Not All Cops Are Bad

reply to post by apacheman


You are quite correct. People should hold to a set of standards, ethics and morals. And those who hold positions of authority even more so.

It just annoys me when people bash for no other reason to bash. That is how your first post struck me. Heck...I'm guilty as well. My apoligies.

I agree expecially Michigan State Police. Recently I broke down on a highway and the Officer gave me a ride home 15 miles. I talked with him on the way and learned through our conversation that he also had some of the same problems we all face. I never really had any problems with Police. It's all about being honest with them. They know when a person is dishonest.

reply to post by TDawgRex


Apology accepted.

Having and adhering to high standards is tough, which is why we honor those who do.

But those who falsely claim those honors are more despicable than those who admit they just don't care about standards, and sometimes, sometimes, otherwise decent cops make the claim for those they know don't deserve it, and it is with them I have serious issues.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


y

reply to post by TDawgRex


sorry didnt mean to click submit

I've always held the belief that most cops were either bullies in school or else the kid that was bullied looking for payback.

When I stated this opinion to my sisters best friend from high school who became a LEO her reply was. "You're pretty much correct, that accounts for around 90% of officers but then there are the other 10% that want to make a difference."

Seriously this came from a LEO and she says that 90% of LEOS (that she is familiar with at least) are on a power trip?

I also have a friend that went to the Police academy who informed me that the instructor straight out told him and other cadets how to beat the polygraph test that is required to become an officer.

While I know there are ( a few) good officers out there I still feel there are far more bad cops than there are good ones.

The DOJ just published a report on the Seattle PD that nails the department for use of excessive force, among other things. The interesting part was that 2/3rds of the officers (well, 63%), or 789 officers used no force at all. 330 some odd used force once or twice, and about 50 officers used force from 5-14 times. In other words, these few officers have a history of using force and have not been contained.

Of course, if you see or read of a police officer using questionable force, suddenly ALL police officers use excessive force. This report is being touted as a 'blistering indictment' of the SPD, but of you actua;;y read the report, it exonerates the vast majority of police officers from any kind of improper conduct.

reply to post by schuyler


Apparently you didn't read the part about use of force being significantly underreported. and the manner in which officers were allowed to file incomplete or misleading reports without penalty or review.

So it is clear that more than the numbers cited have engaged in excessive force. It is also clear that those who clearly have broken the law and violated citizens' rights were never held accountable by their superiors or their peers, and it is just as clear that their peers were and are fully aware of their illegal behavior, but do nothing to stop it.

So to say it's "just a few" is to present a false picture of the reality; it is more than just a few, and those who don't swing the batons with the same gusto and frequency of the psychopaths they work with accept, condone, and facilitate the behaviors by not demanding higher standards.

The higher ranking officers, who should know better and be better, are quite obviously turning a blind eye to the excessive violence and are thereby actively encouraging it.

So what you have is a department with a high percentage of criminals in it, and one within which violent criminality is not only condoned, but forgiven and covered up by the very people whose job it is to ensure that it doesn't happen.

So are there any good cops in that department?

Perhaps a few dozen, if that, but most, on the face of it, ar co-conspirators and enablers.

`Most of those cops are bad cops, one way or the other, and a few seem to be genuinely psychopathic, based upon their propensity to deliberately escalate trivial situations in order to indulge in completely unnecessary violence. The fact that their fellow officers are aware of their behaviors and have failed to rein them in or hold them legally accountable makes those fellow offices just as culpable as the perps.

All in all, that is one very screwed up copshop.

dbl post

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by schuyler

 

`Most of those cops are bad cops, one way or the other, and a few seem to be genuinely psychopathic, based upon their propensity to deliberately escalate trivial situations in order to indulge in completely unnecessary violence. The fact that their fellow officers are aware of their behaviors and have failed to rein them in or hold them legally accountable makes those fellow offices just as culpable as the perps.

Not that you are biased or anything. Directly from the report:

The great majority of the City’s police officers are honorable law enforcement professionals who risk their physical safety and well-being for the public good. However, a pattern of excessive force exists as a result of a subset of officers who use force improperly, and is caused by a number of systemic deficiencies that exist in spite of SPD’s recent reform efforts.

I don't see how you can claim most of those cops are bad cops when 63% of them never used any force at all. The report CLEARLY shows that 50 or so officers are responsible for nearly all claims of "excessive force," backed up with statistics. Of course, if your are a cop hater to begin with, you can conclude anything you want to.

My experiences from cops, never was a good experience they can all burn in hell IMHO. Sorry to be so blunt about it, But I have been the subject of a few cops interests and been in bad trouble several times just from doing nothing. If One was trapped I would not help him I would laugh and walk away cause they deserve it, They never I mean never have ever helped me out.

reply to post by schuyler


The BS about most of them being good guys is more of a cya statement for political reasons, I think, because when you dig into the report it is very obvious that the rot is much more pervasive than a mere "few".

A few pertinent quotes from the report:

We find that SPD officers engage in a pattern or practice of unnecessary or excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 14141. The pattern is the result of inadequate policies, supervision, discipline and training.

The findings we made from examining just SPD’s own use of force statements are compelling. We find that approximately 20% of those incidents involved the unnecessary or excessive use of force. We also find that SPD officers were particularly prone to resorting to excessive force when employing batons, using unnecessary or excessive force 57% of the time. Additionally, we reviewed dozens of other cases that may have involved unconstitutional force, but that we could not conclusively categorize as such because of deficient reporting or incomplete evidence. Table 1 provides a visual illustration of the pattern of excessive force uncovered in our review of SPD use of force reports.

Primarily through our review of SPD’s own documents, we find the following unconstitutional patterns in SPD’s use of force: (1) the use of excessive force in the course of arrests for minor offenses; (2) the use of excessive force inflicted by multiple officers on one person; (3) the premature or excessive use of impact weapons, such as batons and flashlights; (4) the use of excessive force on subjects who were already restrained; and (5) the use of excessive force in response to individuals’ expression of their First Amendment rights. Below we discuss each of these five observed patterns.

We identified multiple cases in which SPD officers failed to report the use of force at all, including incidents involving pushing and shoving. In some cases, the officers used euphemisms such as “escorts to the ground” and “guiding” suspects to the ground. Additionally, our investigation uncovered at least 17 instances in which officers were identified as using force in other officers’ use of force statements, but were omitted from the summary portion of the use of force packet. This means that SPD did not track these officers’ uses of force. Furthermore, half of OPA Investigation Section (“IS”) investigations we reviewed that related to complaints of use of force did not have an accompanying use of force report, despite the clear application of some level of force. Officers also consistently describe their actions in use of force incidents in isolation without referencing whether other officers used force or the timing of other officers’ uses of force. This hinders the ability of supervisors or OPA to determine the full scope of the use of force at any incident.

We also find that when officers do report, they routinely use patterned and non-descriptive language in their use of force reports to justify their actions. For example, instead of clearly articulating the type, nature, and seriousness of resistance exhibited by the subject that preceded the use of force, officers consistently use language such as, “the subject continued to resist,” or the subject “took a fighting stance” or “struggled.” Additionally, we consistently saw cases in which officers justified their uses of force by reporting that an individual “refused to remove his arms from underneath his body” or “tucked his hand under his body.” Obviously, as discussed above, officers have good reason to require a subject to show his hands. However, if these situations are a common cause of the need to use force, SPD should review them carefully to determine if additional training or other tactics could accomplish safe compliance.

The reporting failures relating to use of force are caused, in part, by deficiencies in SPD policies relating to the reporting of use of force. Currently, SPD’s policy requires that force be reported whenever an officer “uses deadly force, physical force or less lethal force as defined in Section I of th[e] policy.” Department Policy & Procedures (“DP&P”) 6.240.XI.A. SPD defines “physical force” as anything less than deadly or less lethal force that “causes an injury, could reasonably be expected to cause an injury, or results in complaint of injury.” DP&P 6.240.I.D. The policy on its face is vague, leaves too much room for officer discretion in reporting force, and excludes the reporting of force that should be reported, as will be discussed below.

You see that, by policy, under-reporting is encouraged, and a blind eye is cast upon what is reported. Those "few" all have supervisors who have failed the public trust by condoning (cont)

reply to post by schuyler


the violence. Those "few" have numerous colleagues who are fully aware of their illegal and unsavory behavior, yet they have done nothing to hold them accountable.

If you are in law enforcement and fail to uphold the laws because the perp is a colleague, there is no way in holy hell I will consider you a "good cop". There is no way in holy hell anyone should consider them "good cops". Turning a blind eye to wards those who violently violate citizens rights on a regular basis for no better reason than that they annoyed them does not make a "good cop".

Therefore I stand by my assertion that most of them are bad.

It doesn't mean I am biased against them.

It means that I demand that they, above all people, must adhere to the law and be held accountable for violating it. Anyone who is aware of lawbreaking, whose job it is to prevent it, arrest lawbreakers and submit them to the courts for judgment and punishment, and fails to do so is a co-conspirator, an enabler, and a lawbreaker themselves.

And therefore not a "good cop".

I really do respect good cops and treasure them.

It's just a pity there are so few of them.

Not all cops are bad... just like not all water is wet. Gotcha.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
If you become a cop...then you are automatically an a-hole?

That is one-hundred percent correct; yes. It takes a certain kind of person to even contemplate becoming a cop in the first place; you have to be willing to obliterate, ruin, and destroy peoples' lives--on a continuous basis. If you aren't capable of wielding God-like authority in the lives of strangers, then you aren't cut out to be a cop.

As far as this doof under the bus holding the young woman's hand... he recognized a great PR opportunity--not to mention a personal chance to play hero to a young 24-year-old girl who was frightened and very vulnerable in the moment.

People become firemen and social service workers because they want to help others. People become cops because it's the only legal way they can treat people the way they want to.