All we can do is try.

Last time I had to call cops was when two drunk people started brawling in a bus. One fell asleep and the second, driven to desperate acts by prolonged homelessness tried to steal his phone. In the end, the victim decided that the best course of action after reclaiming his phone was to kick now lying down thief until satisfied.

I and another passenger have stepped in, restrained the aggressive phone owner. We have gotten 4 of us out of the bus. We told the phone owner repeatedly to verify that his phone is OK, in order for him to realize that no harm has been done. We have talked him down. He was still inclined to (way less fervently) take revenge. I had to choose between getting confrontational and sending him home to sleep it off "or else" and calling the cops. Since the first option would put me at risk of being caught breaking the law, I had to call cops.

Cops came in sirens blazing, 3 cars, acting all high and mighty. "Your IDs" and shit. In the end, the phone owner has not even been told not to kick other people. The homeless person has not been checked by a medical professional. He was drunk, might have had some ribs broken, but none of those 7 "public servants" bothered to check. I asked if they were at least giving him a lift to wherever he was residing. "We are not taxi."

Fucking useless.

The fired cops will just get jobs in other departments. Cops won't be better trained, procedures that lead to this won't be changed. No real change is going to happen.

Firing cops at this point is just theater. It isn't trying, it is honestly just more of the same. It isn't likely that they fire the entire department either, and it will do nothing to take care of the folks that were elected in (sherriff and prosecutor, for example).

>it will do nothing to take care of the folks that were elected in (sherriff and prosecutor, for example).

I won't deny that rot starts at the top, but part of that rot is never firing misbehaving employees. You emphasise training, I emphasise learning, and the only way to learn is not fiddling around with the curriculum, it's not giving cops an extra year of training. What helps people learn is bad cops fucking around and finding out.

You can give people as much training as you want, but if they see other cops getting away with this gang nonsense, they will learn that you can do that and nothing bad will come of it.

- A large percentage of the people are already bad

- Anyone who pushes back against bad behavior is shunned, fired, or left "without backup" in bad situations

- There are no repercussions for bad behavior

- There are positive reinforcements for bad behavior

Eventually, you're either going to be driven out, or you're going to turn. So wiping the place clean and starting from scratch, while drastic (and _certainly not appropriate everywhere) can be a valid approach when the problem is rampant across the entire department.

“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”

I will use myself as an example. I absolutely do not want to be a cop despite having a relatively strong moral compass, because I know for a fact that I will agonize over small things and believe most excuses thrown at me. More than that, I do not think taxpayers would want me to be a cop, because I am lenient ( which also why I did not really enjoy having a position of authority in my previous job ). I mostly assume everyone will do what has to be done.

And sadly, that is not nor has ever been the case. Uniform is just a symbol of that power.

Because there are no good cops?

> most of use who are not in the US live in places where police misconduct is much less of an problem

Lucky you. I live in France and police "misconduct", brutality, utter incompetence and systematic lies are a huge problem, compounded by the fact that all politicians refuse to even consider the possibility that not everything is perfectly fine.

Seriously, this is the mother of all generalizations.

There are no good people with power.

Also known as, "power corrupts". You give a person power without consequences, you turn them into a ticking time bomb, and the timer determines when will they turn into a self-serving piece of shit.

My understanding is that it should be seen more as the starrtng point of a reflexion about the police (what should we therefore do?) rather than a conclusion.

The best example I know is videogames. Ever see anyone play GTA without shooting everyone on the street? In GTA, there are no real consequences for your actions, so our true nature comes out. I imagine that, in the real world, when a person has power without consequences, it starts feeling like a game of GTA to them after a while - not exercising the power available just feels "lame".

> what should we therefore do?

Restrict power, increase accountability. The only way to train (human) animals is through punishment when they piss on the rug.

That's certainly a more immediately relevant answer. Here in social media land.

They are the corrupting powers and avenues of expression for this bad human nature, here.

I disagree. The game is built to favor this behavior. If you wanted to, say, make a living in the game by selling pancakes, the scenario would not be supported to the same degree (in this case: not at all).

Look at flight simulators. Most people try to fly properly. Occasionally, people explore "what if" scenarios. But most certainly most people do not use it to practice or experience another 9/11.

Ignorig the what if's The "enjoyment" of playing a FlightSim is trying to be as much of a competent pilot as you can, in GTA you derive said enjoyment by acting as someone with complete disregard for consequences. (Both steer you to something, still, because no consequences people try the alternatives, like everyones short lived attempt to follow laws in GTA)

People intentionally torturing the Sims seems a lot more appropiate, and comparably common

Removing consequence from action means that the only thing stopping you is your own morality, which is dangerous (Would you rather destroy the life of a random no one you will never see, or that of a lifelong colleague/partner/friend?)

Yes, that's exactly what I meant -- thank you.

Police abuse starts at the top of the culture, not the bottom. Replacing the people on the ground will do nothing without also replacing the people who use police power for their own ends.

That won't happen without political and economic change. A traditional redistribution of wealth and power won't be enough. The problem needs a new political system with checks and balances that provide strong immunity to authoritarian capture by narcissists and sociopaths of all labels and persuasions.

The military is so intertwined with US national identity that it's embedded in just about everything from sports to science. The US police forces are the closest to military turned inwards.

For the German situation in regards to sport and the military, see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sportsoldat (You might need Google Translate or so, if you don't speak German.)

Where on earth did you get that from?

Armed forces are definitely not a big deal, in fact there's hardly any mention of them in public discourse, no parades or events involving the military, you hardly see them except occasionally you'll see soldiers going to their training on weekends on the train since Switzerland has national service.

There's also very little jingoism or mention of historical military activities. Really, hardly at all. And that's a good thing, and as far as I can tell that's how the Swiss like it.

Unfortunately the fetish for violence in American culture is baked into the core of American identity and has been since the Second Amendment and the archetype of the armed American revolutionary patriot was seared into the zeitgeist. Americans love Dirty Harry and Jack Bauer and the gritty, no-nonsense cowboy who shoots first and asks questions never.

I mean, just look at our response to 9/11. That should have been an opportunity to reflect on the policies that brought that kind of retribution about, and a chance to reconsider our assumptions about the world and our effect on it. Or at least to bring the world together under a rare common bond of global unity and do something good. Instead our jackass cowboy President said "you're either with us or with the terrorists" and went all Yosemite Sam across Iraq. We'll put a boot in yer ass 'cause it's the American way.

We're insulated as a culture (despite our bragging about our guns and revolutionary spirit, it's mostly bravado) and depressingly immature. It's no wonder our police are the way they are.

Everything is relative. Hearing comments and watching investigations in police abuses in France is chilling (e.g. there was recently a video of a cop, without his number prominently shown on the uniform, which is illegal for them dragging away and beating a protester), until you look into comments and investigations about police abuses in the US, and you're downright reassured things aren't that bad. Yeah, reforms are needed, the IGPN (authority that surveils and investigates the French Police) needs to be redone from scratch, and the first steps for that are non-crazies running the Interior Ministry (the last two guys were... special and hardliners), but seeing that extreme care needs to be taken, I completely get why no active politician wants to touch this issue. Remember when police were protesting due to working way too many hours without pay (basically they have an overtime budget for the year, and due to multiple long running protests, the budget was blown through in the first couple of months of the year and they had to work weekends for free) and how tense the situation was, with the Gendarmerie having to police the police protest? Nobody wants to piss off the police forces, because they are necessary and powerful.

Do people honestly believe this? Maybe in your country police force is completely broken, but it's still statistical impossibility. In my country, I believe, police is generally good and does their job reasonably. Of course they're not the most beloved job, because if you have to deal with them you probably have a problem, but given that situation they're OK. Maybe fix your police, fire the incompetent ones and replace your polititians that allow this instead of generalising.

In short, I agree with you. It is unreasonable to claim to that there are no issues ( and maybe even systemic issues ), but it is also unreasonable to claim that there is no such thing as a good cop. Cops are just people and people respond to the environment they are in. I think parent may exaggerating for brevity ( or at least I hope so ).

The solution is what it has always been, correct to the extent that you can until you get what you want in terms of results.

Naturally, this line of thinking opens rather uncomfortable set of questions, because:

What if the system works as intended given current incentives?

And that is a hard question I have no idea how to answer.

For instance, are there any good cops in Louisville? Any good state cops in Kentucky? Seems to me they would’ve done something, anything, about the Breonna Taylor case instead of waiting for the feds to come in.

There were even active coverups, Kentucky’s Attorney General went to great lengths to push the idea that the entire thing was perfectly legal!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Dorner_shootings_a...

Not really relevant, but the ridiculous (and secret) police response once they knew they were being targeted had bad consequences for others too. I have a house near where this multi-agency incident (links below) occurred and there was so much gunfire for such a long period that I knew it had to be cops doing the shooting.

https://www.kpcc.org/2014-01-15/la-district-attorney-torranc...

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-no-charges-lapd...

https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1...

There was no justice in it. You're also taking for granted that the misjustice he claimed to have seen actually happened. Taking seriously the word of a man we know murdered innocent people.

Again, you need to stop confusing my analysis for support and sympathy for Dorner. He obviously exhibited some mental problems and very poor judgement, but stressful conditions can do that to otherwise good people:

https://futuresrecoveryhealthcare.com/blog/psychotic-break-v...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Schoolcraft

[2] https://features.propublica.org/weirton/police-shooting-leth...

It is not a bad question to ask. Lets do what lawyers do: change one fact and see how it affects the case at hand.

Issue at hand is bad behavior of individuals in a group. Is individual guilty of actions committed by other individuals while being part of that group?

I suppose it depends.

Is a random US citizen guilty of actions of their politicians? Is a random US citizen guilty of actions of their sheriffs? Is a random US citizen guilty of actions of their neighbors? Is a random US citizen guilty of actions of their partners? Is a random US citizen guilty of actions of their kids?

I have problem with either of those despite seeing clearly what you are getting at. Starting from the bottom, I have a problem with 'sins of the father' justification all the way to the politician. I see an abstract reasoning that can take us to 'yes, inaction is a choice too', but is it in the same category? Does it even have the same weight?

<< There were even active coverups, Kentucky’s Attorney General went to great lengths to push the idea that the entire thing was perfectly legal!

Chicago is not better. Some stories are heart-wrenching and, as I stated before, I would not be able to be a cop just based on those alone, but I personally think you are trying to spread sin way too thin, which, contrary to what you think you are doing, is only distributing accountability even further and alienate even those, who could reasonably agree with you otherwise.

In very simple terms, if you are gonna define me as bad apple anyway by association only, I might as well stick to my tribe, where at least I will have some level of protection from the outside.

And that, I think, is the true problem.

You think the cops in your family are good because they are in your family and are nice to you. That's probably the extent of the details about their job you know

"Have you considered the average hn user is a rapist, of course they deny it and they dont talk about it. You think HN users are good because theyre nice to you!"

Im as anti-authoritarian as they come, but I really dont like hyperbolic arguments.

Getting pulled over leaving a bar on the way to a buy, with gun and badge in motorcycle roll. "I'm not unrolling that..." to prove he was who he said, "I think my boss would be more upset about dropping a buy than me blowing over on an alcohol test."

Or, getting caught in the middle of a shootout between the Feds and a biker gang.

Edit: My dad also quit two positions along the way, one because his boss was a clear racist, and another that had some other issues in the dept.

My mom was a dispatcher, and when retired was head of combined dispatch for a region. She mostly dealt with people in trouble, distress, or sometimes the absurd.

I apologize. This is not what I intended to convey.

That line was intended more as disclaimer ("hey. i am not completely objective here").

My actual argument follows beneath ("cops are just humans").

Unless you can show me that HN users are part of a structured organization notorious for rape, this isn't even remotely analogous.

Police are part of a hierarchy and brotherhood that is very well known to abuse its authority, act outside the law, and protect its own, all without legal repercussion.

Not at all..I accept we are all humans.

That said, define bad for me so that we are not talking about fairly relative and abstract terms and can be easily misconstrued.

For example, I do not want to get into specifics and you are certainly right that they would be foolish to disclose their own transgressions if any were committed for several different reasons.

However, the conversations we did have on some events[1] they were not involved in painted a relatively close picture of their thought process and considerations at play. I am going to paraphrase and try to capture the gist of that conversation in sentences that follow where 'they' refers to the cops on the scene ( and to an extent the blue shield/line phenomenon ).

In short, one of their own fucked up. They knew he fucked up, but they tried to protect him from immediate fallout. As related, they said family was paid off, but 'could not keep their mouths shut', which is where the resentment was with those who did not hold up their end of the bargain that was supposedly struck. And naturally, when the case made national news, everyone was pissed, because assumption was that money bought silence on the matter ( who footed the bill for that silence was not clear, but, presumably taxpayer ).

Now, the political fallout makes it more complicated, because the rank and file has had the impression that case was informally settled and, from their perspective, it was 'over'. Rank and file finds out they get no cover from leadership and so the thin blue line only grows stronger as a result.

Now, you might be thinking: "This is exactly what I am talking about. If you participate in any way in this, you are the bad guy.'

I urge you to consider what you would have done. This case was a clearly fucked up case. I would like to think I would have stood up.

That said, as a cop, just like when you are a doctor, or a lawyer or any other high stakes job, you will eventually make a mistake that will result in someone dying. You will fuck up. And in some extreme cases, you will kill someone. That is the reality of that job. And it is a lot to take in.

There are logical consequences to what I just said and I absolutely recognize it can be horrifying. There is a reason I compared cops to doctors and lawyers, because I think this could help offset some of the issues should we ever get to an actual working improvement of police in US, but I don't want to get too far ahead of this conversation.

With that in mind lets go through some of the scenarios:

'if you know your actions in the course of work may end up killing someone are you automatically a bad person?' 'if you identify with a group, because you understand the toll it takes, are you automatically a bad person?' 'if you become a member of that group, because $absolute_number_of_members did $bad_thing, are you automatically a bad person?'

I have more questions along those lines, but I worry that I already threw out a lot into the ether so I am curious of your response.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Laquan_McDonald

A cop ceases to be a cop when they take off the uniform. They can be perfectly nice people in outside life (although they can also not) but when the uniform goes on, they're contributors to a system of abuse.

"No good cops" does not mean good people don't go into policing. It means that those who insist on trying to meaningfully change the system get forced out, leaving only those who contribute to it.

There will never be a good cop until accountability is an actual thing in policing.

Even a "justified" shooting by a cop should be considered a horrific failure of process.

I think this is where we might disagree. I can't comment for other countries. I can comment a little about Chicagoland. If there is a failure, it is not the failure of the process ( here understood as policing ). At this point, 'justified shooting' is merely what I would classify as 'necessary violence'. I am not using that word lightly, because actual violence only creates problems.

It is the failure of:

1. Society that allowed a given issue to fester long enough to move beyond tension 2. Individuals' environment that contributed to it 3. Individuals' family and fiends 4. The individual

Police merely deals with the aftermath. I think you got it wrong.

Capricious violence, racism, and corruption are so endemic to american policing that every cop is either an active participant, or aware of specific instances and complicit in this lawlessness. The internal culture of policing enforces this through peer pressure, hazing, and threats and violence if necessary. Good people can become police but they can't stay police: they ultimately either warp their morals to conform to this system or leave it entirely.

Considering this a problem of individual cop incompetence is naive honestly. This "problem" is so widespread, so universal, that you can't understand the role of police in society without accounting for it. They aren't incompetent and failing at their job: this is their job! Terrorism against the dispossessed is an important part of what they do, and they are doing it.

How many bad apples does it take, to spoil the whole barrel?

I'm not disagreeing with the comment I'm replying to, just trying to challenge the perception that there's anything ok with "just" a few bad apples. The acceptable number of bad apples is zero.

This is obviously idealistic and impossible in the real world (given the size of a police force). What is needed is a system that gets rid of bad apples with time, instead of letting them thrive and corrupting other apples.

WHAT PUNISHMENT?

And that.. can probably be changed. Qualified immunity would be much harder.

It doesn't just take apples, it takes time. If you remove the bad apple as soon as possible, the rest of the barrel can still be fresh and healthy. If you leave it to rot, you spoil the entire batch.

Should we defund and abolish public schools since more than zero teachers are child molesters? Should we defund and abolish fire departments since more than zero firefighters are arsonists?

Where that cutoff percentage is, depends on the single organisation and the individuals within it. But I believe that in this case it is a combination of police culture ("we always did it that way, we need to protect our own") and systemic incentives ("if we hide bad behaviour we look better than if we expose it") are the key to understanding this.

These are deep rooted issues that are not as easily quantified and discouraged. Reducing gun misuse is one thing, but reducing police discrimination, selective policing, and misconduct is a much larger ball of wax.

And people think that they need those means (which they never had) "back."

Also institutional racism and all the other shit that's true for most police across the world.

ACAB.

The German government decided there doesn't need to be an external investigation into police violence because the police can be trusted to have correctly investigated itself finding that police violence is not a problem.

The NRW state minister of the interior abolished ID badges for riot police, then insisted that there had been no evidence of misconduct during police riots because no individual officers (wearing full helmets and no individually identifying features) had ever been charged despite video evidence of excessive use of force.

Demonstrators hospitalized due to police violence routinely receive police visits in hospital because their injuries are taken as evidence of resisting arrest as all police violence is presumed to be justified.

The NRW police literally used the energy company's transport vehicles to detain and transport arrested demonstrators during the raid on Lützerath, where the police was explicitly instructed to show full force to deter future protests at similar sites.

Police officers were found to be part of a neo-nazi group called Combat18 (18 = Adolf Hitler) that had maintained kill lists using police records and a stash of assault weapons and body bags.

It's a whole thing, yes.

We can look at statistics from eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g... and compare with statistics on police shootings.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/gun-ownership.html

https://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gu...

But it’s like firing the whole development team because we all keep ignoring lint errors and our bugs crash the system.

I think there’s systemic changes to make.

Maybe for cases like this if the judge or person that approves the warrants has a high failure rate they can no longer approve warrants.

Same issue with nearly every place people have power. It feels particularly acute in the US because of reverent attitudes to police force.

But doctors, nurses, teachers, priests... Good people will do bad things given half a chance.

From what I can tell from the outside, people always accuse American police of being terrible. I don't see much of a reverent attitude.

This attitude goes way back. It is characterological. See the Fugitive Slave Act versus states' rights.

Also, the Democrats have never had a politician of any stature, let alone a president of their party, say "Government is not the solution to the problem. Government is the problem." That was Ronald Reagan.

In other words, you are right, the left does distrust those portions of the government it does not control, but there is an enormous difference of degree in how the two sides behave towards these portions of the government.

There's no inconsistency in trusting a democratic process to do mostly democratic things but thinking the lack of accountability in policing has had negative outcomes. The vast majority of democratic voters in america do not support "abolish the police' in entirety, but rather that reforms are needed.

The first problem with that, from the perspective of forming an accurate view of the populace, is that, as a whole, the US leans ever-so-slightly center-right[0].

The second problem is that much of our political news is a circus whereby both political parties attempt to paint a picture that the “majority” of the country is behind more extreme interpretations of their platforms — that the country leans more heavily to the left or the right than it really does. The Republican Party has been doing this for more than a generation; its a more recent phenomenon with the Democrats.

0 - https://news.gallup.com/poll/275792/remained-center-right-id...

…and except when Team Red needs to justify owning military grade weapons, in which case it’s all about deterring tyranny by being prepared to shoot cops and soldiers.

It’s a very… situational reverence. Like, as long as the situation is the police attacking the correct demographics.

I think that's starting to break down. Conservatives are not happy with the ATF's self evaluation of congressional law right now and they are certainly an armed police force with arresting power. Also, poor people who are conservative are also on the receiving end of police violence quite frequently as well.

There are plenty of police abuse videos out there, against citizens of all colors and they're all over YouTube. The more people watch them, the more that support will break down.

Of course the other irony is some of the worst police departments are in cities run by the Democratic Party. New York, LA, Chicago, Louisville, New Orleans. The abuses aren't limited to a single party, so it's difficult to politicize.

And how changing the systems and culture can fix it. Think the book checklists discusses this in detail .

If people no longer trust that executive arm of government, then hold those in power responsible for it. Start at the top and replace those politicians. An elected politician can only remain in office if they continue to receive support by voters.

Just voting differently is naturally not the only way a government can be held responsible. Political assigned jobs is a job description based on trust, and there should be mechanism to remove individuals who do not fulfill that trust. Governments should also be liable to their citizens, so when injustice occurs people should have the option to demand compensation from the government. This in turn put pressure on politicians to avoid injustice caused by the police.

A police force that protects citizens rights should be viewed as an asset to local government, and the opposite should be a harsh liability that local governments can feel.

I try to solve problems from a systems perspective. For example the common automobile stop and warrantless search allows officers to more easily abuse power and escalate situations quickly as cops no longer required a warrant from a judge. This was by design by the Supreme Court who ruled in 1925 to allow this exception in times of prohibition when an individual ran away from police with alcohol and they didn't have time to go get a warrant. Stop and frisk was an extension of this case law.

A more accurate comparison would be firing the whole team for inserting intentional backdoors and collecting fractional pennies from each transaction and depositing them in personal accounts.

Accidents happen to everyone. We often make trade offs. In the cases we're talking about, these weren't accidents or appropriate judgement calls.

Heh, so because he was the victim of a burglary the police decided to do burgle him again.

Total retail theft alone is well over $60b [2]. Adding in other crimes like employee theft, fraud, property crimes, and so on puts total US cost from crime well into hundreds of billions.

So no, police don't steal more than traditional criminals.

[1] https://www.justice.gov/afp/reports-0

[2] https://www.rila.org/focus-areas/public-policy/study-retail-...

And it doesn't actually affect the point.

When your world view is made of false claims and feelings and you ignore actual evidence, don't be surprised when people that do prefer evidence won't believe you.

Of course the number should be 0, but the context of this discussion _you_ created is:

> Police steal more than people usually thought of as criminals by way of asset forfeiture abuse, so it tracks.

Are you still arguing this point, or have you now moved onto a new one?

Also , you completely ignore that, as I pointed out, the $6b includes assets seized from real criminals. El Chapo alone has $12 billion listed for seizure and the feds incrementally get it. Every drug seizure you see in the news is in it. Alt coins seized from fraudulent companies is in it. This list goes on an on. At best a tiny fraction is seized from people never charged or convicted. The seizures from convicted criminals is massive. You can simply Google total drug seized value and put that in the pile.

If you are going to be intellectually dishonest at every turn, despite being handed reasonable, well cited evidence, and not provide a shred when asked, it is no wonder you believe and make up stuff.

I take it you have zero empirical evidence and simply pull this stuff out of thin air.

So, again, do you have any place you read your claim? Or did you simply make it up? Don't bother deflecting again. Simply answer the question.

>> "Police steal"

Civil asset forfeiture is about $68 billion since 2000. How much of that is abuse? Well, fighting a claim costs money, money the police took. So we're left with the word of the people who took it plus the few people who could still afford to fight it, and the former will obviously want you to believe it's all 100% legit.

So we're back at:

>> "Police steal"

And any amount should be a big deal. The people who provide the force of the state's monopoly on violence should not be able to do a single thing wrong without it being investigated and handled fully and immediately. One dollar. One billion dollars. Doesn't matter.

>> "Police steal"

And any amount should be seen as a crisis worth the full and immediate attention of the people they're supposed to serve.

But since you'll ignore all that, here's your damn citation: https://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit-3/

But it doesn't matter. Because, again, any amount of theft by police is a crisis.

Then people wonder why black people don't talk to (or call) the police. It has nothing to do with "snitching". It's about the fact that It never ends well, no matter which side you're on. Best to avoid the beasts entirely.

The aversion to police altogether, while I understand is akin to being overprotective as a parent, which can be more than just counterproductive but harmful as a whole.

However, there appear to be no good police unions. The unions bend over backwards to protect bent cops almost regardless of their actions. The "good cops" also support these unions - if they didn't, and if the "good cops" where the majority, then the police unions would reflect that

And one of the misunderstood things about ACAB is that it doesn't have to be literally true, if there are enough bad cops (and we know by now that there are), and if the bad cops are protected by the good cops (which we also know to be the case most of the time) then as a civilian you don't know which you're going to be dealing with in an interaction. The only safe thing to do is to assume that any given cop that you interact with is a bad cop.

The union is supposed to serve the police, and that includes legal protection... your lawyer is going to back you, that's how the system works. Would you want a defense lawyer that was against you?

I know it's pretty simplistic, but that's largely what it comes down to... I'm not supporting police misconduct at all. I think that civil asset forfeiture is a crime, I think that police spend too much time trying to make criminals out of innocent people... Once at an accident where I was rear ended, "why is your seatbelt unbuckled?" I was kind of pissed, because, "I needed to get my insurance and registration from the glove box."

In the end, I get it... I do feel, however, that the ACAB is oversized because a lot of it is over-reported or misrepresented.

I'm also not that inclined to generally and blindly support police. They are agents of the govt's interests and not yours. They serve the govt and the govt is too split from general good and in favor of the wealthy and powerful. And I also think that enforcing draconian lockdowns in many places didn't gain them any favor with anyone these past few years.

Again, most cops are mostly good, like most people. And like most people they will bend to peer pressure, anxiety, stress and their environment. You really want to see people with a bent personality, talk to the guys that have to clean up traffic accidents sometime... They're quasi police and complete alcoholics for the most part. That's a job nobody should have for an extended period of time. It's extreme, but only to show that one's own experiences will shape their perception.

Of course, I am biased, I just make an effort to be level headed as much as possible.

That's an interesting perspective and nuance! It gets really interesting when the same group is both responsible for "protecting the individual" and "protecting the profession". In most legal situations, you have a lawyer of your own and it's very crystal clear that their role is to protect your best interests. And I am one of the people who strongly strongly believe that, in the general legal perspective, "he got off on a technically" should almost always be replaced with "the legal system failed to do their job". For example, if someone is acquitted of a crime because of a poor chain of custody with the evidence, the fault 100% is on the people who failed to do their jobs correctly. When the state wants to strip someone of their most basic right (freedom), they had better dot their Ts and cross their Is.

> In the end, I get it... I do feel, however, that the ACAB is oversized because a lot of it is over-reported or misrepresented.

With the lawyer situation, I am paying my lawyer to represent me the best they can. With the police union situation, the good guys are paying union dues that go directly towards the defence fund for the bad guys. There's a very significant conflict of interest here as well; if a video leaks where I'm beating the shit out of someone while wearing my company uniform, my employer is almost certainly going to put out a statement about how my actions don't represent the company values and that I've been terminated. With the police and police unions, there's often complete silence or even support.

I have more thoughts, thank you for triggering a really interesting line of thought for me. Will try to come back to this but work's getting busy again...

That was after the civilian world had already reacted publicly. All of the police involved helped kill him or cover it up until the video came out.

"A bad system will beat a good person every time." -- W. Edward Deming

> The only safe thing to do is to assume that any given cop that you interact with is a bad cop.

True.

I was swatted. I had a puppy who was still in the barking and biting phase. My starting assumption was they'd shoot my dog.

Then I got conflicting instructions ("freeze!" and "lie down on the ground!"). And I thought, "Whelp, here it is."

Fortunately, we both lived. But it's sad that being shot in my driveway while wearing my PJs would be a "disappointed, but not surprised".

Due to the potential for an extreme outcome, I've long though Swatting should cop the 'prankster' an attempted murder charge. Which is in itself probably excessive, but hey.

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/what-polic...

The unions are literally the legal defense for the police... they are supposed to do that. And police protect their own, like most people in any tribalistic group. The power and repercussions for those that are bad guys in the system is definitely outsized in terms of influence and effect.

Again, and I feel I have to repeat this... I do not condone, or favor misconduct. I think police, generally speaking have too much power and gov't employees as a whole too much protection from liability for their actions. I'd like to see govt, and police reduced as much as reasonably possible, and strongly favor 2A and self defense.

According to a 2006 report [1] from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (part of the DOJ), 25% of allegations of use of excessive force were unfounded. (This contradicts statements made elsewhere in the comments that "most allegations against police are falsified.") Keep in mind that these numbers are reported by the police agencies themselves.

(In the interest of beimg complete: In 23% of cases the officer involved was exonerated, meaning the "incident occurred, but the officer’s action was deemed lawful and proper". In 34% of cases the police agency didn't find enough evidence to either sustain the allegation or exonerate the officer. 8% of allegations ended with disciplinary action.)

Interestingly, when surveying citizens, the BJS found that 75% of citizens who experienced use of force thought it was excessive, although only about 10% filed a complaint with the agency employing the officer(s).

I wasn't able to find very much info on this, and I suspect there are probably some pretty big biases, so if anyone else has any info, please share.

[1]: https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/ccpuf.pdf

It is not a matter of good cops and bad cops. The issues are systemic and often complicated.

That doesn't mean you have to be an asshole, and that doesn't condone asshole cops either. The point is, that broad brush strokes definitely don't help.

Personally, I'd like to see most govt minimized, including police and standing down the military. I'd like to see far more community engagement, and strongly support 2A and self defense, I don't like seeing that eroded for larger/stronger govt.

I was under the impression that the police in the US are not required to be truthful and it's perfectly legal for them to give false legal advice if it'll make their day go smoother?

That said, if it were anything more than something like a basic traffic stop, I wouldn't answer anything other than my name and providing ID without a lawyer. Pretty much every interaction with police (outside family/friends) has been a traffic stop, an accident, or otherwise reporting a crime.

If you are required by law to answer a question, you must do so. If you are not required to, you do not have to. What the police tell you has nothing to do with it.

There are very few occasions when you can be required by law to answer a question without a lawyer present (and without a judge compelling you to do so). These questions tend to be very limited, such as name and address, and may be even more limited in states without a stop and identify statute. You should research these questions before you need them.

The police are not required to teach you the law (with a very specific exception of reading you your rights when you are arrested) and are allowed to lie to you. They may also be simply mistaken about the legality of compelling you to answer a question. This may or may not impact the admissibility of anything you say, but generally provided the police officer reasonably believes what they’re saying is true, they will have qualified immunity and you will not be able to (successfully) take action against a police officer for lying to you.

In any case, you should take personal responsibility for learning what questions you must answer, and any questions other than that you should respond to with some formulation that makes it clear that a) you are aware of your legal right to refuse to answer the question, for example under the fifth amendment and b) you are exercising that right. You should answer all questions this way, even seemingly innocuous questions, as inferences may be drawn from your choice to stop answering questions. Courts have also established that if you are unaware of your fifth amendment rights, then they do not protect you. You should get legal advice at the earliest opportunity, but certainly before answering any question you are not required to answer. Police also receive training on how to make it seem as though you are required to answer the question without necessarily saying so. For example “how many people live in your house?” may be the question.

You might respond with something like “I would prefer not to answer that question”.

The police officer might then respond with something like “I need to know how many people live in your house so I can record it in the report/make sure my colleagues are aware that there are people at home/because I need that information to perform a proper investigation”. They may even threaten you with arrest for obstruction, but at this point they have likely crossed a threshold and anything you say past that point is probably inadmissible.

Although I’m not a lawyer, the above is my understanding of the recommendations of pretty much every lawyer about everything. You should do your own research or engage your own lawyer rather than listening to some loon on the internet with a Wikipedia degree.

Your understanding is absolutely wrong. There are no magic words that make your voluntary confession inadmissible whether intentional or not. l

The closest thing would be refusing to answer questions. Then, if arrested, demand your attorney and continue to refuse. Never try to rely on a Miranda violation.

Also, folks, find out if your state has a Stop & ID law and understand the details of when they can apply. You are always required to ID yourself if stopped for a traffic infraction.

Alec Baldwin, the actor, may have voluntarily talked his way into prison by saying too much after the recent accidental shooting on a film set.[0].

[0]https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/04/26/alec-baldwins-sad-str...

This is ironic reasoning for defending a body with a history of racial profiling, i.e. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/us-department-justice-ch...

Look, my initial response to this is here[1]... I don't condone misconduct... but I am at least attempting to have a level head and see more sides to this. I'm someone who would generally like to see most of the govt including police and military end.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35289247

In this case, it's f'd up, and the police in question, from what I recall were dismissed. The lawsuit itself is anything but okay imo, and they shouldn't have any expectation of privacy while on duty, period. And was my very first response in this post, if you care to look/check.

I'm a minimal govt libertarian, and that includes police. I'm just pointing out facts. How many times have you ratted someone out in an environment with oversized peer pressure? MOST people historically won't and don't.

> How many times have you ratted someone out in an environment with oversized peer pressure?

Why has this culture of oversized peer pressure been permitted to continue unabated for so long?

When I was in the military, there was an incident where someone witnessed another serviceman committing a war crime. The commander dragged us all out, stood us at attention, and made 3 things abundantly clear: 1) if we committed a war crime we would be punished. 2) if we witnessed a war time we were expected to report it. 3) failure to report is a UCMJ violation and will also be punished.

What's so special about cops? Why do they get held to a lower standard than the military?

Mine is let self defense reign supreme and vigorously defended #2A.

Any policing force will have power.

I'm curious as to where you got this information. After a quick search, a source of information said that 25% of allegations against police are falsified [1]. This is far from "most allegations against police". (I wouldn't be surprised if there were bias in favor of police in presenting this information either, as the organization putting it out states that a big part of their mission is "working to protect innocent law enforcement officers ... from wrongful allegations and convictions".)

It also doesn't make sense to me if most allegations are falsified, why aren't police unions in favor of more transparency and turning cases over to more objective parties to be investigated and cleared (i.e. civilian over-site boards instead of other police officers)? It's a bit alarming that an organization whose job it is, is to investigate crimes, wasn't able to either clear an officer or find him guilty of the allegation in 65% of situations (according to the statistics from the website [1]). (It's not worded the best in the report, so again, if you have other evidence that's both more objective and clear, I'd appreciate seeing it.)

I get that police shouldn't be automatically seen as the "bad guy", and I think it's sad that we live in a society (at least in the U.S.) where that is often the case. However, I think there are reasons for the distrust and defending against those reasons is counter-productive and not moving us in the right direction.

> they shouldn't have any expectation of privacy while on duty, period.

I agree with this (aside from minor exceptions), but police who destroy private surveillance systems and then sue when information gets out, presumably to create a chilling effect, go against what you seem to be arguing for: giving the police a chance at objective judgement. In my eyes, they do this to themselves.

> How many times have you ratted someone out in an environment with oversized peer pressure? MOST people historically won't and don't.

Just because most of us have fallen victim to peer pressure, doesn't mean it's right, and I don't think you are arguing that, but ignoring it in your plea towards empathy for police. I don't think claiming the police deserve more empathy in this story, than a man who was falsely accused of kidnapping and faced unfair repercussions because of it, is the right balance to strike. I would argue that we should be working to break down peer pressure and tribalism within the justice system, instead of excusing it.

> I'm just pointing out facts.

Again, I think the facts that you present are wrong (esp. that most allegations are falsified), and I'd genuinely like to see some evidence to back them up. I've seen plenty of evidence that police brutality and dishonesty is a problem in the past few years, and seems to me to be the bigger problem, so I have a hard time seeing from your point of view. (I'm often wrong about things, so I'd like help seeing it from a different perspective.) If you could present some evidence that might change my mind, I'd really like to look into it.

Anyway, thank you for the thoughtful discussion.

[1]: https://www.uncufftheinnocent.org/post/wrongful-allegations-...

Because most cops are bad. Plenty of good people become cops every day. But good cops have a half life of just a few years. The moment a good cop thinks "well I'll just overlook this one thing so that the guys will still like me" he becomes a bad cop. Whereas good cops treat it as a moral line and become former cops.

A police force that won’t expel and arrest one corrupt cop is an entirely corrupt force.

Aversion to police is just aversion to risk. You never know why a cop is asking you a question or what they are really investigating so even answering innocuous questions is massively risky. You never know if you match the description of someone they are looking for or if something minor like answering a question during a traffic stop. “I’m just headed home from the grocery store officer” could put you at the scene of a crime you didn’t even know about.

Misunderstandings are usually easy to clear up with most people but if a cop decides you are under arrest it would have catastrophic consequences for most people and everything you said prior to that arrest would immediately be stacked against you.

If YOU get pulled over and the cop is aware that you have police family they may give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are “one of them” and not “one of us”, for everyone else take the advice that every defense attorney agrees on: just don’t talk to them.

Would they really come home and mention all the shitty things they did to their child?