
Note the part about Latin American leaders not being able to afford the "War on Drugs" and asking that the US consider decriminalizing or legalizing drug use.
Typical of the Wall Street journal, that info is buried down about three paragraphs from the end.
It should also perhaps be noted that President Calderon of Mexico, who vastly escalated the violence of this "war" by sending in the Mexican Army (a future model for the USA in this regard?) took power in a close and disputed election - and that his escalation of violence against "drug lords" has made US Drug Officials "ecstatic".
Well I cannot let the WSJ have the last word on this.
A better source, a better link:
http://www.narconews.com/Issue55/article3393.html
This is a story about far far more than just these creepy thug cops in Atlanta: the "war on drugs" started by President Reagan has caused and is causing some very serious and unnecessary death suffering destruction and subversion: the traditional American media (all forms, alas) have not been helping to improve things, having for the past forty-five years(!) without exception (!) reported the cop/prohibitionist side of the story as the revealed and unquestionable word of God.
The internet is changing this. Too bad some good newspapers won't survive:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Troubled-San-Francisco-paper-apf-14459128.html
The war on drugs - what a waste!
PS The vast flood of unregulated and untaxed money in the drugs business has not been good for business, at all. It's got more to do with the current economic crisis, I think, than many realize.
The "over-profit" brought on by prohibition has subverted the economy, I fear.
Even worse, drug money polticos won't legalize (that would hurt their sponsor's profit), they'll just look the other way as far as their sponsor's business is concerned, and use the police to dispose of any rivals or independents that may come along. But be sure the "war on Drugs" will be a big big part of their public platform:
they will look on the surface like moralist Republicans, talking the talk, but the $$ comes from...
jeez, am I describing Mexico, or America?
#37 - it's an interesting idea. I think external / independent review boards are not always in place - I remember when I lived in Victoria, BC, the police had some crazy system where they basically just reviewed themselves.
@ #70 posted by robulus
RE: "Treat substance abuse as a medical condition. Decimate organised crime."
I agree with you, although there's always the problem of...
...our broken (semi-broken?) healthcare system.
Oh and here's what the WSJ was burying, perhaps because this did not make US Drug Agents "ecstatic" (click on heading "Drugs and Democracy: Towards a Paradigm Shift" to download English language pdf of the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy report) :
http://www.narconews.com/en.html
Oh and here's a link to the Canadian Senate's report which unanimously recommended the legalization of marijuana, after many many months of hearing evidence. Link:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/Committee_SenRep.asp?Language=E&parl=37&Ses=1&comm_id=85
US Drug Agents were most definitely not ecstatic about that one, either.
It wouldn't impact my life much, but if we could swap our liquor laws with our marijuana laws, a lot more people would be alive in the morning. A lot of innocent people.
40 years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Dain_Commission_of_Inquiry_into_the_Non-Medical_Use_of_Drugs
That's right tak: the "solution" has been known for decades, but the fascists get rich ruining people's lives. And the media has been cheering them on, every step of the way.
@Dbarak
We would have large funds freed from law enforcement and incarceration that could be redirected to health.
@ #80 posted by robulus
True enough, once we get past all the law enforcement lobbies, etc. It makes me weary just thinking about it. Sometimes I'm thankful I'm a bit past the halfway point of my probable lifespan.
Oh shit yeah. I mean, I'm in Australia and I'm not holding my breath. In the US? The bullshit you'd have to get through... my brain hurts.
92 years old and still able to shoot back!? Cool! As far as the cops - They're after drugs and money because it enables them to seize the money - 60% of which they get to keep (by law) to buy cop toys with. Sometimes they pocket it before it gets to a legal account. Also easy money.
Of course, in prison their cop butts will be cheap. Can you say "bitch"? Yeah...last thing you want to be in jail is a cop. Kinda like being lubriglide at an orgy. Yeah...they'll pay. One way or another. The tears weren't for the old woman...they were for what they know is coming. Pun intended.
Sounds like the movie Training Day.
the more I think about it... what have the cops done for me? Car theft? recovered after the fact, insurance paid damage, no charges even though they knew who took it... robbery and assault of family member? ..zero results... burglary, theft from property , theft from cars...all zero results, good for nothing but a case number for an insurance claim - after a long wait in many cases... gang war in the streets... obvious corrupt politicians unarrested and uninvestigated...police brutality, murder by arrest, murder in custody...police investigating themselves..never around when I had to fight in defense...
nope, all in all, they might as well not be around and certainly don't justify what they cost me in value received. And when I factor in what trouble they cause me in enforcing bad and corrupt laws about victimless "crimes", I'm not impressed.
ryuthrowsstuff @17
If they were just dumb cops trying to cover up their mistake, why did they come into the house carrying drugs?
They were already planning ahead, carrying phony evidence just in case they needed to plant some. That's not dumb, that's evil to the core.
http://www.vancouversun.com/Column+Mountie+displays+ugly+attitude+when+apology+order/1325233/story.html
@ #85 posted by Takuan
Good points...
So what now? You people are depressing me. ; )
whip their masters
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126953.300-editorial-drugs-drive-politicians-out-of-their-minds.html
Robulus: don't forget the tax revenues, which depending on the form of the roll-out of legalization, could be quite large in toto.
I've always been amazed at both the costs of prohibition/enforcement, as well as the aggregate sums expended by the users.
Well, maybe the time has come to get some of that money, from both sides, flowing into other, better uses.
Without legal sanctions upon cultivation, sale or use, the price of Abe Lincoln's "sweet hemp"'' would plummet (in fact, I think that use over time would also decline - that "forbidden fruit" factor plays a role in enticing the new users, you know.) I mean the stuff grows like a weed, in some places. But the better store-sold stuff would carry a tax, to be sure. BUT
there would be far less benefit or revenue if it's only some sort of quasi(or mock)-legalization, with monopoly-licensed growers or monopoly governmental distribution and such.
Many will/would try to wreck legalization (just as Republican politicos will try to wreck Obama's economic programs) by festooning it with conditions, etc, etc, and attempting to charge a black-market price for crappy gov grown weed - as the gov of Canada is attempting to do with its med marijuana program. Such zeal makes me suspicious as to why the politicos want to keep the price of weed high.
This is why the Canadian Senate recommends outright legalization, so that prohibitionist dead-enders do not try to intercept or obviate the benefits of legalization by imposing costly conditions.
The savings from law enforcement would take longer to realize, as the surplus personnel would take some time to pension off. One hopes that narcs could be re-deployed to other uses.
As to total savings on this point, it is tough to say, but in my relatively peaceful and largish Canadian city, 40% of the charges laid by the local police were classified as "Other", and since drug crimes were not listed amongst the assault/theft/murder/fraud stats, I'm guessing that the bulk of that 40% was drug-related.
Nevertheless, being human resources, the police forces will take some time to re-adjust their levels of staffing. And the tasks that remain will grow to fill their available time.
But the bottom line is that it is difficult to envisage a repeat of this tragedy in Atlanta in a situation where drugs are not illegal.
My moral "bottom line" is that the lives lost in the War on Drugs are not worth "it" - whatever "it" may be. ("it" currently appears to be the maintaining of huge profits for criminals, or other unstated (secret?) goals, which do not merit the State sullying itself by adopting un-necessary and unjust Criminal Laws: it does not appear that the protection of the subject from harm caused by malicious others is the primary goal of these laws).
Indeed, it is hard to find ANY situation, outside of the exceptional circumstances of actual warfare, where the loss of life can EVER be said to be "worth it" -if for example a soldier, by sacrificing herself, thereby saves her Company. And even in War, that statement is very questionable. Of course, that statement can never apply to the loss of innocent life.
Ah yes, a carefully chosen phrase, the "War on Drugs". Wonder if ben Stein coined that one for Nixon? Maybe Pat Buchanan...As a matter of course, it is expected that people will die in a war. "How dare you question our war, how dare you disparage the sacrifices of our brave dead police officers!"
But mostly this war kills civilians, their hopes and dreams, and vitiates their happiness and ease.
As Iggy Pop said:
They took something that was alright
that could have been nice
and they made it ugly.
So damned ugly....
Good New scientist link, Tak.
An "implacably hostile" press got the Brits to reverse their de facto legalization, even thought it reduced the public's use, eh?
If they continue to set their face against needed and beneficial social changes, the old mass media cannot die soon enough. And they have the gall to pose as the "guarantors and watchdogs of liberty"! More like the stokers and keepers of the hell-fires of ignorance, violence and fear.
heh! a new title for whoever leads the DEA: "The Whore of Drugs".
@26 No. not really. Germany has kind of no-knock warrants and very strict self-defense laws. Strict in the sense of "Aw, poor burglar got shot? His problem". Seems to work fine for now.
It happens on a daily basis.
The words they like to use are "guilty of no wrongdoing" or "justifiable homicide" etc.
They are nearly all corrupt. They may start out with the greatest intent then after a few years of brainwashing into "the force" mentality combined with constantly dealing with shithead real criminals and possibly counting on a fellow "brother to save your life. Lets just say strong ties bind.
Then couple that with those that specifically went onto the force to be corrupt or to have control of his fellow man and you have a very bad recipe for protecting citizens.
People wake up, things really are getting bad, the government is going broke as well. The same way that companies are now constantly screwing customers and raising rates, the government will do the same and find ways for you to rely on them. Expect more intrusions into your life, Expect your first driving ticket in 40 years of driving, expect to be treated as though your rights are long gone. Expect that you can be killed in your own home and your dog shot dead, by the people paid to protect you, and it wouldnt take much effort to cover it all up like these "brave men" attempted to do. So that on your death bed you will be considered a criminal and drug dealer, no matter what kind of person you really were.
Until they prosecute police to the fullest extent of the law every time, they will continue to kill innocent people and get paid leave. There was a fell in a town near me that went into the police office to file a complaint about an officer, he was detained for many hours, he was threatened, then thrown out and harassed after that prompting news attention.
Hmm...it seems the use of the word "war" has caught the attention of some heavy-duty people, and they notice that it leads to less respect for human rights: they are discussing the mentality of the "war on terror", but it certainly applies mutatis mutandi to this situation in Atlanta, and to the way the US treats drug users generally.
Like the Best Picture oscar-winner the "French Connection": all drug users are treated as animals, without rights of any kind...and the audience cheers.
Link:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090224.wterror25/BNStory/National
s
My guess is US "Big" Media (getting less "Mass"-y by the day) won't even bother to report that this point of view on the use of the "war" metaphor in public policy discourse even exists.
92 years old and bowing out of life in a gunfight with the cops. All other things being equal, that's kind of the way I would like to go. Except the drugs would be mine and I'd want to be shouting "come and get me copper".
yes Parkingtigers, so long as the gunfight was with bad rotten killer cops: that's the good fight.
IIRC, they were able to confirm that she fired first because she managed to hit at least three of them before being killed, or, at least this is what was reported at the time. I don't know if this information held up.
But still, these cops (not all) are straight-up dicks.
Wow you shoot a white woman and they catch you right away, but if you shoot a innocent black man they don't want to press charges like the BERT officer that shot a 24 year old black man in his back, while handcuffed. They even went out of their way to cover it up. God thing someone caught it on charges, and the public raised and forced the cop to turn himself in.
I think the likely scenario is that the cops failed to identify themselves, or who knows perhaps the 92 year old had bad hearing who knows, not that big of a streach.
If we assume that either one is true, it is also pretty reasonable that she fired first, and the resulting hail of gun fire from the police would be then justified before even seeing who is shooting at them.
The burning question I have is if the 92 year old didn't have a gun would she be alive today. She wouldn't have been able to shoot, the police would have not have responded, they would have opened the door, seen a 92 year old grandmother, said "doh", and went looking for their informant to kick his ass.
Guns are not necessarily good protection.
All cops are bad, or thoughtless stupid fools, if after witnessing the destruction of the War on Civilians With Some Drugs, is not openly working to legalize all drugs, or at the very least, working openly towards the decriminalization of all drugs.
I should clarify that I am not saying all cops are bad cops as in evil or corrupt, but all cops a bad cops if...
The cops are just lucky, really:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_Parasiris
This story reminds me of the racist policies enacted in Tulia, Texas. The war on drugs dropped federal dollars in this podunk town to get drug arrests up, regardless of the legality of those arrests. In Tulia, they were giving people life sentences for possession and they often had insufficient evidence. If you get a chance to watch this film, do it.
The war on drugs is a war on common sense and on the rights of citizens. I totally agree that these cops are only sorry that they got caught.
lessee, up to what now? Minimum twelve consecutive years of pot-smoking President, starting on another four?
@ darthvain - rtfp. especiually the "no-knock warrant" part.
They did not identify themselves.
We're starting to (once again) veer off into the land of stupid when people start suggesting that all cops are bad or that we'd be better off policing ourselves. Saying the cops do nothing good for me is not too unlike to saying that vaccines don't do any good based on the fact that you haven't seen any of these diseases they're supposed to cure. And then someone has a bad reaction to a vaccine and suddenly they're screaming that we should do away with all vaccines.
Seriously, what the fuck?
I've known many good cops, and more than few cops have publicly stsed that the drug laws have got to go.
But not in the USA, it seems.
And yes MDH in Canada we do try to achieve justice: we do not worship our police, they are civil servants just like teachers, or street-cleaners.
Our cops don't gun people down very often....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/deadlineusa/2009/feb/24/california-marijuana-legalisation-legislation
Continuing to do the same thing, but expecting different results, obviously doesn't apply, because they seem content with the results.
It just makes me wonder, how they can keep on doing what they are doing when it is so obvious not only it is not working, but it is destroying our country. Or maybe it is working. Maybe they are doing this on purpose to control or disrupt communities, because the only other answer is they are all stupid. Either way, taking part in this crime against humanity, makes them lousy cops and bad people.
Sure they are sworn to uphold the law, but how they do this is up to them. They can decide to speak out and conduct themselves in a more humane manner until the laws are changed. When their chosen job is destroying families, what kind of person thinks being a cop is a good idea.
http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/08/17/drugWarVictims.html
just how can police in most part today be distinguished from security guards for the wealthy and jailors for the poor? Where is there a functional difference? When corruption at all levels of the legal system from law-trade workers through to the politicians making the decisions is considered the norm, and the former working/middle class whose taxes paid for everything are vanishing, who will want to stay in an increasingly crooked game they have no benefit from?
GregLondon, the issue is far more nuanced than your "Land of Stupid" comment, or the comments you were objecting to. Must we cheapen the discourse?
Tell me what order you would see the police maintain, and why that is worth the price society pays. I am honestly interested in your viewpoint; what makes a cop different from a Blackwater mercenary? How can we preserve individual freedom when vendetta and dueling are outlawed, "the authorities" are empowered to shoot without warning, and police are able to easily control perceptions of who is and who is not a criminal, except in the most extreme cases (like 92 year old ladies)?
it boggles my mind how a country like the US that tries to export democracy and brags about the best costitution in the world allows for the atrocity that is the so called "no knock warrant". mix it with lax gun laws and it is an invitation or better a blank licence to cop corruption.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/blackwater_is_dead_long_live_xe.php
@ #110 posted by Takuan
"...and the former working/middle class whose taxes paid for everything are vanishing, who will want to stay in an increasingly crooked game they have no benefit from?"
I wonder if you're thinking what I'm thinking (or secretly hoping...)?
Revolution?
Ito@111: GregLondon, the issue is far more nuanced than your "Land of Stupid" comment, or the comments you were objecting to.
Richard Steven Hack@62 "A cop is a POS."
Exactly how nuanced is that comment, Ito? I say it's in the land of stupid.
If you're saying no comment critical of police is out of bounds, but calling blanket statements what they are is failing to see the nuance of the discussion, then you're no less fascist than the evil cops you say youre fighting.
Note that nowhere did I deny the existence of problem cops. But saying we'd be better of with self-enforcement and no cops is journeying into the land of stupid. Comparing all police to be no different than Blackwater is setting up camp in the land of stupid.
It's called "hasty generalization". You want to show some nuance then stop extrapolating the behaviour of all cops based on the ones that make the news for screwing up. You want to demonstrate nuance then maintain a distinction between some basic concepts like "some", "none", and "all". Some cops are bad. Some is not all. If you cannot maintain that distinction, then you're venturing into the land of stupid. Whether you're doing it because you have a grudge and want to make blanket statements or whether you're caught up in the moment and don't realize that you've collapsed "some" to "all", isn't my problem.
stupid is as stupid does. How you get to stupid is secondary.
Well now that there's a democrat in the Whit House the Militia movement is coming back....or is the Militia movement a front for right-wing republicans...funny they went away when Republicans were in power increasing Government powers.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/22/militias/index.html
violence! the Republican solution to all that is not cured by tax cuts for the wealthy...
One other OT observation.
I have often seen comments in net fora which give a lefty point of view and then insult the reader calling them "sheeple" or fools or some epiphet for not opposing the right-wingers, etc..
These are right-wingers, disguised as leftists, I think. An old old propaganda trick: have someone publicly set forth what is actually a good idea, and then add something which IS DESIGNED to make the reader/listener dislike her.
Never have I seen any advocate insult the Judge in order to have the argument accepted.
But I have seen a secretly film made by MGM using pro actors called "California Election News #2", designed to have the viewer vote for anybody but Upton Sinclair, the Democratic nominee for Governor of the State of California during the 1934 campaign.
These pro actors were presented in a series of "man in the street" pieces wherein they purported to give their preferences in the upcoming election.
Many would say they supported Sinclair, but then go on to add a "little something" designed to repel the average voter. usually, a statement like "I've always been a socialist" or " In Russia, those policies are working well" or the speaker would have a foreign accent, or otherwise have something "off" about them.
The point is arguments for the right policy (legalization) presented in an over the top or insulting way, is more than likely a plant by the prohibitionists. Or of the right in general.
Or, mutatis mutandi, pro-war, pro-cop, pro-oligarchy, pro-private health care.
To maintain in place policies which are inimical to the interests of most within a system of popular governance requires unrelenting and politically sophisticated work - propaganda and dishonesty in argument - more sophisticated I fear than the good-hearted populace attempting to participate in the debate realize.
Moral : Anyone who insults their audience, is in fact an advocate for the other point of view.
PS I would make an excellent cop, as I am suspicious by nature.
Greg London, I am sorry you do not wish to discuss the issues I have raised and feel the need to make false accusations toward myself. I hope you are happy in your black and white world.
@#115GregLondon
Thank you. Well said.
Ito, I am sorry you can't see comments that go over the line into hasty generalization territory.
#43: I've never read a good cop story here, though some may have been posted.
Funny. I've never met a good cop. It's nice to think they exist. Maybe they only work in the bad parts of town where people actually get hurt and where there are real crimes to be solved. All I can say is, I've never seen one. Cops, in my non-lawbreaking experience, exist to bully people (and GOD help you if you talk back to them), get their friends out of speeding tickets, and tell me to shift for myself those few times I could actually use their assistance.
revolution? Lots of people die in those. Nope, things are just going to crumble. The rich will have castles, the poor will have ghettos. The rich will use assassins, the poor, gangsters. What I wonder is what the former middle will do? They are the ones that NEED order and government. Money always puts you above those and not having any money means your life is short and little so who cares? The traditional go-to-war approach is out too. I have a great desire to see what comes next. It would be the first miracle I ever witnessed.
Ito, Greg: It's not the cops, it's the system.
The system is set up by politicians: sic 'em.
I like cops, but they are being called upon to enforce bad laws. Bad laws which by their nature lead directly to corruption amongst the cops and courts, wealth amongst the most vicious of the gangsters, and grief to regular people who just want to catch a buzz without having to suffer a hangover for it.
You know, grief and misery to people who are just looking for a little happiness.
Thanks, politicians! (Sarcasm)
Hey Tak if that's the case what explains the past two centuries of progress?
Giving up, are we?
define "progress"
It is all a question of persuasion: and neither insult, nor expressed despair and pessimism, nor the painting of events in excessively dark colors, persuades me of anything, except perhaps of the ignorance of the speaker.
A preachment without optimism and hope, is a preaching of the acceptance of slavery and despair (des-espoire).
People are people, not sheep, not worms, and tyhey are not bad.
how important are astronauts to you? To society? To humanity? Yes, in an abstract and critical way, very, very important. But in your daily life? For your continued safety, health, your very existence?
Have you ever actually SEEN one up close? Yet incredible effort was put into establishing their mystique through rigorous screening and selection. The Right Stuff. Role models, celebrities. Now they are more like plumbers, but still largely respected. What is the image of a policemen these days? Are the right people becoming police? Why isn't the office of policeman set at a high standard that automatically garners respect rather than the fear and contempt common today? What's more important?
UglyCanuck, I have seen enough police brutality in my life to fear cops more than criminals, and I find it difficult to like people who choose the career. Nonetheless, I still agree with you!
Moriarty, why is it "well said" when Mr. London's post is fundamentally ad hominem towards me? Do you find me so unlikable that you applaud someone rudely and self-righteously misrepresenting my views? If so, I think I might have to be proud of that... (^^) ...everybody's got to be good at something!
@ #121 posted by Takuan
Without a function middle class, where does that leave the prosperous end of the bell curve? I think that a more likely scenario would be that the wealth distribution to the middle class moves closer to poverty, and the face of middle class existence will change. For there to be an upper class, there has to be something there to keep them in that bracket - providers of goods and services - and that's where the middle class fits in. I think it will be an adjustment of the middle class, not an elimination.
Indeed Tak you are doing their work for them:
"All is woe, all are vile: therefore flee from thy fellows, and show not thy face: accept tyranny, for 'twas ever thus, it is our evil nature, alas!"
heh heh heh! And nothing changes, except for the worst, as people withdraw from participating due to attitude of pessimism and foregone conclusions, their learned hopelessness.
Progress is what has happened for the average Joe over the past 200 years: on every physical measure, there are more of us living better longer lives than ever before, all over the world: individual anecdotes do not change the big picture: the world is more civilized, we know each other better, great wars involving the whole globe every generation are a thing of the past.
Revolution? Hah! Who needs it?
Participation in the political process, face to face, not on the net, by more and more and more people, that is the answer to savagery: not turning your face to your monitor in your solitude and saying "Alas! All is in vain! Let us despair!"
Takuan, Progress: the ability for you to share your wisdom via this webernet thingamajig ;)
Ammiano wants to make marijuana legal in state (California)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/23/BAO416354C.DTL&tsp=1
Mr. London's post is fundamentally ad hominem towards me?
Ito, the quote I used wasn't your quote. you now seem to have dug in your heels that no statement can be too much criticism against the cops, no matter how outrageous, blanket, or whatever it may say.
a cop is a piece of shit.
This was presented as a statement of fact. An absolute statement that must apply to all cops. No qualification was given to say that some cops are POS and some are not. all cops.
Rather than engage in my point that such blanket statements start going into the land of stupid, you change the subject into a litany of questions about cops abusing their power. Thing is, I never denied that some cops abuse their power. That wasn't my point. My poitn was statements trying to make hasty generalizations about all cops are invariably stupid.
That isn't an ad homenem against you, unless you want to assert that all cops are evil or all cops are pieces of shit or whatever. And if that's what you're asserting, then you should come out and say that rather than trying to ask me leading questions that make associations between Blackwater and police, and implying such associations are true until I disprove them. You want to make the assertion, you have to provide the proof.
So, here's a simple questeion for you: Are all cops pieces of shit? yes/no?
"I have seen enough police brutality in my life to fear cops more than criminals,", well, yes, and main difference is that you are not automatically executed for defending yourself from criminal assault by a criminal.
@Jeff132, then you must feel very ill served indeed.
Remember, Tak, my position is that the drug laws lead us to this evil, in that they, in combination with human nature, lead inevitably to corruption.
The solution is to change the drug laws, which in our society entails persuading people that they ought to be changed, that it would be better for us all if they were.
This in turn means people must engage other people to so persuade them: something that is impossible effectively to do, if one has no hope of being effective. Certainly, the prohibitionists would rather that you did not even try.
You gotta think like a winner, if you want to win.
Violence and revolution on the other hand, the authorities know very very well how to deal with, and the public's face - anyone who has the smallest stake in the existing order - will be set to oppose such a course of action.
I have a problem with our drug laws. I do not have a "general" problem with the society of which I am a part. My reading of history has, on the contrary, convinced me that we are living in a golden age, which may get yet brighter, if people (including these cops) showed just a little (not a lot!) more good will and faith in their fellow man.
And if their fellow man is not worthy of such, or should stab Mr. Good Will in the back, that is not a slur on Mr. Good Will. Quite the reverse.
But people really do get along pretty well, provided the politicos are not allowed to pass grotesquely harsh and unjust laws straitening the liberties of their fellow citizens.
Also, those who say that the middle class is shrinking, just has not spent much time in China, India, or Brazil lately.
Just sayin'.
you don't really believe the planet holds enough oil and other resource to let even half the six billion inhabitants have a "middle class" lifestyle as defined by the West?
GregLondon asked:Are all cops pieces of shit? yes/no?
I reply: Not to my knowledge. I am not expert in the identification of either, but I do not believe this to be true.
I do not wish to converse at the level you want to inhabit. You are not making any points that are meaningful or useful to me; please go argue with someone else. I apologize for invoking your name in my previous posts.
I don't think it's a disappearing of the middle class, I think it's a shifting down of the middle class. I guess it depends on how you view it, by population or by wealth.
I think the middle class bulge in the bell curve is moving to the right as their wealth declines, leaving the midpoint of wealth less and less populated.
I wish I wasn't sick so I could concentrate better and expain more clearly what I mean.
Takuan, I don't feel ill served by your wisdom. Dude, you're gold. It is progress that we can come together and share like this, right?
#134: That isn't an ad homenem against you, unless you want to assert that all cops are evil or all cops are pieces of shit or whatever. And if that's what you're asserting, then you should come out and say that
Allow me to step in for Mr. Ito. The reason that bad cops are so hard to pin down and prosecute is that cops hate snitches. If a cop reports corruption and illegal actions of his co-workers, he soon finds himself harassed out of a job. So they keep their heads down and their mouths shut. Sometimes otherwise good cops will destroy or falsify evidence for bad cops caught with their pants down. I'm sure cop lingo has some special term for this. That's WHY these incidents have to be made federal cases; otherwise, the cops would just walk every time.
This means that nearly every existing cop is either corrupt themselves, or are accessories to corruption. So yeah, that's more than enough to justify blanket accusations. Every cop is a bad cop, until they prove otherwise. If they don't prove otherwise, you're dead and carrying some else's baggie of pot.
please go argue with someone else
dude, a couple of people make blanket statements about all cops, I point it out, you come after me, act like I'm making an ad hominem against you, and when you finally agree that the statement "all cops are pos" is false, you tell me to go argue with someone else????????
You're the one who started arguing with me.
beelz: This means that nearly every existing cop is either corrupt themselves, or are accessories to corruption. So yeah, that's more than enough to justify blanket accusations. Every cop is a bad cop, until they prove otherwise.
Ito, are you going to let the discussion converse at this level? Oh, wait, it was Ito who said:
Ito: I have seen enough police brutality in my life to fear cops more than criminals, and I find it difficult to like people who choose the career.
So there you have it. We go from Ito's anecdotal evidence to beelz's blanket statements that all cops are bad cops, until they prove otherwise.
Glad we could clear this up.
Beelzebuddy, Pal of The Darkness, I think the problem stems in part from the nature of the job. Cops always seem to fall into seeing the world as divided into other cops, scum to arrest and cattle to kick out if the way while arresting scum. It's understandable average folk learn to dislike cops because of the assumptions cops live under. Too many times have I been driven to barely concealed rage by the casual arrogance of baboons in blue suits who think themselves my better with minds barely able to think. That is why they should bring up standards.
"..you're dead and carrying some else's baggie of pot."
Hah! Well worded.
Cops always
Nice one, Tak.
the assumptions cops live under
not "some cops", just "cops", which means all cops.
Too many times have I been driven to barely concealed rage by the casual arrogance of baboons in blue suits who think themselves my better.
did they make a hasty generalization too?
with minds barely able to think
Think your mind could find the time to use a quantifier once in a while?
Ito@51: there actually are a few law enforcement types here, although you are correct that most posters are pretty hard on them. ... The cure must be to eliminate unjust laws, not to demonize the police.
that didn't take long.
well Greg, all I can do is base my opinion on cops on the cops I have met. Where does yours come from?
my mom used to be a deputy sherrif for a county that was mostly farmers. She usually worked in the office but occaisionally rode shotgun. Most of the time it was boring stuff, drunks, petty theft, vandals, check fraud. But there were the extremely rare murder in the area, armed robber, stuff like that. Once in a very, very rare while, someone in uniform got hurt, shot, attacked, or whatever. She was also a volunteer EMT for our town, since it was too broke to afford to pay for medics. She ended up being in charge of the organization for a few years. I have no idea how many calls she went on, but it was probably in the thousands. Thousands of lives that she helped.
So, not only did I know one cop, but I had at least passing familiarity with a whole bunch of them. It was generally a boring, fairly thankless job, but once in a rare while would require people to put their lives on the line.
And given that one instance to the contrary is all that is needed to disprove blanket statements, I can safely say that people who say shit like this:
"a cop is a piece of shit."
"every existing cop is either corrupt themselves, or are accessories to corruption."
"I have seen enough police brutality in my life to fear cops more than criminals, and I find it difficult to like people who choose the career."
"Cops always..."
Are talking out their ass.
As for BoingBoing, I don't have a problem with them reporting instances of bad cops. more power to them. I just wish they wouldn't drop these little ditties and then say nothing when idiots start extrapolating their own personal grudges into moronic blanket statements. But for all I know, maybe that's what they want.
Either way, I get a little tired of the stupidity.
Greg,
Growling and barking isn't a very good way to change anyone's mind. Please compose yourself.
so maybe cops were better a generation ago? I know society has changed. Maybe police did too.
Greg, how about: your proximity to those police-men and -women gave you a particularly one-sided experience of their work and how they carried it out.
Without saying a word against your mother as a person, do you know how she handled every job she ever went on? Do you have testimonials from all the thousands of people you say she helped in the line of duty?
I'd say there is a difference in slating the person, and the person's job (or how they go about it). And I'd say there is a difference in our experience of people on the job and off.
I quite mean what I said in #153 by the way. I have noticed a basic change in how police see themselves and I lay a huge amount of blame on a generation raised watching crap like Cops! and other faux-documentary shite. I'm particularly appalled that bounty hunter garbage is even permitted to air.
do you know how she handled every job she ever went on?
No, no, no. That's argument from ignorance. If you make the assertion that every cop is dirty, you have to provide the proof that every cop is dirty. You don't get to make the assertion, and then say it's true until I disprove it.
You're defending witchhunt tactics now.
It's actually a very simple point. If someone say "all" in reference to cops, they're probably wrong. So don't say "all". Don't say "every". And don't make unqualified statements like "cops are blah" which implies all cops.
If someone makes a blanket statement about cops, I'll call them on it.
so maybe cops were better a generation ago?
Tak, there has always been dirty cops. That doesn't mean all cops are dirty.
maybe there are less good and more dirty now then.
Oh, I agree, Takuan. I once saw part of the show "Cops" and was both enraged and sickened - the policemen who were shown snickering over harm done to fleeing suspects, the crying child being removed from a family because the mother had comitted a non-violent crime... I imagine a person raised on such fare would see police quite differently from someone who grew up with "Mayberry RFD".
I haven't seen the "bounty hunter garbage" you referenced (I almost never watch TV) but perhaps I should be glad I haven't!
be glad.
maybe there are less good and more dirty now then.
But "less" and "more" doesn't mean "all".
you and several other people made statements about "all" cops that were patently untrue. Not "some" cops, not "more" cops, not "less" cops, but "all" cops, every cop.
If people had clearly demarcated their statements by saying some cops are dirty, I wouldn't have said anything. But after pointing it out, and after having people like beelzebuddy@143 actually come out and attempt to justify making blanket statements about all cops, you can't pretend that everyone here was simply talking about "more" and "less" quanties of "some" dirty cops. That isn't how this went down. That isn't what I'm pointing out. It was clearly all cops are dirty. And that was what I was objecting to.
if we all agree about that, and I think we can, what then can be done about the current deteriorated state of the police?
Unfortunately, some people will have to throw themselves on this grenade, Taku-san. I am too old for it, so that's easy for me to say!
I know a man who left the ministry many years ago and became a federal agent. The other spies call him "Special Agent Pollyana". I admire him although I do not share his religious views; I think his rigid morality will protect him from the corruption around him, and his belief in salvation will let him recover if he ever slips up. More special agent pollyanas would change things for the better.
Perhaps the psychological tests for police work should include a variation on the Milgram experiments - if you are part of the majority of people who are not morally self-directed, you shouldn't be in law enforcement. Or maybe something like the tests Temple Grandin devised for slaughterhouse workers? I don't know, but I think it's something the whole world needs to be talking about.
my ideal of a policeman? Someone with character so unquestionable that seppuku is not just a word in Japanese.
if we all agree about that, and I think we can, what then can be done about the current deteriorated state of the police?
If we all agree about that, then we all agree on what the actual problem is, and from there, you might actually find a solution.
Me? I blame the voters and the people who don't vote. I blame the people who gave Bush an 80% approval rating the day he invaded Iraq. I blame the people who surrender liberty for the illusion of safety.
You want a solution? Educate the population. And if you want to educate the population, you've got to be able to identify the problem for them. And "All cops are corrupt" isn't the actual problem. Some cops are corrupt, and some voters think they need to be that way. Some Americans in the military commit torture and some American civilians think we need to torture.
Shine a spotlight on examples of real abuse and keep the conversation about it accurate. If someone starts going off about how all cops are dirty, the entire thread gets dismissed. The only people left reading are the others who believe all cops are dirty, at which point, you're preaching to the choir, and not actually going to solve anything.
Brutal honesty. Brutal accuracy. An unwillingness to allow the facts to be turned into a demonization of all cops.
I think the only way you're going to change the way the police (and government) operate is if you change what the voters will tolerate.
And yeah, there are some technical and procedural solutions. The gun cameras, I think, will be a huge improvement. I've seen cases where they would actually help the police convict a criminal because it would no longer be a "he said versus he said" contest. Procedurally, I know some cities automatically take any investigation involving a shooting by a city cop, and kick it up to the state level. stuff like that helps keep everyone honest, and filters out the cop tryign to cover something up.
The thing is, "who watches the watchers?" will never have a set, pat answer. There is no "just do this and it will all be solved" response. Who watches the watchers fundamentally comes down to the voters, and what they are willing to tolerate. Technical and procedural solutions help, but the police will do whatever the local population will allow them to do.
So, report bad cops accurately. Don't let someone with a grudge turn it into a witchhunt against all cops. Because that will only turn away the people who might otherwise do somethign about the problem. If you really just want to preach to the choir, and demonize all police, then fine, do that, but don't think you're doing anything to solve the problem. If you want to solve the problem, you've got to keep the message honest and to the facts.
Perhaps the psychological tests for police work should include a variation on the Milgram experiments - if you are part of the majority of people who are not morally self-directed, you shouldn't be in law enforcement.
I'm not sure how it could be implemented. I imagine that any test will have about it the notion that it isn't real and the only thing the cop-in-training is concerned about is passing the test.
I'm not saying it can't be done, but every test I can think of can be easily "gamed" by the cop being tested, simply by the fact that most tests would be known to be a test and not real.
Or maybe something like the tests Temple Grandin devised for slaughterhouse workers?
A quick google found Grandin, but no test.
The cops are on the tip of the spear, they meet the people, they see what these laws are doing first hand. Yet the vast majority not only remain silent, but support their brothers and sisters in blue at the expense of the people the are ostensibly paid to serve. This makes all of cops either co-conspirators or willfully ignorant.
These people accept the public's money, while using these laws to destroy families and confiscate property. Along the way they commit grievous bodily harm and murder, and are rarely held accountable.
As the old adage goes, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Every cop that does not speak out against these abuses, that exist in almost every department of any size, is guilty by association. Silence equals guilt.
This is why I can say, that with extremely few exceptions all cops, while not necessarily evil or corrupt, are lousy human beings who turn a blind eye to the suffering that feeds them and their families.
While their children rest comfortably in a safe home free from the threat of no-knock warrants and SWAT teams with flash-bang grenades, our families wait for the next mistake; a mistake that could leave any of us dead or in prison and our survivors, our children's, lives forever ruined without recourse.
If every cop lives in fear of returning home each night, I live in fear of every encounter with the most powerful, heavily armed, and best organized and connected gang on the planet.
I realize I'm pretty much walking into the lion's den, here, but surveillance of public places would actually make it much, much harder to be a corrupt cop, since there's an objective witness to everything. Not only would it be very difficult to falsely accuse, but it would also no longer be at a cop's discretion whether or not to let people (e.g., PBA card holders, guys in suits, pretty girls, etc.) get away with things.
Just sayin...
This makes all of cops either co-conspirators or willfully ignorant.
You could have just told the truth and said "I hate cops". But no. You have to cover it up with a layer of handwavium in an attempt to make it look logical, in an attempt to justify your own personal bias.
As the old adage goes, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
Thank you George W. Bush. If you're not with us, you're against us. So glad you could bring this level of nuance to the conversation.
This is why I can say, that with extremely few exceptions all cops, while not necessarily evil or corrupt, are lousy human beings
Why you can say that is because you don't feel bound by the facts. Your personal bias against cops gives you the "truth" that "all cops" are evil, and then you go and find some words to try and justify it.
Congratulations, you're running a standard play G.W.B. used to get America to believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, facts be damned.
Fear, anger, gives your version of reality, and from there you dress it up so it doesn't quite look like the obvious harlot it is.
Seriously, is this the kind of bullshit that BB wants to propagate? All cops are evil?
If so, lemme know and I'll stop fighting the inevitable and you guys can get back to your cop-bashing frenzy.
Greg, don't back-paddle now. We make progress together one baby step at a time - or we don't make progress.
Yes, Moriarity, I kind of like the cop-cams, although I am somewhat less enamoured of total surveillance schemes like Britain's.
I was reading something... hmmm... Scott Westerfeld maybe? A future society where total surveillance was implemented, with global access. So, it wasn't just cops looking for victims (preceding phrase soon to be misinterpreted), it was everybody watching everybody.
In the story, the amount of information being gathered immediately outstripped the number of available interested and unbiased eyeballs, so that nothing changed on any large scale. Only very clever hackers could get past the indexing issues and retrieve anything useful.
PBA cards? Is that like a Jersey "Get Out of Jail Free" card? I used to get one of those every Christmas from a cop in New Jersey (dead now) who owed me a favor. I almost never go there, and never needed to use a card when I did, so I have a small collection of them somewhere. I never liked the whole concept.
there are police who speak up against the Waronsomedrugs Industry. They know what is going on and speak against it. I'll credit those their due.
http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php
"PBA" stands for "policeman's benevolent association" or "patrolman's benevolent association," and is the name of various police labor unions. If you have a card, it means you are or were at some point a cop somewhere, or are at least related to one. The theory is that if you get pulled over and happen to let said card show while retrieving your driver's license, you're much more likely to be "let off with a warning."
Traffic cameras, on the other hand, don't seem to care...
@greglondon - the conversation went south at 117 where you basically said that if ITO disagreed with you then he's a fascist.
@ITO - I want a world where police arrest other police about as often as they arrest non-police.
When I was much younger, my girlfriend's mother was let off for running a red light when the officer who pulled us over noticed her father's deputy sheriff uniforms hanging in the window.
The cop was actually pissed, because she did not know to mention she was married to a law enforcement officer, before he wrote the ticket. He told her to always mention this as soon as the officer came to the window.
In the same time period, I picked up a friend, who was African-American, from college. When we were pulled over for some minor infraction, for which I did not receive a ticket, he was the one asked to get out of the car for searching. He was used to being treated that way.
I did not say all cops were evil. What I am saying is there is an obvious and very serious problem in this country that is destroying families and our society. Cops are responsible,in part, for this problem and completely responsible for how they are perceived by the citizenry.
Cops will rarely testify against each other of their own free will. Cops are rarely held accountable for their crimes, I mean mistakes. And cops rarely speak out openly, in uniform, about the abuses in the system, the failures of the system, and the destruction the current system leaves in its wake.
They are either complicit, incompetent, negligent, or willfully ignorant. At any rate, as I said before, "This is why I can say, that with extremely few exceptions all cops, while not necessarily evil or corrupt, are lousy human beings who turn a blind eye to the suffering that feeds them and their families.
Please stop misquoting or misrepresenting comments that were carefully constructed to allow for the few, and we know they are few and far between, who may, once in a while, speak out or encourage their fellow officers to respond in a more humane and ethical manner.
People fear cops, not because of some advertising campaign or urban legends, but because of the reality of abuse, corruption, and the fact that in most cases when a cop does get caught, usually only after someone has been killed, they are rarely given much more than administrative leave or reassigned. And let's keep in mind in almost every conviction, there is evidence of a coverup that often extends beyond the officer/s charged.
The cops are directly responsible for the us against them mentality on both sides of the street. The cops are directly responsible for the lack of trust in the non-white or poor neighborhoods. They are the only ones who can fix this problem, and that will only happen when they decide to behave, at every encounter with the public, in an ethical manner that designed to rebuild the trust required if a free society is to remain free and just.
@greglondon - the conversation went south at 117 where you basically said that if ITO disagreed with you then he's a fascist.
Yeah, you're right. No one went over the line before that moment. Thanks for pointing that out. Glad we could clear that up.
Please stop misquoting or misrepresenting comments that were carefully constructed
carefully constructed?
to allow for the few, and we know they are few and far between, who may, once in a while, speak out or encourage their fellow officers to respond in a more humane and ethical manner.
Ah, well, if you said it, it must be true, right?
So, let me just unwind this carefully constructed little gem of yours.
Every cop either witnesses inhumane and unethical treatement by their fellow cops or commits inhuman and unethical treatment themselves?
Every cop. In every precinct. In every city, state, county, no matter where they are in the United States?
And the fact that only a few speak out is PROOF that every cop is guilty of complicity by their silence?
Couldn't be that there isn't anything to speak out against, right? Can't be that? Must be something going on in every fucking city, state, county in the US, right?
Every cop is a lousy human beings who turns a blind eye to the suffering that feeds them and their families, because every cop either causes suffering or sees suffering and turns a blind eye to it?
And the ONLY EXCEPTIONS to these horrible human beings are the cops who actually come out and speak up against the inhumane and unethical acts going on in EVERY DEPARTMENT IN EVERY PRECINCT IN EVERY TOWN IN EVERY CITY IN EVERY STATE IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.
Silence is guilt, because there is something inhumane and unethical going on everywhere.
Did I properly parse this carefully constructed point of yours????
EVERY COP IN THE NATION is guilty of committing inhumane and unethical acts or is at the very least guilty of seeing inhumane and unethical acts and saying nothing about it? The ONLY ONES WHO ARE NOT GUILTY are the very few who speak out about the inhumane and unethical actions that their fellow cops are committing or witnessed and remain silent about?
That is what your "carefully constructed" comment is saying, isn't it?
Ah, yes, Moriarty, it is the same thing. I just found one from 1993, and it says PBA right on it.
The policeman who gave me these every year made christmas donations to the PBA widows & orphans fund to get the cards. If I got caught speeding or otherwise breaking the law, I would simply give the policeman this card with my drivers license, and (assuming there were no outstanding warrants for my arrest) the card would be confiscated and I would be permitted to depart unmolested. I never had cause to use one, so I still have them.
I will type in the text of the card here, what is still legible anyway:
==FRONT OF CARD==
New Jersey State Policemen's Benevolent Association
Frank J. Gini??
President
1993
Drive Safely
Save A Life!
==BACK OF CARD==
Approved by: (signature of dead man)
POLICE OFFICER
PRINCIPLES
The bearer of this Safety Card has been cited as a safe and courteous driver of motor vehicles and is pledged to cooperate with the Policemen's Benevolent Association in their safe and courteous driving campaign. This card is subject to forfeiture for any violation of the Motor Vehicle Laws of this State.
Delegate's Signature: ?illegible?
Signature of Bearer: Ito Kagehisa ^^
This card is the property of the New Jersey P.B.A.
(there is also a tiny logo that looks like a union print shop marker in the bottom right corner)
perhaps instead of starting from opposite ends of the field and charging at full speed head on (which is always fun, bloody, spectacular and frequently ultimately unfruitful in reversing entropy) we could assemble at center field and at least agree on a direction to face? For starters?
Takuan, thank you for the LEAP link. I was unaware of their existence. Hmmm, they take paypal donations!
MDH, I'd like to see a world where police officers would not deserve to be arrested, but your vision seems like a step in the right direction.
PS: Greasemonkey is your friend http://www.boingboing.net/2008/01/16/greasemonkey-script.html
we could assemble at center field and at least agree on a direction to face? For starters?
Several have made clear that the direction to face is "all cops are evil" or some variation thereof.
BoingBoing, while not actively encouraging it, certainly isn't discouraging it either.
Joe@33: If you ask me, "shitbag" is an apt description of the sort of people who are attracted to law enforcement as a profession in the first place.
ito@51: a policeman must either lie under oath, or honestly intend to support an unjust system. Either way, they sacrifice any claim to morality when they make the oath.
richard@62: "A cop is a POS."
Anon@94: They are nearly all corrupt
beelzebuddy@122: Cops, in my non-lawbreaking experience, exist to bully people
Ito@129: I find it difficult to like people who choose the career.
The only comment that got disemvoweled was richard@62. The "shitbag" comment @33, all immoral comment @51, all corrupt @94, all bully @122 remain.
It seems to me that Mark Frauenfelder and BoingBoing are clearly fostering a certain kind of response with these threads.
The only comment that got disemvoweled was richard@62. The "shitbag" comment @33, all immoral comment @51, all corrupt @94, all bully @122 remain.
I dv'ed one line in one comment that was just rude. You're free to politely disprove the others' contentions or to click the eyeball and explain why you feel that they should be censured. If you read my personal comment history, you'll see that I've defended the police on several occasions. I think that demonizing a whole class of people is unproductive, but if the police in general have made themselves the targets of widespread fear and hatred, it's their problem to solve.
click the eyeball and explain why you feel that they should be censured
Seriously? I have to explain why the "shitbag" comment should be censured?
I think there's some pretty bad sentence construction in there, I hope it is not gibberish.
how about that? The wrong people are becoming police these days. Is that a defensible proposition?
If agreed, why? how? What can we do to change it?
But that is harder still, Taku-san!
Greg, I totally didn't mean to jump in on the side of ALL cops are scum, and I'm sorry for giving that impression.
I was just offering the possible flip view to your own experience of 'good cops'. I was suggesting that hating cops doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the person out of their uniform, just who they are when they are going about their duty. You knew the people, not their official actions.
As others have said, bad laws make bad cops (besides the actual scumbag ones); it is possible to hate the office, besides the officer. And also possible to be so completely blinded by your actual experiences of police, for your view of the office to be permanently coloured.
If horses keep kicking you, it is understandable that you don't like horses.
However, I don't want to add any more fuel to an already heated chat.. I jumped down here from your reply to me, way, way up there just to say this.. and this conversation is obviously still going on, all the way down here, and long past my ken..
I'm OUT! :)
expressing anger clears resentment and opens the path to thought instead of reaction. So long as we know when to stop with the anger and resentment.
tak: The wrong people are becoming police these days.
The US military has been lowering its recruiting standards recently:
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/army_recruiting_standards/2007/10/28/44647.html
I don't know if the same lowering of standards is taking place with the police.
I think there was a recruiting surge right after 9/11 for the military. Don't know if the same can be said for police.
A lot of people (voters, nonpolice, and cops) equate power with safety. A lot of people see checks and balances against abuse of power as nothing more than roadblocks that keep good people from arresting the badguys. How many movies, TV shows, etc, have the cops fail to nab a guy because they couldn't get a search warrant? Couldn't eavesdrop on someone? Couldn't torture someone? Or have the bad guy get off on a technicality because the cops didn't follow procedure?
Even Obama is probably going to have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to get him to push for criminal and war crime investigations into the Bush administration. Probably because a lot of people think a little torture is OK if it makes them feel safe.
Which means you have to present internal investigations as not sacrificing security, as seeking justice, as rule of law, and absolutely make sure it doesn't come off as some kind of vindictive witchhunt. 'All cops are shitbags' is not going to get a lot of support.
Maybe make it into a movie:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079294/
Does federal money go to state and local police in any way? Maybe come up with some federal standards for police procedures and tie it to federal money. jurisdiction is a problem, but it would be nice if you could have a federal agency review the local cops whenever a shooting takes place. The locals have incentive to not find anything wrong due to potential lawsuits. City hall doesn't want a lawsuit and doesn't want the bad press for the mayor. You need an organization that isn't worried about getting sued if they find something wrong, an organization who isn't dependent on the Mayor for their budget.
Right now, about the only way to kick something like this to the federal level is a civil rights lawsuit. There isn't any way to get a federal investigation of criminal charges when the event takes place within state boundaries.
If the victim could sue the state for violation of civil rights unless the state investigates the local/city police, that would be one way to kick it out of the local internal affairs unit, local politics, and local budgets, and local lawsuit concerns.
Otherwise, local IA investigating local cops is always going to be problematic.
the Obama administration has declared its intention to rebuild faith in the country. A new federal body independent of the FBI for general investigation and review? It shouldn't be that expensive to run since its people need only be investigators of police. A pitch for this with the backing of organizations like LEAP? Sell it to the police of the nation as something that will restore respect?
It could start with the DEA and work down.
A new federal body independent of the FBI for general investigation and review?
Yeah, but how do you address the issue of jurisdiction? Feds can't just waltz into a state and start investigating anything they want.
State rights are a touchy subject.
The only thing i can think of is tieing it to federal money. If there is federal money to tie it to.
Otherwise, you've got the US constitution and the Supreme Court that tells you what the feds can and cannot do.
Someone who actually knows how the federal/state system works would probably help at this point.
Jesus Greg, you win. I was going to rebut your spurious misquotes and misrepresentations, but it is hopeless. You obviously have way to much invested in your mother's saintly career to ever understand the reality of callousness, brutality, corruption, and silence that is eating away at so many communities.
I can only hope anyone reading your interpretations of my comments, will take the time to read my original comments. You have repeatedly mischaracterized my comments. I may have my own bias, but I have not taken any of your comments out of context or twisted your words.
tie it to carrots then, if it is tied to money already expected it'll just piss people off. Like anything else, it's a matter of political will.
I'd think that after eight years of war under false pretenses it should be easy to get an aboveboard police review body in place. Make participation "voluntary". After a few states are aboard, the electorates in others will force their state governments to join. Nobody likes to live under corruption. Even if it is "our" corruption.
foetusnail: I was going to rebut your spurious misquotes and misrepresentations, but it is hopeless.
no, I heard you pretty clearly:
All cops, with extremely few exceptions, are lousy human beings.
Not sure how I can misquote you when those are pretty much your exact words.
"They are either complicit, incompetent, negligent, or willfully ignorant."
This is your exhaustive list. There are no alternatives. All cops fall into one of these categories.
Is that somehow misrepresenting your words? You seemed pretty clear.
You obviously have way to much invested in your mother's saintly career
Saint? Nice strawman. Obviously I was portraying her as a saint when I said it was a fairly boring, uneventful, job that dealt mostly with drunk drivers and small time fraud. I'm pretty sure that a lot of folks at the department never fired their weapons in the line of duty.
to ever understand the reality of callousness, brutality, corruption, and silence that is eating away at so many communities
Except it is ALL communities, according to you. All cops. All communities. Every city, town, county and state. And every single person with a badge is "either complicit, incompetent, negligent, or willfully ignorant".
crystal clear.
Every single one of them with "extremely few exception" is a "lousy human being".
got it.
Don't know how I've misrepresented you when you've made it abundantly clear what you think.
I may have my own bias, but I have not taken any of your comments out of context or twisted your words
MAY HAVE your own bias? MAY? Are you kidding me? You insist on making blanket statements about every single cop in the country, with extremely few exception, that they are all lousy human beings, that they are complicit, incompetent, negligent, or willfully ignorant.
And when I make a post saying to the effect of "say 'some', not 'all'", you reiterate your blanket statements that it is indeed "all", try to strawman me, and conclude that its better to be biased than it is to misquote. Well, I didn't misquote you, and you're extremely biased.
tak: it should be easy to get an aboveboard police review body in place.
crime labs I think can get federal certification. It isn't required, but there is pressure to do it because the first question a defense lawyer will ask is "Is your lab certified?" and if the answer is 'no', the jury might not feel confident about their results.
Maybe have procedural certification or something for the department itself. When a case comes up like this (3 cops shooting a 92 year old woman and then tryign to cover it up), if the certification board decides that there is something procedurally wrong with the entire precinct, they could revoke the certification until they requalify.
And the certifiers from the FBI (or whoever) could then investigate specific cases to see what the fuck is going on and if it is systemic or a few bad apples.
The locals get FBI training. The FBI gets some sort of oversight under the banner of "certification".
Greg,
Are you deliberately trying to irritate everybody? If not, please review your action plan for strategic flaws.
how good/corrupt is the FBI? If they were supposed to be providing oversight, what happened?
I wonder what percentage of the irritants caused by bad police behaviour comes right from the DEA and the drug war fiasco? Maybe getting rid of them and that would fix things overnight.
If they were supposed to be providing oversight, what happened?
I don't think they have jurisdiction, so I don't think they have the authority to enforce oversight.
The lab certification thing is totally voluntary. It just comes with the incentive that it sounds good to a jury that your local city lab is FBI certified (Or whoever it is that does certification) and it sounds bad to a jury when your lab is NOT certified.
irritants caused by bad police behaviour comes right from the DEA
I read somewhere that a lot of warrants are getting converted into SWAT based no-knock warrants in part because the local SWAT has to justify its existence. If that's the case, the size of SWAT should probably be reduced. But then you've got political stigma that comes from "reducing" the police force. What, are you soft on crime?
put it to the people: soft on crime or murder by no knock?
How many city police officers, sheriff deputies, state troopers, federal law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, corrections officers, and probation officers are employed in this country? How many speak out? The reason I mention more than just cops is because LEAP members come from all levels of this bureaucracy. There are literally tens of millions of people working in the criminal justice system and LEAP can only boast 10,000 members. That amounts to 0.001 percent of those eligible for LEAP membership have joined. What does it mean that most of its members are retired? How many of that one thousandths of a percent are cops? How many of those are still in uniform?
Like I said, millions of cops are employed, everyday they witness the destruction in their communities from the drug war. They know of the abuse and corruption that exists because of prohibition. Yet the vast majority remain silent. I'm sorry if this hurts, but if they can continue to come to work every day, without speaking out against this abusive and corrupt system, which feeds on the misery of their fellow citizens, then they are lousy human beings.
After forty years of failed policies, which have left hundreds of millions of lives around the world irreparably damaged, wasted trillions of dollars, and created the largest and still rapidly growing prison system in the world, there should be an avalanche of officers protesting this insanity. Even if they all waited to retire before finding the courage to speak out.
Is your mother, if she is still alive, a member of LEAP? How many of her co-workers are members of LEAP?
From the LEAP website. This is what happens to the few brave enough to cross the divide, who dare to speak out against the drug war.
Notice that the press release says, "who fought on the front lines", not who are fighting.1/10 of 1 percent, not 1/1000
so how to take a spark of 10,000 and kindle it into an ember and eventually a blaze? Every social change began with one person.
if they can continue to come to work every day, without speaking out against this abusive and corrupt system, which feeds on the misery of their fellow citizens, then they are lousy human beings.
Nice to know I'm talking to the giver of absolute moral judgement.
Here's what sucks, foetusnail. cops enforce the law. the law is created by politicians. politicians are elected by the voting population. In my book, that makes the voters the ones responsible for the current mess we're in.
I know you hate the shitbag cops, and it certainly does feel good to blame those cops for an apathetic and moronic voting public. Right? It's no fun blaming everyone, it feels better to find some subgroup that you don't belong to and blame them.
Bush had an 70% approval rating when he invaded Iraq. He left office with a 25% rating. yet its easier to blame Bush than it is to blame the nearly 50% of the population who allowed him to do what he did while he was in office, but switched allegiances when he finally left.
Instaed, you focus on a visible group. You see reports come out of Abu Graib and you decide its easier to put full responsibility on every man and woman in the US military than it is to blame the voting population who were willing to allow a little torture because it made them feel safe.
You see a news story about three dirty cops and you decide to place full responsibility of the problem on all cops. Not the politicians who vote in stupid laws, not the voters who vote in the stupid politicians.
If you're of voting age, you're just as responsible for this mess as anyone else of voting age.
But that's no fun, is it? Taking some of the blame yourself? No. Far better to find a group and demonize them as being the sole source of the problem.
there should be an avalanche of officers protesting this insanity
There should be an avalance of voters protesting this insanity. Instead, a lot of voters support the war on drugs. You present the case as if cops could come out and somehow cause vast swaths of the population to instantly switch their worldview. It's certainly convenient for you. You can't cause people to switch their worldview, but for some reason, you've imbued cops with the magical power to cause a universal shift in worldviews. ANd then you hold them responsible for not fulfilling your fantasy.
What have you done, foetusnail?
What organization have you started to fight this injustice?
What speeches have you gone around the country to give?
What sacrifice have you personally made?
And yet, there you sit, doing nothing while condemning the police because their organization against this stupidity contains only 10,000 members.
condemning the cops because they aren't leading the revolution that you think they should lead. They're not changing the world the way you think they should be changing it. They're not risking their jobs the way you think they should be risking it.
Well, it is certainly easy to lead from the comfort behind the keyboard in your own home. It's certainly easy to condemn others for not doing anything while you yourself do nothing. Its certainly easy to condemn people for not risking their careers when you haven't done jack yourself. Its certainly easy to condemn real people in uniform while you sit behind an anonymous pseudonym on the internet.
The dixie chicks made a one-line comment about Bush and got a huge backlash. What the hell have you done?
It's no harder for you to change the world than it is for any individual cop. It's no easier for a cop to change the world than it is for you. But for whatever reason, you decided that you don't have any power and the cops do, and they can change the world and you can't, and so you condemn them for not making the world a better place for you.
You've abdicated. And there's no one to blame for that other than you.
Agreed.
Start by increasing educational requirements and give officers who speak out the protection they deserve as whistle-blowers.
But what can be done now to limit the damage?
Here's a list off of the top of my head.
1. Do not give rookies sidearms, in fact sidearms should probably only be given to officers with 2 or 3 years service in the same department issuing the weapon. Cops should not be allowed to carry concealed weapons off duty, unless everyone in that jurisdiction has the same privilege.
2. Stop the use of no-knock warrants for any reason or at least limit their use to known violent offenders. They certainly should never be used on a drug warrant, simply because someone may flush some evidence down a toilet or in a home where children are present.
3. Stop the confiscation of property without a conviction and evidence the property could only have been acquired solely with illegal earnings. No one should lose their $20K car for selling a few grams of anything, much less without a conviction.
4. Create citizen review boards, to review all the evidence whenever a cop is charged with violating someone's rights, corruption, planting evidence, or taking part in a cover-up, etc.
5. Prosecute any cop who takes part in a cover-up. Upon conviction, sentence them as though they had committed the crime they attempted to cover-up; just as we can be sentenced to death for being in the wrong car at the wrong time.
6. All officers once hired, should understand that refusing to cooperate fully in an investigation will result in them never working in law enforcement again, anywhere.
7. Officers once convicted of any ethical violation, should never allowed to work as police officers again, anywhere.
8. Every officer should be given a yearly psychological review. Failing the review once results in desk duty and counseling. Failing twice, results in them never working again in law enforcement until they receive further counseling and pass their review.
9. All officers must pass the performance enhancing drug screening. Any officer found to have used illegal performance enhancing drugs, will never be allowed to work in law enforcement again, anywhere.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/Public-to-be-left-in-dark-on-probe-40407752.html
The list at 205 seems incredibly reasonable, thanks Foet'.
much of it seems to be a refection of non-enforcement of already existing law and regulation.
Lets see what happens with Obama and the Waronsomedrugs Industry and the DEA Cartel. A lot of problems would go away quickly if they stop paramilitary attack squads from being used on citizens. Money is going to be a problem since those suckling at these teats are probably capable of killing to keep their places. The Prison Industry Complex is part of this too. I see California going broke is putting many of them out of work there - or stopping the runaway bloat anyway.
Arkizzle, thanks.
Takuan, well, you know.
what WILL the Law of Unintended Consequences bring anyway? There is certainly going to be a relaxation of bad drug laws to some degree. Where will the lampreys move to? Who will be their next host? A lot of drug dealers will be seeking new work too.
1 Do not give rookies sidearms
Military training of a few months puts a "rookie" in the front lines. training should probably be increased. Maybe FBI provides "certified" training.
2) Stop the use of no-knock warrants
Definitely need to reduce the use of them. Does the judge determine if the warrant is no-knock? Or do the cops?
3) Stop the confiscation of property
I was always of the mind that there should be zero monetary incentive for the police to do anything. money from fines goes to some charity or is destroyed. certainly shouldn't have the law say that cops can confiscate someone's house because drugs were found there. It can turn some departments into privateers.
4. Create citizen review boards,
They need to have authority over the police to investigate, but they cannot be under the mayor or police chief. ANd they need to be transparent.
5. Prosecute any cop who takes part in a cover-up. Upon conviction, sentence them as though they had committed the crime they attempted to cover-up;
whistleblower protection might be better, but its been shown that whistleblower protection doesn't work too well.
6. All officers once hired, should understand that refusing to cooperate
7
You might be able to do that within a state, but I don't know how you can do that if they move to a different state. It becomes a matter of state law, not federal. Unless it is part of FBI "certification" or something.
8. Every officer should be given a yearly psychological review.
This is the "Give them a milgram test" idea. hard to do. expensive to implement. and more than likely easily gamable by an actual bad cop.
A psychologist can't profile a cop based on an hour interview. This is something that will take up a lot of time.
9. All officers must pass the performance enhancing drug screening.
sure. I don't think this is the root of the problem, but easy enough to put in place.
What you're trying to do is root out the "bad" cops and get them off the force. Me, I think it's probably easier and cheaper to drop the psychological evals and enforce complete transparent record keeping of police actions.
Video cameras on every police firearm, and on every cap and helmet, with the video legally requireed to be made public.
Every warrant should have an associated set of videos of that warrant being executed.
Destroying video evidence has a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. Any police firing a weapon without a camera on it is an offence punishable by a max 10 year sentence.
It is a technical solution, which means it doesn't solve the root problem, but it's a technical solution, which means it can be purchased and you're done.
It also provides some benefit to good cops. A lot of shootings between cops and civilians end up with the city in an uproar. If the cop says the civilian fired first, but there is no witnesses, it can be a hard time for the police and the city. If the police have video on their caps, helmets, and firearms, then you should see the muzzle flash from the civilian before the cop draws and fires, and that should be the end of it.
It also becomes evidence in court to prosecute criminals, just like the dashboard camaras have helped prosecute criminals.
hey!@ maybe they could all work on this drug war:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200903/postrel-drugs
Interesting list, Snail-Foe. I like the idea of having stricter controls and ongoing civilian review; I think the carrot for your stick should be that officers who can perform effective work under your system would be highly paid.
I also like the idea that police should not carry if law abiding citizenry cannot do so within their jurisdiction. Nice loop.
Of course, I also think that teachers and garbagemen should be highly paid, so clearly I'm out of step with 21st century cultural norms.
cameras would be good. The should have had gun and badge cameras long before they put CCTV up everywhere. Anyone interacting with a cop will find it a lot easier to be polite knowing the cop is being polite too because you BOTH know you are being recorded. In the case of innocent citizens it equalizes the power equation and makes actual respect possible. Cameras are a great idea.
Thanks for the linkage, Takuan. I was blackly amused by this line in the BART one:
Both in and out of context, it evokes the snort.
Probably a good idea to also legalize and regulate prostitution and gambling. Considering a large percentage of the "criminals" clogging the criminal justice system arrests were directly or indirectly the result of prohibition, the police and courts should have no problem dealing with the real criminals.
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/crime/index.html
Have to go pick up my car, 1600 in repairs. We're screwed.
say Nail, did you mean steroids or what?
"illegal performance enhancing drugs" I myself wonder how many of the muscle bound body builder types on reality police TV are roid-monkeys? I understand being intimidatingly big can help when dealing with outlaw bikers and other more physical criminals, but someone is missing the point when just the sight of a badge or uniform doesn't do that or more, even when on a tiny body.
I think the carrot for your stick should be that officers who can perform effective work under your system would be highly paid.
Cop salary doesn't affect quality. In Iraq, there was a problem with Blackwater guys getting paid a lot more than US military guys for doign the same job.
THere isn't that kind of problem for the police in the US. It isn't like there is another career that pays more that is pulling the potential police officers away from public service.
If you dont' make it as a cop, you might get a security job at a third the pay at a mall. But there is no "Blackwater" equivalent for cops that is pulling the best cops off the force and into private sector.
cars, can't live with them, can't douse them with gasoline and push them off a cliff.
OK, tak, I'm used to nonsequitors from you. But that one does not compute.
#216
ah
I did all my own auto repairs (up to and including full engine rebuild) for more than thirty years.
My model one Prius is very reliable, though. All I do is change the fluids and replace the tires periodically. Great car, never needs work.
Anyway, last year I got rushed for time, and took the wife's Honda to the shop to get brake pads, in order to save myself 4 hours.
That ended up costing me about 80 hours, including three or four hours on my back in a snowstorm, and could have cost me my family if the wheel had seized on the highway instead of on a back road. On the bright side, I eventually forced the shop to compensate me financially for my time, and made them pay to have repairs done at the Honda dealer.
I seem to be off topic again. Sorry. How can I drag it back? Oh, yes! The auto shop that screwed me got punished - because the law was on my side. The same feedback loop does not work for the po-po, because they control access to the law and because there is no financial link connecting police performance to food on their tables. Am I right?
I stopped working on my car after I got something fuel injected.
no financial link connecting police performance to food on their tables
It's pretty much an accepted industry pragma that any metric used to measure performance will be gamed. No matter what the industry.
Gil Scott Heron - No-Knock You Tube
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2009/02/26/police-disagree-after-prosecutors-drop-charges-in-abdikarim-murder.aspx
http://www.vancouversun.com/News/RCMP+warned+unprecedented+public+scrutiny+before+Dziekanski+Tasering/1337762/story.html
During his arrest (for robbery), Mr Montillano asked if he would still be able to take the (police department entrance) exam.
Thanks, Anonymous@225, I'd never heard that particular Gil Scott track.
yeah, cameras:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/28/paul-schene-king-county-d_n_170786.html
I'm glad this showed up here. I remember being so angry I couldn't speak when this showed up on the gun blogs when it first came to light a few months back.
The officers forced an informant to swear to known bad information. With that info, they got a bad warrant for a "no knock" raid. They performed that raid in plain-clothes. I can not see this as anything less than causing the shooting death of a little old lady that had the mis-fortune of living in a bad neighborhood. The degree of murder is up to debate, but that label is accurate to the crime committed.