Police sue rapper Afroman for using footage of home raid in his music videos(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Police sue rapper Afroman for using footage of home raid in his music videos
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/23/ohio-police-sue-rapper-afroman
565 comments
>and stole $400 (which they later returned)
Afroman says they confiscated ~$5,000 and returned it $400 short.[0]
An 'independent' investigation (by another sheriff's office, two counties over) claims the bags were miscounted multiple times and the correct amount of money was returned.[1]
Strap in, Afroman's next single is gonna be wild...
[0] https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2022/12/01/afroman-hom...
[1] https://www.fox19.com/2023/02/16/investigation-into-afromans...
Afroman says they confiscated ~$5,000 and returned it $400 short.[0]
An 'independent' investigation (by another sheriff's office, two counties over) claims the bags were miscounted multiple times and the correct amount of money was returned.[1]
Strap in, Afroman's next single is gonna be wild...
[0] https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2022/12/01/afroman-hom...
[1] https://www.fox19.com/2023/02/16/investigation-into-afromans...
Not to mention whatever was in their paperwork for the warrant was a fabrication, apparently!
That should be the entire story: if a raid is performed and the warrant doesn’t pan out the cops behind the warrant should be immediately investigated by another agency (which, they’re cops too so who knows if this would help).
That should be the entire story: if a raid is performed and the warrant doesn’t pan out the cops behind the warrant should be immediately investigated by another agency (which, they’re cops too so who knows if this would help).
And lose their pension. That’s the only thing which motivates cops. There should be a citizen review board that has the power to hand down the verdict. I’m primarily thinking of the Daniel Shaver incident in Mesa AZ, where Daniel was effectively murdered by a Mesa police officer. The officer had to leave the force, but he’s still collecting his pension. Effectively an early retirement plan.
I have watched that video. It's incredible that officer is not inside a jail cell right now.
The jury will watch it too. This could backfire on the officers (and hopefully will).
He was already acquitted (in 2017), and then briefly hired back to the department which reimbursed PTSD related medical expenses and allowed him to retire on medical grounds with a $2500/month pension.
I'm of a mind that police officers should have to carry malpractice insurance like doctors and other professions do, and repeated incidents would jack their rates up and if they're out of control would be priced out of the profession, instead of moving to the next town over and continue dumping the lawsuit costs on taxpayers. But in this case even that wouldn't have done anything. There are bigger training and accountability problems.
I'm of a mind that police officers should have to carry malpractice insurance like doctors and other professions do, and repeated incidents would jack their rates up and if they're out of control would be priced out of the profession, instead of moving to the next town over and continue dumping the lawsuit costs on taxpayers. But in this case even that wouldn't have done anything. There are bigger training and accountability problems.
Whoever allowed him to be rehired should be fired and also lose their pension. This is ridiculous.
He was acquitted of criminal charges. This will be a civil case.
Good point, thanks. Hopefully Shaver's family can still find a bit of justice.
"Back the blue" - the jury
And completely retaliation for Afroman nagging them about the status of a case where he was previously the _victim_ of a burglary.
As far as I'm concerned, the Ohio state government should step in and entirely dismantle this county's police department and replace everyone.
As far as I'm concerned, the Ohio state government should step in and entirely dismantle this county's police department and replace everyone.
> And completely retaliation for Afroman nagging them about the status of a case where he was previously the _victim_ of a burglary.
Heh, so because he was the victim of a burglary the police decided to do burgle him again.
Heh, so because he was the victim of a burglary the police decided to do burgle him again.
>And completely retaliation for Afroman nagging them about the status of a case where he was previously the _victim_ of a burglary.
Then people wonder why black people don't talk to (or call) the police. It has nothing to do with "snitching". It's about the fact that It never ends well, no matter which side you're on. Best to avoid the beasts entirely.
Then people wonder why black people don't talk to (or call) the police. It has nothing to do with "snitching". It's about the fact that It never ends well, no matter which side you're on. Best to avoid the beasts entirely.
Both my parents worked and retired PD... most cops are mostly good, like most people. It only takes a handful of bad guys to have an outsized effect, and the protections for govt employees in general, and police in particular is way too strong imo...
The aversion to police altogether, while I understand is akin to being overprotective as a parent, which can be more than just counterproductive but harmful as a whole.
The aversion to police altogether, while I understand is akin to being overprotective as a parent, which can be more than just counterproductive but harmful as a whole.
> most cops are mostly good
A police force that won’t expel and arrest one corrupt cop is an entirely corrupt force.
Aversion to police is just aversion to risk. You never know why a cop is asking you a question or what they are really investigating so even answering innocuous questions is massively risky. You never know if you match the description of someone they are looking for or if something minor like answering a question during a traffic stop. “I’m just headed home from the grocery store officer” could put you at the scene of a crime you didn’t even know about.
Misunderstandings are usually easy to clear up with most people but if a cop decides you are under arrest it would have catastrophic consequences for most people and everything you said prior to that arrest would immediately be stacked against you.
If YOU get pulled over and the cop is aware that you have police family they may give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are “one of them” and not “one of us”, for everyone else take the advice that every defense attorney agrees on: just don’t talk to them.
A police force that won’t expel and arrest one corrupt cop is an entirely corrupt force.
Aversion to police is just aversion to risk. You never know why a cop is asking you a question or what they are really investigating so even answering innocuous questions is massively risky. You never know if you match the description of someone they are looking for or if something minor like answering a question during a traffic stop. “I’m just headed home from the grocery store officer” could put you at the scene of a crime you didn’t even know about.
Misunderstandings are usually easy to clear up with most people but if a cop decides you are under arrest it would have catastrophic consequences for most people and everything you said prior to that arrest would immediately be stacked against you.
If YOU get pulled over and the cop is aware that you have police family they may give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are “one of them” and not “one of us”, for everyone else take the advice that every defense attorney agrees on: just don’t talk to them.
Few people dispute that there are some good peace officers.
However, there appear to be no good police unions. The unions bend over backwards to protect bent cops almost regardless of their actions. The "good cops" also support these unions - if they didn't, and if the "good cops" where the majority, then the police unions would reflect that
And one of the misunderstood things about ACAB is that it doesn't have to be literally true, if there are enough bad cops (and we know by now that there are), and if the bad cops are protected by the good cops (which we also know to be the case most of the time) then as a civilian you don't know which you're going to be dealing with in an interaction. The only safe thing to do is to assume that any given cop that you interact with is a bad cop.
However, there appear to be no good police unions. The unions bend over backwards to protect bent cops almost regardless of their actions. The "good cops" also support these unions - if they didn't, and if the "good cops" where the majority, then the police unions would reflect that
And one of the misunderstood things about ACAB is that it doesn't have to be literally true, if there are enough bad cops (and we know by now that there are), and if the bad cops are protected by the good cops (which we also know to be the case most of the time) then as a civilian you don't know which you're going to be dealing with in an interaction. The only safe thing to do is to assume that any given cop that you interact with is a bad cop.
> ...there are some good peace officers
"A bad system will beat a good person every time." -- W. Edward Deming
> The only safe thing to do is to assume that any given cop that you interact with is a bad cop.
True.
I was swatted. I had a puppy who was still in the barking and biting phase. My starting assumption was they'd shoot my dog.
Then I got conflicting instructions ("freeze!" and "lie down on the ground!"). And I thought, "Whelp, here it is."
Fortunately, we both lived. But it's sad that being shot in my driveway while wearing my PJs would be a "disappointed, but not surprised".
"A bad system will beat a good person every time." -- W. Edward Deming
> The only safe thing to do is to assume that any given cop that you interact with is a bad cop.
True.
I was swatted. I had a puppy who was still in the barking and biting phase. My starting assumption was they'd shoot my dog.
Then I got conflicting instructions ("freeze!" and "lie down on the ground!"). And I thought, "Whelp, here it is."
Fortunately, we both lived. But it's sad that being shot in my driveway while wearing my PJs would be a "disappointed, but not surprised".
Christ. I'm glad you and the pup made it through that scary situation.
Due to the potential for an extreme outcome, I've long though Swatting should cop the 'prankster' an attempted murder charge. Which is in itself probably excessive, but hey.
Due to the potential for an extreme outcome, I've long though Swatting should cop the 'prankster' an attempted murder charge. Which is in itself probably excessive, but hey.
I'd put more blame on the police than the prankster to be honest. The prankster should be fined for wasting the police's time and for messing with important societal safety systems but how the police engages the target is entirely up to them.
The problem is a lot of it cuts both ways... a lot of cops see misconduct investigations and a LOT of them are either unsubstantiated or lies. It's really impossible to know from the outside and onset. In the case of Floyd, for example, I don't know anyone, cop or not, that didn't think that was excessive force and completely wrong.
The union is supposed to serve the police, and that includes legal protection... your lawyer is going to back you, that's how the system works. Would you want a defense lawyer that was against you?
I know it's pretty simplistic, but that's largely what it comes down to... I'm not supporting police misconduct at all. I think that civil asset forfeiture is a crime, I think that police spend too much time trying to make criminals out of innocent people... Once at an accident where I was rear ended, "why is your seatbelt unbuckled?" I was kind of pissed, because, "I needed to get my insurance and registration from the glove box."
In the end, I get it... I do feel, however, that the ACAB is oversized because a lot of it is over-reported or misrepresented.
I'm also not that inclined to generally and blindly support police. They are agents of the govt's interests and not yours. They serve the govt and the govt is too split from general good and in favor of the wealthy and powerful. And I also think that enforcing draconian lockdowns in many places didn't gain them any favor with anyone these past few years.
Again, most cops are mostly good, like most people. And like most people they will bend to peer pressure, anxiety, stress and their environment. You really want to see people with a bent personality, talk to the guys that have to clean up traffic accidents sometime... They're quasi police and complete alcoholics for the most part. That's a job nobody should have for an extended period of time. It's extreme, but only to show that one's own experiences will shape their perception.
Of course, I am biased, I just make an effort to be level headed as much as possible.
The union is supposed to serve the police, and that includes legal protection... your lawyer is going to back you, that's how the system works. Would you want a defense lawyer that was against you?
I know it's pretty simplistic, but that's largely what it comes down to... I'm not supporting police misconduct at all. I think that civil asset forfeiture is a crime, I think that police spend too much time trying to make criminals out of innocent people... Once at an accident where I was rear ended, "why is your seatbelt unbuckled?" I was kind of pissed, because, "I needed to get my insurance and registration from the glove box."
In the end, I get it... I do feel, however, that the ACAB is oversized because a lot of it is over-reported or misrepresented.
I'm also not that inclined to generally and blindly support police. They are agents of the govt's interests and not yours. They serve the govt and the govt is too split from general good and in favor of the wealthy and powerful. And I also think that enforcing draconian lockdowns in many places didn't gain them any favor with anyone these past few years.
Again, most cops are mostly good, like most people. And like most people they will bend to peer pressure, anxiety, stress and their environment. You really want to see people with a bent personality, talk to the guys that have to clean up traffic accidents sometime... They're quasi police and complete alcoholics for the most part. That's a job nobody should have for an extended period of time. It's extreme, but only to show that one's own experiences will shape their perception.
Of course, I am biased, I just make an effort to be level headed as much as possible.
> The union is supposed to serve the police, and that includes legal protection... your lawyer is going to back you, that's how the system works. Would you want a defense lawyer that was against you?
That's an interesting perspective and nuance! It gets really interesting when the same group is both responsible for "protecting the individual" and "protecting the profession". In most legal situations, you have a lawyer of your own and it's very crystal clear that their role is to protect your best interests. And I am one of the people who strongly strongly believe that, in the general legal perspective, "he got off on a technically" should almost always be replaced with "the legal system failed to do their job". For example, if someone is acquitted of a crime because of a poor chain of custody with the evidence, the fault 100% is on the people who failed to do their jobs correctly. When the state wants to strip someone of their most basic right (freedom), they had better dot their Ts and cross their Is.
> In the end, I get it... I do feel, however, that the ACAB is oversized because a lot of it is over-reported or misrepresented.
With the lawyer situation, I am paying my lawyer to represent me the best they can. With the police union situation, the good guys are paying union dues that go directly towards the defence fund for the bad guys. There's a very significant conflict of interest here as well; if a video leaks where I'm beating the shit out of someone while wearing my company uniform, my employer is almost certainly going to put out a statement about how my actions don't represent the company values and that I've been terminated. With the police and police unions, there's often complete silence or even support.
I have more thoughts, thank you for triggering a really interesting line of thought for me. Will try to come back to this but work's getting busy again...
That's an interesting perspective and nuance! It gets really interesting when the same group is both responsible for "protecting the individual" and "protecting the profession". In most legal situations, you have a lawyer of your own and it's very crystal clear that their role is to protect your best interests. And I am one of the people who strongly strongly believe that, in the general legal perspective, "he got off on a technically" should almost always be replaced with "the legal system failed to do their job". For example, if someone is acquitted of a crime because of a poor chain of custody with the evidence, the fault 100% is on the people who failed to do their jobs correctly. When the state wants to strip someone of their most basic right (freedom), they had better dot their Ts and cross their Is.
> In the end, I get it... I do feel, however, that the ACAB is oversized because a lot of it is over-reported or misrepresented.
With the lawyer situation, I am paying my lawyer to represent me the best they can. With the police union situation, the good guys are paying union dues that go directly towards the defence fund for the bad guys. There's a very significant conflict of interest here as well; if a video leaks where I'm beating the shit out of someone while wearing my company uniform, my employer is almost certainly going to put out a statement about how my actions don't represent the company values and that I've been terminated. With the police and police unions, there's often complete silence or even support.
I have more thoughts, thank you for triggering a really interesting line of thought for me. Will try to come back to this but work's getting busy again...
> In the case of Floyd, for example, I don't know anyone, cop or not, that didn't think that was excessive force and completely wrong.
That was after the civilian world had already reacted publicly. All of the police involved helped kill him or cover it up until the video came out.
That was after the civilian world had already reacted publicly. All of the police involved helped kill him or cover it up until the video came out.
I'm specifically talking about the video... as I mentioned at the top of my reply, many/most civil complaints are made up, and I'm a proponent of filming and body cams, it's the best way to know (unedited, full-length content). It didn't take more than the video to see it and only took the video. It didn't matter the commentary around it.
[deleted]
Thank you for putting it better than I could have.
Part of the problem is that police departments seem to have a culture of circling the wagons when one the "bad guys" is revealed. Whistleblowers are also often fired, harassed, and treated like the enemy[1]. If the good majority of the cops maintain this kind of culture, are they not at least partly responsible for the continued existence of the handful of bad guys?
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/what-polic...
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/what-polic...
It's a mixed bag though, how many civil calls for police misconduct are falsely made? I'm an avid supporter of body cams for cops, wouldn't mind seeing this for all public officials/offices tbh, and kind of wish it was all live streamed for anyone/everyone to capture.
The unions are literally the legal defense for the police... they are supposed to do that. And police protect their own, like most people in any tribalistic group. The power and repercussions for those that are bad guys in the system is definitely outsized in terms of influence and effect.
Again, and I feel I have to repeat this... I do not condone, or favor misconduct. I think police, generally speaking have too much power and gov't employees as a whole too much protection from liability for their actions. I'd like to see govt, and police reduced as much as reasonably possible, and strongly favor 2A and self defense.
The unions are literally the legal defense for the police... they are supposed to do that. And police protect their own, like most people in any tribalistic group. The power and repercussions for those that are bad guys in the system is definitely outsized in terms of influence and effect.
Again, and I feel I have to repeat this... I do not condone, or favor misconduct. I think police, generally speaking have too much power and gov't employees as a whole too much protection from liability for their actions. I'd like to see govt, and police reduced as much as reasonably possible, and strongly favor 2A and self defense.
>how many civil calls for police misconduct are falsely made?
According to a 2006 report [1] from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (part of the DOJ), 25% of allegations of use of excessive force were unfounded. (This contradicts statements made elsewhere in the comments that "most allegations against police are falsified.") Keep in mind that these numbers are reported by the police agencies themselves.
(In the interest of beimg complete: In 23% of cases the officer involved was exonerated, meaning the "incident occurred, but the officer’s action was deemed lawful and proper". In 34% of cases the police agency didn't find enough evidence to either sustain the allegation or exonerate the officer. 8% of allegations ended with disciplinary action.)
Interestingly, when surveying citizens, the BJS found that 75% of citizens who experienced use of force thought it was excessive, although only about 10% filed a complaint with the agency employing the officer(s).
I wasn't able to find very much info on this, and I suspect there are probably some pretty big biases, so if anyone else has any info, please share.
[1]: https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/ccpuf.pdf
According to a 2006 report [1] from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (part of the DOJ), 25% of allegations of use of excessive force were unfounded. (This contradicts statements made elsewhere in the comments that "most allegations against police are falsified.") Keep in mind that these numbers are reported by the police agencies themselves.
(In the interest of beimg complete: In 23% of cases the officer involved was exonerated, meaning the "incident occurred, but the officer’s action was deemed lawful and proper". In 34% of cases the police agency didn't find enough evidence to either sustain the allegation or exonerate the officer. 8% of allegations ended with disciplinary action.)
Interestingly, when surveying citizens, the BJS found that 75% of citizens who experienced use of force thought it was excessive, although only about 10% filed a complaint with the agency employing the officer(s).
I wasn't able to find very much info on this, and I suspect there are probably some pretty big biases, so if anyone else has any info, please share.
[1]: https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/ccpuf.pdf
You didn't answer your own question, how many civil complaints are fake?
Both of my parents were police as well. That is why I believed them when they told me never to talk to cops.
It is not a matter of good cops and bad cops. The issues are systemic and often complicated.
It is not a matter of good cops and bad cops. The issues are systemic and often complicated.
My dad would generally have said the same... most of it is BS. And the incentivization in a LOT of places is just warped. You definitely need to be mindful of what you say/volunteer... you should definitely report crimes. When stopped by police, you should be respectful and offer the minimum required, ask clarifying questions, "am I required by law to answer that?" and only give what you have to.
That doesn't mean you have to be an asshole, and that doesn't condone asshole cops either. The point is, that broad brush strokes definitely don't help.
Personally, I'd like to see most govt minimized, including police and standing down the military. I'd like to see far more community engagement, and strongly support 2A and self defense, I don't like seeing that eroded for larger/stronger govt.
That doesn't mean you have to be an asshole, and that doesn't condone asshole cops either. The point is, that broad brush strokes definitely don't help.
Personally, I'd like to see most govt minimized, including police and standing down the military. I'd like to see far more community engagement, and strongly support 2A and self defense, I don't like seeing that eroded for larger/stronger govt.
> ask clarifying questions, "am I required by law to answer that?" and only give what you have to.
I was under the impression that the police in the US are not required to be truthful and it's perfectly legal for them to give false legal advice if it'll make their day go smoother?
I was under the impression that the police in the US are not required to be truthful and it's perfectly legal for them to give false legal advice if it'll make their day go smoother?
My understanding is that it's mixed... I think it's supposed to be along the lines of, "am I being compelled to answer against my will?" or some such, in which case it can be inadmissible as evidence (IANAL).
That said, if it were anything more than something like a basic traffic stop, I wouldn't answer anything other than my name and providing ID without a lawyer. Pretty much every interaction with police (outside family/friends) has been a traffic stop, an accident, or otherwise reporting a crime.
That said, if it were anything more than something like a basic traffic stop, I wouldn't answer anything other than my name and providing ID without a lawyer. Pretty much every interaction with police (outside family/friends) has been a traffic stop, an accident, or otherwise reporting a crime.
> My understanding is that it's mixed... I think it's supposed to be along the lines of, "am I being compelled to answer against my will?" or some such, in which case it can be inadmissible as evidence (IANAL).
Your understanding is absolutely wrong. There are no magic words that make your voluntary confession inadmissible whether intentional or not. l
The closest thing would be refusing to answer questions. Then, if arrested, demand your attorney and continue to refuse. Never try to rely on a Miranda violation.
Also, folks, find out if your state has a Stop & ID law and understand the details of when they can apply. You are always required to ID yourself if stopped for a traffic infraction.
Your understanding is absolutely wrong. There are no magic words that make your voluntary confession inadmissible whether intentional or not. l
The closest thing would be refusing to answer questions. Then, if arrested, demand your attorney and continue to refuse. Never try to rely on a Miranda violation.
Also, folks, find out if your state has a Stop & ID law and understand the details of when they can apply. You are always required to ID yourself if stopped for a traffic infraction.
As far as I understand it, the responsibility is on you to know the law and your rights.
If you are required by law to answer a question, you must do so. If you are not required to, you do not have to. What the police tell you has nothing to do with it.
There are very few occasions when you can be required by law to answer a question without a lawyer present (and without a judge compelling you to do so). These questions tend to be very limited, such as name and address, and may be even more limited in states without a stop and identify statute. You should research these questions before you need them.
The police are not required to teach you the law (with a very specific exception of reading you your rights when you are arrested) and are allowed to lie to you. They may also be simply mistaken about the legality of compelling you to answer a question. This may or may not impact the admissibility of anything you say, but generally provided the police officer reasonably believes what they’re saying is true, they will have qualified immunity and you will not be able to (successfully) take action against a police officer for lying to you.
In any case, you should take personal responsibility for learning what questions you must answer, and any questions other than that you should respond to with some formulation that makes it clear that a) you are aware of your legal right to refuse to answer the question, for example under the fifth amendment and b) you are exercising that right. You should answer all questions this way, even seemingly innocuous questions, as inferences may be drawn from your choice to stop answering questions. Courts have also established that if you are unaware of your fifth amendment rights, then they do not protect you. You should get legal advice at the earliest opportunity, but certainly before answering any question you are not required to answer. Police also receive training on how to make it seem as though you are required to answer the question without necessarily saying so. For example “how many people live in your house?” may be the question.
You might respond with something like “I would prefer not to answer that question”.
The police officer might then respond with something like “I need to know how many people live in your house so I can record it in the report/make sure my colleagues are aware that there are people at home/because I need that information to perform a proper investigation”. They may even threaten you with arrest for obstruction, but at this point they have likely crossed a threshold and anything you say past that point is probably inadmissible.
Although I’m not a lawyer, the above is my understanding of the recommendations of pretty much every lawyer about everything. You should do your own research or engage your own lawyer rather than listening to some loon on the internet with a Wikipedia degree.
If you are required by law to answer a question, you must do so. If you are not required to, you do not have to. What the police tell you has nothing to do with it.
There are very few occasions when you can be required by law to answer a question without a lawyer present (and without a judge compelling you to do so). These questions tend to be very limited, such as name and address, and may be even more limited in states without a stop and identify statute. You should research these questions before you need them.
The police are not required to teach you the law (with a very specific exception of reading you your rights when you are arrested) and are allowed to lie to you. They may also be simply mistaken about the legality of compelling you to answer a question. This may or may not impact the admissibility of anything you say, but generally provided the police officer reasonably believes what they’re saying is true, they will have qualified immunity and you will not be able to (successfully) take action against a police officer for lying to you.
In any case, you should take personal responsibility for learning what questions you must answer, and any questions other than that you should respond to with some formulation that makes it clear that a) you are aware of your legal right to refuse to answer the question, for example under the fifth amendment and b) you are exercising that right. You should answer all questions this way, even seemingly innocuous questions, as inferences may be drawn from your choice to stop answering questions. Courts have also established that if you are unaware of your fifth amendment rights, then they do not protect you. You should get legal advice at the earliest opportunity, but certainly before answering any question you are not required to answer. Police also receive training on how to make it seem as though you are required to answer the question without necessarily saying so. For example “how many people live in your house?” may be the question.
You might respond with something like “I would prefer not to answer that question”.
The police officer might then respond with something like “I need to know how many people live in your house so I can record it in the report/make sure my colleagues are aware that there are people at home/because I need that information to perform a proper investigation”. They may even threaten you with arrest for obstruction, but at this point they have likely crossed a threshold and anything you say past that point is probably inadmissible.
Although I’m not a lawyer, the above is my understanding of the recommendations of pretty much every lawyer about everything. You should do your own research or engage your own lawyer rather than listening to some loon on the internet with a Wikipedia degree.
That's correct, US cops lie to people all the time in order to get information
>You definitely need to be mindful of what you say/volunteer...
Alec Baldwin, the actor, may have voluntarily talked his way into prison by saying too much after the recent accidental shooting on a film set.[0].
[0]https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/04/26/alec-baldwins-sad-str...
Alec Baldwin, the actor, may have voluntarily talked his way into prison by saying too much after the recent accidental shooting on a film set.[0].
[0]https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/04/26/alec-baldwins-sad-str...
If most cops are mostly good, why dont they stop the bad cops in cases such as this?
>If most cops are mostly good, why dont they stop the bad cops in cases such as this?
Because most cops are bad. Plenty of good people become cops every day. But good cops have a half life of just a few years. The moment a good cop thinks "well I'll just overlook this one thing so that the guys will still like me" he becomes a bad cop. Whereas good cops treat it as a moral line and become former cops.
Because most cops are bad. Plenty of good people become cops every day. But good cops have a half life of just a few years. The moment a good cop thinks "well I'll just overlook this one thing so that the guys will still like me" he becomes a bad cop. Whereas good cops treat it as a moral line and become former cops.
Tribalism, peer pressure, and the fact that most allegations against police are falsified.
In this case, it's f'd up, and the police in question, from what I recall were dismissed. The lawsuit itself is anything but okay imo, and they shouldn't have any expectation of privacy while on duty, period. And was my very first response in this post, if you care to look/check.
I'm a minimal govt libertarian, and that includes police. I'm just pointing out facts. How many times have you ratted someone out in an environment with oversized peer pressure? MOST people historically won't and don't.
In this case, it's f'd up, and the police in question, from what I recall were dismissed. The lawsuit itself is anything but okay imo, and they shouldn't have any expectation of privacy while on duty, period. And was my very first response in this post, if you care to look/check.
I'm a minimal govt libertarian, and that includes police. I'm just pointing out facts. How many times have you ratted someone out in an environment with oversized peer pressure? MOST people historically won't and don't.
If a good cop doesn't stop the bad cops from doing bad things, they are, by definition, a bad cop.
> How many times have you ratted someone out in an environment with oversized peer pressure?
Why has this culture of oversized peer pressure been permitted to continue unabated for so long?
When I was in the military, there was an incident where someone witnessed another serviceman committing a war crime. The commander dragged us all out, stood us at attention, and made 3 things abundantly clear: 1) if we committed a war crime we would be punished. 2) if we witnessed a war time we were expected to report it. 3) failure to report is a UCMJ violation and will also be punished.
What's so special about cops? Why do they get held to a lower standard than the military?
> How many times have you ratted someone out in an environment with oversized peer pressure?
Why has this culture of oversized peer pressure been permitted to continue unabated for so long?
When I was in the military, there was an incident where someone witnessed another serviceman committing a war crime. The commander dragged us all out, stood us at attention, and made 3 things abundantly clear: 1) if we committed a war crime we would be punished. 2) if we witnessed a war time we were expected to report it. 3) failure to report is a UCMJ violation and will also be punished.
What's so special about cops? Why do they get held to a lower standard than the military?
What is your alternative?
Mine is let self defense reign supreme and vigorously defended #2A.
Any policing force will have power.
Mine is let self defense reign supreme and vigorously defended #2A.
Any policing force will have power.
Then they aren't good cops.
> the fact that most allegations against police are falsified
I'm curious as to where you got this information. After a quick search, a source of information said that 25% of allegations against police are falsified [1]. This is far from "most allegations against police". (I wouldn't be surprised if there were bias in favor of police in presenting this information either, as the organization putting it out states that a big part of their mission is "working to protect innocent law enforcement officers ... from wrongful allegations and convictions".)
It also doesn't make sense to me if most allegations are falsified, why aren't police unions in favor of more transparency and turning cases over to more objective parties to be investigated and cleared (i.e. civilian over-site boards instead of other police officers)? It's a bit alarming that an organization whose job it is, is to investigate crimes, wasn't able to either clear an officer or find him guilty of the allegation in 65% of situations (according to the statistics from the website [1]). (It's not worded the best in the report, so again, if you have other evidence that's both more objective and clear, I'd appreciate seeing it.)
I get that police shouldn't be automatically seen as the "bad guy", and I think it's sad that we live in a society (at least in the U.S.) where that is often the case. However, I think there are reasons for the distrust and defending against those reasons is counter-productive and not moving us in the right direction.
> they shouldn't have any expectation of privacy while on duty, period.
I agree with this (aside from minor exceptions), but police who destroy private surveillance systems and then sue when information gets out, presumably to create a chilling effect, go against what you seem to be arguing for: giving the police a chance at objective judgement. In my eyes, they do this to themselves.
> How many times have you ratted someone out in an environment with oversized peer pressure? MOST people historically won't and don't.
Just because most of us have fallen victim to peer pressure, doesn't mean it's right, and I don't think you are arguing that, but ignoring it in your plea towards empathy for police. I don't think claiming the police deserve more empathy in this story, than a man who was falsely accused of kidnapping and faced unfair repercussions because of it, is the right balance to strike. I would argue that we should be working to break down peer pressure and tribalism within the justice system, instead of excusing it.
> I'm just pointing out facts.
Again, I think the facts that you present are wrong (esp. that most allegations are falsified), and I'd genuinely like to see some evidence to back them up. I've seen plenty of evidence that police brutality and dishonesty is a problem in the past few years, and seems to me to be the bigger problem, so I have a hard time seeing from your point of view. (I'm often wrong about things, so I'd like help seeing it from a different perspective.) If you could present some evidence that might change my mind, I'd really like to look into it.
Anyway, thank you for the thoughtful discussion.
[1]: https://www.uncufftheinnocent.org/post/wrongful-allegations-...
I'm curious as to where you got this information. After a quick search, a source of information said that 25% of allegations against police are falsified [1]. This is far from "most allegations against police". (I wouldn't be surprised if there were bias in favor of police in presenting this information either, as the organization putting it out states that a big part of their mission is "working to protect innocent law enforcement officers ... from wrongful allegations and convictions".)
It also doesn't make sense to me if most allegations are falsified, why aren't police unions in favor of more transparency and turning cases over to more objective parties to be investigated and cleared (i.e. civilian over-site boards instead of other police officers)? It's a bit alarming that an organization whose job it is, is to investigate crimes, wasn't able to either clear an officer or find him guilty of the allegation in 65% of situations (according to the statistics from the website [1]). (It's not worded the best in the report, so again, if you have other evidence that's both more objective and clear, I'd appreciate seeing it.)
I get that police shouldn't be automatically seen as the "bad guy", and I think it's sad that we live in a society (at least in the U.S.) where that is often the case. However, I think there are reasons for the distrust and defending against those reasons is counter-productive and not moving us in the right direction.
> they shouldn't have any expectation of privacy while on duty, period.
I agree with this (aside from minor exceptions), but police who destroy private surveillance systems and then sue when information gets out, presumably to create a chilling effect, go against what you seem to be arguing for: giving the police a chance at objective judgement. In my eyes, they do this to themselves.
> How many times have you ratted someone out in an environment with oversized peer pressure? MOST people historically won't and don't.
Just because most of us have fallen victim to peer pressure, doesn't mean it's right, and I don't think you are arguing that, but ignoring it in your plea towards empathy for police. I don't think claiming the police deserve more empathy in this story, than a man who was falsely accused of kidnapping and faced unfair repercussions because of it, is the right balance to strike. I would argue that we should be working to break down peer pressure and tribalism within the justice system, instead of excusing it.
> I'm just pointing out facts.
Again, I think the facts that you present are wrong (esp. that most allegations are falsified), and I'd genuinely like to see some evidence to back them up. I've seen plenty of evidence that police brutality and dishonesty is a problem in the past few years, and seems to me to be the bigger problem, so I have a hard time seeing from your point of view. (I'm often wrong about things, so I'd like help seeing it from a different perspective.) If you could present some evidence that might change my mind, I'd really like to look into it.
Anyway, thank you for the thoughtful discussion.
[1]: https://www.uncufftheinnocent.org/post/wrongful-allegations-...
Who you are what you will allow.
most cops are mostly good
This is ironic reasoning for defending a body with a history of racial profiling, i.e. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/us-department-justice-ch...
This is ironic reasoning for defending a body with a history of racial profiling, i.e. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/us-department-justice-ch...
So Ohio is literally everyone, everywhere?
Look, my initial response to this is here[1]... I don't condone misconduct... but I am at least attempting to have a level head and see more sides to this. I'm someone who would generally like to see most of the govt including police and military end.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35289247
Look, my initial response to this is here[1]... I don't condone misconduct... but I am at least attempting to have a level head and see more sides to this. I'm someone who would generally like to see most of the govt including police and military end.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35289247
How do you know your parents were good cops? Did you work with them?
Would they really come home and mention all the shitty things they did to their child?
Would they really come home and mention all the shitty things they did to their child?
Police steal more than people usually thought of as criminals by way of asset forfeiture abuse, so it tracks.
Total assets seized per year, including valid seizures, is under $3b [1].
Total retail theft alone is well over $60b [2]. Adding in other crimes like employee theft, fraud, property crimes, and so on puts total US cost from crime well into hundreds of billions.
So no, police don't steal more than traditional criminals.
[1] https://www.justice.gov/afp/reports-0
[2] https://www.rila.org/focus-areas/public-policy/study-retail-...
Total retail theft alone is well over $60b [2]. Adding in other crimes like employee theft, fraud, property crimes, and so on puts total US cost from crime well into hundreds of billions.
So no, police don't steal more than traditional criminals.
[1] https://www.justice.gov/afp/reports-0
[2] https://www.rila.org/focus-areas/public-policy/study-retail-...
I'm not saying you're wrong, but you picked the most biased sources possible. [1] is reported by the people doing the thieving. [2] wants to maximize sympathy from the public and payouts from insurance.
And it doesn't actually affect the point.
And it doesn't actually affect the point.
Present other evidence then. If your entire claim is wrong, and it's not even close, it affects the point. There's many, many sources for numbers just like these. I've found none even coming close to your statement. If you based it on some solid evidence, present it. If you just completely made it up, admit it.
When your world view is made of false claims and feelings and you ignore actual evidence, don't be surprised when people that do prefer evidence won't believe you.
When your world view is made of false claims and feelings and you ignore actual evidence, don't be surprised when people that do prefer evidence won't believe you.
$6B of thieving every year by people who are supposed to stop crime is plenty to call it. That's your own number. It should be zero billion. Six of them should be a national crisis.
SideQuark(1)
Yeah, don’t get into a traffic stop with any large amount of cash on you.
Observe from the names in the suit and a cursory search that the agency appears to have a nepotism problem.
Welcome to small town America.
I think that soothes our outrage.
But it’s like firing the whole development team because we all keep ignoring lint errors and our bugs crash the system.
I think there’s systemic changes to make.
Maybe for cases like this if the judge or person that approves the warrants has a high failure rate they can no longer approve warrants.
But it’s like firing the whole development team because we all keep ignoring lint errors and our bugs crash the system.
I think there’s systemic changes to make.
Maybe for cases like this if the judge or person that approves the warrants has a high failure rate they can no longer approve warrants.
These are not comparable situations.
Ideally everyone should do a good job, sure, but cops are in an entirely different position in terms of power and responsibility.
as part of the executive arm of government they are tasked with holding the monopoly on violence and egregious mistakes in doing so are a fundamental violation of basic rights and the peaceful order of society.
When they screw up it's not a bad product being delivered, it's trust in society being eroded, lives being destroyed and the door to tyranny being opened just a little further.
severe deterrence against misbehavior, loosing a job honestly seeming VERY weak compared to the scale of responsibility at play here, should simply be par for the course in this context.
True, but how does firing the whole department solve the problems? I don't think just firing the bad apples is a good long term solution. Mainly because these types of mistakes continually happen in multiple departments in multiple counties and countries. Whenever things keep happening over and over again, it is likely the system itself that causes the problems. Perhaps we should look at countries with the lowest police mistakes and emulate them.
I try to solve problems from a systems perspective. For example the common automobile stop and warrantless search allows officers to more easily abuse power and escalate situations quickly as cops no longer required a warrant from a judge. This was by design by the Supreme Court who ruled in 1925 to allow this exception in times of prohibition when an individual ran away from police with alcohol and they didn't have time to go get a warrant. Stop and frisk was an extension of this case law.
I try to solve problems from a systems perspective. For example the common automobile stop and warrantless search allows officers to more easily abuse power and escalate situations quickly as cops no longer required a warrant from a judge. This was by design by the Supreme Court who ruled in 1925 to allow this exception in times of prohibition when an individual ran away from police with alcohol and they didn't have time to go get a warrant. Stop and frisk was an extension of this case law.
As part of the executive arm of government, they are under the responsibility of the government. When they screw up it reflects on the ability of the government to organize, regulate and fund that executive arm, and also the trust that people have put into those politicians.
If people no longer trust that executive arm of government, then hold those in power responsible for it. Start at the top and replace those politicians. An elected politician can only remain in office if they continue to receive support by voters.
If people no longer trust that executive arm of government, then hold those in power responsible for it. Start at the top and replace those politicians. An elected politician can only remain in office if they continue to receive support by voters.
Sure politicians should also be held accountable for policy failures but I don't think it absolves the people enacting an injustice from responsibility.
"just following orders" is not a valid excuse and "just vote different" is not a valid way to hold people accountable (in all cases).
When everything works in the spirit of the law and the output is still bad it makes sense to just vote for different laws/people to make new legislation, sure, but when rights are being violated there need to be harsh consequences.
It is important that those responsible for the police force can not just simply wash themselves clean of the problem by firing the lowest level employees. I do not disagree that individuals need to be held responsible for their own actions, through most blames should lie on those who hold power to create real change in the organization. As an generalization, a good model is one where blames travels upward and praise travel downward.
Just voting differently is naturally not the only way a government can be held responsible. Political assigned jobs is a job description based on trust, and there should be mechanism to remove individuals who do not fulfill that trust. Governments should also be liable to their citizens, so when injustice occurs people should have the option to demand compensation from the government. This in turn put pressure on politicians to avoid injustice caused by the police.
A police force that protects citizens rights should be viewed as an asset to local government, and the opposite should be a harsh liability that local governments can feel.
Just voting differently is naturally not the only way a government can be held responsible. Political assigned jobs is a job description based on trust, and there should be mechanism to remove individuals who do not fulfill that trust. Governments should also be liable to their citizens, so when injustice occurs people should have the option to demand compensation from the government. This in turn put pressure on politicians to avoid injustice caused by the police.
A police force that protects citizens rights should be viewed as an asset to local government, and the opposite should be a harsh liability that local governments can feel.
Sure, replace the politicians at the top who aren't willing to cull and replace dysfunctional and corrupt members of the police force. And if it's systemic, the entire police force, which is what's being suggested.
The problem is that power corrupts.
Same issue with nearly every place people have power. It feels particularly acute in the US because of reverent attitudes to police force.
But doctors, nurses, teachers, priests... Good people will do bad things given half a chance.
Same issue with nearly every place people have power. It feels particularly acute in the US because of reverent attitudes to police force.
But doctors, nurses, teachers, priests... Good people will do bad things given half a chance.
Power does corrupt but systems can overcome it. A lot of good research out there about mistakes in hospitals arising from the power dynamic between doctors and nurses. How nurses would be afraid to challenge doctors when they make mistakes.
And how changing the systems and culture can fix it. Think the book checklists discusses this in detail .
And how changing the systems and culture can fix it. Think the book checklists discusses this in detail .
Checklist Manifesto By Atul Gawande (MD), if anyone is interested to lookup the book.
> It feels particularly acute in the US because of reverent attitudes to police force.
From what I can tell from the outside, people always accuse American police of being terrible. I don't see much of a reverent attitude.
From what I can tell from the outside, people always accuse American police of being terrible. I don't see much of a reverent attitude.
From the outside you can't see all the Thin Blue Line flag bumper stickers or Back the Blue yard signs during BLM protests. The Republican Party hates government, but seems to love cops for some reason. Republicans don't trust the government, but they trust cops. Republicans generally think the government is wholly incompetent, but want them to practice the death penalty and immediately trust the police account of fatal shootings. If Republican distrust of government was consistent, we would be able to address the systemic issues found in many police and sheriff departments around the country. Since our legislature requires a super majority to pass bills, there is no opportunity to address this is in a way that will really make a difference. Instead, each locality has to find a way to influence their police departments individually with very little success.
There is a consistency in Republican attitudes towards government: they trust the parts of government they feel they control and wish to destroy the parts they fear they do not control. Lionize the police and the military. Kill the EPA , NOAA, HUD, the IRS, and the FDA. The only time they hate law enforcement is when it is used to enforce a law against them, see Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, etc. And then boy do they hate it, because they see this as disloyalty, as treason.
This attitude goes way back. It is characterological. See the Fugitive Slave Act versus states' rights.
This attitude goes way back. It is characterological. See the Fugitive Slave Act versus states' rights.
Note that the Democrat views mirror the Republican ones, trusting those institutions they control and distrusting the others.
That's a gross mischaracterization. Democrats trust government as an institution but that does not mean democrats trust all government, it just means they think government can solve problems, as opposed to the republican projected view (though not actual view of their voters IMO) that government is inherently broken as a concept and should be reduced to absolute minimal size.
There's no inconsistency in trusting a democratic process to do mostly democratic things but thinking the lack of accountability in policing has had negative outcomes. The vast majority of democratic voters in america do not support "abolish the police' in entirety, but rather that reforms are needed.
There's no inconsistency in trusting a democratic process to do mostly democratic things but thinking the lack of accountability in policing has had negative outcomes. The vast majority of democratic voters in america do not support "abolish the police' in entirety, but rather that reforms are needed.
There I think you need to distinguish Democrat from liberals/leftists/progressives. There are differences of opinions among the latter group. I would say the majority distrust the police and the military but see them as necessary institutions that should be reformed. The Democrats, which is to say the people who have some claim to speak for the party, profess their love for law enforcement and the military, whatever their private reservations. This is not how Republicans, the politicians, behave towards the EPA and the rest.
Also, the Democrats have never had a politician of any stature, let alone a president of their party, say "Government is not the solution to the problem. Government is the problem." That was Ronald Reagan.
In other words, you are right, the left does distrust those portions of the government it does not control, but there is an enormous difference of degree in how the two sides behave towards these portions of the government.
Also, the Democrats have never had a politician of any stature, let alone a president of their party, say "Government is not the solution to the problem. Government is the problem." That was Ronald Reagan.
In other words, you are right, the left does distrust those portions of the government it does not control, but there is an enormous difference of degree in how the two sides behave towards these portions of the government.
It’s a big country with wildly divergent opinions and political tribalism run amok. In rural areas “back the blue” yard signs supporting the police are widespread.
What you see online is very unrepresentative. Both of people's views (which often breaks along party lines) and the actual dangerousness of USA cops (which varies wildly depending on location and department).
That’s because you don’t consume U.S.-based right-wing media. The reverence/disgust for police splits right down party lines. Team red supports the “boys in blue” but hates team blue. What a weird situation!
More generally, if you don’t/haven’t lived in the United States (or have only ever visited/lived in a large city,) and only consume “mainstream” US-based news, like the New York Times, Washington Post, NPR, etc., you’ll get a center-left-slanted view of the United States.
The first problem with that, from the perspective of forming an accurate view of the populace, is that, as a whole, the US leans ever-so-slightly center-right[0].
The second problem is that much of our political news is a circus whereby both political parties attempt to paint a picture that the “majority” of the country is behind more extreme interpretations of their platforms — that the country leans more heavily to the left or the right than it really does. The Republican Party has been doing this for more than a generation; its a more recent phenomenon with the Democrats.
0 - https://news.gallup.com/poll/275792/remained-center-right-id...
The first problem with that, from the perspective of forming an accurate view of the populace, is that, as a whole, the US leans ever-so-slightly center-right[0].
The second problem is that much of our political news is a circus whereby both political parties attempt to paint a picture that the “majority” of the country is behind more extreme interpretations of their platforms — that the country leans more heavily to the left or the right than it really does. The Republican Party has been doing this for more than a generation; its a more recent phenomenon with the Democrats.
0 - https://news.gallup.com/poll/275792/remained-center-right-id...
>The reverence/disgust for police splits right down party lines. Team red supports the “boys in blue” but hates team blue. What a weird situation!
I think that's starting to break down. Conservatives are not happy with the ATF's self evaluation of congressional law right now and they are certainly an armed police force with arresting power. Also, poor people who are conservative are also on the receiving end of police violence quite frequently as well.
There are plenty of police abuse videos out there, against citizens of all colors and they're all over YouTube. The more people watch them, the more that support will break down.
Of course the other irony is some of the worst police departments are in cities run by the Democratic Party. New York, LA, Chicago, Louisville, New Orleans. The abuses aren't limited to a single party, so it's difficult to politicize.
I think that's starting to break down. Conservatives are not happy with the ATF's self evaluation of congressional law right now and they are certainly an armed police force with arresting power. Also, poor people who are conservative are also on the receiving end of police violence quite frequently as well.
There are plenty of police abuse videos out there, against citizens of all colors and they're all over YouTube. The more people watch them, the more that support will break down.
Of course the other irony is some of the worst police departments are in cities run by the Democratic Party. New York, LA, Chicago, Louisville, New Orleans. The abuses aren't limited to a single party, so it's difficult to politicize.
…unless the police are investigating Team Red, in which case they are part of the vast left wing conspiracy.
…and except when Team Red needs to justify owning military grade weapons, in which case it’s all about deterring tyranny by being prepared to shoot cops and soldiers.
It’s a very… situational reverence. Like, as long as the situation is the police attacking the correct demographics.
…and except when Team Red needs to justify owning military grade weapons, in which case it’s all about deterring tyranny by being prepared to shoot cops and soldiers.
It’s a very… situational reverence. Like, as long as the situation is the police attacking the correct demographics.
It's hilarious when conservatives and cops get really uppity about the 2nd amendment. Who the fuck do they think they would be shooting at if the state ever came for their guns? Or you can look at how they view the ATF, completely ignoring that every other LEO organization in the country is very very similar in structure.
You're confusing a person's job title with thier morality.
Your comparison is poor.
A more accurate comparison would be firing the whole team for inserting intentional backdoors and collecting fractional pennies from each transaction and depositing them in personal accounts.
Accidents happen to everyone. We often make trade offs. In the cases we're talking about, these weren't accidents or appropriate judgement calls.
A more accurate comparison would be firing the whole team for inserting intentional backdoors and collecting fractional pennies from each transaction and depositing them in personal accounts.
Accidents happen to everyone. We often make trade offs. In the cases we're talking about, these weren't accidents or appropriate judgement calls.
Rather, it's like firing the whole development team because they retaliate against stakeholders.
Looking at the political positions and history of the governor and leaders of the state general assembly, I'm willing to bet the Ohio state government takes a look at this and wouldn't do anything but "back the blue".
Yeah I'm sure new replacement cops will be awesome at respecting civil rights
Why the sarcasm? Someone does a bad job, get rid of them. How do you imagine cop culture will change? By letting them get away with everything and sticking your head into the sand?
Ah and before you answer: most of use who are not in the US live in places where police misconduct is much less of an problem, so obviously it can work better. The entire German police force fires less bullets during their patrols and missions in a year than e.g. the NYC police force alone. Sometimes single cops in the US fire more bullets alone than the entire German police force. This is even hard to compare, because the Germans have numbers for every bullet fired at a person during service, bullets fired for warning shots, bullets that hit, bullets that did not etc. That data is wildly mixed and unreliable in the US depending on the state.
If you want to have a police force you can trust they must not be above the law and the law must be even stricter, the standards even higher for them than for the rest of the population. That means longer and better education and training, knowing the law, but also strict measures when police officers break the rules or there is even just the slightest doubt about their version of events.
In many police departments in the US the problem is essentially that there are so many bad apples that every good apple that comes is spoiled or cannot do good. This can only be changed be decisive action from the top.
Ah and before you answer: most of use who are not in the US live in places where police misconduct is much less of an problem, so obviously it can work better. The entire German police force fires less bullets during their patrols and missions in a year than e.g. the NYC police force alone. Sometimes single cops in the US fire more bullets alone than the entire German police force. This is even hard to compare, because the Germans have numbers for every bullet fired at a person during service, bullets fired for warning shots, bullets that hit, bullets that did not etc. That data is wildly mixed and unreliable in the US depending on the state.
If you want to have a police force you can trust they must not be above the law and the law must be even stricter, the standards even higher for them than for the rest of the population. That means longer and better education and training, knowing the law, but also strict measures when police officers break the rules or there is even just the slightest doubt about their version of events.
In many police departments in the US the problem is essentially that there are so many bad apples that every good apple that comes is spoiled or cannot do good. This can only be changed be decisive action from the top.
In many police departments in the US the problem is essentially that there are so many bad apples that every good apple that comes is spoiled or cannot do good. This can only be changed be decisive action from the top.
How many bad apples does it take, to spoil the whole barrel?
I'm not disagreeing with the comment I'm replying to, just trying to challenge the perception that there's anything ok with "just" a few bad apples. The acceptable number of bad apples is zero.
How many bad apples does it take, to spoil the whole barrel?
I'm not disagreeing with the comment I'm replying to, just trying to challenge the perception that there's anything ok with "just" a few bad apples. The acceptable number of bad apples is zero.
> The acceptable number of bad apples is zero.
This is obviously idealistic and impossible in the real world (given the size of a police force). What is needed is a system that gets rid of bad apples with time, instead of letting them thrive and corrupting other apples.
This is obviously idealistic and impossible in the real world (given the size of a police force). What is needed is a system that gets rid of bad apples with time, instead of letting them thrive and corrupting other apples.
The problem with getting rid of bad apples with time is the amount of damage even one bad police officer can do given half a chance, and even if they are punished for what they did it would not erase the bad things they have done. Policing violations are often violent and the effects long lasting.
Yes, but punishment sets the tone and people do not like being punished; especially if it goes on a record that follows them throughout their career.
This is an industry where you can murder someone, get paid leave for it, eventually let go without losing retirement benefits, and then get hired the next county over.
WHAT PUNISHMENT?
WHAT PUNISHMENT?
<< and then get hired the next county over.
And that.. can probably be changed. Qualified immunity would be much harder.
And that.. can probably be changed. Qualified immunity would be much harder.
Does a negative record have the same impact as other jobs?
[deleted]
How many bad apples does it take, to spoil the whole barrel?
It doesn't just take apples, it takes time. If you remove the bad apple as soon as possible, the rest of the barrel can still be fresh and healthy. If you leave it to rot, you spoil the entire batch.
It doesn't just take apples, it takes time. If you remove the bad apple as soon as possible, the rest of the barrel can still be fresh and healthy. If you leave it to rot, you spoil the entire batch.
Yep - they always say it's a "few bad apples" but the original saying is "one bad apple can spoil the barrel".
What I meant by that is that any police department should be able to handle one officer that falls out of line. One person that has an impedance mismatch with the general culture of an organization should never be an issue. We all know that from our work places: one highly motivated guy won't change the lazy majority, one lazy guy won't change the highly motivated majority etc. If you have one such person in your organisation the rest of the organsation will either work around it, or try to contain/get rid of that person. This self-correction works only up to a certain fraction however.
Where that cutoff percentage is, depends on the single organisation and the individuals within it. But I believe that in this case it is a combination of police culture ("we always did it that way, we need to protect our own") and systemic incentives ("if we hide bad behaviour we look better than if we expose it") are the key to understanding this.
Where that cutoff percentage is, depends on the single organisation and the individuals within it. But I believe that in this case it is a combination of police culture ("we always did it that way, we need to protect our own") and systemic incentives ("if we hide bad behaviour we look better than if we expose it") are the key to understanding this.
They do handle cops that fall out of line, but falling out of line in this case means turning in bad cops. The good cops get pushed out and sometimes even murdered
Nobody even knows the saying.
> The acceptable number of bad apples is zero.
Should we defund and abolish public schools since more than zero teachers are child molesters? Should we defund and abolish fire departments since more than zero firefighters are arsonists?
Should we defund and abolish public schools since more than zero teachers are child molesters? Should we defund and abolish fire departments since more than zero firefighters are arsonists?
The child molesting teachers don't band together and murder the other teachers who turn them in
Body cams have been so hard, if it were not for cell phones there would be no accountability at all.
I think we should get into the habit of changing leadership on the basis of results alone. So a serious incident would result in the commander being reassigned or demoted. And leadership would be held directly accountable for events regardless of their own culpability.
Correct, but also many German police are associated with hard right-wing / Nazi adjacent political beliefs.
These are deep rooted issues that are not as easily quantified and discouraged. Reducing gun misuse is one thing, but reducing police discrimination, selective policing, and misconduct is a much larger ball of wax.
These are deep rooted issues that are not as easily quantified and discouraged. Reducing gun misuse is one thing, but reducing police discrimination, selective policing, and misconduct is a much larger ball of wax.
And in Norway the police had to be told to quit strip searches, "squat and cough", searching homes, and other invasive practices just for catching someone with a joint. They have never been allowed to use means so disproportional to the crime like this, but have been for years.
And people think that they need those means (which they never had) "back."
Also institutional racism and all the other shit that's true for most police across the world.
ACAB.
And people think that they need those means (which they never had) "back."
Also institutional racism and all the other shit that's true for most police across the world.
ACAB.
The police in Germany burned Oury Jalloh to death (or burned his corpse after he died in police custody) and every officer involved got away with it.
The German government decided there doesn't need to be an external investigation into police violence because the police can be trusted to have correctly investigated itself finding that police violence is not a problem.
The NRW state minister of the interior abolished ID badges for riot police, then insisted that there had been no evidence of misconduct during police riots because no individual officers (wearing full helmets and no individually identifying features) had ever been charged despite video evidence of excessive use of force.
Demonstrators hospitalized due to police violence routinely receive police visits in hospital because their injuries are taken as evidence of resisting arrest as all police violence is presumed to be justified.
The NRW police literally used the energy company's transport vehicles to detain and transport arrested demonstrators during the raid on Lützerath, where the police was explicitly instructed to show full force to deter future protests at similar sites.
Police officers were found to be part of a neo-nazi group called Combat18 (18 = Adolf Hitler) that had maintained kill lists using police records and a stash of assault weapons and body bags.
It's a whole thing, yes.
The German government decided there doesn't need to be an external investigation into police violence because the police can be trusted to have correctly investigated itself finding that police violence is not a problem.
The NRW state minister of the interior abolished ID badges for riot police, then insisted that there had been no evidence of misconduct during police riots because no individual officers (wearing full helmets and no individually identifying features) had ever been charged despite video evidence of excessive use of force.
Demonstrators hospitalized due to police violence routinely receive police visits in hospital because their injuries are taken as evidence of resisting arrest as all police violence is presumed to be justified.
The NRW police literally used the energy company's transport vehicles to detain and transport arrested demonstrators during the raid on Lützerath, where the police was explicitly instructed to show full force to deter future protests at similar sites.
Police officers were found to be part of a neo-nazi group called Combat18 (18 = Adolf Hitler) that had maintained kill lists using police records and a stash of assault weapons and body bags.
It's a whole thing, yes.
Many police in the US are associated with far right wing white supremacy, basically the same as those nazis
bambax(4)
I seems reasonable to expect the police force of a country where the populace is heavily armed to shoot more people.
There has been a downward trend in gun ownership since at least the 1980s.
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/gun-ownership.html
https://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gu...
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/gun-ownership.html
https://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gu...
I don't know. Maybe?
We can look at statistics from eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g... and compare with statistics on police shootings.
We can look at statistics from eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g... and compare with statistics on police shootings.
Losing your job is disrupting to anyone. Having the entire previous department fired as an example should be a deterrent. Anyone taking the job knows that they're under a microscope.
All we can do is try.
All we can do is try.
Firing cops is a step. Replacing cops with the same breed of cops with no difference in training is just a show.
The fired cops will just get jobs in other departments. Cops won't be better trained, procedures that lead to this won't be changed. No real change is going to happen.
Firing cops at this point is just theater. It isn't trying, it is honestly just more of the same. It isn't likely that they fire the entire department either, and it will do nothing to take care of the folks that were elected in (sherriff and prosecutor, for example).
The fired cops will just get jobs in other departments. Cops won't be better trained, procedures that lead to this won't be changed. No real change is going to happen.
Firing cops at this point is just theater. It isn't trying, it is honestly just more of the same. It isn't likely that they fire the entire department either, and it will do nothing to take care of the folks that were elected in (sherriff and prosecutor, for example).
What changes in training do you think would have prevented this? Do you think the cops didn't know that it was wrong for them to use home invasions to intimidate critics?
>it will do nothing to take care of the folks that were elected in (sherriff and prosecutor, for example).
I won't deny that rot starts at the top, but part of that rot is never firing misbehaving employees. You emphasise training, I emphasise learning, and the only way to learn is not fiddling around with the curriculum, it's not giving cops an extra year of training. What helps people learn is bad cops fucking around and finding out.
You can give people as much training as you want, but if they see other cops getting away with this gang nonsense, they will learn that you can do that and nothing bad will come of it.
>it will do nothing to take care of the folks that were elected in (sherriff and prosecutor, for example).
I won't deny that rot starts at the top, but part of that rot is never firing misbehaving employees. You emphasise training, I emphasise learning, and the only way to learn is not fiddling around with the curriculum, it's not giving cops an extra year of training. What helps people learn is bad cops fucking around and finding out.
You can give people as much training as you want, but if they see other cops getting away with this gang nonsense, they will learn that you can do that and nothing bad will come of it.
If we assume there was a criminal conspiracy among the police to knowingly use fabricated evidence, then the issue is not so much with training (through an ethics class might help). The main issue would be structural in the police organization that allowed a criminal conspiracy to exist, and a significant lack of effective regulations.
No matter how good a person you start out as, when you enter an environment where
- A large percentage of the people are already bad
- Anyone who pushes back against bad behavior is shunned, fired, or left "without backup" in bad situations
- There are no repercussions for bad behavior
- There are positive reinforcements for bad behavior
Eventually, you're either going to be driven out, or you're going to turn. So wiping the place clean and starting from scratch, while drastic (and _certainly not appropriate everywhere) can be a valid approach when the problem is rampant across the entire department.
- A large percentage of the people are already bad
- Anyone who pushes back against bad behavior is shunned, fired, or left "without backup" in bad situations
- There are no repercussions for bad behavior
- There are positive reinforcements for bad behavior
Eventually, you're either going to be driven out, or you're going to turn. So wiping the place clean and starting from scratch, while drastic (and _certainly not appropriate everywhere) can be a valid approach when the problem is rampant across the entire department.
As parent points out, there is a difference in training: the previous department would've been fired in its entirety. That's a fairly impactful piece of training.
Agreed, but don't expect any big change until they completely rethink the selection methods adding deep psychological profiling. Albeit to a different degree, this happens in many countries as well, including mine, and having known several officers I'm sure it's related to the lack of proper selection: they very often hire people who apply because they "need" to wear an uniform and exercise power over others, then they give them some sort of immunity, which can only lead to disasters.
Eh. Maybe? I personally want to say it has something to do with Douglas Adams principle of power:
“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
I will use myself as an example. I absolutely do not want to be a cop despite having a relatively strong moral compass, because I know for a fact that I will agonize over small things and believe most excuses thrown at me. More than that, I do not think taxpayers would want me to be a cop, because I am lenient ( which also why I did not really enjoy having a position of authority in my previous job ). I mostly assume everyone will do what has to be done.
And sadly, that is not nor has ever been the case. Uniform is just a symbol of that power.
“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
I will use myself as an example. I absolutely do not want to be a cop despite having a relatively strong moral compass, because I know for a fact that I will agonize over small things and believe most excuses thrown at me. More than that, I do not think taxpayers would want me to be a cop, because I am lenient ( which also why I did not really enjoy having a position of authority in my previous job ). I mostly assume everyone will do what has to be done.
And sadly, that is not nor has ever been the case. Uniform is just a symbol of that power.
If the whole department was fired rather then the guilty why this be a strong indication anyone is individually monitoring your behaviour?
We can try to abolish police.
I'm sure thats going to work.
As long as we also make sure people aren't driven to violent crime under threat of starvation and loss of home, I am all for it. Police won't protect us from the pathologic thiefs and murderers anyway. Those have installed it.
Last time I had to call cops was when two drunk people started brawling in a bus. One fell asleep and the second, driven to desperate acts by prolonged homelessness tried to steal his phone. In the end, the victim decided that the best course of action after reclaiming his phone was to kick now lying down thief until satisfied.
I and another passenger have stepped in, restrained the aggressive phone owner. We have gotten 4 of us out of the bus. We told the phone owner repeatedly to verify that his phone is OK, in order for him to realize that no harm has been done. We have talked him down. He was still inclined to (way less fervently) take revenge. I had to choose between getting confrontational and sending him home to sleep it off "or else" and calling the cops. Since the first option would put me at risk of being caught breaking the law, I had to call cops.
Cops came in sirens blazing, 3 cars, acting all high and mighty. "Your IDs" and shit. In the end, the phone owner has not even been told not to kick other people. The homeless person has not been checked by a medical professional. He was drunk, might have had some ribs broken, but none of those 7 "public servants" bothered to check. I asked if they were at least giving him a lift to wherever he was residing. "We are not taxi."
Fucking useless.
Last time I had to call cops was when two drunk people started brawling in a bus. One fell asleep and the second, driven to desperate acts by prolonged homelessness tried to steal his phone. In the end, the victim decided that the best course of action after reclaiming his phone was to kick now lying down thief until satisfied.
I and another passenger have stepped in, restrained the aggressive phone owner. We have gotten 4 of us out of the bus. We told the phone owner repeatedly to verify that his phone is OK, in order for him to realize that no harm has been done. We have talked him down. He was still inclined to (way less fervently) take revenge. I had to choose between getting confrontational and sending him home to sleep it off "or else" and calling the cops. Since the first option would put me at risk of being caught breaking the law, I had to call cops.
Cops came in sirens blazing, 3 cars, acting all high and mighty. "Your IDs" and shit. In the end, the phone owner has not even been told not to kick other people. The homeless person has not been checked by a medical professional. He was drunk, might have had some ribs broken, but none of those 7 "public servants" bothered to check. I asked if they were at least giving him a lift to wherever he was residing. "We are not taxi."
Fucking useless.
Police usually make things worse when called. Often shooting or restraining the caller instead of the attacker.
This can quickly turn very political so without me assuming, would you be willing to elaborate a little bit on that proposal? How do you see it work out in practice and what would be your plan for the day after?
Whether or not any new police force is better or worse is by-the-by. The current department isn’t for for purpose and needs to be disbanded.
Replacing them would be better than doing nothing.
It's Ohio, a backwater state. The kind of place where AGs claim fabrication for any story that might embarrass them. I wouldn't hold my breath. If the state government stepped in, the outcomes might well be worse.
That was more or less my first thought, but most likely the result would be that it would never happen, because it is not so difficult for someone with a warrant to search your house, to "find" something there. Right now, there's no motive, but if you knew that coming up empty would be, not embarrassing, but legally dangerous, the temptation to make sure you always bring backup evidence to be "found", would be large. I think it would make things worse, not better.
Well, planting evidence would also risk your pension in this scenario. It's not risk-free.
This country was founded on checks and balances. We are missing that in regards to police nationwide.
You guys have an insanely large territory but I always found it very confusing with all the complaints about police conduct why is no one there pushing for a federal level single training institution and increased academy training.
Most other places in the world cops have to train for +24 months and most of it is focused on physical conditioning, descalation/conflict psychology, and Law.
I mean knowing my local government incompetence I would be pretty nervous in having people with guns being trained by a local institution. It needs to be federal, standardized, and just longer than the few months training US cops have.
Most other places in the world cops have to train for +24 months and most of it is focused on physical conditioning, descalation/conflict psychology, and Law.
I mean knowing my local government incompetence I would be pretty nervous in having people with guns being trained by a local institution. It needs to be federal, standardized, and just longer than the few months training US cops have.
<< why is no one there pushing for a federal level single training institution and increased academy training.
Well at least here the answer is somewhat simple.
There is a deep ingrained level of distrust for federal government. It has been there since country's foundation and the past few decades have done nothing to lower it ( and one can reasonably argue it has only increased ). In a sense, the reason is structural.
<< It needs to be federal, standardized, and just longer than the few months training US cops have.
FWIW, FBI is effectively federal police. I think you will agree that they had their fair share of, uhm, not great behavior.
<< I mean knowing my local government incompetence I would be pretty nervous in having people with guns being trained by a local institution.
The whole point of cop that is local is that people will not, ehkm, revolt, because random guy from NY got plopped in AK and does not understand the basic environment they are in.
I personally prefer local. I think last year I went to our local quarterly neighbors/cops outreach and I was largely happy with what the sheriff had to say, because it dealt with MY local issues and not some pre-ordained stuff from the top.
Like I said, the issue is structural, because US is a massive country.
Well at least here the answer is somewhat simple.
There is a deep ingrained level of distrust for federal government. It has been there since country's foundation and the past few decades have done nothing to lower it ( and one can reasonably argue it has only increased ). In a sense, the reason is structural.
<< It needs to be federal, standardized, and just longer than the few months training US cops have.
FWIW, FBI is effectively federal police. I think you will agree that they had their fair share of, uhm, not great behavior.
<< I mean knowing my local government incompetence I would be pretty nervous in having people with guns being trained by a local institution.
The whole point of cop that is local is that people will not, ehkm, revolt, because random guy from NY got plopped in AK and does not understand the basic environment they are in.
I personally prefer local. I think last year I went to our local quarterly neighbors/cops outreach and I was largely happy with what the sheriff had to say, because it dealt with MY local issues and not some pre-ordained stuff from the top.
Like I said, the issue is structural, because US is a massive country.
They are trained to be aggressive and escalate. More of such training won't make them better.
I doubt that if you put someone from National Guard or FBI in charge of national training that they would not focus on descalation.
You are militarizing incompetent institutions (with military grade hand me downs) which have far less trigger discipline than actual military.
You are militarizing incompetent institutions (with military grade hand me downs) which have far less trigger discipline than actual military.
The issue is not that these cops are undisciplined. It is that they are doing what they were trained to do.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2017/02/14/...
Issue is not that they are incompetent. Issue is that they know fully well they can get away with it. And real world proves them right almost every time.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2017/02/14/...
Issue is not that they are incompetent. Issue is that they know fully well they can get away with it. And real world proves them right almost every time.
They get trained by state institutions usually but the program in my state is sixteen weeks. For reference, a lot of work in Afghanistan is more policing than war fighting and we trained for a year plus. The issues around policing are somewhat complex city to city. For instance, my city is fairly large and has ~300 cops and calls that aren't actively violent typically go unanswered and crimes go unprosecuted for a litany of reasons. No matter what city you go to, it's near ubiquitous that there is some kind of major problem with policing. I say policing in the context of the DA + police.
It's also important that we care about what kind of training. Our state requires standardized police academy training for 18 weeks but you still get pumped full of garbage like killology. My friend's husband became a cop and within a month of his training he picked up bullshit like "always sit facing the exit in public places" and literally playing with his service M4 like a damn nerf gun, sweeping their living room and "clearing" the other rooms in their apartment. Even my actual gun nut brother knows that's bad.
Yeah, if he's practicing sweeps and draws in his house that's not good gun culture. From everything I've read and heard, cops are being taught the violent parts of what we're taught in the military but they're not being trained on warrior culture and ethos, which involves a lot of restraint and regulation alongside situational awareness. Pair that with not learning basic weapon safety rules and it's a recipe for disaster.
"You ask for miracles, I give you the F.B.I."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93King_suicide_lette...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93King_suicide_lette...
Improving training might be a good idea, but why make it federal?
Why federal level? State level would more than suffice.
Because plenty of states would just enshrine the shitty status quo into law? States have freedom to enact police accountability right now and just don't. The only way to make it happen will be federal supremacy on the issue. Federal standards on government application of violence should not be contentious. I should be able to cross state lines and not deal with terrible police departments just because an independent state decided to not fix this issue.
Then the question is why is state government doing the "wrong" thing? Is it undemocratic? Or do people in different locations want different things?
Why have states at all rather than one federal government that decides all laws?
Why have states at all rather than one federal government that decides all laws?
Some things are reasonable for different states to do differently, but having a minimum bar for police training should not be one of those things. Lot's of things should have minimum bars set federally that states are free to improve upon. Why should policing be so different across different states? Are humans innately different once you cross a state line? Why should justice work differently across state lines?
> Some things are reasonable for different states to do differently, but having a minimum bar for police training should not be one of those things
I disagree. Since having radically different roles and powers for police, rasically different organizational structures for poloce, or not even having anything that exactly fits the typical concept of “police" are also within the acceptable variation, and all of those factor in to minimim quals, minimum quals for police absolutely are legitimate.
I disagree. Since having radically different roles and powers for police, rasically different organizational structures for poloce, or not even having anything that exactly fits the typical concept of “police" are also within the acceptable variation, and all of those factor in to minimim quals, minimum quals for police absolutely are legitimate.
The country was founded by the largest landowner in the colonies. It's always been a farce in service of the landowning class.
The system is working as designed.
The system is working as designed.
The entire endeavor was a power grab by wealthy people. Even if some of them had high ideals about democracy and such, that clearly did not make it into the ratified constitution, as only wealthy people could vote.
It was also founded on slavery..
Institutions change over time.
Institutions change over time.
"Founded on slavery" is quite a stretch. That was not the main issue that led to the rebellion.
We literally had to enshrine the RIGHT to slavery into law during the creation of the constitution just to get southern state support, and that was before the cotton gin made slavery significantly more profitable. Then we gave those same states extra voting power based on how many human beings they could afford to own. Then the very institution of policing itself in America started as a way to catch runaway slaves, often in OTHER STATES that had OUTLAWED SLAVERY.
But sure, this system that obviously had a huge impact on how the country developed, how power structures were purposely designed, and how freedom even worked, TECHNICALLY wasn't the primary reason for rebelling, maybe.
But sure, this system that obviously had a huge impact on how the country developed, how power structures were purposely designed, and how freedom even worked, TECHNICALLY wasn't the primary reason for rebelling, maybe.
> But sure, this system that obviously had a huge impact on how the country developed, how power structures were purposely designed, and how freedom even worked, TECHNICALLY wasn't the primary reason for rebelling, maybe
No technically about it. Though you're right about the rest.
No technically about it. Though you're right about the rest.
There are arguments to be made that the south saw slavery becoming less fashionable in Great Britain and were into rebellion for that reason. They knew staying in Britain meant slavery going away eventually, and might have thought they could delay that better as an independent nation. Remember that the original system after independence was that state governors largely had their own little fiefdoms, and the federal government had very little power.
Which rebellion? The Civil War? Yes, that was THE main issue that led to the Civil War, fullstop.
>Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.
>Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.
No, the rebellion against Britain.
Well, there's also https://www.econlib.org/archives/2016/12/bruce_bueno_de.html
> His stories about George Washington, none of which I knew, are even more fascinating. Bueno de Mesquita claims, quite plausibly, that a huge part of George Washington’s motive for fighting the Revolutionary War was to protect his substantial, and critically placed, landholdings in the Ohio Valley. I’m not saying that I agree with him, but his story made me realize that a large part of my belief in GW is romantic: because I learned about him so early in life, that romantic view is harder to shake and I’ve been less willing to put GW under the public choice microscope than with any current or recent president.
> An excerpt about GW’s wealth:
>> His last position, just before becoming President, was President of the Patowmack Canal Company–the Potomac Canal, as we know it, from the Potomac River. What that canal did was bring, make it possible to bring produce from the Shenandoah Valley–which George owned–up to the port in Alexandria, which had been built by Lawrence, by the Ohio Valley Company, in which George had a direct interest, and shipped goods out. So it was a very profitable undertaking–or so he thought it would be, in the long run, for him. And that’s what motivated him. Most people think of Washington as–besides a great hero, which he certainly was–as kind of a gentleman farmer. Economists have estimated the worth in real dollars adjusted for inflation, not appreciated, of George Washington’s estate, in contemporary terms; and it’s about $20 billion dollars. He is by far the wealthiest President. He is the 59th wealthiest person in American history. Three of the American founding fathers are in the list of the top 100 wealthiest Americans in all of history: Hancock, who was wealthier than Washington–made his money smuggling; and Ben Franklin, who was not quite as wealthy, who made his money because he had a monopoly on the printing press. These are the folks who led the Revolution. These were not the downtrodden. These were not the oppressed. These were people who stood to lose huge amounts of wealth because of the King’s policies. And so they fought a Revolution. Which was, by the way, not very popular. Sixty percent of the colonists either were neutral or opposed to the Revolution.
> His stories about George Washington, none of which I knew, are even more fascinating. Bueno de Mesquita claims, quite plausibly, that a huge part of George Washington’s motive for fighting the Revolutionary War was to protect his substantial, and critically placed, landholdings in the Ohio Valley. I’m not saying that I agree with him, but his story made me realize that a large part of my belief in GW is romantic: because I learned about him so early in life, that romantic view is harder to shake and I’ve been less willing to put GW under the public choice microscope than with any current or recent president.
> An excerpt about GW’s wealth:
>> His last position, just before becoming President, was President of the Patowmack Canal Company–the Potomac Canal, as we know it, from the Potomac River. What that canal did was bring, make it possible to bring produce from the Shenandoah Valley–which George owned–up to the port in Alexandria, which had been built by Lawrence, by the Ohio Valley Company, in which George had a direct interest, and shipped goods out. So it was a very profitable undertaking–or so he thought it would be, in the long run, for him. And that’s what motivated him. Most people think of Washington as–besides a great hero, which he certainly was–as kind of a gentleman farmer. Economists have estimated the worth in real dollars adjusted for inflation, not appreciated, of George Washington’s estate, in contemporary terms; and it’s about $20 billion dollars. He is by far the wealthiest President. He is the 59th wealthiest person in American history. Three of the American founding fathers are in the list of the top 100 wealthiest Americans in all of history: Hancock, who was wealthier than Washington–made his money smuggling; and Ben Franklin, who was not quite as wealthy, who made his money because he had a monopoly on the printing press. These are the folks who led the Revolution. These were not the downtrodden. These were not the oppressed. These were people who stood to lose huge amounts of wealth because of the King’s policies. And so they fought a Revolution. Which was, by the way, not very popular. Sixty percent of the colonists either were neutral or opposed to the Revolution.
It's not possible to have checks and balances with cops due to qualified immunity - there is no way to hold them accountable, and they certainly don't hold themselves accountable.
There is. One of the best ways to do it is through your city, through Civilian Oversight Boards with the ability to suspend or fire officers that harm the public trust in the police force: https://www.nacole.org/community_oversight_paves_the_road_to...
Individual officers benefit from this, too. It keeps the relationship between citizens and police much healthier.
Individual officers benefit from this, too. It keeps the relationship between citizens and police much healthier.
I haven't heard of this working very well in practice.
We need to end QI and make the police earn their keep. In general, they've cozied up too close with any potential oversight for a reasonable person to have faith in them being held accountable for misdeeds.
(I say this as someone who's been grateful for police presence before)
We need to end QI and make the police earn their keep. In general, they've cozied up too close with any potential oversight for a reasonable person to have faith in them being held accountable for misdeeds.
(I say this as someone who's been grateful for police presence before)
Lmao our city (Louisville, KY) got one of these a while ago and the police department just straight up refuses to cooperate. What are we gonna do arrest them?
Doesn’t work. Try again
In theory this is what the second amendment is for. Police raid you house, pump em with bullets. In practice this only works as deterrence -- you always hear of cops confronting drug dealers etc calmly in public places, where they are away from their trove of weapons, whereas no-knock raids and home invasions are for the poors.
It's comforting to imagine applying some justice to these gangs of violent home invaders, but as the second degree murder of Breonna Taylor demonstrated, adding self defense to the equation just makes the bastards feel that their shooting sprees are even more justified. Like sure I can imagine some kind of home defense product that uses a camera and robotic gun to dispense justice in the event of a home invasion, but really we just need to get back to having the rule of law in this country (where the violent home invaders go to jail with the other bad people) rather than thinking that becoming more adversarial creates a meaningful check.
[deleted]
Always remember just how utterly silent the NRA is when a legal gun owner gets shot by a cop for having a completely legal gun that the current view of American law says they have every right to own.
I'll occasionally get paper spam from the NRA. When it contains a business reply envelope, I send back a note asking when they're going to stand up for Breonna Taylor - one of the most important second amendment cases of our time. I know it's futile as they're just corrupt scammers, but their vacuous performative hypocrisy really fucking bothers me. "tHeYRE CoMInG tO tAkE yOUr gUnS!!1!"
> A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State
The second amendment protects organized armed resistance against state-level tyranny, whether external or internal.
Can't have a militia of one.
The second amendment protects organized armed resistance against state-level tyranny, whether external or internal.
Can't have a militia of one.
(IMO) Unfortunately the current supreme court (as in, the precedent set like a hundred years ago that still stands) decided that english doesn't work that way.
I especially dislike how people will point to the private writings of certain founding fathers to support their 2A opinions, even though what was ratified by the states was NOT those private writings, but rather the very very short amendment.
I especially dislike how people will point to the private writings of certain founding fathers to support their 2A opinions, even though what was ratified by the states was NOT those private writings, but rather the very very short amendment.
The supreme court's reading is actually the only plain English reading that makes sense without altering the words (see sibling comment) or comma placement
You're misreading: the existence of private, individual arms is what regulates (or if you wish, what necessitates regulation of) the militia (which includes police). There is no grammatical ambiguity.
The concept of qualified immunity being a road block in this context is a bit weird to me. In my country, the local government is responsible for maintaining and operating a functional police force. While citizen can't sue the individual cops or the local police organization, they can sue the government for the actions of the police force. This also happens fairly regularly, and generally citizens do get compensation when the police makes mistakes. When a mistake is large enough (and costly), there will generally be a new regulation to address that in the future, and in some cases a local politician will have lost enough trust by voters and be forced to leave.
Is this impossible to do in the US?
Is this impossible to do in the US?
Yes, civil suits against government are common and cost cities and other local jurisdictions millions of dollars a year:
https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/w...
It's generally not expensive enough to create enough economic pain to break through the 2 party (or 1 party in many locales) political system.
https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/w...
It's generally not expensive enough to create enough economic pain to break through the 2 party (or 1 party in many locales) political system.
It cannot be expensive enough because it only ever costs taxpayers. Nobody responsible pays or loses anything.
That is how it will always be when someone sue the government or a government branch. Since goverments are funded by tax money, government mistakes, mismanagement and violation of the law will be paid through the same budget as everything else.
When people sue a public company, the people who in the end must hold the people responsible will be the share holders. When government are sued, it is the voters that must hold the people responsible. If a local government is found guilty in a court of law and forced to pay millions in damages, the money need to be either from raised taxes or reduced services. Both of those should be strong points for the opposition to gain votes and kick out the people who are responsible.
Where I live, when the government is found guilty and forced to pay out it usually also result in the current local leader responsible for the situation being forced out. Mismanagement is not a effective way to gain votes, so if the leader don't step down volunteerly the party may just want to replace them anyway for someone without such baggage during next election. Maybe US politics and the system around political donations makes such results less common?
When people sue a public company, the people who in the end must hold the people responsible will be the share holders. When government are sued, it is the voters that must hold the people responsible. If a local government is found guilty in a court of law and forced to pay millions in damages, the money need to be either from raised taxes or reduced services. Both of those should be strong points for the opposition to gain votes and kick out the people who are responsible.
Where I live, when the government is found guilty and forced to pay out it usually also result in the current local leader responsible for the situation being forced out. Mismanagement is not a effective way to gain votes, so if the leader don't step down volunteerly the party may just want to replace them anyway for someone without such baggage during next election. Maybe US politics and the system around political donations makes such results less common?
Maybe someone can sue them, and maybe win, but that isn't the issue. The issue is corrupt cops, or cops that did something bad, never being held accountable and often being rewarded instead.
> It's not possible to have checks and balances with cops due to qualified immunity.
This is a red herring. Qualified immunity only protects individual cops from civil liability, not from criminal liability. And above all, proper check for police is neither civil nor criminal liability, but independent institution for investigation of criminal and professional misconduct (like police IA division, but independent and ideally under different level of government - e.g. state or federal for checking municipal police).
This is a red herring. Qualified immunity only protects individual cops from civil liability, not from criminal liability. And above all, proper check for police is neither civil nor criminal liability, but independent institution for investigation of criminal and professional misconduct (like police IA division, but independent and ideally under different level of government - e.g. state or federal for checking municipal police).
>Qualified immunity only protects individual cops from civil liability, not from criminal liability.
Then why is literal theft protected by qualified immunity? https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibill...
Then why is literal theft protected by qualified immunity? https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibill...
It can make it more difficult, but I don't think you can say impossible or we'd never hear of people winning lawsuits for police misconduct. Here's a big one from a few days ago.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/21/us/philadelphia-police-miscon...
No police were disciplined as a result of this lawsuit. The city just payed the plaintiffs.
You mean the taxpayers just paid the plaintiffs. No matter how badly police screw up only innocent people seem to pay for it and the burden seems to always fall on the people who can least afford it.
They can be fired, or at least put on unpaid leave.
And then get hired one county over. So not really any accountability.
I have been saying this for a long time, as in, why are other police departments investigating the police departments. This is one of the few agencies where the agency investigate themselves, and the government just let it happen.
> if a raid is performed and the warrant doesn’t pan out the cops behind the warrant should be immediately investigated by another agency (which, they’re cops too so who knows if this would help).
As long as we're talking about shoulds, we should have an independent body reviewing police misconduct and major screw ups. There should be very little "police policing themselves".
Police can police themselves when it comes to the kinds of things any other workplace handles themselves, like people showing up late for their shifts, or stealing office supplies. When police end up violate the rights of Americans though, let police handle that however they want internally, but that should always be in addition to what an outside body decides.
Honestly, the police should welcome the idea too. I'm sure there are plenty of officers who would rather be doing their job than spending time busting down the doors of innocent people and searching for fake kidnapping victims they'll never find.
As long as we're talking about shoulds, we should have an independent body reviewing police misconduct and major screw ups. There should be very little "police policing themselves".
Police can police themselves when it comes to the kinds of things any other workplace handles themselves, like people showing up late for their shifts, or stealing office supplies. When police end up violate the rights of Americans though, let police handle that however they want internally, but that should always be in addition to what an outside body decides.
Honestly, the police should welcome the idea too. I'm sure there are plenty of officers who would rather be doing their job than spending time busting down the doors of innocent people and searching for fake kidnapping victims they'll never find.
The UK has the IOPC (Independent Office for Police Conduct) which is the latest version of oversight that has only existed for about 20 years, once it became increasingly clear how bias, corrupt and insular policing was. No system is perfect but it is having a good effect. They are independent and can investigate whatever they want and take referrals from the public and within the police. Any police interaction that results in a death or serious injury of anyone immediately triggers an investigation.
I’m not sure that they are that highly regarded - especially given that one goal is to protect public confidence in the police.
The criticism is pretty strong.
https://novaramedia.com/2022/11/21/why-are-we-still-pretendi...
The criticism is pretty strong.
https://novaramedia.com/2022/11/21/why-are-we-still-pretendi...
How did the IOPC handle the disappearance of all of the documents implicating high level officials in pedophilia, kidnapping, and murder?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_paedophile_dossier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_paedophile_dossier
I don't understand that scandal. It sounds like in 1981 this Dickens guy claimed to have discovered a ring of pedos, and using some special free speech power he publicly named one of the members, then assembled a 40 page document that listed 8 super powerful people who were supposedly involved in the ring because he wanted them all exposed. So a few years later in 1984 he hands his dossier over to another guy in Parliament, and it was supposed to go to the police, but then a bunch of it went "missing" so now everyone wants to know who the 8 people were and who covered it up, but why is there even a mystery about the people named in that dossier?
For like 11 years after Dickens handed over the dossier he could have just said who they were. He still had that same immunity he used to name the first one and could have told the world, but he apparently just decided not to even after seeing nothing came from his "explosive" report that was supposed to change everything, and even after having previously threatened to do exactly that and use his immunity to name the others.
So, why didn't he just do it? Why is the question all about where this guys one pedo report went. He knew what it said. Why didn't he just type up another one? Why not a bunch of them? How did he end up being the only person to get this information in the first place?
He said that he'd been threatened after naming that first guy, but that didn't stop him from compiling and turning over his dossier. I guess maybe the 8 powerful mystery people threatened him harder until he shut up, but if we can't blame him for not just saying who they were because of those threats, how can the IOPC or anyone else who tried to investigate it later be blamed. Couldn't they have been threatened into silence the same way?
It's really messed up if its all true, but the whole thing seems full of holes and uncertainty. Then again, that's just what I managed to get out of Wikipedia so what am I missing?
For like 11 years after Dickens handed over the dossier he could have just said who they were. He still had that same immunity he used to name the first one and could have told the world, but he apparently just decided not to even after seeing nothing came from his "explosive" report that was supposed to change everything, and even after having previously threatened to do exactly that and use his immunity to name the others.
So, why didn't he just do it? Why is the question all about where this guys one pedo report went. He knew what it said. Why didn't he just type up another one? Why not a bunch of them? How did he end up being the only person to get this information in the first place?
He said that he'd been threatened after naming that first guy, but that didn't stop him from compiling and turning over his dossier. I guess maybe the 8 powerful mystery people threatened him harder until he shut up, but if we can't blame him for not just saying who they were because of those threats, how can the IOPC or anyone else who tried to investigate it later be blamed. Couldn't they have been threatened into silence the same way?
It's really messed up if its all true, but the whole thing seems full of holes and uncertainty. Then again, that's just what I managed to get out of Wikipedia so what am I missing?
Since the IOPC wouldn't exist for another four years, I'd imagine they didn't handle it at all.
Not sure that's really helped with the recent reports about the Met.
I would take a smaller amount of the same problems over what we have right now in the states. Baby steps.
How independent is it ... i.e. how staffed by ex-police is it ?
Independent body(s) correctly incentivized to review misconduct and major screw ups.
The court and prosecutor’s office currently exists and are working as ill-incentivized, clueless, codependent body that mostly post-hoc justify actions.
I believe this is an unsolved problem, not inherent to US or any country.
The court and prosecutor’s office currently exists and are working as ill-incentivized, clueless, codependent body that mostly post-hoc justify actions.
I believe this is an unsolved problem, not inherent to US or any country.
Quite a few European countries seem to have much less issues with their police forces. But you can’t just copy-paste solutions. “Weapon discharged - automatic suspension until proven innocent” just wouldn’t fit the way the US is.
The absolute bare minimum should be "weapon discharge resulting in death or serious injury gets external investigation". We can go after the misses and the warning shots later.
Cops aren't even given enough bullets to properly train their ability to shoot straight, we should absolutely have them justify every single round fired.
You aren’t going to change the problems with the way the US is with “solutions” that fit the way the US is.
The United States is basically the single largest country on Earth, surely the US representation of a problem must be among the most expressed.
It is fourth largest and third most populated. It has the second largest prison population, but is almost tied for the first place here.
> .. but that should always be in addition to what an outside body decides.
I.e. civil society.
I.e. civil society.
There were quite a few videos on Afroman's youtube channel relying on the security cam footage. I'm perusing these and it seems to me Will You Help Me Repair My Door (the one you linked to) works best as a video, but Lemon Pound Cake (sung to the melody of Under The Boardwalk) seems like the best song. Funny stuff.
I thought it was legal to film police?
Especially in your own house...
The funny thing is this is basically the exact same story for J. Cole's "Neighbors"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nfVWiXY3WY
Basically he moved to a new bougie neighborhood and the neighbors called the cops on him accusing him of "selling dope" (the primary hook of the 1 minute song). So he took his security footage and made a music video out of it
You can see the SWAT team members casually talking to the neighbors peeking over the fence too lol
The funny thing is this is basically the exact same story for J. Cole's "Neighbors"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nfVWiXY3WY
Basically he moved to a new bougie neighborhood and the neighbors called the cops on him accusing him of "selling dope" (the primary hook of the 1 minute song). So he took his security footage and made a music video out of it
You can see the SWAT team members casually talking to the neighbors peeking over the fence too lol
> bougie
Is this a misspelling (perhaps purposefully?) of “bourgeoisie”?
Is this a misspelling (perhaps purposefully?) of “bourgeoisie”?
It's a slang term more common (IME) in speech than writing: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bougie
it’s a shortened version of it common in the US to describe people who’s style/taste/mannerisms are upper middle class.
Yes this is exactly the slang
See Also: Boujee Natives by Snotty Nose Rez Kids
You forget the part where the overweight officer takes a sneak at the desserts to um.. check for cocaine?
The article doesn’t read as if they are claiming they were filmed illegally.
It looks mostly like a claim about using their likeness commercially —- their personality rights. i.e. the rights someone would sign over in a modeling contract.
…Like how you can’t put Tom Hanks face on a box of cigarettes and sell it without permission. He may sue and claim that you’ve tarnished his image.
But yeah, it’s a stretch here too given the circumstances, but these laws vary by state so I have no clue how this state handles it.
It looks mostly like a claim about using their likeness commercially —- their personality rights. i.e. the rights someone would sign over in a modeling contract.
…Like how you can’t put Tom Hanks face on a box of cigarettes and sell it without permission. He may sue and claim that you’ve tarnished his image.
But yeah, it’s a stretch here too given the circumstances, but these laws vary by state so I have no clue how this state handles it.
Advertising, sure. But other uses appear specifically allowed (emphasis mine):
> Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2741.09 (A)(1): Right Of Publicity In Individual's Persona: Exceptions.
> (A) This chapter does not apply to any of the following:
> (1)(a) A literary work, dramatic work, fictional work, historical work, audiovisual work, or musical work regardless of the media in which the work appears or is transmitted, other than an advertisement or commercial announcement not exempt under division (A)(1)(d) of this section;
> (b) Material that has political or newsworthy value;
> ...
Source: https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2741.09
> Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2741.09 (A)(1): Right Of Publicity In Individual's Persona: Exceptions.
> (A) This chapter does not apply to any of the following:
> (1)(a) A literary work, dramatic work, fictional work, historical work, audiovisual work, or musical work regardless of the media in which the work appears or is transmitted, other than an advertisement or commercial announcement not exempt under division (A)(1)(d) of this section;
> (b) Material that has political or newsworthy value;
> ...
Source: https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2741.09
>or newsworthy
These count as news, right?
https://www.wlwt.com/article/afroman-adams-county-home-raid/...
https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2022/08/23/afroman-hou...
https://reason.com/2022/12/05/cops-return-cash-seized-from-a...
https://hightimes.com/news/afromans-ohio-residence-raided-by...
https://www.tmz.com/2022/08/22/afroman-home-raided-police-oh...
https://www.tmz.com/2022/11/30/afroman-cops-stole-missing-mo...
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/afroman-calls-police-raid-hom...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-11135971/Afrom...
All prior to releasing the song (the "commercial use"). This isn't exhaustive.
Afroman just might have a case...
These count as news, right?
https://www.wlwt.com/article/afroman-adams-county-home-raid/...
https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2022/08/23/afroman-hou...
https://reason.com/2022/12/05/cops-return-cash-seized-from-a...
https://hightimes.com/news/afromans-ohio-residence-raided-by...
https://www.tmz.com/2022/08/22/afroman-home-raided-police-oh...
https://www.tmz.com/2022/11/30/afroman-cops-stole-missing-mo...
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/afroman-calls-police-raid-hom...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-11135971/Afrom...
All prior to releasing the song (the "commercial use"). This isn't exhaustive.
Afroman just might have a case...
Yeah I was just using the archetypal advertising example as a demonstration of the angle they’re taking. I figured it was not legally sound.
Although, that might not cover the T-shirts…
Although, that might not cover the T-shirts…
That's ridiculous. If someone breaks into a house, the homeowner has the right to do whatever they want with the video, including monetizing it. Especially since they stole from him and damaged his property.
I agree with what you’re saying but not the reason. The actions of the police don’t grant Afroman any additional rights. He had the right (at least to the music video) regardless of whether the police were right or wrong.
I believe the reason he has a right to publish this work is because he is not profiting from their likeness. He is profiting from his work of criticism. (Edit: a sibling comment points out that Ohio exempts audiovisual and political works)
Also, as a public servant in official duty, in a place where they found themselves likely to be recorded, they had no reasonable expectation of privacy.
I believe the reason he has a right to publish this work is because he is not profiting from their likeness. He is profiting from his work of criticism. (Edit: a sibling comment points out that Ohio exempts audiovisual and political works)
Also, as a public servant in official duty, in a place where they found themselves likely to be recorded, they had no reasonable expectation of privacy.
If someone breaks into a house, the homeowner has the right to do whatever they want with the video, including monetizing it
I disagree, mostly because it isn't hard to get fringe cases. Drunk folks, folks with memory issues, and so on. Even if they break in, I don't think this is the sort of thing they should face public ridicule for.
I think the homeowner has the right because the folks breaking in are cops. If a cop cannot handle these facets of their job being public, they should act better. A cop in uniform is a public figure, even if they are in a private residence. An ununiformed cop is a public figure if they are doing cop stuff, especially if they are in your house.
They should be acting like someone is always watching. They should be able to handle being told bad words from people. They should be expected to always act professional. That is part of the standard we set for call center employees, after all, and we should expect folks that can ruin other people's lives to live up to better standards.
I disagree, mostly because it isn't hard to get fringe cases. Drunk folks, folks with memory issues, and so on. Even if they break in, I don't think this is the sort of thing they should face public ridicule for.
I think the homeowner has the right because the folks breaking in are cops. If a cop cannot handle these facets of their job being public, they should act better. A cop in uniform is a public figure, even if they are in a private residence. An ununiformed cop is a public figure if they are doing cop stuff, especially if they are in your house.
They should be acting like someone is always watching. They should be able to handle being told bad words from people. They should be expected to always act professional. That is part of the standard we set for call center employees, after all, and we should expect folks that can ruin other people's lives to live up to better standards.
I don't know what the exact test is, but if there is legitimate fundamental constitutionally protected free speech (Criticizing the government) the fact that its also commercial speech is irrelevant in my mind.
I guess the "damages" claims don't arise from filming them, but from making the video public.
Still, it seems to me (IANAL) that the suit doesn't stand a snowflake's chance in hell. In particular, they reckon their damages not based on any actual damage, but on the earnings Afroman made from publicising them.
Well, that's what the report says; but it's from The Grauniad, and the quality of reporting in that organ has been declining rather quickly (whatever Wikipedia says about "reliable sources").
Still, it seems to me (IANAL) that the suit doesn't stand a snowflake's chance in hell. In particular, they reckon their damages not based on any actual damage, but on the earnings Afroman made from publicising them.
Well, that's what the report says; but it's from The Grauniad, and the quality of reporting in that organ has been declining rather quickly (whatever Wikipedia says about "reliable sources").
There have been states trying to ban it
It will be difficult for states to ban something that is protected by the constitution. Public servants doing public service have zero expectation of privacy and citizens have and absolute right to photograph and record them.
Many states aren't outright banning it, but making filming from "too close" a form of interference.
> but making filming from "too close" a form of interference.
They are trying to, but these laws will likely fail to be constitutional because so far they are completely arbitrary and do not respect freedom of press.
They are trying to, but these laws will likely fail to be constitutional because so far they are completely arbitrary and do not respect freedom of press.
Picking an officer's head with a big ass pole microphone is not acceptable? Not standing close.
The constitution means what conservative judges say it means. It also can't stop the police carrying out violent retaliation against dissidents.
> The constitution means what conservative judges say it means.
I'm not sure to word conservative applies. In the US you are just as likely to get a liberal judge as a conservative one in a local trial court. Most cases are never appealed, at the state level, it depends on the state if it's conservative/liberal, and at the Federal level we have judges appointed by both conservative, moderate and liberal presidents.
> It also can't stop the police carrying out violent retaliation against dissidents.
It can, however make violence expensive. We're seeing case after case cost local governments hundreds of thousands of dollars for civil rights violations and excessive force. The great equalizer has been cameras.
I'm not sure to word conservative applies. In the US you are just as likely to get a liberal judge as a conservative one in a local trial court. Most cases are never appealed, at the state level, it depends on the state if it's conservative/liberal, and at the Federal level we have judges appointed by both conservative, moderate and liberal presidents.
> It also can't stop the police carrying out violent retaliation against dissidents.
It can, however make violence expensive. We're seeing case after case cost local governments hundreds of thousands of dollars for civil rights violations and excessive force. The great equalizer has been cameras.
Some states already require two party consent for recordings. Ohio isn't one of them.
That's the thing that pisses me off. If someone talks to me and I can remember it in my head, there is already a recording. Putting this recording on tape only makes it more accurate. It doesn't change the nature that recollection in one form or another has been made. So the real effect is when there is a dispute, the evidence which could otherwise be solid, becomes instead a "he said, she said" type of evidence and justice instead of being precise becomes a flip of a coin
It's even dumber than that. You're legally allowed to remember what people say to you. You're also legally allowed to go write down what someone just said to you; when you do that, it magically becomes much stronger evidence.
But you can't record it; that's not evidence at all.
But you can't record it; that's not evidence at all.
> You're also legally allowed to go write down what someone just said to you; when you do that, it magically becomes much stronger evidence.
That isn't just magic. The longer a memory stays in your head, and the more times it's called up, the more likely that recollection is to be changed by your own brain. A written account of events shortly after they occur is a good way to protect against future damage to the memory.
It doesn't mean that what's written is accurate to start with, we know how little eye witnesses and even our own senses can be trusted, but it's probably going to be a lot better than what we think happened days/weeks/years later.
That isn't just magic. The longer a memory stays in your head, and the more times it's called up, the more likely that recollection is to be changed by your own brain. A written account of events shortly after they occur is a good way to protect against future damage to the memory.
It doesn't mean that what's written is accurate to start with, we know how little eye witnesses and even our own senses can be trusted, but it's probably going to be a lot better than what we think happened days/weeks/years later.
> That isn't just magic. The longer a memory stays in your head, and the more times it's called up, the more likely that recollection is to be changed by your own brain. A written account of events shortly after they occur is a good way to protect against future damage to the memory.
> It doesn't mean that what's written is accurate to start with, we know how little eye witnesses and even our own senses can be trusted, but it's probably going to be a lot better than what we think happened days/weeks/years later.
This is great if you assume everyone is always telling the truth to the best of their ability, but that's not such a great assumption in court. Giving greater weight to notes mostly means that someone who plans to screw you over benefits from automatic victories against people who didn't plan not to get screwed.
> It doesn't mean that what's written is accurate to start with, we know how little eye witnesses and even our own senses can be trusted, but it's probably going to be a lot better than what we think happened days/weeks/years later.
This is great if you assume everyone is always telling the truth to the best of their ability, but that's not such a great assumption in court. Giving greater weight to notes mostly means that someone who plans to screw you over benefits from automatic victories against people who didn't plan not to get screwed.
Of course a recording would be stronger evidence than written notes. It just wouldn’t be legal evidence unless it was obtained legally.
One could potentially collect lots of very good evidence if permitted to ignore laws in the process.
One could potentially collect lots of very good evidence if permitted to ignore laws in the process.
I'd like to believe that there's already a sort of balance in place created by the fact that with enough evidence of someone doing something really really wrong, even if that evidence couldn't be used in a court room, that can still be presented to the public who will use that information to reach something approaching justice.
I'd like to think that if someone, especially someone in a position of power, were caught doing something truly evil that society would find an appropriate response regardless of some legal technicality and that there will always be someone willing to risk the personal legal consequences for letting the rest of us know about it. That that same risk of legal consequences would also prevent people from exposing others over trivial matters.
I'm not sure that works out in reality though. We have lots of evidence of people who have done very terrible things but have fully gotten away with it, and plenty of evidence that society is as terrible at evaluating evidence as mobs are at coming up with just responses.
I'd like to think that if someone, especially someone in a position of power, were caught doing something truly evil that society would find an appropriate response regardless of some legal technicality and that there will always be someone willing to risk the personal legal consequences for letting the rest of us know about it. That that same risk of legal consequences would also prevent people from exposing others over trivial matters.
I'm not sure that works out in reality though. We have lots of evidence of people who have done very terrible things but have fully gotten away with it, and plenty of evidence that society is as terrible at evaluating evidence as mobs are at coming up with just responses.
Usual reminder that fruit of the poisonous tree is a US special
I think there's a substantive difference between something you experience and recollect from the input of your own senses and something digitized, recorded, and preserved in perfect form in a format that is easily shared in every detail and easily repurposed in endless ways.
I do think that people should be able to record events that occur on their own properly, and even their own phone calls without consent of another person, but I worry about the implications of saying that our ability to remember events and the ability to log data are basically the same. Feels like a loophole that a lot of evil people and companies would happily jump through.
Generally though, I don't really see an ethical problem with data collected strictly for an individual's personal use and I guess in theory we could have two party consent laws that acknowledge that but still offer some protections.
I do think that people should be able to record events that occur on their own properly, and even their own phone calls without consent of another person, but I worry about the implications of saying that our ability to remember events and the ability to log data are basically the same. Feels like a loophole that a lot of evil people and companies would happily jump through.
Generally though, I don't really see an ethical problem with data collected strictly for an individual's personal use and I guess in theory we could have two party consent laws that acknowledge that but still offer some protections.
That pertains to audio, not anyone’s image. Which is why many security camera systems do not record audio or have settings to disable it.
> > Some states already require two party consent for recordings. Ohio isn’t one of them.
> That pertains to audio, not anyone’s image.
Approximately the same states are all-party consent for video recording any place that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, reasonable expectation of privacy is different between audio of a conversation, and video.
> That pertains to audio, not anyone’s image.
Approximately the same states are all-party consent for video recording any place that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, reasonable expectation of privacy is different between audio of a conversation, and video.
That doesn't apply to recording public officials doing their job.
That is American privacy! Evidence of illegal search made illegal because blue camera shyness matters.
For the curious, here's the judge who signed the "kidnapping" warrant:
https://www.adamscountycourts.com/images/REG.jpg
https://www.adamscountycourts.com/images/REG.jpg
"Kidnapping" basically allows you to legally SWAT someone as long as you're in earshot of their house. Some years back a friend of mine had a SWAT team show up because someone "heard a girl screaming"; when he refused to answer the door, they flashbanged his apartment and busted in (then he was evicted because of a clause that said your landlord can kick you out for being merely suspected of a crime).
I had something similar happen to me once. The police claimed to have seen a "girl in distress" when they knocked on the door of a house party and spoke to the host. They came back 15 minutes later with an EMT and forced entry. They arrested only me (paraphernalia and possession charges -- though none of it was actually mine). I was released that night on my own recognizance, they kept my clothing "as evidence," and I had to walk to a friends (3/4 of a mile) wearing only my boxers in December. The charges were later dropped.
I was targeted that night because the sergeant on duty had a real thing against my older brother (who was, admittedly, a hell raiser), but my brother had left town a couple of years earlier after joining the Army and so he directed his bullshit at me. This was back in the '90s in a small rural area in Ohio. A place very similar to where Afroman lives today, in fact only 2 counties away.
I was targeted that night because the sergeant on duty had a real thing against my older brother (who was, admittedly, a hell raiser), but my brother had left town a couple of years earlier after joining the Army and so he directed his bullshit at me. This was back in the '90s in a small rural area in Ohio. A place very similar to where Afroman lives today, in fact only 2 counties away.
I wonder if the ‘2 counties away’ makes it the same county as that which audits the botched raid in the article.
What county audited the Adams County Sheriff? I've only seen Hamilton County and Adams County pop up in this story.
edit/ Oh, I see. It was Clermont County. Nope, not it. I don't want to place my younger self with pinpoint accuracy here but I grew up in southern/southeastern Ohio.
edit/ Oh, I see. It was Clermont County. Nope, not it. I don't want to place my younger self with pinpoint accuracy here but I grew up in southern/southeastern Ohio.
Sorry, I didn’t think of that aspect.
It would have been an interesting aside, but it wasn’t to be.
It would have been an interesting aside, but it wasn’t to be.
Wow. That’s nuts.
The law is like a piece of really stinkingly bad code. There's even a StackOverflow for law: https://law.stackexchange.com/ perhaps officials should check it out some time.
Of course his warrant didn't make sense, he was wearing David Byrne's Stop Making Sense suit.
Whoa how did you get a picture of Peter Griffin?
That guy looks even more like Peter Griffin than the lemon pound cake cop.
Looks like he really like Lemon Pound Cake too.
is that where Boss Hogg wound up. It's a small world.
I guess he just wanted some lemon pound cake also.
It actually does:
> Afroman responded to the lawsuit, telling TMZ the deputies have no grounds to sue, especially since they lifted a stack of money from his property and at first, didn’t return $400 of the seized cash.
> Afroman responded to the lawsuit, telling TMZ the deputies have no grounds to sue, especially since they lifted a stack of money from his property and at first, didn’t return $400 of the seized cash.
That's a quote from the article I linked as a source for my claim. The OP doesn't mention the $400.
D'oh, you are right. Too many open tabs.
It still mentions the stolen money, FWIW.
It still mentions the stolen money, FWIW.
It does mention it: “Stealing your money and disconnecting your home video security surveillance system…”
There is also: I'm A Have a Good Time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwZxxa8f-HA
And: Lemon Pound Cake
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xxK5yyecRo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwZxxa8f-HA
And: Lemon Pound Cake
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xxK5yyecRo
The instagram link
https://www.instagram.com/p/CqIRTkgukr2/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
https://www.instagram.com/p/CqIRTkgukr2/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
[deleted]
In all the discussion about qualified immunity, it seems to me police unions don't get discussed enough.
Police unions appear to be a significant reason why police officers are shielded from accountability. They make police disciplinary records private [1], are why officers receive excessive overtime pay [2], sometimes including kickbacks to their municipality/town, issue cringeworthy statements [3], and pour $ millions into elections [4]. The more I learn about them, the more disappointment I have in American policing.
Why does the American public tolerate police unions? Perhaps the better question is, who are the politicians that accept their money?
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/16/nyregion/nypd-discipline-...
[2] https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Police-overtime-spen...
[3] https://www.nycpba.org/miscellaneous/anti-cop-city-council/
[4] https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2022/06/police-unions-spend...
Police unions appear to be a significant reason why police officers are shielded from accountability. They make police disciplinary records private [1], are why officers receive excessive overtime pay [2], sometimes including kickbacks to their municipality/town, issue cringeworthy statements [3], and pour $ millions into elections [4]. The more I learn about them, the more disappointment I have in American policing.
Why does the American public tolerate police unions? Perhaps the better question is, who are the politicians that accept their money?
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/16/nyregion/nypd-discipline-...
[2] https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Police-overtime-spen...
[3] https://www.nycpba.org/miscellaneous/anti-cop-city-council/
[4] https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2022/06/police-unions-spend...
I somewhat support unions for private corporations (except when membership is obligatory),
but unions for public employment just don't make sense!
For private corporations, there's an obvious balance - if the union strikes too much, the whole company goes under (because all production stops).
But for public jobs (e.g. cops, or notoriously, London tube workers), the union can literally demand anything, and the employees can't be fired, and the employer (the government) can't go bankrupt... it's just the population that suffers.
but unions for public employment just don't make sense!
For private corporations, there's an obvious balance - if the union strikes too much, the whole company goes under (because all production stops).
But for public jobs (e.g. cops, or notoriously, London tube workers), the union can literally demand anything, and the employees can't be fired, and the employer (the government) can't go bankrupt... it's just the population that suffers.
> but unions for public employment just don't make sense!
Seriously? You think it makes no sense for firemen, teachers, nurses, paramedics and waste collectors to act collectively to protect their pay and working conditions? Do you really think that the only bad employers are private employers?
Seriously? You think it makes no sense for firemen, teachers, nurses, paramedics and waste collectors to act collectively to protect their pay and working conditions? Do you really think that the only bad employers are private employers?
The police are an arm of the state, and have virtually unlimited power to dispense violence, even in seemingly illegal circumstances. There is no power theoretically greater than state power in the USA; the enforcement arm of the state does not need or deserve a union.
They should, and since they work for a government agency, they do regardless of the union. If they don't like how their department is run, the can work to elect politicians who support their department.
The true issue with public unions is that they can elect their own bosses. There can't be good-faith negotiation if the position of the "boss" is dependent on supporting the union.
The true issue with public unions is that they can elect their own bosses. There can't be good-faith negotiation if the position of the "boss" is dependent on supporting the union.
Yes. I think that if they wanted better pay or working conditions, they should pick and choose private employers.
If they’re employed in public jobs, just their increase job & pension security strongly outweigh most other considerations.
If they’re employed in public jobs, just their increase job & pension security strongly outweigh most other considerations.
Oh good. The “they should have picked better jobs“ argument. Hopefully, we all agree that we need public employees for these jobs.
I have no idea why we think that they are less deserving of good conditions and good pay if we can acknowledge we need them to do their jobs.
Job security doesn’t outweigh the need to have a living wage and decent benefits and decent conditions. Neither does a pension that some people won’t even live to enjoy.
Everybody deserves livable wages and good benefits, not just private employees. Everybody. I don’t care if your job is teaching, garbage collector, fry cook, reporter, city collections clerk, any job under the sun that needs to be done, and a human being has to do it, requires a living wage and decent benefits.
This is especially true of public jobs that we need people to do for society to function. We need teachers. We need janitors. We need people in all of these public roles. In fact, in North Carolina it’s a royal pain in the ass to get your drivers license renewed if you actually have to go to the DMV because they don’t have enough staff, because the pay sucks. That affects everybody.
Maybe private employers should have to pay more than public jobs to offset the perceived security of public jobs. But that’s not the same thing as what you were arguing here.
I have no idea why we think that they are less deserving of good conditions and good pay if we can acknowledge we need them to do their jobs.
Job security doesn’t outweigh the need to have a living wage and decent benefits and decent conditions. Neither does a pension that some people won’t even live to enjoy.
Everybody deserves livable wages and good benefits, not just private employees. Everybody. I don’t care if your job is teaching, garbage collector, fry cook, reporter, city collections clerk, any job under the sun that needs to be done, and a human being has to do it, requires a living wage and decent benefits.
This is especially true of public jobs that we need people to do for society to function. We need teachers. We need janitors. We need people in all of these public roles. In fact, in North Carolina it’s a royal pain in the ass to get your drivers license renewed if you actually have to go to the DMV because they don’t have enough staff, because the pay sucks. That affects everybody.
Maybe private employers should have to pay more than public jobs to offset the perceived security of public jobs. But that’s not the same thing as what you were arguing here.
If I understand your argument correctly, you’re saying that the quality of public services would be improved by paying people more, not by giving unions more power?
If so, I agree 100%.
Another viable alternative is to reject socialism (central planning) and embrace markets (e.g. I see no reason why janitors, garbage collectors and even teachers (giving parents actual school choice) couldn’t be employed by private corporations that compete to perform a public service.
If so, I agree 100%.
Another viable alternative is to reject socialism (central planning) and embrace markets (e.g. I see no reason why janitors, garbage collectors and even teachers (giving parents actual school choice) couldn’t be employed by private corporations that compete to perform a public service.
Socialism !== central planning. Perhaps you were thinking of communism.
Sure, you can simply privatize everything, and use taxpayers money to line the pockets of private shareholders. Taxpayers don't like that much, so in that kind of system people tend to oppose public services in general. And it involves the government handing out contracts for everything, which inevitably leads to corruption.
Sure, you can simply privatize everything, and use taxpayers money to line the pockets of private shareholders. Taxpayers don't like that much, so in that kind of system people tend to oppose public services in general. And it involves the government handing out contracts for everything, which inevitably leads to corruption.
I'm saying that people deserve a living wage, etc. If that can happen organically without unions, great. Unions / collective bargaining is a path to achieving good wages and working conditions, because employers (public and otherwise) tend to worsen those things over time without workers having a closer to equal bargaining position.
"Markets" have aggressively sought every way possible to get labor as cheaply as possible. The idea that privatizing public services is going to make things better for anyone other than the shareholders / owners of those companies is not only ridiculous in theory, it's proven to be false in practice.
One only need look at private prisons, private hospitals, private healthcare, and (as I referenced before) the NC DMV for evidence of this. Many of the license plate agencies and such are privately run, and they're worse for it.
"Markets" have aggressively sought every way possible to get labor as cheaply as possible. The idea that privatizing public services is going to make things better for anyone other than the shareholders / owners of those companies is not only ridiculous in theory, it's proven to be false in practice.
One only need look at private prisons, private hospitals, private healthcare, and (as I referenced before) the NC DMV for evidence of this. Many of the license plate agencies and such are privately run, and they're worse for it.
Teachers are paid starvation wages. Jobs that require bachelor's degrees and often extended education and certification post grad that pays $50k. Once you are in the role you are essentially forced into 60-80 hour work weeks with no OT. Plus you get to dodge bullets...
If you want to know why the quality of education in America has dipped look no further than paying teacher barely above retail workers. No knock on the folks who work retail but there is a drastic difference in level of responsibility both to the individuals in their care and society as a whole.
If you want to know why the quality of education in America has dipped look no further than paying teacher barely above retail workers. No knock on the folks who work retail but there is a drastic difference in level of responsibility both to the individuals in their care and society as a whole.
If your presumptions were actually true, then why do we see public unions at all?
Because game theory? They know they have nothing to lose while having lots to gain (better pay & benefits).
Which is kind-of the point. Tragedy of the commons. The individuals (union members) gain while the public loses (more strikes, worse service, higher tax-financed salaries)
Which is kind-of the point. Tragedy of the commons. The individuals (union members) gain while the public loses (more strikes, worse service, higher tax-financed salaries)
I don't find game theory to be a convincing explanation. If public workers were forming unions for game theoretic reasons why didn't essential workers form unions during the pandemic. Most of those essential workers were part-time and had no benefits to speak of. If game theory were taking place, then we'd see a lot more grocery store unions.
I'm not convinced it is the fact that they have a union is critical for their extensive protections, even in the US there are many other classes of jobs that have unions and they do not enjoy anything like the protection the US police does.
The most reasonable explanation for benefits far in excess of what other unions can muster is the fact that they have a privilege simply by being police, which makes sense since they are largely the force used to suppress other challengers to the authority of employers.
In other words, they got these protections because their employers were willing to accept them, safe in the knowledge that they didn't need those avenues to extract accountability, not simply because their union asked for it.
The most reasonable explanation for benefits far in excess of what other unions can muster is the fact that they have a privilege simply by being police, which makes sense since they are largely the force used to suppress other challengers to the authority of employers.
In other words, they got these protections because their employers were willing to accept them, safe in the knowledge that they didn't need those avenues to extract accountability, not simply because their union asked for it.
Afaik no labor unions recognize police unions as labor unions. For the simple fact that police unions never join actions in solidarity with labor, but often do against them even to the point of violent strike breaking.
We also need cops to be prosecuted by an independent authority tasked with this. Having the DA do it is a huge conflict of interest, the DA is highly dependent on the local cops.
I'd like to see an end to police officers bouncing from one department to another after they've been fired (or resigned) for misconduct.
Also, I'd like to see cops held liable for settlements, not the tax payer!
Both of these can be achieved by forcing cops to carry liability insurance. The more claims they get, the higher their premiums, and eventually bad cops will be uninsurable - thus unemployment.
Also, I'd like to see cops held liable for settlements, not the tax payer!
Both of these can be achieved by forcing cops to carry liability insurance. The more claims they get, the higher their premiums, and eventually bad cops will be uninsurable - thus unemployment.
> Why does the American public tolerate police unions?
Corporate media shapes public opinion shapes political campaigns. Violent crime is historically low, but the public thinks crime is rampant and rising.
Because real money is on the line. From manufactured outrage (advertising) to the schools-to-prison pipeline to the penal industry.
Witness the Democrats ongoing "tough on crime" measures. Total kabuki. With real world consequences.
Witness the success rate of "progressive" prosecutors. Every one of them chewed up and spit out by The System.
--
FWIW, my best guess is successful reform will come from urban courts and judges.
My city's and county's benches are very progressive. Stuff like creating separate courts for vets, bringing wrap around social services to the court room, innovations such as restorative justice, a traveling court that brings proceedings to the communities, shepherding student courts, etc, etc.
Corporate media shapes public opinion shapes political campaigns. Violent crime is historically low, but the public thinks crime is rampant and rising.
Because real money is on the line. From manufactured outrage (advertising) to the schools-to-prison pipeline to the penal industry.
Witness the Democrats ongoing "tough on crime" measures. Total kabuki. With real world consequences.
Witness the success rate of "progressive" prosecutors. Every one of them chewed up and spit out by The System.
--
FWIW, my best guess is successful reform will come from urban courts and judges.
My city's and county's benches are very progressive. Stuff like creating separate courts for vets, bringing wrap around social services to the court room, innovations such as restorative justice, a traveling court that brings proceedings to the communities, shepherding student courts, etc, etc.
(Not sure why the downvote, it's a legit question)
I'm of a mind there should be more union protections for everyone, not fewer. The strong protections that police have should be the norm.
As for police reform, I moved from the US to a Nordic country known for professional and committed cops. Mind blowing, how calm and peaceful and unfraught dealing with cops are, here. When I first moved here, it was the police department that handled immigration matters and I nearly had a panic attack. Completely unnecessary fear.
To be a cop here requires 4 years of training, a degree, as well as ongoing psych evals. Everyone including the police are just so freaking reasonable it can be disconcerting!
I'm not sure what is going on in the US that makes the government so extractive. That corruption is the root cause of any police corruption. But more training and exclusivity couldn't hurt.
I'm of a mind there should be more union protections for everyone, not fewer. The strong protections that police have should be the norm.
As for police reform, I moved from the US to a Nordic country known for professional and committed cops. Mind blowing, how calm and peaceful and unfraught dealing with cops are, here. When I first moved here, it was the police department that handled immigration matters and I nearly had a panic attack. Completely unnecessary fear.
To be a cop here requires 4 years of training, a degree, as well as ongoing psych evals. Everyone including the police are just so freaking reasonable it can be disconcerting!
I'm not sure what is going on in the US that makes the government so extractive. That corruption is the root cause of any police corruption. But more training and exclusivity couldn't hurt.
> The strong protections that police have should be the norm.
I agree the US generally doesn't have great worker protections and the situation should probably be improved.
On the other hand, when the public seeks redress against police misconduct, they have the unions to thank for serious obstacles they must face. Unions historically have succeeded in hiding disciplinary records from the public, apparently help "bad apples" quickly get re-hired the next town over, inflate salaries and are behind very expensive defined benefit pensions. It seems hard to argue that police unions are furthering the public interest. Combined with qualified immunity, which is nonsensical overreaching judicial activism, and the Supreme Court ruling officers have no duty to protect [0], American policing seems to fail its public terribly.
I've noticed certain YouTube channels seem to easily and consistently get endless examples of obvious police misconduct [1][2][3].
Meanwhile I've previously seen people argue that improving the pay [4] may help, but at least in some states when factoring in overtime and weird contractual rules+bonuses, total pay seems to be already very high.
The problems seem to run very deep.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County
[1] https://www.youtube.com/@AuditTheAudit
[2] https://www.youtube.com/@LongIslandAudit
[3] https://www.youtube.com/@LackLusterMedia
[4]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35235677
I agree the US generally doesn't have great worker protections and the situation should probably be improved.
On the other hand, when the public seeks redress against police misconduct, they have the unions to thank for serious obstacles they must face. Unions historically have succeeded in hiding disciplinary records from the public, apparently help "bad apples" quickly get re-hired the next town over, inflate salaries and are behind very expensive defined benefit pensions. It seems hard to argue that police unions are furthering the public interest. Combined with qualified immunity, which is nonsensical overreaching judicial activism, and the Supreme Court ruling officers have no duty to protect [0], American policing seems to fail its public terribly.
I've noticed certain YouTube channels seem to easily and consistently get endless examples of obvious police misconduct [1][2][3].
Meanwhile I've previously seen people argue that improving the pay [4] may help, but at least in some states when factoring in overtime and weird contractual rules+bonuses, total pay seems to be already very high.
The problems seem to run very deep.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County
[1] https://www.youtube.com/@AuditTheAudit
[2] https://www.youtube.com/@LongIslandAudit
[3] https://www.youtube.com/@LackLusterMedia
[4]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35235677
Some leftists argue that police are essentially an extension of state power, and so not labor in the traditional sense. To have a Union that protects state power only serves to doubly oppress the people state power is used against. These people then argue that police unions are a corruption of the idea of unions, and should not exist. Laborers should have Union protection, but not the state.
I should say I’m not too well versed in this argument, so this is my vague recollection of its high level points.
I should say I’m not too well versed in this argument, so this is my vague recollection of its high level points.
UK has a statutory police union -- that is, the government set up its own union for them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_Federation_of_England_a...
Interesting quote from there:
"Police officers hold office and are not employees. Each officer is an independent legal official and not an "agent of the police force, police authority or government". This allows the police their unique status and notionally provides the citizens of the UK a protection from any government that might wish unlawfully to use the police as an instrument against them."
Interesting quote from there:
"Police officers hold office and are not employees. Each officer is an independent legal official and not an "agent of the police force, police authority or government". This allows the police their unique status and notionally provides the citizens of the UK a protection from any government that might wish unlawfully to use the police as an instrument against them."
I think police should have the ability to collectively negotiate important things like dangerous on the job conditions or poor scheduling or bad pay. Maybe that's not a union but being a police officer shouldn't doom you to unsafe working conditions that you can't fight back against because individuals have no power against a system like that.
Hadn't seen this argument before but it resonates, thanks. If you have any links to share I'd be curious to read more.
Great! I just did a search and came up with a few links. Hope you find them helpful!
https://www.teenvogue.com/story/what-to-know-police-unions-l...
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-trou...
https://theconversation.com/why-police-unions-are-not-part-o...
https://www.teenvogue.com/story/what-to-know-police-unions-l...
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-trou...
https://theconversation.com/why-police-unions-are-not-part-o...
[deleted]
There was a time when even union members and liberals agreed that a public sector union was a nonsense concept. I think it was JFK that first permitted them, and since then they've grown to such enormous political power that questioning their existence has become wrongthink.
In theory public sector unions cannot legally strike or engage in work actions but this constraint is ignored whenever they find it inconvenient.
They create a feedback loop between public expenditure and political power which is very bad for liberal democracy.
In theory public sector unions cannot legally strike or engage in work actions but this constraint is ignored whenever they find it inconvenient.
They create a feedback loop between public expenditure and political power which is very bad for liberal democracy.
[deleted]
I agree. On top of the interference by unions, when payouts do happen, it's at the taxpayers expense.
Police should carry insurance against malpractice. When malpractice is carried out, the policeman (or union's) insurance should pay, not the taxpayer.
Let the God, aka invisible hand of capitalism, aka the greed of insurance companies, sort them out.
Police should carry insurance against malpractice. When malpractice is carried out, the policeman (or union's) insurance should pay, not the taxpayer.
Let the God, aka invisible hand of capitalism, aka the greed of insurance companies, sort them out.
I don't understand either. Unions for public service jobs seems strange. An extreme example would be the military. Could you imagine if the military had unions?
A member run collective that advocated for pay and conditions?
No need to imagine: https://dfwa.org.au/about/
What's so strange about public sector unions?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_and_Public_Sector_Un...
The problem with the US Police unions is they act to cover up bad behaviour, etc.
No need to imagine: https://dfwa.org.au/about/
What's so strange about public sector unions?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_and_Public_Sector_Un...
The problem with the US Police unions is they act to cover up bad behaviour, etc.
> The problem with the US Police unions is they act to cover up bad behaviour, etc.
Police unions kind of invert the typical power dynamic of a union. Normally, a union exists to protect less powerful workers from more powerful bosses. Police unions as they exist today mostly protect more powerful police from less powerful members of the public.
Police unions kind of invert the typical power dynamic of a union. Normally, a union exists to protect less powerful workers from more powerful bosses. Police unions as they exist today mostly protect more powerful police from less powerful members of the public.
The most problematic ones are for public employees (police, teachers). Richard Hanania makes the case that labor unions in general are immoral, I tend to agree: https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/why-labor-unions-are-e...
What I don't understand and have been unable to find the answer to is that this warrant was granted based on accusations of drug trafficking and kidnapping--where is the justification for that?
What was the probable cause which prompted the judge to grant a home search warrant for drug trafficking and kidnapping here?
Why is there seemingly no accountability going on?
Armed police broke into someone's home, looking for drug trafficking and kidnapping, and it seems that evidence of neither was found. Why were they allowed to do this by the signing judge?
What was the probable cause which prompted the judge to grant a home search warrant for drug trafficking and kidnapping here?
Why is there seemingly no accountability going on?
Armed police broke into someone's home, looking for drug trafficking and kidnapping, and it seems that evidence of neither was found. Why were they allowed to do this by the signing judge?
There's no accountability because there's no account to hold. The police have qualified immunity and the judge has absolute immunity. Unless you can prove that he knew he was doing the wrong thing with the intent to cause harm there is absolutely nothing to be done.
All of those supposed protections are meaningless in the face of the superior protection granted to police, judges, and prosecutors.
All of those supposed protections are meaningless in the face of the superior protection granted to police, judges, and prosecutors.
It's so insane. It should be three exact opposite. If you hold public office, the punishment should be amplified not reduced or outright impossible. IMO if a judge gets caught even for a minor offense like shoplifting, they should get a year in prison and lose their job. If cops steal from suspects, manufacture or plant evidence they should look at the death penalty. The impact of the crime when committed by an official goes way beyond the immediate damage since it undermines the entire system. A cop being exposed as corrupt is much more harmful to the system than a private individual vomiting a murder. The punishment needs to be in accordance with that.
> A cop being exposed as corrupt is much more harmful to the system than a private individual vomiting a murder.
Or just punish them according to law and make it impossible for someone with a criminal record to work in the field (at least for a certain time, depending on the severity of the crime, someone that shoplifted once at the age of thirteen should probably still be able to become a cop).
Or just punish them according to law and make it impossible for someone with a criminal record to work in the field (at least for a certain time, depending on the severity of the crime, someone that shoplifted once at the age of thirteen should probably still be able to become a cop).
> Why is there seemingly no accountability going on?
Warrants are petitioned for by district attorneys, who are elected officials. In principle, the means of redress for inappropriately pushing for warrants and improperly using prosecutorial discretion is at the ballot box.
Warrants are petitioned for by district attorneys, who are elected officials. In principle, the means of redress for inappropriately pushing for warrants and improperly using prosecutorial discretion is at the ballot box.
That's an unworkable solution if much of the electorate actually enjoys the prosecution using such frivolous warrants to target the "wrong" kinds of people.
Or an extremely workable solution - if a small organization cared enough to keep long-term records of DA decisions, and even a modest % of the voters cared about good vs. bad district attorneys on election day (to vote based on that small organization's ratings of elected DA's).
The NRA (Nat'l Rifle Association) very successfully used that playbook for decades. During which much of the electorate supposedly wanted much stricter gun control.
The NRA (Nat'l Rifle Association) very successfully used that playbook for decades. During which much of the electorate supposedly wanted much stricter gun control.
One of the more equalizing things about bullies, especially the adult variety, is they’re often non-thinking and inevitably hoist themselves by their own petard.
Maybe this parallel is obvious, but being the aggressor and seeing yourself as the victim is completely characteristic of some popular political groups and a certain warfaring dictator. They always seem to destroy themselves given enough time.
Maybe this parallel is obvious, but being the aggressor and seeing yourself as the victim is completely characteristic of some popular political groups and a certain warfaring dictator. They always seem to destroy themselves given enough time.
bullies, especially the adult variety, is they’re
often non-thinking and inevitably hoist themselves
by their own petard
Adult bullies are in my experience typically waging some kind of information warfare -- spreading rumors and allegations. Either personal or work related. And/or they are exploiting some power asymmetry.
These are people who play political games at work or in other organizations, and/or spread rumors online. They know how to build social/political currency and then "spend" it by making allegations that are either difficult or impossible to disprove.
Essentially, unless massively incompetent, they hold all of the power. And most of them have been practicing this since their school days.
It takes easily 10x the effort for you to disprove something as it does for them to make the allegation in the first place. Sometimes it's 100x, sometimes it's just impossible. And God forbid you're facing more than one of them. You really can't win, unless they lose interest in you.
As far as "non-thinking" goes? I dunno. Some are totally non-thinking, and some are sociopathically doing it "for the lulz," but a lot of them have thought deeply about what they're doing and are absolutely convinced that they are right.
> ... a certain warfaring dictator. They always seem to destroy themselves given enough time.
Things we say to make ourselves feel better. A certain warfaring dictator has enjoyed a long life of unlimited power, riches, and indulgences.
Things we say to make ourselves feel better. A certain warfaring dictator has enjoyed a long life of unlimited power, riches, and indulgences.
Who are we talkng about here? Bush, Clinton? Obama?
The man in question will live out his final years as an international pariah, paranoid about appearing weak in front of any potential rivals domestically, unable to freely travel internationally and with his legacy tarnished beyond repair.
I’m not sure we will see him in a jail cell, but currently he’s not exactly living his best life …
I’m not sure we will see him in a jail cell, but currently he’s not exactly living his best life …
I thought he had taken up painting and had a book tour a couple years ago.
Bush, Blair and the cohort that pushed for invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq will unfortunately retire in peace. They weren’t dictators, not that this excuses them in anyway
It's extremely popular these days to view oneself as victim. Boast about it even.
It is rooted in narcissism to be sure (which is probably where a lot of bullying is rooted in too).
It is rooted in narcissism to be sure (which is probably where a lot of bullying is rooted in too).
It's simply exploiting the desire that people have to protect the vulnerable; extremely social people are competing to be the "underdog." People who say they are being victimized by other people's claims of victimhood are a subset of that same group.
I'd guess it's that everyone is often non-thinking. I'm not sure if there's a correlation between intelligence and kindness and which way it would go. But the thing is you get more free passes when you're kind. If it was all his friends throwing him a surprise party and forgetting of course he'd notice on his cameras, it would just be funny.
My impression is that, among humans, there is a somewhat positive correlation between intelligence and benevolent behavior.
(But I would expect the tails to come apart somewhat.
Also, among non-human minds I wouldn’t necessarily expect this to show the same pattern.)
I don't know if I've found that to be the case. I've known a lot of high IQ types that were fundamentally pretty bad people, or more often just sort of innocuously sociopathic. I don't find them to be a better-than-average class of person.
I think the key here is that we all have different definitions of "benevolent." An awful lot of hate crimes have been committed in the history of the human race in the name of making things better. Almost nobody thinks that they are the bad guy. I hate to jump right to Godwin's Law here, but a lot of Nazis thought they were doing the right thing. Ridding the world of "undesirables" and so on was their (twisted, wrong) idea of bettering the world.
One thing smart people are undeniably better at is coming up with grand justifications for their crappy actions and then proceed to buy into their own bullshit. Think of how a skilled lawyer or rhetorician can construct a convincing one-sided argument in favor of almost any damn thing.
Dumb people can be shitheads too but only the smart shitheads will write a freaking manifesto about it.
I think the key here is that we all have different definitions of "benevolent." An awful lot of hate crimes have been committed in the history of the human race in the name of making things better. Almost nobody thinks that they are the bad guy. I hate to jump right to Godwin's Law here, but a lot of Nazis thought they were doing the right thing. Ridding the world of "undesirables" and so on was their (twisted, wrong) idea of bettering the world.
One thing smart people are undeniably better at is coming up with grand justifications for their crappy actions and then proceed to buy into their own bullshit. Think of how a skilled lawyer or rhetorician can construct a convincing one-sided argument in favor of almost any damn thing.
Dumb people can be shitheads too but only the smart shitheads will write a freaking manifesto about it.
I just meant some correlation, not necessarily a particularly strong one.
I didn’t mean to suggest that there are no people who are both highly intelligent and also completely vile.
I didn’t mean to suggest that there are no people who are both highly intelligent and also completely vile.
I definitely took it to mean that it was a (perhaps small) positive correlation and not an immutable law, but maaan. At this point in my life I might think it's even a negative correlation.
I'd like to think that a benevolent sort of mutualism is kind of an obvious higher truth. I certainly believe in it. If we work together there will be more for everybody. Very few things in life are truly zero-sum.
And I think for most of human history, things worked this way. In a small family/village/tribe, cooperation was essential, and there was probably a pretty strong evolutionary preference for those that were benevolent rather than evil, at least towards their own family/village/tribe. Smarter people would understand this better. Help your neighbor out, and he'll help you out, and maybe nobody has to get eaten by a bear.
But no more. Groups are so big now. There's no obvious personal benefit to being a "good person." If you act like a dick in a small village then maybe you die next winter because the grain never gets harvested and everybody starves. But in modern society, there's just not much of a penalty for being a dick.
I'd like to think that a benevolent sort of mutualism is kind of an obvious higher truth. I certainly believe in it. If we work together there will be more for everybody. Very few things in life are truly zero-sum.
And I think for most of human history, things worked this way. In a small family/village/tribe, cooperation was essential, and there was probably a pretty strong evolutionary preference for those that were benevolent rather than evil, at least towards their own family/village/tribe. Smarter people would understand this better. Help your neighbor out, and he'll help you out, and maybe nobody has to get eaten by a bear.
But no more. Groups are so big now. There's no obvious personal benefit to being a "good person." If you act like a dick in a small village then maybe you die next winter because the grain never gets harvested and everybody starves. But in modern society, there's just not much of a penalty for being a dick.
See the original video, it's very entertaining: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oponIfu5L3Y
I was watching this earlier because of Reddit, and I was laughing but it didn't take long for it to also feel sad and creepy. It's so blatant.
I wanted that cop to take a slice of lemon pound cake so bad it hurt.
He wanted to take a slice of lemon pound cake so bad it hurt too.
Hah, sounds like a Frank Zappa song. He's really channeling Ike Willis there.
Unfortunately fighting with bad cops is like fighting with a rude low-level customer service rep. It may be true that they suck, but the ultimate source of the bad situation is the result of intentional decisions by people wearing nice suits somewhere, who through many layers of beauracracy, hired these low-level people to do their dirty work.
The whole State at this point is oriented against the People. Fighting the police is at best very inefficient, even when you're in the right. This whole neocon/neolib uniparty and corporatocracy running our country has to be ousted first. Local level policy will follow naturally from that.
The whole State at this point is oriented against the People. Fighting the police is at best very inefficient, even when you're in the right. This whole neocon/neolib uniparty and corporatocracy running our country has to be ousted first. Local level policy will follow naturally from that.
> This whole neocon/neolib uniparty and corporatocracy running our country has to be ousted first.
IMO the most direct and safest route to that outcome is relentless and brave advocacy for election reform. Duverger's Law holds that first-past-the-goalpost-winner-take-all virtually guarantees a party duopoly. It may take a constitutional amendment, but proportional representation is the only way that could happen. All other fixes are useless band-aids or dangerous.
IMO the most direct and safest route to that outcome is relentless and brave advocacy for election reform. Duverger's Law holds that first-past-the-goalpost-winner-take-all virtually guarantees a party duopoly. It may take a constitutional amendment, but proportional representation is the only way that could happen. All other fixes are useless band-aids or dangerous.
I'm originally from a country that has proportional representation. Let me tell you - it's a total disaster.
One serious problem is actually the law you mention - in proportional rep there's a plethora of parties, most of whom have no chance of ever governing or influencing policy. Two-party states are better in that the population can punish party A by voting for party B and vice versa. In a many-party-state, some people stop voting for party A but they split their votes between B, C, D, and E, none of which are effective in opposing A.
The other serious issue is that each party has a completely unaccountable and opaque system for deciding on a list of representatives. Getting on that list presents wonderful opportunities for corruption for bad politicians.
I now live in first-past-the-post Canada and it's so much better. I have an actual politician who is motivated to help me when I ask and read my letters because a couple of thousand votes can swing the local election; whereas before I was a faceless, undifferentiated citizen and went completely ignored.
One serious problem is actually the law you mention - in proportional rep there's a plethora of parties, most of whom have no chance of ever governing or influencing policy. Two-party states are better in that the population can punish party A by voting for party B and vice versa. In a many-party-state, some people stop voting for party A but they split their votes between B, C, D, and E, none of which are effective in opposing A.
The other serious issue is that each party has a completely unaccountable and opaque system for deciding on a list of representatives. Getting on that list presents wonderful opportunities for corruption for bad politicians.
I now live in first-past-the-post Canada and it's so much better. I have an actual politician who is motivated to help me when I ask and read my letters because a couple of thousand votes can swing the local election; whereas before I was a faceless, undifferentiated citizen and went completely ignored.
> I'm originally from a country that has proportional representation. Let me tell you - it's a total disaster.
Your former country may be seem a disaster to you, but it has been studied fairly extensively, and, among modern democracies, proportionality is very much associated with both positiive measures of function and with positive perceptions of function from those who are subject to them.
> Two-party states are better in that the population can punish party A by voting for party B and vice versa
In a mulitparty system you can pubnish any party by voting for any other party, whereas in a two party system you can only punish part A bv voting for party B, which means a strategy that makes both parties look worse but the other one by slightly more is a winning PR strategy. The results are predictable.
> The other serious issue is that each party has a completely unaccountable and opaque system for deciding on a list of representatives.
That's not a product of proportional representation, its a product of one particular system of achieving it, “party list proportional”.
Most PR advocates in the US (or Canada) are advocating systems with by-district elections, which mean you still have locally-elected by-name specific representatives, either Single Transferrable Vote (almost always this in the US) or Mixed Member Proportional.
Your former country may be seem a disaster to you, but it has been studied fairly extensively, and, among modern democracies, proportionality is very much associated with both positiive measures of function and with positive perceptions of function from those who are subject to them.
> Two-party states are better in that the population can punish party A by voting for party B and vice versa
In a mulitparty system you can pubnish any party by voting for any other party, whereas in a two party system you can only punish part A bv voting for party B, which means a strategy that makes both parties look worse but the other one by slightly more is a winning PR strategy. The results are predictable.
> The other serious issue is that each party has a completely unaccountable and opaque system for deciding on a list of representatives.
That's not a product of proportional representation, its a product of one particular system of achieving it, “party list proportional”.
Most PR advocates in the US (or Canada) are advocating systems with by-district elections, which mean you still have locally-elected by-name specific representatives, either Single Transferrable Vote (almost always this in the US) or Mixed Member Proportional.
Voting for party B only punishes party A if it increases the chance that A loses an election to B.
Which seems like a no-brainer, but I found most of my erstwhile fellow citizens voting not for B but for B, C, D, ad infinitum.
Because parties B - Z are now tiny parties, they get no momentum, and nobody votes for them... because nobody else votes for them.
Leaving a huge voting block for A, who happily keeps ruling regardless of being unpopular with all but 30% of the population.
Better to have two parties that are balanced on a knife edge, and they have to perform or they lose.
Which seems like a no-brainer, but I found most of my erstwhile fellow citizens voting not for B but for B, C, D, ad infinitum.
Because parties B - Z are now tiny parties, they get no momentum, and nobody votes for them... because nobody else votes for them.
Leaving a huge voting block for A, who happily keeps ruling regardless of being unpopular with all but 30% of the population.
Better to have two parties that are balanced on a knife edge, and they have to perform or they lose.
I'm reading though your responses trying to figure out what mysterious force is present in this hypothetical proportional representation country that prevents a majority subset of parties B - Z from forming a coalition.
Can't figure it out.
On the assumption that Party A just simply has the majority still? This objection lakes cogency, so maybe you could make this general objection more concrete by citing a country that finds itself in your abstract scenario?
Can't figure it out.
On the assumption that Party A just simply has the majority still? This objection lakes cogency, so maybe you could make this general objection more concrete by citing a country that finds itself in your abstract scenario?
> The other serious issue is that each party has a completely unaccountable and opaque system for deciding on a list of representatives.
I'm in a FPTP, two-party country, and strongly favour PR. But definitely not a PR system based on party list. That looks like the worst of all possible worlds, including FPTP.
I'm in a FPTP, two-party country, and strongly favour PR. But definitely not a PR system based on party list. That looks like the worst of all possible worlds, including FPTP.
But how else would you do it though? If the party list is chosen by the people, every voter has to elect hundreds of politicians; or else you need to stratify the country along location or some other dimension and have every stratum vote for one politician. AKA FPTP.
Multi-party constituencies; which entails either many more representatives, or much larger constituencies, both of which are a problem.
STV (ranked preference); STV usually means multi-member constituencies.
AV/Instant Runoff; that's what I favour. It doesn't require huge constituencies or lots of representatives. It's not really PR though.
What I find objectionable about party-list is that the parties choose the candidates, so you can't have independents. The parties also rank the candidates, so you vote for the party, not the candidate. And the party machine can bury a disfavoured candidate at the bottom of their list. I want voters to be able to remove a useless representative that the party wants to keep, without actually assassinating him; you can't do that with party list.
STV (ranked preference); STV usually means multi-member constituencies.
AV/Instant Runoff; that's what I favour. It doesn't require huge constituencies or lots of representatives. It's not really PR though.
What I find objectionable about party-list is that the parties choose the candidates, so you can't have independents. The parties also rank the candidates, so you vote for the party, not the candidate. And the party machine can bury a disfavoured candidate at the bottom of their list. I want voters to be able to remove a useless representative that the party wants to keep, without actually assassinating him; you can't do that with party list.
That only works when parties A and B have meaningfully different policies in the area when you'd want to punish them. Otherwise, it's two boxes for the same gift.
> It may take a constitutional amendment
National proportionality, abolishing state representation, would take an amendment. Using STV or party list proportional within the bounds of each states house seats would not.
The US, though, has a strongly Presidential system, which would favor duopoly without radical Cobstitutional reform, and the Senate is problematic as well.
National proportionality, abolishing state representation, would take an amendment. Using STV or party list proportional within the bounds of each states house seats would not.
The US, though, has a strongly Presidential system, which would favor duopoly without radical Cobstitutional reform, and the Senate is problematic as well.
Multi-party system is no guarantee either. Usually a newcomer party cannot rise quickly enough and by its second or third term will be completely assimilated by the system.
Ranked choice voting is another solution
They stole cash and deserve the ridicule.
Unfortunately it's not just the federal government that's captured by these monied interests - it's the states, too. Just look at the private prison industry and their lobbying. I agree overall, though, decentralization and re-fragmentation is the only way this status quo is going to change.
This lawsuit is a perfect demonstration of Streisand Effect. If they haven't filed it, I wouldn't have watched https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oponIfu5L3Y
This is getting ridiculous. In a free country, the people should be able to hold the police accountable. If police officers did their jobs properly, having a video posted should not cause any distress.
We had an entire summer of protests against the ability of police to kill innocent people, with zero changes to laws that I have heard about.
Such a massive civil uprising, with no legislative response except to perhaps retrench qualified immunity, is not the sign of a free country.
Such a massive civil uprising, with no legislative response except to perhaps retrench qualified immunity, is not the sign of a free country.
> This is getting ridiculous. In a free country ...
Yes, well ...
Yes, well ...
The cops are also free to make their legal complaint… we will see what happens next.
This is a one-way system, and their legal complaint is to shut down the only avenue this person has to get any form of justice. If the police want to be able to sue us, then we should be able to sue them.
> the only avenue this person has to get any form of justice
I think he could just post his videos and be more in the clear, the claim is he is using their images for commercial activities.
I don’t agree with the cops but this is absolutely not his only route.
Also we don’t yet know the outcome yet.
I think he could just post his videos and be more in the clear, the claim is he is using their images for commercial activities.
I don’t agree with the cops but this is absolutely not his only route.
Also we don’t yet know the outcome yet.
I don't think government officials should have the right to their personal image during performance of their jobs at all. Like, you should be able to make a YTP with Biden videos for profit.
I hope it goes to court; popcorn time. But I doubt the PD will let it get that far. I imagine there'll be a settlement (compensation to Afroman), with undisclosed terms.
I love the dude with the hard-ass tough-guy haircut: all shaved except the top of the scalp. It looks like a marine haircut, I think.
I love the dude with the hard-ass tough-guy haircut: all shaved except the top of the scalp. It looks like a marine haircut, I think.
I'm really curious to hear the arguments if it does. There's a lot of angles folks could take on this.
[deleted]
It's worth watching the original video, it shows the officers damaging his property, eating his cake and doing various other questionable things
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oponIfu5L3Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oponIfu5L3Y
>Law enforcement officers were acting on a warrant that stated probable cause existed that drugs and drug paraphernalia would be found on Foreman’s property and that trafficking and kidnapping had taken place there, authorities have said. Those suspicions turned out to be unfounded, though, and the raid failed to turn up probative criminal evidence. No charges were ever filed.
>When cash seized during the raid was returned to Foreman, it appeared that hundreds of dollars were missing. A subsequent review by the state Bureau of Criminal Investigation determined that deputies had miscounted the amount seized during the raid itself.
It's disappointing that the AP doesn't even mention any of that, just a mention that some money was miscounted.
>When cash seized during the raid was returned to Foreman, it appeared that hundreds of dollars were missing. A subsequent review by the state Bureau of Criminal Investigation determined that deputies had miscounted the amount seized during the raid itself.
It's disappointing that the AP doesn't even mention any of that, just a mention that some money was miscounted.
Outrageous behaviour, yet normal. What a great song though, I'd like to see the jury's faces while they're listening to it.
Why is there a guy in camouflage? I would assume he's in the military, but is that just normal for a US police raid, there's some uniform, some plain clothes, some inexplicable camouflage? (Not to mention some riot gear, some automatic rifles..!)
>... but is that just normal for a US police raid
Yes, very much so. They don't even have to be on a raid, they can just be on patrol. After the Global War On Terror started, many police departments routinely cosplay as military.
Yes, very much so. They don't even have to be on a raid, they can just be on patrol. After the Global War On Terror started, many police departments routinely cosplay as military.
Raids are an excuse for bored cops to dress up and play with their toys.
Related:
Will You Help Me Repair My Door [video] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34293904 - Jan 2023 (124 comments)
Also:
Rap artist Afroman sued by officers who raided his home - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35283145 - March 2023 (6 comments)
US Police raids home; sues homeowner over CCTV footage of raid - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35281258 - March 2023 (43 comments)
Will You Help Me Repair My Door [video] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34293904 - Jan 2023 (124 comments)
Also:
Rap artist Afroman sued by officers who raided his home - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35283145 - March 2023 (6 comments)
US Police raids home; sues homeowner over CCTV footage of raid - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35281258 - March 2023 (43 comments)
I know there are issues with it, because small plaintiffs would mostly suffer it at the hands of extremely well-funded respondents, but I do wish there was some kind of automatic penalty for bringing such a outrageous suit. Like if the judge can´t stop laughing at you for being such an idiot, you get tarred and feathered in the courtroom and Afroman gets to use footage of that in a music video. Which I guess would be a particularly just punishment in this case.
Wouldn't this not be effective if it's an environment where it's a little bit more crooked? The fact lawyers on the police's side brought this lawsuit hints as to the possibility that there's more going on here and that they might win due to a favorable judge/etc
The difficulty with situations like this is when you have judges and lawyers who go along with it, which is a possibility. This is of course not counting the extreme cost to escalate it to appeal- or further if that fails. Or the time spent and having to deal with the damage, etc in the meanwhile. Per a Guardian Article he is losing gig opportunities due to the kidnapping charge on the warrant, even though it was unfounded- as an example of the damage continuing despite being false.
Others have mentioned how they took money from him(caught on camera), and didn't return it all ,and a independent news station was able to get them to recount it- but they still didn't return it all.
And ,we don't know what they did once they started shutting off all his cameras they could find(his own video with the footage shows this)-
The difficulty with situations like this is when you have judges and lawyers who go along with it, which is a possibility. This is of course not counting the extreme cost to escalate it to appeal- or further if that fails. Or the time spent and having to deal with the damage, etc in the meanwhile. Per a Guardian Article he is losing gig opportunities due to the kidnapping charge on the warrant, even though it was unfounded- as an example of the damage continuing despite being false.
Others have mentioned how they took money from him(caught on camera), and didn't return it all ,and a independent news station was able to get them to recount it- but they still didn't return it all.
And ,we don't know what they did once they started shutting off all his cameras they could find(his own video with the footage shows this)-
Anti-SLAPP laws (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation). Ohio doesn't have one, as far as I can tell.
I think you are basically looking for anti slapp laws
https://www.rcfp.org/anti-slapp-legal-guide/
https://www.rcfp.org/anti-slapp-legal-guide/
if court footage exists it would likely be public domain and he could...but many judges dislike their courts being recorded, unfortunately.
The lack of self awareness by the officers is actually pretty impressive
Supposedly they weed out intelligent people from police applications, so…
https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/st...
My favorite bit is where they're worried smart people will get bored and leave XD
My favorite bit is where they're worried smart people will get bored and leave XD
"Most Cops Just Above Normal The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average."
This is a pretty startling statement for armed people who are supposed to understand and interpret the law, detect abnormalities accurately while not terrorizing the law abiding general public.
Here's a breakdown of appropriate jobs by IQ. Keep in mind the 100-104. This might be part of the problem.
https://www.schooldrillers.com/the-iq-level-you-need-for-dif...
This is a pretty startling statement for armed people who are supposed to understand and interpret the law, detect abnormalities accurately while not terrorizing the law abiding general public.
Here's a breakdown of appropriate jobs by IQ. Keep in mind the 100-104. This might be part of the problem.
https://www.schooldrillers.com/the-iq-level-you-need-for-dif...
That article has no supporting links and looks like it was auto-generated somehow.
Also it explicitly states a "Police Patrol Officer" is a job someone with an IQ of 100-102 could be expected to get. So it appears you didn't read it?
Also it explicitly states a "Police Patrol Officer" is a job someone with an IQ of 100-102 could be expected to get. So it appears you didn't read it?
I did read it and I disagree with that assessment. In my town, officers were required to have a Bachelor's degree. I'm not sure if that's the case in a lot of places. Unfortunately I think for some, training and "following orders," might override any benefit from education or IQ.
this seems to be a backwards conclusion - how do you propose hiring smarter people for what is in essence a very tedious and borderline unfulfilling job?
you think that any higher IQ person looks at any service job and goes "amazing, drudgery is exactly what stimulates me"
Lol, what's a "Computer Operator"?
This is one of the trashiest sites I have ever seen.
I'd like to think they're smart enough to recognize if they hire smart people that they'd be out of a job.
On that base you might just as well refuse all non-white and non-female applicants because they would leave after becoming the victims of internal racism and misogyny...
The benefits of having lawyers paid for by the union I guess. Their protection from consequences (or rather the inverse where you benefit from not being a good worker if you play your cards right) continue to be disconnected from the average person's job. Even when factoring in the unique circumstances of their job most of the worst stuff (and worst messaging) happens via this arena, even when in practice they don't always get taken as seriously by their superiors/judicial system as the police union reps take themselves.
I'm not American, so maybe there's something I don't know about here... but cops sue for "invasion of privacy" for being filmed?
Aren't they persons in public practice, while on duty? How can official police work be "private"? A police officer on duty is a public figure. Of course they should get full privacy off duty... but while on the job shouldn't there be transparency about what they do?
Aren't they persons in public practice, while on duty? How can official police work be "private"? A police officer on duty is a public figure. Of course they should get full privacy off duty... but while on the job shouldn't there be transparency about what they do?
In the US it is allowed to take photos of people and publish them, in public.
Wikimedia commons has a table of laws here: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specifi...
The question is whether Afroman's use of the officers' images is for-profit, or if it can be categorized as educational or journalistic. I am in favor of the latter characterization, as I found the videos newsworthy and educational, and illustrate problems with policing that I have primarily heard about by word of mouth.
The question is whether Afroman's use of the officers' images is for-profit, or if it can be categorized as educational or journalistic. I am in favor of the latter characterization, as I found the videos newsworthy and educational, and illustrate problems with policing that I have primarily heard about by word of mouth.
> “As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs have suffered damages, including all profits derived from and attributable to Defendants’ unauthorized use of Plaintiffs’ personas, and have suffered humiliation, ridicule, mental distress, embarrassment, and loss of reputation,” the lawsuit said.
What is super interesting to me is the damages theory, which is apparently that the cops themselves had the right to profit from their likenesses so Afroman making money damaged them.
Let's parse this out: these police personas don't have inherent value--nobody would pay for a picture of one of these people on his way to the laundromat. There is also nothing interesting about their behavior in the abstract. For example, it's not like they broke into his house and recited original poetry, which he then sold in his own poetry book. Afroman repurposed the harmful conduct of police into an artistic work. The value of their conduct to the artwork was that it was harmful to the artist. So their argument is that they were damaged when he profited from the harm they caused because they had the right to profit from that harm instead?
It's nothing more than an erotic fantasy of mine, but it is possible to sanction the lawyer who filed this pleading under FRCP 11 or whatever is the local equivalent.
What is super interesting to me is the damages theory, which is apparently that the cops themselves had the right to profit from their likenesses so Afroman making money damaged them.
Let's parse this out: these police personas don't have inherent value--nobody would pay for a picture of one of these people on his way to the laundromat. There is also nothing interesting about their behavior in the abstract. For example, it's not like they broke into his house and recited original poetry, which he then sold in his own poetry book. Afroman repurposed the harmful conduct of police into an artistic work. The value of their conduct to the artwork was that it was harmful to the artist. So their argument is that they were damaged when he profited from the harm they caused because they had the right to profit from that harm instead?
It's nothing more than an erotic fantasy of mine, but it is possible to sanction the lawyer who filed this pleading under FRCP 11 or whatever is the local equivalent.
From a non american perspective, having cops banging a door for a warrant search while they could, you know, ring the bell, is already something weird.
I imagine that is why they added the fake kidnapping part, to justify it by some fantasy imminent danger. I'd be curious to know who whas the invented victim in that case.
I imagine that is why they added the fake kidnapping part, to justify it by some fantasy imminent danger. I'd be curious to know who whas the invented victim in that case.
There are probably some situations where breaking down a door is the right move, like serving an arrest warrant against an actively hostile, armed gang that has a history of shooting at the police. It’s likely that they’ll be killed before being arrested so giving them advance warning that police have arrived seems dumb.
Afroman, however, doesn’t appear to meet these criteria.
Afroman, however, doesn’t appear to meet these criteria.
All their work product including acting on this film should be in public domain. As it is produce by state or governmentally hired actor.
Attorney Steve Lehto covered it pretty well. He had a hard time not laughing, but to his point, any lawsuit has a chance of winning, and it will have a massive chilling effect if it does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQcST-jdl7U
I guess these guys aren't aware of the Streisand effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQcST-jdl7U
I guess these guys aren't aware of the Streisand effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
One thing I wish more people would realize - we don't actually need police or judicial reform. Use the system against itself.
Every criminal case goes before a jury. The jury's job isn't actually to decide guilty or not guilty, it's to decide punish or don't punish. Judges and lawyers do everything they can to align the system to "here are the rules, here are the facts, did this person break a rule?"
In reality the jury is meant to be a check on judicial overreach. A jury of one's peers decides if you should be punished. If enough cases are decided despite the letter of the law, the law will be changed. See prohibition for a prime example.
Every criminal case goes before a jury. The jury's job isn't actually to decide guilty or not guilty, it's to decide punish or don't punish. Judges and lawyers do everything they can to align the system to "here are the rules, here are the facts, did this person break a rule?"
In reality the jury is meant to be a check on judicial overreach. A jury of one's peers decides if you should be punished. If enough cases are decided despite the letter of the law, the law will be changed. See prohibition for a prime example.
How would that have helped in this case? What you're saying makes no sense. The police made up a bogus warrant against Afroman, added a "kidnapping" charge to it solely so they could bust out the battering rams and SWAT gear, terrorized his family for hours, and then left after finding zero evidence of a crime. He was never charged with anything. Nothing ever appeared before a jury. How would a jury of his peers have protected him from this blatant abuse of police power?
>...Every criminal case goes before a jury.
No they don't.
>..... If enough cases are decided despite the letter of the law,
In the US, the process IS the punishment. So even if people are found not guilty, they still incur the costs of impound fees, forefeiture of property destroyed or taken during arrest/search, loss of lawyer fees, having to check the box on job applications and whatnot. And laws don't change for the better because people get off on charges.
No they don't.
>..... If enough cases are decided despite the letter of the law,
In the US, the process IS the punishment. So even if people are found not guilty, they still incur the costs of impound fees, forefeiture of property destroyed or taken during arrest/search, loss of lawyer fees, having to check the box on job applications and whatnot. And laws don't change for the better because people get off on charges.
I the US the process can absolutely be a nightmare. But laws have absolutely changed because they were effectively unenforceable. Towards the end of prohibition juries were regularly refusing to convict anyone on drinking charges. Didn't take long, all things considered, for the law to be thrown out because it kept clogging up the legal system with cases that ended in not guilty.
My original point was simply that juries can be doing something about laws they disagree with now. Often this topic turns to a solution that is entirely rebuilding the system which is an almost impossible feat - the system is too bjgto just put on hold for a year while we all decide what to replace it with.
I don't know if you've ever been on a jury closely related to a case, but both the judge and prosecutor will describe the jury's job as hearing the law, revising the facts presented,and deciding if the law as written a broken. We have taken that lesson and treated it this way, but a jury can tell the lawyers to f$#& off and decide whether they want to punish not whether the law was broken.
My original point was simply that juries can be doing something about laws they disagree with now. Often this topic turns to a solution that is entirely rebuilding the system which is an almost impossible feat - the system is too bjgto just put on hold for a year while we all decide what to replace it with.
I don't know if you've ever been on a jury closely related to a case, but both the judge and prosecutor will describe the jury's job as hearing the law, revising the facts presented,and deciding if the law as written a broken. We have taken that lesson and treated it this way, but a jury can tell the lawyers to f$#& off and decide whether they want to punish not whether the law was broken.
95% or so cases ends with guilty plea. It is just too expensive to ask for trial. First, it costs huge amount of money. Second, if you go to trial and loose, you will get massively higher sentence then the one offered when pleading guilty. It can make difference between being released on symbolic punishment and several years. It is a huge risk.
Basically, for your plan to work, many people would had to self sacrifice.
Basically, for your plan to work, many people would had to self sacrifice.
We can and should make the legal system cheaper and more expedient, we lost our right to a speedy and fair trial a long time ago.
I do completely agree the plan would require a huge saccrafice and risk for quite a few people and that's a terrible thing to ask for. Unfortunately that's sometimes the only way to enact change when the system is so massive and rigged against us.
Tearing down and replacing the legal system in one shot will never happen and comes with its own problems and unknown damage. Using the system as-is against itself at least has a chance. I'd argue it wouldn't take too many cases before DAs realize they're putting massive amounts of effort into petty drug cases, as an example, that continue to lose in court simply because the jury isn't interested in punishing their peers for what msy technically be illegal in that case.
I do completely agree the plan would require a huge saccrafice and risk for quite a few people and that's a terrible thing to ask for. Unfortunately that's sometimes the only way to enact change when the system is so massive and rigged against us.
Tearing down and replacing the legal system in one shot will never happen and comes with its own problems and unknown damage. Using the system as-is against itself at least has a chance. I'd argue it wouldn't take too many cases before DAs realize they're putting massive amounts of effort into petty drug cases, as an example, that continue to lose in court simply because the jury isn't interested in punishing their peers for what msy technically be illegal in that case.
The number of criminal cases decided by juries in the US is less than 1.5%. The vast majority of cases are decided by plea bargaining. So the system has this potential issue covered already.
Not sure how that's related to my point though, people don't have to take a PA bargain and can always opt for a jury trial
And if they lose, they are facing an order of magnitude longer sentence on a single charge. That's by design. Prosecutors offer you a lesser list of charges for you to go to jail, or they stack charges so that getting a conviction on a single one sends you a way for a decade or more should you try a jury trial.
100% agree - I'm not saying it's easy or risk free, it would take a huge sacrafice from some. What's the alternative though, tear the system down and replace it or do nothing?
If people vocally opposed the legal system and rallied around the idea that juries decide a person's fate rather than a DA, it might at least be less risky to go to trial. A BLM-scale movement for legal reform based on using the system against itself would go a long way to helping people at least make the decision whether they are willing and able to take the risk of going to trial.
If people vocally opposed the legal system and rallied around the idea that juries decide a person's fate rather than a DA, it might at least be less risky to go to trial. A BLM-scale movement for legal reform based on using the system against itself would go a long way to helping people at least make the decision whether they are willing and able to take the risk of going to trial.
This is commonly known as jury nullification[1], aka the rule you won't be told and can't talk about.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
[2]: https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/consider...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
[2]: https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/consider...
Jury nullification is not a rule, it’s a quirk. Jurors can’t and shouldn’t be punished for their verdicts. Therefore, a jury can render a binding verdict that contravenes the law.
Talking about it in court WILL get you held in contempt of court, because you are openly declaring an intent to contravene the law.
Talking about it in court WILL get you held in contempt of court, because you are openly declaring an intent to contravene the law.
The first rule of jury nullification is you don't talk about jury nullification
My aunt said this happened when she was on jury duty over a "reckless driving" charge against a young driver. She said that the jury liked the guy and thought the police were being dicks. Apparently the judge was disappointed and the police furious with them :D
It seems that juries very often do not care about facts or the truth or that state has done it's job sufficiently. They just want to either punish the person or let them go... Which for me destroys any trust in whole system. And makes anyone who says that it works or is a good thing just lying probably with agenda.
I don't know if you've been on a jury or closely related to a case, but you'd be right to have no faith in the system as is.
Jury nullification (what I originally argued for) can't fix the system but it sure as hell can throw a wrench in the works. The process of a case going to trial can be a nightmare, but ultimately if juries exercise their right and regularly decide a case by what they think should actually be punished in the first place we might just see less resources spent on BS charges that are arguably pushed through just to get the prosecutor a promotion.
Jury nullification (what I originally argued for) can't fix the system but it sure as hell can throw a wrench in the works. The process of a case going to trial can be a nightmare, but ultimately if juries exercise their right and regularly decide a case by what they think should actually be punished in the first place we might just see less resources spent on BS charges that are arguably pushed through just to get the prosecutor a promotion.
It goes both ways.
On the one hand, courts of law mean justice will (read: should) be served out equally and fairly.
On the other hand, jurors having the final say on how laws are enforced means the people always have the final say as one of several lines of defence against government tyranny.
On the one hand, courts of law mean justice will (read: should) be served out equally and fairly.
On the other hand, jurors having the final say on how laws are enforced means the people always have the final say as one of several lines of defence against government tyranny.
Law isn't the basis of morality. In the end juries exist exactly for that reason. People should be punished if society at large deems them deserving, not if they broke a law.
Yeah that's a great idea. At first it would take a lot of time, which would prompt cities to address the source of crime in the first place instead of just punishing.
Unfortunately too many people can't afford to miss a single workday, and employers don't have to pay employees for jury duty.
Unfortunately too many people can't afford to miss a single workday, and employers don't have to pay employees for jury duty.
The other alternatives are a) fundamental system reform that takes years and needs a short term solution or b) do nothing
I wasn't arguing that jury nullification is the best or perfect answer. I simply raised that I wish more people viewed jurt duty this way. The jury is in charge in a court room. No one gets convicted criminally unless they take a deal or a jury decides it. Short of blowing up the entire system, anyone with jury duty today could do somefhing about it.
I wasn't arguing that jury nullification is the best or perfect answer. I simply raised that I wish more people viewed jurt duty this way. The jury is in charge in a court room. No one gets convicted criminally unless they take a deal or a jury decides it. Short of blowing up the entire system, anyone with jury duty today could do somefhing about it.
NWA had it right 35 years ago: https://youtu.be/ADdpLv3RDhA
Having your home invaded can’t ever be anything less than invasion of privacy and emotional distress. When it is by people who are meant to uphold peace, it has to be that much worse. At what point would we call the behavior of police blatant instead of the artists response as blatant?
Not a lawyer obviously but this is a home surveillance recording. You would think one would maintain the commercial rights to that.
I really want to know what their legal theory is, because the usage of their likeness seems pretty clearly allowed under Ohio law:
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/ohio-right-publicity-law#:~:....
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/ohio-right-publicity-law#:~:....
you linked to an entire page of a detailed law, which at a glance protects rights of publicity, not "gives them away". I'm not saying you're wrong, but what clauses do you think allows usage of their likenesses in this context?
"The statute requires that any consent to use an individual's right of publicity for a commercial purpose be made in writing, which includes written, electronic, digital or any other verifiable means of authorization."
"The statute requires that any consent to use an individual's right of publicity for a commercial purpose be made in writing, which includes written, electronic, digital or any other verifiable means of authorization."
In Chrome that link goes to the "Limitations and Defenses" section -- I forgot that other browsers need the Link to Text Fragment extension for that to work.
Here's the key part of Ohio law it references: https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2741.09
Here's the key part of Ohio law it references: https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2741.09
Maybe the "hope the other person settles" approach. But that tends to work better when there's a financial imbalance.
Are there any politicians or political organizations, local or otherwise, advocating for the curtailing of police overreach? Frivolous suits for harassment like this shouldn’t be allowed on the taxpayers dime…
Yes, but they're like Scientology was in the 90s and 00s; unlimited funds, very strong union and political support and they investigate themselves with cult like omertà. It's gonna take a few decades of relentless scrutiny and political pressure to prosecute them before it gets any better. It seems like an entire generation of police are used to this type of corruption.
You can gauge how deep and normalized the corruption is by how blatant some are about it.
It's sad, because a lot of people join the police force because they want to do good for the community, and they're colleagues with people like this. The good people end up leaving or getting corrupted.
"As one bad apple spoils the others, so you must show no quarter to sin or sinners."
We've let this fester for decades. Also, this attitude and blatant disregard for citizens rights is at all levels of policing; local, state and federal. It's a cancer that has riddled the country.
You can gauge how deep and normalized the corruption is by how blatant some are about it.
It's sad, because a lot of people join the police force because they want to do good for the community, and they're colleagues with people like this. The good people end up leaving or getting corrupted.
"As one bad apple spoils the others, so you must show no quarter to sin or sinners."
We've let this fester for decades. Also, this attitude and blatant disregard for citizens rights is at all levels of policing; local, state and federal. It's a cancer that has riddled the country.
No. Democrats run away from the accusations of being supporters of "defund the police" by Republicans, by increasing funding for the police.
There is no major party in the United States advocating for police reform.
There is no major party in the United States advocating for police reform.
defund the police is a movement with that goal, no?
Yes but I believe they've been captured, at least the political arm of it. You don't hear much of a peep out of them lately and there have been countless shootings and beatings of unarmed and often innocent people.
Hilarious (in a "if I don't laugh, I'll cry" way):
> Ohio officers, who conducted a botched raid of rapper’s home, are suing for invasion of privacy and emotional distress
That was Afroman's point... he and his family were on the receiving end of an invasion of privacy and emotional distress.
> Ohio officers, who conducted a botched raid of rapper’s home, are suing for invasion of privacy and emotional distress
That was Afroman's point... he and his family were on the receiving end of an invasion of privacy and emotional distress.
They're suing for among other things invasion of privacy, but is there a valid cause of action for that? IANAL but I thought it's been well-established that police officers have no expectation of privacy when performing their jobs. And in any event, isn't Ohio a one-party-consent state when it comes to electronic recordings?
(Without getting into value judgments and the wider context around this, of which there is plenty to say and which other commenters have covered pretty thoroughly)
(Without getting into value judgments and the wider context around this, of which there is plenty to say and which other commenters have covered pretty thoroughly)
Hilarious. These super tough dudes with their guns and military style badass moves. And now they sue for emotional distress.
There is some funny stuff about this, the videos Afroman made were pretty great, but the dark side is how much this reveals about police impunity. They know filing a case like this can only shed more light on their actions. They just don't care.
Sorry, you go into someone's home as a public official, you should have ZERO expectation of privacy. Warrent, raid, SWAT, whoever, however, whatever, whenever. You don't want your face shown, stay masked up.
> suing for invasion of privacy and emotional distress
Invasion of privacy? After entering someone else's private property without their consent? Surely they will be laughed out of court!
> invasion of privacy and emotional distress
Is this the stop hitting yourself defence?
Is this the stop hitting yourself defence?
I sort of see their side.
First you have to put aside whether they should have been there, and whether they committed crimes while on his property. Basically start by assuming the police in this situation are unsympathetic criminals.
What rights do they still have even if they’re the bad guys here?
They don’t have a right to privacy. It’s fine to publish videos of them stealing his money. It’s fine to make fun of them.
But do you have the right to use their image in a video, for profit?
Where’s the line between being allowed to make, own, and publish a video of someone, and being allowed to profit from it?
If Tom Hanks visits your restaurant and is on your security camera, that’s legal. You can own that, and even publish it as a fact.
But can you make a commercial showing him eating in your restaurant? No. You’d need a model release for that.
You don’t get to use a video for commercial reasons, even if it’s ok to use it for editorial reasons.
First you have to put aside whether they should have been there, and whether they committed crimes while on his property. Basically start by assuming the police in this situation are unsympathetic criminals.
What rights do they still have even if they’re the bad guys here?
They don’t have a right to privacy. It’s fine to publish videos of them stealing his money. It’s fine to make fun of them.
But do you have the right to use their image in a video, for profit?
Where’s the line between being allowed to make, own, and publish a video of someone, and being allowed to profit from it?
If Tom Hanks visits your restaurant and is on your security camera, that’s legal. You can own that, and even publish it as a fact.
But can you make a commercial showing him eating in your restaurant? No. You’d need a model release for that.
You don’t get to use a video for commercial reasons, even if it’s ok to use it for editorial reasons.
The police and famous actors occupy completely different roles in society and should be treated differently.
But how specifically should they be treated differently?
For ex, I don’t think police should ever have the right to privacy while on duty. Turning off body or security cameras should be a crime for them, and anything that happens after should be assumed to have been done with criminal intent.
But I don’t think they should have their faces used in ads without their permission. That seems like a weird difference to apply to them.
For ex, I don’t think police should ever have the right to privacy while on duty. Turning off body or security cameras should be a crime for them, and anything that happens after should be assumed to have been done with criminal intent.
But I don’t think they should have their faces used in ads without their permission. That seems like a weird difference to apply to them.
I knew that this would happen. I freaking knew it. Don't get me wrong, I love the music that came out of the incident, but as soon as I saw the videoclip for "why you disconnected my video camera" I thought to myself: he's gone get sued for exposing them like that.
Wow, I hadn't heard the name Afroman in what... 20 years? (when was "because I got high"?)
I was going to have you sign a release but I got high.
I was going to ask you to uncuff me so I could get consent but I was high.
Now you’re embarrassed AF for wasting time and money and I know why.
Because you’re high because you’re so high, because power makes you hi-igh. La do da da da dah!
I was going to ask you to uncuff me so I could get consent but I was high.
Now you’re embarrassed AF for wasting time and money and I know why.
Because you’re high because you’re so high, because power makes you hi-igh. La do da da da dah!
Sunlight is the best disinfectant, but occasionally the vampires wail.
The problem remains giving police immunity from suit.
You wouldn't be getting these outcomes if police were held as equal under law to everyone else, and private prosecution was still available.
There's no need to reach for either extremes of "defund the police" and "defend the police (no matter what they do)".
All that's needed is to restore previous law, and apply it equally to everyone.
You wouldn't be getting these outcomes if police were held as equal under law to everyone else, and private prosecution was still available.
There's no need to reach for either extremes of "defund the police" and "defend the police (no matter what they do)".
All that's needed is to restore previous law, and apply it equally to everyone.
Oh boy this isn’t going to end well for the police
It totally might.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQcST-jdl7U
I don't want to be inflammatory but it's hard as hell to see this and not think "garbage country".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQcST-jdl7U
I don't want to be inflammatory but it's hard as hell to see this and not think "garbage country".
Why wouldn't it?
They're not public figures, and the law lets them sue over use of their likeness. And any misconduct is almost certainly covered by their immunity.
They can almost certainly get the video taken down, and a good chance of monetary damages. And no consequences for anything else.
Just because that's an obvious travesty doesn't mean it isn't the most likely outcome.
They're not public figures, and the law lets them sue over use of their likeness. And any misconduct is almost certainly covered by their immunity.
They can almost certainly get the video taken down, and a good chance of monetary damages. And no consequences for anything else.
Just because that's an obvious travesty doesn't mean it isn't the most likely outcome.
You can use likeness for political aims in ohio. But as far as consequences, there are more a person can face than legal. Yes, cops are covered by qualified immunity, but if the voters elect a new sheriff he can fire them all. Or the town can ostracize them. Or grafiti their house.
Police in the US routinely get away with all kinds of abuse and illegality. I wouldn't be surprised, if a friendly court decided for them.
My tax dollars at work
If police have qualified immunity, being allowed to have a case like this before the courts is insane.
Don't pick fights with people who buy ink by the barrel and all that.
Wow, this is some serious Streisand effect.
Thanks, the Ohio cops suing him, because you're going to make this story blow up even more now.
Hey they were on his property. So it is his film.
$400 dollars wasn't enough for them?
Not that he should have ever had this experience with the cops, but why the heck does he live in Ohio?
“Rules for thee, but not for me.”
for anyone who thinks "we should weed out the bad cops, then things will be good":
"Ultimately, the reporters “found 300 cases in the past decade where an officer helped expose misconduct…The vast majority of those cases ended with those whistleblowers saying they faced retaliation.” Carroll’s piece continues to delve into different reporters’ thoughts about the whistleblower cases they analyzed and the stories they learned about. Read the article here."
Policing in its current state can't be reformed. Either that or we've got a lot of weeding to do.
https://whistleblowersblog.org/government-whistleblowers/new...
"Ultimately, the reporters “found 300 cases in the past decade where an officer helped expose misconduct…The vast majority of those cases ended with those whistleblowers saying they faced retaliation.” Carroll’s piece continues to delve into different reporters’ thoughts about the whistleblower cases they analyzed and the stories they learned about. Read the article here."
Policing in its current state can't be reformed. Either that or we've got a lot of weeding to do.
https://whistleblowersblog.org/government-whistleblowers/new...
Poetic justice, eh?
America is such a weird place.
I still don't know what Barbara Streisand is famous for
IIRC, she didn't want photos of her Malibu home on the Internet. Her suit to have them taken down only brought more attention to them.
That's hilarious - the keystone cops suing him for "suffered humiliation, ridicule, mental distress, embarrassment, and loss of reputation."
Gee, I wonder how one might have felt in that being the one raided, all to have the charges dropped.
Exactly what is wrong with the US.
Gee, I wonder how one might have felt in that being the one raided, all to have the charges dropped.
Exactly what is wrong with the US.
I would say that Afroman was perhaps incautious to mix up videos of footage of police with their faces and insignia and whatnot. After all, Afroman's milieu is an industry that is perpetually in legal jeopardy for sampling, covering, and quoting other musical works.
Then I thought about it for another hot minute, and realized that Afroman (and his legal counsel) may be just canny enough to take this all into account. Think of the optics of the cops suing this Black man trying to get at his honestly earned cash. Think of how that will play out in the public square. Who's a more sympathetic figure here, win or lose? There's no such thing as bad publicity!
So I think Afroman may have counted on this whole lawsuit debacle and he's going to get enormous mileage and notoreity out of it. Kudos to him for this. I love these videos. This guy is da bomb. Hilarious.
Then I thought about it for another hot minute, and realized that Afroman (and his legal counsel) may be just canny enough to take this all into account. Think of the optics of the cops suing this Black man trying to get at his honestly earned cash. Think of how that will play out in the public square. Who's a more sympathetic figure here, win or lose? There's no such thing as bad publicity!
So I think Afroman may have counted on this whole lawsuit debacle and he's going to get enormous mileage and notoreity out of it. Kudos to him for this. I love these videos. This guy is da bomb. Hilarious.
As a rapper, taking risks that make the police look like idiots is pretty much his job. I think he's doing it well and I hope he gets paid accordingly.
Hey it's all public information. If they're ashamed of the job they do that's on them.
It's pretty clearly fair use in the US.
Fair use? It's the man's own recording; he has copyright. He also has a right to record in his own home. The police should lose, but unfortunately Ohio lacks an anti-SLAPP law. (It will likely not be an expensive loss for the cops, and it will be an unnecessarily expensive victory for Afroman.)
On the bright side in this situation, he's going to monetize the crap out of this. He'll end up ahead in the end unlike the vast majority of people that find themselves as a target of the police.
The cops don't have a copyright claim. Fair use is irrelevant. Afroman owns a recording of factual events. He has the right to do with it as he pleases.
If I take a recognizable photo of you without you signing a model release and then I use it in a commercial work you can sue. Which the cops did in this case.
That's because I'm a private person. Public servants don't have an expectation of privacy in the performance of their duties.
It's not about privacy, you can record anyone in a public place, it's about publishing and monetizing work using someone's identity after.
Please reread the second sentence all the way to the end.
There may be a 'newsworthy' or 'artistic' exception here. In some jurisdictions, a photograph (or video) used for editorial purposes or for artistic purposes does not require a model release. Afroman has valid claims on both here.
If he doesn't make money from it then perhaps. If he does then idk
Artists and journalists make money. That's not a legal problem.
This is not a news agency from what I understand
There are exceptions for recording events on your own property. Do you think every time security footage ends up on the news that the TV station is breaking the law?
Is Afronan a news agency?
This is incorrect. For example, this happens all the time to celebrities. Someone takes their photo in public and sells it to magazines who publish the photo on the cover. They receive no money and have signed no release.
Bad example for your argument, as these magazines constantly break the law by outright lying and publishing fabricated news stories.
It's pretty much their business model to publish fake news. While they'll have to redact the articles later, they've already made their money by that time.
While I can't speak for the legality of using photographs from people for profit without their consent, I'm sure that the magazines would still do it, even if it wasn't legal using the same tactics.
It's pretty much their business model to publish fake news. While they'll have to redact the articles later, they've already made their money by that time.
While I can't speak for the legality of using photographs from people for profit without their consent, I'm sure that the magazines would still do it, even if it wasn't legal using the same tactics.
There's no law against fake news specifically, just damages to reputation as a result of false claims. The legality of individual photos varies greatly, but overall most of the photos are legal as evidenced by the lack of successful lawsuits on the topic. Lawsuits are easier when you're talking about millionaire/billionaire celebrities.
I wasn't disagreeing with the point, I just felt the urge to be nitpicky and point out that the given example doesn't prove anything.
The same excuse the magazines use for the articles would be just as applicable with these pictures, as we thought it was legit transfers directly over to we thought they'd given permission.
It's all fine legally as long as the articles are retracted for missinformation
What you're thinking of is getting damages/convictions because of the misinformation. That's indeed quiet hard and will require proving that you've actually been harmed, which is extremely challenging, generally speaking.
The same excuse the magazines use for the articles would be just as applicable with these pictures, as we thought it was legit transfers directly over to we thought they'd given permission.
It's all fine legally as long as the articles are retracted for missinformation
What you're thinking of is getting damages/convictions because of the misinformation. That's indeed quiet hard and will require proving that you've actually been harmed, which is extremely challenging, generally speaking.
Using it in a commercial work doesn't preclude editorial use. Virtually every magazine, newspaper is a commercial work for example
Right, but they should have never been there in the first place. That warrant was complete bullshit
If you assault me first and then I take a photo of you and use it for commercial purposes it doesn't mean you can't sue. It just means I'd sue you back first for that other thing. But good luck suing cops in US...
Other than tacticool camoed up Taliban guy, most of the cops aren't recognizable.
Heh! Their names and addresses are public information, because they've gone all Streisand, and sued!
It's interesting that so many of them share a surname.
It's interesting that so many of them share a surname.
Nope- that generally only applies if you’re a celebrity; or if otherwise your job is your image.
The cops will lose this.
The cops will lose this.
I wonder how that works, I can photograph you in public, I can sell the photo. That’s legal.
Are you a lawyer? It might be much less clear cut than you imply.
It might be more cut and dry than you imply.
I can’t tell what you want to say from a link. Depending on how much of that you read of that article you could come to different conclusions.
So, are you saying it's not clear cut...
I'm saying I don't know what you think the link means.
The law may be clear cut ... who knows what the court will decide. I was saying I don't know what you think the link means, what you think /= the law.
The law may be clear cut ... who knows what the court will decide. I was saying I don't know what you think the link means, what you think /= the law.
Oh, another lawyer I see. Here you go anyway https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights
Should I ask if you’re a lawyer now? Is that how this works? Maybe ask what law you're an expert in? It's sad to see the level of discourse on HN has dropped so low now.
As for the actual topic I don’t know what you think the link means. That’s too general a topic to just just know what you’re trying to say.
As for the actual topic I don’t know what you think the link means. That’s too general a topic to just just know what you’re trying to say.
IANAL and that's my point, it's not an easy question with a clear cut answer;) if you say a legal issue is clear then you better know what you're talking about my friend, because they rarely are.
If you think the article is too general, I think you have not read it. There is very practical information as to how this law works in various jurisdictions. You can also see Wikipedia for "model release". You will see contradictory information of course, because it's not a clear cut issue. But the takeaway is, if I take a video of you at a mall being weird and use it to make a viral music video on which I capitalize and which makes you uncomfortable, guess what you can (and should) sue me. Will you win? Maybe not, maybe yes, depends on how prominent your role is in the video I guess.
If you think the article is too general, I think you have not read it. There is very practical information as to how this law works in various jurisdictions. You can also see Wikipedia for "model release". You will see contradictory information of course, because it's not a clear cut issue. But the takeaway is, if I take a video of you at a mall being weird and use it to make a viral music video on which I capitalize and which makes you uncomfortable, guess what you can (and should) sue me. Will you win? Maybe not, maybe yes, depends on how prominent your role is in the video I guess.
Sorry for my ignorance, what does "da bomb" mean?
A somewhat dated idiom to mean a thing is distinctively good.
Its typically a way to describe someone who can be considered "Da man".
> That's hilarious - the keystone cops suing him for "suffered humiliation, ridicule, mental distress, embarrassment, and loss of reputation."
Funnily, Afroman's video mostly showed us non identified cops being stupid.
Now Shawn D. Cooley, Justin Cooley, Michael D. Estep, Shawn D. Grooms, Brian Newland, Randolph L. Walters, Jr., and Lisa Phillips made sure 8 billions people have access to their name and can find their home address at will. [1]
Good job guys. If anything, the humiliation, ridicule, mental distress, loss of reputation and embarassment is self inflicted.
[1] https://sciotovalleyguardian.com/2023/03/23/adams-co-deputie...
Funnily, Afroman's video mostly showed us non identified cops being stupid.
Now Shawn D. Cooley, Justin Cooley, Michael D. Estep, Shawn D. Grooms, Brian Newland, Randolph L. Walters, Jr., and Lisa Phillips made sure 8 billions people have access to their name and can find their home address at will. [1]
Good job guys. If anything, the humiliation, ridicule, mental distress, loss of reputation and embarassment is self inflicted.
[1] https://sciotovalleyguardian.com/2023/03/23/adams-co-deputie...
What reputation?
"You showing people what I did made them hate me, so I should be compensated for that!" is a really strange argument in general. I'd probably never have known about this incident at all if they hadn't tried to sue him for showing people their crimes.
Yeah, I was thinking that Afroman has nothing to do with sullying whatever reputation they think they had. Afroman just filmed them doing it.
TBH acting this violent against the most vulnerable is why police are so revered in the US.
There’s an appetite for lies about murders committed in daylight and on camera. And there’s appetite for news footage of police beating peaceful protestors.
There’s an appetite for lies about murders committed in daylight and on camera. And there’s appetite for news footage of police beating peaceful protestors.
I'd never thought about it from this angle, but I think you're right. The Cop Spectacle might be our substitute entertainment for the old public executions. We can't show [public enemy du jour] being torn apart by lions in the arena anymore, but we can show drug dealers and terrorists being gunned down by the thousands in pop TV shows. They worshipped gladiators, we worship cops.
Shows like that are known as Copaganda.
https://www.complex.com/music/afroman-sued-by-ohio-sheriffs-...