CDZ How rampant do you think police corruption/manipulation and prevarication is?

[320 Years of History]

I recently saw the video from the police car that depicted that boy who got shot and killed for supposedly threatening a cop with a knife. Seeing it, I could only wonder just how often it happened that cops misrepresented the facts of an event in which they participated, be it a relatively innocuous traffic infraction to weightier matters.

One thing about that video that has me baffled and that I've not seen directly addressed is this. Just how many cops out there not only lack integrity, but also are dumber than daytime television? Knowing that the event was being recorded, how could the multiple cops have each documented the event completely differently? I can only suspect that some, maybe many, cops truly are the dullards I've long thought they are -- without exception the handful whom I've encountered personally are, by and large, mental midgets -- and that makes me wonder what manner of chicanery allowed them to pass the tests required to join the force.

Interestingly too, I have have an incredibly hard time finding any remarks from prominent Republicans on the matter, anything having to do with the matter. Where's all the typical GOP rhetoric about being the party of "Joe Plumber?" Where's all the rhetoric about the rights of the individual? Now, the GOP's comparative mumness on the matter wouldn't be a thing to mention but for all the rancor the GOP makes in that regard in other situations. Where is the loud conservative outcry for the wrong that was done to Master McDonald? One would think that they'd jump at the opportunity to stand up for the kid. After all, it's not everyday that the GOP get an easy opportunity to "represent" for anyone like that boy. Instead we hear from them little but silence.

About the Poll Question:
The question doesn't ask what you "want to believe/think," it asks what you truly believe to be so. If you have any reference materials that you can point to showing that what you believe has some merit, please share them. Otherwise we'll just assume you think what you think absent any real evidence.

The documents I've read on the matter after seeing the Laquan McDonald video:

• Proving the Lie: Litigating Police Credibility
• Survey of police integrity -- It seems that this survey's results may not be that accurate -- at least as goes its portrayal of the relationship between incident severity and police malfeasance.
• Report on police corruption
• Crime corruption and cover-ups in the Chicago Police Department
• Research on Trends in Police Corruption
• An Institutional Explanation for the Corruption of Criminal Justice Officials
• Ethics and the Police

 

[Arianrhod]

There are over 765,000 active duty police officers in the U.S., in departments of anywhere from Andy-and-Barney-Fife sized to NYC's 34,450 (larger than many small towns in this country).

Making some blanket statement about any group that large is ludicrous. (Then again, this is the board where almost two billion people are blamed for the actions of a few thousand.)

Want to know how corrupt a given police department is? Il pesce puzza dalla testa.

 

[320 Years of History]

There are over 765,000 active duty police officers in the U.S., in departments of anywhere from Andy-and-Barney-Fife sized to NYC's 34,450 (larger than many small towns in this country).

Making some blanket statement about any group that large is ludicrous. (Then again, this is the board where almost two billion people are blamed for the actions of a few thousand.)

Want to know how corrupt a given police department is? Il pesce puzza dalla testa.

It's quite surprising to me that when asked for an opinion, not one person besides myself will so much as toss a vote into a poll. Yet, as you noted, we see folks time and time again saying things like "blacks this...," "Muslims that...," "gun control advocates such and such...," "nobody this...," "everybody that...," and "liberals/conservatives the other..."

 

[oldsoul]

My opinion, based solely on my own experience, is that the vast majority of LEOs are honest and do their best to remain objective. That said, some are undoubtably very corrupt, "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." (Not sure who first said that, and not sure that it matters) As I said, most are honest, but they are HUMAN, they make mistakes, memories get foggy(especially in intense situations), personal biases are present, ect. While they, as a whole, are not perfect, it is my beleif that they, as a whole, do the best they can. Generally I trust them, and would comply with whatever comands or requests they have for me, but "NO" you cannot search me, my home or my vehicle without a warrant. I have nothing to hide, but it is MINE, and you can't touch it.

 

[320 Years of History]

My opinion, based solely on my own experience, is that the vast majority of LEOs are honest and do their best to remain objective. That said, some are undoubtably very corrupt, "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." (Not sure who first said that, and not sure that it matters) As I said, most are honest, but they are HUMAN, they make mistakes, memories get foggy(especially in intense situations), personal biases are present, ect. While they, as a whole, are not perfect, it is my beleif that they, as a whole, do the best they can. Generally I trust them, and would comply with whatever comands or requests they have for me, but "NO" you cannot search me, my home or my vehicle without a warrant. I have nothing to hide, but it is MINE, and you can't touch it.

TY for your reply. I appreciate it.

I applaud you. You are the first person I've ever "encountered" who as their "own experience" with "the vast majority" of LEOs. <winks>

John Dalberg-Acton is the coiner of the "absolute power corrupts absolutely" statement.

 

[oldsoul]

My opinion, based solely on my own experience, is that the vast majority of LEOs are honest and do their best to remain objective. That said, some are undoubtably very corrupt, "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." (Not sure who first said that, and not sure that it matters) As I said, most are honest, but they are HUMAN, they make mistakes, memories get foggy(especially in intense situations), personal biases are present, ect. While they, as a whole, are not perfect, it is my beleif that they, as a whole, do the best they can. Generally I trust them, and would comply with whatever comands or requests they have for me, but "NO" you cannot search me, my home or my vehicle without a warrant. I have nothing to hide, but it is MINE, and you can't touch it.

TY for your reply. I appreciate it.

I applaud you. You are the first person I've ever "encountered" who as their "own experience" with "the vast majority" of LEOs. <winks>

John Dalberg-Acton is the coiner of the "absolute power corrupts absolutely" statement.

You may have mis-understood me. I do not claim to have experience with the vast majority of LEOs, I was merely saying that, based on my experience, what my beliefs are.

 

[320 Years of History]

My opinion, based solely on my own experience, is that the vast majority of LEOs are honest and do their best to remain objective. That said, some are undoubtably very corrupt, "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." (Not sure who first said that, and not sure that it matters) As I said, most are honest, but they are HUMAN, they make mistakes, memories get foggy(especially in intense situations), personal biases are present, ect. While they, as a whole, are not perfect, it is my beleif that they, as a whole, do the best they can. Generally I trust them, and would comply with whatever comands or requests they have for me, but "NO" you cannot search me, my home or my vehicle without a warrant. I have nothing to hide, but it is MINE, and you can't touch it.

TY for your reply. I appreciate it.

I applaud you. You are the first person I've ever "encountered" who as their "own experience" with "the vast majority" of LEOs. <winks>

John Dalberg-Acton is the coiner of the "absolute power corrupts absolutely" statement.

You may have mis-understood me. I do not claim to have experience with the vast majority of LEOs, I was meerly saying that, based on my experience, what my beleifs are.

Okay.

 

[Fueri]

% of what? interactions with people, traffic stops, times they are called into court, reports filed?

sorry if I missed it, just don't know how to answer....

 

[westwall]

I recently saw the video from the police car that depicted that boy who got shot and killed for supposedly threatening a cop with a knife. Seeing it, I could only wonder just how often it happened that cops misrepresented the facts of an event in which they participated, be it a relatively innocuous traffic infraction to weightier matters.

One thing about that video that has me baffled and that I've not seen directly addressed is this. Just how many cops out there not only lack integrity, but also are dumber than daytime television? Knowing that the event was being recorded, how could the multiple cops have each documented the event completely differently? I can only suspect that some, maybe many, cops truly are the dullards I've long thought they are -- without exception the handful whom I've encountered personally are, by and large, mental midgets -- and that makes me wonder what manner of chicanery allowed them to pass the tests required to join the force.

Interestingly too, I have have an incredibly hard time finding any remarks from prominent Republicans on the matter, anything having to do with the matter. Where's all the typical GOP rhetoric about being the party of "Joe Plumber?" Where's all the rhetoric about the rights of the individual? Now, the GOP's comparative mumness on the matter wouldn't be a thing to mention but for all the rancor the GOP makes in that regard in other situations. Where is the loud conservative outcry for the wrong that was done to Master McDonald? One would think that they'd jump at the opportunity to stand up for the kid. After all, it's not everyday that the GOP get an easy opportunity to "represent" for anyone like that boy. Instead we hear from them little but silence.

About the Poll Question:
The question doesn't ask what you "want to believe/think," it asks what you truly believe to be so. If you have any reference materials that you can point to showing that what you believe has some merit, please share them. Otherwise we'll just assume you think what you think absent any real evidence.

The documents I've read on the matter after seeing the Laquan McDonald video:

• Proving the Lie: Litigating Police Credibility
• Survey of police integrity -- It seems that this survey's results may not be that accurate -- at least as goes its portrayal of the relationship between incident severity and police malfeasance.
• Report on police corruption
• Crime corruption and cover-ups in the Chicago Police Department
• Research on Trends in Police Corruption
• An Institutional Explanation for the Corruption of Criminal Justice Officials
• Ethics and the Police

I would guess that it occurs between 10 and 30% of the time but it is a smaller percentage of cops who do it. They just do it a lot.

 

[Fueri]

% of what? interactions with people, traffic stops, times they are called into court, reports filed?

sorry if I missed it, just don't know how to answer....

never mind, now I see it.

I'm going with 1-10. In the vast majority of situations there is no reason to lie, although I've seen enough of it to know that it happens plenty.

 

[320 Years of History]

% of what? interactions with people, traffic stops, times they are called into court, reports filed?

sorry if I missed it, just don't know how to answer....

The question/topic has to do with the rate at which LEOs, in official reports, testimonies, and/or statements, misrepresent the facts pertaining to the cases with which they are involved. The nature of the involvement isn't relevant to the question.

 

[jwoodie]

There are over 765,000 active duty police officers in the U.S., in departments of anywhere from Andy-and-Barney-Fife sized to NYC's 34,450 (larger than many small towns in this country).

Making some blanket statement about any group that large is ludicrous. (Then again, this is the board where almost two billion people are blamed for the actions of a few thousand.)

Want to know how corrupt a given police department is? Il pesce puzza dalla testa.

It's quite surprising to me that when asked for an opinion, not one person besides myself will so much as toss a vote into a poll. Yet, as you noted, we see folks time and time again saying things like "blacks this...," "Muslims that...," "gun control advocates such and such...," "nobody this...," "everybody that...," and "liberals/conservatives the other..."

Your poll is compromised in two respects: 1) "Of the time" is indefinite as to chronological time, number of contacts with individuals or seriousness of incidents. 2) "Something to investigate" is a separate issue and is indefinite as to the level of investigation you are referring to. Needs clarification, LOL.

 

[320 Years of History]

There are over 765,000 active duty police officers in the U.S., in departments of anywhere from Andy-and-Barney-Fife sized to NYC's 34,450 (larger than many small towns in this country).

Making some blanket statement about any group that large is ludicrous. (Then again, this is the board where almost two billion people are blamed for the actions of a few thousand.)

Want to know how corrupt a given police department is? Il pesce puzza dalla testa.

It's quite surprising to me that when asked for an opinion, not one person besides myself will so much as toss a vote into a poll. Yet, as you noted, we see folks time and time again saying things like "blacks this...," "Muslims that...," "gun control advocates such and such...," "nobody this...," "everybody that...," and "liberals/conservatives the other..."

Your poll is compromised in two respects: 1) "Of the time" is indefinite as to chronological time, number of contacts with individuals or seriousness of incidents. 2) "Something to investigate" is a separate issue and is indefinite as to the level of investigation you are referring to. Needs clarification, LOL.

• Something to investigate --> if you think that the noted rate of police misrepresentation of fact needed to be investigated, for some reason, then that's what you think.
• "X% of the time" indicates a percentage of the population of relevant events that you understand to have occurred.

 

[blackhawk]

I suspect the number of bad or corrupt police officers are fairly low but when a bad one is caught especially on tape the news plays it over for days sometimes weeks making it seem like the majority of cops are like this one. We all seen the video of the Laquan McDonald shooting and know what Jason Van Dyke did but how many know the name of San Bernardino County Sheriff's Detective Jorge Lozano and what he did during that attack? He was on video calming the victims of the shooting telling the people he was helping escort out of the building I'll take a bullet before you do, that's for damn sure he is the one who represents the majority of cops not Van Dyke.

 

[Elvis Obama]

I have spent a great deal of time working in the inner cities of NY and Florida. I would never have set foot in those neighborhoods if I were not being paid to go there. I could not possibly care less what police officers do in these neighborhoods. Laquan MCDonald was an animal that you and I created with our complete indifference. So was Michael Brown. Do you want the job of zoo keeper? People living in their nice, safe neighborhoods have no idea what the police in these areas face.

As far as the percentage of corrupt policemen goes, what a bizarre question. What am I, the Nate Silver of the internal affairs bureau? Much, much higher in the high crime areas, I know that much. How often do police falsify evidence? Whenever they need to, I guess. How often do police fall prey to their own greed? We only find out about the dumb ones who get caught. I see no value in a "guesstimation".

 

[jwoodie]

There are over 765,000 active duty police officers in the U.S., in departments of anywhere from Andy-and-Barney-Fife sized to NYC's 34,450 (larger than many small towns in this country).

Making some blanket statement about any group that large is ludicrous. (Then again, this is the board where almost two billion people are blamed for the actions of a few thousand.)

Want to know how corrupt a given police department is? Il pesce puzza dalla testa.

It's quite surprising to me that when asked for an opinion, not one person besides myself will so much as toss a vote into a poll. Yet, as you noted, we see folks time and time again saying things like "blacks this...," "Muslims that...," "gun control advocates such and such...," "nobody this...," "everybody that...," and "liberals/conservatives the other..."

Your poll is compromised in two respects: 1) "Of the time" is indefinite as to chronological time, number of contacts with individuals or seriousness of incidents. 2) "Something to investigate" is a separate issue and is indefinite as to the level of investigation you are referring to. Needs clarification, LOL.

• Something to investigate --> if you think that the noted rate of police misrepresentation of fact needed to be investigated, for some reason, then that's what you think.
• "X% of the time" indicates a percentage of the population of relevant events that you understand to have occurred.

1. You poll question is:
Do you think that police misrepresentation of facts is (percentages offered below for perspective):

Translated into English, this asks: What percentage of the time do you think police misrepresent facts? Are you able to answer this question? If so, please explain how you came to your conclusion.

2. Your secondary question is whether it is "often enough that it is something to investigate." Assuming you are able to answer the first question, what sort of investigation would you have in mind? Formal/informal? Internal/external? Local/national? How would you determine this?

Without these clarifications, your poll is meaningless.

 

[320 Years of History]

Your poll is compromised in two respects: 1) "Of the time" is indefinite as to chronological time, number of contacts with individuals or seriousness of incidents. 2) "Something to investigate" is a separate issue and is indefinite as to the level of investigation you are referring to. Needs clarification, LOL.

• Something to investigate --> if you think that the noted rate of police misrepresentation of fact needed to be investigated, for some reason, then that's what you think.
• "X% of the time" indicates a percentage of the population of relevant events that you understand to have occurred.

[/QUOTE]

1. You poll question is:
Do you think that police misrepresentation of facts is (percentages offered below for perspective):

Translated into English, this asks: What percentage of the time do you think police misrepresent facts? Are you able to answer this question? If so, please explain how you came to your conclusion.

2. Your secondary question is whether it is "often enough that it is something to investigate." Assuming you are able to answer the first question, what sort of investigation would you have in mind? Formal/informal? Internal/external? Local/national? How would you determine this?

Without these clarifications, your poll is meaningless.[/QUOTE]

Red:
Yes, that is what the poll question asks.

Blue:
Yes, I am. I believe cops misrepresent facts somewhere between 25% and 40% of the time. I arrived at that conclusion by reading the documents that I shared in my opening post, considering how I understand human nature, and making a gut-based determination that it happens 25% to 40% of the time. Since I didn't provide a bracket that corresponds to what I believe to be so in terms of percentages, I had to choose the one I feel best represents what I believe to be so. I chose the higher percentage answer.

If new information comes before me and I determine that it should carry more weight than the information I've already consumed, I may change what I believe. I'm open to doing that when I know the information I've used to arrive at a belief nonetheless leaves uncertainty in my mind. Even so, I'm still able to articulate what it is I believe. I'm still able also to make a choice among several options even though I might wish a different option exists.

Green:
As for what sort of investigation, if one thinks any investigation of some nature and extent into the incidences of the misrepresentation they believe exists is needed, that is sufficient for letting one the matter is something to investigate.

Other:
I know the poll doesn't have a perfect assortment of answers from which to choose. I'm sure you've encountered questions for which no answer is exactly the one you want, and when you did, you chose what you felt was the best answer. If you are inclined to answer the poll question, that's what you need to do: choose the answer that best reflects what you believe to be so.

If one is inclined to answer the poll question, that's what one must do just as I did. If one isn't inclined to answer the poll question, then one is not. That's okay too. If one wants to share in writing one's thoughts on the matter of police misrepresentation of facts, the opportunity to do so exists regardless of whether one answered the poll question. Alternatively, one may want to explain their basis for choosing the poll answer they did, or perhaps describe the nature and/or extent of investigation, for example, one thinks is called for (or not), and the opportunity for that also exists.

Do I recognize that one poll answer I provided assumes that above the 10% rate of misrepresentation that rational folks would necessarily think that something needs to be looked into concerning the presumed misrepresentation? I do. Indeed, that assumption is implicit in the answers that don't refer to investigating something. It is clear to me that one poll answer presumes that at or below the 10% rate of misrepresentation, the problem is minor enough that it can remain unaddressed? Yes, it is.

 

[candycorn]

1-10 percent of the time knowingly. Probably less. Hopefully a lot less. Once you're a suspect, any evidence that points in a different direction becomes a distinction without a difference.

What is more dangerous to our system of government is that the police and the courts have become one institution in the Public's eye. It wasn't set up to be this way but for some reason, States and Cities have sat it up to where the police department is literally in the same building as the courts that will hear the cases of the accused. This is done for security reasons of course.

But what has happened is that judges and juries have a too-chummy relationship/image of the police.