Sleeping 7-Year Old Shot by Police During Raid

[Ziggy Stardust]

As for it being "nepotism", that's a load of bullshit.

It's the very definition of nepotism, moron. The rest of your post does nothing to refute that. Insisting that I am utterly unable to comment on police matters because I am not an officer in the field is a fucking retarded argument, and you know it.

You think it's so fucking easy and straightforward? Go take a written and physical finess test, go to a fucking academy, and do it part-time for a year or too. Maybe you'll learn that real life doesn't work the way people like to theorize about it on a message board.

Aww, getting butt-hurt because I dared critisize something related to the police? Get the fuck over yourself. When did I ever say policework was so easy and straightforward? Hell, when did I ever make any statement that maligned police as a whole? Pull your fucking head out of your ass and stop with the strawmen.

[Thanas]

I am not sure it would add a burden to the courts, unless prosecutors do not drop the cases and take them all to court in order to win more cases. But that is a whole other issue entirely (I just do not like the American system at all due to the need for winning or you do not get paid/promoted. Which can lead to scary stuff, for example some DA's using shady tactics in a death penalty case. The man's life did not matter, all that mattered was getting a conviction).

Are your police officers paid over time for court?

No, they are not. They are excused from their normal duties for court appearances. But they hardly ever appear in court because in our inquisitive system, nearly everything is done in writing. There are no oral arguments per se.

Also, I do agree with you on the problems associated with the need to win.

Another reason I'd rather have the German system where promotion is largely based on time served, not winning.

LMAO. You really do think cops are like machines...don't you? Do you think it is in the US law books that a police officer may give a warning to his friends or family? No, it's not. It's a personal choice that is made. It is a personal choice that isn't looked into heavily because the higher ups understand that it is simply human nature and everybody else would do it to.

Such a personal choice is not allowed, nor condoned in the German system. A cop might get away with it, but that is quite unlikely given how most traffic violations are caught on camera anyway.

Although this might run contrary to the letter of the law YOU describe, the article listed earlier about the German system implies that officers do it anyway.

Yeah and why the fuck did I just spend half an hour explaining to you why the article is seriously wrong in those respects if you just chose to ignore it? IT IS NOT DISCRETION.

[Thanas]

Betapup, you should have started a new subject if it meant that much to you. A call to Whine-One-One will get you a ride on the WAAHmbulance. Bye bye.

And who appointed you mod of this forum? Quit backseat modding. If you got a complaint, go through the proper channels, otherwise: bugger off and shut up.

[Spoonist]

-jcow79
I think I might have been to hasty in my reply to you, from your reply to me I think that we mostly agree.
Electronic trail - I wish. It is probably the intention but I don't think that is how it works.

-KS
Longish reply coming tonight. But you are still misunderstanding the impact of culture, especially between two different systems. Take the plot idea for Beverly Hills Cop and multiply that by some magnitudes. Humans are social creatures, we overrule our instincts every single day to fit into our culture. Cops are no different.

-Alphawolf
Your posts do repeat themselves, now I'd say the same about SVPD's replies to those posts, but still it would be refreshing with a new angle of approach.

[Alphawolf55]

True which is why all that can be said on my part has been said. The only thing I can really add at this point is society needs to have a general trust of police, but it's not always going to be the bottomless well of support it always has been in the past. Nor can the police just always assume that the "good people" will always be on their side. Especially in the days of the internet where we can read stories about them anywhere. Thus even little things like this do matter to the overall picture of police image because it add to what instills in people a general distrust and dislike of the police. Someday the people who grew up with their stories and images will be the ones in control, the ones who decide how much money the police get to work with and as our society is getting far safer at a certain point the argument that "cops risked their lives everyday" just won't cut it anymore. Thus to avoid a general backlash against police (a more political and less violent one), it's needed for police to look at themselves and see the little things they can do that can add up for their image.

[Coyote]

Betapup, you should have started a new subject if it meant that much to you. A call to Whine-One-One will get you a ride on the WAAHmbulance. Bye bye.

And who appointed you mod of this forum? Quit backseat modding. If you got a complaint, go through the proper channels, otherwise: bugger off and shut up.

'Scuse me, but where was I wrong? Alphawolf was, in fact, engaged in endless repetition which is, under normal operations, a violation. I even pointed them out-- Broken Record and Wall of Ignorance.

But you're right; next time I'll drop a note to Stas.

[Alphawolf55]

Except that wasn't your complaint at all so go fuck yourself.

[Coyote]

Except that wasn't your complaint at all so go fuck yourself.

Was I talking to you, shitbrick? No? Alrighty then.

[Alphawolf55]

No just about me fucktard.

[Coyote]

No just about me fucktard.

Yeah, so? I was pointing out what it was about that annoyed me. I don't have to ask your permission to have an opinion. And you know what? Thanas already handled it. But you just have to get in one... more... snipe. If your objective is to get this split and HoS'd, maybe as some sort of accomplishment, then fine, keep going.

[Thanas]

Can't you two not just simply shut up? It is not entertaining.

[Simon_Jester]

Wall of Ignorance; Broken Record.

On which side, though?

I mean, I still think there's a problem here; I just wasn't paying attention to this discussion yesterday evening. Wolf isn't the only guy here who has a problem with the idea of it being accepted policy for police to grant favors to their friends more often than to strangers. And one of the people who has a problem with it is also one of the board's few legal experts familiar with a system other than the US, and thus has more information on what things look like outside the idiosyncracies of the American system.

If there's a problem with endless, unmoving insistence that "We Are Right!" here, regardless of the evidence and regardless of the arguments in play... I'm not sure which side of the line I'd draw it on.

The problem with this is that you cannot read an officers mind and determine why he did or didn't ultimately give a ticket to someone. You're saying you have a problem with certain internal motivations, but there is no way to know what they might or might not be.

Look, I can't blame you for not knowing about statistics, but I do think it's relevant to the argument.

No one can read an officer's mind to find their reasons for giving a single ticket. If the same officer gives white people tickets at 30% of traffic stops and black people tickets at 90% of stops over a three year period, though... well, now you have to be a goddamn idiot not to see the connection. That's the kind of situation where you really do need a rule in place governing the reasons police may use discretion: to prevent racial discrimination.

Racial discrimination may be the best example of how discretion can, when abused, become a problem. It is not the only example. There's an underlying principle here: the law should protect everyone equally. I should get punished for doing the same things that my friend should get punished for. I should not receive special treatment, should not be able to get away with things my friend cannot get away with, because of who I am. It doesn't matter whether "who I am" is white when my friend is Chinese, rich when my friend is poor, or related to a policeman when my friend is not.

If police persistently give certain groups special protection or limited immunity to being penalized for petty crimes, then that is a misuse of discretionary power. To me, acceptable uses of discretionary power include anything that protects all citizens equally: that it would be impractical to pull someone over because the shift ends in five minutes, that it's a holiday and you don't want to spoil the guy's weekend, that you don't believe in nailing people for possession of miniscule amounts of drugs, whatever. I don't care what the reason is, as long as it's something that affects everyone equally and plays no favorites.

Now, for any one incident there is no way to prove, and no reason to assume, that an officer is using discretion wrongly instead of rightly. This is true. If there is a pattern of discretion being used to grant favorites of the police department special privileges, and this pattern can be shown to exist statistically, then and only then are there grounds for action.

Could you explain to me how paying police to not take warranted action against you is better than paying them to not take unwarranted action against you?

Sicne I said no such thing, no, I'm not going to. Read what I said carefully. I was correcting you on how protection schemes work, not saying they are a good thing.

Fine. There is a legal difference between paying protection money to someone to stop them from committing crimes against you and paying the police to stop them from doing things that they are legally allowed to do.

That being the case, how would it better to buy off the police for what the law says they can do than to buy off the mafia for what the law says they can't do? For that matter, is it better at all? If so, why? If not, why should it be legal?

Because we have a clear legal distinction between police and prosecutors, which has to do with the control we have over the police.

So because it is the law means it is above reconsideration?

I doubt it, but I can see why they wouldn't want to change the system. Doing it their way makes a clearer distinction between the judiciary's job (to punish criminals) and the police's job (to enforce the law and identify criminals).

Police discretion in the US effectively delegates a little sliver of judiciary power to the police, by letting the police look at certain petty infractions and decide for the state that the offense should not be prosecuted. Under the German system the police don't get that... but I can understand why the Germans wouldn't want to give that to them.

Instead, they're handing the discretionary power over to the judiciary itself (the judges and prosecutors), who can and do decide to throw out minor cases where the evidence isn't good.

Which is something the police in the United States are able to do. If I have no evidence of the crime and it's a minor crime I don't need a prosecutor to tell me that the case isn't going to go anywhere.

Seems like you could reduce the workload of your prosecutors by giving the police more discretionary powers.

They could, but they'd be opening a can of worms, because suddenly they'd have to start policing the police a lot more carefully to make sure that they're using discretionary powers the way the Germans want (dropping cases where there's no evidence), and not using them in other ways (dropping cases it would be inconvenient or unpleasant for them to write out a citation for).

[Kamakazie Sith]

I mean, I still think there's a problem here; I just wasn't paying attention to this discussion yesterday evening. Wolf isn't the only guy here who has a problem with the idea of it being accepted policy for police to grant favors to their friends more often than to strangers. And one of the people who has a problem with it is also one of the board's few legal experts familiar with a system other than the US, and thus has more information on what things look like outside the idiosyncracies of the American system.

If there's a problem with endless, unmoving insistence that "We Are Right!" here, regardless of the evidence and regardless of the arguments in play... I'm not sure which side of the line I'd draw it on.

There isn't much new information that can be added. At this point it has become nothing but opinions, and all that you're going to get is repeated arguments.

No one can read an officer's mind to find their reasons for giving a single ticket. If the same officer gives white people tickets at 30% of traffic stops and black people tickets at 90% of stops over a three year period, though... well, now you have to be a goddamn idiot not to see the connection. That's the kind of situation where you really do need a rule in place governing the reasons police may use discretion: to prevent racial discrimination.

That's not the only factor you should consider. You should consider demographics related to their patrol area before you accuse an officer of racism. So, no it's not as obvious as you would believe.

Racial discrimination may be the best example of how discretion can, when abused, become a problem. It is not the only example. There's an underlying principle here: the law should protect everyone equally. I should get punished for doing the same things that my friend should get punished for. I should not receive special treatment, should not be able to get away with things my friend cannot get away with, because of who I am. It doesn't matter whether "who I am" is white when my friend is Chinese, rich when my friend is poor, or related to a policeman when my friend is not.

The US law recognizes that enforcement of petty traffic violations does not take priority over the officer being able to maintain a healthy personal life. Despite your claims to the contrary writing your spouse or your friends spouse a ticket does cause problems and you simply dismissing them because "well they should be more mature" does not help that officer life. Furthermore, the police aren't the only ones allowed to step away from cases which involve persons from their social circle. Prosecutors, judges, jury members are all allowed to do so. Detectives are also allowed to do so.

Thus far you and others have only repeated the ideology that "everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law", but this ideology ignores reality. There is also a strong possibility that most people would grant the same priviledge to their own social circle if they were in the same place. I have a hard time believing that you or others would not do the same.

Look at Alphawolf when I challenged him. He answered by pretty much saying "well, I just wouldn't pull anyone over" which translates to "I wouldn't do my job so I could avoid those situations"

If police persistently give certain groups special protection or limited immunity to being penalized for petty crimes, then that is a misuse of discretionary power. To me, acceptable uses of discretionary power include anything that protects all citizens equally: that it would be impractical to pull someone over because the shift ends in five minutes, that it's a holiday and you don't want to spoil the guy's weekend, that you don't believe in nailing people for possession of miniscule amounts of drugs, whatever. I don't care what the reason is, as long as it's something that affects everyone equally and plays no favorites.

I disagree for the reasons I stated above.

I doubt it, but I can see why they wouldn't want to change the system. Doing it their way makes a clearer distinction between the judiciary's job (to punish criminals) and the police's job (to enforce the law and identify criminals).

Police discretion in the US effectively delegates a little sliver of judiciary power to the police, by letting the police look at certain petty infractions and decide for the state that the offense should not be prosecuted. Under the German system the police don't get that... but I can understand why the Germans wouldn't want to give that to them.

Instead, they're handing the discretionary power over to the judiciary itself (the judges and prosecutors), who can and do decide to throw out minor cases where the evidence isn't good.

I don't have a problem with the German law, but the only thing I've heard so far that is in clear superiority to the US system is the fact that a lawyers career isn't measured by his wins but by time in service. The lack of discretion appears to be overwhelming the system so they offer an out for those that they can't guarantee a conviction, and their officers might be engaged in under the table illegal discretionary use and everybody looks the other way because they know they are overwhelmed.

I'm sorry, Thanas. I know you've explained that the article I posted is wrong but you haven't backed up your explanation. The problem is the conclusion of the article makes sense from a common sense perspective. That officers do not want to ticket their friends and family, and that a forced no discretionary system creates a massive caseload.

They could, but they'd be opening a can of worms, because suddenly they'd have to start policing the police a lot more carefully to make sure that they're using discretionary powers the way the Germans want (dropping cases where there's no evidence), and not using them in other ways (dropping cases it would be inconvenient or unpleasant for them to write out a citation for).

A can of worms? Really? When you say stuff like that it makes me think that your impression of the US system is everyday a cop pulls over someone in his social circle. In reality in my city which has a business time population of 300,000 to 391 sworn officers that might happen 6 times a year. Maybe. I have yet to pull over anybody I know or anybody my coworkers know and I love stopping cars.

[Kamakazie Sith]

No, they are not. They are excused from their normal duties for court appearances. But they hardly ever appear in court because in our inquisitive system, nearly everything is done in writing. There are no oral arguments per se.

Due to our labor laws our police are paid overtime when they spend time in court during their non-duty hours. So, it is likely that the adoption of the German system would inflate costs here.

Another reason I'd rather have the German system where promotion is largely based on time served, not winning.

This probably wouldn't be to difficult to adopt in the US system, but maybe I have an unrealistic view of how easy it would be.

Such a personal choice is not allowed, nor condoned in the German system. A cop might get away with it, but that is quite unlikely given how most traffic violations are caught on camera anyway.

I understand that.

Although this might run contrary to the letter of the law YOU describe, the article listed earlier about the German system implies that officers do it anyway.

Yeah and why the fuck did I just spend half an hour explaining to you why the article is seriously wrong in those respects if you just chose to ignore it? IT IS NOT DISCRETION.[/quote]

Nobody is saying it is legal discretion.

[Kamakazie Sith]

-KS
Longish reply coming tonight. But you are still misunderstanding the impact of culture, especially between two different systems. Take the plot idea for Beverly Hills Cop and multiply that by some magnitudes. Humans are social creatures, we overrule our instincts every single day to fit into our culture. Cops are no different.

No offense, but it seems you're misunderstanding culture. It seems to me that the system in Germany might not be working as intended but that is due to them being overwhelmed. In the US, your social circle is very important. There's such things as the FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) and other things which are in law and an employer must give time off to someone that qualifies. Thus, it is our culture to give breaks to our family members and friends.

[Keevan_Colton]

LMAO, you seriously think we dont have things like that in europe too?

In fact, having just checked the FMLA is for unpaid time off for newborn children and other such cases...whereas almost every european country has PAID medical and maternity/paternity leave required by law.

[ArmorPierce]

actually the European version of such laws goes much further than the american equivalents (such as FMLA).

[Kamakazie Sith]

LMAO, you seriously think we dont have things like that in europe too?

In fact, having just checked the FMLA is for unpaid time off for newborn children and other such cases...whereas almost every european country has PAID medical and maternity/paternity leave required by law.

Actually, I didn't make a comment either way because I do not know. Thanks for telling me. The point still stands. Though I admit that wasn't the best example.

[Simon_Jester]

No one can read an officer's mind to find their reasons for giving a single ticket. If the same officer gives white people tickets at 30% of traffic stops and black people tickets at 90% of stops over a three year period, though... well, now you have to be a goddamn idiot not to see the connection. That's the kind of situation where you really do need a rule in place governing the reasons police may use discretion: to prevent racial discrimination.

That's not the only factor you should consider. You should consider demographics related to their patrol area before you accuse an officer of racism. So, no it's not as obvious as you would believe.

You'd need pretty wonky demographics to explain something that major when it comes to traffic stops and ticketing rates, I'd think. Even so, yes, you do need to take other issues into account. But it's possible to do so. Not trivial, not perfect, but at least a decent guide to the absence or presence of discrimination if used.

It's a hell of a lot better than throwing up one's hands and saying "Well, we can't say whether this officer is discriminating or not, because we can't read what his thoughts where when he ticketed this black guy and didn't ticket that white guy."

They could, but they'd be opening a can of worms, because suddenly they'd have to start policing the police a lot more carefully to make sure that they're using discretionary powers the way the Germans want (dropping cases where there's no evidence), and not using them in other ways (dropping cases it would be inconvenient or unpleasant for them to write out a citation for).

A can of worms? Really? When you say stuff like that it makes me think that your impression of the US system is everyday a cop pulls over someone in his social circle. In reality in my city which has a business time population of 300,000 to 391 sworn officers that might happen 6 times a year. Maybe. I have yet to pull over anybody I know or anybody my coworkers know and I love stopping cars.

That wasn't the only example I was thinking of.

For example, in Germany, the public might not want police to decline to do a stop because they'll have to go into overtime to finish it because the shift ends in five minutes. Or they want to be absolutely certain that issues of sex-based discrimination don't come up. Or something. I don't know. It's not just a question of what happens when a cop stops a friend or acquaintance of another cop.

[Kamakazie Sith]

You'd need pretty wonky demographics to explain something that major when it comes to traffic stops and ticketing rates, I'd think. Even so, yes, you do need to take other issues into account. But it's possible to do so. Not trivial, not perfect, but at least a decent guide to the absence or presence of discrimination if used.

Maybe I think it is hard to quantify. 90% of the time I have no idea of the skin color of the person I'm stopping. However, it seems that I stop mostly Hispanic drivers. That's due to the area I patrol which has a strong Hispanic population.

It's a hell of a lot better than throwing up one's hands and saying "Well, we can't say whether this officer is discriminating or not, because we can't read what his thoughts where when he ticketed this black guy and didn't ticket that white guy."

I disagree. I would be pissed off if I was accused of racism by someone just looking at numbers and failing to take into account the other factors which govern who I stop.

That wasn't the only example I was thinking of.

For example, in Germany, the public might not want police to decline to do a stop because they'll have to go into overtime to finish it because the shift ends in five minutes. Or they want to be absolutely certain that issues of sex-based discrimination don't come up. Or something. I don't know. It's not just a question of what happens when a cop stops a friend or acquaintance of another cop.

Ok. I just wanted to make sure you understood what you're fighting against right now. There is a legitimate reason why a police officer would not want to ticket someone in their social circle. Do you have to like it? No, but that doesn't take away from that.

[Alphawolf55]

Sith I have to contest two things.

One, you can't compare the action of a officer removing himself from a situation with that of a judge, jury and prosecutor from doing so. I understand your point and logic but there's a problem with it, if one of the people from the latter group don't feel they're sufficiently unbiased to preside over the case, they don't throw out the case but find someone new to participate in it, the case is still followed through. Your analogy would only work if you felt that officers should be able to call in a new officer to take over situations they believe they have a personal bias with, not throw out the whole thing entirely.

Also you are sightly misquoting me. When I said I woudn't pull anyone over, I didn't mean so I could avoid the situations you're talking about. It's more because, I'm not a guy who likes confrontation and there are almost no minor offenses that I think warrant a 150 dollar ticket. I also said that if I was in the habit of giving tickets, I would give a ticket to someone I knew to remain consistent.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Sith I have to contest two things.

One, you can't compare the action of a officer removing himself from a situation with that of a judge, jury and prosecutor from doing so. I understand your point and logic but there's a problem with it, if one of the people from the latter group don't feel they're sufficiently unbiased to preside over the case, they don't throw out the case but find someone new to participate in it, the case is still followed through. Your analogy would only work if you felt that officers should be able to call in a new officer to take over situations they believe they have a personal bias with.

That's exactly the point. A police officer can not bring in someone new to objectively consider the situation on a traffic stop because traffic violations must be committed in the presence of the officer. Thus the only solution is to let that person go. If the situation is something where there's a victim then another officer can easily take over the investigation.

Also you are sightly misquoting me. When I said I woudn't pull anyone over, I didn't mean so I could avoid the situations you're talking about. It's more because, I'm not a guy who likes confrontation and there are almost no minor offenses that I think warrant a 150 dollar ticket. I also said that if I was in the habit of giving tickets, I would give a ticket to someone I knew to remain consistent.

I apologize then.

[Alphawolf55]

And see here's the area where we gotta respectively disagree and most likely ideally. You believe that it's important to maintain personal relationships and I agree. I can also understand an officer wanting to give breaks to immediate friends and family. But when it comes to the police at large, that's the problem. Can people be petty yes? Yes, but we expect people to put it pass themselves in almost any professional situation. When my boss verbally puts me down, I'm suppose to just say "Just doing your job". In almost any professional environment, grudges are supposed to be put down and any express action of the person is suppose to be seen as just that being done by the professional not the person. You could say that police have a special situation because they sometimes rely on fellow officers for their lives and thus a special kind of trust has to be maintain and there is a point to it. Except there are other high-risk careers where your coworkers actions can cause you to be killed and you gotta trust each other and they're still expected to rise above petty behavior. But even if I accept that all of those reasons are good, I just can't see how it's alright when it's another cop from a whole different department you'll most likely never encounter.

[Simon_Jester]

Maybe I think it is hard to quantify. 90% of the time I have no idea of the skin color of the person I'm stopping. However, it seems that I stop mostly Hispanic drivers. That's due to the area I patrol which has a strong Hispanic population.

It's not the stop rate that matters; it's the ticketing rate.

If your reasons for giving people speeding tickets have nothing to do with whether the people you stop are Hispanic, then you will end up giving tickets to Hispanics you stop about as often as to anybody else, as a percentage. 70% of Hispanics and 70% of non-Hispanics, or something like that. Even if you're stopping tons of Hispanics, that's not a problem if most of the drivers in the area are Hispanic.

That's what I propose to analyze: the frequency with which police use discretion for the benefit of individuals, as a function of what groups they're members of (the set of all Hispanics, the set of all FOP donors...), in cases where they have a means to tell what kind of individual they're dealing with.

I disagree. I would be pissed off if I was accused of racism by someone just looking at numbers and failing to take into account the other factors which govern who I stop.

And rightly so.

Look, what I'm proposing is the equivalent of doing a scientific study. If whoever does the analysis botches it and doesn't take into account the local population demographics or some such, then you have every right to be mad. It's only if they find evidence of a bias after controlling for variables that will predictably skew the results that there would be any grounds to even investigate further.

[Tiriol]

I disagree. I would be pissed off if I was accused of racism by someone just looking at numbers and failing to take into account the other factors which govern who I stop.

And rightly so.

Look, what I'm proposing is the equivalent of doing a scientific study. If whoever does the analysis botches it and doesn't take into account the local population demographics or some such, then you have every right to be mad. It's only if they find evidence of a bias after controlling for variables that will predictably skew the results that there would be any grounds to even investigate further.

A scientific study which takes into account the variables might be a very good idea: either it puts to rest the oft-spouted "fact" that police are racist or at least more likely to treat hispanics, blacks etc. badly than an average white person; or it shows that it is indeed true and where does that actually occur (I strongly doubt that every police force in the entire US would be racist, even though many around here seem to like the implication).

However, as Kamakazie_Sith already pointed out, there's now an argument of opinions - mostly - at hand and it's pretty hard to convince anyone that their opinions are wrong or invalid. That would explain why the discussion goes on and on in circles (and frankly I get a headache whenever I try to reading it through, especially after having a relaxing vacation).