My default is to side with the cops

[Stinky The Clown]

I think they have a tough job that, when done right, benefits all of us.

But when they go bad, it can be VERY bad.

This cops (and that is what they were) who dragged the doctor off the plane, are a prime example of bad cops badly trained. Did we really need what was functionally identical to a street gang of big, burley guys dragging a 69 year old man from an airplane for refusing to give up his seat?

Part of the root cause, at least as I see it, is a culture of muscles and guns and overwhelming force and loud shoutting and zero tolerance and them vs us and dehumanization and authoritarianism. That culture, while it may not technically come from the top, is clearly tolerated at the top.

Now the guys on the plane were airport cops. They don't directly get involved in street policing, but all cops are a brotherhood of sorts. They get influenced by their brothers (and sisters) serving elsewhere. That shoed in their deplorable behavior in this incident.

What it will take is to purge EVERY cop house of bad cops. You want zero tolerance? How about ZT for bad cops. Root them out with prehiring screening. Do some level of psychological screening along with drug testing (including for bulk-building steroids).

Cell phone phone videos help enormously in shining lights on bad cops. And that's a good thing. What needs to be added to the mix is good cops rewarded for shunning (at a minimum) bad cops. It is the cop to cop brotherhood that may be the bigger factor in this. A cop who rats another cop is the one shunned when it really should be the other way around.

All in all, we need better leadership and better hiring standards. And no tolerance for bad cops. And that includes cops who have bad attitudes but have yet to act grievously bad and cross the line.

[leftstreet]

1. It's their job to protect the rich and control the peasants n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

19. Said like a true anarchist

That isn't their job. Their job is to protect the people. If what you think were true, that's not on the cops. Its on the leadership.

[atreides1]

42. Not so much

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html?_r=0

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. Those goons were wearing fat guy blue jeans and polo shirts, are we sure they weren't custodians?

The whole mess makes no sense.

[Stinky The Clown]

20. News stories identified them as Chicago cops

But that's beside the point of my OP. The plan incident was but an example of bad cops copping badly, but not the point.

[pnwmom]

48. That was sloppy reporting. They weren't officers with the Chicago police department.

They were employed by the Aviation Department in charge of O'Hare. That's why they don't carry guns.

[Stinky The Clown]

56. Be that as it may, it is beside the point of my OP

[pnwmom]

68. Clearly they didn't have sufficient training.

Their 4 months of training didn't prepare them to handle this situation.

[yallerdawg]

3. I once heard...

a Republican is someone who hasn't had a run in with the police or spent the night in jail.

I have never had an interaction with an on-duty or off-duty police person that didn't have at the end an acknowledgment of potential violence on their part. Compliance and respect is demanded.

I firmly believe this is who they are and why they went for this kind of employment.

[Stinky The Clown]

21. And the ones who fit that profile are the ones who should NOT be in the cop house.

[ExciteBike66]

4. "Do some level of psychological screening"

I will say that the NYPD does have a talk with a department shrink as part of the hiring process. I remember he deliberately tried to piss me off.

[Stinky The Clown]

22. That should happen once a year.

Cops should also have contracts.

[Hoyt]

5. Pretty much agree. But I really like having bystanders or police video to make an informed decision.

I generally give any benefit of the doubt to an individual policeperson. But I support an investigation anytime someone is beaten, shot, abused, etc. Every policeperson should be required to wear a camera, undergo periodic psychological evaluation and training on how to arrest a suspect who is out-maned, has no gun, is a distance from officers, etc. With today's surveillance there is no reason for police to escape discipline when they use their position or weapons improperly.

I would also subject police to drug-testing including steroids. Off-duty, if they are found to be gun nuts, racists, etc., fire them immediately. I also think we have too many x-military in law enforcement. I'm fine with improving pay if qualification are raised as well.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

6. Good perspective; I pretty much agree n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

23. I wish EVERY cop encounter were on video.

I favor body cams for that reason.

[steve2470]

78. +1 nt

[bathroommonkey76]

7. Cellphone videos are proof that this type of culture has been

accepted for years. For me I find it difficult to trust any man in uniform who beats, shoots, or tases an innocent person. Usually these types of cops are put on administrative leave (pending an investigation)-- Basically they're given paid vacation and a pat on the back by their mafioso-type Blue-line gang.

I could go into the harassment I've witnessed in my 40 years of living- Some was against me and my friends. And other times it was against strangers walking down a public street. I will say that some cops aren't bad- I'll also say that some cops aren't good.

But I am happy that videos like these are streamed on Periscope, FB Live, and posted on YT. Showing these to the world will make cops think twice about shooting an innocent person, or beating them to a pulp.

[Stinky The Clown]

18. No argument

And those are EXACTLY the kind of cops that need to be put out of the cop house

[dalton99a]

72. +1

[mythology]

8. I just try to not make up my mind too quickly

I like to look at things from multiple angles and then decide. It's easy to leap to outrage, especially people who have never been in a situation where you have to make instantaneous decisions with direct physical consequences.

[Stinky The Clown]

24. But you also have to have some sort of default.

You can't live life with everything you encounter being viewed with skepticism.

[jackssonjack]

81. I have to question whether

there are many situations where they have to make instantaneous decisions. It seems to me there have been times they put themselves into potential harms way like those two officers did in Cleveland with Tamir Rice.

I can't just 'side' with either side. Until the police start purging these kinds of officers they can't be trusted anymore than anyone else. I need details and if the police obstruct then I believe they are lying. Their actions spoke volumes in Ferguson Missouri. Facing protesters with full riot gear , tear gas and rubber bullets to "protect their first amendment rights" while running protesters around and arresting them if they stop for longer than five seconds. Running over Michael Brown's memorial, allowing their dog to pee on Michael Brown's memorial.
It is often said that there are just a few bad apples, if that is the case then why don't they name them? Purge them? Where are all these few apples they've purged from their departments? All I have seen is cover provided for officers involved in questionable shootings of suspects by officers. That followed by the usual explanation that they can't talk about anything because of the "on going investigation" yet they release the entire background of the suspect and their family. There's no reason to think the police aren't as dishonest as any criminal.

I think there is too much emphasis on the dangers they face. The reality is most of their time is spent writing citations, and unless you're on a drug task force or gang task force they really aren't facing any more danger than anyone else on the streets-possibly less because violent criminals know what happens if they target a police officer.

There is too much hero worship without cause. There are lots of dangerous jobs many more dangerous than police work. If an officer truly risks their life saving a person then they should be seen as a hero, but not for just doing general police work. It's this attitude that perpetuates the idea that the streets are full of violent criminals and we need these street warriors to save us. I don't buy that. Most people are good people.

I have sort of lost much sympathy and respect for police over the years. I've seen too much of the denial of clearly criminal activity done by police. Until I see real change,which includes the public admission of the problem by the police forces around the country, the publicly stated solutions to those problems, and time frame in which will be initiated, they have to prove they are trustworthy just like anyone else. Simply wearing a badge doesn't garner any respect from me.

[LanternWaste]

9. Irrational to default to siding with a thing simply because they are an organization.

Seems irrational and biased (at its very best) to default to siding with a thing simply because they are one or another particular organization.

Tough jobs that benefit us all when done right are everywhere... if you choose to look.

[Stinky The Clown]

25. Not at all "irrational"

Life is lived with a near infinite number of defaults.

I like my sports team.

I love my life partner.

I think a woman should have a choice.

I have a default toward people that your post caused me to reconsider in your case.

[burnbaby]

10. wouldn't it had

just been easier for all parties he the guy left with the cops and called his lawyer? Did he think if he said "no I'm staying" that the cops would have said "oh ok, gotcha" and left? At that point, possibly, he became an unruly passenger by definition. Their treatment of an unruly passenger could be to get physical.

[Stinky The Clown]

26. This thread was not about the United incident, per se.

[duncang]

11. A video posted by suffragette shows prior to him being drug off the plane.

It shows someone who is not belligerent or threatening.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028918404#post174

[Stinky The Clown]

27. This is not about the United incident. That was cited simply by way of example.

[alarimer]

12. Mine is to not believe a word they say.

Police Departments are all about covering their own asses, and those of cops, first and foremost. They are not about real justice, but about closing cases, whether or not that results in the correct person being charged.

And nowadays, they are about treating people, fellow Americans, like subhumans.

I'm anti-authoritarian by default. The police and other institutions need to prove they are worthy of respect. It can't be demanded, by virtue of wearing a uniform.

[Stinky The Clown]

29. Can't argue. We have different defaults, but your is no less valid than mine.

The issues you cite, however, go to cop LEADERSHIP. The leadership could change that if they wanted to.

Our job is to make them want to.

[Humanist_Activist]

50. Really, what about the thin blue line and police unions, who selects these leaders...

and tries to hinder any attempts at creating accountability within police forces?

[Stinky The Clown]

57. Unions don't select cop leadership. Politicians do.

Yes, the police unions, in some cases, have too much power.

[Humanist_Activist]

59. To give an example, a majority of cops in Chicago(55%) just voted in a guy who is against...

having the police department be accountable to anyone outside of it. Is that a leadership only issue, or a police culture issue?

[RedWedge]

13. "My default is to side with the cops."

Well, sure. That's what privilege is.

[Solomon]

15. Yep

Exactly

[Stinky The Clown]

32. Explain what you mean by saying "exactly" to that post.

[Stinky The Clown]

31. Excuse me?

Please explain that as if I am stupid.

Really. tell me exactly what you mean about me.

[RedWedge]

45. Okay.

Institutions tend to not work on behalf of the oppressed. Their job is to uphold the status quo, which favors the privileged, leading to greater trust from the privileged and a reluctance to reform them. Whites express trust for the police much more than racial minorities do. Trusting the police is a privileged position to be in.

[Stinky The Clown]

58. Oh, okay. So my view is because I'm white?

Thank you for contributing to division.

We're done.

[Humanist_Activist]

61. Why say you are done? Do you not acknowledge that being white influences your interactions...

with the police and hence you perception of them as well?

After all, it has been long observed that many police departments display anti-minority bias at the very least, not just in brutality, but also in targeting minorities for petty crimes that they are likely to let white people not get arrested for, etc.

I would argue that you are the one who is contributing to division, by failing to acknowledge that your experiences with the police are NOT shared by others in this country, and that their viewpoints are just as valid as yours.

[RedWedge]

75. Well said.

[RedWedge]

64. Why DO you tend to side with the cops?

[RedWedge]

65. Also, what if I removed one sentence from the response you objected to?

Institutions tend to not work on behalf of the oppressed. Their job is to uphold the status quo, which favors the privileged, leading to greater trust from the privileged and a reluctance to reform them. Trusting the police is a privileged position to be in.

The point still stands; I should have kept the stuff about race out of it, as it seems to have shut down discussion. OTOH, it's important to know that many more white people trust the cops than minorities do, and it's a good exercise to dig into why.

[athena]

14. The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship

is that in a democracy, the cops are there to protect the people; in a dictatorship, they're there to protect the state from the people. You can tell whether a country is a democracy or a dictatorship by the attitude of its citizens toward the police: are they trusting, or are they afraid? When people in a country start to be afraid of the police, it's a sign that democracy is eroding.

In this case, we see more and more evidence that the police are there to protect powerful corporations from the people. This is very concerning. You might want to start questioning your tendency to side with them by default.

[Stinky The Clown]

34. Thats a cop *leadership* issue, now isn't it?

[athena]

49. I don't think so.

It's a problem of oligarchy. No individual cop can change it. It's a symptom rather than a cause. The only way to change it is through the political system.

[Stinky The Clown]

60. Oh good lord.

You're so hellbent on your point of view that you fail to realize we agree.

[athena]

71. This is a strange reaction indeed.

What makes you think I thought we disagreed? Your latest response suggests that you are so sensitive about this issue that you can't accept any kind of input from anyone else.

[panader0]

16. My default is to side against the cops.

Based on my experience. Many years ago, perhaps 40 or so, the cops were different.
I had one follow me home because I'd been drinking. They were more relaxed.
Now a days, they dress like the army, use old army tanks, etc. Much more violent.

[Stinky The Clown]

17. And that's the leadership, now isn't it?

[grantcart]

28. They were not airport cops

They were contract security, they are supposed to call the cops.

[Stinky The Clown]

35. I understood from news reports they were Chicago PD assigned to the airport

So we disagree.

[grantcart]

43. It was widely reported that police were involved and that was not correct

1) They were Chicago Department of Aviation Security Officers, which CNN got right
2) Airport Security Officers (ASOs) have limited arrest powers but are not authorized to carry firearms (even on duty) and have NO arrest powers off duty or off premise (something all police officers do have).

CNN identifies them as

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/10/travel/passenger-removed-united-flight-trnd/

Several passengers recorded the incident on their phones and posted video on social media showing three Chicago Department of Aviation security officers.

Department of Aviation Security Officers do have limited arrest powers (the line that separates security officers and police officers). It is very limited however. They must be in uniform (which this security officer is not) only on airport premises and can only arrest for violations of county and city ordinances.

https://www.illinois.gov/ilrb/decisions/decisionorders/Documents/L-RC-07-017.pdf

You can read a detailed explanation on page 5 under 2) Law enforcement

2. Law enforcement
The State of lllinois first recognize'd the Departrnent of Aviation as a law enforcement
agency in 1993. ASOs have possessed the following law enforcement authorities and duties
since that time: On airport property, while in uniform and on duty, ASOs have all the powers
possessed by CPD officers including the authority to make arrests when they identify violations
of state statutes and city or county ordinances; ASOs are often listed as the arresting officer on
official forms.6 ASOs carry ASPs (tactical batons) and handcuffs which they may use to
efftctuate those arrests. ASOs are dispatched in response to air side incidents, air side traffic
control calls and 911 calls made from O'Hate.7 They conduct preliminary incident
investigations, participate in operations with the CPD, and may be required to testifr in court on
related matters. ASOs also have the power to enforce Departrnent of Aviation commercial
vehicle regulations and Federal Aviation Adminishation regulations.
Unlike Chicago Police, ASOs have 1o arrest powers when they leave the premises and
they are not.permitted to carry firearms while on duty.8 If a criminal offense at the airport
involves the use of a firearm, the chicago Police are dispatched, not ASos.

As the court document spells out ASOs have limited arrest power but are NOT police officers.

This fact undermines the basic premise in an OP that you have obviously put a lot of effort into and you are invested in but it continues to pass on a basic misunderstanding about the situation (which to be fair many media outlets are still getting wrong).

These actions were taken by Airport Security Officers who, while having some limited arrest power, are not police officers and have never received the same training police officers would get.

[BannonsLiver]

30. A Good solid OP, and food for thought.

Interestingly, in my work capacity I come into contact with LEO fairly frequently and the encounters are always positive. Always. Unfortunately when I come into contact with them outside of that realm, the encounters are generally okay to bad. Like when my house got broken into and the responding officer drew his firearm on me when i responded to the home before they did.

How many bald, fat, middle aged guys rob a house in broad daylight in slacks, loafers and a sweater vest? Sometimes it seems like they lack in what I call Spidey sense. Their response time was abysmal and I entered the home to make sure our pets had not been slaughtered during the robbery. Anyone would have done the same thing.

But I do agree strongly that they have a rough job. And one of those reasons is because we have 400 million firearms in this country and they are forced to assume every man, woman and child, regardless of age, that they encounter is strapped to the gills with weapons. It's not a job I would want. I will say that at least anecdotally highway patrol peeps are generally a bit more professional than city cops. My guess is that's because they don't deal with the dregs of society, domestic disputes etc on a daily basis like city cops do.

[Stinky The Clown]

36. They also are the defect mental health and social workers, too.

Two roles for which they little to no training and likely even less aptitude.

[Alice11111]

39. That is true.

[tazkcmo]

33. Until "good" cops turn in "bad" cops

They're all bad.

[Stinky The Clown]

37. That's a very broad brush. And very unfair.

Statements like that are mostly made by juveniles.

[JCanete]

47. its overstated, but if you are a cop who lets bad things happen that you know about, even if you

aren't doing it, the department you work in is only as good as that condoned behavior. Cops do have a hard job. So do gangsters. Hopefully the cops are putting themselves on the line for the right reasons. Just being in a risky job does not make you a saint in and of itself. There is a lot of corruption in our police departments. The amount of news that we even GET about police abuse of power, which come on, has to be a fraction of how much is actually committed, is just too damn high for the ratio of police to average citizen for my comfort.

I'm not even sure its safe to turn against your fellow officers. That I can appreciate. And I also agree that this is very much a systemic and top-down problem, but while I will side with the principle of a civilian police force that protects its citizens, I have a hard time blanketly saying in this current climate, that "I usually side with the cops." They are the authority. We are supposed to be regulating that authority, and we and their superiors, are not doing a good job of it. Until they give us cause, I will not first trust this institution that is caught time and time again producing untrue narratives to cover their own until a video emerges that proves it is a complete and utter lie.

[Alice11111]

38. My default is not to side with the cops.

I was a lawyer for 30 years and sued them many times.
They took personal retribution on me and my family.
They lie, do drugs, have wild sex orgy parties, perjure themselves as easy as taking a drink of water, beat their wifes, don't pay their bills, even child support ....

That being said, I felt very badly for the Dallas PD. They are a model force. All policemen and women have very high risk jobs, and work for peanuts. There are some very good men and women who are police officers. Still, they work in a culture where the ends justifies the means.

[brooklynite]

40. This year, most cities hold mayoral and council elections...

Many Cities have Democratic Mayors and Council control.

Mayors administer the police; councils determine the laws to be administered.

Question: how many people who are bothered by the issue of police violence have raised it as an issue with their candidates?

[Stinky The Clown]

62. All true. Now the bigger question: How many actually bothered to even vote?

[MyOwnPeace]

41. About this:

"That culture, while it may not technically come from the top, is clearly tolerated at the top."

Sorry, but it DOES come from the top. At a political rally the candidate said of some demonstrators, "Get them out'a here!"

That, my friend, is support/encouragement for the wrong thing. The focus/understanding/tolerance has all changed - and in the wrong way.

GAWD help us all.

[Stinky The Clown]

44. Please reread the OP and replies to get a better sense of contextual meaning

[MyOwnPeace]

54. Like I said,

this "culture" indeed does come from the top - you say tolerated, I say "modeled" or supported, if not encouraged.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. My default is to assemble the evidence, weight it dispassionately, and render a sober judgment.

[Stinky The Clown]

63. Wow, we agree completely.

[meadowlander]

67. +100

Part of the problem is default siding with anyone before the facts are in.

I think cops are screened. The problem is that some districts have screening performed by more senior cops who have all the problems you'd want to try to weed out.

I think part of the issue could be addressed through training. Identify and reward cops who successfully de-escalate situations or connect with the community and then let them tour other stations providing training on crisis intervention and people skills.

It would also be helpful to do international exchanges. I live in New Zealand where regular beat cops aren't allowed to carry guns (only SWAT teams) and yet crime levels are 26% lower, the murder rate is 1/5th what it is in the US, violent crime is 1/4 what it is in the US. Only 34 people have been killed by the police since 1941. US police kill more people than that every month.

Lots of places in the world police don't carry guns and instead rely on talking and still get the job done.

[steve2470]

79. I do too

I do think GOOD cops routinely tell the truth. The problem is distinguishing the good from the bad.

[MrScorpio]

51. Don't get me started on the cops

[steve2470]

77. sincerely, please do MrS

I think we need to hear the racist BS that gets pulled against PoC. I think we need to hear it in abundance. All the best to you and your family.

[Humanist_Activist]

52. Police should be put on heightened scrutiny...

in addition, its a stressful job, sure, but it's less dangerous than many others and I don't see people advocating for those employed in those industries to be put above the law or accountability.

The problem is that the whole system, especially in certain departments(looking at LA, Chicago and New York as most visible examples), are rotten from top to bottom. The police unions are hugely corrupt, the beat cops are pretty much brainwashed into a culture of racism, bias, hostility to citizens and a belief in "brotherhood" that gives them huge justifications for straight up committing crimes up to torture and murder. Yet you side with the police as a default. You sound like you are middle class and white.

[jiminvegas]

53. As a retired lawyer that defended people

wrongfully accused of crimes, I do not default to believing cops. But that is based on years of experience and thousands of cases.

A lot of people have hard jobs. Most would never consider treating another human the way that doctor was treated. That behavior is taught as the way a cop should behave. I always default to believing that the person with all of the power is abusing that power. Because absolute power corrupts.

[walkingman]

55. I don't trust cops and that is based upon my life experience.

If you look like them then it might be different but for the most part if you are a minority, if you have long hair, you can expect to be treated with disrespect. For the most part they are arrogant power mongers that do not understand that they are there to serve the public and not for the public to serve them.

[DemocraticSocialist8]

66. My default is to question cops

Waaaaay too much of a documented history of systemic abuse of power to side with them by default. I don't think people realize how common the coverup of murder has been in the criminal justice system.

[bigtree]

69. that's fine for some folks

...many parts of the U.S. where police cannot be trusted.

Others where police have proven themselves harmful to the community they are supposed to be serving.

We need more than trust, we need accountability and justice. That lack of accountability and justice for citizens dealing with police is epidemic around the nation. Recognizing that and addressing the problem as an almost universal weighting of police interests over the citizenry they serve is what's called for. If police want solidarity with their ranks, they need to demonstrate more concern for the rights and prerogative of the public.

[Eko]

70. In my personal opinion.

There are no hard numbers, but most people I know that joined the military post 9-11 ended up in either the police or sheriffs office. Every one I personally know has that "them" and "us" mentality, "them" being anyone not police including family members. These guys and girls went off to war zones and came back and are told day after day that they are still in one. There's your problem.

[mvd]

73. Not me, though I understand there are plenty of good cops

I am not anti-cop, but I detest what many have become. When a minority victim is involved, I tend to side against the cop if there is unclear info. There have just been so many tragic stories.

[steve2470]

80. +1 nt

[Foamfollower]

74. My default is to disbelieve anything thaat comes out of any cop's mouth.

When the cops can finally police their own, maybe then they can start earning my respect. Until then, I won't believe any cop is a good cop.

[steve2470]

76. Mine is too. Very very few cops are strong enough to "narc" on bad cops

People don't understand that "narcing" on another cop is basically occupational suicide. Not to mention potential harassment from other cops. Standing up against racism in police forces ? Also hard to do, why so few do it. I AM NOT EXCUSING NOT STANDING UP, simply saying it's not that easy. Change needs to come from the top down, not the bottom up.

Should ALL cops be strong enough to narc on bad cops who do illegal and unethical and racist things ? It appears very very few are able to do it.

Being a cop, basically, is a SHITTY job. Yes, part of it is good, but there is the shitty part. Dealing with people doing shitty things. Illegal things. You have to enforce the law. Shit gets real. Force has to be used sometimes.

We need cops. Without the cops, we become anarchy. That's a fact, not a guess. Without the cops, I would be robbed every day and my condo taken from me by force. I have no doubt in my mind. I'd probably get killed for yucks.

Are there bad cops ? Of course. How many ? I don't know. Do good cops make mistakes ? Probably, I don't know, never been a cop.

We need to support good cops. Change needs to come from the top down.