Police misconduct

[Mr. Brooks]

$20 million dollars. Plus the cost of the trial.

That is what the latest case of police misconduct cost the taxpayers.

 

I wonder how many homeless veterans we could get back on their feet for $20 million?

[PseudoSABR]

 

$20 million dollars. Plus the cost of the trial.
That is what the latest case of police misconduct cost the taxpayers.

I wonder how many homeless veterans we could get back on their feet for $20 million?

If that cost was borne out by the police union, imagine how quickly the behavior would change.

[ewen21]

 

$20 million dollars. Plus the cost of the trial.
That is what the latest case of police misconduct cost the taxpayers.

I wonder how many homeless veterans we could get back on their feet for $20 million?

What does one have to do with other?  You threw these two separate issues together and in the process, somewhat unwittingly, presented an "if only" scenario that doesn't merge in any way at all.  

If only we had honest police, maybe we wouldn't have homeless veterans.

 

 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

What does one have to do with other?  You threw these two separate issues together and in the process, somewhat unwittingly, presented an "if only" scenario that doesn't merge in any way at all.  

If only we had honest police, maybe we wouldn't have homeless veterans.

I believe the vast majority of police are honest.

[ashbury]

I believe the vast majority of police are honest.

Which wasn't being argued, and is irrelevant to the point Mr Brooks was making.

 

A single case of police misconduct can cost the taxpayers $20M.

 

So even apart from wanting justice, maybe some people should be looking at the pocketbook argument, and rethinking their support for a permissive approach in police departments.

[Squirrel]

 

What does one have to do with other?  You threw these two separate issues together and in the process, somewhat unwittingly, presented an "if only" scenario that doesn't merge in any way at all.  

If only we had honest police, maybe we wouldn't have homeless veterans.

I think he's saying that that was the cost of the latest suit regarding misconduct. That cost is paid for by us, the taxpayers. That perhaps, if we had a better system of weeding these individuals out, or better procedural system in place, maybe it would stem some of cases of misconduct. And he was pointing out that that money could then be better spent to help people.

 

And for the record, I don't think anyone is lumping these cases of misconduct into one sweeping judgement that all or most police are bad. It's always a few bad apples spoiling the bunch, but, that spoilage is bad and needs to be managed better or eliminated altogether.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I think he's saying that that was the cost of the latest suit regarding misconduct. That cost is paid for by us, the taxpayers. That perhaps, if we had a better system of weeding these individuals out, or better procedural system in place, maybe it would stem some of cases of misconduct. And he was pointing out that that money could then be better spent to help people.

 

And for the record, I don't think anyone is lumping these cases of misconduct into one sweeping judgement that all or most police are bad. It's always a few bad apples spoiling the bunch, but, that spoilage is bad and needs to be managed better or eliminated altogether.

 

This is an excellent post and, as you correctly point out, Brooks was merely saying the cost of those bad apples is extreme. 

 

This is about reform.  We rarely get to undergo reform in the policing system because there is such strong resistance to every instance like this and taking a long, hard look at the union and the protections bad officers receive.  And there is real, significant cost to taxpayers.  

 

Somehow I feel if incompetent teachers were regularly costing tax payers 20M there would be less right-wingers lining up to defend them.  

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Which wasn't being argued, and is irrelevant to the point Mr Brooks was making.

 

A single case of police misconduct can cost the taxpayers $20M.

 

So even apart from wanting justice, maybe some people should be looking at the pocketbook argument, and rethinking their support for a permissive approach in police departments.

Apologies.

[Squirrel]

 

This is an excellent post and, as you correctly point out, Brooks was merely saying the cost of those bad apples is extreme. 

 

This is about reform.  We rarely get to undergo reform in the policing system because there is such strong resistance to every instance like this and taking a long, hard look at the union and the protections bad officers receive.  And there is real, significant cost to taxpayers.  

 

Somehow I feel if incompetent teachers were regularly costing tax payers 20M there would be less right-wingers lining up to defend them.  

I don't know anything about this website I found, or if it's even being updated. Looks like some figures from 2018 are in there, so, maybe? But if you scroll down, it gives some data about some procedural implementations and how it has proven to reduce cases of police midconduct, namely, killing people.

https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/

 

I didn't delve into it too much, but issues of profiling I'm sure could also have a huge affect.

[Mr. Brooks]

What does one have to do with other? You threw these two separate issues together and in the process, somewhat unwittingly, presented an "if only" scenario that doesn't merge in any way at all.

If only we had honest police, maybe we wouldn't have homeless veterans.

They have nothing to do with each other. It was just a thought about the good that could be done with that type of money.

Substitute homeless veterans with whatever else you'd like the money spent on, including lower taxes.

 

As others have said, this is how much one bad apple can cost taxpayers. It's a staggering amount of money.

[Mr. Brooks]

I don't know anything about this website I found, or if it's even being updated. Looks like some figures from 2018 are in there, so, maybe? But if you scroll down, it gives some data about some procedural implementations and how it has proven to reduce cases of police midconduct, namely, killing people.

https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/

 

I didn't delve into it too much, but issues of profiling I'm sure could also have a huge affect.

In this particular case, I think the "warrior" mentality is to blame. I don't doubt officer Noor feared for his or his partner's life. However, it wasn't reasonable for him to act on that fear, without actually identifying a threat. We can't have people going around shooting at every bump in the night that startles them.

 

I think too many cops (not all) have a kill or be killed mentality out there.

Yes, the job is dangerous, but not nearly as dangerous as a shoot first, ask questions later mentality, which is what I believe happened here.

[ewen21]

 

This is an excellent post and, as you correctly point out, Brooks was merely saying the cost of those bad apples is extreme. 

 

This is about reform.  We rarely get to undergo reform in the policing system because there is such strong resistance to every instance like this and taking a long, hard look at the union and the protections bad officers receive.  And there is real, significant cost to taxpayers.  

 

Somehow I feel if incompetent teachers were regularly costing tax payers 20M there would be less right-wingers lining up to defend them.  

Don't get me started on incompetent teachers.  I could write a book on that having taught now for 23 years in the public school systems of NY

 

.Seems to me what Mr. Brooks did was fairly innocent and I was simply questioning why he used THAT example.  He said plug in any other issue so no big deal.  I happen to think he picked that issue for a reason, but I can't be 100% sure so I won't press him on it.  However, I have seen several mention this is just the case of a "few bad apples"

Well, OK.  I can agree with that and if you are concerned about a few bad apples post all the links you can about police misconduct if you feel this is in important issue in America today. Far be it from me to impede anyone from doing that.

 

On the other hand....

would you allow me to use the "few bad apples" rationale to walk back my concerns about Islamic fundamentalism and the threat it poses to the free world?  

 

I don't agree with Mr. Brooks when he says:

"Substitute homeless veterans with whatever else you'd like the money spent on, including lower taxes."

 

How about if I said I would like to see that money spent on military defense? I sincerely doubt that would be appropriate to just about everyone here.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I think he's saying that that was the cost of the latest suit regarding misconduct. That cost is paid for by us, the taxpayers. That perhaps, if we had a better system of weeding these individuals out, or better procedural system in place, maybe it would stem some of cases of misconduct. And he was pointing out that that money could then be better spent to help people.

 

And for the record, I don't think anyone is lumping these cases of misconduct into one sweeping judgement that all or most police are bad. It's always a few bad apples spoiling the bunch, but, that spoilage is bad and needs to be managed better or eliminated altogether.

Not all cops are bad, but they do work hard as a group to protect even the bad ones, it's ridiculous.  Their loyalty should be to the community not each other.

[TheLeviathan]

 

 

 

How about if I said I would like to see that money spent on military defense? I sincerely doubt that would be appropriate to just about everyone here.

 

Fine, as long as you agree that the issue needs focus and attention.  Cops have been using a fog of ignorance and other tools to get away with some very inappropriate, unprofessional behavior for too long.

 

Stop automatically defending them.  They deserve our respect and appreciation until they don't.  And when they don't they don't get a break simply because their job is hard.

[ewen21]

 

Fine, as long as you agree that the issue needs focus and attention.  Cops have been using a fog of ignorance and other tools to get away with some very inappropriate, unprofessional behavior for too long.

 

Stop automatically defending them.  They deserve our respect and appreciation until they don't.  And when they don't they don't get a break simply because their job is hard.

The issue needs focus and attention from whom?  Those who are hired to investigate this stuff already have focus and attention on it.  If you are saying the public needs to focus on this issue more, I disagree.  I can say there now exists countless videos on YouTube, Facebook and other forms of social media trying to engage cops to see if they make mistakes.  I don't think that needs to be increased.

[TheLeviathan]

 

The issue needs focus and attention from whom?  Those who are hired to investigate this stuff already have focus and attention on it.  If you are saying the public needs to focus on this issue more, I disagree.  I can say there now exists countless videos on YouTube, Facebook and other forms of social media trying to engage cops to see if they make mistakes.  I don't think that needs to be increased.

 

The only way to read this post is that you've somehow equivocated "more focus" into "youtube instigating"

 

Cmon.  That's a poor argument to put it kindly.  More focus means that the general population needs to put more pressure on elected officials to hold unions and police investigators accountable.  To pressure the courts to hold these men and women accountable.  To press for legislation if necessary.  To elect people who will do more than pay lip service to investigating and prosecuting corruption, incompetence, and illegal policing.  

[ewen21]

 

The only way to read this post is that you've somehow equivocated "more focus" into "youtube instigating"

 

Cmon.  That's a poor argument to put it kindly.  More focus means that the general population needs to put more pressure on elected officials to hold unions and police investigators accountable.  To pressure the courts to hold these men and women accountable.  To press for legislation if necessary.  To elect people who will do more than pay lip service to investigating and prosecuting corruption, incompetence, and illegal policing.  

I have not done that at all.  It is an element in this debate, but it isn't ALL OF IT.  That being said...

How is it that video recordings of negative police interaction with the public DOESN'T help to meet that end?  

 

Furthermore, what methods do you suggest people use to "pressure the courts" and "press for legislation"

Sounds to me like you are saying we need local politicians across the country to make this issue priority when campaigning. I can say that it isn't necessary where I live.  Maybe you have corruption in wherever you live and if that is a problem them hold the torch for it.  Not a problem where I live.  We have much bigger fish to fry here in upstate NY

[TheLeviathan]

 

I have not done that at all.  It is an element in this debate, but it isn't ALL OF IT.  That being said...

How is it that video recordings of negative police interaction with the public DOESN'T help to meet that end?  

 

Furthermore, what methods do you suggest people use to "pressure the courts" and "press for legislation"

Sounds to me like you are saying we need local politicians across the country to make this issue priority when campaigning. I can say that it isn't necessary where I live.  Maybe you have corruption in wherever you live and if that is a problem them hold the torch for it.  Not a problem where I live.  We have much bigger fish to fry here in upstate NY

 

You boiled down what I said into that and you're continuing to harp that point.  What idiots do on youtube is not my point and at no point am I even considering what they do.  It's a tiny fraction that's irrelevant.  Drop it and stop making my points about that.

 

I'm pretty sure I said pressure legislators and vote for people who will put more pressure on.  Hold elected officials accountable if they don't hold police accountable.  People should not allow police to get away with it merely because they are police.

[gunnarthor]

To understand police misconduct, you'd want to educate the public on both what you mean by police misconduct (do we mean only excessive force? does it include filing false police reports? Over policing minority neighborhoods? Not investigating crimes against certain groups?) and then you'd want to measure the scope of the problem. How often does it happen? Why? Is it a failure of training? Is it a failure of policy? There are ways to do both (define and measure) with or without naming individual officers. But generally, oversight without transparency fails. And in my profession, it's generally agreed that police oversight is extremely lacking.

 

The USA Today article I linked is a decent starting point to see examples of police misconduct but shouldn't be assumed to be a comprehensive list.

[ewen21]

 

You boiled down what I said into that and you're continuing to harp that point.  What idiots do on youtube is not my point and at no point am I even considering what they do.  It's a tiny fraction that's irrelevant.  Drop it and stop making my points about that.

 

I'm pretty sure I said pressure legislators and vote for people who will put more pressure on.  Hold elected officials accountable if they don't hold police accountable.  People should not allow police to get away with it merely because they are police.

If you think what idiots say on YouTube or Facebook is irrelevant then you are myopic.  No matter how absurd or stupid they are to you it doesn't nullify how much of an impact they can make on the rest of the population.  This video alone has over six million views. I don't see how it is irrelevant:

 

Moving right along...…

I asked you point blank:

"what methods do you suggest people use to "pressure the courts" and "press for legislation"?"

 

 

I am trying to patient, but you deemed what "idiots" do on social media "irrelevant"

OK.....now what?

What does Leviathan suggest the rest of us do if that is not a viable option?

Stick with that if you can.  If you don't want to answer the question then please don't quote this post.  It is super annoying.

[ewen21]

 

To understand police misconduct, you'd want to educate the public on both what you mean by police misconduct (do we mean only excessive force? does it include filing false police reports? Over policing minority neighborhoods? Not investigating crimes against certain groups?) and then you'd want to measure the scope of the problem. How often does it happen? Why? Is it a failure of training? Is it a failure of policy? There are ways to do both (define and measure) with or without naming individual officers. But generally, oversight without transparency fails. And in my profession, it's generally agreed that police oversight is extremely lacking.

 

The USA Today article I linked is a decent starting point to see examples of police misconduct but shouldn't be assumed to be a comprehensive list.

 

Minority communities are by and large high crime areas where people often don't cooperate with the police (due to some anti-snitching code). As an attorney you ought to know this.

 

With regard to excessive force, sometimes force is required to bring down violent suspects that don't comply.  If a cop smashes a guy in the face with his nightstick AFTER he's been assaulted then what's the problem?  What exactly is the intent of a suspect who strikes a police officer?  I don't fault cops who strike back with force. In fact, I applaud it.  

 

As far as false reports and planting evidence goes THOSE THINGS need a closer look.

[Mr. Brooks]

If you think what idiots say on YouTube or Facebook is irrelevant then you are myopic. No matter how absurd or stupid they are to you it doesn't nullify how much of an impact they can make on the rest of the population. This video alone has over six million views. I don't see how it is irrelevant:

 

Moving right along...…

I asked you point blank:

"what methods do you suggest people use to "pressure the courts" and "press for legislation"?"

 

 

I am trying to patient, but you deemed what "idiots" do on social media "irrelevant"

OK.....now what?

What does Leviathan suggest the rest of us do if that is not a viable option?

Stick with that if you can. If you don't want to answer the question then please don't quote this post. It is super annoying.

The methods we need are actual investigation and investigative journalism. Not the YouTube/ social media commentary noise that you are speaking of.

Levi isn't denying it's existence, he's saying it's not productive and is therefore irrelevant to the point he's trying to make.

[Mr. Brooks]

Minority communities are by and large high crime areas where people often don't cooperate with the police (due to some anti-snitching code). As an attorney you ought to know this.

 

With regard to excessive force, sometimes force is required to bring down violent suspects that don't comply. If a cop smashes a guy in the face with his nightstick AFTER he's been assaulted then what's the problem? What exactly is the intent of a suspect who strikes a police officer? I don't fault cops who strike back with force. In fact, I applaud it.

 

As far as false reports and planting evidence goes THOSE THINGS need a closer look.

If the cop smashes the suspect with his nightstick because that is the level of force necessary to subdue the suspect, then there is no problem.

If he's doing it punatively after the suspect is already subdued, then that is a crime, and should not be tolerated.

[ewen21]

The methods we need are actual investigation and investigative journalism. Not the YouTube/ social media commentary noise that you are speaking of.

Levi isn't denying it's existence, he's saying it's not productive and is therefore irrelevant to the point he's trying to make.

You are saying the video I posted with over six million views is irrelevant. Not only does the video provide evidence of police misconduct, but it also has over six million views.

 

It is relevant to enough people so as to render what anything you, I and Leviathan want believe as irrelevant. I personally don't look at police brutality videos as evidence, but a lot of people do--obviously. I can at least acknowledge that. Seems like you won't (I already know what Leviathan thinks)

[gunnarthor]

I think this is an example of police misconduct that should be part of a larger conversation.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/07/us/oklahoma-city-police-shooting-teen/index.html

 

Five black kids were playing with bb guns in an abandoned home, much like I would have done 30 years ago. Police are called. Officer is heard before firing on the kids that he thinks they are playing with cap gun. Officer sees kid leaving abandoned house, thinks he sees the kid holding a gun, tells him to drop it and shoots his gun six times, hitting the boy twice. A police investigation clears the cop and the union supports this. It is not an act of police misconduct. 

 

But is this what we want as a society? Cops getting protection and permission to shooting wildly* at children playing with toys?** Fortunately, this boy lived. Others, such as Tamir Rice, haven't been so lucky. The officer in both those cases never gave the child time to comply with their orders (that can also be seen in the video I posted of an officer beating a motorist in Minnesota). Officers get away with this by saying some version of "I thought he pointed a gun at me/someone else, I only had a split second to react." (Although there are a number of ugly cases where cops were let off the hook when a black man simply held a gun). The training these officers got were very likely the same or similar to the Bulletproof Warrior/Killology type of training that Jeronimo Yanez got before he murdered Philando Castile. Perhaps a stronger look at how our officers are trained is needed.

 

* The officer was in a city and four of his shots missed completely. Case law forgives police who shoot, miss and hit innocent bystanders.

** if the answer to this is yes, shouldn't we ban toy guns? 

[PseudoSABR]

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/07/721086944/sandra-blands-phone-video-of-her-own-arrest-surfaces-reviving-calls-for-new-inqu

 

It took four years for this video to come out that demonstrates the officer escalated the encounter, and took her to jail for a traffic ticket (where she died FOUR days later); and it came out not from the police or from the prosecutors but from an investigative reporter.  If you think there's already plenty of pressure for the police to reveal their own misconduct you're either being willfully blind or obtuse.

 

Then there's this story: https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/07/us/oklahoma-city-police-shooting-teen/index.html

The account of this officer who was cleared of wrong doing after shooting a boy because he had what the officer himself believed to be a cap gun. 

 

That's just today's news, and those were headlines.  Somehow tomorrow, we'll all forget, and the problem will remain.

 

And really if it takes youtube videos to shame police officers into acting better, and for other police officers to hold them accountable so be it.  Because what we are doing now, is not working.

[TheLeviathan]

 

You are saying the video I posted with over six million views is irrelevant. Not only does the video provide evidence of police misconduct, but it also has over six million views.

It is relevant to enough people so as to render what anything you, I and Leviathan want believe as irrelevant. I personally don't look at police brutality videos as evidence, but a lot of people do--obviously. I can at least acknowledge that. Seems like you won't (I already know what Leviathan thinks)

 

This is so painfully simplistic....yet I have to say it I guess.  People viewing something on youtube does not equate to them "looking at it as evidence"  Millions of people view cats with frowns for faces.  You're seriously making me type this?

 

 Did Brock's breakdown on using likes or views on youtube not get through?

[Mr. Brooks]

You are saying the video I posted with over six million views is irrelevant. Not only does the video provide evidence of police misconduct, but it also has over six million views.

 

It is relevant to enough people so as to render what anything you, I and Leviathan want believe as irrelevant. I personally don't look at police brutality videos as evidence, but a lot of people do--obviously. I can at least acknowledge that. Seems like you won't (I already know what Leviathan thinks)

Sorry, I meant it's not relevant to the change I'm looking for. Not that it has no relevance at all.

Investigations have to be fair, balanced and thorough in order to accomplish change. Fair, balanced and thorough are things that are simply not possible in a YouTube video or a tweet.

I think the progress on action from people who actually have the power to initiate real change has been painfully slow. Ultimately it's going to require the police unions buying in that it's in their best interest to help root out the bad apples. That will be a drastic change from their current modus operandi, which seems to be to stand with their brothers no matter what they've done.

 

These youtube videos obviously raise public awareness, but there is no way to estimate in what way. They can sometimes hinder the change I'm looking for. For example, someone might see a youtube video that shows a one sided snippet of a good cop doing exactly what he should be doing. Relatively short videos without context could make it appear he's doing something wrong. That person now distrusts every incident of police misconduct that he sees, even legitimate ones, because he remembers how the good cop was portrayed in the previous video.

Nobody is immune to that type of reflexive thinking. I'm immediately skeptical of anything that BLM protests, because they've lost my benefit of the doubt with a few obviously justified shootings that they've protested and tried to portray as unjustified. I don't know if that's fair or not, but the fact is that I can't help it.

 

We need politicians, community leaders, and police unions to come together with a common interest, and agree on a system where bad cops are rooted out and no longer have anywhere to hide, and that good cops will get treated fairly and not be thrown under the bus for doing there job. Right now we are far from that. Community leaders are so fed up with bad cops getting away with everything, that they unfairly throw any incident that looks bad against the fan to see what sticks. And police unions are so paranoid they'll be thrown under the bus for doing their job, that they protect even the most obviously corrupt cops, in hopes that they'll in return be protected if something they do is fairly or unfairly criticized. And the politicians are too afraid to get in the middle because they don't yet know which way the voting wind is going to blow on the issue.

I may be naive for thinking we can find a way for them to all come together, but I still want to try.

[ewen21]

 

This is so painfully simplistic....yet I have to say it I guess.  People viewing something on youtube does not equate to them "looking at it as evidence"  Millions of people view cats with frowns for faces.  You're seriously making me type this?

 

 Did Brock's breakdown on using likes or views on youtube not get through?

Jesus

 

For the sake of everyone else here I will concede this to you.  Viral videos from YouTube or Facebook. are worthless. 

 

You still dodged my questions and it makes me wonder if you even have an answer.  I will try again (for the third time):

"what methods do you suggest people use to "pressure the courts" and "press for legislation"?

 

Actually explain it in your own words

[ewen21]

 

Sorry, I meant it's not relevant to the change I'm looking for. Not that it has no relevance at all.

 

Thank you for clarifying.

 

I would say in the case of Philando Casille it was relevant to a lot of people when his girlfriend posted it to Facebook.  That particular video was not relevant to me (or Leviathan presumably), but to lots of people it was.