When Defending Cops Becomes Impossible

[Skywalkre]

On 8/18/2022 at 12:52 PM, JWB said:

Black residents of a small Mississippi town have filed a lawsuit seeking protection from their police department.

The lawsuit, obtained by Newsweek, comes after Lexington's police chief was fired last month after he was heard allegedly using racist and homophobic slurs in a leaked audio recording.

In the recording, first reported by the Mississippi Center for Investigative Reporting, Sam Dobbins, who is white, also allegedly bragged about killing 13 people in the line of duty and used the n-word repeatedly, including to describe someone he says he shot 119 times.

https://www.newsweek.com/black-residents-sue-police-department-mississippi-martial-law-1734061

Heh... I saw a piece on how so many state and local positions are left unfilled post-COVID (I think the stat nationwide was... approaching 25% of all jobs).  In the piece they touched on law enforcement and it was stated how a lot of LEOs got out back in 2020 and how applications have dropped (in this particular locale applications were down around 30-40% IIRC).

My first thought when I heard that was, "yeah... the good ones are finally leaving and not bothering to get in in the first place."  There definitely are good cops out there but it's been clear for a while they're the minority.  I've mentioned this before but it's fairly easy to tell - police unions and their reps are voted in by a majority of police and I can't remember the last time I didn't see a police union rep just not come across as a complete out-of-touch asshole whether it was after one of these incidents like in AR (shown below) or even as benign as arguing for more funding for pay/benefits (when police across the country do better now than the average American citizen in those areas).

Edited August 22, 2022 by Skywalkre

[Skywalkre]

Another example of outstanding police work in AR... 🙄

I was surprised to see the R governor actually come out and highlight this is against their training and unacceptable.  Still... that's a long way from firing (and not getting hired elsewhere immediately) or even prosecution (where convictions are still low probability).

 

ETA - Googled yet again and still nothing on the investigation into the officer who killed the man in the wheelchair last year.  What a joke...

Edited August 23, 2022 by Skywalkre

[Skywalkre]

There was a post on reddit yesterday that Kobe Bryant's wife won a lawsuit against the LEOs and firefighters who shared pictures of her dead family after the crash that killed them.  The discussion immediately turned to how the family is getting paid (rightfully)... but ultimately the folks involved suffer nothing and it's the taxpayers that really suffer as the money is coming from them.

Then a side discussion started with a simple idea - what if cops had to carry something like malpractice insurance on their own like docs, lawyers, and various other professionals have to?  This way when incidents like this happen the money isn't coming from taxpayers and after the fact said LEO would be unable to get work again as their rates would skyrocket (or no one would cover them).  A big problem is even if an agency has the balls to fire said LEO after incidents like this they inevitably end up getting hired by another department almost immediately.

I don't know enough about this to know how viable it is... if it's something that Congress could do?  Seems such an elegantly simple solution to a problem that hasn't been addressed for decades now.

[rmgill]

This comes down to who actually pays. The department or the government officials who committed the offense. Ultimately this is in part up to the department in question. They could sue or charge the individual for the loss. 

It's more than just cops mind you. It's also folks setting policy, failing to guide policy, prosecutors and mayors. 

If a cop is enforcing a mask mandate and kills someone in the process of enforcing it....who's at fault? The system? The mayor who set the policy? The cop who killed the dude refusing to leave due to the mask mandate? 

[R011]

6 hours ago, rmgill said:

 The cop who killed the dude refusing to leave due to the mask mandate? 

You mean "the dude being arrested for resisting arrest for trespass for failing to leave when requested by a property owner or their agent?"

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, R011 said:

You mean "the dude being arrested for resisting arrest for trespass for failing to leave when requested by a property owner or their agent?"

A lot of the mask protocols were government imposing them on businesses in doors. Thus it could entirely be predicated on local government fiat law. Some states told counties/cities to knock that off. Georgia was one. The city of Atlanta argued that they were trying to make people safe. The Governor told them they didn't have the legal authority. 

Other cities were not so limited in their power exercise. 

https://www.foxnews.com/us/coronavirus-idaho-arrest-mask-outdoor-worship-service-laura-ingraham-gabriel-rench

[R011]

56 minutes ago, rmgill said:

A lot of the mask protocols were government imposing them on businesses in doors. Thus it could entirely be predicated on local government fiat law. Some states told counties/cities to knock that off. Georgia was one. The city of Atlanta argued that they were trying to make people safe. The Governor told them they didn't have the legal authority. 

Other cities were not so limited in their power exercise. 

https://www.foxnews.com/us/coronavirus-idaho-arrest-mask-outdoor-worship-service-laura-ingraham-gabriel-rench

I disagree.  The mandates were a reasonable, legally acceptable, and enforcible where applied.  Even if not, Common Law (and black letter law) says if you'e told to leave a place for any reason not banned by law and you don't, you're trespassing.  If you wanted an example of a bad police shoot, one that didn't involve an ideological hobby horse would have been a better choice.

[rmgill]

I'm not sure about how it works in Canada, but in the US the state's themselves have the overall scope of power to pass various laws not specifically reserved to Congress. Laws like health regulations, crimes, etc. What ever powers they grant to municipalities/counties are what those have. 

If the city powers are granted by the state from state law then they're legal. If the city powers aren't there and aren't extended by the state then they don't have the legal authority. In Georgia, the Governor went further to not only state that the Cities and counties din't have the authority to require masks out in public, he specifically proscribed them from passing regulations locally. He had that authority as far as I understand. 
 

[glenn239]

5 hours ago, rmgill said:

 If the city powers are granted by the state from state law then they're legal. If the city powers aren't there and aren't extended by the state then they don't have the legal authority. In Georgia, the Governor went further to not only state that the Cities and counties din't have the authority to require masks out in public, he specifically proscribed them from passing regulations locally. He had that authority as far as I understand. 
 

Not sure where the boundary is between federal and provincial, but provincially the Premier is like the Governor and has full authority over all municipalities for stuff like this.

[rmgill]

So not so different. Suffice to say, a city only has so much legal authority and that all derives from what the state constitution grants and what the state government subsequently grants. Mandating that folks wear masks in or out of doors falls under that. 

 

[rmgill]

So apparently the FBI is in the business of censoring defamatory information about certain political figures. This would have been when Trump was president. Who exactly is the fascist again? 
 

I would love to see some Section 1983 charges for all involved. 

[R011]

9 hours ago, rmgill said:

I'm not sure about how it works in Canada, but in the US the state's themselves have the overall scope of power to pass various laws not specifically reserved to Congress. Laws like health regulations, crimes, etc. What ever powers they grant to municipalities/counties are what those have. 

If the city powers are granted by the state from state law then they're legal. If the city powers aren't there and aren't extended by the state then they don't have the legal authority. In Georgia, the Governor went further to not only state that the Cities and counties din't have the authority to require masks out in public, he specifically proscribed them from passing regulations locally. He had that authority as far as I understand. 
 

Off topic and nothing new from you.

[Skywalkre]

22 hours ago, rmgill said:

This comes down to who actually pays. The department or the government officials who committed the offense. Ultimately this is in part up to the department in question. They could sue or charge the individual for the loss. 

It's more than just cops mind you. It's also folks setting policy, failing to guide policy, prosecutors and mayors. 

If a cop is enforcing a mask mandate and kills someone in the process of enforcing it....who's at fault? The system? The mayor who set the policy? The cop who killed the dude refusing to leave due to the mask mandate? 

The cops in these instances almost never pay out.  Like I said, if they're even fired (a big if) they usually just get hired on elsewhere (hence Biden's EO to, in theory, hopefully prevent this).  Otherwise your argument doesn't really seem to hinder the idea of cops carrying this insurance themselves.  Docs, Lawyers, etc. all have policy and such being set by highers and others and yet they're still held to a standard themselves.

Again, seems like a great and simple idea to address the issue.

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, R011 said:

Off topic and nothing new from you.

You wrote: "The mandates were a reasonable, legally acceptable, and enforcible where applied. "

Except where they were not. As it was the case in both Georgia and Florida. For the reasons I cited. So they were unreasonable, legally unenforcible and legally unacceptable. 

 

[rmgill]

58 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

The cops in these instances almost never pay out.  Like I said, if they're even fired (a big if) they usually just get hired on elsewhere (hence Biden's EO to, in theory, hopefully prevent this).  Otherwise your argument doesn't really seem to hinder the idea of cops carrying this insurance themselves.  Docs, Lawyers, etc. all have policy and such being set by highers and others and yet they're still held to a standard themselves.

Do you understand the difference between qualified immunity and unqualified immunity? Do you understand how that itself can color who can and can't be held responsible for how the legal system goes after someone? 

Here's an example that I think will open your eyes, IF you can be bothered to read up on it. 

https://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/candidate-federal-court-the-defendant/VFhjhsnX5zt8Q20V1sWjxM/

https://www.npr.org/2011/11/01/141879836/supreme-court-to-weigh-case-of-false-testimony

And this case went to SCOTUS

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/10-788

The 11th Circuit case

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-11th-circuit/1531644.html

[R011]

3 hours ago, rmgill said:

You wrote: "The mandates were a reasonable, legally acceptable, and enforcible where applied. "

Except where they were not. As it was the case in both Georgia and Florida. For the reasons I cited. So they were unreasonable, legally unenforcible and legally unacceptable. 

 

I didn't say they were universal, did I?  And please give us some examples pf people being shot by police just for failing to wear a mask?  Were they more common than people shot by police who had committed other crimes or none?

[rmgill]

Police are a threat of force to effect compliance with laws. Whether or not that happened, it is still a risk. And it carries that risk of liability as well. People have been shot over code enforcement issues like signs in their yard. 

[DB]

The belief that the primary role of the police is to violently enforce the law is fundamental to the problem. Violent responses to some situations are obviously appropriate, but the excessive violence we have seen in several of these cases seems to imply that too many police officers don't see it as the final escalation step, but the first response.

Policing by Consent relies on proportionate response from the police, otherwise the consent is withdrawn and all that remains is enforcement by being more violent. The US seems to be well down this path. the police is a paramilitary organisation that sees the use of force as the primary means of maintaining the law. I am of the opinion that this is a bad thing, but I'm sure many here will disagree and think that Judge Dredd comics are an instruction manual.

[rmgill]

Police who are armed, have arrest powers for a specific offense (like no mask) and can use deadly force as part of the escalation tree carries the threat of violence by it's very definition.
 

If one lay hands on your person to seize and detain you and what ever you respond with can be matched and exceeded by default is violent by nature. 

Thats just a fact. Compare to a security guard who can't arrest you and can only use the arms to defend himself and protect property under his care. 
 

I am pretty sure you can't decide not to be arrested in Oz or Blighty and if you continue resisting that deadly force may result. 

[DB]

And.... wooosh.

 

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, DB said:

And.... wooosh.

 

Woosh yourself.

Ignore the police. Don't pay your taxes. Put a doll in your window. Say something mean on twitter that offends someone. Violence will be the result. Your system, especially monopolizes violence by the state. Simply seizing you is violence.

Don't believe me, go grab your neighbor and haul him into your garage for not mowing his lawn or for blowing his clippings onto your driveway. That's violence, you can't do that. But your state can, for things that are just as equivalent. 

Your state specifically arrests people for telling jokes. For offending people. For mean tweets that someone is harmed by emotionally. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10280265/Two-police-officers-try-arrest-man-not-wearing-face-mask-ordering-sandwich-Subway.html
 

 

Edited August 28, 2022 by rmgill

[DB]

You just wrote an entire essay to demonstrate even more conclusively that you have no comprehension of the concept of policing by consent.

I' suppose I shouldn't be surprised. You're a product of a grossly dysfunctional system after all.

[rmgill]

2 hours ago, DB said:

You just wrote an entire essay to demonstrate even more conclusively that you have no comprehension of the concept of policing by consent.

I quite understand the Peelian principles. 

2 hours ago, DB said:

I' suppose I shouldn't be surprised. You're a product of a grossly dysfunctional system after all.

Our system is a response to the dysfunction of what the Crown used to do. Which part of the Peelian principles covers the idea that you can be arrested for hurting someone's feelings? Is that rule 1? Or 2? Perhaps it's 5? No, not 5 because that's pandering. It's certainly not 7. What about 9. Is there an absence of crime  and disorder in the UK? 

 

1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

[Ivanhoe]

This is why we need a federal law requiring all sworn LEOs to score at least 105 on an IQ test;

 

[Burncycle360]

.

Edited September 25, 2022 by Burncycle360