The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Three steps to make things better, right away.

1) Mandatory body cameras on every officer that is on duty.  This is no-brainer, it would protect good police, it would harm bad police.

2) Police must carry individual insurance.  Doctors, plumbers, ...so many jobs require you to be insured.  This would make sure that the citizens don't have to pay the lawsuits to bail out shitty cops, where the system just goes on as it was before.  Cops that have too many complaints and incidents would have too high of insurance to operate.  You couldn't just be a shitty cop in city A, get fired, then go work in city B as the same asshole.  And ultimately, money is what will change this.

3) Specifics ethics laws that require police to be held accountable for the actions of the people on their call, where this is a possibility of de-escalation.

Three easy solutions, not targeted at anyone specifically that will help good police.

I agree with #1. Number two isn't feasible. Cops are already low paid. They represent the law and order of the judicial system and should be insured by them. Not sure how I feel about 3 just yet.

The bottom line is there are bad employees in every line of work. Bad plumbers, executives, janitorial services etc.  You will never ever totally get rid of them. A white deaf guy got shot because they didn't know he was deaf and he didn't know what was going on.  That's another horrible situation but I can guarantee you the police officer involved didn't go to work thinking about killing a deaf white guy.  

I have no doubt that most police are very good people.

But the system that they hold up is not good.  The system asks them to protect each other.  But their job is to protect us. 

It's very similar to Catholic priests molesting kids.  Most priests aren't molesting, but the church that they hold up was protecting the old ways. 

Also, #2 is totally feasible.  If cops need to be paid more, then pay it -- capitalism will work that out....better than paying multi-million dollar settlements to the families of dead people.  Plenty of blue-collar jobs require insurance.

I'm OK with all of this...but can appreciate the fact that law enforcement should be paid enough to handle that sort of insurance requirement.

Most definitely.

The suggestion of insurance is not to hurt cops.  I love and respect cops and the job they do.  I want to help them become better and have the good rise to the top.  Insurance to protect the good ones seems smart.

Make it easier to fire bad cops.

Require cops to report any abuse by fellow officers.  Failure to report is a felony.

All settlements for police brutality comes out of the police pension fund instead of being paid by taxpayers.

Unfortunately, it looks like body cameras don't work as well (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1745-9133.12412) as we thought they might.

The problem is accountability... the police have none.  Body cameras or no, the police know that they will not be held accountable for their abuses of power.

I see the solution as threefold:

1) Increased personal and professional accountability for police.  The default action for when an officer justifiably takes a civilian's life should be forced retirement, with continuing service being a rare exception (e.g. killing an active shooter).  If you kill a civilian, and you can convince the relevant authorities that you had legitimate reason to believe they were a threat, then fine... but we don't need you as a cop any longer.  Police that are fired for any misconduct related to police brutality should immediately be subject to criminal liability for their actions.

2) A national do-not-hire list for cops fired due to misconduct.   A person empowered to use violence on behalf of the government must meet the strictest standard of ethics.   The current system, in which a cop gets fired in one city and rehired shortly thereafter in another city's police dept. 30 miles away, is unacceptable.

3) Every police department in the country must be federally mandated to have civilian oversight; no more Internal Affairs reviews where cops sweep other cops' violations under the rug.  Furthermore, each state should have its own state DOJ office that handles nothing but prosecution of police.  There is an unacceptable conflict of interest for local DAs who need cops' cooperation to get convictions in their day-to-day business.

Separate from the above, I think another big issue is that police depts. are increasingly hiring from outside of their jurisdiction.  This leads to officers having an outsider's mentality of enforcing the law on strangers, instead of the mentality of a peacekeeper protecting and serving their own community.  Unfortunately, I can't think of a practical way to force police depts. to recruit locally.

I have a question about #1. Aren't police able to turn off those cameras? Would definitely help good cops, but not sure it would prevent a bad cop.

Yes but two cops in Louisville who killed someone in the riots had their cameras turned off. Both of them have been put on leave and their Captain was fired immediately. All are under investigation. I forgot to turn them on is no longer a excuse. Even though it seems like it was legit return fire (two National Guardsmen also fired and other cameras seem to support it) the fact the cameras were not on will cost them.

That one is easy.  In most places hiring is done on a point scale.  1 point for each year you have lived in the jurisdiction prior to being hired up to a maximum of 10 points.  Likewise living in the jurisdiction counts towards promotion points. 

I definitely see the logic in what you are trying to accomplish with that.  Hire law enforcement officers who have a vested interest in the community because they live there.  But the downside is that you then create the unintended consequence of not being able to hire the best person for the position.  Maybe in large cities, the candidate pool would be large enough that it wouldn't be a problem.  But in smaller towns, it would be.  There are already too many (emotionally) unqualified cops.  I fear that limiting the candidate pool or at least tilting the recruitment process in favor of "locals" would just exacerbate that problem.  Heck, I live in an affluent suburb and even our local PD has so much trouble recruiting qualified, GOOD candidates that they have started advertising out of state for police recruits. 

As a medical provider I have to have umbrella coverage.  Why isn't #2 feasible?  I agree with this.  It's not expensive.  Yes, I am covered by the hospital (under my circumstances) but the coverage isn't enough.

I also think #1 needs to be strict - like, mess with the camera is an automatic termination, felony, strict. 

I would argue that if police officers A got a 90 on some multiple choice test on policing but doesn't know the neighborhoods and needs a GPS to get from the station to the nearest school.  And officer B only got a 75 but knows where all the crack houses are and has a network of 50 family and friends who will contact him with leads when something goes down.  Then B is the better cancanidate
 

Maybe but definitely over simplified. Where did those 15 points get lost? Was it psychological, was it actual rule of law,  was it race relations,  etc. Also how  long would it take the other applicant to figure out his way around town?

Definitely oversimpified.

But keeping it oversimplified.  He lost the 15 points because he isn’t very good with standard written English and reading comprehension.  He is however, fluent in ebonics and inner-city spanglish.  And how long for A to catch up on the neighborhood?   A person raised in Beverly Hills is never going to develop the contacts and insights that someone who grew up in south central.  And likewise the brother that grew up in south central wouldn’t do that well patrolling Bev Hills.   

I'd bet even the cops in Beverly Hills aren't from Beverly Hills.

these seem sound... https://8cantwait.org/

Apparently Minneapolis already had 7 of those reforms "in place" before this started.

When the police don't follow the rules, I don't think asking them to follow more rules is the answer.  If accountability will not come from within, it must be enforced from without.

Nope.  4 out of 8. 

Seriously, YOU are opposing the proposal of this website? 

I think those proposals are mostly theater.

1. Ban chokeholds and strangleholds - this is a good proposal, though I would point out that the NYPD had already done this and it took them 5 years to fire Daniel Pantaleo after Eric Garner was killed by his chokehold.

2. Require de-escalation - too vague to be meaningful, especially if enforced internally.

3. Require warning before shooting - too vague.   How long "before"?

4. Exhaust all alternatives - too vague.  I'm certain that nearly all of these deaths are already categorized by the cops as using lethal force as a "last resort."

5. Duty to intervene in excessive force from other officers - this is a good proposal, though I would imagine on paper this is already true.

6. Ban shooting at moving vehicles - this is a good proposal.

7. Require Use of Force continuum - if this continuum allows police to use lethal force when "their life is potentially in jeopardy," it doesn't change much.

8. Comprehensive reporting - not really useful if they are falsifying reports (which is already illegal).

The primary flaw in these reforms is that if the enforcement mechanism stays the same, we will get the same results.  Police departments already have many rules and regulations on the books that hypothetically should prevent these abuses.  The cops simply ignore them, and they aren't held accountable when they do.

There are already plenty of anti-misconduct rules in place; I don't think adding to the list of regulations that cops ignore will be helpful.  We need to change the system to make cops follow the existing rules first.

Spider is right, theater. The one remark he had I would change is 6 is also vague. What if the moving vehicle is directly in front being driven directly at an officer?

While no one change will completely fix the problem, these will help.

1.  Minn doesn’t ban chock holds this is going to make a conviction in the Floyd murder harder than it would be if they were banned as he was following acceptable procedure for his department, even though many other departments ban it.

2.  Actually it can be quite specifc.

3.  Warning shot. 

4. Once again it can be written very specific.   Lack of policy give the cop a defense that he acted reasonably. 

5/ No it is not.  And why for that reason the other three in Floyd’s case will likely get reinstated with back pay down the road.

6.  Very helpful.  Here is why.  Bad cops are going to file false reports not knowing they were captured on film.  And folks that will excuse the excessive force won’t excuse the lying. 

Also, eliminate all Internal Affairs Bureaus.  Cops that commit crimes are charged as civilians and their testimony is admissible in court.  

A warning before shooting by shooting? Warning shots are dangerous and there is a reason police don't use them.

I don't know that "Make sure you don't hit them until the second shot" changes much.  They are shooting people multiple times anyway.

Here's a great article from a former CIA officer who is now a cop in Savannah:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/03/beat-cop-militarized-policing-cia/

I applaud anyone who wants to reform (make better) any aspect of our society.  That includes law enforcement reforms.  In spite of what I'm about to say, don't stop trying to come up with ideas on how to make things better.  We should all be striving to "do better".  In our personal lives, in our careers, and in "groups" including law enforcement.  The problem that I have with many of the proposals I have read here and elsewhere is that as well intentioned as the proposals are, the vast majority of them are not realistic.  I can have general ideas about how to make the field of Accounting better.  But not having ever been an accountant, I don't know enough about it to make much in the way of specific proposals.  By the same token, those who have not been in law enforcement don't know enough about it to be able to make valid specific proposals either.  People's perception of law enforcement generally comes from movies/tv, the "news", the internet, etc.   Hardly any of those sources paint an accurate picture.  But people think they are experts because law enforcement is very often the topic of all those things. 

The change needs to come from within.  Being in that world, I think that educational requirements are a huge step in the right direction.  It has been pretty well proven that there is a direct correlation between educational level and racism.  The higher the education level, the lower the level of overt racism.  Probably not as direct of a correlation with latent racism but latent racism is a whole other topic that I won't even begin to go into here.  Over the last two or three decades, more and more police agencies are requiring a college degree for recruits.  I think that is a huge step forward.  However, the problem is a limited number of college graduates are interested in being cops.  And honestly, why would they?  For a college grad, the starting pay for a cop is very low, the stress of the job is horrible, 80% of your interaction with people is negative and you deal with some of the worst people in humanity sometimes.  There is a huge turnover in law enforcement.  Most local departments are constantly hiring.  There is no miracle cure for what ails the law enforcement profession.  But if we can find a way to make it more feasible to require a college degree and make it a more appealing career for college grads, I think that would be a huge step in reform.  Again, I'm not saying it is a miracle cure and it wouldn't make racism disappear within the police ranks.  There are plenty of college graduates who are racist.  But there is that correlation between education and racism so it would be a big step forward. 

Personally, I'm very fortunate in that due to the very specific mission of my "group" at my agency, even though most of us look like linebackers or Hell's Angels members, every one of us (approximately 35 of us) have at least a Master's Degree and we are at the top of the pay scale for our career field.  Therefore, there is little turnover because we are paid very well and we can hire the "best of the best".   I have been in this position for 12 years.  So using 35 as the approximate number of us, multiplied by the 12 years I have worked there, that is 420 years of service. As a unit, we have had 2 allegations of unneccesary use of force during that time.  2 incidents in 420 years of experience.  Now part of that is due to the fact that we don't deal with a lot of the "street level" crime that a local police department does.  But I think the biggest reason behind it is that we are all highly educated and our pay scale is high enough that we can be really choosy in who we hire.  Of course local police departments can't afford to hire new recruits at $100K plus per year.  But if we can find a way to make policing a more attractive option for college graduates, I really think that would help a lot. 

We could also legalize drugs, provide universal healthcare, provide a federal jobs guarantee (or UBI, but i prefer the jobs guarantee). take all the money the justice system spends fighting the "war on drugs" and instead use it for treatment and recovery programs as well as mental health programs. Then mandate a title IX type system where teacher salaries are pegged to police salaries and I'd say we're a good way towards fixing what's broken.

Police have had their opportunity to make changes from within.  But they always choose not to.

And you only offer two ideas.  The first will result in even less innercity cops coming from innercities.  It is the equivalent of a poll tax.  The second is self-serving greed---pay overpaid cops more money.

If that is the best you can do you don't even deserve a voice in the discussion of how to end police brutality.

And with that response, I'm done.  I'm not addressing this topic anymore.  I have tried to listen with empathy to all sides in these discussions.  I have even applauded those who have disagreed with me and stated that I have even altered my thoughts on some things because of what people with different points of view have said here in these discussions.  But when I get a response that is so stupid and closed minded that you even have the audacity to say that I "don't deserve a voice in this discussion"....then I realize that I am wasting my time and energy.   I don't know why I thought I could have an intelligent conversation with someone who thinks "innercity" is one word.  Your "us against them" mentality towards law enforcement is really going to help the situation a lot.  Best of luck to you and to all of us. 

I may be cynical but I don't see how you can change much. A certain percentage of people will always suck no matter what rules you put into place. It always amazes me when I see videos of just how shitty people can be. I'm getting too old to fight idiots and that's why I carry guns.

Too old to fight idiots, but just young enough to shoot them?

 ???   ::)

Hmmmm

 ???   ::)

https://youtu.be/Wf4cea5oObY

John Oliver's take on it.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. I know people in their 80s who have guns and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in that. I always see many older people at gun shows.

You're right...you missed it completely.

That's true.

There will always be bad apples.  But police (or clergy or schools or prisons or Hollywood or politics or whatever) must be under constant scrutiny for those that protect those bad apples.  Whenever you have a system where there is a difference in power, you will find those that seek to abuse that power.  Jerry Sandusky, police brutailty, pedo priests, Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, prison abuse -- they're all the same type of problem.  There is a disparity in power that's being abused and the system that they're in has a vested interest to protect itself so power isn't lost within the system.

The protests are an attack on that system for police.

Cops need to turn in their tasers, mace, tear gas and rubber bullets.  When the cops were granted these “tools” it was on the understanding that cops would be using them as an alternative to using their gun and thus decrease the incidents of people being shot to death.  Reality is cops never use them as an alternative to their gun, but as a method of torture.

(https://cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/advancelocal/KISFFLBRNZEEHDJIU5A2GM66TY.png)
This hilarious image from those fun-loving jokesters at the Euclid, OH police department was at the center of a ruling (https://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/2020/06/appeals-court-chides-euclid-polices-offensive-training-curriculum-that-included-chris-rock-video-cartoon-image-of-cop-beating.html) yesterday from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals that held that Euclid cops will not have qualified immunity from lawsuits after they tased and pepper-sprayed a man in his car, then arrested him on drug charges with no evidence.

Here's part of the opinion of the unanimous panel, authored by Trump appointee John K. Bush:

The police officers, in plain clothes, approached Wright’s parked SUV with weapons drawn.  Thinking he was about to be robbed, Wright tried to back up the vehicle to get away. A flash of a badge made him realize that the men he thought were about to rob him were the police. Wright stopped the SUV, and the officers pulled open the driver’s side door. Wright had no weapon, and the officers holstered theirs. Nonetheless, they simultaneously deployed a taser against him and pepper-sprayed him at point-blank range, all while he remained seated in the vehicle.  Wright had trouble getting out of the SUV because of a colostomy bag stapled to the right side of his abdomen. He was recovering from a medical operation for diverticulitis. The police aggravated the staples from his surgery, causing bleeding from around the bag.

The officers then arrested Wright even though there was arguably no probable cause for the arrest. The officers designated Wright’s arrest as arising from a drug investigation, even though they found no drugs on him. This designation resulted in Wright’s being detained for more than nine hours and subjected to an intrusive body scan for drugs well after the officers knew of Wright’s medical condition. The scan revealed no drugs, and no drug-related charges were ever brought against him.

Is it any surprise that when you announce that officers cannot be held liable for their actions, they have depictions of police beating unarmed civilians in their official training materials?

The police are fundamentally broken.  Fortunately, these protests seem to be working: CO just signed a bill completely eliminating qualified immunity (https://www.denverpost.com/2020/06/19/colorado-police-reform-accountability-bill/) into law.