VIdeo: Cops beat compliant suspect and plant drugs on him

Absolutely. And I think it's a perfectly reasonable conclusion. Which scenario do you think is more likely:

(A) The vast majority of police abuse has enough evidence to confirm it and punish the offending officer.

(B) The vast majority of police abuse is either not reported or cannot be substantiated, meaning the cop does not suffer any consequences.

I think common sense tells you (B) is the far likelier scenario. In the case of the video that started this thread, do you believe this is the first time these cops did something of this sort?

 

To be clear, I am not claiming most police are corrupt. I am claiming that most corruption is not caught/punished.

 

FWIW, I don't believe that "most" police are corrupt, but I do believe that it is more than the .001% that you posted above. I read a drug war newsletter every week that has a section called "Corrupt Cops Stories" (I posted a few of those in this very forum), and each week there are between three and ten law enforcement (police, prison guards, border patrol, customs, etc.) officers who have been caught for various drug crimes. The drug war has had an incredibly corrupting influence on all levels of law enforcement.

Keep in mind that these stories are only the tip of the iceburg and only have to do with drug crimes, not the wider issue of corruption in general. As I said, I do not believe that the majority of police are corrupt, but I do believe that it is a significant enough percentage that all of us need to be wary in our interactions with the police.

 

Probably not in the case of those cops but it is still making a leap of inductive logic to say that such corruption is endemic as Rhad is saying Its the same as saying, "well a lot of doctors have been charged with malpractice so logically I can presume that most doctors are negligent or unethical but just haven't been caught yet." You're making a leap of logic that I think has some severe consequences to how we view our police forces.

 

Tat .001 figure was based on the wiki link that Rhad provided. If corruption and thuggery was so widespread it seems to me that we would have much much more highly publicized incidents from that wiki link though it seems a very very small amount if you consider how many encounters police have with the public.

Obviously the figure might be higher but I don't think any evidence merits the conclusions that all or even most cops are corrupt, thuggish and not to be trusted.

 

One piece of advice I have for all of you who feel you can't trust the police. Talk to cops sometime. Get to know them better.

You will probably find that most cops are generally good people who take their job seriously.

 

The wiki link only referenced cases of police brutality, not corruption or even common "thuggery".

Moreover, you're still shifting the goal post - my point was that the ability to trust has been significantly eroded, to the point that I would never hedge my bets on the cop. Despite the subjectiveness of the claim, it would be equally impossible for you to prove that accountability is taking place.

 

To a certain point yes we are both operating on limited knowledge but everytime I eat out or shop at the grocery store I am operating on limited knowledge that my food is safe even though there have been many reports of food contamination. I have stated though why I don't think such a negative view is unwarranted as I find such a view only undermines our faith in the police system when it doesn't strike me that what we know is enough to undermine it. As I asked before what do you do if you find yourself a victim of a crime if you can't trust the police.

Also I base my view on another piece of evidence that I have dealt with cops on a basis other than just as either a victim or a suspect of a crime and have known a few personally. Again if you feel you can't trust the police get to know some before you start generalizing.

 

In my (admittedly somewhat biased) opinion, there is one thing that has driven a wedge between the police and the communities they are supposed to protect. Anyone who has even a passing familiarity with my posting history knows that I am referring to the drug war, though you could easily expand the discussion to any of the "victimless" crimes (gambling, prostitution, etc.). Setting the police up to protect people against themselves has the unintended effect of putting the police in an adversarial position with a significant portion of the population they are supposed to "serve and protect."

The drug war has caused an epidemic of officers lying in court, to the point that there is slang for it (testi-lying). This behavior is not "brutality," but is the very epitome of corruption as the courtroom is supposed to be where the truth comes out. The problem with policing drug crimes is that there are many cases where a cop will only get a conviction by lying, but juries will almost always take the word of a cop over the word of the accused (see the Tom Coleman testimony against defendants from Tulia).

We need to re-morph our police into "peace officers" (they are currently "punitive officers") as it has been a long time since the police brought peace to many parts of our community. There is actually a movement in urban areas where people agree not to "snitch" to the police, much like the mafia did back in the day. The problem is that these people are regular folks, not just drug users and dealers. Junior high schoolchildren are being indoctrinated to not talk to the police at all as a result of the lack of respect people have for many of the laws the police enforce.

 

I don't understand why this is relevant. If 1% of cops are corrupt, then (a) 99% of the time you get to know a cop, you'll have a positive outcome and (b) even if you were getting to know a corrupt cop, he probably isn't stupid enough to share his corruptness with you, or he'd have been caught long ago.

Getting to know a handful or even several dozen cops doesn't really change anything.

 

Hopefully it will make you more open minded about police rather than generalizing that they are corrupt thugs not to be trusted. Your argument sounds like a defense for stereotyping. For example, If I meet some lawyers they are likely to be nice people who behave ethically, or they are going to be smart enough to not act like shysters in front of me, but I know there are bad ones so I am going to keep on thinking that lawyers are shysters.

 

Please find anywhere that I generalized such a thing. In fact, if you'd actually read my posts, you'd have seen the exact opposite stated very clearly:


To be clear, I am not claiming most police are corrupt. I am claiming that most corruption is not caught/punished.


What, exactly, in that sentence was unclear?

 

Another dumb post by Trader Jorge. You are old, you are middle class with American and you obviously a victim of being a follower of industrial guidelines which make Americans believe that they should simple just know your role and shut your mouth.

 

I was replying to a general 'you' in terms of rhad's attitude that most police aren't to be trusted which you seem to be defending.

You're argument while you may not specifically endorse such a position the argument that because we know there are corrupt officers so we can presume that there is likely much more corruption would support such an attitude.

 

To clear up any confusion, my original post was in response to this specific question you asked:

Do you have any evidence to support that most bad cops aren't held accountable?

It had nothing to do with whether most cops were corrupt, and only to do with whether the corrupt ones were being held accountable. The two issues are distinct and completely unrelated.

 

Does it happen more to blacks than other racial groups? Or does it only make news when it's black people getting roughed up?

Also, what did the perp do before this video began? Don't you think that is at least somewhat relevant?

 

are you saying depending on the crime the perp is suspected of committing he should have a proportional beating during his arrest?

 

for example: Would it matter if he said he was high on a drug that would cause erratic, violent behavior?