This can't be right

[AMonger]

Yes, like I said if using raw numbers. But with percentages, it's hardly self-evident. I would submit that the percentage of expediters who verifiably pee daily in public, in relation to all expediters, than is the percentage of cops who daily verifiably violate citizen's rights, in relation to all cops.

Try your last sentence again. It got away from you.

 

[Turtle]

If most go unreported, how do you know they happened? And how many go unreported?

 

[Turtle]

Try your last sentence again. It got away from you.

Sorry. I would submit that the percentage of expediters who verifiably pee daily in public, in relation to all expediters, is higher or at least equal-to than is the percentage of cops who daily verifiably violate citizen's rights, in relation to all cops.

 

[bobwg]

You're right that reports don't indicate the actual number of instances of police abuse. Most go unreported or not followed up on, or just don't make national news. The actual instances of police abuse are undoubtedly much higher.

Again no facts to support your claim so your claim is bs

 

[Humble2drive]

Anybody who can READ THE NEWS and not see that the norm has shifted and that abusive, out-of-control cops are the norm needs to take their head out, so-to-speak, and either wipe away the detritus covering their eyes . . .

Any intelligent person READING THE NEWS would be able to ascertain that there are approximately 871,000 law enforcement officers in the U.S. So they would need to see at least 436,000 stories of "abusive, out of control" officers to make "bad cops" a majority.

Only someone with a chip on their shoulder and "detritus covering their eyes" could read 20 or even 50 stories of "bad cops" and conclude that "the norm has shifted".*

Your conclusion just doesn't add up.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Any intelligent person READING THE NEWS would be able to ascertain that there are approximately 871,000 law enforcement officers in the U.S. So they would need to see at least 436,000 stories of "abusive, out of control" officers to make "bad cops" a majority.

Only someone with a chip on their shoulder and "detritus covering their eyes" could read 20 or even 50 stories of "bad cops" and conclude that "the norm has shifted".*

Your conclusion just doesn't add up.

One cop commits abuse. 40 of his friends in blue turn a blind eye. All are guilty. Now how are those numbers?

 

[bobwg]

One cop commits abuse. 40 of his friends in blue turn a blind eye. All are guilty. Now how are those numbers?

appears to be another one with anger issues and no facts to support the claim

 

[aquitted]

I can tell you for certain that I witness expediters peeing on tires or in public far more often that I witness a cop using a taser or excessive force. Not even close.

I think we all should buy tasers and taze those expeditors in the genitals while their peeing on the tires I don't think they'll do it again!

 

[Humble2drive]

One cop commits abuse. 40 of his friends in blue turn a blind eye. All are guilty. Now how are those numbers?

Thanks for the numbers.

So 50 stories of bad cops = 50 bad cops
40 cops look the other way 50 times = 2000 more bad cops.

Final tally: 2050 bad cops out of 861,000 total cops = less than 1% of all cops.

Good point.

 

[AMonger]

Thanks for the numbers.

So 50 stories of bad cops = 50 bad cops
40 cops look the other way 50 times = 2000 more bad cops.

Final tally: 2050 bad cops out of 861,000 total cops = less than 1% of all cops.

Good point.

Let's breathe some fresh air, and common sense, into these numbers.

Generally, when talking about getting one's rights or person violated by cops, one is talking about a regular patrol officer. Could include a sergeant or lieutenant; I've had lieutenants respond to calls when they were really busy. But generally, we're talking about patrolmen, not supervisors, and not command staff, either. You know how many superfluous, redundant layers of command staff a department like New York or L.A. has? I read about NY's hierarchy and was amazed: Superintendants, Deputy Supts., First Dep. Supts., chiefs, Super Chiefs, layer on layer. You're essentially never going to encounter them in a situation.

We're also not counting detectives. Detectives can screw you by how they treat evidence, a la Mark Furman, and sure, they could theoretically use excessive force, though your chance of a detective using any force on you at all is essentially nil. The average citizen will never have any such dealings with one, unless he's a habitual criminal, and that brings its own problems.

So what cop might victimize you today, realistically?

Obviously not those on their days off, out sick or injured, on vacation, on some special duty that takes them away from patrol, the cop that runs the evidence room (if a cop does it at a given department), not evidence or other techs (if cops do that there), or any other cop on desk duty. At places I've lived, there were sworn law enforcement personnel working posts that didn't resemble law enforcement, such as manning the Emergency Management position or working corrections. A friend of mine worked what was called the Pawn Unit, who were responsible for tracking down stolen/fenced property through pawn shops; she was a sworn officer in that 860,000+. The department had a telephone reporting unit a citizen could call to report a crime so a street officer wouldn't have to stop patrol to take a routine report; they were sworn officers. Maybe those were cops on temporary light duty, I don't know. But they were all cops you'd never encounter on the street and wouldn't have an opportunity to abuse you if they wanted.

In fact, I read that NYPD has guys on static posts all over--hundreds of them--essentially doing guard duty. Not guys picking up a few bucks after hours, guys whose police duties were to guard a specific place. The example given was a cop stationed at a synagogue that had had vandalism problems. They were posted there, probably supposed to be temporary but were just forgotten, and now that's turned into their permanent post. Nobody ever thought it necessary to reassign him, so there he reports, 5 days a week, not doing much of anything except huddling in a doorway, guarding a building, yet he's sworn law enforcement personnel. That might have changed when Guiliani restructured to get more cops on the street, but the book said that had been going on for years & years.

So how much does cutting it down to the regular cops you're going to encounter affect the numbers? I couldn't say, and I don't know how to figure it. But when you do that, the relevant number is substantially lower than 860,000.

 

[LDB]

Let's breathe some fresh air, and common sense, into these numbers.

Generally, when talking about getting one's rights or person violated by cops, one is talking about a regular patrol officer. Could include a sergeant or lieutenant; I've had lieutenants respond to calls when they were really busy. But generally, we're talking about patrolmen, not supervisors, and not command staff, either. You know how many superfluous, redundant layers of command staff a department like New York or L.A. has? I read about NY's hierarchy and was amazed: Superintendants, Deputy Supts., First Dep. Supts., chiefs, Super Chiefs, layer on layer. You're essentially never going to encounter them in a situation.

We're also not counting detectives. Detectives can screw you by how they treat evidence, a la Mark Furman, and sure, they could theoretically use excessive force, though your chance of a detective using any force on you at all is essentially nil. The average citizen will never have any such dealings with one, unless he's a habitual criminal, and that brings its own problems.

So what cop might victimize you today, realistically?

Obviously not those on their days off, out sick or injured, on vacation, on some special duty that takes them away from patrol, the cop that runs the evidence room (if a cop does it at a given department), not evidence or other techs (if cops do that there), or any other cop on desk duty. At places I've lived, there were sworn law enforcement personnel working posts that didn't resemble law enforcement, such as manning the Emergency Management position or working corrections. A friend of mine worked what was called the Pawn Unit, who were responsible for tracking down stolen/fenced property through pawn shops; she was a sworn officer in that 860,000+. The department had a telephone reporting unit a citizen could call to report a crime so a street officer wouldn't have to stop patrol to take a routine report; they were sworn officers. Maybe those were cops on temporary light duty, I don't know. But they were all cops you'd never encounter on the street and wouldn't have an opportunity to abuse you if they wanted.

In fact, I read that NYPD has guys on static posts all over--hundreds of them--essentially doing guard duty. Not guys picking up a few bucks after hours, guys whose police duties were to guard a specific place. The example given was a cop stationed at a synagogue that had had vandalism problems. They were posted there, probably supposed to be temporary but were just forgotten, and now that's turned into their permanent post. Nobody ever thought it necessary to reassign him, so there he reports, 5 days a week, not doing much of anything except huddling in a doorway, guarding a building, yet he's sworn law enforcement personnel. That might have changed when Guiliani restructured to get more cops on the street, but the book said that had been going on for years & years.

So how much does cutting it down to the regular cops you're going to encounter affect the numbers? I couldn't say, and I don't know how to figure it. But when you do that, the relevant number is substantially lower than 860,000.

You want some common sense in the numbers? Then you'll have to use some. Your erroneous premise above assumes every one of those officers would be a bad officer if not on their particular assignment or office. Would a few of them possibly be bad? Possibly, maybe probably. Do they all have to be counted in the 860,000? Yes. Otherwise the sample and the statistics are worthless.

 

[xiggi]

Attempting to cut down the number of cops to make your argument is funny. That's kind of like saying diesel price across the country is six dollars a gallon because you only run in a small area and the stations you might use charge six dollars while every where else is charging four dollars.

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC123 via EO Forums

 

[AMonger]

. Do they all have to be counted in the 860,000? Yes. Otherwise the sample and the statistics are worthless.

No, because remember, the only use we were making of them is for Turtle's comparison to expediters whizzing on tires, and how I said the number of cops that violate rights or otherwise abuse people is exponentially greater than the expediters who whiz on tires, which I demonstrated. He responded that that maybe true in pure numbers but not percentage-wise, which seems to be true. But to include cops that you will never have contact with also skews the numbers, but in the other direction