Splinter: Police Corruption vs. the Presumption of Nobility

No. Give him some credit for sense.
The accepted technique is to find some other thread that the person is posting in, and find an excuse there.
Like you did with LG.
Even better, shoe one argues with X, then shoe two bans him on another thread.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Bingo...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So It's Not Worth Much; I Blame Inflation

The Best You're Going to Get

It probably is time to offer something of an apology.

But it's not going to really satisfy anyone.

Yes, I made a sweeping condemnation of all police officers. Yes, I am also very much aware how offensive that statement was. I am sorry I stooped so low to make a point.

But that's the best anyone's going to get out of me.

Because the way we are expected to kiss certain groups of peoples' asses in this society is disgusting. At that morbid end of watch, we are to hold the corrupt cop in no less esteem than the mythical honest cop.

The problem is this: Los Angeles, Seattle, Chicago, New York, Boston ... enough to blanket this country from sea to shining sea. Someone applying to be a police officer for, say the Seattle Police Department, who does not know its shameful reputation, is not smart enough to be a police officer.

Anyone who knowingly signs onto that sham? No, I'm sorry. You do not get the presumption of nobility. And this has been a phenomenon people and police departments have been experiencing for decades. Did Philly P.D. ever rebuild its reputation? Is "Rampart" still a word to be whispered, and only to explain that an organized crime syndicate that large could only be a few bad seeds who were capable of hiding what they were doing from everyone else? Does the fact that we haven't had reason to pick on NYPD over the last couple months mean that force is suddenly clean?

I can only hope that the shit Bells, for instance, had to survive and work amid, was a little more merciful. I don't doubt that at some point in her career she has had to make a decision and undertake an action that, by conscience, she has objections to. And I don't doubt that she would stand behind those actions and decisions.

Why would I have respect for such a stand? Because she's willing to talk about the constraints, influences, pressures, and genuine human desperation that can motivate those decisions. As I recall, she worked some damn tough posts. And everyone has to make difficult ethical decisions in their lives. In some jobs, those decisions have profound repercussions in other people's lives. And it's by not talking about it that things get so far out of hand.

And I don't know, are the prisons privatized in Australia? What compelling reason would she have to mill people into the penal system? Did she ever work under such structural conditions?

And my complaint with American prosecutors isn't nearly as strong as my complaint with the police. The effect of systemic influences is different in that setting. Indeed, I'm highly critical of prosecutors; our system in the United States is a mill for the benefit of the private sector. Our public defenders' offices are woefully and deliberately underfunded and understaffed; they often essentially serve as negotiators for the accused's induction into the penal system. I'm told the public defenders in Seattle are at least a little bit better, but what's going on in our country is generally insane. I might think the condition of the Snohomish County Public Defender's office is a constitutional question mark in and of itself, but it isn't in nearly as bad of shape as it could be. Nonetheless, the whole thing is a travesty.

But none of this is as dangerous a catastrophe as our police departments.

The problem with the blue wall is that the extent of the corruption that even LEOs would publicly acknowledge as corruption will never be known. And some of the corruption is simply systemic. It's in the structure of the laws, and the operations of the police departments. It is not impossible to imagine an earnest young cadet in a place not nearly as ridiculously corrupt as the SPD, and therefore not knowing what he was getting into. But he will be trained into the problematic behavior.

How does it get so far in the first place?

I loathe the idea that the police are beyond reproach. That's how it got so far in the first place. Just ask the ... no, I'm not going there. Yes, actually I am. Just ask the fucking Catholics. The rank and file believers are horrified by what the clerical privilege of presumed nobility has bought them. These are generational scars of conscience that the Church and its flock ... I mean, how the hell are they gonna fix that?

And how the hell are we going to fix this? If it was a few bad seeds, why not get rid of them? Why not find the germinating bad seeds and pluck them from the garden before they cause damage? You know, since it's supposed to be a few bad seeds?

And one other note. And, yes, this is important. I would ask that as you go forward, pay some attention to our American public discourse. Once upon a time, Bill Maher called out Charlton Heston, who was then president of the NRA. The old man was pushing those conspiracy theories about liberals coming for your guns, and Maher pointed out that as much as everyone was talking about supporting the troops, here was the respectable NRA pushing a talking point that requires our military and law enforcement to go to war with the people.

And I might look terribly upon law enforcement, but even I don't think so poorly of them. I might say that there is systemic corruption that needs to be fixed, and that it's been going on so long, and is so apparent, that I do not extend a presumption of nobility to anyone who signs on to be a cop.

But being a cop or a soldier means you're eventually going to turn against your neighbors in order to take their guns away?

It's true that I swung a low blow. It's true that I probably didn't need to swing so low, so hard. But it's also true that people can say a lot worse about LEOs and the military, just as long as they bury it in the subtext. Listen to our political discourse; we put up with this every day. So, yes, I'm sorry I swung as low and hard as I did. Clearly, when you're saying something explicitly instead of just presupposing it for a deceptive political exploitation, it is much easier to offend. There were probably better ways to make the point about the hypocrisy and danger of these bawling demands that law enforcement be granted this perpetual exception. So, yes, I'm sorry.

But I still want to know: How the fuck do I apply to be a black man?

No, seriously, can someone at least show me a job listing for being a black man? I wouldn't even know who's hiring.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not far away from that opinion Tiassa but I am not emotionally involved enough at the moment to endorse this:

Note the operative "at the moment" because I have been of that mindset in the past and verbally expressed such on numerous occasions.


I'm not privy to all of the experiences that brought you to the conclusion that "police are shit" but I have a few of my own.

In my mid twenties I called 911 to report an assault and potential rape in progress in the empty lot next to my place of business. Since i was the witness that reported the incident in the first place, I thought maybe I should recount my experience to the police officers that responded. I ended up being interrogated for an hour or so because the cops "detected the aroma of marijuana about my person". Lovely...

In my late twenties I experienced a robbery in which a substantial sum of money was stolen from my house while I was away. It was a professional job - dogs taken out with cattle prods, alarm disabled, phone connection looped back, safe cut open like butter.

The ensuing investigation lasted for months and produced nothing except a lot of finger print dust for me to clean from my walls. At one point two detectives were at my house for the umpteenth "interview" and they both left the room for a moment to "investigate" something, leaving their case book on my kitchen counter. This case book was about four inches thick by that time but I am an extremely fast reader and managed to digest about a quarter of it by the time they returned. They were not at all pleased to walk in on me perusing their case notes and made me very aware of said displeasure.

My personal opinion as to why they were so irate about my snooping is because substantively, the "robbery" investigation was focused on me personally. Not because they suspected insurance fraud or anything, but rather because I must be a drug dealer. Why? Well, why and how else would a young man come to possess a quarter of a million dollars in gold bullion that was undeclared / uninsured? Must be drugs... I had to proactively present evidence to the lead detective that proved I earned that money honestly to get the investigation back on track. Really? Needless to say, this investigation ultimately produced no fruit and the robbery is unsolved to this day...

And then there is the case of my friend, a waitress at a local drinking establishment and a single mother that also happened to be a very low level dealer who was blessed with a visit from a friggin' SWAT team crashing through her apartment windows. A little macho overkill there maybe?

I could go on...

On the other hand, my one and only experience where I actually meant it when I said thank you after an encounter with a LEO occurred while I was in my teens and returning home after a late night party. Admittedly, I was inebriated and my buddy in the passenger seat was totally zonked - complete with a beer can between his legs and drool exiting his mouth. We were only about a quarter of a mile from home in a rural farmland area, but I still think it was nice of the officer to escort us home rather then throwing us in the tank for the night. Granted, this was over thirty years ago and times have changed but I still try to be grateful for the little things.

In other words, I recognize that using the "all" superlative in regards to a group or class of people is most likely an unfounded generality. Unless, of course, said assertion is based on the actual definition of the class in question, such as "all dishonest police are dishonest" - that's probably a safe bet.

Gremmie, while you may have tried to be honest and dedicated, the way Tiassa framed the statement makes it almost undeniable:

...anyone who is offended better be able to say that they (A) are a LEO, and (B) have never committed any wrongdoing, including simple errors and omissions.​

Surely you aren't claiming to have been infallible while on the job, right? Technically, that would mean you "falsified" a report at some point. IMHO, I think Tiassa wishing you dead is more rhetoric than anything else, but I can certainly see how his statements would seem like an assault on you as a person. Unlike Tiassa appears to believe I do think there are people who enter law enforcement with noble motives and may continue to conduct themselves honorably throughout their career, to the best of their ability. However the system is so corrupt that this goal of "nobility" is nigh unattainable in many, if not all, places. Do I believe that police have a purpose and that they provide a service to society? Yes. Do I think there is huge room for improvement in the current system? Emphatically yes.


I do not totally discount the possibility of an honest cop but would hate to have to produce one on short notice. I guess it's just the optipessimist in me...

You know, "Hope for the best but prepare for the worst".

 

Hey there Randwolf... I've said over and over, that there is corruption in law enforcement, never denied it. Doesn't mean all LEOs are corrupt. Tiassa seems to think that anyone that wears a badge has an agenda, and deserves to be "slaughtered". I gotta this again though, I was Border Patrol, not some beat cop, trying to write my quota of parking tickets, or messing with people because they smoked a little bud. As far as falsification of reports, I never had to. We had cameras in our vehicles, and we always paired up... One of us would always film all of our actions. So, no false reports, no brutality, no criminal activity on our part.

 

Wanna File a Police Complaint (Arrested for Trying) Disgraceful.

 

I am one of those Gremmie that could give quite a few bad experiences with LEO's, also. I could also give my opinion about that culture from an outsider observer POV but what I think I would most like to see here is your experience with the blue wall mentality. Spending almost 20 years in Border patrol I am sure you had to see corruption and cover ups.

 

Since the entire premise of these facilities is to prevent escapes, the cameras won't necessarily do much good. That being said, suspects ought to be given the right to review them to see if anything probative is on them. The problem here is that you can't give a suspect access to the videos showing the layout of the jail without colliding with legitimate security concerns.

But if the cops are good cops and the system is following due process and everything is working as it should, why doesn't every detainee have access to video of the alleged incident--at least while the cops were there--plus of course the video of the actual confrontation with police and the arrest, plus the interview at book-in, to include the interview asking if they need medical attention or have any history of psychiatric or neurological problems? This can be justified under the "cruel and unusual punishments" clause, as a measure to ensure that their human rights are protected, as a well-oiled justice system would want to do. So I would strongly advocate in favor of that. I don't see any substantial cost, and it would likely save the states considerable costs in litigation arising from such abuses.

Presumably since this is training the cadet writes the reports.

I don't think a court cares too much that a person is disgusted by arrest if that's what you mean. I just don't understand what the judges are being told about the state of the recordings, and why the judges don't share your concerns. I do think most judges are not naive. The most likely reason they wouldn't care is that it has no bearing on the case because other evidence was entered that already speaks to the guilt or innocence of the suspect beyond a reasonable doubt. It's hard to generalize though, as every case is different. That is, until a pattern of practice emerges which is what some of the articles you've linked to are saying.

I wish I could convince you to state that differently. The ideal is equality under the law, which is correctly applied in cases of citizen's rights vs. the rights of a cop "in the individual capacity", that is, acting outside of any laws or internal rules governing lawful arrests. Once the cop is "in the helmet" it's incorrect to apply equality. That is, provided the cop is doing a lawful arrest, there is no longer a citizen-on-citizen relationship. It becomes States' rights vs civil rights. At that point, due process is fully engaged. If that cop ever "takes off the helmet" by acting in the individual capacity, equal protection engages, but only as a complaint against any official who is protecting the bad cop, such as by failing to ensure that any video evidence is preserved and used to bring charges against the bad cop. I think your ideals are better espoused in the laws that forbid officials from acting in the individual capacity while depriving any person of life, liberty or property in what only purports to be due process of law. That's a very strong claim, and can even result in hard prison time for the bad cop.

I didn't understand this, but I'll look through your links to see if I can put it together.

I would favor laws that not only require cops to record the incident scene and arrest, as well as the book-in interview, but which require them to maintain the recordings for a period well beyond the 2-year statute of limitations for detainees to file court complaints for civil rights violations. I also think the mere fact that the US has an anomalously high per capita rate of incarceration (2,000,000+ last I checked) that it demands a department of the civil rights division to be created specifically to monitor state jail and prison incidents, so that prisoners don't have to rely solely on the highly esoteric legal technicalities of court proceedings to win their rights. There should be people on-site who have no interest in the local politics, who these detainees can complain to, with reasonable expectation that the jails and prisons will not be able to trump any legitimate claim of abuse. The only problem with my little scheme is that nobody gives a damn. Americans tend not to care about the rights of the accused, not until they themselves are facing false accusations. And then it's too late. They join that silent 2,000,000 who nobody listens to simply because of the presumption of guilt that follows any conviction.

Hmm. It's probably not accurate to say the courts do not demand corroborating evidence, but rather that the plaintiffs did not establish that the videos contained probative evidence, much less the more problematic allegation that the probative evidence was destroyed. There is a bar here that's hard to defeat. It begins to recede when a pattern of practice emerges. At that point a temperate judge is hard-pressed to believe that this pattern is purely coincidence.

But the overriding constraint is that whatever a judge may do that tinkers with a law enforcement agency, it can't be done in a way that diminishes the power and effectiveness of the good cops. That creates a very difficult puzzle for the judges to try to solve. And it takes a strong class action to get to that point, prosecuted by a passionate firebrand deeply entrenched in the unpopular branch of civil rights law. (It doesn't pay.)

There may or may not be any probative fact in a video. That remains to be seen, and needs a law or rule to establish that the police must record all incidents, plus a rule that the videos be preserved and made available to the defense immediately. If there is probative evidence of a false arrest they would be hard-pressed to book the suspect. But if they did, the suspect should be allowed to push a button on a screen after watching the video at book-in, to enter a petition for writ of habeas corpus, and to be immediately be taken to a special court set up to review all such claims. I can't think of any other way to do this. There has to be a neutral 3rd party present in all the courts and jails to ensure that the bad cops are not running amok.

I'm sure most of what they record is not worth preserving. The question in my mind is why the recorded incident should no be already available to suspects under the Freedom of Information Act, recognizing that they need immediate and unrestricted access to adequately prepare their defense. And recognizing that this only applies to a minority of cases, but out of a scrupulous demand for fundamental fairness, should be freely provided at book-in.

If that's the case, then the better lawyers are filing motions of some kind, which ought to be easy enough for public defenders to do. The problem with this is that, while the Constitution provides that every defendant receives "effective assistance of counsel" (the Supreme Court interpretation) there is no Constitutional guarantee of a lawyer once you're the plaintiff, which means abused suspects and prisoners are stuck out prosecuting their civil rights claims since most can't afford an attorney, especially while unable to produce an income behind bars. This is another dimension to the question of abuse in general, to include a bunch of bad stuff that can happen to people once convicted.

An effective attorney should pick it apart if it's fraudulent. Of course that just says all people should have effective attorneys.

I agree with the spirit of that statement, but I wouldn't go that far. Police are expert witnesses. Average people have no clue. They are further disadvantaged by being cut off from the world, probably in terrible shape from sleep deprivation, the squalor of a jail, the dangers, and ill or nearly ill from inadequate medical care and contaminated food. The holding pens may be out doors where they are exposed to the elements, and pens closer to the courts packed with other people who haven't showered in days. All of this softens the person up, only to be hit with the offer to cop a plea for a crime they did not commit. It's that or some very harsh consequences of taking the matter to trial. In short the whole process is heavily adversarial, able to crush little people to smithereens. And nobody gives a damn, because the cops said they were guilty, so they must have done something wrong!

Hmm. It depends on the case. The best hope you would have is through the passionate, firebrand civil rights expert you hired for hundreds of dollars per hour to get the person to break down on the stand. I recall a case like this in which they started at the high command and worked their way down to a captain or lieutenant who did break under the pressure of the consequences of perjury. One by one they worked their way back up the chain and each witness recanted when confronted by the testimony one level below him. This was one for the law books, probably unparalleled in all of the history of detainee civil rights litigation. Compare that to perhaps a million complaints (just guessing) some fraction of which get to trial, and it winnows down to slim pickens after that. It's exceedingly rare and difficult.

Who is it that's paid by the Licensing people?

You wouldn't know what you were getting even if the courts ordered them to comply, since they would retain the right to redact anything they deem "security related". That being said, the Freedom of Information Act needs to be beefed up to make all of the relevant information transparent and retrievable.

I had trouble deciding how much of this was hearsay and bias. My bullshit meter twitched a little as soon as I saw what is an arrestable offense in most locales (public intox) coupled by an aggravated complainant (creating a disturbance?) and fucking with the cop who might let you off easy if you submit to his questions (refusing voice ID). Unless these things are legal in Seattle, I have trouble caring that the guy suffered the indignity that followed. If there had been serious harm done to him I would get wired up about it. But it seems frivolous to me. I suspect there are people getting shanked in Washington jails, or dying for lack of treatment by compassionate medical providers. In my mind these should be media headliners, with stories like this one put on the back burners.

It's not been made clear here but as I understand it he need only show that the cop took his wallet in order to establish that he had been positively identified, thereby supporting a claim of false arrest (for failure to give ID). Just sayin: is it possible the cop did him a favor by not busting him for public intox/public disturbance? The failure to ID charge seems far less likely to hurt him in future probes into his criminal history.

And this: if they took his wallet, then they returned it to him, right? There would be a record of that. This tweaks my bullshit meter. If there was record of his wallet being taken, then it establishes the same fact he would intend to establish through the video. So what's up with that? :bugeye:

That sounds pretty extreme. I mean he's making a federal case out of what I see as a trifling matter. I just don't get it.
Something else seems to be going on, or else I'm overlooking some key fact.

This is where the real concern should lie, but if Rachner is blowing smoke, he's only hurting the people who are facing serious prison time for crimes they did not commit.

Aha so there is some smoking gun. It sounds like he signed a non-disclosure agreement. He copped for a payoff. For some positive spin on this: these fears of litigation, and the accountability that goes with paying a settlement (admitting to some unspecified wrongdoing) is an effective tool to mitigate the abuse. In such a case it's likely that the bad cop was sanctioned and won't be doing this again. So this might actually show that the due process clause works, if only through the subterfuge of settlements.

Still as the cases mount, the expectation is that the system slowly grows more compliant. More prospective bad cops decide on better judgment to stay clean. The due process clause does actually serve as a deterrent after all.

That was a subject addressed by Obama once or twice, and Eric Holder. I haven't followed it to see whether effective measure were taken, but if not, it's obvious that the Republicans would have obstructed it. They did the worst case of obstructing judicial appointments in history, which means innocent suspects in places like Seattle can expect a lower chance of having their complaints heard.

States have a compelling interest to preserve the security of jails and prisons. But they don't actually care about the welfare of suspects, since they have had to harden themselves against the premise that some suspects are victims. Thus they stick to this as their prime directive, ignoring the other compelling interest of the State, which is to preserve due process and to protect suspects from trumped up charges brought by bad cops.

And no one cares.

Meaning, that was reason for the settlement: that the lab was doctoring the data. Sounds like cases that have been reported in other states. Crime labs then need third party monitoring.

Yes, it's relative. Until someone loses life or limb or gets convicted for a crime they did not commit. Then it pops up into that absolute category of human rights abuse, which is why it's so important for all of the cops and all officials connected with a case to keep their noses clean. When someone dies in a cell from neglect, or from an attack by the goon squad, these bad cops may be the first to feel the long arm of the law.

Roger that, I meant "obliquely" only by your interpretation of "acting in the individual capacity" (the most likely scenario for a civil rights violation) as an instance of "violation of the equal protection clause", which applies to a different scenario, almost exclusively in matters of discrimination. It would take some oblique argument to establish that the cop is given preferred treatment, since, in the official capacity, he is immunized from lots of bad results, like shooting you to death during an escape. In the individual capacity, he can't even draw on you, and if he does, then he's not immunized, so there is no preferential treatment and thus no equal protection violation by the official that protects him from prosecution (which is where another level of indirect argument has to kick ass). I was just speaking to the legal theory, not the ideal you bring to mind when you say "equal protection". As for ideals, I would go for "fundamental fairness" since that's what the people who live lives of quiet desperation can only hope for the day they get fingered for something they didn't do.

Having said all of this, I do find your posts to be very nicely presented, usually brilliant, suggesting you have a background in journalism. At the same time you have recently surprised me with a few blanket statements (atheists are morons, cops are corrupt) which to me are incongruent with that sense of justice, in that it's unjust in these cases to generalize to a stereotype. And I'm sorry to see you go off the chain on good folks posting here just because (as I understand it) they trigger your angst against real culprits. It smacks of a kind of transference, like scapegoating, which comes across as something irrational and mean. It would be was good to see you apologize.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

eace:

 

It definitely exists... It has always existed. And until radical changes are made, it will continue. But, as the saying goes...hate the game, not the player... I've seen plenty of things, that shouldn't have happened. I have seen officers, that had no right to wear a badge. But, I've also seen several that really wanted to do the right thing. I spent the last 10 years as a training officer, and I have personally seen to it, that several officers were dismissed. I crossed the blue line many times... I've even had death threats. This is why when Tiassa said what he said, it really hit me hard. I took pride in my job, and demanded that those I worked with, did the same.

 

@ Aqueous,

Post #103 is what you seek then regarding apology.

 

Could you be more specific regarding radical changes, like what?

 

Thanks, quinn, I missed it. I'll amend my post.

 

Hmmm... The best I can come up with, is get rid of "the good old boys" the ones that perpetuate the blue line... My Captain, was a good old boy. He's going on 40 years now... If an officer did something dicey, well, just cover it up. And, if anyone questioned this, well, you weren't gonna have a good day... I had many bad days... So yeah, get rid of the good old boys, get some new blood, and start holding the higher ups responsible for their actions. Easier said than done though...

 

A General Consideration Starting from a Specific Issue

The following is a common joke in the United States of America. And I'm pretty sure Bells has heard a version of it in Australia.

"What do you call a hundred attorneys in concrete shoes on the bottom of the Pacific?"

―A good start.​

The weird thing about American culture on this count is that we're supposed to presume some lawyers are good, and they're always in the prosecutors' offices. Unless, of course, one is a politician trying to convince Americans that our prosecutors, judges, and juries are incapable of handling terrorism trials. And there are other circumstances in which it is acceptable to presume prosecutors evil; many right-wing conspiracy theories circulating among alleged patriots are even more paranoid about state actors than their long-ignored leftist equivalents. And why is it that the same package of paranoia is so much more acceptable if it's dressed in wishes for patriotic insurgency instead of revolutionary progress?

And like I said, people say a lot worse about law enforcement every day, and rarely do we hear such complaints as you made toward Captain K's glib remark.

Seriously, who the hell is coming for our guns? Is Harry Reid going to go around sucker-punching gun owners while Joe Biden picks their holster and Barack Obama raids the cabinet?

It will be either the police or the armed services, depending on which conspiracy theory one attends.

Setting aside the fact of needing to amend the Constitution in order to take away the guns—and, really, think about what it would take to get that kind of amendment of the Second through Congress and the States, and anyone who wants to push those conspiracy theories can feel free to finally explain that one—there is also the consideration of who's going to do it.

Is there really any question in anyone's mind whether the police or military would actually come after all the guns in the U.S.? No, really, under what circumstances would these people in these particular uniforms actually do it?

Enemies foreign and domestic; without amending the Second, nobody can take all the guns away. And paranoid arguments about taking away people's guns as a distraction from a discussion of gun safety and violence in the United States presume that law enforcement and/or the military would be willing to try just because Congress and a President said so.

Please, sir, tell me: How does it feel to know that so many people believe that you, as a law enforcement officer, would willingly take part in the confiscation of all guns in private hands, simply because Congress passed a bill and the president signed it into law?

This is a valid argument in our political discourse. It is a prominent argument. It's hard to discuss gun safety in the public arena because the counterpoint is that such discussions and obligations are just the beginning of the process to take away all the guns.

How many times have you complained about this?

My complaints with law enforcement are issues that can be fixed. There are others who just presume that the police are so cynically greedy that they would actually take part in the seizure of all guns in private hands; this is a permanent presupposition of an argument that requires law enforcement to be so corrupt.

As to endorsing the wholesale slaughter of the police? Well, that's a problem people seem to have with reading comprehension.

Consider an argument I made in the gun thread this discussion is splintered from:

You want to tell me the problem is people? Well, guess what? We have no reason to trust the people with guns.

Of course, if we all went and strapped up in order to defend ourselves against these "responsible gun owners", well, see, that's the whole point of the firearm lobby's argument. The whole purpose seems to be to create conditions under which everyone needs a gun.

The problem is this: Gun owners are a risky enough bunch that, under SYG, I have no reason to not stick a knife in the throat of the first guy I find who's packing heat. Gun owners are just that fuckin' dangerous.

It's probably best for all of us, then, that I do not believe in such a world.​

Do you understand how that works? I don't want to live in that kind of society. But that's what I get if I accept certain arguments in that public policy debate.

Similarly, from this discussion:

In the end, the police are human beings. That is all the respect they get from me. It's a baseline. You get it if you're Officer Hero, Osama bin Laden, or even a capitalist. Its components include the Dostoyevsky measurement.​

Do you understand how that works?

There is a logical issue here. There are reasons I do not believe in killing; there are reasons I do not believe in war.

Why was I unable to endorse the violence against the Seattle Police Department in February, 2011? Because that sort of violence doesn't actually accomplish anything. To the other, though, that was also the month that every police officer in the state of Washington became a mortal threat. The police can get away with murder. This presents a practical problem.

Think about that: Every police officer in the state of Washington is a mortal threat.

Maybe that hurts an individual officer's feelings. But that won't be of any comfort to the dead. There are some things people just can't take back, can't undo.

So if you want to tell me that ninety-nine point nine percent of police officers in a bad shoot wouldn't have shot? If it happens to be your life? And he's going to get away with it?

Birk was only fired because he screwed up badly enough, leaving the department no choice. As it was, Prosecutor Satterberg didn't really help them out any when he decided that shooting someone to death in bad procedure, writing a false report, and actually tampering with the incident scene doesn't really warrant criminal charges.

This is problematic. Every police officer in the state of Washington became a mortal threat that day. Especially in Seattle.

SPD is a particularly notorious example right now, but apparently it's just their turn; whatever problems the department had before, they've been getting worse since Norm Stamper and WTO, and especially since Gil Kerlikowske, who eventually left to head ONDCP, and is now the Commissioner of CBP. (Okay, I thanked the Obama administration for getting Kerlikowske out of town, adored for the irony his role in the abandonment of the War on Drugs, and think they've found the perfect place for a guy a San Diego police officer once thanked and apologized to me for, because Seattle had gotten him off their backs. And it's true, he's a really nice, good guy. And he knows exactly why I loathe the police, and we rarely talk about it since we were associating as writers. Odd thing is that if California legalizes, he will leave the force; he's got a kid, and while he knows all the problems with marijuana prohibition, he doesn't want to face whatever real threat fills that frontline vacuum. At the time we were talking about this, meth was a likely candidate; and, well, right now it appears to be heroin, so ... yeah. He's probably making a good call.)

It's like that guy from LAPD we all try to forget. Yes, we know there are certain problems in the force; yes, we know there is a history of bureaucratic malice to suppress reports of those problems, but really? What the hell is a shooting rampage going to do? Emma Goldman figured this out, but too late. Yes, Henry Clay Frick was, in my opinion, a murderer, but she and Berkman screwed up, with the nearest thing to a silver lining being that they bungled the hit so badly that he lived. 'Twas a bad move, and her later writing reflected an understanding of this. But, really? The Haymarket Martyrs are so called because they weren't guilty. They didn't die because they were guilty; they died because they were Anarchists. Damn it, she knew that already. It's not even the fact that she ought to have known she couldn't win. The killing was unjust; you simply don't try to prove the point by assassinating someone.

If the people went to war with the police, there is a reason. But there is no good outcome for that. None. It becomes a useless exercise, literally a feel-good bloodbath.

As I said, it is because I am a pacifist that I do not endorse such things.

In the first place, because, as I said, the Dostoyevsky measure is a fundamental component of my outlook. No matter how dangerous the police get, or how low my esteem for such institutions sinks, it is a fundamental measurement of our society to regard how we treat the most despised.

Naturally, there are far, far worse people in our society than, say, the Seattle Police Department. And I wouldn't see them killed, either.

From the outset, you have been using yourself as a political argument. That's a bit crass. That whimpering outrage at Captain K's remark is absolutely ridiculous. It's offensive. And it was all about you. And it's true, when I threw down the hammer I didn't need to throw such a heavy one so hard and so low. That was my error. Again, I'm sorry.

Two points:

• When you repeatedly bait a moderator to bust out his cap, it makes your objection appear more personal than principled.

• Superficial arguments framed for the sake of egotism—e.g., "I dedicated my life to my job, and Tiassa calls me a lying piece of shit, that should be killed... Yeah, seems fair."—make your objections appear more personal than principled.​

What was it you said? You have three degrees? Then please don't act like you can't read or think any more deeply than that. Please?

To the other, perhaps you can give me some insight, here. Part of what pissed me off was the freaking delicateness of your ego in complaining about Capt. K's remark. Help me, please, understand what separates, say, police, from other groups. I mean come on, if some politician complained about what we were saying about politicians?

Theists? Atheists?

Okay, so ... what separates the police? Or, if nothing specifically, what does that say of the rest?
____________________

Notes:

McNetherney, Casey. "Police officer assaulted near Pike Place Market". SeattlePI. February 21, 2011. SeattlePI.com. April 8, 2014. http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Police-officer-assaulted-near-Pike-Place-Market-1025264.php

Pulkkinen, Levi. "Review: Birk didn’t have cause believe Williams a threat". Seattle 911. February 16, 2011. Blog.SeattlePI.com. April 8, 2014. http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle91...k-didnt-have-cause-believe-williams-a-threat/

 

Australians even make jokes about English people.

 

We are known as 'pommie bastards'. Actually we make jokes about Australians too:

Bruce walks up to Sheila and says:

G'day Sheila, do you screw?

And Sheila says:

I sure do, Bruce, you smooth-talking bastard.

 

We should all be shocked by this Repo, but as you noticed none here even responded. How far do we let this kind of behavior go before we demand change? How do we demand change, I mean what avenue do we have?

 

It Happens, and Then Nothing Happens

The first is transforming attitudes. Consider the horrifying case out of Lynnwood, Washington, in which the police decided to not believe a rape complaint, and harassed and eventually arrested her. The detective would not like that an alleged rape victim would not look him in the eye while he was interrogating her.

Anyway, about two and a half years later, the woman's alleged rapist was finally caught in Colorado, and charged with multiple rapes committed over that span.

Cmdr. Steve Rider, in 2011, explained, "Suffice it to say, certain pieces of information just led investigators to the wrong conclusion".

In other words, hey, it's not his officers' fault. I mean, sure, the whole of the reason Lynnwood police let this guy get away in order to harass and arrest a rape survivor is that, "Based on her answer and body language it was apparent that D.M. was lying about the rape". Not wrong. Not mistaken. Lying.

Certain pieces of information just led investigators to the wrong conclusion.

In any just world, Det. Rittgarn and Sgt. Mason, at the very least, should be serving some significant portion of three hundred twenty-seven years alongside Marc O'Leary, the serial rapist they let get away so they could bully an eighteen year-old rape victim.

Or, to be more realistic, the public needs assurance that these two will never work in law enforcement again, anywhere in human society. That would be a start. You know, since it's unlikely we're going to be charging cops who do this with aiding and abetting subsequent crimes by the suspect.

But as long as people see these few bad seeds not only getting away with it, but also receiving the support of their departments in doing so?

This is not simply acceptable, this is appropriate behavior according to our police departments.
____________________

Notes:

Carter, Mike. "Woman sues after Lynnwood police didn’t believe she was raped". The Seattle Times. June 10, 2013. SeattleTimes.com. April 8, 2014. http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021161550_rapelawsuitxml.html

 

Thanks for pointing that out, or I would have missed it. I wonder how the camera went inside like that undetected. I was left thinking how bad it is for the unfortunate people inside who need medical attention, and of course legal help. Imagine the despair of being obstructed like that, with no hope of getting word out except thru letters which the cops are reading and a phone call or two which they listen in on. At least until the prisoner earns visitation privileges, although I wouldn't be surprised if those were bugged.


What the guy was trying to do is actually a required step before filing a lawsuit. Before the complaint will be entered, the plaintiff has to "exhaust available remedies" which means to file a written complaint just like this guy was trying to do, with the immediate commander of the unit alleged to be violating the citizen's rights. It looked to me like each of these cops was aware of the consequences, that if the guy was successful in filing his written complaint, then once the unit commander refused his request for relief (such as a request for having the offending officer apologize, or asking for compensation for injuries sustained during an arrest, etc.) then once the relief is denied, the legal door opens for the guy to proceed with his lawsuit. Those lawsuits can be deadly to the way police units operate, since it can force them to reorganize under court appointed monitors, or to add an internal affairs staff, or just about anything. So none of the cops are going to stand by and let anyone get through that first door without cutting the guy off at the knees. And by writing the complaint themselves, they get to twist it. They can now testify that the guy admitted to lying, or just about anything. So he was smart not to say anything, although this looked like it was staged. (Was it?) Doesn't matter really. It gets the point across.

Good call. Repo Man picked a humdinger. (Not sure if yall use that term down in Nawth Car'lYYYnuh' but what the hey.)