Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:But in response to your statements:

1) I was talking about the police, not jail. I understand there's an overlap but they are not the same
2) Why is there no need for a national review? Has the situation improved recently?
3) you don't need the DOJ, Congress not only is there to hold the DOJ or any other Executive branch agency to account, but they have the power to review national policy and outcomes.

You seem oddly defensive on this.

You seem oddly ignorant on this.

really, you are usually quick to insult the intelligence of others.

1. Fine. However, every department across the country, and there are thousands, has its own procedures because it is responsible to its own constituents, not to those across the country.

And therein lies the rub. Residents are not the only people who interact with police departments. If I live in one area, work in another and commute through a third (or more), which ones can I as a voter influence? And when I take a road trip across the country?

Pardon me for being confused between "police" and "jail." After all, you did entitle the forum "Inquiry into Deaths in Police Custody."

Custody is from the moment of arrest, in UK terms. So includes before they may be in a police jail cell.

2. A national review would have to account for the thousands of different standards and it would be a waste of time. Local control of law enforcement means responsiveness to local concerns. "Local" does not mean "United Kingdom." If the voters of any city or county don't like how their police work, they can change the system. They have that power. You fundamentally misunderstand our system.

A review does not mean that it has to result in legislation - it can simply end up with observations and recommendations. And perhaps they could just look at the jurisdictions with the worst records, rather than all of them.

But it does worry me that there are so many different standards - which is what I mean by "patchwork".

3. You claim to understand our system. Anyone who did would not write ". . . they have the power to review national policy and outcomes." No, they don't have the power to impose national policy on local police departments. If we wanted a national police force, we would have one. Congress has no power over Downey PD or Worcester PD or the Orange County Sheriff's Department.

You suggest I am being ignorant, but clearly you are not differentiating between the words I used: "inquiry", "review" and the ones you have applied as a synonym "impose .. policy". I never said that Congress should impose policy on police departments. I said that someone should review the large number of deaths at the hands of police.

If that's not what you mean, then you'll have to explain yourself better.

I meant what I wrote.Your habit of interpolating your own assumptions is noted, but it seems to be that which causes you confusion. I can only advise you just read what I wrote, and not the words you want me to have so you can "disprove" them.

fate

That is not a Federal issue. It is a matter for each State to decide and then determine how to pay for whatever investigation they want

rickyp

It becomes a Federal matter when treatment under the law becomes unequal.

fate

True. And, when it does, they get involved

.

So how does one know if treatment by law enforcement is equal across all 50 states without a review?
You've already pointed out that there are "thousands of different standards". Why would it be a waste of time to analyze the different standards and find out which are working better? (Something private business does as a matter of course, in order to continually improve and compete at delivering products and services).

Right now there isn't even uniform reporting of crime statistics OR even uniform reporting on police shooting incidents.
Usually when a group is trying to avoid analysis by a uniform standard its because they know, without the confirming data, that the result will not be flattering.
In any other matter if the numbers of people dying in police custody or police encounters were repeated there would be an enormous out cry. A couple people get Ebola and the country freaks out.
The response to deaths in custody, to deaths in police encounters, and to the rate of incarceration is along the lines of "who cares". why? Perhaps because the brunt of the deaths, shootings ad incarcerations are suffered by minorities with little political power.

danivon wrote:I meant what I wrote.Your habit of interpolating your own assumptions is noted, but it seems to be that which causes you confusion. I can only advise you just read what I wrote, and not the words you want me to have so you can "disprove" them.

I have to agree with Fate here. It is not Congress's job to review policing policy/standards. At the most, it would be a state level of review. Any Congressional review would be nothing more than a P.R. trip for incumbent members of Congress and quite honestly, since nothing legislative would or could come from it, a complete waste of tax payer money.

The Justice Department can and does intervene in local police departments that are systematically violating civil rights by filing lawsuits and then typically entering into consent decrees with those police departments.

People don't like to have their work reviewed and critiqued and criticized. I get that. But I see nothing wrong in a national review of deaths caused by police in an attempt to discover best practices. Which departments do better and why? Are there specific changes in policies and procedures that can reduce such deaths? To the extent that non-complying departments get federal money they can be prodded into better practices. Really bad departments can be identified and lawsuits can be filed to remedy problems there.

Justice Brandeis wrote that "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants". That is of true of policing as of anything else .

Archduke Russell John wrote:

danivon wrote:I meant what I wrote.Your habit of interpolating your own assumptions is noted, but it seems to be that which causes you confusion. I can only advise you just read what I wrote, and not the words you want me to have so you can "disprove" them.

I have to agree with Fate here. It is not Congress's job to review policing policy/standards. At the most, it would be a state level of review. Any Congressional review would be nothing more than a P.R. trip for incumbent members of Congress and quite honestly, since nothing legislative would or could come from it, a complete waste of tax payer money.

Like that's stopped them before on things like whether a President got a BJ from an intern, on how baseball is run (five times recently?) and presumably all kinds of other rubbish that does not involve the loss of life.

If it were just one or two States where this was an issue, I would agree. I can find national data - do you have evidence that this is not a nationwide issue?

freeman3 wrote:The Justice Department can and does intervene in local police departments that are systematically violating civil rights by filing lawsuits and then typically entering into consent decrees with those police departments.

People don't like to have their work reviewed and critiqued and criticized. I get that. But I see nothing wrong in a national review of deaths caused by police in an attempt to discover best practices. Which departments do better and why? Are there specific changes in policies and procedures that can reduce such deaths? To the extent that non-complying departments get federal money they can be prodded into better practices. Really bad departments can be identified and lawsuits can be filed to remedy problems there.

Justice Brandeis wrote that "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants". That is of true of policing as of anything else .

And, if you want to make sure nothing happens, form a Congressional committee to study a problem over which they have no jurisdiction.

Doctor Fate wrote:And, if you want to make sure nothing happens, form a Congressional committee to study a problem over which they have no jurisdiction.

So what's your problem with the concept then? Are you agreeing that c.700 deaths a year is an issue for the USA, but just not that it is a national one?

Fine - show me it is localised.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:And, if you want to make sure nothing happens, form a Congressional committee to study a problem over which they have no jurisdiction.

So what's your problem with the concept then? Are you agreeing that c.700 deaths a year is an issue for the USA, but just not that it is a national one?

No.

Here's a lefty "study'

About 80 percent of the cases involved criminal suspects who reportedly brandished a weapon “to threaten or assault” the arresting officers.

Another 17 percent involved suspects who allegedly grabbed, hit or fought with police.

More than one-third of the police killings, or about 36 percent, involved a suspect who tried to flee or otherwise escape arrest.

As the article notes, these deaths are a tiny fraction of the overall arrest total. Furthermore, "In custody" has a very broad meaning. When I think of "in custody," I think about actual inmates, not people the cops are trying to arrest.

Fine - show me it is localised.

Law enforcement, by and large, is localized. So, the issues are local and will have to be examined locally.

Yeah, why investigate these cases when the local police reported that they had reason to use lethal force...I'm not sure what is meant that law enforcement is local and the issues are local. Local police are part of the local power structure and not necessarily responsive to local complaints, particularly when those complaints tend to come from minority and/or poor communities. The fact of the matter is that we are Americans first and our civil rights are national in nature and if police are using excessive force they are violating civil rights. States' rights believers in the 19th century propounded a theory that states could essentially do anything they wanted with their citizens. Well, they lost the Civil War and they lost the ideological battle too.

The only way to know if police are systemically violating civil rights is by looking at these cases. Other advanced western countries don't have this many people dying as a result of police apprehension of suspects so it seems reasonable to take a thorough look. Violation of civil rights is not a local matter because we are not citizens of Los Angeles or California but of the USA. And our federal government has jurisdiction over civil rights violations.

freeman3 wrote:Yeah, why investigate these cases when the local police reported that they had reason to use lethal force...I'm not sure what is meant that law enforcement is local and the issues are local. Local police are part of the local power structure and not necessarily responsive to local complaints, particularly when those complaints tend to come from minority and/or poor communities.

So, for example, the LA City Council has zero impact on LAPD? Constituents complain and the city council does nothing--is that your position?

The fact of the matter is that we are Americans first and our civil rights are national in nature and if police are using excessive force they are violating civil rights. States' rights believers in the 19th century propounded a theory that states could essentially do anything they wanted with their citizens. Well, they lost the Civil War and they lost the ideological battle too.

Which is so cute, but has nothing to do with the reality that local PD's equal local control. If you don't believe that, try to do away with, say, Beverly Hills PD and see how that goes over. Cities like to have their own police, for the most part. That way they are able to set priorities, policies, etc. that the city wants. If you want another civil war, try changing that.

The only way to know if police are systemically violating civil rights is by looking at these cases.

Um, I'm going to presume you don't realize how stunningly obvious that is.

Then, I'm going to suggest that the balkanized nature of our LE means that "systematically" doesn't really apply. There are so many different standards that there is no "system" to examine.

Other advanced western countries don't have this many people dying as a result of police apprehension of suspects so it seems reasonable to take a thorough look. Violation of civil rights is not a local matter because we are not citizens of Los Angeles or California but of the USA. And our federal government has jurisdiction over civil rights violations.

Oh, can we end the charade?

Wouldn't you prefer a national police force?

I'm sure that blacks from South-Central would have a very different take than you regarding LA city council responsiveness. The question is not the various types of procedures in place--the question is trying to assess best practices that all police agencies can measure up to. That doesn't require a national police force--we already have the FBI investigating an ever-increasing variety of federal crimes. We're not infringing on local police turf-- they can do whatever they want to..within limits. The question is why would police object to a thorough review of the cases? If the review finds a record of good performance in these cases that should be great for public perception of police. Given the bad publicity recently, why not show that in only a very few cases are police actions questionable (if that winds up being the case)?

freeman3 wrote:I'm sure that blacks from South-Central would have a very different take than you regarding LA city council responsiveness. The question is not the various types of procedures in place--the question is trying to assess best practices that all police agencies can measure up to. That doesn't require a national police force--we already have the FBI investigating an ever-increasing variety of federal crimes. We're not infringing on local police turf-- they can do whatever they want to..within limits. The question is why would police object to a thorough review of the cases? If the review finds a record of good performance in these cases that should be great for public perception of police. Given the bad publicity recently, why not show that in only a very few cases are police actions questionable (if that winds up being the case)?

The bad publicity is, in part, due to the White House megaphone and a compliant press.

There are always problems and always will be. Imperfection is the human condition.

As for South Central, more people are happy than not. The higher the crime rate, the more you need activity from the police. The problem is the gangs, not the cops.

Doctor Fate wrote:The bad publicity is, in part, due to the White House megaphone and a compliant press.

Not the the numbers of dead people, then? Or in the conduct in some of those cases (the Sandra Bland case was mentioned: whatever happened in the three days after her arrest, the antagonism of the arresting officer was overblown for what was just a minor traffic violation)?

There are always problems and always will be. Imperfection is the human condition.

That kind of thinking leads to inertia. Luckily another part of the human condition is to seek improvements in life. If we settled for things being as they are, we'd still be hunter-gatherers living short and brutal lives.

If it is just human imperfection, why is your rate 10x ours? And do you think we are silly to review our 17 deaths per annum?

As for South Central, more people are happy than not. The higher the crime rate, the more you need activity from the police. The problem is the gangs, not the cops.

[/quote]Unless the cops are a gang (Rampart as an example from LAPD).

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:The bad publicity is, in part, due to the White House megaphone and a compliant press.

Not the the numbers of dead people, then? Or in the conduct in some of those cases (the Sandra Bland case was mentioned: whatever happened in the three days after her arrest, the antagonism of the arresting officer was overblown for what was just a minor traffic violation)?

There is no evidence it was anything save a suicide. Sad to be sure, but difficult to prevent. As for the arrest, prove that his response was not warranted.

There are always problems and always will be. Imperfection is the human condition.

That kind of thinking leads to inertia. Luckily another part of the human condition is to seek improvements in life. If we settled for things being as they are, we'd still be hunter-gatherers living short and brutal lives.

Look, I could tell you what would improve the situation. I've got enough experience to tell you. The problem is that we live in a society that demands everyone be eligible to be a cop unless they've got a felony background or are on psych meds. The key is the background investigation.

I am on an email list from my former employer. They just announced a reversal of prior policy. The previous Sheriff permitted a politicization of the background process. There are a number of ways to hire better people and train them better. However, most municipalities aren't going to do that because some of the results would not be politically palatable.

If it is just human imperfection, why is your rate 10x ours? And do you think we are silly to review our 17 deaths per annum?

No, it's not. But, it's not as simple as you want it to be either. Your gangs are nothing like our gangs. Again, I could wax eloquent on it. Los Angeles is the gang capital of the world. We get them all.

I also have some friends who were on the other side of the bars. One of them just got released after serving 18 years, most of it in the CA Prison system with some of the worst of the worst (Manson was on his "yard" for a while). It's a different world--one that you would not recognize as civilized because it's not. These gangs kill people to make a point. You can do as many investigations as you want, but those homicides "in custody" are not going to stop.

Our drug laws, our gun laws, our gang culture, and other factors all play into this number. You can analyze it all you want, but many of the issues you are concerned about have little to do with the police.

As for South Central, more people are happy than not. The higher the crime rate, the more you need activity from the police. The problem is the gangs, not the cops.

Unless the cops are a gang (Rampart as an example from LAPD).[/quote]

Yes, and what happened to Rampart?

I don't really care if you get your investigation. If there was one, the outcome would not thrill your soul.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:The bad publicity is, in part, due to the White House megaphone and a compliant press.

Not the the numbers of dead people, then? Or in the conduct in some of those cases (the Sandra Bland case was mentioned: whatever happened in the three days after her arrest, the antagonism of the arresting officer was overblown for what was just a minor traffic violation)?

There is no evidence it was anything save a suicide. Sad to be sure, but difficult to prevent. As for the arrest, prove that his response was not warranted.

Well, he escalated the situation and was criticised for it by his own boss. Had he not done so, he could have just written her a ticket, and ended it there. Whether or not the arrest itself was justified, his behaviour before during and after - as filmed by his own dashcam - was not.

Also, the custodians of a prisoner are responsible for their welfare. Even if it was suicide, it was on their watch.

There are always problems and always will be. Imperfection is the human condition.

That kind of thinking leads to inertia. Luckily another part of the human condition is to seek improvements in life. If we settled for things being as they are, we'd still be hunter-gatherers living short and brutal lives.

Look, I could tell you what would improve the situation. I've got enough experience to tell you. The problem is that we live in a society that demands everyone be eligible to be a cop unless they've got a felony background or are on psych meds. The key is the background investigation.

I am on an email list from my former employer. They just announced a reversal of prior policy. The previous Sheriff permitted a politicization of the background process. There are a number of ways to hire better people and train them better. However, most municipalities aren't going to do that because some of the results would not be politically palatable.

A reason not to leave it to the municipalities? Consistent and high standards would be good. They are useful for other professions, aren't they?

If it is just human imperfection, why is your rate 10x ours? And do you think we are silly to review our 17 deaths per annum?

No, it's not. But, it's not as simple as you want it to be either. Your gangs are nothing like our gangs. Again, I could wax eloquent on it. Los Angeles is the gang capital of the world. We get them all.

Is it just LA that has the problem of high rates of police custody deaths then?

I also have some friends who were on the other side of the bars. One of them just got released after serving 18 years, most of it in the CA Prison system with some of the worst of the worst (Manson was on his "yard" for a while). It's a different world--one that you would not recognize as civilized because it's not. These gangs kill people to make a point. You can do as many investigations as you want, but those homicides "in custody" are not going to stop.

That is prison, not police custody. Sheesh.

Our drug laws, our gun laws, our gang culture, and other factors all play into this number. You can analyze it all you want, but many of the issues you are concerned about have little to do with the police.

So let's prove it with an investigation? I agree that your gun laws and culture have a lot to do with it. So does police action in that context.

As for South Central, more people are happy than not. The higher the crime rate, the more you need activity from the police. The problem is the gangs, not the cops.

Unless the cops are a gang (Rampart as an example from LAPD).

Yes, and what happened to Rampart?

Well, in 1996/7 Bernard Parks, the guy in charge of LAPD's Internal Affairs - who later became police chief - stalled the investigation for months, then sat on the initial report. in 2000, 3-4 years after the incidents of murder etc, the lead investigator into Rampart filed civil suit about his work being obstructed and suppressed. The city council (against the wishes of the Mayor) brought the DoJ in. Parks was still in post until the Mayor was replaced in 2001, and when Hahn sacked Parks it hit his popularity - apparently contributing to his losing his re-election bid in 2005

106 convictions led by Rampart's CRASH team were overturned, 140 lawsuits were filed against the LAPD and city, costing $125M.

Not really a ringing endorsement of localism. I'd think given that Parks was a Democrat you'd be disgusted that he was allowed to get away for so long with protecting criminal cops. I'd hope you'd feel the same if he wasn't a Dem, too.

I don't really care if you get your investigation. If there was one, the outcome would not thrill your soul.

Whatever, kidda.