#14 BoogaFrito

Why should a “pattern” even matter? When we’re talking about cops, one incident of misconduct should be enough to release them from employment.

Does an ordinary civilian need to demonstrate a pattern before the cops arrest him and proceed to ruin his life? How does the city handle such a thing. Is there a threshold?

“Sir, the city is sorry that Officer Jones beat the shit outa you, but our hands were tied. While it’s true he beat the shit out of another guy last week, we didn’t have a pattern so there was nothing we could do. But, you’ll be glad to know it only takes four such beatings to establish that pattern that will allow us to consider firing him, so we’re half way there. On a brighter note, we can speed that process up if he actually kills someone.”

(The hypothetical is snarky and meant more to be humorous more than a serious rebuttal to any argument.)

#11 | primus

Firing someone is a drastic step. One event does not make a pattern.

Why should a “pattern” even matter? When we’re talking about cops, one incident of misconduct should be enough to release them from employment.

That would be the safest guess.

I disagree. I see this as is mob justice combined with a hate of management. I’m sure the police lawyer hired by the union is framing this as “those bureaucrat non-union police managers are unfairly punishing those hard working street cops for violating a minor rule that protects rapists who kill children” and then ask the Jury to vote on “if killing that pedophile was excessive or not” because he mouthed off to the cop. I highly doubt any of the cops who won weren’t guilty; my guess is it was just jury nullification at its worst.

The only person consistently taking it in the can is the goddamned taxpayer.

#5 Highway

The opinion article seems to give the impression that the LAPD and City are cracking down on police abuses, and that may be true, but it’s not really supported by anything in the article. Nor is it able to be determined what the actual merit of the lawsuits is. They might be “this punishment was totally not supported by the abuse” or they might be “You suspended me in violation of the union agreement that says we have to be given desk work first.”

Yes! It really could be all about lawsuit abuse dressed up to look like cops are being victimized. Not enough info in the article to tell.

#2 gottabeKiddingme

I don’t see where an increase of investigations started this.

The investigations are what led to the discipline that the cops are suing the city over:

From the article:

Thanks to the consent decree between the city and the U.S. Department of Justice, those cases began to be investigated — and continue to be, even though the decree is no longer in force. That allows the department to discipline or fire those who committed the abuses.

#2 gottabeKiddingme

In most jurisdictions it’s almost impossible to secure a jury verdict against a cop. In LA as we see and read, the public is significantly better informed about the reality of law enforcement today with it’s emphasis on full-spectrum domination and pain compliance.

The article makes it sound like just the opposite is happening, that LA juries are becoming MORE inclined to believe LAPD and LESS inclined to convict:

From the article:

“As the LAPD begins to shed its old reputation for violence, juries that once routinely sided against police officers in cases of alleged excessive force are listening more closely to the department’s arguments.”

In fact, the one specific case it talks about, an officer was demoted, which cost him $27,000 in pay. He took the department / city to court, and won a 1 million dollar award. Nothing about what he was found to have done to warrant a demotion, so we can’t even guess at whether that was too harsh on him or whether even that punishment was a creampuff slap on the wrist, that the officer *still* sued over.

The opinion article seems to give the impression that the LAPD and City are cracking down on police abuses, and that may be true, but it’s not really supported by anything in the article. Nor is it able to be determined what the actual merit of the lawsuits is. They might be “this punishment was totally not supported by the abuse” or they might be “You suspended me in violation of the union agreement that says we have to be given desk work first.”

That one’s for you, J sub D!

I think this does indeed reinforce the “thin blue line” standing together no matter what. Municipalities use settlements to AVOID investigations and publicity, and settlements routinely carry agreements that stipulate the complaining party not speak of the events or the settlement in the future. They are buying silence. And it’s been a winning strategy for cops too! In most jurisdictions it’s almost impossible to secure a jury verdict against a cop. In LA as we see and read, the public is significantly better informed about the reality of law enforcement today with it’s emphasis on full-spectrum domination and pain compliance.

Never fear however. I’m sure the PBS and police unions will always be there to insist that ALL ACTIONS BY COPS ARE WITHIN DEPARTMENTAL POLICY ad nausea. And to loudly extol the virtues of heroic officers putting their lives on the line as they beat up females, children and innocent onlookers.

Perhaps my viewpoint is shaped by reported news and external events. Judging from my own experience, the officer used to be your friend in times of trouble. Now you risk your life and the lives of others by dialing 911. Calling out the dogs get you bit.