The case is a little different because in the case from OP, the resident at the home knowingly let the fugitive into her home(who she knew was a fugitive). She then left and called the police. Whereas with the case I linked in Colorado, the fugitive illegally entered the home.
On the flip side, the Colorado suspect was actively shooting at the police from the home, while the Texas suspect apparently didn't do that, and merely committed suicide in a bedroom.
My intent was that he was not actively threatening police officers or the public, and in fact may have been dead before the police decided to blow the house up.
> Authorities say the suspect stole two belts and a shirt from a Walmart
> In an attempt to force the suspect out, law enforcement blew up walls with explosives, fired tear gas and drove a military-style armored vehicle through the property's doors.
The negative incentive could make finding people to work as law enforcement difficult, though
I think an in-built insurance system that all workees contribute to mandatorily works better. If less in damages is awarded than was collected, they could partially return as a proportional bonus to the workers
It's not a straightforward issue but I think most would agree the current incentives are skewed towards doing whatever and not being responsible for any damage or cost
I think if they destroy a door, and it's justified, the city should be obligated to pay. If it's found to be unjustified, the officer's malpractice insurance should pay.
Also, I think officer's should be required to carry malpractice insurance (similar to doctor's), and qualified immunity should be thrown out. This would give insurers a strong incentive to drive-out the cops that are prone to committing assault, battery, and unnecessary property damage. I guarantee you an insurer with a profit motive isn't going to just ignore 13 use of force complaints against an officer.
Such a scheme would also make it harder for bad officers to move a city or state and continue abusing the public elsewhere. Their insurance premiums would remain too high.
> I guarantee you an insurer with a profit motive isn't going to just ignore 13 use of force complaints against an officer.
They will when they're threatened by a gang of police officers.
Malpractice insurance is an important part of police reform but alone I think it will be insufficient. If you combine some sort of mechanism that sees lawsuits against police departments being paid out from the police pension plan instead of taxpayers coffers I imagine you would see police reform really quick.
It's all about aligning incentives and only when one shit-head police officer's corrupt behaviour is detrimental to the group will you see reform. Divide and conquer.
> Malpractice insurance is an important part of police reform
It disagree:
(1) Malpractice, by definition, is negligent violation the professional standard of care, i.e., what is routine in the profession; violations of that are by definition not the issue with systemic problems.
(2) The actual systemic problems are the kinds of things which are generally categorically uninsurable for very good reasons; intentional, and often—though usually unprosecuted, which is why people are concerned with civil liability—criminal wrongdoing.
> If you combine some sort of mechanism that sees lawsuits against police departments being paid out from the police pension plan instead of taxpayers coffers I imagine you would see police reform really quick.
The police pension plan is the public coffers; it's a fund set aside to fulfill a contractual obligation of the public agency and which the contributing agency is legally obligated (barring discharge in bankruptcy) to make up any shortfall in.
> The police pension plan is the public coffers; it's a fund set aside to fulfill a contractual obligation of the public agency and which the contributing agency is legally obligated (barring discharge in bankruptcy) to make up any shortfall in.
Since we're presumably already talking about changing the law, we could presumably set up a system whereby those legal obligations are reduced according to those judgements.
I don't actually advocate it, but (paraphrasing) "that doesn't even make sense" isn't the most interesting response.
> Since we're presumably already talking about changing the law, we could presumably set up a system whereby those legal obligations are reduced according to those judgements.
I mean, sure, we could presumably amend the Constitution to weaken due process protections to allow that kind of collective punishment, but that's a fairly drastic measure with enormous knock-on effects.
But also, that takes much deeper and wider political support at all levels to pass than just electing DAs that will prosecute cops for crimes; if law enforcement has enough politics pull to prevent the latter, it has more than enough to prevent dismantling fundamental Constitutional guarantees just to make punishment of officers not proven to be directly involved in wrongdoing easier.
> I don't actually advocate it, but (paraphrasing) "that doesn't even make sense" isn't the most interesting response.
It may not be the most entertaining, but the proposal is incoherent on many levels, so its really the only possible response.
While I'm skeptical that the only way to implement this kind of system is through a constitutional amendment but I agree with you that constitution amendments to explicitly place limitations on domestic law enforcement would be a really good idea.
What other policies do you think we should put in place to rein in corrupt law enforcement in America?
> What other policies do you think we should put in place to rein in corrupt law enforcement in America
While reforming QI so its not functionally absolute immunity is probably beneficial, corruption in law enforcement in the US is not principally a policy problem, it's principally a problem of people not believing it's enough of a problem not to consistently defer to law enforcement recommendations at the ballot box, particularly when it comes to electing the people who will implement the existing (and any potential future) policies intended to hold police accountable.
> It sounds like you don't really feel that the issues that others have with law enforcement in America are a problem.
I’m not sure which issues you are referring to; if they are the ones that get heavy media coverage of widespread complaints, I think they are largely real problems, some quite severe, and that they barely scratch the surface of real, systemic problems in American policing.
My issue is with people pushing “solutions” that ignore the nature of those problems and the political context creating/supporting the problems, not with the idea that they are problems.
It is perfectly possible - and should be more common! - to believe that something is a crucially important problem and still believe that a proposed solution is a bad idea. Especially - but not only - when the proposed solution seems (as I think this one seems to dragonwriter) unlikely to actually solve the problem.
> It may not be the most entertaining, but the proposal is incoherent on many levels, so its really the only possible response.
I didn't mean entertaining, exactly, so much as that it seemed unlikely to convince anyone who held the opposite view since it (shallowly) seemed easily worked around. It was an important part of the more interesting argument, which you've elaborated on further and which this morning I would have expected to convince - "it is probably harder than the thing we need, and also still relies on the thing we need" seems pretty conclusive if accurate.
When you fire a gun, you should 1000% be aware of not just your target but what is behind your target and the potential ramifications of destroying what is behind it.
It is completely reasonable to make them keep in mind all the potential and direct effects of their actions.
I think it would be beneficial for them to find alternative ways of catching a bad guy than busting down doors. It's a completely unnecessary escalation far more often than not.
Well, they tried using some robot dog for some of that, but it just got people more worried about it, so I dunno. I agree that I would like to find ways that we could avoid putting people in harms way so that we don't have to play trolley problems choosing how many police or suspects should die.
Deescalation is a skill that requires understanding human nature, displays of understanding and empathy, and is most frequently done through talking. But also in patience and not forcing issues at times and places likely to result in a violent confrontation.
I don't think you can realistically de-escalate a lot of cases. Nobody wants to be arrested and sometimes you do need some way to take them in unwillingly. The real question is how we do that without putting people in mortal danger (of either the cops or the person being arrested).
I agree that the problems are systemic. But behavior is individual. It's quite a reasonable way to fix the systemic issues is to hold every individual accountable for their behavior. There should be investigations in the aftermath to see how much of it was training and the trainers should be similarly sacked/liable, so we can weed out all the garbage in the end.
Yep, except at best we'll probably ever get is local government to pay, which means the community pays for the destruction and the cost of cleaning up after.
I agree that it could be difficult, but we need to address it head-on. We have an adversarial situation developing between the public and the police. Solving that will be hard, but one of the first things we need to do is figure out how to put the police back under control of the politicians. And then we can work on getting people to look outside their filter bubble and pay attention to who they are electing.
Maybe for personal liability, but the police department as a whole should be financially liable for civil damages, at the very least to innocent 3rd parties.
I would like to see it indexed to how much police education they have received. Someone with a BS or MS in Police Science (or whatever it is called) would be on the hook for a far less percentage than someone that just went through a few weeks of police camp.
"Police later told Deanna that their plan was “shock and awe.” Using the department’s BearCat armored tactical vehicle, the SWAT team toppled Vicki’s fence and drove through her front door. They also used explosives to blow through her garage door and fired more than thirty explosive tear gas canisters through the windows. When they finally stormed the house, they found that Little had committed suicide in her bedroom. The only living thing remaining inside was Deanna’s dog which was left deaf and blind from the explosions."
Why on Earth did the police feel it was necessary to do all this just to catch one guy? No checking whether the guy might have offed himself? Or did they ever consider just waiting for him to come out and then arresting him? Nope! Just reach right away for the cool bang-bang toys! These tools and tactics are what soldiers use when they want to destroy an enemy fortress, not what civilian police ought to be using...well...for any reason.
I read something about one of the reasons the police have become more militarized and it wasn't the reason I expected (I'll see if I can find the article and link it). It had to do with city budgets and the way they were pushed out and continued. The gist of it was, the police had to allocate spending their budget within a short time frame or the budget they had would be put into the cities "general fund" (I believe this was Seattle, as that's where I live... mileage may vary). The next year's budget would be reduced to reflect the lack of spending. In order to reduce the risk of not having enough resources, police departments would make sure to spend all of their remaining money on 'necessary' equipment for their units. They could get A LOT of military equipment for a good price because of our 20 odd year wars over season, and our love of specialized units in the police departments, it was a match made in heaven.This type of short sighted, feast or famine spending coupled with readily available surplus military equipment has lead to an ever increasing militarization of the police that has a less effective, effect on community policing and crime, statistically. But all of this is because of how our government handles its accounting practices and sells its surplus military gear.
I think I heard it on Freakonomics, but I'm not sure.
When police do stuff like this it's just an excuse to use toys with no repercussions. They get to blow up a house with zero personal accountability. So they are either man children or cowards. Probably both. Not a great look either way.
This right here. Qualified immunity means they will face zero legal liability, and any sort of civil suit only means that the city or county may pay, not the department.
It was/is called the "1033 Program". Obama attempted to limit the program, not necessarily stop it. But, it didn't matter, because naturally, Trump reversed all that. And it's been a steady flow of military equipment to the cops ever since.
These programs ran rampantly for years under Obama. He only put restrictions in place half-way through his second term because of public pressure after Ferguson.
It’s pretty disingenuous to try to pin this on Trump. (And I’m no fan of Trump.) Both parties are very complicit.
Trump tried to veto the last defense appropriations bill that had a rider limiting 1033 because he didn’t like the bill not cracking down on Big Tech but his veto got overridden on 1/1. Five days later we had other things on our minds.
> They had toys and a rare chance to play with them
That's one of many things the author of "The Rise of the Warrior Cop" argues.
He also argues a fundamental flaw in recruiting for SWAT and similar police units: these squads should be all about de-escalation and defusing violent and complex situations, but instead are full of guys who just want to blow shit up. The kind of police officers who would like to join SWAT, he argues, is precisely the kind who should be rejected.
Cops used to be held in check by the mob. Can you imagine them pulling any of this in an old Italian or Irish neighborhood? Nope. We ended up with just one gang and they walk around with badges.
Cops were a mob, and their primary purpose was originally to hold the other mobs in check.
> Can you imagine them pulling any of this in an old Italian or Irish neighborhood?
Yes. In the North, the original major police forces were basically ethnic gangs given government sponsorship and deployed first and foremost to do battle with other ethnic gangs, so that’s exactly the kind of neighborhood the police would be using major force on, if it wasn't the one they were drawn from.
That’s so what less the case now because the police became an independent political force with a union and lobby that tends to be decisive in local elections, so they became able to effectively pick their own targets, and going in strongest against soft targets and mostly avoiding the harder ones is a lot safer, if you have the clout to swing it.
Because of qualified immunity they do not fear any sort of repercussions from the law and since they got all of these military hand me down toys they've been itching to find an excuse to use them. They can do a no knock raid on the wrong house, kill the occupants, and face no repercussions.
Further, despite 2A advocates claiming it is there to defend against tyranny, the police do not actually fear violent repercussions after the fact because it pretty much never happens. (Of course they do fear attack in the moment, when they're instigating.)
What do you mean? No one faced any repercussions for the deaths of all those people. No one was fired. The officers in charge continued to have successful careers.
How often were they doing this before the Branch Davidian raid? I honestly don't know. If it was rare it's hard to infer anything from what they've done or not done since.
The Branch Dividian raid was supposed to be an easy political win for the feds "look at all these guns we've taken from these christian fundamentalist wackos" to distract from the Ruby Ridge incident a year prior that everyone hated them for.
There was a clear trajectory toward increasing such aggressive raids. Quarter-century-old details escape me at the moment, but many were quite aware of such things ramping up. The Ruby Ridge incident was comparably violent but on a smaller scale, a high-profile violent raid occurring a year earlier.
While there were no known punishments for agents/managers of the Branch Davidian incident, there was clearly a massive change in attitude toward using such tactics, lasting decades. The Elian Gonzales incident seemed a hesitating/reluctant resumption 15 years after, again avoided thereafter. The Bundy Ranch incident seemed ready to go there again, but was largely dissuaded by armed citizens. Of late, perceived rhetoric pointing toward resuming aggressive raids is increasing, but held back back per plurality of sentiment willing to fight back.
Note that I'm referring to incidents perpetrated by federal agents. Local police, as the lead article depicts, are ramping up aggressive raids faster - with some, as noted, learning by law or lead that doing so is a bad idea.
Nobody faced any repercussions because the feds never do but the next time that situation rolled around they handled it far more properly.
You tend to see the same thing in police departments where officers get shot conducting unnecessary no-knocks. Of course it never makes more than the local news.
Hard disagree. For example, when doing a drug bust on a drugs kingpin the government won't bring out the bearcat. They very calmly arrange a meeting and work out a deal.
Exactly. When someone "matters" they tail them and then "stop them for a tail light out" or find some other pretext to whisk them off the street. Shock and awe shit is for keeping the plebes in line.
As a non-American I've always wondered why the Walter Whites of America don't pull a Terminator on a police station after learning that their family members have been brutally executed by police officers.
The last I've really heard of someone doing that in America was the guy who flew his plane into the IRS building.
There are fewer Walter Whites in this country than you might expect, and the nature of it means fewer still have the resources necessary to do something like that. Probably good news overall since most of them wouldn't pick targets we'd like them to pick.
It isn't the Walter Whites and their families that are being brutalized. Walter was a multimillionaire and business owner (car wash), the police exist to protect his assets.
There are material incentives to using them too which are baked into policy.The 1033 program requires that all equipment issued through it be used within one year of the date it is granted. In addition to being "fun toys" there are real structural incentives too.
The wording is probably something like "return after finished mission or within one year" because the equipment is loaned. I'd expect terms to vary wildly based on what the equipment is and who is receiving it.
As an aside, wording seems to be an important part of formulating these requests too. There was an interesting example used in coaching correct requests. Don't say you need blankets to keep detainees warm. Instead say you need blankets so that LEOs can provide detainees with warmth. Important apparently bc the property is primarily for the benefit of LEOs.
“Property obtained under the SPO must be placed into use within one (1) year of receipt, unless the condition of the property renders it unusable, in which case the property can be returned to the nearest DLA Disposition Services Site. If property is not put into use by the LEA within one (1) year, the State/LEA must coordinate a transfer of property to another LEA or request a turn-in to return the property to the nearest DLA Disposition Services Site. All costs associated with the transportation, turn-in, or other expenses related to property obtained through the LESO 1033 Program, is the sole responsibility of the LEA.”
From some other incidents, it seems as though the motive is often to use their cool toys. These swat teams never get a chance to use most of this stuff, because their community doesn't actually need a swat team. A siege is an excuse to drive around their huge armored vehicle and throw grenades.
> Why on Earth did the police feel it was necessary to do all this just to catch one guy?
probably because doing this kind of stuff is fun when there are zero consequences. If you're a sociopath its probably even more fun because you don't need to feel bad about other people's lives being ruined.
I want to generally remark that 'violence makes no sense'.
Basically, my best effort at resolving violence entirely capitalist-inhumanist (economic stick/carrot, culturally agnostic solution, allowing an individual to be hobo's, addicts, foreign diplomats, aliens or robots basically) leads to a strange capacity-assurance metagame.
Basically it ends up being pretty Cyberpunk 2077 by the example of their 'medical extraction teams'. There's something oddly desireable about that style; professional and expensive, highly capable performance orientation. And, by that example, enforcement operations are actually very similar.
That example also makes you realize very quickly that you're 'putting a gun in the first chapter' (it tends to be used later in the story).
How would a gang war be possible if both sides had:
- Health insurance (you pay my healthcare costs)
but also
- Prevention Bonds (if you do not prevent it, you forfeit your upfront)
Basically, a gang member is expect to potentially operate with a security company. The usual conflation of professional life or lifestyle is sort of removed with that - violence is worth money, but it's worth better money when it's legal violence. Prevents the idea that one's raison d'etre is their relationship with their gang. Similarly - a vested interest in issue prevention can be forced upon the entire circumstance. Machine Learning to validate the effectiveness.
Could be very fun once we have AI prevention mechanisms, to throw rocks at people and just watch them somehow not reach the target. Or, idk, have the 7G mast spazz your muscles out before you toss it or something. Getting the control mechanisms right is clearly important, and things like adapting a poison dart to a person for their allergies should be pushed directly by (tuneable) financial incentives.
Basically, could be made very unattractive 'overall financially' if things go badly with individuals. Regions of the US could be given higher taxes or 'forced commitment' to a qualifying group of enforcement organizations, if certain criteria are met. Basically - 'talking' to such communities' lack of harmonic practices through their pockets. Could end up as a forced reroll on any neighborhood that produces issues; it's often a consequence of not being in a good circumstantiality and it'd benefit a lot of these monkeys to just land elsewhere.
I'm positive this fiscal-first approach makes it 'right-wing' or something, but the appearance of a great deal of scalars for tuning the security circumstances through fiscalities strikes me as a left wing affect.
Reminds me of the 80s, when the LAPD used a battering-ram to bust suspected drug houses, leaving them demolished[1]. The only good that came of that was this rap song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IODrx7DmqDM
Not that I would ever want to experience this...I have a 8000 lb (3600 kg) CNC machine in the middle of my garage, flanked by a 2200 lb (1000 kg) manual milling machine. I wonder what would happen if SWAT tried to drive a BearCat through the garage without knowing what's on the other side of the door?
At some point, America is going to have to admit to itself that the police has become the military. Police call non-law enforcement people "civilians", they're armed for tactical urban warfare and they have a kill or be killed mindset.
Of course, this analogy falls apart when they engage in civil forfeiture (they take your money without cause). In that case they don't act like active military, they act like pirates.
I would love to see a 3rd or 4th Amendment case against some of this stuff.
> There are plenty of people who see the police as the standing army the founding fathers warned us about.
Firstly, this requires some real historical revisionism as police were actually around when the founding fathers were. American law is foundationally based on British Common Law, which also employed police vigorously.
But I agree with you about HN. Most of the commentators here probably supported the giant expansion of federal, militarized police: the Capitol Police. That $3B expansion funded on conspiracies of white supremacists everywhere has led to two new charters of a federal police in states not in the Capitol.
They're the very opposite of this issue here, and explicitly call out non-violence as goal, and to ensure policing is supportive and at the will of the population, not to subjugate the population.
Later codified as:
- To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
- To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
- To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
- To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
- To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
- To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
- To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
- To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
- To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
Those things were developed in the 19th century, so clearly the founders didn't find police (even without those principles) problematic.
But those things are not controversial. I think what happened to this lady is terrible and her case is correct.
What I'm pointing out is the hypocrisy of the people who are ACAB but then supported tens of thousands of troops guarding the Capitol ("ol" not "al") and an expansion of a real national military police on silly, false pretexts.
Police forces as we know them were most definitely not around when the founding fathers established the country. At that time law enforcement consisted of citizen watches and constables. Constables served writs and warrants usually paid based upon the number served and also performed other non-law enforcement duties. Police departments didn't start appearing in the US until the 1830s.
> At that time law enforcement consisted of citizen watches and constables.
Sheriffs, in other words.
We can debate whether or not more or less power should be given to directly elected sheriffs and deputies, or the police, but that is immaterial. Sheriffs and police are two near identical systems of power that are applied in different manners. The critics of police power are also critical of sheriffs, in many cases more so.
I would personally prefer we demilitarize the police, including federal police and the FBI, but the idea that local cops is a standing army is silly.
The military also has much stricter ROE than the police do. The police are state-sanctioned violent gangs designed purely for oppression and fear, nothing else. How else can you justify blanket qualified immunity with no recourse, civil forfeiture, and the extreme militarization of their equipment and processes.
Not just stricter ROE, but much more accountability. If those ROE are violated, you'll see everyone up the chain start sweating. Shit still rolls downhill, but it's also really not uncommon to see commanders get replaced when major fuckups happen down the chain. That doesn't happen with civilian police forces.
"At some point, America is going to have to admit to itself that the police has become the military. Police call non-law enforcement people "civilians", they're armed for tactical urban warfare and they have a kill or be killed mindset."
More than the actual army itself, the militarized police is the standing army that anti-federalists warned about.
What I don't really get is why the U.S. supposedly structured to avoid such militarization has given in the fear and allowed such militarization to happen and propagate oppressive state arm usage. Every encounter with the police is expectedly a gunfight waiting to happen. Any just improperly trained officer is a danger to everyone around them (gun, plus gun ho culture, plus immunity plus possibly (per state/County) lack of supervision).
I grew up thinking it was normal for an trainee officer or at formal events for an officer to not have a gun. It was an expected cultural disappointment to see an officer walks in with a gun on university grounds in the U.S. (not shock...).
Case in point: European police to call about ak47 carrying robber hitting during the night a bank to the security guard: stay away and we will investigate and catch him later (they did, no gunfight)
U.S.: Suicidal person holding no hostages at some store and asking for people to call the police to kill him: the two officers charge in and start a gunfight almost getting killed(just pick one of the posted YouTube body cam videos...)
I am just speechless.
> Every encounter with the police is expectedly a gunfight waiting to happen.
While many people may think that now, it is by no means the reality. The vast majority of encounters are non-violent.
The U.S. has many problems with policing and they should be addressed, but you should not let the media control your perspective about how common these things are.
Your examples are also not really comparable. Someone using a weapon for theft is not the same as someone looking to commit suicide by cop. The former is unlikely to kill someone without cause, the former is an unstable individual who is expecting no consequences to matter for their actions since they intend to be dead. Everyone in their vicinity is possibly in mortal danger. That doesn't mean the police acted correctly, but it's not comparable to the other scenario for the purpose of how police should act.
The encounters are non-violent, but the officer doesn't know that. When they pull over a driver, who reaches into the glove compartment or jacket for an ID, they have to be aware of the possibility that the person will pull a gun.
Usually they don't. But they know that it could happen, and act accordingly. And the people they pull over know that one wrong move could turn into "I thought they were going for a gun".
That encounter is incredibly tense, no matter how minor. One person always has a gun. The other might. There is no way to avoid that tension, given how many guns are out there.
That's assuming the best of intentions on the part of the officer. Not all police officers are saints, and even small thumbs on the scale of their tension easily turn into tragedies. If the officer doesn't like the look of you, for whatever reason, the danger just went up. And if you're a member of a group that officers often don't like, you've brought even more tension to an already tense encounter.
So yes, most people walk away from most encounters. But the potential for violence is always there, on the officer's hip, ready to be brought into use. Both the officer and you would be fools not to be acutely aware of that.
I think the new wave of common residential video security systems, like Ring, are going to make this incredibly clear in the coming years.
Events involving the police abusing power are often “he said, she said” situations that are heavily biased in favor of the police. We’ve seen an uptick in reporting since everyone started carrying a camera, and when every home has an always-on video security system, victims will have the evidence they need to really fight for their rights.
Well if I read things right, ring does give privileged access to LEAs so I'm guessing the next step is to make ring delete footage because 'active police stuff'...
This cop violently attacked this dog, for absolutely no reason. Without the camera, the cop could brush this off as “the dog attacked me and I had to get in” where clearly that is not the case.
Unfortunately, the "police only kill black people" narrative is distracting from this reality. If people could focus on the fact that the police is unnecessarily violent and lethal towards anyone it could change quickly. Focusing on black people basically makes 80% of the population feel - wrongly - like they don't need to worry about the problem.
And yeah yeah, "ratio something disproportionate blabla". I dont even care. The reality is if you want to be pragmatic and fix the problem you need to get buy in and support from as many people as possible. You need all people to understand that anybody can get gunned down for effectively no reasons.
Indeed, Kelly Thomas, brutally murdered by Fullerton police, was not black. And furthermore, his dad was a police officer.
Sometimes I wonder if BLM may actually be a pro-criminal-police conspiracy to divide the population by re-framing the police brutality problem into a racial issue.
I would be downright shocked if deliberate efforts haven't been made by bad actors, foreign or domestic, to give a spotlight to the loudest & most dubious voices inside both BLM and those opposed to it.
Well they have, Mueller investigation revealed Russians ran the blm social media show as well, for "whatever" reason your media rarely talked about it but you're free to read yourself from the original report :)
I think everybody already knows, there is just no serious organized movement to fix the police (and the activists yapping "defund the police!" are not credible).
and the army/pentagon donates equipment to small towns across the US... like those MRAP [1] (Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected armored personnel vehicle) using their black/secret budget?
A lot of smart people don't want to join the police to either condone their behavior or get in confrontations with them, and / or eventually possibly become one of them.
The rhetoric of the day around protests has been, property is irrelevant and lives matter. Aside from the dog, the police didn't kill anyone, this time. The rhetoric also says insurance will cover it.
That was a lie.
In this case and in many of the victims of last year's unrest people are finding insurance doesn't cover it. Ethically the city would cover the actions of the officers and the voters and taxpayers would consider that in the next election cycle. If the incumbents win, the people have spoken that the actions are valid. Currently qualified immunity has given a wide path for police to rush in and worry later.
Sadly a dog got hurt, in other cases it has been a flashbang in a crib mutilating a minor. Elections show the will of the people.
The existence of a police force is indicative of social failure. If a police force exists, we’re already making mistakes. Our goal as a community should be to have zero police.
How do you enforce laws with zero police? Not arguing that the state of law enforcement in the US is acceptable... but it's a huge leap from there to zero police.
Parent is arguing that we should understand what incentivizes people to break laws and fix that. ie: do rootcause analysis, employ systems-level thinking and take preventative measures.
A lot of folks are focusing on whether or not the officer's use of force and destruction was justified or not in this or other cases, but really this is orthogonal to the question of who should pay for it.
The right answer is that the police department (not the officers) should pay for all damage caused, regardless of whether it was justified by the circumstances. Implicitly then, the taxpayers are sharing the load for the full cost of police protection.
We should expect that the police will occasionally cause damage, and this is just part of the cost of funding a police force.
This would also add a nice check/balance, since the taxpayers will be more aware of how much damage police are causing and have an incentive to say something about it if it becomes excessive.
128 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 197 ms ] threadThe case is a little different because in the case from OP, the resident at the home knowingly let the fugitive into her home(who she knew was a fugitive). She then left and called the police. Whereas with the case I linked in Colorado, the fugitive illegally entered the home.
On the flip side, the Colorado suspect was actively shooting at the police from the home, while the Texas suspect apparently didn't do that, and merely committed suicide in a bedroom.
That really doesn't read very well.
> Authorities say the suspect stole two belts and a shirt from a Walmart
> In an attempt to force the suspect out, law enforcement blew up walls with explosives, fired tear gas and drove a military-style armored vehicle through the property's doors.
Amazing...
> he broke into Lech's house for protection and was firing at officers with a handgun
I think an in-built insurance system that all workees contribute to mandatorily works better. If less in damages is awarded than was collected, they could partially return as a proportional bonus to the workers
It's not a straightforward issue but I think most would agree the current incentives are skewed towards doing whatever and not being responsible for any damage or cost
Also, I'm way more worried about use of force against pets, they seem awfully trigger happy vs. dogs sometimes.
Also, I think officer's should be required to carry malpractice insurance (similar to doctor's), and qualified immunity should be thrown out. This would give insurers a strong incentive to drive-out the cops that are prone to committing assault, battery, and unnecessary property damage. I guarantee you an insurer with a profit motive isn't going to just ignore 13 use of force complaints against an officer.
Such a scheme would also make it harder for bad officers to move a city or state and continue abusing the public elsewhere. Their insurance premiums would remain too high.
They will when they're threatened by a gang of police officers.
Malpractice insurance is an important part of police reform but alone I think it will be insufficient. If you combine some sort of mechanism that sees lawsuits against police departments being paid out from the police pension plan instead of taxpayers coffers I imagine you would see police reform really quick.
It's all about aligning incentives and only when one shit-head police officer's corrupt behaviour is detrimental to the group will you see reform. Divide and conquer.
At least that's better than normal people having to put up with that and pay for it. Now on to solve the next problem with police...
It disagree:
(1) Malpractice, by definition, is negligent violation the professional standard of care, i.e., what is routine in the profession; violations of that are by definition not the issue with systemic problems.
(2) The actual systemic problems are the kinds of things which are generally categorically uninsurable for very good reasons; intentional, and often—though usually unprosecuted, which is why people are concerned with civil liability—criminal wrongdoing.
> If you combine some sort of mechanism that sees lawsuits against police departments being paid out from the police pension plan instead of taxpayers coffers I imagine you would see police reform really quick.
The police pension plan is the public coffers; it's a fund set aside to fulfill a contractual obligation of the public agency and which the contributing agency is legally obligated (barring discharge in bankruptcy) to make up any shortfall in.
Since we're presumably already talking about changing the law, we could presumably set up a system whereby those legal obligations are reduced according to those judgements.
I don't actually advocate it, but (paraphrasing) "that doesn't even make sense" isn't the most interesting response.
I mean, sure, we could presumably amend the Constitution to weaken due process protections to allow that kind of collective punishment, but that's a fairly drastic measure with enormous knock-on effects.
But also, that takes much deeper and wider political support at all levels to pass than just electing DAs that will prosecute cops for crimes; if law enforcement has enough politics pull to prevent the latter, it has more than enough to prevent dismantling fundamental Constitutional guarantees just to make punishment of officers not proven to be directly involved in wrongdoing easier.
> I don't actually advocate it, but (paraphrasing) "that doesn't even make sense" isn't the most interesting response.
It may not be the most entertaining, but the proposal is incoherent on many levels, so its really the only possible response.
What other policies do you think we should put in place to rein in corrupt law enforcement in America?
While reforming QI so its not functionally absolute immunity is probably beneficial, corruption in law enforcement in the US is not principally a policy problem, it's principally a problem of people not believing it's enough of a problem not to consistently defer to law enforcement recommendations at the ballot box, particularly when it comes to electing the people who will implement the existing (and any potential future) policies intended to hold police accountable.
I’m not sure which issues you are referring to; if they are the ones that get heavy media coverage of widespread complaints, I think they are largely real problems, some quite severe, and that they barely scratch the surface of real, systemic problems in American policing.
My issue is with people pushing “solutions” that ignore the nature of those problems and the political context creating/supporting the problems, not with the idea that they are problems.
I didn't mean entertaining, exactly, so much as that it seemed unlikely to convince anyone who held the opposite view since it (shallowly) seemed easily worked around. It was an important part of the more interesting argument, which you've elaborated on further and which this morning I would have expected to convince - "it is probably harder than the thing we need, and also still relies on the thing we need" seems pretty conclusive if accurate.
It is completely reasonable to make them keep in mind all the potential and direct effects of their actions.
I think it would be beneficial for them to find alternative ways of catching a bad guy than busting down doors. It's a completely unnecessary escalation far more often than not.
Deescalation is a skill that requires understanding human nature, displays of understanding and empathy, and is most frequently done through talking. But also in patience and not forcing issues at times and places likely to result in a violent confrontation.
After all, its not like the officer went rouge. The problem is police policies not that one individual.
(The moral ideal may be practical if it is entirely successful as a deterrent.)
They should. The community elects the leaders who control the police. The incentives align pretty well.
You can have bad cop with lot of education and good cop with very Tuttle.
"Police later told Deanna that their plan was “shock and awe.” Using the department’s BearCat armored tactical vehicle, the SWAT team toppled Vicki’s fence and drove through her front door. They also used explosives to blow through her garage door and fired more than thirty explosive tear gas canisters through the windows. When they finally stormed the house, they found that Little had committed suicide in her bedroom. The only living thing remaining inside was Deanna’s dog which was left deaf and blind from the explosions."
Why on Earth did the police feel it was necessary to do all this just to catch one guy? No checking whether the guy might have offed himself? Or did they ever consider just waiting for him to come out and then arresting him? Nope! Just reach right away for the cool bang-bang toys! These tools and tactics are what soldiers use when they want to destroy an enemy fortress, not what civilian police ought to be using...well...for any reason.
1: https://ij.org/case/texas-swat-destruction/
I think I heard it on Freakonomics, but I'm not sure.
It’s pretty disingenuous to try to pin this on Trump. (And I’m no fan of Trump.) Both parties are very complicit.
The following is an opinion and may be an unjust one:
They had toys and a rare chance to play with them.
I don't think much else is required or stands in the way.
That's one of many things the author of "The Rise of the Warrior Cop" argues.
He also argues a fundamental flaw in recruiting for SWAT and similar police units: these squads should be all about de-escalation and defusing violent and complex situations, but instead are full of guys who just want to blow shit up. The kind of police officers who would like to join SWAT, he argues, is precisely the kind who should be rejected.
Good luck fixing that, though.
No, they weren't.
Cops were a mob, and their primary purpose was originally to hold the other mobs in check.
> Can you imagine them pulling any of this in an old Italian or Irish neighborhood?
Yes. In the North, the original major police forces were basically ethnic gangs given government sponsorship and deployed first and foremost to do battle with other ethnic gangs, so that’s exactly the kind of neighborhood the police would be using major force on, if it wasn't the one they were drawn from.
That’s so what less the case now because the police became an independent political force with a union and lobby that tends to be decisive in local elections, so they became able to effectively pick their own targets, and going in strongest against soft targets and mostly avoiding the harder ones is a lot safer, if you have the clout to swing it.
On the rare occurrences when it happens it does change how the agency involved approaches things in the future. See Waco vs Bundy ranch.
While there were no known punishments for agents/managers of the Branch Davidian incident, there was clearly a massive change in attitude toward using such tactics, lasting decades. The Elian Gonzales incident seemed a hesitating/reluctant resumption 15 years after, again avoided thereafter. The Bundy Ranch incident seemed ready to go there again, but was largely dissuaded by armed citizens. Of late, perceived rhetoric pointing toward resuming aggressive raids is increasing, but held back back per plurality of sentiment willing to fight back.
Note that I'm referring to incidents perpetrated by federal agents. Local police, as the lead article depicts, are ramping up aggressive raids faster - with some, as noted, learning by law or lead that doing so is a bad idea.
You tend to see the same thing in police departments where officers get shot conducting unnecessary no-knocks. Of course it never makes more than the local news.
The last I've really heard of someone doing that in America was the guy who flew his plane into the IRS building.
Wow, do you have a citation for that?
Edit:
States are apparently required to file an LESO operation plan. Here is an example from the Minnesota LESO operation plan
Section III. C.
> ... are required to utilize property within one year or schedule its return
https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/hsem/homeland-security/Document...
https://www.dla.mil/DispositionServices/Offers/Reutilization... has request forms.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Property+obtained+under+this+SPO+m...
“Property obtained under the SPO must be placed into use within one (1) year of receipt, unless the condition of the property renders it unusable, in which case the property can be returned to the nearest DLA Disposition Services Site. If property is not put into use by the LEA within one (1) year, the State/LEA must coordinate a transfer of property to another LEA or request a turn-in to return the property to the nearest DLA Disposition Services Site. All costs associated with the transportation, turn-in, or other expenses related to property obtained through the LESO 1033 Program, is the sole responsibility of the LEA.”
probably because doing this kind of stuff is fun when there are zero consequences. If you're a sociopath its probably even more fun because you don't need to feel bad about other people's lives being ruined.
Basically, my best effort at resolving violence entirely capitalist-inhumanist (economic stick/carrot, culturally agnostic solution, allowing an individual to be hobo's, addicts, foreign diplomats, aliens or robots basically) leads to a strange capacity-assurance metagame.
Basically it ends up being pretty Cyberpunk 2077 by the example of their 'medical extraction teams'. There's something oddly desireable about that style; professional and expensive, highly capable performance orientation. And, by that example, enforcement operations are actually very similar.
That example also makes you realize very quickly that you're 'putting a gun in the first chapter' (it tends to be used later in the story).
How would a gang war be possible if both sides had: - Health insurance (you pay my healthcare costs) but also - Prevention Bonds (if you do not prevent it, you forfeit your upfront)
Basically, a gang member is expect to potentially operate with a security company. The usual conflation of professional life or lifestyle is sort of removed with that - violence is worth money, but it's worth better money when it's legal violence. Prevents the idea that one's raison d'etre is their relationship with their gang. Similarly - a vested interest in issue prevention can be forced upon the entire circumstance. Machine Learning to validate the effectiveness.
Could be very fun once we have AI prevention mechanisms, to throw rocks at people and just watch them somehow not reach the target. Or, idk, have the 7G mast spazz your muscles out before you toss it or something. Getting the control mechanisms right is clearly important, and things like adapting a poison dart to a person for their allergies should be pushed directly by (tuneable) financial incentives.
Basically, could be made very unattractive 'overall financially' if things go badly with individuals. Regions of the US could be given higher taxes or 'forced commitment' to a qualifying group of enforcement organizations, if certain criteria are met. Basically - 'talking' to such communities' lack of harmonic practices through their pockets. Could end up as a forced reroll on any neighborhood that produces issues; it's often a consequence of not being in a good circumstantiality and it'd benefit a lot of these monkeys to just land elsewhere.
I'm positive this fiscal-first approach makes it 'right-wing' or something, but the appearance of a great deal of scalars for tuning the security circumstances through fiscalities strikes me as a left wing affect.
It's because they had a good time doing it.
[1] https://www.latimes.com/visuals/photography/la-me-fw-archive...
Nothing good. I think.
So it's definitely going to hurt in both directions.
I wild fire them for stupidity but guess who is more stupid for not voting them out...??? It is all our fault at the end of the day.
Of course, this analogy falls apart when they engage in civil forfeiture (they take your money without cause). In that case they don't act like active military, they act like pirates.
I would love to see a 3rd or 4th Amendment case against some of this stuff.
You just don't find many of those people on HN.
I see plenty of them here in this discussion.
Firstly, this requires some real historical revisionism as police were actually around when the founding fathers were. American law is foundationally based on British Common Law, which also employed police vigorously.
But I agree with you about HN. Most of the commentators here probably supported the giant expansion of federal, militarized police: the Capitol Police. That $3B expansion funded on conspiracies of white supremacists everywhere has led to two new charters of a federal police in states not in the Capitol.
They're the very opposite of this issue here, and explicitly call out non-violence as goal, and to ensure policing is supportive and at the will of the population, not to subjugate the population.
Later codified as:
- To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
- To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
- To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
- To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
- To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
- To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
- To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
- To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
- To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
But those things are not controversial. I think what happened to this lady is terrible and her case is correct.
What I'm pointing out is the hypocrisy of the people who are ACAB but then supported tens of thousands of troops guarding the Capitol ("ol" not "al") and an expansion of a real national military police on silly, false pretexts.
Sheriffs, in other words.
We can debate whether or not more or less power should be given to directly elected sheriffs and deputies, or the police, but that is immaterial. Sheriffs and police are two near identical systems of power that are applied in different manners. The critics of police power are also critical of sheriffs, in many cases more so.
I would personally prefer we demilitarize the police, including federal police and the FBI, but the idea that local cops is a standing army is silly.
More than the actual army itself, the militarized police is the standing army that anti-federalists warned about.
I grew up thinking it was normal for an trainee officer or at formal events for an officer to not have a gun. It was an expected cultural disappointment to see an officer walks in with a gun on university grounds in the U.S. (not shock...).
Case in point: European police to call about ak47 carrying robber hitting during the night a bank to the security guard: stay away and we will investigate and catch him later (they did, no gunfight)
U.S.: Suicidal person holding no hostages at some store and asking for people to call the police to kill him: the two officers charge in and start a gunfight almost getting killed(just pick one of the posted YouTube body cam videos...) I am just speechless.
While many people may think that now, it is by no means the reality. The vast majority of encounters are non-violent.
The U.S. has many problems with policing and they should be addressed, but you should not let the media control your perspective about how common these things are.
Your examples are also not really comparable. Someone using a weapon for theft is not the same as someone looking to commit suicide by cop. The former is unlikely to kill someone without cause, the former is an unstable individual who is expecting no consequences to matter for their actions since they intend to be dead. Everyone in their vicinity is possibly in mortal danger. That doesn't mean the police acted correctly, but it's not comparable to the other scenario for the purpose of how police should act.
Usually they don't. But they know that it could happen, and act accordingly. And the people they pull over know that one wrong move could turn into "I thought they were going for a gun".
That encounter is incredibly tense, no matter how minor. One person always has a gun. The other might. There is no way to avoid that tension, given how many guns are out there.
That's assuming the best of intentions on the part of the officer. Not all police officers are saints, and even small thumbs on the scale of their tension easily turn into tragedies. If the officer doesn't like the look of you, for whatever reason, the danger just went up. And if you're a member of a group that officers often don't like, you've brought even more tension to an already tense encounter.
So yes, most people walk away from most encounters. But the potential for violence is always there, on the officer's hip, ready to be brought into use. Both the officer and you would be fools not to be acutely aware of that.
Events involving the police abusing power are often “he said, she said” situations that are heavily biased in favor of the police. We’ve seen an uptick in reporting since everyone started carrying a camera, and when every home has an always-on video security system, victims will have the evidence they need to really fight for their rights.
(Warning, violent dog abuse)
https://twitter.com/haleyjrichey/status/1465785057134710787?...
This cop violently attacked this dog, for absolutely no reason. Without the camera, the cop could brush this off as “the dog attacked me and I had to get in” where clearly that is not the case.
And yeah yeah, "ratio something disproportionate blabla". I dont even care. The reality is if you want to be pragmatic and fix the problem you need to get buy in and support from as many people as possible. You need all people to understand that anybody can get gunned down for effectively no reasons.
Sometimes I wonder if BLM may actually be a pro-criminal-police conspiracy to divide the population by re-framing the police brutality problem into a racial issue.
1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/04/18/...
In some countries, the police don't even carry guns.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/st...
https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/criminal-ju...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_rKA6ROAVk
They were actively recruiting for the type of person who would enjoy being on a SWAT team like this.
https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/07/newport-beach...
That was a lie.
In this case and in many of the victims of last year's unrest people are finding insurance doesn't cover it. Ethically the city would cover the actions of the officers and the voters and taxpayers would consider that in the next election cycle. If the incumbents win, the people have spoken that the actions are valid. Currently qualified immunity has given a wide path for police to rush in and worry later.
Sadly a dog got hurt, in other cases it has been a flashbang in a crib mutilating a minor. Elections show the will of the people.
The right answer is that the police department (not the officers) should pay for all damage caused, regardless of whether it was justified by the circumstances. Implicitly then, the taxpayers are sharing the load for the full cost of police protection.
We should expect that the police will occasionally cause damage, and this is just part of the cost of funding a police force.
This would also add a nice check/balance, since the taxpayers will be more aware of how much damage police are causing and have an incentive to say something about it if it becomes excessive.