What's Wrong With American Cops?

[spitsfire]

spitsfire said:

bad cops get forced out and US cops don't cover for other cops engaged in inappropriate/unlawful behaviour. The New Yorker article and This is American Life podcast demonstrate that this is not the case, and they do so fairly emphatically. One report from the rural South, one from NY. The parallels between the two suggests there is an institutional failure in US law enforcement.

C'mon, somebody, call me out on this - please tell me that these articles don't suggest there is an institutional failure in US policing. After all, isn't that what this thread is supposed to be getting at?

[Matt Harper]

spitsfire said:

C'mon, somebody, call me out on this - please tell me that these articles don't suggest there is an institutional failure in US policing. After all, isn't that what this thread is supposed to be getting at?

I suspect that this thread has passed it's 'sell by' date and is now destined to fade into obscurity - I think it's pretty much run it's course.

If these 'articles' are indeed true, vs cleverly edited (in the case of NY) sensationalist journalism by a meaningless and un/incredible street rag and downright horse$hit in the case of the other, it would demonstrate institutional failure of a single 14 block precinct in the Bronx and similar breakdown of society in some podunk, st-kicking burg near nowhere'sville and not 'institutional failure in US policing'.

That said, it's been very refreshing to have some civilized and intelligent debate on what is clearly a quite thorny subject - though why anyone outside of the US would give a flying f*ck about US policing, I'm not quite sure - I certainly could not give a rat's ass about the quality of police - or anything else for that matter, in Australia, for instance.

[Snowboy]

spitsfire said:

This is a big part of the problem, I think. Idiot policies such as '3 strikes and you're out' mean that a fairly minor offence can end up with a ridiculous prison sentence. It makes the stakes so much higher, and the suspect will take far greater risks to escape. After all (and I'm not excusing such actions), I think a fair proportion of people would resist if they were looking at life in a US prison for having 2 previous convictions and a couple of bags of weed in their pocket.

On the other hand in the UK we have people here walking the street with 50+ convictions still commiting crime.
The three strikes rule hasn't had the effect you suggest - it's quite odd when you read about it.
People getting their third strike from stealing $30 beer and suchlike.

But that's more strategic policy than individual police actions.
And I've never seen a national policy that 'works'.
Every country has criminals and crime, nothing seems to work as a deterrent and rehab rates are pretty bad everywhere

We can criticise them for not working; but without suggesting an alternative that works it's just howling at the moon.

[creampuff]

Speaking as someone who is not British and not American either, I am quite surprised about the amount of abuse which British police appear to accept or be forced to accept. I'm also surprised about the concern for the rights of criminals, thugs and crooks and the degree to which the police seem to be guided by a desire to avoid complaints against themselves.

[spitsfire]

Matt Harper said:

If these 'articles' are indeed true, vs cleverly edited (in the case of NY) sensationalist journalism by a meaningless and un/incredible street rag and downright horse$hit in the case of the other, it would demonstrate institutional failure of a single 14 block precinct in the Bronx and similar breakdown of society in some podunk, st-kicking burg near nowhere'sville and not 'institutional failure in US policing'.

I don't think so - the NY article contains at least 10 first-hand accounts of what most would consider unreasonable asset seizures by police, from Texas to Detroit to California. Only North Carolina outlaws the practice, and in some states 40% of the policing budget comes from asset seizures.

It is quite a long article, but it is a fairly comprehensive look at activities I'd hope any reasonable person would consider outrageous.

The New Yorker said:

Another case involves a monthly social event that had been hosted by the Contemporary Art Institute of Detroit. In the midst of festivities one evening in late May, 2008, forty-odd officers in black commando gear stormed the gallery and its rear patio, ordering the guests to the ground. Some in attendance thought that they were the victims of an armed robbery. One young woman who had fallen only to her knees told me that a masked figure screamed at her, “bh, you think you’re too pretty to get in the mud?” A boot from behind kicked her to the ground. The officers, including members of the Detroit Police Department’s vice squad and mobile tactical unit, placed the guests under arrest. According to police records, the gallery lacked proper city permits for after-hours dancing and drinking, and an old ordinance aimed at “blind pigs” (speakeasies) and other places of “illegal occupation” made it a crime to patronize such a place, knowingly or not.

After lining the guests on their knees before a “prisoner processing table” and searching them, the officers asked for everyone’s car keys. Then the raid team seized every vehicle it could find, even venturing to the driveway of a young man’s friend nearly a mile away to retrieve his car. Forty-four cars were taken to government-contracted lots.

Most of those detained had to pay more than a thousand dollars for the return of their cars; if payment wasn’t made promptly, the car would become city property. The proceeds were divided among the offices of the prosecutors, police, and towing companies. After the A.C.L.U. filed a suit against the city, a district court ruled that the raid was unconstitutional, and noted that it reflected “a widespread practice” by the police in the area. (The city is appealing the ruling.) Vice statutes have lent themselves to such forfeiture efforts; in previous years, an initiative targeted gay men for forfeiture, under Detroit’s “annoying persons” ordinance. Before local lawyers challenged such practices, known informally as “Bag a Fag,” undercover officers would arrest gay men who simply returned their glances or gestures, if the signals were deemed to have sexual connotations, and then, citing “nuisance abatement,” seize their vehicles.

Detroit Police Department officials have said that raids like the one on the Contemporary Art Institute are aimed at improving “quality of life.” The raids certainly help address the department’s substantial budgetary shortfalls. Last year, Detroit, which has since filed for bankruptcy, cut the annual police budget by nearly a fifth. Today, “blind pig” raids around the city routinely result in the confiscation of dozens, sometimes hundreds, of cars.

[Snowboy]

That does sound bad on first reading.
But, I'd have to have a lot more information before forming a conclusion.

For example;
Are the parties actually illegal raves?
A bit of googling about the art institute and its 'funk night' make me think it's not quite the prestige art event the article implied it was.
More like a bunch of artist scraped together money for a building gland have loud late parties without a bar licence.

I'm not defending the police here - because I don't have the full story.
Just pointing out that the article isn't really giving a full and clear story either.

[spitsfire]

Snowboy said:

On the other hand in the UK we have people here walking the street with 50+ convictions still commiting crime.
The three strikes rule hasn't had the effect you suggest - it's quite odd when you read about it.
People getting their third strike from stealing $30 beer and suchlike.

But that's more strategic policy than individual police actions.
And I've never seen a national policy that 'works'.
Every country has criminals and crime, nothing seems to work as a deterrent and rehab rates are pretty bad everywhere

We can criticise them for not working; but without suggesting an alternative that works it's just howling at the moon.

It is strategic policy, but it must have some effect on those enforcing it - wouldn't you become cynical if you were tasked with implementing a policy that was counter-productive and inflicted massive collateral damage on those who, more often than not, are badly educated and impoverished?

In my humble opinion, deterrents don't really work. Put simply, the average low-level offender is too thick to think that far ahead. There is quite a lot of evidence (mostly from Northern Europe) that 'investing' in offenders reduces reoffending rates markedly. I don't have any first-hand experience of that, but I do know from personal experience that the average junkie on his 10th conviction for low level theft/possession/behavioural issues will most likely offend again because there is nothing else to do - they can't get a job, they can't get decent accommodation, they can't get effective help to kick their habit, and the disorderly lives they often lead make prison seem like a holiday camp (a clean bed and 3 meals a day). I used to do work with a legendary solicitor in Glasgow who had a dark, dark sense of humour. She used to describe these people as her 'dripping roast' because they guarantee a small but steady income from low-level offences, and no serious effort is made to rehabilitate them.

The way to get reoffending rates down might be to invest in offenders - give them an education, get them off drugs, and give them something to work towards. But that is, partly thanks to the Scum and Daily Wail, so politically toxic that no sensible politician will consider it. The US, with media outlets so low-brow that some are still encouraging the 'birther' arguments, is an example of this in extremis.

[Snowboy]

We're getting into politics now.
But consider a UK us comparison.

A US cop arrested the same criminal three times, that criminal is then off the streets for life.

A UK cop arrests the same criminal three times, that criminal is back next month, and the next.

When looking at things like this my focus is on the victims.
I would rather a criminal is unable to burgle more houses, mug more kids and steal cars.
Than a criminal be released after a few days, free to rob again.

The prisons are full of rehab schemes, the local colleges have loads if free courses.
I know loads of people with stty starts in life who have stayed out of jail or who came close.

So, I have no sympathy at all for repeat offenders.
There is loads of help available to them - but they choose not to accept it.
They choose a life of crime.

[streaky]

XCP said:

I thought that was the IOM.

Streaky

[stuttgartmetal]

SO19
Ive met a few.
Level headed is how I'd describe them.
All of them thought The Met shouldn't carry guns.
Mayhem, chaos, and carnage was how they described how it would be.
They'd just end up getting themselves in trouble.

I'd have thought that's what's happened to US Police.
As, here, having an elite armed force works.
For the rest , such as some of the right wingers on here, its just a bit too risky.
They'd run out of talent.

A level head and calmness is essential.
I mean, it goes to reason.
Some of the posters on here, given a £7-50 plastic made in China keyboard they're angling for a right hook.

They just wouldn't pass the psychological profiling.

[XJ Flyer]

stuttgartmetal said:

SO19
Ive met a few.
Level headed is how I'd describe them.
All of them thought The Met shouldn't carry guns.
Mayhem, chaos, and carnage was how they described how it would be.
They'd just end up getting themselves in trouble.

I'd have thought that's what's happened to US Police.
As, here, having an elite armed force works.

I don't think that the situation of armed American police has produced carnage or chaos any more that having armed French,German,Spanish or Italian police has.One thing is certain in the case of a weapon being needed,in the hands of a good person,police or civilian,to defend anyone or themselves against a life threatening attack,regardless of wether the potential criminal is armed with a broken bottle,knife or gun,the British public and police are in a very weak dangerously unprotected position.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 11th October 20:16

[spitsfire]

XJ Flyer said:

I don't think that the situation of armed American police has produced carnage or chaos any more that having armed French,German,Spanish or Italian police has.One thing is certain in the case of a weapon being needed,in the hands of a good person,police or civilian,to defend anyone or themselves against a life threatening attack,regardless of wether the potential criminal is armed with a broken bottle,knife or gun,the British public and police are in a very weak dangerously unprotected position.

The UK has lost 6 officers to guns in the last decade, and 3 to stabbings. Without intending to sound heartless, this is not a particularly high number. Every one of them will have been a tragedy in its own way, but is it enough of a problem to necessitate arming all police officers?

I don't think so, mainly because I can't see how giving several thousand individuals firearms will reduce the probability of firearm deaths occurring.

[Bigends]

51 gun deaths in the UK last year.
83 a day in the U.S too late to get rid of guns and the situation will only get worse.
US cops have to assume everyone they speak to has a gun and wants to kill them - st state of affairs

[stuttgartmetal]

XJ Flyer said:

the British public and police are in a very weak dangerously unprotected position.

It doesnt look like that to me.

I'd imagine if that were the case, there would be uproar.
I don't see knife wielding crazed men running wild, because when that happens, aren't they tear gassed and tazered?

I see plenty of drunks having no respect being carted off enclosed in cage installed vans.
I see publicans serving obvious drunk persons, publicans not obeying laws already in place.
I see stretched resources.
But I dont see the weak unprotected force you see.

The Spanish Police put up with a lot less lip, in my observation, they're much more likely to hand out a slap.
As do the French Police.
In the UK I see the Police dealing with a a lot more attitude from members of the public, and being constrained by a lot more legality, and rigorous legal parameters
A lot more.
And having a gun on their hip won't stop the way they are spoken toand disrespected by drunks.

UK society is not a mirror image of the USA
Its just not.

[DBRacingGod]

It's all about stress. If only you'd have been able to try your famed sarcasm (we Brits are so fond of) on a Troubles-era RUC man on a VCP in Armagh after dark you'd have been able to, moments later, seen what the world looks like from inside your own arse.

[spitsfire]

DBRacingGod said:

It's all about stress. If only you'd have been able to try your famed sarcasm (we Brits are so fond of) on a Troubles-era RUC man on a VCP in Armagh after dark you'd have been able to, moments later, seen what the world looks like from inside your own arse.

I did find your post bloody amusing!

Thinking about it, however, the RUC (and MI5) during the Troubles didn't really improve the situation. A friend's godfather served in NI in the 1970s, and I think it would be fair to say that it fked him up pretty spectacularly.

Sure, there must be a lot of stress in being a US cop doing traffic stops, but I'm not sure it's comparable to NI in the Troubles. A US cop might be going up against somebody with a gun, but they've got training, body armour, and seem fairly willing to 'open up' at the first suspicious sign, and the guy with the gun probably doesn't. There's also a reasonable chance they're drunk or high. In the Troubles, the RUC/army were fighting well-trained opponents who used explosives and decoys in well planned ops, and I think their ROE were pretty tight about when they could fire their weapon.

So yes, fear/stress does come into it, but I'd far rather be a cop in a rough neighbourhood in a rough city in the US than man Troubles-era VCP in NI....

[XJ Flyer]

spitsfire said:

DBRacingGod said:

It's all about stress. If only you'd have been able to try your famed sarcasm (we Brits are so fond of) on a Troubles-era RUC man on a VCP in Armagh after dark you'd have been able to, moments later, seen what the world looks like from inside your own arse.

I did find your post bloody amusing!

Thinking about it, however, the RUC (and MI5) during the Troubles didn't really improve the situation. A friend's godfather served in NI in the 1970s, and I think it would be fair to say that it fked him up pretty spectacularly.

Sure, there must be a lot of stress in being a US cop doing traffic stops, but I'm not sure it's comparable to NI in the Troubles. A US cop might be going up against somebody with a gun, but they've got training, body armour, and seem fairly willing to 'open up' at the first suspicious sign, and the guy with the gun probably doesn't. There's also a reasonable chance they're drunk or high. In the Troubles, the RUC/army were fighting well-trained opponents who used explosives and decoys in well planned ops, and I think their ROE were pretty tight about when they could fire their weapon.

So yes, fear/stress does come into it, but I'd far rather be a cop in a rough neighbourhood in a rough city in the US than man Troubles-era VCP in NI....

I think this story alone blows that argument out of the water.I'm guessing that had that been downtown USA the outcome for the criminal and for the police would have been very different being that the police over there would ( rightly ) be viewing it as a situation involving possibly someone who's armed and dangerous to almost paranoid levels.Which of course gets them discredited here but seen as heroes over there.So who's wrong and who's right in that case.

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manch...

[carinaman]

If Cregan had gone Moatie or Dorner he could have killed a dozen police as easy as you or I sat at a keyboard, look at the guy running around Cumbria with a rifle and a couple of other guns a couple of years previously for example. That would have drastically altered the public discussion just over a year ago about arming the police.

It was reported that gangs of organised criminals had their collars felt after the killing of PCs Bone and Hughes. I don't know why it took the killing of two police officers for them to feel the long arm of the law. Perhaps they don't speed, insure their cars and always buy their TV licences?

We all have to have our every phone call and Internet use monitored as for all Big Brother knows we could be latent terrorists, paedos or criminals? And how many people are there like Cregan living the jet setter lifestyle with ready access to guns, ammunition and hand grenades?

It's not proportionate is it?

I think Stuttgartmetal has some valid points. He cited the holes people can dig themselves into here with a £7.50 keyboard. Witnessing it in real life from an officer with several subordinates and years of experience under their belt is a little disconcerting.

[carinaman]

Here's one that Snowboy may approve of, but he may be conflicted due to the source:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/video-1048220/Ter...

Next time you find yourself near a Brazilian, you may want to check that they're not packing heat.

That excuse may, or may not, work on the tube.

Edited by carinaman on Monday 14th October 13:16

[spitsfire]

XJ Flyer said:

I think this story alone blows that argument out of the water.I'm guessing that had that been downtown USA the outcome for the criminal and for the police would have been very different being that the police over there would ( rightly ) be viewing it as a situation involving possibly someone who's armed and dangerous to almost paranoid levels.Which of course gets them discredited here but seen as heroes over there.So who's wrong and who's right in that case.

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manch...

Don't see the relevance THB - previous posts talking about the part played by stress, whereas that article is about a scumbag luring 2 unarmed officers into a trap and murdering them. A case that was both brutal and very unusual.