
The Police Are Still Out of Control - hotgoldminer
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/10/the-police-are-still-out-of-control-112160_full.html#.VEphefldV1B
======
Moral_
I think much of the fault lie with the DA's and Police Unions. They're elected
to do some job, which is to prosecute criminals, yet fail to do so when it is
a police officer. The Unions are out of control in some instances making it so
the police force cannot fire a crooked cop until he has been found guilty, in
a criminal case. If the DA will not prosecute an officer he remains on the
force, a liability to the citizens and their money, when ultimately he or she
is sued in civil court.

On the issue of suing police, I find it interesting that most of thee civil
cases are settled before a verdict. The police admit no wrong-doing yet fork
over 2 million dollars.

I'm not entirely sure what should be done about the situation.

~~~
jdmichal
I am fine with police not being able to be fired until found guilty. I
personally think it should be that way everywhere for everyone. For instance,
the cases of a student being ejected from a university due to unsubstantiated
rape claims that never hit court because there's nothing to prosecute with.

Now, whether they are _active_ officers is a completely different matter, and
they should not be permitted to active duty until pending cases are resolved.

Finally, settlements are not a legal judgement of guilt nor acquittal. The
only thing that can decide that is a court case. Often, they are a pure risk
vs reward decision. If the downside of losing a case is $50+ million and they
estimate their chances of losing at equal to or more than 5% -- in other
words, still very confident of winning -- then it makes financial sense to
settle for $2 million instead.

~~~
seanflyon
> I am fine with police not being able to be fired until found guilty.

I don't understand this at all. There are all sorts of terrible things that
are not quite illegal. You killed that drunk guy that took a swing at you? Not
guilty, but still not good behavior. You were a real jerk to a bunch of
citizens, but you didn't actually assault them? Not guilty, but still not good
behavior.

~~~
jdmichal
If the officer did not do anything illegal, then what right do we (as a
society) have to fire them? Are they somehow supposed to be more "moral" (for
some definition thereof) than the rest of the populace? Because there won't be
anything but disappointment with that attitude. There's no reason to
romanticize cops as somehow being better than every other person in their
society.

Also, these statements are purely as applies to pending court cases, because
cops sometimes _do_ have to do things that would otherwise be illegal for
anyone else. And it can take a court case to decide if one particular occasion
met those necessary criteria. However, if it's deemed that a cop is not
meeting some other performance criteria of their job, then that's a different
matter altogether.

~~~
seanflyon
There are 2 different issues here, whether or not an action constitutes a
crime and burden of proof.

We might agree on the first issue.

>However, if it's deemed that a cop is not meeting some other performance
criteria of their job, then that's a different matter altogether.

Would you consider a police officer unnecessarily killing a violent drunk to
be "not meeting some other performance criteria"?

On the issue of burned of proof we disagree. Employment is a voluntary
agreement. If I am your employer and I no longer want to employ you because I
am convinced you are a criminal, then that is my call. If I want to lock you
in a cage because I am convinced you are a criminal, that is not my call.

------
tomohawk
A lot of people think that when a local politician has the support of the
police, it's a good endorsement.

All that means is that the police union has the politician in their pocket.

Same thing when a politician has the support of the teachers union.

It puzzles me when people vote against their own interest by voting for these
endorsed politicians. It's much better to have someone there who will have a
better chance of representing the voters rather than the unions.

~~~
spiritplumber
[http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/](http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/)
"The Authoritarians" (full ebook in link) provides some insight into this.
That said, beware being in an anti-authoritarian bubble in your daily
interactions; it will make it a lot harder to understand the authoritarian-
follower mind.

~~~
Zigurd
Serving jury duty will fix that!

------
MCRed
What I find fascinating is that there is less natural conflict of interest in
being a police officer than there is in being a politician.... and yet people
are willing to believe police are corrupt (and some are, no doubt) but so
unwilling to believe it about politicians.

This, even after a decade of revelations ranging from Bush's illegal
collection of phone metadata, the creation of the TSA (in violation of the 4th
amendment) to the NSA spying Snowden exposed and the installation of porno
scanners (which I think under most state laws, when used on children
constitute child pornography, and if a child gets patted down, it's pretty
close to molestation-- as the statutes are written and applied to civilians.)

It's like, to a lot of people, somehow when the government does it, with a
plausible sounding rationalization, the laws of morality don't apply.

In fact, even the laws of the law don't apply. The fourth amendment trumps
anything congress can pass. State laws still are in force, even if congress
authorizes something (e.g.: it can be legal at the federal level but a crime
at the local level.)

The government violates its own laws with impunity-- without even an
investigation in most cases. Where's the special prosecutor to root out the
criminal activity at the NSA? Instead it's just a manhunt for snowden. Yet
people are very upset about "net neutrality" (which is a legitimate issue, but
far less damaging than the panopticon)

I don't understand this.

~~~
rayiner
The 4th amendment does not ban searches and seizures without a warrant. It
bans "unreasonable" searches and seizures without a warrant. If the founders
hadn't meant for the courts to try and distinguish between "reasonable" and
"unreasonable" searches, they wouldn't have used the word. But they did--they
embedded this balancing between privacy rights and the needs of law
enforcement in the very text of the 4th amendment.

All of the programs you mentioned, phone metadata collection, the TSA, fall
within the recognized contours of what the Supreme Court has recognized as
"reasonable" searches.

Now, that's not to say that the Supreme Court's interpretations are the best
ones, or that people can't advocate for a different interpretation. What it
does mean is that the people supporting these programs can do so with the
entirely good faith belief that they are not violating clearly established
Constitutional law.

~~~
dllthomas
_' It bans "unreasonable" searches and seizures without a warrant.'_

It bans unreasonable searches and seizures, period.

Hopefully, a warrant will only be issued when the search is reasonable, and a
search with more oversight and checks will be more reasonable than the same
search without.

~~~
tptacek
The Fourth Amendment does not demand a warrant for every search. Only on
Internet message boards has this not been a settled issue since before our
grandparents were all born.

To understand why the Fourth Amendment governs both searches and warrants,
it's helpful to read up on what a "General Warrant" was at the time of the
founders. Hint: they often didn't really have much to do with generating
evidence.

The Amendment has two goals: first, to give the courts, rather than Congress
or the President, authority in determining what a valid search is, and second
to ensure that no branch of government could arbitrarily generate a piece of
paper authorizing police to turn someone's house inside out.

~~~
dllthomas
I think you misinterpreted me. I didn't say every search must have a warrant.
I said every search must be reasonable, and that a warrant makes _some_
otherwise-unreasonable searches reasonable.

------
graycat
Okay, okay, already: What the heck are the rules, the _real_ rules? Obviously,
everyone needs to know the rules. I need to know the rules, that is, the
_real_ rules. E.g., what am I supposed to do in routine interactions with the
police?

I'm just a Ph.D. applied mathematician and software guy writing code and
gathering data for my start-up I hope people will like; the project is for
nothing illegal, immoral, objectionable, offensive, politically incorrect,
etc.

But if the project works, then I'll have to get out from where I am now, get
out from behind my desktop computer writing code and gathering data, get out
into the community, have a light truck for my business, rent office space,
contract for routine services, say, water, electric power, Internet access,
telephones, trash pickup, hire people, get business insurance, a bookkeeper,
an accountant, a lawyer, make some use of consultants, do billing, handle
revenue, pay taxes, etc.

I will need routine police protection against vandalism and theft, etc.

And maybe there will be police walking a beat near my offices.

So, then, I may have some interactions with the police. Then, I need to know
what are the _rules_. What are the real rules?

~~~
logfromblammo
Hire a private protection business, including physical site security devices
that send alarm notices directly to that business, and NOT to the local
police. You have to pay for the local cops, but there's little they hate more
than handling multiple false intrusion alarms from small businesses, and they
have no legally enforceable obligation to protect you or your business. That
won't stop them from sending you a bill for responding to a false alarm, even
if they arrive 6 hours after receiving it.

Aside from making your first line of defense private security, make offsite
backups for all your business records, and refresh them regularly. Insure your
business against damages from typical property crimes, and against potential
liabilities for visitors to your premises, and follow your agent's advice on
things to do that will decrease your premiums. Hire a registered agent so that
legal documents do not arrive via deputy at your regular office.

The best interaction you can have with the cops is to never need one or see
one. Second best is to be assisted by a cop that acts with honesty, respect,
and professionalism. Beyond that, results will vary drastically according to
your locale.

Rule number one is to _not have_ routine interactions with the police. (Unless
you're running a doughnut shop, I guess.)

~~~
graycat
MANY thanks. That's a keeper. I'll index it so that I can find it when I need
it.

Some of what you said I'd guessed but didn't know the details or the level of
importance you made clear. E.g., I suspected that I needed business insurance,
but I've been unclear on all the reasons why.

The rest, I didn't know. Yup, I'm learning now.

Partly I was wondering if it was expected and required and in practice
permitted to make gifts, say, cash to the local police. I very much hoped not,
and would have checked with a street-wise, SMB lawyer. Your advice of just do
_not_ have routine interactions with the police sounds about right.

Thanks.

