There are people who have claimed for years that the average American
policeman is corrupt. Not corrupt as in taking bribes (although there
might be those as well), but corrupt as in constantly stepping outside
the boundaries of the law, engaging in bordering-the-illegal, if not even
illegal measures, sometimes even outright police brutality, and the
officials are simply burying the cases. Someone said that when school
bullies grow up and cannot bully people legally anymore, they become
police officers, after which they can.

  I never paid any attention to that kind of talk. Sure, there have been
cases of police brutality and other cases of dubious conduct (such as
destroying evidence of police misconduct and threatening witnesses), but
I have always thought they were rare individual cases, not the norm.
I have always assumed that on average the American police force is
honest, competent and good-willing.

  The events of the occupy protests in the US have made me doubt, though.
Too many cases of police brutality triggered for no reason, stepping on
people's rights and freedom, and so on, to count. And not just by some
individual police officers, but by higher-ups. And apparently with no
consequences whatsoever for these infringers.

  It cannot just be a case of some politicians ordering the police to
rough up the protesters. An honest police chief would simply say "no".
What are the policiticians going to do? Fire them? That would be a political
suicide. (The police chief could simply go to the press and tell them the
story. The press would be all over it, and the politicians would be
crucified.) No, the police forces are doing this because they want to. They
could very well just stand by the protesters and protect their constitutional
rights, but no.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:07:20 -0500, Warp wrote:

>   I never paid any attention to that kind of talk. Sure, there have been
> cases of police brutality and other cases of dubious conduct (such as
> destroying evidence of police misconduct and threatening witnesses), but
> I have always thought they were rare individual cases, not the norm.
> I have always assumed that on average the American police force is
> honest, competent and good-willing.

It's been my experience that this is generally the case; the exceptions 
are what gets reported, but that shouldn't be taken to be the 'norm' in 
most cases.

Police behaving themselves and not macing old ladies and pregnant women 
isn't news.  It's normal.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 11/18/2011 8:07, Warp wrote:
>    There are people who have claimed for years that the average American
> policeman is corrupt.

I think this is (A) a relatively newer phenomenon, and (B) a problem that 
even the honest police don't report the bad apples.

I.e., I don't remember hearing anything like "the usual police brutality" 
until maybe 10 years ago here, and certainly nobody was afraid of police 
when I was growing up. I don't know whether to attribute it to me just 
paying more attention or to the police actually going downhill in terms of 
being good police. Certainly there was a lot of talk of "community policing" 
which meant the police living where they worked, knowing the people who live 
there, etc.

Certainly the whole Rodney King beating was astoundingly brutal and all 
that, where as nowadays such a thing would be seen as business-as-usual by many.

I think as the economy has gotten harsher and the politicians have gotten 
bolder in their disregard of the law, the brutality and such has trickled down.

The other problem is that police who do this sort of thing aren't 
disciplined by their "brothers in blue." It's a bit understandable, as you 
really don't want to be squealing on the guy who tomorrow might have to save 
your life. So now people are thinking even the average cops are bad cops, 
because they're defending the bad cops even if they're not doing bad things 
themselves.

FWIW, I think what you're seeing with the cops now has much longer been the 
case with prison guards and such. I don't think anyone ever considered 
prison guards to be kind and caring to those in their institutions.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

On 19-11-2011 7:38, Darren New wrote:

> FWIW, I think what you're seeing with the cops now has much longer been
> the case with prison guards and such. I don't think anyone ever
> considered prison guards to be kind and caring to those in their
> institutions.
>
Is privatization also a piece of the puzzle?
AFAIK some/many/all(?) prisons a run by private companies. The US also 
privatized part of the military operation in Iraq, which also did not 
contribute to the ethical behaviour of 'soldiers'.
Are parts of the US police tasks also privatized nowadays?

-- 
Give me one example of a true random counter

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Is privatization also a piece of the puzzle?
> AFAIK some/many/all(?) prisons a run by private companies.

  What for? It sounds a bit like the trend of many corporations outsourcing
parts of their software development, which only ended up being more expensive
in the long run than doing everything in-house.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 20-11-2011 10:33, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> Is privatization also a piece of the puzzle?
>> AFAIK some/many/all(?) prisons a run by private companies.
>
>    What for? It sounds a bit like the trend of many corporations outsourcing
> parts of their software development, which only ended up being more expensive
> in the long run than doing everything in-house.

because private companies can pay their employees less and are therefore 
cheaper?

because the government is not liable in case of abuse?

because someone had a friend that could influence that decision?

because it was fashionable?

because it is not a task for the government?

BTW In GB prisons are/were also privatized. Group 4 was famous for 
running some prisons a few years ago. Actually I don't know how it is here.


-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

Le 20/11/2011 10:33, Warp nous fit lire :
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Is privatization also a piece of the puzzle?
>> AFAIK some/many/all(?) prisons a run by private companies.
> 
>   What for? It sounds a bit like the trend of many corporations outsourcing
> parts of their software development, which only ended up being more expensive
> in the long run than doing everything in-house.
> 
Flexibility & Responsability (plausible denial of), all of very short
term interests for the decision maker.

He/She/They can promiss "immediat" improvement : the delay is due to the
private companies.
If shit happens, its the fault of the private company, He/She/They are
safe and can blame a third party.
With multiple companies, He/She/They avoid a global strike against the
public finances (unlimited wealth) or a global revendication. Dividing
to reign.
Progression & Reduction of the number of working people is not
His/Her/Their issue... no dual posture: firing people and respecting the
social rights. He/She/They make speech about the social rights, and
never appears to fire anyone.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/20/2011 1:20, andrel wrote:
> Is privatization also a piece of the puzzle?

Of the jails and soldiers? Most likely, yes. Of the police? I don't think 
so. I've never heard of any significant amount of force-using police being 
privatized. Sure, there are "civilian contractors" for stuff like doing lab 
analysis of evidence, but I don't think there's people who carry guns or 
wear uniforms that are not on the payroll of the government.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 10:20:01 +0100, andrel wrote:

> On 19-11-2011 7:38, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> FWIW, I think what you're seeing with the cops now has much longer been
>> the case with prison guards and such. I don't think anyone ever
>> considered prison guards to be kind and caring to those in their
>> institutions.
>>
> Is privatization also a piece of the puzzle?

Not of the police force, at least not that I've heard of.

> AFAIK some/many/all(?) prisons a run by private companies. The US also
> privatized part of the military operation in Iraq, which also did not
> contribute to the ethical behaviour of 'soldiers'.

Yes, I believe this is certainly true.

> Are parts of the US police tasks also privatized nowadays?

Not to my knowledge.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 11/20/2011 2:20 AM, andrel wrote:
> On 19-11-2011 7:38, Darren New wrote:
>
>> FWIW, I think what you're seeing with the cops now has much longer been
>> the case with prison guards and such. I don't think anyone ever
>> considered prison guards to be kind and caring to those in their
>> institutions.
>>
> Is privatization also a piece of the puzzle?
> AFAIK some/many/all(?) prisons a run by private companies. The US also
> privatized part of the military operation in Iraq, which also did not
> contribute to the ethical behaviour of 'soldiers'.
> Are parts of the US police tasks also privatized nowadays?
>
The only "growth sector" in California during this depression has been 
private jails. The #1 place, other than the jails, to which money from 
this has gone as been into lobbying for more, and higher, mandatory jail 
time, even for minor offenses, in California. Arizona is pulling the 
same crap, with private prisons, and I am fairly sure its a trend in any 
number of other places too. So... You can take from that what you will.

As for the police... LA hasn't exactly had a huge positive association 
with "fair" or "uncorrupt" cops, and there is two reasons: 1. A lot of 
them are, and 2. Enough of them seem to be, even from the view of other 
cops, in other places, that it would be nearly impossible to replace all 
of them. How much of that is rumor, and how much truth, is uncertain, 
but there is a reason why phrases like, "driving while black" (and 
others), originated in LA, and its not because there are more slums 
there than in say Chicago, or NY.

Post a reply to this message