Now, that obviously that is not super effective for other reasons (QI; courts - an agent of the state - being overly deferential and siding with the state; etc.).
>> courts - an agent of the state - being overly deferential and siding with the state
I am highly cynical about this methodology but it DOES work for the group, even if it is inefficent at it (and progressively getting more inefficient). Over the long run cops learn that they can't do X or Y, except for a few "new" abuses (e.g. civil asset forfeiture) we are probably better off than we were 50 or 60 years ago. At some point if we get too inefficient about it (which we may have already crossed), though, the equilibrium change will move towards regression since it is a cat-and-mouse game to some degree; cops are clever and talk to each other to strategize against protections, too.
Like playing popular music while being recorded by bystanders so that the videos get taken down for copyright infringement.
If you want to suggest an alternative, you have a captive audience including myself. Otherwise you're just fearmongering to fearmonger.
You just blatantly ignored years and years of news in all media and occasionally even here.
Usually I'm against posts making claims without adding a link, but please, this stuff has been all over sooooo many times, and singling out a few random examples doesn't do it justice.
You could start with long the Washington Post series about civil asset forfeitures to begin with something that is not just one case: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/collection/s...
As for individual examples, I only follow major news sources and I see posts about such cases several times every single week, have been seeing it for years. I would have to intentionally ignore the news to not see them all. I don't even want to see them since I can't do anything about it anyway and since I already read more than enough by now so making my day worse has no benefit any more if I read <yet another piece. But I can't even avoid it. So I don't understand at all where you are coming from claiming
> You're being unnecessarily negative here.
All the evidence points to it being realism and not. Sometimes it's reality that is "being negative".
>not super effective for other reasons (QI; courts - an agent of the state - being overly deferential and siding with the state; etc.).
and
>The problem with expecting accountability is that system will fail you at the next step: the courts. You have to survive that process too, where the judge and prosecutor will believe the cop nine times out of ten. As a sitting federal judge once said, “truth and justice have no relevance; it is a court of law.” The law will take the side of the system.
The claims here are that cop malfeasance against US citizens will go unpunished because courts will pardon the cop under any circumstances, specifically because the "judge and prosecutor" will pardon the cop.
However, judges/prosecutors don't actually find citizens guilty - juries do. Furthermore, the defendant has a direct stake in how the jury is selected via their own attorney during voir dire. Therefore, the claim that judges/prosecutors will specifically pardon the cop doesn't hold water.
Furthermore, the claim that intimidation are coercion are viable strategies for the cops is bold in the face of bodycams during arrest and security cams during interrogation. Those two combined eliminate 99% of a cop's ability to harass or harm a suspect and not face repercussions.
So, the individual made two claims that don't stand up to scrutiny and did not offer an alternative that would solve their claims.
As for your claims of a preponderance of evidence, I've seen only anecdotal evidence over the past few years. The most evidence I've seen of system violence are the BLM riots and the crime statistics showing that African-Americans commit 52% of murders in the US[0].
[0]https://www.informernet.com/opinion/how-to-respond-to-africa...
Always try to stop the police at the point of abuse.
Meaning, your exit via means of reciting legal code matters in a court room or in front of a prosecutor, but it won't get you out of the ride to the police station -- or in this case: a trip to the coercion back room.
They all agreed that their clients worry far too much about being arrested. Their legal advice was unanimous: you just took someone's life, you are absolutely going to be arrested, nothing you could possibly say will change that. But if you say the wrong thing to the arresting or investigating officer, you are at risk of derailing your legal strategy.
A night or two in jail won't change your life, but what you say to the police absolutely can. So shut the fuck up until your lawyer gets there, and then stay shut up until your lawyer tells you otherwise.
A night or two in jail absolutely can change your life.
A night or two in jail means not being able to pick your kid up from daycare or take care of pets/family, A night or two in jail means missing work without any notice. Hope your boss is understanding, because if you lose your job you're on your way to losing everything.
A night or two in jail means you now need enough in savings to get your car out of the impound lot, pay bail if needed, pay for a lawyer, and have a couple of years to spend on defending yourself in court or you might actually go away for a longer time.
A night or two in jail means having an arrest record, if you live in a state with "sunshine laws" you'll forever get extortion calls about how they'll remove your mugshot and information from their website for $500. That makes getting future jobs harder, or you need to spend even more time and money getting the records sealed/removed.
And that's not even touching on the physical toll that being arrested and treated like sub-human has on you. Being shoved to the ground, physically thrown into a cell, fearing for your life while multiple guns are pointed at your head knowing you are one misunderstanding away from dying, getting tazed while multiple cops laugh and yell for you to stop resisting.
I think the idea is "you're (probably) not going to talk your way out of that night in jail if it's a homicide scenario".
(And that you might talk yourself into a much longer stay in trying to do so.)
Sorry, I'm not following. My understanding is that the job attracts bullies and I see bullies from all political persuasions and all education levels.
The closer you get down to beat-cop-that-interacts-with-citizens, the less likely you are to find a four-year degree or "conventionally liberal" beliefs. (Not that a college education or liberal beliefs confer any useful predictors about common sense, wisdom, ethical beliefs, or honesty.) This implies that anyone with a four-year degree and conventionally liberal beliefs is going to have a hard time understanding or influencing police officers by using any tactics that work on other liberal college graduates.
I agree with you that there are bullies from all political persuasions and education levels, but a very specific type of aggressive personality self-selects into the police job at a higher rate than in other jobs that require a similar background. Additionally, even if 99% of police officers in the US weren't aggressive and weren't bullies, that still leaves 10,000 "bad cops". It doesn't take many "bad cops" to make people angry and uncomfortable with the police in general.
In case my original message wasn't clear, I'm actually criticizing U.S. supporters of police reform for wanting police work to be perfect and ethical without actually volunteering to become police themselves. These (mostly left-leaners) entrust the enforcement of civil society to a group of people who mostly don't respect or agree with them, which is ineffective and hypocritical.
Maybe you're talking about leadership/management positions? But, even then, you're talking about one of the stronger unions in country and a group of employees who will fight your attempts at progress.
Again, I agree with just about everything else, and there isn't an easy solution, but I think your criticism is either unclear or misplaced.
I'm not expecting left-leaners to go in and "take down the corrupt cops from the inside", just to go in and do police work. Most cops that get away with murder don't appear to be nakedly corrupt or part of an overt/explicit conspiracy to commit murder and theft; they're just incompetent, malicious, and protected by the brotherhood.
I have the same criticism of left-learners in other fields, like business and engineering. I come from a very left-leaning community and family; they will talk up one wall and down the other about things like bank loan disparity, police response disparity, treatment by retail employees disparity, etc. but very few of them actually consider becoming a loan officer or a police officer or a grocery store owner and then choosing how to treat people that would normally be treated poorly. People in my familial and social circle want to work $70-100k white collar administrative jobs and tell everyone else how to run society, when it would be far more effective if everyone with their same viewpoints simply become part of society and ran it themselves.
More self-sacrificial behavior and working in "real" jobs would also solve a lot of problems with what I saw as a flaw in liberal/left thinking. It's hard to be friendly and forgiving to thieves and violent robbers when it's your retirement plan that's getting jacked up twice per year and losing a third of profit to theft and another third to taxation.
12.4% of police officers are black, compared to 11.9% of the US population. "White" is slightly over-represented as well. Both of these are mainly a result of "Other" and especially "Asian" being significantly under-represented.
The primary disparity is by sex. 84.5% of police are male.
https://datausa.io/profile/soc/police-officers
The percentage of police officers with a four year degree is ~30%, about the same as the adult general population.
Absolutely not in equal amounts. The far right loves to infiltrate police forces while the far left is often very untrusting of the police.
Their life experience is dealing with the disproportionately bad aspects of society, just like you probably have a disproportionately good existence. There are assumptions and biases that come from both these exposure models.
And maybe it’s just a problem with their delivery, but if you hear a political party (unfortunately the loudmouth fringe more often than not) incessantly talking about how you suck, should be presumed to be an evil murderer, and advocate policies that you feel put your daily safety at further risk, you might rethink your donations and voting history as well. Not defending the bad cultures and actors whatsoever, but there’s more room for nuance in discussing the issues we have policing this large, individualistic, culturally heterogenous, heavily medicated and critically unmedicated country. The problem is a hard one, so easy simple answers should be viewed with skepticism. There is no “just do what Norway does” answer to the problem that can be made in good faith.
I don't think that necessarily factually disqualifies anything I said already, though. The police are a necessary branch of the state monopoly on violence, but right now in the U.S. I don't think the demographics and tendencies of the police force line up with our collective expectations for transparency, honesty, trust, and justice. There are too many opportunities for intimidation and corruption that are taken and defended.
Edit: Also you're completely correct about one political party listening to and supporting the police.
Well, not the Capitol Police.
Very often the mere fact that you are not trouble makes them pay less attention and the whole thing ends really quickly.
Society needs people to stand up to the police when they exceed their legal remit, or they will continue to exceed it. I won't blame people for choosing personal convenience over the good of society, but we should be clear that that is the choice being made.
I don't like it anymore than you do, I am simply a realist that I can't change the reality of a lot of cops being bullies.
It's a "partial hack" only insofar as it's making them drop their guard and look to finalize the interaction quicker. I've seen these people's faces up close; they are on the edge and any non-cooperation will push them to physically abuse you or even drag you to the station. So I found a way to make them not think of me as a threat, even if two of the times when it happened I had not a minute to waste.
And sadly, when it comes to "people must stand up", it's never us. Always has to be somebody else. Sigh.
Having faced potential costs associated with exercising rights, I must say it can go very bad, very quick.
Done right, even when it does go bad, means a likely win in court.
In my case, preventing warrantless home entry involved:
Personal beating, like ouch! People will notice it happened to you type ouch!
An evening in holding.
Long walk home. (I could have gotten a ride, but was a mess mentally and just walked 10 miles.
A few thousand for a defense attorney.
10 court appearances called for at expensive and tiresome times.
Trial.
Tort to recover fees.
Personal unease for about 6 months while it all played out.
Not recommended.
Unless it is worth it. In my case it was more than standing on principle.
Finally, public defenders are not generally what you want in rights violation type scenarios. Be ready to pay up for experienced representation.
Be ready to take the ride, take the beating, pay the money, lose the time.
I do this too, and will flip the switch in a second if it looks like it will go bad.
One other way to improve ones police interactions is to have one go really bad, then win in court.
Happened to me, and I lack time to tell the tale fully.
Basically, I came home to my family all angry. I sent everyone to their rooms, wife included lol, and stepped onto my porch to have a smoke and think it through.
Sidebar: I really miss that, and am a non smoker today.
Three officers walked up and made demands to enter my home, which I denied and they beat my ass and took me to jail. And it was a non trivial beating.
What they expect is for people to plead down, and I took it to trial and was found not guilty.
Ever since, I have great interactions...
I don't want to open myself up for litigation so I'll definitely put up a fight in this case.
If I am asked to accompany them to the dark room I'll just give up, unlock the laptop, hand it to them and then quietly inform my employer's legal team that a potential security breach has occurred (after I get safely to a hotel).
I really don't want to spend time in jail because of a nervous cop.
1.) Not allow my phone to be unlocked by fingerprint/face.
2.) Not carry USB sticks or similar portable storage devices on my person, to only transport them by courier.
3.) Not unlock my computer for anyone, including the police, unless directed to by our compliance office.
Or it's breach of contract and they can reclaim part of my compensation. I don't work on anything exciting, just Big medical data.
If you're not on their radar, being polite and forgettable is a great way to stay that way.
If you're already in custody, anything you say while being friendly can and will be used against you in court, so your vocabulary should probably be limited to the word "lawyer."
Some situations can be lose-lose. Best you can do is don't talk to the police, and if you absolutely must, say as little as possible and don't lie.
If you're afraid for your safety or they are clearly overstepping their bounds, then complying and fighting it in court is basically the only option (even though it's possible you still get screwed). Otherwise, knowing an asserting your rights can be good, but you have to hope the cop isnt unhinged, dirty, or totally incompetent.
https://oakleylawky.com/am-i-being-detained-6-questions-you-...
It didn't seem right to me that I would have to pay a fee for something that everyone did and that wasn't counter-indicated anywhere I was aware of. I did a little reading and discovered what I thought were two relevant city ordinances! I forget the exact language of the ordinances but it was something like "There needs to be a visible sign prohibiting locking bicycles in the area or to the fixtures to issue citations" and "Citations should be issued by police officers only who should be specifically named in the citation." I thought both of those applied to my situation as my citation was issued, not by an officer, but just generally by the Parking and Transportation department and there were no signs about not locking your bikes to benches.
I made the case to the woman behind the desk at the parking and transportation department. She was unmoved and insisted I had to pay the fine to get my bike back. I tried arguing along the lines that taking my bike against my will and in disagreement with the law was basically theft. She countered by saying that if it was theft I should call the police. When I repeated the accusation that it was theft she slid her desk phone across to me and told me to call the police again. Writing this, it seems crazy to me that I actually did - but I found it hard to back down in the moment and thought I was in the right on a legal basis. So, I called the non-emergency number for the campus police and explained the situation. The police person told me they'd send someone by.
A few minutes later a couple of cops showed up and asked to speak to me outside. I stepped outside with them and tried to explain the situation. Pretty quickly, before I even got into my legal arguments, one cop said "We got a call that you were disturbing the peace in there. That you were threatening people and acting violent." The second cop stepped extremely close to me, coming face to face in a threatening manner and asked me something like "Why are you threatening people?"
It was, first, completely untrue. I had never raised my voice or been threatening. I actually enjoy such arguments and I had been having a good time trying to rescue my bike. The Parking and Transportation Department woman had been unamused and maybe a little cynical or dry, but certainly never acted like there was a threat of any kind or like I was being hostile. And, of course, ultimately, I knew they were lying because I was the one who had called them and I definitely hadn't reported myself as causing a disturbance or being violent.
Realizing they wouldn't help me, I thanked the police for their service and left. From their perspective, they probably felt they had solved the problem. They got called over a problem and they made the problem go away. I've always felt the situation was a bit galling but looking back on it I see I was navigating the system the wrong way. The police are physical problem solvers, not legal arbiters, and should not be called for non-physical problems. And, maybe I was morally wrong anyway to lock my bike there.
Spirit of the law is dumb and generally not applicable here from what I can tell.
Though your observation is correct. The cops don't solve these things nor do they enforce the laws properly. Suing the university or specifically the Transportation admin would have been the proper move.
I've dealt with lots of cops for minor stuff (trespassing, traffic infractions, crashed parties), and have only had a bad experience (turned out fine anyway) once. I have several relatives who have been in and out of the system, and from my point of view, they were probably treated more fairly than they deserved. I get that that is not everyone's experience, but it makes me skeptical that the problem is somehow grand and structural and not just "some people are assholes."
If you have the right to refuse to unlock your phone for a cop, then a cop that demands it even after the suspect has actively refused it should be reprimanded.
The meme of "We investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing" runs rampant because it's often true. Police have literally gotten away with murder, either because the DA or whoever decides to not press charges, or the prosecution literally sabotages their own case to protect the police, as in the case of the shooting of Daniel Shaver, where the prosecution and defense attorneys asked the judge to not show the bodycam footage to the jury [0]. Anybody who's seen that video knows how damning it was, and it's absolutely reprehensible that a prosecutor would want to not show it to the jury. What made it so much worse was that the police department released the video only a couple hours after the trial had completed with the Not Guilty verdict.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Daniel_Shaver#Body...
If I have an abusive co-worker in my tech job and my manager and HR refuse to do anything about it, it just makes work suck.
But an abusive cop ruins lives with bullshit charges and bullshit handling of innocent people. In worst-case scenarios, they're murderers that get away with it.
So yeah...it's a pretty clear distinction, and I refuse to believe you're asking this question in good faith.
The ideal is obviously 'no bad cops' but everyone here can agree that's not really achievable, so what does doing a reasonable, or even great job look like. How many bad cops are on the force if we do everything we can?
It translates as "Law/Constitution is to Conservatives as Gun Free Zone signs are to Liberals".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colon_(punctuation)#Mathematic...
I've never seen this notation used in modern mathematical logic papers. I've even had (non-US) logic phds ask me about this notation.
> which was also used by standardized test writers like the SAT. The SAT removed those questions because they were ineffective at assessment, not because the notation was out of favor.
Yeah, standardized tests that have since phased it out were really the only place it was used. Hence anachronistic. If you didn't take the SAT during a certain period of time there's a god chance you didn't see this notation.
Liberals tend to think they can manifest reality just by saying the right thing. This causes them to be very vigilant about the words we use to describe things and they also think things like putting up a gun free zone sign at a school will prevent school shootings.
When a cop is beating a liberal to death with a stick, the liberal understands the cop is exercising his power and will get away with it. When a cop is beating a conservative to death with a stick the conservative will righteously complain about how that's illegal and I want this bad apple's badge number.
So, conservatives are the starry-eyed idealists and the liberals are the hard-nosed realists? That's an intriguing reversal of the usual framing.
However, when a mass shooting of some sort occurs there is a distinct difference between how conservatives tend to respond to such a thing and how liberals do. Liberals will want more areas to be gun free zones. They will pressure businesses like grocery stores to put up gun free zone signs or push for stricter gun regulations that would not have prevented the event in the first place.
This behavior is directly analogous to the conservative behavior. The state does not care about Constitutional rights any more than mass murderers care about gun free zones. Hopefully it's understandable why this analogy might be difficult to get for both conservatives and liberals because it is difficult to step outside ones entire worldview.
The law signed by Bush in 1990 was struck down in 1995, but Congress made a weaker law after that.
A Constitutional right or law prevents the state from harming you in exactly the same way a gun free zone sign stops a school shooter from murdering you.
In general, it's not a good idea to try and make a nuanced political point with something short and pithy. People invariably project the worst interpretation onto it. You need to spell out what you mean.