Who punishes the police?

[Diogenes]

Hey MSimon, you're Police raid video is going viral.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/05/11/a ... goes-viral


This video is but the latest example of what is fairly routine behavior on the part of police officials in this sort of circumstance. For anyone that's had very much contact with the police, it is axiomatic that they act as though they are untouchable, and in fact, while they are in the performance of their duty, it is most advisable to act like they are. However, they are not, nor should they be, but the time to fight back is in front of a judge, and not in a situation where everyone who has the power over life and death is on the opposite side from you.

The question in my mind is when do these guys ever get punished? I mean punished in such a way as to mitigate bad behavior? They are obviously not afraid of the consequences of breaking down someone's door and shooting their dog, else they wouldn't have done it so cavalierly. In previous circumstances they have shot innocent homeowners who surprised them. We apparently have in this nation, a mindset that police should never be punished, even for real wrongdoing, let alone trigger happy incompetence. The "Exclusionary Rule" (one of my pet peeves) is a result of this mindset.

The "Exclusionary Rule", for those of you who might be unfamiliar with it, is the legal notion that if a police officer obtains evidence or information by breaking a law or violating someone's civil rights, then the evidence cannot be used in court, and as far as any trial is concerned, the evidence doesn't exist. This brilliant piece of legal thinking results in not only the Criminal getting away with a crime, but the Police getting away with a crime as well. The only people who are punished are the victims who are denied justice. Somehow the Liberal Judges who came up with the "Exclusionary Rule" ( I told you Roosevelt/Truman had an adverse impact on the judiciary) think it is reasonable that as long as the crime of the criminal is balanced by the crime of the police, then everything is okie dokie.



Yeah, not punishing cops who break the law makes everything alright.

NOT!

[Skipjack]

I guess that they used to much force. The question is though, whether we do know the whole story. What is the background of the family?
Maybe the father had priors that included violence?
What else was part of the tip? Maybe they had reason to suspect him to be violent? I think it is unfair to talk down like that on the police. They do have a very dangerous job. A friend of mine was in former Yugoslavia with the IFOR troops. There were some police officers there from LA. They said they signed up because it was like vacation for them (with much better pay). There, they maybe(!) had some gunfire once a week, back in LA, every day.
That said, the police clearly went overboard here, no question about it. What I dont like is the way this is emmediately used by certain anarchic, or libertarian groups (anti law and order people) for their own political means. That leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. I would otherwise maybe be more supportive for this.

[MSimon]

I guess that they used to much force. The question is though, whether we do know the whole story. What is the background of the family?
Maybe the father had priors that included violence?
What else was part of the tip? Maybe they had reason to suspect him to be violent? I think it is unfair to talk down like that on the police. They do have a very dangerous job. A friend of mine was in former Yugoslavia with the IFOR troops. There were some police officers there from LA. They said they signed up because it was like vacation for them (with much better pay). There, they maybe(!) had some gunfire once a week, back in LA, every day.
That said, the police clearly went overboard here, no question about it. What I dont like is the way this is emmediately used by certain anarchic, or libertarian groups (anti law and order people) for their own political means. That leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. I would otherwise maybe be more supportive for this.

These kinds of raids and the killing of pets is routine for small amounts of drugs. What is unusual is video.

Check out the Corey May story - sometimes the cops die from botched raids. None the less Corey May is in jail and no one has sanctioned the police for screwing up the raid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Maye

Now why are these kinds of raids common for small amounts of drugs? With small amounts the evidence may be destroyed (flushed) before police can get the evidence. Well that is the rationale anyway.

===

I do agree with you though. Without a police state anarchy will ensue. I'm reminded of that famous Law and Order German from the 1930s. No anarchy in the country he ruled. For quite a few years. He had a strict policy of killing off anarchists, disturbers of the proper order, and other malcontents And then things started to go bad.

===

Note that America was founded by a bunch of libertarians.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. Thomas Jefferson

But we Americans are a strong people and can handle it. For the most part. Sadly it never caught on in the Old World despite it having originated there.

[MSimon]

The only people who are punished are the victims who are denied justice.

In the case of drugs the victim is also the perpetrator. Putting the victim an the perpetrator in jail is very economical when they are one and the same person. Of course the victim of drugs is punished. But it is a small price to pay to get the perpetrator of drug crime.

I propose the Conservative solution. Go back to the way it was before the Progressives inflicted Drug Prohibition (the prototype for alcohol prohibition) on us.

It is a very sad day when Conservatives adopt a Progressive position and then act as if it was really the Conservative position. I assume it is because Conservatives don't read history. Pity.

And yet Conservatives always say they base their policies on historical evidence and tradition. They lie. Or they are ignorant. Or both.

Conservatism these days is not a thought out ideology. It is just a series of conditioned reflexes.

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives ... conse.html

[MSimon]

The only people who are punished are the victims who are denied justice. Somehow the Liberal Judges who came up with the "Exclusionary Rule" ( I told you Roosevelt/Truman had an adverse impact on the judiciary) think it is reasonable that as long as the crime of the criminal is balanced by the crime of the police, then everything is okie dokie.

The Police are officers of the Court. Why wouldn't the judiciary protect them? I don't think it is a left/right thing. It is a systemic problem.

i.e. Peace Officers vs. Enforcement Officers.

A free country wants Peace Officers - A country run by a criminal gang needs enforcers. Which would you rather live in?

[Diogenes]

The only people who are punished are the victims who are denied justice. Somehow the Liberal Judges who came up with the "Exclusionary Rule" ( I told you Roosevelt/Truman had an adverse impact on the judiciary) think it is reasonable that as long as the crime of the criminal is balanced by the crime of the police, then everything is okie dokie.

The Police are officers of the Court. Why wouldn't the judiciary protect them?

Oh, they have a title? Well that's different. Of COURSE we shouldn't punish them for breaking the law. And here I just thought they were ordinary people granted equal treatment under the law like you and me. Now that I know that some animals are more equal than others, I withdraw my objection!

There is just this one niggling little thing:

"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States..." (just kidding.)


I know what you are referring to. The courts have the power to protect them, and so they do, but it isn't right. The Authorities breaking the law is a much greater threat than is non authority criminals breaking the law.

I don't think it is a left/right thing. It is a systemic problem.

I don't see any obvious connection to the left, and it does indeed seem to be a systemic problem, however I do have a simple rule of thumb that seems to hold in most cases. If it's f*ed up and wrong, there is usually a connection to the left.

i.e. Peace Officers vs. Enforcement Officers.

A free country wants Peace Officers - A country run by a criminal gang needs enforcers. Which would you rather live in?

No question. I like everybody's cards to be on the table, and I like the table to be round.

[Diogenes]

Radley Balko of Instapundit has this to say. I absolutely agree.




"In the past, Professor Reynolds has mentioned his support for ending qualified immunity, the special protection from liability afforded to government employees. I agree with him. If anything, public employees should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us.

The story of Michelle Ortiz is an unfortunate example of qualified immunity in action. Ortiz was molested by a prison guard while serving a one-year sentence at a correctional facility in Ohio. When she reported the assault, prison officials did nothing. Later the same evening, the same guard raped her. When Ortiz reported the rape, prison officials ordered her to solitary confinement, and did nothing to punish the guard. A jury awarded Ortiz $625,000. But a panel for the US 6th Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the verdict, finding that as state employees, the prison officials were protected by qualified immunity.

The Supreme Court will hear the case in the fall. The argument for qualified immunity is that we don’t want state employees hampered by fear of lawsuits when they’re making important decisions–be they policy decisions, or in the case of law enforcement, split-second decisions in emergency situations. The flip side of that, and what I find to be the more compelling argument, is that removing the possibility of liability (or at least making it very difficult for victims to win a lawsuit) is going to affect those decisions too. People tend to act differently when there’s less chance that they’ll be held accountable for their actions. That’s not a knock on government employees. It’s human nature.

Prison rape is another issue Instapundit has spoken out about. The current corrections culture that accepts prison rape as an inevitable part of hard time would change pretty quickly if we were to start holding prison guards, administrators, and wardens financially accountable for their negligence in allowing these rapes to continue."

[Skipjack]

I think it is interesting that in Austria, it is mainly the left going after the police with all sorts of claims of them overreacting or being to hard.
Usually, when I took a closer look though, the reaction by the police always seemed justified. The ultra left anarchists just dont like the law enforcement because they conflict with their anarchistic ideals.

[Diogenes]

I think it is interesting that in Austria, it is mainly the left going after the police with all sorts of claims of them overreacting or being to hard.
Usually, when I took a closer look though, the reaction by the police always seemed justified. The ultra left anarchists just dont like the law enforcement because they conflict with their anarchistic ideals.

I see the police for what they are. Human beings in authority. As has been said of fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearsome master. I believe that most of the crimes are perpetrated by people other than the police, but that does not mean that the police don't commit crimes themselves. I have personally seen the police do all sorts of things that they are not legally entitled to do but they get away with it because they are the law, and many of them accept the "might makes right" axiom.

I have previously opined about the justice system imprisoning people for crimes they did not commit, and I believe many fallacious practices are inherent in our legal system. I think it serves a public good to remind people of them from time to time.

[Skipjack]

I have previously opined about the justice system imprisoning people for crimes they did not commit, and I believe many fallacious practices are inherent in our legal system.

This is why I am against the death penalty. It is not reversible. Since there are humans involved with the whole process of prosecution and judgement, errors do happen.
This is the ONLY reason why I am against the death penalty, btw.
I dont believe in people being able to change, or becoming better people. That is a leftist ideal that has been more than disproven by genetics.
Anyway, I do generally not disagree with you on the fact that law enforcement does make errors and that these people do sometimes become criminals themselves.
However, I would be very careful with the conclusions you are drawing from this. You may be playing into the hands of people that you and you in particular Diogenes despise.
The main tasks of a government, any government is "protection to the inside and the outside". Everything else is the sugar on top. If the government fails to protect its people, you end up with them taking matters into their own hands. That leads to anarchy and finally to the demise of said government and most like the fall of the entire country as well.
Example: Lebanon. The only country that I know of that did not have a military.
Anarchy, or the lack of laws and their enforcement is a dangerous thing.

[Diogenes]

I have previously opined about the justice system imprisoning people for crimes they did not commit, and I believe many fallacious practices are inherent in our legal system.

This is why I am against the death penalty. It is not reversible. Since there are humans involved with the whole process of prosecution and judgement, errors do happen.

I have several ideas concerning how to correct the flaws in the legal system. Several of them people would detest, but I think they are necessary and sensible.

In regards to the death penalty, I think it should only apply when the verdict is certain and unassailable. (The O.J. Simpson example comes to mind.) Too many convictions are based on very weak standards of proof that cannot be seen as conclusive. I say that in the cases where the evidence is conclusive, the Death Penalty is absolutely appropriate, and should be carried out quickly. (Within a week.) In cases in which the evidence and testimony is indicative, but not completely convincing, the Death penalty should be withheld pending further more conclusive evidence, or pending exonerating evidence. In other words, in the absence of certain guilt, the sentence shouldn't be fixed.

This assails the legal principals of double jeopardy and that the sentence is final. I would also allow the attorneys to ask questions of the jurors, and vice versa, to insure that the jurors are comprehending what is being said to them. I would also require some sort of competency demonstration from Jurors, because too often it is the jurors who are not competent to stand trial.

This is the ONLY reason why I am against the death penalty, btw.
I dont believe in people being able to change, or becoming better people. That is a leftist ideal that has been more than disproven by genetics.
Anyway, I do generally not disagree with you on the fact that law enforcement does make errors and that these people do sometimes become criminals themselves.
However, I would be very careful with the conclusions you are drawing from this. You may be playing into the hands of people that you and you in particular Diogenes despise.

I know the hedonistic left hates anyone presiding in judgment over them, and the police officers fill this role by default, and therefore they usually acquire the undying hatred from the leftists, but I only object to the law enforcement people when they are abusing their positions, the left hates them when they are carrying out their lawful duties. (Like illegal immigration enforcement. )

The main tasks of a government, any government is "protection to the inside and the outside". Everything else is the sugar on top. If the government fails to protect its people, you end up with them taking matters into their own hands. That leads to anarchy and finally to the demise of said government and most like the fall of the entire country as well.
Example: Lebanon. The only country that I know of that did not have a military.
Anarchy, or the lack of laws and their enforcement is a dangerous thing.

Agreed. As others have said, "It is the duty of a government to establish and maintain a monopoly on the use of force. " If it fails to do that, it will not long govern.

[Skipjack]

In other words, in the absence of certain guilt, the sentence shouldn't be fixed.

My problem is that said certainety can never be established 100%.
Several cases have been rerolled later, after people had been executed already. A recent case in Texas comes to my mind.
I can not imagine a worse fate than being executed for a crime that you did not commit while the real perpetrator runs free.
It is a nightmare of mine and a reason why I am not to sure about moving to Texas...
These guys are a bit to quick with handing out death sentences.

the left hates them when they are carrying out their lawful duties

Agreed and that is a indeed a problem. This is why I am VERY sceptical of accusations made against law enforcement personel.

[Diogenes]

In other words, in the absence of certain guilt, the sentence shouldn't be fixed.

My problem is that said certainety can never be established 100%.
Several cases have been rerolled later, after people had been executed already. A recent case in Texas comes to my mind.

I don't know of any such cases, I know they have been alleged by the opponents of capital punishment for decades, but I have yet to hear of a real example of a mistaken execution.

That being said, i've seen plenty of convictions on really flimsy evidence. As I ranted a few years ago about a man recently let out of the local prison after serving 18 years for having been convicted of rape. As the man was exonerated after a DNA test demonstrated that the person who did commit the rape was another known individual, it begs the question: How do you convict someone when they actually didn't do it? What possible evidence could there be to prove someone did it when they actually didn't do it?

Fiber evidence? Crap. Eyewitness testimony? Usually very unreliable. Fingerprints? Inconclusive.

The fact of the matter is that it shouldn't be possible to find any reliable evidence against a person who really didn't do it, so the only explanation is assumptions and incompetence.

I can not imagine a worse fate than being executed for a crime that you did not commit while the real perpetrator runs free.
It is a nightmare of mine and a reason why I am not to sure about moving to Texas...
These guys are a bit to quick with handing out death sentences.

I *like* how quick they are at handing out a death sentence, what pisses me off is how careless they are about assuring guilt.

the left hates them when they are carrying out their lawful duties

Agreed and that is a indeed a problem. This is why I am VERY sceptical of accusations made against law enforcement personel.

You come from a community in which the police are not constantly arresting your friends and relatives. Things are very different in the black community where there is a great deal of distrust for the police.

[Skipjack]

I don't know of any such cases, I know they have been alleged by the opponents of capital punishment for decades, but I have yet to hear of a real example of a mistaken execution.

The guy that was convicted and executed for burning the house with his family in it. The evidence was very weak. He insisted on his innocence until the end. Several forensic fire experts that reviewed the case, said that the accusation of arson was not justified. Yet the governour went through with the execution. To me there would have been enough reasonable doubt to justify a review. However you are in a dangerous territorry there. You start with one and you might start a process that would be hard to stop. That is why the politician went through with it. Understandable, yes. Correct, no?
I just wished that politicians could be held responsible for their actions. I want to see a politician going through with this, if his head could be on the line for this.
Well, one may dream.
Anyway, this is just one case. There are other issues and reasons why lots of cases might have to be reviewed. Graphology and finger prints have seen some serious trust problems as trusted forensic tools lately.
It is all not that easy. Until we will be able to actually look into a persons brain, I insist that irreversible means of punishment are a bad idea.
Someone who is dead, is dead. You can not bring this person back. There is no heaven that awaits this person either. He or she is dead. The kind of death from which there is no coming back. The kind of dead that is permanent

[Diogenes]

I don't know of any such cases, I know they have been alleged by the opponents of capital punishment for decades, but I have yet to hear of a real example of a mistaken execution.

The guy that was convicted and executed for burning the house with his family in it. The evidence was very weak. He insisted on his innocence until the end.

They all insist they are innocent. As for how weak the evidence is, I would have to see what they presented as evidence before I could claim it was weak. But if the evidence really wasn't very conclusive, they should have simply put him into limbo pending more evidence one way or the other.

That is one of the problems with the legal system. They Declare all sorts of things with a finality that makes a sensible man cringe. The one consistent fact of the Courts is that they are d@mned certain about whatever it is they decide.

It reminds me of that scene in (the movie) "Little Big Man" where George Custer is debating to himself whether or not he should have the mule skinner (who snuck into his tent to kill Custer) executed. He finally makes up his mind by saying " I think not. Your miserable life is not worth the reversal of a Custer decision! "

Several forensic fire experts that reviewed the case, said that the accusation of arson was not justified. Yet the governour went through with the execution.

It means the governor looked at the case and decided the demands for clemency had no merits. At leas that is what it is supposed to mean, but nowadays how can anyone tell when officials are acting competently or not?

To me there would have been enough reasonable doubt to justify a review. However you are in a dangerous territorry there. You start with one and you might start a process that would be hard to stop. That is why the politician went through with it. Understandable, yes. Correct, no?
I just wished that politicians could be held responsible for their actions. I want to see a politician going through with this, if his head could be on the line for this.

I believe I posted something about governmental immunity to prosecution, and I agree, public officials ought to be able to be held personally accountable when their acts are egregious.

Well, one may dream.
Anyway, this is just one case. There are other issues and reasons why lots of cases might have to be reviewed. Graphology and finger prints have seen some serious trust problems as trusted forensic tools lately.
It is all not that easy. Until we will be able to actually look into a persons brain, I insist that irreversible means of punishment are a bad idea.

We are just about able to do that nowadays. There was a recent case where a judge seriously considered allowing brain scan information into a trial. The stuff is getting pretty accurate nowadays.

Someone who is dead, is dead. You can not bring this person back. There is no heaven that awaits this person either. He or she is dead. The kind of death from which there is no coming back. The kind of dead that is permanent

And some people need to be dead as dead can be. They are monsters who if not put down, will kill others again. This has happened time and again. (John Gacy, Ted Bundy, et al) When faced with a rabid dog, it is too late to feel sorry for the dog. The only duty is to make sure the rabid dog will not kill anyone else.

The issue is whether or not they are performing due diligence in assuring guilt or innocence.