Publishing thousands of police discipline records that New York kept secret(propublica.org)
propublica.org
Publishing thousands of police discipline records that New York kept secret
https://www.propublica.org/article/nypd-civilian-complaint-review-board-editors-note
91 comments
No need to sugarcoat it.
Let’s call a spade a space.
It’s corruption, all the way up and down.
Let’s call a spade a space.
It’s corruption, all the way up and down.
Corruption actually undersells it.
I found this interesting:
>> The CCRB receives thousands of complaints every year, but it is only able to substantiate a tiny fraction of them. In 2018, the agency examined about 3,000 allegations of misuse of force. It substantiated 73.
>> Investigators are often not able to reach conclusions on cases, in significant part because they must rely on the NYPD to hand over evidence, such as footage from body-worn cameras. Often, the department doesn’t do so, despite a legal duty to cooperate with CCRB investigations.
>> The CCRB receives thousands of complaints every year, but it is only able to substantiate a tiny fraction of them. In 2018, the agency examined about 3,000 allegations of misuse of force. It substantiated 73.
>> Investigators are often not able to reach conclusions on cases, in significant part because they must rely on the NYPD to hand over evidence, such as footage from body-worn cameras. Often, the department doesn’t do so, despite a legal duty to cooperate with CCRB investigations.
Interesting... shouldn't a failure to uphold the law disqualify anyone from working for the NYPD? Seems like whoever makes these calls should be personally held to account for that, since they're clearly not doing so?
Why doesn't the ccrb issue foia requests to get the data, or sue the police department?
I'd imagine the (apparent) need to process, what, 12ish of these per weekday has something to do with it. How many can you manage in the "pipeline" at that rate? What's their staffing like? I bet they're staffed as if the police would at least kinda cooperate, so if they don't then there aren't enough personnel to follow up on any but the most clear-cut and serious cases with a bunch of public evidence already available so they know it might go somewhere if they put in the hours.
Surely if someone is violating a rule 12 times a day you shouldn't need to make separate filings for each instance, right? I would hope something like "Hey we are still waiting on 1178 out of 1195 requests from this quarter" would get a judge's attention.
I wish they'd give a better indication of what "in significant part" means. Is the department failing to hand over footage in 5% of cases or 50% of cases?
FWIWI think it’s reasonable to infer a number greater than 10% (I’d be greater than 30% but want to be conservative) based on how the NYPD has behaved over time when it comes to its own accountability under the law.
Its nearly 75% depending on how you count. See May 2020 report: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/ccrb/downloads/pdf/policy_pdf/mo...
Of the requests made, about 26% are resolved in 30 days or less. 46% requests still outstanding after 90 days.
So yes, its pretty clear NYPD delays or doesnt respond to requests for body camera footage.
Of the requests made, about 26% are resolved in 30 days or less. 46% requests still outstanding after 90 days.
So yes, its pretty clear NYPD delays or doesnt respond to requests for body camera footage.
Now this is progress. If we get anything useful from the Black Lives Matter movement, it will be better cop quality control. A big problem with law enforcement is that it's rare to fire cops even when they commit felonies. That may be changing.
More cops should be fired simply for being in the bottom 5-10% of cops. Camden, NJ essentially did that, except they dumped the bottom 25%. It helped.
Think HR quality control, not punishment. Not everyone who gets hired should stay on as a cop. There's less stigma associated with doing it this way. The Army has "retention control points". If you go into the Army, and don't make sergeant, you'll be out after some number of years. You still get a honorable discharge and the benefits of that number of years of service. Maybe cops need that kind of arrangement, too.
More cops should be fired simply for being in the bottom 5-10% of cops. Camden, NJ essentially did that, except they dumped the bottom 25%. It helped.
Think HR quality control, not punishment. Not everyone who gets hired should stay on as a cop. There's less stigma associated with doing it this way. The Army has "retention control points". If you go into the Army, and don't make sergeant, you'll be out after some number of years. You still get a honorable discharge and the benefits of that number of years of service. Maybe cops need that kind of arrangement, too.
What would you propose measuring?
Complaints. Successes. Management reviews. Peer reviews. Customer evaluations. Just like other jobs.
Number of unarmed civilians killed
Yes, bu also number of detainees raped and number of unarmed civilians mutilated.
Such a low bar for a policy on retention, and yet one routinely not met. :/
One really weird thing about ProPublica publishing this, is they seem to say "this data should be public as it's for public benefit" yet their terms for accessing the data are extremely restrictive:
https://www.propublica.org/datastore/terms
https://www.propublica.org/datastore/terms
You can’t republish the raw data in its entirety, or otherwise distribute
the data (in whole or in part) on a stand-alone basis.
This is a blanket terms of use for their data store. They want you to cite them. And they don't want it to be possible to launder the data by having a non-profit/non-commercial user re-upload, so that a for-profit user can then download.
This feels like a heavy hammer for that purpose, but it seems pretty straightforward to read between the lines on these terms.
This feels like a heavy hammer for that purpose, but it seems pretty straightforward to read between the lines on these terms.
How can this be enforceable? Aren't the records themselves public domain since they were produced by the government?
The data has obviously been filtered and wrangled (e.g. it includes only complaints to officers with at least one substantiated complaint). What's offered for download is a single CSV, it may have been derived from multiple tables, and several fields may have been cleaned/normalized to the point where the data is substantially different than the raw records.
As a general data point (pun intended ;>), there is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_right
No idea if that's even applicable in this instance though, as this is "Terms on a website" (my wording) - which would probably be a contractual obligation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_right
No idea if that's even applicable in this instance though, as this is "Terms on a website" (my wording) - which would probably be a contractual obligation.
As the article notes, it's not recognized in US, and there has been a court case about that.
I was under the impression that you couldn't copyright tables of data.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R....
You cannot copyright facts, but you can copyright arrangements of facts, as long as the arrangement has a modicum of creativity.
The litmus test for this is literally the telephone book. The White Pages cannot be copyrighted (the court case you linked). But, the Yellow Pages can be copyrighted. The White Pages are nothing more than an alphabetic listing of phone numbers, but the Yellow Pages groups phone numbers by business type. This involves some editorial discretion, which involves a bare minimum of thinking, and therefore qualifies as a creative work.
The litmus test for this is literally the telephone book. The White Pages cannot be copyrighted (the court case you linked). But, the Yellow Pages can be copyrighted. The White Pages are nothing more than an alphabetic listing of phone numbers, but the Yellow Pages groups phone numbers by business type. This involves some editorial discretion, which involves a bare minimum of thinking, and therefore qualifies as a creative work.
Terms of Service and copyright are two different things. Maybe the data's not copyrightable, but they can make their website terms of service say "by using our website and downloading this data, you agree to..."
You would have to research the case law to see if courts will enforce this. Anyone can say anything they want.
You would have to research the case law to see if courts will enforce this. Anyone can say anything they want.
This could be part of the aforementioned lawsuit trying to prevent the records becoming public.
"In its entirety" So delete the last line of the DB...
The "in whole or in part" piece kind of kills that. ;)
Perhaps, perhaps:
> ...on a stand-alone basis.
As I read it, you could publish half of the data with a blurb about how it's only half the data, and where it came from. So it's not stand-alone.
Then you do the same thing with the other half. And please, cross-link them.
> ...on a stand-alone basis.
As I read it, you could publish half of the data with a blurb about how it's only half the data, and where it came from. So it's not stand-alone.
Then you do the same thing with the other half. And please, cross-link them.
It seems to me that "on a stand-alone basis" can be interpreted to mean "without context," which would mean that publishing with proper context of the data is acceptable.
Either way, they're a single point of failure for the complete data set.
To me, that sounds non-optimal for getting the data widely used. :(
To me, that sounds non-optimal for getting the data widely used. :(
I sincerely hope that with all of the well documented instances of police abuse and lack of accountability in the last few months that people in the US are starting to wake up to the problem. Additional scrutiny from journalists like this is nice, but there ultimately needs to be powerful legislative changes.
I wonder if some sort of community hearing where any police officer that had a complaint filed had to sit in front of the community and have the details recounted and could explain their side would be useful. If the community had the power (through some elected or random jury) to censure, or cause a week or two probation without pay, or request a more detailed investigation of possible criminal actions, if that would weed out police the community did not deem fit.
In a functional democracy, that process is called "government."
Instead, the police make us pay taxes to fund their own paychecks and openly mocks the idea that they're answerable to us. Look at the way the NYPD union threatened the mayor's own daughter.
Instead, the police make us pay taxes to fund their own paychecks and openly mocks the idea that they're answerable to us. Look at the way the NYPD union threatened the mayor's own daughter.
Well, not exactly, because the government is not necessarily from the community being policed.
Where do police control taxes? I never heard of this. Taxes and budgets are responsibility of governments, they then distribute the money around.
They certainly make sure taxes get paid. I'm not claiming that they set tax rates.
(But they do have a lot of influence on how big of a budget the city government gives them, using that tax revenue.)
(But they do have a lot of influence on how big of a budget the city government gives them, using that tax revenue.)
The police unions would vehemently argue against anything of this type, any accountability or question answering is against their stance.
It’s hard to say if this data is telling us anything notable. It seems like 11% of the NYPD has had at least one claim against them substantiated. But isn’t that to be expected? Each officer probably has on the order of a thousand interactions with citizens each year on the low end. Over a ten year period, wouldn’t even a high performing nearly perfect officer violate some rule within their complex policing guidelines just because they are imperfect humans, as we all are? Many of those violations are also likely minor and not material as far as constructing an anti police narrative.
The article notes that only 303 of 36000 officers (0.8%) have 5 or more substantiated violations against them. The particulars of those should be examined more closely perhaps, but overall I’m not taking this as a sign of things being irrevocably broken. It even suggests that minor tweaks (reforms) would work, as they have elsewhere like in Seattle.
The article notes that only 303 of 36000 officers (0.8%) have 5 or more substantiated violations against them. The particulars of those should be examined more closely perhaps, but overall I’m not taking this as a sign of things being irrevocably broken. It even suggests that minor tweaks (reforms) would work, as they have elsewhere like in Seattle.
If you think these numbers are anything other than the tip of the iceberg you're incredibly naive. Consider how many victims of police violence have the means to make a complaint to the CCRB. The fact that these complaints (to this point) have almost never resulted in the firing or disciplining of violent officers makes filing the complaint itself mostly pointless. Add to that the fear of retribution from the NYPD, who have your address and have already made you a victim, and it's shocking that there are this many on file.
> "Thirty-four officers have had 40 or more allegations against them."
That's 34 people who should be off the streets - so that's notable.
It would also be interesting to find the count of claims where the board was unable to get evidence it was entitled to.
That's 34 people who should be off the streets - so that's notable.
It would also be interesting to find the count of claims where the board was unable to get evidence it was entitled to.
Could be the same complainant with a grudge on a particular beat. Likely not but blanket statements like yours aren't helpful.
Well, you've agreed that's not likely, so how exactly is your statement helpful? Why are you dragging the conversation to center around possibilities that even you don't believe in?
As long as there's zero accountability or transparency, there will always be the remote possibility that there are good cops out there being complained against, but that should be an argument for greater accountability and transparency, not for assuming the best and waiting for the next time a police officer murders someone on camera to do the same thing again.
As long as there's zero accountability or transparency, there will always be the remote possibility that there are good cops out there being complained against, but that should be an argument for greater accountability and transparency, not for assuming the best and waiting for the next time a police officer murders someone on camera to do the same thing again.
You can pontificate that its one rogue complainant or you can check the data because its right there and shows race, age and gender of the complainant. The very first page of data shows one sergeant with 25 complaints composed of atleast 11 complainants over 5 years.
I would imagine if I did anything at my workplace that these cops get complaints for, I would get fired instantly, even if the complainant wasn't able to substantiate it.
You probably don't have a union.
The problem with police unions isn't that they are unions.
The problem is that in addition to representing the line workers, the union also manages the entire department. It controls everything except setting the department's budget.
It would be like the C-executives of GM being part of the United Auto Workers union. There would be zero accountability for anyone, and the interests of the shareholders would not be represented well.
Unions must exist in an adversarial relationship with management - it keeps all parties honest. If the union takes over management, you get a disaster.
The problem is that in addition to representing the line workers, the union also manages the entire department. It controls everything except setting the department's budget.
It would be like the C-executives of GM being part of the United Auto Workers union. There would be zero accountability for anyone, and the interests of the shareholders would not be represented well.
Unions must exist in an adversarial relationship with management - it keeps all parties honest. If the union takes over management, you get a disaster.
I agree with you but I also think there's a problem with police in unions. I find it unethical, and it's clearly not working, for a government entity approved to inflict violence on a population to organize and ensure the violence can happen without any accountability. The government needs complete and total control over police to fire and discipline them as needed when they're literally murdering people. It is not reasonable to allow a group of citizens the ability the deny basic law enforcement over union disputes.
So you're saying we need a second military. I'm not on board with that.
If a union protects a coworker that has verbally abused me that finally escalated to a physical altercation, then the union is useless.
If the coworker is part of the union and you aren't, then the union has fine its job.
The issue is that I think most of us agree when it gets to the level you describe, perhaps that's not a job worth doing.
It's easy to see how it gets to that point though. Friends in the union might not care who is in the wrong, and selective retelling of the facts can get other union member up in arms about the "raw deal" their fellow member is getting, so it's probably easier for the union to just protect all but the most egregious behavior against non union people. I imagine that's just how the incentives work out.
The issue is that I think most of us agree when it gets to the level you describe, perhaps that's not a job worth doing.
It's easy to see how it gets to that point though. Friends in the union might not care who is in the wrong, and selective retelling of the facts can get other union member up in arms about the "raw deal" their fellow member is getting, so it's probably easier for the union to just protect all but the most egregious behavior against non union people. I imagine that's just how the incentives work out.
If that were true, it would be in their interests to publish and promote data that contradicted the image of a force of violent goons.
Except the data substantiates the image of a force of violent goons
What data could contradict such an image?
Generally, data doesn’t convince anyone who doesn’t want to be convinced, and can usually be used to support a wide variety of contradictory interpretations.
Avoiding this is why science has to be so rigorous.
Generally, data doesn’t convince anyone who doesn’t want to be convinced, and can usually be used to support a wide variety of contradictory interpretations.
Avoiding this is why science has to be so rigorous.
I would be more convinced by a solid trail of data of this committee getting full cooperation from the NYPD.
I’m not sure we’ll get to absolute confidence. But at least knowing we have a complete data set and sound, valid process.
I’m not sure we’ll get to absolute confidence. But at least knowing we have a complete data set and sound, valid process.
The absence of such cooperation is sufficient evidence of systematic disregard for the law, and q systematic disregard for the law seems like a good enough reason to wholesale replace a governmental system.
> Each officer probably has on the order of a thousand interactions with citizens each year on the low end. Over a ten year period, wouldn’t even a high performing nearly perfect officer violate some rule within their complex policing guidelines just because they are imperfect humans, as we all are?
No, this narrative is disgusting. People don't punch people in the face, choke them, hit them with nightsticks, spray them with tear gas and pepper spray, shoot them with rubber bullets, and fucking murder people, because they're "imperfect humans, as we all are". You wouldn't cut anyone else this kind of slack, stop putting police officers above the rest of us.
People don't report officers because they "violate some rule within their complex policing guidelines", for the simple reason that people don't know all the complex policing guidelines. People report officers because they do stuff that is obviously illegal (or should be).
What's unexpected here are how few officers have received any sort of disciplinary action.
No, this narrative is disgusting. People don't punch people in the face, choke them, hit them with nightsticks, spray them with tear gas and pepper spray, shoot them with rubber bullets, and fucking murder people, because they're "imperfect humans, as we all are". You wouldn't cut anyone else this kind of slack, stop putting police officers above the rest of us.
People don't report officers because they "violate some rule within their complex policing guidelines", for the simple reason that people don't know all the complex policing guidelines. People report officers because they do stuff that is obviously illegal (or should be).
What's unexpected here are how few officers have received any sort of disciplinary action.
12k complaints over 35 years and 7-8M population, not sure if low or high
There are more complaints than that, but these are all closed complaints for any officer who has had at least one substantiated allegation. It's only a fraction.
And it's only for currently active officers, right?
I think that depends on how severe they are. If that's 12 thousand reports of covered up beatings, that's extremely alarming. If it's 12 thousand reports of "showed up five minutes late to work", that's less alarming.
They're complaints by the public about police treatment of them, so have nothing to do with "showing up late to work".
They are also only records where the complaint has been substantiated by the [tilted towards police] Civilian Complaint Review Board, so only the most egregious and well-documented complaints are present. If you got the crap beat out of you, but no one else saw it and the officer says you fell down the stairs 8 or 10 times, that's not a substantiated complaint. If there's video footage of your beating but the NYPD declines to turn the footage over to the CCRB, then that's not a substantiated complaint.
They are also only records where the complaint has been substantiated by the [tilted towards police] Civilian Complaint Review Board, so only the most egregious and well-documented complaints are present. If you got the crap beat out of you, but no one else saw it and the officer says you fell down the stairs 8 or 10 times, that's not a substantiated complaint. If there's video footage of your beating but the NYPD declines to turn the footage over to the CCRB, then that's not a substantiated complaint.
The database includes records where the complaint is unsubstantiated or even exonerated, as long as the subject of the complaint has other complaints that were substantiated.
Did you write this without reading anything at all about this database?
I think my point stands that some allegations are more serious than others and the aggregate seriousness of this database is a function of how serious the allegations in the database are. This seems almost tautologically obvious.
Your point doesn’t stand if you didn’t even read what this is about, no matter what generalizations you have ready at hand
How would you measure the aggregate seriousness of a database, if not with some function of the individual entries of the database? Give me a fucking break, you know damn well I'm right.
I think it's easy for everyone here to estimate the actual amount of malfeasance by taken the number of times they've seen police behave inappropriately (dozens) and divide it by the number of complaints they've made (zero).
I guess you would also need to go make a complaint and see what the odds of it being taken are.
I guess you would also need to go make a complaint and see what the odds of it being taken are.
> I think it's easy for everyone here to estimate the actual amount of malfeasance by taken the number of times they've seen police behave inappropriately (dozens) and divide it by the number of complaints they've made (zero).
Except that this approach is NOT useful because police malfeasance is NOT distributed evenly. For example, over my lifetime I have only seen one case I can recall of police misbehavior, and I'm not sure that one even rises to the level of "malfeasance".
Perhaps if I were black and lived in New York City (where "stop and frisk" was an official policy for years) I would have a very different impression.
It is for exactly this reason that it is important to use actual statistics instead of personal anecdotes.
Except that this approach is NOT useful because police malfeasance is NOT distributed evenly. For example, over my lifetime I have only seen one case I can recall of police misbehavior, and I'm not sure that one even rises to the level of "malfeasance".
Perhaps if I were black and lived in New York City (where "stop and frisk" was an official policy for years) I would have a very different impression.
It is for exactly this reason that it is important to use actual statistics instead of personal anecdotes.
Statistics aside for a minute.
Every single interaction I’ve had with the police personally has been worthy of complaint.
He’ll, I’ll even complain when I see them take their side arms in to the bakery for lunch, here in Launceston Tasmania.
Who is so insecure they need a gun with their croissant.
Additionally, when the police prosecutor charged me with drug trafficking on evidence they knew was collected illegally, and 27 months later they had to drop the charges, there’s no simple way to have the officers involved and the police prosecutor charged, or even reprimanded in any way, for knowingly contravening the law.
Those 27 months weren’t real comfortable for me, but ok I’ll wear that, I did have the drugs in my possession, my guilt is indisputable, but my privacy, in that case, is more important than the intentional malfeasance of these institutionalised bullies, and the courts here, at the time, agreed.
To summaries, anyone who can act with impunity deserves constant derision until we see real change.
The police need to be trained that escalating violence isn’t the only path to working in the community, and that even when they honestly believe they caught someone in the act, they need to be treating that human being with kindness and respect.
What I’m saying is, if the police can’t behave, and they presently aren’t behaving, then another agency needs to be created that sends agentes out with the police to act as a public advocate, to protect the rights of everyone, and guide the police in their responsibilities.
Every single interaction I’ve had with the police personally has been worthy of complaint.
He’ll, I’ll even complain when I see them take their side arms in to the bakery for lunch, here in Launceston Tasmania.
Who is so insecure they need a gun with their croissant.
Additionally, when the police prosecutor charged me with drug trafficking on evidence they knew was collected illegally, and 27 months later they had to drop the charges, there’s no simple way to have the officers involved and the police prosecutor charged, or even reprimanded in any way, for knowingly contravening the law.
Those 27 months weren’t real comfortable for me, but ok I’ll wear that, I did have the drugs in my possession, my guilt is indisputable, but my privacy, in that case, is more important than the intentional malfeasance of these institutionalised bullies, and the courts here, at the time, agreed.
To summaries, anyone who can act with impunity deserves constant derision until we see real change.
The police need to be trained that escalating violence isn’t the only path to working in the community, and that even when they honestly believe they caught someone in the act, they need to be treating that human being with kindness and respect.
What I’m saying is, if the police can’t behave, and they presently aren’t behaving, then another agency needs to be created that sends agentes out with the police to act as a public advocate, to protect the rights of everyone, and guide the police in their responsibilities.
If the police are carrying a gun while on duty, then it is safer to carry it with them into the bakery rather than leave it unattended in a vehicle from which it could be stolen. Whether they need the gun in the first place is debatable however.
I agree with both your points.
> Who is so insecure they need a gun with their croissant.
Maybe these guys:
... four police officers of Lakewood, Washington were fatally shot at the Forza Coffee shop ...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Lakewood_shooting
Maybe these guys:
... four police officers of Lakewood, Washington were fatally shot at the Forza Coffee shop ...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Lakewood_shooting
This is an example of the whole classic theory with "I need my gun because criminals will get guns regardless" 2nd Amendment justifications: no gun will save you from someone who wants to shoot you before you have a chance to react.
Escalation is not a logical policy.
Escalation is not a logical policy.
That’s my question. Looks like the perp got shot once, but the cops still died, so how is that example a counter argument?
Those officers were armed?
The actual statistics are not available, because the police unions are fighting tooth and nail to prevent release of any and all data that could be used to compile it. This case is a typical example.
This, in and of itself, tells volumes about what that statistics would show if it were available.
But even anecdotes are telling. The ones that are most telling are the anecdotes of whistleblower cops, and specifically how their colleagues treat them after. You'll quickly notice a pattern - as soon as they interfere with one "bad apple", pretty much the entire PD/SD starts actively obstructing them, and it can get pretty extreme. To see just how extreme, and just how many people can get involved in such a witch hunt, look up Adrian Schoolcraft.
This, in and of itself, tells volumes about what that statistics would show if it were available.
But even anecdotes are telling. The ones that are most telling are the anecdotes of whistleblower cops, and specifically how their colleagues treat them after. You'll quickly notice a pattern - as soon as they interfere with one "bad apple", pretty much the entire PD/SD starts actively obstructing them, and it can get pretty extreme. To see just how extreme, and just how many people can get involved in such a witch hunt, look up Adrian Schoolcraft.
Complaining about stop and frisk would not have been a valid complaint since it was policy at the time.
Depends on what the complaint is about. Remember that stop-and-frisk didn't end because of any changes to the law or formal policies. In principle, police were never allowed to stop someone without reasonable suspicion; in principle, the standards for NYPD police stops are the same now as they were a decade ago.
[deleted]
In two decades I’ve had a handful interactions and witnessed quite a few more in Seattle - zero malfeasance observed. Most people who are happy with the police will never be loud about it, but they do vote.
I feel like you missed the theme of the last few months: The police are targeting minorities, i.e. not most people, disproportionately and people are trying to get the majority, i.e. most people, to stop being happy with that and to join them in being loud about it.
This looks like a rebuttal of something I did not say. Can you clarify which point of mine you’re refuting?
What point were you making? That in your personal bubble, beyond which you don't care to look, everything is fine, so it's fine and you vote accordingly, whatever that means?
Or that most people who are happy will not compplain, i.e. refuting a straw man, since nobody said they would?
Or that most people who are happy will not compplain, i.e. refuting a straw man, since nobody said they would?
> That in your personal bubble, beyond which you don't care to look, everything is fine, so it's fine and you vote accordingly, whatever that means?
I didn't say any of that, why do you make things up on my behalf?
I didn't say any of that, why do you make things up on my behalf?
You said you had zero problems with police and did never encounter them mistreating others personally. I know you have internet access, so you're not looking beyond your own tiny physical bubble. That is what your words mean.
Plus some ominous addendum about voting, without saying what that would mean in practice in this context, i.e. voting for whom over whom. Why do I care more about what you're actually saying than you do? Would you say that's also true for the silent [sic] majority who only votes awesomely, for whom you presumed to speak?
Plus some ominous addendum about voting, without saying what that would mean in practice in this context, i.e. voting for whom over whom. Why do I care more about what you're actually saying than you do? Would you say that's also true for the silent [sic] majority who only votes awesomely, for whom you presumed to speak?
Consider the parent post:
>it's easy for everyone here to estimate the actual amount of malfeasance by taken the number of times they've seen police behave inappropriately (dozens) and divide it by the number of complaints they've made (zero).
Followed by my reply:
>In two decades I’ve had a handful interactions and witnessed quite a few more in Seattle - zero malfeasance observed. Most people who are happy with the police will never be loud about it, but they do vote.
The implication here is that there is a significant group of people who had (seen) virtually zero bad behavior and yet will never speak up thus never contributing to any such computation, thus making the "estimate the actual amount of malfeasance" entirely unsound.
Everything else you read into this is entirely the product of your imagination.
>it's easy for everyone here to estimate the actual amount of malfeasance by taken the number of times they've seen police behave inappropriately (dozens) and divide it by the number of complaints they've made (zero).
Followed by my reply:
>In two decades I’ve had a handful interactions and witnessed quite a few more in Seattle - zero malfeasance observed. Most people who are happy with the police will never be loud about it, but they do vote.
The implication here is that there is a significant group of people who had (seen) virtually zero bad behavior and yet will never speak up thus never contributing to any such computation, thus making the "estimate the actual amount of malfeasance" entirely unsound.
Everything else you read into this is entirely the product of your imagination.
I guess in order to see things you have to open your eyes to it.
> I think it's easy for everyone here to estimate the actual amount of malfeasance by taken the number of times they've seen police behave inappropriately (dozens) and divide it by the number of complaints they've made (zero).
I would be surprised if the average American had a dozen interactions with police in a given year, not to mention dozens of instances of police misbehavior.
Can you share a bit about your life? What context do you have for dozens of instances of police abuse?
I would be surprised if the average American had a dozen interactions with police in a given year, not to mention dozens of instances of police misbehavior.
Can you share a bit about your life? What context do you have for dozens of instances of police abuse?
The stories they told were horrifying, and even in the clearest cut cases of obvious police abuses absolutely nothing ever came from any case.
It was a glorified suggestion box, gutted by NYPD’s union, masquerading as oversight.