I'm largely with @newtboy on this one.

Charles Kinsey provides an excellent and concrete example of someone who thought that there was zero chance that what he was doing would lead to getting shot. He did absolutely nothing wrong, and from what I/we can tell actually handled everything as well as anyone could reasonably hope for. If I was in that situation, I guarantee I wouldn't have had the presence of mind to lay down on my back with my hands straight up and calmly explain what was going on.

So, as a white person who has never been in a situation like that, all I can do is try to put myself in the shoes of how a black person would see this. Here's a guy who acted perfectly -- a standard that I can't imagine holding myself to -- and he still got shot. And the police response is (so far) boilerplate utter bullshit.

I can't really imagine what it would be like to be black in the US, and have direct experiences with this sort of thing (even less extreme examples like profiling traffic stops) on top of WAY too frequent reports of this stuff happening. But I can try, and all I can say is that it seems terrifying.

Push people far enough, and they start pushing back. I think that's what @newtboy is saying. I absolutely do NOT condone violence against police, or painting them with a broad brush and claiming they are ALL racist ... but at some point, I can absolutely understand that there is going to be blowback for this shit that has gone on way too often for way too long.

In order to slow down / prevent / stop that blowback, police need to be working their asses off to change that image. The "blue line" mentality of protecting their own even when they make (massive) mistakes has got to go. Yeah, it is a hard job. Yeah, it means that police should be held to a higher standard of conduct than average Joe citizens. Yeah, it means that police need to accept that they face a certain amount of danger and risk -- danger that will make it hard to be calm, cool, and collected. But that's the job. Protect and serve the people, not themselves or the police department.

Until all the good cops (and there are lots of them, including some friends of mine) get together and make it clear that the actions of these bad cops are utterly unacceptable, things will continue to get worse.

Close.
I believe they are nearly all liars because they themselves have clearly said that all police officers are liars. They will and have admitted publicly and repeatedly that this is the case, they are trained that lying is acceptable to gain information or compliance. I also believe that they are incapable of finding it acceptable to lie in some circumstances with impunity but at the same time NOT lying about their own bad actions...and time and time again that has proven to be correct. (once a liar, always a liar) It's not >50% that are liars, it's closer to >98%.
That said, I don't think a large percentage of them are actually intentional murderers, likely <1%, but I do think that >98% will support, lie for, falsify evidence for, threaten retaliation for, and actually retaliate for that <1%. That's also been proven by their actions repeatedly. That makes them all (>98%) accessories after the fact...so maybe not murderers, but murderer adjacent.

This admitted bias is borne from decades of repeated and consistent confirmation that it's correct, both from media and personal experience. Yes, it's unfair for that <2% of 'honest cops', but not as unfair as the >98% of dishonest cops are to them by far.

I think it's a sad state of affairs when my position, that those charged with and paid to protect and serve should maybe TRY to protect, is considered prejudice. Any officer that didn't TRY would be guilty with me on the jury. (of course, lucky for them, I am honest and admit I have a bias against police and think they are all liars and completely untrustworthy, so I never serve on a jury)

EDIT: I find it hypocritical that officers demand better pay and legal leeway because they have a 'dangerous job', but when presented with MINOR danger (like water) they cry and whine that 'they shouldn't have to put themselves in danger just to save citizen's lives'. I'm sure glad we had a completely different class of officer in 2001 or hundreds more would have died in the twin towers...but it makes one question, what would they do today in the same circumstance?

You do not HAVE to talk to a police officer. You MAY have to show ID depending on the state, but in most cases you do NOT have to show ID unless you are driving or were recently driving a vehicle. At the time he began walking he was not currently being detained for a crime.

If you follow the video link, you will see there is an abundance of information, including legal statements from the state AG that indicate that the officers had NO LEGAL CAUSE to arrest or detain the person filming and were incorrect in charging him with OoJ.

What happened here is that the cop got pissed that someone was filming him, decided he wanted to toss his weight around a bit, and then got further pissed off when his posturing was ignored. He is a cop, damnit, and people should quake in their boots when he is talking to them.

That is the problem with our police officers today. They have this idea that they are special and should be treated as such, when in reality they are simply public servants, OUR servants. We pay their salary to, thoeretically, protect and serve us. We do not pay them so we can serve them and kneel at their beck and call.

There are still officers out there that believe that way, but they are scared or unwilling to out the majority who do not. Until they do, they are no better in the end. For instance, the SGT who showed up on scene could have said that this was incorrect procedure, apologized, and punished the fucker who started it. But no, gotta stick to the thin blue line and back up the fuckup who got pissed about being filmed. Now they all get in trouble, more respect is lost for police, and the county will likely get sued. All because one guy got pissy about being filmed.

Oh I'd hate to be a cop nowadays. I mean the ones that aren't drawn to the profession to provide a outlet for their psychopathic tendencies, the ones that really do believe the "to protect and serve" mantra. They really do actually exist, contrary to growing popular opinion.

I guess my frustration on this topic is really no different than with news in general. It's not an accurate representation of the norm. It's news _because_ it's out of the norm. News is not reality TV.

YES we should be outraged when cops do this, they should be stripped of their job and punished accordingly, the culture and practices of the force they serve should be scrutinized and corrected if found to be supportive of or responsible for their criminal behavior. If there's a culture on the force where whistle blowers don't feel comfortable reporting abuses, the force needs to FIX that. I feel apparent overall opinion against cops in general is unfair, but it is the case. If they are ever to dig themselves out of the abyss of negative opinion they will have to take on more responsibility for the problem than may be deserved.

The same people that claim that cops are always "protecting and serving"..

even when they're murdering innocent people because they're too chickenshit to face the risk inherent in their chosen profession.

"Shoot first, shoot some more, then beat & taze them for good measure.. then ask.. wait, what were we supposed to be doing?"

I don't know about a mandate, but cops do protect and serve as much as possible.

Cops, every day, get between bad people and good people. Every day they help people, assist those who can't help themselves, take reports, render first aid, raise money for the destitute, listen to the lamentations of those who are aggrieved, put up with gross stupidity, etc etc etc.
every fucking day

Now's here is a much more typical police duty:
http://www.fox19.com/story/29313767/trooper-escorts-lost-elderly-woman-on-scooter

"Did you punch that one-legged old Benita?" one officer says.

"I was about to kick her in her ****ing nub," another officer replies.

Marla James volunteers at the Sky High Collective. She's legally blind and says several medical issues keep her confined to a wheelchair.

"How can I respect someone like that? It just makes your stomach turn -- maybe she doesn't know what it's like to have an amputation. I don't know what was going through her head, but man that was so disrespectful," James said.

She now plans to sue the city for the actions of the female officer in the video.

--------------------------------------------------------------


Protect and serve, protect and serve. Classy people, one and all. Don't you just feel so warm and protected after seeing our law enforcement mistreating handicapped people, eating pot brownies, and trying to destroy evidence?

I think I see your problem here...you consider the preemptive application of force to -be- a viable long-term solution to something. Preemptive violence is not a viable solution, much less one viable for the long-term, and most especially not for those who are sworn to "protect and serve".

Violence begets violence in the long run, and the folks who have official sanction to use violence -must- be held to a higher standard than that to which we would hold criminals.

Protecting and serving by automobile has been added as a related post - related requested by newtboy on that post.

In CA our cop cars don't say "To Protect and Serve" anymore, they say "Service With Concern"

Via Liberty.me: The status of the police is bound up with the perception of the value of the entire public sector. The police are the “thin blue line,” long perceived as the most essential and irreplaceable function of the state. Now that this perception is under pressure from public opinion over what happened (and is happening) in Ferguson (and many many other places around the country), a shift in intellectual opinion that's been developing for decades is gaining traction.

What’s at stake here if not the very foundation of public order as we know it? If government can’t do this right -- if the police are accomplishing the very opposite of what they claim to accomplish, namely, to "protect and serve" -- if they are, in fact, undermining the public's security rather than providing for it, (and this is widely understood to be the case, time and time again), then we have the making of not only an ideological revolution, but an authentic turning-point in the history of politics.

Security is not the most essential function of the state; it is the most dangerous one, and the very one that we should never concede lest we lose our freedom altogether. The "night watchman" is the biggest threat we face because it is he who holds the gun and he who pulls the trigger should we ever decide to escape from their "protections" and provide for ourselves.

The only things cops protect and serve is their own fucking asses.

Like a little bully who stands behind his parent who is defending them, while the bully, at the same time is mocking the other kid from behind their parent's back while they are saying, "My Tommy would never do that."

The courts are trusting you to use the laws morally and with just cause. Using it to trick innocent people or like has been said above to ruin people's lives for your own gain is incomprehensible.

@lantern53. I'm not sure how you can argue with people, and tell them they are wrong. This is your public. the people you swore to protect and serve. What went wrong with you that you have let go of the duty you started with and have come to think of the public as the enemy?
You would go a lot further in life to listen to people's concerns and take this attitude into the workplace and use it to help people. Help people in need and also help people see a better side of police.

We're here to add ideas, and to offer positive criticism (some of us) - the ones that are against you are the ones you've already pushed to far. You are worsening the problem by making even more people dislike police officers and the authority they abuse.

In many cases I would agree with that, nearly always when it's in public, but what about when the person calmly simply does not comply (knowing that's their right as a citizen)? That can also get you arrested. What if it's in a private home, that's been wrongly 'invaded' with massive force? Most people could not control their mouths when their family is being manhandled and threatened, especially when it's by the people paid to 'protect and serve' them. I know it's a 'rare' thing, but does happen repeatedly, seemingly weekly if not more often.

Contempt of cop is not an arrest-able offence, but it's often the reason for arrest. I hope you will concede that's an issue. More so when the cops blatant lies and abuse of power are the reason for the outburst, as in this case.