Police Corruption Thread.

Bear Ribs · Dec 19, 2021

LordsFire said:
What better model do you have for people to try switching to?

I don't have a solid idea of what it should be, but being accused should not be devastating and brutal even if you're found innocent of all charges, for police or anybody else. If defending yourself while innocent is only reasonably possible if you're either rich or granted special immunity to prosecution by law, the Justice System... isn't Just.

LordsFire · Dec 19, 2021

Bear Ribs said:
I don't have a solid idea of what it should be, but being accused should not be devastating and brutal even if you're found innocent of all charges, for police or anybody else. If defending yourself while innocent is only reasonably possible if you're either rich or granted special immunity to prosecution by law, the Justice System... isn't Just.

Most of that isn't a problem with the legal system, that's a problem with the media and business culture. The part that is a problem, how slow and costly the legal system is, is certainly something that needs to be reformed, but I'm not aware of any alternative systems that are more corruption-resistant in that regard.

To the best of my knowledge, the Common Law system is the 'least bad' judicial system which has developed in the world thus far. If someone has an actually better option, I'm open to hearing it.

King Arts · Dec 19, 2021

LordsFire said:
What better model do you have for people to try switching to?

Civil law system like most of Europe does where the judge instead of being a neutral referee is involved in questioning and can get involved in the case against instead of letting the lawyers fight it out and making the side with more money win. Like America is one of the most litigation heavy nations we need a system that won’t have so many cases clogging up the system.

LordsFire said:
Most of that isn't a problem with the legal system, that's a problem with the media and business culture. The part that is a problem, how slow and costly the legal system is, is certainly something that needs to be reformed, but I'm not aware of any alternative systems that are more corruption-resistant in that regard.

To the best of my knowledge, the Common Law system is the 'least bad' judicial system which has developed in the world thus far. If someone has an actually better option, I'm open to hearing it.

No it’s not the best it’s kinda sucky hell some parts of Sharia law are better.

But no we should try about looking into a new system instead of copying others. As an example to get rid of the corruption of money where the side with more well paid attorneys wins and the average person will go bankrupt dealing with cases, make it so that all lawyers are nationalized part of the government. That way government will be forced to spend equal money on the prosecution and the public defender, and we ban private attorneys so rich people can’t get pull an OJ or hire good attorneys to screw with a fair trial.

Zachowon · Dec 19, 2021

So the judge can be overtly bias in his questioning?
It would backfire with the US Court system

LordsFire · Dec 19, 2021

King Arts said:
Civil law system like most of Europe does where the judge instead of being a neutral referee is involved in questioning and can get involved in the case against instead of letting the lawyers fight it out and making the side with more money win. Like America is one of the most litigation heavy nations we need a system that won’t have so many cases clogging up the system.

No it’s not the best it’s kinda sucky hell some parts of Sharia law are better.

But no we should try about looking into a new system instead of copying others. As an example to get rid of the corruption of money where the side with more well paid attorneys wins and the average person will go bankrupt dealing with cases, make it so that all lawyers are nationalized part of the government. That way government will be forced to spend equal money on the prosecution and the public defender, and we ban private attorneys so rich people can’t get pull an OJ or hire good attorneys to screw with a fair trial.

...So you want to instead have complete tyranny. Really not interested in that as an alternative.

You seem to be suffering under the misconception that government organs are less prone to corruption when they have more power, rather than being more prone to corruption when they have more power.

King Arts · Dec 19, 2021

Zachowon said:
So the judge can be overtly bias in his questioning?
It would backfire with the US Court system

I would rather we have openly biased judges than those who hide like they do now. If your judges are prejudiced you have a problem but better it be open so that it can be fixed by n appeal or the judge removed instead of secret and unknown where the judge stays there doing continuous damage.

Zachowon · Dec 19, 2021

Do European courts have a jury of thier peers?

LordsFire · Dec 19, 2021

King Arts said:
I would rather we have openly biased judges than those who hide like they do now. If your judges are prejudiced you have a problem but better it be open so that it can be fixed by n appeal or the judge removed instead of secret and unknown where the judge stays there doing continuous damage.

The problem here is the assumption that openly biased judges would be removed.

King Arts · Dec 19, 2021

LordsFire said:
...So you want to instead have complete tyranny. Really not interested in that as an alternative.

You seem to be suffering under the misconception that government organs are less prone to corruption when they have more power, rather than being more prone to corruption when they have more power.

What exactly is a tyranny to you? Right now the courts have too much power because of money. Could obergefel happen or other political decisions like roe v wade if private lawyers couldn’t make tons of money paid by special interests to argue for those interests that are against the common good. What I advocate would make the courts less powerful as they wouldn’t be able to be a seperate 3rd branch but subordinate to the other two.

Zachowon said:
Do European courts have a jury of thier peers?

I don’t think so but I’m not arguing against jury trials just removing money and private lawyers from court cases and demanding the public defense gets the same resources as the prosecutor.

LordsFire said:
The problem here is the assumption that openly biased judges would be removed.

Well then any argument is pointless and the courts will be corrupt and all powerful forever.

Bacle · Dec 19, 2021

Zachowon said:
So have less and less cops as they are targeted by civil suites heavily, people not wanting to deal eith all of this stuff. Bad cops get in and don't wear body cams because they don't wanna suffer so more bad cops come in.

You need to make a better argument....

Alright, that hasn't stopped cases that should be dropped not getting dropped. Political reasons come into play especially if someone arrested a black man.

You are basically asking for white people to be heavily arrested and black people to be let loose because the officer would not get sued by the white people while even I they follow the book they get sued by the black person.

Can you actually address the argument I made, instead of as usual making rather absurd and overreaching hypotheticals to justify your views?

LordsFire · Dec 19, 2021

King Arts said:
What exactly is a tyranny to you? Right now the courts have too much power because of money. Could obergefel happen or other political decisions like roe v wade if private lawyers couldn’t make tons of money paid by special interests to argue for those interests that are against the common good. What I advocate would make the courts less powerful as they wouldn’t be able to be a seperate 3rd branch but subordinate to the other two.

How would it make the courts less powerful? No longer having a standard of objectivity to at least try to have judges adhere to, even though they so very often fail (or with many leftist judges, don't try at all), is better than having them be readily and voluntarily partisan.

Further, giving the legal system control over who your legal representation will be, is just giving them further arbitrary authority over whether your defense succeeds or fails. If the person or council making such decisions doesn't like you, they'll assign you an incompetent, or barely competent, lawyer, and that'll be that, if not one that will outright work against you. You'll be finished.

You really are coming across as just another person who sees (real) problems with the current system, but thinks that your other system will somehow not have problems. A hypothetical idealized system will always trump a flawed system actually being used.

I would much rather try to push out as much corruption as we feasibly can from the current system, than try your system that would make the courts even more powerful and more prone to corruption.

Abhorsen · Dec 19, 2021

Zachowon said:
As they have pointed out.
Sov citizens can sue because you violated thier rights.
Basically damn near everything a cop does if someone claims otherwise, it can be a suit and even if the cop wins that is all the cops money gone paying fir the legal fees, because we all know the leftist will get funding from the woke groups and the cop will either be disowned by thier department/Office/Agency and forced to pay it themselves, or the department pays for everything but docs thier pay or even fires them.

Basically quickest way to defund the police is to do this

We know from experience this isn't true. In most jurisdictions, cops are paid even when clearly guilty. The problem is the exact opposite.

In the current system, there is near zero incentive for a government to get rid of a bad cop. Making somebody liable would introduce at least some incentive.

Also, as a side note, get rid of all public sector unions (or in some cases, privatize the function and keep the union. Either or).

LordSunhawk · Dec 20, 2021

How I would handle this.

Adjust Qualified Immunity for police to more closely resemble the version used for other first-responders. If the officer acted within the bounds of their training and professional standards they have immunity, if they did not, they automatically lose that immunity. All costs related to determining whether or not immunity applies in any given case are born by the state or federal government. This determination is to be made by a qualified review panel as determined by the local jurisdiction and their decisions are considered legally binding.

If a given department fails to implement proper training to meet professional standards they become fully liable for the consequences of said deficiency, not the individual officers.

If a situation arises where, operating within the bounds of training and professional standards, an officer nevertheless manages to violate constitutional protections in an unanticipated manner, then the officer is still protected, but the department is liable for nominal damages so long as training and professional standards are updated in a timely manner in response to the unanticipated issue. However if it is shown that the department was aware of the potential constitutional violation yet failed to update their training and professional standards, then the department is fully liable for full civil damages and will be required to immediately update their training and professional standards.

LordsFire · Dec 20, 2021

LordSunhawk said:
How I would handle this.

Adjust Qualified Immunity for police to more closely resemble the version used for other first-responders. If the officer acted within the bounds of their training and professional standards they have immunity, if they did not, they automatically lose that immunity. All costs related to determining whether or not immunity applies in any given case are born by the state or federal government. This determination is to be made by a qualified review panel as determined by the local jurisdiction and their decisions are considered legally binding.

If a given department fails to implement proper training to meet professional standards they become fully liable for the consequences of said deficiency, not the individual officers.

If a situation arises where, operating within the bounds of training and professional standards, an officer nevertheless manages to violate constitutional protections in an unanticipated manner, then the officer is still protected, but the department is liable for nominal damages so long as training and professional standards are updated in a timely manner in response to the unanticipated issue. However if it is shown that the department was aware of the potential constitutional violation yet failed to update their training and professional standards, then the department is fully liable for full civil damages and will be required to immediately update their training and professional standards.

I don't agree with all of this, but it is at least a framework that could result in a somewhat functional policing system.

ShadowsOfParadox · Dec 20, 2021

Qualified Immunity... eh, maybe, it seems like nobody but LordSunhawk has an actual starting point for reforming it in a way that could maybe actually work...

But Civil Asset Forfeiture and the War on Drugs that expanded the thing unreasonably are the actual problems.

In particular, the incentive structure for the War on Drugs values number of arrests much more than "who got arrested" leaving the Police incentivized not to go after "Drug Kingpins" but minor users and dealers instead. On top of the fact that Drug Use is closely tied to mental health issues and the way that other countries(like Portugal) treating their drug problems like Mental Health problems had drastic impacts and the way the US has waged the "War on Drugs" really feels like another of those "Politicians don't actually want to solve problems that get them elected because then they'd need to find a new problem to get elected on" issue.

Many of the other issues people have with Police behavior can also be traced to th War on Drugs and it's incentive structure. In particular, much of the militarization of the police is from War on Drugs policy.

Free-Stater 101 · Sep 11, 2022

Another big scandal.

Plainclothes officers in West Virginia interrupted a funeral by killing a pallbearer as he was mid-embrace — and seconds after placing his father's casket in the hearse: report

I don't know what the police think this guy was wanted for, but nothing excuses killing an unarmed man in front of his whole family just as he put his dead father's body in the ground to rest, especially when they didn't announce themselves as U.S. Marshalls.

King Arts · Sep 11, 2022

Rusty Shackleford said:
Another big scandal.

Plainclothes officers in West Virginia interrupted a funeral by killing a pallbearer as he was mid-embrace — and seconds after placing his father's casket in the hearse: report

I don't know what the police think this guy was wanted for, but nothing excuses killing an unarmed man in front of his whole family just as he put his dead father's body in the ground to rest, especially when they didn't announce themselves as U.S. Marshalls.

Stuff like this will keep happening until police start facing personal consequences and people know that they personally are treated as criminals.

Cherico · Sep 11, 2022

Rusty Shackleford said:
Another big scandal.

Plainclothes officers in West Virginia interrupted a funeral by killing a pallbearer as he was mid-embrace — and seconds after placing his father's casket in the hearse: report

I don't know what the police think this guy was wanted for, but nothing excuses killing an unarmed man in front of his whole family just as he put his dead father's body in the ground to rest, especially when they didn't announce themselves as U.S. Marshalls.

I think the officer in question should be tried for premeditated murder.

Abhorsen · Sep 11, 2022

King Arts said:
Stuff like this will keep happening until police start facing personal consequences and people know that they personally are treated as criminals.

And this is why qualified immunity needs to die.

Bear Ribs · Sep 11, 2022

The US Marshals released a somewhat different appraisal of the situation.

Marshals: Man killed in officer-involved shooting at Nutter Fort funeral home had gun

A man is dead after an officer-involved shooting that happened at the Amos Carvelli Funeral Home in Nutter Fort on Wednesday afternoon.

www.wboy.com

According to their reports, they were serving a warrant and when they called his name, he pulled out a gun so they shot him. That said I can't help but be somewhat suspicious of this when they also can "neither confirm nor deny" that they found a weapon, you'd think it'd be pretty easy to find if it was in his hand when they shot him.

Police Corruption Thread.

Well-known member

Internet Wizard

Well-known member

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!

Internet Wizard

Well-known member

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!

Internet Wizard

Well-known member

When the effort is no longer profitable...

Internet Wizard

Local Degenerate

Das BOOT (literally)

Internet Wizard

Well-known member

Freedom Means Freedom!!!

Well-known member

Well-known member

Local Degenerate

Well-known member

Users who are viewing this thread