Systemic Issues Within the Police.

Or more accurately, do you hold that there are systemic issues within the police force? Be it the targeting of specific ethnic or religious groups, the abuse of power and/or an unwillingness to confront said issues within the system itself.

This is not to say I do or do not believe any of the above claims but I wonder, following the Sandy Bland arrest, how you as a slightly more political Pox view the police force?

 

any organization with power will abuse it eventually. any organization with a history will grow around that history. and organizations are rarely better than their individuals.


i dno about police in general. i suspect most of them just want to punch in and punch out (like your average mindnumbing job). thing is, that wouldn't work as well with the amount of responsibility they're given. if you're more concerned with sweeping your issues away as quickly as possible than you are with figuring out what the issue is, you're gonna simplify things a lot more than they should be simplified.

 

The answer to this question is yes; there are deep-seated systemic issues in the United States police force.

 

Long read. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opini...s-in-virginia-the-police-raided-me/ar-AAdtsd2

 

I think, at least in part, that some of the issue comes from federal training programs. There is a much greater push towards shooting first and asking questions maybe if they live. There is also a constant drumbeat that police "will" be targeted for attacks, and certainly the presence of ISIS within the US doesn't help dissuade that idea. This creates an environment of paranoia which can emotionally justify the use of excessive force.

I also think the media has hyped problems with police behavior (both real and exaggerated), which further feeds into this overly defensive modality (and in some cases an overly hostile modality on the other side of things).

That said, I'm sure there are some precincts which do have systemic issues rooted within how that specific precinct operated (corrupt chiefs or officers, racist HR departments, etc.), it's not purely a matter of propaganda and paranoia from on high or anything, I just think it's a contributing factor.

From personal experience, the vast majority of officers I've seen or interacted with (which on the latter front is minimal mind) have behaved properly. While I think screening for those with stress triggers more (it sucks, but if someone's got PTSD after 3 tours in the Middle East or something they probably shouldn't be on patrol), and more transparent/stricter observation of rules and laws to prevent excessive force are needed, there are still a good number of police.

But it'll also be difficult to convince local police to obey these laws even if it means a better chance for the "bad guys" to get away if we don't have Federal investigators also obeying the law. No more warrantless searches, no more "parallel construction," no more training law enforcement about how the Founding Fathers were the First Terrorists in the US (yes, that's actually a thing). Etc.

 

duh.

 

The US police (from what I've seen through the media) remind me of the British police in the 80s -- brutal, racist, and generally motivated by wanting to push people around and assert authority.

Which is probably about what you'd expect of a people who apply for a job which allows them to express such ****headery and back it up with the force of the law, as well as a loaded gun.

In the UK this was to some extent turned around by drumming customer service stuff into them, now whenever the police search me (I go to a lot of house parties and sniffer dogs love me) it is always with an exaggerated politeness - which makes sense, if you get used to treating the public like a customer you're less inclined to beat up/frame/shoot them.

 

You think that the media has over-represented the frequency of police brutality? Because personally, I think quite the opposite, at least of the mainstream media. There are so many cases that aren't given nearly the publicity that they deserve and that sometimes people never even hear about. Kalief Browder, David Washington, Eric Garner, Freddie Gray, Sandra Bland, the guy who got arrested for Firking jaywalking in Baltimore (sorry can't remember his name), and the list goes on. Garner and Bland have been more visible mostly because of social campaigns (ie. people picking up the story and then trending it on Twitter/FB), and people tend to have heard of Gray because of the riots in Baltimore.

But too often I've seen people who are actually surprised or confused by the fact that there were riots. After Ferguson I think a lot of minority voices thought that the mainstream would wake up to the fact that there was something deeply wrong, but that clearly wasn't the case based on the public reaction to the same sort of things coming to light in Baltimore. Anyone who knows the situation of the lower class in that city is more impressed by the fact that the riots were delayed that long and honestly were pretty civil and contained given the circumstances. Nothing changed either, and most of the country sort of just forgot about Baltimore or even villainized the protesters afterwards.

Also, this is unrelated, but I don't think it's a stretch to call the Founding Fathers terrorists at all. Sure we don't think of them that way traditionally because they wrote the documents that form the basis of our government, but it's pretty hard to overlook the fact that they were indeed an anti-established-government insurgency. They openly pushed an agenda that undermined the law and supported acts of personal property destruction (things like the Boston Tea Party) and guerrilla warfare tactics (see: the entire Revolutionary War). I mean, they ended up winning, so they were able to rewrite history, but at the time there's no doubt in my mind that the British government could correctly label them as terrorists.

 

Just to reiterate, this is the exception, rather than the rule. For some reason news media don't generally report about Police being polite. Again, most police (from my experience) are still at least decent, but that number may be dwindling, and it only takes one idiot or power-crazed lunatic to ruin or even end someone's life (though that's not limited to Police of course).

And again there's a bit of a narrative being pushed.

I think they twist it, and overhype the violence against "minorities" (though I hear some statistics actually say that police violence against blacks at least is less likely than violence against caucasians) while ignoring violence against white people. I also think that even with the many cases you're talking about, it's still a minority.

I think they make it about "racism" (even though on a per capita basis more white people get abused than blacks) instead of the bad training, or bad hiring practices. I also think there's a general push (by media and protestors alike) to make all police out to be the same corrupt abusers as those in the incidents. This pushes police into a defensive mentality. With some generalized retaliation against police (though that seems to have calmed down of late) not actually involved in any wrong-doing, that enhances the problem. If you're being backed into a wall, than at least you know your fellow officers have your back, right?

Basically, I think they're emphasizing certain things and de-emphasizing others in an effort to foment specific societal conflicts.

If Police Brutality isn't about Race then the minorities and the majorities would work together in order to figure out the actual causes. So you have to play up certain incidents, and play down others in order to fit the narrative. In this case, the narrative is that Police and/or White people are inherently racist so they should receive (further) Federal training and even be controlled by Federal agencies at least partially (conditional for receiving gear/grants).

You see a similar thing with the recent shooting of a Marine Recruitment center. The suspected (think it's been confirmed by now?) shooter's ties to ISIS are trivialized in favor of pushing the idea of him being a "Tennessee gun nut" or something like that. It also distracts from the fact that the soldiers at the post were specifically not allowed to have weapons. Not only that, but after the attacks, there were citizens that offered to help protect the recruitment center, and the soldiers were ordered to immediately call the police and arrest them for trespassing (not even give them a warning). Just recently a recruiting center had been ordered abandoned in the wake of the threat of a shooting... because we just can't afford to put "AK 47's in the hands of soldiers not criminals..." (not that they'd actually use AK 47's mind).

You're right to say that some media are downplaying certain things, but they are also hyping others. Of course, it's not a unified thing exactly either. While select families hold a lot of influence over the major media networks it's not like they have full editorial power. They can give directives or plant specific stories, but they can't control all the details or anything like that.

Tangent time for the rest of the post:

Yes and no. It depends on how broad your definition of "terrorist" is. Undermining law, destroying property, and using guerrilla warfare tactics is not inherently terrorism in my view by default.

There are many ways to undermine a law that do not involve threats or acts of terror. For example, hippies routinely avoided the Draft, there are many that today refuse to pay their "proper" share of taxes (for various reasons), and the NSA routinely undercuts the law through it's practices of data collection. I wouldn't call any of these terrorists. (EDIT: There's also people like Rosa Parks, who fought against segregation laws via refusing to obey them, etc.)

Vandalism of property is more questionable to be sure. The Boston Tea Party was a political protest, similar to protests held in Baltimore, although more specifically directed and controlled, from what I know of both events. With a broad enough definition, you could I suppose classify rioters as Terrorists, but I wouldn't personally (the US government currently does*, but hasn't acted in that capacity as of yet).

Guerrilla Warfare Tactics are merely Tactics. And they are often used in modern conventional warfare by militaries around the world, including the US (or at least specific detachments of the US military). There's nothing inherently about it that ties it to terrorism. Indeed, while some terrorists also use the tactics, they aren't called terrorists because of it. What they get called "Terrorists" for, generally speaking, is for attacking softer civilian targets as opposed to harder military targets.

The revolution did not target civilian targets, save of course those that were doubling as military strongholds, and even then they did their best to avoid hitting the civilians in the city (it's only prudent since you want the public opinion on your side), and the British Army acted in more or less the same manner in this regard, with the exception of them trying to be an occupying army (aggressive) vs. a defensive army. There are undoubtedly a few exceptions but... generally those that carried them out got punished for it by the heads of both armies.

The fact is that training police and military that the Founding Fathers are "terrorists" is to use a loaded term to propagandize them against Patriots and any who would support the Constitution (that dirty document written by "terrorists"). For military, they even go on to say that George Washington would not be welcome in today's military (no idea why, he wasn't the best General to start out with sure, but he got better and came up with some brilliant strategies; It's not like he participated in some of the shadier things like the Boston Tea Party either... though he did tend to execute his men when they tortured people, so that might be a sticking point.)

This isn't about the Victor "rewriting" history. Or even about the Victor being "clearly right."

There is no doubt that one could justifiably consider the Founding Fathers to be traitors to the crown (though not to the Colonies, for which the Crown may be considered a traitor of in turn). But being a traitor does not mean you are a terrorist, unless of course you're the US Government, since the definition is so broad it includes "the use of force" to enact a change in policies... which sounds reasonable until you notice that "force" is defined as speech or political pressure.

There's a common addage "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." But I think that speaks more to the use of propaganda on either side than it does to the fluidity of those definitions.

 

Respectfully, I am going to guess that you are most likely a white/Asian male. I understand your opinions and where they come from but I don't find the argument that racism is being pushed in the media compelling. Certainly training and hiring practices are at play in the problem, but those things don't remove the possibility of racial violence. In the Sandra Bland case, for example, the officer who was primarily involved in her wrongful arrest had been fired from his previous job because of improper racist conduct. Hiring and training were not adequate in this case ofc, but that doesn't rule out racism as playing a large role in the incident.

To be clear, I am not arguing that all police are corrupt or even that a majority are corrupt. I am arguing that the abuses that happen, although minorities, should not be allowed to happen, often go without adequate repercussions for the officers involved, and represent a problem with the criminal justice system even though they are not the rule. Many cops are fine, but that doesn't absolve them all of the fact that race-based police brutality and human rights abuses continue to occur regularly in our nation. Just as a few bad cops doesn't make all police evil, a few good cops also don't make police brutality okay.

Not sure what statistics are reporting that whites are proportionately targeted by the police for abuses, but here are a few sources that cite some pretty significant findings on the extent of racial inequity under criminal law:

On the use of deadly force:
http://www.bustle.com/articles/3609...-men-more-often-statistics-say-yes-absolutely
http://www.colorlines.com/articles/killed-cops

More specifically about Ferguson:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/08/police-shootings-michael-brown-ferguson-black-men
http://www.ibtimes.com/ferguson-mis...4-blacks-arrested-4-times-much-whites-1658846

Quick tl;dr style infographics showing the big points:
http://mappingpoliceviolence.org/

The first two articles follow studies of police violence against minorities and find that it disproportionately targets blacks by a large margin. They also cite some interesting breakdowns of how exactly the violence is distributed. Last site has simple, easy-to-grasp charts and great clarity but doesn't go as much into specific details.

Again, I want to make it clear that this does not indicate police officers or all departments are racist, but to say that the problem is confined to training and recruitment seems to miss the fact that many people are still being wrongfully killed by those who are "sworn to protect and serve." Where I live, mistrust of the police is quite common, and in my experience it is often justified. This is just an anecdote and should not be taken as the crux of my argument, but it's worth mentioning that my experience with law enforcement is not positive, even though I have never been either cited or arrested for a crime.

 

This is my mistake for not being clear.

I'm not saying it's confined wholly to training and recruitment, I'm simply saying that from what I have seen and learned, that aspect of it is being downplayed or ignored in favor of racial issues. That doesn't mean there are not ALSO racial issues in some cases.

There was a video a couple people did, about police reaction to Open Carry (the practice of openly carrying a firearm). The White guy was stopped, questioned, and then let go. The Black guy had a gun drawn on him by the same officer. While there was no further escalation or abuse in this incident, the reaction is obviously quite a bit different. There's clearly more than just Media spin at work, I'm simply trying to point out that it is a factor here.

I also think that what Sokolov mentioned:

Is a factor (potentially a hybridization of both training and racial issues, in some cases, but it's not as simple as that I don't think.)

I can't claim abuses vs. error but this is likely the main one where I got that idea from:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11292-012-9163-y

Also, in regards to overall percentages of lethal force, there's other factors as well:

For example, this study by ProPublica: http://www.propublica.org/article/deadly-force-in-black-and-white

Looks pretty bad doesn't it?

But this is at odds with the link.springer experiment I linked above. Is this a problem with data collection? Possibly. But there are more factors involved here. For one, ProPublica counts all "homicides by legal intervention" including otherwise justified cases.

The DOJ released papers showing that between 1980 and 2008 the rate of homicides both victim and offender were higher for Blacks than Whites: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf (Page 11 onward in particular)

Table 7 on Page 12 states that according to DOJ numbers, White Offenders were responsible for 45.3% of Homocides, while Blacks Offenders were responsible for 52.5% during that time period, out of a total of 63-ish % of all homicides (sampled based on when victim/offender relationships where known, which to me is a significant statistic).

While of course it's possible that the other 37-ish% of homicides are all carried out by non-Black, it's still a hugely significant number based on relative population.

This is, of course, not to say that Blacks are evil or inherently drawn to violent crime or anything of the sort. It is simple statistical data. I don't believe that any particular race is more or less inclined towards committing a crime. I do believe that certain cultures do, in particular a Gangster culture, which has historically been more prominent among Blacks during that time period than with Whites. It's also worth noting that, as I understnad it, non-Black and non-White offenders being involved in homicides has increased, such that each is now only doing a third, but I haven't found a link to that raw data yet.

Given the data shown, it actually fits. The ProPublica stats concluded that White Cops that killed a teenager had a rate of 46% of their victim(s) being black, which is a very large number compared to population. On the other hand, if Black offenders have been involved in 30-50% or so Homocides (that trend may or may not have continued in the last 7 years as previously mentioned) it actually lines up, with, allegedly, wrongful deaths via police more often favoring non-Black victims, but overall Black deaths caused by polices still being very high considering relative population.

Again, this isn't to excuse or justify things, it's only to provide perspective. There are certainly racial issues (indeed, on both sides) at play here. But I still think the larger issue at hand is with overall training and recruitment practices.

I do agree that many aspects of police brutality (not to be confused with use of lethal force in a general sense) are under-reported, and certainly they haven't been dealt with punitively in what I personally would consider a proper manner for the majority of such instances.

That said, I do think that the media is over-reporting on speculating for racial issues and the like. Not that there isn't some of that, but rather that it's being focused on to the exclusion of other very important factors, which provides a distorted view of things, and potentially gets in the way of resolving the overall issues involved.

I've seen a lot of reports with police and sometimes security officials shooting dogs without cause (other than the dog barking at them when they intruded on the property), of one even where they let a police dog loose on a guy (who did not resist in any way) and let it chew on his face, multiple accounts of trying to take people's phones, multiple accounts of using lethal force against unarmed suspects (of all ethnicities), or of just plain beating people; but most of it is local news only, usually only being a mere mention (if that) if it doesn't fit the narrative I've mentioned.

It doesn't mean it's "wrong" or "incorrect" that narrative in the stricter sense, but it's an exaggerated and incomplete one.

 

Very interesting data. I think I also misinterpreted your original post to be more simplistic than your actual position, so apologies on that. But I think we are in agreement that there are a large number of factors at play and the situation is unclear, with rhetoric in the media contributing to misunderstandings in more than one way. It's hard to pinpoint exactly who and what causes different viewpoints to spring up in articles and broadcasts since the term "media" encompasses so many different individual organizations and outlets. I do take your point that the competing narratives in this situation (among many others) are prone to over-representing a single cause for events that always have a number of contributing factors. It's unfortunate but pretty much unavoidable since quick/flashy stories sell and media outlets are, at the end of the day, still businesses.

The problem of law enforcement is so complicated that it's pretty hard to make sense of everything that goes into any given statistic. The issue of what exactly constitutes a wrongful death is also pretty murky, since different people can assess the same situations in any number of different ways. There's also practical and financial issues involving how much we can change police procedure, what training is available, how much officers are screened, who gets recruited, and many other things. It's also not always possible to know who is going to be prone to abuse their power or not, and there are plain old mistakes that happen that have tragic consequences. I guess my biggest problem right now is that transparent accountability of the police is not in a place where progress can easily be made, although I do think that steps are starting to be taken in the right direction with things like dashcams and the pressure that's building for internal reviews.

Also, I love dogs and the fact that they get killed by officers is very sad to me. Poor things don't know what's going on and might just be scared or nervous because they see a stranger running up to their family's house.

 

Many systemic problems exist in the world. Po po within America is certainly on the list. While minor, it is worthy of discussion. Foundational decay continues, and many symptoms are known/seen by the public at large.

I am sure that higher taxes and more power in D.C. will fix this matter lickety-split.

 

Speaking of systemic problems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

I'd mentioned it in passing but I figured most might not have heard of it.

 

Yeah, parallel construction sucks, although I do think that there are some instances in which it could be warranted. Those instances would almost certainly be paralegal and subject to dispute, but I think it is not necessarily always wrong. It's definitely a problem though as soon as it crosses the line into being a systemic feature rather than a last resort type thing.

An interesting example that comes to mind is the morally gray instance in the David Fincher film Se7en (with Morgan Freeman/Brad Pitt). Still not sold on whether you can say that it was the right decision. I realize that that's only a movie, but it's a pretty clear-cut case as far as parallel construction goes and yet it's still very ambiguous.

 

Not just Se7en. You can see it all the time in cop shows: (Silence as they approach a suspect's suspected hideout) "Hmm, you know we don't have a warrant to search this place..." "Hey, did you hear a noise behind this door?" "Sure did partner, sounded suspicious, guess we'll have to enter then, heh." And the like. Though obviously these are relatively minor examples and most such shows don't get to the lying-under-oath portion of the problem (at least not visibly).

At least the police that raided the vet in the article IMAGIRL posted had a legitimate report to go in, even if they probably should have done a basic investigation to confirm the report prior to the raid itself.

 

Yep. TSA ****in sucks.

 

http://forums.poxnora.com/index.php?threads/usas-law-enforcement-hard-at-work.1771/

Relevant topic