Another "I can't breath" death: Police Reform & Protests in the USA

[Coniferous]

And? It's perfectly functional as a standard. If you make a questionable call, you should be able to understand why the force can't employ you any more, given the possibility of abuse. Yes, that should make you question your use of force. That's a good thing. If you can't handle that, you shouldn't be a cop. The same way someone who thinks teachers should be given a pass on multiple accusations of sexually abusing students has no business teaching children.

I just don't see how anyone could ever want to choose a career where you can get unlucky and end up in a situation where you have to choose between being harmed because you didn't use force, and being fired if you did. Bodycams somewhat mitigate this problem because there's a lot more evidence and less ambiguity, and I'm in favor of use of bodycams, but they aren't perfect either so it's still an issue.

- - - Updated - - -

"Somewhat credible" means "can't be immediately and thoroughly disproven". Doesn't matter if I have a spotless 20-year career without a whisper of a problem; one complaint that I can't disprove and I'm gone.

Teachers can end up in situations all the time where you can't immediately and thoroughly disprove an accusation... like being alone in a room with a student who comes for extra help when the building is mostly empty. That's where I see a difference between "somewhat credible" and "thoroughly disproven".

[Endus]

I just don't see how anyone could ever want to choose a career where you can get unlucky and end up in a situation where you have to choose between being harmed because you didn't use force, and being fired if you did. Bodycams somewhat mitigate this problem because there's a lot more evidence and less ambiguity, and I'm in favor of use of bodycams, but they aren't perfect either so it's still an issue.

Not sure why that makes it a problem.

You've correctly identified that shitty people who want to be abusive won't opt for becoming cops. That's a good thing.

I've said before I'm a certified teacher. If I had a job in a school (I'm working elsewhere currently, not that it matters, but I maintain my certification), and there was an accusation of abuse, and I couldn't fully clear myself, I'd be fired and I'd lose my license forever.

And that would be the right and proper decision.

I knew that going into this career. I knew it before I got my Education degree, let alone certifying. It isn't a problem for me, because I'm not ever going to intentionally put myself into a position where a false accusation could be made, and if I were to, I'd completely understand why no administration should give me the benefit of the doubt on this. Because it doesn't even have much to do with me, it has to do with protecting the students. They could totally believe it's bullshit, they'll still take my license.

And that'll be the correct decision.

I'm not speaking in hypotheticals I'm trying to apply to someone else. This is the active legal standard for the profession I've been an active part of for years now.

- - - Updated - - -

Teachers can end up in situations all the time where you can't immediately and thoroughly disprove an accusation... like being alone in a room with a student who comes for extra help when the building is mostly empty. That's where I see a difference between "somewhat credible" and "thoroughly disproven".

That's why you don't ever be in a room with a student alone, especially if the building is empty.

If you have an office and a student comes to see you, you make sure there's colleagues in the teacher's space outside, and you leave the door open.

This is standard practice and it was covered during my training. You're acting shocked about basic standard precautionary measures that exist to protect the students in question (because pulling a student aside into a room where no one else can see the two of you is pretty common abuser tactics).

You keep trying to argue these standards are "unworkable" when they're actively in place and perfectly functional. You're the one who's wrong, here.

[Coniferous]

Not sure why that makes it a problem.

You've correctly identified that shitty people who want to be abusive won't opt for becoming cops. That's a good thing.

I've said before I'm a certified teacher. If I had a job in a school (I'm working elsewhere currently, not that it matters, but I maintain my certification), and there was an accusation of abuse, and I couldn't fully clear myself, I'd be fired and I'd lose my license forever.

And that would be the right and proper decision.

I knew that going into this career. I knew it before I got my Education degree, let alone certifying. It isn't a problem for me, because I'm not ever going to intentionally put myself into a position where a false accusation could be made, and if I were to, I'd completely understand why no administration should give me the benefit of the doubt on this. Because it doesn't even have much to do with me, it has to do with protecting the students. They could totally believe it's bullshit, they'll still take my license.

And that'll be the correct decision.

I'm not speaking in hypotheticals I'm trying to apply to someone else. This is the active legal standard for the profession I've been an active part of for years now.

- - - Updated - - -



That's why you don't ever be in a room with a student alone, especially if the building is empty.

If you have an office and a student comes to see you, you make sure there's colleagues in the teacher's space outside, and you leave the door open.

This is standard practice and it was covered during my training. You're acting shocked about basic standard precautionary measures that exist to protect the students in question (because pulling a student aside into a room where no one else can see the two of you is pretty common abuser tactics).

I'm still not sure I understand the strictness of the standard you're applying to cops. I referred to a situation where a good cop is put in an impossible situation, and you referred to "shitty people who want to be abusive" which isn't the same thing. Are you saying that the standard you propose precludes that situation from occurring, or that it's ok for a good cop to get fired if they are unlucky enough to end up in it?

With regards to the teaching situation, I think a further response from me would start to get off topic so I'll leave it at that.

[Endus]

I'm still not sure I understand the strictness of the standard you're applying to cops.

People shouldn't be shot or attacked by police officers without very good reasons.

There, that's the reason for the standard. It's not that fuckin' complicated.

I referred to a situation where a good cop is put in an impossible situation, and you referred to "shitty people who want to be abusive" which isn't the same thing.

It's not an "impossible situation". If the use of force is justifiable, then use that force. If it's iffy, don't. If you're not sure you could use your firearm given the circumstances when a guy takes a swing at you, use your taser or a nightstick, and use the minimum force necessary to end the situation safely. For all. Including the guy attacking you.

Are you saying that the standard you propose precludes that situation from occurring, or that it's ok for a good cop to get fired if they are unlucky enough to end up in it?

If it's a choice between a good cop being fired "just in case", or a bad cop being allowed to continually abuse citizens without meaningful repercussions, as with Derek Chauvin and his pre-Floyd-murder career, then yes. Fire the "good cop".

If they're really a good cop, they'll understand why the department can't take the risk.

[Coniferous]

It's not an "impossible situation". If the use of force is justifiable, then use that force. If it's iffy, don't. If you're not sure you could use your firearm given the circumstances when a guy takes a swing at you, use your taser or a nightstick, and use the minimum force necessary to end the situation safely. For all. Including the guy attacking you.

If it's a choice between a good cop being fired "just in case", or a bad cop being allowed to continually abuse citizens without meaningful repercussions, as with Derek Chauvin and his pre-Floyd-murder career, then yes. Fire the "good cop".

If they're really a good cop, they'll understand why the department can't take the risk.

Yup, that's where we disagree. First, I think it's unreasonable to expect the cop to be able to rationally find the exact minimum amount of force to use. At some point your safety and the safety of others is more important than the safety of the guy attacking you. Second, I think that applying a standard that results in the firing of good cops (ending their career) for reasons outside their control will keep people away from the profession, and it's a very hard profession as is.

[Elegiac]

Yup, that's where we disagree. First, I think it's unreasonable to expect the cop to be able to rationally find the exact minimum amount of force to use.

"It's unreasonable to expect a qualified public servant to be able to do a thing which plenty of analogues in other countries manage to do" isn't the winning argument you think it is.

Second, I think that applying a standard that results in the firing of good cops (ending their career) for reasons outside their control will keep people away from the profession, and it's a very hard profession as is.

Neither is "we need lax standards or else we won't have enough warm bodies" for that matter.

[Specialka]

"It's unreasonable to expect a qualified public servant to be able to do a thing which plenty of analogues in other countries manage to do" isn't the winning argument you think it is.



Neither is "we need lax standards or else we won't have enough warm bodies" for that matter.

Population in those countries is not armed as is the US population.

[Yuujin]

Yup, that's where we disagree. First, I think it's unreasonable to expect the cop to be able to rationally find the exact minimum amount of force to use. At some point your safety and the safety of others is more important than the safety of the guy attacking you. Second, I think that applying a standard that results in the firing of good cops (ending their career) for reasons outside their control will keep people away from the profession, and it's a very hard profession as is.

It's pretty nutty but they have this thing called training and they also have these things called like procedures and codes of conducts that tells them exactly how to rationally find the exact amount of force to use in particular situations. If they behave in a way that their training and procedure dictates and they are fired for it, then they've got a wrongful termination suit on their hands and also a means to get back on to the force.

Of course, I guess in your world cops are just issued a gun and told to "go do law enforcement stuff" and left to make their own decisions.

[Specialka]

It's pretty nutty but they have this thing called training and they also have these things called like procedures and codes of conducts that tells them exactly how to rationally find the exact amount of force to use in particular situations. If they behave in a way that their training and procedure dictates, then they've got a wrongful termination suit on their hands.

Of course, I guess in your world cops are just issued a gun and told to "go do law enforcement stuff" and left to make their own decisions.

Unfortunately that is pretty much it. Cops training in the US lasts at best what ? 6 months in best case ?

[Coniferous]

It's pretty nutty but they have this thing called training and they also have these things called like procedures and codes of conducts that tells them exactly how to rationally find the exact amount of force to use in particular situations. If they behave in a way that their training and procedure dictates and they are fired for it, then they've got a wrongful termination suit on their hands and also a means to get back on to the force.

Of course, I guess in your world cops are just issued a gun and told to "go do law enforcement stuff" and left to make their own decisions.

Obviously there is training, but there are also plenty of gray areas. You can't train for every situation, and this is also a job where split second decisions are necessary. A lot of judgement calls are necessary, you end up in a lot of unstable situations as a cop.

And above, Endus specifically supported a paradigm where the rules were strict enough that it was conceivable that a good cop would get fired because he ended up in an impossible situation (where he had to use violence but was unable to prove that it was necessary after the fact due to lack of evidence), and that the cop should be ok with getting fired in that situation - no wrongful termination lawsuit. That seems too extreme to me.

[Muzjhath]

Yup, that's where we disagree. First, I think it's unreasonable to expect the cop to be able to rationally find the exact minimum amount of force to use. At some point your safety and the safety of others is more important than the safety of the guy attacking you. Second, I think that applying a standard that results in the firing of good cops (ending their career) for reasons outside their control will keep people away from the profession, and it's a very hard profession as is.

Do you think a police officer should have a two too three year degree that is equivalent to a bachellor in law?
Because that's what police officers have in most of Europe. A specific bachellor degree that covers practical law, how it works, why it works as it does. Alongside active field training and fitness etc.
A lot of deescalation and sociology is also a part of said training to become a police officer.

- - - Updated - - -

Obviously there is training, but there are also plenty of gray areas. You can't train for every situation, and this is also a job where split second decisions are necessary. A lot of judgement calls are necessary, you end up in a lot of unstable situations as a cop.

And above, Endus specifically supported a paradigm where the rules were strict enough that it was conceivable that a good cop would get fired because he ended up in an impossible situation (where he had to use violence but was unable to prove that it was necessary after the fact due to lack of evidence), and that the cop should be ok with getting fired in that situation - no wrongful termination lawsuit. That seems too extreme to me.

The example Endus used was made as to make sure that the God Cops became the majority of the system. To do that you need to be harsh. Otherwise good cops will get demoralised and leave.

See current US batch of police.

[RaoBurning]

Population in those countries is not armed as is the US population.

Sounds like a really solid reason to not have such a heavily armed population :shrug: On top of all the dead kindergartners, I mean.

[Coniferous]

Do you think a police officer should have a two too three year degree that is equivalent to a bachellor in law?
Because that's what police officers have in most of Europe. A specific bachellor degree that covers practical law, how it works, why it works as it does. Alongside active field training and fitness etc.
A lot of deescalation and sociology is also a part of said training to become a police officer.

- - - Updated - - -



The example Endus used was made as to make sure that the God Cops became the majority of the system. To do that you need to be harsh. Otherwise good cops will get demoralised and leave.

See current US batch of police.

Sure, I have no issue with requiring a degree like that.

And to Endus's example, I don't believe that imposing much harder standards on cops, including a standard which creates a possibility they can get fired for being unlucky, will naturally improve workforce quality. That's been a major criticism of the "war on teachers" here in the US for years - the US keeps imposing more and more standards on teachers, and the result has been a massive shortage as teachers quit and enrollment in education programs has declined. This has not resulted in an improvement in worker quality.

[Elegiac]

Population in those countries is not armed as is the US population.

Which has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the levels of force being employed is *still* disproportionate even taking that into account.

[Specialka]

Which has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the levels of force being employed is *still* disproportionate even taking that into account.

And what is your experience as a cop or similar to claim that ? Do you know how long it takes to draw a loaded weapon and shoot at someone ?

[Elegiac]

And what is your experience as a cop

One does not need to be a cop to know that employing lethal force against unarmed or disarmed suspects is a bad thing.

Do you know how long it takes to draw a loaded weapon and shoot at someone ?

Yes, actually, given I have a concealed carry license in a county that requires gun safety training.

Still not an excuse for defaulting to lethal force as the police do.

[Specialka]

One does not need to be a cop to know that employing lethal force against unarmed or disarmed suspects is a bad thing.



Yes, actually, given I have a concealed carry license in a county that requires gun safety training.

Still not an excuse for defaulting to lethal force as the police do.

Excuse ? No. Explain ? Yes.

[Elegiac]

Excuse ? No. Explain ? Yes.

There's explanations for fascism too, doesn't make it correct.

Thank you for admitting it is ethically unjustifiable, at least.

[Yuujin]

Obviously there is training, but there are also plenty of gray areas. You can't train for every situation, and this is also a job where split second decisions are necessary. A lot of judgement calls are necessary, you end up in a lot of unstable situations as a cop.

And above, Endus specifically supported a paradigm where the rules were strict enough that it was conceivable that a good cop would get fired because he ended up in an impossible situation (where he had to use violence but was unable to prove that it was necessary after the fact due to lack of evidence), and that the cop should be ok with getting fired in that situation - no wrongful termination lawsuit. That seems too extreme to me.

I don't think there are as many gray areas as you might believe there are. This is usually just a phrase tossed around to excuse otherwise inexcusable behavior. I can support an argument for an independent review board going over instances where an officer believes there may have been extenuating circumstances, but simply implying that there are a lot of gray areas gives police to much freedom to exercise their own judgment and not the judgment of their profession.

I think Endus made it pretty clear that he does not believe in "impossible situations" and quite frankly, neither do I. That just sounds like another excuse for poor judgment on an officers behalf.

Unfortunately that is pretty much it. Cops training in the US lasts at best what ? 6 months in best case ?

It looks like we've found something else to agree on. To add to my point above, if there are "plenty of gray areas" as Coniferous is trying to imply, then clearly additional training is required to prepare officers for this. As situations they did not prepare or train for pop up, outcomes can be accessed, and new training can be developed and taught from it.

Maybe if they spent more time training for those "gray area" situations, and less time in Warrior Training, they'll have a better idea of what to expect and how to react to it.

[Specialka]

There's explanations for fascism too, doesn't make it correct.

Thank you for admitting it is ethically unjustifiable, at least.

Do not put words in my mouth as you usually do. Excuses after explanaition is on a case to case basis. Nothing more. Sometimes shooting someone unarmed but reaching for a weapon is totally justifiable.