Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
At least 85,000 law enforcement officers across the USA have been investigated or disciplined for misconduct over the past decade, an investigation by USA TODAY Network found.
Officers have beaten members of the public, planted evidence and used their badges to harass women. They have lied, stolen, dealt drugs, driven drunk and abused their spouses.
Despite their role as public servants, the men and women who swear an oath to keep communities safe can generally avoid public scrutiny for their misdeeds.
The records of their misconduct are filed away, rarely seen by anyone outside their departments. Police unions and their political allies have worked to put special protections in place ensuring some records are shielded from public view, or even destroyed.
Reporters from USA TODAY, its 100-plus affiliated newsrooms and the nonprofit Invisible Institute in Chicago have spent more than a year creating the biggest collection of police misconduct records.
Obtained from thousands of state agencies, prosecutors, police departments and sheriffs, the records detail at least 200,000 incidents of alleged misconduct, much of it previously unreported. The records obtained include more than 110,000 internal affairs investigations by hundreds of individual departments and more than 30,000 officers who were decertified by 44 state oversight agencies.
- Most misconduct involves routine infractions, but the records reveal tens of thousands of cases of serious misconduct and abuse. They include 22,924 investigations of officers using excessive force, 3,145 allegations of rape, child molestation and other sexual misconduct and 2,307 cases of domestic violence by officers.
- Dishonesty is a frequent problem. The records document at least 2,227 instances of perjury, tampering with evidence or witnesses or falsifying reports. There were 418 reports of officers obstructing investigations, most often when they or someone they knew were targets.
- Less than 10% of officers in most police forces get investigated for misconduct. Yet some officers are consistently under investigation. Nearly 2,500 have been investigated on 10 or more charges. Twenty faced 100 or more allegations yet kept their badge for years.
The level of oversight varies widely from state to state. Georgia and Florida decertified thousands of police officers for everything from crimes to questions about their fitness to serve; other states banned almost none.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2019, @12:42AM (33 children)
Does SN have to be like every other clickbait outrage driven media site these days?
What is the point of coming here then?
(Score: 4, Troll) by sshelton76 on Wednesday June 05 2019, @01:03AM (22 children)
Nothin wrong with this article.
Police are corrupt everywhere you go. Here in the USA it's worse because of the way the unions act to keep the criminals with badges on the force. Other countries deal with this corruption differently.
For me, the tampering with evidence was the biggest "no duh" moment. But I hope that any defense attorney looks long and hard at the police officer's discipline record and brings it up at trial. Juries have been convinced by decades of shows like Law and Order, NCIS and the other's that glorify law enforcement to believe it is something other than a highly militarized private security force, that these guys are infallable. As a result I have literally sat on juries where there was no possible way the "evidence" that was "found" by police got there by any means other than a plant, and yet the other jurors refuse to acknowledge that fact and instead want to convict despite reasonable doubt. Usually based on some crap they picked up from a TV show the other day.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PinkyGigglebrain on Wednesday June 05 2019, @01:13AM (20 children)
next time your seated as a Juror be sure to read up on "Jury Nullification" [wikipedia.org] if your not already aware of it.
And be sure to point out to your fellow jurors that wearing a badge does not make an officer into someone who can do no wrong. They are still a normal human with the same faults and desires as everyone else, only they can indulge in them and get away with them with impunity.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 4, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday June 05 2019, @01:26AM (17 children)
I have never been and will likely never be seated as a juror. Attorneys immediately try to screen out anyone who can think for themselves. I'm not their "target audience."
The only way I'll ever end up as a juror is if I encounter a scenario like an attorney friend once did, when she ended up on a juror in a pro se defense trial. You know what they say about the man who represents himself in court...
(Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Wednesday June 05 2019, @01:48AM (14 children)
That depends a lot on the strength and complexity of their case. If they're relying on a complicated and detailed argument, they want smart jurors. If they're trying to blunt said complicated and detailed argument, they want morons.
For what it's worth, I was seated as a juror once. When it came time for us to deliver a verdict, I had thoroughly concluded that the defendant was probably an idiot, and his lawyer even more of an idiot. When your entire defense amounts to "I think I can convince the jury that the victim was a crack whore" and you can do nothing to counter the mountain of physical and eyewitness testimony including the victim's, you should not have gone to trial, because (a) the judge can and will shut down that defense as being irrelevant, and (b) the jury will do what we did and say "so what if she was a crack whore, that doesn't making stabbing her OK".
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday June 05 2019, @02:31AM (7 children)
When I was sent the letter telling me to appear to be selected as a juror I asked the company's lawyer how I could get out of it. He told me to wear a nice suit and tie, they will never pick you, and he was right.
I wouldn't have mined doing it, but it was for the High Court and those are usually long trials.
As it turned out it was some sort of child abuse thing and I was glad I didn't have to sit through five weeks of that sort of testimony.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by pipedwho on Wednesday June 05 2019, @03:39AM (2 children)
I sat through one of those as a juror, at the end of the 3 week trial it was obvious the girl was making it up. Worse, it was also obvious one of the police officers that took statements during the arrest 2 years earlier was clearly making things up that defied actual evidence provided along the way (it clearly takes a while for things to go to trial). To make matters worse, the alleged offence was said to have occurred 30 years earlier.
The poor guy won, but it cost him probably in excess of $100,000 to defend himself - this guy was a fisherman and probably sold his house to pay for the trial. The girl that made the 'complaint', didn't cost her a cent as it was the police doing the prosecuting. IMO, the police should have been reprimanded for taking the case to trial. The actively ignored a huge pile of evidence provided by the defence - every time the defence went to present something to help exonerate the guy, they'd send the jury out and spend an hour arguing if it was admissible or not (in the end every piece was allowed by the judge). The trial would have been over in a few days if it wasn't for that. It also came out that the defence lawyers wanted to present a lot of this evidence to the state soon after the arrest, but the police said it wouldn't make any difference and ignored it.
So in the end, the state ended up paying for a 3 week trial in the court, the crown prosecutor and her team, a couple of police, and a jury.
I wasn't glad to be on that trial, but it sure gave me an insight into how much bullshit comes into court. Reporters came in the first and last day - probably hoping to get some sordid juice for the front page of their paper, but ended up printing nothing. There was definitely a story about how a disaffected vindictive woman could ruin someone's life.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2019, @04:47AM
personal eyewitness experience of the hell that is feminist Canada.
Fuck.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 06 2019, @02:56PM
Someone's been reading too many MGTOW persecution fantasies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2019, @04:23AM
Thank you for your service.
And you wonder why 1/2 the country hates elite pricks?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by HiThere on Wednesday June 05 2019, @04:58AM (1 child)
In my experience, they never pick someone who looks like a programmer. I don't know what you'd do these days, but I always had a bunch of IBM cards in my pocket, together with a pocket protector full of pens with different colors. (But how would you recognize a programmer today?)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Funny) by AssCork on Wednesday June 05 2019, @05:07PM
Dress like a hipster and carry a MacBook, boot loudly into OpenBSD.
Just popped-out of a tight spot. Came out mostly clean, too.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Wednesday June 05 2019, @09:56PM
Not likely. As the courts and the officers therein seek intelligent people who don't MIND doing their social duty. They prefer to avoid people who mined...
I just love the yahoos here who group every cop and every court officer under one banner. Just like every computer guy is a 2 LB glass wearing nerd who needs a shower...
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 3, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday June 05 2019, @03:23AM (3 children)
Regarding your point about a lawyer who wants to run a smart case -- realize that most of the time the other side will want to undermine that case through dumb arguments and rhetoric.
And regardless, my point was less about intelligence and more about thinking for oneself. I have a lot of views that mainstream folks would think are odd or at least an odd collection (because I don't adhere to standard party lines or other classification schemes). As for the law, I read SCOTUS decisions in my spare time for fun, and I have a lot of opinions on them -- and I definitely don't side consistently with liberals or conservatives in legal thinking.
If an attorney asked me any legal question, I'm likely to give a rather nuanced perspective that depends on circumstances. I am not a person that a jury consultant could easily put in a box, as I understand many sides of legal reasoning.
There's a reason lawyers very rarely end up on juries -- they can see too many sides of the law, as they are required to in their jobs. IANAL but I too am a wildcard who might vote very independently. Hence, it's exceptionally unlikely I'd survive voir dire unless a lawyer is incompetent or has run out of challenges.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2019, @04:28AM
God, save it for your autobiographer.... who gives a shit about your magnanimous views about your magnanimous self? Fuck. Off. You. Cunt.
(Score: 2) by pipedwho on Wednesday June 05 2019, @07:54AM (1 child)
Not sure how different it is here in Australia versus the US, but during jury selection the judge asks if anyone has a reason they think they should be excused from trial before the lawyers get a turn. You can pretty much ask to be excused on those grounds and the judge may or may not agree. In my experience (I've been on 4 juries) and been in a three selections where I wasn't chosen (because they already had 12 people not because I was 'challenged'). In that time I only heard one 'challenge', and the barristers never asked any potential jurors any questions. The guy that was 'challenged' looked like a twin brother of the defendant - so I could see how that might subtly affect the jury decision as they sit around with a 'virtual' copy of the defendant sitting next to them.
However, during deliberations, the purpose of the jury is to determine the facts, not the law, and the judge repeatedly makes this clear. So even if you are a legal eagle in the jury box, that doesn't help with deliberations as the jury is determining that for a particular charge does the evidence support it or not. We've had people in the jury with all sorts of skills, and at best they've enabled us to ask better questions (passed to the judge so he could ask the barristers, etc) to get things clarified from both legal and factual standpoints.
Expert testimony inside the secrecy of jury is potentially more harmful - for example, we had someone that worked once in a similar industry to people in the case and was able to explain the inner workings of things. Wouldn't have made much difference in the verdict, but they could have potentially swayed everyone by making stuff up and putting doubts into people's minds. To their credit they were reticent to say anything until the rest of jury hassled them enough to - and we had most of it confirmed by questions that the judge passed on to one of the barristers to ask a particular witness the wanted it asked of.
Anyway, I see no reason that your legal experience and knowledge would be grounds for dismissal unless the lawyers involved had enough people already and were expecting shenanigans. But, here in Australia, they'd never know as they don't ask anything - and if they did, the questions would not uncover that topic unless for some reasons you volunteered it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2019, @04:15PM
I once asked to be excused from a jury and was let go. In fact, a couple of other guys were also excused for the same reason. We had a defendant who was on trial for drunk driving. His two prior drunk driving arrests were misdemeanors, if I recall correctly. This next one counted as a felony. We were asked if we could disregard the priors when deliberating. I could not and neither could the other two guys. The judge tried to remonstrate with us; he was nice enough about it but he did give it a try. In the end they did manage to find twelve unbiased jurors; I have no idea what the outcome of the trial was.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by dry on Wednesday June 05 2019, @04:38AM (1 child)
Sadly, convincing the jury that the victim is a piece of shit seems to work way too often. Usually based on race, occupation (prostitute for example) and/or drug use.
Just had a case here in Canada where native girl getting paid for sex bled to death from the rip in her vagina. One of the big reasons for the defendants original acquittal was due to evidence of past sexual history, which should have been disallowed. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gladue-supreme-court-indigenous-barton-trial-sexual-consent-1.5139137 [www.cbc.ca]
It is for similar reasons that most rape victims don't press charges.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2019, @07:56AM
I actually had that work in my favor for jury selection once. I was called up while I was teaching Metaethics and I decided a good use of my time, since I was loathing doing it at another, was to read over my copy of The Encyclopedia of Ethics and Morals to come up with a list of vocabulary, red-herrings, and other terms to be used during class. So, after waiting three hours, I was finally called in with a pool into a courtroom. The judge give a short speech that we literally heard word for word earlier that day, and then tells us that the defendant was charged with pimping. The prosecutor goes through his normal questions to the group and starts asking jurors questions individually. He eventually gets to me and sees I am holding a rather large book. He asks what the book was. I told him and see the defendant's lawyer draw a big red "X" shape on the paper in front of him. The prosecutor, taken aback, pauses for a bit, then says, "Well, uh, I guess that means my next question is for juror number 21," and moves on.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 05 2019, @01:09PM (1 child)
Unless, of course, they've exhausted their allotment of rejections. Still good odds you won't get that far.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2019, @08:02PM
They finally removed me either the friday or the monday after having churned through at least 3 complete jury groups.
I don't even remember what the charge was, but the stupidity of the selection process was astounding.
(Score: 2) by epitaxial on Wednesday June 05 2019, @02:00PM
The last time I had jury duty they made everyone answer a sheet of questions and you could easily tell the answers they were looking for. They asked the same question twice but worded differently. Would you believe the police even the judge instructed you to do so. Of course I answered no and the prosecutor asked me about it. Dismissed right away.
(Score: 2) by DavePolaschek on Wednesday June 05 2019, @04:29PM
Should also mention the Fully Informed Jury Association [fija.org]. Simply having a FIJA button on your jacket will keep you off a jury. They do education about jury nullification.
(Score: 2) by sshelton76 on Thursday June 06 2019, @08:22AM
So who's the coward who modded my comment troll?
Are you really so ignorant that you fail to understand that just because there is an opinion you disagree with, that doesn't make them a troll.
Troll is not "I disagree with you and your opinion".
Troll is "this post has no value to the community, was insincere and was not intended to invoke thoughtful discussion".
Our mod system needs to have some method of accountability on downmods, because downmodding something troll when the person is attempting to be sincere and articulate is itself a troll. At the very least, giving out any troll mod should have an option so that the rest of the community can say "not a troll", and put the karmic penalty back on the mod giver.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2019, @01:03AM
You should probably just leave since you're a brainlet.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2019, @02:09AM (5 children)
Don't click the clickbait link, stupid. Either you are interested, or you are not. If you don't care about corrupt cops, go sit with the rest of the uninterested, uncaring sheep.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2019, @04:55AM (4 children)
I don't care to read about it all the time HERE when it's something I can get from fucking "USA Today."
Let's just mirror all stories being covered by CNN too while we are at it.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2019, @05:36AM (3 children)
You say you're not interested, yet you needed to read TFS and the comments, *then* post about it?
Methinks the lady doth protest a little too much.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2019, @12:31PM (2 children)
Reading comprehension time my friend: I posted that in my opinion we have too many of the stories. This shows that I am NOT INTERESTED and I hope to influence people to seek out and submit stories of another type.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2019, @01:40PM
You have influenced me to find another story like it!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Wednesday June 05 2019, @05:10PM
Analogous behavior:
--
Old people at weddings always tell me "You're next!"
So I started doing it to them... at funerals.
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2019, @04:52AM
I think it's funny that a comment stating SN has jumped the shark is moderated "Redundant".
Good one, whoever made that mod!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday June 05 2019, @01:34PM
One man's clickbait is another man's news. I clicked on it because I haven't often seen this level of data with this level of detail about this subject. The most I can recall seeing in the last decade is posturing from Black Lives Matter- and Blue Lives Matter-style advocacy groups. So getting to look at actual data is refreshing and something geeks can appreciate.
Also, having data like this about a class of people we grant the right to carry guns & shoot citizens is very definitely "Stuff that Matters."
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Thursday June 06 2019, @01:17PM
WWWWAAAAAAA!!!! CPS CAN'T BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE!!! ITS UNAMERICAN! WAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!
Quit the meltdown, snowflake. Reality does not care about your delicate feelings.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday June 05 2019, @01:31AM (23 children)
None of this is particularly surprising to me. However, reading TFA, there is one thing that stood out:
Huh. This is Catholic Church/Boy Scouts level of evil we might be talking about here. A list of 30,000 cops who are "too dirty/abusive to hire," and the list is kept secret from anyone outside law enforcement? So, in other words, one of these really bad cops goes to get a job as a security guard or maybe a camp counselor supervising kids or... who knows what? But only other law enforcement agencies are privy to the list of people so awful that they are banned from serving as police officers??
Seriously -- this should be the headline, perhaps. I await further analysis of this secret list. If there are some really bad cops on it, I expect it will be something that gets highlighted about this investigation.
(Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Wednesday June 05 2019, @01:50AM
You make excellent points, as usual.
My first thought about this is that I was surprised that *anyone* could amass this much information about *anything*, given how local news staffs have been decimated over the past couple decades.
I'm glad that USA Today was able to get their hands on this data, although even they needed help from a non-profit to do so. Or perhaps it was the other way around and the non-profit did the lion's share and USA Today was the outlet chosen for publication.
But don't hold your breath if you want to see more broad reporting like this, as there are very few news outlets that can muster the resources to do this sort of thing any more.
In big cities, where there are multiple newspapers and local TV news teams, you see this sort of thing much more often. Unfortunately, in smaller cities/suburbs/rural areas news reporting is rarely local unless someone is self-financing.
Some of this could be picked up in less populated areas by amateurs and local folks, but they generally don't have the skills, experience or the connections to make real progress with this sort of thing.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday June 05 2019, @02:04AM (4 children)
Agreed. There should be a "Bad Cop Registry". That seems to me at least as important as any "Sex Offender Registry". We might argue that bad cops are more important than sex offenders.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2019, @03:51AM (2 children)
Yep, bad cops are way more dangerous to the society than pedophiles.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday June 05 2019, @01:45PM
Well - you put a common pedo on one side of a scale, and a corrupt cop on the other, and tell me which is worse. Depending on the pedo's occupation, etc, he may have access to thousands of children, or he may have access to zero children. The cop? He may assert access, any time, anywhere - PLUS he has a gun and a badge in case the assertion ever goes to court.
We haven't even touched on the bad cop who happens to be a pedo. THAT one has to be every parent's worst possible nightmare.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Thursday June 06 2019, @01:22PM
Very likely true, at least by scale. They victimize and kill more people than pedophiles, for certain.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday June 05 2019, @04:01PM
There should be a "Bad Cop Registry".
Can't we (as in the villagers or "collective") make our own? I mean, we can do anything Google can, right? Otherwise a facebook page could work, but it would have to be open to everybody, even with no account, so maybe it can't work.
I would like to see it happen, and the authorities' attempt to have it taken down, you can bet that would happen, making the story even better.
With abusive police, *if you see something, say something!*
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday June 05 2019, @03:18AM (7 children)
On the other side... "once guilty, everytime guilty"? Many people - not all but enough of them - change.
When do you think the presumption "maybe he'll do it again, maybe not, but why should I give him a second chance? Better for me his life to be destroyed than I take the risk" should end?
As simple search on Google brings these:
He Committed Murder. Then He Graduated From an Elite Law School. Would You Hire Him as Your Attorney? [nytimes.com]
Debbie Kilroy - The only convicted drug trafficker to be admitted as an Australian lawyer has been appointed to Queensland’s Sentencing Advisory Council – and she wants to abolish prisons [theguardian.com]
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2019, @03:31AM (2 children)
There is already a severe imbalance of power between the citizens and the police. They should not be forgiven for crossing the line.
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Wednesday June 05 2019, @03:57AM (1 child)
Then punish them, don't just kick them out without the needed lesson [soylentnews.org].
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday June 05 2019, @04:08PM
Then punish them
Absolutely, but they can still never be trusted ever again. In my line of work, you're only as good as your last fuck up. That's a good rule to apply to people with a license to kill. We have to put them into glass houses. Gotta send a strong message to those joining up.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday June 05 2019, @03:32AM (1 child)
Oh, I agree with you there too. I don't necessarily want to brand people with a scarlet letter for life either. I'm sure this database has some issues, just like sex offender registries and the like end up ensnaring some who don't deserve it.
On the other hand, I'm also assuming, given the reputation for cops as those who protect their own, the vast, vast majority of cops who are actually thrown out of the profession are probably pretty darn bad. Not that some might be capable of reforming, but it's pretty damning when other cops are passing around secret lists saying "don't hire this guy!" only within their professional circles.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Wednesday June 05 2019, @03:51AM
Even more, the fact that the only punishment they suffer is being kicked out of police doesn't make the situation easier. I suspect most of them don't take it a a lesson, but rather as an encouragement - "Done bad things and I'm still fine. Suckers"
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday June 05 2019, @04:46AM (1 child)
Generally you have to be a model citizen for 5-10 years after finishing your sentence, depending on crime, before getting your record expunged. Seems it should be similar for police misconduct.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2019, @04:27PM
Actually considering the level of responsibility that cops hold--literally life and death!--I think it should be at least double that time for expunging their records.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2019, @03:34AM (2 children)
Many states have an Officer's Bill of Rights that protects criminal cops.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers%27_Bill_of_Rights [wikipedia.org]
A first step to reigning in the abuses of cops is to repeal shit like this.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday June 05 2019, @01:54PM (1 child)
Actually, as I read that "bill of rights", I have all the same rights, as a citizen. The only difference I see, is that cops are quite happy to arrest me, while they are reluctant to arrest a fellow officer. Otherwise, it looks about the same as your rights and mine.
The real problems with cops are that stupid assed unlimited "limited immunity", and the unions. If limited immunity were limited to reasonable limitations, and if the unions weren't constantly interfering, things would almost magically get better. Not perfect, but better. And, FFS, start teaching rookies, "See something, say something!" Stop closing ranks to protect the dirty cops.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2019, @11:25PM
In California, the Officer's Bill of Rights allows the cop to see evidence against him/her before making a statement, so they can tailor their own false testimony. Nobody else has that right.
(Score: 1) by DECbot on Wednesday June 05 2019, @04:43AM (1 child)
You make an interesting point noting that only law enforcement agencies have access. I wonder if that extends to Federal agencies like the TSA, DEA, DNR, or border patrol? I assume they're at least shared with the FBI. However, agencies that are just a step above mall cop, like the TSA, I doubt they bother referencing the list even if they have access.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 2) by Some call me Tim on Wednesday June 05 2019, @05:15AM
TSA "officers" are not actual law enforcement officers. They have no power to arrest, they have to call in actual police officers for that as far as I know. https://kdvr.com/2013/11/04/are-tsa-screeners-really-law-enforcement-officers/ [kdvr.com]
Questioning science is how you do science!
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Wednesday June 05 2019, @12:57PM (3 children)
I believe that investigations should be kept secret if they are closed without merit. Making those public is a recipe for abuse.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday June 05 2019, @04:15PM (2 children)
Sorry, public business should be transparent to the public. There are too many secrets. Trust is out the window. We must be allowed to verify. We need the same subpoena power over the government that it has over us, with the same penalties for violations.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ElizabethGreene on Wednesday June 05 2019, @06:39PM (1 child)
How do you balance the stigma of "was investigated for misconduct" against "innocent until proven guilty"?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday June 05 2019, @06:47PM
Stigmatization is the crime, not publishing.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2019, @01:59AM (6 children)
They're all assholes. Using the patrol car for personal errands, speeding in a residential area, passing cars in a fucking bike lane, and pissing off one neighbor so much that they ended up getting arrested for yelling at them. Quite a few times I could smell someone smoking weed from their house. Their own kids "got the fuck away from them" (their quote) as soon as they turned 18. This is in EF's area.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday June 05 2019, @02:08AM (5 children)
Being an asshole doesn't necessarily make a bad cop. But, an asshole can probably justify his illegal and inhumane conduct easier than a person who is not an asshole.
Kids getting away from their parents? Preacher's sons and daughters are often the same. If they don't just suicide . . .
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2019, @03:27AM (3 children)
Being an asshole generally makes you a bad human, this is why you call them assholes and not buddies in the first place.
And you don't want to stop them being civil servants? Then no wonder your police force is rife with assholes.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday June 05 2019, @02:00PM (2 children)
Your opinion is noted. It should also be noted that without assholes to make people do things they don't want to do, a lot of shit would go to hell. Which brings me to - I'll quote from class here - "The art of leadership is defined as motivating people to do what they should do anyway."
In the military as well as the civilian worlds, you can find any number of low level workers, who insist that their boss is an asshole. Funny thing is, without that asshole motivating them to get their jobs done, the job never would be done. Also note that the attitude is not restricted to low level workers, it's just most common among them.
Seriously, look around you, and see how the world really works.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2019, @05:01PM (1 child)
"without assholes to make people do things they don't want to do, a lot of shit would go to hell"
What a fucked up view of reality! At no point in the human experience is a generalized "asshole" necessary. No one should be an asshole by default. When such behavior is used appropriately we do not call it "asshole." So cops don't need to be assholes to stop crime, bosses don't need to be assholes to get their employees to work, teachers don't need to be assholes to get students to learn, etc. etc.
Being an asshole is simply a convenient way to skip the hard part of learning how to do something right. Using anger to achieve results is effective, only a fool would argue, but the results you get are almost always paired with negative side effects.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday June 05 2019, @05:49PM
So, cry me a river - you disagree. Meanwhile, real life goes on.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2019, @04:32PM
I'm a preacher's kid. While we do seem to have a certain reputation...well, I haven't tried committing suicide yet. Although, some of your posts do push me near to the edge of rage. Just sayin'.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday June 05 2019, @02:37AM (5 children)
Abusive SOB's are drawn to positions of authority like shit draws flies. We, as a society, don't do enough to screen the applicants. Worse, society actually protects those worthless SOB's. When cops close ranks to protect their own, they make themselves responsible for this kind of conduct.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2019, @02:53AM
I rarely agree with you but on that point I wholeheartedly agree
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2019, @04:44AM (3 children)
Save some outrage for corrupt shitbags who actually make money and never actually put themselves on the line.
That's a special kind of shitbag.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2019, @04:56AM (1 child)
Wow. I didn't realize that police were volunteers.
No wonder they steal and cheat.
The more you know...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2019, @04:57AM
Shit! *unpaid volunteers*.
Sigh.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2019, @05:02AM
So let me get this straight. You're saying that because police make ~20% more than the median salary in the US [indeed.com], that it's okay for them to steal, beat folks, shoot unarmed kids, perjure themselves in court and sexually harass women under the color of authority.
Is that correct? In that case, it all makes sense now. HEY! All you assholes need to stop complaining about the cops! They're the real victims here!
Please.