And another thing: Granted this uniformed officer is threatening sexual and firearm assault, and this is apparently good policing, would the officer be expected to follow-up on those threats and actually do those things? If yes, then clearly they are trained to break the law and terrorize civilians as a matter of course, and constitute the gravest threat to our immediate safety. If not, then they are lying.

Is lying by uniformed officers and representatives also a “very important tool”, an expected part of quality policing? If yes, then we have a LEO culture presumably based on lying everywhere — lying on the street, lying in written documents, lying in public statements, lying to coworkers, presumably lying in court. The logical conclusion to such a culture of pervasive, everyday fraud should be to disregard anything a cop testifies to in a court of law and elsewhere, eh?

Just to eplain this comment a bit for those other than Professor Moskos, there was a recent case in New York City where a mn named Mineo claimed that a policeman forcibly sodomized him with a small (but wide) baton in an NYC subway station. One of the police officer’s testified that the sodomy had happened. Mineo entered his underwear into evidence, with the hole to show where the baton had penetrated. Mineo was taken to a police car and held for a couple of minutes, but released without arrest (forgot whether he got a pot citation or not, seem to recall he did not).

The police officer with the baton, along with one or two other policemen denied that the forcible sodomy had happened. They won at trial. The NY Post had a field day (Mineo looked like a pimp and the policemen looked like policemen).

The point is that Professor Moskos basically came out against Mineo and in favor of the officers who denied the sodomy (but against the one who said it happened).

The point: Professor Moskos says that these are just idle threats in this new video. But when forcible police object sodomy actually happens, he denies it happened. It ain’t just a river in Egypt, Professor Moskos. I think his job may force him to be this way, and, if so, I can empathize. However, regardless of the why’s and wherefore’s, his cred on this kind of stuff is totally shot, and has been at least since the Mineo case if not before. At least in the eyes of those who remember things he has written in the past.

I’m a white male, bookish, straight-A student, high school valedictorian, full college academic scholarship, never partied, never used drugs in my life. And I was STILL harassed by cops while I was in high school because the police chief took a dislike to my father (town doctor).

If someone like me can’t avoid it, who on Earth can?

All this “bad guys”, “drug-dealing corner”, “do we know the officer was unprovoked” equivocating rationale for the abuse and threats of rape and gun violence are 100% pure bullshit. The cop thugs do it anyone all the time and we all know it. They are terrorizing innocent citizens on a daily basis. The thought process leads them to actually taze, chem-spray, beat, and kill people because they know they have immunity. And now I have acquaintances on the NYPD and their private response is: however jaded I think I am, I’m actually naive to how much worse it is in reality.

You, sir, are a liar. Likewise, any time I’m on a jury I presume that the facts are exactly opposite of anything testified by a cop. (Noted that I do get forgetful in the stress of voir dire… much like cops under oath.)

You’re ignoring the diminishing return that comes with this kind of conduct. If one officer threatens you with “or else” today, and another officer threatens you with “my dick will go in your mouth and come out your ear” tomorrow, what exactly is a third officer supposed to say the day after that?

Obviously you can’t cheapen the currency in no time, and the cops will run out of exotic threats long before the corner runs out of kids.

By contrast, maintaining professionalism brings cumulative rewards. A cop who shows he can’t be unbalanced by provocation may be ignored today, or laughed at tomorrow, but eventually he will be respected on a level much higher than fear.

This idiot wasn’t using the tools of his trade…he was grinding those tools down to a point where they will not work for the next tradesman who comes along.

Very likely you just saw it. (Do we know the officer was unprovoked? Would it change things if he had been provoked?). All I’m saying is there are times when police will (and should) resort to yelling, bad language, and even threats.

To be clear, while I argue that police must play by the rules in these situations and restrict themselves to the limited types of “threats” I mentioned last time, please don’t interpret what I have said as an argument that the drug war can be “won” by police who play by the rules. The drug war cannot be won in a non-authoritarian society. Period. Ultimately, that’s why it’s even more important that officer’s not engage in intimidation and threats of violence. They should do the job by the book and not go any further. If, as you propose (and I agree), that isn’t enough and not enough dealers can’t be convicted, then people will eventually have to face up to the fact that we can’t have a civilized society and at the same time enforce laws against widespread consensual activity. The fact that cops take it on themselves to find extralegal ways to “get” these bad guys only serves to hide what a failure the policy is.

There is a third issue – threats. The officer made unprovoked threats against a ciitizen.

What would be the outcome of a citizen lobbing disgusting, sexually perverse threats at a uniformed officer?

All good? No problem? Water off the duck’s back?

Sure, Peter. And I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

“The officer is pretty clear that it isn’t drug dealing that he is concerned with, but that the target didn’t obey the officer’s order to leave when he was told to. … The officer’s message is not, ‘Don’t sell drugs here.’ His message is, ‘Respect my authority.’” True. Southpark’s Cartman maybe said it best.

The idea that the officer can close the drug corner through good policing is shortsighted and bordering on foolish. Smart dealers keep the drugs and the money separate and don’t touch the drugs. They can’t be convicted. The truth is all we can really hope for is drug dealers who respect police authority and don’t harass innocent people walking by.

Because police who police the war on drugs know they’re not going to win the war, it becomes about respect, “getting the bad guy,” and (significantly) the informal regulation of an illegal activity. Having been in that position, I have empathy for the police officer.

Sure, if the cop had the time and resources (which he doesn’t) he could do buy and busts and put the guy and his crew in prison for a long time. But since demand doesn’t go down, somebody else opens up shop. Repeat ad nauseum until 2.3 million people are incarcerated. How does that benefit anybody?

The only “threat” the officer needs is that he will be doing his job. To wit, he will be around, he has his eye on the target, and if he sees criminal activity, then he will make an arrest. If he needs to intimidate a suspected criminal to prevent criminal activity, the arrest is the threat, not sodomy, assault, or death. If he needs to convince someone to leave a street corner (BTW, this incident is inside a restaurant or bodega or something) because he thinks they are using that location to sell drugs, he can say, “I will be coming by here often, making sure there’s no safe time for anyone to buy drugs from you. I will be talking to your customers, asking them what they’re up to, taking video when they talk to you, writing down license plate numbers, checking for warrants, for unpaid parking tickets, for expired tags, whatever it takes. This is going to be a very unpopular place to buy drugs.” No drug dealer thinks he can do business when his customers know the police are likely to come around at any moment and have a “chat” with them.

Note that the prospect of those measures is not the threat the officer is using here. The threat in this case is sexual assault and deadly physical force (that’s the only reason his hand was poised to grab something from inside his coat half the time). If you disagree, then I have to wonder if you would say the officer would be unjustified in reacting as if threatened if their positions had been reversed? Clearly, the target felt threatened, because all of the “sirs” and sitting quietly by while some clown tells you he’s going to put his dick through your ear aren’t the way someone who doesn’t feel threatened reacts to that sort of treatment.

Moreover, the officer is pretty clear that it isn’t drug dealing that he is concerned with, but that the target didn’t obey the officer’s order to leave when he was told to. He clearly says that he doesn’t have a problem with the target’s “boys” “hustling”. So, there is no reason to start with the premise that preventing drug sales is the cop’s main goal, or really his goal at all. The cop didn’t mention drugs or drug sales during the whole encounter. The officer’s message is not, “Don’t sell drugs here.” His message is, “Respect my authority.”

I agree that talk is an important tool. But, your contrived statement of “Good sir, please desist from criminal activity or I will be forced to issue you a sterner warning.” is a strawman, plain and simple. No one is proposing that police interact with suspects as though they were 19th century British nobility. And, beyond style, the substance of your example is wrong in implying that a stern warning is the only tool the police have at their disposal. As explained, the “threat” the cop has at his disposal is arrest, not a sterner warning. In answer to your question, what I suggested above is the appropriate “threat.”

And, BTW, the appropriate assumption, for the sake of argument, is that the cop thinks the target is dealing drugs, not that he knows he is. Assuming the latter is a rhetorical maneuver, one that turns the discussion into “The cop is doing the right thing against a Bad Guy™ and you guys are whining about details.” Sorry, no deal. The former assumption that the cop is acting in good faith but that he may be wrong is generous enough, especially given that we know plenty of examples where poor police behavior is justified by painting some marginally criminal loser as if he were Tony Montana.

So it is necessary for police to commit assault in order to do their job? Because that’s what the man with the badge and the gun did, he made a threat, which legally is verbal possibility of physical harm. Think about how the statement would play if the police officer was talking to a woman? There would be no question that he committed assault, yes?

“[And for the sake of debate, grant me the assumption that this guy is a drug dealer and didn't clear the corner when confronted by the officer.]”

No, I don’t believe in ‘thought crimes’ so I refuse to speculate about that.

I’d like to see cops just pretend to actually serve the community.

I think the officer probably could have gotten his point across without the threat of sexual assault. But yes, bad language and threats are necessary tools of the trade. Talk is a very important tool. The most important tool. Unprovoked force is illegal. The other main legal tool is arrest, and that is often not the best option. So we’re left with talk.

It’s not always, “Good sir, please desist from criminal activity or I will be forced to issue you a sterner warning.” Cops use the language of the streets and people they police. They need to. Sometimes a kind word is enough. Other times an unkind word is needed. It does not bother me.

It seems to me there are two issues: 1) are you offended by the language? and 2) is it part of effective policing? We can debate the latter but as to the former, get over it. Policing is a dirty job, be happy somebody else is willing to do it. (And by “dirty” I mean unpleasant interactions with unpleasant people and not corrupt and illegal.)

What I’d like to hear is something constructive. It’s easy to say this is bad policing. Tell me what police are supposed to do when a known drug dealer stands up to police officer and says, “This is my corner. I’m not going anywhere.” Tell me what good policing is.

[And for the sake of debate, grant me the assumption that this guy is a drug dealer and didn't clear the corner when confronted by the officer.]

Reading this site regularly really lowers the bar doesn’t it? I wish I had a job where merely advocating raping someone with a pistol was enough to earn a modicum of praise.

I wouldn’t want this pond scum within 10 miles of my family. His language alone is so alarming that if a citizen spoke this way to another citizen it would be a crime. What type of character is displayed here? Where is this type of behavior deemed appropriate?

Is that what passes for “high level of integrity” and “solid character” in the police world? If so, you need more education as to what those words actually mean. Or, you could just return to whatever noxious, vile, filth-strewn planet you came from.

Protect & Serve (Themselves!)