This is why we need less cops and more social workers

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

That's after the fact. It seems like many people have this grand idea we can predict that before they are even hired. Without a history that's hard to do.

But we don’t hold them responsible even after the fact.  Let’s assume there was zero reason to suspect anything was wrong with these two before this incident (doubtful) the fact they haven’t been arrested for assaulting this 9 year old, but rather are still collecting a pay check is proof of a failed system.

[pondwater]

The cops that failed to act at Parkland would have been court marshaled for dereliction of duty.  

What exactly was their dereliction of duty?

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

What exactly was their dereliction of duty?

Taking a defensive position outside the building rather than attempting to engage the shooter. 

[pondwater]

Taking a defensive position outside the building rather than attempting to engage the shooter. 

Many court decisions, The Supreme Court, and the Constitution would disagree with you on that point.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Many court decisions, The Supreme Court, and the Constitution would disagree with you on that point.

Not the constitution.  It would be perfectly constitutional for the state legislature or federal government to hold police to the same standards as we hold the military for cowardice.   Politicians protect cops from having a duty to do their job.

We need to change the laws so police are held to the same standards as soldiers.  Perfectly constitutional. 

[Fau Teixeira]

Not the constitution.  It would be perfectly constitutional for the state legislature or federal government to hold police to the same standards as we hold the military for cowardice.   Politicians protect cops from having a duty to do their job.

We need to change the laws so police are held to the same standards as soldiers.  Perfectly constitutional. 

seeing as the modern concept of police didn't exist when the constitution was written, the closest analogue would be a militia member you are correct .. also there is no subsequent amendment that covers it

on the topic of bad cops moving around and bad teachers moving around .. i would also like to point out that this happens with bad clergy moving around ..  most famously within the catholic church .. but i'm sure it goes the same way with protestant pastors .. any position that has undue power and influence over people needs to have undue oversight to prevent abuses of that power

[Dave Gray]

any position that has undue power and influence over people needs to have undue oversight to prevent abuses of that power

Correct.  This is the larger point.  Any system where there is a large amount of power on one side and small on the other, you have to have big oversight or you get bad shit.

[pondwater]

Not the constitution.  It would be perfectly constitutional for the state legislature or federal government to hold police to the same standards as we hold the military for cowardice.   Politicians protect cops from having a duty to do their job.

I think you're missing the point. The judicial branch of the government all the way up to the SC have ruled that law enforcement have no constitutional duty to protect the public.

“Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur,” said Darren L. Hutchinson, a professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law. “Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the Constitution.”

They do have a duty to protect someone in their custody though. So, as far as the original topic of this post. Absent of me knowing all the details, yes they do have a duty to protect. And they should be held accountable if they are determined to have done something wrong.

Here, I'm discussing a bigger problem. That's when you lump all law enforcement together. It's clear that in the case of Parkland, the officers did nothing legally wrong. Was it morally wrong? That can be debated. But legally, nope. You don't have a leg to stand on if you want to argue that point. Amazing how some people will agree with the SC when it fits their agenda and then turn around and complain when another decision doesn't line up with their agenda.

I'm non religious and don't give a shit about abortion either way. But your, "Politicians protect cops from having a duty to do their job". Could be turned into, "Politicians protect baby murderers". So until they reverse themselves on law enforcement responsibilities (and/or abortions), you might want to not say "dereliction of duty" unless it actually legally applies. 

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I am aware what current law is.  And current practice.  And it is a horrible injustice. 

I am advocating for change.

[Pappy13]

Since this philosophy clearly did not take root in the cops using pepper spray on a handcuffed child (i.e. displaying less than zero tolerance), I submit that the notion of teaching them tolerance by example has proven ineffective, and they need to be replaced with people capable of displaying tolerance.

Sometimes people need a 2nd chance. People can change. Not all of them will but some do. I don't know the circumstances around these officers. If they been model cops up till this incident, I say give them a 2nd chance to hopefully grow. If they've not been model cops, then remove them. You might end up with a better police force that way. Use them as examples, but use them as examples in the right way. Show that we can get better and you will have to get better or you're out.

[Pappy13]

The problem is that even if there's a history, it's ignored .. oh .. cop X got fired from city Y because he sprayed bear mace into a pediatric ICU .. well he can just go apply to city Z and he'll get a job.

This is the problem. This should never happen, but it does. Fix this problem and you will have fixed your police force.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Sometimes people need a 2nd chance. People can change. Not all of them will but some do. I don't know the circumstances around these officers. If they been model cops up till this incident, I say give them a 2nd chance to hopefully grow. If they've not been model cops, then remove them. You might end up with a better police force that way. Use them as examples, but use them as examples in the right way. Show that we can get better and you will have to get better or you're out.

Set an example.  Step one.  If they have children make them handcuff and mace their own children.   And then after they watch their own children cry in pain make them mace their children a second time.  if that sounds like a cruel and unusual punishment, then you understand why I don’t just want them fired but in jail.

[Spider-Dan]

That's after the fact. It seems like many people have this grand idea we can predict that before they are even hired. Without a history that's hard to do.

In this exact instance, you have people like Hoodie or myself calling for these cops to be fired after the fact, while Pappy13 is preaching tolerance and a do-over.

People who are authorized to exercise lethal violence on behalf of the state should not get a do-over when it comes to police brutality.

This is the nature of the problem with police in this country:

- the bad apples are protected and given every chance to coordinate their stories when charged with misconduct
- the "good" (or: not "bad") apples passively stand by, and do nothing to stop or remove the bad apples
- even when caught red-handed, the bad apples are given the most lenient of punishments and allowed to continue to work in law enforcement

[Dolphster]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/01/us/rochester-police-pepper-spray-child/index.html

Without question what the police did was wrong.  They should be fired, they should be criminally prosecuted.

I totally agree with you on this.  I rarely weigh in on law enforcement threads because I work in the field and I have come to realize that much like politics, everyone has pretty much made up their minds about how they feel about law enforcement and no amount of discussion is going to change anyone's mind.  Hoodie, even though I'm replying on your comment, I'm not just directing this at you, but pretty much to everyone.  There are bad cops.  Absolutely.  But I kind of use the analogy of the offensive lineman.  They always say that you know an offensive lineman is doing his job when you don't call his name during the game.  The only time you hear about an offensive lineman is when he commits a penalty.  If he blocks his man, nothing noteworthy really shows up.  If he blows a block or commits a penalty, they isolate him on instant replay.  There is a certain similarity with police work.  The vast majority of cops are good cops and good people.  They do small things that help people or do acts of kindness every day.  But there is nothing worthy of an instant replay in that.  When cops fuck up and are caught on film or whatever, that is what you see on the news.  And rightly so.  Bad cops need to be outed and dealt with properly up to and including getting fired or having criminal charges filed.  But because the bad is what people see, it makes it easy to paint with a broad brush and make assumptions about the majority of cops based on what you see on the news. 

The other thing I want to say is that I get it why people think they have the answers of how to "fix" law enforcement problems.  This speaks to the social workers versus cops, and other things that people say need to happen in law enforcement.  Interestingly, sports and police work seem to be the two big professions where people who have never done it seem to "have all the answers".   We all have watched games and yelled "Why did you call a run play there you idiot!"   Even though the vast majority of us have never coached football above the little league level and not played above the high school level.  We all have the answers for our teams even though we really don't have much of a clue as to what is actually going on beneath the surface of what we see on tv.  People do the same thing with cop work.  Everyone critiques law enforcement without ever having done the job and understanding it.  Don't get me wrong, some of the criticism is valid.  But "fixing things" is a lot easier from the couch than from the football field or the street.  We would never watch a guy working for FPL in a bucket truck working on a transformer and think to ourselves, "No no, you idiot.  You can't use a 27B routing switch on that.  You need to use a 44R double switch!"    We haven't done that job so we have very little insight into it.  Just like most people have not been offensive linemen or cops and have very little insight into either of those jobs, but everyone is an expert on them. 

Sorry that this is turning into a novel but one last thing.  Someone else made a comment about how cops can get fired from a department and they seem to easily get hired by another department.  That is a HUGE problem.  That should never happen.  HR departments need to do their due diligence in properly vetting job applicants.  And that goes for cops who were fired by another department right on down the the recruitment of candidates to hire and send to the police academy as cadets.  I absolutely support reform in the hiring processes.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Dolphster I am glad you posted that. 

 There is two ways to fix this problem: One of these ways is to have non-police officers impose a solution.  The other is for police officers to fix it.  I am a strong supporter of the first, only because to date most police absolutely refuse to even acknowledge a problem. If 95% of the Rochester police force was to sign a statement demanding that these two police officers be fired and criminally prosecuted and stating they refuse to serve with such individuals and will quit if they are reinstated they will quit, then I would agree with the “few bad ones” claim.  But as it is very few officers have condemned their actions. 

I disagree with a few of your analogies, however. The local media seems to out of their way to complement local police for anything that is even slightly goes above and beyond.  I remember a few years ago a front page story about a police department had a toy drive that got about 200 toys buried  in the article on a later page they mentioned that 180 of those toys all came from a single drop off center at an elementary school.  I knew a kid at that elementary school and the back story.  The real driving force was a second grade teacher that wasn’t mentioned in the article not the chief of the police whose photo was on page one.  Also why should police get praise for doing there job?  I never read about a mailman,  garbage collector or town clerk.  They have the offensive line standard but unlike the police they aren’t screwing up daily.

As for my thinking I can do a police officer job better than them or a sports person better than them.  I would note I don’t criticize Belichick’s play calling nor make fun of Drew Brees when he throws an interception.  Nor do I second guess Candem, NJ.  But I have criticized Dan Snyder and the Rochester, NY police.  One group actually competent.  And this is not limited to just sports and police.  I am certain I could have been a better president than Trump.  I know I could not have done as good of a job as Obama.

I am glad we agree on the not hiring of police officers fired for misbehavior.  Any chance you could convince your union to include a provision in the next contract banning the hiring of previously disciplined  officers from other departments? 

I won’t believe that is “a few bad ones” until I believe there are many good ones.  And condemning these two won’t alone convince me a cop is a good cop.  But refusing to condemn them is absolute proof of being a horrible cop.