Both my parents worked and retired PD... most cops are mostly good, like most people. It only takes a handful of bad guys to have an outsized effect, and the protections for govt employees in general, and police in particular is way too strong imo...
The aversion to police altogether, while I understand is akin to being overprotective as a parent, which can be more than just counterproductive but harmful as a whole.
A police force that won’t expel and arrest one corrupt cop is an entirely corrupt force.
Aversion to police is just aversion to risk. You never know why a cop is asking you a question or what they are really investigating so even answering innocuous questions is massively risky. You never know if you match the description of someone they are looking for or if something minor like answering a question during a traffic stop. “I’m just headed home from the grocery store officer” could put you at the scene of a crime you didn’t even know about.
Misunderstandings are usually easy to clear up with most people but if a cop decides you are under arrest it would have catastrophic consequences for most people and everything you said prior to that arrest would immediately be stacked against you.
If YOU get pulled over and the cop is aware that you have police family they may give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are “one of them” and not “one of us”, for everyone else take the advice that every defense attorney agrees on: just don’t talk to them.
Few people dispute that there are some good peace officers.
However, there appear to be no good police unions. The unions bend over backwards to protect bent cops almost regardless of their actions. The "good cops" also support these unions - if they didn't, and if the "good cops" where the majority, then the police unions would reflect that
And one of the misunderstood things about ACAB is that it doesn't have to be literally true, if there are enough bad cops (and we know by now that there are), and if the bad cops are protected by the good cops (which we also know to be the case most of the time) then as a civilian you don't know which you're going to be dealing with in an interaction. The only safe thing to do is to assume that any given cop that you interact with is a bad cop.
Christ. I'm glad you and the pup made it through that scary situation.
Due to the potential for an extreme outcome, I've long though Swatting should cop the 'prankster' an attempted murder charge. Which is in itself probably excessive, but hey.
I'd put more blame on the police than the prankster to be honest. The prankster should be fined for wasting the police's time and for messing with important societal safety systems but how the police engages the target is entirely up to them.
The problem is a lot of it cuts both ways... a lot of cops see misconduct investigations and a LOT of them are either unsubstantiated or lies. It's really impossible to know from the outside and onset. In the case of Floyd, for example, I don't know anyone, cop or not, that didn't think that was excessive force and completely wrong.
The union is supposed to serve the police, and that includes legal protection... your lawyer is going to back you, that's how the system works. Would you want a defense lawyer that was against you?
I know it's pretty simplistic, but that's largely what it comes down to... I'm not supporting police misconduct at all. I think that civil asset forfeiture is a crime, I think that police spend too much time trying to make criminals out of innocent people... Once at an accident where I was rear ended, "why is your seatbelt unbuckled?" I was kind of pissed, because, "I needed to get my insurance and registration from the glove box."
In the end, I get it... I do feel, however, that the ACAB is oversized because a lot of it is over-reported or misrepresented.
I'm also not that inclined to generally and blindly support police. They are agents of the govt's interests and not yours. They serve the govt and the govt is too split from general good and in favor of the wealthy and powerful. And I also think that enforcing draconian lockdowns in many places didn't gain them any favor with anyone these past few years.
Again, most cops are mostly good, like most people. And like most people they will bend to peer pressure, anxiety, stress and their environment. You really want to see people with a bent personality, talk to the guys that have to clean up traffic accidents sometime... They're quasi police and complete alcoholics for the most part. That's a job nobody should have for an extended period of time. It's extreme, but only to show that one's own experiences will shape their perception.
Of course, I am biased, I just make an effort to be level headed as much as possible.
> The union is supposed to serve the police, and that includes legal protection... your lawyer is going to back you, that's how the system works. Would you want a defense lawyer that was against you?
That's an interesting perspective and nuance! It gets really interesting when the same group is both responsible for "protecting the individual" and "protecting the profession". In most legal situations, you have a lawyer of your own and it's very crystal clear that their role is to protect your best interests. And I am one of the people who strongly strongly believe that, in the general legal perspective, "he got off on a technically" should almost always be replaced with "the legal system failed to do their job". For example, if someone is acquitted of a crime because of a poor chain of custody with the evidence, the fault 100% is on the people who failed to do their jobs correctly. When the state wants to strip someone of their most basic right (freedom), they had better dot their Ts and cross their Is.
> In the end, I get it... I do feel, however, that the ACAB is oversized because a lot of it is over-reported or misrepresented.
With the lawyer situation, I am paying my lawyer to represent me the best they can. With the police union situation, the good guys are paying union dues that go directly towards the defence fund for the bad guys. There's a very significant conflict of interest here as well; if a video leaks where I'm beating the shit out of someone while wearing my company uniform, my employer is almost certainly going to put out a statement about how my actions don't represent the company values and that I've been terminated. With the police and police unions, there's often complete silence or even support.
I have more thoughts, thank you for triggering a really interesting line of thought for me. Will try to come back to this but work's getting busy again...
I'm specifically talking about the video... as I mentioned at the top of my reply, many/most civil complaints are made up, and I'm a proponent of filming and body cams, it's the best way to know (unedited, full-length content). It didn't take more than the video to see it and only took the video. It didn't matter the commentary around it.
Part of the problem is that police departments seem to have a culture of circling the wagons when one the "bad guys" is revealed. Whistleblowers are also often fired, harassed, and treated like the enemy[1]. If the good majority of the cops maintain this kind of culture, are they not at least partly responsible for the continued existence of the handful of bad guys?
It's a mixed bag though, how many civil calls for police misconduct are falsely made? I'm an avid supporter of body cams for cops, wouldn't mind seeing this for all public officials/offices tbh, and kind of wish it was all live streamed for anyone/everyone to capture.
The unions are literally the legal defense for the police... they are supposed to do that. And police protect their own, like most people in any tribalistic group. The power and repercussions for those that are bad guys in the system is definitely outsized in terms of influence and effect.
Again, and I feel I have to repeat this... I do not condone, or favor misconduct. I think police, generally speaking have too much power and gov't employees as a whole too much protection from liability for their actions. I'd like to see govt, and police reduced as much as reasonably possible, and strongly favor 2A and self defense.
>how many civil calls for police misconduct are falsely made?
According to a 2006 report [1] from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (part of the DOJ), 25% of allegations of use of excessive force were unfounded. (This contradicts statements made elsewhere in the comments that "most allegations against police are falsified.") Keep in mind that these numbers are reported by the police agencies themselves.
(In the interest of beimg complete: In 23% of cases the officer involved was exonerated, meaning the "incident occurred, but the officer’s action was deemed lawful and proper". In 34% of cases the police agency didn't find enough evidence to either sustain the allegation or exonerate the officer. 8% of allegations ended with disciplinary action.)
Interestingly, when surveying citizens, the BJS found that 75% of citizens who experienced use of force thought it was excessive, although only about 10% filed a complaint with the agency employing the officer(s).
I wasn't able to find very much info on this, and I suspect there are probably some pretty big biases, so if anyone else has any info, please share.
My dad would generally have said the same... most of it is BS. And the incentivization in a LOT of places is just warped. You definitely need to be mindful of what you say/volunteer... you should definitely report crimes. When stopped by police, you should be respectful and offer the minimum required, ask clarifying questions, "am I required by law to answer that?" and only give what you have to.
That doesn't mean you have to be an asshole, and that doesn't condone asshole cops either. The point is, that broad brush strokes definitely don't help.
Personally, I'd like to see most govt minimized, including police and standing down the military. I'd like to see far more community engagement, and strongly support 2A and self defense, I don't like seeing that eroded for larger/stronger govt.
> ask clarifying questions, "am I required by law to answer that?" and only give what you have to.
I was under the impression that the police in the US are not required to be truthful and it's perfectly legal for them to give false legal advice if it'll make their day go smoother?
My understanding is that it's mixed... I think it's supposed to be along the lines of, "am I being compelled to answer against my will?" or some such, in which case it can be inadmissible as evidence (IANAL).
That said, if it were anything more than something like a basic traffic stop, I wouldn't answer anything other than my name and providing ID without a lawyer. Pretty much every interaction with police (outside family/friends) has been a traffic stop, an accident, or otherwise reporting a crime.
> My understanding is that it's mixed... I think it's supposed to be along the lines of, "am I being compelled to answer against my will?" or some such, in which case it can be inadmissible as evidence (IANAL).
Your understanding is absolutely wrong. There are no magic words that make your voluntary confession inadmissible whether intentional or not. l
The closest thing would be refusing to answer questions. Then, if arrested, demand your attorney and continue to refuse. Never try to rely on a Miranda violation.
Also, folks, find out if your state has a Stop & ID law and understand the details of when they can apply. You are always required to ID yourself if stopped for a traffic infraction.
As far as I understand it, the responsibility is on you to know the law and your rights.
If you are required by law to answer a question, you must do so. If you are not required to, you do not have to. What the police tell you has nothing to do with it.
There are very few occasions when you can be required by law to answer a question without a lawyer present (and without a judge compelling you to do so). These questions tend to be very limited, such as name and address, and may be even more limited in states without a stop and identify statute. You should research these questions before you need them.
The police are not required to teach you the law (with a very specific exception of reading you your rights when you are arrested) and are allowed to lie to you. They may also be simply mistaken about the legality of compelling you to answer a question. This may or may not impact the admissibility of anything you say, but generally provided the police officer reasonably believes what they’re saying is true, they will have qualified immunity and you will not be able to (successfully) take action against a police officer for lying to you.
In any case, you should take personal responsibility for learning what questions you must answer, and any questions other than that you should respond to with some formulation that makes it clear that a) you are aware of your legal right to refuse to answer the question, for example under the fifth amendment and b) you are exercising that right. You should answer all questions this way, even seemingly innocuous questions, as inferences may be drawn from your choice to stop answering questions. Courts have also established that if you are unaware of your fifth amendment rights, then they do not protect you. You should get legal advice at the earliest opportunity, but certainly before answering any question you are not required to answer. Police also receive training on how to make it seem as though you are required to answer the question without necessarily saying so. For example “how many people live in your house?” may be the question.
You might respond with something like “I would prefer not to answer that question”.
The police officer might then respond with something like “I need to know how many people live in your house so I can record it in the report/make sure my colleagues are aware that there are people at home/because I need that information to perform a proper investigation”. They may even threaten you with arrest for obstruction, but at this point they have likely crossed a threshold and anything you say past that point is probably inadmissible.
Although I’m not a lawyer, the above is my understanding of the recommendations of pretty much every lawyer about everything. You should do your own research or engage your own lawyer rather than listening to some loon on the internet with a Wikipedia degree.
>If most cops are mostly good, why dont they stop the bad cops in cases such as this?
Because most cops are bad. Plenty of good people become cops every day. But good cops have a half life of just a few years. The moment a good cop thinks "well I'll just overlook this one thing so that the guys will still like me" he becomes a bad cop. Whereas good cops treat it as a moral line and become former cops.
Tribalism, peer pressure, and the fact that most allegations against police are falsified.
In this case, it's f'd up, and the police in question, from what I recall were dismissed. The lawsuit itself is anything but okay imo, and they shouldn't have any expectation of privacy while on duty, period. And was my very first response in this post, if you care to look/check.
I'm a minimal govt libertarian, and that includes police. I'm just pointing out facts. How many times have you ratted someone out in an environment with oversized peer pressure? MOST people historically won't and don't.
If a good cop doesn't stop the bad cops from doing bad things, they are, by definition, a bad cop.
> How many times have you ratted someone out in an environment with oversized peer pressure?
Why has this culture of oversized peer pressure been permitted to continue unabated for so long?
When I was in the military, there was an incident where someone witnessed another serviceman committing a war crime. The commander dragged us all out, stood us at attention, and made 3 things abundantly clear: 1) if we committed a war crime we would be punished. 2) if we witnessed a war time we were expected to report it. 3) failure to report is a UCMJ violation and will also be punished.
What's so special about cops? Why do they get held to a lower standard than the military?
> the fact that most allegations against police are falsified
I'm curious as to where you got this information. After a quick search, a source of information said that 25% of allegations against police are falsified [1]. This is far from "most allegations against police". (I wouldn't be surprised if there were bias in favor of police in presenting this information either, as the organization putting it out states that a big part of their mission is "working to protect innocent law enforcement officers ... from wrongful allegations and convictions".)
It also doesn't make sense to me if most allegations are falsified, why aren't police unions in favor of more transparency and turning cases over to more objective parties to be investigated and cleared (i.e. civilian over-site boards instead of other police officers)? It's a bit alarming that an organization whose job it is, is to investigate crimes, wasn't able to either clear an officer or find him guilty of the allegation in 65% of situations (according to the statistics from the website [1]). (It's not worded the best in the report, so again, if you have other evidence that's both more objective and clear, I'd appreciate seeing it.)
I get that police shouldn't be automatically seen as the "bad guy", and I think it's sad that we live in a society (at least in the U.S.) where that is often the case. However, I think there are reasons for the distrust and defending against those reasons is counter-productive and not moving us in the right direction.
> they shouldn't have any expectation of privacy while on duty, period.
I agree with this (aside from minor exceptions), but police who destroy private surveillance systems and then sue when information gets out, presumably to create a chilling effect, go against what you seem to be arguing for: giving the police a chance at objective judgement. In my eyes, they do this to themselves.
> How many times have you ratted someone out in an environment with oversized peer pressure? MOST people historically won't and don't.
Just because most of us have fallen victim to peer pressure, doesn't mean it's right, and I don't think you are arguing that, but ignoring it in your plea towards empathy for police. I don't think claiming the police deserve more empathy in this story, than a man who was falsely accused of kidnapping and faced unfair repercussions because of it, is the right balance to strike. I would argue that we should be working to break down peer pressure and tribalism within the justice system, instead of excusing it.
> I'm just pointing out facts.
Again, I think the facts that you present are wrong (esp. that most allegations are falsified), and I'd genuinely like to see some evidence to back them up. I've seen plenty of evidence that police brutality and dishonesty is a problem in the past few years, and seems to me to be the bigger problem, so I have a hard time seeing from your point of view. (I'm often wrong about things, so I'd like help seeing it from a different perspective.) If you could present some evidence that might change my mind, I'd really like to look into it.
Look, my initial response to this is here[1]... I don't condone misconduct... but I am at least attempting to have a level head and see more sides to this. I'm someone who would generally like to see most of the govt including police and military end.
The aversion to police altogether, while I understand is akin to being overprotective as a parent, which can be more than just counterproductive but harmful as a whole.