Should we trust the police force? Well, look at our judicial system. The police collect evidence and present it to the prosecutor. The prosecutor authorizes the arrest. The arrested person gets a preliminary hearing where the judge determines if there is enough evidence to proceed to trail. The trial happens--here in the US an accused person has the right to trial by jury, The jury decides the guilt or innocence of the accused. Then there is the appeals process, and the clemency process. In other words, there are a number of checks on the power of the police. We built the system because, frankly, we do not trust the police.
No I think that is a complete mischaracteristation of the situation! The police are part of the system that has been built - they are not some pre-existing part of the "state of nature"!
Someone seems to like splitting hairs. I would argue the police came first, then through the generations we have developed the system to keep them in check.
I would say that where I live I can never trust the police to be fair to PoC*, queer people, or disabled people as they are composed. If the police were disbanded and a different group of community based people with proper training were to take over law enforcement, maybe I could trust them.
*people of color, an appropriate way (where I live) to say people who are not white
@Telford the point of bias isn't that it necessarily makes a source less reliable. Much like the idea that primary sources are automatically better than secondary sources (they are not), I think this is a real problem in how history teaching in UK schools doesn't pay attention to historiography. Bias is something everybody has and is more or less impossible to avoid, unless you are writing some technical writing or similar. Bias isn't bad, it's something to be aware of and think critically about. That's why you pay attention to footnotes and bibliographies.
As an adult, I worked out at some point that God was the only appropriate channel for unconditional trust, which I think is the basis of faith.
Anything else, even people I know personally and care deeply about, has conditionals attached depending on my relationship with them and what I think I should reasonably expect from them.
The police are no exception, even the ones that are passing honest, and I've seen enough evidence that a considerable number of them clearly aren't.
? Another mysterious abbreviation. It appears to stand for some sort of jewellery company or linked to cryptocurrency.
My guess was Gypsy, Roma, Traveller. But a guess is all it is, especially since I thought “Gypsy” is disfavored.
There is a pond difference here, if memory serves. In the US it's considered pejorative but the picture is more mixed in the UK, with some people using it as a self-identity.
? Another mysterious abbreviation. It appears to stand for some sort of jewellery company or linked to cryptocurrency.
My guess was Gypsy, Roma, Traveller. But a guess is all it is, especially since I thought “Gypsy” is disfavored.
There is a pond difference here, if memory serves. In the US it's considered pejorative but the picture is more mixed in the UK, with some people using it as a self-identity.
I think the "anyone can use a label to self-identify" rule is pretty solid in the US, if and only if you have a legitimate claim on the identity.
What's considered obnoxious is people who don't have any understanding of a particular culture using its pejorative to romantically ID themselves.
I've thought for years that the "self identification is fine as long as you're legit" rule is generally respected, and applies to a broad range of ethnic pejoratives.
Compare Stevie Nicks to Eugene Hutz for two contrasting examples.
If the Police are not trusted, if the Police are not appreciated, if moral in the Police service is very low, you will get the Police service that you deserve.
If the Police are not trusted, if the Police are not appreciated, if moral in the Police service is very low, you will get the Police service that you deserve.
If some police prove untrustworthy, and if there is a culture of not shopping your mates, that will reflect on all police.
Police will not be trusted, and police morale will go down.
Good officers will see that their reputation is tarnished by the “bad apples“, and lose hope. Less good offices will see that they can get away with less than proper conduct - the rot from the bad apples will spread. Morale will go down further.
Whether that is a police service that the public at large deserve seems to me to be an open question.
If the Police are not trusted, if the Police are not appreciated, if moral in the Police service is very low, you will get the Police service that you deserve.
"If you didn't keep making me angry I wouldn't hit you"
Can anyone tell the difference between defences of police and those of domestic abusers?
Are you saying that the problems with the police in the UK are the fault of the public?
Certainly not. The percentage of bad apples in the Police Force is probably far less the percentage of the public who do not support them. Do you realise that the public includes many criminals ?
I wonder what percentage of bad apples we are talking about? There are, from time to time in the news, cases of , for example, doctors and nurses doing terrible things. Probably the vast majority can still be trusted.
My only recent experience with the police was when I was cycling across a motorway bridge and stopped as a few people were with a young girl who had climbed over the barrier as though she was going to throw herself off. Members of the public were brilliant and though an ambulance had been called it was taking (as usual) for ever to arrive. A police car happened to be passing and stopped. The police officers took charge of the situation and were brilliant.
If the Police are not trusted, if the Police are not appreciated, if moral in the Police service is very low, you will get the Police service that you deserve.
If some police prove untrustworthy, and if there is a culture of not shopping your mates, that will reflect on all police.
Police will not be trusted, and police morale will go down.
Good officers will see that their reputation is tarnished by the “bad apples“, and lose hope. Less good offices will see that they can get away with less than proper conduct - the rot from the bad apples will spread. Morale will go down further.
Whether that is a police service that the public at large deserve seems to me to be an open question.
If people think that the Police Force should be better, they should join and help to improve it.
Are you saying that the problems with the police in the UK are the fault of the public?
Certainly not. The percentage of bad apples in the Police Force is probably far less the percentage of the public who do not support them. Do you realise that the public includes many criminals ?
Private citizens aren't issued a license and a firearm. And are held to a far higher bar for behavior than police officers.
Also, police officers are part of a professional organization. When I go to work, I realize I am part of a professional organization and what I do reflects on them, and what they do reflects on me. This is not how it goes with citizens and nation states, outside of fascism.
Also, with the apple metaphor, the saying goes "a bad apple spoils the barrel." It doesn't take more than few to corrupt an organization.
If the Police are not trusted, if the Police are not appreciated, if moral in the Police service is very low, you will get the Police service that you deserve.
If some police prove untrustworthy, and if there is a culture of not shopping your mates, that will reflect on all police.
Police will not be trusted, and police morale will go down.
Good officers will see that their reputation is tarnished by the “bad apples“, and lose hope. Less good offices will see that they can get away with less than proper conduct - the rot from the bad apples will spread. Morale will go down further.
Whether that is a police service that the public at large deserve seems to me to be an open question.
If people think that the Police Force should be better, they should join and help to improve it.
This is rather akin to saying that if people don't want to be poor, they should go out and get a better-paid job. IOW, not very helpful.
If the Police are not trusted, if the Police are not appreciated, if moral in the Police service is very low, you will get the Police service that you deserve.
If some police prove untrustworthy, and if there is a culture of not shopping your mates, that will reflect on all police.
Police will not be trusted, and police morale will go down.
Good officers will see that their reputation is tarnished by the “bad apples“, and lose hope. Less good offices will see that they can get away with less than proper conduct - the rot from the bad apples will spread. Morale will go down further.
Whether that is a police service that the public at large deserve seems to me to be an open question.
If people think that the Police Force should be better, they should join and help to improve it.
This is rather akin to saying that if people don't want to be poor, they should go out and get a better-paid job. IOW, not very helpful.
That is a daft statement. If you think that we have too many of the wrong people in the Police Force, you must surely think that they should be replaced by better people.
If the Police are not trusted, if the Police are not appreciated, if moral in the Police service is very low, you will get the Police service that you deserve.
If some police prove untrustworthy, and if there is a culture of not shopping your mates, that will reflect on all police.
Police will not be trusted, and police morale will go down.
Good officers will see that their reputation is tarnished by the “bad apples“, and lose hope. Less good offices will see that they can get away with less than proper conduct - the rot from the bad apples will spread. Morale will go down further.
Whether that is a police service that the public at large deserve seems to me to be an open question.
If people think that the Police Force should be better, they should join and help to improve it.
This is rather akin to saying that if people don't want to be poor, they should go out and get a better-paid job. IOW, not very helpful.
On the contrary I think it is essential. If we think the police is such a corrupt organisation that no decent person should join it, then the police as an institution needs to be dismantled and (importantly) replaced with something better. Otherwise we need to be prepared to do the necessary to improve the police which might indeed for some mean joining the police.
If the Police are not trusted, if the Police are not appreciated, if moral in the Police service is very low, you will get the Police service that you deserve.
If some police prove untrustworthy, and if there is a culture of not shopping your mates, that will reflect on all police.
Police will not be trusted, and police morale will go down.
Good officers will see that their reputation is tarnished by the “bad apples“, and lose hope. Less good offices will see that they can get away with less than proper conduct - the rot from the bad apples will spread. Morale will go down further.
Whether that is a police service that the public at large deserve seems to me to be an open question.
If people think that the Police Force should be better, they should join and help to improve it.
This is rather akin to saying that if people don't want to be poor, they should go out and get a better-paid job. IOW, not very helpful.
That is a daft statement. If you think that we have too many of the wrong people in the Police Force, you must surely think that they should be replaced by better people.
There is no need to be offensive. It may be desirable for more of the right people to join the police force, in order to improve matters, but I doubt if it is as easy as you imply.
Are you saying that the problems with the police in the UK are the fault of the public?
Certainly not. The percentage of bad apples in the Police Force is probably far less the percentage of the public who do not support them. Do you realise that the public includes many criminals ?
... So do the police. We all hope there aren't very large numbers of crooked or bullying or those lying to protect "their own" but cases do come to light and unsurprisingly they get into the news and affect police reputation and morale.
Are you saying that the problems with the police in the UK are the fault of the public?
Certainly not. The percentage of bad apples in the Police Force is probably far less the percentage of the public who do not support them. Do you realise that the public includes many criminals ?
... So do the police. We all hope there aren't very large numbers of crooked or bullying or those lying to protect "their own" but cases do come to light and unsurprisingly they get into the news and affect police reputation and morale.
There have been, as we all know, quite a number of high-profile cases, both here, and in the US, in recent years.
Are there more such cases than in previous years, or are we just made aware of them more easily IYSWIM?
Are you saying that the problems with the police in the UK are the fault of the public?
Certainly not. The percentage of bad apples in the Police Force is probably far less the percentage of the public who do not support them. Do you realise that the public includes many criminals ?
... So do the police. We all hope there aren't very large numbers of crooked or bullying or those lying to protect "their own" but cases do come to light and unsurprisingly they get into the news and affect police reputation and morale.
Furthermore, to pick the example of the Met, that's one corruption investigation every 20 years where the final report has been suppressed and records and evidence have disappeared or been mysteriously destroyed.
If the Police are not trusted, if the Police are not appreciated, if moral in the Police service is very low, you will get the Police service that you deserve.
If some police prove untrustworthy, and if there is a culture of not shopping your mates, that will reflect on all police.
Police will not be trusted, and police morale will go down.
Good officers will see that their reputation is tarnished by the “bad apples“, and lose hope. Less good offices will see that they can get away with less than proper conduct - the rot from the bad apples will spread. Morale will go down further.
Whether that is a police service that the public at large deserve seems to me to be an open question.
If people think that the Police Force should be better, they should join and help to improve it.
This is rather akin to saying that if people don't want to be poor, they should go out and get a better-paid job. IOW, not very helpful.
That is a daft statement. If you think that we have too many of the wrong people in the Police Force, you must surely think that they should be replaced by better people.
There is no need to be offensive.
My remark was about your statement, not you.
It may be desirable for more of the right people to join the police force, in order to improve matters, but I doubt if it is as easy as you imply.
Are you saying that the problems with the police in the UK are the fault of the public?
Certainly not. The percentage of bad apples in the Police Force is probably far less the percentage of the public who do not support them. Do you realise that the public includes many criminals ?
... So do the police. We all hope there aren't very large numbers of crooked or bullying or those lying to protect "their own" but cases do come to light and unsurprisingly they get into the news and affect police reputation and morale.
Who do you think detects the offences and collates the evidence for the CPS ?
If the Police are not trusted, if the Police are not appreciated, if moral in the Police service is very low, you will get the Police service that you deserve.
If some police prove untrustworthy, and if there is a culture of not shopping your mates, that will reflect on all police.
Police will not be trusted, and police morale will go down.
Good officers will see that their reputation is tarnished by the “bad apples“, and lose hope. Less good offices will see that they can get away with less than proper conduct - the rot from the bad apples will spread. Morale will go down further.
Whether that is a police service that the public at large deserve seems to me to be an open question.
If people think that the Police Force should be better, they should join and help to improve it.
This is rather akin to saying that if people don't want to be poor, they should go out and get a better-paid job. IOW, not very helpful.
That is a daft statement. If you think that we have too many of the wrong people in the Police Force, you must surely think that they should be replaced by better people.
There is no need to be offensive.
My remark was about your statement, not you.
It may be desirable for more of the right people to join the police force, in order to improve matters, but I doubt if it is as easy as you imply.
How difficult do you think it is to apply ?
You referred to my statement as *daft*. I find that offensive.
As to applying to join the police, I assume that not every individual would fulfil whatever the requirements are these days. Some might therefore find it difficult.
If the Police are not trusted, if the Police are not appreciated, if moral in the Police service is very low, you will get the Police service that you deserve.
If some police prove untrustworthy, and if there is a culture of not shopping your mates, that will reflect on all police.
Police will not be trusted, and police morale will go down.
Good officers will see that their reputation is tarnished by the “bad apples“, and lose hope. Less good offices will see that they can get away with less than proper conduct - the rot from the bad apples will spread. Morale will go down further.
Whether that is a police service that the public at large deserve seems to me to be an open question.
If people think that the Police Force should be better, they should join and help to improve it.
This is rather akin to saying that if people don't want to be poor, they should go out and get a better-paid job. IOW, not very helpful.
That is a daft statement. If you think that we have too many of the wrong people in the Police Force, you must surely think that they should be replaced by better people.
There is no need to be offensive.
My remark was about your statement, not you.
It may be desirable for more of the right people to join the police force, in order to improve matters, but I doubt if it is as easy as you imply.
How difficult do you think it is to apply ?
You referred to my statement as *daft*. I find that offensive.
I apologise if you are offended. What do you think would be a more suitable word ?
As to applying to join the police, I assume that not every individual would fulfil whatever the requirements are these days. Some might therefore find it difficult.
If they found it difficult, they probably wouldn't be suitable. It is true that education now counts more than common sense and courage.
If the Police are not trusted, if the Police are not appreciated, if moral in the Police service is very low, you will get the Police service that you deserve.
If some police prove untrustworthy, and if there is a culture of not shopping your mates, that will reflect on all police.
Police will not be trusted, and police morale will go down.
Good officers will see that their reputation is tarnished by the “bad apples“, and lose hope. Less good offices will see that they can get away with less than proper conduct - the rot from the bad apples will spread. Morale will go down further.
Whether that is a police service that the public at large deserve seems to me to be an open question.
If people think that the Police Force should be better, they should join and help to improve it.
This is rather akin to saying that if people don't want to be poor, they should go out and get a better-paid job. IOW, not very helpful.
That is a daft statement. If you think that we have too many of the wrong people in the Police Force, you must surely think that they should be replaced by better people.
There is no need to be offensive.
My remark was about your statement, not you.
It may be desirable for more of the right people to join the police force, in order to improve matters, but I doubt if it is as easy as you imply.
How difficult do you think it is to apply ?
You referred to my statement as *daft*. I find that offensive.
I apologise if you are offended. What do you think would be a more suitable word ?
As to applying to join the police, I assume that not every individual would fulfil whatever the requirements are these days. Some might therefore find it difficult.
If they found it difficult, they probably wouldn't be suitable. It is true that education now counts more than common sense and courage.
Let's put it another way.
What do you think would make someone suitable to join the police?
Are you saying that the problems with the police in the UK are the fault of the public?
Certainly not. The percentage of bad apples in the Police Force is probably far less the percentage of the public who do not support them. Do you realise that the public includes many criminals ?
... So do the police. We all hope there aren't very large numbers of crooked or bullying or those lying to protect "their own" but cases do come to light and unsurprisingly they get into the news and affect police reputation and morale.
Who do you think detects the offences and collates the evidence for the CPS ?
Dunno. do you know?
If it's down to the police to do it, I'd suggest this should change and be done by some external independent oversight body to avoid the temptation to look after their reputation rather than justice.
@Telford in the case of institutional racism in the police for example, it is unreasonable to expect Black people to fix the police's failings when the police are the ones who have damaged their own reputation.
According to multiple reports over many years many suitable candidates, women or candidates from ethnic minorities, are driven out of the police by bullying. Complaints to senior management rarely result in action taken to remedy the problem.
I don't think Telford's theory that more good candidates would be sufficient to drive out the bad candidates is borne out by the facts.
It seems that there is a culture among senior officers that there isn't a problem, and as long as they refuse to recognise the problem they won't do anything to fix it.
I don't trust communists to be objective about how good a Police Force is.
Why ? All communist states had police.
Police that are there to support the state rather than the people.
For context, @Telford is on record as blaming voting rights protesters for forcing Alabama State Troopers to beat and tear gas them on Bloody Sunday (American version) and expressed similar sentiments about Donald Trump ordering the Parks Police to tear gas peaceful demonstrators in Lafayette Park. This is apparently what he means by police supporting the people.
There have been, as we all know, quite a number of high-profile cases, both here, and in the US, in recent years.
Are there more such cases than in previous years, or are we just made aware of them more easily IYSWIM?
Apparently police brutality was only invented around the same time everyone started carrying video recording devices with them everywhere. Coincidentally that's about the same time aliens stopped visiting Earth.
If the Police are not trusted, if the Police are not appreciated, if moral in the Police service is very low, you will get the Police service that you deserve.
If some police prove untrustworthy, and if there is a culture of not shopping your mates, that will reflect on all police.
Police will not be trusted, and police morale will go down.
Good officers will see that their reputation is tarnished by the “bad apples“, and lose hope. Less good offices will see that they can get away with less than proper conduct - the rot from the bad apples will spread. Morale will go down further.
Whether that is a police service that the public at large deserve seems to me to be an open question.
If people think that the Police Force should be better, they should join and help to improve it.
This is rather akin to saying that if people don't want to be poor, they should go out and get a better-paid job. IOW, not very helpful.
That is a daft statement. If you think that we have too many of the wrong people in the Police Force, you must surely think that they should be replaced by better people.
There is no need to be offensive.
My remark was about your statement, not you.
It may be desirable for more of the right people to join the police force, in order to improve matters, but I doubt if it is as easy as you imply.
How difficult do you think it is to apply ?
You referred to my statement as *daft*. I find that offensive.
I apologise if you are offended. What do you think would be a more suitable word ?
As to applying to join the police, I assume that not every individual would fulfil whatever the requirements are these days. Some might therefore find it difficult.
If they found it difficult, they probably wouldn't be suitable. It is true that education now counts more than common sense and courage.
Let's put it another way.
What do you think would make someone suitable to join the police?
At least average intelligence. Common sense, no criminal record ( I am not refering to minor traffic offences) Physically fit.
The demographics of a Police Force should reflect the demographics of the area it serves.
If the Police are not trusted, if the Police are not appreciated, if moral in the Police service is very low, you will get the Police service that you deserve.
If some police prove untrustworthy, and if there is a culture of not shopping your mates, that will reflect on all police.
Police will not be trusted, and police morale will go down.
Good officers will see that their reputation is tarnished by the “bad apples“, and lose hope. Less good offices will see that they can get away with less than proper conduct - the rot from the bad apples will spread. Morale will go down further.
Whether that is a police service that the public at large deserve seems to me to be an open question.
If people think that the Police Force should be better, they should join and help to improve it.
This is rather akin to saying that if people don't want to be poor, they should go out and get a better-paid job. IOW, not very helpful.
That is a daft statement. If you think that we have too many of the wrong people in the Police Force, you must surely think that they should be replaced by better people.
There is no need to be offensive.
My remark was about your statement, not you.
It may be desirable for more of the right people to join the police force, in order to improve matters, but I doubt if it is as easy as you imply.
How difficult do you think it is to apply ?
You referred to my statement as *daft*. I find that offensive.
I apologise if you are offended. What do you think would be a more suitable word ?
As to applying to join the police, I assume that not every individual would fulfil whatever the requirements are these days. Some might therefore find it difficult.
If they found it difficult, they probably wouldn't be suitable. It is true that education now counts more than common sense and courage.
Let's put it another way.
What do you think would make someone suitable to join the police?
@Telford in the case of institutional racism in the police for example, it is unreasonable to expect Black people to fix the police's failings when the police are the ones who have damaged their own reputation.
I agree with the bit highlighted but I am confused as to why to have stated it
According to multiple reports over many years many suitable candidates, women or candidates from ethnic minorities, are driven out of the police by bullying. Complaints to senior management rarely result in action taken to remedy the problem.
I don't think Telford's theory that more good candidates would be sufficient to drive out the bad candidates is borne out by the facts.
It seems that there is a culture among senior officers that there isn't a problem, and as long as they refuse to recognise the problem they won't do anything to fix it.
I left 26 years ago. During my time, I admired non white officers who risked alienation from their own communities when they joined. I did not witness bullying I would not allow bullying. I would not pretend it never happened.
From what I have read, heard and seen in the media, the situation has deteriated.
@Telford in the case of institutional racism in the police for example, it is unreasonable to expect Black people to fix the police's failings when the police are the ones who have damaged their own reputation.
I agree with the bit highlighted but I am confused as to why to have stated it
I meant it wrt people joining the police to make it better.
If the Police are not trusted, if the Police are not appreciated, if moral in the Police service is very low, you will get the Police service that you deserve.
If some police prove untrustworthy, and if there is a culture of not shopping your mates, that will reflect on all police.
Police will not be trusted, and police morale will go down.
Good officers will see that their reputation is tarnished by the “bad apples“, and lose hope. Less good offices will see that they can get away with less than proper conduct - the rot from the bad apples will spread. Morale will go down further.
Whether that is a police service that the public at large deserve seems to me to be an open question.
If people think that the Police Force should be better, they should join and help to improve it.
This is rather akin to saying that if people don't want to be poor, they should go out and get a better-paid job. IOW, not very helpful.
That is a daft statement. If you think that we have too many of the wrong people in the Police Force, you must surely think that they should be replaced by better people.
There is no need to be offensive.
My remark was about your statement, not you.
It may be desirable for more of the right people to join the police force, in order to improve matters, but I doubt if it is as easy as you imply.
How difficult do you think it is to apply ?
You referred to my statement as *daft*. I find that offensive.
I apologise if you are offended. What do you think would be a more suitable word ?
As to applying to join the police, I assume that not every individual would fulfil whatever the requirements are these days. Some might therefore find it difficult.
If they found it difficult, they probably wouldn't be suitable. It is true that education now counts more than common sense and courage.
Let's put it another way.
What do you think would make someone suitable to join the police?
At least average intelligence.
Must. Resist. Obvious. Question.
Given that many US police departments have upper IQ limits...
@Telford in the case of institutional racism in the police for example, it is unreasonable to expect Black people to fix the police's failings when the police are the ones who have damaged their own reputation.
I agree with the bit highlighted but I am confused as to why to have stated it
I meant it wrt people joining the police to make it better.
If a person of colour ( I think that's the current expression to be used ) joined I would not expect them to 'put the world to rights' immediately. However, I would expect all new officers to be honest and do their job properly.
I don't trust communists to be objective about how good a Police Force is.
Why ? All communist states had police.
Police that are there to support the state rather than the people.
For context, @Telford is on record as blaming voting rights protesters for forcing Alabama State Troopers to beat and tear gas them on Bloody Sunday (American version) and expressed similar sentiments about Donald Trump ordering the Parks Police to tear gas peaceful demonstrators in Lafayette Park. This is apparently what he means by police supporting the people.
I’d say it’s a campaign ad-worthy stretch to say he’s “on record” as assigning blame in that way. It can be inferred from what he said in the posts to which you linked. But it’s not something he specifically said nor is it a necessary inference from what he actually said, and I think it’s debatable whether such an inference is reasonable, especially in the case of Bloody Sunday, since in the post to which you linked to support your statement he does specifically say “As I have said somewhere else, I have no knowledge of events in the USA.”
I think it’s debatable whether such an inference is reasonable, especially in the case of Bloody Sunday, since in the post to which you linked to support your statement he does specifically say “As I have said somewhere else, I have no knowledge of events in the USA.”
And yet he still feels knowledgeable enough to assign blame to John Lewis and his compatriots for "getting [themselves] in violence", which has to be come kind of record for using the passive voice when describing police brutality.
Perhaps one of the reasons a lot of people mistrust police is the weaselly, blame-shifting way police typically describe any police misconduct, no matter how egregious.
Let's remember to contribute more light than heat, but also I encourage all to provide sources and listen to those who are most affected by the problem. It's easy to just theorize, but I would encourage you to do more than that.
Perhaps one of the reasons a lot of people mistrust police is the weaselly, blame-shifting way police typically describe any police misconduct, no matter how egregious.
I agree. But I don’t think productive discussion is furthered by relying only on inferences to assert something was “said on the record.” It wasn’t; it’s been inferred from what was said on the record, but it wasn’t actually said, and it’s not the only way to read what he said.
If someone says “he’s on the record as supporting,” I expect to be able to read something where that support is clearly stated. Otherwise, it’s way too easy to dismiss the claim as mischaracterization or as putting words in his mouth, which undercuts the attempt to call out weaselly blame-shifting.
I think it’s debatable whether such an inference is reasonable, especially in the case of Bloody Sunday, since in the post to which you linked to support your statement he does specifically say “As I have said somewhere else, I have no knowledge of events in the USA.”
And yet he still feels knowledgeable enough to assign blame to John Lewis and his compatriots for "getting [themselves] in violence", which has to be come kind of record for using the passive voice when describing police brutality.
Perhaps one of the reasons a lot of people mistrust police is the weaselly, blame-shifting way police typically describe any police misconduct, no matter how egregious.
Why does you persist with posting this vicious nonsense.
and why are you allowed to do it ?
I wonder what percentage of bad apples we are talking about? There are, from time to time in the news, cases of , for example, doctors and nurses doing terrible things. Probably the vast majority can still be trusted.
Yes but if a doctor has done wrong, and a second doctor reports them, the second doctor is unlikely to get beaten up or fired for it. These things happen in police forces with some regularity, or at least they do until the so-called "good cops" learn to keep their heads down and not make noise, thereby becoming collaborators of lawlessness and thus by definition bad cops. One bad apple does, in fact, spoil the whole bunch with the way at least American policing has come to work. The Blue Line is real and it aids-and-abets abusers of authority, who then go out and kneel on people's throats until they (not the cop) die.
And then there's qualified immunity, which "protects state and local officials, including law enforcement officers, from individual liability unless the official violated a clearly established constitutional right . . . . According to the Supreme Court, qualified immunity protects all except the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law." (from NCSL dot org, the National Council of State Legislatures)
It is harder than hell to prosecute cops in this country. They have to do something so outrageous that the whole country screams for justice. Otherwise it is swept under the rug.
Here in South Africa, the focus is on making it safer for victims of gender-based violence (GBV) to report attacks at police stations. Aside from the lack of sympathy and professionalism shown by police on duty, the police have often had inadequate training in the use of rape kits or obtaining samples for DNA analysis.
The community's lack of trust in the police means that victims of GBV under-report but also withdraw cases, especially with regard to intimate partner violence because they have no confidence in getting justice given the high rates of acquittals and cases dismissed for lack of evidence or sloppy police investigations.
Last week a presidential summit on End Gender-Based Violence and Femicide 2022 highlighted the failures in policing and the justice system as statistics of GBVF rise. I sometimes think I'm unshockable after so many years of volunteering with rape crisis and shelters for abused trans people, lesbians, women and children but watching this summit made me feel ill.
Trigger warning although I'm not hiding this text, keeping it as brief as possible.
Adult female murder in South Africa was up by 53% over first quarter of 2021 and the first quarter of 2022. Intimate femicide is now one of the leading causes of death in this country. Three women are killed each day in South Africa by their intimate partner and these crimes are often not investigated or prosecuted due to inept policing. A revealing aspect brought up by policewomen is that they do not receive any trauma counselling after working with violent crime and deaths and that many of them come from backgrounds of sexual abuse and intimate partner violence, addiction, gangland feuding. Since they feel unable to protect themselves, how can they protect others? Survivor testimonies took up much of the conference, extremely distressing to witness and hear, but the reality of what is happening with GBVF cannot be denied by those in authority.
(sorry, but I can't seem to get the BBCode to make a fancy quote-with-link out of that)
In my line of work, if I see someone do something wrong, I'm legally obligated to report it. And if I don't, I'm just as guilty as they are. That's how the organization handles it.
I wish police officers were held up to that kind of responsibility. But they plainly aren't.
Here in South Africa, the focus is on making it safer for victims of gender-based violence (GBV) to report attacks at police stations. Aside from the lack of sympathy and professionalism shown by police on duty, the police have often had inadequate training in the use of rape kits or obtaining samples for DNA analysis.
The community's lack of trust in the police means that victims of GBV under-report but also withdraw cases, especially with regard to intimate partner violence because they have no confidence in getting justice given the high rates of acquittals and cases dismissed for lack of evidence or sloppy police investigations.
Last week a presidential summit on End Gender-Based Violence and Femicide 2022 highlighted the failures in policing and the justice system as statistics of GBVF rise. I sometimes think I'm unshockable after so many years of volunteering with rape crisis and shelters for abused trans people, lesbians, women and children but watching this summit made me feel ill.
Trigger warning although I'm not hiding this text, keeping it as brief as possible.
Adult female murder in South Africa was up by 53% over first quarter of 2021 and the first quarter of 2022. Intimate femicide is now one of the leading causes of death in this country. Three women are killed each day in South Africa by their intimate partner and these crimes are often not investigated or prosecuted due to inept policing. A revealing aspect brought up by policewomen is that they do not receive any trauma counselling after working with violent crime and deaths and that many of them come from backgrounds of sexual abuse and intimate partner violence, addiction, gangland feuding. Since they feel unable to protect themselves, how can they protect others? Survivor testimonies took up much of the conference, extremely distressing to witness and hear, but the reality of what is happening with GBVF cannot be denied by those in authority.
On a tangent, a heavy example of this came up on Trevor Noah's biography, Born a Crime, relevant as he grew up in South Africa and speaks forthrightly about his childhood.
Yes @Bullfrog, a very hard-hitting biography of childhood in the final years of apartheid and many of the problems we are now dealing with can be traced back to the enormous fear and distrust poorer communities had of the police. They didn't want to risk harassment or bullying and so didn't report crimes, avoided police attention as much as possible, didn't speak up to report police corruption for fear of being targeted themselves by rogue police units and officers.
This is of course isn't a problem unique to South Africa but goes to the heart of public perceptions of the police from the perspective of those who are marginalised, racialised, disadvantaged etc. If rogue police are able to operate with impunity amid a hidden police culture of misogyny, transphobia, or toxic masculinity, it is very hard to repair that broken trust within minority communities.
Comments
Someone seems to like splitting hairs. I would argue the police came first, then through the generations we have developed the system to keep them in check.
*people of color, an appropriate way (where I live) to say people who are not white
Anything else, even people I know personally and care deeply about, has conditionals attached depending on my relationship with them and what I think I should reasonably expect from them.
The police are no exception, even the ones that are passing honest, and I've seen enough evidence that a considerable number of them clearly aren't.
There is a pond difference here, if memory serves. In the US it's considered pejorative but the picture is more mixed in the UK, with some people using it as a self-identity.
I think the "anyone can use a label to self-identify" rule is pretty solid in the US, if and only if you have a legitimate claim on the identity.
What's considered obnoxious is people who don't have any understanding of a particular culture using its pejorative to romantically ID themselves.
I've thought for years that the "self identification is fine as long as you're legit" rule is generally respected, and applies to a broad range of ethnic pejoratives.
Compare Stevie Nicks to Eugene Hutz for two contrasting examples.
Police will not be trusted, and police morale will go down.
Good officers will see that their reputation is tarnished by the “bad apples“, and lose hope. Less good offices will see that they can get away with less than proper conduct - the rot from the bad apples will spread. Morale will go down further.
Whether that is a police service that the public at large deserve seems to me to be an open question.
"If you didn't keep making me angry I wouldn't hit you"
Can anyone tell the difference between defences of police and those of domestic abusers?
My only recent experience with the police was when I was cycling across a motorway bridge and stopped as a few people were with a young girl who had climbed over the barrier as though she was going to throw herself off. Members of the public were brilliant and though an ambulance had been called it was taking (as usual) for ever to arrive. A police car happened to be passing and stopped. The police officers took charge of the situation and were brilliant.
If people think that the Police Force should be better, they should join and help to improve it.
Private citizens aren't issued a license and a firearm. And are held to a far higher bar for behavior than police officers.
Also, police officers are part of a professional organization. When I go to work, I realize I am part of a professional organization and what I do reflects on them, and what they do reflects on me. This is not how it goes with citizens and nation states, outside of fascism.
Also, with the apple metaphor, the saying goes "a bad apple spoils the barrel." It doesn't take more than few to corrupt an organization.
This is rather akin to saying that if people don't want to be poor, they should go out and get a better-paid job. IOW, not very helpful.
That is a daft statement. If you think that we have too many of the wrong people in the Police Force, you must surely think that they should be replaced by better people.
On the contrary I think it is essential. If we think the police is such a corrupt organisation that no decent person should join it, then the police as an institution needs to be dismantled and (importantly) replaced with something better. Otherwise we need to be prepared to do the necessary to improve the police which might indeed for some mean joining the police.
There is no need to be offensive. It may be desirable for more of the right people to join the police force, in order to improve matters, but I doubt if it is as easy as you imply.
There have been, as we all know, quite a number of high-profile cases, both here, and in the US, in recent years.
Are there more such cases than in previous years, or are we just made aware of them more easily IYSWIM?
Furthermore, to pick the example of the Met, that's one corruption investigation every 20 years where the final report has been suppressed and records and evidence have disappeared or been mysteriously destroyed.
Who do you think detects the offences and collates the evidence for the CPS ?
You referred to my statement as *daft*. I find that offensive.
As to applying to join the police, I assume that not every individual would fulfil whatever the requirements are these days. Some might therefore find it difficult.
Let's put it another way.
What do you think would make someone suitable to join the police?
Dunno. do you know?
If it's down to the police to do it, I'd suggest this should change and be done by some external independent oversight body to avoid the temptation to look after their reputation rather than justice.
I don't think Telford's theory that more good candidates would be sufficient to drive out the bad candidates is borne out by the facts.
It seems that there is a culture among senior officers that there isn't a problem, and as long as they refuse to recognise the problem they won't do anything to fix it.
For context, @Telford is on record as blaming voting rights protesters for forcing Alabama State Troopers to beat and tear gas them on Bloody Sunday (American version) and expressed similar sentiments about Donald Trump ordering the Parks Police to tear gas peaceful demonstrators in Lafayette Park. This is apparently what he means by police supporting the people.
Apparently police brutality was only invented around the same time everyone started carrying video recording devices with them everywhere. Coincidentally that's about the same time aliens stopped visiting Earth.
At least average intelligence. Common sense, no criminal record ( I am not refering to minor traffic offences) Physically fit.
The demographics of a Police Force should reflect the demographics of the area it serves.
Must. Resist. Obvious. Question.
I left 26 years ago. During my time, I admired non white officers who risked alienation from their own communities when they joined. I did not witness bullying I would not allow bullying. I would not pretend it never happened.
From what I have read, heard and seen in the media, the situation has deteriated.
I meant it wrt people joining the police to make it better.
Given that many US police departments have upper IQ limits...
And yet he still feels knowledgeable enough to assign blame to John Lewis and his compatriots for "getting [themselves] in violence", which has to be come kind of record for using the passive voice when describing police brutality.
Perhaps one of the reasons a lot of people mistrust police is the weaselly, blame-shifting way police typically describe any police misconduct, no matter how egregious.
Gwai,
Epiphanies Host
If someone says “he’s on the record as supporting,” I expect to be able to read something where that support is clearly stated. Otherwise, it’s way too easy to dismiss the claim as mischaracterization or as putting words in his mouth, which undercuts the attempt to call out weaselly blame-shifting.
Why does you persist with posting this vicious nonsense.
and why are you allowed to do it ?
Yes but if a doctor has done wrong, and a second doctor reports them, the second doctor is unlikely to get beaten up or fired for it. These things happen in police forces with some regularity, or at least they do until the so-called "good cops" learn to keep their heads down and not make noise, thereby becoming collaborators of lawlessness and thus by definition bad cops. One bad apple does, in fact, spoil the whole bunch with the way at least American policing has come to work. The Blue Line is real and it aids-and-abets abusers of authority, who then go out and kneel on people's throats until they (not the cop) die.
It is harder than hell to prosecute cops in this country. They have to do something so outrageous that the whole country screams for justice. Otherwise it is swept under the rug.
The community's lack of trust in the police means that victims of GBV under-report but also withdraw cases, especially with regard to intimate partner violence because they have no confidence in getting justice given the high rates of acquittals and cases dismissed for lack of evidence or sloppy police investigations.
Last week a presidential summit on End Gender-Based Violence and Femicide 2022 highlighted the failures in policing and the justice system as statistics of GBVF rise. I sometimes think I'm unshockable after so many years of volunteering with rape crisis and shelters for abused trans people, lesbians, women and children but watching this summit made me feel ill.
Trigger warning although I'm not hiding this text, keeping it as brief as possible.
Adult female murder in South Africa was up by 53% over first quarter of 2021 and the first quarter of 2022. Intimate femicide is now one of the leading causes of death in this country. Three women are killed each day in South Africa by their intimate partner and these crimes are often not investigated or prosecuted due to inept policing. A revealing aspect brought up by policewomen is that they do not receive any trauma counselling after working with violent crime and deaths and that many of them come from backgrounds of sexual abuse and intimate partner violence, addiction, gangland feuding. Since they feel unable to protect themselves, how can they protect others? Survivor testimonies took up much of the conference, extremely distressing to witness and hear, but the reality of what is happening with GBVF cannot be denied by those in authority.
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-serpico-knapp-commission-20211210-dqseuqk4zbapzhe6udszezfd3y-story.html
(sorry, but I can't seem to get the BBCode to make a fancy quote-with-link out of that)
In my line of work, if I see someone do something wrong, I'm legally obligated to report it. And if I don't, I'm just as guilty as they are. That's how the organization handles it.
I wish police officers were held up to that kind of responsibility. But they plainly aren't.
On a tangent, a heavy example of this came up on Trevor Noah's biography, Born a Crime, relevant as he grew up in South Africa and speaks forthrightly about his childhood.
This is of course isn't a problem unique to South Africa but goes to the heart of public perceptions of the police from the perspective of those who are marginalised, racialised, disadvantaged etc. If rogue police are able to operate with impunity amid a hidden police culture of misogyny, transphobia, or toxic masculinity, it is very hard to repair that broken trust within minority communities.