While I'm sure it happens, is there any indication this happens on a large enough scale to actually worry about it? Seems like they'd just get more bad press when you record them harassing you because you recorded them the first time.
First of all, this kind of thing happening on any scale is something to worry about.
Second, considering that we know there are instances of it, we're faced with a question. Which is more likely?
1. The officer(s) in question suddenly and for no discernible reason completely snapped and committed actions they knew were immoral and illegal and which they had been trained and conditioned by the culture of their department never to do under any circumstances, or
2. The officer(s) in question were trained and worked their entire careers in a culture in which abuse of authority was routine, accepted and unquestioned, to such a degree that they felt it was the natural course of things and that no significant consequences would fall on them.
Time and again, investigation of corrupt and abusive police departments has turned up evidence for case (2) and not for case (1). We should be assuming case (2) unless and until we see significant evidence otherwise.
Cops have tough jobs, the vast majority of police officers mean well and are good people trying to serve their community. I think people in threads like this forget that. But like any group of people there are assholes, we need to have a zero tolerance policy for police officers that violate rights. And for egregious situations we need to hold them even more accountable. Police aren't the law but an agent and servant of it.
That's the complaint I've heard any reasonable person make: the culture of covering up for the disgusting actions of the bad apples implicates far more than the bad actors themselves. It may be beyond any individual cop to change the way the system works, but the culpability doesn't stop at the bad actors themselves.
I can't remember who pointed it out, but someone said that everyone is missing the point when they talk of bad police being a 'few bad apples' and the rest are fine. The full phrase is 'A few bad apples spoil the whole barrel'.
> How exactly can a cop in a different precinct/city/state be held responsible for "covering up" bad actors in an unrelated department?
I truly do not understand how you took this away from reading my comment. I even went out of my way to say that it's more complicated than individual honest cops being to blame. You may want to work on your reading comprehension.
>the culture of covering up for the disgusting actions of the bad apples
This implies to me like you think this culture is prevalent in most police departments. Yet you base this of the events a tiny minority of police departments.
>You may want to work on your reading comprehension.
Try to keep insults off of HN. If I misunderstood you, you should take that as a reflection of your own communication skills and clarify in another comment. Don't just waste everyone's time by just expressing your state of bewilderment.
>Cops have tough jobs, the vast majority of police officers mean well and are good people trying to serve their community
Depends on the department. My local precinct is across from the subway and parks nearly 100% of their vehicles on the sidewalk. It's on both sides of the street and so bad two people can't pass at the same time.
They've actually even spray painted ranks onto the street, which have now almost faded since they've been doing it for so long. The sidewalk is crumbling under the weight of the cars. At town halls they shrug when asked about it.
Despite being a high density area complete with multiple subway lines and a low crime rate, they do all patrols by car. No foot patrols whatsoever.
Meanwhile other NYPD precincts have different behavior.
Keep in mind this is an older streetview image; the parking lot on 50th Avenue next to the precinct no longer exists. There are also usually more police vehicles, though most of them shown in this streetview link are the personal vehicles of officers or the security shop (they are friendly with the police and don't get ticketed or perhaps the cops feel bad about parking this way and writing tickets for others on the same block - either way, no tickets)
I just think it's incredible that the norm has become so skewed that suggesting that the consequences for beating or killing someone be losing your job are seen as unrealistic.
Short answer: unions. In general public worker unions is a bad idea and police union is even worse. Union with guns is a very dangerous force and it is able to push the police agenda through local governments.
Unions aren't dysfunctional everywhere. The problems you have with them has more to do with your work culture than with the idea of employees cooperating to protect their rights.
That is not why they do it. They do it because they are crazy, scared, stupid, malicious, or just using bad judgement. If anything, they became cops so they can lawfully use force against people but that's probably the minority of cops not the majority.
Every group will have bad apples, it's statistically inevitable. What matters is how bad apples are dealt with. Because if they are not dealt with properly, 'the bad apple spoils the bunch'.
In police / court land, bad apple pruning isn't good enough. On top of that the stakes are high and their are legal malincentives that encourage the government to do the wrong things. It's harder to do bad apple pruning with police because of the risk category and their job responsibilities.
I didn't mean to paint with a wide brush, so to speak.
I know police as a whole are not evil. I've been let off the hook by police quite a few times, had an officer give me a ride home when I was stranded after walking several miles as a teenager, etc.
Police retaliation happens, though. Corruption exists, etc. It's not a huge stretch to imagine local police retaliating against someone who whips out a cell phone.
Even if the courts won't convict that person of a crime, police can very much exact revenge just by paying more attention to you than they might have otherwise.
Stopping you without cause, searching you without cause, detaining you without reason. There are plenty of ways I could imagine retaliating against a citizen if I was corrupted/otherwise morally compromised, empowered as a police officer, and had a grudge.
tl;dr: I'm not casting all cops as evil, I'm stupid, but not that stupid.
I'm only speculating that this court decision might not stop an officer with a grudge from retaliating against a civilian.
It's perfectly logical, and wasn't intended as a generalization against police. I'm not a cop-hater.
Please do not put words in my mouth. I did not claim that all (or even any) police are evil or inhuman.
I do not think "How will this look in the paper?" calculates into whether or not an officer issues me a ticket for speeding or lets me go with a warning or attempts to search my car. I don't think it is considered at any point by individual officers, including during the use of force.
I think the decision is based more on behavior such as if I am evasive or cooperative. I am far more likely to get a warning if I am polite rather than argumentative.
Perfectly reasonable, normal, "good"-looking people can become very bad very quickly. Just because they act decent, polite, etc for 99% of their day, doesn't mean that they're not capable of behaving differently.
This is the nature of criminals, as well. They're fine for the most part, until they break a law. The real problem is that we're allowing a parallel "judicial system" to exist in the first place. One that selectively applies certain rules to certain groups, which is in this case, the police.
