Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & World News' started by RenegadeRick, Oct 2, 2009.
or so we hear...
September 2009 National Police Misconduct Statistics
Please register to disable this ad.
This is a stat that bothers me:
It bothers me because I have a feeling they don't look at false accusations. While the sheer number might have the impact they were looking for, I don't think it's a fair representation.
I'm also bothered by the "accusation" aspect as opposed to being reprimanded, convicted, etc...
Using the GOP logic, we should cut all their public funding like ACORN Where is the outrage from Rush and Beck?
I'm against the police because it is a socialist institution and the Nazis also had police.
Why were the mouthbreathers so mad about the Empire State Building taking the Chinese money for the lighting display? They are private enterprise - I thought the GOP fanboys were against interfering with private enterprise?
Don't forget the Communists
Exactly. Nearly every use of force by police, legitimate and illegitimate, will generate an accusation that it was unwarranted, either by the subject or by his surviving relations.
No one says "Well, yeah, it was totally legit when the cop hit me with his baton; I'd threatened him and cocked my arm to punch him."
No one says, "Yeah, it was totally legit when the police officer shot my son, because my son had tried to run him over with a car."
They say "POLICE BRUTALITY!"
This is not to say police brutality and/or corruption does not exist. I'm saying that the statistics as used here do not tell us anything in particular.
well said. i believe the actual number of legitimate sustained misconduct findings is less than 1/2 of 1%, (according to a state lesson plan on ethics i have to teach and i don't have the lesson plan here with me to look up their source)
nearly EVERY TIME i have to use force i hear claims of brutality or "i'm gonna sue...", etc...yet i have only had 2 official complaints in my 7 years and neither of them were sustained. I find it very misleading and unsettling that this report fails to follow through to find the actual statistic of how many "complaints" were sustained. in general, people who are doing something that causes them to be arrested in the first place aren't usually the segment of the population that takes responsibility for their own actions and it's much easier to deflect their shame and wrong-doing by claiming brutality and corruption on the part of the police.
this video pretty much sums up the catch 22 law enforcement is caught in when it comes to public appreciation.
and a quote from the recent Deniro/Pacino cop flick, Righteous Kill, that says it better than anything i've ever heard:
"Our job is keeping 99% of the population safe from the other 1%. Problem is we have to spend half our lives with that 1%, and the better we do that job, the less the other 99 think they need us. Their clueless, the only ones paying attention on the streets are the cops and the criminals. Everyone is else is just going somewhere, or shopping." -Deniro in Righteous Kill
I'd rather just look at a small region and look at the actual complaints filed and the incident reports from the officers.
How many officers were reprimanded because their officers were wrong vs. how many were reprimanded because their supervisor is a spineless weasel?
How many convictions? How many plea agreements to avoid convictions?
How many complaints were settled before they reached a court?
and so on...
so, can we just off that 1% and get on with things?
unfortunately, off'ing that 1% would make us part of the 1% wouldn't it?
Ok, shooting from the hip here...
The thought occurs to me that we might have the reverse scenario that we do with Social Workers (as they are known in the UK) - people who have taken up a vocational profession to help people and children who are struggling to cope with life and its challenges. An example what can happen is that as these people are generally disposed to see the good side of situations and characters, they often err on the side of caution when delaing with issues such as child abuse (ie. they cannot understand why anyone would mistreat a child so accept offered explanations for broken bones a little too easily).
Could it be that the Police, through day-to-day dealing with criminals and needing a mindset of suspicion are apt to react to a situation through the filter of worst-possible interpretation?
(Hopefully that makes sense and does not appear anti police (or antisocial-worker)).
I'd say in many situations that's probably the case.
This video explains a reason why many brutality complaints are not sustained...
Because they are often investigated internally, or by district attorneys who are likely to side with the police.
It is amazing to me that ANY complaints are EVER substantiated, when playing against a deck as stacked as that one.
This all goes back to Lisa Simpson's question: "If you're the police, who will police the police?"
Homer's answer is one for the ages...
You needed a video to tell you that sometimes the system sides with itself? When the police protect themselves as an institution rather than protecting society and the admittedly rather abstract notion of "justice," there's a serious problem. And it certainly happens.
On the other hand, you have to realize that sometimes--probably the vast majority of the time-- even though you, the perpetrator (perversely know to himself and supporters as "victim"), his family, his lawyer, and the community think police acted brutally or otherwise incorrectly, well, they didn't.
And no, I didn't watch the vid, because if I'm going to take time to buffer stuff with my infinitely small slice of bandwidth, it's gonna be porn.
Excellent choice, Sir! Bravo!
It's less formulaic than most of your posts, at least.
Surprised Oakland and Orange Co. only tied in 9th...