NYPD assaults a judge, intimidates witnesses, lies to DA.

[Thanas]

Do you think the NYPD is the only department of similar size in the world?

Of course not. As you know Germany Federal Police is around 30,000 officers and they don't have anywhere near the corruption problems that NYPD does. However, asking when can we consider this SOP for 35,000 officers is a very bold question. In fact, you actually went on to suggest it for the entirety of US law enforcement.

We don't hear such cases in this frequency from foreign police. Maybe it is a stretch to suggest that the entirety of US law enforcement is that corrupt, but really, the frequency of such cases alleging abuse and the fact that in every case police protects police but not the guys damaged is pretty bad.

[Vendetta]

We get a fair amount of stories about the Police in the UK, but there has been a string of high profile coverups through the 80s and 90s like Hillsborough and miscarriages of justice (birmingham six, guildford four, etc), and deaths in custody that have put more scrutiny on them. We do have an independent oversight body now (IPCC) which means that the police can't bluewall as effectively.

They still have problems with institutional racism and race relations, especially in London (where the Met has the same problem with racist targeting of stop and search that the NYPD does).

[Kamakazie Sith]

Do you think the NYPD is the only department of similar size in the world?

Of course not. As you know Germany Federal Police is around 30,000 officers and they don't have anywhere near the corruption problems that NYPD does. However, asking when can we consider this SOP for 35,000 officers is a very bold question. In fact, you actually went on to suggest it for the entirety of US law enforcement.

We don't hear such cases in this frequency from foreign police. Maybe it is a stretch to suggest that the entirety of US law enforcement is that corrupt, but really, the frequency of such cases alleging abuse and the fact that in every case police protects police but not the guys damaged is pretty bad.

No doubt instances of abuse by US cops is much higher in comparison to many other countries, especially European countries. I think that's what you actually mean.

If you actually mean precisely what you said above then I have to point out when one speaks of frequency I expect to see some numbers. When one uses the word "every" then I generally know they haven't done much research at all. Though maybe you're just talking about a specific set of news stories instead of the actual big picture because in that case yeah they do tend to contain instances of police abuse where the police protect police.

[Thanas]

No doubt instances of abuse by US cops is much higher in comparison to many other countries, especially European countries. I think that's what you actually mean.

Yeah, I did.

If you actually mean precisely what you said above then I have to point out when one speaks of frequency I expect to see some numbers. When one uses the word "every" then I generally know they haven't done much research at all. Though maybe you're just talking about a specific set of news stories instead of the actual big picture because in that case yeah they do tend to contain instances of police abuse where the police protect police.

Well, almost everyone of the abuse stories posted here show police protecting police.

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

I think the way the media, at least in the U.S., covers these things tends to magnify this problem. (and there is a problem, likely several related problems) Stories about crooked cops abusing power get ratings, while stories of honest cops just doing their jobs don't, so I can see why someone might think that all or most police in the U.S. are corrupt assholes, as that's what gets shown. You only ever hear about police when something bad happens, when they raid the wrong house, or gun down a teenager, or, for that matter, get shot themselves at a traffic stop gone wrong. You just don't hear about the vast majority of times when everything goes ok, no wrongdoing occurs, and nobody gets hurt, because that's boring.

The police are kind of like NASCAR, in that they're only interesting when something goes wrong.

[Grumman]

I think the way the media, at least in the U.S., covers these things tends to magnify this problem. (and there is a problem, likely several related problems) Stories about crooked cops abusing power get ratings, while stories of honest cops just doing their jobs don't, so I can see why someone might think that all or most police in the U.S. are corrupt assholes, as that's what gets shown. You only ever hear about police when something bad happens, when they raid the wrong house, or gun down a teenager, or, for that matter, get shot themselves at a traffic stop gone wrong. You just don't hear about the vast majority of times when everything goes ok, no wrongdoing occurs, and nobody gets hurt, because that's boring.

The police are kind of like NASCAR, in that they're only interesting when something goes wrong.

That's true of anything. Nobody's going to do a news report about how you drove home from work today without incident. And frankly, we'd never get anything done if we paid every time everything goes according to plan.

[Kitsune]

One item I would like to see is some kind of mini helmet camera carried on cops
Like to see all interrogations recorded from start to finish

[Alyeska]

One item I would like to see is some kind of mini helmet camera carried on cops
Like to see all interrogations recorded from start to finish

We are slowly moving to this. Storage densities with sufficient definition to the video and audio. Bystander footage is common place these days. Hiding from citizens is very hard. Google Glass anyone? And the police are moving this way too. Because ultimately the video protects the police too.

[Simon_Jester]

Although, well. Privacy concerns.

Then again, I'm beginning to get the feeling that privacy concerns are sooooo 20th century; if you didn't want to be pervasively photographed and personally identified by gait-analysis and face-recognition software, you shouldn't be walking in public places past about 2015-20...

[RogueIce]

One item I would like to see is some kind of mini helmet camera carried on cops
Like to see all interrogations recorded from start to finish

I think that's generally done with interrogations. Not universal but it's becoming a fairly widespread practice, AFAIK. Of course cost and technology wise it's relatively easy to set up a camera and mic in an enclosed room.

Body cameras are starting to be a thing. I think the major issues there were, as Alyeska noted, storage density, which would affect weight and where they can attach it, durability, etc. I've seen the ones that go on your head and loop on the ear, though I'm dubious of those as it seems an obvious target for somebody to strike at and injure the officer. Then there's this that I recently saw:



Offhand I don't know how durable it would be if, say, the officer had to tackle somebody and was rolling around on the ground. Also not sure how 'secure' it clips on to his uniform, and whether jumping over fences or the aforementioned physical altercations and so on would knock it off. But that seems like a pretty good way for them to go. It's also easy to activate, just slide down the cover and it turns on, slide the cover up and it turns off (though the sliding cover presents certain durability issues such as the thing snapping off). Which is logical, because really it only needs to be on for citizen contacts and the like, because seven hours of the camera staring at a steering wheel is rather pointless. Here's the article from which that picture is from.

[bilateralrope]

It's also easy to activate, just slide down the cover and it turns on, slide the cover up and it turns off (though the sliding cover presents certain durability issues such as the thing snapping off). Which is logical, because really it only needs to be on for citizen contacts and the like, because seven hours of the camera staring at a steering wheel is rather pointless. Here's the article from which that picture is from.

My first thought is that it might be accidentally turned off by someone who gets too close. My second is that is looks like it could be quickly turned off by the cop before he does something illegal.

If you don't trust your police, would you rather they have hours of useless footage that can be quickly skipped because you know when the interesting bits happened, or would you prefer that the police you don't trust have a camera that they can turn off ?

[CaptHawkeye]

That's a backwards way of looking at the officer's personal camera. The camera should be there to back up the police officer's defense should he be accused of brutality or abuse. If the Officer had his camera off and an accusation is made, that only makes him look bad doesn't it?

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think the way the media, at least in the U.S., covers these things tends to magnify this problem. (and there is a problem, likely several related problems) Stories about crooked cops abusing power get ratings, while stories of honest cops just doing their jobs don't, so I can see why someone might think that all or most police in the U.S. are corrupt assholes, as that's what gets shown. You only ever hear about police when something bad happens, when they raid the wrong house, or gun down a teenager, or, for that matter, get shot themselves at a traffic stop gone wrong. You just don't hear about the vast majority of times when everything goes ok, no wrongdoing occurs, and nobody gets hurt, because that's boring.

The police are kind of like NASCAR, in that they're only interesting when something goes wrong.

Yeah, I'd like to see some of the "America's police as EEEEEVIL!!" folks show some sort of statistical evidence that these instances of abuse happen with a higher frequency in America than they do elsewhere. I don't consider the frequency of news stories to be sufficient evidence, given everything we know about how incompetence the news media tend to be.

[Beowulf]

One item I would like to see is some kind of mini helmet camera carried on cops
Like to see all interrogations recorded from start to finish

We are slowly moving to this. Storage densities with sufficient definition to the video and audio. Bystander footage is common place these days. Hiding from citizens is very hard. Google Glass anyone? And the police are moving this way too. Because ultimately the video protects the police too.

We're probably already at the point where 720p video can be easily stored for a 12 hr shift. 4.0 Mbit/sec video stream ends up being around 21GB. Which although it's a rather large amount of data to store, is still something that is the size of a SD card. The issue really is supplying power to the camera to last for an entire shift.

[Kamakazie Sith]

One item I would like to see is some kind of mini helmet camera carried on cops
Like to see all interrogations recorded from start to finish

We are slowly moving to this. Storage densities with sufficient definition to the video and audio. Bystander footage is common place these days. Hiding from citizens is very hard. Google Glass anyone? And the police are moving this way too. Because ultimately the video protects the police too.

We're probably already at the point where 720p video can be easily stored for a 12 hr shift. 4.0 Mbit/sec video stream ends up being around 21GB. Which although it's a rather large amount of data to store, is still something that is the size of a SD card. The issue really is supplying power to the camera to last for an entire shift.

That would be an issue except right now the current general policy nationwide is to have the camera on during citizen/officer contacts in which an investigation is taking place regardless of the nature. It is highly unlikely that the powers that be will require the camera to be on during an entire shift since officers will be eating, talking to each other, and using facilities at some point during that shift.

Initially discipline is going to be mild for failure to activate the camera but that mild discipline will be short lived and only for whatever time period the powers that be decide is adequate for adjustment to turning something on and off during contacts. After that adjustment period the penalty will probably range from days off without pay to termination if the incident is severe enough.

[Zwinmar]

It does not matter if police are 'evil,' what matters is the general perception that they are. I fully support the police having those cameras for the protection of everyone involved. Though the cameras should have a time stamp of some sort to show when they were covered up with administrative action if they are.

The problem comes in when there are police who are corrupt, we know this, it has made international headlines, Rodney King for instance. Combine this with the arrogance that many police have toward the people they are supposed to serve and protect and the militarization of police forces and the break up of legal protesting by legal technicalities (namely the fear stemming from the Patriot Act) and you have a situation where the populace simply does not trust the government and the jackbooted thugs who enforce the law.

[Kitsune]

Look in Russia how many drivers record everything so that if they get into accidents, they can show who is at fault
If they can protect their butt, so can out police.

Even if we don't start with officers recording their whole shift, we could at least start with complete police raids, any incident, and all interrogations.

[NettiWelho]

Yeah, I'd like to see some of the "America's police as EEEEEVIL!!" folks show some sort of statistical evidence that these instances of abuse happen with a higher frequency in America than they do elsewhere. I don't consider the frequency of news stories to be sufficient evidence, given everything we know about how incompetence the news media tend to be.

How can you have reliable statistical evidence of abuse if things like these are actually considered to be "business as usual" and not abuse?:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0bb_1378278361 (nsfw)
http://ktla.com/2013/09/04/long-beach-p ... z2dwOVw51K

Around where I live that would be a crime.

[TheFeniX]

We just had another video pop last night on KHOU about an older couple getting their shit stomped by Harris County cops. If you check the video at the 2:00 mark, you can see one hambeast actually jiggling while he repeatable kicks a handcuffed man. It was much more apparent when I watched it in HD last night. Actually quite funny in a terrible way. There's been no prosecution and the family waited quite a while to file charges due to being terrified of police retaliation (go figure).

Going back to what NettiWelho said: even if they win a lawsuit (and the taxpayer picks up the dime), this isn't technically brutality. If the couple hadn't decided to press charges, by talking to the same people who brutalized them, nothing would have come of it because cops aren't in the business of punishing their own. Administration has zero incentive to pursue claims of corruption.

[Kamakazie Sith]

How can you have reliable statistical evidence of abuse if things like these are actually considered to be "business as usual" and not abuse?:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0bb_1378278361 (nsfw)
http://ktla.com/2013/09/04/long-beach-p ... z2dwOVw51K

Around where I live that would be a crime.

A couple things. First off US police can use force to effect an arrest the only requirement is that force must be reasonable to effect that arrest. The level of reasonable force is determined by multiple factors.

1 - *Most significant factor* Level of resistance - so if a suspect is trying to prevent an arrest by actively kicking at officers then pretty much everything but deadly force is acceptable.

2 - Number of suspects present - If the officers are out numbered then the level of force he/she can use is higher but again is still greatly influenced by the level of resistance that arrestee puts up.

3 - Number of officers present - Multiple officers should work as a team to arrest people so that the level of force is as minimal as possible to effect the arrest. Again, the level of resistance the arrestee puts up will greatly influence that level of reasonable force.

In the video you posted most of those officers are standing around and aren't working as a team to bring the resistance to an end. The legs of the suspect do pose a significant risk of injury but he can only face one direction at a time.

We just had another video pop last night on KHOU about an older couple getting their shit stomped by Harris County cops. If you check the video at the 2:00 mark, you can see one hambeast actually jiggling while he repeatable kicks a handcuffed man. It was much more apparent when I watched it in HD last night. Actually quite funny in a terrible way. There's been no prosecution and the family waited quite a while to file charges due to being terrified of police retaliation (go figure).

Apparently physical fitness isn't important in that agency.

Anyway, the guy wasn't handcuffed. If you listen to the video you can hear them yelling at him to place his hands behind is back. Physical strikes to extremities, especially the extremity offering the most resistance, is pretty basic use of force and is regarded as reasonable as long as you don't end up breaking bones. Strikes to the body and head aren't okay in that situation because they have control of his body and he isn't able to inflict injury on the officers. Though keep in mind in active situations it is possible to miss your intended target, especially when it is an extremity.

In this situation the officer to citizen ratio appears to be 2:1. I don't see any instances of active resistance. However, even with two on one it can be quite difficult to control a person, even a female, when they absolutely don't want to be controlled.

What I want to know is what happened that caused a simple traffic stop over a stop sign violation spiraling out of control. It reminds me of the Seattle jaywalking incident. Such a petty thing to not cooperate with the police over.

Going back to what NettiWelho said: even if they win a lawsuit (and the taxpayer picks up the dime), this isn't technically brutality. If the couple hadn't decided to press charges, by talking to the same people who brutalized them, nothing would have come of it because cops aren't in the business of punishing their own. Administration has zero incentive to pursue claims of corruption.

You can always file a report with your local FBI office if you don't trust the DA office or the local cops to conduct a fair investigation.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights
http://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate ... lor_of_law
"Excessive force: In making arrests, maintaining order, and defending life, law enforcement officers are allowed to use whatever force is “reasonably” necessary. The breadth and scope of the use of force is vast—from just the physical presence of the officer…to the use of deadly force. Violations of federal law occur when it can be shown that the force used was willfully “unreasonable” or “excessive.”

Furthermore, if the department can show that the officer acted outside policy and law then that will place the civil liability onto the individual officer who then would have to show that the department failed to train them adequately - which does happen quite a bit. So, you're mistaken when you say the administration has zero incentive to pursue claims of corruption. They have a great deal of incentive because it protects the department from being sued if it is found the officer acted outside of policy and law.

[NettiWelho]

1 - *Most significant factor* Level of resistance - so if a suspect is trying to prevent an arrest by actively kicking at officers then pretty much everything but deadly force is acceptable.

2 - Number of suspects present - If the officers are out numbered then the level of force he/she can use is higher but again is still greatly influenced by the level of resistance that arrestee puts up.

3 - Number of officers present - Multiple officers should work as a team to arrest people so that the level of force is as minimal as possible to effect the arrest. Again, the level of resistance the arrestee puts up will greatly influence that level of reasonable force.

In the video you posted most of those officers are standing around and aren't working as a team to bring the resistance to an end. The legs of the suspect do pose a significant risk of injury but he can only face one direction at a time.

I fail to find a timeframe in the video where the guy on the ground is actually attempting to make his legs to connect with the officers bodies in an attempt to convey kinetic energy, just attempting to deflect/block the unwarranted baton hits, which is a pretty fucking natural reaction if you see someone is trying to hit you, you dont fucking turn on your back on someone beating on you for no reason.

Furthermore, if the department can show that the officer acted outside policy and law then that will place the civil liability onto the individual officer who then would have to show that the department failed to train them adequately - which does happen quite a bit. So, you're mistaken when you say the administration has zero incentive to pursue claims of corruption. They have a great deal of incentive because it protects the department from being sued if it is found the officer acted outside of policy and law.

So what's exactly the incentive for the department again if 100% of the bills are going to end up paid by the taxpayer in a case of a successful suit?

Additionally, I was under the impression that assault(youre beating on a person who is incapable for mounting an effective defense) is a crime regardless whetever you think youre committing a crime at the time youre doing it, and attempting to cover for it a criminal conspiracy for rest of the police officers present, not a goddamn "training issue".

Now if the things they did are actually ok under the law then the law is the fucking problem. Clearly not working as intended, or more scary, working exactly as intended.

[JLTucker]

I am sure that man who is being tased poses a significant threat with flailing legs likely resulting from being tased. I mean, those officer's lives are clearly on the line when the guy's legs are not moving and the officer says "Get on your stomach" and responds with a hit to the legs. Give the heroes of Team Blue a medal, please, because I know that they cowered in fear from that suspect.

[fgalkin]

Do you think the NYPD is the only department of similar size in the world?

Of course not. As you know Germany Federal Police is around 30,000 officers and they don't have anywhere near the corruption problems that NYPD does. However, asking when can we consider this SOP for 35,000 officers is a very bold question. In fact, you actually went on to suggest it for the entirety of US law enforcement.

We don't hear such cases in this frequency from foreign police. Maybe it is a stretch to suggest that the entirety of US law enforcement is that corrupt, but really, the frequency of such cases alleging abuse and the fact that in every case police protects police but not the guys damaged is pretty bad.

The Hong Kong Police Department is 40,000 officers and yet, almost spotlessly clean.

But then, Hong Kong has a functioning justice system, unlike NYC where people are in jail for half a decade or more just waiting for their trial to begin.

P.S. A former classmate of mine is a NYPD cop. The things he told me would have landed him in shit anywhere else. He has admitted that he and others intentionally abuse protestors, for example, and bragged how he was able to get away with it by saying the right things to the Internal Review investigator. Or the fact that cops can and do abuse their authority and blatantly disregard traffic laws, even while off duty.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Kamakazie Sith]

I fail to find a timeframe in the video where the guy on the ground is actually attempting to make his legs to connect with the officers bodies in an attempt to convey kinetic energy, just attempting to deflect/block the unwarranted baton hits, which is a pretty fucking natural reaction if you see someone is trying to hit you, you dont fucking turn on your back on someone beating on you for no reason.

2:03 an officer bends down to grab him and he tries to kick the officer in the head. Another officer moves in and grabs his leg. You're right though when confronted with people beating you for no reason you don't turn your back on them. Unfortunately for him, the police had a reason.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local ... 17191.html

Another video recorded what happened prior to the video that you posted which shows him starting a fight with other citizen and a confrontation with police. The new video starts at 1:01.

So what's exactly the incentive for the department again if 100% of the bills are going to end up paid by the taxpayer in a case of a successful suit?

That money comes out of the city budget and therefore effects the police department budget administrators like to have a budget so they can fund operations and equipment. If that money is taken in a lawsuit then they can't fund those operations and may even have to lay off employees. That being said I don't believe it is a good method of handling instance of police abuse/corruption.

Additionally, I was under the impression that assault(youre beating on a person who is incapable for mounting an effective defense) is a crime regardless whetever you think youre committing a crime at the time youre doing it, and attempting to cover for it a criminal conspiracy for rest of the police officers present, not a goddamn "training issue".

Under criminal code assault is defined as unlawful physical force against another person. However, use of force in making an arrest is generally under its own statute. For example, here is Utah's;
77-7-7. Force in making arrest.
If a person is being arrested and flees or forcibly resists after being informed of the intention to make the arrest, the person arresting may use reasonable force to effect the arrest. Deadly force may be used only as provided in Section 76-2-404.

For comparison here is the first paragraph of Utah's self defense statute;
76-2-402. Force in defense of person -- Forcible felony defined.
(1) (a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that force or a threat of force is necessary to defend the person or a third person against another person's imminent use of unlawful force.

Forcible resistance ranges anywhere from passive resistance (using your body weight to prevent or hinder an arrest), defensive (pulling away), aggressive (strikes against the person making the arrest).

As you can see police are allowed to use force to effect arrests. The level of force is determined mostly by the level of resistance. In a very basic nutshell passive resistance will result in the application of pain to obtain compliance. Active resistance or resistance from a person that has demonstrated he is violent will result in the application of a broader range of force such as the taser, hand strikes, or baton.

Now if the things they did are actually ok under the law then the law is the fucking problem. Clearly not working as intended, or more scary, working exactly as intended.

If you say so. I'd say that douche bag in the video is the problem. He could have not started a fight with two people. He could have complied with police instructions. The entire incident is his fault. He started it and someone else finished it.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I am sure that man who is being tased poses a significant threat with flailing legs likely resulting from being tased. I mean, those officer's lives are clearly on the line when the guy's legs are not moving and the officer says "Get on your stomach" and responds with a hit to the legs. Give the heroes of Team Blue a medal, please, because I know that they cowered in fear from that suspect.

From a professional perspective I think with the number of officers present they could have easily physically restrained him by going for his upper body while he was facing a different direction. Eventually this is what they did and it worked after a bit of a struggle.

I've been tased several times and you can also look up taser training on youtube. It doesn't cause "flailing limbs". If someone is flailing their limbs it is because they are intentionally doing it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFSW44UPgwQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-grWegCY0V4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQezHxkuCHg

I could keep going but I trust this will be enough.