This is why I believe we need a change in the attitude of our police departments
 

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015...etail=facebook




This is just one of an increasing number of similar stories that really concern me.



There has to be a better way to handle things like this. I truly believe that one of the more serious risks to our liberty and our way of life is the attitude of the police with respect to the citizens. A police force can not be allowed to adopt a consequentialism philosophy. Citizens and their property should never be considered "acceptable losses".


A police force and its members need to be held accountable to the citizens they have sworn to protect.


I would like to see three general changes


1. Demilitarize the police.



I feel that the practice of allowing police to wear military like uniforms and have military like titles/ranks encourages a psychological separation between the police and the public they are serving. The military fully understands the effects of uniforms and ranks and it serves the military well as a separation on the battlefront is important. Not so with police. If you dress the police up like military, refer to them by military rank (how many times do we see some chief of police wearing 4-stars like a general.), give them military ranks it is no wonder why they are acting like an occupying military force in a "us against them" posture.



2. Eliminate police departments investigating themselves. If a local/county police officer is suspected of misconduct concerning the civil rights of a citizen, the State needs to investigate the case, not the beer buddies of the suspect. If a state police office is suspected, then the federal government investigates. How this system of friends investigating friends came about I don't know, unless they looked at congress (But that is a different rant).


These elevated investigations are especially important whenever a citizen is killed by the police. There can not be any more "benefit of the doubt". A full, fair, and impartial investigation is necessary for the citizens to have trust in their police forces.


3. Bring accountability down to the individual police officer. If the investigation reveals that the police officer significantly violated the law/policy, not only is the force accountable, but the individual must be held accountable. Personal accountability is a basis for our legal structure. Citizens have a lot of freedom of action.. but also have accountability for the consequences of their actions. At an absolute minimum a police officer must have the same level of accountability as a citizen and really should be held to a higher standard.


The police are the group that has the authority to infringe the most on a citizens' civil rights. That is necessary for their job. But because they do have significant power over the citizens, the police must be held accountable for their actions.



A lot of citizens have lost trust in the police and we have new generations growing up knowing nothing but distrust for the police. If we are to fix this, we must fix the problems with the police and their attitudes towards citizens.


The citizens are NOT the enemy and we should not be treated as the enemy.



The police are very fond of saying that the vast majority of police are doing their job well and the issues are with isolated "bad cops".


I will reverse that back on the police and say that the vast majority of citizens are obeying the law and criminals are a group of isolated "bad citizens".



Is it right to consider every cop bad? Of course not. Then why is it acceptable for the police to adopt an attitude of everyone is a suspect unless proven not to be... especially when the police have guns!d


I am a law abiding citizen. I fear the police much more than I fear Daesh.



And that is a terrible way to live.



Sorry for the rant, but stories like this really concern me.

Please correct me if I'm wrong as I don't have that much insight in US law enforcement but I think one of the problems is that local Sheriffs have way too much power. When I see stuff like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio I'm really glad not to live in the US. There was even a TV series about his deputies and "incompetent fools on a power trip" does hardly begin to describe it. Lack of training might be an issue as well. I know that the Alaska State troopers (whom I would consider rather professional and competent based on what I've seen on TV) only get 14 weeks of training before they are let loose on the public. 14 weeks is in my opinion not enough for teaching the laws, gun skills, martial arts and (very important) deescalation tactics. In Germany police officers get trained between 2.5 and 3 years depending on the career and deescalation is a big part of that from what I hear.

On the other hand there is the problem with most citizens being armed. So the officers always have to assume that someone might pull a gun on them so they probably try to stifle any will for resistance before they can get shot at. That might explain some of the over reactions by some officers. For example searching a house when you think there might be someone with some firearms just waiting for you to open the wardrobe he's hiding in.:dead:

personally i think the problem is that a majority of street thugs dont have a sense of personal responsibility and would just as soon shoot you in the head and jack $17 out of your pocket as look at you. :nope:

this lady's house can be fixed, as can her decision as to what type of person she associates herself with

sorry about your house, but they cops arent just going to go away because of your best attempt at a Jedi mind trick "this is not the house your looking for" or "the bad guy isnt here" yeah... good luck with that. im sure the guy was considered well armed and dangerous and thats why they took the precautions / actions that they did.

Unless the dumb a$$es go to the wrong address. I have trouble dealing with any institution in this town because they all have some version of an old address for this business, and none of the dumb suckers recognize the current address. Century Link think's we're at Savage St, Duke Energy thinks its Walnut, the City thinks it's something else. LMFAO It's been the current address for at least ten years now. :har: Bureaucracy at it's finest!

Personally, I'd dress Police up in Boy Scout uniforms. Shorts and all, start giving them merit badges for when they help people. ...and why does the USN need cammies? LOL

[QUOTE=Platapus;2367715]http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015...etail=facebook

[/URL]


This is just one of an increasing number of similar stories that really concern me.



There has to be a better way to handle things like this. I truly believe that one of the more serious risks to our liberty and our way of life is the attitude of the police with respect to the citizens. A police force can not be allowed to adopt a consequentialism philosophy. Citizens and their property should never be considered "acceptable losses".


A police force and its members need to be held accountable to the citizens they have sworn to protect.


:agree:

When law enforcement regards itself as the hammer of justice, all problems big and small look like nails to them .

Personally, I think a large part of the problem is people actually allowing this to keep giving cops rights, without limits.

The way I see it, you can't have it both ways. Every time some cop gets shot or outgunned, the cops use it as a pretext to get more guns and more pre-emptive rights. That may be an over-reaction but at least it is somewhat justified.

But if you do that, is it not only right for them to have their rights reduced every time something like this happens? What else will stop these people from stepping further and further from the line? Their consciences? Not when they are so self-justifying and the public condones it, I think.

And you personally would feel OK entering the house where you suspect a known violent criminal is hiding while doing your less than $50,000 a year job just to find out if he's there without all the gear?

I wouldn't I don't think you would either.

If you don't feel like doing that, don't be a police officer. Being a cop means taking some risks, not wrecking everything because they are afraid of a relatively minuscule danger.

Great post Platapus.:salute:
I agree with most of what you're saying. I really feel like we are turning into a police state. It seems like they (the police) use the SWAT waaaay to often.


They need to have some sort of external check and balances that holds them accountable when they make very poor decisions.

(post WIP):doh:

"The law enforcement agencies engaged in a 20-hour standoff, despite the homeowner insisting he was not in the house. "

Stand off? Was the homeowner in the house the whole time with the children? Just what other crimes had the suspect been involved in? What was the homeowners relation to the suspect?

The article leaves much unsaid while implying a police over reaction.

Indeed. I would like some more information before making a judgement on this.

Speaking hypothetically, what kind of circumstances will cause you to forgive this excessive use of power which didn't even work?

Capturing an armed and dangerous person that might kill innocent people in the course of evading capture.

The fact that he wasn't there is irrelevant to the argument because the police believed he was. It's easy to say they went to far since he wasn't but what if he was? Would you say they went to far still? Again, we're arguing with too little to go on.

All proper IMHO; not carried out in haste (20 hour standoff) nor with undo inconsideration for 'collateral damage' to the neighborhood-priority 1. Federal and state agencies all involved reflects a high level seriously dangerous hombre to be worth that much trouble. Kinda perplexed about the Christmas tree though!

Quote:

Originally Posted by buddahaid Again, we're arguing with too little to go on.

Precisely:yep: http://www.koamtv.com/story/30757423/galena-standoff-ends-alexius-not-in-home

Sorry, it is. The fact he wasn't there provides a valid reason to question how good the police information that said the guy was in the house was. I suppose it wasn't completely nothing, but how good was it? 5%, 95%?

Of course on the news they are going to insist they had great intel but "just didn't get him." Allow me to be more cynical. Anyway, the thing is, they are wrong.

Further, even IF they can SEE he is in the house and he is cradling his AK-47, it still seems a very extremist measure to use a tank to take out large chunks of the wall. Snipe him, or if you can't you are just going to have to use proportionate force and go in and get him. Or you can wait for him to come out. He has to come out sooner or later if he's there.

Police should not be allowed to just use infinite force at the expense of innocents just to avoid a small risk to their lives.

Right now the fact of life is that there is no reason for them to think of alternatives. Even soldiers in Iraq have to show more restraint. Why? Because they don't want the Iraqi to turn into an RPG-wielder. But no, there's not even that in the continental United States, so police do what they want. You can say they have consciences, but that's of limited purpose when they can always claim they are protecting their own arses.

I think the line should, at the very least, be this: If you want the State to cover you whether you are right or wrong, you must follow all standards. If you want to exceed standards for ... reasons, then you must actually be at risk if you are wrong. If you shoot someone by mistake, there must be a serious probability, even 10-20%, that you will go to prison (it should be broadly similar statistically to the legal risk a person conducting self or home defense should have to bear). If you break a wall and you are wrong, you pay for as much of it as your pay can handle, and the State only picks up the tab from where you can't.

Otherwise, what stops abuse? Nothing.