Fighting Police Corruption

[Eulogy]

This thread got me thinking about the best way to bypass blue walls and holding corrupt/sadistic "police" accountable for crimes that THEY inflict on other people. Yes, it's a pretty loaded question, but as individuals that are less likely to be punished for their wrongs, you unfortunately run the risk of getting completely screwed over by those who don't deserve the badge (or shouldn't have gotten it in the first place, for that matter).

The linked thread makes the point that being polite and *ahem* accomodating to the police can save you a lot of trouble, but sometimes there's nothing you could have done to prevent drawing the ire of a sadisitic monster.

How do you make sure that you're not the target of police brutality, and if brutality does happen to you, how do you right the wrongs and put the wolves in sheepdog's clothing behind bars? Granted, it's not likely to happen if you're not stupid or unlucky, but it can still happen to the best of us.

[Darth Wong]

How do you make sure that you're not the target of police brutality

Be white. Dress expensively, or at least respectably. Have a wife and kids. Be polite and helpful.

and if brutality does happen to you, how do you right the wrongs and put the wolves in sheepdog's clothing behind bars? Granted, it's not likely to happen if you're not stupid or unlucky, but it can still happen to the best of us.

The press is one of your few friends in that situation, it would seem.

PS. I personally find that the worst cops tend to operate in quiet sleepy communities. The small-town cops I've dealt with have often been abusive, arrogant pricks. You could tell that they were just itching for an excuse to use their authority. The Toronto cops, on the other hand, have always been 100% as helpful, dignified, and courteous to me as I tried to be to them. Personally, I suspect the difference is that the Toronto cops have real problems to deal with. They know they could get shot tomorrow, and they've consciously chosen to risk that for the safety of the community; this says something about their character. The sleepy small-town cop, on the other hand, doesn't seriously expect to ever run into anything more dangerous than the town drunk, or maybe an unruly raccoon.

[Aaron]

This thread got me thinking about the best way to bypass blue walls and holding corrupt/sadistic "police" accountable for crimes that THEY inflict on other people. Yes, it's a pretty loaded question, but as individuals that are less likely to be punished for their wrongs, you unfortunately run the risk of getting completely screwed over by those who don't deserve the badge (or shouldn't have gotten it in the first place, for that matter).

The linked thread makes the point that being polite and *ahem* accomodating to the police can save you a lot of trouble, but sometimes there's nothing you could have done to prevent drawing the ire of a sadisitic monster.

How do you make sure that you're not the target of police brutality, and if brutality does happen to you, how do you right the wrongs and put the wolves in sheepdog's clothing behind bars? Granted, it's not likely to happen if you're not stupid or unlucky, but it can still happen to the best of us.

Push for a large, well funded, well trained and well regulated force ala the RCMP or the OPP. Do they have problems? Of course but it seems they have less problems then the forces of our American neighbours.

[Eulogy]

Be white. Dress expensively, or at least respectably. Have a wife and kids. Be polite and helpful.

You only have conscious control over half of that. You can control the way you dress and act - even if you're poor - but the other half isn't quite so easy.

Cynicism is a blessing and a curse.

The press is one of your few friends in that situation, it would seem.

PS. I personally find that the worst cops tend to operate in quiet sleepy communities. The small-town cops I've dealt with have often been abusive, arrogant pricks. You could tell that they were just itching for an excuse to use their authority. The Toronto cops, on the other hand, have always been 100% as helpful, dignified, and courteous to me as I tried to be to them. Personally, I suspect the difference is that the Toronto cops have real problems to deal with. They know they could get shot tomorrow, and they've consciously chosen to risk that for the safety of the community; this says something about their character. The sleepy small-town cop, on the other hand, doesn't seriously expect to ever run into anything more dangerous than the town drunk, or maybe an unruly raccoon.

Yet another reason to stay out of rural communities, and move to a city. Preferably a big one.

The small-town cop, on the other hand, is just asking to get shot, shanked, or mauled. They're not the brightest of thugs.

[Hawkwings]

Don't go into an interaction with the police thinking "Oh no what if this one's an sadistic prick and he pulls me out of the car and police brutalizes me and ohshitshitshit..."

Because with that sort of attitude (which I suspect many people have) you're bound to get yourself in trouble. You're preparing yourself for a fight, when there does not need to be a fight, and you give yourself away with the way you talk, your posture, and other little tics that people can pick up. They they may, consciously or unconsciously, react to your defensiveness by assuming that there's something wrong or that you're trying to hide something.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Make all crimes perpetrated by the local/state police federal offenses, so that they know that the Feds will be breathing down their necks if they abuse their power.

[Wing Commander MAD]

I would recommend full and completely transparent civilian oversight, as well as investigators to look into incidents or reports of police brutality. There would need to be a strict enforcment of noone who was a police officer/security guard or attempted to be one and noone who is directly related (maybe even restrictions on indirect relations) to law enforcment. Finally, maybe make thier badge numbers large and easily visible worn on thier uniforms (I'm thinking neon like what construction workers wear) and it be a criminal offene to cover it. This way they would be easily identifiable without having to actually ask for their bage number, though I imagine some special considerations would need to be made for deployed SWAT units. Finally, any officer who it's found knew about something and concealed it intentionally would face the exact same charges that offender did (ie not just being an accessory), even if its merely overhearing another officer brag about something indirectly and not reporting it. The basic idea is to turn the blue wall of silence from being viewed as a protective barrier into lining you up for a firing squad. I admit this may be a bit draconian and holding people to an insanely high standard, but considering the power they wield (literally making life and death decisions) it's justified. That's how you deter it from happening in society.

Avoiding it basically comes down to avoiding police or possible encounters with them, unless actually needed, when you are a group they're likely to discriminate against/oppress/abuse. It's a rather sad state of affairs, but I don't see this changing anytime soon. It certainly will be several generations if not more until we can expunge this from American society, and thats assuming we actually try to change it.

[Wing Commander MAD]

I do realise that this does seem like standard Internet Toughguy Bullshit, and I suppose it might be to a degree. I am just not sure we can really get, or even expect, any change from the way things currently are without harshness and threat of severe force. I do realise that there is current oversight, however, the article in the linked thread did mention seemingly there being issues to the public acting in a meaningful fashion. Then again, the article is biased, and there may be exaggerations or outright falsehoods presented. I suppose its just a matter of given the way historically police have abused power (especially in small towns like Mike said), or really any group that finds it self in a position of power (thinking of Milgrams study with people taking roles of prisoners and guards) that I am a little suspect of the effectiveness of current methods. Further, exacerbating the problem is the fact that at least to some degree your average middle class or even lower class white person living in suburban America tend to seem to be more trusting of police, and more prone to take their word than a person accused of a crime. I admit that I used to hold that position not to long ago myself. I am not entirely sure what caused me to change that view, but I am definitely more likely to question an officer's use of deadly force when there is only their or their partner's word on the events that happened (especially when minorities are the involved). Maybe my pessimism is simply increasing the older I get and my change in views is unfounded, or maybe I am simply becoming a bit wiser and mature. I felt I should try to explain my reasoning for the above post, so as not to seem like simply being an internet tough guy posting his opinion on an issue and then retreating to criticismless annominity on the net.

[JBG]

How do you make sure that you're not the target of police brutality

Be white. Dress expensively, or at least respectably. Have a wife and kids. Be polite and helpful.

and if brutality does happen to you, how do you right the wrongs and put the wolves in sheepdog's clothing behind bars? Granted, it's not likely to happen if you're not stupid or unlucky, but it can still happen to the best of us.

The press is one of your few friends in that situation, it would seem.

PS. I personally find that the worst cops tend to operate in quiet sleepy communities. The small-town cops I've dealt with have often been abusive, arrogant pricks. You could tell that they were just itching for an excuse to use their authority. The Toronto cops, on the other hand, have always been 100% as helpful, dignified, and courteous to me as I tried to be to them. Personally, I suspect the difference is that the Toronto cops have real problems to deal with. They know they could get shot tomorrow, and they've consciously chosen to risk that for the safety of the community; this says something about their character. The sleepy small-town cop, on the other hand, doesn't seriously expect to ever run into anything more dangerous than the town drunk, or maybe an unruly raccoon.

Interesting post.

Firstly the "be polite and helpfull" is always the best policy.

Secondly, it appears that the smaller the community the more risk of corruption.

[Kamakazie Sith]

How do you make sure that you're not the target of police brutality, and if brutality does happen to you, how do you right the wrongs and put the wolves in sheepdog's clothing behind bars? Granted, it's not likely to happen if you're not stupid or unlucky, but it can still happen to the best of us.

If you suspect you're dealing with a corrupt dangerous officer then you need to be as respectful as possible and don't give him/her any excuse. Don't talk back, don't passively resist, and don't fight back, unless you feel that your life is in danger. This is helpful if someone is recording the incident. Do as your told.

Unfortunately, when it comes to prosecuting these individuals you're at a disadvantage. If it's just your word versus the word of the officer then nothing will happen unless you're able to show a pattern so you'll need to see if you can obtain how many incident like yours this officer has been charged with. Otherwise, you'll need some good evidence that makes the officers actions unreasonable from the perspective of an officer and not the common citizen.

I wish I could remember the court ruling but it basically states that the force used in an arrest must be reasonable from a peace officers perspective. It was demonstrated in this court case that the majority of citizens have a very unrealistic and unsafe idea how police should act. Look at the thread you linked where the author seemed to have difficulty with the idea of killing a 18 year old knife wielding female. Or other examples where people recommend shoot to wound or disarm but don't consider the consequences for failure.

[Stofsk]

I wouldn't waste my time being respectful or deferential. Just keep your mouth shut, and be aware of your rights.

For a run of the mill cop, in a typical everyday situation, of course be polite and treat them as you would like to be treated. But for a corrupt cop? If he wants you, no amount of kissing ass will save yours. No amount of begging, pleading, reason or logic will sway them either. Don't be a smart ass to them, don't talk back, just keep your mouth shut. And whatever you fucking do, stay calm! If you lose it, if you go to pieces, they've got you.

Only criminals battle the police on the streets. If you're in the right, the battle will be won in the courtroom.

[Hawkwings]

I would recommend full and completely transparent civilian oversight, as well as investigators to look into incidents or reports of police brutality. There would need to be a strict enforcment of noone who was a police officer/security guard or attempted to be one and noone who is directly related (maybe even restrictions on indirect relations) to law enforcment. Finally, maybe make thier badge numbers large and easily visible worn on thier uniforms (I'm thinking neon like what construction workers wear) and it be a criminal offene to cover it. This way they would be easily identifiable without having to actually ask for their bage number, though I imagine some special considerations would need to be made for deployed SWAT units. Finally, any officer who it's found knew about something and concealed it intentionally would face the exact same charges that offender did (ie not just being an accessory), even if its merely overhearing another officer brag about something indirectly and not reporting it. The basic idea is to turn the blue wall of silence from being viewed as a protective barrier into lining you up for a firing squad. I admit this may be a bit draconian and holding people to an insanely high standard, but considering the power they wield (literally making life and death decisions) it's justified. That's how you deter it from happening in society.

So what happens when said civilian oversight committee is completely inundated with a flood of reports of "police brutality" from the local disgruntled population? And then what happens when they make a ruling and get yet another flood of complaints about the way they did it and the results they got, considering that the process is completely transparent and "obviously ANYONE with half a brain would have made the OTHER ruling you idiot"? And then what do you do when nobody wants to deal with this crap to be a police officer anymore?

BTW, getting people who work closely together every day and could possibly hold each others lives in their hands to rat each other out is going to be near-impossible. Oh, and once that rat squeals on another officer, you might as well tell him to retire and move to New Zealand, because who's actually gonna work with him anymore?

[Ryan Thunder]

BTW, getting people who work closely together every day and could possibly hold each others lives in their hands to rat each other out is going to be near-impossible. Oh, and once that rat squeals on another officer, you might as well tell him to retire and move to New Zealand, because who's actually gonna work with him anymore?

Gee, I dunno, other law-abiding officers, perhaps?

[Simon_Jester]

Very nervous environment among the law-abiding officers, though, if they're all vigilantly watching each other to see who's going to be the first to break the law.

[Wing Commander MAD]

Hawkwings, with regards to the system, I can't really say more than what I view as what a generall outline of what the systems goals are to be. Surely someplace must have some kind of oversight system that we could model this off of. I realize there is currently oversight, though the article in the linked thread (admittedly it is biased) brought up the issue of ongoing investigations not being open to buplic scrutiny in CA and completed investigations not being covered by CA Freedom of Inforation Act laws. That is kinda the thing I want to avoid, and believe that the publich should have access to. With regards to disgruntled populations, you deal with it (they are afterall probably disgruntled for some reasono). Surely there is some method of weeding out the false claims from the real ones as I doubt every other oversight group investigates every claim they recieve fully. These methods also would have to rely on a responsible public, just like anything else in a democratic/republican society.

I can't believe it but I actually find myself agreeing with Ryan. I would hope an officers commitment to the law is greater than personal ties, otherwise I would tend to see that as potential conflict of intrest and a sign that the person should not be in law enforcement. Finally, I am not advocating they spend all their time watching each other to break the law. Only an idiot would interpret it as that, and is I believe a rather nice straw man Simon_Jester (though I admit I am not overly fluent with all the logical fallacies). My idea is that if you know something, or think you know something you report to the proper authorities. The point is to kill any incentive at all for knowingly concealing information from an investigation, be it out of notions of friendship, brotherhood, or solidarity.

Those who outed others who violated the law, especially if it involved abuses of power that led to injury or death, should be held up amongst their peers as rolemodels. I would tend to view them as professional whistleblowers involed in such issues as the famous BART case (read about it here). The actions of those involved in the BART case are in my mind, as somone trained in the computing profession, what we all must do to maintain our ethical obligations to society. Similary I believe a police officer should hold a similar set of ethical principles, and those who go and put themselves out on the line, risking possibly thier careers or even lives, to uphold them shouldn't be thought of as rats, but rather as heros.

[Stofsk]

I would recommend full and completely transparent civilian oversight, as well as investigators to look into incidents or reports of police brutality. There would need to be a strict enforcment of noone who was a police officer/security guard or attempted to be one and noone who is directly related (maybe even restrictions on indirect relations) to law enforcment. Finally, maybe make thier badge numbers large and easily visible worn on thier uniforms (I'm thinking neon like what construction workers wear) and it be a criminal offene to cover it. This way they would be easily identifiable without having to actually ask for their bage number, though I imagine some special considerations would need to be made for deployed SWAT units. Finally, any officer who it's found knew about something and concealed it intentionally would face the exact same charges that offender did (ie not just being an accessory), even if its merely overhearing another officer brag about something indirectly and not reporting it. The basic idea is to turn the blue wall of silence from being viewed as a protective barrier into lining you up for a firing squad. I admit this may be a bit draconian and holding people to an insanely high standard, but considering the power they wield (literally making life and death decisions) it's justified. That's how you deter it from happening in society.

So what happens when said civilian oversight committee is completely inundated with a flood of reports of "police brutality" from the local disgruntled population? And then what happens when they make a ruling and get yet another flood of complaints about the way they did it and the results they got, considering that the process is completely transparent and "obviously ANYONE with half a brain would have made the OTHER ruling you idiot"?

Well, what do you want? For there to be no oversight?

If the oversight apparatus in place is ineffective then that's a failure of political leadership. Usually there a many avenues to go down to keep the police accountable: media, lawsuits, oversight, ombudsmen, internal affairs, internal censure etc, with the last two being probably the most effective. (and with lawsuits being the least, at least where I live)

And then what do you do when nobody wants to deal with this crap to be a police officer anymore?

My lawyer once told me the only society in which being a police officer should be easy is in a police state.

BTW, getting people who work closely together every day and could possibly hold each others lives in their hands to rat each other out is going to be near-impossible. Oh, and once that rat squeals on another officer, you might as well tell him to retire and move to New Zealand, because who's actually gonna work with him anymore?

Gee, I dunno, other law-abiding officers, perhaps?

Are you kidding or something? Loyalty is almost universally considered more important than integrity. The fact remains that if a cop rats out another cop, very few from his station (or precinct) will ever trust that cop again.

Very nervous environment among the law-abiding officers, though, if they're all vigilantly watching each other to see who's going to be the first to break the law.

I heard an anecdote that is relevant to where I live. A few years ago the offices of my state's police HQ were very tense due to claims of corruption as well as politicking between various 'factions' in the police force. This was during the height of a gangland war which coincided with claims (which were real) of police corruption, which were related to what was going on in the underworld. This came from a crime writer and journalist who's been working for years and years, and he told me that nowadays the atmosphere is hugely different to what it was when he first started. Cops just don't talk to him anymore, other than on condition of anonymity (and even that has changed).

[Hawkwings]

Well, what do you want? For there to be no oversight?

If the oversight apparatus in place is ineffective then that's a failure of political leadership. Usually there a many avenues to go down to keep the police accountable: media, lawsuits, oversight, ombudsmen, internal affairs, internal censure etc, with the last two being probably the most effective. (and with lawsuits being the least, at least where I live)

I disapprove of any "oversight" system where the intention is for anyone with a bone to pick to call in and say "I've been police brutalized by badge number XXXXX please fire him!" To which the person processing the case now has go do a Q&A session with the person and the officer and look at whatever evidence there might be and have 95% of the cases be "Nope, the officer did nothing wrong, maybe you should stop trying to provoke the officer into tazeing you." or something similar. yes, it would be better to catch a brutal officer than to let him go, but because of sheer practicality purposes,

My lawyer once told me the only society in which being a police officer should be easy is in a police state.

I'm not saying that being a police officer should be easy, I'm saying that we shouldn't make it harder for little to no gain. Officers already have a hard enough job just dealing with their day to day duties in public. In super-accountable police precinct, how much time would have to be taken out of patrolling, community outreach, etc, to sit back at the station and be questioned by internal affairs people over what happened 6 days ago at 3:14 PM while you were at a traffic stop and oh yeah we're gonna hook you up to this lie detector while we're at it.

Are you kidding or something? Loyalty is almost universally considered more important than integrity. The fact remains that if a cop rats out another cop, very few from his station (or precinct) will ever trust that cop again.

Whether you believe that loyalty>integrity is good for the public or not, consider who you'd want watching your back as an officer going into a potentially dangerous situation. There's a reason that snitches have poor coworker interactions.

[Darmalus]

It shouldn't be too far in the future before it becomes practical for an officer to wear a camera and microphone 100% of the time on duty. Then you don't have to waste the police officer's time, just pull up the recording of the incident and let the events speak for themselves.

[Stofsk]

I disapprove of any "oversight" system where the intention is for anyone with a bone to pick to call in and say "I've been police brutalized by badge number XXXXX please fire him!" To which the person processing the case now has go do a Q&A session with the person and the officer and look at whatever evidence there might be and have 95% of the cases be "Nope, the officer did nothing wrong, maybe you should stop trying to provoke the officer into tazeing you." or something similar. yes, it would be better to catch a brutal officer than to let him go, but because of sheer practicality purposes,

You'll always get a few asses who will have frivolous complaints to make.

I'm not saying that being a police officer should be easy, I'm saying that we shouldn't make it harder for little to no gain. Officers already have a hard enough job just dealing with their day to day duties in public. In super-accountable police precinct, how much time would have to be taken out of patrolling, community outreach, etc, to sit back at the station and be questioned by internal affairs people over what happened 6 days ago at 3:14 PM while you were at a traffic stop and oh yeah we're gonna hook you up to this lie detector while we're at it.

If a person was stopped at a traffic stop and was either harrassed or for whatever reason hooked up to a polygraph, why shouldn't he complain?

Are you kidding or something? Loyalty is almost universally considered more important than integrity. The fact remains that if a cop rats out another cop, very few from his station (or precinct) will ever trust that cop again.

Whether you believe that loyalty>integrity is good for the public or not, consider who you'd want watching your back as an officer going into a potentially dangerous situation. There's a reason that snitches have poor coworker interactions.

I was actually replying to Ryan Thunder in that bit. I never said I believe loyalty>integrity is good for the public, but I agree that I can understand why man cops feel that way.

[Knife]

For those arguing for a more modern and professional police force; you realize you will have to pay for it. While I have zero problems with that, financing such an endeavor is usually politically tough. You would have to invest in both police infrastructure for that professionalism and accountability AND pay a better wage to get those professional cops and pay more to train them to that level.

[Rye]

My initial reaction would be to try and record it. When I go off getting footage and cops come up and ask what you're doing, you can dangle the camera as if it's not recording and still grab everything. Or hide it under a coat on the parcel shelf of a car or something. Then it's a matter of getting in contact with the police and journalists about it. CCTV is potentially good for this, too. In the meantime, you just behave yourself and be unflinchingly nice to them.

[Hawkwings]

You'll always get a few asses who will have frivolous complaints to make.

True enough, my concern is with that segment of the population that aren't that assholeish, but still don't like the police and want to "get back at them" for whatever reason. If you provide all the infrastructure to make it very easy to file complaints against the police, they're going to take advantage if this and call in many more complaints. Even if the ratio of real complaint:frivolous complaint remains roughly the same (which I doubt) that's still going to mean a flood of additional cases to investigate.

If a person was stopped at a traffic stop and was either harrassed or for whatever reason hooked up to a polygraph, why shouldn't he complain?

I mean the officer would be hooked up to a polygraph while giving his version of the events. There was no harassing implied in this situation anywhere.

I was actually replying to Ryan Thunder in that bit. I never said I believe loyalty>integrity is good for the public, but I agree that I can understand why man cops feel that way.

I was just reinforcing the point, not trying to fight you about it.

The camera/microphone thing: This does seem like a good idea and should be implementable in the near future. My only concern is that it may not capture the entirety of the situation, but it is definitely a good measure that should provide strong accountability without undue stress on the officers.

[Ryan Thunder]

Are you kidding or something? Loyalty is almost universally considered more important than integrity. The fact remains that if a cop rats out another cop, very few from his station (or precinct) will ever trust that cop again.

So... they don't believe they can be loyal and still have integrity? Are people always this stupid?

[Erik von Nein]

Are you? He said loyalty is more important than integrity not that they are mutually exclusive.

[Batman]

They ARE mutually exclusive. Loyalty requires you to cover up when a colleague does something that breaks the rules. Integrity requires you to report it.