Tyre Nichols

[The_Foxer]

is that who you want wearing a badge & carrying a gun?

Good lord no - but we're considering their motivations, not their suitability for the force. I mean, how would you even know until they did that.

Irrelevant. Completely irrelevant.

It's relevant to whether or not they thought they'd get away with it which is what we were discussing. IF he was simply beaten they might get away claiming resisting arrest. I don't think they expected he would die from the beating, which makes it pretty hard to get away with ,

Racism or Ego or something else, it was an example of a poor screening in the hiring process

Arguably true, unless you believe the 'systemic racism' part which would obviously have affected them after joining. I suppose it's possible they were mostly fine when they applied and were screened but became this way after being exposed to it after they became cops.

Pick one or two to try here, pick one or two to try there, track the results, & use the results to implement changes across the board. Worse case is that it doesn’t improve things without making them worse.

Yeah, but from a real world practical point of view you're talking about the work of decades. It would take a very long time to 'try' any of it and accurately review the results, never mind a 'few here and a few there'.

I guess better screening might well be the place to start but there's no way to be sure they didn't learn that behavior AFTER they started.

 

[The_Foxer]

Any use of forced beyond neccesary is criminal and goes to each and every one of us. Police don't not have an exemption to that rule as they do not have any Rights beyond what is afforded to all of us. USA or Canada its the same. Rights and Duties are intertwined and an obligation They were "on Duty" meaning obligated to protect the Rights and safety of any and all individuals or fictional entities afforded Rights.

They didn't fullfill their Duty.

well there's no arguing any of that. The question is though, what do we do to prevent this kind of thing moving forward?

 

[Ron in Regina]

Militarize the police.

I’m going to go out on a limb and guess at the direction that you’re going. Would this tie back to the fact that the Military is non-unionized? Am I warm?

Is it the conflict in the chain of command in policing between command and union authority with respect to an officer’s accountability for their actions?

 

[Serryah]

Militarize the police.

Depending on the department, too many cops are ex military already.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Good lord no - but we're considering their motivations, not their suitability for the force. I mean, how would you even know until they did that.

I couldn’t give two shits about their motivation, but I do care about the fact that they thought this was acceptable behaviour. Why they thought it was acceptable might be less important than the fact that it happened.

It's relevant to whether or not they thought they'd get away with it which is what we were discussing. IF he was simply beaten they might get away claiming resisting arrest. I don't think they expected he would die from the beating, which makes it pretty hard to get away with ,

Arguably true, unless you believe the 'systemic racism' part which would obviously have affected them after joining. I suppose it's possible they were mostly fine when they applied and were screened but became this way after being exposed to it after they became cops.

…or they where not fine, and there was horrible screening. I honestly don’t know the answer to that, & I’m assuming you don’t either. Right now, neither of us knows.

Yeah, but from a real world practical point of view you're talking about the work of decades. It would take a very long time to 'try' any of it and accurately review the results, never mind a 'few here and a few there'.

Unless you try different combinations of things with different groups, accomplishing many things at the same time, ditching the things that just don’t show quantifiable results, and keeping the things that do.

I guess better screening might well be the place to start but there's no way to be sure they didn't learn that behavior AFTER they started.

Then find better ways to screen. What we have currently obviously isn’t working if even 10% of the brutality and criminality in law-enforcement hit’s the media….Assuming we only hear about the tip of the iceberg.

 

[The_Foxer]

I’m going to go out on a limb and guess at the direction that you’re going. Would this tie back to the fact that the Military is non-unionized? Am I warm?

Is it the conflict in the chain of command in policing between command and union authority with respect to an officer’s accountability for their actions?

Are the cops unionized in the states?

 

[Ron in Regina]

Are the cops unionized in the states?

I believe so, but I only have newspapers & movies to base that off of.

 

[The_Foxer]

I couldn’t give two shits about their motivation, but I do care about the fact that they thought this was acceptable behaviour. Why they thought it was acceptable might be less important than the fact that it happened.

it may be the key to making sure it doesn't happen again though. If this is 5 asswipes who just happen to be this way then that's one thing, if it's a culture baked into that police department or if it's a fatal flaw in the screening or if it's being encouraged somehow by certain elements or some other reason - that could be very different.

…or they where not fine, and there was horrible screening. I honestly don’t know the answer to that, & I’m assuming you don’t either.

Which would be why i'm questioning what motivated them to commit this crime This is why it is relevant and important.

Unless you try different combinations of things with different groups, accomplishing many things at the same time, ditching the things that just don’t show quantifiable results, and keeping the things that do.

It takes decades. Especially if you try different things with different groups - it becomes very hard to properly evaluate the results. It takes years to tell if doing just one thing is having the positive effect you want.

Then find better ways to screen. What we have currently obviously isn’t working if even 10% of the brutality and criminality in law-enforcement hit’s the media….Assuming we only hear about the tip of the iceberg.

One can always look and really they should be doing that all the time anyway but like i said there's a good chance it doesn't solve the problem. If we could get some better idea of how these 5 wound up like this we could be more effective in targeting the problem specifically, whether it's with screening or anything else.

 

[The_Foxer]

I believe so, but I only have newspapers & movies to base that off of.

Never even occurred to me to check. It would be interesting to see. I'm sure it's probably not ubiquitous, some probably are and some aren't or the like.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Depending on the department, too many cops are ex military already.

About 1/4 of the total, and from the data we have, not discernably better or worse than the never-served.

The operative word in your comment is "ex."

 

[petros]

well there's no arguing any of that. The question is though, what do we do to prevent this kind of thing moving forward?

LEOs need daily reminders that they aren't above the law and equally subject the law.

Why not online reviews of how your experience was. If you can rate your Dr or lawyer why not cops? Every three months a public review of their ratings which determines whether they are fit to serve or they need retraining.

 

[The_Foxer]

Why not online reviews of how your experience was. If you can rate your Dr or lawyer why not cops?

Do you think criminals who are legitimately arrested will be apt to leave positive reviews? The only thing that will ever be there is negative reviews that can't be substantiated. You would never recruit anyone decent to the job, the only people who would sign up are those who wanted the pay but ignored the work - "Hey mr criminal, i'll let you go and turn a blind eye if you give me a positive google review".

It would not be wise to make being a cop a popularity contest.

 

[petros]

Why not? Criminals don't have Rights? Are they not reminded of and afforded Rights when taken into custody? A LEO doesn't need to respect the individual only their Rights. With cameras everywhere Its easy for the public to rate the rater and the validity of the rating.

 

[The_Foxer]

Why not? Criminals don't have Rights?

It's not a question of whether or not they have rights. The question is would they give honest reviews of police or would they be more likely to give falsely negative reviews - or threaten the police with that if they arrest them.

It should be fairly obvious that pretty much by definition criminals aren't honest.

Are they not reminded of and afforded Rights when taken into custody?

What does that have to do with a rating system for the police? Even if they are taken into custody properly they can still leave a negative review - which by your plan increases the chances of a cop being fired during the 3 month review.

It's like you feel that criminals should have rights but police shouldn't.

We already have a process for people who are arrested who feel the police officer didn't do his job right or didn't respect the law. Turning it into a popularity contest and leaving it in the hands of the criminals to decide if a cop did the job right or not very obviously makes no sense.

A LEO doesn't need to respect the individual only their Rights. With cameras everywhere Its easy for the public to rate the rater and the validity of the rating.

It's almost impossible. The amount of time it would take to try to gather up the video footage for each rating and attempt to assess it's accuracy would require us to double the currernt number of police - you'd basically have a police force policing the police force and that would be hundreds of millions of dollars that would be spent on NOT keeping our streets safe.

Like i said - we have a complaints system if someone genuinely feels their rights have been violated. We have the ability to follow up on those complaints. That's more than enough. If you were going to beef up anything it would be that. But simply saying "Gosh, not one single criminal arrested in the last 3 months had anything nice to say about constable smith, guess we better let him go" would be a recipe for disaster.

 

[petros]

Only criminals interact with police?

Ever heard the phrase "taken with a grain of salt?" Let them give a bad review, is the public too stupid to make the judgement call based of the video of the arrest, witness testimony or the word of the victim.

Big picture...

 

[The_Foxer]

Only criminals interact with police?

Do you REALLY need me to explain this to you? You're sure you can't figure this out on your own?

 

[petros]

You get hyperfocused on one point and miss 30 other points that create a big picture.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

You get hyperficused on one point and miss 30 other points that create a big picture.

That's true. You should widen your plant gift selection, Foxer. Focussing exclusively on ficus risks being labelled a one-trick pony.

 

[The_Foxer]

Big things are just collections of little things. The little things matter. THat's why we have long lived phrases like 'the devil is in the details".

When you only focus on the so called "big picture", it's blurry enough that you miss the facts and the details that expose the flaws. An idea that "looks good" as a big picture often turns out to be completely flawed and useless once you look at the details.

Hold cops accountable = big picture, good idea

Do so by allowing criminals to rate the police and then fire them based on whether or not the criminals they arrest liked the 'service' they got = imporant detail, horrible idea.

Details are everything.

 

[The_Foxer]

That's true. You should widen your plant gift selection, Foxer. Focussing exclusively on ficus risks being labelled a one-trick pony.

Oh fic off with your sodding plant jokes you sap. (bad pun thread derailment in 3,,,, 2,,,, 1,,,, )