Investigating Policies Defining When And How Police Use Force
January 21, 2016 9:08 AM Subscribe
The Police Use of Force Project investigates the ways in which police use of force policies help to enable police violence in our communities. (Proposed policy solutions from Campaign Zero)
Created by @deray, @samswey, @nettaaaaaaaa, and @mspackyetti
Created by @deray, @samswey, @nettaaaaaaaa, and @mspackyetti
We are assembling the first open-source database of police use of force policies for the 100 largest U.S. city police departments. These documents, obtained through FOIA requests via MuckRock, will be used for future analyses identifying the ways in which they impact police accountability.
That is...interesting. I think it is a great idea to have a copy of the polices, available for review of common points, for correlation to areas without high complaints re: excessive force, etc.
In short, i think this si a great research tool , and can help build the framework for some positive change.
But their project page has some issues right out of the gate:
First bullet point, front project page:
"Failing to make life preservation the primary principle shaping police decisions about using force"
This is a bit disingenuous -
The policy I spot-checked (my own here in Columbus, OH) , gave reasons and guidance as to when deadly force can be used:
e.g.
1.Sworn personnel may use deadly force when the involved personnel
have reason to believe the response is objectively reasonable to protect
themselves or others from the imminent threat of death or serious physical
harm.
2. Sworn personnel may use deadly force upon a human being to prevent
escape when there is probable cause to believe that the suspect poses
an immediate threat of serious physical harm to himself, herself, or
others.
It is probably pretty reasonable to assume most other polices have similar guidelines.
So, going back to the database page's 1st point-
If the guidelines are being followed, then life preservation IS the primary principal;just not the life of the person they are detaining.
So either they mean that "Failing to make life preservation of the suspect the primary principle shaping police decisions about using force" (which, I am not sure I can agree with).
Or they mean that there aren't guidelines about when it is appropriate about when force can be used on a suspect in pursuit of the primary principle of life preservation of all parties.
The first isn't consistent with the idea that the job of the police is to protect (and serve) the community...in this case, the officer would be making a choice to value the life of the suspect over their own life, and that of the rest of the community.
The second is just wrong ; their are clear guidelines, listed above.
My frustration here is that I do believe there is an issue with excessive force amongst the police, and it is disproportionally applied against brown people.
But this sort of half-assed framing into some sort of narrative where "preservation of life isn't a consideration" just gives detractors an easy out before they even read the whole page.
What needs to be discussed, and defined are What is a reasonable threat to the life of the officer and others? and What is an immediate threat?. Additionally, there needs be real-world consequences for cops that intentionally and repeatedly violate these guidelines.
Much like the abuse of animals as a child is a warning sign that should be a catalyst for counseling and investigation long before someone grows up to be a violent predator...repeated unnecessary escalations of force should force psych evals, training, and termination of the police force if necessary.
Sorry, I am all over the place in this post; This is an important issue, and i think the database is valuable; I think their manifesto is misguided.
posted by das_2099 at 9:53 AM on January 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
In short, i think this si a great research tool , and can help build the framework for some positive change.
But their project page has some issues right out of the gate:
First bullet point, front project page:
"Failing to make life preservation the primary principle shaping police decisions about using force"
This is a bit disingenuous -
The policy I spot-checked (my own here in Columbus, OH) , gave reasons and guidance as to when deadly force can be used:
e.g.
1.Sworn personnel may use deadly force when the involved personnel
have reason to believe the response is objectively reasonable to protect
themselves or others from the imminent threat of death or serious physical
harm.
2. Sworn personnel may use deadly force upon a human being to prevent
escape when there is probable cause to believe that the suspect poses
an immediate threat of serious physical harm to himself, herself, or
others.
It is probably pretty reasonable to assume most other polices have similar guidelines.
So, going back to the database page's 1st point-
If the guidelines are being followed, then life preservation IS the primary principal;just not the life of the person they are detaining.
So either they mean that "Failing to make life preservation of the suspect the primary principle shaping police decisions about using force" (which, I am not sure I can agree with).
Or they mean that there aren't guidelines about when it is appropriate about when force can be used on a suspect in pursuit of the primary principle of life preservation of all parties.
The first isn't consistent with the idea that the job of the police is to protect (and serve) the community...in this case, the officer would be making a choice to value the life of the suspect over their own life, and that of the rest of the community.
The second is just wrong ; their are clear guidelines, listed above.
My frustration here is that I do believe there is an issue with excessive force amongst the police, and it is disproportionally applied against brown people.
But this sort of half-assed framing into some sort of narrative where "preservation of life isn't a consideration" just gives detractors an easy out before they even read the whole page.
What needs to be discussed, and defined are What is a reasonable threat to the life of the officer and others? and What is an immediate threat?. Additionally, there needs be real-world consequences for cops that intentionally and repeatedly violate these guidelines.
Much like the abuse of animals as a child is a warning sign that should be a catalyst for counseling and investigation long before someone grows up to be a violent predator...repeated unnecessary escalations of force should force psych evals, training, and termination of the police force if necessary.
Sorry, I am all over the place in this post; This is an important issue, and i think the database is valuable; I think their manifesto is misguided.
posted by das_2099 at 9:53 AM on January 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
das_2099: "It is probably pretty reasonable to assume most other polices have similar guidelines."
Is it? They claim otherwise, specifically in the cases of Houston, Indianapolis, Phoenix, and Seattle. Various cities' use of force policies, obtained via FOIA requests, can be reviewed here.
posted by mhum at 10:02 AM on January 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Is it? They claim otherwise, specifically in the cases of Houston, Indianapolis, Phoenix, and Seattle. Various cities' use of force policies, obtained via FOIA requests, can be reviewed here.
posted by mhum at 10:02 AM on January 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
They criticize Baltimore's guide for advising shooting at the center of the body, as if life were a TV show and cops can just shoot someone's foot to disable them.
Ridiculous.
posted by jpe at 10:04 AM on January 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
Ridiculous.
posted by jpe at 10:04 AM on January 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
If the guidelines are being followed, then life preservation IS the primary principal;just not the life of the person they are detaining.
That "when the involved personnel have reason to believe" part is horseshit. It makes every shooting into "Well, I believed it!", and there's nothing anyone can argue against unless the shooting happened in a well-lit place with witnesses hearing the officer say "I don't care that he's not a danger to anyone -- I'm out to kill someone today!" as he pulls the trigger.
posted by Etrigan at 10:05 AM on January 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
That "when the involved personnel have reason to believe" part is horseshit. It makes every shooting into "Well, I believed it!", and there's nothing anyone can argue against unless the shooting happened in a well-lit place with witnesses hearing the officer say "I don't care that he's not a danger to anyone -- I'm out to kill someone today!" as he pulls the trigger.
posted by Etrigan at 10:05 AM on January 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
Ok, spot checking Houston ( here )
It clearly states that escalation to deadly force is only allowed when there is a reasonable threat to their life, or the lives of others.
Again, I think every use of force policy has such a guideline, if for no other reason that to protect against liability.
The only way that policy can be read as "Failing to make life preservation the primary principle" is if the lives of the police officer, or other community members , have no value.
posted by das_2099 at 10:10 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
It clearly states that escalation to deadly force is only allowed when there is a reasonable threat to their life, or the lives of others.
Again, I think every use of force policy has such a guideline, if for no other reason that to protect against liability.
The only way that policy can be read as "Failing to make life preservation the primary principle" is if the lives of the police officer, or other community members , have no value.
posted by das_2099 at 10:10 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Which is, of course, exactly the problem we saw in Ferguson, Baltimore, Cleveland, et al. Cops can always gin up a reason after the fact, which makes that statement worthless.
And, yes, life preservation of the suspect should be primary. Because they're suspects. This is not fucking Judge Dredd, people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. There's no reason for a routine arrest to end in a death, and police training and use of force policies should be drilling that fact in at every opportunity.
posted by tobascodagama at 10:11 AM on January 21, 2016 [6 favorites]
And, yes, life preservation of the suspect should be primary. Because they're suspects. This is not fucking Judge Dredd, people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. There's no reason for a routine arrest to end in a death, and police training and use of force policies should be drilling that fact in at every opportunity.
posted by tobascodagama at 10:11 AM on January 21, 2016 [6 favorites]
"That "when the involved personnel have reason to believe" part is horseshit."
OK, that is a starting point, and deserves some discussion.
How do we make that more reasonable?
Starting from the premise that there ARE justifiable uses of deadly force....how do we build criteria for that?
I don't disagree that the guideline is abused. At all. What is a better replacement?
posted by das_2099 at 10:14 AM on January 21, 2016
OK, that is a starting point, and deserves some discussion.
How do we make that more reasonable?
Starting from the premise that there ARE justifiable uses of deadly force....how do we build criteria for that?
I don't disagree that the guideline is abused. At all. What is a better replacement?
posted by das_2099 at 10:14 AM on January 21, 2016
"And, yes, life preservation of the suspect should be primary. Because they're suspects. "
Over the cop? Possibly, i might agree to that , in some cases
Over the other civilians that would be in IMMEDIATE danger? No.
posted by das_2099 at 10:15 AM on January 21, 2016
Over the cop? Possibly, i might agree to that , in some cases
Over the other civilians that would be in IMMEDIATE danger? No.
posted by das_2099 at 10:15 AM on January 21, 2016
I should clarify:
"Over the cop? Possibly, i might agree to that , in some cases"
In most cases, yes. They signed up for the job. It is high risk. Get training, get better at your job.
In cases where there is an actively violent suspect, who is suspected of violent, recent actions (shooter fleeing a scene, etc) . Then no.
posted by das_2099 at 10:19 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Over the cop? Possibly, i might agree to that , in some cases"
In most cases, yes. They signed up for the job. It is high risk. Get training, get better at your job.
In cases where there is an actively violent suspect, who is suspected of violent, recent actions (shooter fleeing a scene, etc) . Then no.
posted by das_2099 at 10:19 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Starting from the premise that there ARE justifiable uses of deadly force....how do we build criteria for that?
I don't disagree that the guideline is abused. At all. What is a better replacement?
Training, better union contracts that don't abuse the legal system, and DAs who are willing to say "No, you don't just get to say 'I thought I was in danger!' and then go home."
Every police officer who shoots someone should be booked, immediately. Put him in a separate cell, sure. But the legal system should start with the presumption that any police shooting is unjustified and proceed from there.
And if a police officer kills someone -- anyone at all, even if it's a guy who is actively shooting at people -- that officer should lose his job, period. Let him cash out his accumulated vacation, maybe even give him transition pay based on good service up to that point, but a cop who kills someone has failed at his job of protecting the people he serves, because part of that job is protecting the bad ones, too.
I was trying to make all those references to "him or her", but ha.
posted by Etrigan at 10:25 AM on January 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't disagree that the guideline is abused. At all. What is a better replacement?
Training, better union contracts that don't abuse the legal system, and DAs who are willing to say "No, you don't just get to say 'I thought I was in danger!' and then go home."
Every police officer who shoots someone should be booked, immediately. Put him in a separate cell, sure. But the legal system should start with the presumption that any police shooting is unjustified and proceed from there.
And if a police officer kills someone -- anyone at all, even if it's a guy who is actively shooting at people -- that officer should lose his job, period. Let him cash out his accumulated vacation, maybe even give him transition pay based on good service up to that point, but a cop who kills someone has failed at his job of protecting the people he serves, because part of that job is protecting the bad ones, too.
I was trying to make all those references to "him or her", but ha.
posted by Etrigan at 10:25 AM on January 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't disagree that the guideline is abused. At all. What is a better replacement?
Rather than put all the onus on the situation in the moment of the fateful decision, examine instead - was de-escalation training followed in the moments leading up to that point?
A repeated and distinctive MO of police in the USA (in contrast to many other places) seems to be force escalation instead of de-escalation. If officers were actively and expertly de-escalating instead, I'm not sure any of the viral videos I've seen could have unfolded the way they did.
If the officer attempts to de-escalate and things get dangerous regardless, I totally have his back in any jury. But in the videos we see weekly, the opposite occurs.
posted by anonymisc at 10:37 AM on January 21, 2016 [5 favorites]
Rather than put all the onus on the situation in the moment of the fateful decision, examine instead - was de-escalation training followed in the moments leading up to that point?
A repeated and distinctive MO of police in the USA (in contrast to many other places) seems to be force escalation instead of de-escalation. If officers were actively and expertly de-escalating instead, I'm not sure any of the viral videos I've seen could have unfolded the way they did.
If the officer attempts to de-escalate and things get dangerous regardless, I totally have his back in any jury. But in the videos we see weekly, the opposite occurs.
posted by anonymisc at 10:37 AM on January 21, 2016 [5 favorites]
Training, better union contracts that don't abuse the legal system, and DAs who are willing to say "No, you don't just get to say 'I thought I was in danger!' and then go home."
100% agree. In fact, I'll go a step further and say that wrongful death civil suits should come from teh police retirement funds. Or require them to carry individual insurance. Add a financial incentive.
Every police officer who shoots someone should be booked, immediately. Put him in a separate cell, sure. But the legal system should start with the presumption that any police shooting is unjustified and proceed from there.
50% here. At least detained, full investigation in each case. Maybe not charged. But that is coming from teh right place.
And if a police officer kills someone -- anyone at all, even if it's a guy who is actively shooting at people -- that officer should lose his job, period. Let him cash out his accumulated vacation, maybe even give him transition pay based on good service up to that point, but a cop who kills someone has failed at his job of protecting the people he serves, because part of that job is protecting the bad ones, too.
And here is where we part ways; I cannot support that at all. Why would you want to get rid of the cops that accurately assessed a situation, and used justifiable force? I can see wanting to cull the abusers. Actively. And set the bar for 'justified' really high.
But, i think we have shared goals!
posted by das_2099 at 10:40 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
100% agree. In fact, I'll go a step further and say that wrongful death civil suits should come from teh police retirement funds. Or require them to carry individual insurance. Add a financial incentive.
Every police officer who shoots someone should be booked, immediately. Put him in a separate cell, sure. But the legal system should start with the presumption that any police shooting is unjustified and proceed from there.
50% here. At least detained, full investigation in each case. Maybe not charged. But that is coming from teh right place.
And if a police officer kills someone -- anyone at all, even if it's a guy who is actively shooting at people -- that officer should lose his job, period. Let him cash out his accumulated vacation, maybe even give him transition pay based on good service up to that point, but a cop who kills someone has failed at his job of protecting the people he serves, because part of that job is protecting the bad ones, too.
And here is where we part ways; I cannot support that at all. Why would you want to get rid of the cops that accurately assessed a situation, and used justifiable force? I can see wanting to cull the abusers. Actively. And set the bar for 'justified' really high.
But, i think we have shared goals!
posted by das_2099 at 10:40 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
das_2099: "It clearly states that escalation to deadly force is only allowed when there is a reasonable threat to their life, or the lives of others.
Again, I think every use of force policy has such a guideline, if for no other reason that to protect against liability."
Compare as we dare:
Houston
posted by mhum at 10:45 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Again, I think every use of force policy has such a guideline, if for no other reason that to protect against liability."
Compare as we dare:
Houston
The use of deadly force will be limited to those curcumstances in which officers reasonably believe it is necessary to protect themselves or others from the imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death. Officers will consider their immediate surroundings and the safety of uninvolved citizens before using deadly force.Baltimore (emph. added)
The Baltimore Police Department considers protecting life its highest priority. The Department’s firearms policy reflects the commitment to protect life. Lethal force can only be applied when it is necessary to protect the lives of citizens and police officers, or to prevent serious bodily injuries.Austin (emph. added):
Protection of life is the primary core value and guiding principle of the Austin Police Department. As such, all employees will strive to preserve human life while recognizing that duty may require the use of deadly force, as a last resort, after other reasonable alternatives have failed or been determined impractical. The department's basic goal is to protect life, property, and to preserve the peace in a manner consistent with the freedom secured by the United States Constitution. It is our duty to guarantee these inalienable rights in strict accordance with the highest principles of our society. Operating with the statutory and judicial limitations of police authority, our role is to enforce the law in a fair and impartial manner. It is not our role to legislate, render legal judgment, or punish."So what?", one might ask. "Isn't this just pro-forma boilerplate with no real force?" Quite possibly. However, I would point out that, say, military forces generally do not consider "protection of life" as a primary goal; rather, those are sometimes more oriented towards a "crush the enemy" mindset. Perhaps, this pro-forma boilerplate that Campaign Zero is highlighting may be an indication (uselessly symbolic or not) of a police force's orientation.
posted by mhum at 10:45 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Why would you want to get rid of the cops that accurately assessed a situation, and used justifiable force?
Because, as I said, they failed. They failed to protect. They failed to serve. They didn't successfully de-escalate a situation. There are hundreds of examples of things that non-police people fail at that are utterly beyond their control that still get them fired, and most of them don't involve the death of a human being.
posted by Etrigan at 10:50 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Because, as I said, they failed. They failed to protect. They failed to serve. They didn't successfully de-escalate a situation. There are hundreds of examples of things that non-police people fail at that are utterly beyond their control that still get them fired, and most of them don't involve the death of a human being.
posted by Etrigan at 10:50 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Every police officer who shoots someone should be booked, immediately.
That would be illegal in many states.
That would be illegal in many states.
Unlike a member of the public, the officer gets a "cooling off" period before he has to respond to any questions. Unlike a member of the public, the officer under investigation is privy to the names of his complainants and their testimony against him before he is ever interrogated. Unlike a member of the public, the officer under investigation is to be interrogated "at a reasonable hour," with a union member present. Unlike a member of the public, the officer can only be questioned by one person during his interrogation. Unlike a member of the public, the officer can be interrogated only "for reasonable periods," which "shall be timed to allow for such personal necessities and rest periods as are reasonably necessary." Unlike a member of the public, the officer under investigation cannot be "threatened with disciplinary action" at any point during his interrogation. If he is threatened with punishment, whatever he says following the threat cannot be used against him.posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:53 AM on January 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
*ahem* From my second link:
B. Establish an early intervention system to correct officers who use excessive force. These systems have been shown to reduce the average number of complaints against officers in a police department by more than 50%. This system should:posted by jillithd at 10:56 AM on January 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
- report officers who receive two or more complaints in the past month
- report officers who have two or more use of force incidents or complaints in the past quarter
- require officers to attend re-training and be monitored by an immediate supervisor after their first quarterly report and terminate an officer following multiple reports
Mhum
-- Are you suggesting that they want the boilerplate added, to explicitly state that they are following the exact same policy because they hold preservation of life as priority #1 ?
-- Or are you suggesting that the lack of a clear statement about "protecting life its highest priority" indicates a tendency toward abuse?
Both are fascinating. I don't know enough to speak to either of those (and it is hard to make correlations, since there is no centralized database of actual use of force incidents).
posted by das_2099 at 12:20 PM on January 21, 2016
-- Are you suggesting that they want the boilerplate added, to explicitly state that they are following the exact same policy because they hold preservation of life as priority #1 ?
-- Or are you suggesting that the lack of a clear statement about "protecting life its highest priority" indicates a tendency toward abuse?
Both are fascinating. I don't know enough to speak to either of those (and it is hard to make correlations, since there is no centralized database of actual use of force incidents).
posted by das_2099 at 12:20 PM on January 21, 2016
jillithd
Ah. Right. I got sidetracked on the first link, didn't read the others.
Sorry.
After looking at them, there are some ideas I can 100% get behind.
I don't see anything about "[Making] life preservation the primary principle shaping police decisions about using force" though.
That solutions page is awesome. That front page has problems.
posted by das_2099 at 12:28 PM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ah. Right. I got sidetracked on the first link, didn't read the others.
Sorry.
After looking at them, there are some ideas I can 100% get behind.
I don't see anything about "[Making] life preservation the primary principle shaping police decisions about using force" though.
That solutions page is awesome. That front page has problems.
posted by das_2099 at 12:28 PM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
das_2099: "-- Are you suggesting that they want the boilerplate added, to explicitly state that they are following the exact same policy because they hold preservation of life as priority #1 ?
-- Or are you suggesting that the lack of a clear statement about "protecting life its highest priority" indicates a tendency toward abuse?"
I'm not 100% sure of exactly what they're aiming for there. Their other three items point to clear procedural issues (i.e.: you must attempt de-escalation first, you must not choke, you must intervene to stop another officer's abuses). The "protection of life" one seems to be a bit more of philosophical attitude. Reading between the lines, I'd imagine it's aimed towards having the police explicitly consider a suspect's life as one of those worth saving or, at the very least, part of the moral calculus of when to use deadly force. I mean, we have cases like the Laquan McDonald case where the police shot McDonald while he was carrying a 3-inch blade and walking away from police. Could McDonald have been on his way to kill someone with that knife? Possibly. Did Chicago PD weigh that (small, imo) possibility of someone else losing their life against the certainty that McDonald would lose his when they shot him 16 times? I don't think they did. I think all they saw was a threat, not a life. Ironically, according to their table, Project Zero has a checkmark for Chicago PD under "Says Priority is Preserving Life" although I was unable find the exact passage for that. All I could find was a bullet point title "AFFIRMATION OF PROTECTION OF LIFE POLICY" followed by a single sentence, "Sworn members will not unreasonably endanger themselves or another person to conform to the restrictions of this directive."
posted by mhum at 1:50 PM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
-- Or are you suggesting that the lack of a clear statement about "protecting life its highest priority" indicates a tendency toward abuse?"
I'm not 100% sure of exactly what they're aiming for there. Their other three items point to clear procedural issues (i.e.: you must attempt de-escalation first, you must not choke, you must intervene to stop another officer's abuses). The "protection of life" one seems to be a bit more of philosophical attitude. Reading between the lines, I'd imagine it's aimed towards having the police explicitly consider a suspect's life as one of those worth saving or, at the very least, part of the moral calculus of when to use deadly force. I mean, we have cases like the Laquan McDonald case where the police shot McDonald while he was carrying a 3-inch blade and walking away from police. Could McDonald have been on his way to kill someone with that knife? Possibly. Did Chicago PD weigh that (small, imo) possibility of someone else losing their life against the certainty that McDonald would lose his when they shot him 16 times? I don't think they did. I think all they saw was a threat, not a life. Ironically, according to their table, Project Zero has a checkmark for Chicago PD under "Says Priority is Preserving Life" although I was unable find the exact passage for that. All I could find was a bullet point title "AFFIRMATION OF PROTECTION OF LIFE POLICY" followed by a single sentence, "Sworn members will not unreasonably endanger themselves or another person to conform to the restrictions of this directive."
posted by mhum at 1:50 PM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Because, as I said, they failed. They failed to protect. They failed to serve.
Only in a very weird definition, IMO. A cop who stops a mass shooter by killing them is protecting the community.
I am in favor of a lot more investigation, prosecution, etc of police who use force wrongly, abuse their power, etc. I think there are a lot of bad (to varying degrees) cops. But there is still a need for some sort of law enforcement, and a need for them to sometimes stop someone who is an active danger to the community. If there are police who are doing that accurately, not abusing their power, etc then I want to reward/keep them. Its not always possible to de-escalate, especially if the shooter wants or expects to die.
posted by thefoxgod at 7:22 PM on January 21, 2016
Only in a very weird definition, IMO. A cop who stops a mass shooter by killing them is protecting the community.
I am in favor of a lot more investigation, prosecution, etc of police who use force wrongly, abuse their power, etc. I think there are a lot of bad (to varying degrees) cops. But there is still a need for some sort of law enforcement, and a need for them to sometimes stop someone who is an active danger to the community. If there are police who are doing that accurately, not abusing their power, etc then I want to reward/keep them. Its not always possible to de-escalate, especially if the shooter wants or expects to die.
posted by thefoxgod at 7:22 PM on January 21, 2016
Not a "police" force exactly, but US DoD Directive 5210.56 - deadly force on page 10, for comparison.
posted by ctmf at 8:14 PM on January 21, 2016
posted by ctmf at 8:14 PM on January 21, 2016
Cleveland fires 6 officers involved in 137-shot barrage that killed two unarmed people
Cleveland police union starts GoFundMe for officers fired in the 137 shots case
posted by homunculus at 10:08 PM on January 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
Cleveland police union starts GoFundMe for officers fired in the 137 shots case
posted by homunculus at 10:08 PM on January 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
Dispatchers Ignored 19-Year-Old’s Emergency Calls Before Police Killed Him
Chicago Police Officer Plans To Sue Teenager He Shot And Killed
posted by homunculus at 10:09 PM on January 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
Chicago Police Officer Plans To Sue Teenager He Shot And Killed
posted by homunculus at 10:09 PM on January 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
Chicago Police Hid Mics, Destroyed Dashcams To Block Audio, Records Show
Chicago Police Union President Denies Officers Destroyed Dash Cam Footage, Blames Ferguson Effect
posted by homunculus at 10:11 PM on January 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
Chicago Police Union President Denies Officers Destroyed Dash Cam Footage, Blames Ferguson Effect
posted by homunculus at 10:11 PM on January 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
Leaked police files contain guarantees disciplinary records will be kept secret
Guardian analysis of dozens of contracts revealed by hackers shows more than a third allow or require destruction of civilian complaint records
posted by XMLicious at 5:08 AM on February 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
Guardian analysis of dozens of contracts revealed by hackers shows more than a third allow or require destruction of civilian complaint records
posted by XMLicious at 5:08 AM on February 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
« Older Compares textbook prices on new, used, ebooks and... | Planet Corduroy Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
No tamping down on police unions, either, which often act to warp police culture. Seattle is particularly instructive in how bad union influence can get -- almost two years ago, the SPD Union replaced its crazypants last president, only to get a new president openly in political warfare with the district attorney. But the new guy isn't crazypants enough for the rank-and-file.
Smith said he tells officers “don’t type something on a department computer, a department cellphone or say it on a department in-car video that you don’t want to see on the front page of The Seattle Times or The Stranger.”
Or, you know, tell your union officers not to beat the shit out of people.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:46 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]