What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Cops: No Snarky Nor Positive Title

Status
Not open for further replies.
St. Clown said:
Social media has allows the affected people to shine the bright light of truth on what’s actually happening. A few years ago I sincerely believed these abuses were rare.
Click to expand...

Ok. Fair enough. I think there are somewhere around 700,000 law enforcement officers in this country. How many of them are truly bad? How many of them are like Derek Chauvin?
 
SJHovey said:
Ok. Fair enough. I think there are somewhere around 700,000 law enforcement officers in this country. How many of them are truly bad? How many of them are like Derek Chauvin?
Click to expand...
How many of them sat by and did nothing while abuses went on?
 
SJHovey said:
Ok. Fair enough. I think there are somewhere around 700,000 law enforcement officers in this country. How many of them are truly bad? How many of them are like Derek Chauvin?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. As an armed tool of the state, they should be held to an extremely high standard. So far, they have not been. Quite the opposite, really.
 
MinnesotaNorthStar said:
Unofan can correct me if I am wrong, but Pennsylvania vs. Mimms says they can.
Click to expand...

Yes and it was affirmed like 20 years later. Leaving aside whether I agree with that decision (I don't) that is the law of the land.

That said, non-compliance does not give the officers carte blanche to treat the person like an animal and that is exactly what happens. And no matter how much a certain segment of the population pretends it isn't true, it happens disproportionately more to Black People than White. Black soldiers get maced while sitting in their car...they should have pulled over faster. Black Grandma thrown to the ground by her hair...she should have complied better. Black Paraplegic says "no" when told to leave his vehicle is dragged out and forced to the ground with a knee in his back...well hey at least they didn't shoot him! Black teen is vaping on a boardwalk surrounded by ten cops and tazed, hogtied and dragged away while dozens taped (and White people vaped) and its he should have listened! (even though he had multiple cops yelling contradictory orders)

There is always an excuse for why it is ok for cops to overstep their bounds...but there is never any compassion for the people they harm even when they are fucking innocent.
 
I dont know how they could...Federal Standards supersede the State. They can't just ignore the Supreme Court ruling. If they could then half the South would have ignored Roe outright. (as opposed to their end runs)
 
SJHovey said:
No, the general disdain for the cops has been created by you and other social media warriors. When a bad cop acts badly, and you use that to paint policing in general as bad (which has been done extensively for years now), you create that disdain. The effect is a lack of respect of, and open hostility towards, law enforcement, and an emboldening of actions by people like this clown in Ohio. That leads to good people bailing out of the service, or declining to apply, which leads to a lower quality of candidate, worsening the problem.

Honestly, along with the delegitimizing of our courts, it is something that you, or your children, are going to come to regret.
Click to expand...

No, but good try. Well, is it really a good try? Eh.

Anyways, what do you propose is done? Police officers- good, bad, or centrist- have been killing people of color at a disproportionate rate for decades too, despite plenty of evidence pointing to people of color not committing crimes at a disproportionate rate. I can see a need for more police officers overall, with the goal of targeting neighborhoods where crime is highest, while managing to cut down on the clear racial disparities exhibited by many good officers and their departments for a century or more.
Don’t worry, you don’t have to agree with me or even respond here, unless you need to point out my side doesn’t have the political will to make meaningful changes, and therefore accuse me of whining. Nevermind that you sound like a whiner for accusing “social justice warriors” of apparently running off snowflake officers whose feelings are hurt because people are unhappy with their body of work. Man, if I had a nickel for every time a patient accused me and my hospital of doing a sh-tty job, I’d be as rich as you.
 
psych said:
No, but good try. Well, is it really a good try? Eh.

Anyways, what do you propose is done? Police officers- good, bad, or centrist- have been killing people of color at a disproportionate rate for decades
Click to expand...

This is where you lost him I guarantee it.
 
Handyman said:
I dont know how they could...Federal Standards supersede the State. They can't just ignore the Supreme Court ruling. If they could then half the South would have ignored Roe outright. (as opposed to their end runs)
Click to expand...
So I’m probably putting this terribly but, I believe a state can’t infringe upon an individual’s right no matter but can restrict their own rights.

Like, DUI checkpoints are perfectly legal under the US Constitution according to the Courts but are still heavily restricted under Alaska law and the Alaska courts.
 
Jimjamesak said:
So I’m probably putting this terribly but, I believe a state can’t infringe upon an individual’s right no matter but can restrict their own rights.

Like, DUI checkpoints are perfectly legal under the US Constitution according to the Courts but are still heavily restricted under Alaska law and the Alaska courts.
Click to expand...

Yes they can create their own standards but their standards cannot run afoul of the Federal rules.

So to use your example...your way works but flip it and it doesn't. If the Supreme Court ruled that checkpoints were illegal then Alaska could not make a rule legalizing them unless the Supreme Court said the States have a right to do so in their ruling.

Again Roe v. Wade is the best example. Roe made abortion legal. States could not make any laws to make it illegal. All they could do was further restrict it and as long as it doesn't contradict Roe it was ok.
 
psych said:
No, but good try. Well, is it really a good try? Eh.

Anyways, what do you propose is done? Police officers- good, bad, or centrist- have been killing people of color at a disproportionate rate for decades too, despite plenty of evidence pointing to people of color not committing crimes at a disproportionate rate. I can see a need for more police officers overall, with the goal of targeting neighborhoods where crime is highest, while managing to cut down on the clear racial disparities exhibited by many good officers and their departments for a century or more.
Don’t worry, you don’t have to agree with me or even respond here, unless you need to point out my side doesn’t have the political will to make meaningful changes, and therefore accuse me of whining. Nevermind that you sound like a whiner for accusing “social justice warriors” of apparently running off snowflake officers whose feelings are hurt because people are unhappy with their body of work. Man, if I had a nickel for every time a patient accused me and my hospital of doing a sh-tty job, I’d be as rich as you.
Click to expand...

What has to be done? I think it's relatively straightforward.

I believe that if you have bad cops you fire them. This is tough in light of civil service rules and union contracts, but it has to be made easier for cities to accomplish.

If they commit bad acts, you prosecute them. I'd make it a law in the state that whenever a cop possibly violated a law, it automatically comes under the jurisdiction of the state's attorney general. It doesn't go first to the local prosecutor, who then might assign it to a "friendly" prosecutor from another county to handle. Turn it over to the AG and let them prosecute.

I think I'd get rid of the veteran's preference (what it's referred to here in Minnesota) that applies to job candidates. I have the utmost respect for people who have served in our military, and I'm all in favor of cutting them breaks in terms of public sector jobs, but I think that we could use less former military personnel in our law enforcement.

Finally, I'd stop vilifying a profession for the actions of a segment of that profession. Like teachers and firefighters and many other jobs, we need good people occupying law enforcement positions. People who are smart, who are honest. To do that, you have to pay them, but society also has to hold it out as an honorable job, a job to be proud to do. As a society, we don't do that for cops anymore, which means you are left picking from the bottom of society's barrel in terms of candidates.
 
Handyman said:
Yes they can create their own standards but their standards cannot run afoul of the Federal rules.

So to use your example...your way works but flip it and it doesn't. If the Supreme Court ruled that checkpoints were illegal then Alaska could not make a rule legalizing them unless the Supreme Court said the States have a right to do so in their ruling.

Again Roe v. Wade is the best example. Roe made abortion legal. States could not make any laws to make it illegal. All they could do was further restrict it and as long as it doesn't contradict Roe it was ok.
Click to expand...

Abortion is a bad example because it's constantly shifting and murky. (And to be clear, the anti abortion end goal isn't to return to the 60s where States decide, they ultimately want a decision saying abortion violates the fetus' right to life nationwide)

But generally speaking, the Feds set the floor but not the ceiling. Any right guaranteed under the federal constitution applies nationwide. The states can guarantee more rights, but not less.

If SCOTUS says "X police action is allowed and doesn't violate the 4th amendment" a state is perfectly free to come in an say "under the state constitution, X is not allowed." Because it's a greater restriction on the government and a more expansive right to its citizens.
 
Last edited:
Yeah that is a much better way to say what I said very badly :^)

(I was gonna @ you on it cause I knew I was screwing it up but got lazy)
 
Handyman said:
Yes they can create their own standards but their standards cannot run afoul of the Federal rules.

So to use your example...your way works but flip it and it doesn't. If the Supreme Court ruled that checkpoints were illegal then Alaska could not make a rule legalizing them unless the Supreme Court said the States have a right to do so in their ruling.

Again Roe v. Wade is the best example. Roe made abortion legal. States could not make any laws to make it illegal. All they could do was further restrict it and as long as it doesn't contradict Roe it was ok.
Click to expand...

I don't think you've analyzed this correctly. I agree with Jim.

The SC didn't "make it legal." What the SC said is that the conduct of the police did not violate the constitutional rights of the driver in that case, under the federal constitution.

However, if for instance Minnesota had a state constitutional standard that said that no one can be asked to get out of their car when they've been pulled over for a speeding violation, and if a cop then tries to make you get out of the car when you were pulled over for speeding, that would violate the state constitution but not the federal constitution.

All of that said, I'm not aware of individual state constitutions where they have said that cops can't ask you to exit the car when lawfully detained for possible criminal activity.
 
SJHovey said:
I don't think you've analyzed this correctly. I agree with Jim.

The SC didn't "make it legal." What the SC said is that the conduct of the police did not violate the constitutional rights of the driver in that case, under the federal constitution.

However, if for instance Minnesota had a state constitutional standard that said that no one can be asked to get out of their car when they've been pulled over for a speeding violation, and if a cop then tries to make you get out of the car when you were pulled over for speeding, that would violate the state constitution but not the federal constitution.

All of that said, I'm not aware of individual state constitutions where they have said that cops can't ask you to exit the car when lawfully detained for possible criminal activity.
Click to expand...

That's a whole lot of qualifiers. The "lawfully detained" and "possible criminal activities" are where the fights occur. For starters, it's called probable cause, not possible cause, which means something more than a hunch or suspicion. For another, you can't unreasonably delay a traffic stop in order to allow time for a drug dog to show up or to otherwise fish for cause to search a vehicle, especially if the occupant declined to give voluntary consent to a search (which you should always do, btw. Never consent to that).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top