rowe33
1885
I’d like to think that the sheriff was thinking of the prisoners as well as the staff but who knows really. Apparently that county has had some issues with their sheriffs since the last long-term sheriff retired in 2015. Sounds like a great place all around.
If we’re talking about cops taking affirmative action in support of a bad cop, I’m all on board with those cops being properly labeled bad cops. A cop who falsifies a report, alters a report, or otherwise obstructs an investigation, is without a doubt a bad cop, too. But I think we were discussing cops that didn’t take action, in either direction (affirmatively supporting or opposing these bad cops) and just went about their business.
rowe33
1887
A cop that witnesses illegal activity by another cop yet says/does nothing about it is not a good cop in my view. They’re complicit with the overall problem. Why do we hold mandatory reporters like teachers or daycare providers to a higher standard than our own police force? If they witness certain crimes and don’t report them then they’re criminally liable. Are you saying you’re ok with cops that see bad shit happening and just go about their business? If so, why?
Do cops have that option, to ignore crimes they observe? I was under the impression that, at least conceptually, turning a blind eye to material wrongdoing was incompatible with being a good cop. Isn’t it their business to fight crime?
When I refer to cops sitting on the sideline, I mean others in the department (or other departments) who weren’t directly involved. My understanding is that any cop in a position to observe an incident has to write a report. If they falsify that report (and particularly if they conspired with others to do so) to support a bad actor, yeah they’re bad cops.
When other posters threw out the position that all cops are bad, I assumed that we were talking about the vast majority who are not directly involved (e.g., not on scene) who don’t go out and, in someway, get involved to try and reform things.
But it isn’t a binary choice, fight crime or not. It’s a prioritization problem.
Example
Priority one: protect the law enforcement system’s authority
Priority two: arrest criminals
A criminal law enforcement officer should not be arrested, because it violates pri 1.
Nesrie
1892
Here’s what I know, the current situation is not working. People are dying, children are dying, the mentally ill are being slain. When someone says something like well most cops are good don’t be unfair, to me, that basically means they don’t demand a single thing to change. That is not acceptable.
If a bad cop is working in a place for years, the racist rants, the use of violence, escalating situations, and then there are several bad players involved that enabled that. It’s not okay. It is costing lives, today. It’s time to address it, today.
I think the problem is the general public awareness that 1) cops sometimes do very bad things, and 2) when they do, other cops rarely if ever stop them, try to apprehend them, or try to convict them. Again, I don’t think we can point to much in the way of examples of cops making an effort to sanction their bad co-workers. What we see is the opposite: Cops defend their bad co-workers, if through no other means than 1) silence, and 2) union activity.
That’s just a way of restating the problem, i.e. that law enforcement policy is currently fucked. Remember what it says on the side of the cop cars, right? ‘To serve and protect’, not ‘To maintain inviolate the authority of the man.’
Timex
1896
Part of the problem though, for good cops, is the deep institutional problems where cops who speak out are castigated by the system. It makes it a problem that is difficult for individual good cops to change.
RichVR
1897
Yeah. Frank Serpico got shot in the face because of it.
rowe33
1898
Why doesn’t the institution itself want to change that? As I said before, if the good cops vastly outnumber the bad cops, why is this not fixed? Why do the bad cops have so much power?
Either there are way more bad cops than you think or not enough good cops willing to do something about it.
Again, if you want to know what a system is designed to do, look at what it does.
Timex
1900
I think that in most places, the police department aren’t in fact super corrupt.
Like, you have most cops operating in places where they just have normal interactions with the community, instead of crazy corrupt antagonistic ones.
But you don’t really read about that in the news, because it’s just how things are supposed to work.
“Allegedly” in the vast majority. Let’s give our cops a break until we find out for sure whether they are in a majority or not.
Tman
1903
Here is local coverage that gives some interesting details:
Of note:
A use-of-force expert will again take the stand as the defense continues its case Friday morning.
The expert, a retired state trooper who owns a consulting company and has trained thousands of police officers, first took the stand Thursday afternoon. He followed Rosfeld, who testified in his own defense after the prosecution rested shortly before noon.
Jurors were told by the expert that he believes Rosfeld’s force was reasonable and followed training. But the prosecution fired back during cross-examination, saying he has testified in 41 cases and never against a police officer.
The expert, a retired state trooper who owns a consulting company and has trained thousands of police officers, first took the stand Thursday afternoon.
Surely he is one of the good ones.
But the prosecution fired back during cross-examination, saying he has testified in 41 cases and never against a police officer.
There you go!
