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
