
Cops: We Need Rights More Than You, Citizen - wglb
https://popehat.com/2015/04/29/cops-we-need-rights-more-than-you-citizen/
======
rayiner
> In other jurisdictions, those protections are a result of collective
> bargaining and embedded in negotiated contracts.

This is the part people need to internalize. Police departments in most cities
are insulated from accountability for the same reason public employees are in
general--they have incredibly powerful unions that can decide elections. The
recent scrutiny of police activities presents a once in a lifetime opportunity
for liberals and conservatives to come together and both get something they
want: Improve police accountability and take a major bite out of budget-
sapping public employee benefits in one shot.

~~~
ZanyProgrammer
This creates a problem for a lot of progressives, since attacking public
sector unions is a big no no. Like, a super duper colossal no no. I see it
floated around every once in a while on some mainstream American lefty blogs,
and it always gets shot down.

~~~
vidarh
The idea that attack police unions is a negative seems pretty bizarre to me.

In Europe, the left generally ranges from broadly accepting of (social
democrats), to wholeheartedly embracing (many anarchist or other anti-
authoritarian groups), the generally _very_ strict limits on the powers
granted to police unions vs. other unions, on the basis that large parts of
the European left see police as a potential threat to democratic society if
their power is left unchecked (whether or not said group have a positive or
negative view of police in general), and not insignificant numbers have
relatively regular direct run-ins with police in the context of demonstrations
etc.

E.g. in the UK police has been denied the right to strike is the 1919 Police
Act. In Norway police may strike, but only subject to very strict limits on
when and how, and with the caveat that the government may at any time declare
a continued strike illegal - only a few other groups (military, essential
hospital staff and similar) are subject to similarly strict regulation of
strikes.

The limited strike right is often used as an invitation to substantially limit
these unions influence.

~~~
wavefunction
Actually responding to jjoonathan here...

Both the police and correctional officer unions often donate to the
Republicans as much if not more than the Democrat politicians.

~~~
leoc
Relevant: [http://www.nationalreview.com/article/394743/its-time-
take-p...](http://www.nationalreview.com/article/394743/its-time-take-police-
unions-lucy-morrow-caldwell) And more police-union goodness:
[http://www.nationalreview.com/article/380455/tax-funded-
unio...](http://www.nationalreview.com/article/380455/tax-funded-union-work-
jillian-kay-melchior)

------
krylon
In Germany, we do not have any "Police Bill of Rights", as far as I know, but
in practice, it works out quite similarly in cases of police misconduct or
outright brutality.

The DA's office, which depends on the police to perform investigations for
them, is quite reluctant to investigate police officers in the first place.
And when they do, the police force will behave quite uncooperatively, testify
only in favor of the accused police officer, evidence will get "lost"
mysteriously, and so forth.

Plus, if somebody sues a police officer for brutality, the usual reaction is
to counter-sue for slander or false accusation (falsely accusing somebody of a
crime is itself a crime under German law). In these cases, the best one can
hope for is that the police drops its charges if you drop yours.

I remember a case from a few years back that exemplifies the problem over here
quite well: The police had a warrant so search the home of somebody accused of
drug trafficking. They did however, by accident, drive to the wrong address
and - because of alleged "imminent danger" \- kick down the door. They did not
find any drugs or other illegal stuff at the place (because it was the _wrong_
place). But the person whose appartment they searched wanted the police to pay
for his door. The police refused, so he sued. The judge's statement when he
dismissed the case came down to "Tough luck, dude, deal with it".

I find the very idea of a "Police Bill of Rights" repulsive. The police's job
- formally speaking - is to enforce the law; as such, the law should be
applied to them the same as to everybody else. If anything, the police -
precisely because they are allowed, under certain circumstances, to beat and
kill people - should be held to a stricter standard.

It is also interesting that the police union here in Germany rarely if ever
does what a union is supposed to do, namely to work towards better working
conditions - better pay, shorter hours, and so forth - for their members,
instead they mainly seem to advocate for more surveillance and against police
accountability.

~~~
scarmig
I wonder if there's a way to decouple the role of prosecutional evidence
gathering from the role of public security that the police play. Basically
having two departments with an iron wall of separation between them, so
they're effectively neutral toward each other, if not adversarial.

I'm not sure, though, how it even currently works in most places. Does
anywhere do it like that?

~~~
frandroid
Ontario has the SIU:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Investigations_Unit](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Investigations_Unit)

Unfortunately, police are still extremely uncooperative and it has had more or
less teeth over the years, depending on who gets appointed.

------
droopyEyelids
Have I been missing stuff like this throughout the time I was growing up?

This person is pretty much arguing for a legally different, privileged class
of citizens to be created. The New York Times published an article by someone
asking to create two classes in American society.

Have power hungry nut jobs been publishing this stuff in the most respected
media outlets forever? Or is this new?

~~~
mikeash
Opinion pages like this are exactly where these articles belong. The national
president of the Fraternal Order of Police is a pretty important position, and
I see no reason not to let him have his say in the opinion pages of an
important publication.

You seem to be implying that they shouldn't have published this. Personally,
I'm _much_ happier with having powerful nutjobs like this get attention for
their views than keeping them hidden away. Mr. National President of the
Fraternal Order of Police is going to think that police need their own
separate "bill of rights" whether or not he gets space in the New York Times.
By publishing him, the NYT is merely making us aware of that fact, and I think
it's good for everyone to know.

~~~
lawnchair_larry
But he is not just sharing his opinion, he's using it as a propaganda vehicle
and trying to further a campaign. If he gets support by doing this, it's a net
loss.

~~~
mikeash
If our position cannot withstand some attention being given to the opposition,
then it's not worth defending in the first place.

Censorship solves nothing. If he gets support by doing this, then we need to
counter that by providing a better argument, not by trying to silence the
opposition.

------
PeterWhittaker
I don't understand the lack of accountability issue, but perhaps it is because
I live in Ontario. Sure, there are any number of abuses, but as soon as
anything crosses a certain threshold, it is investigated by the provincial SIU
(Special Investigations Unit). I may be very much mistaken, but fire a gun in
the line, the SIU investigates. Someone dies in custody, the SIU investigates.

Perhaps it is because Canadian municipalities - and their police services -
are subordinate to the provinces - and to the provincial service. (The SIU is
part of the OPP, the Ontario Provincial Police.)

I'd be very curious to learn more from those more in the know.

~~~
GigabyteCoin
> the SIU investigates. Someone dies in custody, the SIU investigates.

You forgot to add "and nothing ever happens"...

Remember Sammy Yatim? The teenager who was begging for the cop to shoot him
that was posted to youtube in 2013?

Well, the cop shot him to death, and then another cop ran on the ttc car to
taser him (trying to cover up the fact that his buddy shot and killed him at
point blank range with no provocation), and even more cops were filmed kicking
away shell casings (in an attempt to make it look as though fewer bullets had
been fired?? I don't know...) That's destruction of evidence.

There still isn't even a trial date set almost 2 years later now. [0] Forcillo
is still working in law enforcement with Crime Stoppers. And when the trial
does finally occur, the entire thing is under a publication ban, so nobody
will even hear about it. It will be on page 7 of the toronto star that James
Forcillo was found not guilty and is now working for another police division.

If he does get 10 years in prison I would be incredibly surprised.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Sammy_Yatim](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Sammy_Yatim)

~~~
mdpopescu
Why only "he"? You are also pointing out that there were a bunch of
accomplices - why shouldn't they be treated as such? If a "mundane" were to
shoot someone and his friends tried to cover it up, wouldn't they also be
charged?

------
downandout
This is disgusting, and will only lead to more incidents like this [1]. Cops
have too much protection as it is - they are essentially impossible to sue.
They are fortunately being charged criminally on occasion, but not nearly
enough. Unfortunately the kinds of people that will take a high risk job for
low pay tend to be seeking the only other "benefit" of the job: power over
others, that they are likely missing in their own lives (or they wouldn't have
pursued the job). Many of them take joy in others' misery, and they have guns
and handcuffs. It's a bad combination.

[1] [http://www.8newsnow.com/story/21557505/cover-up-alleged-
in-c...](http://www.8newsnow.com/story/21557505/cover-up-alleged-in-clark-
clark-family-court) \- A woman was sexually assaulted by a police officer
during an alleged "search for drugs," walked back into the family court she
had just come from to tell the judge about it, and was arrested in front of
her daughter for "making a false accusation against a police officer" (which,
it turns out, isn't actually a crime in Nevada where this took place). The cop
and the judge that watched her get arrested and refused to intervene while
playing with the woman's daughter were both eventually fired but not
criminally charged.

------
leesalminen
According to some comments on the article these rights apply only during
"Administrative Investigations" and not "Criminal Investigations".

Does anyone know if any officer involved death starts off as an administrative
investigation or as a criminal one?

~~~
desdiv
Here's a quote from Wisconsin's Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights[0]:

 _If a law enforcement officer is under investigation and is subjected to
interrogation for any reason which could lead to disciplinary action,
demotion, dismissal or criminal charges, the interrogation shall comply with
the following requirements..._

That sounds broad enough to cover "Criminal Investigations".

This might just be just Wisconsin though; the law might be different where
that commenter lives.

[0]
[http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/1979/79Stat0164.pdf](http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/1979/79Stat0164.pdf)

------
mikerichards
Great article. But this a symptom of the bigger problem of government workers
wanting extra rights above and beyond what a normal citizen has. This will
only get worse as governments (local, state, federal) grab more power over the
people.

------
mc32
Maybe one day we'll have technology which gets embedded and self-reports us
whenever we transgress whatever laws we agree to or are born into. It's all
automatic and tunable in order to produce the desired result from society. It
could even be 'democratic' voted upon by everyone, so there is no
bootstrapping and no second guessing.

I think some of Canterbury's comments speak to a population not waiting for an
investigation to complete before it reacts to events which have not reached an
official conclusion (just or unjust). Let's say the family of a rape or murder
victim does not wait till a jury reaches a decision and vents its frustration
against the accused, or in some cases unrelated bystanders -resorts to
extrajudicial procedure.

In reality the problem is not the speed of justice but rather the reactions
and impatience is a product of lack of access to the mainstream economy, some
of this is due to biases and some of it is due to socio-cultural issues (same
as Appalachian whites). It's not as if some police brutality and injustice
does not happen in other communities, but generally those communities don't
feel disenfranchised so they don't need an outlet for their frustration. When
an injustice happens they have access to the justice system to address their
complaints and they have political power to bring attention to issues.

~~~
DigitalJack
There are so many laws and regulations, some contradictory, that at any given
moment you are guaranteed to be in violation of some of them.

~~~
dikaiosune
It could be an opportunity to force streamlining of laws. The bigger issue in
my mind is that most social change involves breaking some laws. A lot of those
changes have been for the better.

~~~
mc32
If the laws are voted in democratically, then there would be little need to
break laws, just vote to amend or void them. Of course, beware the curse of
the tyranny of the majority.

~~~
CamperBob2
_If the laws are voted in democratically, then there would be little need to
break laws, just vote to amend of void them. Of course, beware the curse of
the tyranny of the majority._

Which is it? Your two sentences stand diametrically opposed to each other. The
history of civil rights in the US suggests that your first sentence is absurd,
and your second dead on.

~~~
mc32
It's hard to reconcile, yes, so typically one relies on 'basic laws'. In the
end, however, it falls on the majority, strictly speaking. If 95% of the
voting public wanted to they certainly could change the Us constitution, and
there is very little the dissenting 5% could do about it.

~~~
dikaiosune
Sure, but the way that historically the 5% has grown to 50%+ has involved a
bunch of people willfully breaking laws. They can't just be static standards.
Society changes, and for the laws to reflect that there has to be some wiggle
room. If we just say "any time that 90% or more of society agrees on a law
_right now_ , it will be that way _forever_ ," we will stagnate.

------
RexRollman
To quote KRS-One (Boogie Down Productions):

"The police department is like a crew, it does whatever it wants to do."

~~~
kefs
_Take the word "overseer," like a sample_

 _Repeat it very quickly in a crew, for example_

 _Overseer, overseer, overseer, overseer_

 _Officer, officer, officer, officer_

 _Yeah, officer from overseer_

 _You need a little clarity, check the similarity_

[http://genius.com/Krs-one-sound-of-da-police-lyrics](http://genius.com/Krs-
one-sound-of-da-police-lyrics)

------
joesmo
Might as well make this bill of rights complete and add the right to murder
non-whites without consequences to it since that's already a given.

I will never understand how anyone can defend or support or even respect the
police in the US when they are nothing more than the most powerful, most
corrupt, most violent, and most murderous (we think since most figures are
suppressed) gang in the country. Fear, yes. It seems to me that at least in
other countries, people are less deluded about their police situation (which
is generally similar, though the details may be different).

What we need are _much higher_ standards for police conduct and independent
investigation and prosecutorial forces that are strictly separated from the
regular police force / prosecutors (and closely monitored for corruption) to
investigate police abuses. There will be _plenty_ of work for such full-time,
permanent positions in every single jurisdiction given the amount of
corruption and violence police cause. This idea that a police officer's
testimony is somehow impervious to scrutiny, so much so that it will be
accepted even when the judge knows the officer is lying needs to end.
Basically, we have set up a huge, elitist "society" of cops, prosecutors,
judges, and the rich people who support them who are beyond the law, not to
mention justice. Of course we then get pissed off when these people talk about
justice and even more so when they are either acquitted or not even charged
with the serious crimes they commit, up to and including murder. Atrocious
indeed.

Fixing this situation seems rather tricky since the layperson only has the
power to vote and there are no candidates who are willing to address this
problem at any level. Fixing other laws that criminalize everyday activity,
while incredibly difficult, seems to be the only way to try to go about at
least reducing the ability of police to insert themselves into everyday
situations they have no business inserting themselves in the first place.
Still, at best, it's a workaround to reduce abuse, not one to actually
eliminate it or deal out justice after the fact. In the case of police, the
criminals (police) always get away with it.

------
ZanyProgrammer
Everything he said is true, now what are we going to do about it?

~~~
virtuabhi
Nothing. In US, people have "too much" respect for military and police. This
respect has turned into an almost fanatical devotion. Say anything against
these professionals and you will be branded as anti-national. Even the
President cannot criticize the police. Unless US citizens realize that
policemen are just professionals performing their jobs and not selfless
angels, the police in US will always stay above the law.

~~~
mikeash
Your statement doesn't sound familiar to me. It does seem to be true for the
military, which enjoys pretty much universal devotion from all. I think it's
because we've finally figured out how to disentangle being pro-war from being
pro-soldier, so that both warmongers and peaceniks can embrace members of the
military. But I don't see anything remotely like it for the police. Respect is
common, but far from universal. Where it exists, it tends to be mild.

~~~
jonlucc
I'd like to live where you live and have your acquaintances. I live in the
midwest and the adoration of police is ever so slightly lower than that for
the military.

~~~
mikeash
Interesting. DC area here, which might be it. I do have roots in the midwest
and it seems like nobody pays much mind to the police there. Maybe it's even
more specifically regional or maybe I just never noticed it.

~~~
ams6110
Yes, I think you will find the public perception of the police to be much
different in urban inner cities than in small midwestern towns.

~~~
mikeash
There's a lot more to the DC area than the inner city. I happen to live in the
suburbs.

------
gremlinsinc
How about we the people demand the same bill of rights as police. It's only
right and fair.

------
douche
I'm really waiting for some piece of white trash to get into one of these
COPS-style police brutality cases, just to see what the reaction would be.

My guess is, a whole lot of silence.

~~~
tzs
You don't have to guess. While unarmed blacks have been killed by police at a
disproportionate _rate_ , in absolute numbers more unarmed white people are
killed by police in the US.

These are indeed largely ignored outside of local news, after perhaps one or
two brief mentions nationally.

What seems to generally happen then is that they are investigated, and the
killing is found to be somewhere between clearly justified and criminal, so
there are no criminal charges but a good chance of a successful civil suit for
wrongful death. That will often get a brief mention in the national news.

Another large group of deaths that doesn't get a lot of attention, in either
the press or on the streets, are the ~20 mostly young blacks killed per day by
homicide. While some of these are due to criminal gangs attacking other
criminal gangs, many are innocent people killed by mistake. It's sad that they
are largely overlooked.

------
delinka
Perhaps we should become educated in how such protections are used locally and
insist on the same treatment when "interacting" with the cops.

------
paulhauggis
I find it odd that there is all these hate for cops (we can't trust them,
etc)..yet, allowing citizens to own guns for their own protection is frowned
upon by those same people.

~~~
ori_b
Well, the thing is that guns aren't a very effective means of protection --
especially not from cops, who have more guns, more manpower, and tend to frown
upon being shot at.

And considering that one of the few times I'd consider lethal force justified
would be when someone actually pulls a gun on a cop, that makes them
especially useless.

I mean, what scenarios do you see guns being a good solution for, compared to
nonlethal self defense tools like pepper spray?

~~~
wavefunction
I hate to say this, as someone who is pretty incensed by police brutality yet
also believes in the right to responsible gun ownership in the US, that it is
often better to kill an intruder to your house than wound or "incapacitate"
them, as there is a precedent of criminals who have invaded homes and been
wounded by the owners suing and winning financial judgements against the
owners of the property.

~~~
izacus
You know what's even better (and for example, what local law here demands you
to do)? Not HURTING anyone. It's just a damn TV.

~~~
hga
I find it strange how you can know ahead of time the intentions and potentials
of home invaders. What I call "strong Castle Doctrine" laws, in effect in many
states, allow residents to use lethal force without warning, let along
divining the intent of an intruder, because it can be presupposed in the US
that someone invading an occupied dwelling is willing to kill anyone he come
across, which happens all too often.

~~~
Retra
I take it you've never heard of selection bias?

~~~
hga
Could you sketch out how you think it's relevant?

~~~
Retra
The phrase "someone invading an occupied dwelling is willing to kill anyone he
come across, which happens all too often," seems to be ignoring the cases when
it doesn't happen, or when someone dies when they were in fact unwilling will
kill anyone.

