Police departments around the country consider frequent charges of resisting arrest a potential red flag, as some officers might add the charge to justify use of force. WNYC analyzed NYPD records and found 51,503 cases with resisting arrest charges since 2009. Just five percent of arresting officers during that period account for 40% of resisting arrest cases -- and 15% account for more than half of such cases.
So NYC has chosen the "my way or the highway", still loving it there Rym and Scott? :P
George, they are both white. :P
Also keep in mind you tend to mostly hear about the negative stories in the media. They don't report on 99.99% of the "hey this cop did his/her job really great today" stories. Cops doing what they are supposed to do aren't news.
Even cops being good guys above and beyond their jobs don't really make the news, like that one cop that actually bought a woman a proper safety seat for her baby rather than just writing her a ticket.
Having temped for 3 months at the Albany DA's office, I can say without hesitation that there needs to be a seperate, independent entity to prosecute police officers when there is a potential violation. The police work so closely with the DA's office that it is nearly impossible to avoid conflicts-of-interest.
So, I usually stay out of threads like these, but this article is a great read on the subject of who is statistically at risk. It would appear that the situation for African Americans is improving, while Injuns are the ones in real danger (American government killing Injuns? How shocking!)
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.
If the only thing you have to worry about is losing your job by blowing the whistle, I have to agree with you there. If you blow the whistle and do it right, you'll at the very least get enough media notoriety that you have a good chance at getting another job. Probably not as a cop, but you'd still probably be able to find something decent. Even if you can't find another job, well, it's still worth doing the right thing. If the only reason you refuse to blow the whistle is fear of losing your job, you get no forgiveness from me.
The issue is when loss of life is a possibility. If you are about to blow the whistle and get a threat that says someone is going to murder your spouse and children if you do, that's where it gets more complicated. Hell, it's because of issues like this that entire families are put in witness protection, etc. Now, if you can blow the whistle to the Feds (since you can't trust any local cops) and they will give you proper protection, perhaps with entry into WitSec for your family, then yes, you definitely should blow the whistle. However, if your family is physically at risk of being murdered without any chance of protection, I can understand why someone may not do so.
Let's even take family out of it, in order to cancel out any bias towards preserving your own kin. Let's assume that if you blow the whistle, some other innocent will be killed so otherwise would be left alone. That other innocent had no consent to put their lives on the line, so it's not fair for you to put their lives on the line.
That said, I'd like to think that a good whistleblower cop is likely to marry someone who also has the same strong moral fiber and would be okay with taking the risk to do the right thing. Take precautions (ship the family to Grandma's in Canada or whatever before blowing the whistle and until you get proper protection for them) and you absolutely should do the right thing in that case.
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.
If the only thing you have to worry about is losing your job by blowing the whistle, I have to agree with you there. If you blow the whistle and do it right, you'll at the very least get enough media notoriety that you have a good chance at getting another job. Probably not as a cop, but you'd still probably be able to find something decent. Even if you can't find another job, well, it's still worth doing the right thing. If the only reason you refuse to blow the whistle is fear of losing your job, you get no forgiveness from me.
The issue is when loss of life is a possibility. If you are about to blow the whistle and get a threat that says someone is going to murder your spouse and children if you do, that's where it gets more complicated. Hell, it's because of issues like this that entire families are put in witness protection, etc. Now, if you can blow the whistle to the Feds (since you can't trust any local cops) and they will give you proper protection, perhaps with entry into WitSec for your family, then yes, you definitely should blow the whistle. However, if your family is physically at risk of being murdered without any chance of protection, I can understand why someone may not do so.
Let's even take family out of it, in order to cancel out any bias towards preserving your own kin. Let's assume that if you blow the whistle, some other innocent will be killed so otherwise would be left alone. That other innocent had no consent to put their lives on the line, so it's not fair for you to put their lives on the line.
That said, I'd like to think that a good whistleblower cop is likely to marry someone who also has the same strong moral fiber and would be okay with taking the risk to do the right thing. Take precautions (ship the family to Grandma's in Canada or whatever before blowing the whistle and until you get proper protection for them) and you absolutely should do the right thing in that case.
There's one thing you haven't thought of in your moral quantification here.
Let's say that for sure there will be a killing of retribution if you blow the whistle. That person will die. You could say that you are somehow responsible for that. But by not blowing the whistle, you are responsible for the death of the next Eric Garner and the next Michael Brown, and many many more. Letting those bad cops continue on the job not only will lead to the ends of many lives, but also the ruination of many that they don't murder. You know, all the ones they beat, wrongly arrest, and steal from via civil forfeiture, etc.
This is why I say yes all cops. All those "good" cops that haven't blown the whistle or testified against their fellow officers also have blood on their hands. If they come clean, that may indeed directly lead to vengeance. But the blood from that vengeance will still not be on their hands, just what those evil cops would have done anyway.
Also factor in that you have an opportunity to at least attempt to prevent or defend against the acts of revenge that may take place.
Let's assume that if you blow the whistle, some other innocent will be killed so otherwise would be left alone. That other innocent had no consent to put their lives on the line, so it's not fair for you to put their lives on the line.
That's the same rationale to never release any of the investigations the US as conducted into its own torture programs.
It's essentially the Trolley Problem, except that the lone man on the tracks isn't even being killed by you, but by the immoral actions of another person trying to prevent you from doing the right thing. The solution would seem rather clear.
Let's even take family out of it, in order to cancel out any bias towards preserving your own kin. Let's assume that if you blow the whistle, some other innocent will be killed so otherwise would be left alone. That other innocent had no consent to put their lives on the line, so it's not fair for you to put their lives on the line.
It's the people who give in to blackmail who are at fault, not the ones who do not. By giving in to blackmail you only make the threats more powerful, and thus future people are more likely to be blackmailed, and more likely to be harmed.
Don't be a cop if you can't deal with making a choice between two shitty situations. That's kind of a significant part of your job description.
The good of the many outweighs the good of the few.
True, but most people don't go into being a cop assuming that their families will be at risk.
Look, I'm not saying it's completely excusable if you refuse to blow the whistle because your family's lives are at risk. I'm saying that I can understand why someone would fear doing so and don't view them quite as negatively as someone who doesn't blow the whistle despite having nothing to lose. On a 1-10 shitbag scale, someone who's worried about his/her family getting murdered would be around a 5, whereas someone with nothing to lose would be a 10. That's also assuming that they can't get their family in WitSec. If they can, they're much closer to 10.
It's also easy for us to armchair quarterback this as none of us probably have ever been in such a positon.
I heard this segment on the best of the Left and figured I'd try and repeat it here.
"This is the problem the police have. There are about 3 types of Cops, Idealist Cops, Working Cops and Bad Cops.
Idealist Cops get drumed out of being a policemen almost as soon as they start because they see something go bad and tell their supervisor and the rest of the cops do there best to get that kind of cop out of the service. Through any means necessarily, Usually within the first 13 months on the job. The Idealist
Than there is Working cops, who view being a policemen as a job and just want to get paid and support their family. These guys tend to be quiet when things go down and tend to let the bad cops get away with things but not because they are bad people but because they fear for losing their job and they see what happens to the idealist cops.
Bad Cops, are in it for the power and tend to collect blackmail on other cops (I.E. they watch and remember what other cops have done wrong so if they ever need to save their butt they can point out how they can bring down everyone else) They tend to get promoted and keep their jobs if they have any skill.
Now you see how the police department that has a environment of rallying around the uniform can have issues."
Seems interesting and shows how you can slowly change your work environment to mostly people who are cowed into not doing anything and run by poorly motivated people.
(this is also one of the reasons Supervisors are picked from different precincts then the one they worked in.)
In this modern age where workers are getting screwed left and right, I don't support any union busting. It will just make things shittier for the cops and then I feel they'll be more likely to be corrupt.
In this modern age where workers are getting screwed left and right, I don't support any union busting. It will just make things shittier for the cops and then I feel they'll be more likely to be corrupt.
Most workers don't carry guns and shoot people without consequence.
In this modern age where workers are getting screwed left and right, I don't support any union busting. It will just make things shittier for the cops and then I feel they'll be more likely to be corrupt.
Most workers don't carry guns and shoot people without consequence.
True, but the union just shouldn't be able to protect them from that. It just shouldn't be an option. Without the union the cops are going to get screwed on pay and benefits, and even with the union they're only doing alright.
Police officers have a single employer. It's not like a cop can say "screw you, I'm going to be a police officer for some other company!" Without a union, they have no negotiating power. Their work conditions would be as bad as Wal-Mart. Cities and towns have no money, and police are expensive. They would cut costs in the police like crazy, if they could. Then you would have problems where cops have broken down cars, etc. Right now cops get paid to work overtime, and sometimes do bad things. But if I call the cops, they show up. Imagine calling the cops and nobody shows up to help because there aren't enough of them on the clock at any given time.
The evils brought by the union are far less than the evils you get without it. It's not like eliminating the police unions is going to reduce brutality.
I heard this segment on the best of the Left and figured I'd try and repeat it here.
"This is the problem the police have. There are about 3 types of Cops, Idealist Cops, Working Cops and Bad Cops.
Snipped the rest, but this is pretty much how I feel, although I used the terms "Martyr Cops, Good Cops, and Bad Cops," respectively.
But yeah, the system is inherently designed to be as corrupt as possible and there needs to be major, major reform to help it. At the very least, all allegations of police brutality must be investigated and/or prosecuted by officials completely independent from any police force. In addition, there needs to be protections so that the Working Cops can move up to becoming Idealist Cops without fearing for their livelihoods, their lives, and those of their loved ones.
Sadly, I'm pessimistic that this will happen any time soon, if ever.
Comments
We still have some of the lowest violent crime rates in the entire nation.
Police departments around the country consider frequent charges of resisting arrest a potential red flag, as some officers might add the charge to justify use of force. WNYC analyzed NYPD records and found 51,503 cases with resisting arrest charges since 2009. Just five percent of arresting officers during that period account for 40% of resisting arrest cases -- and 15% account for more than half of such cases.
Also keep in mind you tend to mostly hear about the negative stories in the media. They don't report on 99.99% of the "hey this cop did his/her job really great today" stories. Cops doing what they are supposed to do aren't news.
The issue is when loss of life is a possibility. If you are about to blow the whistle and get a threat that says someone is going to murder your spouse and children if you do, that's where it gets more complicated. Hell, it's because of issues like this that entire families are put in witness protection, etc. Now, if you can blow the whistle to the Feds (since you can't trust any local cops) and they will give you proper protection, perhaps with entry into WitSec for your family, then yes, you definitely should blow the whistle. However, if your family is physically at risk of being murdered without any chance of protection, I can understand why someone may not do so.
Let's even take family out of it, in order to cancel out any bias towards preserving your own kin. Let's assume that if you blow the whistle, some other innocent will be killed so otherwise would be left alone. That other innocent had no consent to put their lives on the line, so it's not fair for you to put their lives on the line.
That said, I'd like to think that a good whistleblower cop is likely to marry someone who also has the same strong moral fiber and would be okay with taking the risk to do the right thing. Take precautions (ship the family to Grandma's in Canada or whatever before blowing the whistle and until you get proper protection for them) and you absolutely should do the right thing in that case.
Let's say that for sure there will be a killing of retribution if you blow the whistle. That person will die. You could say that you are somehow responsible for that. But by not blowing the whistle, you are responsible for the death of the next Eric Garner and the next Michael Brown, and many many more. Letting those bad cops continue on the job not only will lead to the ends of many lives, but also the ruination of many that they don't murder. You know, all the ones they beat, wrongly arrest, and steal from via civil forfeiture, etc.
This is why I say yes all cops. All those "good" cops that haven't blown the whistle or testified against their fellow officers also have blood on their hands. If they come clean, that may indeed directly lead to vengeance. But the blood from that vengeance will still not be on their hands, just what those evil cops would have done anyway.
Also factor in that you have an opportunity to at least attempt to prevent or defend against the acts of revenge that may take place.
The good of the many outweighs the good of the few.
Look, I'm not saying it's completely excusable if you refuse to blow the whistle because your family's lives are at risk. I'm saying that I can understand why someone would fear doing so and don't view them quite as negatively as someone who doesn't blow the whistle despite having nothing to lose. On a 1-10 shitbag scale, someone who's worried about his/her family getting murdered would be around a 5, whereas someone with nothing to lose would be a 10. That's also assuming that they can't get their family in WitSec. If they can, they're much closer to 10.
It's also easy for us to armchair quarterback this as none of us probably have ever been in such a positon.
I heard this segment on the best of the Left and figured I'd try and repeat it here.
"This is the problem the police have. There are about 3 types of Cops, Idealist Cops, Working Cops and Bad Cops.
Idealist Cops get drumed out of being a policemen almost as soon as they start because they see something go bad and tell their supervisor and the rest of the cops do there best to get that kind of cop out of the service. Through any means necessarily, Usually within the first 13 months on the job. The Idealist
Than there is Working cops, who view being a policemen as a job and just want to get paid and support their family. These guys tend to be quiet when things go down and tend to let the bad cops get away with things but not because they are bad people but because they fear for losing their job and they see what happens to the idealist cops.
Bad Cops, are in it for the power and tend to collect blackmail on other cops (I.E. they watch and remember what other cops have done wrong so if they ever need to save their butt they can point out how they can bring down everyone else) They tend to get promoted and keep their jobs if they have any skill.
Now you see how the police department that has a environment of rallying around the uniform can have issues."
Seems interesting and shows how you can slowly change your work environment to mostly people who are cowed into not doing anything and run by poorly motivated people.
(this is also one of the reasons Supervisors are picked from different precincts then the one they worked in.)
(obviously this is a huge generalization)
The evils brought by the union are far less than the evils you get without it. It's not like eliminating the police unions is going to reduce brutality.
But yeah, the system is inherently designed to be as corrupt as possible and there needs to be major, major reform to help it. At the very least, all allegations of police brutality must be investigated and/or prosecuted by officials completely independent from any police force. In addition, there needs to be protections so that the Working Cops can move up to becoming Idealist Cops without fearing for their livelihoods, their lives, and those of their loved ones.
Sadly, I'm pessimistic that this will happen any time soon, if ever.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/cops-use-taser-on-woman-while-she-recorded-arrest-of-another-man/