Fine tuning the police debate

[occasional thoughts]

So much heat and noise enters into the many threads of late over the funding, training and practices of police forces, especially south of the border. This thread is about the appropriate response and discipline when police personnel BREAK the law, as a NYPD officer is accused of from a day or two ago; by putting a chokehold on a Black man (of course) contrary to the laws that apply in NYC and apparently have been in place for coming up on 30 years.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nypd-offic ... d-suspect/

If most deaths of victims of police action start with the victim breaking a law or two, what about the police? Are they exempt from abiding by laws passed by their employers such as city councils and states? Just curious.

[OKkayak]

a Black man (of course)

So much for "fine tuning" the police debate.

[OKkayak]

As for the actual topic, cops have gotten away with far too much for far too long under the disguise of "resisting arrest" or "you shouldn't break the law". Fact is, we all have rights and those rights remain in effect until we are proven to be found guilty of something, and contrary to what some cop cheerleaders believe, the cops are not judge and jury.

Whether its a cop writing someone a ticket for their misinterpretation of a traffic law or violently arresting someone with an unreasonable amount of force, North America suffers from a very broken cop culture and it needs to be fixed and fast.

[MilesDyson]

Are they exempt from abiding by laws passed by their employers such as city councils and states? Just curious.

Answer: No

/end thread


Police officers are not above the law, why is this hard to comprehend?

[mexi cali]

Don't think it's hard to comprehend, the question was rhetorical.

There has been a culture of protection from the executive inside police facilities for a long, long time. They preach to the rank and file that they are doing a dangerous job and as such, you do what you gotta do and if John Q complains about it, we've got your back.

The camera phone age, CCTV etc. is directly responsible for the rise in reports but there probably has not been a significant rise in the events. It's just that in the years prior to camera phones and CCTV cameras virtually everywhere, they are getting caught more and the brass are seeing that they can't have the collective backs of their crews anymore because unlike what some may have you believe (the video doesn't tell the whole story), turns out, video is pretty compelling.

The police are not, as pointed out, judge and jury. They are their to uphold the law. They have the right to use whatever force is reasonable to subdue suspects but they don't have the right to brutalize people unnecessarily because they're pissssed off.

I think that there is a fraternal order out there who actually believe that they are the ultimate authority and that they are above the laws that they are sworn to uphold.

What has to happen now is that there has got to be an attitude of zero tolerance for outrageous behavior within police forces everywhere.

How hard must it be to be one of those officers who actually believe in the law and who also are empathetic people who are willing to listen first when a small but vocal group of their brethren act like thugs?

[Sparki55]

...and contrary to what some cop cheerleaders believe, the cops are not judge and jury...

https://bcdrivinglawyers.com/mandatory-vehicle-impoundment-violate-charter-rights/

According to law, the cops are slowly becoming judge and jury. It started with car impounds on the side of the road for speeding and now they can show up at your home if they suspect you were drinking and driving earlier.

Police could show up at your [home] door demanding a breath sample. If you don't provide one, you'll be arrested. If you blow over the limit, you'll be arrested for impaired driving

https://www.narcity.com/news/what-is-canadas-new-two-hour-breathalyzer-rule-and-why-is-it-being-called-unconstitutional

I complained about these laws when they went into place as they are ripe for abuse by police. I was told by many castanetters that as long as I don't speed or drink and drive, I'll be fine. I still don't agree. Now here the world is demanding police own up for their actions and there are calls for Canadian police to be put into tighter budgets. So which is it? Do we need police to have access to more power to make quick decisions and free up the courts, or do we need to claw back their responsibility lol?!

[ajoker]

Maybe all we need is higher taxes and to give the police MORE of our money?

[Even Steven]

We should all just agree to stop breaking law. Easy.

[Sparki55]

We should all just agree to stop breaking law. Easy.

Maybe if the laws weren't created by control hungry politicians, people wouldn't break them.

I mean, up until recently it was illegal to smoke a joint lol. Has the legal sale of marijuana ruined society yet?

Can we legalize psychedelics now? Abolish laws on restrictions of freedom? Remove all laws that defy our rights?

[occasional thoughts]

Other current threads such as Defund The Police and Police - RCMP have brought out the police defenders concerning the exercise of discretion and use of deadly force. I'm trying to restrict this thread to whether anyone disagrees with the notion that police must obey laws passed to control their behaviour. A NYPD officer is suspended without pay a couple of days ago for putting an individual in a chokehold. NYC law has outlawed police using chokeholds since the 1990s. Is anyone defending the officer and if so, how and why.

[OKkayak]

A NYPD officer is suspended without pay a couple of days ago for putting an individual in a chokehold. NYC law has outlawed police using chokeholds since the 1990s. Is anyone defending the officer and if so, how and why.

Unless the officer's life or the lives of bystanders in the area were in immediate danger, no, I wouldn't defend them. In some cases, I strongly believe that they should be charged with straight out assault.

[mexi cali]

Some will defend him. That's why it still happens. Some of those who might defend him may have been his superiors but it's getting harder for them to defend the indefensible just cuz.

[Richadio]

In the United States, the doctrine of qualified immunity grants government officials performing discretionary functions immunity from civil suits unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known".

Maybe all we need is higher taxes and to give the police MORE of our money?

What will this do besides put more money in the pockets of the police raising their tax bracket?
The money needs to go to training and badly. So many cops out there who do not know how to deal with special needs persons, disabled, mental health, etc.

[occasional thoughts]

I'm curious to see what the usual suspects have to say, our friend from Regina and others, who have defended the police down to what they have for breakfast in the morning in other threads around here these days. They have been strangely and conspiculously silent so far. Silence being golden, we may eventually have to assume that we've found a segment of police action that police defenders agree I wrong, should be criticized, and subject to legitimate criminal charges by authorities.

[liisgo]

Other current threads such as Defund The Police and Police - RCMP have brought out the police defenders concerning the exercise of discretion and use of deadly force. I'm trying to restrict this thread to whether anyone disagrees with the notion that police must obey laws passed to control their behaviour. A NYPD officer is suspended without pay a couple of days ago for putting an individual in a chokehold. NYC law has outlawed police using chokeholds since the 1990s. Is anyone defending the officer and if so, how and why.

Do you not see their is actually something very questionable and concerning about your motives and your fishing here.
Are there really people who believe anyone, any job is allowed to completely disregard laws and practises? I doubt it, you need to question this? Is this all you have gotten out of others post's? Have people gotten this silly?
All is about incidents that have happened and the actions being wrong, immoral, criminal and unjust. Each case is different. But now a systemic culture of brutality and racism. Which is what a lot of people do not agree with and a lot want to state. Are they wrong or are the ones running around trying to support it wrong? There are millions of amazing people working in related fields that show continually that a system of professionalism exist within the same fields that you believe have a culture of other within.
It seems more like a disillusioned fantasy created to rant. A lot of people want to see accountability, truth in media and actual honest integrity of the handling of problem incidents that arise. Proper, respectful and charges against all who commit crimes whether at the criminals end or the laws end. There is a very serious problem if now we need to ask questions like this.
Why do you think there might be people out there, after obviously insinuating they are people that disagree with your posts, believe some think police are not expected to follow laws that govern them?