Tricky question
Apr. 14th, 2009 06:44 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chickenfeetIf a police officer is caught on camera committing a violent criminal act and there is sufficient publicity he apparently gets suspended. Now, if you or I had committed the same violent criminal act in front of a bunch of cops we'd be arrested on the spot. So what were the dozens of cops, including senior officers, who were eyewitnesses of the criminal assault doing? Why haven't the whole bloody lot of them been suspended for dereliction of duty?
OK I know the answer. They were just obeying orders. Heard that one before?
OK I know the answer. They were just obeying orders. Heard that one before?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-04-14 11:26 pm (UTC)1) It is actually more difficult in some cases to distinguish between a police officer doing their job and a police officer committing a violent criminal act than it would be in your case or mine.
2) You can legitimately and justly suspend someone with pay on less evidence than you need to charge them with a criminal offense. Suspending gets them off the street and ensures that they are not a hazard to the public while you sort the matter out.
BUT.
He ought to have been reported the minute it happened, suspended the second someone with the authority to suspend him heard that report, and charged or else publically cleared by now.
IOW I think it's a legitimate system being illegitimately applied.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-14 11:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-14 11:43 pm (UTC)I think there is too. I just suspect that removing suspension as a first step might cause fewer, not more, police officers to be disciplined for this stuff, because at that point they either have to lay a charge or let them go back to work. And I do not have faith that they will lay charges.
ETA: Typing. I knows how to do it. SRSLY.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-14 11:53 pm (UTC)What I could *live with* is for each and every police officer who commits a violent crime to do six months and lose their job and their pension, rather than for 99 to get off scot-free and 1 to get hung out to dry. Becuase in that sort of climate it's all about the coverup, and even basically honest types end up saying "well, yeah, but Bob did worse and got away with it cold..."
It's not nearly as satisfying, but it might just get us honest police forces.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-15 12:39 am (UTC)Exactly. They're supposed to be protecting us, not making us feel like we need protection from them.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-15 02:52 am (UTC)If they're guilty, I want them convicted. And unfortunately, I don't think that right now juries will convict cops over protest violence if they think there's going to be a serious sentence involved. And honestly, things have gone so fucking far that there's an issue of differential enforcement: this guy was male, and he wasn't a protester, and he was white, and he was middle-class, so they'll probably convict.
Cool. But they won't convict the cop who cracks the non-white ratty looking actual protester upside the head and kills *him*.
I want justice for everyone the cops assault, dammit. And if I can't get justice, I'll take reform.
I am old, and cynical, and bitter, and you guys are more right and I'm more wrong, actually, but I am just tired. Quebec City in 2001 started the process of wearing down some part of me that just has not gotten its strength back yet.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-15 10:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-15 03:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-15 12:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-18 12:52 am (UTC)Ian Tomlinson, 47, was struck and pushed over by a police officer during G20 protests on 1 April in the City.
Now a fresh post-mortem examination has found he died of abdominal bleeding, not a heart attack, as first thought.
Lawyers for the family said the new post-mortem test raised the likelihood of a manslaughter charge.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-18 10:20 am (UTC)1. Deny the police did anything
2. When caught, rush out a cover story blaming someone else, preferably the victim
3. Selectively leak unhelpful, misleading and just plain wrong factoids
Still to come:
4. Grudgingly admit something went wrong but it was all in good faith in difficult circumstances
5. Claim that procedures have been changed so it can never happen again
And, of course,
6. The next time