Policing In America

[Strike For The South]

1. Police in America are poorly trained
2. Police in America are over armed
3. Policing in America overly focuses their efforts upon the black community
4. When taking into account 1 & 2, 3 becomes pretty deadly

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/u...tile.html?_r=0

So a couple of days ago the Castile trail came to an end. The Jury acquitted Officer Yanez on the charge of manslaughter. It appears that Yanez panicked and shot Castile because he thought Castile was reaching for his weapon. This is a bunch of horse shit. Castile was licensed to carry, and informed the officer of his weapon. Yanez lost control when Castile reached for his drivers license, as instructed. He made no efforts to diffuse the situation.

Of course the usual suspects are out in force. Castile may or may not have been using marijuana. There is also a rumor making the rounds that Castiles weapon was on his lap, which is totally false.

The NRA has basically had rift within itself. Despite the window dressing, the power brokers within that organization are hardcore law and order types who will back local police departments. They will set up a defense fund if you shoot someone in the back, but not if you get shot by a cop. Some lower level members have pointed out this hypocrisy and yet we still have crickets.

There is a systemic problem with policing in America. Local police departments have too much leeway and too little over sight. This affects all Americans negatively. However, Black Americans are killed by the police are more than double their share of the population. This is not a problem that affects all of us equally.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It's a problem that can only be rectified by the local communities themselves. The Federal Government cannot (logistically) oversee every police department in the country.

Yanez is simply a continuation of Rodney King. Willful deference to law and order at all costs. The reasoning behind this among American society is complex and steeped in lingering racism, and I am afraid that positive reforms will likely continue to arrive as a last minute reflex to racial riots.

[Sarmatian]

Why haven't you mentioned the legal system as a problem? There are two separate issues here - the first deals with how stop this from happening in the future, and the second with how to make sure justice is served when it does happen.

I don't remember a single case when a police officer was convicted. Usually, they're not even charged.

[Beskar]

In the UK, there is a lot tradition of community policing. I believe Clinton tried introducing it in 1994 to the USA. Has it had a positive effect or is it still not fully implemented?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Why haven't you mentioned the legal system as a problem? There are two separate issues here - the first deals with how stop this from happening in the future, and the second with how to make sure justice is served when it does happen.

I don't remember a single case when a police officer was convicted. Usually, they're not even charged.

What can the legal system do when juries acquit police officers who are on camera pumping unarmed black men full of bullets?
Either you do away with juries or you must reform the heart of American culture.

[Montmorency]

Why haven't you mentioned the legal system as a problem? There are two separate issues here - the first deals with how stop this from happening in the future, and the second with how to make sure justice is served when it does happen.

I don't remember a single case when a police officer was convicted. Usually, they're not even charged.

What can the legal system do when juries acquit police officers who are on camera pumping unarmed black men full of bullets?
Either you do away with juries or you must reform the heart of American culture.

Isn't this a consequence of the special immunities and authorities invested into the police? Often we can say in egregious cases like Castile's the officers failed to act according to training and guidelines, but these do not have normal legal force.

It usually takes the involvement of outright premeditated killing or profound organized corruption to convict an officer, whether on murder/manslaughter or other crimes. It's also why juries almost never even indict - the nature of the act by a police officer does not tend toward lawbreaking.

Police need some level of immunity or different standards to do their normal work effectively, and I don't know to say what changes in that respect should be applied to the current order specifically.

[Sarmatian]

What can the legal system do when juries acquit police officers who are on camera pumping unarmed black men full of bullets?
Either you do away with juries or you must reform the heart of American culture.

That is certainly one possibility. I'm not going to say I have the answer right here, but it isn't identified as problem. That's what I find weird.

I remember an article I read that juries in US have convicted in over 80% of cases, while judges have done it in around 50%. Juries over-convict, but when it comes to police officers, they almost never convict. Jury system appears to be what is allowing racism and other issues to linger in America.

It might be one possible solution (removing juries) from a wider selection, but no one can work on a solution until the problem is acknowledged.

[Pannonian]

In the UK, there is a lot tradition of community policing. I believe Clinton tried introducing it in 1994 to the USA. Has it had a positive effect or is it still not fully implemented?

Would community police be that much better when the locality is awash in guns? If there's a high probability of encountering guns on your patrol, I'd imagine any police patrol would be on edge somewhat. There are lots of policing ideas that are possible here but not in the US because we don't have a gun culture.

[Beskar]

Would community police be that much better when the locality is awash in guns? If there's a high probability of encountering guns on your patrol, I'd imagine any police patrol would be on edge somewhat. There are lots of policing ideas that are possible here but not in the US because we don't have a gun culture.

There is examples of it within the Free Syrian holdings. They intentionally do not have guns and it they get a warm response with the locals.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39458062

Unless you are suggesting that the USA is worse than war-torn Syria in midst of a civil war...

[Pannonian]

There is examples of it within the Free Syrian holdings. They intentionally do not have guns and it they get a warm response with the locals.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39458062

Unless you are suggesting that the USA is worse than war-torn Syria in midst of a civil war...

I suppose the opportunity is there, should they choose to, to demonstrate the principle in practice in limited areas, to see how things go. I doubt they will, and while police and community are both on edge and both sides are armed to the teeth, incidents like this will keep happening and juries will be sympathetic.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Police in the US are trained to protect themselves first, they go into a situation assuming they're going into combat.

Until Police training in the Us prioritises the lives of citizens over those of Police Officers there will be no change.

On the other hand, if that change comes about there will be a lot of dead Police officers. So, you pays your money, you takes your choice.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Isn't this a consequence of the special immunities and authorities invested into the police? Often we can say in egregious cases like Castile's the officers failed to act according to training and guidelines, but these do not have normal legal force.

It usually takes the involvement of outright premeditated killing or profound organized corruption to convict an officer, whether on murder/manslaughter or other crimes. It's also why juries almost never even indict - the nature of the act by a police officer does not tend toward lawbreaking.

Police need some level of immunity or different standards to do their normal work effectively, and I don't know to say what changes in that respect should be applied to the current order specifically.

At even the highest levels, immunity has limitations. Contrary to Nixon just because the president does it, does not mean its legal. Now, someone like Strike would have a better knowledge of what the current limitations are for police, but I think common sense could be applied here that police obviously have a wide discretion to use various levels of force up to an including lethal granted that certain conditions don't apply.

What those conditions would be would need to be hammered out by people with a lot more knowledge of how police operate in the field and legal experts.

[Brenus]

Police in the US are trained to protect themselves first, they go into a situation assuming they're going into combat.

Until Police training in the Us prioritises the lives of citizens over those of Police Officers there will be no change.

On the other hand, if that change comes about there will be a lot of dead Police officers. So, you pays your money, you takes your choice.

I think you've got the point. Police officers have to stop to think they are soldiers.

[Montmorency]

At even the highest levels, immunity has limitations. Contrary to Nixon just because the president does it, does not mean its legal. Now, someone like Strike would have a better knowledge of what the current limitations are for police, but I think common sense could be applied here that police obviously have a wide discretion to use various levels of force up to an including lethal granted that certain conditions don't apply.

What those conditions would be would need to be hammered out by people with a lot more knowledge of how police operate in the field and legal experts.

Qualified immunity applies throughout the executive, including law officers.

For officials whose special functions or constitutional status requires complete protection from suit, we have recognized the defense of “absolute immunity.” The absolute immunity of legislators, in their legislative functions, and of judges, in their judicial functions, now is well settled. Our decisions also have extended absolute immunity to certain officials of the Executive Branch. These include prosecutors and similar officials, executive officers engaged in adjudicative functions, and the President of the United States. For executive officials in general, however, our cases make plain that qualified immunity represents the norm.

Qualified immunity applies especially to civil and civil rights suits:

The Court then reexamined its earlier treatment of qualified immunity. Prior to this case, qualified or “good faith” immunity included both an objective and a subjective aspect. The subjective aspect involved determining whether the government actor in question took his “action with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or other injury.”7 This subjective determination typically would require discovery and testimony to establish whether malicious intention was present. Having to go through the costly process of discovery and trial, however, conflicted with the goal of qualified immunity to allow for the “dismissal of insubstantial lawsuits without trial.”

Recognizing this dilemma, the Court altered the test to determine whether qualified immunity was appropriate. The new test, as stated earlier, is that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”9 By applying the reasonable person standard, the Supreme Court established, for the first time, a purely objective standard to determine whether granting a government official qualified immunity was appropriate.

While Harlow did not involve a law enforcement officer’s actions, the decision is significant because law enforcement officers are government officials who perform discretionary functions and may be protected by qualified immunity. This shield of immunity is an objective test designed to protect all but “the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.”

Even if the law is clearly established, the law enforcement officer is entitled to qualified immunity if there was no constitutional violation in the first place. For example, in County of Sacramento v. Lewis, the deputies involved in a fatal high-speed pursuit were sued by the decedent’s parents for a due process violation.20 The alleged constitutional violation was due process because the decedent was not intentionally seized by the deputies, but, rather, accidentally struck by one of the deputies after the motorcycle being pursued crashed in front of the pursuing deputies. The decedent, in fact, had merely been a passenger on the motorcycle. The Supreme Court afforded the deputies qualified immunity because even when based on a favorable view of the plaintiffs’ allegations, there simply was no violation of due process. The court noted that to violate the Due Process Clause, the deputies had to intend to cause harm, and that had not been the case.21 Rather, the [deputy’s] “instinct was to do his job as a law enforcement officer, not to induce [the decedent’s] lawlessness, or to terrorize, cause harm, or kill.”22

Here's a side note on immunity conferred by being a federal officer or adjacent to federal operations.

Lawyer Adam S. Hoffinger, who represented Horiuchi and Tanella, said the defense amounts to a simple “two-prong test: “Prong one, was it in the scope of his federal duties? And prong two, were those actions necessary and proper?”

If the shooting passes those tests, the officer is immune, Hoffinger said.

“The fact is that [Kleinert] was working in a federal capacity and carrying out his federal duties,” Leavitt said. “So as long as he was acting in good faith, which he was, he is immune from state prosecution.”

I'm still searching for information on how immunity applies directly to questions of criminal, and not merely civil, litigation. To sum so far:

As a general rule, police officers enjoy immunity from civil liability for conduct committed in the course of the
performance of their duties. Unless the facts suggest an exception, officers are entitled to pre-trial dismissal of civil suits
rising out the official conduct. The immunity extends even to instances where the officer’s conduct is unconstitutional
or otherwise unlawful as long as the conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of
which a reasonable person would have been aware.” The “clearly established” law need not be directly on point but
must place the question beyond debate so that the immunity “protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who
knowingly violate the law.”

So, much more than racist juries it's the legal structure that needs to be investigated. Juries acquit or don't indict primarily because they follow the legal advice given to them, legal advice which in our current framework is likely entirely correct and appropriate.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Still digesting what you wrote Monty, thanks for grabbing that info.

Can't help but laugh at the last quote though. If we can't call the death of an unarmed man sitting in a car doing what he was told to do, "plainly incompetent", then I don't know what reality even is anymore.

[Montmorency]

Still digesting what you wrote Monty, thanks for grabbing that info.

Can't help but laugh at the last quote though. If we can't call the death of an unarmed man sitting in a car doing what he was told to do, "plainly incompetent", then I don't know what reality even is anymore.

“protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who
knowingly violate the law.”

I guess it also could mean ignorantia juris neminem excusat only applies if you are not acting in capacity of an executive agent. Maybe Paul Ryan really is carrying water for Trump that way.

[drone]

It's not going to get any better with the Kebler elf sitting atop the Justice Department. He will be shutting down federal oversight through consent decrees, and wants to double down on the war on drugs.

[rory_20_uk]

One radical solution: have special "Police Courts" in the same way the Military have "military courts" for death by cop cases, possibly run / overseen by the FBI. Not to be soft, but to be hard - unloading a clip into people under almost any circumstances is not legal. Having local jurors doesn't appear to be working.

And yes, I doubt that'd ever be implemented.

[Montmorency]

One radical solution: have special "Police Courts" in the same way the Military have "military courts"

Definitely interesting idea. It is a common narrative that American soldiers are held to much higher standards than American law enforcement is.

[Sarmatian]

I haven't really done thorough research on that subjects, but anecdotal evidence doesn't support the claim.

Case 1: American marine killed Romanian pop singer in Romania in a traffic accident, most likely under influence. He was whisked away to US, got a letter of reprimand.

Case 2: American pilots kill 20 people in Italy. The plane sliced the cable car cable while flying lower than allowed. In the end, pilot and navigator were found guilty because they destroyed the evidence and discharged.

Case 3: Dropped charges against 6 soldiers while one got acquitted after they murdered over 20 civilians in Iraq.

... and so on...

It appears that modus operandi is to stall for time, and to acquit or give very light sentences after the story gets old.

I wouldn't trust police policing itself would lead to more trials or higher rates of convictions.

[Montmorency]

I haven't really done thorough research on that subjects, but anecdotal evidence doesn't support the claim.

Case 1: American marine killed Romanian pop singer in Romania in a traffic accident, most likely under influence. He was whisked away to US, got a letter of reprimand.

Case 2: American pilots kill 20 people in Italy. The plane sliced the cable car cable while flying lower than allowed. In the end, pilot and navigator were found guilty because they destroyed the evidence and discharged.

Case 3: Dropped charges against 6 soldiers while one got acquitted after they murdered over 20 civilians in Iraq.

... and so on...

It appears that modus operandi is to stall for time, and to acquit or give very light sentences after the story gets old.

I wouldn't trust police policing itself would lead to more trials or higher rates of convictions.

The rules of engagement and comportment on paper are certainly stricter. I would be interested to see a survey on how the military handles crimes against civilians (whether American, host countries', or those within operational theaters) vs. crimes between soldiers or against the organization. There are several administrative and sub-legal tiers and provisions for punishing soldiers or modifying their behavior, but for the three classes of ligitative courts-martial, including the ultimate category of "general" court-martial which applies in cases of serious crimes and can deliver the death penalty, the conviction rates are at least as high as with civilian counterparts, being 90+%. It may even be that not enough cases go to the military courts after being 'settled quietly' or hushed up, but the justice framework itself is fairly robust after being reformed following WW2.

So even if it's not enough, in practice and on paper it's stricter than what police are subject to.

One important thing to note about military justice (re: Rory's comment on enforcing similar structures or standards onto police) is that while it does incorporate civilian (federal) law, it has a legal structure of its own, which the Supreme Court has recognized as a "separate society" with distinct provisions and standards. So it may be better to assimilate police through legislation closer toward a general civilian model, rather than delineate another separate society when the conditions of war are so different from those of domestic policing.

*Interesting note on courts-martial: if the defendant elects to be tried before a jury of soldiers (rather than just the judge), the jury can convict on a 2/3 vote. Civilian juries of course must convict unanimously; a unanimous vote is only required in the military when the sentencing involves the death penalty.

[Pannonian]

The rules of engagement and comportment on paper are certainly stricter. I would be interested to see a survey on how the military handles crimes against civilians (whether American, host countries', or those within operational theaters) vs. crimes between soldiers or against the organization. There are several administrative and sub-legal tiers and provisions for punishing soldiers or modifying their behavior, but for the three classes of ligitative courts-martial, including the ultimate category of "general" court-martial which applies in cases of serious crimes and can deliver the death penalty, the conviction rates are at least as high as with civilian counterparts, being 90+%. It may even be that not enough cases go to the military courts after being 'settled quietly' or hushed up, but the justice framework itself is fairly robust after being reformed following WW2.

So even if it's not enough, in practice and on paper it's stricter than what police are subject to.

One important thing to note about military justice (re: Rory's comment on enforcing similar structures or standards onto police) is that while it does incorporate civilian (federal) law, it has a legal structure of its own, which the Supreme Court has recognized as a "separate society" with distinct provisions and standards. So it may be better to assimilate police through legislation closer toward a general civilian model, rather than delineate another separate society when the conditions of war are so different from those of domestic policing.

*Interesting note on courts-martial: if the defendant elects to be tried before a jury of soldiers (rather than just the judge), the jury can convict on a 2/3 vote. Civilian juries of course must convict unanimously; a unanimous vote is only required in the military when the sentencing involves the death penalty.

Probably because a soldier's job is to kill people, which is anathema to civilian life. The only mistake a soldier when performing that job is killing the wrong people. That's a fundamentally different mindset to practically all civilian occupations.

[rory_20_uk]

Probably because a soldier's job is to kill people, which is anathema to civilian life. The only mistake a soldier when performing that job is killing the wrong people. That's a fundamentally different mindset to practically all civilian occupations.

That should be the case, but given the amount of military hardware the police in America have the lines appear a lot more blurred (but then, everyone has access to almost military grade hardware).

[Fragony]

Maybe there is a reason more blacks get shot. Must be racism of course.

[Idaho]

Maybe there is a reason more blacks get shot. Must be racism of course.

Fragony with his hallmark hinted-racism-yet-ambigous-enough-to-back-out comment straight out of the alt right playbook.

[Fragony]

Not backing out of anything, for many blacks youths gang-culture is simply a way of life so they are more likely to be shot.

[a completely inoffensive name]

...

[Fragony]

Drugs is pretty universal, but gang-culture is not (you could bring up motorgangs of course), but in general gang-culture is more of a black thing. I can't take these Black life Muppets and social-justice millenials very serious

[Husar]

Define "gang culture".
Is it comparable to Durch culture or is it the equivalent of cheese culture?
Does everyone in a community have it, is it a sub-culture and where and which people do have it?

[Fragony]

Do we make raps about cheese?