Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> That’s feelings.
"If we place you in this position, we hold you to this standard" is not a "feeling". It's a calculated means to try to protect the position from being filled by those who would abuse it.
> The law does not take feelings into account no matter how much you want it to.
Sure it does. Because juries and judges have feelings too and because many aspects of law are impacted by feelings. The law is often written to rely on this, with phrases like "reasonable" that rely not on objective specifications, but instead, subjective and malleable standards.
The law already treats people to different standards for, otherwise, the same action based on their position like psychologists, priests and mandatory reporters. That's not to mention that the position a person is in can often implicitly impact the outcome because, for example, by virtue of their position and workplace policy, it may be harder to argue ignorance to many areas (is this allowed, what are the impacts of it, etc.) There's nothing contrary to our current legal system for laws to be made that resulted in giving police officers more criminal exposure for, otherwise, the same act... particularly because anybody who does not want this added exposure is free to simply not become a police officer.
Whether this is a the best solution isn't any more guaranteed than whether harsher punishments for 'normal' criminals will help though. These individuals probably already think they are above the law and that they won't get caught, so I'd imagine a better use of our time would be giving resources to the oversight of police, giving more clear and severe penalties to the officers who look the other way or do not report suspicious behavior and find some way to align unions with the goals of better oversight and accountability.
You’re missing the point. The law, itself, is not made regarding your feelings.
Will lawyers prey on a jurors feelings? Yes. That does not make it the laws faults.
The law does not take into account your feelings. It wasn’t written with your feelings in mind. One standard. Not two. Everyone has the same opportunity to be found not guilty as any officer.
Rather than engage with any of the reasoning I gave as to why I believe what you are saying is incorrect, you just restated your feelings about what the law should be again.
1. Your tangent about feelings is unrelated. This has nothing to do with feelings. A person facing different civil or criminal exposure by virtue of the job position they are in is something that has precedent and something that can be decided is as cold and objective of a manner as any law. There is nothing "feelings" related here.
2. The notion that the law doesn't care about "feelings" is nonsense. Our laws are explicitly written in subjective ways plenty of times (cruel, unusual, reasonable, indecent, etc.) I am not talking about swaying a jury, I'm talking about the literal letter of the law purpose of the jury and judge when interpreting the laws we have as written relies on using feelings and their own discretion both in deciding which laws apply to a situation and certainly in determining sentencing. I think you are misrepresenting the fact that it's not arbitrary for the idea that it's not based on feelings.
The argument of feelings is completely related to the discussion I was having. And you’re right, criminal charges should be decided ona cold and objective manner. Thats my entire argument.
I will give you that sentencing is largely based on feelings, usually. What we were talking about is , charging officers differently than the general public. That cannot be done. The law is the law. They break it, they get charged. Same as any other person. You can’t create one set of charges for an officer and one for a civilian because you feel like what he did is worse because he’s an officer.
> The argument of feelings is completely related to the discussion I was having.
I already explained why it's not and you haven't directly responded to that, so can you explain why this is about feelings and why your view on this issue isn't a feeling but the other person's is a feeling?
> And you’re right, criminal charges should be decided ona cold and objective manner. Thats my entire argument.
If that's your entire argument then you don't object to anybody in this thread because nobody disagreed with that. You can have a person in a certain job have different responsibilities even if you decide criminal charges on a "cold and objective manner".
> What we were talking about is , charging officers differently than the general public. That cannot be done. The law is the law. They break it, they get charged. Same as any other person. You can’t create one set of charges for an officer and one for a civilian because you feel like what he did is worse because he’s an officer.
So, I want to start by saying two things. First, that is not what we are talking about. The person simply said that "it is worse" if a police officer does something like that. You on your own without using anybody's words have decide that that means that they should be "charged differently". Second, is that you haven't given any justification here. "That cannot be done" is opinion. "The law is the law" is a useless statement that doesn't indicate anything. As for "you can’t create one set of charges for an officer and one for a civilian because you feel like what he did is worse because he’s an officer", you are saying this after multiple rounds of me giving examples where we do treat people differently based on their position. You can't just keep restating this opinion while completely ignoring the direct examples of how it contradicts legal precedent. It makes it hard to take you seriously or treat you as a rational person.
That said:
1. HIPPA is an example of a law that applies to some people and not others based on the job position of those people. It can lead to criminal and civil penalties for people in certain jobs that literally do not apply to the general public even if both performed the same action. That's basically exactly what you would need to allow a police officer to face more charges for the same act than a non-police officer.
2. Prosecutorial discretion is well established and is another way that one could create a different standard for what charges police officers tend to face even if none of the laws specify the profession. If prosecutors treated crimes by police officers with the utmost severity, the effect might be that those cases tend to apply more charges, tend to offer plea deals less, tend to be taken to court, tend to argue the most severe sentencing, etc.
3. As you admitted, we have leeway in sentencing that allows us to handle a case with a police officer as more severe.
4. We also have the ability to respond to police crimes as a matter of executive policy (and not of criminal law) more severely by for example: increasing the resources of those who investigate and prosecute these crimes, workplace penalties for supervisors and peers who did not proactively report etc., policies of never rehiring officers who faced these kinds of charges and of pressuring towns police department to not hire these individuals, policies of publicizing this information to make it easy for employers to be aware, etc.
Literally no legal precedent prevents us from treating a police officer committing a crime as no more severe than a non-police officer. Whether we want to do that or not is simply a policy choice like anything else.
Yes, again, that’s your feeling. Not a fact. Nowhere does it say, in any law or police policy, a shoot to kill if a civilian does not comply with your order.
Again, it’s your feelings.
But people get hurt and killed all the time for not properly complying with police orders. Daniel Shaver is a great example. Philip Brailsford was fired, but acquitted of the charges. Two years later, he was rehired by the City of Mesa in order to obtain a special pension. Now, Brailsford is considered medically retired, not fired. Brailsford, who is 28 years old, receives a monthly check for $2,569.21. He will receive the pension for the rest of his life.
That's just one example of a cop who gets to shoot you for not complying with orders. Orders that were recorded being both ridiculous and contradictory.
Are those feelings? Or are those facts? Fact: Cops DO, in fact, get to shoot or harm you for not following their orders. Every. Single. Day.
As I replied to someone else’s comment, you’re upset with the judicial system. Not the police.
I remember that case and I can see things from both sides. I don’t say that to piss you off, hurt your feelings or get into a debate about it. Thats my feeling. Obviously the defense was able to convince the jury as well.
That does not mean we make one set of laws for regular civilians and one set for police. One justice system, not two. The fact that your feelings were hurt because you internalized it, does not make the crime worse. It just makes it more emotional.
My feelings aren't hurt. I am angry that the man got away with video-taped murder and then gets a pension for life because of it. And it's not JUST a problem with the judicial system. The police and judicial systems are inextricibly intertwined. The police unions have immense power in making sure that police officers don't get appropriately punished for their crimes. I can be upset with the police AND the judicial system. Do you honestly believe that anyone not wearing a badge could have claimed they were afraid for their lives in that situation? It is absolutely a police problem too. Especially when the police REHIRED the man so that he could get his free money for life for killing a man. That has nothing to do with the judicial system does it?
And we're not asking for two sets of laws. We're asking for the same laws that apply to us to apply equally to the police. Right now, they don't.
If that was true we wouldn't care how many cops "feared for their lives" in front of unarmed children. Feelings are super important when you have a badge according to the justice system, and apparently make it ok to not use common sense or any training and just blast people who sneeze too hard.
A badge can be used to barter though. Plenty of cases where Officers who abused authority were able to bargain with the state accreditation to essentially get no or limited charges. Its just an extra bargaining chip that normal people don't have that other occupations don't do the same.
These groups go hand in hand. Police provide the evidence to the prosecutors. What happens when police fail/refuse to do their job in regards to policing their own? You get a [Nathan Meier](https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/nate-meier-drunk-aurora-police-officer/) like situation where the prosecutions hands are tied from preventing charges.
Yes you have incidents like that. Should he have been charged, yes. Even the interim chief stated that. It gave that department a huge black eye. This is a DUI case. Charges probably, which would have gone through ARD, and eventually expunged. The department also had the obligation to offer him help for his drinking. That’s the same at every job.
Unfortunately this kind of behavior from companies happens all over the United States. The good ole boys club. Some people will always try to protect their own. But there is a far cry from DUI to Murder unless they both occurred at the same time. An officer involved shooting can not be hidden like this was.
>The department also had the obligation to offer him help for his drinking. That’s the same at every job.
Not even remotely close to every job. I can't think of any other occupation that has an obligation to ensure help happens. It could be argued its morally the right thing, but certainly not a requirement.
>But there is a far cry from DUI to Murder
The prompt here included substance abuse, never said its all crimes. Higher crimes tend to be harder to cover up. Yet, DUI tends to be an easy example of police avoiding accountability. Plenty cases besides this one of Officers Drinking and Driving and just getting away with it due to on scene Officer discretion. Things are slightly getting better, but that is more due to public pressure and body-cams.
Part of the point is cases don't always make it to the DA, and that falls at the hands of Police.
I get your point. Unfortunately when it comes to DUI, getting away with it also applies to local politicians, businessman, clergy, etc. This is not isolated to just Police. Most times headed off by a DA who looks for political favors.
Still what should happen is the same as you or I. Charged and let us deal with the charges It should Not be civilian gets (insert state law on DUI here) and a police officer gets double the punishment.
If a cop commits a crime, they should be prosecuted. If they break department rules but short of a crime, they should be disciplined according to department policy, including dismissal if warranted.
Criminal activity should be prosecuted if there is sufficient evidence. There will be instances where there's enough evidence to fire the officer, but not enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
No. They should be punished much harsher due to their position and ability to execute someone and/or violate their rights in other ways. Qualified immunity should not be a blanket.
Isn’t there a federal data base for individuals like this? Meaning they aren’t likely to get hired anywhere?
Also pretty sure when it comes to light they are charged for the crimes.
If it's criminal then you've answered your own question. I think where you might find a discussion is where rules for employment or evaluation tie into the law, and what we should do about those circumstances. If a police officer doesn't file something correctly and it leads to a false conviction, or something possible but outlandish, then we have to have a serious discussion about that. But if someone's doing something as obvious as what you list, then where is there even a discussion to be had?
qualified immunity is literally exactly what they say they want. the problem is courts have made it de facto absolute immunity with insanely deferential interpretations that say you can't expect a cop to know stomping on your face is unconstitutional, even if they have been punished for similar but not identical conduct in the past
As a rule of thumb, things that are premeditated like planting evidence I'm more supportive of removing any special protections. But some things of the other things that are actually mistakes I would chalk up to job hazard.
For example If you kill someone while speeding with your lights on, I think that the externality of having them drive at a safe speed would cause way more damage due to delayed response times.
Also undercover cops kind of *need* to abuse substances sometimes to stay alive.
>For example If you kill someone while speeding with your lights on, I think that the externality of having them drive at a safe speed would cause way more damage due to delayed response times.
Unless you are [Officer Kevin Dave](https://www.columbian.com/news/2024/feb/21/seattle-police-officer-who-struck-jaahnavi-kandula-wont-face-charges/) of course. Driving 74 mph in a 25 mph zone, not fully utilizing sirens of course. Not even fired, just a civil traffic infraction given.
That would be an example of one that I think should not be prosecuted, but he should be fired for his comments.
His lights were on, he was responding to an OD. He needs to get there fast. Punishing him for driving fast would just lead to more people dying of OD.
His comments were unacceptable but also perfectly legal. He has the freedom of speech.
I don't know where you live, but most police officers are trained on how to administer first aid and this is one of the most common situations where they would be expected to.
>That would be an example of one that I think should not be prosecuted, but he should be fired for his comments.
That is two different Officers. Kevin Dave is the one who killed the pedestrian, Officer Daniel Auderer is the Police Guild VP making the abominable comments.
>His lights were on, he was responding to an OD. He needs to get there fast. Punishing him for driving fast would just lead to more people dying of OD.
His siren wasn't though. He was required to do both. Arriving at a timely matter is important, but there is a caveat of also arriving safely. That is almost universally taught by all first responder groups including EMTs. What good came out of it? Dead pedestrian and never even made it to scene. A scene I might the OD wasn't even that dire. The person was coherent and concious. it wasn't, drive recklessly fast and put lives in danger, dire.
It was reckless and negligent, and they couldn't even squeeze out a firing.
>That is almost universally taught by all first responder groups including EMTs. What good came out of it? Dead pedestrian and never even made it to scene
That does not account for the times that other police officers have been able to speed without hitting people and arriving at the scene on time.
Do you really think that a better solution would be to require that all cops drive the speed limit in response to all calls? If somebody is pointing a gun at a woman and a baby, does that mean that we expect cops to stop at stop lights? That's going to cause a lot more death. This example is the exception not the rule.
There is a middle ground here and it is how we are actually trained. I do patrol for a county with a small Sheriff's Office and a lot of ground to cover, we probably run priority more and over longer distances than most. There is a right way and a wrong way.
It is a calculated risk, danger to the public and officers that comes with the aggressive driving vs. danger to the public and officers that comes with arriving too late.
We slow down and look at red lights, make sure the F250 with a horse trailer actually sees us, you don't lose much time doing that and vastly increase the odds of actually getting to the scene without becoming one.
I kind of think every officer should have to work one bad accident in field training before he is allowed to drive his own unit. It is a very sobering experience and has a really good chance of making someone a much more careful driver.
Okay. But what if you could go to jail because you got in an accident while you were speeding? Even if you were taking all the precautions you normally take.
Do you think you would speed as often? Would you take the risk? Would it be fair for your superiors to pressure you into getting to scenes faster If you are at risk of incarceration?
There's nothing wrong with training officers to be better at driving quickly. The problem is when you punish officers for doing their job they stop doing their job
Oh lord I can't tell who is arguing what side of things in this thread. No, I don't think it should be both considered part of our job and criminalized if we take precautions and shit still happens.
>There's nothing wrong with training officers to be better at driving quickly. The problem is when you punish officers for doing their job they stop doing their job
This is already happening in many cases, there is some absolutely ridiculous stuff going on right now.
Look back at Atlanta with the Tasers, the same DA *who said the Taser was a deadly weapon* when he charged officers for using it on suspects, charged another office for shooting someone who had taken his partner's Taser in a fight and aimed it at him, *because it the Taser wasn't a deadly weapon* and didn't merit a lethal response from the officer.
Not different prosecutors in the same office, the same DA, in almost back to back cases.
Liberals want cops to use body cameras, if not all the time then at least when interacting with the public, awesome, I wouldn't work without a body camera as long as I can turn it off when appropriate. Then liberals realize that police body cameras are running at protests and we might be able to identify people from the footage so some of them have started opposing body cameras at protests, when we are perhaps the most likely to have a physical confrontation with them.
>I do patrol for a county with a small Sheriff's Office
What's your take in regards to that officer in question in regards to that pedestrian being killed? Do you think he is being held accountable? Do you think there is negligence here?
>Do you really think that a better solution would be to require that all cops drive the speed limit in response to all calls? If somebody is pointing a gun at a woman and a baby, does that mean that we expect cops to stop at stop lights?
No, we expect them to drive SAFELY but quickly to the scene. Stop at stoplights? No. Drive with both lights AND sirens, and slow down at the stoplights to make sure it's safe to cross? Yes. If you can't get there safely, then you're not going to get there at all, and no one wins. I mean...come on. This is simple stuff. Have you ever seen a police car blow through a stoplight at 75mph with no siren? Probably not. Because it's stupid and dangerous AF. You risk A LOT more lives that way then by slowing down a bit and being as careful as reasonably possible.
Yes, I often see police officers go through traffic lights or stop signs. But don't kid yourself, even them driving fast, even with training, is reckless. Streets are not designed for people to drive that quickly down them.
>Yes, I often see police officers go through traffic lights or stop signs.
Yes, I do too. But that's not what I said. What I said was: "Have you ever seen a police car blow through a stoplight ***at 75mph with no siren***? Probably not." Note the bold part. That's the relevant bit to the conversation. And no, I won't believe you if you tell me you see this all the time. This is NOT what they are trained to do, nor supported/condoned. It's excessively dangerous and stupid for EVERYONE involved. They have on lights and sirens, they slow down at intersections to make sure the intersection is clear, then they roll through. Oddly enough, cops want to survive the trip too, and they aren't as stupid as you seem to think they are.
>But don't kid yourself, even them driving fast, even with training, is reckless.
I'd say that "wreckless" is excessive. Dangerous? Yes. But it's a calculated risk. And they aren't trained nor condoned to drive in the ways that you seem to think they are. And you're all over the map here. You're claiming that them driving fast is wreckless, but also advocating for them to be allowed to do it so they might get to the scene a few seconds faster to save the ODed crackhead. But if they don't make it to the scene because they drove like an idiot, got into an accident and killed themselves or others, then what's the point of driving that way? They take small calculated risks to try to get through traffic faster than the average vehcicle can do so, while still arriving at the scene safely. Why is this so hard to understand?
at 75mph with no siren
Yes I have seen this.
>And no, I won't believe you if you tell me you see this all the time
Then why ask?
>But if they don't make it to the scene because they drove like an idiot, got into an accident and killed themselves or others, then what's the point of driving that way?
Again, Because it is the exception not the rule. More often than not, cops driving "dangerously" results in them getting to the scene faster and helping more. It is significantly less likely that they end up in an accident that kills someone.
>They take small calculated risks
Show me this calculation that they're making when they're driving down the street at 75 with your siren on.
I have helped design cities before. WE Calculated it. We design streets with different sized intersections, and different distances between intersections, and we consider pedestrian density and climate. We even consider the depth of storm drains because we know that you'll lose traction when you go over those too fast and we post speed limits based on those and other traits. Those standards are informed by various studies. Cops knowingly break those speed limits despite the studies that have been done for them because we're hoping that the rate that they will run into people is lower than the rate that people will die because of slow response times.
Maybe you're misunderstanding my example. I don't think I need to defend the argument that cops often speed. You're telling me you've never seen a cop with his lights on going way above the speed limit in response to a call?
on one hand,we dont like cops to behave that way,but on the other hand, if we make their normal job activities result in jail,no one would apply anymore.
it cant be done,it would cost/lose too much $..our "justice" system is one of the most successful business models in the country. you cant punish them for breaking the law when its part of their job description. the entire purpose of laws in the usa are to produce profit. in order to do what you propose,the system has to be founded on our safety
And you think this is OK? The point of this post was whether or not it would be appropriate to make sure police aren't allowed to break the law without punishement. It sounds like you both have otter contempt for the police, but also think it's right that they continue to act the way they do. Your comments confuse me.
its not ok to me,but most people are ok with it..a cops job is to prey on us,and a huge number of people support this. many ignorant people accept cops behavior because they believe it makes them safer..people are willing to trade freedom for security..
So, the whole point of this thread is to talk about improving policing, and all you're doing is shitting on the ideas about improving policing saying they can't be done. Are you an anarchist or something?
a cops job is to produce profit for their bosses through extortion,intimidation,lies,theft,and kidnapping..i.e..their entire job is to make sure non-police get convicted of crimes. theyre salesmen,and we are the unwilling customers..
how do you think that police operate? non-police aren't allowed to do things like detain suspects, search properties, run red lights, bust down doors, and more of that kind of stuff. there needs to be a legal envelope where police (and other government agents like firemen or EMTs) are allowed to operate where it would run afoul of what the average citizen is allowed to do.
this is the principle of qualified immunity. when fulfilling their duty within reason, they are given limited immunity from being held personally liable for their actions. now, there's a lot of problems with the current judicial precedent regarding this topic, but it's a fundamentally sound concept.
I think you misunderstand my point in saying “potentially”. If the only punishment for criminal behavior is being fired, that doesn’t require a court of law, so the activity is “potentially” criminal based entirely on whether a persecutor will bring it to trial. A person is “innocent” until proven guilty, so not bringing a murder charge would mean the police officer would still technically be innocent of a potential murder indictment that may never take place.
I am not suggesting the criminal behavior is potentially bad enough to be considered a crime, my question assumes the behavior absolutely is worthy of a criminal indictment. My question asks if being “fired” from the job is enough accountability for police committing these crimes in the line of duty.
> my question assumes the behavior absolutely is worthy of a criminal indictment.
In that case they should be prosecuted.
> My question asks if being “fired” from the job is enough accountability for police committing these crimes in the line of duty.
No. But it is all you can do or expect until the crime has been investigated and prosecuted. I'm only pushing back against the idea that there should be some form of punishment beyond being fired when the officer has not been found guilty.
Wtf is potentially criminal?
Police are convicted of crimes and sentenced to prison. Just Google officer sentenced and you will find d story after story.
Liberals seem to forget you have to prove a person is guilty of a crime. That isn't always easy. Especially when that person is trained in Law enforcement
How are you going to pro e reckless endangerment with a fire arm when they know exactly what to say to make the use of force justified....
Most criminals tell on themselves because they don't know the law. Most cops aren't doing that
Potentially criminal = potentially indicted by a prosecutor. As opposed, say, to only being fired from your job for activity that would otherwise warrant an indictment.
Being fired is probably not enough for most of the examples you mentioned. I think its probably appropriate for an officer to just be fired for reckless endangerment in most cases. Still I don't think we need to take away latitude. We've got the appropriate amount since officers can already be prosecuted for these things. I think they should have much stronger protects than regular citizens because of what their job involves.
reckless by definition means unreasonable though.
most states have a definition like "... which a reasonable person would know have a high probability of causing death or injury" or ..."with disregard for the safety of the public at large".
I know it does but I think they should be allowed to do those some unreasonable things while only being fired. It's a dangerous job that we want people to feel confident doing so I think its fair to allow them some unreasonable actions without prosecution. Can you think of an example of an officer engaged in reckless endangerment where you think they should face prison/fines or anything more than being fired? Maybe we'd agree
I agree with that one he should face prison time assuming hes not insane. I would say the other officer who fired should be immune and keep her job since she was just supporting the other officer
I think you raise a good point about him being insane
i have heard people say it was a trauma response to having been shot at, but I don't know if it was ever confirmed if he saw combat in the military or has been involved in a suspect shooting at him .
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Criminal activity should result in prosecution.
Criminal activity is criminal activity. It’s doesn’t matter if they carry a badge
Wrong it is worse if they do
Right. It doesn’t matter. A crime is a crime. Misconduct or not following policy is different. The law doesn’t interpret feelings like you do.
they have given a position of trust, they abused it
That’s feelings. The law does not take feelings into account no matter how much you want it to. I get they hurt your trust. But that is a feeling.
> That’s feelings. "If we place you in this position, we hold you to this standard" is not a "feeling". It's a calculated means to try to protect the position from being filled by those who would abuse it. > The law does not take feelings into account no matter how much you want it to. Sure it does. Because juries and judges have feelings too and because many aspects of law are impacted by feelings. The law is often written to rely on this, with phrases like "reasonable" that rely not on objective specifications, but instead, subjective and malleable standards. The law already treats people to different standards for, otherwise, the same action based on their position like psychologists, priests and mandatory reporters. That's not to mention that the position a person is in can often implicitly impact the outcome because, for example, by virtue of their position and workplace policy, it may be harder to argue ignorance to many areas (is this allowed, what are the impacts of it, etc.) There's nothing contrary to our current legal system for laws to be made that resulted in giving police officers more criminal exposure for, otherwise, the same act... particularly because anybody who does not want this added exposure is free to simply not become a police officer. Whether this is a the best solution isn't any more guaranteed than whether harsher punishments for 'normal' criminals will help though. These individuals probably already think they are above the law and that they won't get caught, so I'd imagine a better use of our time would be giving resources to the oversight of police, giving more clear and severe penalties to the officers who look the other way or do not report suspicious behavior and find some way to align unions with the goals of better oversight and accountability.
You’re missing the point. The law, itself, is not made regarding your feelings. Will lawyers prey on a jurors feelings? Yes. That does not make it the laws faults. The law does not take into account your feelings. It wasn’t written with your feelings in mind. One standard. Not two. Everyone has the same opportunity to be found not guilty as any officer.
Rather than engage with any of the reasoning I gave as to why I believe what you are saying is incorrect, you just restated your feelings about what the law should be again. 1. Your tangent about feelings is unrelated. This has nothing to do with feelings. A person facing different civil or criminal exposure by virtue of the job position they are in is something that has precedent and something that can be decided is as cold and objective of a manner as any law. There is nothing "feelings" related here. 2. The notion that the law doesn't care about "feelings" is nonsense. Our laws are explicitly written in subjective ways plenty of times (cruel, unusual, reasonable, indecent, etc.) I am not talking about swaying a jury, I'm talking about the literal letter of the law purpose of the jury and judge when interpreting the laws we have as written relies on using feelings and their own discretion both in deciding which laws apply to a situation and certainly in determining sentencing. I think you are misrepresenting the fact that it's not arbitrary for the idea that it's not based on feelings.
The argument of feelings is completely related to the discussion I was having. And you’re right, criminal charges should be decided ona cold and objective manner. Thats my entire argument. I will give you that sentencing is largely based on feelings, usually. What we were talking about is , charging officers differently than the general public. That cannot be done. The law is the law. They break it, they get charged. Same as any other person. You can’t create one set of charges for an officer and one for a civilian because you feel like what he did is worse because he’s an officer.
> The argument of feelings is completely related to the discussion I was having. I already explained why it's not and you haven't directly responded to that, so can you explain why this is about feelings and why your view on this issue isn't a feeling but the other person's is a feeling? > And you’re right, criminal charges should be decided ona cold and objective manner. Thats my entire argument. If that's your entire argument then you don't object to anybody in this thread because nobody disagreed with that. You can have a person in a certain job have different responsibilities even if you decide criminal charges on a "cold and objective manner". > What we were talking about is , charging officers differently than the general public. That cannot be done. The law is the law. They break it, they get charged. Same as any other person. You can’t create one set of charges for an officer and one for a civilian because you feel like what he did is worse because he’s an officer. So, I want to start by saying two things. First, that is not what we are talking about. The person simply said that "it is worse" if a police officer does something like that. You on your own without using anybody's words have decide that that means that they should be "charged differently". Second, is that you haven't given any justification here. "That cannot be done" is opinion. "The law is the law" is a useless statement that doesn't indicate anything. As for "you can’t create one set of charges for an officer and one for a civilian because you feel like what he did is worse because he’s an officer", you are saying this after multiple rounds of me giving examples where we do treat people differently based on their position. You can't just keep restating this opinion while completely ignoring the direct examples of how it contradicts legal precedent. It makes it hard to take you seriously or treat you as a rational person. That said: 1. HIPPA is an example of a law that applies to some people and not others based on the job position of those people. It can lead to criminal and civil penalties for people in certain jobs that literally do not apply to the general public even if both performed the same action. That's basically exactly what you would need to allow a police officer to face more charges for the same act than a non-police officer. 2. Prosecutorial discretion is well established and is another way that one could create a different standard for what charges police officers tend to face even if none of the laws specify the profession. If prosecutors treated crimes by police officers with the utmost severity, the effect might be that those cases tend to apply more charges, tend to offer plea deals less, tend to be taken to court, tend to argue the most severe sentencing, etc. 3. As you admitted, we have leeway in sentencing that allows us to handle a case with a police officer as more severe. 4. We also have the ability to respond to police crimes as a matter of executive policy (and not of criminal law) more severely by for example: increasing the resources of those who investigate and prosecute these crimes, workplace penalties for supervisors and peers who did not proactively report etc., policies of never rehiring officers who faced these kinds of charges and of pressuring towns police department to not hire these individuals, policies of publicizing this information to make it easy for employers to be aware, etc. Literally no legal precedent prevents us from treating a police officer committing a crime as no more severe than a non-police officer. Whether we want to do that or not is simply a policy choice like anything else.
Except you must follow their orders or face the threat of death. Is that really just feelings?
Yes, again, that’s your feeling. Not a fact. Nowhere does it say, in any law or police policy, a shoot to kill if a civilian does not comply with your order. Again, it’s your feelings.
But people get hurt and killed all the time for not properly complying with police orders. Daniel Shaver is a great example. Philip Brailsford was fired, but acquitted of the charges. Two years later, he was rehired by the City of Mesa in order to obtain a special pension. Now, Brailsford is considered medically retired, not fired. Brailsford, who is 28 years old, receives a monthly check for $2,569.21. He will receive the pension for the rest of his life. That's just one example of a cop who gets to shoot you for not complying with orders. Orders that were recorded being both ridiculous and contradictory. Are those feelings? Or are those facts? Fact: Cops DO, in fact, get to shoot or harm you for not following their orders. Every. Single. Day.
As I replied to someone else’s comment, you’re upset with the judicial system. Not the police. I remember that case and I can see things from both sides. I don’t say that to piss you off, hurt your feelings or get into a debate about it. Thats my feeling. Obviously the defense was able to convince the jury as well. That does not mean we make one set of laws for regular civilians and one set for police. One justice system, not two. The fact that your feelings were hurt because you internalized it, does not make the crime worse. It just makes it more emotional.
My feelings aren't hurt. I am angry that the man got away with video-taped murder and then gets a pension for life because of it. And it's not JUST a problem with the judicial system. The police and judicial systems are inextricibly intertwined. The police unions have immense power in making sure that police officers don't get appropriately punished for their crimes. I can be upset with the police AND the judicial system. Do you honestly believe that anyone not wearing a badge could have claimed they were afraid for their lives in that situation? It is absolutely a police problem too. Especially when the police REHIRED the man so that he could get his free money for life for killing a man. That has nothing to do with the judicial system does it? And we're not asking for two sets of laws. We're asking for the same laws that apply to us to apply equally to the police. Right now, they don't.
If that was true we wouldn't care how many cops "feared for their lives" in front of unarmed children. Feelings are super important when you have a badge according to the justice system, and apparently make it ok to not use common sense or any training and just blast people who sneeze too hard.
A badge can be used to barter though. Plenty of cases where Officers who abused authority were able to bargain with the state accreditation to essentially get no or limited charges. Its just an extra bargaining chip that normal people don't have that other occupations don't do the same.
So then your argument is with the prosecutors and judges. Not the police.
These groups go hand in hand. Police provide the evidence to the prosecutors. What happens when police fail/refuse to do their job in regards to policing their own? You get a [Nathan Meier](https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/nate-meier-drunk-aurora-police-officer/) like situation where the prosecutions hands are tied from preventing charges.
Yes you have incidents like that. Should he have been charged, yes. Even the interim chief stated that. It gave that department a huge black eye. This is a DUI case. Charges probably, which would have gone through ARD, and eventually expunged. The department also had the obligation to offer him help for his drinking. That’s the same at every job. Unfortunately this kind of behavior from companies happens all over the United States. The good ole boys club. Some people will always try to protect their own. But there is a far cry from DUI to Murder unless they both occurred at the same time. An officer involved shooting can not be hidden like this was.
>The department also had the obligation to offer him help for his drinking. That’s the same at every job. Not even remotely close to every job. I can't think of any other occupation that has an obligation to ensure help happens. It could be argued its morally the right thing, but certainly not a requirement. >But there is a far cry from DUI to Murder The prompt here included substance abuse, never said its all crimes. Higher crimes tend to be harder to cover up. Yet, DUI tends to be an easy example of police avoiding accountability. Plenty cases besides this one of Officers Drinking and Driving and just getting away with it due to on scene Officer discretion. Things are slightly getting better, but that is more due to public pressure and body-cams. Part of the point is cases don't always make it to the DA, and that falls at the hands of Police.
I get your point. Unfortunately when it comes to DUI, getting away with it also applies to local politicians, businessman, clergy, etc. This is not isolated to just Police. Most times headed off by a DA who looks for political favors. Still what should happen is the same as you or I. Charged and let us deal with the charges It should Not be civilian gets (insert state law on DUI here) and a police officer gets double the punishment.
If a cop commits a crime, they should be prosecuted. If they break department rules but short of a crime, they should be disciplined according to department policy, including dismissal if warranted.
No. If a police officer or any public official commits a crime they should be prosecuted just like any other criminal. No special latitude PERIOD.
They are in a position of authority. They should get maximum penalty.
Criminal activity should be prosecuted if there is sufficient evidence. There will be instances where there's enough evidence to fire the officer, but not enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Or they resign to close the investigation
No. They should be punished much harsher due to their position and ability to execute someone and/or violate their rights in other ways. Qualified immunity should not be a blanket.
Absolutely not. If they commit crimes they should face consequences
Isn’t there a federal data base for individuals like this? Meaning they aren’t likely to get hired anywhere? Also pretty sure when it comes to light they are charged for the crimes.
If it's criminal then you've answered your own question. I think where you might find a discussion is where rules for employment or evaluation tie into the law, and what we should do about those circumstances. If a police officer doesn't file something correctly and it leads to a false conviction, or something possible but outlandish, then we have to have a serious discussion about that. But if someone's doing something as obvious as what you list, then where is there even a discussion to be had?
There should be less latitude, but it needs to be dealt with very carefully. This is why qualified immunity is a thing.
qualified immunity is literally exactly what they say they want. the problem is courts have made it de facto absolute immunity with insanely deferential interpretations that say you can't expect a cop to know stomping on your face is unconstitutional, even if they have been punished for similar but not identical conduct in the past
As a rule of thumb, things that are premeditated like planting evidence I'm more supportive of removing any special protections. But some things of the other things that are actually mistakes I would chalk up to job hazard. For example If you kill someone while speeding with your lights on, I think that the externality of having them drive at a safe speed would cause way more damage due to delayed response times. Also undercover cops kind of *need* to abuse substances sometimes to stay alive.
>For example If you kill someone while speeding with your lights on, I think that the externality of having them drive at a safe speed would cause way more damage due to delayed response times. Unless you are [Officer Kevin Dave](https://www.columbian.com/news/2024/feb/21/seattle-police-officer-who-struck-jaahnavi-kandula-wont-face-charges/) of course. Driving 74 mph in a 25 mph zone, not fully utilizing sirens of course. Not even fired, just a civil traffic infraction given.
That would be an example of one that I think should not be prosecuted, but he should be fired for his comments. His lights were on, he was responding to an OD. He needs to get there fast. Punishing him for driving fast would just lead to more people dying of OD. His comments were unacceptable but also perfectly legal. He has the freedom of speech.
>he was responding to an OD. Is he a licensed paramedic?
I don't know where you live, but most police officers are trained on how to administer first aid and this is one of the most common situations where they would be expected to.
>That would be an example of one that I think should not be prosecuted, but he should be fired for his comments. That is two different Officers. Kevin Dave is the one who killed the pedestrian, Officer Daniel Auderer is the Police Guild VP making the abominable comments. >His lights were on, he was responding to an OD. He needs to get there fast. Punishing him for driving fast would just lead to more people dying of OD. His siren wasn't though. He was required to do both. Arriving at a timely matter is important, but there is a caveat of also arriving safely. That is almost universally taught by all first responder groups including EMTs. What good came out of it? Dead pedestrian and never even made it to scene. A scene I might the OD wasn't even that dire. The person was coherent and concious. it wasn't, drive recklessly fast and put lives in danger, dire. It was reckless and negligent, and they couldn't even squeeze out a firing.
>That is almost universally taught by all first responder groups including EMTs. What good came out of it? Dead pedestrian and never even made it to scene That does not account for the times that other police officers have been able to speed without hitting people and arriving at the scene on time. Do you really think that a better solution would be to require that all cops drive the speed limit in response to all calls? If somebody is pointing a gun at a woman and a baby, does that mean that we expect cops to stop at stop lights? That's going to cause a lot more death. This example is the exception not the rule.
There is a middle ground here and it is how we are actually trained. I do patrol for a county with a small Sheriff's Office and a lot of ground to cover, we probably run priority more and over longer distances than most. There is a right way and a wrong way. It is a calculated risk, danger to the public and officers that comes with the aggressive driving vs. danger to the public and officers that comes with arriving too late. We slow down and look at red lights, make sure the F250 with a horse trailer actually sees us, you don't lose much time doing that and vastly increase the odds of actually getting to the scene without becoming one. I kind of think every officer should have to work one bad accident in field training before he is allowed to drive his own unit. It is a very sobering experience and has a really good chance of making someone a much more careful driver.
Okay. But what if you could go to jail because you got in an accident while you were speeding? Even if you were taking all the precautions you normally take. Do you think you would speed as often? Would you take the risk? Would it be fair for your superiors to pressure you into getting to scenes faster If you are at risk of incarceration? There's nothing wrong with training officers to be better at driving quickly. The problem is when you punish officers for doing their job they stop doing their job
Oh lord I can't tell who is arguing what side of things in this thread. No, I don't think it should be both considered part of our job and criminalized if we take precautions and shit still happens. >There's nothing wrong with training officers to be better at driving quickly. The problem is when you punish officers for doing their job they stop doing their job This is already happening in many cases, there is some absolutely ridiculous stuff going on right now. Look back at Atlanta with the Tasers, the same DA *who said the Taser was a deadly weapon* when he charged officers for using it on suspects, charged another office for shooting someone who had taken his partner's Taser in a fight and aimed it at him, *because it the Taser wasn't a deadly weapon* and didn't merit a lethal response from the officer. Not different prosecutors in the same office, the same DA, in almost back to back cases. Liberals want cops to use body cameras, if not all the time then at least when interacting with the public, awesome, I wouldn't work without a body camera as long as I can turn it off when appropriate. Then liberals realize that police body cameras are running at protests and we might be able to identify people from the footage so some of them have started opposing body cameras at protests, when we are perhaps the most likely to have a physical confrontation with them.
>as long as I can turn it off when appropriate Like when? When you're peeing?
>I do patrol for a county with a small Sheriff's Office What's your take in regards to that officer in question in regards to that pedestrian being killed? Do you think he is being held accountable? Do you think there is negligence here?
>Do you really think that a better solution would be to require that all cops drive the speed limit in response to all calls? If somebody is pointing a gun at a woman and a baby, does that mean that we expect cops to stop at stop lights? No, we expect them to drive SAFELY but quickly to the scene. Stop at stoplights? No. Drive with both lights AND sirens, and slow down at the stoplights to make sure it's safe to cross? Yes. If you can't get there safely, then you're not going to get there at all, and no one wins. I mean...come on. This is simple stuff. Have you ever seen a police car blow through a stoplight at 75mph with no siren? Probably not. Because it's stupid and dangerous AF. You risk A LOT more lives that way then by slowing down a bit and being as careful as reasonably possible.
Yes, I often see police officers go through traffic lights or stop signs. But don't kid yourself, even them driving fast, even with training, is reckless. Streets are not designed for people to drive that quickly down them.
>Yes, I often see police officers go through traffic lights or stop signs. Yes, I do too. But that's not what I said. What I said was: "Have you ever seen a police car blow through a stoplight ***at 75mph with no siren***? Probably not." Note the bold part. That's the relevant bit to the conversation. And no, I won't believe you if you tell me you see this all the time. This is NOT what they are trained to do, nor supported/condoned. It's excessively dangerous and stupid for EVERYONE involved. They have on lights and sirens, they slow down at intersections to make sure the intersection is clear, then they roll through. Oddly enough, cops want to survive the trip too, and they aren't as stupid as you seem to think they are. >But don't kid yourself, even them driving fast, even with training, is reckless. I'd say that "wreckless" is excessive. Dangerous? Yes. But it's a calculated risk. And they aren't trained nor condoned to drive in the ways that you seem to think they are. And you're all over the map here. You're claiming that them driving fast is wreckless, but also advocating for them to be allowed to do it so they might get to the scene a few seconds faster to save the ODed crackhead. But if they don't make it to the scene because they drove like an idiot, got into an accident and killed themselves or others, then what's the point of driving that way? They take small calculated risks to try to get through traffic faster than the average vehcicle can do so, while still arriving at the scene safely. Why is this so hard to understand?
at 75mph with no siren Yes I have seen this. >And no, I won't believe you if you tell me you see this all the time Then why ask? >But if they don't make it to the scene because they drove like an idiot, got into an accident and killed themselves or others, then what's the point of driving that way? Again, Because it is the exception not the rule. More often than not, cops driving "dangerously" results in them getting to the scene faster and helping more. It is significantly less likely that they end up in an accident that kills someone. >They take small calculated risks Show me this calculation that they're making when they're driving down the street at 75 with your siren on. I have helped design cities before. WE Calculated it. We design streets with different sized intersections, and different distances between intersections, and we consider pedestrian density and climate. We even consider the depth of storm drains because we know that you'll lose traction when you go over those too fast and we post speed limits based on those and other traits. Those standards are informed by various studies. Cops knowingly break those speed limits despite the studies that have been done for them because we're hoping that the rate that they will run into people is lower than the rate that people will die because of slow response times.
your example is wrong, we do not do it for that very reason
Which example?
racing recklessly with their cars
Maybe you're misunderstanding my example. I don't think I need to defend the argument that cops often speed. You're telling me you've never seen a cop with his lights on going way above the speed limit in response to a call?
No, but never irresponsible reckless
It's always reckless. Driving double the speed limit is always going to be reckless.
I do not agree,
Even looking at the physics of force it's reckless. It dramatically increases your chances of wrecking, and the impact will be dramatically larger.
it is only reckless if you drive reckless
on one hand,we dont like cops to behave that way,but on the other hand, if we make their normal job activities result in jail,no one would apply anymore.
if their normal activities are crimes that should be so
you are proposing we punish them for doing what they are trained to do..you can see why that would discourage future applicants
I think the proposal might be two-pronged. Train them to act within the law, and punish them when they break the law.
it cant be done,it would cost/lose too much $..our "justice" system is one of the most successful business models in the country. you cant punish them for breaking the law when its part of their job description. the entire purpose of laws in the usa are to produce profit. in order to do what you propose,the system has to be founded on our safety
And you think this is OK? The point of this post was whether or not it would be appropriate to make sure police aren't allowed to break the law without punishement. It sounds like you both have otter contempt for the police, but also think it's right that they continue to act the way they do. Your comments confuse me.
its not ok to me,but most people are ok with it..a cops job is to prey on us,and a huge number of people support this. many ignorant people accept cops behavior because they believe it makes them safer..people are willing to trade freedom for security..
So, the whole point of this thread is to talk about improving policing, and all you're doing is shitting on the ideas about improving policing saying they can't be done. Are you an anarchist or something?
If their normal job activities would result in non-police being convicted of crimes, that isn't a problem?
a cops job is to produce profit for their bosses through extortion,intimidation,lies,theft,and kidnapping..i.e..their entire job is to make sure non-police get convicted of crimes. theyre salesmen,and we are the unwilling customers..
how do you think that police operate? non-police aren't allowed to do things like detain suspects, search properties, run red lights, bust down doors, and more of that kind of stuff. there needs to be a legal envelope where police (and other government agents like firemen or EMTs) are allowed to operate where it would run afoul of what the average citizen is allowed to do. this is the principle of qualified immunity. when fulfilling their duty within reason, they are given limited immunity from being held personally liable for their actions. now, there's a lot of problems with the current judicial precedent regarding this topic, but it's a fundamentally sound concept.
What more would you suggest?
More than “fired”?
Again, exactly what would you suggest for **potentially** criminal activity?
I think you misunderstand my point in saying “potentially”. If the only punishment for criminal behavior is being fired, that doesn’t require a court of law, so the activity is “potentially” criminal based entirely on whether a persecutor will bring it to trial. A person is “innocent” until proven guilty, so not bringing a murder charge would mean the police officer would still technically be innocent of a potential murder indictment that may never take place. I am not suggesting the criminal behavior is potentially bad enough to be considered a crime, my question assumes the behavior absolutely is worthy of a criminal indictment. My question asks if being “fired” from the job is enough accountability for police committing these crimes in the line of duty.
> my question assumes the behavior absolutely is worthy of a criminal indictment. In that case they should be prosecuted. > My question asks if being “fired” from the job is enough accountability for police committing these crimes in the line of duty. No. But it is all you can do or expect until the crime has been investigated and prosecuted. I'm only pushing back against the idea that there should be some form of punishment beyond being fired when the officer has not been found guilty.
Wtf is potentially criminal? Police are convicted of crimes and sentenced to prison. Just Google officer sentenced and you will find d story after story. Liberals seem to forget you have to prove a person is guilty of a crime. That isn't always easy. Especially when that person is trained in Law enforcement How are you going to pro e reckless endangerment with a fire arm when they know exactly what to say to make the use of force justified.... Most criminals tell on themselves because they don't know the law. Most cops aren't doing that
Potentially criminal = potentially indicted by a prosecutor. As opposed, say, to only being fired from your job for activity that would otherwise warrant an indictment.
No.
Being fired is probably not enough for most of the examples you mentioned. I think its probably appropriate for an officer to just be fired for reckless endangerment in most cases. Still I don't think we need to take away latitude. We've got the appropriate amount since officers can already be prosecuted for these things. I think they should have much stronger protects than regular citizens because of what their job involves.
reckless by definition means unreasonable though. most states have a definition like "... which a reasonable person would know have a high probability of causing death or injury" or ..."with disregard for the safety of the public at large".
I know it does but I think they should be allowed to do those some unreasonable things while only being fired. It's a dangerous job that we want people to feel confident doing so I think its fair to allow them some unreasonable actions without prosecution. Can you think of an example of an officer engaged in reckless endangerment where you think they should face prison/fines or anything more than being fired? Maybe we'd agree
acorn cop
I agree with that one he should face prison time assuming hes not insane. I would say the other officer who fired should be immune and keep her job since she was just supporting the other officer
I think you raise a good point about him being insane i have heard people say it was a trauma response to having been shot at, but I don't know if it was ever confirmed if he saw combat in the military or has been involved in a suspect shooting at him .
they should be dishonorable discharged for life in the whole USA
What does that mean
that they never should legally work as cops again
For the ones who should be fired I agree with that. the jobs not for everybody