Police misconduct

[gunnarthor]

USA Today is investigating police misconduct nationally. 

 

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2019/04/24/usa-today-revealing-misconduct-records-police-cops/3223984002/

 

"The Trump administration has backed away from more than a decade of Justice Department investigations and court actions against police departments it determined were deeply biased or corrupt.

In 2018, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the Justice Department would leave policing the police to local authorities, saying federal investigations hurt crime fighting."

 

I've sued a handful of law enforcement agencies over the years. More light on the subject of police misconduct is strongly needed.

[PseudoSABR]

I hate this administration.

[ewen21]

It's actually refreshing to hear a lot less anti police rhetoric during this administration. Obama really did horrendous job painting law enforcement in a negative light.

 

If you want to be suspicious of police then all I can say is step in their shoes for one week and get back to me. I'm so sick of whiny-anti police rhetoric coming from people who support a candidate that wants incarcerated pedophiles and psychos on death row voting in elections.

 

I didn't vote for Trump in the last election but as of now I'm going to. I might even wear a MAGA hat to a Twins game

[gunnarthor]

 

It's actually refreshing to hear a lot less anti police rhetoric during this administration. Obama really did horrendous job painting law enforcement in a negative light.

If you want to be suspicious of police then all I can say is step in their shoes for one week and get back to me. I'm so sick of whiny-anti police rhetoric coming from people who support a candidate that wants incarcerated pedophiles and psychos on death row voting in elections.

I didn't vote for Trump in the last election but as of now I'm going to. I might even wear a MAGA hat to a Twins game

Cool story, bro.

[Musk21]

 

It's actually refreshing to hear a lot less anti police rhetoric during this administration. Obama really did horrendous job painting law enforcement in a negative light.

If you want to be suspicious of police then all I can say is step in their shoes for one week and get back to me. I'm so sick of whiny-anti police rhetoric coming from people who support a candidate that wants incarcerated pedophiles and psychos on death row voting in elections.

I didn't vote for Trump in the last election but as of now I'm going to. I might even wear a MAGA hat to a Twins game

 

You mean like the 6+ Trump tweets over the past 10 days referring to 'Dirty Cops?'

 

[gunnarthor]

 

You mean like the 6+ Trump tweets over the past 10 days referring to 'Dirty Cops?'

Pretty sure he's not concerned about that rhetoric as much as other police misconduct behavior that has been spotlighted in the last few years. I suppose you can guess the difference. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

It's actually refreshing to hear a lot less anti police rhetoric during this administration. Obama really did horrendous job painting law enforcement in a negative light.

If you want to be suspicious of police then all I can say is step in their shoes for one week and get back to me. I'm so sick of whiny-anti police rhetoric coming from people who support a candidate that wants incarcerated pedophiles and psychos on death row voting in elections.

I didn't vote for Trump in the last election but as of now I'm going to. I might even wear a MAGA hat to a Twins game

 

Simply because one has a tough job is not an excuse to be terrible and/or corrupt at it.

[Mr. Brooks]

It's actually refreshing to hear a lot less anti police rhetoric during this administration. Obama really did horrendous job painting law enforcement in a negative light.

 

If you want to be suspicious of police then all I can say is step in their shoes for one week and get back to me. I'm so sick of whiny-anti police rhetoric coming from people who support a candidate that wants incarcerated pedophiles and psychos on death row voting in elections.

 

I didn't vote for Trump in the last election but as of now I'm going to. I might even wear a MAGA hat to a Twins game

You don't think that Trump supporters should have to own every single thing he says and every issue he supports (which I agree with), but you don't mind making Bernie supporters own everything that he says or supports? Please explain why this isn't a double standard.

[ewen21]

You don't think that Trump supporters should have to own every single thing he says and every issue he supports (which I agree with), but you don't mind making Bernie supporters own everything that he says or supports? Please explain why this isn't a double standard.

Don't be obtuse.

When it comes to certain issues, YES.

 

And this is true for supporters of anyone.

 

 

In this case, I'd like to see a Bernie supporter denounce his call for extending a voting privilege to incarcerated felons amongst this anti-police rhetoric. If a Bernie supporter speaks negatively about the police AND doubles down on his voting policy it says A LOT. Just as it would if a Trump supporter weighing in on a race issue gets asked about Charlottesville.

[Mr. Brooks]

Don't be obtuse.

When it comes to certain issues, YES.

 

And this is true for supporters of anyone.

 

 

In this case, I'd like to see a Bernie supporter denounce his call for extending a voting privilege to incarcerated felons amongst this anti-police rhetoric. If a Bernie supporter speaks negatively about the police AND doubles down on his voting policy it says A LOT. Just as it would if a Trump supporter weighing in on a race issue gets asked about Charlottesville.

I think some crimes are heinous enough to lose your voting rights. So, sure, I'll denounce it.

 

With that out of the way, what does it say about a person who doesn't?

Are you arguing that if someone does agree with Bernie on that issue, then they forfeit their right to criticize police misconduct?

If so, why? I don't understand the connection.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Don't be obtuse.
When it comes to certain issues, YES.

And this is true for supporters of anyone.


In this case, I'd like to see a Bernie supporter denounce his call for extending a voting privilege to incarcerated felons amongst this anti-police rhetoric. If a Bernie supporter speaks negatively about the police AND doubles down on his voting policy it says A LOT. Just as it would if a Trump supporter weighing in on a race issue gets asked about Charlottesville.

You can be both pro-police and believe felons should have civil rights.  They are not mutually exclusive. 

[Mr. Brooks]

And this idea that police officers are somehow gods that can't be criticized is part of what empowers the bad ones to trample all over citizen's rights.

If the good cops, which are the majority, would help root out the bad ones, rather than defending and standing by them no matter what, it would go a long way towards improving police/community relations.

[PseudoSABR]

All people in positions of authority need to be held accountable, and scrutinized more because they hold authority.  Whether that be a cop or the President.  If you want to give a cop a free pass, you are not for upholding the law, much less its equal application.

[ewen21]

Cops are imperfect like the rest of us and they are held to a very high standard. I know several police officers and I have the utmost respect for them. If you're going to start a thread on cops which centers on the negative aspects I'm going to feel compelled to take the other side.

 

There has been entirely too much anti-police talk. Several posters here insisted on telling me BLM was a valid organization. OK, fine. In Minneapolis they started the "pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon!" chant. Might as well say KILL THE POLICE. That is pure hate

[Mr. Brooks]

Cops are imperfect like the rest of us and they are held to a very high standard. I know several police officers and I have the utmost respect for them. If you're going to start a thread on cops which centers on the negative aspects I'm going to feel compelled to take the other side.

 

There has been entirely too much anti-police talk. Several posters here insisted on telling me BLM was a valid organization. OK, fine. In Minneapolis they started the "pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon!" chant. Might as well say KILL THE POLICE. That is pure hate

Yes, that is pure hate. But there is plenty of room to criticize them fairly and respectfully, without resorting to behavior like that.

 

Why do you feel compelled to take a side? There shouldn't be sides. Everyone should support the good cops, and shine a light on the bad ones.

 

Also, saying cops are imperfect frames it like they are all motivated to be good, and some just happen to make mistakes.

While there are some good cops who make mistakes, there are also some who are predators, some who are abusive, some who are terrible people. The police draw from the same pool as every other group does. They don't have some magical immunity from attracting those kind of people.

 

I don't understand any anyone would be opposed to rooting out the bad ones.

I also don't understand why anyone takes criticism of some cops as criticism of all cops.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Cops are imperfect like the rest of us and they are held to a very high standard. I know several police officers and I have the utmost respect for them. If you're going to start a thread on cops which centers on the negative aspects I'm going to feel compelled to take the other side.

There has been entirely too much anti-police talk. Several posters here insisted on telling me BLM was a valid organization. OK, fine. In Minneapolis they started the "pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon!" chant. Might as well say KILL THE POLICE. That is pure hate

No one here is making those kind of comments so it's completely irrelevant.  If you want to shame those people feel free to do so on a variety of social media platforms.

 

This thread is about holding cops accountable for the actual wrongs they've done, as local communities are not doing so, and Trump evidently will not do so. 

[PseudoSABR]

Somewhat relatedly: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/pretty-serious-development

Feds charge a Massachusetts state judge and court officer with obstruction for helping a undocumented man leave by the backdoor of a courthouse to evade ICE officers who were trolling the courthouse looking for people to arrest.

[ewen21]

 

No one here is making those kind of comments so it's completely irrelevant.  If you want to shame those people feel free to do so on a variety of social media platforms.

 

This thread is about holding cops accountable for the actual wrongs they've done, as local communities are not doing so, and Trump evidently will not do so. 

Uh, no.

 

This thread is all about taking an accusatory stance toward police in general. 

 

[ewen21]

 

Why do you feel compelled to take a side? There shouldn't be sides. Everyone should support the good cops, and shine a light on the bad ones.
 

 

I've already explained why I felt the need to take a side.  The OP obviously comes at this from a different angle than someone who is pro-police.

 

Since I have not had an experience with the police that was negative (I've been carted in a couple of times, but I own it) I feel compelled to challenge the tone set by someone who has sued the police on several occasions.  I am very VERY suspicious of that claim.

 

Sounds like someone with and axe to grind with the police and I don't like it

[Mr. Brooks]

Uh, no.

 

This thread is all about taking an accusatory stance toward police in general.

From the OP:

 

"More light on the subject of police misconduct is strongly needed."

 

Only a paranoid person would interpret that as accusatory towards police in general. In couldn't be more explicit in it's specificity towards police misconduct.

[Mr. Brooks]

I've already explained why I felt the need to take a side. The OP obviously comes at this from a different angle than someone who is pro-police.

 

Since I have not had an experience with the police that was negative (I've been carted in a couple of times, but I own it) I feel compelled to challenge the tone set by someone who has sued the police on several occasions. I am very VERY suspicious of that claim.

 

Sounds like someone with and axe to grind with the police and I don't like it

At least you admit that you are only capable of empathy if you've actually been personally wronged as well.

[ewen21]

Mr. Brooks

He said he sued the police several times

 

Did you not get that part?

And you talk about paranoia

[ewen21]

At least you admit that you are only capable of empathy if you've actually been personally wronged as well.

If I witnessed something, have something happened to a loved one or friend, things of that nature; I will certainly feel empathy. I don't right now. But for anyone here in this thread with regard to the police.

[ewen21]

And Brooks, I am demonstrating empathy right now--just not for the preferred group

[biggentleben]

 

Mr. Brooks
He said he sued the police several times

Did you not get that part?
And you talk about paranoia

 

He's a lawyer. That's part of his job to participate in lawsuits. He's pursued lawsuits for police MISCONDUCT. The misdirection/dishonest takes, whether intentional or not, do not serve anyone in having a real conversation.

[ewen21]

Now it makes sense! LOL

[PseudoSABR]

 

Uh, no.

 

This thread is all about taking an accusatory stance toward police in general. 

Alright, Mr. Snowflake.  "Accusatory stance...in general." Lol.

[Mr. Brooks]

Mr. Brooks

He said he sued the police several times

 

Did you not get that part?

And you talk about paranoia

Why do you take issue with suing police for misconduct?

 

Is your stance that cops should have full immunity from lawsuits, no matter what they do? Or is it that you think all cops are 100% pure, and would never engage in misconduct? I'm trying to understand your position.

[LaBombo]

 

Somewhat relatedly: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/pretty-serious-development

 

The execrable Mr. Marshall is at it again... Even in the simplest details, he can't resist his constant impulse to generate lefty outrage instead of dealing in facts.

 

In this article, Marshall breathlessly... 'reports' that "Feds are charging a MA state judge and court officer with obstruction for helping a [sic] undocumented man leave by the backdoor of a courthouse to evade ICE officers who were trolling the courthouse looking for people to arrest."

 

So packs of ICE storm troopers are roaming our nation's sacred halls of justice, randomly accosting innocent people whose only 'crime' is looking "undocumented"?

 

Yeah, so... no. A half dozen actual news sources report that a single ICE officer in plain clothes identified himself to court personnel as such, as well as disclosing his specific task of detaining defendant Jose Medina Perez, should he be released on bail.

 

Perez, a Dominican, was facing drug charges, as well as others related to drunk driving and his illegal presence in the country. Far from being "undocumented" as Marshall pathetically claims, Perez had been thoroughly documented during two previous deportations as a person who is not allowed to be in the United States.

 

But the judge and court officer somehow saw fit to lie to the ICE agent that Perez would be released to him, order him to wait outside the courtroom, and then facilitate Perez's escape. Just for good measure, the court officer has since perjured himself by claiming he had no knowledge that there was an ICE agent present.

 

So... in Marshall's single sentence, there are three lies to go with multiple, absurd omissions of crushingly relevant facts. But hey, I guess hats off to Marshall for not fabricating a little daughter that the eeeevil, mustache-twirling ICE officers were attempting to separate Medina-Perez from.

 

In any case it's a great example of activist judicial misconduct to bookend with the police discussion, so thanks for posting it.

 

 

[gunnarthor]

The judge and police misconduct probably each deserve their own threads. The issue with ICE in state court houses is complex. State judges have no authority over federal officers doing federal duties so they cannot refuse entry to ICE officers into the court house (although they have arguably a bit more control over the courtroom itself, but that's not really important). Courthouses, schools, places of worship have long been considered safe locations where federal immigration agents would usually not go. There was even an internal memo on that from the Bush administration. Naturally, the current administration pushed enforcement to 11 so we're seeing people being picked up in court, at elementary schools when they drop off their kids and at church. Obviously, the Bush administration had strong reasons to protect those locations from arrests and for courts, you want to see the legal system play out. The current administration has changed that which has had horrific side affects, including arresting domestic violence victims and creating atmospheres where witnesses of such crimes do not testify. Prosecutors and judges have spoken out against ICE being active in their court houses. This is happening in Minnesota as well and the professionalism of ICE has been questioned.

 

As to the Judge who let a individual leave from a back door, I suspect the charges will be dropped or thrown out. Judges have absolute immunity and this will probably qualify. It's probably more a political stunt.