Who saw police reforms shoved down the throats of the police coming?

[SavannahMann]

Well, anyone who has seen the news has seen this coming. It is starting in California, which isn’t a surprise. What starts there, tends to spread however. First, let’s get the link. After Stephon Clark shooting, California lawmakers consider proposal to limit when police shoot guns

Now the excerpt.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Several lawmakers and the family of a 22-year-old unarmed black man who was fatally shot by police are proposing Tuesday that California become the first state to significantly restrict when officers can open fire.

The legislation would change the standard from using “reasonable force” to “necessary force.”

That means officers would be allowed to shoot only if “there were no other reasonable alternatives to the use of deadly force” to prevent imminent serious injury or death, said Lizzie Buchen, legislative advocate for the American Civil Liberties Union, which is among the groups behind the measure.

There is more at the article that several of you won’t bother to read. What it means is that the police claiming that five hundred shootings of unarmed people a year is justified, isn’t going to stand for long. California, like Georgia, has looked at the events and found that half the people shot by police were unarmed. The claim that the shootings, every single one of them, is somehow justified, has created the public pressure to change the standards. If the standards we have now are so lax to allow every shooting to be considered justified, then the standards will change.

Some of us warned about this. I said that if the police did not start making reforms eventually the reforms would wash over them. The reforms forced upon them would be far more severe, more extreme, than what is needed IMO. But all the cop supporters want to say is fuck the bastards who got shot, they deserved it.

It’s only California wil be the next dismissal of the demands. But as I said, things have a way of spreading. When California does this, then some lawyer in Nevada will argue before the Jury that the shooting by a cop was so outrageous that it would have been clearly illegal under the more up to date laws of California, and a lot of money will be paid out. Enough of those, and then the standards will change not by legislative action, but by demands of the insurance companies and the cities that self insure.

It will be like how one Doctor who loses a malpractice case in court finds that every doctor is required to make changes to protect themselves.

Other legislatures will adapt the standards, when some other cop has a justified shooting of an unarmed man, or woman, and the public is outraged.

What will happen? More cops will die. While they are trying to fumble their way through a legislated standard that isn’t clear, the cops will die. They could have avoided it, by adapting the reforms that were obviously necessary. But they did not. They instead stubbornly refused to even consider real reforms, instead paying lip service to the entire idea. Some of you will rage that more cops are dying, and I won’t be all that upset. The reason is again, the cops have had the problem pointed out to them time and time again. Yet they won’t even consider any real changes to adapt to the realities of the situation, instead demanding unquestioning support and admiration while continuing to gloss over any complaints or objections.

Well guys, you didn’t think any reform was necessary and you thought that all that Constitutional Policing was bullshit, get ready for a lot worse. Get ready for situations where you’ll literally have a checklist to follow before you can shoot. Get ready for a massive overcorrection to the excesses that you’ve been getting away with for a long time. You the cops refused to give up the excessive abuse ability and the miracle get out of jail free phrase. “I was afeared for my life”. Well you had it, now it’s going to be paid for. The German U Boat captains called the early part of the war the Happy Time. I wonder what the cops will call the period before the reforms forced upon them by the legislature? The Happy Times ended and eventually more than half the submarines that went out, never came back. The Submarine crews paid for the Happy Times.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Well, anyone who has seen the news has seen this coming. It is starting in California, which isn’t a surprise. What starts there, tends to spread however. First, let’s get the link. After Stephon Clark shooting, California lawmakers consider proposal to limit when police shoot guns

Now the excerpt.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Several lawmakers and the family of a 22-year-old unarmed black man who was fatally shot by police are proposing Tuesday that California become the first state to significantly restrict when officers can open fire.

The legislation would change the standard from using “reasonable force” to “necessary force.”

That means officers would be allowed to shoot only if “there were no other reasonable alternatives to the use of deadly force” to prevent imminent serious injury or death, said Lizzie Buchen, legislative advocate for the American Civil Liberties Union, which is among the groups behind the measure.

There is more at the article that several of you won’t bother to read. What it means is that the police claiming that five hundred shootings of unarmed people a year is justified, isn’t going to stand for long. California, like Georgia, has looked at the events and found that half the people shot by police were unarmed. The claim that the shootings, every single one of them, is somehow justified, has created the public pressure to change the standards. If the standards we have now are so lax to allow every shooting to be considered justified, then the standards will change.

Some of us warned about this. I said that if the police did not start making reforms eventually the reforms would wash over them. The reforms forced upon them would be far more severe, more extreme, than what is needed IMO. But all the cop supporters want to say is fuck the bastards who got shot, they deserved it.

It’s only California wil be the next dismissal of the demands. But as I said, things have a way of spreading. When California does this, then some lawyer in Nevada will argue before the Jury that the shooting by a cop was so outrageous that it would have been clearly illegal under the more up to date laws of California, and a lot of money will be paid out. Enough of those, and then the standards will change not by legislative action, but by demands of the insurance companies and the cities that self insure.

It will be like how one Doctor who loses a malpractice case in court finds that every doctor is required to make changes to protect themselves.

Other legislatures will adapt the standards, when some other cop has a justified shooting of an unarmed man, or woman, and the public is outraged.

What will happen? More cops will die. While they are trying to fumble their way through a legislated standard that isn’t clear, the cops will die. They could have avoided it, by adapting the reforms that were obviously necessary. But they did not. They instead stubbornly refused to even consider real reforms, instead paying lip service to the entire idea. Some of you will rage that more cops are dying, and I won’t be all that upset. The reason is again, the cops have had the problem pointed out to them time and time again. Yet they won’t even consider any real changes to adapt to the realities of the situation, instead demanding unquestioning support and admiration while continuing to gloss over any complaints or objections.

Well guys, you didn’t think any reform was necessary and you thought that all that Constitutional Policing was bullshit, get ready for a lot worse. Get ready for situations where you’ll literally have a checklist to follow before you can shoot. Get ready for a massive overcorrection to the excesses that you’ve been getting away with for a long time. You the cops refused to give up the excessive abuse ability and the miracle get out of jail free phrase. “I was afeared for my life”. Well you had it, now it’s going to be paid for. The German U Boat captains called the early part of the war the Happy Time. I wonder what the cops will call the period before the reforms forced upon them by the legislature? The Happy Times ended and eventually more than half the submarines that went out, never came back. The Submarine crews paid for the Happy Times.

you claim that more police will be killed now because of this, if the shootings are not justified then why do you think more police will be killed? and what happens if their are police killed because of these changes? do you then rage against the legislators the way you do police? do you demand their resignation? or do you look the other way?
I think an overhaul of the entire judicial system is long overdue, but we also need to talk frankly and honestly about what is really going on here.

 

[SavannahMann]

Well, anyone who has seen the news has seen this coming. It is starting in California, which isn’t a surprise. What starts there, tends to spread however. First, let’s get the link. After Stephon Clark shooting, California lawmakers consider proposal to limit when police shoot guns

Now the excerpt.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Several lawmakers and the family of a 22-year-old unarmed black man who was fatally shot by police are proposing Tuesday that California become the first state to significantly restrict when officers can open fire.

The legislation would change the standard from using “reasonable force” to “necessary force.”

That means officers would be allowed to shoot only if “there were no other reasonable alternatives to the use of deadly force” to prevent imminent serious injury or death, said Lizzie Buchen, legislative advocate for the American Civil Liberties Union, which is among the groups behind the measure.

There is more at the article that several of you won’t bother to read. What it means is that the police claiming that five hundred shootings of unarmed people a year is justified, isn’t going to stand for long. California, like Georgia, has looked at the events and found that half the people shot by police were unarmed. The claim that the shootings, every single one of them, is somehow justified, has created the public pressure to change the standards. If the standards we have now are so lax to allow every shooting to be considered justified, then the standards will change.

Some of us warned about this. I said that if the police did not start making reforms eventually the reforms would wash over them. The reforms forced upon them would be far more severe, more extreme, than what is needed IMO. But all the cop supporters want to say is fuck the bastards who got shot, they deserved it.

It’s only California wil be the next dismissal of the demands. But as I said, things have a way of spreading. When California does this, then some lawyer in Nevada will argue before the Jury that the shooting by a cop was so outrageous that it would have been clearly illegal under the more up to date laws of California, and a lot of money will be paid out. Enough of those, and then the standards will change not by legislative action, but by demands of the insurance companies and the cities that self insure.

It will be like how one Doctor who loses a malpractice case in court finds that every doctor is required to make changes to protect themselves.

Other legislatures will adapt the standards, when some other cop has a justified shooting of an unarmed man, or woman, and the public is outraged.

What will happen? More cops will die. While they are trying to fumble their way through a legislated standard that isn’t clear, the cops will die. They could have avoided it, by adapting the reforms that were obviously necessary. But they did not. They instead stubbornly refused to even consider real reforms, instead paying lip service to the entire idea. Some of you will rage that more cops are dying, and I won’t be all that upset. The reason is again, the cops have had the problem pointed out to them time and time again. Yet they won’t even consider any real changes to adapt to the realities of the situation, instead demanding unquestioning support and admiration while continuing to gloss over any complaints or objections.

Well guys, you didn’t think any reform was necessary and you thought that all that Constitutional Policing was bullshit, get ready for a lot worse. Get ready for situations where you’ll literally have a checklist to follow before you can shoot. Get ready for a massive overcorrection to the excesses that you’ve been getting away with for a long time. You the cops refused to give up the excessive abuse ability and the miracle get out of jail free phrase. “I was afeared for my life”. Well you had it, now it’s going to be paid for. The German U Boat captains called the early part of the war the Happy Time. I wonder what the cops will call the period before the reforms forced upon them by the legislature? The Happy Times ended and eventually more than half the submarines that went out, never came back. The Submarine crews paid for the Happy Times.

you claim that more police will be killed now because of this, if the shootings are not justified then why do you think more police will be killed? and what happens if their are police killed because of these changes? do you then rage against the legislators the way you do police? do you demand their resignation? or do you look the other way?
I think an overhaul of the entire judicial system is long overdue, but we also need to talk frankly and honestly about what is really going on here.

The cops talk. But don’t do anything. Will I rail and rage against the legislature? No. I’ve called on police reform for years. Reforms designed to reduce the needless loss of life and reduce the risk to cops. Not interested.

Let’s say we are neighbors and I point out a huge Oak tree that towers over your house. I warn you that the tree is going to fall and destroy your house. You tell me you know what you are doing. When the tree falls am I supposed to pretend that I feel bad for you? If it kills your family should I weep for you?

I posted about this on other message boards. I know I am not supposed to post like this, but since I no longer post there, then this is proof of my years long advocacy for common sense reform. First steps to reforming the police. - Discussionist

I don’t mean bans under the guise of common sense as it is abused by the gun banners. I absolutely meant and do mean common sense reforms. Not one of these will ever be advocated by or adapted by any police department in the nation unless legislation which the FOP and Police Associations will do everything possible to derail.

But like in the scenario above, where the tree falls on the house after the warning, I am not going to shed any tears when it falls. A friend heard a clanking noise coming from my car, and he told me what was wrong. I fixed it. I had heard it but was ignorant of the cause. My friend gave me the cause, and I made the repairs. If I had ignored the advise of my friend, could I expect sympathy from him when the car inevitably broke?

When half of the shootings are of unarmed people, you have a problem. A major problem that should be first and foremost on the agenda for being addressed. It should have been addressed long before then. Yet, it isn’t. Every shooting is ruled as justified. Now, the pendulum is swinging back the other way, and it is going to pass well beyond the center, or reasonable, and go well into unreasonable. The citizens have been dying so far, now it will be the cops.

It could still be avoided, and it could be stopped much closer to reasonable than it would otherwise be. But the cops don’t want change. They don’t care how many unarmed people die. Just so long as none of them get so much as a paper cut. So the changes will be forced upon them, and the changes will be much more extreme.

In the scenario above, you could have cut the tree down in smaller more manageable sections. I would have helped you remove the tree, safely and with no damage to your home. You could have avoided the necessity of rebuilding the entire house. Instead, you stubbornly wanted to have the shade, and you still technically have it, since the tree remains on top of the shattered remains of your house.

No, I won’t weep. I won’t beat my breast and claim that this is all a tragedy. Like the tree towering over the house in an unstable manner, this was predictable. We saw it coming, and we refused stubbornly to take any action to minimize it by making any changes.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Welcome to Baltimore where effective policing is when the police stand down and give the criminals room to destroy.

 

[SavannahMann]

Welcome to Baltimore where effective policing is when the police stand down and give the criminals room to destroy.

Perhaps you can help me out here. Why are our choices always limited to the two extremes? Either we have abusive and corrupt police regularly violating the constitution or we have anarchy. Why is it always those two choices? We can have fifty experts signed on in a day to defend a cop for shooting an unarmed man, but not one person who says that we shouldn’t be shooting an unarmed man is heard.

 

[BULLDOG]

The cops NEED the cooperation and respect of the public to do their jobs properly. The behavior of a few prevents that from happening. Until the cops decide to police their own, they will never get that respect and cooperation.

 

[SavannahMann]

The cops NEED the cooperation and respect of the public to do their jobs properly. The behavior of a few prevents that from happening. Until the cops decide to police their own, they will never get that respect and cooperation.

I’ve never understood the argument that it is a few bad cops that ruin it for everyone else. That argument doesn’t seem to make any sense. Let me explain.

Take this case as an example, and if you look you can find that this example, fits the situation of most of the events. North Carolina police officer charged with felony assault after August beating of black pedestrian

The cop was not alone, there were others there, who did nothing either to stop the beating, or to report it. Hickman the officer who threw the beating admitted it to Supervisors, but still the “investigation” took months? How does it take months when there is video? How does it take months if the guy who did it admits he beat the shit out of the man?

The Supervisor, who was suspended for two weeks for failing to properly investigate the complaint by the victim, was obviously covering it up. So for this few bad cops to work, then Hickman, one of a few bad cops on the department, had to know that all the responding officers were the other members of this secret society of crooked abusive cops. And he had to know that the supervisor that would show up, would be the one who would cover it up. Is this starting to sound improbable?

Incident after incident it is the same thing. There are other cops there, and their reports all say about the same thing, and then the video shows that they lied. The one cop who is chastised, fired, or perhaps charged, is the most aggressive. The others who lied on their reports, and participated, are never disciplined for lying, or anything.

How can it be a few bad cops?



What made that case different, there was surveillance of the parking lot that contradicted the cops official story. Otherwise the five would have gotten away with it.

One did. A jury of all white members acquitted the most egregious thug of the bunch.

Judge Calls Marion County Case A “True Tragedy” As He Sentences Former Deputies to Prison

So where were the good cops? The ones who were opposed to this kind of abuse? The only one who pled not guilty was the most violent of the five. The other four did not go in and tell their story because their conscience was bothering them. No, they agreed to plead guilty to get a lesser sentence. They even got sentenced under the minimums for the crimes they pled guilty to. Where were the good cops? Were they the ones who had to take action when the brutality could no longer be denied? The five were sacrificial lambs to placate the citizens and create the smoke needed that said the problem was a few bad apples.

Think it through. Even for a moment, it doesn’t hold up to even minimal consideration. The other argument is even worse. The good cops fear retribution from the bad cops. Well, how is that possible? If there are bad cop for every fifty, or even twenty good cops, why do the nineteen good cops fear the bad one? Nineteen to one odds are pretty good don’t you think? I mean, if that was the case, the bad cop would live in terror of being found out, and would eventually leave the job because the risk was too great. In that case, five percent of the cops would be bad. Even ten percent means that nine good cops exist for every bad one.

The only way that the scenario works is if the majority of cops are bad. Then the “good” cops who do not leave, they join the bad cops. Because they lie just like the bad ones, and cover up abuse and misconduct with the rest. It’s hard to be a good cop when you commit Perjury, a Felony in every state, at a minimum.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The old law when I was a boy and young man required "the least force necessary", which was changed to "reasonable force."

It should be changed back, imo.

 

[abrere]

obama instigated blacks to resist the cops and this is where it has led. The cops show FAR more restraint than they should, actually. If he's close enough to you (ie, 6ft or less if your gun is in your hand, , 20 ft if your pistol is holstered) an unarmed man can take YOUR gun and shoot you with it, if you dont do something very serious to prevent that action.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Well, anyone who has seen the news has seen this coming. It is starting in California, which isn’t a surprise. What starts there, tends to spread however. First, let’s get the link. After Stephon Clark shooting, California lawmakers consider proposal to limit when police shoot guns

Now the excerpt.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Several lawmakers and the family of a 22-year-old unarmed black man who was fatally shot by police are proposing Tuesday that California become the first state to significantly restrict when officers can open fire.

The legislation would change the standard from using “reasonable force” to “necessary force.”

That means officers would be allowed to shoot only if “there were no other reasonable alternatives to the use of deadly force” to prevent imminent serious injury or death, said Lizzie Buchen, legislative advocate for the American Civil Liberties Union, which is among the groups behind the measure.

There is more at the article that several of you won’t bother to read. What it means is that the police claiming that five hundred shootings of unarmed people a year is justified, isn’t going to stand for long. California, like Georgia, has looked at the events and found that half the people shot by police were unarmed. The claim that the shootings, every single one of them, is somehow justified, has created the public pressure to change the standards. If the standards we have now are so lax to allow every shooting to be considered justified, then the standards will change.

Some of us warned about this. I said that if the police did not start making reforms eventually the reforms would wash over them. The reforms forced upon them would be far more severe, more extreme, than what is needed IMO. But all the cop supporters want to say is fuck the bastards who got shot, they deserved it.

It’s only California wil be the next dismissal of the demands. But as I said, things have a way of spreading. When California does this, then some lawyer in Nevada will argue before the Jury that the shooting by a cop was so outrageous that it would have been clearly illegal under the more up to date laws of California, and a lot of money will be paid out. Enough of those, and then the standards will change not by legislative action, but by demands of the insurance companies and the cities that self insure.

It will be like how one Doctor who loses a malpractice case in court finds that every doctor is required to make changes to protect themselves.

Other legislatures will adapt the standards, when some other cop has a justified shooting of an unarmed man, or woman, and the public is outraged.

What will happen? More cops will die. While they are trying to fumble their way through a legislated standard that isn’t clear, the cops will die. They could have avoided it, by adapting the reforms that were obviously necessary. But they did not. They instead stubbornly refused to even consider real reforms, instead paying lip service to the entire idea. Some of you will rage that more cops are dying, and I won’t be all that upset. The reason is again, the cops have had the problem pointed out to them time and time again. Yet they won’t even consider any real changes to adapt to the realities of the situation, instead demanding unquestioning support and admiration while continuing to gloss over any complaints or objections.

Well guys, you didn’t think any reform was necessary and you thought that all that Constitutional Policing was bullshit, get ready for a lot worse. Get ready for situations where you’ll literally have a checklist to follow before you can shoot. Get ready for a massive overcorrection to the excesses that you’ve been getting away with for a long time. You the cops refused to give up the excessive abuse ability and the miracle get out of jail free phrase. “I was afeared for my life”. Well you had it, now it’s going to be paid for. The German U Boat captains called the early part of the war the Happy Time. I wonder what the cops will call the period before the reforms forced upon them by the legislature? The Happy Times ended and eventually more than half the submarines that went out, never came back. The Submarine crews paid for the Happy Times.

you claim that more police will be killed now because of this, if the shootings are not justified then why do you think more police will be killed? and what happens if their are police killed because of these changes? do you then rage against the legislators the way you do police? do you demand their resignation? or do you look the other way?
I think an overhaul of the entire judicial system is long overdue, but we also need to talk frankly and honestly about what is really going on here.

It is.

 

[abrere]

shooting people with pistols, even if you DO get solid chest hits and have a decent type of ammo, too often fails to stop them and they can still fight quite effectively. A man who disobeys police commands better expect to be shot if he acts aggressively and is closer to the cop than 10 ft .

 

[SavannahMann]

shooting people with pistols, even if you DO get solid chest hits and have a decent type of ammo, too often fails to stop them and they can still fight quite effectively. A man who disobeys police commands better expect to be shot if he acts aggressively and is closer to the cop than 10 ft .

Yes, that is the way it is now. But the times, they are a changing. The problem is that the cops have been using the get out of jail free card every time. I was afeared for my life. That magic phrase has protected them from consequences of some of the most egregious actions. Also the experts that bamboozle the jury have made interactions with the police a very risky endeavor.

This fellow is the best, or worst depending on your point of view.

Training Officers to Shoot First, and He Will Answer Questions Later

He argues to the Jury that it is totally reasonable for the police officer to see something that did not actually happen. He argues that the good cops, the ones he defines as good, are actually delusional.

You see, for someone to see something that isn’t actually happening, that is literally the definition of delusional. Yet, he wins because people want to believe the cops on the street are the same as the cops on TV. They have a mystical sixth sense of who is bad, and they only punish bad people.

But the laws are going to change. They are already in process of changing in California, and next will be lawsuits where the California standard, a modern and updated standard compared to the old and archaic standard used in (insert state name here).

The police could have reformed themselves. They could have led the way, and managed the changes. Instead, they wanted the power, without the responsibility. Now, they’re going to lose a lot of power, and gain a hell of a lot of responsibility.

IMO, Power and Responsibility must be equal. Right now, they aren’t in the situation with the police. Greater power requires greater responsibility to insure that it is not abused, and the police don’t have that responsibility.

The times, they are a changing.

 

[BULLDOG]

The cops NEED the cooperation and respect of the public to do their jobs properly. The behavior of a few prevents that from happening. Until the cops decide to police their own, they will never get that respect and cooperation.

I’ve never understood the argument that it is a few bad cops that ruin it for everyone else. That argument doesn’t seem to make any sense. Let me explain.

Take this case as an example, and if you look you can find that this example, fits the situation of most of the events. North Carolina police officer charged with felony assault after August beating of black pedestrian

The cop was not alone, there were others there, who did nothing either to stop the beating, or to report it. Hickman the officer who threw the beating admitted it to Supervisors, but still the “investigation” took months? How does it take months when there is video? How does it take months if the guy who did it admits he beat the shit out of the man?

The Supervisor, who was suspended for two weeks for failing to properly investigate the complaint by the victim, was obviously covering it up. So for this few bad cops to work, then Hickman, one of a few bad cops on the department, had to know that all the responding officers were the other members of this secret society of crooked abusive cops. And he had to know that the supervisor that would show up, would be the one who would cover it up. Is this starting to sound improbable?

Incident after incident it is the same thing. There are other cops there, and their reports all say about the same thing, and then the video shows that they lied. The one cop who is chastised, fired, or perhaps charged, is the most aggressive. The others who lied on their reports, and participated, are never disciplined for lying, or anything.

How can it be a few bad cops?



What made that case different, there was surveillance of the parking lot that contradicted the cops official story. Otherwise the five would have gotten away with it.

One did. A jury of all white members acquitted the most egregious thug of the bunch.

Judge Calls Marion County Case A “True Tragedy” As He Sentences Former Deputies to Prison

So where were the good cops? The ones who were opposed to this kind of abuse? The only one who pled not guilty was the most violent of the five. The other four did not go in and tell their story because their conscience was bothering them. No, they agreed to plead guilty to get a lesser sentence. They even got sentenced under the minimums for the crimes they pled guilty to. Where were the good cops? Were they the ones who had to take action when the brutality could no longer be denied? The five were sacrificial lambs to placate the citizens and create the smoke needed that said the problem was a few bad apples.

Think it through. Even for a moment, it doesn’t hold up to even minimal consideration. The other argument is even worse. The good cops fear retribution from the bad cops. Well, how is that possible? If there are bad cop for every fifty, or even twenty good cops, why do the nineteen good cops fear the bad one? Nineteen to one odds are pretty good don’t you think? I mean, if that was the case, the bad cop would live in terror of being found out, and would eventually leave the job because the risk was too great. In that case, five percent of the cops would be bad. Even ten percent means that nine good cops exist for every bad one.

The only way that the scenario works is if the majority of cops are bad. Then the “good” cops who do not leave, they join the bad cops. Because they lie just like the bad ones, and cover up abuse and misconduct with the rest. It’s hard to be a good cop when you commit Perjury, a Felony in every state, at a minimum.

You have a point. It's just hard to wrap my head around the idea of so many bad cops. I guess I was considering the ones that didn't participate, but only helped cover up as somehow less guilty. I have no idea how I convinced myself of that, but
I guess I did.

 

[SavannahMann]

The cops NEED the cooperation and respect of the public to do their jobs properly. The behavior of a few prevents that from happening. Until the cops decide to police their own, they will never get that respect and cooperation.

I’ve never understood the argument that it is a few bad cops that ruin it for everyone else. That argument doesn’t seem to make any sense. Let me explain.

Take this case as an example, and if you look you can find that this example, fits the situation of most of the events. North Carolina police officer charged with felony assault after August beating of black pedestrian

The cop was not alone, there were others there, who did nothing either to stop the beating, or to report it. Hickman the officer who threw the beating admitted it to Supervisors, but still the “investigation” took months? How does it take months when there is video? How does it take months if the guy who did it admits he beat the shit out of the man?

The Supervisor, who was suspended for two weeks for failing to properly investigate the complaint by the victim, was obviously covering it up. So for this few bad cops to work, then Hickman, one of a few bad cops on the department, had to know that all the responding officers were the other members of this secret society of crooked abusive cops. And he had to know that the supervisor that would show up, would be the one who would cover it up. Is this starting to sound improbable?

Incident after incident it is the same thing. There are other cops there, and their reports all say about the same thing, and then the video shows that they lied. The one cop who is chastised, fired, or perhaps charged, is the most aggressive. The others who lied on their reports, and participated, are never disciplined for lying, or anything.

How can it be a few bad cops?



What made that case different, there was surveillance of the parking lot that contradicted the cops official story. Otherwise the five would have gotten away with it.

One did. A jury of all white members acquitted the most egregious thug of the bunch.

Judge Calls Marion County Case A “True Tragedy” As He Sentences Former Deputies to Prison

So where were the good cops? The ones who were opposed to this kind of abuse? The only one who pled not guilty was the most violent of the five. The other four did not go in and tell their story because their conscience was bothering them. No, they agreed to plead guilty to get a lesser sentence. They even got sentenced under the minimums for the crimes they pled guilty to. Where were the good cops? Were they the ones who had to take action when the brutality could no longer be denied? The five were sacrificial lambs to placate the citizens and create the smoke needed that said the problem was a few bad apples.

Think it through. Even for a moment, it doesn’t hold up to even minimal consideration. The other argument is even worse. The good cops fear retribution from the bad cops. Well, how is that possible? If there are bad cop for every fifty, or even twenty good cops, why do the nineteen good cops fear the bad one? Nineteen to one odds are pretty good don’t you think? I mean, if that was the case, the bad cop would live in terror of being found out, and would eventually leave the job because the risk was too great. In that case, five percent of the cops would be bad. Even ten percent means that nine good cops exist for every bad one.

The only way that the scenario works is if the majority of cops are bad. Then the “good” cops who do not leave, they join the bad cops. Because they lie just like the bad ones, and cover up abuse and misconduct with the rest. It’s hard to be a good cop when you commit Perjury, a Felony in every state, at a minimum.

You have a point. It's just hard to wrap my head around the idea of so many bad cops. I guess I was considering the ones that didn't participate, but only helped cover up as somehow less guilty. I have no idea how I convinced myself of that, but
I guess I did.

Partly it is that we want to believe. We watch TV, Movies, and the rest. Look at NCIS. It has been on forever. In every episode, Gibbs has someone break a rule. Either hack a computer system they should not without a warrant, or do something else that is patently illegal. Yet they do it because Gibbs KNOWS that the bad guy is guilty. If they don’t do it, then the Bad guy will get away with it. They HAVE to break those silly rules to make the guilty pay.

Starsky and Hutch, the Leathal Weapon series, all of them. The cops are blessed with psychic powers that are never said, but the cop just knows that the bad guy is bad.

It’s why Juries convict people who have little or no evidence against them other than the testimony of the cops. They start off with the wrong mental position. The accused MUST have done something to get here. If it wasn’t what was said, then like Capone, it was what the cops could prove. They didn’t get Capone for murder, racketeering, or anything like that. Everyone knows they got him for Tax Evasion when nothing else stuck. John Gotti, same thing. Time after time he was in front of a jury, and time after time he got away with it.

Those extreme examples like OJ Simpson, set the juries up to believe that the cops have the right guy, even if they don’t have the right crime. This is reinforced by every cop movie ever. Well perhaps not Dragnet or Adam 12, or perhaps Chips.

Even those contribute to the idea that the guy must be guilty of something. When a case is thrown out because one of the cops broke policy, and violated the law. The bad guy gets away because the cop did not have sufficient probable cause.

We want to believe that the good cops break the rules a little, but only when they KNOW that the bad guy is a bad guy and will get away with it unless they bend those silly rules a little. The bad cops are the ones who break the rules a lot. The ones who run the drugs, instead of planting them. The ones who take bribes to ignore crimes, while their good cop partners just take a little of the money or drugs to save for later, or to cover the inequities of pay. The drugs they take are going to be used to make sure some drug dealer who ditched the evidence doesn’t get away later.

In the writing of Fiction, this is called the suspension of disbelief. The good books convince us that this could happen, or perhaps did happen. Some people are very willing to have their disbelief suspended.

 

[MikeK]

The cops NEED the cooperation and respect of the public to do their jobs properly. The behavior of a few prevents that from happening. Until the cops decide to police their own, they will never get that respect and cooperation.

A code of conduct which is shared by prison inmates and police officers alike is systematic condemnation and punishment of informants. The reason for adherence to this rigid code is a simple matter of survival. A police officer who informs on another, regardless of how noble and justifiable his/her action may be, is automatically and unavoidably stigmatized as a "rat" and can no longer expect assistance if and when involved in a threatening situation.

These circumstances were clearly revealed in the movie, Serpico, in which a New York City patrolman who had informed on some corrupt cops was shot in the face when the cops he was working with, and who could easily have prevented it, deliberately allowed it to happen. This scene was based on an actual occurrence.