Here’s a candidate rule: any time you see an organization trying to enforce its own system of justice and discipline it is because:
- They have a discipline problem
- They are corrupt and want to hide the discipline problem where they can whitewash it privately
The most obvious example that immediately springs to mind is the catholic church, but I’m going to use it a a general rule; see also: power is only valuable if you abuse it, therefore anyone who wants unconstrained power should be immediately suspect.
So, that means that any kind of “internal affairs” investigative capability is not really for investigation so much as to determine whether there’s a situation that needs a bucket of whitewash. After all, we have the Federal Bureau of Investigation to, um, investigate. They’re not my favorite people, by a long shot, and I am not particularly in awe of their competence and I think they have often broken the law and been dishonest – but that puts them head and shoulders above the catholic church in terms of honesty and effectiveness at investigating. They also appear to be ahead of congress, the white house, every local police department, ever, the boy scouts, university sports establishments, etc. We should assume, I think, that “why wouldn’t you want to be exonerated in a real court?” is the question. The question answers itself, doesn’t it?
It depresses me how thoroughly Americans have consumed the propaganda put out by law enforcement in the 1950s and 60s: they are uncorruptible G-men, etc. The propaganda campaign was necessary because American society has also ideologized its people with an absurd “frontier mentality” and a pseudo-antigovernment gloss that keeps them hanging on to guns “in case the government turns oppressive” – as if it hadn’t been oppressive all along. The results of that propaganda manifest themselves in the absurd idea that a policeman’s testimony is expected to count absolutely more than a citizens, no matter what – and that also produces a tiered system of justice. The cops get a system of justice that is very, very different from the one they inflict on the citizens. And the citizens tolerate this state of affairs because they have been convinced that having heavily armed goons in SWAT gear kicking in doors and shooting people is how a justice system is supposed to work; instead of being greeted by a hail of bullets, cops are patted on the back for having an unpleasantly dangerous job and therefore they are heroes.
Cops enjoy a system of separate justice that allows them to shoot and kill people, kick in doors, kick in teeth – pretty much whatever they want to do – and the main downside risk to getting caught is that they might have to move to a different diocese police department. It’s the ultimate form of “you have a friend in high places”: someone is going to deliberately fumble the case or bury the evidence, if that’s what it takes.
I don’t know if I’m unusually paranoid, or if it’s just healthy skepticism, but it seems to me as though the timing of this was such that it was intended not to invite notice: [intercept]
On Wednesday, the Brooklyn district attorney tasked with prosecuting the former officers dropped all the rape charges, as well as those for other sexual crimes. That means the cops, Hall and Martins, will face trial only for official misconduct and bribery for the rape of Anna Chambers. Following the flawed letter of an outdated penal code, the prosecutors chose police impunity over justice.
In case you’ve forgotten who Anna Chambers is, she’s the 17 year-old who was in a car with some friends, who were pulled over and busted for there being some grains of marijuana in a cup holder. Cops then took Anna into an unmarked cop-van and raped her.
Surely, that’s not the first and only time that has happened.
But, because New York wanted to pretend that it was the first and only time that’s happened, the laws allegedly forgot to specify something or other about cops not being able to extort sex from suspects. Got that? We are expected to believe that because cops haven’t been explicitly told that raping an under-aged, handcuffed suspect is not a consensual situation, apparently it’s just harsh dating, cop-style, or something. So prosecutors drop the case.
Let me tell you why I think it happened that way: I think it happened that way because New York couldn’t figure out how to “lose” the DNA sample of the cop’s semen that was swabbed out of the victim. When rape victims are told to get to an ER, get a swab, call the police – New York has just put the lie to all that; it’s useless unless your attacker is someone who hasn’t got top-cover.
This is everywhere – Jeffrey Epstein and Alan Dershowitz [crim] (and possibly Bill Clinton and who knows who else rode Epstein’s flying seraglio) can count on a friendly judge who can apply a carefully calibrated slap on the wrist. So can Paul Manafort, and Roger Stone and every other paid-in-full member of the power elite.
In the case of Anna Chambers, the bullshit level of the prosecutor’s misconduct is hard to believe. It is already illegal to rape people. It is already illegal to extort sex. It is already illegal for a cop to offer quid pro quo to a suspect – it is already illegal for cops to do all the things that they did in that particular situation, but the prosecutor dropped the case because there’s no specific law saying that cops can’t “date” a suspect when she’s handcuffed in the back of a van – because the consent in the situation was not clear, the cops get to walk; they have a friend in high places and it’s the prosecutor. I don’t consider the Daily Mail to be a particularly credible source but it may be that the prosecutor “had an affair with” one of the cops (whatever that means) – presumably she wasn’t handcuffed in the back of a van, though. [dm]
So the charges go from first degree rape to “apparently we forgot to tell cops not to do that, so these two get a pass.”
Also: I did not want to do a separate posting about this, because it would force me to stop studiously ignoring superhero movies, but: [guard] James Gunn has been quietly reinstated as the director of Guardians of The Galaxy because it’s all about the benjamins, baby! The Guardians of The Galaxy movies have raked in nearly $2bn worldwide, so Gunn can say anything he likes.
Are you sure about this one? Maybe citizens tolerate the cops and their awful behavior only because they are powerless to change anything?
As for displaying your dissatisfaction with the police officers by greeting them with a hail of bullets, some people believe that violence cannot solve problems, others are pacifists, a few believe that murder is wrong even when the victim is a cop, some don’t want to end up in a jail cell for killing a cop… Just because people aren’t shooting cops more often doesn’t prove that they like them.
Ieva Skrebele@#1:
some people believe that violence cannot solve problems
True. While a cop is choking you to death, you can try to say “I can’t breathe” and not resist. That helps a lot.
Most Americans seem to worship the police. That’s the problem.
Yes, it really helps a lot. If you don’t resist, you are likely to end up in a hospital. If you do resist, you are more likely to end up in a morgue instead.
Seriously, though, violence has a tendency to escalate. That’s when situation spirals down from bad to much worse. Once people start murdering each other, this tends to result in civil wars. Once governments crumble, it is street gangs, mafia, or simply thugs with AK-47s who take over and gain control.
I know that it’s possible to argue that the USA is a failed state. However, things can get much, much worse than what we are currently witnessing in the USA. Just look at any civil war torn place that’s ran by thugs with automatic rifles. If Americans started to commit mass murders against cops, the result wouldn’t be a peaceful utopia ran by “good guys with guns”™ who were kind to elderly ladies, never raped any girls, and didn’t even think about kicking dogs or abusing their power. Instead, the result would be something much, much worse.
I still haven’t figured out how serious you are whenever you suggest shooting cops, but, if you are serious, then you clearly haven’t thought things through.
I’m dismayed but not surprised that the district attorney’s office dropped the charges. Prosecutors depend upon the police to give them cases and to provide them with evidence (or “evidence”) to keep their conviction numbers up. If they started actually prosecuting cops for their crimes, the police would suddenly be forgetful, lose evidence, etc., and the district attorney’s office would be in trouble.
I would have suggested that they try to get the US attorneys to bring a civil rights case, but from my years on a grand jury, I’m aware that many of the cases the federal prosecutors in NYC get also come from the NYPD, so they may also have a vested interest in looking the other way.
Maybe a civil suit. Maybe naming not only the individual officers, but the NYPD and the District Attorney’s office as well. However, my impression is that the judges in NY are also biased in favor of the powers that be (maybe because they face election on a regular basis), so that even that might be an uphill battle.
I suspect that Ieva Skrebele has hit on why the populace at large hasn’t rebelled against the whole system: they feel that even a corrupt “justice” system is better than none at all. As it is, you only have one organized crime syndicate to deal with; with no police or courts, you’d face a revolving door of warlords battling it out, with the population at large as their battleground.
Unfortunately, I think it was always thus. After all, kings, etc., were all originally just local warlords (i.e., gang leaders) who were better at warlording than their competitors. All governments were and are ultimately just power maintained by violence.
Houston is stopping no knock raids following a shootout. Austin is also looking at stopping such raids.
Allison@#4:
Unfortunately, I think it was always thus. After all, kings, etc., were all originally just local warlords (i.e., gang leaders) who were better at warlording than their competitors. All governments were and are ultimately just power maintained by violence.
That’s pretty much how I see it. We all have to hunker down and just hope we can get through life OK without attracting the attention of the power structure.
I think that what I’m experiencing here is a loss of my enlightenment ideals. In retrospect, it looks silly but I suppose I bought all that glarp about politics being power-sharing and that people should be treated more or less fairly.
robertbaden@#5:
Houston is stopping no knock raids following a shootout. Austin is also looking at stopping such raids.
Yes; it may be that Houston is just stopping them while everyone is looking. They had a colossal screw-up and consequent shitstorm.
I didn’t know about Austin. I’ll check and see what happened there. (Cops seem to love no knock raids until someone reacts in a way that makes them not love them so much anymore)
Wait, they have DNA evidence that a cop ejaculated inside a handcuffed 17 year old and they’re letting it drop? Seriously? Because cops haven’t specifically been told that they’re not supposed to rape an underage suspect. Do we really need to rewrite P&P manuals to specify keep your dick to yourself?
You actually had “enlightenment ideals”? Wow. I didn’t expect that from you. I mean, we all are taught this bullshit at schools, but one should stop believing all this crap by the time they finish school and are forced to look around at what’s actually happening in the real world. At least that’s how it happened with me. How can anybody regularly read the news and still believe that people are treated fairly and equally?
The fact that governments are illegitimate first occurred to me when I realized just how desperately countries try to legitimize themselves and how brutally they punish citizens who dislike existing governments.
Countries tend to get established in nasty ways—wars, military coups, etc. Whichever thug has a stronger army gets to establish their own country. People who happen to live in some geographical area rarely get asked in what kind of country they want to live in. This question getting decided via referenda is a truly rare occurrence. Yet every single ruling regime always desperately tries to justify itself. If you pay attention, you will notice existing political regimes justifying their existence on every single opportunity, from school curricula to national holidays. The claim always is that ours is the rightful ruler, and all other competing regimes and warlords are denounced as not legitimate. I wonder why.
You can also pay attention to how countries treat those who oppose the existing political regime. Why is treason even a crime? Why exactly is it a crime for some citizen to attempt to overthrow their own government? If people really were allowed to decide in what kind of country they wanted to live in, then they should also have a right to one day change their minds, peacefully overthrow the existing regime, and replace it with something different. And how comes that killing a king or a head of some state is a worse crime than killing a homeless beggar on the street? Murder ought to be equally bad regardless of who the victim is. UK high treason laws are even funnier. How comes that having extramarital sex with a female member of the royal family is one of the worst crimes a British citizen can possibly commit. I mean, if the lady consents, why not let two consenting adults have some fun. It’s not like the British people really need to have a king with the right DNA that came from the right bloodline. The way I see it, in most cases treason shouldn’t even be a crime at all. For example, if it is legal to participate in a war against other countries, why is it illegal to participate in a war against one’s native country? The simple fact that I happened to be born within the geographical boundaries of some country isn’t a good reason for why I ought to rationally decide to support this country’s existing political regime. Often countries go so far with punishing traitors, that it gets outright petty, for example, people get actual prison sentences for things like lèse-majesté or burning the national flag.
It some country was truly legitimate, it wouldn’t have to invent some bullshit excuses for justifying its existence. If some country existed as a direct result of the will of its citizens, then laws against treason wouldn’t exist. Whenever some politician rigs a democratic election, they by default admit that they have no right to rule. Whenever some country starts inventing bullshit excuses to justify itself and punishes traitors, this country by default admits that its rule is no different from that of some street gang that has taken over some neighborhood.
By the way, in 1918 in Latvia there were three governments simultaneously trying to run the country. There was a German puppet government, a Bolshevik government that wanted Latvia to be part of the Russian empire, and the third government that wanted Latvia to be an independent country. The three governments each had its own army and they fought against each other. Ultimately, one of them won. At that point everybody who during the war had supported one of the losing sides ended up being labeled as a traitor. But seriously, how does winning a war make one government more legitimate than those it fought against? And by what right does the winning side label its opponents as traitors? There is no right, no legitimacy. It’s all just a matter of who had the strongest army. Note: having the strongest army can actually be a direct result of popular support, in which case one could argue that the state has gained some legitimacy through popular support. But even that doesn’t give the state a right to label all the citizens with minority opinions as traitors.
voyager@#8:
Wait, they have DNA evidence that a cop ejaculated inside a handcuffed 17 year old and they’re letting it drop? Seriously?
Yup; the cops said it was consensual, see, and cops don’t lie about things like that.
That’s not entirely true, and in one important aspect, it’s very false. The situation regarding the police was a lot better 220 years ago, in many ways (but not all ways) in America and England, and then it got a whole lot worse. It was a slow, gradual process. Remember that police in American and English cultures is a very recent thing, being invented by Sir Robert Peel in 1829. Can you imagine that? In short, police didn’t exist before 1829 in America and England – at least not like anything we know now as “police”.
Please see the following essay – that has plethora of citations – for a much needed history lesson on how our “criminal justice system” and police, and how it used to be much better in many ways (but not all ways).
> ARE COPS CONSTITUTIONAL?
> Roger Roots*
https://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm
To repeat what we’re all thinking: I don’t give a fuck what the cop says. He could have it all on video for all I care. Having sex with an imprisoned / arrested / detained person is rape. End of discussion. Do not pass go. Do not collect 200 dollars. Go directly to jail.
EnlightenmentLiberal@#11
I didn’t read the linked text very far, because I perceive the American constitution and interpretation thereof as an extremely boring topic. That being said, I’m going to comment about cops and the constitution anyway.
I have a problem with constitution worshipers and all those endless attempts to interpret the constitution and figure out what exactly the Founding Fathers intended. Any constitution written several centuries ago is by definition flawed. It fails to deal with countless modern problems humanity faces in the 21st century. This, in turn, leaves “holes” in the legislature that are open for abuse (for example, if a constitution says nothing about digital surveillance or metadata, legislators are free to “interpret” it any way they want). Thus I believe that constitutions ought to be amended and rewritten as time goes by and human lifestyles and technology change and advance. Constitutions shouldn’t be sacred, instead they ought to be treated as tools that humans can use in order to establish under what kind of laws they want to live.
As for the intent of the founding fathers, why should a person living in 21st century care about that. Sure, one can have philosophical discussions about what political systems various philosophers envisioned in the past, but when it comes to practical decisions about how we want to live right now, opinions of the founding fathers shouldn’t be any more relevant than those of Socrates or John Stuart Mill. Even if the Founding Fathers had been paragons of virtue (they weren’t, they were slave owners and smugglers), it doesn’t mean that a person living in 21st century ought to just settle for living in the kind of country the Founding Fathers envisioned. Instead it should be up to people who share a country at any given time to collectively decide what laws they want.
Anyway, here I see several possible discussions:
(1) A theoretical discussion about what different philosophers have said about countries and law enforcement. In this kind of discussion one would be welcome to quote the Founding Fathers or any other philosopher who has died centuries ago and left written records about what he thought about the police.
(2) A practical discussion about how to urgently solve the problem that American cops can rape innocent citizens with impunity and get away with it. In this discussion one could say: “The constitution might be flawed and the Founding fathers might have been assholes, but we have an urgent problem to fix as quickly as possible. Can we do some quote mining and utilize any words from the constitution in order to pass some new laws that would allow us to rein in cop misbehavior?”
(3) A theoretical discussion about how a state ought to handle law enforcement. Such a discussion would be about how the best imaginable law enforcement system could look like. In this discussion opinions of the Founding Fathers are mostly irrelevant (a debater might borrow an argument from them, but one couldn’t just make an argument from authority).
Next I’m going to write some of my ideas for the discussion #3 (a theoretical discussion about how a state ought to handle law enforcement). I believe that something that resembles the police is necessary. Private citizens, along with a few constables and sheriffs work just fine in a village that has only a couple hundred inhabitants, because there everybody knows each other. In the modern world with millions of people living in a single city, private citizens can no longer deal with crime. I also believe that police ought to be employed by the state. “Amazon cop service” would likely be even worse than what countries can offer. The big question is how to make sure that state employed cops cannot abuse their power. Here are some of my ideas:
(1) Decriminalize all the victimless crimes like recreational drug usage or prostitution. This way cops will no longer have an excuse to pester random people.
(2) Take guns away from citizens, this way cops no longer can use “I was scared” as an excuse.
(3) Carefully write laws to give the cops as little power as possible (the bare minimum absolutely necessary for dealing with criminals), then make sure there are no loopholes.
(4) Regularly and severely punish cops for overstepping the boundaries of what they are legally allowed to do; make sure cops are afraid to break the law.
(5) Don’t allow cops to police themselves. If a cop gets accused of some crime, there can be no internal investigation, this cop’s friends and colleagues cannot even be allowed near the investigation.
American cops are notoriously awful. In many other countries police is nowhere near as bad. It would be possible to create a law enforcement system that doesn’t give cops free rein. In fact, right now most European countries are doing at least a somewhat decent job with controlling their cops. Where I live, cops simply don’t shoot people. Nor have I heard about cops raping suspects in police vans.
To Ieva Skrebele
I was merely correcting Allison. When Allison said that police were always above the law in the manner that they are today, she was mistaken.
You seem to be attacking some thing that you think I said but which I did not exactly say. If you want to have an argument about methods of jurisprudence, that would be a different conversation entirely.
PS:
As a purely educated guess, based on my reading of the matter, I would guess that the following three were the primary motivators for the change of criminal justice as a mostly private matter, with the prosecutor being the victim, to the modern state driven system.
1- The apparent myth that crime rates were rising circa 1830. Being “tough on crime” sold back then too.
2- The American civil war and reconstruction-era. The law required them to give equal rights to blacks, and the courts nominally upheld this view. So, instead of raising blacks to be equal to whites before the law, they dropped whites down to the level of blacks, with the implicit understanding that cops would still give the older proper treatment to whites, just so that cops could harass blacks and “keep them in their place”. However, this agreement wasn’t captured in written case law, and so the end effect is the steady erosion of many of our civil rights.
3- The drug wars. You would be surprised about how many rights we used to have against improper searches and seizures, and how most of the SCOTUS cases that eroded those rights were seemingly due to the perceived need of more enforcement powers for drug laws. This includes alcohol Prohibition and also the modern drug prohibition that was started by Reagan.
Nixon. He was the one that announced the “War on Drugs” on June 18th, 1971, and created the DEA two years later. This of course was a continuation of and expansion of a long history of prohibition, but it wasn’t really about that, according to John Ehrlichman:
Re Nixon vs Reagan.
Whoops. My bad. Thanks for that correction!