I was recently watching a police interaction video on YouTube where a citizen journalist was filming the police. During his interaction, he said (paraphrased): "There are NO good cops, because if there were, there would be no BAD cops!" The idea is that if good cops existed, they would naturally force the bad cops out. And since they don't, they must ALL be bad. I can't readily come up with a solid argument to dispute this idea. A cop who chooses not to intervene while his partner violates the rights of a citizen is WORSE, in my view, than the cop who is actually committing the violation. And a cop who chooses to keep that a secret rather than report it is worse still. The dynamic is made more complicated, because cops must depend on other cops to have their back. And, a cop who intervenes in or calls out the wrongdoing of another might find himself in peril because when HE needs backup, the others might not be there for him. This is very much a gang-like dynamic. I don't know how this can be fixed. Discuss.
I think most people have unrealistic expectations about law enforcement officers. This is an area where mistakes can easily be made, by normal human beings who do not have bad intentions. The reason law enforcement officers often cover up for other officers is that they know the response of the authorities to any mistakes or minor misconduct can often be excessive and not be fair. Even an easily made mistake could ruin a career. Law enforcement officers are in a position to understand this better than most of the population. So the reason they might hide the truth is they do not believe their superiors, the public, or the justice system can be trusted with the truth, and there is some truth to that. I've pointed out before the ironic paradox that I believe society having a tougher "zero tolerance attitude" on law enforcement will just make them more likely to lie and cover up misconduct. Because they know the system will often not be fair and will be overly harsh. They know one of their own who made a mistake could easily have been one of them.
Do you really believe that there's not a single cop that is honest and ethical? I understand your thoughts but I think that you are assuming that no cop has ever reported abusive behavior. Maybe I'm naive but I don't think that matters are quite so hopeless. Thanks,
This is why police have qualified immunity. The idea behind that is, that mistakes can and will be made, and that cops shouldn't have to second guess their actions for fear of civil or criminal liability if they screw up. The way it's supposed to work is, only when police KNOWINGLY and INTENTIONALLY violate a citizens rights do they lose immunity and face legal repercussions.
No. I absolutely do think there are honest and ethical cops; lots of them. The question I raise is, how is it possible for bad cops to continue to exist along side honest and ethical ones? Can a cop still be considered "honest and ethical" if he turns a blind eye to, covers up, or even conspires in, the abuses of power he invariably sees in his fellow officers?
"Qualified immunity" is a complex and not black & white sort of thing. In my personal opinion, police should be given some leeway and not held to the full 100% level of responsibility when they make mistakes in some of these situations, but I don't believe it should be an "all or nothing". I think the majority of society is just too stupid to be able to think about this logically. People tend to resort to simple heuristics, viewing the officer as either entirely to blame for what happened or entirely not to blame. Apparently it's difficult mentally to take a perspective somewhere in the middle.
Cops come in our store sometimes at night and occasionally one of them will sit around and talk to me for a while. I was talking to one last night and I told him that people don't seem to understand that you can't win a pissing match with a cop, especially on the side of the road that a court of law is the proper place to take up such a thing. And here as much as said yes you might sometimes win but I'll be looking out for you for a while. So basically he was saying that he would take revenge on any citizen that made an ass of him in a court of law. Things like that are why people are fast losing respect for lots of law enforcement. I've also had them tell me that they will lie to you and if they want to pull you over all they have to do is follow you long enough. No one should be tolerated in that job that is willing to abuse their authority
I assumed that you didn't mean all cops were dishonest anyway and then wondered: Couldn't you apply the same question to military combat units ? Don't you think that there are at least some similarities? Thanks,
I can always count on you for a good story as I sit here having little success with my squirrel training manual and garden hose. The little buggers are just too fast. Anyway, I agree that a vindictive and abusive cop is intolerable. I have been extremely lucky in my numerous encounters with the Po Po primarily because there were bigger fish to fry in Richmond's inner city, Istanbul and places in-between. The Turkish police were great to me because a driver who gave me a ride was friends with Istanbul's police chief and thought that I saved his life. It's at least been my experience that busy cops don't sweat the small stuff. Even though I've been very lucky I can be entirely sympathetic for people who have been abused by the police. Thanks,
Tribalism is a problem in all authoritarian groups and systems. Think of the blue wall of silence. Why do honest good law abiding police need such a veil of secrecy if other than to obscure criminality? I have only seen one good deep dive into police corruption and in the conclusion the study cited the lack of oversight and the blue wall of silence as making an accurate accounting of police abuse of power impossible. I am 14 books in on the topic of psychology and if I have learned anything it is that human nature is systemic… even in law enforcement. To make matters worse an unknown percentage of law enforcement chose the field as a way to lord over others as opposed to serve the community. Loyalty to a person or group makes it more likely to turn a blind eye all for the sake of continued group cohesion. To make matters worse, when we turn a blind eye, rationalize or minimize immorality of the in group, we tend to be oblivious that we are doing it and offended by those that point it out.
It's easy to "abuse their authority" because the law allows them to. A lot of people do not realize that the laws are not perfect. When it is left up to one official to interpret the law, they can interpret it in all sorts of ways. And that is the case for a police officer. Laws could be applied in all sorts of ways in different situations. It's complicated and most people do not think about it. This is an issue not only for police officers but also prosecutors and judges. There are all sorts of ways they can abuse their authority without actually violating the law. A lot of times the officer does not even need to lie. If they follow an average car for long enough, there is a high probability that they will be able to find some excuse to be able to stop the car. There is a very long list of possible things they could stop a car for. Sometimes they have patrol officers play a mental game. They pick a random car, follow it for 10 minutes, and then see how many things they can identify that would allow them to pull over that car, if they wanted to. More than half the time there is at least one thing. Or they might stop a car, bring in drug sniffing dogs, and give the leash a little yank to make the dog bark, so they have an excuse to search the car. How is anyone going to be able to prove that real probable cause did not exist, after the fact?
Well, either the cop knew, or should have known, he was abusing his authority, or he believed he was acting in good faith. Honest and ethical police ALWAYS act in good faith and within the bounds of their authority. There is an infinitely broad spectrum of situations, and it's not always possible for them to know what is correct in the heat of the moment. QI protects them if they are acting in good faith, and within the bounds of their authority. QI does not, and should not, protect them if they are knowingly acting outside the bounds of their authority.
"Good" and "bad" to me is kind of simplistic kindergartener thinking. People are complicated. The most useful way to think of cops is as a faction of society with a mission. Their mission is to identify and contain threats to regular people. This mission is good to keep most of us safe. At the same time, it can be unfair how people get sorted as threats or not threats. So long as they see you as a regular citizen, though, they will usually be good to you. Also, as a faction, their first loyalty is to the faction. They are kind of socially separated from the rest of society and must stick together. The faction of police attracts both people who want to do good, and people who want power over people, and so I guess this can attract "good" and "bad" guys. I'd say most cops are a little good on balance. Heroic enough to put their life on the line for a child, but not heroic enough to put their career on the line for the rights of somebody who they have categorized as a threat to regular people.
I saw Serpico, probably in the theater when it was brand new, and not since. The scene you describe escapes me.
late in the movie, he was trying to make a forced entry into a drug suspect's apartment. He was about half way through the door but he couldn't get in and the suspect was pulling a pistol. Other cops behind him refused to help him force the door open and he is shot in the face here's the clip NOT SAFE FOR WORK
So, essentially, "snitches get stitches". Only with the "blue-line gang", rather than your garden variety gang bangers?
Yes, it is overly simplistic. Cops who serve the public, and honor their oath, are good cops. Cops who knowingly abuse their authority are bad cops. For instance: A cop who pulls you over for a license plate light out can handle that situation in a number of ways. Some serve you, and some exploit and abuse you. One cop may let you know about the light out, perhaps record a warning of the event. Another cop may claim he "smells something", detain you for 20 minutes while he brings the drug dog to sniff around your vehicle, manufacture PC to search, perhaps even plant evidence, and arrest you. It's pretty easy to differentiate the good cop, who honors his oath and serves the public, from the bad who exploits the public and serves "the faction" and his own ego.
I don't think this categorical language is really helpful. Infact, it's the primary problem with police. Police in most places actually refer to people who are not police as civilians. This is the first problem. When they do this, they literally become an occupying force. Police should refer to themselves and think of themselves as civilians just like the civilians they serve. Police should not be allowed to carry any weapons any other citizen would not be allowed to carry. As the leftist gun-grabbers like to say, "You don't need to carry a nuke to defend yourself". But this would also restrict bullets, automatic weapons, and handcuffs as well. The U.S. has devolved as the FBI, ATF, IRS, Police, etc. have militarized themselves. As the gun-grabbers say, more guns is not helping to solve any problems. Qualified immunity, especially for federal officers, has led to an invincible barrier to justice and an overall distrust of law enforcement. Civil asset forfeiture instituted by the "War on Drugs" (Actually a war on citizens.) has led to roving bandits on our highways seeking to steal as much as possible from the weak and powerless. Will this get solved? - Unlikely. The manic leftists only want to reduce the police to a group of hired bullies to support their agenda. The conservatives want their own form of leftist police regime. No one's willing to give it up. Remember, the first police force wasn't established until 1838. It wasn't until 1934 when the FBI first officially armed its agents. The police as we have them does not need to exist.
The mere fact that this happens is a problem. Why is there a law allowing police to apprehend people over for a license plate light out? Do states not require vehicle inspections every year to ensure lights will eventually get replaced? Is a license plate completely unreadable without its light on? It is silly and stupid that police are even able to apprehend people for that.
I agree in principal with most of this. Where we differ is that I think, if we are to have a police force, qualified immunity is required for them to be effective. Mistakes do happen. Cops can't be expected to bet their family home that they'll always be perfect. But you are correct, in its current incarnation, qualified immunity is being used by abusive cops to shield themselves from accountability for their abuses. They merely have to convince a judge that they acted in good faith, and they can literally get away with murder. Police have a sworn duty to protect and defend the rights of the people they are dealing with. Any time a cop knowingly violates a citizen's rights, OR coerces them to voluntarily give up their rights through deception or intimidation, they should lose their qualified immunity and automatically be charged under USC 18.232. If another cop or cops witness or participate in that violation, and fails to intervene, they should all be charged under USC 18.231 as well. Further, if a cop successfully uses qualified immunity to shield himself for a given violation, he should never be able to use it for that particular violation again. For instance, if a cop demands identification from a citizen that he has no lawful authority to demand, under threat of arrest or violence, then he has violated that citizen's 4th amendment right to privacy under color of law. He can claim ignorance and, perhaps, be shielded under Q.I. If he does it again, he can no longer credibly claim ignorance, and therefore should not be able to retain his Q.I. protection.
Not all states require private vehicles have safety inspections. Florida is one example that I have personal experience with. But, I agree. The only reason for this is to give police the ability to pretexturally stop anyone, at any time. Other than staged enforcement operations (speed traps, etc) most every traffic stop starts with a cop profiling a vehicle and its occupants. Once he has identified a vehicle he wants to stop, he merely needs to observe the vehicle until he can establish a plausible reason to initiate the stop. Expired tags, light burned out, failure to signal lane change, weaving, etc. Then he can investigate how to expand the charges beyond the initial reason for the stop. Drivers usually cooperate with this investigation AGAINST THEM, even though it's never in their best interest to do so.
I am more concerned with more troubling cases of qualified immunity as those mentioned by Steve Lehto, the Institute for Justice, and others. When Federal agents get a pass on attempted murder, jailing people for extended periods of time, etc. This is what really bothers me. I didn't get hardcore about stripping qualified immunity because a policeman demanded identification when they shouldn't have. I am really concerned with severe abuse of power which not only inconveniences people but causes severe damage.
There are a tiny handful, but all of them either turn bad or leave law enforcement quickly. I suspect he never went out on patrol without a throwdown and drugs to "find." I also expect he considered contempt of cop a capital offense. Yes: NYPD cops set up Serpico to be murdered. It's a big reason nobody will turn in the bad cops-they know they will need to leave law enforcement immediately, and move out of the area..
The answer to that is to what extent the cops as a whole of a given unit are corrupt. A single ethical cop in a unit of corrupt ones is not going to be very effective in ending that corruption, unless somehow outside help can be brought it. That also assumes that the corruption is limited to the officers. I saw a video where supposedly the judge let many charges be dismissed despite video evidence. Most situations are going to be too complicated to be able to use as simplistic an argument as presented in the OP.
