Sunday, January 4th, 2009
So Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia again trotted out the “new professionalism” canard during oral arguments for a Fourth Amendment case last term. I guess you could say the rebuttals I’ve been posting on this site since the Hudson decision are just anecdotes. But they’re sure are a lot of them.
Macon, Georgia man says police assaulted and choked his son after getting the wrong house on a “knock and talk” raid.
The Belleville, Illinois police officer accused of beating a man for wearing a t-shirt printed with the word “police” I posted about last week has been sued for civil rights violations four times since 1999. Two were while he was with the Belleville police department, and both resulted in settlements.
Police in D.C. caught on tape stealing from the city’s Toys for Tots program.
A police officer in Missouri is under arrest for stealing the laptop of a woman he pulled over. Problem is, the woman saw him steal it, and filed a complaint back in 2007. They ignored her. It wasn’t until the apparently not-so-bright officer brought the laptop back to the sheriff’s department to have software installed that the laptop was confirmed stolen, and the cop was arrested.
Puppycide in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Again, this comes down to training. These particular officers should have been taught (a) the difference between a charging dog and one bounding out to meet another dog, (b) how to deal with even a charging dog in a way that falls short of killing it, and (c) that it was a Great Dane, which generally a very gentle breed. What’s troubling in these cases is that the first reaction is always to shoot.
Cop drives 100 in a 45 in response to a shoplifting call. Ends up hitting and killing another cop. Now, other officers are coming to his defense, asking the DA not to press charges. Think they’d have the same reaction if a non-cop had caused the accident?
Police in New Orleans shoot man 12 times in the back. The shooting could well have been justified, but there are already some troubling discrepancies in the officers’ account of the incident.
Police in Bellaire, Texas shoot a 23-year-old man after mistaking him for a car thief.
Las Vegas cop arrested for offering to drop speeding tickets in exchange for sexual favors.
Teen (also the son of a cop) pulled over for expired inspection sticker. Cop asks to search the car. Teen says no. Drug dog then mysteriously “alerts.” Cop allows dog to search the car. No drugs. Teen drives away, and is now suing. The really sad part, though, are the comments to the story. Comments here are pretty sad, too.
Oregon officer caught buying steroids while on the job. His police department takes no action.
This entry was posted
on Sunday, January 4th, 2009 at 12:00 pm by Radley Balko
and is filed under Police Professionalism.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
TheAgitator.com
“Kroeplin brushed off that tip, but the FBI didn’t. ”
Well, then. Let’s put this one in the FBI’s “good job” file. :)
In this day and age ,every one has or will break some law,at some point.There are so many laws on the books many cops seem to think if they look hard enough they will find something.The ever expanding wars on drugs and DUI give them the ‘right’ to look for ‘crimes’ even when no harm or danger is present.Even true crime is being defined so broadly,sex crimes for instance,it’s hard to tell who is truly a danger to society.
Radley, I don’t know if Justice Scalia or his clerks read your site or not, but it might be worth you forwarding a white-paper version to his chambers once a quarter or so outlining these sorts of incidents involving our newly-professional police forces.
The steroid story isn’t really surprising. I assume most, if not all cops are cycling pretty regularly, since normal hormone levels would probably discourage some of the more audacious crap they pull, such as pulling people over and then robbing them. The surprising part is how they can be ‘roided up and overweight. That’s a potent mix of chemicals and doughnuts. Good post, Radley.
It’s all about accountability. That Scalia would argue that accountability exists in any real way is laughable.
The simple fact is that whatever you feel about cops aside, ask yourself: if you were a cop would you NOT truly feel as though you could get away with significant criminal acts, at least to a much greater extent than a regular citizen?
Is there anyone in the country who could honestly answer that question in the negative? And then the obvious follow up is “well is that acceptable?” Sadly any people would say it is (because f some BS about it being a tough job or some crap).
re: the Belleville Police story. I hate defending cops, but I would bet there’s much more to this story. The guy complaining is a legendary douchebag and he and his dad have been weasling (my new word!) around St. Louis fucking things up for years. He got fired from his firefighting job for refusing to run a call because he’d be late getting off work and then complained that the dept was harrassing him because he’s jewish. I think they settled with him. Lots of stories about this clown…
I’ve never met him, but I hear he’s a MAJOR dumbass. The cop doesn’t look much better, though… we should be able to deport both of ‘em and start with a clean slate!
The truly sad part is that Justice Scalia is probably *right* that there has been a great increase in police professionalism between the fifties and sixties and today. That just tells you how bad it was back then (and still is in many rural areas).
The stolen laptop link goes to a dead page….maybe the cop got that as well?
The mere placement of the words “Justice” and “Scalia” in a sentence is an affront to the English language.
Don’t forget that this is a guy who believes that the Constitution permits torture because it only forbids cruel and unusual “punishment”, i.e. sentences that are cruel. And if a person is beaten or tortured by law enforcement personnel, that beating is not part of his “punishment”, get it? Har Har Har.
Seriously what does this guy need to do to be removed from his post?
Re: “Teen (also the son of a cop) pulled over for expired inspection sticker. Cop asks to search the car. Teen says no. Drug dog then mysteriously “alerts.” Cop allows dog to search the car. No drugs. Teen drives away, and is now suing. The really sad part, though, are the comments to the story. Comments here are pretty sad, too.”
Sad. Really, we need to apologize to King George and Britain.
Michael Pack, I think Ayn Rand said it best:
“Did you really think we want those laws observed? We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against … We’re after power and we mean it. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them.
“One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted — and you create a nation of law-breakers — and then you cash in on guilt.”
RE: the alerting dog
IANAL, but IIRC, a dog sniffing around the outside of a car isn’t a “search” requiring consent or a significant level of suspicion because the only information the dog reveals is the presence of illegal drugs, to which there is no privacy right. This case — regardless of whether the dog can get in the car without permission — shows that opposite to be true. Of course we already knew that; maybe the courts will realize it someday.
And if ordinary people treated police dogs the same way police treat ordinary dogs…
The link to the story about the stolen laptop was “404″ but I found another for those who wish to read some details:
http://www.news-leader.com/article/20081226/NEWS01/812260307
“http://www.news-leader.com/article/20081226/NEWS01/812260307″
And I DO love the comments on that one. :-D
Thanks Chris.
Regarding the Bellaire, Texas case, I enjoyed watching Robbie Tolan play baseball this past year in the Continental Baseball League, which is an independent minor league with four teams in Texas.
He played for the Bay Area Toros and I root for the Texarkana Gunslingers, but all the players worked their butts off for peanuts.
What’s troubling in these cases is that the first reaction is always to shoot.
Now that’s verbal “overkill”. They don’t write a story every time a cop encounters a dog and the dog isn’t shot. What percentage of cop-dog encounters end up in the dog being shot? It’s probably like 1 in 10,000 (out of thin air). The flipside of course is what percentage of dog shootings should have been avoided?
I wonder what sort of living hell that cop who found that laptop to be stolen and blew the whistle on “one of his own”? One can just guess how much of a pariah he is in the squad room.
#15.
Z: you do raise a good point that we do not know how often the cops make a “mistake” and kill a dog versus the number of times that they do their job and don’t kill.
This argument, however, falls down because of the police departments’ own actions and statements.
1. The departments always characterize puppicide as “just following procedure” and avoid any accountability. If this is just following procedure then it is not a mistake, by the cop’s own words
2. There is clear evidence of police over-reacting in several cases, including those (a) videotaped evidence of officer standing next to his cruiser casually killing dog (b) killing small puppies (c) killing dogs chained in their own back yard (d) killing Cheye Calvo’s labradors in front of him.
If there is “verbal overkill” it is more than balanced by the ACTUAL killing of people’s pets and resisting any sort of accountability. Perhaps if there was proper accountability then people would be able to see the complete evidence and not have to rely only on the anectodotal evidence.
Moreover, the issue here is “new professionalism” whereby the police are more accountable. In the cases cited above, the police have resisted any accountability.
So, anybody showing “remorse” shouldn’t face any consequences for their actions? Right, officer? And you’d apply the same logic to anyone who committed a crime in which someone else was killed?
“Puppycide in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Again, this comes down to training. These particular officers should have been taught …”
By whom? Let’s consider that question.
By police trainers? Police officers are obviously instructed to control a tactical situation with their own self-preservation as paramount. It is hard for even me to construct a contrary view to this principle. Self-preservation being paramount, a police officer will dispatch a dog with extreme prejudice for the simple reason of simplifying a (potentially) chaotic situation. We have all heard the saying, “He who hesitates is lost.” A police officer, in the interest of his own self-preservation, is not going to waste a second identifying a breed or even estimating a dog’s (potential) intentions or actions. He will choose the simplest method — shooting.
It is important to remember that a dog can be dangerous not only as a primary weapon, but as a diversion for a human opponent. While that toy french poodle is trotting toward the officer, it may be distracting the officer from the sniper behind the kitchen counter.
I in no way defend the slaughter of dogs by police officers, but I believe that as adults in a statist world, dog owners need to be aware of the police officer’s perspective since he/she is licensed to kill by the state.
So, since I have demonstrated in watertight fashion the motivations behind police vis-a-vis dogs, who then is left to train the officers in how to deal with dogs?
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals? Where are they?
A nationwide organziation of dog owners publicizing the conflict? Is there such a thing?
Local outreach organizations of dog owners who meet regularly with their local police departments to discuss policy? Do these exist?
Who is going to actually do something about police license to kill dogs instead of just wringing their hands and gnashing their teeth on this blog?
American dog owners, where are you? Do you not care?
Hey all police officers!!!!
The two largest breeds of dogs, Great Danes and Irish Wolfhounds, treat everyone as a new friend. Shooting one is stupid! In extremes, they will defend their owners quite loyally, but the police were doing nothing to this woman. 99.9% probability this dog was just being friendly.
This cop was just a pussy and got scared because of the big dog.
Cynical in CA: we dog owners do care, but our attempts at calling the police to account fail because of police culture. It is difficult to make this much more than a local issue, because (a) it is almost always local police who do the puppycide (b) there is no compelling state or federal issue at stake. Out of control killing of people invokes US constitutional issues, killing of dogs does not.
I have posted this response to other stories about bads cops and or bad decisions by law enforcement, I hope you don’t mind that I also do so here.
We must bring these arrogant law enforcement agencies under control, and the sooner the better.
Too many times cops who’ve MURDERED an innocent (or even someone who was guilty of a minor, non-violent crime) get off scott-free, while honest (and, most frequently, also innocent of any crime prior to the “break-in”) citizens who mistake SWAT entries into their homes as a criminal home invasion (actually, it is NOT a mistake, such entries ARE criminal, even when done by law enforcement) get the book thrown at them if they even wound a cop in the process of what they believe is defending their homes/families against criminals. Talk about a double standard!
Since when is the life of a cop (or any politician, including the President of the USA) of any more value than the life of any other citizen? And since when should cops get any lighter sentence for killing a citizen than a citizen would get for killing a cop? What the hell makes cops and politicians think they are so “special”? All that self importance is only in their own arrogant minds. Constitutionally, they are our equals (and our employees), not our superiors.
Scalia is an obvious fraud and jackass. He knows his own statements are bullshit. I wish I could say he is an embarrasment to the field but sadly he seems pretty typical of it.
What attempts have you made, SJE? How do you measure your success or failure?
I read a lot of excuses in post #21, not a whole lot of old-fashioned sleeve-rolling.
I have challenged all dog owners. Rise to it.
I have discovered the roadmap for your success or provable failure (not some “woe is us” lame cop-out).
Don’t cry for another dog — go out and confront your “public servants.” Effect real change. Be men.
It is important to remember that a dog can be dangerous not only as a primary weapon, but as a diversion for a human opponent. While that toy french poodle is trotting toward the officer, it may be distracting the officer from the sniper behind the kitchen counter.
What fraction of criminals would deliberately engage in a shootout with police? How does that compare with the fraction of law-abiding citizens who would fire upon unidentifiable intruders who shoot their dogs?
For that matter, from a law-abiding citizen’s perspective, is one more likely to be invaded by government agents who smash in and shoot one’s dogs, or by non-government crooks who do likewise? If one would be in more danger from the crooks, then one should shoot the intruders, and the intruders should expect to be entirely legitimately shot; the intruders would have no legitimate self-defense claim (whether they’re affiliated with government or not). If one is more likely to be attacked by government agents, that would imply pretty strongly that the government’s own claims to legitimacy would be dubious at best.
While you make some very valid points, supercat, I’m not sure how they are at all relevant to the quote of mine you referred to.
My stabs at your questions are: a small fraction, roughly equal or perhaps slightly greater in the latter, roughly equal depending on what neighborhood one lives in.
Your last two sentences are a fairly succinct defense of anarchism. I applaud that.
“I guess you could say the rebuttals I’ve been posting on this site since the Hudson decision are just anecdotes. But they’re sure are a lot of them.”
Indeed there are. Scalia is living in a dream world. Those of us who truly want to bring professionalism to policing are hitting a wall because of extreme state overreach. As a potential recruit, let me just say that I would much rather see Radley Balko as a guest instructor than Judge Scalia. I’d pitch in for the fee myself.
I for one would love to see the police banned from using attack dogs/drug dogs for any reason or in any manner except for possibly prisons and jails using bloodhounds to track escaped prisoners or something.
Police dogs in general are an incredible waste of time, money and resources and have more than a slight smell of Nazi Germany and Bull Connor. They’re plain offensive to a free people. There is absolutely no legitimate reason for them to be used in every day policing unless you’re wanting to intimidate and instill general terror.
A perfect fit for modern policing in America. It’s all about intimidation and terrorizing the citizenry.
Puppycide:
Every police officer has been trained the the Tueller Drill, although they might know it as the “21 foot rule”. The premise, proved through research, is that someone armed with a knife can cover 21 feet and deliver a fatal stab wound faster than an average officer can draw and fire his holstered pistol.
Seven yards is the extreme outer limit of what most people consider conversational space. How often do you engage someone more than a room’s length away?
Almost any dog can cover 7 yards faster than any human, so the mere fact than an officer is able to recognize the dog, perceive it as a “threat”, draw, and fire a fatal shot, is pretty much proof than that the dog was not a threat. If it had been a fatal threat, then the officer would have at the very least been bitten severely, if not fatally.
Anyone who is actively involved in handgun sports (and darn few police officers fire their weapons more than the minimum requirement) knows that hitting a dog-sized rapidly moving target is extremely challenging.
The frontal kill zone of a charging dog, even a large dog, is about 3 inches wide by 4-6 inches high. Most cops can’t reliably hit a target that size at 7 yards in standing slow fire.
Any time an officer shoots and kills a dog at more than contact distance, and without any bite wounds, is prime facie evidence that the dog was not a deadly threat.
A high percentage of households have a firearm, the vast majority of which are law-abidding.
An equally high percentage of households have a pet, frequently a dog.
Don’t the police KNOW this when they elicit a NO-KNOCK warrant from a judge?
Does anyone know Scalia’s next speaking arrangement? He often speaks at schools and other settings. He came to my law school while I was there and he took only written questions because, well, he’s an intellectual hack. Anyway, perhaps we could find out his next speaking location, find a willing questioner, and come up with a great anecdote-riddled question beginning with “In the Hudson opinion, you stated…” and ending with something along the lines of “exactly what on earth were you talking about?”
The fact that we are stuck with Scalia for the rest of his life is…depressing. Is there no recourse for citizens in regards to lifetime appointments? Or do we just kiss our civil rights goodbye because somebody thinks he is “supreme”?
I, as a government teacher, am always amazed at how often the kids think that denial of search is an admission of guilt.
In regards to the teen/dog search/dad cop story and the comments, I always tell my students this – The reason I don’t let them search is because I don’t know what they are looking for.
I could have completely innocent and legal items in my car that could arouse suspicion from a completely unrelated event that I am in no way involved in.
The teen did right. It’s a shame that he is being made out to be a whiner or a cry baby for asserting his right. The comments on those sites are shameful.
Let ‘em search? Give me a break!
<“Please don’t let the Christmas story of the day be about an investigation of officers who make up .001 percent of the department,” saith Yvonne Smith, the department’s community outreach director.
(from the dc examiner regarding the Toys For Tots case)
Two things. First, she’s worried about the story more than she’s worried about the crime. Glad she has her priorities straight.
Second, she needs to take a remedial math class, because I’m pretty sure there aren’t 400,000 cops in DC. O_o
Vault dog,
I don’t let police search out of principle, and perhaps to illustrate to them, if the situation ever arose, that some people say no becuase they don’t want to be bothered, not because they are criminals.
While we’re here on the topic of police professionalism, RAdley, have you ever considered created a new category of your posts entitled “Puppycide?” I know it would be a huge pain to do and they would all overlap with other categories, but it seems to me like you must have hundreds upon hundreds of stories of police puppycide and it owuld be good to get them all in one place. Thanks
This is a joke, right?
It is important to remember that a dog can be dangerous not only as a primary weapon, but as a diversion for a human opponent. While that toy french poodle is trotting toward the officer, it may be distracting the officer from the sniper behind the kitchen counter.
“Quick, kill the poodle before we’re shot by SPECTRE. *bang* Wait, no sniper? Whew!! That was close. Sorry about yer dog Mrs. Finklestien. Standard procedure, you understand. BTW, next time, you better keep your killer calico in a cage or else.”
As a dog owner, I do my best to inform anyone who would listen about “puppycide”. Thing is, if it’s not their dog, they kinda’ shrug it off.
Besides, police officers are glorified in our culture. I’m normally one to defend the entertainment industry, but in the case of police/crime shows, isn’t it odd that all of the cops in shows like “Law&Order”, “CSI”, etc., are ALL portrayed as unsung heroes, underpaid, overworked, not respected ethical saints protecting the belligerent public that does everything to prevent them from doing their job? Not to mention the DA’s infallible motives.
Just sayin’.
Cheers.
@ 36 PogueMahone
Haha, SPECTRE. Nice.
KB Craig, excellent analysis of dog as primary weapon. Now, what of dog as diversion?
Pogue, no joke at all, although I purposely used a ridiculous example to demonstrate that breed is irrelevant. The context of my post was “dog as tactical diversion,” not “dog as primary weapon.” Is it really that difficult for you to put yourself in the shoes of the responding police officer?
The police determine the appropriate methods, not the citizens. Power always answers up the chain of command, never down. Police are going to preserve their own lives at all costs.
“As a dog owner, I do my best to inform anyone who would listen about “puppycide”. Thing is, if it’s not their dog, they kinda’ shrug it off.”
That’s predictable. It also explains both the prevalence of dog shootings by police and the lack of an organization to mitigate same.
Humans are LAZY.
Pogue, no joke at all, although I purposely used a ridiculous example to demonstrate that breed is irrelevant. The context of my post was “dog as tactical diversion,” not “dog as primary weapon.” Is it really that difficult for you to put yourself in the shoes of the responding police officer?
The problem is your example is ridiculous. If a criminal uses a toy poodle as a diversionary tactic, so by your logic the cop must shoot the diversionary tactic, then equally, if a criminal uses his girlfriend to flash the cops as a diversionary tactic, then the cops must shoot the diversion.
“Look out!!! Tits!!! *bang* Now where’s that sniper?”
You see, the threat level of the diversion does matter. Toy poodle = bodacious ta ta’s < charging pit bull.
You also have to realize that the “puppycide” that is often discussed here involves harmless dogs owned by innocent people. So it’s not that difficult for me to put myself in these shoes you speak of. Part of my work involves residential service, so I often venture onto private property owned by complete strangers that have household pets that bark/growl/defend its property. And my first thought isn’t to grab my hammer from my toolbelt and bludgeon the poor creature to death.
More than a few times I had gotten the address wrong. Imagine if I had, even in self defense, killed a family dog on someone’s private property that I had no permission to be on. I would be arrested.
But the cops, who often get the address wrong, are apparently free to fire at will.
“Sorry Mrs. Finklestein, we were told by some crackhead, that there was a drug dealer living at 3452 Oakdale Avenue… oh wait… this is Oakdale Drive… So sorry about that. Standard operating procedure, you understand. And BTW, you best close that bathrobe a little tighter if you know what’s good for you. It’s very distracting.”
Don’t get me wrong. I know what you’re saying. I just think you should have another look at it.
Cheers.
“The problem is your example is ridiculous. If a criminal uses a toy poodle as a diversionary tactic, so by your logic the cop must shoot the diversionary tactic, then equally, if a criminal uses his girlfriend to flash the cops as a diversionary tactic, then the cops must shoot the diversion.”
Wrong, Pogue. False dilemma. Dogs are legally different from humans. The standard for shooting a human is presumably higher than that of a dog, though I will admit that in practice, from the postings on this blog, the line is considerably blurred.
And frankly, if the girlfriend flashed the cop to divert his attention, then she is an accomplice and is willingly placing herself in harm’s way. If she did it under duress, then she’s the victim of her criminal boyfriend.
You have not demonstrated that the relative (to be perceived by a cop in a split second) danger of the diversion is relevant to the likelihood of a shooting occurring. There are lots of variables, but from the officer’s POV, he is going to eliminate as many variables as he can as quickly as he can — toy dog, tits or snarling beast.
“Part of my work involves residential service, so I often venture onto private property owned by complete strangers that have household pets that bark/growl/defend its property. And my first thought isn’t to grab my hammer from my toolbelt and bludgeon the poor creature to death.”
This is irrelevant to the point I made — you are not licensed to kill by the state. Police officers are, and they will use any means at their disposal. You lack that means, and so you must tolerate any dog you encounter except for the one that tears at your throat.
You and I and everyone under the sun can have empathy for dog owners whose dogs are killed by police officers. That and $2.00 is not going to change a freaking thing — only community action will.
Do you really know what I’m saying? Do you think I haven’t looked at this six ways from Sunday?
Cynical in CA,
Can you explain what you mean when you say that police Officers are “licensed to kill” by the state? I don’t find there to be any truth to that statement whatsoever. They can not kill indiscrinately and sya that because the state gave them a gun blah blah blah. They can still be prosecuted for murder and the statute applies exactly the same to their actions and the jury gets the same instructions as in any other murder case. Perhaps you are arguing that the results we often see are that police get a lot more leniency when they kill, but that is a lack of justice not the active bestowing a a “license to kill.”
In short, Im rather confident you’ve pulled this concept out of your ass and will be unable to support it in any detail.
Moreover, as you’ve pointed out, dogs are property (or at least they are not citizens or murder victims) so can police simply destroy property at will? Do they have a license to do that? Lastly, yes officers will do whatever it takes to stay safe, but that does not mean they should do so in every single situation even when the risks and odds and other facts make it so unlikely that their safety is even at risk, and it certainly doesn’t mean they are legally allowed to do this or have a “license” to.
Oh Nick. Nick, Nick, Nick.
“Can you explain what you mean when you say that police Officers are “licensed to kill” by the state? I don’t find there to be any truth to that statement whatsoever.”
Glad to explain. Read real slow. In the course of official duty, when there is no clear intent of direct personal gain or malintent by the officer, a police officer may at his discretion use lethal force against a citizen. There may be no explicit written policy regarding this, but case after case after case highlighted by this blog has demonstrated that even when an officer is brought under official review by his superiors, he will be exonerated. You do read this blog, right?
That being said, the context of my posts on this particular thread regards DOGS. If, as I have demonstrated above, police officers have de facto license to kill humans under certain specific conditions (line of duty, no direct personal gain, no malintent, subject to official review, etc.), then police officers have absolute de jure license to kill dogs. That is what I meant. It is irrefutable.
You don’t actually mean to say that “licensed to kill” means having an official certificate from the state, like a driver’s license?
“In short, Im rather confident you’ve pulled this concept out of your ass and will be unable to support it in any detail.”
Last refuge of the witless — an ad hominem, you are 100% wrong.
“Moreover, as you’ve pointed out, dogs are property (or at least they are not citizens or murder victims) so can police simply destroy property at will? Do they have a license to do that?”
One more time — in the course of official duty and with no clear intent to personally gain from their actions nor malintent, police officers have license to destroy, confiscate or seize property, subject to due process and/or official review. And again, as this blog demonstrates on a daily basis, in 99 or more out of 100 cases a police officer brought before a review board will be exonerated.
Again, the idea that they require a state-issued identification card as a “license” is so sophomoric as to make me cringe just to address the idea. The license is in the official condoning of their behavior through due process.
“Lastly, yes officers will do whatever it takes to stay safe, but that does not mean they should do so in every single situation even when the risks and odds and other facts make it so unlikely that their safety is even at risk.”
I was not discussing the “should” aspect of police behavior. That is subjective and completely dependent on the point of view of the commentor. I was discussing the “is” aspect. You wrote it yourself, “officers will do whatever it takes to stay safe.” Period. Fact. The state has imbued police officers with the power to use their discretion in these situations. There is not thing one a citizen can do, except to organize and demand change.
“it certainly doesn’t mean they are legally allowed to do this or have a “license” to.”
Yes it does. It most certainly does. See above explanations.
Now, why did you waste so much personal time of yours and mine posting such inanities when you could have been organizing a society of dog-owner activists to effect change? Is it too daunting a challenge?
Oh yes, it’s much easier to plug one’s head in the sand. That’ll make the problem go away.
#5 | Nick T | January 4th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
“The simple fact is that whatever you feel about cops aside, ask yourself: if you were a cop would you NOT truly feel as though you could get away with significant criminal acts, at least to a much greater extent than a regular citizen?”
In trying to understand your way of “thinking,” Nick, I went back and found this post of yours above.
It is important to understand the difference between legal and criminal behavior. A police officer ceases to be a police officer when he commits a criminal act. A police officer who saw how easy it is to get away with crime and then decides to lead a life of crime under cover of the badge is a criminal, not a police officer. This is easy to understand and I think most reasonable people would agree.
The difficulty you appear to be having is understanding the definition of criminal behavior. Just because a police officer kills a human or a dog, this is not proof that he is a criminal. There are certain conditions that must be met; admittedly, these conditions appear less strict than those an ordinary citizen must meet, perhaps as a trade-off with the danger that police officers ostensibly face in the course of work.
Criminal behavior by police is determined by internal review, state prosecutors, legislators, judges, justices and juries — all State actors. The net effect is that the State reserves the right to kill any citizen as long as certain conditions are met under procedural (not necessarily substantive) due process. The death penalty is a prominent example, but “death by cop” is another.
This is a fundamental principle of the State, the monopoly on the use of violence in a given geographical area. This is the license.
Cynical, let me point you to this part of my post:
“Perhaps you are arguing that the results we often see are that police get a lot more leniency when they kill, but that is a lack of justice not the active bestowing a a “license to kill.””
I suppose I didn’t understand your overall thesis, I see now that you -cynically, of course – presumed the unjust nature of special treatment of police officers by the justice system, and argued it as a cold reality, rather than an acceptable, reasonable approach. I think our friend, Pogue, made the same mistake. To the degree that you are arguing that all cops will act in certain ways based on their overwhelming and irrational prioritizing of their own safety, and their security in the knowledge that they are essentially above the law (their license to kill), I agree with you.
Thank you, Nick. I take back my snarky tone and snide comments. I am simply pointing out cold, hard reality.
My one quibble is that cops are not above the law, they are the physical manifestations of the law. They are the actual human agents that turn law from the abstract to the concrete. Part of my thesis is that a cop is only a cop while he has his back covered by the establishment. The State is a cold, cruel master, but even it pays lip service to its myths and procedure (read: hierarchy of power). Once a cop truly abandons the establishment and goes into business for himself, then he is a criminal.
But don’t delude yourself that your subjective view of reality is decisive. It is not, nor is mine. Only the objective fact of State power matters. The law is not some ideal — the law is what the State decides.
Thanks for being patient with me. I owe you the same.