The behaviour of US police officers

[HoverBoarder]

Folk keep to the topic of this thread which is not insurrections, riots and so on but the behaviour of police. Plenty of other threads if you want to discuss those topics. Of course discussing police behaviour during a riot or insurrection is fine.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

I definitely understand the directive, but police behavior was certainly affected by the protests and riots that peaked this summer and continue today. Many officers have been drained by the physical and verbal attacks on them. The extreme long hours and emotional abuse is taxing. Many of them have felt betrayed by the abandonment from the community that they put their lives on the line to protect.

If you want to understand police behavior in the US, that is a critical component in the equation.

In multiple instances, fire exits were blocked and buildings were set on fire with people inside. This occurred at both police buildings and apartment buildings during the protests and riots against police violence. The response from the public to these acts of brazen Domestic Terrorism was incredibly muted.

When the public puts so little worth on the lives of the people who are putting their lives on the line to protect them, it is a devastating betrayal.

The actions and behavior of police have certainly been affected by that.

While the larger topic is certainly not applicable, the focus on the impact on police behavior and the laws that have come about to modify police behavior are definitely related to the topic of the thread.

 

[Mumbles]

Nothing happens in a vacuum. There has been a massive increase in crime throughout much of the US, and most of the worst increases has been focused on cities that have reduced their police forces and have taken other actions against them.

Evidence? "Crime" (actually, homicides) has been all over the place city by city - averaging roughly the same +35% regardless of government, and quite possibly related to COVID-19 issues - not just people being stuck at home, but also possible factors like overwhelmed ERs. Here's a discussion of this on VOX's website.

The police forces work for the community, and their job is one of the few professions where they put their lives on the line everyday to protect our safety. Without police, there would be a massive increase in deaths all throughout the community. As has been shown in times when they pull back from neighborhoods.

A claim that, in at least some cases, is highly questionable. Baltimore's Gun Trace Task Force was hardly known for "putting their lives on the line", even if we just look at the usual comparisons between police and, say, sanitation workers or loggers. Ferguson was a great illustration of policing as fundraising for the government with little or no effort to assist anyone. NYPD's fraternal order is downright celebratory of their own hostility - to the point of printing up "I Can Breathe" shirts to taunt Eric Garner protestors and mourners.

Policies like defund that were intended to change police behavior have largely been massive failures, and have led to far more deaths than the police killings they were originally protesting against. A call for defund has just become a call to advocate for being a mass murderer, and the lawmakers who enacted them have blood on their hands. Those who have backtracked like in Minneapolis have to rely on the police being better people than they were.

Oddly, Minneapolis seems to have drastic increases in 911 response times *instantly*, despite losing no police officers - and made certain to explain to everyone they arrived late to that this is specifically because of the relatively minor budget cuts, which were mostly due to lost revenue in any event. Can't help but feel that this was similar to the SimCity 2000 public transit guy immediately screaming when his budget is cut to anything below 100%, but that's just me.

If we really want to improve the behaviors of police and improve their relationships with the community, we have to look at some of the main reasons why the increases in violent interactions are occurring.

One explanation is that when people become police officers, their hearts automatically grow evil inside it. Or that the power they hold corrupts them into making bad decisions. That may make people feel good to think in their actions against the police, but it is obviously not a serious explanation.

Or that their own superiors demand poor behavior (again, see the NYPD for many clear cases of this). Or that "rats" in the PDs are sent on dangerous assignments without backup, and other forms of open retaliation.

The power dynamic that police hold does lead to some accuses of power, but if you look at almost all of the high profile police killings in this country, they have started with attacks on the police. Specifically the growing trend and belief that if people attack police officers, that they should receive no negative repercussions for their actions.

Again, evidence? Police hostility towards marginalized groups has been unbroken in many places for well over a century in the US, so any recent complaints are simply not going to cut it. And really, "police killings" are the tip of the iceberg of routine humiliations, beatings, and so forth.

Many of the policies propsing to improve interactions with police, are primarily just meant to make the lawmakers and their supporters feel good about themselves, rather than going through the hard work to make serious positive changes. Especially since demonizing the police over making sound policies has such better political capital than anything that would require everyone to work together. Many times they have made the situation worse, because they do not look at the repercussions of their policies.

I doubt many of them make much difference either way - because such laws are routinely and flagrantly ignored.

-Addressing the acceptance of attacks on the police in the community.
-Finding ways for the community and the police to increase communication and collaboration
-Address rogue PAs that refuse to prosecute crimes
-Increasing non lethal tools and options rather than reducing them
-Declare intentional attacks on police as hate crimes

...

It took me a while, but I suspect that these "Rogue PAs" you speak of are refusing to prosecute minor crimes that are often ignored outside of particular precincts, or "resisting arrest" charges with no attached reason for the arrest - rather than PAs that ignore, say, the NYPD's continued use of chokeholds despite numerous statutes explicitly outlawing their use. Silly me!

Also, assaulting an officer is already a separate, vigorously prosecuted, crime from normal assault. There's no need for a "hate crime" statute here, particularly given the need to prove that any such action was done out of hatred of police anyway.

In addition, there are very few "non-lethal" tools, especially when police can (and often do)) abuse these tools by, among other things, firing teargas canisters directly at people's faces.

ETA: Here's a link to a podcast on Spotify discussing some of these issues - for those that use other players, it's "Resistance:" and the episode title is "Didn't we just march for this?". It's available on, at the least, Apple's Podcast app.

 

[HoverBoarder]

Last I heard, that's been done over and over - with the police, as an organization, happily ignoring every bit of unenforced accountability that they could. Of course police should be involved in policies involving them, but, by the evidence, honesty and good faith on the police's side simply cannot be relied upon. Period. That creates a distinctly unpleasant situation all around.

That is an enormous overgeneralization based on a big ol pile of assumptions. That has occurred some of the time, and not in others. The solutions to this problem are far more complex.

If we want an improvement to this problem, than the police will have to be involved. Just because it is hard does not mean that it should not be done.

The defund movement is largely an abandonment of the effort to make real improvements in exchange for making the supporters of it feel morality superior. Even if it causes hundreds of extra deaths, as long as the supporters of it are not the ones dying, than they are willing to make that sacrifice in order for the emotional boost it gives them.

A base problem there, of course, is that the police were already actively working to "protect their own" and much of what immensely less centralized and organized polarization there is on the public's side is simply a reaction to that "protection" being at extremely problematic levels that allow police to literally get away with murder scot-free.

I agree that it is a problem that needs to be seriously addressed.

This statement, however, is overwhelmingly dishonest in how you're clearly using it. "The public" is NOT ******* calling for the murder of the police. The rest of your post seems to rest upon that lie and, as such, can simply be ignored.

Putting words in bold does not magically make them more true.

In Seattle where I am, a group of city council members stood next to person who was exclaiming that the police should put their guns in their mouths and shoot themselves. No one spoke out against it, and the council president said immediately afterwords that "the concerns were legitimate and should be listened to." They have almost never spoken out against the violence against the police in the city, and never included the police department on any of the reform ideas they were working on.

The primary victims of that have been the most vulnerable in the city and the other victims of the rising crime in the city.

In many instances violent protests and riots have been described as mostly peaceful in the media about them. Those screaming for violence have largely not been denounced by a large portion of the public. "Kill all cops" has been a common sign and graffiti tag in a number of cities.

Obviously, there are large portions of the public who do not agree with the violent rhetoric, but they are either not vocal enough, or not influential enough in the cities with the largest defund movements and the corresponding rise in crime that has occurred because of thst. In Minneapolis, it took a way more than doubling of the murder rate for officials to start to care.


In almost all of the violent encounters with police, violence against police is often ignored as a triggering factor. Since very few publicaly denounces the violence against the police, and it sometimes is celebrated, than enough people think that violence against police is OK, and the cycle just continues on.


That unnecessary violence will continue as long as enough people feel their ego in demonizing police is more important than the unnecessary people who die from it.

 

[Aridas]

That is an enormous overgeneralization based on a big ol pile of assumptions. That has occurred some of the time, and not in others. The solutions to this problem are far more complex.

Not really much of an overgeneralization, if one at all, much as "relied upon" is rather important to that. Certainly, sometimes the police side will act with honesty and good faith. The major problem, like it's been all along, though, is when dishonesty and bad faith is involved - which it is all too frequently - as has even been admitted by numerous members of the police, let alone more neutral assessments.

If we want an improvement to this problem, than the police will have to be involved. Just because it is hard does not mean that it should not be done.

This, of course, we're in agreement on, as was said explicitly.

The defund movement is largely an abandonment of the effort to make real improvements in exchange for making the supporters of it feel morality superior. Even if it causes hundreds of extra deaths, as long as the supporters of it are not the ones dying, than they are willing to make that sacrifice in order for the emotional boost it gives them.

I firmly disagree with this assessment, all around, with one partial exception. The defund movement is an abandonment, yes, albeit of what are entirely reasonably seen as failed attempts. I'll go a bit further, for that matter. The defund movement is certainly limited in effectiveness, given that it does not address important root causes. Those root causes are frequently not able to be addressed by any locality, however, and it's not fundamentally wrong to do what one actually can to reduce overall harm.

Putting words in bold does not magically make them more true.

You making actual enormous overgeneralizations does not magically make them any more true. Certainly, we can agree that certain vocal and small minority elements of the public are extremely hostile to police and that for various reasons, there's a somewhat larger subset that don't actively fight back when encountering their rhetoric (or, for much more of the public, don't encounter it enough to make any reasonable judgement on the matter) and that that certainly is a problem causer. That's not even remotely the whole story, though, and focusing primarily upon that creates a very notably misleading narrative. Much of what the "defund" people actually want, for example, is actual police accountability, first and foremost, rather than actually getting rid of the police. A bit like Border Patrol and ICE - the overall purpose is largely supported by an overwhelming portion of the public, but the lack of accountability for the harm they commit and what is objectively crime that they just keep engaging in have led to calls to deal with such, and if it can't, to eliminate the agency, because an out of control criminal government agency is generally not something that people like being associated with or paying to support, even if it does do some incidental good on the side. It's because accountability is actively being prevented that calls for defunding have any real weight at all.

 

[bruto]

The hoverboard approach seems an awful lot like the argument of the Capitol rioters, that you shouldn't call them on their bad behavior or it will make them so angry they'll have to be bad again. Now we, who are not in the line of fire, shouldn't address cops' misbehavior because they will feel they have no option but to go into minority neighborhoods on another killing spree.

 

[HoverBoarder]

The hoverboard approach seems an awful lot like the argument of the Capitol rioters, that you shouldn't call them on their bad behavior or it will make them so angry they'll have to be bad again. Now we, who are not in the line of fire, shouldn't address cops' misbehavior because they will feel they have no option but to go into minority neighborhoods on another killing spree.

You are of course entitled to your own opinions. However my point was primarily on finding an effective strategy that actually addresses the problem rather than something just to make people feel better even if it makes the problem worse.

There is no functional society today that can exist without the police. If they are not involved in solutions, it is much less likely to be effective.

Many well intentioned people have had ideas of supplementing or replacing police services with social services, but many cities have moved to reduce police department before they even figure out what they are looking for. Leading figured in Seattle have said that we can just keep replacing police with social services until the police are no longer needed. Without even considering the repercussions that would occur from the lack of prevention and response to violent encounters.

Officials in Portland moved to reduce their police department and replace some of their functions with the social services program in Ashland Oregon. They only found out later that the program in Ashland is set up to have an average of an eight hour response time, and while it is a worthwhile program, it would not be a functional replacement for almost any of the cuts they made. In the meantime the massive increase in deaths and over 2.5 times increase in the numbers of shootings there is a direct result of their actions.

Large numbers of people are dying because of the group think on this issue that is preventing people from reviewing the repercussions of their actions. By the number of people killed, it is a far worse issue than the issue of police brutality that spurred the issue in the first place.

I definitely think that the issue of police violence should be addressed, but the way it has been done so far recently has been largely colossal failure.

 

[bruto]

You are of course entitled to your own opinions. However my point was primarily on finding an effective strategy that actually addresses the problem rather than something just to make people feel better even if it makes the problem worse.

There is no functional society today that can exist without the police. If they are not involved in solutions, it is much less likely to be effective.

Many well intentioned people have had ideas of supplementing or replacing police services with social services, but many cities have moved to reduce police department before they even figure out what they are looking for. Leading figured in Seattle have said that we can just keep replacing police with social services until the police are no longer needed. Without even considering the repercussions that would occur from the lack of prevention and response to violent encounters.

Officials in Portland moved to reduce their police department and replace some of their functions with the social services program in Ashland Oregon. They only found out later that the program in Ashland is set up to have an average of an eight hour response time, and while it is a worthwhile program, it would not be a functional replacement for almost any of the cuts they made. In the meantime the massive increase in deaths and over 2.5 times increase in the numbers of shootings there is a direct result of their actions.

Large numbers of people are dying because of the group think on this issue that is preventing people from reviewing the repercussions of their actions. By the number of people killed, it is a far worse issue than the issue of police brutality that spurred the issue in the first place.

I definitely think that the issue of police violence should be addressed, but the way it has been done so far recently has been largely colossal failure.

I do agree that policing is necessary and that many if not most places that have tried to remedy the problem have not done it as well as they should.

My quibble is the way it was put, that seems to suggest that added police brutality is an expected result when they don't like the way their brutality is addressed. Police forces could solve a lot of the problem people have with them if they behaved better in the first place, and stopped protecting those who bring disrepute on them. The police can be involved in solutions only when they acknowledge that their own behavior is the very thing that needs a solution.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Portland Police officer accessed privileged information in campaign to falsely smear a political enemy as a hit-and-run driver.

An yet unnamed PPB officer leaked City Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty's license plate number to a conservative media outlet as part of a false claim that she was involved in a hit-and-run. The smear collapsed shortly after when it was determined that Hardesty was not involved, and indeed does not even have a running car. The plate number was never included in the original 911 report, so whatever cop provided it to the conservative media likely looked it up in the confidential database.

Of course, everyone's favorite fascist propagandist Andy Ngo was involved.

The misidentification of Hardesty may have been a case of mistaken identity or racial profiling. (The woman who reported the crash is an East Portland resident in her 50s. She's a nonaffiliated voter, and her social media posts display no political affiliation. She did not return WW's calls seeking comment.)

But what followed was an extraordinary effort to discredit Hardesty....


In a span of 10 hours, somebody leaked the false information to parties with an ax to grind against Hardesty. Somebody also told the state's newspaper of record, which ran with the story.

Gabriel Johnson, co-founder of the Coalition to Save Portland, says he received the report from an employee of the Portland Police Bureau on Thursday morning but would not identify that employee.

https://www.wweek.com/news/city/2021/03/10/someone-in-law-enforcement-leaked-false-information-about-commissioner-jo-ann-hardesty-to-her-adversaries/

So did Ngo, a longtime scourge of Portland leftists, who reported the hit-and-run allegation on The Post Millennial, a conservative Canadian news website he edits. Ngo's story includes the full name of the 911 caller—information he could only be privy to if he had been sent the full dispatch report or if the name had been relayed to him directly. (Ngo did not respond to a request for comment.)

 

[Babbylonian]

Portland Police officer accessed privileged information in campaign to falsely smear a political enemy as a hit-and-run driver.

An yet unnamed PPB officer leaked City Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty's license plate number to a conservative media outlet as part of a false claim that she was involved in a hit-and-run. The smear collapsed shortly after when it was determined that Hardesty was not involved, and indeed does not even have a running car. The plate number was never included in the original 911 report, so whatever cop provided it to the conservative media likely looked it up in the confidential database.

Of course, everyone's favorite fascist propagandist Andy Ngo was involved.



https://www.wweek.com/news/city/2021/03/10/someone-in-law-enforcement-leaked-false-information-about-commissioner-jo-ann-hardesty-to-her-adversaries/

Our police department, like those of most cities, is completely ******.

 

[erlando]

"My Dad is the Tacoma Cop Who Drove Into The Crowd of Racers"

The cities and communities these cops serve must hold accountable officers who treat the public as their enemy.

The calls to fire my dad are just. His job is to serve the public, and people were not impressed with his service. We will never bridge the “gap of trust” that police claim to care so much about if we don’t have shared standards for behavior.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Reports that DHS in Portland continue to use HC smoke grenades on protest crowds. HC smoke is known to be toxic. HC smoke is traditionally used to generate concealment (you know, a smoke cloud) and is not intended to be used as a crowd control agent. DHS routinely fires these grenades into protest crowds, exposing them to a known toxic agent.

“Exposure of unprotected soldiers to high concentrations of HC smoke for even a few minutes has resulted in injuries and fatalities. Therefore, it must be emphasized that this smoke should never be employed in enclosed areas and that all personnel must be compelled to mask when HC smokes are employed,” a 1994 technical report titled, “Health Effects of Hexachloroethane Smoke,” states. “The major component of the smoke is zinc chloride. There are also several chlorinated organic compound(s) in the smoke, some of which are documented potential human carcinogens.”

https://www.koin.com/news/protests/military-grade-hc-smoke-used-against-portland-protesters/

 

[bruto]

An interesting article in this month's Science News.Non white male police use less force.

 

[Distracted1]

An interesting article in this month's Science News.Non white male police use less force.

A bit prejudicial, no?
Claiming that Black, Latino, and Female cops are lazy.

 

[bruto]

A bit prejudicial, no?
Claiming that Black, Latino, and Female cops are lazy.

It certainly strikes one as prejudicial and more for someone to read that article and come to a conclusion about the reason for the behavior that is not contained therein.

For those not reading the linked article, just to be clear, the word "lazy" does not appear in it. To presume that the conclusion of the article involves laziness is, in my opinion, not only unwarranted and prejudicial, but stupidly inflammatory.

 

[Babbylonian]

It certainly strikes one as prejudicial and more for someone to read that article and come to a conclusion about the reason for the behavior that is not contained therein.

For those not reading the linked article, just to be clear, the word "lazy" does not appear in it. To presume that the conclusion of the article involves laziness is, in my opinion, not only unwarranted and prejudicial, but stupidly inflammatory.

I suspect it was just an attempt at [racist] humor. Shocking, I know.

 

[EHocking]

I suspect it was just an attempt at [racist] humor. Shocking, I know.

Yeah, but meant in a “funny cos it’s true” kind of way.

 

[Dr. Keith]

The beatings will continue until officer morale improves.

 

[Babbylonian]

Yeah, but meant in a “funny cos it’s true” kind of way.

Well, of course. Racists usually mean it when they say something racist.

 

[HoverBoarder]

Reports that DHS in Portland continue to use HC smoke grenades on protest crowds. HC smoke is known to be toxic. HC smoke is traditionally used to generate concealment (you know, a smoke cloud) and is not intended to be used as a crowd control agent. DHS routinely fires these grenades into protest crowds, exposing them to a known toxic agent.

There have been repeated instances of groups of people getting together for the purpose of engaging in Domestic Terrorism in Portland. They have been attacking the pearl district repeatedly for the primary purpose of engaging in destruction, violence, and to terrorize the innocent people living there.

The police have been obscenely lenient with the Terrorists that they engage with there.

Many of the attackers who have assaulted the people, businesses, and police there, have been released the same day in order to continue their pursuit of terror the very next day.

Against these terrorists, HC is an important tool, but we need a lot more tools, both physical and political. I agree that HC gas should be limited as much as possible, and there are steps that we could take to make sure it is much less likely too get into the situation where it would have to be used in the first place.

People should not be allowed to attack and terrorize their city without repercussions. The fact that it keeps happening is the core problem, the use of HC gas is just a symptom of that problem.

Those who engage in mass Domestic Terrorism events in the city, or support them should be identified. With pictures identified posted on a public board. Too often people have used masks to try to hide their identity from the public to avoid any repercussions while they terrorize the city.

People's employers, family, and friends should know if they have been part of the Domestic Terrorism attacks against their city.

That would be an excellent way to reduce violence from protests and from police. If you want to reduce the use of HC and other less lethal tools, that is an excellent way to do that.

 

[HoverBoarder]

I do agree that policing is necessary and that many if not most places that have tried to remedy the problem have not done it as well as they should.

My quibble is the way it was put, that seems to suggest that added police brutality is an expected result when they don't like the way their brutality is addressed. Police forces could solve a lot of the problem people have with them if they behaved better in the first place, and stopped protecting those who bring disrepute on them. The police can be involved in solutions only when they acknowledge that their own behavior is the very thing that needs a solution.

Police brutality is absolutely an issue, and it requires a holistic solution. Not just ones that we want to the other side to fix.

Once you take the stance that "the other side can only be included when they adequately admit guilt for____," it usually means that the problem will never be addressed.

The idea that it is OK to attack police without repercussions has led to most of the main high profile lethal police encounters, and the view that people may attacks them has led to a much higher level of police force, and the increased use of police force has increased the idea from some people that they are justified in attacking the police.

It is a negative reinforcing cycle, and you can't just point to one side to fix all of it.

There are many steps that are needed to reduce the violence, and we have to take into account that there are some people who are more interested in demonizing one side rather than actually addressing the issue.

Some would rather people continue to be unnecessarily killed rather than include the police or BIPOC communities in addressing the solution.