And even that analogy is flawed, because it's unambiguous that at least some of these "bad cop" interactions involve deliberate malfeasance on the part of the cop. When was the last time the pilot intentionally crashed their plane?

It turns out, some cops are bad actors. They're the ones we should be hearing about. And we should also be hearing about it when their departments pull shit like TFA: firing the investigator who says their shoots were bad, for not altering his findings to suit their narrative.

Germanwings not long ago.

That is, in edge cases like a bit of swerving, 10 over the limit, newly expired tags, etc; police will look at the car and what they can tell about who is driving it and where they are to determine if they pull over or not.

A cop told me this directly. I don't remember his exact conditions – but they included things like a young guy driving a real nice car or a car that seem like maybe it was his mother's or a really beat up car. You're a lot less likely to get pulled over if you're driving a mid-priced sedan.

---

In America police kill about 1000 people per year. There's no hard number because there are no official statistics kept – that's telling in itself.

Thousands and thousands of police interactions each day, and each day about three of those ends up with somebody dead. The police in this country are undertrained and underpaid. The stupidity of the populace drives them to be statistics driven, and the environment attracts hot heads who want power to the career. Once on the job the complete lack of negative feedback from internal investigations and the courts gives them god complexes and their culture becomes a cesspool of corruption and us vs. them mentality.

Police should be masters at de-escalation. Instead, because they are not trained and motivated, they often create the situations which result in shootings. Not universally, but often. The people who shoot at the police _do_ have a reasonable belief that they'll be killed if they don't try to defend themselves. That is people who have committed crimes end up being more violent because they fear police brutality. Police in turn are quicker to turn to force in fear of their own safety.

This vicious should be and needs to be terminated by police learning how best to minimize the violent tendencies of petty criminals and the mentally ill. Don't get me wrong, the weapons they use are valuable and important tools, but they are so often used because the authority wants to use them.

I've known more than one person who before signing up, said openly that they were joining the armed services because they "wanted to shoot people". It's easy to find police on public media who clearly have the attitude that the people they work with on a daily basis are the enemy.

It's easy to look at the cops as the bad guys. "Fuck the police!" but that's falling for the same line of reasoning that the bad cops do.

You have to recognize that it's a systematic problem. The real world is complex – Americans really have to rid themselves of the Christian "good vs. evil" narrative we try to apply to every situation.

And it turns out that hostage situations in police shootings are indeed pretty damned rare.

I don't think that's how "criminal justice" is supposed to work.

These are things no engineer would hear of but you see statements like yours on HN all the time.

Let me put it this way: is it your position that in every single one of those thousand-odd cases, the person who was shot deserved it? If not, how many of them did?

Only with proper independent review panels can justice be served against a bad cop. I'm not necessarily "anti-cop", but I know the importance of a robust cop investigation unit.

There's no reason to be loyal to corrupt and dangerous indiviuals that are supposed to be trusted public servants.

Did you even read my post?

The fact remains: cops (and cop supporters) are proud and that's not necessarily a bad thing. I think if people portrayed the arguments and problems with cops in a way that cops (and cop supporters) can keep their pride... life is going to be a lot better.

At the end of the day, Cops have more pride in their work than other government workers (compared to... say... Motor Vehicle Administrations or TSA Airport scanners). When you push on Cops, they push back because of their pride.

But its not necessarily a bad thing. You just gotta keep the pride in mind when you propose police reform. Otherwise, it becomes very difficult to get the individual officers to reform with the law.

There's no good reason that reform should be restricted by the need to avoid making cops feel indignant. In exchange for cops obeying the law, we offer nothing whatsoever, including respect for their pride. It's not a negotiation.

I am not the one who brought up race.

But in any case, Police pride is a real thing and you need to account for it in your arguments. Otherwise, actual police reform becomes impossible.

I don't think the police actually are this way, not most of them. But if they were, then the answer would be to start over from a clean slate, not try to work around their delicate feelings.

There's been a drive-by shooting in Baltimore a few weeks ago, but Officer Morale (from the protests / etc. etc.) is so low that none of the officers wanted to do anything about it. Anthony Batts was fired for it, but a change in leadership doesn't change the fundamental morale problem going on with the Baltimore City Police Department.

Officer morale in Baltimore is so low that nobody wanted to respond to a drive-by shooting? Anywhere else, if your morale is so low that you don't feel like doing your job, you get fired and they find new people who do feel like doing their job. Did any Baltimore police get fired for failing to respond to this drive-by shooting? If not, why not?

What recruiting pool do you imagine we get new officers from? And how do you imagine that having a force completely made of inexperienced cops will improve things?

More likely, some of them are prideful and the rest go along. Start disciplining them and you'll get rid of the bad ones and fix the rest. For the example of the Baltimore shooting, no need to fire the whole department, but every officer who was on duty and refused to respond should be fired instantaneously.

At no point did I say that. Hacker News doesn't lend itself to discussion very well, and if you want to stuff words in my mouth, I will refuse to partake in the discussion.

> For the example of the Baltimore shooting, no need to fire the whole department, but every officer who was on duty and refused to respond should be fired instantaneously.

You clearly have awesome leadership skills. You should run for Police Sheriff, clearly you know more about running a police department than everyone else.

Now as to the actual discussion, you said that if we don't keep pride in mind, it will be difficult to get officers to reform. You further presented the example of the Baltimore drive-by which the police refused to respond to after their pride had been hurt. That, to me, sounds like you're saying that if we hurt police pride they will turn on us by failing to obey us and by failing to protect us. Is that not what you meant?

As for my "awesome leadership skills," are you saying that firing police officers who refuse to respond to an incident because they have hurt feelings due to protests is the wrong action to take? If I understand that correctly, please elaborate. In any other job, refusing to do perform a critical duty required by your job without a very good reason is generally a firing offense. Why is that not the case for the police, and what action do you suggest should be taken?

If this is your level of maturity, then I shall have no part in the rest of this conversation. Your "awesome leadership skills" can't even comprehend the concept behind "morale" anyway, I'm not sure where to even start a discussion with you.

There are plenty of people who would be very grateful for the kinds of money police officers can make in a typical city. I seriously don't think there would be a problem.

In any other organization, people who didn't do their jobs would be disciplined or fired. Why are the police different?

I'm just trying to fathom a situation in which another type of employee could use 'pride' as an excuse for failing to do the job they are tasked to do in a way that is not injurious to their customers.

I think there are good arguments in support of the police in the way they effectuate their job responsibilities, but "pride" is, in my opinion, not a terribly good one.

It's left as an exercise for the reader to determine which is which.

Keeping that in mind, and educating them of the viewpoint is more important than yelling at them or breaking them down.

If they don't believe those things, fire them and get cops who will do their jobs.

Your solution to an uptick of 48% more murders is to fire all the cops. Break the Police pride down, punish the cops. That's totally how you get people to risk their lives and patrol the West Districts of Baltimore.

Absolutely brilliant. I wonder why no one has implemented this outstanding idea before. /sarcasm

Let me give you a hint: If you Fire a Cop, they'll just work in another district. There are _plenty_ of safe districts looking for experienced officers, and there's almost no reason why an officer has to keep working in West Baltimore aside from pride.

They can very easily jump to another richer district, one with fewer murders and higher-educated populace. And frankly, the smarter cops tend to do that. I think officers prefer to work in safe places and hand out speeding tickets all day... rather than taking on armed drug dealers in the worst parts of Baltimore.

So offer some alternatives instead of just knocking everyone else down.

As stated before, my solution is to create robust independent police review boards. It'd be something like New York City's model with an independent "Civilian Complaint Review Board", complete with subpoena power against officers.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/ccrb/html/home/home.shtml

Anyway, Chicago's review board has indications of weakness, and the article above is simply a note of what is going on in that agency. Maybe the review board needs to hire more non-cops and more lawyers from the ACLU.

The correct action depends a lot on the politics of the Chicago review board are. If the review board is appointed by the direct election, then the leaders need to be voted out and reformed.

If the review board is appointed by the local mayor / city counsel, then we should organize political protests and bring up the Chicago Independent Police Review Authority as an actual issue during Chicago elections.

If you don't live in the city of Chicago, then of course the article posted here doesn't apply to you. They don't apply to me either, but if it were happening in my city, that's how I'd start.

I didn't advocate firing anybody. I think you're confusing me with other participants in this thread. That's pretty ironic, coming from someone who said elsewhere in the discussion, "if you want to stuff words in my mouth, I will refuse to partake in the discussion." [1]

EDIT: I also don't think the up-thread proposal was to fire everyone. Just the bad actors. And, really, do you want someone who's malicious and has a power trip walking around with a gun and the authority to use it?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9918408

You are aware this is an article where the cops fired someone specifically because he said cops were at fault in numerous incidents?

This is basically a case of the police firing the auditor who found their mistakes because "he found too many".

However, there are also problems with the ways in which cops are help responsible for their actions. This allows the bad and not-so-good cops to keep being cops.

The article is pointing out a problem with how this accountability is implemented in Chicago.

So what is your point exactly?

Could you clarify what that point is exactly? As written, you seem to be saying that identifying bad actors from good actors is extremely difficult due to other factors. I agree with that if that is the point you are making.

I think there is something else here too, though?