Police brutality, how should it be handled?

[Verlander]

Wow, nice. Exactly how long does training last?
Yeah but it's a TV show, of course they'll show incompetents (or actors).
But yeah, even in France, from their own stories, they're not that trained in school.
Example: completely rampant drug and alcohol abuse.
From the few times I've personally seen it, half of these guys were smoking joints and drinking beer during breaks. That's not abuse, no, but some of their stories are fucked up.

I mean you expect these stories when you bro out on a weekend off, but on school grounds? Sure, maybe they were embellishing, but they sounded more like high school stories than police school.

I believe that it's classroom based for around 6 months, with their probationary period (in which they're accompanied by an experienced officer) being a couple of years, punctuated by other training.

The UK police most certainly isn't perfect... there are many problems, as you'd expect from individuals who have been given more than average power. However we don't have a problem with police brutality, far from it. The only case in which a police officer was seen to have caused unnecessary harm to an individual in recent times was the shooting of a self-admitted gangster who had run from police and not thrown away his weapon immediately.. and it caused days of riots. Before that there was a situation where a police officer pushed a man to the ground in the middle of protests, and that man knocked his head and died. That was front page news, and the officer was discharged. It happens, but it's incredibly rare, particularly compared to the US.

 

[Verlander]

If you lived here and are familiar with US politics, then you should know that there is plenty stopping there being a national standard - chief among them the Constitution. The power of policing within each individual state is definitely NOT something within the federal government's jurisdiction. For that to change would require a constitutional amendment, this is simply too big and too fundamental for the federal government to slip in under the Commerce Clause.

Oh, for sure, which is one of the reasons that the US political structure and constitution are something of a joke among developed nations. The sooner the whole system is updated, the better it will be for you guys (assuming you're American)

 

[shintakie10]

Cameras at all times, includin a backup dash cam on the cars themselves (which I thought was standard, but apparently isn't and is able to be turned off). It wont stop police brutality cases, but it'll make it so that jackass cops can't claim their life was in danger and that's why they beat the living shit out of some disturbed homeless guy.

Cameras also help cops, believe it or not. A camera doesn't just show cops being assholes, it shows what caused a cop to react the way they did. We'll be able to see if someone really did throw a punch at them or try to stab them with a knife before they brought the person down, thus proving that they weren't just trying to beat the crap out of someone.

On top of that, trainin absolutely needs to be looked at. Current trainin standards are pretty terrible when it comes to people with mental illness. A lot of the times those times you see people "resisting arrest" are actually people with severe mental problems. They can't help themselves, most of the time they don't even know where they are, some don't know who they are. For cops someone not immediately respondin means that they're resistin arrest and need to brought down immediately, regardless of the situation involved. That's absolutely not what their first instinct should be.

Personally though, I don't trust cops. Growin up around a family friend who had 2 cops in it I saw the worst kind of ugly bullshit that I associate with cops. God complexes, racist garbage that they swear isn't really racism, god complexes, etc. Seriously, god complexes. Its disgustin the amount of times I see cops break laws just because they can. I work at a grocery store and I see cops, day in and day out, park in handicapped spaces or in the fire lane to go shoppin. I've literally heard one of the cops in my area talk about how it was so nice that he had a job where he could get his grocery shoppin done while on the clock. Another cop actually complained about how he had to stop grocery shoppin in order to go stop a crime. One time a cop was parked in the fire lane, which our trucks need to partially use in order to make the turn on the dock, and one of our trucks pulled up. Our manager asked him politely to move his car and he told her that he'd move his car when he was done and not a second sooner. When she pressed the issue the officer outright pulled the "I'm a cop" card and told her he could do whatever he wanted. Our manager made a formal complaint about the officer and they blew her off. Outright called our manager a liar. The partner of the prick who did that actually came in on his day off and apologized to her for how his partner treated her. When he was asked if he'd back up her story, he got all fidgety and said that he didn't want to cause any waves.

Every cop I've ever met has been some shade of that. I've watched them speed, not because they need to get to a place, but because they want to get to a coffee shop faster. I've seen them use their sirens simply because they liked to fuck with other drivers on the road. I've seen and heard them say some of the most vile shit about minorities. DWBs are a real thing that happens to real people and cops don't give a fuck. We've all seen the disgustin rise of SWAT raids for minor offenses. Until cops start bein held accountable for this kind of shit and stop defendin their own who do these kinds of things it'll continue to get worse.

 

[chris89300]

A quibble, but the term "machine gun" can be extended to assault rifles, especially in nations where it is a term defined in law.

Personally, I'd question the term "military grade", which is generally a meaningless phrase.

Point taken. Though to me the OP's implication were quite clear. And yea, the term "military grade" is another one of those phrases, as if there's such things as non-military grade. I dunno, maybe those would randomly explode?

They were all outstanding officers, with the Columbian general being responsible for the largest drug bust in Columbian history just before the show aired.

And? Whether that has any bearing on the competition will depend on the nature of the competition no? No amount of decoration and honor is going to help you run through that obstacle course faster.

Every officer should be expected to have in depth knowledge of local laws and ordinances, that shouldn't stop there being a national standard which is lacking in the US. I'm not just a US basher either, I used to live there, and take a very active interest in US politics and current events (and work there every now and then). The lack of quality in the emergency services is one of the more negative consequences of the devolved federalist structure that fools in the UK are screaming for

If you lived here and are familiar with US politics, then you should know that there is plenty stopping there being a national standard - chief among them the Constitution. The power of policing within each individual state is definitely NOT something within the federal government's jurisdiction. For that to change would require a constitutional amendment, this is simply too big and too fundamental for the federal government to slip in under the Commerce Clause.

Actually, military grade means something. Take computers for example, "military grade" in that domain means they can handle much higher and much lower temperatures, can handle dust/sand/water better, pretty much more reliable, sometimes with one or multiple GPS in it, etc. You wouldn't take your store bought laptop in Irak or Siberia, it would get trashed at the first sandstorm/freezing night.

In weaponry, it's defined by law so it depends from country to country but it's pretty much stuff that can inflict way too much damage for civilian/cop usage. Like rocket launchers. You don't use rocket launcher to stop a drunken brawl, so it's military.

Commerce cause, meh. Federal goverment should handle this, most countries do this if I'm not mistaken.
This is the kind of thing that can have serious consequences if abused, you're not supposed to let the local mayor handle it, you need people at the top on this.

 

[kyp275]

Was larger than that and when the lights are on, it looks bigger, but you're missing the point. Where you live, you might have a lot more normal cops than here.

And where exactly do you live, that tactical squads are the norm for police units?

Dude, this isn't science fiction, would I need to make this stuff up? They were probably flashbangs or smoke grenades, I couldn't care less, they looked like grenades.

Dude, this is the internet, where people makes shit up and lies all the time, there is a reason why the "It's on the internet, it must be true!" meme exists. And when you make ridiculous claims that doesn't pass any reasonable smell test, people WILL call you out on it.

But I'm tired of debating this. I was initially asking for solutions, not a flamewar.

You don't get to play the poor victim card here. You are the aggressor, you came out the gate screaming bloody murder, painting all police officers with a brush large enough you can probably hit the moon with it. You didn't want a flame war? Don't come out blasting a flame thrower.

Nah, they looked nothing like that. Especially not an M240/M249, and no, c'mon it wasn't a handgun, yeah he would have most likely kicked my ass for asking.

It wasn't something I've already shot, it looked like a seriously oversized Uzi but with a big ass charger, and the big ass charger really sticked out, that's what makes me think they were fully auto.
The things had way too large chargers for a pretty small barrel, I doubt burst only weapons have that many bullets in them.

/facepalm Really? You're making assumptions about the weapon based on the size of the magazine? Size of the barrel, what's this I don't even. I feel like I just seen the equivalent of the "car talk" from the original Fast & Furious movie, where cast manifolds apparently have welds that can be blown off, and unibody cars for some reason have riveted floor panel that can also be shaken off by the power of NOSSSSS, because reasons.

You're really not helping your story any. All the back-peddling only tells me that you either made all this up, or at best grossly exaggerated the whole thing.

You know, if you think it's all bullshit, why did you bother coming to this thread?
I'm asking a serious question and you're treating me like a kid who's watched too many action movies, WTF.

This is a forum, you made posts including outlandish claims, you are not immune from criticism leveled at your post due to said outlandish claims, this is not your personal echo chamber. Also, I'm certainly not treating you like a kid, if I was I would be far more lenient because I would expect kids to be ignorant on a great variety of subjects.

 

[chris89300]

Cameras at all times, includin a backup dash cam on the cars themselves (which I thought was standard, but apparently isn't and is able to be turned off). It wont stop police brutality cases, but it'll make it so that jackass cops can't claim their life was in danger and that's why they beat the living shit out of some disturbed homeless guy.

Cameras also help cops, believe it or not. A camera doesn't just show cops being assholes, it shows what caused a cop to react the way they did. We'll be able to see if someone really did throw a punch at them or try to stab them with a knife before they brought the person down, thus proving that they weren't just trying to beat the crap out of someone.

On top of that, trainin absolutely needs to be looked at. Current trainin standards are pretty terrible when it comes to people with mental illness. A lot of the times those times you see people "resisting arrest" are actually people with severe mental problems. They can't help themselves, most of the time they don't even know where they are, some don't know who they are. For cops someone not immediately respondin means that they're resistin arrest and need to brought down immediately, regardless of the situation involved. That's absolutely not what their first instinct should be.

Personally though, I don't trust cops. Growin up around a family friend who had 2 cops in it I saw the worst kind of ugly bullshit that I associate with cops. God complexes, racist garbage that they swear isn't really racism, god complexes, etc. Seriously, god complexes. Its disgustin the amount of times I see cops break laws just because they can. I work at a grocery store and I see cops, day in and day out, park in handicapped spaces or in the fire lane to go shoppin. I've literally heard one of the cops in my area talk about how it was so nice that he had a job where he could get his grocery shoppin done while on the clock. Another cop actually complained about how he had to stop grocery shoppin in order to go stop a crime. One time a cop was parked in the fire lane, which our trucks need to partially use in order to make the turn on the dock, and one of our trucks pulled up. Our manager asked him politely to move his car and he told her that he'd move his car when he was done and not a second sooner. When she pressed the issue the officer outright pulled the "I'm a cop" card and told her he could do whatever he wanted. Our manager made a formal complaint about the officer and they blew her off. Outright called our manager a liar. The partner of the prick who did that actually came in on his day off and apologized to her for how his partner treated her. When he was asked if he'd back up her story, he got all fidgety and said that he didn't want to cause any waves.

Every cop I've ever met has been some shade of that. I've watched them speed, not because they need to get to a place, but because they want to get to a coffee shop faster. I've seen them use their sirens simply because they liked to fuck with other drivers on the road. I've seen and heard them say some of the most vile shit about minorities. DWBs are a real thing that happens to real people and cops don't give a fuck. We've all seen the disgustin rise of SWAT raids for minor offenses. Until cops start bein held accountable for this kind of shit and stop defendin their own who do these kinds of things it'll continue to get worse.

Yeah, that's pretty much the way it works. I would add to that how they stop chicks that they find hot on the road just to ogle them or to hit on them.
Or how aggressively they disperse crowds when something's happening that they don't want you to see.

But yeah, cameras are a great idea that should be mandatory all over the civilized world. When they have enough cash to get the weapons they have, they have enough cash to get cameras.
They don't want that solely because that'll force them to restrain themselves. If they didn't have so very much to hide, they wouldn't go nuts over it.

 

[chris89300]

Wow, nice. Exactly how long does training last?
Yeah but it's a TV show, of course they'll show incompetents (or actors).
But yeah, even in France, from their own stories, they're not that trained in school.
Example: completely rampant drug and alcohol abuse.
From the few times I've personally seen it, half of these guys were smoking joints and drinking beer during breaks. That's not abuse, no, but some of their stories are fucked up.

I mean you expect these stories when you bro out on a weekend off, but on school grounds? Sure, maybe they were embellishing, but they sounded more like high school stories than police school.

I believe that it's classroom based for around 6 months, with their probationary period (in which they're accompanied by an experienced officer) being a couple of years, punctuated by other training.

The UK police most certainly isn't perfect... there are many problems, as you'd expect from individuals who have been given more than average power. However we don't have a problem with police brutality, far from it. The only case in which a police officer was seen to have caused unnecessary harm to an individual in recent times was the shooting of a self-admitted gangster who had run from police and not thrown away his weapon immediately.. and it caused days of riots. Before that there was a situation where a police officer pushed a man to the ground in the middle of protests, and that man knocked his head and died. That was front page news, and the officer was discharged. It happens, but it's incredibly rare, particularly compared to the US.

Wow, it sounds like you guys got your shit together much better than the US.
Well, yeah, but accidents happen.
If the protest wasn't violent, he did do something stupid, but as long as he didn't actively try to kill him, it's cool.
I still think he should have been charged with murder because if he were a civilian, he would have been, but yeah, at least he didn't actually seek to kill the guy.

But these are accidents. Ganging up on some misguided idiot till he's left bleeding on the sidewalk isn't tho, and these guys should be severely punished, even the ones who were just obstructing the view for being accomplices to that.

 

[Verlander]

Wow, it sounds like you guys got your shit together much better than the US.
Well, yeah, but accidents happen.
If the protest wasn't violent, he did do something stupid, but as long as he didn't actively try to kill him, it's cool.
I still think he should have been charged with murder because if he were a civilian, he would have been, but yeah, at least he didn't actually seek to kill the guy.

But these are accidents. Ganging up on some misguided idiot till he's left bleeding on the sidewalk isn't tho, and these guys should be severely punished, even the ones who were just obstructing the view for being accomplices to that.

He got tried for manslaughter, but found not guilty in court. There is a video of the incident, and the officer was definitely too violent with the man, but including the two deaths I've mentioned, there have only been a small handful cases of similar severity since 1979, maybe five or so.

 

[shintakie10]

Yeah, that's pretty much the way it works. I would add to that how they stop chicks that they find hot on the road just to ogle them or to hit on them.
Or how aggressively they disperse crowds when something's happening that they don't want you to see.

But yeah, cameras are a great idea that should be mandatory all over the civilized world. When they have enough cash to get the weapons they have, they have enough cash to get cameras.
They don't want that solely because that'll force them to restrain themselves. If they didn't have so very much to hide, they wouldn't go nuts over it.

Its not about money for US cops. A lot of them are actually extremely cash strapped. They're probably the third biggest thing to see cuts in the United States, right behind schools and social programs. The reason US cops have all the fun toys is because of a law that allows them to request excess equipment from the DoD in order to fight terrorism. Its an extremely easy to use system that has fuck all oversight. Police forces in tiny towns can get armored vehicles and assault rifles to protect ridiculous shit like pumpkin festivals.

 

[kyp275]

This also means no more "internal investigations." Let the civilian court system handle alleged cases of police brutality. That wouldn't stop the problem entirely, but it would be a huge step in the right direction.

Pssh, you know where cases of police brutality are handled right now? The civilian court system.

Exactly, the law doesn't apply the same to civilians and cops. Military fuckups are scrutinized but police fuckups are brushed off too often.

...... LOL.

Yea, ok. Sure, keep believing that if you want. Very public military fuckups are scrutinized, the rest? Lol.

Oh, for sure, which is one of the reasons that the US political structure and constitution are something of a joke among developed nations. The sooner the whole system is updated, the better it will be for you guys (assuming you're American)

Yea, no bashing or condescension there whatsoever. This "joke" of a constitution has only led to the longest-standing democratic nation in the history of mankind, obviously worthless. Wait, what country are you from again? It wouldn't happen to be one of those we had to bail out in WW2 or had their national defense effectively subsidized by the US since then right?

It's stuff like this that makes me wish sometimes the US would pull out of NATO and let you guys deal with your own crap.

Actually, military grade means something. Take computers for example, "military grade" in that domain means they can handle much higher and much lower temperatures, can handle dust/sand/water better, pretty much more reliable, sometimes with one or multiple GPS in it, etc. You wouldn't take your store bought laptop in Irak or Siberia, it would get trashed at the first sandstorm/freezing night.

In weaponry, it's defined by law so it depends from country to country but it's pretty much stuff that can inflict way too much damage for civilian/cop usage. Like rocket launchers. You don't use rocket launcher to stop a drunken brawl, so it's military.

Yes and no. For electronic equipment, military grade simply means they conform to an established performance standard set by the military, including durability. BTW, my store-bought laptop worked just fine in Iraq, sandstorm and freezing nights and all.

For firearms, it becomes meaningless. There are still certification process weapons have to go through to test for reliability and such, but a firearm isn't so complicated where you can have substantial differences between a military and civilian version of the same weapon as far as that goes. Lethality itself is not the criteria, it's the mechanism behind how the weapons functions. There's no "military grade" machine gun, there's no "military grade" pistol, there's no "military grade" rifles, etc. etc.

Also, you wouldn't use an old .38 revolver to stop a drunken brawl either, are you going to say that a .38 revolver should then be considered "too much damage for civilian/cop usage"?

Commerce cause, meh. Federal goverment should handle this, most countries do this if I'm not mistaken.
This is the kind of thing that can have serious consequences if abused, you're not supposed to let the local mayor handle it, you need people at the top on this.

If you don't understand the basics, it's probably best to educate yourself first before you sound off on it, otherwise you're just going to come out sounding ignorant.

 

[chris89300]

Was larger than that and when the lights are on, it looks bigger, but you're missing the point. Where you live, you might have a lot more normal cops than here.

And where exactly do you live, that tactical squads are the norm for police units?

Dude, this isn't science fiction, would I need to make this stuff up? They were probably flashbangs or smoke grenades, I couldn't care less, they looked like grenades.

Dude, this is the internet, where people makes shit up and lies all the time, there is a reason why the "It's on the internet, it must be true!" meme exists. And when you make ridiculous claims that doesn't pass any reasonable smell test, people WILL call you out on it.

But I'm tired of debating this. I was initially asking for solutions, not a flamewar.

You don't get to play the poor victim card here. You are the aggressor, you came out the gate screaming bloody murder, painting all police officers with a brush large enough you can probably hit the moon with it. You didn't want a flame war? Don't come out blasting a flame thrower.

Nah, they looked nothing like that. Especially not an M240/M249, and no, c'mon it wasn't a handgun, yeah he would have most likely kicked my ass for asking.

It wasn't something I've already shot, it looked like a seriously oversized Uzi but with a big ass charger, and the big ass charger really sticked out, that's what makes me think they were fully auto.
The things had way too large chargers for a pretty small barrel, I doubt burst only weapons have that many bullets in them.

/facepalm Really? You're making assumptions about the weapon based on the size of the magazine? Size of the barrel, what's this I don't even. I feel like I just seen the equivalent of the "car talk" from the original Fast & Furious movie, where cast manifolds apparently have welds that can be blown off, and unibody cars for some reason have riveted floor panel that can also be shaken off by the power of NOSSSSS, because reasons.

You're really not helping your story any. All the back-peddling only tells me that you either made all this up, or at best grossly exaggerated the whole thing.

You know, if you think it's all bullshit, why did you bother coming to this thread?
I'm asking a serious question and you're treating me like a kid who's watched too many action movies, WTF.

This is a forum, you made posts including outlandish claims, you are not immune from criticism leveled at your post due to said outlandish claims, this is not your personal echo chamber. Also, I'm certainly not treating you like a kid, if I was I would be far more lenient because I would expect kids to be ignorant on a great variety of subjects.

THEY ARE NOT THE NORM!!!
Are you reading anything I'm saying? I've never even seen the kind of weapon they had.

And in France, tactical squads don't harass people driving, unless you're trying to go thru a zone they control for obvious reasons, they don't stop for you. No authority whatsoever.


Dude, stop seeing evil everywhere. Not everyone lies, not everyone is a stone cold murderer. There are people just trying to have a normal conversation without alien abductions.

I make ridiculous claims because the facts are ridiculous.

I'm not trying to mount a coup d'état, I'm trying to get some opinions, so why the hell would I start making shit up? What advantage would a flamewar bring me?



*Sigh* Well the bullets aren't gonna be larger than the barrel now are they?
So in a huge ass charger with a small barrel, you can cram more bullets in it than if you had a bigger barrel and the same sized charger. I'm not a gun professional and not a gun-nut, I don't know how many bullets go into a specific charger, all I know for sure is that big ass charger + small barrel = more bullets to me.

Back-peddling, wow. This guy has a better knowledge of guns than me, so he could very well be right. Case in point, I've already fired some of these guns, but I had no idea what they're called, because guns aren't my thing. Is admitting that I could be wrong something to be ashamed of? Holy shit, how old are you?

Yes, you should definitely doubt me, because you know nothing about me, but you haven't brought in anything except calling me a liar, so how are you helping your "story" (which is nonexistent) ?

If trolling is all you want, please, go find another thread.

This isn't about how many bullets per second their guns can fire, but about how they shouldn't act like dicks to people who have done nothing to provoke that kind of behavior. Rocket launchers or machine guns, they acted like cunts and they should be punished.

These guys should have been either fired and charged for intimidating us (they actually fucking threatened to kill us, hello?) or gotten their right to even see anything more dangerous than a taser removed.

Actually, they should have lost that right a very long time ago, because if they pulled that on us, they must have already done it lots of times, so no one in authority cared enough to crush their assholery. In a shitty little town where nothing bad happens ...

 

[Verlander]

Yea, no bashing or condescension there whatsoever. This "joke" of a constitution has only led to the longest-standing democratic nation in the history of mankind, obviously worthless. Wait, what country are you from again? It wouldn't happen to be one of those we had to bail out in WW2 or had their national defense effectively subsidized by the US since then right?

It's stuff like this that makes me wish sometimes the US would pull out of NATO and let you guys deal with your own crap.

In the nicest possible way, a reply like that is politically and historically ignorant. What does the second world war have with a document that is hundreds of years old, and is vague at best? As for the world's oldest democracy... true democracy wasn't free in the US until well after the second world war, so it's hardly all that long standing. If you accept those inequalities, Great Britain beat you to it as well. Besides, the Icelandic "Althing" system was established by the Vikings in 930, and is parliamentary, so they win - that's still going.

The "we saved your ass in the war!" stereotype is funny because it's so preposterous. The help of the US in Europe cannot be understated, but it was the USSR that defeated the Germans, and Britain and France had been fighting for significantly longer than the US. The US' strategic advantage came from the fact that the technology of the time didn't allow a land invasion of the country.

Following WW2, the US invested money into the reconstruction, and the technology boom happened in the US. This time of intense prosperity lasted less than 50 years, and had nothing to do with the US political structure, but rather by the influx of post-war immigrants. Now the US is an incredibly unequal country, which is struggling to balance it's economy post-Reagan, and has a political structure that is unfit for purpose.

Meanwhile, the EU is a stronger economic zone, and there are several countries that are much faster developing. All the time in the US, Republican representatives can throw their toys out of the pram at a health system that they originally proposed themselves, and stop the US government passing a budget, thus being unable to pay for government programmes.

None of this has anything to do with Nato (which will probably fold at some stage in the near future as the world develops). The US doesn't subsidise the UK military.

 

[Tigerlemur]

Just gonna toss some change into this here thread.

As a disclaimer, I will say that I am currently attending a university in order to obtain a Law Enforcement degree. Take that as you will. Secondly, all of my information really only pertains to police in the United States, as that's where I am learning and plan to work. I don't speak for anywhere else.

To start off, I'll say that I've never had a bad experience with a police officer. That seems relatively uncommon these days, but it's true. The last run in with the police that I had was when I was a passenger in my friend's vehicle. It was a seatbelt check point. My friend actually, just as we pulled up, realized he lost his wallet. So, no license and he also couldn't find his auto insurance card. That's a very reasonable ticket. But you know what? The officer just let us go. He saw my buddy was kinda freaked out and apologetic and he just let us go, told us he'd definitely ticket us(him?) next time though.

But, as anecdotal evidence, that's not very useful to the discussion. I just wanted to pour a little sugar into this vinegar discussion.

More to the point, a lot of people are upset that police are held to a separate standard. There's actually a reason for this, and it comes from good intentions. I describe it in two ways: one 'good faith,' and two, 'need to act.' Good faith occurs when a police officer follows procedure as he was trained, even if something went awry, he cannot be held criminally responsible. An example of this is the case of Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington (2012) (what a mouthful). In this case, Florence was stopped and arrested based on an outstanding warrant and put through various search procedures at the jail. The kicker was that the warrant was already paid off, but had not been taken out of the system. This was not the arresting officer's fault. His computer either malfunctioned, or it was never taken out as a mistake. HOWEVER, it is important to note that Florence was given a cash settlement as reparations because of what they mistakenly put him through. Could you imagine if we put this officer in jail though? He didn't do anything wrong. What kind of message does that send to other officers?

Onto the second part, 'need to act' (not an actual definition, it's mine). Essentially, if police have to worry about the legality of a situation too much, they may fail to act when it is needed. Don't mistake these words, they still must act in a legal way, BUT they are viewed less harshly so that they can act in emergency situations where they, or other people, may be at risk. If police had to consider EVERY situation's complete legality and how things might shake out... Police officers may never act at all, which would be just as bad, really.

So, what do we do about this? Well, a couple of things: training, recording devices and civil suits. Training is the most important aspect to reducing police brutalities and other mistakes. The recording devices, as others mentioned here, would also go a long way in protecting both the police and the public. Finally, civil suits. Lots of people get angry that police don't often face jail time for their actions. The great thing (sometimes not so great) about America though is that when there is not enough evidence for criminal liability, there might be enough for civil liability. It's not jail time, true, but at least the victims can gain reparations (usually money) for their suffering. Lots of cases of police brutality don't end with police behind bars, but they do end with some of the officers paying out the nose to the victim, which is often overlooked.

Call my biased if you will, because I am, but I did try to lessen the impact of that fact. In the end, I'm glad we have police, because they do serve an important function and I am happy to have them around when I need them. I, personally, look forward to a career where I can help give back to my community. For you guys, I'll try to keep my nose clean too.

Hope you can buy a pack of gum with this stuff

 

[chris89300]

Yeah, that's pretty much the way it works. I would add to that how they stop chicks that they find hot on the road just to ogle them or to hit on them.
Or how aggressively they disperse crowds when something's happening that they don't want you to see.

But yeah, cameras are a great idea that should be mandatory all over the civilized world. When they have enough cash to get the weapons they have, they have enough cash to get cameras.
They don't want that solely because that'll force them to restrain themselves. If they didn't have so very much to hide, they wouldn't go nuts over it.

Its not about money for US cops. A lot of them are actually extremely cash strapped. They're probably the third biggest thing to see cuts in the United States, right behind schools and social programs. The reason US cops have all the fun toys is because of a law that allows them to request excess equipment from the DoD in order to fight terrorism. Its an extremely easy to use system that has fuck all oversight. Police forces in tiny towns can get armored vehicles and assault rifles to protect ridiculous shit like pumpkin festivals.

Yeah I know that, but then, how come they can't get cameras from the DoD? From what I know, the system is so shitty that even a pack of chewing gum could be passed as anti-terrorism equipment. Because that would force them to act more like humans and less like raging lunatics. Why else would so many of them be so opposed to this camera shit? I don't know if this is a thing in the US right now, but it sure is in France. People are pissed off.

-This is happening in France-:

And with their hardcore weaponry, why the fuck aren't they setting a foot in the bad parts of town? I just moved less than a week ago from a shitty part of a stupid little town, mostly because the cops who were *supposed* to "serve and protect" us ***do not respond from any calls from that area***. Last time I checked there were over 750 no-go zones in France (from "official" sources). Realistically, there are much more than that. You have battle tanks? Then why the fuck is there still a "bad part of town"? There should be 0 no-go zones when your boys are in an armored vehicles and wielding enough firepower to level a city block. What are they doing with their armored vehicles and with their bullshit weapons? Harassing people, that's all. Especially if you're white. (Yeah, I know, it's self-racism, go figure. Did I mention "Welcome to Europe" yet? lol)

-End of recent french history-


But yeah, their budget is cut down because crime rate is going down all over the board. It's perfectly normal. If crime rate goes down, you need less officers in the streets, so budget cuts.

 

[chris89300]

This also means no more "internal investigations." Let the civilian court system handle alleged cases of police brutality. That wouldn't stop the problem entirely, but it would be a huge step in the right direction.

Pssh, you know where cases of police brutality are handled right now? The civilian court system.

Exactly, the law doesn't apply the same to civilians and cops. Military fuckups are scrutinized but police fuckups are brushed off too often.

...... LOL.

Yea, ok. Sure, keep believing that if you want. Very public military fuckups are scrutinized, the rest? Lol.

Oh, for sure, which is one of the reasons that the US political structure and constitution are something of a joke among developed nations. The sooner the whole system is updated, the better it will be for you guys (assuming you're American)

Yea, no bashing or condescension there whatsoever. This "joke" of a constitution has only led to the longest-standing democratic nation in the history of mankind, obviously worthless. Wait, what country are you from again? It wouldn't happen to be one of those we had to bail out in WW2 or had their national defense effectively subsidized by the US since then right?

It's stuff like this that makes me wish sometimes the US would pull out of NATO and let you guys deal with your own crap.

Actually, military grade means something. Take computers for example, "military grade" in that domain means they can handle much higher and much lower temperatures, can handle dust/sand/water better, pretty much more reliable, sometimes with one or multiple GPS in it, etc. You wouldn't take your store bought laptop in Irak or Siberia, it would get trashed at the first sandstorm/freezing night.

In weaponry, it's defined by law so it depends from country to country but it's pretty much stuff that can inflict way too much damage for civilian/cop usage. Like rocket launchers. You don't use rocket launcher to stop a drunken brawl, so it's military.

Yes and no. For electronic equipment, military grade simply means they conform to an established performance standard set by the military, including durability. BTW, my store-bought laptop worked just fine in Iraq, sandstorm and freezing nights and all.

For firearms, it becomes meaningless. There are still certification process weapons have to go through to test for reliability and such, but a firearm isn't so complicated where you can have substantial differences between a military and civilian version of the same weapon as far as that goes. Lethality itself is not the criteria, it's the mechanism behind how the weapons functions. There's no "military grade" machine gun, there's no "military grade" pistol, there's no "military grade" rifles, etc. etc.

Also, you wouldn't use an old .38 revolver to stop a drunken brawl either, are you going to say that a .38 revolver should then be considered "too much damage for civilian/cop usage"?

Commerce cause, meh. Federal goverment should handle this, most countries do this if I'm not mistaken.
This is the kind of thing that can have serious consequences if abused, you're not supposed to let the local mayor handle it, you need people at the top on this.

If you don't understand the basics, it's probably best to educate yourself first before you sound off on it, otherwise you're just going to come out sounding ignorant.

This also means no more "internal investigations." Let the civilian court system handle alleged cases of police brutality. That wouldn't stop the problem entirely, but it would be a huge step in the right direction.

Pssh, you know where cases of police brutality are handled right now? The civilian court system.

Exactly, the law doesn't apply the same to civilians and cops. Military fuckups are scrutinized but police fuckups are brushed off too often.

...... LOL.

Yea, ok. Sure, keep believing that if you want. Very public military fuckups are scrutinized, the rest? Lol.

Oh, for sure, which is one of the reasons that the US political structure and constitution are something of a joke among developed nations. The sooner the whole system is updated, the better it will be for you guys (assuming you're American)

Yea, no bashing or condescension there whatsoever. This "joke" of a constitution has only led to the longest-standing democratic nation in the history of mankind, obviously worthless. Wait, what country are you from again? It wouldn't happen to be one of those we had to bail out in WW2 or had their national defense effectively subsidized by the US since then right?

It's stuff like this that makes me wish sometimes the US would pull out of NATO and let you guys deal with your own crap.

Actually, military grade means something. Take computers for example, "military grade" in that domain means they can handle much higher and much lower temperatures, can handle dust/sand/water better, pretty much more reliable, sometimes with one or multiple GPS in it, etc. You wouldn't take your store bought laptop in Irak or Siberia, it would get trashed at the first sandstorm/freezing night.

In weaponry, it's defined by law so it depends from country to country but it's pretty much stuff that can inflict way too much damage for civilian/cop usage. Like rocket launchers. You don't use rocket launcher to stop a drunken brawl, so it's military.

Yes and no. For electronic equipment, military grade simply means they conform to an established performance standard set by the military, including durability. BTW, my store-bought laptop worked just fine in Iraq, sandstorm and freezing nights and all.

For firearms, it becomes meaningless. There are still certification process weapons have to go through to test for reliability and such, but a firearm isn't so complicated where you can have substantial differences between a military and civilian version of the same weapon as far as that goes. Lethality itself is not the criteria, it's the mechanism behind how the weapons functions. There's no "military grade" machine gun, there's no "military grade" pistol, there's no "military grade" rifles, etc. etc.

Also, you wouldn't use an old .38 revolver to stop a drunken brawl either, are you going to say that a .38 revolver should then be considered "too much damage for civilian/cop usage"?

Commerce cause, meh. Federal goverment should handle this, most countries do this if I'm not mistaken.
This is the kind of thing that can have serious consequences if abused, you're not supposed to let the local mayor handle it, you need people at the top on this.

If you don't understand the basics, it's probably best to educate yourself first before you sound off on it, otherwise you're just going to come out sounding ignorant.

Look who's making shit up now, huh?

You know what? I didn't even read the entirety of your post, because you obviously have an agenda.

The "longest standing democracy" thing sealed the deal for me, you have no idea what you're saying.
Also, yeah, your shit will work in extreme conditions, but think about it, why would they need to endure worst environments? Because the results are far from reliable in extreme conditions, another thing that shows your ignorance.

Go bother other people please.

 

[chris89300]

Yea, no bashing or condescension there whatsoever. This "joke" of a constitution has only led to the longest-standing democratic nation in the history of mankind, obviously worthless. Wait, what country are you from again? It wouldn't happen to be one of those we had to bail out in WW2 or had their national defense effectively subsidized by the US since then right?

It's stuff like this that makes me wish sometimes the US would pull out of NATO and let you guys deal with your own crap.

In the nicest possible way, a reply like that is politically and historically ignorant. What does the second world war have with a document that is hundreds of years old, and is vague at best? As for the world's oldest democracy... true democracy wasn't free in the US until well after the second world war, so it's hardly all that long standing. If you accept those inequalities, Great Britain beat you to it as well. Besides, the Icelandic "Althing" system was established by the Vikings in 930, and is parliamentary, so they win - that's still going.

The "we saved your ass in the war!" stereotype is funny because it's so preposterous. The help of the US in Europe cannot be understated, but it was the USSR that defeated the Germans, and Britain and France had been fighting for significantly longer than the US. The US' strategic advantage came from the fact that the technology of the time didn't allow a land invasion of the country.

Following WW2, the US invested money into the reconstruction, and the technology boom happened in the US. This time of intense prosperity lasted less than 50 years, and had nothing to do with the US political structure, but rather by the influx of post-war immigrants. Now the US is an incredibly unequal country, which is struggling to balance it's economy post-Reagan, and has a political structure that is unfit for purpose.

Meanwhile, the EU is a stronger economic zone, and there are several countries that are much faster developing. All the time in the US, Republican representatives can throw their toys out of the pram at a health system that they originally proposed themselves, and stop the US government passing a budget, thus being unable to pay for government programmes.

None of this has anything to do with Nato (which will probably fold at some stage in the near future as the world develops). The US doesn't subsidise the UK military.

Ideed. A country as large needs much better people in charge. The US is one of the largest but most hastily build democracies. When Europe starts being self-racist, the US is still traditionally racist. (Not that turning against your own people is a good thing, but still, proves how far behind the times the US is).

That quote was so patriotic, ya could just smell the bald eagle taking a religiously sound but loud as a gun shit on the rest of the world. The US needs to wake up, they're being left behind at an incredible rate.

 

[kyp275]

In the nicest possible way, a reply like that is politically and historically ignorant.

Says the guy who first claims not to US-bash, then proceeds with said bash, ok.

What does the second world war have with a document that is hundreds of years old, and is vague at best?

Why, obviously a country based on such joke of an old dusty document would be beneath fine proper gentlemen like yourself. There would obviously have been no need for lowly us to come to the aid of great nation that are full of such wonderful people.

true democracy wasn't free in the US until well after the second world war, so it's hardly all that long standing. If you accept those inequalities, Great Britain beat you to it as well.

If disenfranchisement means a country is not a democracy, then there would be zero democracies in the world, probably ever. BTW, you should know that there IS no "true democracy" outside of Athens back in the old days, and that came with a HUGE chunk of disenfranchisement.

I'm pretty sure the UK didn't transition to a constitutional monarchy until the mid-late 1800s. And the Althing means jack all if the officials weren't elected, not to mention Iceland was under the rule of various kingdoms throughout most of its history. Are you trying to say that a non-elected political body that's subservient to various monarchies is somehow a democracy?

The "we saved your ass in the war!" stereotype is funny because it's so preposterous.

Ah yes, naturally the UK would've held out just fine against the Germans if the US had never gotten involved nor provided supplies right? I do apologize, for a moment I actually dared to doubt the mighty Brits.

Now the US is an incredibly unequal country.

And you want to rip on the US Constitution as "vague". Please, do list what's "incredibly unequal" country, and we can actually discuss how "incredibly unequal" it is, especially compared to other countries.

None of this has anything to do with Nato (which will probably fold at some stage in the near future as the world develops). The US doesn't subsidise the UK military.

Yea ok, someone hasn't read the news for awhile. You see, there was this thing that Russia did, that got quite a few NATO member not very happy or safe...

And no, as far as I'm concerned, every member state of NATO has their national defense subsidized by the US. Forget about the fact that many doesn't even meet their minimum obligation under the terms of the alliance, the alliance itself would have little teeth if not backed up with the US military.

 

[chris89300]

In the nicest possible way, a reply like that is politically and historically ignorant.

Says the guy who first claims not to US-bash, then proceeds with said bash, ok.

What does the second world war have with a document that is hundreds of years old, and is vague at best?

Why, obviously a country based on such joke of an old dusty document would be beneath fine proper gentlemen like yourself. There would obviously have been no need for lowly us to come to the aid of great nation that are full of such wonderful people.

true democracy wasn't free in the US until well after the second world war, so it's hardly all that long standing. If you accept those inequalities, Great Britain beat you to it as well.

If disenfranchisement means a country is not a democracy, then there would be zero democracies in the world, probably ever. BTW, you should know that there IS no "true democracy" outside of Athens back in the old days, and that came with a HUGE chunk of disenfranchisement.

I'm pretty sure the UK didn't transition to a constitutional monarchy until the mid-late 1800s. And the Althing means jack all if the officials weren't elected, not to mention Iceland was under the rule of various kingdoms throughout most of its history. Are you trying to say that a non-elected political body that's subservient to various monarchies is somehow a democracy?

The "we saved your ass in the war!" stereotype is funny because it's so preposterous.

Ah yes, naturally the UK would've held out just fine against the Germans if the US had never gotten involved nor provided supplies right? I do apologize, for a moment I actually dared to doubt the mighty Brits.

Now the US is an incredibly unequal country.

And you want to rip on the US Constitution as "vague". Please, do list what's "incredibly unequal" country, and we can actually discuss how "incredibly unequal" it is, especially compared to other countries.

None of this has anything to do with Nato (which will probably fold at some stage in the near future as the world develops). The US doesn't subsidise the UK military.

Yea ok, someone hasn't read the news for awhile. You see, there was this thing that Russia did, that got quite a few NATO member not very happy or safe...

And no, as far as I'm concerned, every member state of NATO has their national defense subsidized by the US. Forget about the fact that many doesn't even meet their minimum obligation under the terms of the alliance, the alliance itself would have little teeth if not backed up with the US military.

You talk about democracy but what color are you? What gender are you? That should give you a hint.

 

[kyp275]

If trolling is all you want, please, go find another thread.

And... reported.

Disagreeing with you is not "trolling", as shocking as it may be to someone who's only interested in having an echo chamber. By the way, you may also want to read the forum guidelines, where it's quite explicitly stated that calling other people trolling is expressly prohibited.

Also, please do continue to prove my point by failing to address my points or misunderstand them in hilarious fashion*,and proceed to respond with ad hominem attacks, stay classy.

*(hint, you may want to refrain from trying to be a know-it-all to someone who's actually been in the military, used said military equipment in a warzone, and understands what all the terminology actually means and how they're applied, when you don't even understand the basic constructions of a firearm).

 

[chris89300]

Just gonna toss some change into this here thread.

As a disclaimer, I will say that I am currently attending a university in order to obtain a Law Enforcement degree. Take that as you will. Secondly, all of my information really only pertains to police in the United States, as that's where I am learning and plan to work. I don't speak for anywhere else.

To start off, I'll say that I've never had a bad experience with a police officer. That seems relatively uncommon these days, but it's true. The last run in with the police that I had was when I was a passenger in my friend's vehicle. It was a seatbelt check point. My friend actually, just as we pulled up, realized he lost his wallet. So, no license and he also couldn't find his auto insurance card. That's a very reasonable ticket. But you know what? The officer just let us go. He saw my buddy was kinda freaked out and apologetic and he just let us go, told us he'd definitely ticket us(him?) next time though.

But, as anecdotal evidence, that's not very useful to the discussion. I just wanted to pour a little sugar into this vinegar discussion.

More to the point, a lot of people are upset that police are held to a separate standard. There's actually a reason for this, and it comes from good intentions. I describe it in two ways: one 'good faith,' and two, 'need to act.' Good faith occurs when a police officer follows procedure as he was trained, even if something went awry, he cannot be held criminally responsible. An example of this is the case of Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington (2012) (what a mouthful). In this case, Florence was stopped and arrested based on an outstanding warrant and put through various search procedures at the jail. The kicker was that the warrant was already paid off, but had not been taken out of the system. This was not the arresting officer's fault. His computer either malfunctioned, or it was never taken out as a mistake. HOWEVER, it is important to note that Florence was given a cash settlement as reparations because of what they mistakenly put him through. Could you imagine if we put this officer in jail though? He didn't do anything wrong. What kind of message does that send to other officers?

Onto the second part, 'need to act' (not an actual definition, it's mine). Essentially, if police have to worry about the legality of a situation too much, they may fail to act when it is needed. Don't mistake these words, they still must act in a legal way, BUT they are viewed less harshly so that they can act in emergency situations where they, or other people, may be at risk. If police had to consider EVERY situation's complete legality and how things might shake out... Police officers may never act at all, which would be just as bad, really.

So, what do we do about this? Well, a couple of things: training, recording devices and civil suits. Training is the most important aspect to reducing police brutalities and other mistakes. The recording devices, as others mentioned here, would also go a long way in protecting both the police and the public. Finally, civil suits. Lots of people get angry that police don't often face jail time for their actions. The great thing (sometimes not so great) about America though is that when there is not enough evidence for criminal liability, there might be enough for civil liability. It's not jail time, true, but at least the victims can gain reparations (usually money) for their suffering. Lots of cases of police brutality don't end with police behind bars, but they do end with some of the officers paying out the nose to the victim, which is often overlooked.

Call my biased if you will, because I am, but I did try to lessen the impact of that fact. In the end, I'm glad we have police, because they do serve an important function and I am happy to have them around when I need them. I, personally, look forward to a career where I can help give back to my community. For you guys, I'll try to keep my nose clean too.

Hope you can buy a pack of gum with this stuff

First off, yeah, they started doing that in France too lately. No, 100% not reasonable. Never in my life did I get a ticked for that. And I'm not the kind who carries his papers around everywhere.

Second, mistakes can happen, they do all the time, but we're not taking about mistakes here, far from it.

What we're talking about is police god complex. The guy I talked with earlier had a good story. Some cop pushed a dude, he fell and smashed his skull, he died. That is a mistake. A mistake that a civilian would go to jail for, rarely a cop.

Mistakes happen and if you really want to be held at the exact same standards as a civilian, then go to jail for the same shit a civilian would go to. Is that not 100% fair if you want the same treatment ?

But we're not talking about mistakes. We're talking about savage beatings, ganging up on one dude, killings, and other shit that are rarely punished as they should. We're talking about conscientious abuse.

Young children getting interrogated for hours for being kids pretty much, even some weird case when police shut down a 2-girl lemonade stand. Shit like this makes us think the police is a joke.

In one of the towns I've lived, a known and proved serial pedo was being protected by the police because he turn a low level weed dealer in, instead of rotting in jail.

How is any of this normal?
The officers that cause all this damage are simply put not human beings.

I've just listen to part of the Ferguson stuff. Some (don't remember which one) threatened the fuck out of people. Like in "you do this, that, etc, I will hurt you. The only thing of all he said that justified ANY kind of violence is "walk towards me aggressively". Yeah, if you're gonna be a threat, a cop should definitely defend himself, it's obvious, moral and perfectly normal behavior.

Or that guy who was slightly speeding who got pulled over by a cop who wasn't even in service, no uniform, no nothing, the first thing he does is pull his gun out and point it at the driver?

This is not normal human behavior. Some people are maniacs, and maniacs shouldn't be in the force.
Training is very lacking.


Yeah I know there are good cops. One time, I was drunk as all hell, like really, really drunk. Some cops followed me and pulled me over (they were in a civilian vehicle, didn't notice them).

I don't know if they were busy or not, but I only got off with "better not be drunk next time, or you'll be getting it for both times".

Or maybe they just saw the "A" on my car (I live in France, means you've had your licence for less than 3 years and (back then) you got less than half of the strikes you get when you stop having the "A" thing).

Either way, the guy who talked to me had seen I was completely wasted, fucked as all hell. And he let me go just like that, because I wasn't driving dangerously, only fast (was 11:30pm - 12am, streets were empty).

The guy was chill, nothing but respectful, normal, reasonable. He didn't threaten to bash my skull in or nothing. THAT is a cop, and not because he didn't actually arrest me, but because he reacted appropriately. I wasn't putting anyone but myself at risk, so he didn't throw me in jail, AND he talked to me like a normal human being and not as an alcoholic or a terrorist or anything.

Yeah, I did something illegal, but he responded reasonably and not like a maniac, throwing me out of my car and pulling a gun at me. (He was armed, yeah, but he didn't even go near his sidearm, nor his baton) Hell, he didn't even make me get out of the car, only cut my engine.