End (Defund) the Police; The Ugly Truth

[*michaelsean*]

(11-23-2021, 02:54 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: And the police aren't infallible. People go to jail while innocent, guilty people go free because of botched investigations, occasionally an innocent gets merc'd. Still, society is better with police than without them.

Now if only we could stop those unions from protecting the piece of shit cops and get rid of qualified immunity so there'd be repercussions for some cop's shitty behavior, we'd be getting somewhere.

Qualified immunity has its place.  As long as what they did was in good faith.  

[BigPapaKain]

(11-23-2021, 03:12 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Qualified immunity has its place.  As long as what they did was in good faith.  

Eh, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I personally believe it's too easy to abuse it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-23-2021, 03:24 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Eh, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I personally believe it's too easy to abuse it.

In order to use it your actions have to fall within policy.  Without this protection it would be literally impossible for law enforcement to do its job, every officer would be buried by nuisance lawsuits.  The civil court backlog would be longer than the equator. 

[BigPapaKain]

(11-23-2021, 03:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: In order to use it your actions have to fall within policy.  Without this protection it would be literally impossible for law enforcement to do its job, every officer would be buried by nuisance lawsuits.  The civil court backlog would be longer than the equator. 

I did not know that. I thought it was basically if another officer anywhere got in trouble for something but had it thrown out or was found to be within reason, then anything similar to it would also be immediately thrown out.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-23-2021, 05:54 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: I did not know that. I thought it was basically if another officer anywhere got in trouble for something but had it thrown out or was found to be within reason, then anything similar to it would also be immediately thrown out.

Part of law enforcement is the contract between the agency and government.  If you operate within a department's policies then you cannot be held personally liable.  If you act outside of policy you will, more often than not, open yourself up to liability.  Now, depending on the contract there may be levels of accountability, often couched in legal language like "acts of extreme negligence" for example.  As it's not possible to write policy to cover every possible situation there will always be some grey areas but, generally, if you act in good faith then you're not likely be personally liable even if you unintentionally violate policy.  So, it's certainly not completely black and white.  Sadly, this type of thing does prevent law enforcement from going "above and beyond" but this is seen as a necessary tradeoff to prevent abuse of the position.

[jj22]

(11-23-2021, 02:25 PM)michaelsean Wrote: If you aren't going to educate yourself on the role of police then you probably shouldn't be making topics about them.  They do engage in crime prevention.  They keep order when necessary.  They protect when possible.  They investigate crimes.  They arrest suspects.  They assist people in need.  Your premise is flawed beyond argument. Wherever you got this idea, stop watching/reading that source.

My only source is my comrades on the far right who tell me all the time all they need is a good guy with a gun, and if everyone was armed, and able to defend themselves and their property their would be no crime. I tell you no lies michaelsean. Have you any 2A, open carry friends? Bring up the Ohio law. It's a hot topic right now. Don't do what I did in the thread by bringing up a political slogan or show signs of politics, and I guarantee you they will tell you what I just said. They tell me all the time when we debate open carry and the move to arming all Americans. 

They know my politics so they are pretty honest, but they tell me who is going to rob you if they think you have a gun, who is going to rape you if they think you are armed, who is going to invade your home if they know everyone is armed, who is going to rob a bank if people are there armed. You know the good guys with guns. These crimes you claim need investigated won't exist, these suspects will be dead, order will be kept by the idea that we are all armed. My premise is far from flawed, you are probably defending them more than they would care to be defended. I can assure you they'd side with me....... As long as we keep politics out of it, they will tell you. Now yes they may need to "assist" people, but we don't need a billion dollar budget for that and traffic violations. 

I try to defend the police actually by highlighting that citizens have better weapons then the police and that they, the police, don't even want everyone armed (and untrained as the Ohio Law signed allows).

[HarleyDog]

(11-19-2021, 11:50 AM)jj22 Wrote: The party who has fought end the police is and has always been the Republican party. 

Well shit. There you go then. Vote Republican.

[BigPapaKain]

(11-23-2021, 06:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Part of law enforcement is the contract between the agency and government.  If you operate within a department's policies then you cannot be held personally liable.  If you act outside of policy you will, more often than not, open yourself up to liability.  Now, depending on the contract there may be levels of accountability, often couched in legal language like "acts of extreme negligence" for example.  As it's not possible to write policy to cover every possible situation there will always be some grey areas but, generally, if you act in good faith then you're not likely be personally liable even if you unintentionally violate policy.  So, it's certainly not completely black and white.  Sadly, this type of thing does prevent law enforcement from going "above and beyond" but this is seen as a necessary tradeoff to prevent abuse of the position.

So maybe the policies need re-tooled.

I genuinely don't know too much about it. I'm a guy who sees things like Michael Brown and Daniel Shaver and shit like that and yeah, I get mad at the cops involved. I try not to say all cops are **** ups - a guy I've grown up with is a cop in Toledo and he's as good a guy you'll ever meet - but it's hard not to get irritated as a layman when you see the shit plastered all over the news and social media.

In my time here, I feel like I've gotten a peak behind the curtain (as it is) that most don't take the time to search out - mainly due to you, SSF. I'm happy to learn these different view points and how the system actually works, so thank you for that.

Also, **** social media.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-23-2021, 08:42 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: So maybe the policies need re-tooled.

Generally I'd say no to this.  As stated before there has to be some shield for law enforcement or the individual officers would be nuisance sued into oblivion.  We often deal with people who are not rational but don't see themselves that way.  We are accused of oppressing someone because they're being arrested for stabbing someone during a robbery.  We get accused of murder because we didn't shoot someone "in the leg or shoot the knife out of their hand".  The law uses the "reasonable person" standard.  We are very often forced to deal with people who are not reasonable.

Quote:I genuinely don't know too much about it. I'm a guy who sees things like Michael Brown and Daniel Shaver and shit like that and yeah, I get mad at the cops involved. I try not to say all cops are **** ups - a guy I've grown up with is a cop in Toledo and he's as good a guy you'll ever meet - but it's hard not to get irritated as a layman when you see the shit plastered all over the news and social media.

I've said it many times, the Shaver shooting is the most egregious LEO involved shooting I have ever seen.  If any officer ever deserved to be charged criminally it was the POS who shot Shaver.  The Mike Brown shoot was 100% justified, to the point that the Obama DOJ declared exactly that.  If you have the time and inclination read their entire report, it's very eye opening and contains information you will never hear in the main stream media.  Suffice to say Brown attempted to grab Wilson's gun, forensic evidence proves this.  He also attacked Wilson when he subsequently attempted to arrest Brown.  Also, it thoroughly debunks the outright lie that Brown had his hands up when he was shot.  But again, you don't have to take my word for it, read the actual report if you'd like.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.justice.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fopa%2Fpress-releases%2Fattachments%2F2015%2F03%2F04%2Fdoj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf&clen=902958&chunk=true

Quote:In my time here, I feel like I've gotten a peak behind the curtain (as it is) that most don't take the time to search out - mainly due to you, SSF. I'm happy to learn these different view points and how the system actually works, so thank you for that.

I appreciate that.  Honestly things can get pretty heated here, and I certainly have crossed the line at times, it's easier to get mad here than at work because you use all your patience up there where it really matters.  But ultimately I've always tried to provide an accurate picture of how things are in the real world for law enforcement, rather than the horribly skewed version you'll get elsewhere.

Quote:Also, **** social media.

Couldn't agree more.  Twitter might be the worst website on Earth as far as damage done to the social fabric.  A garbage place full of garbage people with garbage opinions.  There are, as always, exceptions, but not enough to save the cesspit. 

[Sled21]

(11-23-2021, 02:54 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: And the police aren't infallible. People go to jail while innocent, guilty people go free because of botched investigations, occasionally an innocent gets merc'd. Still, society is better with police than without them.

Now if only we could stop those unions from protecting the piece of shit cops and get rid of qualified immunity so there'd be repercussions for some cop's shitty behavior, we'd be getting somewhere.

If only we could get people to educate themselves about what qualified immunity is and isn't. To many people think it is absolute immunity. You have to be acting in good faith and within policy to be covered. IE, an officer pulls a guy over for swerving all over the road, smells alcohol, conducts sobriety tests, and makes an arrest, but the guy blows under the limit. The officer has qualified immunity. The job will not work without it.

[BigPapaKain]

(11-24-2021, 07:23 PM)Sled21 Wrote: If only we could get people to educate themselves about what qualified immunity is and isn't. To many people think it is absolute immunity. You have to be acting in good faith and within policy to be covered. IE, an officer pulls a guy over for swerving all over the road, smells alcohol, conducts sobriety tests, and makes an arrest,  but the guy blows under the limit. The officer has qualified immunity. The job will not work without it.

Yeah I got that. When it was explained. In the comment right before yours.

[GMDino]

Interesting thread.  If you choose to peruse.

I'm just posting the first graphic:

The results of the Loyola Marymount University poll should shake public discourse. 63% of conservatives, 68% of moderates, and 76% of liberals support "reallocating parts of LAPD’s budget to social workers, mental healthcare, and other social services.” pic.twitter.com/h2jktxBvUS

— Alec Karakatsanis (@equalityAlec) October 9, 2022