- cross-posted to:
- thepoliceproblem@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- thepoliceproblem@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
I’ve been told that my only job is to go home at night.
And yet simply withdrawing from a benign situation rather than escalating it to the point of violence seems to be beyond their grasp.
Or maybe deescalate, like police forces in other countries do.
Apparently, when women first started as police officers, in the UK, they were paired up with male officers. The logic being that the man can provide muscle, if needed.
It’s now been found that 2 women officers are far more effective, particularly with drunk men. A male officer can restrain them. A female officer can talk them into coming quietly.
Oh, and the UK police were the first to “raise concerns” when the government suggested arming beat officers with guns. They did NOT want to be armed.
Basically, it’s perfectly possible to police primarily by consent, and get the job done.
Oh that’s exactly what they do, it’s just that their training is to de-escalate by shooting first and sorting it all out later.
Going home at night is paramount to being a peace officer after all.
Remember that’s police sued to be able to discriminate against people with high iqs
https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836
And sued to not be required protect people.
ACAB.
pretty sure i read somewhere that if you excel in the academic portion of the academy youre disqualified for being too smart under the guise of some other excuse. critical thinking isnt something they want in the force.
Another example of why there are no good cops.
because good ones never get the chance to be good.
And the bad ones do a uh oh on the good ones who don’t play along.
Bad tree with a few good apples
Nothing surprising here. Violent enforcers of capital descended from slave patrols.
This is why, in addition to ACAB, I also like to use “Cops Enforce Evil”.
screenshot of text
no link to source or alt text
people with accessibility needs can’t read this
no one can instantly verify itIt’d be cool if the post linked to source & and maybe had/was text.
I searched for “Katie Sponsler I have been told” found the thread but it had been deleted from twitter. Fortunately, someone had archived it
Ayyy, the real MVP.
Katie Sponsler @KatieSponsler Jan 28 2023
I have been taught to yell “stop resisting” and “drop your weapon” after firing a gun, because bystanders will remember you said it and their memory will automatically reverse the order of the events to make it make sense. Their testimony will support yours, because of this.
I have been told to “loosen up and have fun, it’s fun! Why are you so serious?” When doing a shoot/don’t shoot scenario training.
I have been told that deescalation techniques will get me and other officers killed and as a smaller LEO, I was justified escalating my use of force faster than my colleagues because I was always in danger so I should use it.
I’ve been told my only job is to go home at night.
been told all of these things in formal, controlled and regulated Police Academies. I have gone through 3. I have heard some of these things more than once.
When I questioned these things in my third academy, and stated that they were inconsistent with the ethics of policing, I was kicked out of the academy on my last day. I had completed and excelled at all the graded tasks, but was told “you aren’t what we want in our force.”
Looks like her Twitter account has been deleted, though, so there is no source anymore. Regardless, all of this is pretty damn well corroborated, so even if this exact take is fluff, the police very much do select for bastards.
I can’t recall if it was in the Behind the Police miniseries or a more regular Behind the Bastards episode, but there was a breakdown of how even once you’ve completed the police academy, you have to train for a year (IIRC) under a training officer, and if the TO thinks you’re not cut out for the force, you are not permanently hired, and other forces will probably not give you a chance. TOs, by the bye, are typically drawn from officers who have been taken off normal duty due to numerous complaints, like the ones made by people who have been harassed or assaulted by cops.
It’s not just the academy, the whole system selects for bastards.
A year, lol. Most places have you on the street within a month of being hired, and you are placed with something called a field training officer, FTO. Any will laugh you out of the area as a poser if you’re trying to infiltrate their social lives to gather intel to use if you use TO. The field training phase lasts for 4 months at most. Cops cycle in and out of the job so fast they would never be able to afford a full year of training.
They also don’t use cops who have had tons of complaints. Those get given desk duty. The field trainers are the ones who know how to ‘write good,’ so they can criticize the reports that the rookies write. The rookies, mind you, are given all the shit cases that the others don’t want to work on, allegedly so the rookies can get experience in writing a bunch of different reports.
The bit about other departments not giving you a chance if you’re failed from a training phase is mostly true, but remember that the whole ‘desperate for new cops’ thing means the small places will hire you if you can breathe without wheezing, and sometimes even if you get out of breath walking to the donut store counter.
Remember kids, knowing is half the battle! don’t use this info in casual conversation to shmooze a cop you meet at the bar or a party to pick up details on their agency >.> <.<
Interesting. So no more will I advocate for:
“PEB”
(Policing Enables Bastards)
Nor the too distracting “ALL CAB” (“wait but only sith…”)
But the “select” language, seems powerful if can be backed up across many sources
I’m not an anarchist looking for the abolition of police as a concept.
But the institution of policing in America needs a Truth and Reconciliation commission. Complete top to bottom scrapping and rework. And a lot of pigs need to go to prison for a long time.
Start by removing Qualified Immunity.
While this is definitely needed, I don’t think it’s a starting point.
IMO, a good place to start is instituting policies requiring LEOs/PDs carry liability insurance. Similar to doctors and other medical practices (in the US). An officer is found guilty or misconduct or violating a citizen’s right? Penalties are taken out of their insurance and their premium increases. Can’t afford the premium? Guess who’s looking for a new job?
The way I see, the pigs can keep their criminal immunity, but civil matters will have a more direct financial incentive for them to behave like they have morals.
Police have unions (They function as professional organizations, but legally they are labor unions) largely to block legal changes like this. To defeat them, you’d need to somehow pass legislation on the state and federal level that mortally undermines the power of all labor unions in the USA. This would have knock-on effects for all US workers, as unions fight for and uphold labor protections that benefit those outside their ranks. For instance, two day weekends and 40 hour work weeks.
It seems clear to me that ending QE - Which is merely a judicial policy, it’s not even law - Is by far the more potent, simple, and safe avenue of attack. But I’m interested in your thoughts on the above proverbial gun that police unions hold to the head of every US laborer.
To defeat them, you’d need to somehow pass legislation on the state and federal level that mortally undermines the power of all labor unions in the USA.
I think you could narrow it from “all labor unions” to “all public-sector unions.” Unfortunately this still end up affecting teachers, firefighters, and various city workers.
No, you can have selective limits, tied to how much risk the job imposes on the surroundings (like universal regulation on any job requiring being armed). Unions are supposed to be about worker power against the employer, not against society.
Well unfortunately in the case of US police unions, it’s an anti-labor force using a labor organization as a disingenuous hedge against accountability. And also at the end of the day a police union resisting insurance requirements for it’s members actually is a case of workers (Class traitors, but workers all the same) organizing against their employer.
Fight police with capitalism!
I mean, if it works, it works. We’ve addressed a lot of societal problems via liability-based approaches. ADA ramps and disability access come to mind. It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s often a lot more tractable than trying to change the culture of an entire industry or profession. Activists spent decades trying to persuade architects and building owners to make their spaces accessible. But they simply didn’t want to change. Designing public buildings with ramps and elevators can have real drawbacks, both practically and aesthetically, and the building industry didn’t want to change. Congress could have made it illegal to not have ramps, a misdemeanor or felony, but who is legally responsible for a non compliant school? And does this sound like a law police would spend a lot of time enforcing? Are they going to devote resources to cracking down on inaccessible buildings?
In the end, it was simply easier to empower disabled people to be their own advocates. Let them sue building owners who won’t make their structures accessible. No need to convince a prosecutor or bureaucrat that disability access is worth their time. The people most affected can lead the charge instead.
Overall, the approach has worked quite well. While not perfect, it has radically changed the degree of accessibility for disabled people to public buildings and spaces.
That’s another “market economy” solution.
Maybe start with the training. It’s ridiculously short in the US compared to European countries where the training takes usually multiple years, before you’re allowed to go on your own
Longer training isn’t going to help, they need better training
Makes sense. Make them a liability that not even the most corrupt officials wouldn’t want to help because it’d be too costly.
Get rid of pensions, pay them more, and require a full year of (quality) training.
How would you strip police unions of their pensions without also destroying the savings of every other labor union in the US? Dissolving labor rights is not the right way to fight an anti-labor force, it’s very “fighting fire with fire”.
When did I say get rid of labor rights? Show me, I really don’t understand how you got that from what I said.
I said end police pensions (because they are choking city budgets), require better/more training, and pay them more. If we’re not going to get rid of police we should at least hold them to a higher standard and make the job more desirable. As it is it’s just a job for washed out bullies to go beat up minorities.
Calling for a reduction or end to poorly thought out pensions is not the same as destroying labor rights. It’s a different form of compensation. You are beingvery myopic about this
Police pensions are protected by police unions. Abolishing police pensions would almost certainly require kneecapping their labor rights. Sorry, I realize now that I left explanation of this logic step out of my first comment. What I am essentially asking is, how would you undermine police unions without also undermining all unions, and thereby all labor?
Here’s something crazy: they could negotiate an end to pensions. You’re the one using the word “abolish.” Not me. I said “end.” That’s a very open-ended word.
I also do not agree that the fate of all labor unions rests with the fate of police unions. That is a very convenient excuse to never enter a tough negotiation or compromise. Police unions enjoy all kinds of benefits that other unions do not as it is - I don’t see that shit trickling down to other ones, so why would the inverse apply?
Imagine a world where the top priority of the police team (not “force”) was to help and support the people. “Help” includes stopping confirmed bad guys but also includes finding the homeless a safe place to sleep.
Send all police trainees to social work school.
What a world that would be.
IMO finding the homeless a safe place to sleep shouldn’t be the job of the police. You don’t call the police when there’s a fire, you call firefighters. You don’t call the police when someone’s injured, you call an ambulance. Why would law enforcers be involved in helping a homeless person find shelter?
Maybe in this case you could expand the scope a bit. Police are responsible for public safety, and it’s unsafe to sleep on the streets. OTOH, policing is law enforcement, deterring and investigating crime, etc. Homeless people are often committing crimes, either trespassing, loitering, using drugs, etc. It would almost certainly be better for them to be helped by someone who doesn’t care about that part, and just wants them to get a safe place to sleep and a warm, healthy meal.
Instead of giving more jobs to police, shrink the police budget and hire new people to do those non-policing jobs.
IMO finding the homeless a safe place to sleep shouldn’t be the job of the police.
Completely fair. Their job should be to call a social worker whose job it would be to find the homeless a safe place to sleep. This is in contrast to what police presently do.
Yeah, I want as little contact between the police and homeless people as possible.
I think you’re right but for the wrong reasons - I think it would be an absolute net positive effect but I still think the lines should be drawn between policing and social work and healthcare issues. Fair warning, I’m from the UK which has it’s own issues with policing but nothing on the clusterfuck scale as it is across the pond.
Sending police officers (and ambulance staff, maybe even coastguard - in the civilian sense, not the American branch of the military) to do two or four weeks of social work attachment would work wonders. It would provide a great insight into the difficulties and behaviours of those in social or mental crisis, and give more soft tools to recognise and resolve issues.
That said, it shouldnt be policing agencies going to social work or mental health calls in the first place. People in crisis are often acting irrationally or unpredictably due to the very nature of the crisis they’re experiencing, and when a lethal weapon is an optional available to the responders, then you’ll have a less than spectacular outcome on occasions.
Ideally, additional funding should be centered around social work and mental health teams - perhaps having first responders for both so you don’t have cops wading in with the best of intentions, and confronting something they aren’t the best people to be dealing with - where a mental health ambulance or a social work rapid response team would bring a welfare call to a far safer conclusion.
I absolutely get that my view is very UK-skewed but if you keep putting armed cops into situations like that - then the public will get hurt, cops will get hurt, the taxpayer coughs up a fortune in legal costs … all of which could fund better ways to respond to the homeless, the stressed, the neurodiverse, and other non-criminal issues that people phone in with good intentions.
Here in Portland, Oregon the city has a relatively new agency called Portland Street Response, tasked with responding to non-emergency calls located in public places. They have social work and related training, show up with a big van full of supplies, are unarmed, and trained in de-escalation. Sometimes if the call holds the possibility of escalating, they will show up with an armed police officer who’s job is to be on the periphery if needed. The program has been wildly successful and popular, is expending, and it’s largest most vocal opposition is… The Portland Police Bureau.
That all sounds awesome aside from the last sentence - I’m keen to know the rationale for their opposition.
I can only imagine that there’s a concern that the Portland Street Response may be putting themselves at undue risk with the most volatile of clients… but even I can feel my back twitch from the amount of reaching I’m doing there!
Well if there’s a weapon involved - Unstable person waving around a knife in public for instance, which is fairly common - It’s automatically an emergency and PSR isn’t involved (Which ironically means it has a much lower response rate, as the cops here are bad at showing up in time for emergency calls). I think the police are opposed to it because 1) It’s money that might otherwise go to PPB, who already get millions of dollars in budget expansion every year and more importantly 2) It puts the lie to the myth that you need an intimidating security force with weapons to respond to all incidents when e.g. an unarmed 40 year old woman can diffuse a seemingly violent individual possibly in psychosis by offering them a peanut butter sandwich, asking them when the last time they napped was, and sitting down with them on a bench to talk about their feelings and issues for a half hour.
Yeah 100% on board with that. I think it’s a great thing.
I’m just struggling to get my head around the police department’s objection when Seattle-area cops generally generate more chill news than fuckups (not that good interactions make the news in any departmental arew really); and the introduction of this social work unit would likely take a huge chunk out of their workload (again an assumption based on UK style policing, apologies).
All very bizarre but yes, a huge step in the right direction. Love it.
Part of what I would call the PSA - Public Service Agency, so named due to the consistency with Public Service Announcements - would be patrol vehicles (Ford Transit Connect, RIP) that are marked with attention grabbing (not camouflaged) vehicles that help citizens with daily public issues.
• Need some assistance / instructions on how to get unemployment or other public assistance? We got you covered.
• Need some basic first aid and / or a call for an EMT? We got you covered.
• Need some information about how to get jobs, update a resume, or understand your skill set? We got you covered.We need to remove most of the police from the streets, and inject the streets with helpful people who want to improve the cities, and help to mitigate the issues that cause a rise in crime.
We need to build a system of citizen empowerment.
Aww man, you made me cry a little bit for what could be.
This is just the “bad apples” take, repackaged. You think bad actors are to blame, and that if you weed them out the institution will be cleansed. You miss that the problem is the institution itself and it’s very nature, not individual actors. If you reformed the institution to not be this way… Then you’d effectively be doing abolition, the thing you think that you’re not looking to do. And it would likely be a much more radical change than you envision it to be.
I am looking for a reform of the institution.
Complete top to bottom scrapping and rework.
What I mean is that I am rejecting the anarchist notion that there should be no such thing as law enforcement, reformed or otherwise. Because they reject the notion of a state at all.
You think you’re looking to reform it, but I think you’re actually looking to abolish it and you don’t yet realize that. If you understand that the problem is institutional and not individual, and you intend to reshape the institution to correct this, if you are actually effective and complete in those efforts (And sensitive to why a law is enforced rather than merely the act of doing so for it’s own sake) you will probably wind up with something that looks like community defense. Which is fundamentally different from policing in both form and mission.
Also get rid of the police Union as it currently is because apparently it is a major reason for a lot of the systemic issues being faced.
I have no problem with unions per-se, but when police officers break rules, they need to be held accountable and that simply doesn’t happen most of the time because of the unions and even when held accountable, it’s a slap on the hand and worst case, work in the city next door.
You’ve also got to demilitarise the police. End 1033 and claw back every iota of military gear. End killology training. Fund social workers to replace many of their duties. Etc etc etc too many things to name. It’s so bad that anything approaching adequate reform sounds insanely radical
Fully agree in that too.
US police forces are a goant fucking mess, but it’s been this way for like a century. I’ve read way too much shit that already happened in the 1900s
This is it IMHO, as long as the problems pile up (or get made up) and don’t get solved by police, they’re allowed to spend more and more public money on armored vehicles and other crap that doesn’t help the community. This spending is what allows them to be both incompetent and wasteful or downright dangerous. “Follow the money”; who earns from all this?
Whenever the opposite of “poor, powerless minorities” is. It’s a mystery I guess
We had that in our European country and it was pretty amazing. Police corruption dropped a shit ton as they were not above the law anymore.
Why abolish fundamentally violent and corrupt organizations when you can collaborate?
Most privileged take.
Only the most off-kilter revolutionary would consider that suggestion “collaboration.”
And I suppose I’d be shot as a “collaborator” in your ideal upheaval of society?
Don’t bother arguing with these idiots on here. Your take is 100% reasonable and I’m pretty sure the overwhelming majority of people would be for it.
Also, stop calling them cops
This “cop” word has this cool power connotation
Call them police officer, that is what they are
Subjective. I don’t find the word cop all that cool, and nowadays it gives me a negative impression. Police Officer sounds just like a formal title, like Representative, Principal, Judge, etc.
Yeah, “cop” is typically used as a pejorative
I had a friend who went through a whole arc of wanting to be a cop. She had pretty much an identical experience I had to squint at the name and photo to be sure this wasn’t a post she had made.
Being a woman was a huge setback from the get-go anyway, casual police brutality training notwithstanding.
She never quite got my criticism of wanting to be a cop (She wanted to fix policing by example) nor my lack of surprise when she spent a year wasting her time being tested and strung along by cops who were never going to hire her. (You have a master’s degree FFS! You’re not what they’re looking for!)
(She wanted to fix policing by example)
Might be possible to whistleblow against one corrupt officer if you play dumb until getting hired? Which would be an acceptable use of time for some, though perhaps (or “super likely”, w/e) activism elsewhere has greater ROI
Edit: hey scale this up. Every Lemming plays dumb and gets hired. We each report one rotten apple. Wouldn’t this at least annoy some sleaze out there and cause a very slight delay as they reshuffle their cops?
(Obvy you need a despicable crime on video and luck etc)
We had this in our local, small town police department. Female police officer spoke up and blew the whistle on somebody that was accepting BJ’s to let tickets slide.
The department “downsized”, let her go, then re-upsized to hire a different person back. Then they said her allegations were just in retaliation for being let go. Then she sued for wrongful termination and I THINK she ended up winning.
I might have some of the details mixed up cause this was all going down JUST as I was moving into the town.
Wow, I hope she won.
“Policing Selects Bastards” reaffirmed then. As an optimist I have to believe that at any given time at least 1/1000 of 1% of officers* are in the midst of being dismissed for whistleblowing. “ACAB” includes whistleblowers so “Policing Selects Bastards” keeps me on their side.
*(math = 7.2 officers in the US, but I mean to say at least one officer is in limbo for whistleblowing, and yeah I’m too literal but 🤷♂️ )
PSB!
Edit: btw that lady sounds [temporarily] DISRUPTIVE to their badge-shielded crime, neat
They also don’t want people who are too smart:
9/8/2000 (!)
https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836
What about the roles where intelligence is required, like investigation, forensics etc. Are there no Sherlock Holmes fans in the police?
I remember hearing this. Seems the smarter you are, the more likely you are of realizing something doesn’t seem right and chances of quitting increase.
Meanwhile they also teach them next to nothing about, nor verify their understanding of the laws they will be tasked with enforcing, and many absolutely do not understand the law at all.
Holy shit.
I went to a technical college that had a police training program. Technical colleges sometimes have the reputation of being glorified high schools. That’s mostly unfair, but there were three guys in some of my classes who were determined to make it that way. Give you one guess as to what program they were in.
I wouldn’t trust those three to be security guards at a shopping mall.
If your only job is to go home at night, clock in, go home, clock out again later. If you think about it, by deliberately not doing your job as a cop, fewer people are getting killed.
Meanwhile they also teach them next to nothing about, nor verify their understanding of the laws they will be tasked with enforcing, and many absolutely do not understand the law at all.
