Delete.

is this the question you are referring to?
If it is, why do you assume that all LE organizations are like your St Louis LE situation? Why do you assume this "highly coupled" status? If your state Attorney General can't be trusted to investigate (pick the problem) then you have bigger problems in Missouri that your cops and their relationships with the people they serve. In Texas, there is both the State level of LE, and that somewhat novel LE organization called the Texas Rangers who get called upon to investigate a variety of cases that don't pass the smell test. (My LE friends (except for the patrol officers), whom I listed a few pages back, have all worked with the Texas Rangers on matters where state jurisdiction, or the overlap of state/federal, sometimes created the need). Does that create perfection in policing? No. As I noted above, zero defects is a nice idea, but not an achievable standard of performance.

What does this "neutral third party" look like, to you? Your hand wave is noted.
Projecting your local problem globally strikes me as a flawed lens through which to assert a "solution."
Tell me, Uppie, what has your state political leadership and LE organization done as a response to the problem in Ferguson?

The trouble is that you are looking at a place where the policing seems to function - that doesn't tell you whether the protections in the system are working.

An analogy, the fire alarms can be in place as per instructions and everything seems fine, but until there is a fire, you don't realise that they detect the wrong sort of smoke.


It's not a brilliant analogy, but I hope it gets across where I (and I think others are coming from).

You need to see how the system deals with poorly performing forces - of which there seem to be an unknown number, but greater than zero. Some of these forces would seem to be utterly bent, or otherwise dysfunctional.

I'm not assuming that all justice systems are like St. Louis. I only said that I did not think St. Louis's was atypical. Please stop using strawmen and putting words in my mouth. I was responding to a specific example.


Again, I never said it was. In fact, my point is that a system that finds zero defects raises the question of whether that system is accurate. You seem to be agreeing on that point, right? It's not an achievable standard of performance, therefore we should expect abuses to be identified and corrected, correct?


It's not a hand wave. I gave some possibilities, both hypothetical and historical. Just because I don't have full implementation details does not mean the idea is without merit.


I'm not sure why you are fixated on Ferguson. The fact is, very little has changed. Does it matter to any of the points that I've made?

And there is no reason to suppose it is atypical, except, possibly, wishful thinking.

I have a slightly different take on this. Obviously unforeseen circumstances will occur, and lives will be lost. However, once they have occurred once , then that particular failing should be addressed, to prevent the *next* such incident. This is another reason for such investigations to be handled at a federal level, because that way best practice instructions can be disseminated throughout the states, as opposed to just within one single state.

Years ago, a radio show I listen to had a roundtable of anonymous cops answering questions. The cops all thought that roughly 30% of cops shouldn't be cops. If they think that themselves, I imagine its actually somewhat higher in reality.

Edit: I'd think figuring out the percentage of good departments would be somewhat easier than figuring out the percentage of good cops. Things like community relations and satisfaction with the cops would be indicative of a good department, oh and lack of cops killing people.

And that is the thing, the cops know who the racist violent bigots are, but they are never going to report them, that would cost the rats their jobs.

Then the incompetent ones can be dealt with, by promoting them.

Yes.
Identified, yes, and attempts at mitigation, yes.
There's no neutral third party, Uppie. You are appealing to woo. Each level has it's own shortcomings, its own blind spots, and I suggest you review the last 15 Supreme Court Decisions. No Neutral Third Party. What you are asking for doesn't exist.
Yes. Your appeal to the woo of a some neutral, objective third party is just that: woo.

If we look at this from an ideal perspective, everyone would simply do their job. They'd do their best and with the multiple levels we do have: local, country, state, federal, there's another organ to review what the next level down is doing. ANd there's the press, our free press, that spends a lot of time getting things that aren't quite right aired and usually asking "Is this the best we can do?" (Part of their role, quite frankly).

But the answer is too often "it may be the best we can afford." In some cases "we can improve on this (small to medium thing) but "improving on that" larger thing is beyond us. Heck, the last 40 years has shown some improvement over the problems of the 70's ... but not perfect yet, eh?

This fantasy "third party" review only adds another layer of cost. There are already other layers of review. And this is what you and we can afford, so far. Some locales have better and more professional organizations than others.
There are already people on the job, and you don't like the job they are doing.
I don't see your appeal as a solution, I see it as believing in a fairy tale.

never ever heard a police union guy say
that cop was a menus to the community and our profession
so needs to be fired and never work as a cop again

the police need to be culled every year and not just the new hires
and not just sent down the road to be rehired somewhere else
hopefully before they kill a citizen

my rule any cop who opp's kills a noncriminal citizen
you know the he twiched, moved, scared, whatever the cop so was shot
should be spot fired and never work in any armed job ever anywhere
or simply stated ONE AND DONE BEING A COP !!

Here's the thing, I never even asked for a neutral third party. That's another of your strawmen.

I suggested an independent third party, where I specifically defined "independent" as not being in a daily, or working, relationship with the law enforcement officers being reviewed. Those kinds of people not only exist, there are lots of them. In fact, it is common practice for judges and prosecutors to recuse themselves from cases where they have a potential or perceived conflict of interest with the suspect, but apparently not with the local police.

Not only is such an occurrence not woo, I provided evidence where such a thing actually happened and was successful. There are many places that have civilian review boards for police. I see there are even some here in Missouri, in smaller cities. That's about as far from woo as one could get.

If you would like to rationally discuss things I've actually said, I would be happy to do so. What you have been doing in this thread is not that.

A distinction without a difference. There are already sufficient layers, if people do their jobs, to address a variety of ills. What lacks is time, money, and in some cases perhaps the will. Everything done in the public sector is done on a budget. You want to spend more on a fairy tale. Sorry, no sale.

Independent? Where do these beings of your fantasy accrue the competence to address this area of public service? Oh, dear, the only people who have the competence to address are, in your model, not eligible because the system doesn't work and they are in the system, hence tainted.

Sorry, no sale. I don't ask a baker to do an aircraft accident investigation either.

With respect, Darth Rotor, replacing Upchurch's name with Uppie can be construed as disrespectful and a violation of rule 0. Upchurch doesn't appear to have taken offence, but to others (well, me) it looks bad and reflects poorly on you. You should be able to state your case without going for apparent ad homs.

Why is it you think the only people who shouldn't be cops are "racist violent bigots"?

The cop who shot Philando Castile wasn't a "racist violent bigot".

The cop who shot Justine Damond wasn't a "racist violent bigot"

Just hair trigger individuals who jumped at shadows. They probably should never have been cops.

Your inability to look beyond your own shores means you speak too often in sheer ignorance of the facts. IPCC. Wiki

I've taken a small bet about whether you'll read those links before responding.

I've referred to him as Uppie on and off for about 10 years. If he finds it offensive I'll stop.
Your observation is noted.
Mike, your pet organizations have no constitutional remit, nor authority. We have sufficient of that organically.
Go and bully and condescend to some third world country. No sale here. Beyond that, you don't operate under the same cultural assumptions that we do. That's on purpose. Suggest you review the Declaration of Independence, our Constitution (we took the time to write ours down) and the history of why we tried to start over from the mess Europe made of the Enlightenment. The American Experiment Continues. Keep your contamination out of our petri dish, thanks.

Corrupt? No. You're unable to argue with the fact of their existence so have made up some nonsense about them enabling you to dismiss the idea without any intellectual effort. Yes, it has constitutional and legal remit, and has plenty of authority.

International organisation? You didn't read the links. I won my bet. You have no idea of what you speak.

Bullying 3rd world nations? You do know about Rule 11, don't you?

I think that you have won your private bet.


I already have mentioned the Independent Police Complaints Commission* as a model, and Nessie has pointed out the Scottish system; neither of which are perfect, but both of which are infinitely superior to a mishmash of ad-hoc approaches and an acceptance that wrongful killings and police malpractice are regrettable but inevitable.


*nothing to do with the International Panel on Climate Change

Except that the only cultural assumption is of the necessity of checks and balances and was an issue that the Founding Fathers devoted a lot of thought to.

Upchurch was talking about central investigations at the level of the states. Personally I think that it would make more sense for such investigations to be carried out by an arm of the DoJ. They already do that in particularly egregious cases, so the precedent is there.

Not so. You've admitted that neutral third parties don't exist. I've demonstrated that at least one independent third party exists and, if you like, I can provide evidence for others, like civilian review boards.

Here's where the critical thinking comes in. How do you know if people are doing their jobs when they never find cases of abuse? By your own admission, we should expect a non-zero amount of problems, because perfect performance is unreasonable.

In the case of St. Louis, we are left with two possibilities:

1. The law enforcement officers have achieved perfect performance, except the one time an independent third party tried the case, and there simply hasn't been anything for the justice system to correct.
2. The police are committing acts of abuse, but the justice system is neither convicting nor punishing and, thus, not correcting these acts.

You've insisted that the first possibility isn't actually possible, which leaves us with only the second: people are not doing their jobs.

Now you are the one hand waving. Things like civilian review boards actually exist and in communities smaller than St. Louis. There is one in Columbia, MO which, if I read the citations correctly, has existed since at least 2009. This isn't a fairy tail or some unobtainable goal.

To be fair, I also don't know the effectiveness of such a board, but as jimbob put it, it does provide a possibility of checks and balance.

...and that's why we only allow lawyers to serve on juries or be politicians?

But you don't allow the people who build something to perform the quality and safety inspections, either, which is a far better analogy for what we're talking about here.



...and I don't care if DR calls me Uppie.

I think it is worth noting that ALL deaths, whether in police custody, or due to being shot or even in accidents where a police car is involved, are automatically referred to the IPCC (England & Wales) or PIRC (Scotland) or the PONI (Northern Ireland).

England & Wales have numerous police forces that come under the remit of the IPCC. Scotland has one main force, but there are a few smaller forces which police the railways and nuclear facilities. NI is the only one with one force.

If you think of each part of the UK as a state, you can see how it there is a model that could be copied in the USA. Each state has a review board who examine all deaths involving all the police forces in that state.

PIRC is a mix of solicitors and ex cops. I would like to see other investigators, such as journalists and Customs & Excise officers involved. That would make it more independent.

Actually, even if an Officer stops and speaks to someone, and that person later dies for whatever reason, the matter is still referred.

At least in E&W.

A lot of people falsely interpret every death following police contact as a death in custody, which is why you often hear the complaint about there being a gorillian deaths in custody every year, but no police are ever convicted.

I think that's a good idea that would be fought tooth and nail by police unions then stacked with union lackeys when it was eventually instituted. I might be a tad cynical.

Good to know; thanks. I've been reading both your posts on the board for years, and if I had seen it before it quite slipped my mind.

But did their coworkers know that about them?

Although there are sufficient numbers where there are verdicts of unlawful killing and no convictions to know that the English and Welsh system is far from perfect.

The most egregious example being the death of Ian Tomlinson, which only came to light by chance and where PC Ian Harwood somehow managed to get acquitted on a charge of manslaughter, possibly due to the Met using an incompetent pathologist (later struck off and with a history of failing to find foul play)

My point is that just because an independent investigation system is far from perfect, it is not a reason to avoid having such a system, but is a reason to improve it.

This seems like a perfect example of the problem with US police (warning link shows a man being shot in the back and killed).

Seems like he wasn't shot in the back, but in the side while he was pulling out a knife. The officer was acquitted.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/10/0...adly-shooting/

This seems like a perfect example of the problem with US police (and this forum) - that stuff like this makes the news and the interwebs, and is then reported as another bad cop incident. It makes the rounds, everyone gets outraged, then it's forgotten about (or still used as an example by skeptics) when the cop is found to be innocent.

Look at the "Massive Wave Of Hate Crimes" thread for an example. The more people cry wolf the less I listen. Be careful, be skeptical.

Yes, but to my point, found innocent by whom?

(I'll just say right now that I know nothing of Salt Lake's history in terms of police abuse and the punishment of such.)

Salt Lake City prosecutors.

It helps to ignore the conflict of interest in having the local prosecutors investigate the local police department.

As I said. The justice system evaluated the justice system and determined that the justice system didn't do anything wrong.

So, if something were wrong with that justice system, how would you know? This is the core question of critical thinking.

While I understand where you are coming from, and keeping in mind I was the one who clarified that the mentioned incident wasn't as cut and dry as suggested, personally I still think it was deplorable.

The guy was shot before the knife was visible to the cop firing. The cop had no realistic way of establishing that the convict actually had a weapon on him
at the time of the shot. Two other policemen on the scene had their stun guns out, but didn't fire. The cop was acquitted because he said that he was mortally afraid, and because there was a knife present.

Now I am not American, so I will temper my expectations, but I can assure you that there are at least a dozen cases every night of a cop around a gent with a knife in Liverpool, and it doesn't end with anyone injured, let alone dead.

Not to beat the dead horse too much, but that particular case isn't even cut-and-dried that the cop was found innocent. The local DA decided it was self defence because the local cop said he feared for his life, despite video evidence of the victim running away from the cop at the time with no visual indication of a knife.

This seems to be a better example of a need for skepticism of problems in that justice system than a vindication of it. Wouldn't you agree?

Indeed, which proves the point that US cops just need to say they were worried and that is enough for them to be able to kill.

It seems to me, rather, that it's a classic example of the problem that prevents any real investigation of whether police shootings are justified. The cop wasn't found to be innocent by a court of law, or investigated and found to be without fault by an independent third party; rather, the DA, who routinely works alongside the police to secure prosecutions, decided not to prosecute. In effect, one half of the law enforcement team protects the other half, and nothing changes.

Dave

Police investigations are not that hard. Anyone with a degree understands the basics of investigating, research, fact finding and checking. There are plenty of other jobs which require investigations, interviewing and collecting evidence. Investigators of the police should come from the likes of Customs and Excise, health and safety and the academic world.

I'm not sure it’s your intent, but you do come across as being a bit patronising towards the investigators profession. Its not something that “anyone with a degree” can just do.

It does take training, experience, and a certain acumen.

That said, there are of course many other spheres other than police work which involve investigation, including such areas of insurance fraud and regulatory compliance.

Worth noting though that HMRC, the UKBA and NCA are now also subject to the auspices of the IPCC

I only said that a degree gives a good grounding in what is involved "the basics". I never meant to even suggest someone with a degree is now a qualified investigator.

My idea person to investigate the police is someone with a degree who has gone to to work investigations that require interviewing suspects and compiling reports to a set legal standard, but was not in the police.

I want those doing the investigating to be brighter than the police officers they are investigating.