The simplest way to fix a huge amount of problems that exist in the USA would be to start holding the police accountable for their actions.
This is police corruption, an especially harmful category of corruption that undermindes our entire legal system. It should be 5 years minimum in federal prison. Police should recieve drastically stronger charges and sentences when they violate the law, not the other way around. If someone above was found to have known about it and didn't report it should be 2x.
You show me a problem in modern america (maybe except healthcare) and I bet I could argue this one policy would fix it in one roundabout way or another.
It won't happen for a bunch of structural reasons unless a major party took it up as a major part of their platform but it would work.
Come to think of it, this is one of the very few things one of the major parties could do to get me to vote for them.
Require malpractice insurance for police; require that they pay it themselves, not as part of a union or from their civilian employer. Require insurance companies to set prices solely by service record of the individual and of the unit and of the city/county/state employer.
Commit a felony, lose your insurance coverage, be unemployable. Happens to doctors; why shouldn't it happen to police?
Go to work for a misbehaving department, watch your premium rise.
Act professionally your whole career, watch your premium drop.
Everybody likes incentives here. Police don't have many right now.
Many citizens don't know that "qualified immunity" is a thing that protects police officers from being held accountable.
QUOTE: "Tragically, thousands have died at the hands of law enforcement over the years, and the death toll continues to rise," said Judge Carlton Reeves, of the US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. "Qualified immunity has served as a shield for these officers, protecting them from accountability."
And to be clear, to to common refrain "well, if cops were going to be held responsible for their actions, they wouldn't put their lives at risk, they've be extra conservative!", my answer to you is: "fine, we don't want those people to be cops anyways."
it goes deeper than having laws against police abuse though.
As I understand it, the police investigates police abuses. I find that very shocking. My own country has lots of the same issues, but at least it is a separate branch of police which investigates abuse, not a colleague who will have to deal with the backlash if they report dirty acts.
Also DAs have to prosecute these crimes. The same DAs who have to work day to day with the same police department.
There are huge conflicts of interest in there. We need both to end qualified immunity (I did not go into this, but it has soo many issues as well) and have an organization dedicated to investigate police abuse. It needs both to have the authority to do so and to be entirely independent from the accused.
note : in the context here this is not just police corruption (even though that's something that should be taken seriously) but any kind of police abuse.
I find it naive that people directly jump to policy design phase and start suggesting fixes. This framing implies that current policies are a result of not having thought any better at the time of enactment and simply fixing these codes will fix everything else. It is not like there is a shortage of policy experts and academics on these topics. They have had better ideas than any of us can slap together on a hacker forum.
I want to suggest another framing; some of the problems current policies give way might as well be features and not a bugs. It certainly has the desired consequences for certain stakeholders. The emotional reactions and lack thereof the public has based on the general impression police casts might as well be "working as intended". Without figuring out that link, designing the best policy solution will still achieve nothing.
It seems that a bunch of countries with centralized police forces have an institute of ombudsman or other people representatives, whose operations are taxpayer-funded and provide free/cheap venues to someone who’s been wronged by the police or other authorities.
In the US alternatives seem to be
* reporting to internal affairs, which is kinda laughable and conflict-prone as that dept reports to the chief of police
* have a PR-worthy case appealing enough for ACLU or some law firm to take your case pro bono
* finance it yourself, unless it just so happens that your assets have been seized by the agency that wronged you, in which case it’s back to the other two
Edward Snowden points out the ridiculousness of his situation in “Permanent Record” - in a fair court trial NSA’s argument would be fair game, but his own counter-argument would disclose classified information and would therefore be inadmissible.
This type of case isn’t very clear cut, because a police officer is allowed to let somebody off with a warning. They’re obviously not allowed to let PBA members off as a blanked policy, but good luck proving that they’re doing it.
I worked with one police department once a long time ago that tried to institute a policy never letting police or police union member off with warnings. So if an officer stopped a car for an infraction, and found out the driver was police or a police union member, they had to give them a ticket for it. It was arguably pretty successful, especially since there were a lot of rumours that people were driving about with union cards trying to get tickets (no idea how true that was).
> Police should recieve drastically stronger charges and sentences when they violate the law, not the other way around.
The problem that most people are concerned with is implicit bias, which includes systemic racism. Corruption is important too but it’s a matter of probable intent where implicit bias is certainly not. That said be very explicit about which problem you wish solved in which priority because will not be solved in the same way.
The distinction is important because if police are to be held to a higher standard for ethics violations, such as anti-corruption, those standards cannot themselves be resultant from systemic bias, such as guilt by association, and achieve the outcome you are hoping for. It has to come from provable intent and legal common person standards (expectation of knowledge). Additionally there needs to be a clear distinction as to whether more aggressive anti-corruption is an enforcement action or a sentencing recommendation. That distinction bears its own second and third order consequences.
Getting that wrong to satisfy a hasty generalization will produce all kinds of unintended consequences not directly associated with policing.
They're not going to do that, which is why people asking for harm reduction call for defunding the police. They are harmful, so we need less of them. They don't prevent crime, so there's little point to having them around.
Other problems with America stem from allowing a few people to control everything who then run rampant. Rather we should restructure things with stronger institutions that have more democratic buy in.
One could also advocate for truth and reconciliation with victims, alongside an amnesty for all past police crimes. Finding any kind of masterminds behind the current culture and bringing them to justice doesn’t feel tractable.
The situation sometimes feels bad enough to warrant drastic measures, though these feelings have increased a lot since I expatriated, but the linked article is also genuinely shocking.
Who is going to investigate the police? How many police officers are willing to report wrongdoing on their fellow officers? How many politicians or DA’s are willing to be “tough on police”?
No party is going to run on a platform of being tough on police. Most Americans actually “Back the Blue”. They protect the good folks from “them”.
No party would ever take this on. They might mumble something out of the corner of their mouth to get elected but politicians are way too scared of the police union.
This is not a problem with the US only and goes beyond systemic racism too, even though that's what's in focus right now.
I doubt harsher sentences or new policies will fix anything. I think what would be more effective is that the police see punishments for any wrongdoings at all, but that's not even my preferred strategies.
Is there evidence that this is big enough problem that it warrants a major party to take it up as a major part of their platform? Against a backdrop of climate change, disease, the economy, and so on. To share a perspective that many on the right have, this seems like a problem but one that gets far more attention than it deserves because it elicits strong emotions, riles up voters, etc.
Police corruption is a nebulous issue prone to outlier emotional anecdotes. It can never be “solved” and can be used, as seen in the parent post, to justify virtually any policy. It is incredibly difficult to accurately study and the data can be highly subjective.
Thing is this doesn’t merely exist as these cards. It is extremely easy to get out of police incidents with social skills and high-quality ability to manipulate people. Because people are fallible. So there will always be differential applications of justice because justice is a game, just like every other social system.
And automated policing can be played too, just in slightly different ways.
So when people are shocked by this or talk about how this must be fixed in one way or another that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how complex reality works and how systems are implemented. And wishful thinking.
Instead it is much more interesting to understand how things work and to embrace them. And if someone refuses to accept reality, it will be to their detriment.
I'm not convinced. Show me at least three examples where this works in an existing government jobs that matches the same criteria-- extreme risk, unpredictable situations, low pay, low appreciation.
Perhaps you could work as a police officer in the USA for a few years to get an authentic perspective. Based on your ideas, it seems like you're a large consumer of media narrative. There's no magic pill buddy.
> he frequently receives PBA cards as a thank-you for extending cops small business favors and deals
This is corruption. I've never understood how things like this can happen in the US - why is this tolerated?
If this happened in the UK I'm fairly sure it would be raised in the press, then parliament and then the Home Secretary (in charge of policing) would be forced to make a statement and likely do something about it.
The people involved are getting a huge benefit and there is no reason to report it. Others who don't receive the benefit either don't know about it or are shouted down.
There is a culture in the US that the police are pristine warriors of justice and any accusations of wrong-doing are denied and ignored. There are also many laws that specifically protect LEO and government officials in general because there is a natural ethos that everyone working for The Good is always Good and whatever Bad they did must have been in the duty and service to The Good. Immunity is easy to achieve when the entire legal system wants you to be immune as a class and we are currently having a debate about qualified immunity regarding police in the US.
In my view it is the entire system that is corrupt. A fish rots from its head as they say.
In the US, the police are essentially an occupying force with their own agenda that they pursue. At times it aligns with the agenda of broader society, but at times not. Because the police know not to mess with the "wrong" people, and because they're generally very well regarded by society, the police unions have considerable power, such that elected officials are often terrified to reign them in. A good example of this is NYC where hundreds of cops turned their backs on the mayor and basically accused him of stoking violence against the police after he was mildly critical of them. This was a huge news story[1], and the mayor has refrained from criticism since then.
The US takes localism to extremes in order to preserve historic fiefdoms and injustices.
The stated desire is to prevent government abuse of powers by keeping the governments small and limiting the powers of the larger ones, but if you look at actions rather than words, it's less about restricting government and more about preserving existing power structures.
Reconstruction is one of the most egregious examples.
Your outrage reminds me of the "bribery scandal" of the 2002 Winter Olympics. Somebody "exposed" an extensive system of bribes made to officials who would vote on the host city for the Olympics. Every night more allegations of the scandal were reported with proper shock and outrage.
It was a bit of a head scratcher for me. I remember, for example, when it was uncovered that one official had been gifted a very expensive custom-made shotgun. The news anchor was very solemn in reporting this outrageous misdeed. Rewind 9 or 11 months earlier and the exact same anchor was cheerfully reporting a public ceremony in which a visiting Olympic dignitary was presented with a gift from the organizing committee formed to win the bid. It was a happy day filled with optimism and hope for what might soon be. Lots of flash bulbs. That publicly-presented token of good will was the custom-made shotgun.
> This is corruption. I've never understood how things like this can happen in the US - why is this tolerated?
I think it shows that a sizable portion of the citizenry considers this acceptable. I.e., they're enamored with the idea of getting preferential treatment for themselves or their friends, with little regard for the implications. It makes me figuratively (and a bit literally) want to vomit.
> This is corruption. I've never understood how things like this can happen in the US - why is this tolerated?
Because "police" in the USA can mean a lot of things, from county Sheriff, to city police to state police to FBI or one of the other 2 dozen armed federal agencies. It's a patchwork. There's no central authority to enforce some kind of standard of behavior.
From an outside-the-US perspective, the stack of “Things I’d never believe about the USA, please, Alex” is just getting higher and higher.
How is it legal to have preferential treatment, no matter under what circumstances, for ‘friends of the police’? Is Lady Liberty not famously blind while balancing the scales of justice ? Does the maxim “justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done” somehow not apply in the USA ?
Over the last few years, it seems to me the rock that used to be the USA has been overturned, and all the slimy creepy little nasties are being exposed to the harsh light of day. What happens in a few months is going to be critical to the soul of your nation. Get it right, I doubt you’ll recover if you don’t.
I once got pulled over for speeding in the middle of Kansas. The cop who was giving me my ticket told me that they had a program for avoiding having the ticket reported so your insurance rates won't rise. So I went along with it, and mailed the cost of the ticket plus a hundred dollars to that city's police department, care of the "sheriff's benevolent association" (or similar -- it's been a decade, the name is fuzzy to me).
...it remains one of the more blatantly shady-feeling things I remember encountering in the US.
For the curious: a more regional[1] form of this petty corruption in the NYC area is placard abuse[2]. It's pretty common to see cars with these parked in front of hydrants, in bike lanes, etc, being completely ignored by the police.
[1]: As far as I know, being a lifelong New Yorker.
I couldn't believe it when I found out that these are a real, actual thing. I don't see how anyone in the US can cast stones at any other nation for corrupt police accepting bribes when you can largely get carte blanche just for being 'in the club' there.
I find unequal enforcement of the law to be one is it’s worst aspects. There is not only officer discretion, but there is also discretion several places in the judicial system and privilege in being able to hire better legal council. Some neighborhoods are policed more heavily than others. Some groups of people are targeted more heavily than others. Some city police departments enforce state/federal laws unevenly.
There should be one law for everyone, and if two random people with similar criminal histories break the same law in different places we should expect their outcomes and sentencing to be very similar. Right now this is far from the case.
The mere appearance of corruption in police is enough of a problem. Even in minor cases.
Debating whether this is bribery or nepotism is pointless, because the appearance this gives should be plenty to fire officers who hand out such cards.
Conveniently, they supposedly write their name on the cards they hand out :)
The big problem in the US is the lack of automated speed enforcement. When you have officers doing traffic enforcement it inevitably turns into a corrupt shit show, and if you're black, you might not even live through it.
Although its now 2020, where every 300 gram toy drone will automatically refuse to fly anywhere near an airport. It took 0 drones taking down 0 airplanes to do that. Modern cars can trivially enforce the speed limit, but we have ten thousands of deaths and counting every year and it's not happening.
The fundamental issue here is that being a normal person puts you on the wrong side of the law and/or the punishments for being on the wrong side of the law are too severe.
A friend of mine who used to get into trouble all the time when he was a teenager got away with a ton of stuff. His father was a chief or something, so every local cop just knew who he was.
There used to be something similar in the UK IIRC - the traffic police nicknamed themselves "black rats". If you had a sticker of the black rat mascot/logo on the back of your car then you were either a traffic officer, or someone close to them (wife/husband/etc) and a wink and a nod an you were on your way. I don't think it was a deliberate "get out of jail" move - just more of a "Oh you have a sticker for my unit's mascot on your car!" recognition type thing.
I think it kinda stopped when they started giving away the stickers on "enthusiast" car/motorbike magazines etc
In the USA legislators and others in government have publicly voiced their support of, contributed to, and organized bail funds for specific groups of people based on their views on particular topics. One Presidential candidate's campaign (through its staffers) has also paid money towards something called the "Minnesota Freedom Fund". Why is there a contribution only to this fund? If you protest animal testing and are arrested for some similar crime, where is your bail fund? In those cases you have to organize the money yourself, people in your government don't organize it for you.
Philosophically, government is supposed to serve everyone equally, but depending on the political views of the alleged criminal, or the self-proclaimed cause that they are supporting while performing allegedly illegal acts under the banner of "civil disobedience" or "peaceful protest", there is an availability of bail funds, selective prosecution, and all sorts of other features of the justice system available on a selective basis - i.e. the banner under which the illegality takes place.
If the principle of selective/unequal dispensation of justice is wrong, it ought to be criticized irrespective of the form it takes. When it is ignored in some forms but other forms result in outrage, it's difficult not to question the motivations of whoever is amplifying this particular flavor of bias.
If it is acceptable for the system to consider banners and offer different features to offenders depending on which banner they are flying when they interact with the system, then this is also acceptable.
I personally would prefer a conversation that looks at the problem of selective enforcement across many spheres.
Or we could just eliminate cash bail, for everyone. It's been eliminated in my state for most crimes, and they are trying it out in other states as well. It's not perfect, but it results in a lot less people in jail because they can't pay, and it hasn't made us any less safe.
Otherwise, I don't think you're going to solve the issue of "people only donating bail money to people they like." Because people are going to spend money the way they want.
My neighbor in Austin is a lawyer for the police union. He would hand these cards out to everyone in the cul-de-sac along with some booze for Christmas presents. There's a little "CLEAT" sticker that you can put in your back window too.
I put the sticker in the window of one car but not the other.
In the car without the sticker... I got pulled over in West Texas visiting relatives, and the cop literally had his gun drawn as he came to my window. Alone on a dark and empty road, guy with a gun on you -- probably the scariest moment of my life.
In the car with the sticker, in a similar small town in West Texas (lots of speed traps between Austin and Midland)... as the officer was walking to my car he saw the sticker and his whole body language instantly shifted. He got to my window, "Hope I didn't scare you with the lights, you don't seem like you're from around here. Are you lost? Just trying to be neighborly."
I was going 20-ish miles over the speed limit both times.
I looked into getting another sticker and it literally only cost me $25. Significantly better treatment from police doesn't cost very much. Anyway, yup corrupt as fuck... but as long as these exist, for a simple $25 donation, might as well have a CLEAT sticker in your window.
Also, what really bugs me... Police in Texas are allowed to unionize, but Teachers are not. Oof. Been here almost 20 years now, I love a lot of things about Texas, but some of the politics still suck.
PS: Also I keep a Book of the Mormon in my glove compartment, that way if I ever do get pulled over I just casually grab the book when looking for insurance papers. For some reason seems like a lot of cops in Texas are Mormons...
This has been a common thing forever. Whether it's right is very much and should be up for discussion but I'm surprised at how many people seem to be learning this for the first time.
Same thing worked with the small silver shields you could give out. I don't really agree with how policing is done in the US and it has started more than one fight with my long retired former police father but as a matter of practicality I still carry his silver shield with me.
He hasn't been an officer since I was 5 or so but even in high school the active police families and the families with ada's or prosecutors all had PBA cards and would give them out.
Presumably this sort of thing will become harder to maintain as bodycams become more prevalent.
It seems plausible that anti-corruption NGOs could request the bodycam footage (anonymized, I suppose) under public records disclosure laws. (e.g. see https://www.rcfp.org/bodycam-video-access/, though I'd be really interested in what others think about the likely legal interpretations of disclosure requirements.)
Yet another reason to push for more bodycams, and auditability/disclosure of that footage; sunlight is often the best disinfectant.
[+] [-] merricksb|5 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16207890
[+] [-] anm89|5 years ago|reply
This is police corruption, an especially harmful category of corruption that undermindes our entire legal system. It should be 5 years minimum in federal prison. Police should recieve drastically stronger charges and sentences when they violate the law, not the other way around. If someone above was found to have known about it and didn't report it should be 2x.
You show me a problem in modern america (maybe except healthcare) and I bet I could argue this one policy would fix it in one roundabout way or another.
It won't happen for a bunch of structural reasons unless a major party took it up as a major part of their platform but it would work.
Come to think of it, this is one of the very few things one of the major parties could do to get me to vote for them.
[+] [-] dsr_|5 years ago|reply
Commit a felony, lose your insurance coverage, be unemployable. Happens to doctors; why shouldn't it happen to police?
Go to work for a misbehaving department, watch your premium rise.
Act professionally your whole career, watch your premium drop.
Everybody likes incentives here. Police don't have many right now.
[+] [-] peterpeppers|5 years ago|reply
Many citizens don't know that "qualified immunity" is a thing that protects police officers from being held accountable.
QUOTE: "Tragically, thousands have died at the hands of law enforcement over the years, and the death toll continues to rise," said Judge Carlton Reeves, of the US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. "Qualified immunity has served as a shield for these officers, protecting them from accountability."
SOURCES: - https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/05/ask-the-author-reuters-on...
- https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity
- https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/04/politics/qualified-immunity-f...
- https://www.npr.org/2020/06/12/876212065/an-immune-system
[+] [-] secabeen|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] on_and_off|5 years ago|reply
As I understand it, the police investigates police abuses. I find that very shocking. My own country has lots of the same issues, but at least it is a separate branch of police which investigates abuse, not a colleague who will have to deal with the backlash if they report dirty acts.
Also DAs have to prosecute these crimes. The same DAs who have to work day to day with the same police department.
There are huge conflicts of interest in there. We need both to end qualified immunity (I did not go into this, but it has soo many issues as well) and have an organization dedicated to investigate police abuse. It needs both to have the authority to do so and to be entirely independent from the accused.
note : in the context here this is not just police corruption (even though that's something that should be taken seriously) but any kind of police abuse.
[+] [-] acituan|5 years ago|reply
I want to suggest another framing; some of the problems current policies give way might as well be features and not a bugs. It certainly has the desired consequences for certain stakeholders. The emotional reactions and lack thereof the public has based on the general impression police casts might as well be "working as intended". Without figuring out that link, designing the best policy solution will still achieve nothing.
[+] [-] prostoalex|5 years ago|reply
In the US alternatives seem to be
* reporting to internal affairs, which is kinda laughable and conflict-prone as that dept reports to the chief of police
* have a PR-worthy case appealing enough for ACLU or some law firm to take your case pro bono
* finance it yourself, unless it just so happens that your assets have been seized by the agency that wronged you, in which case it’s back to the other two
Edward Snowden points out the ridiculousness of his situation in “Permanent Record” - in a fair court trial NSA’s argument would be fair game, but his own counter-argument would disclose classified information and would therefore be inadmissible.
[+] [-] AmericanChopper|5 years ago|reply
I worked with one police department once a long time ago that tried to institute a policy never letting police or police union member off with warnings. So if an officer stopped a car for an infraction, and found out the driver was police or a police union member, they had to give them a ticket for it. It was arguably pretty successful, especially since there were a lot of rumours that people were driving about with union cards trying to get tickets (no idea how true that was).
[+] [-] ridgeguy|5 years ago|reply
1. Demilitarize police 2. Make police disciplinary and complaint records public 3. Eliminate qualified immunity for police
These would be a good starting point.
[+] [-] austincheney|5 years ago|reply
The problem that most people are concerned with is implicit bias, which includes systemic racism. Corruption is important too but it’s a matter of probable intent where implicit bias is certainly not. That said be very explicit about which problem you wish solved in which priority because will not be solved in the same way.
The distinction is important because if police are to be held to a higher standard for ethics violations, such as anti-corruption, those standards cannot themselves be resultant from systemic bias, such as guilt by association, and achieve the outcome you are hoping for. It has to come from provable intent and legal common person standards (expectation of knowledge). Additionally there needs to be a clear distinction as to whether more aggressive anti-corruption is an enforcement action or a sentencing recommendation. That distinction bears its own second and third order consequences.
Getting that wrong to satisfy a hasty generalization will produce all kinds of unintended consequences not directly associated with policing.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tehjoker|5 years ago|reply
Other problems with America stem from allowing a few people to control everything who then run rampant. Rather we should restructure things with stronger institutions that have more democratic buy in.
[+] [-] gorgoiler|5 years ago|reply
The situation sometimes feels bad enough to warrant drastic measures, though these feelings have increased a lot since I expatriated, but the linked article is also genuinely shocking.
[+] [-] scarface74|5 years ago|reply
No party is going to run on a platform of being tough on police. Most Americans actually “Back the Blue”. They protect the good folks from “them”.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] stanski|5 years ago|reply
This is not a problem with the US only and goes beyond systemic racism too, even though that's what's in focus right now.
[+] [-] kiba|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justchilly|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bigmilesjr|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jimbob45|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sergefaguet|5 years ago|reply
And automated policing can be played too, just in slightly different ways.
So when people are shocked by this or talk about how this must be fixed in one way or another that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how complex reality works and how systems are implemented. And wishful thinking.
Instead it is much more interesting to understand how things work and to embrace them. And if someone refuses to accept reality, it will be to their detriment.
[+] [-] kyle_martin1|5 years ago|reply
Perhaps you could work as a police officer in the USA for a few years to get an authentic perspective. Based on your ideas, it seems like you're a large consumer of media narrative. There's no magic pill buddy.
[+] [-] helsinkiandrew|5 years ago|reply
This is corruption. I've never understood how things like this can happen in the US - why is this tolerated?
If this happened in the UK I'm fairly sure it would be raised in the press, then parliament and then the Home Secretary (in charge of policing) would be forced to make a statement and likely do something about it.
[+] [-] pravus|5 years ago|reply
There is a culture in the US that the police are pristine warriors of justice and any accusations of wrong-doing are denied and ignored. There are also many laws that specifically protect LEO and government officials in general because there is a natural ethos that everyone working for The Good is always Good and whatever Bad they did must have been in the duty and service to The Good. Immunity is easy to achieve when the entire legal system wants you to be immune as a class and we are currently having a debate about qualified immunity regarding police in the US.
In my view it is the entire system that is corrupt. A fish rots from its head as they say.
[+] [-] notJim|5 years ago|reply
1: https://time.com/3644168/new-york-police-de-blasio-wenjian-l...
[+] [-] majormajor|5 years ago|reply
The stated desire is to prevent government abuse of powers by keeping the governments small and limiting the powers of the larger ones, but if you look at actions rather than words, it's less about restricting government and more about preserving existing power structures.
Reconstruction is one of the most egregious examples.
[+] [-] krapp|5 years ago|reply
Police unions and a strong pro-police "thin blue line" culture.
[+] [-] freeopinion|5 years ago|reply
It was a bit of a head scratcher for me. I remember, for example, when it was uncovered that one official had been gifted a very expensive custom-made shotgun. The news anchor was very solemn in reporting this outrageous misdeed. Rewind 9 or 11 months earlier and the exact same anchor was cheerfully reporting a public ceremony in which a visiting Olympic dignitary was presented with a gift from the organizing committee formed to win the bid. It was a happy day filled with optimism and hope for what might soon be. Lots of flash bulbs. That publicly-presented token of good will was the custom-made shotgun.
[+] [-] DoofusOfDeath|5 years ago|reply
I think it shows that a sizable portion of the citizenry considers this acceptable. I.e., they're enamored with the idea of getting preferential treatment for themselves or their friends, with little regard for the implications. It makes me figuratively (and a bit literally) want to vomit.
[+] [-] riffic|5 years ago|reply
Cynically, the answer is "what are you going to do about it, punk?"
[+] [-] bediger4000|5 years ago|reply
Because "police" in the USA can mean a lot of things, from county Sheriff, to city police to state police to FBI or one of the other 2 dozen armed federal agencies. It's a patchwork. There's no central authority to enforce some kind of standard of behavior.
[+] [-] spacedcowboy|5 years ago|reply
From an outside-the-US perspective, the stack of “Things I’d never believe about the USA, please, Alex” is just getting higher and higher.
How is it legal to have preferential treatment, no matter under what circumstances, for ‘friends of the police’? Is Lady Liberty not famously blind while balancing the scales of justice ? Does the maxim “justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done” somehow not apply in the USA ?
Over the last few years, it seems to me the rock that used to be the USA has been overturned, and all the slimy creepy little nasties are being exposed to the harsh light of day. What happens in a few months is going to be critical to the soul of your nation. Get it right, I doubt you’ll recover if you don’t.
[+] [-] kemayo|5 years ago|reply
...it remains one of the more blatantly shady-feeling things I remember encountering in the US.
[+] [-] woodruffw|5 years ago|reply
[1]: As far as I know, being a lifelong New Yorker.
[2]: https://twitter.com/placardabuse
[+] [-] taneq|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nip180|5 years ago|reply
There should be one law for everyone, and if two random people with similar criminal histories break the same law in different places we should expect their outcomes and sentencing to be very similar. Right now this is far from the case.
[+] [-] jopsen|5 years ago|reply
Debating whether this is bribery or nepotism is pointless, because the appearance this gives should be plenty to fire officers who hand out such cards.
Conveniently, they supposedly write their name on the cards they hand out :)
[+] [-] djmobley|5 years ago|reply
[0] https://priceonomics.com/can-you-buy-a-license-to-speed/
[+] [-] stefan_|5 years ago|reply
Although its now 2020, where every 300 gram toy drone will automatically refuse to fly anywhere near an airport. It took 0 drones taking down 0 airplanes to do that. Modern cars can trivially enforce the speed limit, but we have ten thousands of deaths and counting every year and it's not happening.
[+] [-] throwaway0a5e|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gwbas1c|5 years ago|reply
A friend of mine who used to get into trouble all the time when he was a teenager got away with a ton of stuff. His father was a chief or something, so every local cop just knew who he was.
You don't want to arrest your boss's son.
[+] [-] mattlondon|5 years ago|reply
I think it kinda stopped when they started giving away the stickers on "enthusiast" car/motorbike magazines etc
[+] [-] kop316|5 years ago|reply
I suspect its for a similar reason, that either if you get your plate's picture taken or local police can see that right away.
[+] [-] fareesh|5 years ago|reply
Philosophically, government is supposed to serve everyone equally, but depending on the political views of the alleged criminal, or the self-proclaimed cause that they are supporting while performing allegedly illegal acts under the banner of "civil disobedience" or "peaceful protest", there is an availability of bail funds, selective prosecution, and all sorts of other features of the justice system available on a selective basis - i.e. the banner under which the illegality takes place.
If the principle of selective/unequal dispensation of justice is wrong, it ought to be criticized irrespective of the form it takes. When it is ignored in some forms but other forms result in outrage, it's difficult not to question the motivations of whoever is amplifying this particular flavor of bias.
If it is acceptable for the system to consider banners and offer different features to offenders depending on which banner they are flying when they interact with the system, then this is also acceptable.
I personally would prefer a conversation that looks at the problem of selective enforcement across many spheres.
[+] [-] ijtioerhgser|5 years ago|reply
Otherwise, I don't think you're going to solve the issue of "people only donating bail money to people they like." Because people are going to spend money the way they want.
[+] [-] dbg31415|5 years ago|reply
I put the sticker in the window of one car but not the other.
In the car without the sticker... I got pulled over in West Texas visiting relatives, and the cop literally had his gun drawn as he came to my window. Alone on a dark and empty road, guy with a gun on you -- probably the scariest moment of my life.
In the car with the sticker, in a similar small town in West Texas (lots of speed traps between Austin and Midland)... as the officer was walking to my car he saw the sticker and his whole body language instantly shifted. He got to my window, "Hope I didn't scare you with the lights, you don't seem like you're from around here. Are you lost? Just trying to be neighborly."
I was going 20-ish miles over the speed limit both times.
I looked into getting another sticker and it literally only cost me $25. Significantly better treatment from police doesn't cost very much. Anyway, yup corrupt as fuck... but as long as these exist, for a simple $25 donation, might as well have a CLEAT sticker in your window.
Also, what really bugs me... Police in Texas are allowed to unionize, but Teachers are not. Oof. Been here almost 20 years now, I love a lot of things about Texas, but some of the politics still suck.
PS: Also I keep a Book of the Mormon in my glove compartment, that way if I ever do get pulled over I just casually grab the book when looking for insurance papers. For some reason seems like a lot of cops in Texas are Mormons...
[+] [-] excalibur|5 years ago|reply
That's a pretty broad claim. The cards aren't even big enough to LIST everything wrong with modern policing.
[+] [-] Grimm1|5 years ago|reply
Same thing worked with the small silver shields you could give out. I don't really agree with how policing is done in the US and it has started more than one fight with my long retired former police father but as a matter of practicality I still carry his silver shield with me.
He hasn't been an officer since I was 5 or so but even in high school the active police families and the families with ada's or prosecutors all had PBA cards and would give them out.
[+] [-] theptip|5 years ago|reply
It seems plausible that anti-corruption NGOs could request the bodycam footage (anonymized, I suppose) under public records disclosure laws. (e.g. see https://www.rcfp.org/bodycam-video-access/, though I'd be really interested in what others think about the likely legal interpretations of disclosure requirements.)
Yet another reason to push for more bodycams, and auditability/disclosure of that footage; sunlight is often the best disinfectant.