Having Our Cake And Eating It, Too (Cops)

[blas87]

Since I fear the thread on CS.com isn't going to last much longer without getting the plug pulled, and this would be an easier way to let our feelings out...

Obviously, we want the bad guys caught. We want innocent people to not be harrassed. We want bad cops punished, we want good cops to get all the glory they deserve.

But that's not how it always works.

Can we really have our cake and eat it too? Can we really stop cops from following around just anyone driving home late at night or pulling someone over for window tint just because they are bored or having a bad day?

[jackfaire]

There is a difference between window tint and


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Chasse

[blas87]

I know I wrote my original OP in a very vague way, and I do apologize for that.

I also want to apologize if it seems improper to use Fashion Lad's OP from CS as an example, but that is how the thread started, and as the thread got bigger, there became so many other examples that I didn't see it fit to add anymore to it, as we have plenty of room (and more leeway to talk about this stuff) here to do so.

[Stormraven]

Drop the concept of sovereign immunity. Uphold some form of immunity when the officer is acting on good faith, but if it can be shown (innocent until proven guilty, after all) that there was no good faith, then the officer is no longer immune to legal action brought in reaction to his actions.

It wouldn't be a perfect fix, but there's no such thing anyway, and I believe it would reduce a lot of the bullying.

[protege]

Then there's the case of Johnny Gammage, who died while in police custody. For those who don't know, Gammage was a cousin of Ray Seals...who played for the Steelers. Gammage was driving Seals' Jaguar the night he died.
None of the officers involved were found guilty...and one was even *promoted* after the incident! Pardon my French, but how the FUCK does that work? The reason for pulling Gammage over? The cops claimed he was "driving erratically."

In reality, Gammage was using his brakes, because the road (Route 51, heading towards Pittsburgh) slopes downhill...and didn't want to get busted for speeding. It's been said *many* times, that he was pulled over, simply because he was a black man, in a nice car. I hate to say it, but that happens more than you'd think--the borough where it happened, has a well-deserved reputation for that sort of thing. There have been *many* instances of the cops harassing people, or beating up "people of interest."

How do I know this? Several people I went to school with were EMTs around that time. They said that they got called quite a bit after that borough's cops had "dealt with someone." Also, one of my classmates (who is white), got pulled over while driving his dad's Jaguar sedan. Not only that, but the cops took everything from the vehicle, tossed it on the ground, and made my friend lay on the ground for 20 minutes...before deciding he wasn't the guy they were looking for.

That incident happened not long after Gammage was killed, so it's not a racial thing. These assholes simply enjoy roughing people up, and hide behind a badge to do it. They continue to get away with it, because either nobody has the guts to turn them in, or the cops hide behind the "blue wall."

But, with the county's police review board, such incidents seem to be going away. Either they're not doing them, or they've become more cunning in hiding evidence. I really hope it's not the latter...

[Slytovhand]

There's an easy solution, Blas.... more cameras! Cameras on every street light, every telephone pole, every advertising board... on your porch, in your lounge room, in your bedroom...

Ok, sure, you're privacy might have just disappeared, but at least you'll have corroborating evidence for everything that happens.

[protege]

Ok, sure, you're privacy might have just disappeared, but at least you'll have corroborating evidence for everything that happens.

Problem with cameras though...is that they're routinely ignored. Many areas in Baltimore, MD have cameras. Nobody takes them too seriously. Hell, I've heard that the crackheads and dealers will actually push their wares right in front of them. They figure, that by the time the cops arrive, they'll be long gone. Far enough away to ditch their drugs and/or any distinctive clothing items. Then the cops will have to review the video footage to make charges stick.

[Greenday]

There's an easy solution, Blas.... more cameras! Cameras on every street light, every telephone pole, every advertising board... on your porch, in your lounge room, in your bedroom...

Ok, sure, you're privacy might have just disappeared, but at least you'll have corroborating evidence for everything that happens.

What the hell do you think this is, the UK?

[The Shadow]

What the hell do you think this is, the UK?

Maybe it's just me, but I read Slyt's post as being somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I didn't get the sense that (s)he was serious.

Having said that, I think having cameras out in public places like streets and parks (which I believe *are* already being used in the UK, though with little success to date) is different than having them in your home. No one has any reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place like a park.

[Shangri-laschild]

Maybe I'm wrong but I would guess that a lot of it comes down to having a bad chief. A good police chief isn't going to put up with an officer that pull bullying crap.

Of course, it's not always that simple. There's also the issue of having enough officers vs only highering the best. It'd be awesome if we only highered the best officers. But you can only choose from who applied. I know at our department, we end up with a tricky situation. Most people who want to be cops don't want to work somewhere like a college police department. We have a lot of people who apply who seem to think this is a simple security guard sit around on the computer type job. Even in a big pool of applicants we still sometimes come out with people who we simply aren't sure about. We've managed to get fairly lucky and the ones that shouldn't be here don't last long. But I'm not quite sure what a good solution is to the problem. No you shouldn't hire people who are going to break the law and be jerks but you also need to have enough officers and have to pick from what you have available. I really wish I could think of some way to fix that problem.

The other thing is, if an officer is causing problems, make a complaint. I get that in some communities, the chief is just as bad as the officer which does no good. Sometimes though, no one complains and so the chief honestly doesn't know. We had an officer like that for a short bit. He would do odd stuff that he shouldn't have been doing and interact badly with people. We didn't hear about it at first though because no one complained.

Honestly, if there were no bad cops, I don't think there would be a problem. If you didn't have to worry about an officer being a jerk or being racist or what not then I don't think certain situations would be as much of a problem. For instance, if you were driving at night and a cop started following you, if you weren't worried about them being a bad officer, you wouldn't have to worry about the hassle that would come from them pulling you over. Of course, the odds of having no more bad officers ever is completely unlikely.

[bunnyboy]

Eh the way I've actually put it is like this (for the Officers in Seattle), I feel bad for them right now, but damn if they didn't have some MAJOR screw up that still haunt even rookies to this day (WTO when contrasted with the Nat. Guard, Mardi Gras where it seemed like they let a kid die for a big F.U. to those who doubted them at WTO), that and even after almost 10 years they still don't want anyone but LEOs on their review boards, most of which are simple cases of justified force (as opposed to the ambiguity of say WTO where it was leveled whole hog on everyone, or Mardi Gras where it seemed the opposite.) no surprise that the SPD lost both suits from both of those incidents.

I still like the local LEOs, but sometimes it seems like they've been out on the street too long and some of them (much like a soldier sent to the front) start to show cracks. I don't hold them up on a pedestal, but neither do I think they're scum, ultimately they're human.

[Slytovhand]

Maybe it's just me, but I read Slyt's post as being somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I didn't get the sense that (s)he was serious.

Are you trying to imply that I would somehow, heaven forbid, be mirthful on such a topic?? And that you are also suggesting such cameras would be somehow disadvantageous??? For shame!

I forgot...

It'd be awesome if we only highered the best officers.

You can - they're called Robo-cop!

[Fryk]

I'd support Robocop I, but not Robocop II. That model was faulty from the launch.

[jackfaire]

I'd support Robocop I, but not Robocop II. That model was faulty from the launch.

I hadn't seen the first one in years and was watching That 70's Show with my friends I kept looking at Red and my friends lost it when I said, "Why do I keep thinking about guns when I see that guy"