Just a question of normal procedures, but where would the pool of special prosecutors come from?
Any prosecutor that doesn't work with the police jurisdiction in question.
As for that comic... way to oversimplify. If a person has a weapon and police order them to put it down, and instead they point it at the police, what the fuck do you expect to happen? That's not all of the cases mentioned, but it sure as shit happened in some of them.
I more and more just wanna say... you know what, fuck da police.
I like a lot of officers that I know. And I am glad there's a police force, and I've never had any bad experiences with them personally. I respect the force and know what they can do.
But it's a fucked up situation when because we give a guy training and a badge he's got any kind of advantage over the citizenry.
There's a million ways to improve the system, but until humans and technology can get to a point where we can institute large-scale changes quickly and effectively based on the best ideas and not interests, money, and greed... nothing much will help.
Taking away the Police's weapons is a start. Disarm them as much as possible.
I trust the average dude with a weapon more than a cop at this point: and I trust the good guys with guns to stop the bad-apples with guns as much as the cops most of the time. And I trust most of the sort-of crazy but still morally-grounded people with guns to not go shooting people.
I'm not saying don't neuter the cops entirely; but the patrol cops should be having to call for backup at the first sign of trouble, and not armed beyond maybe a stun-gun. At least have to store the weapons in the trunk or something.
I don't care if more cops die as a result: the betterment of society trumps the safety of the officer. Police ought to be like Jesus: if you die you die, but love the sinner and help everyone, even the criminals.
We can never reach that ideal, but, that should be what we drill into their heads every single day they're on the force. Even if that means they have to be enlisted like soldiers and their ass belongs to the force.
IF we can't accept that as a society, than we need to rethink what a police-force should be.
I'm not sure if we want a police-force that is just guys in reflective vests with flashlights and whistles. That's useless and a waste of money and time for all involved.
But I also don't want a force that has the trappings of a military without any of the commitment, control, or training of one.
If they want to be soldiers, they should be treated as dirty-dog infantry and sent into the shit to die for their country when the going gets rough.
I don't want soldiers patrolling the streets or pulling me over. I want basically glorified mall-cops, and a standardized force of regional SWAT teams that are trained like military, deployed when needed, and must be held accountable for their operations.
I want to know that if the cop ever crosses a line, I can stop him. I can hurt him if he tries to hurt me. I want to know the state is on my side if one of their tools doesn't work as advertised. I want to return the bad product and get a replacement that serves my needs better.
The cop who choked Eric to death doesn't get indicted, but the guy who recorded the video did. Just...what? Cops, you gotta stop defending the guys who fuck up.
How about demanding a higher level of education for police officers which requires continuing education. It doesn't seem to be only the weapons as exemplified by this choking case but the dumb bully mentality.
Sure there are going to be the problems of cost and what not but maybe society would look up to the police or being a police officer is a legitimate job to aspire to rather than to pick up when everything else in your life fails.
I'm not sure if we want a police-force that is just guys in reflective vests with flashlights and whistles. That's useless and a waste of money and time for all involved.
Increased education and training would at least be a start. These guys need to learn escalation of force. They have batons, Tasers and Pepper spray for a reason. I'm not even against the police having AR-15's and shit but they need to learn what kind of force is appropriate and when. They seem to keep going straight for the lethal option. How bout they can have their bigger guns in their trunk or with the backup, and don't just automatically send in swat teams when they hear a black guy bought some weed. Or at least not carry their rifles at the high ready, pointing them at innocent people!
And I'm sure a Taser would have worked just fine on Eric Garner. And as for men killed for having toys... yeah just don't do that. If noone ever seems to get hurt with all of those open carry people then why can't that apply here? Even if they had actual weapons that still shouldn't have justified their deaths if they weren't doing anything wrong.
I mean shit, in a lot of states Concealed Carry permit holders need more range time/training than the police do to keep their badge. Often police will be issued their box of ammo, and end up giving it back at the end of the year unused because they never got into a situation like that. Plus its not uncommon for them to do the bare minimum practice. Lack of experience and practice means it doesn't always go well when the time comes (or they think it has). I don't even know if there is any special training requirements for the military shit they get now but it sure doesn't seem like it.
I keep seeing things on facebook, "not all cops" and it feels like "Support our Police" is starting. Like the Iraq war with support our troops, either you support the war or you're an unpatriotic asshole who hates the soldiers who are just doing their job.
I keep seeing things on facebook, "not all cops" and it feels like "Support our Police" is starting. Like the Iraq war with support our troops, either you support the war or you're an unpatriotic asshole who hates the soldiers who are just doing their job.
Yeah well, similar to #NotAllMen, The cops who are "not" need to start doing something about the cops who are.
I keep seeing things on facebook, "not all cops" and it feels like "Support our Police" is starting. Like the Iraq war with support our troops, either you support the war or you're an unpatriotic asshole who hates the soldiers who are just doing their job.
Yeah well, similar to #NotAllMen, The cops who are "not" need to start doing something about the cops who are.
Yes, this is my concern as well. I completely understand this is a case of a few (many?) bad apples spoiling the bunch. However, the police departments circle the wagons and protect themselves rather than voicing their concerns about horrible practices.
I keep seeing things on facebook, "not all cops" and it feels like "Support our Police" is starting. Like the Iraq war with support our troops, either you support the war or you're an unpatriotic asshole who hates the soldiers who are just doing their job.
Yeah well, similar to #NotAllMen, The cops who are "not" need to start doing something about the cops who are.
Yes, this is my concern as well. I completely understand this is a case of a few (many?) bad apples spoiling the bunch. However, the police departments circle the wagons and protect themselves rather than voicing their concerns about horrible practices.
"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality."
- Desmond Tutu
In other words, sure it's not all cops. It's all cops except Scorpio and a handful of others who have tried to fight the system. You can count these people on two hands, if not just one hand. So it's effectively yes, it may as well be all cops.
Not all men is obviously an equally stupid thing to say, but a much larger percentage of men are feminists than the percentage of cops in the US that are good.
Hey the police have progressed in 40 years. They tried to kill Serpico back then; now they just try to commit whistleblowers to insane asylums. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Schoolcraft
The more I think about this whole Garner thing, the more angry I get at the system. It's just so wrong, how can such a high profile thing be so obviously rigged.
It's not rigged. The people get the system they create. Think about it - the jury box is one of the last lines of defense against a corrupt system. You can apply the law how you see fit by choosing to vote by conscience rather than evidence. You could nullify unjust laws.
And just as we saw with Jim Crow laws, you can also nullify charges against people who murder people you don't like. Or against people that scare you.
We are panicky naked apes. Never ever forget that.
I just want to understand the case that was made to not indict him? "Well the only reason Eric Garner died is because he was in really poor health. A healthy 20 year old would have survived the chokehold and prone pinning on the ground that's banned by department policy specifically because it's dangerous and can kill someone."
Something along the lines of "The officer thought it was the necessary amount of force to complete the arrest, and it wasn't actually lethal force because a healthy person would have survived, so it was an accident"?
Pretty sure the defense cannot present a case at the GJ. The DA has absolute control over what evidence is presented at a Grand Jury. This is why they say a DA is able to indict a ham sandwich
Sadly, a lot of DAs are in cahoots with the police and often act more like defense attorneys than prosecutors whenever cops are facing a GJ. There is an inherent conflict of interest there.
Also, with respect to the handful of "martyr" cops like Serpico, looking at some of the shit he went through, I can't completely blame "good" cops from wanting to completely root out the bad. Their lives and sometimes their families' lives are often at risk if they act out against the corrupt cops. If it comes down to keeping quiet or ending up with you, your wife, and your kids face down in a pool of blood, I can't completely blame people for choosing to keep quiet.
Also, with respect to the handful of "martyr" cops like Serpico, looking at some of the shit he went through, I can't completely blame "good" cops from wanting to completely root out the bad. Their lives and sometimes their families' lives are often at risk if they act out against the corrupt cops. If it comes down to keeping quiet or ending up with you, your wife, and your kids face down in a pool of blood, I can't completely blame people for choosing to keep quiet.
Also, with respect to the handful of "martyr" cops like Serpico, looking at some of the shit he went through, I can't completely blame "good" cops from wanting to completely root out the bad. Their lives and sometimes their families' lives are often at risk if they act out against the corrupt cops. If it comes down to keeping quiet or ending up with you, your wife, and your kids face down in a pool of blood, I can't completely blame people for choosing to keep quiet.
There's no excuse for cowardice.
Okay, why don't you get all up in cops' faces for brutality, etc.?
Also, it's one thing if you only put your ass on the line. It's another thing if you put others' asses on the line. I can see arguing with an unattached cop with no kids for not having the guts to stand up for what's right, but one with a spouse and kids?
Also, with respect to the handful of "martyr" cops like Serpico, looking at some of the shit he went through, I can't completely blame "good" cops from wanting to completely root out the bad. Their lives and sometimes their families' lives are often at risk if they act out against the corrupt cops. If it comes down to keeping quiet or ending up with you, your wife, and your kids face down in a pool of blood, I can't completely blame people for choosing to keep quiet.
There's no excuse for cowardice.
Okay, why don't you get all up in cops' faces for brutality, etc.?
Also, it's one thing if you only put your ass on the line. It's another thing if you put others' asses on the line. I can see arguing with an unattached cop with no kids for not having the guts to stand up for what's right, but one with a spouse and kids?
The line between bravery and stupidity is success.
Consider the basic scenario of putting yourself in harms way to rescue someone else. The odds of the rescue being successful, and the odds of suffering harm to yourself determine everything. If the odds of rescuing the person are nil, then attempting it is just stupid. If the odds of yourself suffering harm are very low, then it's not bravery, it's just decency. Bravery is when you risk harm to yourself in the course of a noble deed that could not be accomplished otherwise. To refuse to act bravely when the opportunity arises, is cowardice.
If I go and fight with some cop who is abusing someone, it has 0% chance of accomplishing anything positive. It will only result in negative for me, and won't do even one thing to help solve the problem. Therefore, doing so is just stupid.
If a police officer were to rat out corruption, especially at a time like this when they could get high profile media coverage, they have a very good chance of making an impact at the risk of self harm. I already consider it to be a moral obligation of anyone who can blow a whistle to do so, so for a police officer at this moment in time, it is even more imperative.
As for your other argument about putting spouse or children at risk, I completely reject it. That line of logic goes down a dark path. You are basically excusing any moral wrong done in the name of defending a dependent. Fuck that noise.
As I said before, anyone who does not fight against the oppressor, supports them. By your logic all those who have dependents must defend the status quo and side the oppressors, and be excused for doing so, because protecting their dependents is a higher priority. That makes dependents into hostages. The oppressive aspect of society says to you that they will hurt your children if you try to make the world better, and you obey.
Are families prisons in which members are forced to adhere to the status quo because of their attachment to others? Are dependents hostages held by the oppressors of society to prevent you from trying to dismantle their power structure?
It's actually quite shortsighted to think that whistleblowing actually harms your dependents in the first place. Even if you lose your job, and suffer financially in the short term, that's ok, If you actually improve the society that your children will have to live in, you will have done them more good than harm.
It's also selfish to not blow the whistle. While you obviously care more about the members of your family than other people, they are still just people. All people are equally worthwhile. If you can prevent ten people from dying, but choose not to in order to save your child, you are saying that your one child's life is more valuable than ten other lives. It's hard not to feel that, but it's still wrong.
That is an evil that lurks in the hearts of all but the most enlightened people. In the interest of protecting those close to you, you see no problem fucking over the rest of society as a whole. Loving your family more than you love other fellow humans causes one to act in ways that are detrimental to society as a whole. Sorry, I can't do anything about racism because MY kid needs to eat. The peak of selfishness.
Imagine an officer who has done no wrong, but refuses to report the brutal acts committed by another officer. They refuse to testify because they fear losing their job, which will result in harm to their family. The other person they failed to report on commits many more acts of brutality and murder. The officer who refused to blow the whistle is effectively guilty of those crimes. They beat and murdered those people to feed their family. The very definition of evil.
Continuing to rage about this. So I looked up Daniel Pantaleo's age and he's 29. This means he was 8 when the NYPD banned choke holds. Also the casual manner in which he walked up behind Eric Garner leads me to believe that he's done this before and knows exactly what he's doing. How many people has he arrested in this fashion that haven't been reported because they didn't die?
Comments
As for that comic... way to oversimplify. If a person has a weapon and police order them to put it down, and instead they point it at the police, what the fuck do you expect to happen? That's not all of the cases mentioned, but it sure as shit happened in some of them.
Tamir Rice
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/12/02/cleveland-cop-said-he-had-no-choice-but-to-shoot-12-year-old-tamir-rice-father-says/
John Crawford
http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/sep/25/ohio-shooting-walmart-video
Both Brown and Garner were unarmed.
I don't see any pointing at the police. Or any attempt by those officers to talk them down. Oversimplified? Hardly.
I like a lot of officers that I know. And I am glad there's a police force, and I've never had any bad experiences with them personally. I respect the force and know what they can do.
But it's a fucked up situation when because we give a guy training and a badge he's got any kind of advantage over the citizenry.
There's a million ways to improve the system, but until humans and technology can get to a point where we can institute large-scale changes quickly and effectively based on the best ideas and not interests, money, and greed... nothing much will help.
Taking away the Police's weapons is a start. Disarm them as much as possible.
I trust the average dude with a weapon more than a cop at this point: and I trust the good guys with guns to stop the bad-apples with guns as much as the cops most of the time. And I trust most of the sort-of crazy but still morally-grounded people with guns to not go shooting people.
I'm not saying don't neuter the cops entirely; but the patrol cops should be having to call for backup at the first sign of trouble, and not armed beyond maybe a stun-gun. At least have to store the weapons in the trunk or something.
I don't care if more cops die as a result: the betterment of society trumps the safety of the officer. Police ought to be like Jesus: if you die you die, but love the sinner and help everyone, even the criminals.
We can never reach that ideal, but, that should be what we drill into their heads every single day they're on the force. Even if that means they have to be enlisted like soldiers and their ass belongs to the force.
IF we can't accept that as a society, than we need to rethink what a police-force should be.
I'm not sure if we want a police-force that is just guys in reflective vests with flashlights and whistles. That's useless and a waste of money and time for all involved.
But I also don't want a force that has the trappings of a military without any of the commitment, control, or training of one.
If they want to be soldiers, they should be treated as dirty-dog infantry and sent into the shit to die for their country when the going gets rough.
I don't want soldiers patrolling the streets or pulling me over. I want basically glorified mall-cops, and a standardized force of regional SWAT teams that are trained like military, deployed when needed, and must be held accountable for their operations.
I want to know that if the cop ever crosses a line, I can stop him. I can hurt him if he tries to hurt me. I want to know the state is on my side if one of their tools doesn't work as advertised. I want to return the bad product and get a replacement that serves my needs better.
Sure there are going to be the problems of cost and what not but maybe society would look up to the police or being a police officer is a legitimate job to aspire to rather than to pick up when everything else in your life fails.
And I'm sure a Taser would have worked just fine on Eric Garner. And as for men killed for having toys... yeah just don't do that. If noone ever seems to get hurt with all of those open carry people then why can't that apply here? Even if they had actual weapons that still shouldn't have justified their deaths if they weren't doing anything wrong.
I mean shit, in a lot of states Concealed Carry permit holders need more range time/training than the police do to keep their badge. Often police will be issued their box of ammo, and end up giving it back at the end of the year unused because they never got into a situation like that. Plus its not uncommon for them to do the bare minimum practice. Lack of experience and practice means it doesn't always go well when the time comes (or they think it has). I don't even know if there is any special training requirements for the military shit they get now but it sure doesn't seem like it.
- Desmond Tutu
In other words, sure it's not all cops. It's all cops except Scorpio and a handful of others who have tried to fight the system. You can count these people on two hands, if not just one hand. So it's effectively yes, it may as well be all cops.
Not all men is obviously an equally stupid thing to say, but a much larger percentage of men are feminists than the percentage of cops in the US that are good.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/03/1349063/-Black-Police-Association-in-St-Louis-take-bold-stand-to-support-the-Rams-football-players
And just as we saw with Jim Crow laws, you can also nullify charges against people who murder people you don't like. Or against people that scare you.
We are panicky naked apes. Never ever forget that.
Also, with respect to the handful of "martyr" cops like Serpico, looking at some of the shit he went through, I can't completely blame "good" cops from wanting to completely root out the bad. Their lives and sometimes their families' lives are often at risk if they act out against the corrupt cops. If it comes down to keeping quiet or ending up with you, your wife, and your kids face down in a pool of blood, I can't completely blame people for choosing to keep quiet.
Also, it's one thing if you only put your ass on the line. It's another thing if you put others' asses on the line. I can see arguing with an unattached cop with no kids for not having the guts to stand up for what's right, but one with a spouse and kids?
Consider the basic scenario of putting yourself in harms way to rescue someone else. The odds of the rescue being successful, and the odds of suffering harm to yourself determine everything. If the odds of rescuing the person are nil, then attempting it is just stupid. If the odds of yourself suffering harm are very low, then it's not bravery, it's just decency. Bravery is when you risk harm to yourself in the course of a noble deed that could not be accomplished otherwise. To refuse to act bravely when the opportunity arises, is cowardice.
If I go and fight with some cop who is abusing someone, it has 0% chance of accomplishing anything positive. It will only result in negative for me, and won't do even one thing to help solve the problem. Therefore, doing so is just stupid.
If a police officer were to rat out corruption, especially at a time like this when they could get high profile media coverage, they have a very good chance of making an impact at the risk of self harm. I already consider it to be a moral obligation of anyone who can blow a whistle to do so, so for a police officer at this moment in time, it is even more imperative.
As for your other argument about putting spouse or children at risk, I completely reject it. That line of logic goes down a dark path. You are basically excusing any moral wrong done in the name of defending a dependent. Fuck that noise.
As I said before, anyone who does not fight against the oppressor, supports them. By your logic all those who have dependents must defend the status quo and side the oppressors, and be excused for doing so, because protecting their dependents is a higher priority. That makes dependents into hostages. The oppressive aspect of society says to you that they will hurt your children if you try to make the world better, and you obey.
Are families prisons in which members are forced to adhere to the status quo because of their attachment to others? Are dependents hostages held by the oppressors of society to prevent you from trying to dismantle their power structure?
It's actually quite shortsighted to think that whistleblowing actually harms your dependents in the first place. Even if you lose your job, and suffer financially in the short term, that's ok, If you actually improve the society that your children will have to live in, you will have done them more good than harm.
It's also selfish to not blow the whistle. While you obviously care more about the members of your family than other people, they are still just people. All people are equally worthwhile. If you can prevent ten people from dying, but choose not to in order to save your child, you are saying that your one child's life is more valuable than ten other lives. It's hard not to feel that, but it's still wrong.
That is an evil that lurks in the hearts of all but the most enlightened people. In the interest of protecting those close to you, you see no problem fucking over the rest of society as a whole. Loving your family more than you love other fellow humans causes one to act in ways that are detrimental to society as a whole. Sorry, I can't do anything about racism because MY kid needs to eat. The peak of selfishness.
Imagine an officer who has done no wrong, but refuses to report the brutal acts committed by another officer. They refuse to testify because they fear losing their job, which will result in harm to their family. The other person they failed to report on commits many more acts of brutality and murder. The officer who refused to blow the whistle is effectively guilty of those crimes. They beat and murdered those people to feed their family. The very definition of evil.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/04/us-usa-newyork-chokehold-judge-idUSKCN0JI28Q20141204