Sleeping 7-Year Old Shot by Police During Raid

[SVPD]

Regarding the point I've seen made by both KS and SVPD, that this sort of problematic behavior is concentrated in a few bad-apple police departments, that's more or less irrelevant. Whether or the local police somewhere are corrupt and/or incompetent and/or covering for each other, media coverage and penetration via the internet is everywhere. Even if the percentage of assorted 'bad cop' incidents is quite low, and it is, the sheer population of the country means that as an absolute number, it ends up looking much higher to the average person because in modern times, they'll have the potential to hear about far more of them via modern media. Accordingly, even if that percentage is the same as it was before the rise of modern communication (given the explosion of the war on drugs, I doubt that, but we'll run with it for the moment), people will hear about more of them, so that percentage becomes less and less acceptable.

Except that people ahve been hearing about them for about 2 decades now, ever since Rodney King, and that really hasn't resulted in any significant change in attitude towards police. It's not that they will hear about it; it's that they have heard about it.

What you're describing is essentially media sensationalism; even if the media isn't describing a particular event in lurid terms making an issue that happened in Dallas, TX for example into national news is a form of sensationalism. Why the hell do I give a shit about it in northern Ohio? We get it at the local level as well with newspapers and one particular TV station that likes to go around doing "investigative reporting" wherein they attempt to make someone look guilty by implication and the police, especially those in Cleveland are a regular target. Officer Jim Simone of the Cleveland PD has been a frequent target of the press, so much so that he's successfully sued for slandar at least once.

People realize that the media sensationalizes things, they really don't get worked up about things in totally different parts of the country, and most importantly while they want good cops, they also want criminals arrested. They do not want changes made that will leave the police unable or afraid to do their jobs.

In summary, the fact that a given police department is squeaky-clean doesn't really even matter anymore for the purposes of public perception, so the fact that New Orleans or Detroit has a hugely shitty track record has the potential to cause problems for departments that keep their noses clean. That really needs action at a federal level to deal with, but it needs to be dealt with, and I'm frankly somewhat disgusted that the threshold for federal intervention is as high as it is. On the plus side, if the 'problem children' are concentrated in specific departments, that would make it at least easier to target a response if any were forthcoming.

Do they? Why? Becuase you're subscribing to a guilt-by-association method of thinking about other departments based on Detroit or NO then the rest of the public must also?

Why do we need federal action (of, it should be noted, totally unspecified nature) to combat a problem that is exclusively one of public perception; a public perception that, in fact, has not been shown to exist? Yes, a portion of the publis may be distrustful of the police but why should policis be based around assuaging that segment? We already have federal laws that allow criminal and civil penalties for officers that violate the rights of citizens and these are regularly enforced.

[SVPD]

Obviously they are not the only ones, but given the sheer number of the people who are in trouble with the law, and the fact that the population in general is cooperative, polite, and understanding, the number who dislike the police out of something other than resentment of personal circumstance really cannot be all that large. In any case, that sort of resentment isn't universally preventable; some of it may be, but since the police will inevitably be less than perfect, some people who simply resent authority, people in uniforms, or worry that their 40K miniatures are at risk will find a reason regadless.

So... does it even matter whether the police even try, that being the case? Should I walk away with this with the conclusion that it doesn't matter whether the police accidentally shoot little girls and kick down the wrong doors, or whether the officers who do it are punished harshly, because either way the vast majority of people will support police and the tiny minority of discontents will oppose police?

Because that seems absurd to me, and I doubt you believe it.

I don't know why you would think this at all. Obviously it matters; if no effort were being made at all to avoid or deal with bad behavior then the situation would be significantly worse. Yes, it seems absurd to me because it's a false dilemma.

I don't think so. I think it really requires addressing why we're using those tactics so often in the first place.

How is that not a way of addressing police errors? After all, if you put police in fewer unnecessary situations where errors are possible, there will be fewer errors. I have no problem with tackling the issue that way.

If police are predictably shooting more dogs and kicking down more of the wrong doors on account of all the drug raids they're doing, then we should count that as a cost of our drug policy and probably revise the drug policy accordingly. I don't care about hammering on police for the fact that police errors happen. I care about making the errors go away.[/quote]

In that case, I think that your scrutiny is best directed at public policy, and why that policy remains in effect.

When all warrants are served by knocking and waiting for someone to answer the door, hitting the wrong house is unlikely to get people killed. There's a chance for the situation to be defused before the police have (as per doctrine) shot any threatening pets and (as per doctrine) forced everyone in the house to get down on the ground at gunpoint. There's a chance for the homeowner to say "I'm sorry, but this is 3804 Cherry Lane, not 3802," and prove it.

Frankly, I don't think going to the wrong house is a cricticism of the tactics at all, because there is no excuse whatsoever for getting the wrong house regardless.

Which is why I didn't criticize the tactics here.[/quote]

It appears that you did, because you're objecting to the fact that the owner never gets a chance to tell the cops they are at the wrong house until after the entry. That isn't the problem; the problem is that they were at the wrong house. The police should not avoid forced-entry tactics ont he off chance they are at the wrong house; rather they should be at the right house 100% of the time; no excuses. Perhaps you did not think of it in this way, but that did appear to be what you were saying.

This is a consequence of using the tactics, and one that should be considered before we decide to use them, not as a reason to rewrite them. The problem is that, empirically, using SWAT tactics (or, more generally, no-knock and "short knock" raid tactics) causes cases where the police go to the wrong house to become much, much worse. Even if there is no excuse for going to the wrong house, it's a mistake we don't need to worry about too much as long as it doesn't lead to property damage, injury, or death. When people can die in a raid on the wrong house, you need more precautions.[/quote]

We need to take more precautions in terms of going to the right house. Taking more precautions in terms of reducing the shock of the entry will inevitably also result in more deaths when they go to the right houses, and those will be police deaths. It's pretty much too late to consider the consequences beforehand because that ship sailed over a decade ago.

So in this case, the shift in emphasis from... call it "polite" entry tactics to more aggressive ones means that police need to pay more attention to getting addresses right, if it is at all possible for them to do so. That doesn't necessarily mean a huge change in police procedure; it may be something as simple as making the team double-check that they have the right house before they go in, or making them carry GPS. But if anything can be done without imposing a major burden on police, it should be done.

Absolutely correct, and the procedures you cite; making 100% sure by various means, that the house is the right one, impose little or no burden.

Of course. And perhaps there should be special procedures for verifying that you have the right house before executing a no-knock warrant, simply because the consequences of getting it wrong are worse?

I wouldn't call them "special" procedures but aside from that nitpick, yes.

The "blue wall" is perfectly definable: a tendency for police departments to rally around police officers accused of crimes and protect them from punishment, by methods such as:
-Not testifying against fellow officers
-Concealing evidence that could condemn fellow officers
-Harassing individuals who speak out against fellow officers

Now, whether that exists or not is a different question. But the idea that it's undefinable is a joke.

I disagree. Look at your initial line - rally around officers accused of crimes and protect them from punishment. Why are we leaping from accusation straight to punishment? What if they are not refusing to testify, but are in fact telling the truth whent hey say, "no, that never happened."? What if they are not concealing evidence, but it does not exist? What if they are not harrassing individuals, but are in fact pressing a case against a person who has made a false report? You're defining these things as a "Blue Wall" but that definition presumes that the complaint is valid in the first place, and far more often than not, it isn't. It should be easy to see why; many people, even those normally agreeable to police get upset when they are cited or arrested because they think of themselves as upstanding citizens and simply cannot believe they may have been in the wrong.

In some cases, these things do happen, but not all, and the term "Blue Wall" is a predjudicial language attempt to generalize them beyond the circumstance where they do occcur. In some cases, a blue wall has been shown to exist, but showing it at the precinct or department level doesn't show it exists anywhere else. Many officers simple won't tolerate bad conduct by their fellows either out of professionalism or out of fear they will be implicated as well, and this even leads to cases where they get a bad reputation for reporting minor errors such as checking the wrong box on a ticket in an attempt to look good to superiors.

Do you see the problem with claiming the existance of a phenomenon you can't define what the evidence of would be.

You completely missed my point.

I did not miss the point at all. I don't see any reason to think it is valid. The more you discuss this blue wall, the more it becomes apparent it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis that requires the assumption of its own existance - a form of begging the question.

My point is that, logical or not, people who see something that to them is identical to evidence of police screwing up and getting away with it... are going to conclude that the police are screwing up and getting away with it. There is a very real need for the police to not let their officers be seen to screw up and get away with it; they cannot function forever without thinking about the public relations aspect of their own internal policing.

I don't know how you can presume to say what other people will necessaily conclude. I don't also know of any evidence that we're in any way approaching a point where the police cannot function without improvement in terms of public image. I see no evidence that public perception is generally worsening.

The public has a right to ask "who will guard the guardians?" and to see adequate evidence that an answer exists. How much evidence is adequate, that's negotiable. I don't think the right is.

Obviously it is, but public opinion does not determine what adequate evidence is, nor is there any evidence that the public in general is unsatisfied with that situation. The answe to "who guards the guardians" is: Federal agencies like the FBI, the courts and the officers of same such as prosecutors, and elected cvilian officials. The public and the press may call attention to what they dislike, but the fact of the matter is that the polcie are citizens as well and have a right to fair hearings, not a mob, evenif that mob is only demanding the right to dictate tactics out of ignorance. If the public is unstatisfied with those guardians of the guardians, they have the right to vote and elect new leaders.

[Sriad]

Also, as a small aside, could you kindly go away and learn basic English SVPD. You seem unable to grasp the use of basic rhetorical statements and sarcasm.

Could you kindly go away and come back when you have a fucking point?

Hopefully this isn't Me-Too-ing, but I'll jump on this right now: if you can't "grasp the use of basic rhetoric[...]" -that is to say UNDERSTAND WHAT PEOPLE SAY TO YOU- it undermines everything you write. When someone is talking to you and the first thing out of their mouth is an eye-crossingly moronic statement do you give the rest of what they say more or less credit? Let's find out: "The stress of Presidency kept Taft thin; after he left the office he gained another 100 lbs and was found dead when, after no one had seen him for a week, his home was investigated; he had been vacuum sealed to his toilet the whole time. When he was Chief Justice one of Taft's most noteworthy rulings was finding that police can search a car with only probable cause, rather than needing a warrant." See?

Maybe your mind is a perfect machine, blazing along like a liquid-cooled overclocked AMD Phenom; maybe it's more of an abacus. If you can't understand what people are saying you can't intelligently respond.

[SVPD]

Hopefully this isn't Me-Too-ing, but I'll jump on this right now: if you can't "grasp the use of basic rhetoric[...]" -that is to say UNDERSTAND WHAT PEOPLE SAY TO YOU- it undermines everything you write. When someone is talking to you and the first thing out of their mouth is an eye-crossingly moronic statement do you give the rest of what they say more or less credit? Let's find out: "The stress of Presidency kept Taft thin; after he left the office he gained another 100 lbs and was found dead when, after no one had seen him for a week, his home was investigated; he had been vacuum sealed to his toilet the whole time. When he was Chief Justice one of Taft's most noteworthy rulings was finding that police can search a car with only probable cause, rather than needing a warrant." See?

Maybe your mind is a perfect machine, blazing along like a liquid-cooled overclocked AMD Phenom; maybe it's more of an abacus. If you can't understand what people are saying you can't intelligently respond.

You too, can come back when you have a fucking point.

Since neither one of you assholes has chosen to specify what exactly I said that leads you to believe I can't understand what people are saying, an intelligent person (meaning, someone other than you) would conclude that you're just looking for something to take issue with because you don't like my position. You've therefore elected to try to hijak the thread into "let's discuss vague allegations that SVPD doesn't understand and isn't intelligently responding to something or other in this thread, which I'll conveniently avoid pointing out." Evidently you're also a little wannabe tough guy that has issues with the fact that the big bad policeman can take you to jail but you're lacking even the small amount of fortitude to come out and say so on the fucking internet. Would a little Clearasil maybe increase your self-confidence in that regard?

As to whether it's me-tooing, I'm not a moderator so I can't say. One wonders, however, about the basic reasoning power of someone who thinks what they're doing might be against the rules and goes ahead and does it anyhow.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Also, as a small aside, could you kindly go away and learn basic English SVPD. You seem unable to grasp the use of basic rhetorical statements and sarcasm.

Could you kindly go away and come back when you have a fucking point?

Hopefully this isn't Me-Too-ing, but I'll jump on this right now: if you can't "grasp the use of basic rhetoric[...]" -that is to say UNDERSTAND WHAT PEOPLE SAY TO YOU- it undermines everything you write. When someone is talking to you and the first thing out of their mouth is an eye-crossingly moronic statement do you give the rest of what they say more or less credit? Let's find out: "The stress of Presidency kept Taft thin; after he left the office he gained another 100 lbs and was found dead when, after no one had seen him for a week, his home was investigated; he had been vacuum sealed to his toilet the whole time. When he was Chief Justice one of Taft's most noteworthy rulings was finding that police can search a car with only probable cause, rather than needing a warrant." See?

Maybe your mind is a perfect machine, blazing along like a liquid-cooled overclocked AMD Phenom; maybe it's more of an abacus. If you can't understand what people are saying you can't intelligently respond.

I feel like I'm in the twilight zone right now because the last couple of pages have been full of people advocating that governments base their policies not on actual facts, but on the subjective impressions that the public might have. That seems exactly the opposite of what is usually mocked and argued against here, but maybe things are changing.

Your post, and to a lesser extent Keevan, pretty much can be translated as "SVPD didn't catch a rhetorical statement by one of his opponents and therefore everything he posted is invalid!" Did you really just say that?

[Sriad]

Hopefully this isn't Me-Too-ing, but I'll jump on this right now: if you can't "grasp the use of basic rhetoric[...]" -that is to say UNDERSTAND WHAT PEOPLE SAY TO YOU- it undermines everything you write. When someone is talking to you and the first thing out of their mouth is an eye-crossingly moronic statement do you give the rest of what they say more or less credit? Let's find out: "The stress of Presidency kept Taft thin; after he left the office he gained another 100 lbs and was found dead when, after no one had seen him for a week, his home was investigated; he had been vacuum sealed to his toilet the whole time. When he was Chief Justice one of Taft's most noteworthy rulings was finding that police can search a car with only probable cause, rather than needing a warrant." See?

Maybe your mind is a perfect machine, blazing along like a liquid-cooled overclocked AMD Phenom; maybe it's more of an abacus. If you can't understand what people are saying you can't intelligently respond.

I feel like I'm in the twilight zone right now because the last couple of pages have been full of people advocating that governments base their policies not on actual facts, but on the subjective impressions that the public might have. That seems exactly the opposite of what is usually mocked and argued against here, but maybe things are changing.

Your post, and to a lesser extent Keevan, pretty much can be translated as "SVPD didn't catch a rhetorical statement by one of his opponents and therefore everything he posted is invalid!" Did you really just say that?

Here's some irony: no I did not, so your post is invalid.

What you read: ""SVPD didn't catch a rhetorical statement by one of his opponents and therefore everything he posted is invalid!"

What I wrote: "if you can't "grasp the use of basic rhetoric[...]" -that is to say UNDERSTAND WHAT PEOPLE SAY TO YOU- it undermines everything you write."
That is to say, when you make substantial mistakes in one part of your argument, it undermines the whole thing.

How I followed it up: '"The stress of Presidency kept Taft thin; after he left the office he gained another 100 lbs and was found dead when, after no one had seen him for a week, his home was investigated; he had been vacuum sealed to his toilet the whole time. When he was Chief Justice one of Taft's most noteworthy rulings was finding that police can search a car with only probable cause, rather than needing a warrant."'
That is to say, a verifiably false statement followed by a verifiably TRUE statement to illustrate the principle.

Is the comic interlude over? I'll promise to contribute some more meaningful discussion next time!

[Sriad]

Hopefully this isn't Me-Too-ing, but I'll jump on this right now: if you can't "grasp the use of basic rhetoric[...]" -that is to say UNDERSTAND WHAT PEOPLE SAY TO YOU- it undermines everything you write. When someone is talking to you and the first thing out of their mouth is an eye-crossingly moronic statement do you give the rest of what they say more or less credit? Let's find out: "The stress of Presidency kept Taft thin; after he left the office he gained another 100 lbs and was found dead when, after no one had seen him for a week, his home was investigated; he had been vacuum sealed to his toilet the whole time. When he was Chief Justice one of Taft's most noteworthy rulings was finding that police can search a car with only probable cause, rather than needing a warrant." See?

Maybe your mind is a perfect machine, blazing along like a liquid-cooled overclocked AMD Phenom; maybe it's more of an abacus. If you can't understand what people are saying you can't intelligently respond.

You too, can come back when you have a fucking point.

Since neither one of you assholes has chosen to specify what exactly I said that leads you to believe I can't understand what people are saying, an intelligent person (meaning, someone other than you) would conclude that you're just looking for something to take issue with because you don't like my position. You've therefore elected to try to hijak the thread into "let's discuss vague allegations that SVPD doesn't understand and isn't intelligently responding to something or other in this thread, which I'll conveniently avoid pointing out." Evidently you're also a little wannabe tough guy that has issues with the fact that the big bad policeman can take you to jail but you're lacking even the small amount of fortitude to come out and say so on the fucking internet. Would a little Clearasil maybe increase your self-confidence in that regard?

As to whether it's me-tooing, I'm not a moderator so I can't say. One wonders, however, about the basic reasoning power of someone who thinks what they're doing might be against the rules and goes ahead and does it anyhow.

I meant to be done for the evening, but since you seem to ACTUALLY THINK these were totally baseless Ad Hominem attacks I should address it before moving along:

[...]Was he under fire from the seven-year-old asleep on the couch, or did he take a pot-shot at the defenseless gangbanger looming in the window with a chrome-plated pistol?[...]

In any case your examples reveal the very basic problem: just because the OP has a dumbshit taking a potshot does not mean that we start looking at any situation, no matter what happened, from the assumption that a dumbshit took a potshot. We start with understanding that a weapon was discharged, and only when the facts are fully understood do we determine if the shot was in, in fact, one that should not have been taken. I'm also a little unclear on how a gangbanger with a pistol is defenceless, but that just speaks to the predjudicial nature of your examples. Your dog examples are no better; its mysterious that your small, less dangerous dog is aggressive but the bigger ones are not. Despite your mention of clearing people's names at the end, it seems you are approaching this with certain assumptions firmly in mind.

It's understandable when people miss SHADES of sarcasm in text-only online conversation. That's not what's going on here: you thought WH was being serious when he wrote "defenseless gangbanger looming in the window with a chrome-plated pistol" and criticized his "prejudicial examples." That's a pretty low bar to fail to clear, if you ask me.

Next time: hopefully that Meaningful Discussion I alluded to earlier.

[SVPD]

I meant to be done for the evening, but since you seem to ACTUALLY THINK these were totally baseless Ad Hominem attacks I should address it before moving along:

If you'd wished to cease making a fool of yourself, no one compelled you to come back and continue.

[...]Was he under fire from the seven-year-old asleep on the couch, or did he take a pot-shot at the defenseless gangbanger looming in the window with a chrome-plated pistol?[...]

In any case your examples reveal the very basic problem: just because the OP has a dumbshit taking a potshot does not mean that we start looking at any situation, no matter what happened, from the assumption that a dumbshit took a potshot. We start with understanding that a weapon was discharged, and only when the facts are fully understood do we determine if the shot was in, in fact, one that should not have been taken. I'm also a little unclear on how a gangbanger with a pistol is defenceless, but that just speaks to the predjudicial nature of your examples. Your dog examples are no better; its mysterious that your small, less dangerous dog is aggressive but the bigger ones are not. Despite your mention of clearing people's names at the end, it seems you are approaching this with certain assumptions firmly in mind.

It's understandable when people miss SHADES of sarcasm in text-only online conversation. That's not what's going on here: you thought WH was being serious when he wrote "defenseless gangbanger looming in the window with a chrome-plated pistol" and criticized his "prejudicial examples." That's a pretty low bar to fail to clear, if you ask me.

Next time: hopefully that Meaningful Discussion I alluded to earlier.[/quote][/quote]

Oh my goodness, well I guess since I responded to that example as if it were actually serious, that must mean I didn't have a single bit of meaningful discussion in the entire thread! Obviously all my points must be invalid! Whatever shall I do?!?

Listen you little window-licker, obviously all that nonsense was sarcasm. There's a reason I responded to it the way I did; it was because ALL of his examples, sarcastic or otherwise, indicated an assumption that if the officer fired it MUST have been a "dumbass taking a potshot" and the target MUST have been one that ought not to have been fired at, or in the case of the dog examples, that the dog MUST have been either too small to be a serious danger or not physically aggressive if it was shot.

Sarcasm, humor, and rhetoric are all fine and dandy, but the fact that they have been used does not mean that the person one is having a discussion with is supposed to just go "hurr hurr what a knee-slapper" and ignore the hidden underlying assumption that is being snuck in under the radar. In this case, since it was too difficult for you to figure out on your own, the point being snuck in was that when a dog or a person gets shot on a raid, a camera is needed for no other reason than to assign blame because he said: "Cameras are cheap, in case police forces nationwide haven't taken note of that fact, so why aren't, for example, SWAT helmets equipped with them? That would remove so very, very much of the uncertainty from many of the cases of SWAT gross misconduct.<snip aforementioned sarcastic examples>"

He started with the assumption that misconduct was necessarily being committed in these cases. All his supposedly "sarcastic" and "rhetorical" examples were just illustrations of this assumption. I have news for you, "sarcasm" and "rhetoric" are not freebie "I get to make my assumptions this way and you can't challange them" tools.

I really don't give a fuck if it violates your finely-tuned sense of internet debating aesthetics that I chose to respond to this assumption in the way I did. The fact of the matter is that you're doing nothing but nitpicking one particular response I made based on the style I chose to respond in by saying "You responded to a sarcastic example as if it were serious!! DAS IST VERBOTEN!! Obviously none of your points are valid and you can't understand English! I'm also a whiney little snot with authority issues, and since I can't challange KS or SVPD on their points, I'll go with this!!" (That's sarcasm too, by the way.)

Again, come back if you have a point. I'm sure it will end up boiling down to you being mad at the cops for making you stop parking with that girl behind Taco Bell, but get over it. She wasn't going to let you get in her pants anyhow.

[SVPD]

Here's some irony: no I did not, so your post is invalid.

What you read: ""SVPD didn't catch a rhetorical statement by one of his opponents and therefore everything he posted is invalid!"

What I wrote: "if you can't "grasp the use of basic rhetoric[...]" -that is to say UNDERSTAND WHAT PEOPLE SAY TO YOU- it undermines everything you write."
That is to say, when you make substantial mistakes in one part of your argument, it undermines the whole thing.

Ahh, so in other words you DID want to say that if I missed a rhetorical statement it renders everything invalid; you're just trying to claim you didn't based on the difference between "undermined" and "invalidated". You're a dishonest little shitstain, aren't you? It's impressive getting dishonesty and nitpicking so nicely rolled together like that.

Maybe you could explain how ANY of my other points are in ANY way affected by my response to WHs examples, which were, as I pointed out in my other post, an attempt to bolster his assumption that misconduct is necessarily what's happened when SWAT shoots a person or a dog?

How I followed it up: '"The stress of Presidency kept Taft thin; after he left the office he gained another 100 lbs and was found dead when, after no one had seen him for a week, his home was investigated; he had been vacuum sealed to his toilet the whole time. When he was Chief Justice one of Taft's most noteworthy rulings was finding that police can search a car with only probable cause, rather than needing a warrant."'
That is to say, a verifiably false statement followed by a verifiably TRUE statement to illustrate the principle.

So in other words, if a person makes a completely absurd, false statement, followed by a completely true,e asily verified statement, the true one is somehow undermined? Is the accuracy of known facts somehow altered by a person making an ill-advised comment?

I'd also like to know how making a totally absurd, false statement illustrates any principle that applies to pointing out the underlying inaccuracy of a sarcastic or rhetorical point. Oh wait, I know that already. It illustrates no such principle. It does, however, illustrate that little punks who have issues with the cops will drag any discussion of police matters onto irrelevant tangents when they can't think of anything intelligent to say.

Is the comic interlude over? I'll promise to contribute some more meaningful discussion next time!

Somehow I'm not optomistic

[Kamakazie Sith]

Here's some irony: no I did not, so your post is invalid.

What you read: ""SVPD didn't catch a rhetorical statement by one of his opponents and therefore everything he posted is invalid!"

What I wrote: "if you can't "grasp the use of basic rhetoric[...]" -that is to say UNDERSTAND WHAT PEOPLE SAY TO YOU- it undermines everything you write."
That is to say, when you make substantial mistakes in one part of your argument, it undermines the whole thing.

Maybe you should explain yourself better. I would start by removing the "it undermines everything you write" part. To you missing a rhetorical statement is making a substantial mistake. However, you fail to explain why. Instead you offer up an example that doesn't even remotely resemble what happened in this thread. (I'm assuming you're talking about how people think SVPD misunderstood a sarcastic statement by White Haven involving defenseless chrome-plated pistol wielding gang bangers.) I would LOVE to hear how that mistake undermines anything SVPD wrote. LOVE TO HEAR, Sriad.

How I followed it up: '"The stress of Presidency kept Taft thin; after he left the office he gained another 100 lbs and was found dead when, after no one had seen him for a week, his home was investigated; he had been vacuum sealed to his toilet the whole time. When he was Chief Justice one of Taft's most noteworthy rulings was finding that police can search a car with only probable cause, rather than needing a warrant."'
That is to say, a verifiably false statement followed by a verifiably TRUE statement to illustrate the principle.

Thanks for using an outrageous example...

Is the comic interlude over? I'll promise to contribute some more meaningful discussion next time!

Please do. I would love to hear some meaningful discussion from you instead of the results of years of pent up teenager frustration directed at the cops.

EDIT - Changed words so the sentence actually made sense.

[Simon_Jester]

I feel like I'm in the twilight zone right now because the last couple of pages have been full of people advocating that governments base their policies not on actual facts, but on the subjective impressions that the public might have.

I don't think this. I do think:

-Police should be more careful to avoid mistakes if the mistake has more ability to cause damage. This is for the same reasons that the military is more careful with powerful weapons (like bombs) than with weak ones (like utility knives), and for the same reason industrial safety standards are more rigorous in industries where accidents are more dangerous.

-The public perception of how well the police monitor themselves has an important effect on the public perception of the police in general, making it unusually important to have openness in how accusations of police abuses are reviewed. The public does not have a right to exercise mob 'justice' on unpopular officers; they do have a right to a clear picture of why officers are or are not being punished for what the average citizen could reasonably suspect to be an abuse.

Punishment of officers should be based on facts, not polls. But the public has a right not only to have a good police system, but to know it has one. Thus, the facts need to be kept out in the open as far as possible. That way, the unusual cases where a bad officer's behavior is ignored can be identified and the specific departments responsible can be cleaned up more easily.

Obviously they are not the only ones, but given the sheer number of the people who are in trouble with the law, and the fact that the population in general is cooperative, polite, and understanding, the number who dislike the police out of something other than resentment of personal circumstance really cannot be all that large. In any case, that sort of resentment isn't universally preventable; some of it may be, but since the police will inevitably be less than perfect, some people who simply resent authority, people in uniforms, or worry that their 40K miniatures are at risk will find a reason regadless.

So... does it even matter whether the police even try, that being the case? Should I walk away with this with the conclusion that it doesn't matter whether the police accidentally shoot little girls and kick down the wrong doors, or whether the officers who do it are punished harshly, because either way the vast majority of people will support police and the tiny minority of discontents will oppose police?
Because that seems absurd to me, and I doubt you believe it.

I don't know why you would think this at all. Obviously it matters; if no effort were being made at all to avoid or deal with bad behavior then the situation would be significantly worse. Yes, it seems absurd to me because it's a false dilemma.

All right. That being the case, we're looking at a situation where the set of people who dislike police break down as:
1) People who have some ulterior motive, and who will always dislike police
2) People who dislike police because of things the police did wrong, or that they believe the police did wrong.

Doing fewer things wrong cuts down the size of the second set, obviously. Should I come away with this with the conclusion that group (2) is already so small that there's no point in trying to shrink it further?

It appears that you did, because you're objecting to the fact that the owner never gets a chance to tell the cops they are at the wrong house until after the entry.

No. I observed that this is a fact. Originally, I objected to it, but became convinced that in some situations (when dealing with easily disposed of evidence or hardened, well armed criminals) that this was acceptable.

But if police are going to do rapid (no knock or short knock) entries, then they need to be especially careful to get the right house, because a rapid entry will cause more property damage and put the lives of the occupants at more risk, even if no one inside the house has any hostile intent towards the police. Getting the wrong house on a rapid entry is the same mistake as getting the wrong house on a normal entry, but it has greater consequences, so it's more important to avoid the mistake.

To pick a more extreme example of this: if I punch the wrong number when I'm using the telephone, I call the wrong number, I feel stupid for thirty seconds, and the problem is over. If I punch the wrong number when I'm setting the coordinates for an airstrike, people die. It's more important to be careful what numbers you punch when you're aiming an airstrike than it is when you're dialing a phone number, because the same error has much greater consequences.

That isn't the problem; the problem is that they were at the wrong house. The police should not avoid forced-entry tactics ont he off chance they are at the wrong house; rather they should be at the right house 100% of the time; no excuses. Perhaps you did not think of it in this way, but that did appear to be what you were saying.

I think this is a significant misunderstanding of what I was saying.

We need to take more precautions in terms of going to the right house.

Which is exactly what I said. I have said nothing recently about reducing the shock of rapid entry tactics, because I have been convinced that they are sometimes necessary. But when they are necessary, they need to be used carefully: someone needs to think hard ahead of time about whether they're called for in this situation (I imagine that this is already done), and someone needs to do enough planning to make sure they hit the right house (which is probably also already done, but is sometimes screwed up).

I disagree. Look at your initial line - rally around officers accused of crimes and protect them from punishment. Why are we leaping from accusation straight to punishment? What if they are not refusing to testify, but are in fact telling the truth whent hey say, "no, that never happened."? What if they are not concealing evidence, but it does not exist? What if they are not harrassing individuals, but are in fact pressing a case against a person who has made a false report? You're defining these things as a "Blue Wall" but that definition presumes that the complaint is valid in the first place, and far more often than not, it isn't.

The "blue wall" is definable as a system by which the police conspire to quash valid complaints. Sometimes this DOES happen; ask Peter Serpico. Now, that was forty years ago, and I'm sure things are cleaner now... but what Serpico had to deal with in his efforts to reveal corruption in his department is still a definable phenomenon.

Even if there is no evidence that a "blue wall" exists in a given situation, it's still a well defined term with a meaning that is easy to understand. Hence my disagreement with you when you claimed that it was not definable.

[SVPD]

I don't think this. I do think:

-Police should be more careful to avoid mistakes if the mistake has more ability to cause damage. This is for the same reasons that the military is more careful with powerful weapons (like bombs) than with weak ones (like utility knives), and for the same reason industrial safety standards are more rigorous in industries where accidents are more dangerous.

There's always room for improvement, and you are right that it is good to be more careful. That said, "more careful" is a pretty vague thing, and no matter how much care is exercised, accidents are almost inevitable, especially in the highly uncontrolled circumstances of an arrest or warrant. It's much easier to avoid errors in accounting for weapons because you control the circumstances almost completely.

-The public perception of how well the police monitor themselves has an important effect on the public perception of the police in general, making it unusually important to have openness in how accusations of police abuses are reviewed. The public does not have a right to exercise mob 'justice' on unpopular officers; they do have a right to a clear picture of why officers are or are not being punished for what the average citizen could reasonably suspect to be an abuse.

I don't disagree, but it should also be born firmly in mind that many things that polcie do, the private citizen isn't allowed to do because they are not the police. In most cases, making an arrest is a power private citizens do not have, for example. Some citizens do have the tactical or legal training to understand the issues well, but most do not, especially those in the press that help form opinions. Therefore, public perception based on their own ignorance needs to be addressed in part by telling the public simply that we have courts to resolve these issues, and to educate themselves beyond 1-minute sound bites on the nightly news. Many departments offer Citizen Police Academies where people can obtain some basic information on how police operations work. If ore people took advantage of these it would help. The onus is not totally on the government to explain itself.

Punishment of officers should be based on facts, not polls. But the public has a right not only to have a good police system, but to know it has one. Thus, the facts need to be kept out in the open as far as possible. That way, the unusual cases where a bad officer's behavior is ignored can be identified and the specific departments responsible can be cleaned up more easily.

In any ongoing investigation, into police behavior or otherwise, facts are not revealed publicly primarily to avoid the bad habit both the press and the people have of conducting a trial of public opinion. In extrme cases, this goes as far as tainting jury pools. Facts are properly revealed after the investigation, either at trial or otherwise. The public does have a right to know; it does NOT have a right to know right this very minute.

All right. That being the case, we're looking at a situation where the set of people who dislike police break down as:
1) People who have some ulterior motive, and who will always dislike police
2) People who dislike police because of things the police did wrong, or that they believe the police did wrong.

Doing fewer things wrong cuts down the size of the second set, obviously. Should I come away with this with the conclusion that group (2) is already so small that there's no point in trying to shrink it further?

Not precisely. Efforts to shrink it further are essentially an ongoing operation by countering and remedying instances of poor police behavior as they appear. Additional efforts specifically aimed at improving public opinion might be possible, but what these might be beyond re-thinking policy above the level of the police and some minor efforts like SWAT helmet-cams themselves is unclear. Any further effort would need to be detailed in some fashion, and checked not only for effectiveness but also for whether it adds unreasonably to the difficulty of arresting criminals, which is the reason we have police. Not only would that be counterproductive in combatting crime, it would self-defeat as an effort to improve opinion as people saw criminals getting away with more.

No. I observed that this is a fact. Originally, I objected to it, but became convinced that in some situations (when dealing with easily disposed of evidence or hardened, well armed criminals) that this was acceptable.

I see. Fair enough, then.

But if police are going to do rapid (no knock or short knock) entries, then they need to be especially careful to get the right house, because a rapid entry will cause more property damage and put the lives of the occupants at more risk, even if no one inside the house has any hostile intent towards the police. Getting the wrong house on a rapid entry is the same mistake as getting the wrong house on a normal entry, but it has greater consequences, so it's more important to avoid the mistake.

Absolutely. You'll get no argument on that point.

To pick a more extreme example of this: if I punch the wrong number when I'm using the telephone, I call the wrong number, I feel stupid for thirty seconds, and the problem is over. If I punch the wrong number when I'm setting the coordinates for an airstrike, people die. It's more important to be careful what numbers you punch when you're aiming an airstrike than it is when you're dialing a phone number, because the same error has much greater consequences.

Prescisely, and that is also why a call for air support passes through multiple links in the fire support organization, all of whom should be checking. The same SHOULD be true in all warrant services, especially no-knock.

I think this is a significant misunderstanding of what I was saying.

Like I said, fair enough.

Which is exactly what I said. I have said nothing recently about reducing the shock of rapid entry tactics, because I have been convinced that they are sometimes necessary. But when they are necessary, they need to be used carefully: someone needs to think hard ahead of time about whether they're called for in this situation (I imagine that this is already done), and someone needs to do enough planning to make sure they hit the right house (which is probably also already done, but is sometimes screwed up).

I think we've reached agreement on this part of the issue.

The "blue wall" is definable as a system by which the police conspire to quash valid complaints. Sometimes this DOES happen; ask Peter Serpico. Now, that was forty years ago, and I'm sure things are cleaner now... but what Serpico had to deal with in his efforts to reveal corruption in his department is still a definable phenomenon.

It's definable in terms of the behaviors, sure, but not in terms that would allow it to be falsified in the scientific sense, which would include pervasiveness, degree, etc. If ONE officer does this for his partner, is that a "Blue Wall" in his unit, his department, or the police as a whole? The problem with the term "Blue Wall" is that it carries with it an unstated assumption that it must exist in any case where it has not been shown NOT to. Maybe you are not using it this way, but your reference to a situation 40 years ago in one particular department is indictive of this sort of thinking; of referring back to this unacceptable behavior in anecdotal instances and referring to it as a universal, or even regular, phenomenon. In many of these instances, the revelation of the behavior has resulted in its eradication at that locality. That rather weakens the assertion of the phenomenon since the anecdotes have this habit of invalidating themselves as future situations in the same place when they come to light.

Even if there is no evidence that a "blue wall" exists in a given situation, it's still a well defined term with a meaning that is easy to understand. Hence my disagreement with you when you claimed that it was not definable.

Excpet that it's not well-defined at all; it's defined only vaguely at best because it relies on ignoring the pervasiveness of the behavior. You may not be thinking of it as universal, but that's what it commonly means as a part of slang terminology. Its universal existance is simply treated as a given and any instance where police behavior is shown NOT to be improper is cited as evidence in support of it by people with far less intellectual honesty than you've shown.

[Simon_Jester]

There's always room for improvement, and you are right that it is good to be more careful. That said, "more careful" is a pretty vague thing, and no matter how much care is exercised, accidents are almost inevitable, especially in the highly uncontrolled circumstances of an arrest or warrant.

It's all a matter of degree and frequency to me.

Facts are properly revealed after the investigation, either at trial or otherwise. The public does have a right to know; it does NOT have a right to know right this very minute.

Fair enough.

[Alphawolf55]

So today I had an encounter that in some ways enforce those little things that add up that make people sick of police. I went on a date today with this girl, it was good for the most part but interesting facts came up like that she raced cars and shit. I was curious how she gets away with this shit all the time and she basically admitted "Yeah my uncle is on the board for the NYPD" she then shows me her card that her uncle gave her that basically says they're related. She then informed me "He told me to show that to a cop if I'm eve rpulled over and most things should work out if it's not too serious"

Now this is the kind of things that add up, there is no logical reason for this card to exist. It exist solely to help out the friends of cops and thus the concept is inherently corrupt but nothing is done about it.

Edit: Basically PBA cards are one of those small things among many that lead to problems. I would actually like to know whats the supposed rationale behind them.

[Kamakazie Sith]

So today I had an encounter that in some ways enforce those little things that add up that make people sick of police. I went on a date today with this girl, it was good for the most part but interesting facts came up like that she raced cars and shit. I was curious how she gets away with this shit all the time and she basically admitted "Yeah my uncle is on the board for the NYPD" she then shows me her card that her uncle gave her that basically says they're related. She then informed me "He told me to show that to a cop if I'm eve rpulled over and most things should work out if it's not too serious"

Now this is the kind of things that add up, there is no logical reason for this card to exist. It exist solely to help out the friends of cops and thus the concept is inherently corrupt but nothing is done about it.

Edit: Basically PBA cards are one of those small things among many that lead to problems. I would actually like to know whats the supposed rationale behind them.

What did the card look like? Did it have her name on it? Was it just a business card with her uncles name on it? Another possibility is that she is lying to you.

Furthermore, I hate to break it to you but family favoritism doesn't exist just in the police world and speeding isn't exactly a serious crime. Giving people a break on traffic tickets is one thing, and is NOT corruption. You may not like it but that does not make it corruption.

Now giving them a break on actual crimes is quite another and that would be an example of corruption.

[Alphawolf55]

It looked alot like this http://i.ebayimg.com/21/!Bluc+PQ!mk~$(K ... w~~_35.JPG

Except it had the name of the officer on it.

These cards are also given out by donating specific money to police fund raisers. So I'm sorry you're wrong. At that point it becomes a legal bribe and even if they don't give them for fund raisers there's no justified reason for allowing them, seriously, what justified reason is there to have a card that lets people know that you associate with the police in some way? Why does it matter in any situation that you know a cop?

[Kamakazie Sith]

It looked alot like this http://i.ebayimg.com/21/!Bluc+PQ!mk~$(K ... w~~_35.JPG

Except it had the name of the officer on it.

These cards are also given out by donating specific money to police fund raisers. So I'm sorry you're wrong. At that point it becomes a legal bribe and even if they don't give them for fund raisers there's no justified reason for allowing them, seriously, what justified reason is there to have a card that lets people know that you associate with the police in some way? Why does it matter in any situation that you know a cop?

I'm wrong about what? That it isn't corruption? If it is legal then how is it corruption? Corruption is illegal, Alphawolf. Furthermore, the police and the city do not have any control over what a private organization, like FOP, does. What do you want them to do make it illegal for a private organization to hand out supporter cards?

Besides, people like to receive things for the organizations that they support. Being a FOP supporter doesn't mean you'll get out of a ticket. Hell, even being relative of a police officer doesn't mean you'll get out of a ticket. The only time when the odds are on your side is if the police officer who pulled you over works with your family member.

[Alphawolf55]

Corrupt can be legal, just look at Congress and healthcare. Also if it's supposely a private organization, why are the police seizing bought or fake copies of the card?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Corrupt can be legal, just look at Congress and healthcare. Also if it's supposely a private organization, why are the police seizing bought or fake copies of the card?

So, to you when someone gives a family member a perk that is corruption? Alright, I'm not going to try and change your views but they seem a bit whiny to me.

Just for a laugh I should go tell my friend that his family is corrupt because he was given free (roughly $4000 value) Lasik eye surgery at Hoopes vision.

Because police officers are likely members of FOP, or whatever union organization. I'm not sure about the seizing part...you'll have to fill me in on that.

[Alphawolf55]

Except one is the law and the other is a private business. Seriously why are you trying to compare the two? When you work a private business you can make exceptions if you own the place, the law is suppose to apply to everyone equally. Seriously how the fuck can you argue that a cop giving a ticket to one person for something but not to another based on something as irrevelant as connections alright?

[Lonestar]

I've gotten pulled over before and got off(I'm convinced) because I was wearing my VFW hat. Police officer sees my hat, tells me his life story in the army, I relate my own term of service, he gives me a warning.

I guess we're all part of a tangled weave of corruption, huh Alphawolf?


(you whining about that with your SDN handle is pretty funny, by the way. There's a lot of irony in there)

[Kamakazie Sith]

Except one is the law and the other is a private business. Seriously why are you trying to compare the two? When you work a private business you can make exceptions if you own the place, the law is suppose to apply to everyone equally. Seriously how the fuck can you argue that a cop giving a ticket to one person for something but not to another based on something as irrevelant as connections alright?

I'm comparing the two because it is relevant. Connections is a fact of life. Besides police officer discretion is also part of the law. Police do not have to make an arrest or write a ticket for every single thing. Also, you are not expected to shit where you live or work for minor things. Writing a traffic ticket for speeding to the niece or a fellow employee is taking a shit where you work.

Besides don't pretend that regular people with no connections don't get breaks from the cops either because they do. So, I don't see what your fucking problem is beyond being a whiny immature kid.

Example - I've given people breaks because they had a clean record, or their record showed that they learned from the last time and slipped up. The only people I usually go after are those who demonstrate that they don't give a damn or whatever they did poses a risk to society.

[Alphawolf55]

Except one is the law and the other is a private business. Seriously why are you trying to compare the two? When you work a private business you can make exceptions if you own the place, the law is suppose to apply to everyone equally. Seriously how the fuck can you argue that a cop giving a ticket to one person for something but not to another based on something as irrevelant as connections alright?

I'm comparing the two because it is relevant. Connections is a fact of life. Besides police officer discretion is also part of the law. Police do not have to make an arrest or write a ticket for every single thing. Also, you are not expected to shit where you live or work for minor things. Writing a traffic ticket for speeding to the niece or a fellow employee is taking a shit where you work.

Besides don't pretend that regular people with no connections don't get breaks from the cops either because they do. So, I don't see what your fucking problem is beyond being a whiny immature kid.

Example - I've given people breaks because they had a clean record, or their record showed that they learned from the last time and slipped up. The only people I usually go after are those who demonstrate that they don't give a damn or whatever they did poses a risk to society.

No it's not fucking relevant. The law is supposed to applied equally considering all relevant information. Whether the person has a clean record, whether they acted like a dick about the whole thing those things are relevant information. Whether they're related to someone on the force? No that's not relevant other then you not wanting to piss off your co-worker due to officers being immature.

And it's funny, you suggest we should give cops a break because hey they're just doing their job. (A perfectly fair piece of advice) but now you just admitted your fellow cop won't give you that kind of luxury.

[Kamakazie Sith]

No it's not fucking relevant. The law is supposed to applied equally considering all relevant information. Whether the person has a clean record, whether they acted like a dick about the whole thing those things are relevant information. Whether they're related to someone on the force? No that's not relevant other then you not wanting to piss off your co-worker due to officers being immature.

What? You asked me why the law and private business is relevant, and stated that you can make exceptions if you own the place. Well, I just told you that police officers are allowed to exercise discretion under the law so in reality they too are allowed to make exceptions. The decision to exercise this discretion doesn't have the meet the criteria you presented.

Also, it is relevant because maintaining good working relationships with your co-workers is important in any job. So, if you ticket the niece of a co-worker but decide to let the adult who uses marijuana recreationally off that doesn't make for very good relations. It has nothing to do with immaturity and everything to do with being human.

And it's funny, you suggest we should give cops a break because hey they're just doing their job. (A perfectly fair piece of advice) but now you just admitted your fellow cop won't give you that kind of luxury.

I'm not sure what you mean, but I don't recall suggesting we give police a break. However, I did not admit that my fellow cop won't give me that kind of luxury. In fact, I stated exactly the opposite. If I got pulled over by a member of my own department for speeding it is highly likely that I would be let off with a warning. If I got caught speeding everyday or the speed was at a dangerous velocity then probably not...but the same can be said for your friend.

[Alphawolf55]

I don't think you understand. The difference between a private business having the ability to make exceptions and officers is clear. Private businesses can do it because they are their own business and because there is no express interest for society to monitor their actions. The reason we give cops the ability to use their discretion is because we believe they can efficiently root out things, but we still expect them to give out the same tickets and judgements based on all relevant information. You knowing a certain cop is no more relevant then knowing Barack Obama.

Also if you give a police officer's niece a ticket, that's their problem not yours. You were merely doing your job and shouldn't be faulted. It's no more reasonable for them to get angry at you then any other member of society. If individuals who get tickets from cops are expected to understand that the officer is merely doing his job, then the same courtesty should be given to cops from their fellow officer.

Additionally, your excuses don't account for the fact that the NYPD openly admits to giving these cards to politicans, people of express influence and members of the press for "Press relation reasons."