Militarization of the police in the United States

[zraver]

So much for last thoughts.

1) All Police shootings are treated as potential crime scenes irregardless of whether or not anyone is killed. Statements are taken and witnesses (Police included) are separated while the area is or should be canvassed for further independent witnesses. Evidence is photographed insitu and if required ballistic and other forensic tests tests are conducted. The shooter is also obliged tto participate in a tape recorded record of interview with a shooting team (usually what you call II investigators). Note the use of therm obliged they don't have a right to remain silent in such cases unless they are being placed under arrest.

Evidence may be collected as if it was a crime scene, but it is not treated as a crime scene. Departments will often declare the evidence and statements are protected work product and hide them away.

2) Cameras are useful but only to a limited extent - they have a limited range and field of view, don't show you what is occurring off camera and obviously don't record what if anything happened immediately prior to drawing of the firearm or activation of the camera. Reviewing all the video footage of an event taken by all camera at the scene just adds to the picture you are building up via the steps outlined in point (1) above.

If each and every individual uniformed and plains clothes police officer is constantly under video and audio monitoring and it helps both the police and the citizen.

3) They already have citizen panels - they're called juries.

That is the problem, the police have a vested interest in protecting their own.

And in any event a "citizen" panel would have to be presented with a formal report prepared by experts before they cold even begin to make an assessment.

Not true, untrained experts are asked to evaluate the law and actions of people under the alw all the time- they are called juries.

Unless of course your just suggesting citizen panels just conduct their own inquiry and review in which case do I need to point out that there is a good reason why for example medical review boards and military review boards are staffed by experts.

And what good reason is that? A panel could for example have a representative of the county sheriff and the counties largest municipal police force and then 3 citizens one each from each of the counties largest ethnic groups.

Zraver, you are/were? in the military how about I suggest civilian or military death in Afganistan gets reviewed by a panel of civilians who get to make up their own minds as to who was responsible absent any input from professionals?

Were

We do, its called congress.

But as to your wider point, why not? Expecting better performance usually leads to better performance. You'll never meet a winning team that complains about how hard it is to beat the other side unless they have an un-level playing field. I've never gotten the law enforcement's fear of civilian oversight. it's almost like they have something to hide.
Right now the playing field is stacked against John Q Public, that is wrong and undermines our republic.

[Monash]

Evidence may be collected as if it was a crime scene, but it is not treated as a crime scene. Departments will often declare the evidence and statements are protected work product and hide them away.

Here and presumably in the US there are always formal shooting reviews even when no one has been injured because they are mandated by OH&S and insurance requirements.So the who, what, when where and why is captured and officially recorded - if the matter is being dealt with professionally.


If each and every individual uniformed and plains clothes police officer is constantly under video and audio monitoring and it helps both the police and the citizen.[/QUOTE]

Cant be done -24/7 firstly recording the cops means you are also recording everyone they speak with and meet so you would need the permission of every citizen you meet during the course of the day before you can record them. Some will only talk off the record if at all, some will be informants and some stuff such as Police methodologies is subject to legal privilege.etc. As it is when recording devices are activated upon approaching a member of the public that person is warned that what they say and do is being recorded. Plus there would be some things accidentally recorded in the locker room and mens room that no human should have to see!

That is the problem, the police have a vested interest in protecting their own.

No more or less than any other profession.Doesn't make it right but it doesn't mean there is vast conspiracy afoot to decisive the public either.

Not true, untrained experts are asked to evaluate the law and actions of people under the alw all the time- they are called juries.

Using evidence presented in court i.e. formal reports, statements and forensics prepared by Police. They still need and heed Police professional input from officers on the scene in addition to whatever evidence the other side may produce.

And what good reason is that? A panel could for example have a representative of the county sheriff and the counties largest municipal police force and then 3 citizens one each from each of the counties largest ethnic groups.

Were

We do, its called congress.

But as to your wider point, why not? Expecting better performance usually leads to better performance. You'll never meet a winning team that complains about how hard it is to beat the other side unless they have an un-level playing field. I've never gotten the law enforcement's fear of civilian oversight. it's almost like they have something to hide.
Right now the playing field is stacked against John Q Public, that is wrong and undermines our republic.

[zraver]

Here and presumably in the US there are always formal shooting reviews even when no one has been injured because they are mandated by OH&S and insurance requirements.So the who, what, when where and why is captured and officially recorded - if the matter is being dealt with professionally.

Because the perception based on what information the public has is that the police are more interested in protecting fellow cops than in revealing the truth. There is police shooting case after shooting case where what is known publicly about the suspect or victim just doesn't add up and jive with what the police say. When police do face charges, they generally get much lighter sentences.

Cant be done -24/7 firstly recording the cops means you are also recording everyone they speak with and meet so you would need the permission of every citizen you meet during the course of the day before you can record them. Some will only talk off the record if at all, some will be informants and some stuff such as Police methodologies is subject to legal privilege.etc.

No one has an expectation of privacy in public, not in the US. CI's and cops working undercover should rightfully be excluded from what I said and if someone wants to talk off the record it easy enough for the officer to officially sign off so the blank spot in the data is accounted for and the audio will have captured the other parties request to go off the record. Methodologies should not, they play an important role in any rights violations.

many departments are already use this technology, its just not public record and it should be. At least as so far as defense attorneys would know that ever officer had created a digital and audio recording of the event and that such recording were denied work product privileges often claimed now to hide evidence.

As it is when recording devices are activated upon approaching a member of the public that person is warned that what they say and do is being recorded.

No such warnings in the US because there is no expectation of privacy.

Plus there would be some things accidentally recorded in the locker room and mens room that no human should have to see!

Naked isn't exactly in uniform, where are they going to hang the camera?

No more or less than any other profession.Doesn't make it right but it doesn't mean there is vast conspiracy afoot to decisive the public either.

Its illegal and in the case of protecting cops from the consequences of a bad shoot is illegal. If the public believes that the cops only protect and serve other cops, then the cops are the enemy. Contrast this to community policy which relies on relationships and beat walking to make the cop part of the community. LAPD switched from a paramilitary approach to a community policing approach following the LA Riots and saw a lot of success with it.

[Monash]

Sorry Z - got called away and didn't get to finish my last response, hence the incomplete and poorly edited reply.

In summary - It might be your perception that "the police are more interested in protecting fellow cops than in revealing the truth" but IMO this is not a perception generally shared by most of the general public. They know there are "bad/corrupt" cops out there but when pressed on the issue will admit even if reluctantly that they themselves haven't dealt with any directly (getting a ticket may colour their view of local law enforcement but it doesn't count as a "bad cop" experience). Also Congress isn't strictly "independent" because at the end of the day it is included in the direct chain of command (for want of a better term) and has a role in authorizing/approving and over-sighting any military action initiated by the President of the U.S. So it is responsible for the actions of the military and in any case relies (in large part) on reports provided by US commanders relating to the military matters regardless of what information it receives from other sources. Finally Congress certainly reviews general policy settings and strategic decisions made by the US defense forces. They certainly don't dissect individual G.I. combat "live fire incidents on a case by case basis!

As far as your "panel" idea is concerned. No problem, bring it on. Just remember you are the one who has to pay for it via taxes. Our force already obliges officers to document and report every time they "use force". This means that every time they draw their handcuffs, battens, OC spray, tazers, firearms or lay hands on a suspect they have to document and report the circumstances. Please note I said draw not use. The act of simply removing a force option from it's utility pouch counts as "use of force" because it can be perceived by the citizen involved as "threatening", that's right just removing it from it's pouch or holster, not utilizing the force option itself. Fire a shot and you have a crime scene and a formal investigation even if you didn't hit anyone. This process already generates costs before the member of the public involved even decides to lodge a complaint and since I've done my stint in I.I. I know how much that process costs.

So go ahead by all means implement the committee system. It might well work but know this, once you create it and it becomes widely known it will be used by any member of the public with a gripe. This means every time a complaint is lodged an officer will be taken off my line in the roster. Firstly to prepare the paperwork, then to attend the review. That's one more officer I don't have on my Team and that's before court commitments, leave, training and all the other down time. Worse if the "committee" finds the officer used excessive force of any type, even on one occasion then presumably (unless you initiating a "three strikes and your out policy") he's gone and needs to be replaced. There are small county PD's in the US that will be crippled by your idea unless the local community authorizes significantly more recruitment, so pony up your hard earned dollars - I have a new use for them.

Oh and PS the guy with the camera doesn't have to be naked he just has to be passing through and I don't know about you but over here we don't strip off before going to the toilet.

[zraver]

Sorry Z - got called away and didn't get to finish my last response, hence the incomplete and poorly edited reply....Worse if the "committee" finds the officer used excessive force of any type, even on one occasion then presumably (unless you initiating a "three strikes and your out policy") he's gone and needs to be replaced.

Do you see the problem with that part of your reply? You would keep an officer that uses excessive force, or want a system that is stacked against the citizen so you can keep him with a wink and a nod...

If the life and liberties of the most nameless citizen are worth less than a cop the system is broken. It is not the citizens job to protect and serve, but the cops. The cop offers up his life to service. In trade he is given special powers and protections. But when he then takes special liberties with the law there is a major problem.

There are small county PD's in the US that will be crippled by your idea unless the local community authorizes significantly more recruitment, so pony up your hard earned dollars - I have a new use for them.

Or like most human endeavors when the bar is raised, performance raises to match it. Proffesional players in sports are professional because of training and dedication. More is expected of them so they deliver.

Typical protect the establishment fear mongering iIMO.

Oh and PS the guy with the camera doesn't have to be naked he just has to be passing through and I don't know about you but over here we don't strip off before going to the toilet.

The cameras on as soon as the cop enters a duty area etc. Regardless there are ways it can be done because many departments already do it, they just don't release the information without a lawsuit even to defense teams- they claim protected claim product.

[zraver]

Example

FirstVu HD Body Cam Officer-Worn Video System

16 hours of record time cannot be edited. Cop turns it on, inserts memory stick when they go enter the duty area and download it, swap out memory stick end of shift.

These type of systems protect everyone including the cops.

Anyway, some stuff has come up, will be scarce for a bit.

[cyppok]

In about 20-30 years* we will have broad based re-printable energy weapons. All this enforcement of gun control, raiding peoples' homes and cops thinking they have more rights then the general public will end. Very abruptly.

When the general population is better armed then the 'law' they consent to then it is true consent. When the law enforces itself on the general population and those cannot rebel against it and only have forced consent pushed upon them that is slavery at the point of the gun.

When you need laws to allow you to 'film' people whom break it but are 'upholders' of it by the gov't we breach the 1st amendment. Why can't you publish the truth and need 'permission' which can be denied because said person still has two more shots to break the law and perhaps some of it can be scrubbed under the rug because he is an OFFICIAL. At that point nobody has to follow the law because it is not theirs... If you make stuff up and pretend its real others will do the same and enforce it to their ability.
Technology will eventually make that premise equal in standing even when you rob those people via taxes and buy new stuff for the official, but the aggregate will always outnumber the selected in numbers.

* I am assuming all those energy lasers that are being mounted on ships right now
we will get progressive miniaturization and probably energy conservations with fuel cell expansion etc... I assume

[bigross86]

Someone once told me the cops in the US are subjected to an automatic double maximum. If they are ever convicted of anything, they are immediately sentences to double the maximum fine applicable. Is this true, or is it complete nonsense?

[zraver]

Someone once told me the cops in the US are subjected to an automatic double maximum. If they are ever convicted of anything, they are immediately sentences to double the maximum fine applicable. Is this true, or is it complete nonsense?

Complete nonsense for the most part. The ony place cops are really held to a higher standard than the public is knowledge of the law. If a cop does end up on trial he has far fewer procedural defenses.

[Monash]

Do you see the problem with that part of your reply? You would keep an officer that uses excessive force, or want a system that is stacked against the citizen so you can keep him with a wink and a nod...

No, the problem seems to be that you have failed to grasp the point I was trying to make which is that term "force". Firstly the mere act of drawing a use of force option is regarded as a "use of force" and secondly that force as it applies in Police operations is a spectrum rather that a binary/on or off concept. As I clearly stated officers have a range of "force" options available to them when dealing with members of the public. These range from verbal commands through gentle "hands on" e.g. a hand on the arm/shoulder to lead someone away, through hard hands (wrist locks, strikes kicks etc) to cuffs, batons. OC, tazers (if available) and finally lethal force. Furthermore the use of these options is not linear i.e. you don't go through each option in progression but rather alternate in a dynamic and fluid fashion depending on how the confrontation escalates or deescalates. The goal is always (or should always) be deescalation.

So yes depending on what sought of "excessive force" we're talking about I would seriously consider keeping him/her in the force. If one of your "committees" decides that an officer should not have cuffed someone but instead used soft hands or should have used his OC not his tazer, or should have struck the offender once only with his batten, not three times then we have an "excessive force" incident and as you would have it the officer would lose his job. Presumably this would occur even if the arrest was justified and the offender later convicted of whatever offense it was he was arrested for!

Under your remit I would lose an asset that had cost the public tens of thousands of dollars to train even where the incident in question did not result in any significant physical injury to the member of the public concerned! As I said simply drawing a baton can be technically regarded as a use of force. If the problem can be addressed with training and a formal caution then yes I would take that option. Remember also that use of force incidents involving death or serious injury are rare events, for every arrest involving death/serious injury there are literally hundreds of arrests where some degree of force is used, even if it is just putting on handcuffs. So unless you confine your comittees to a very small subset of events you are going to end up with a conga line of officers outside your doors waiting to see if they keep their job.

If the life and liberties of the most nameless citizen are worth less than a cop the system is broken. It is not the citizens job to protect and serve, but the cops. The cop offers up his life to service. In trade he is given special powers and protections. But when he then takes special liberties with the law there is a major problem.

Where did I imply that the "life and liberties of a citizen are worth less than a cops" ?"

Or like most human endeavors when the bar is raised, performance raises to match it. Professional players in sports are professional because of training and dedication. More is expected of them so they deliver. Typical protect the establishment fear mongering iIMO.

I'm all all in favor of improving performance in my profession as in others but you seem to persist in ignoring the economics of the situation. Professional sports men and women are "professional" because they get paid for it. If they didn't they would be amateurs. Your committees would cost time and money to run, they would require support staff, record systems and office space, communities would have to pay for extra training as their local forces tried to make sure their officers were capable of meeting the impeccable standards you appear to be demanding and higher pay would have to be offered to attract officers willing to meet them. Market forces apply in law enforcement as well as everywhere else, you want Rolls Royce service you have to pay Rolls Royce prices! I'm not fear mongering - I'm handing you the invoice for the service you just ordered, so pay up.

The cameras on as soon as the cop enters a duty area etc. Regardless there are ways it can be done because many departments already do it, they just don't release the information without a lawsuit even to defense teams- they claim protected claim product.

You say potato, I say potarto.... you want always on with suspension as required. I want always off with activation as required. Battery life is longer my way and you don't need to do hours of editing to get the bits you want. If you don't activate when it could be reasonably expected that you should have any charge you might want to lay gets questioned and you better have a good reason for not activating your camera, simple. I've also got no problem with recording video evidence, we do it all the time, but I to have have right to privacy and so to do all the people I meet every day on the street who shouldn't have to (and don't want to) be filmed just because they happen to be in the presence of a police officer for the most innocent or mundane of reasons - like giving directions or buying a cup of coffee. I would not like my every conversion recorded and neither would you or most other people.

Finally I fail to see how you can reconcile the idea of recording every conversation your citizens have with a LEO (all of which will be stored and indexed) ready for use at a later date by "Big Bother" with your oft stated opposition to a police state.

Now if you'll excuse me I have to go polish my jackboots.

[gunnut]

No more or less than any other profession.Doesn't make it right but it doesn't mean there is vast conspiracy afoot to decisive the public either.

The difference is the cops have an inside track regarding enforcing the law. Other professions do not.

Much like the public employees unions and with whom they bargain. They bargain with the people they elect. Other unions don't bargain with people they put in power.

[Chogy]

Let's call the "war on drugs" a stalemate, and 95% of these raids would simply go away.

I've objected to the militarization of the police for years now. A police officer should wear a recognizable uniform and carry a handgun. I have no inherent objection to having SWAT trained and available, but I do object to their willy-nilly use on some guy with a few pot plants.

SWAT should be used for hostage scenarios, terrorists, or taking down major criminal redoubts. Not on everyday citizens suspected of a crime.

[bonehead]

Let's call the "war on drugs" a stalemate, and 95% of these raids would simply go away.

I've objected to the militarization of the police for years now. A police officer should wear a recognizable uniform and carry a handgun. I have no inherent objection to having SWAT trained and available, but I do object to their willy-nilly use on some guy with a few pot plants.

SWAT should be used for hostage scenarios, terrorists, or taking down major criminal redoubts. Not on everyday citizens suspected of a crime.

Mostly I agree. However many of those with even a couple of plants are armed and more than willing to defend them so police have been shot and killed serving such warrants. My line of thinking is that the police are no longer doing much investigative work and are using SWAT teams to make up for that. Sure Tommy weed grower might be armed while in the home but he also goes to the local 7-11 every Tuesdays and fridays to pick up munchies. He also has a job at the local car wash. Wouldn't those be better places to nab him? Nah just send out the SWAT team and have done with it.
There are a couple of other considerations. First cops really like swinging their dicks. They love the concept that if they see you as a perp they can nab you anyplace anywhere and at the home is more personal for some extra sting. Secondly, A SWAT team carries some extra expense on the budget so the police force has to justify that expense....usually by sending the SWAT team out more often and artificially creating a "need".

[zraver]

So yes depending on what sought of "excessive force" we're talking about I would seriously consider keeping him/her in the force. If one of your "committees" decides that an officer should not have cuffed someone but instead used soft hands or should have used his OC not his tazer, or should have struck the offender once only with his batten, not three times then we have an "excessive force" incident and as you would have it the officer would lose his job. Presumably this would occur even if the arrest was justified and the offender later convicted of whatever offense it was he was arrested for!

You of course realize that excessive force would likely be a criminal act, battery or assault depending if a civvie did it, it should be for a cop as well.

Under your remit I would lose an asset that had cost the public tens of thousands of dollars to train even where the incident in question did not result in any significant physical injury to the member of the public concerned! As I said simply drawing a baton can be technically regarded as a use of force. If the problem can be addressed with training and a formal caution then yes I would take that option. Remember also that use of force incidents involving death or serious injury are rare events, for every arrest involving death/serious injury there are literally hundreds of arrests where some degree of force is used, even if it is just putting on handcuffs. So unless you confine your comittees to a very small subset of events you are going to end up with a conga line of officers outside your doors waiting to see if they keep their job.

If no one was harmed, no foul unless we are talking menacing with a firearm where a reasonable fear of serious injury or death is created. But where there is injury- don't just fire prosecute.

Where did I imply that the "life and liberties of a citizen are worth less than a cops" ?"

When you'd excuse a cop using excessive force on a citizen.

I'm all all in favor of improving performance in my profession as in others but you seem to persist in ignoring the economics of the situation. Professional sports men and women are "professional" because they get paid for it. If they didn't they would be amateurs. Your committees would cost time and money to run, they would require support staff, record systems and office space, communities would have to pay for extra training as their local forces tried to make sure their officers were capable of meeting the impeccable standards you appear to be demanding and higher pay would have to be offered to attract officers willing to meet them. Market forces apply in law enforcement as well as everywhere else, you want Rolls Royce service you have to pay Rolls Royce prices! I'm not fear mongering - I'm handing you the invoice for the service you just ordered, so pay up.

Not a problem, take it out of the swat budget, stop buying so many battle rifles and stop making every cop car look like an f'ing spaceship. Hell a single license plate scanner is $2500.... Police departments spend a lot of money that could be slimmed down.

You say potato, I say potarto.... you want always on with suspension as required. I want always off with activation as required. Battery life is longer my way and you don't need to do hours of editing to get the bits you want. If you don't activate when it could be reasonably expected that you should have any charge you might want to lay gets questioned and you better have a good reason for not activating your camera, simple.

And what happens when a cop who just put a beat down on a citizen, who is claiming brutality says oops i forgot to turn it on.... If its always on, no oops.

I've also got no problem with recording video evidence, we do it all the time, but I to have have right to privacy and so to do all the people I meet every day on the street who shouldn't have to (and don't want to) be filmed just because they happen to be in the presence of a police officer for the most innocent or mundane of reasons

No you don't, not in the US and neither do they. There is no right to privacy in public- period full stop. Nor do government officials in the conduct of their "public" duties have any expectation of privacy.

[quote]- like giving directions[/qquote]

if its a citizen coming up to the patrol car, they are already being audio recorded....

or buying a cup of coffee.

You on the stores CCTV

I would not like my every conversion recorded and neither would you or most other people.

Its not about like, its about protecting the public. You have no expectation of privacy in public.

Finally I fail to see how you can reconcile the idea of recording every conversation your citizens have with a LEO (all of which will be stored and indexed) ready for use at a later date by "Big Bother" with your oft stated opposition to a police state.

Now if you'll excuse me I have to go polish my jackboots.

There is no expectation of privacy in public. I want privacy in my private life, behind my curtiledge and under my roof. In public it is a different set of rules.

Oh BTW, are they hobnailed?

[tuna]

I've seen several arrests where the police have all drawn their weapons. I'm told by several friends of mine who happen to be LEOs that this is common.

When I went through the required training as part of begging for permission to carry a firearm, I was told that the mere act of displaying or drawing my firearm is deadly force - as in, if you're not cleared to shoot, you're not cleared to draw.

Just one instance of the double standard. And the acceptance of this leads to tragedy after tragedy.

I kind of like the UK's idea of cops not being armed. The cops have proven time after time that firearms should only be left to civilians who are properly trained in their use.