He quite quickly became distrusting of what people say and would adopt a negative analysis of situations. Why? - because for the majority of his shifts he has to deal with people who _are_ lying to him.

Lots of domestic violence calls, drug dealers, thefts, reckless driving, people with serious mental illness (danger to themselves and others). The perpetrators inevitably lie and often the victims are not telling the whole truth (to protect themselves from incrimination for something else or to exaggerate what happened).

Prior to joining he was a well rounded and very grounded person. As far as i can tell, he hasn't resisted the power-tripping trap but I can see some racial and socioeconomic stereotyping creeping in to his world view. It's sad to see but it shouldn't be surprising that people's jobs strongly shape their world view. Some other examples I've encountered personally:

- emergency medical workers strongly against motorcycle riding as they see so many horrific injuries and fatalities from accidents - a child services worker who assumed men interacting with children were pedophiles as her work involved re-homing children who had been abused

For the above occupations, the work involved exposes the workers to highly charged/traumatic situations often daily. A good place to start looking for a solution would be how to help these workers regain a balanced view of society.

And clearly, as the GP illustrates, in the cop's case it's at least partially lying by those same cops to fix their own crimes. Or just lying for their own convenience, at the cost of everyone else.

Why do you assume it's any different for the child services worker? They have the power to trade kids, for power, money, or just ego - and are also frequently convicted for doing so. Worse than that, many studies point out that the net effect of child services ... is NEGATIVE for children: there is a lot of statistical proof that children would grow up more successfully if child services didn't exist. Even kids with serious problems at home fare better ... without child services. So it's even worse than the police force, which at least prevents worse.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/27/italian-police...

And why do you assume it's any different for emergency medical worker? In Australia I was blatantly told that I wouldn't get any assistance from an ambulance unless I accepted a morfine injection. That, of course, turned out to be a financial incentive: it allowed them to charge a lot more to insurance. Of course it also prevented treatment (because doctors assumed I had abdominal pain because I was drugged. And, sure enough, I was: by THEM ! Of course that wasn't the cause of the pain, but cause + expected result = just sleep it off and go home. To be hit by terrible pain again the day after. This did not happen once, but THREE times)

And to top it off, when it eventually did get correctly diagnosed, 2 weeks later, that morfine DID cause abdominal pain (morfine stops the peristaltic movement. Therefore, if you're on morfine for more than ~12 hours you're in for a very painful bowel movement. If you're on morfine 3 times for 6 hours in a week, it's no different)

And again, at least the police force and emergency medical worker help. They cause a lot of collateral damage, but at least it prevents worse. Child services ... causes a lot more damage than they fix. So ESPECIALLY that person should shut the fuck up about how bad society is and take a good long look at themselves.

Without question, these officers should be charged with battery, kidnapping, planting false evidence, unlawful arrest, possession of drugs, etc. etc.

Minimum 5 years jail each, maybe 10.

It's not like they did any of this by accident. Yes, five to ten years in jail will ruin their lives, and it's important to remember they did it to themselves.

We place our trust in them, and they're caught on camera behaving like regular street thugs. This is utterly unacceptable and should be eliminated.

Corrupt bad actors that can get away with what's described in the article exist in a culture that corrupts everyone else eventually leading to a situation where the only people willing to join or stay are 'bad apples' protected by a culture of other bad apples. When something is this bad you probably need large purges as opposed to firing a couple individuals.

I don't think you can do this from within, some serious restructuring or oversight has to happen from elsewhere.

I suspect in most organizations of people you have 10% that care about doing the right thing, 10% that will do bad things and 80% that will do either depending on who is around them.

I strongly disagree that the vast majority of police office are doing upstanding work. Officers don't testify against each other. They refuse to help investigations of colleagues. The whole thin blue line mentality is a stain on the whole profession. As Edmund Burke said, "All that is necessary for evil to prevail is that good men do nothing." Police officers that refuse to call out the bad apples are themselves bad apples.

I think this comes from a person based on ignorance, in that they usually have limited to no exposure to most LEO; or alternatively, they have vested interests in keeping that narrative up.

To this day I still cannot fathom not just how the 'blue line' practices holds true to this day given all the cameras, but they CAN AND DO PURPOSELY LIE and are allowed to do so with impunity in court. This is what is considered law enforcement in the US?!

Punishing them is limited in scope, you can at best get minor monetary compensation (which is tax derived) when they abuse their power, but as seen with this example they're allowed to return to their patrol in most cases, or given a paid leave of absence when its deemed too embarrassing to sweep under the rug.

>> How on earth is the on/off switch for the body camera under the officer’s control?

Honestly, plausible deniability; here is a horrid case in which you can see (Graphic/NSFW) they can use that to justify their violent behaviour as small/thin woman is forcefully strapped down, choked and repeatedly tazed by a group of officers claiming she was 'suicidal' but somehow that part wasn't recorded but is seen complying with the officers requests:

https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/woman-sues-alleges-...

Worth noting, as it coincides with the quote above its not just police but also the Court system the enables their behaviour, the local State court ruled in favour of the police stating the use of force was justified; it wasn't until it was taken to the Supreme Court that it was exposed to the public what took place with body cam footage.

> The cops in prosperous, egalitarian places are generally pretty chill, so the idea is to recreate those conditions.

God, I'm just going to put aside how absolutely elitist this statement is, but consider that the case above took place in Boulder, CO. Where for a few years the average home price was well over $1 million dollars, and her initial arrest took place in the Downtown mall that's typically yuppy-centric shops.

That's precisely how the bunch is spoilt. That's the entire reason for the adage in the first place.

I've heard people like you say that for 30 years or so, why hasn't it happened? The answer is that the institution is much more corrupt than you're willing to admit. You don't like to think about that so you pretend otherwise.

So is it a few bad apples or is it the system in general?

I really was expecting this comment to continue in that vein of heavy sarcasm.

Are you aware that "a few bad apples" is usually used ironically to mock apologists?

If this were true the upstanding officers wouldn't be protecting the bad behaviour of their colleagues.

I think you'd need to prove the direction of causality here to be convincing.

> Making policing an easier job would attract less problematic people.

What are "problematic people"? I find this judgment to be very, very troubling. Is it that "problematic people" are becoming police officers? Or that something about the job is causing problematic behaviors in people like you and I?

> Hiring a lot more cops and banning guns would greatly reduce the stress cops are under.

This seems downright preposterous to me. Guns aren't a significant cause of death for cops. Cars (including their own cars) are a far bigger threat. Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest that places where guns are materially banned enjoy less police corruption. Chicago has has some of the most draconian gun laws in the nation for decades and also has a police department indistinguishable from a criminal cartel by most measures.

> The cops in prosperous, egalitarian places are generally pretty chill, so the idea is to recreate those conditions.

Again, I suspect the causality may run in the other direction.

Even if they carry a loaded gun, they’re less likely to use it against the police than in the USA because punishments are less severe. In the extreme, three strikes laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law) makes even petty thieves with a previous felony conviction more likely to use a gun.

The USA has found a local optimum where cops have reason to be afraid of a large fraction of the population and vice versa, and doesn’t seem to be able to find a way out of it.

You may be right in the direction of causation that questioned. I look at it this way. Suppose we create a more prosperous, egalitarian society and find out the cops are still jerks. The experiment shows you are correct but at least we'd end up with a better society in other ways. There does not appear to be any harm in performing the experiment.

First of all, drug offenses should never be more than a ticket, perhaps a really expensive ticket for the harder drugs.

As for officers, that are blatently planting evidence that puts people in jails. Planting evidence, isn't something you do on accident. It's not something you do because you had a bad day. It's not something that occurs because you made an incorrect split second decision. It's a deliberate offense (planned for days ahead) worse than anything a police officer can do. And it requires the harshest penalty known to man: capital punishment. we need to send a very strong message, that this is under no circumstance acceptable. Personally, i think capital punishment isn't severe enough for this crime. they should also be forced to give up their entire pension and sued into oblivion for their entire networth.

It's not just about punishing this heinous crime, but rather, it's about setting a precedent, and ensuring that there is sufficient deterence to make sure this never ever happens.

It's kinda like that time, someone got 20 years, for Swatting someone. It set a precendence that will never be forgotten.