Politics Ferguson

Some thoughts:

A very large percentage LEOs do a good job and make very few serious mistakes. One problem is a large percentage of LEOs also form The Blue Shield when one of them, even the bad ones, make serious mistakes. I can understand--obviously not completely as an outsider--the special fraternity among LEOs, but they need to understand why The Blue Shield upsets so many people. Let's not forget that initial invstigations into the actions of LEOs are handled by LEOs.

Prosecutors rely on LEOs to properly handles arrests, investigations, etc. to avoid technicalities that might set criminals free. It does not take a genius to see that there is a very serious conflict of interest when those prosecutors are required to investigate the actions of LEOs.

Public outcry is frequently premature and misguided, and slanted news media coverage is common. This fuels the "us versus them" attitudes on both sides.

In theory it's easy to say bring in outside neutral parties to handle the investigations and proceedings involving LEOs. In practice it would add more bureaucracy to the process and possibly raise public suspicion even higher. And it would be difficult to implement in many situations.

 

While I agree that all too often the implementation of programs do not meet expectations, it seems to be the only option unless you want to bring the feds in every time and I'm sure you don't want that.
No system is perfect but the current system desperately needs overhauling.

 

IMO the initial investigation, the immediate one, is crucial to knowing what really happened. LEOs are the first on the scene, and their true honesty about what they saw and what was said to them is key. Since the immediate responders are LEOs I don't see a way to gurantee that the immediate investigation would be handled neutrally. That's not a knock on just LEOs, I'm pretty sure that most of us have at one time done something (major or minor) to cover for a co-worker.

In many cases bringing in a specal prosecutor would be difficult. But leaving it to the normal prosecutor isn't a good idea.

The answer? FIIK.

 

Just to clarify, these arguments aren't all from me. But these do reflect perceptions by other officers. The speeding firefighter did happen a few days ago.

 

Omega, I expect that you're not what anyone would consider a bad cop, and I can appreciate, probably totally inadequately, that your job is uniquely difficult and stressful (and also super exhilarating and maybe sometimes even fun). I mean no disrespect, but I read that paragraph, and I think "Do you think you're the only people with shitty, exacting, high-stakes jobs?"

According to this:
The 10 Most Dangerous Jobs in America

Airplane pilots and flight engineers have a fatality rate over 2.5x that of police officers. They fly large hunks of metal across the sky. But I have yet to hear a pilot, when outed for being incompetent, resort to the type of self-pitying "my job is hard and nobody appreciates my profession" type of rhetoric that is a staple of police union press releases. This is because we expect pilots to do their jobs and do them right, and if they can't handle doing their difficult job correctly, then we expect them to find a new line of work.

Increased accountability is a solution to both the perception of police misconduct and the reality of police misconduct. And if increased accountability is implemented to any meaningful extent, it will fundamentally alter a lot of things. It would probably make your job harder in some ways, but easier in others. In fact, it stands to reason that the police officers who will be most affected by efforts to increase accountability will be the terrible ones.

 

I know that pilots and also firefighters have a higher mortality rate than officers. Firefighters probably have a higher injury rate as well. But how many firefighters and pilots have to worry about being assaulted or killed because of their uniform? How many have been shot in the head while sitting in their work vehicle? How many have been gunned down while eating a meal in a restaurant? How many even consider that daily as a possibility? How many worry about where they eat lunch because a cook might have gotten a dui recently and decides to add a little extra to the meal? It's a totally different mindset. Those guys are heroes. Even middle and upper class people see us as an inconvenience when they get stopped. Firefighters face danger from their jobs, from conditions, but they receive respect and adulation from society. You don't think that is powerful? Did you know the average officer lives seven years past retirement? How many other professions have such a high mortality rate? That is years of accumulated stress. One other thing. Tribunals are going to find guilt. That's what they are hired to do.

 

LEOs have a tough job. It takes its toll when they are on the job and continues to do so after they retire. That totally sucks, and most people understand that.

From the perspective of LEOs tribunals are predisposed to find guilt.
From the perspective of Average Citizens the regular prosecutors are predisposed to favor LEOs.

 

So in nw DC two vehicles were shot at while driving. Both had MD fraternal order of police license plates. Both civilian vehicles. I don't advertise my job when not working. No shirts, no stickers, nothing that says what I do.

 

I don't disagree with anything else you said. But this ^^^ is interesting to me. It seems to me this statement reflects concern that systems that are run by people who are looking for guilt will find guilt even when it is not there. Does it seem possible to you that some civilians might view their local PDs with the same wariness that you view tribunals, and that that wariness might be completely justified?

 

The first tribunals if enacted would be a witch hunt. They would be convened to find guilt, regardless of whether it was warranted. Plus there wouldn't necessarily be the constitutional protections otherwise afforded.

 

I read your comments, and I see a somewhat fundamental lack of faith in the system. Do you think there are people who have justification for viewing the police and the courts with the same suspicion and pessimism that you view tribunals?

 

I don't see the idea of tribunals at all.
A special prosecutor at the state level who is responsible for any police shooting has got to be better than getting the feds involved wouldn't you say?
Someone that has no ties to any group so there can't be any accusations of bias and isn't elected so they can't be out to make their bones that way.
Would it be perfect?
Of course not, no system is.
Would it be better than what we have?
I'm pretty sure it would be.

 

I have a lack of faith in a potential tribunal. Putting a new broken system in place won't fix the original broken system. Make repairs to the original system, and maybe there would be some equity for both sides. You have never heard me argue that our system is perfect, or that racism doesn't exist. But a new system isn't going to fix it. It's kind of like how arbitrators side with whoever is actually paying them.

 

You keep calling it a tribunal when in fact it is nothing more than the same damned system we have now.
Having a independent prosecutor who is not beholden to the police is not some kind of inquisition.
Like I said wouldn't you rather have that then the Justice Department crawling up your ass every time something even smacks of racism?

I understand a certain amount of hesitancy about something that seems to be a dagger towards your heart but there is as good a chance that it would be good for the police as it would be bad.
Having an independent way to confirm that what was done was legitimate will take a lot of pressure off a department in situations where there was every reason in the world for the officer to use his weapon.

 

This isn't just about whether racism exists or whether the system is perfect. I'm trying to get at the fact that police officers are often tasked with enforcing the will of an imperfect, frequently racist system at the same time that they are unwilling to subject themselves to more oversight from that imperfect, frequently racist system. If you believe the system is so flawed that you will fight all efforts to increase its oversight of your job, how can you justify forcing the people you police into the system? If the system is not trustworthy or fair enough for you, why is it trustworthy and fair enough for the average person?

 

A theoretical investigator, maybe. I just have trouble believing that at this point in time it would be applied fairly. You'd run into issues over who had a say in choosing the prosecutor. There are hundreds of departments in a state, ranging from tiny to enormous. They would all want a say. Twenty years ago, Washington DC had I believe over 20 agencies with police powers. I imagine that has only gotten worse. Imagine a state like Texas or California trying to choose a prosecutor or board.

 

A 5 person board picks the prosecutor.
Two are elected, two appointed by the legislator and one picked by the governor.
The prosecutor has to be chosen by unanimous vote.

 

That would suck in Texas. There would be five conservatives, most likely white males.

 

According to fbi data, 49,851 law enforcement officers were victims of an on duty assault last year. A rate of 9.3 per 100 officers.