Comment by kop316 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kop316 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The issue isn't there are good or bad cops. In any large organization there will be "bad apples" (malicious actors), that just statistically will happen. What is very important is how misconduct is handled, and how these "bad apples" are handled.

Due to the legal concept of qualified immunity, it is very difficult to sue the police for civil or criminal liability. I understand the intent of qualified immunity. The idea is that a police officer did the best they could knowing what they know, and it is very easy to look at things after the fact (hindsight is 20/20), so it makes it easier for a police officer to do their job without constant worry of lawsuit. However, it has been abused to the point that it is next to impossible to sue for criminal/civil liability.

Additionally, there is wide conception that police do not police their own (look up "blue wall of silence"), and police unions are very strong, so it is extremely difficult for an outside organization to police them.

Case in point, it is argued that if it weren't for the cell phone video of George Floyd, the police officers would not have even been charged with misconduct and would still have their jobs, much less criminal charges.

If you have an organization that has a monopoly on violence and there is not a good way to keep that in check, THIS WILL LEAD TO MASSIVE PROBLEMS.

The question is not only about how "bad apples" are handled, but also what techniques are taught, what kind of leadership is given.

If you stick cops in heavily protected gear this gives them stronger feelings.

If you have a President (who isn't directly responsible for police) cheering to be "tough" ("Like when you guys put somebody in the car and you’re protecting their head, you know, the way you put their hand over? Like, don’t hit their head and they’ve just killed somebody — don’t hit their head. I said, you can take the hand away, okay?" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/07/28/t...) and then not have a leadership promoting other values you encourage to be like the "bad apple" not like the good apple.

If you then also often have cops alone on duty or with fixed partners, thus no rotation you have less internal checking.

If you are then also in a country where the police officers have to assume that the citizen they pulled over might be armed you certainly don't help them to relax.

The list goes on - true, most cops certainly want to be good, but there are systematic issues emporing the bad ones.

> The list goes on - true, most cops certainly want to be good, but there are systematic issues emporing the bad ones.

No, I would say that most cops will follow whatever the culture is in their organization. If the culture is rotten, then they do bad things.

Yes, the culture has an impact, but do people these days become cops to be on the "bad" side or for being the "good" cop? I hope it's still the later. But maybe I am wrong.

Important is: Culture and leadership matters. Whatever is encouraged by culture and leadership will flourish.

The other point that's often missed is the phrase last three words of the sentence "A few bad apples spoil the bunch."

Allowing the "bad apples" to remain in the "bunch" means that the entire "bunch" goes bad.

The analogy is accurate. There were a few bad officers. They were allowed to remain. Now there are now a majority of bad officers.

Without a speedy and public process to remove bad behavior, including disciplinary action, retraining, firing, and criminal charges (depending on the severity and number of offenses) the police have become corrupted from within. Until such processes are in place that corruption will never be removed.

I think you may have confused qualified immunity a bit. It has nothing to do with criminal proceedings and is only talking about civil penalties.

The reason it's such a big deal is that it can be very difficult to get prosecutors to charge a police officer that did something wrong, and then it can be difficult to get a conviction even if they are tried. In a civil trial you can win by a preponderance of the evidence. So if you go after a cop criminally, where you do a have a lot of evidence and fail, that's it, no further penalties, the cop walks. On the other hand, you probably don't want to loosen it too much or cops will be sued at every opportunity. I don't know what the right answer is, but it's not to make it nearly impossible to hold a cop civilly liable.

I mean, that's how they got OJ, he was found not guilty in the criminal trial, but was found guilty in the civil trial brought by Nicole Brown's family. So allowing cops to get avoid the civil courts is wrong.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com