Racism in the Military

[Spekkio]

There's a greater than 50% chance that Wink is actually on retreat in the woods somewhere, and Mrs. Wink is just trolling with his account.

Not helpful and not funny. Getting wink to talk solutions vice constantly putting him on the defensive would actually be very productive considering he knows a lot more than most of us about the internal policies and procedures of LEOs.

The public is constantly getting on the police for failure to employ the principles of Verbal Judo...let's not pretend that's a 1-way street.

 

[nittany03]

So what do you do?

Over to you...

Spitballing here . . .

• Get rid of qualified immunity. It's a pernicious doctrine by which a cop can get excused from liability in a civil rights lawsuit unless the illegality of their conduct was "already clearly established." So as long as you invent new and different ways of violating someone's civil rights, you're golden; just don't do the same thing someone else already lost a lawsuit for. Noted left-wing rag Reason has been writing a bit on this. Want conduct change? Open folks up to being liable for civil rights violations.
• Defang police unions. Guarding our society should be a privilege, not a right. Governments need to be able to toss bad actors from the force. Public sector unions in general need to be looked at with a jaundiced eye. Also, perhaps there needs to be some statewide licensing scheme to be an LEO that can be pulled in the event of misconduct. If you have to pass the bar to be a lawyer, or get licensed to practice medicine, perhaps you should need to be licensed to be a cop. A license that can be pulled in misconduct cases.
• Figure out what you need to pay officers to live in or near the communities they police and how to recruit from that population. Find out other ways to cut through "us vs. them." Police are supposed to be serving and protecting the voting public, not imposing law and order by force.

There's a greater than 50% chance that Wink is actually on retreat in the woods somewhere, and Mrs. Wink is just trolling with his account.

Condescension and snark to people who disagree is a large part of why we as a society are in the mess we're in.

 

[wink]

99,
Please reread, carefully, all my posts here. It is easy, just use the search function. I have admitted some police are racist. I have said reform is needed. The only thing I push back on is misinformed statements that should be corrected so people are basing their opinions on facts. I have not shouted down anyone. Nothing I have said is radical in the least.

I believe the debate can be distilled in a couple ways. 1. LE is systematicly racist and the majority of cops are dangerous to black citizens, or they have their share of bad apples. 2. Needed reform will be most effective if tactics and training are addressed that improve safety for all suspects regardless of color, or reform will be driven emotion, and perception with no interest in the truth of the matter.

@Pags You know I am taking this serious. We exchanged a PM about a humble proposal I am working on that could start a discussion and improve policing.

How many of you have taken the time to truly educate yourself and make concrete proposals to your police department or city council? How many of you have attended a citizens academy or done a ride along. Any ever sit in on a trial of a cop accused of using excessive force? Might not change your mind. But why not open yourself to an education? Or you could just outsource your position on this to BLMs.

Pags, if I recall you have family in AZ. I hope you come visit them. Give me a call and we will do beers and such. I'd rather fight like brothers in a pub then try and debate on the internet.

 

[Swanee]

Spitballing here . . .

• Get rid of qualified immunity. It's a pernicious doctrine by which a cop can get excused from liability in a civil rights lawsuit unless the illegality of their conduct was "already clearly established." So as long as you invent new and different ways of violating someone's civil rights, you're golden; just don't do the same thing someone else already lost a lawsuit for. Noted left-wing rag Reason has been writing a bit on this. Want conduct change? Open folks up to being liable for civil rights violations.
• Defang police unions. Guarding our society should be a privilege, not a right. Governments need to be able to toss bad actors from the force. Public sector unions in general need to be looked at with a jaundiced eye. Also, perhaps there needs to be some statewide licensing scheme to be an LEO that can be pulled in the event of misconduct. If you have to pass the bar to be a lawyer, or get licensed to practice medicine, perhaps you should need to be licensed to be a cop. A license that can be pulled in misconduct cases.
• Figure out what you need to pay officers to live in or near the communities they police and how to recruit from that population. Find out other ways to cut through "us vs. them." Police are supposed to be serving and protecting the voting public, not imposing law and order by force.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Accountability- professional organizations have it, and they have the ability to "police" their own. The military has it through the UCMJ (and by extension special communities within the military have it), Doctors have it through both their Boards and their Licensing process, Lawyers have it through the Bar. Create it and hold the standard.

I also think we need to stop sending armed cops to situations where someone else with another specialty is completely appropriate. Drug OD, mental health issues (I'm deathly afraid my wife is going to be killed by a cop because she's on a Manic attack- not because she's dangerous but because a cop doesn't have the skill to remedy the situation- only to assert force, which is the exact WRONG thing to do), minor and non violent crimes don't need an armed response. A suspected fake $20 bill is not a reason to roll deep and packing. Violent crimes? Sure, send the police.


Training and admissions- we all know the low bar it is to get into the military, and the cops have an even lower bar. That is an immediately easy fix that can be instituted now.

 

[Brett327]

Condescension and snark to people who disagree is a large part of why we as a society are in the mess we're in.

You are so right! But for a lighthearted snarky remark, we'd all be holding hands and singing Koombayah!

 

[nittany03]

I also think we need to stop sending armed cops to situations where someone else with another specialty is completely appropriate. Drug OD, mental health issues (I'm deathly afraid my wife is going to be killed by a cop because she's on a Manic attack- not because she's dangerous but because a cop doesn't have the skill to remedy the situation- only to assert force, which is the exact WRONG thing to do), minor and non violent crimes don't need an armed response. A suspected fake $20 bill is not a reason to roll deep and packing. Violent crimes? Sure, send the police.

I'd argue this is a training/screening issue, and as long as the weapon stays in the holster, it doesn't hurt anyone. But I do wonder whether the SOP in a situation like that (mental health call) needs to be to deploy some sort of mixed team of cops and social worker/therapist types, with the medical professionals calling the shots. As in the cops don't get to use force unless the docs are clearly in danger or the docs ok it. It's not wrong to have the ability to use some force; it's just wrong to use it unjustly and unnecessarily.

 

[Spekkio]

Spitballing here . . .

Solutions I've seen thrown around before. Here's why I think they don't work...

• Get rid of qualified immunity.
• Defang police unions.

1) Qualified immunity didn't just 'happen.' It exists for two reasons: First, because random beat criminal would love to just sue as a hail mary, and that costs money to defend on a mass scale and 2) organized crime has deeper pockets than most police officers or municipal governments, and they would have a field day with a repeal of qualified immunity. The last thing you need is a LEO who won't arrest someone in fear of being sued.

This could work if and only if it was contingent on the officer being found of misconduct administratively by the police.

2) Police unions do much more than just create red-tape for firing bad police officers. They negotiate rules for special pay like overtime (like, in my family's case, a cop can't work more than 12 hours a day...being called in for OT has to be on a scheduled day off), night differential, medical benefits, etc. They are very valuable on those fronts. Your next bullet says to raise pay, but you want to weaken the organizations that negotiate pay...

Both of these solutions are patchworks for the real problem: if you were a 'higher up' in the police chain, you don't have any levers to hold bad officers accountable. The most you can do is write someone up. Even the decision to suspend someone without pay is beyond your paygrade and requires an external investigation. You can't take someone's stripes, let alone their badge for misconduct.

I think that we need 2 new laws: a) police precinct policy is to be treated as law. Up to precincts to define what is a misdemeanor and what is a felony, subject to approval by the state legislature and mayor. This would essentially serve the same function as the UCMJ, except it's performed under already existing civilian law. b) Police leadership is authorized and responsible to execute a NJP process similar to Article 15.

licensing

I've seen this thrown out, but it's unnecessary and beaurocratic waste. The difference between doctors, lawyers, hair dressers, restaurant owners, etc. is that they can open their own business. A police officer can't. They are always employed by the city/county/state, and as long as the organization has the framework to certify employees (it does...we can talk about how adequate it is sepcor), a licensing scheme is unnecessary.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

I'd argue this is a training/screening issue, and as long as the weapon stays in the holster, it doesn't hurt anyone. But I do wonder whether the SOP in a situation like that (mental health call) needs to be to deploy some sort of mixed team of cops and social worker/therapist types, with the medical professionals calling the shots. As in the cops don't get to use force unless the docs are clearly in danger or the docs ok it. It's not wrong to have the ability to use some force; it's just wrong to use it unjustly and unnecessarily.

I don’t see how a policy of needing doctors to authorize force would work, for multiple reasons.

 

[nittany03]

I don’t see how a policy of needing doctors to authorize force would work, for multiple reasons.

As I said, I'm spitballing. Biggest point is that there may be situations where we're asking cops to act outside of their core training (mental health calls, perhaps bad relationships that haven't reached DV yet, etc) and that part of the solution may be for other experts to be in a supported role with police in a supporting role during calls.

 

[Spekkio]

As I said, I'm spitballing. Biggest point is that there may be situations where we're asking cops to act outside of their core training (mental health calls, perhaps bad relationships that haven't reached DV yet, etc) and that part of the solution may be for other experts to be in a supported role with police in a supporting role during calls.

I think we have to be realistic and bound the solution set: the police have to make internal changes without any additional resources, and any external changes will consist of laws that provide additional restrictions on what the police can and cannot do without committing any additional resources.

 

[Hair Warrior]

We have all sworn to support and defend the Constitution, to include the 10th Amdt.

I am curious what everyone’s take is on perhaps nationalizing law enforcement initial training and/or refresher training, to establish standards and instill values. I can see a lot of reasons against it. But I think it’s a lot more constructive than “defund the police” ideas.

 

[Spekkio]

We have all sworn to support and defend the Constitution, to include the 10th Amdt.

I am curious what everyone’s take is on perhaps nationalizing law enforcement initial training and/or refresher training, to establish standards and instill values. I can see a lot of reasons against it. But I think it’s a lot more constructive than “defund the police” ideas.

The DOJ can release 'best practices' anytime it wants. To give those 'best practices' any teeth would require an amendment.

 

[magnetfreezer]

I think we have to be realistic and bound the solution set: the police have to make internal changes without any additional resources, and any external changes will consist of laws that provide additional restrictions on what the police can and cannot do without committing any additional resources.

One idea - not an entire fix, but consider a libertarian approach of cutting the number of laws - or at least those considered criminal - to reduce the number of interactions with citizens that could turn negative, and give police more time for community involvement or major crimes. For example, burnt out taillight results in a dashcam pic and fix-it ticket notice to the registered owner.

 

[wink]

Spitballing here . . .

• Get rid of qualified immunity. It's a pernicious doctrine by which a cop can get excused from liability in a civil rights lawsuit unless the illegality of their conduct was "already clearly established." So as long as you invent new and different ways of violating someone's civil rights, you're golden; just don't do the same thing someone else already lost a lawsuit for. Noted left-wing rag Reason has been writing a bit on this. Want conduct change? Open folks up to being liable for civil rights violations.
• Defang police unions. Guarding our society should be a privilege, not a right. Governments need to be able to toss bad actors from the force. Public sector unions in general need to be looked at with a jaundiced eye. Also, perhaps there needs to be some statewide licensing scheme to be an LEO that can be pulled in the event of misconduct. If you have to pass the bar to be a lawyer, or get licensed to practice medicine, perhaps you should need to be licensed to be a cop. A license that can be pulled in misconduct cases.
• Figure out what you need to pay officers to live in or near the communities they police and how to recruit from that population. Find out other ways to cut through "us vs. them." Police are supposed to be serving and protecting the voting public, not imposing law and order by force.

Nice spitball. In the strike zone but not quite down the middle. Some thoughts and and another couple spitballs.

It has to be mentioned that qualified immunity ONLY applies to civil suites, and only against the individual. You can still sue the state or city or feds. So if you win you still get the big bucks, And getting qualified immunity is not guaranteed at all. The defense argues for it and the plaintiff argues against. A judge decides. It isn't a boiler plate form you file and get a rubber stamp. And it is appealable so there is more than one look. Qualified immunity does not protect a cop from criminal prosecution. I'll say it again as some have missed it. The police answer to the same criminal laws as citizens. Their use of force must be justified. I can shoot a guy that I believe is a deadly threat, as can a cop.

Getting rid of qualified immunity has been debated for years. Interesting history, the theory goes way back to sovereign immunity and has some logic. Abolishing it isn't as easy as just deciding so. It is currently constitutional. SCOTUS would have to reverse themselves or at lease rein it in a lot. I suppose a state could just say they will not take advantage of the defense. I dunno. I am open to reform here. But too many folks think it is the change that will have cops convicted and jailed by the hundreds. They will be disappointed.

I am not for public unions but especially public safety unions. I'd support reining in influence where necessary. I have to say, in my state though, the unions have very little influence over anything relating to misconduct of their members. I bet it is more like here than NYC in most of the country.

Every state does have state certification. It is called Police Officer Standards and Training (POST). National standards are set and implemented at state level. Cops DO lose their certifications for misconduct. But, there is no nation wide data base of defrocked cops and the states don't automatically share the info. That should be a no brainer everyone should support. Some guys have lost certification and then gone to another state to go through their academy and get certified in that state. Not common, but does happen.

Living where you work used to be very common. My father was a police officer and was required to live in the city. The logic is sound, I think. But it isn't just the a matter of compensation. Truly, sadly, their are some places where you would not want to live or educate you kids if you had a choice. Sometimes, because you put a certain guy in jail, living where you work can compromise your family's safety. And just because you live in the same city, especially the bigger ones, doe snot mean you have any connection to the people you police. I could live 30 miles away in a $400,000 house and police in public projects. In the end, you build relationships on the job. You have 8-10 hours a day to do it.

Serving and PROTECTING often requires the imposition law by force. The debate is how LE uses force in what circumstances.

My spitballs: edit: I was writing when swanee posted.

Drastically reduce calls for service for mental health issues. If your son is busting up things in the house and talking about little green men, he isn't breaking the law. This is huge. Something Mrs Wink has tried to influence locally. A sizable number of calls turn out to be mental health and not threatening to anyone. If your son grabs a knife and you get out of the house. He isn't breaking the law as long as he stays in the house and doesn't threaten people. The cops have no need to make entry. Sit a car outside to make sure he doesn't run next door and stab the neighbors, call mental health pros to standby, and send mom and dad to a hotel. Lots a innovative ways to work this problem.

Suspected drug overdoses, man down in the street, that should be EMS. Send them first. They will call if it goes south. We don't send cops to every medical call EMS gets.

Improve comms and culture through CRM type programs. We are all familiar with it. Medical, Nuke power, Fire Service, Maritime, lots of industries now on board. If the airlines and the military can change the culture to encourage respectful assertiveness from juniors and open seniors and operational control personnel to be more participative and team oriented , LE can. CRM has gotten little notice in LE. Too many cops respect the operational control of the officer who's scene it is, or of a Sgt or Training Officer as if it isn't their job to help out. Sure, they got a partners back when the fists or bullets fly. But what about reminding a senior that a certain tactic is no longer approved, or that pursuit speeds are dangerous, or he should just calm the fuck down. They must learn that they share in the responsibility for a positive safe outcome.

More two officer patrol vehicles.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

I’d also support a nationwide effort to reform prisons. My experience is basically limited to NatGeo prison shows so I don’t have the exact answer but we need to do something to reduce recidivism. Education, job training, counseling, whatever.