I will admit this few bad apples having the potential to spoil the whole barrel makes much more sense that way, still, would you be interested in any episodes of Adam Ruins Everything?
Legal eagle, I love your videos. I am not from the US but I find your videos to be of high quality and helpful. I have a question: can you talk about the problems caused by using the SWAT teams too much and how could they be limited? Is damage caused by SWAT teams (eg when they accidently raid a wrong house) fully refunded? What is the process? I just want to know more about it in general, thank you for your time and amazing content. (and sorry for my bad grammar)
Two topics would greatly interest me: 1) The allegations/concept that police have violated the Geneva Convention (such as tear gas being a "chemical weapon," attacking journalists, destroying water supplies, ETC), and should be classified as war criminals. 2) Practical law review on what happens or what can be done when a citizen is a victim of corrupt or criminal police actions. Steps to take, protection from retaliation; what systems are in place to combat bad apples at this time?
Seems like some elements of the Police seem to think they are the Mafia. Maybe one should remind them that they are supposed to fight the Mafia instead of emulating them? ;)
"There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state. The other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people." - This is a quote for the sci-fi show, Battlestar Galactica. But even though it's a fictional show, this statement is very, very true.
Well then maybe there shouldn't be enemies of the state inside the country don't you think? Antifa and the like have been nothing but a disruptive force, a domestic terrorist group since inception. If that ain't an enemy of the state I don't know what is.
@@Mate397 Have you considered that maybe the cause and effect is the other way around? That antifa exists because the police acts too much like an occupying army?
As a law enforcement officer myself, I agree with about 90% of this. I've said for years that the emphasis of policing should be helping the community and dealing with violent crimes, not enforcing arbitrary laws designed for revenue. One thing I would add to this is establishing a nationwide standard for use of force. Most agencies or states have their own use of force continuum, but they still vary depending on where you're at. I work federal law enforcement, and our use of force continuum is far more strict compared to local LE and because of that, I believe we are alot better a deesclaing situations than other agencies are. Obviously there's time's where someone will decide to fight you no matter what, but the way you approach a situation as an officer can absolutely influence things for the better.
found a real officer here. wow. I think a major issue in departments that seriously hinders reform and weeding out of bad officers is the "good ol' boys" mentality that exists, especially among command staff, but it wanders its way into deputies as well and leads to like-minded people being retained in agencies and becoming one of the good ol' boys as they work their way up.
I was hoping to hear from a officer on videos like this. It makes sense that federal officers are held to higher standard and therefore are better at their jobs. Do you have any other suggestions for change not mentioned in the video?
@@silentj624 My stance is, and has been for a long time, that as a whole we need FAR better training. Longer academies with better emphasis on unarmed combatives and communication, as well as mandated sustainment training on use of force and again unarmed combatives. The more confident an officer is with hand to hand fighting, the less likely they are to use their weapons unnecessarily.
@@Kyle-ht5qg Better training is actually provided regularly to a lot of places that continue to suffer problems. The issue isn't just better training. It's a literal culture of power tripping, and the allowance and even flat out defense of 'warrior training' even when it's made against the rules by the city/state.
I was on a jury and the officers under a civil trial had their body cameras on the entire time. This validated their version of events in a case that otherwise could have gone either way. Body cameras are good no matter what.
Well yeah I mean like I don't see what the issue is. If your honest and you work properly, the camera just films what is going on. The Body Camera doesn't have an opinion or a skew, it just shows us what is going on. The ONLY reason to be opposed to them is because you know you're shady AF. I mean I work at a restaurant. Every inch of our workplace has cameras on it because like duh they don't want employees taking booze or whatever. It doesn't bother me because I don't rip off my workplace. same with cops.
@@adammacleod925 It's always been interesting that police often argue that surveillance is necessary, and if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. But, of course, that doesn't apply to them.
@lelennyfox34 "Where have you seen Officers that are against this?" and "From what I've seen the majority of Police Officers are for Body Cameras" mean that a minority do. You just answered your own question.
Skippy the Magnificent im trying to become a sheriffs deputy. Literally no officer i know in my area is against this. The only issue they have is privacy😂 but it’s specific so lemme explain. If an officer goes to the bathroom and has an immediate encounter, what they did in the bathroom will be recorded since the body cameras they have record 2 minutes before. From what they told me, theres officer shlong in some body camera footage out there in the wild 😂
@@adammacleod925 The only issue I can think of is that continuously recording cameras have a storage limit. Depending on the resolution it records at the data can add up quick, and some of these officers work 12-14 hour shifts. Then they need data storage to hold all of that footage from thousands of officers and data management becomes an issue. It requires a lot of money and some these small town police departments will probably never have the funds or resources to do so, especially with people calling on de-funding them.
After this eventful week in America's judicial system, I think it'd be a good idea for you to publish a video describing some of the basic judicial philosophies Supreme Court justices use when applying the law. Textualism, originalism, loose constructionism, structuralism, etc.
All officers should have their own individual liability insurance for excessive force or any other constitutionally protected acts being violated. If an officer is found liable of too many cases he should be uninsurable and therefore no longer allowed to be a police officer 👮♀️ also ending qualified immunity would be a huge step.
@@saharalove08 Sounds like you want every police officer to have their neck in the noose while working. High stress like that will lead to worse police officers, less police officers, and overall do nothing to fix the problem.
I heard an officer in passing describe getting out of a false rape accusation because of his body cam, and how it actually happens very often when they have to accompany a patient/suspect in an ambulance. Body cams help everyone
Bodycams are a good tool but they’re still tools that protect the police more than the civilian. If an incident happens and the footage looks good for the officer, it quickly gets disseminated to the press and public. An incident that reflects poorly on police often results in the footage being put into “internal review” limbo or “body cameras were not active during the incident.” Martin Gugino is a recent example. The official word was that Gugino tripped before the cell phone footage came out showing an officer pushing him. Had an independent individual not captured Gugino being pushed down, would the public have ever seen any footage from one of those 20+ cameras? No, because “there was a technical problem with the cloud.” Is that true? No idea but the same department that said that was also insisting Gugino tripped. Without increased accountability, it won’t matter if every police interaction is recorded. It is a good start though.
@@mathieulevasseur4082 unfortunately without also increasing the level of civilian oversight it really doesn't expose the bad ones. Body cam footage can easily be "lost" or just not released due to confidentiality. Body cams are a tool but it needs to come with substantial, concrete reforms that change the basic relationship of civilian and police.
There was one cop in Baltimore that had the integrity to report misconduct by a fellow cop. The rest of the department tried to murder him. Repeatedly. Until he was fired for not being team player.
I see two additional problems with the current police system: 1: individual officers are over worked. Anybody that has worked a job can relate to this. After you had a hard week where you have picked up some extra time or some double shifts, your patience and tolerance has been drained by the end. Imagine the difference in being pulled over by an officer on a Thursday who has worked 30 hours that week and being pulled over by an officer that has worked 48 hours that week. 2: officers don't interact with the community they serve. Police officers used to walk around and patrol neighborhoods. Directly interacting with the people they are serving. They get to know the general disposition of individual and build relationships.
#2 is key. Its another result of the war on drugs. If your fighting a war why would you talk to the enemy? This whole enemy thing is just a bad idea. They aren't the enemy. They're citizens. Its also the result of the lowering of the physical standards. You used to have to pass physical tests. But they got rid of those. Now every cop is 200 lbs over weight and is incapable of walking 20 feet without having a coronary. So they have to use a vehicle. Which just makes the physical problem worse and as you pointed out separates the police and the people of the neighborhood at a distance. It also means they aren't getting any information from anyone other than criminals. So any information is suspect at best.
@@russellward4624 Another point about the vehicles thing-- also more expensive. While it's mildly interesting to see police ride on segways in nicer areas of LA, it's extremely sobering to see them wizz right past a homeless person sitting by a building or a kid who's clearly come from a household that's struggling financially. By being less reliant on vehicles, using them more for transporting needed help and less for just ~cruising~ on a boardwalk, the city can use that money to address the homelessness epidemic and empower local schools. Then again in LA they're never gonna do that.
@@russellward4624 The police Departments went to patrol cars so they can patrol a larger area. That means fewer Officers are needed. This subject has been brought up on more than one occasion. It boils down to effective use of money. The fact that crime is reduced when Officers interact with the Public is offset by the cost of hiring the extra Officers needed.
@@paulacornelison243 but its not offset. Thats the problem. Because they dontninteract with he public they don't know whats going onnint he public. All they know is the crime after the fact. So it increases the idea of us vs them, that the public is the enemy. It also makes it impossible to get quality intel. The only Intel they get is from criminals making a deal to reduce thier sentence. Not a good source. They're also unqualified on how to use a source and not allow the source to use them. By not interacts with the public it makes it much easier to other them. So they can justify any horrible action they perform like shooting someone in the back while they're handcuffed. If you see them as humans its much harder to do that.
Maybe if police wasn't so dependent on chasing minor offences and victimless crimes for funding, they could reduce working hours and have more time for community interaction too? Just a thought.
"Bad apples analogy is getting thrown around a lot but..." thank you! Why do people use analogies while completely ignoring the REASON for the analogy?? Drives me crazy af
The one that grinds my gears is "the exception that proves the rule." No, no, no people. Prove meant challenge, as in "the proof of the pudding is in the eating," "bulletproof," etc.
@@carloscaro9121 Merriam Webster dictionary describes to prove as: "to establish the existence, truth, or validity of (as by evidence or logic) prove a theorem the charges were never proved in court." You are using expressions and drawing your own conclusions from that. Just look at a dictionary, no challenge there.
@@carloscaro9121 I always took it to mean that the exception proves (i.e. demonstrates) the existence of an implicit rule by virtue of being noteworthy as an exception, which is consistent with the expression's general use by non-crackpots in my experience.
"There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state. The other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people." Battlestar Galactica has the best quote about militarization of the police.
Germany learned it the hard way and completely outlawed the deployment of troops on German territory unless attacked by foreign armies. (Exceptions are made to lend vehicles and manpower for disaster relief.) Every German soldier knows that any superior ordering them to do any kind of policing is committing treason and the order is void. Just, no!
I used to be in a union, and I can guarantee that if I had walked into work and killed somebody I would've been fired and put in prison. Sadly the same often isn't true for law enforcement
yeah im guessing your job bagging groceries wasn't nearly as dangerous as a police officer's lol. or did you have to apprehend a meth head everyday in aisle 3?
This is really the case with a lot of aphorisms that get truncated over time. We often forget the whole phrase as they get passed down, sometimes in ways that change or even flip the meaning entirely. A few common examples are "curiosity killed the cat", "great minds think alike", and "Jack of all trades, master of none". They are used in modern times to mean the opposite of the full phrase, just like "only a few bad apples" is today.
Objection! This guy isn't running for President. Which is a darned shame. He makes well-reasoned arguments, breaks down complex issues so laypeople can understand and can speak in complete sentences. He already knows the town... who's with me on this?
Also keep in mind that there are some police departments that have had these ideas implemented already for many many years. Ours even has a civilian oversight committee that reviews the cases. And if a complaint is files, and outside independent lawyer has to oversee the complaint. And if a gun is so much as removed from a holster it means hours of paperwork.
I guess that's why this whole thing is frustrating for me. The department I worked for sent all fines to the school, had policies in line with the 8cantwait movement, and practiced a lot of community policing like shop-with-a-cop fundraising. We had some of the best school resource officers, they were more like counselors for the kids than enforcers. I guess I was blessed to work in a progressive, if poor, department/area. I'd have retired from there if they could afford to pay a living wage. I guess I just never have seen the kind of stuff on the news.
@Buff Doge He's not arguing to de-militarize the police, but to hold them to the same standard as the soldiers who are similarly equipped. Besides, for many of the other jobs that police are involved with, like wellness checks, most people will not feel safe with a fully armored soldier coming to their house with large weapons. This is where you see some of the arguments to have social workers take over some of the jobs that police perform right now. Nobody wants social workers to go intervene in a shooting, but to do things like wellness checks so you don't have more cases like that of Atatiana Jefferson, who was shot in her own home without proper warning by police who were there for a wellness check.
The phrase “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” (Who will watch the watchmen?) seems very applicable right now when it comes to both police and the current politicians in charge both in working towards change and following up on it.
@@JoshSweetvale , some departments don't have a dedicated Internal Affairs/Professional Conduct unit. In some states, the state police handle investigations involving county and local departments.
In cases of domestic violence where there is a chance for escalation the solution is simple: have a social worker taking the lead while a police officer stands by in case of an escalation. There's a team called ACERT in New Hampshire that does exactly that and it works exceptionally well. The social worker sets the tone for the encounter, so it rarely escalates.
That sounds like a reasonable solution. It reminds me of how hostage scenario's are handled, where you have FBI negotiators trained in de-escalation, but with a SWAT team standing ready in case things go wrong.
I think it was California that had considered an idea where in DV cases all related parties were detained and held separately. If you have a social worker with at least some psychology training who addresses both people during the time frame would probably be the best way to do it. While detaining someone who's abused may seem problematic it means that they are separated from their abuser and a social worker would have a chance to interact with both people independently and possibly get the abused individual the necessary time and help to get out of the situation.
Here in Ontario Canada, we have the SIU that investigates police whenever they escalate use of force. I strongly agree with having a separate organization with the oversight
I'm a semi-retired attorney and previously worked in Portland and was part of a group that tried to set up an advisory police review board. It didn't have any actual power but would review police complaints. The police there reacted and threatened "blue flu" if we pushed for the board. We were immediately contacted by the mayor telling us to stop. This is the system in the US.
No the analogy is "One bad apple spoils the bunch" when apples begin to decay they emit gasses that will cause other apples near by to decay as well. Literally one single bad apple can ruin a huge amount. I can't believe they use that term when talking about police. It's very self aware even though they don't get it.
"They" get it. It's an idiom not meant to be taken literally. Ironically, people are defending BLM by saying the rioters aren't *really* BLM and are taking advantage of the movement. In other words, "they" don't get it either.
Yeah. Under that analogy, a single bad cop corrupts _all_ the rest in their bushels (departments). The actual intent is that the (relatively) few cops that are out of line make the whole formation look bad.
@@PhoenixBlazer39 Exactly. And really relatively few cops are inherently bad. Some just make a really bad decision in the heat of the moment. The job is a high stakes game (that's another metaphor) that can be very costly for many people. A situation can go from routine to horrible in the snap of a finger that can cost someone their life (both civilian or police). More training is *always* a good thing. We should not only train police initially better but ensure that police officers are given time per week to keep training consistently. If I learn something once a year, it's not going to make me very proficient in it.
Cplblue most “riots” were invited by cops. It’s all on citizen camera phones. Police aren’t policing looters... they’re literally attacking peaceful protesters or those who don’t follow their directions. Only a bootlicker would be in favor of police beating non violent people. If they’re breaking the law... arrest or detain them
I never understood that analogy either. One apple spoils the bunch.... 2 “bad apples” pushed down an elderly man and 57 (good?) apples walked off the job when they were disciplined
The military spends 20% of the time in continual training. The police need to do the same. The police don’t train nearly enough whether it’s in firearms, de-escalation, & psychological training & screening.
I totally agree. What’s nuts though is that some problems or likely bad outcomes in policing are already known and have been known plus taught for at least a decade. For example the fact that panicking, exasperated people with their hands cuffed behind their back are liable to die suddenly if you put serious pressure behind them. I think it’s a knee jerk response to pile on to somebody while trying to restrain them, which is what training would be essential to address, but I almost think that’s it’s part of police culture to act first and handle the fall out of any consequences later. Military discipline alongside continual training would be a police militarization that I’d be totally for.
The single most consistent police training seems to be in “shoot first, ask questions later” policing by David “professor of killology” Grossman. Ending that training and replacing it with community interaction training would go a long way.
Robert Slackware claim? No. “You and your partner will have the best sex you ever had after you shoot someone“. -David Grossman, to cops attending his Bulletproof Warrior training which started over 20 years ago and continues today as simply “Bulletproof”. Arguing that it’s moronic to be unwilling or unable to kill a stranger in the street is bizarre, and I’m genuinely worried for your mental health. Half of what you say makes no sense, and the other half is concerning. There are lines of support for you to reach out to. Try 1800-273-8255 to connect with services that you can talk to.
There's a saying: "If there are any good cops, then there should be no bad cops." The problem is that any good cops who try to turn in bad cops end up getting forced out of law enforcement. Serpico is a true story.
While that is true, it also means that the number of "good cops" is insufficient to reach critical mass. When you read the accounts of these Serpicos, where they were left on potentially dangerous calls without backup, you have to ask yourself ... where were all the basically decent cops when that happened?
Professionalize the police: - end qualified immunity - mandatory personal malpractice insurance commensurate with duties If Police Unions want to be involved (and I hope they do), they can start by being bonded, licensed, and insured to cover their members.
"End qualified immunity" Cop: he was threatening people with a gun so I put him down before he could hurt anyone Judge: well you're being charged either murder Same situation but the cop doesn't take decisive action: the cop is killed and whatever was going to happen happens as if he was never there
@@tomraineofmagigor3499 - I agree that there are complicated pros & cons. However, it sounds like the current system of qualified immunity is far too heavily weighted towards absolving officers of responsibility & accountability. How would you suggest we make them better accountable so that they are not so consistently found not guilty of misconduct in these recent cases when most reasonable people seem to think their abusive overuse of force was clear?
and police officers seem to quite consistently see """"dangerous criminals""" in minorities. -"he was threatening people with a gun so I put him down before he could hurt anyone" -"you shot a twelve year old with an airsoft gun to death you piece of human trash"
@@dougmartin2007 The "quota" is illegal. A "recommended" amount of stops is not. I knew someone that used to work as a cop. They didn't have a "quota" because that was illegal, however, they had a "recommended amount of stops" they needed to make.
Not "arrested", but jailed or convicted I believe; It's not at all uncommon for an innocent person to be arrested, and arrests can be cleared up without charge.
@@VisibilityFoggy the justice system is a misnomer it's more trying to be a non-injustice system, they're making a sword that executives would find as difficult to use as possible to arbitrarily harm innocent citizens, sure America is pretty guilty here but countries without this system don't _even begin_ to function as a coherent state.
" There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people."-- Admiral Adama, Battlestar Galactica
Just so you know, people are quoted because they supposedly are credible and knowledgeable on the topic they speak on... Which is why fictional people's quotes are but the quotes of those that made them up In short, anyone can quote, not everyone's quotes should be taken seriously
Would you say a group of people taking over a few blocks and claiming it another country an enemy of the state because anyone with any common sense should yet alot of people dont want to send the military in there
@@phantom3969 As a war vet, I'll cosign that quote no matter who actually wrote. The military mindset is not about keeping the peace, descalating situations, or building trust with the community. Its about using force and instilling fear in the populace. A fact is a fact no matter who speaks it.
@@jamesgomez9151 Yes, and no. GWOT has taught the military a lot about de-escalating situations and building trust with the community. The last years of OIF and OEF has all been about 'building trust' with the community, that's why ROE had been so strict to the point it's more restrictive than the police standard for use of force. By being more restrictive, I mean that troops could literally not open fire until they have been fired upon. Troops overseas in Afghanistan and Iraq had been trained to use a lot more de-escalation and self control than police in the United States. Fighting insurgency is all about building trust with the community. Without that trust, the community will end up either letting insurgents do what they do, or worse, join the insurgency. There are a lot of things that policing in the United States can learn from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, obtaining and using armored vehicles is not one of them.
And a full checked to why the camera died whether or not it actually went out/reinforced cameras with higher definition for Face ID(hey if it helps it helps)
And also if they literally forgot or misplaced the footage then the person and the department both get separate but hefty fines of 3,500 Dollars for the footage handler. The department get 35,000 USD. If they fail to pay the fine. Then the chief or the person who is directly responsible for the footage handler and said footage handler and all involved in missing footage after an investigation get towed in a medium security prison. Meant for cops. But federally owned. No parole no pardons. Not Even the president can pardon them. Dose this sound fair. Miss use of power must be targeted with persuasion and with unrelenting power.
@@spacetechempire510 when criminals are treated better than someone who misplaced something. Are you sure you're advocating justice rather than dishing out personal vendettas? Laws aren't made to protect or prosecute a group of people, they are made to protect everyone.
When you want someone to sponsor you, get a lawyer to do it. They have 10's of thousands of hours of experience arguing on someone's behalf. They're very good at it.
@@knifeyonline But what if you feel that you don't have the critical thinking skills about this topic? And that's why this comment is sponsored by Brilliant.com!
About body cameras: The guy who murdered George Floyd did so with three other officers and several other witnesses present, at least some openly filming him do it. I somehow doubt he’d have been deterred by a body camera. Police need body cameras, yes. But they also need way better screening BEFORE being given a gun and the power to do almost anything they like to ordinary citizens, and they need hard punishments to deter them from overstepping their boundaries or standing idly by while their colleagues do it. "Tough on crime" should apply to public servants with special privileges first and foremost. And when someone witnesses a police officer murdering someone they have to be allowed to intervene, just like a police officer would be allowed (and required) to intervene if they were to witness some other person committing a crime. In fact if any police officer commits a crime while performing their job, they have to be just as liable to face the consequences of that crime, including self-defense by someone trying to stop them, as anyone else-when they overstep what they are legally allowed to do, that is abuse of power, which should immediately render their authority and special privileged null and void. It is in that context that body cameras are actually vital, because they would allow to objectively determine what happened after the fact, without having to decise whose testimony is more trustworthy (which we all know the police usually benefit from).
@ALSO-RAN ! I'm not sure what that has to do with anything... he was definitely not overdosing. I've been close to overdosing on that shit a dozen times... never have, but the step b4 of is drug induced psychosis. Basically you black out and act a fool, so you don't remember anything and u act like an idiot... he wasn't even to that stage, just less an od.
@ALSO-RAN ! No ideas what cities you are refereing to, but if a man is on the ground pleading for air and your knee is still on his neck, I don't care if it killed him, the stress from being choked out could have been what did his heart in, and if not that then definitely was at least in some form assault and still abuse of power. No one, no matter what kind of "hardened criminal" they are do not deserve to be treated like that ESPECIALLY without a trial. You sir lack basic empathy and I fear for anyone in your life.
the idiom is, "One bad apple spoils the bunch." This comes from the scientific phenomenon that a rotten apple releases chemicals that cause apples nearby to quicken the ripening/rotting process. Case closed
2 other professions that have as high or higher rate of injury are professionals who work in mental health and disability service. I work in special ed and have been assaulted dozens of times on the job, yet if I ever even made a move that could be described as aggressive I would probably be fired and lose my license, which is as it should be. We are trained in de-escalation and when we have to perform restraints it is always least restrictive possible to maintain the safety and mental health of the person we're supporting in that moment. This includes training in what to do when there's a weapon, which has happened. I am also represented by a union that many complain is too powerful (I'd respectfully disagree). There's really no reason the police shouldn't have the same level of accountability as school professionals.
Unions are very important and I’m sure yours is NOT too powerful. The only unions too powerful are the ones that give you vacation time for extrajudicial murder.
@@williamcarter8263. If you want to know more injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/25/2/116 My job would fall under the licensed staff category, in the past I was direct support as well. I should mention that actual injury rates are vastly underreported. Generally scratches, bites that don't break skin, or bruises go unreported because otherwise we'd do nothing but fill out injury reports (which are not a quick process and involve follow up). In rooms that have significant behavioral concerns generally we only fill out reports if there's danger of an infection or longer lasting injury and we may need covered by workers comp.
@@NYGJMAP the teacher's union is, if anything, underrepresented in special education. A lot of politicians and locals like to stoke the fire by complaining about time off ignoring that we are often expected to equip our own rooms, pay for supplies, and research/assemble projects on our own time while also maintaining licenses (which has become its own wildly overpriced industry). I'm not a teacher, I'm embedded in my rooms as a licensed professional and have worked in school for the last 5 years and before that with adults as a direct support worker for about 7 years. Having only had a union for the past 3ish years I can tell you it makes a huge difference.
@@tequila7419 The guy they were after was already in custody. It was the WRONG address to begin with. Breonna and her boyfriend were sleeping, and when the police barged in, her boyfriend (rightfully) assumed intruders were barging into their home and defended it. He got arrested for shooting at people he DID NOT KNOW were police. Pray tell, what crime did either of them commit?
WarriorCrimson Yes, because they believed drugs were brought through the apartment. They still entered without announcing themselves and they shot her. She was not a criminal and they found no drugs in her apartment. It was a murder
That’s what has always baffled me about police as a whole resisting any oversight or accountability; I would think that going into an ‘brotherhood’ you would be the tip of the spear to get rid of dirty or dangerous cops. They sully your image and make your job that much harder! Also, de-escalation makes things safer for all involved, including the cop. The more data collection and sharing, the more trends can be detected and policy built around that instead of assumptions or ‘intuitive’ thinking. How does that NOT sound awesome?
im a cop, and i watched a few minutes so far. and just wanna say. I am Absolutely FOR body cams. i have been accused at least twice where i WISH i had a body cam. accusations of absolute nonsense.
Regarding consent decrees: The Cleveland Police were under a consent decree when Tamir Rice and several other people were killed unjustly by them. The officers involved had completely broken the rules of that consent decree. Creating rules doesn't solve the problem when the people who are supposed to enforce the rules are the ones breaking the rules.
Point a gun at people (toy or not) and you risk getting shot. Had his toy gun had the manufacturer supplied orange tip you may have had a different outcome. But that's not an officers fault his toy appeared real. Sad but completely justified shooting. If he pointed it at me I'd have drawn my EDC and shot as well.
Mike the problem though, is they shot him from a car (drive-by) didn't ask him to raise his hands, call to him to remove the weapon, just shot him on sight
@@iomakara9809 Yep. Watch the video in real time and the cop had to be unsnapping, if not unholstering his pistol as he arrived. I think it is 2.3 seconds from stopping to first shot.
Again: this is a refreshing channel. There’s nothing partisan on looking things through the law. Even when the presenter would like to call BS but instead gives us the law, the rights and the wrongs and what a voter can do to battle the wrongs.
@TypeLuo That's not full circle, that's the default norm that's been established in most periods of civil unrest. Go check out what happened to Notre Dam, smashing roman statues because the angry poor folk thought they were busts of french kings. The only thing different is that now it's happening in the age of information, so all these idiots who remain oblivious to the history they're dealing with are intentionally, deliberately oblivious.
@@stephenferguson3284 "Begging the Question"is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it: an argument that requires that the desired conclusion be true. "Raising the question" just means to ask an obvious question. All over people use "begs the question" when they mean "raise the question". I was just happy to see someone use the right phrase. Basically, you should only say "begs the question" when you are accusing someone of using circular reasoning. And just to head the obvious response off at the pass: yes yes language evolves. I just hate to see a useful phrase get misused to the point that it ends up meaning the opposite of what it's supposed to mean.
@@gregoryboatswain1605 Here's a link to the most thorough explanation I could find: examples.yourdictionary.com/reference/examples/begging-the-question-fallacy-examples.html
Colleague, you reminded me about the old lawyers joke that goes: not all lawyers are bad apples, it's just those 99% that spoil the good name of the rest of us. 😉😉😉
using "misconduct" already skews the discussion from where it needs to be. Let's call them what they are, "crimes". Crimes should be adjudicated by courts, not disciplinary boards.
The problem is that police need leeway to do things that are normally illegal in order to effectively do their job. The easiest most non-controversial example I can think of being speeding. Occasionally police need to break the speed limit in order to respond to a call or chase someone down or something but if they just turned their lights on and had a little joyride that would be a misuse of their privileges thus misconduct.
Well that's why it is called misconduct. Because sometimes it's not severe enough to be considered criminal. But there is literally a thing called Criminal Misconduct. Like a cop can be verbally abusive and one might make an argument for misconduct. But that's not so egregious as to call it criminal you know?
@@billman4226 Note the keyword you used: the person, not the police, started the shoot out. Killing in self defense is legal assuming equal force is returned to the instigator. Different case if they enter a household in civilian clothes. In that case, the homeowner has the right to defend their home.
The whistleblower / Duty to Report idea sounds very much like 10 CFR 21 requirements for the nuclear industry. It serves the nuclear industry and its safety record very well.
Me: *Gets handed a barrel of apples* Police: 'Most of these are really good, but there may be some bad ones in there' Me: 'how bad?' Police: 'bad enough to kill someone' Me: 'no thanks, keep your apples.'
@NotYourGreatestPlan okay, but that sort of behavior only happens in the best of the best scenarios, and we have repeated instances of that not happening. Thus, the apples that would kill you. Not to mention that overbearing police brutality has other consequences, both mentally and financially. There must be another solution, or there is no solution at all.
@NotYourGreatestPlan Not really... we did not always have police. In fact, their original conception was completely racially motivated. The solution to a homeless person in a parking lot is not to send a person with a gun. The solution to a drunk person is not a person with a gun. The solution to drug use is not a person with a gun. We need different systems. Even most of the rest of the civilized world can confirm, the solution to an angry dangerous person with a weapon is actually not a person with a gun. Escalating the situation NEVER solves the problem, it just makes people dead. Police use need to be reduced back to what they actually are, deadly force. They themselves talk about how over extended they are. They are not properly equipped to handle most issues they are asked to respond to. And we literally ask them to respond to everything. You know the saying about hammers finding every problem to be a nail.
Just as a side note: the Dutch police changed their riot vans (sturdy vans with a look more befitting the marechaussee (which is a gendarmerie)) to look more like regular police vehicles. Tests showed that protesters and hooligans remained calmer so significantly they sped up the replacement process nationwide and the "feel" of new vehicles and uniforms are now always included in design proposals. Added benefit being that the riot vans can now also be used for regular police duties.
Good one.. Think of this scenario.. a protest happen.. maybe some tension.. police show up.. not with guns.. but with party speaker.. give people some food.. cheer everyone up.. tell some joke then tell the people.. keep this peacefully.. And everyone be safe... I am sure everyone would listen.. and everyone will be more happy.. and btw.. isn’t that what police suppose to do?
@@mingc4698 - There were a couple protests early on where the local police joined in and marched with them. Amazingly, no violence broke out in those marches. Then later when they put in an arbitrary curfew and decided to enforce it violently, those same police started getting into violent situations they themselves were causing. So yes, when it's a non-violent protest, they can be present without escalating.
Europe is generally pretty big on deescalation and it seems to work out well. In the US people seem to have fully understood the fact that when you approach a police officer in an aggressive way, they are more likely to respond aggressilvely aswell. That is because they are people. It works exactly the same way when the situation is reversed, but that fact seems to be largely neglected.
I've been pointing out for months that the complete saying is "a few bad apples spoil the bunch" and I am SO GLAD someone else is pointing that out too.
Hey LegalEagle, a guy from Canada here. I went to Law school here and I feel like if more professors were like you the profession would be enriched greatly. Thank you for your well balanced and measured content!
Hes hardly well balanced. He said that the 'protests' were mostly peaceful when just about every protest in a major city turned into a riot as soon as the curfew hit
@@phillip7494 "as soon as curfew hit" they said, without any self awareness. There's no need for a curfew in the first place as it is just a way to restrict peoples' right to gather and protest... which as you pointed out were peaceful... until cops made it not peaceful.
Google "Duffelblog: Military Pushes For Same Broad Rules Of Engagement As Civilian Police Forces" ....it's a military version of the Onion, but like the Onion, it's scary how true it is.
Well one of the things that's allowed for police and not the military is Tear gas. Because in a combat scenario it's indistinguishable from deadlier gases. And could provoke full scale chemical warfare with the opposition firing back with chemicals aswell. So there is a good reason. Still doesn't answer why it is allowed against their own people but that's a diffferent question
So kiwi here 🇳🇿 One of the best things we did in NZ was removing any kind of positive reinforcement of ticketing. All fines go to the government not the department, and there is no work incentive for higher arrest rates or ticketing rates (which used to be an unspoken rule). We work in line with hospitals and social workers especially for mental health call outs (police often drive people straight to the hospital for detox, mental health treatment or other reasons). And police unions don’t exist here ✌🏼
You’re an incredibly persuasive person. You safely pander to and peruse the side of people against police reform only to bring them back to their senses. You would make an excellent lawyer. Have you considered this path?
The people who are against police reform are either dirty cops or idiots. People like me are against police defunding. Not so much against police reform. You can't reform an an underfunded Police Department.
@@saggitariuspotato2043 Except you can and reform can't happen without reduced funding. Cops are OVER funded. We have too many, we spend too much on them, and we aren't getting a good return on our investment. Defund, reduce the size and scope, and spend that money on other programs, training and personnel.
@@saggitariuspotato2043 Police are already one of the biggest expenditure of municipalities. Also when the budget for going into things like APCs at local level, that's just excessive spending.
@@saggitariuspotato2043 people want funding taken away because there's been multiple photos of cops with multiple hundred dollar sights on their fuckin tear gas launcher, the call to defund them is to get rid of any military equipment they have. Like assault rifles, eoetech sights, red dots, heavily armored vehicles amongst other things. They honestly don't need military equipment and should have that taken away. That's why people want funding cut, because they're allowed to buy too many things they really don't need to police the populace. We aren't fuckin mexico.
@@saggitariuspotato2043 Because im sorry you don't need assault rifles and EOTECH holographic on guns that most of your engagements will be under a hundred yards. They don't need a lot of the shit they have, it's all toys.
@@riley9366 The Catholic Church sure is for shielding and enabling the pedophile priests. The police shields its murderers and criminals behind its thick blue line and claiming every shoot is a "good shoot" and they are always in fear for their lives with a split second decision.
@@riley9366 This phrase exists because a bad apple actually causes a chemical reaction that ruins the entire barrel. So yeah, the moment you say "bad apple" you are implying everything around them is tainted beyond repair.
They aren't servants lol wtf is that. No one should be thought of as a servant. They enforce the law and make sure the community is safe, that's what it should be. Police are NOT there to fuckin serve you lol this isn't a restaurant or slavery.
@@SM-nz9ff seems like you missed the motto “to protect and serve.” Also, I think you have a different view on the word than I do. I had no negative connotations with my comment.
@@aaronlewis9769 A motto by LAPD and others coopted the motto, not all. Ours for example have no such motto. Judging by LA in general I'd say they don't actually either. Not that it matters but a motto isn't law, a rule, an oath, or any other such thing. I am retired military for example. Military is called the armed services..."thank you for your service". Yeah we were not there to fuckin serve anyone other than bombs to the face. This is the same context service is referred to in Police terms other than the primary dealers of death which they are not meant to be whereas the military is. I repeat. The police are NOT there to serve you. If you have such evidence do present it.
Are you telling me that some departments can't afford body cameras but others can afford military grade vehicles amd grenade launchers? What is going on
Body cams cost more than you'd think, you need long-term storage of video from multiple users. Depending on the minimum quality needing to be saved (probably 720p30fps) that can get INSANE on space requirements. Imagine needing to hold each 8-hour shift of 20 officers for, say, 7 years (same as tax documentation so a fair guess I'd say), that'd be an insane amount of straight hard drive space alone, not to mention maintenance cost on top of that
That’s correct. The military equipment comes from a federal program which repurposes old military equipment (other than weapons themselves) for low costs.
@@tv92taylor yeah that's the other big thing, he even says it in the video. It's a one time cost that's incredibly cheap compared to the cost most people associate with military grade gear
In my city in Canada when there is an issue with public intoxication, mental health, and loitering issues - a subsection of unarmed police are sent to investigate and deal with the issue. This isn't the same in all cities here though.
Sure, we have them too over here in Europe. Unarmed cops with different uniforms who work for the city and deal with the small stuff. It seems to be a decent idea overall.
In South Korea, in lieu of military service, draftees can serve as a member of a special police force that is focused on dealing with people who are intoxicated, public nuisance, etc.
@@kingofhearts3185 Winnipeg. Its part of the City Police Cadets Program. They deal with issues that don't need armed officers, assess the situation then call the appropriate group (ambulance or whatever is needed). They also patrol the downtown. I had to call them once due to an intoxicated person falling asleep on the premises of a business where i worked. I tried to ask him to leave but he was unable to understand me and they arrived and were able to talk to the man and eventually decided he should be seen by some medical personal to see if he had taken something dangerous so they called a stretcher service who took him to the hospital I think.
My problem with the analogy is you would remove those bad apples before you bake the into a pie. These guys want us to eat that pie and somehow be happy for it.
The positioning of the cameras as well needs to be rethought because they are blocking them in many instances, even positioning them so their radio is blocking part of it, as in the case with Sterling Brown.
@@PoochieCollins seems like it would have the same issue, just with two cameras. I would say that if your camera is off and your an officer, you are not considered an on-duty officer unless your camera is on. You have no more legal standing for your actions than any average citizen if your body camera is off. I kept saying you but I mean law enforcement officer
@@Kobolds_in_a_trenchcoat Two body cams pointed in a little bit different directions also covers a wider area. And evidence of view tampering should definitely be taken seriously.
Just reverse the burden of proof. An officer who cannot demonstrate clearly that they have acted correctly are assumed to be guilty by default. You'll find that the camera is always pointing in the right direction then and not blocked! Maybe they'll even magically grow a second one for backup, and a third one on their arse to make sure they haven't farted wrong. Police not having independent oversight, whether it's technical like a camera, civilian witnesses, etc, is NEVER in citizen's interest. Because police officers always come in pairs or more, so it's one word of the citizen and maybe their close relative or friend which generally don't count, vs. words of two officers or more, so the leverage is entirely on police side.
Obviously, japan has its own issues with police (moreso on the long detention and inability to consult lawyer for a while), but at the national level there is an independent agency called the National Public Safety Commission. The commission's function is to guarantee the neutrality of the police system by insulating the force from political pressure and ensuring the maintenance of democratic methods in police administration. It administers the national police agencg, and has the authority to appoint or dismiss senior police officers. The national police agency its role is to supervise prefectural police departments and determine general standards and policies; although in national emergencies or large-scale disasters the agency is authorized to take command of Prefectural (state or county analogy - japan is a unitary state) police departments. Cities and towns do not have police departments. Rather, police kiosks are set up in multiple locations but are under the chain of command of the prefecture.
I agree, but it also would be nice to talk about Civil Asset Forfeiture. This is where if the police stop you and you are carrying cash they can claim it was being involved in something illegal, and take it. This is without accrual charges or a conviction, and you have to sue to get it back.
@@ItalianRain2 If polices get paid for tickets, they will definitely be motivated to hand out tickets as much as possible, regardless of fairness. No way they gonna refuse extra money.
If a police officer’s makes the same amount wether he/she stops or doesn’t stop a person driving 90mph why would the police officer do anything (aside from doing it because it’s the right thing)? Seems like we have to find some sort of middle ground or some lazy officers would just park their cars in the grass doing nothing because they have no incentive to enforce.
Colorado just passed a law addressing most of the issues you discuss in this video. Effective Immediately. I would love to hear your take on it. Thanks.
When you talk about people wanting "safety and low crime", it's worth remembering that the police don't even always contribute much, if anything, to that. Moreover, I think the biggest problem with the police accountability is the huge gulf between what is on the books, and what actually gets enforced. NYC had a chokehold ban on the books for 20 years before Eric Garner was killed by a chokehold.
DallasJScott I can chip in. In 2014, the police reduced their presence in the city, temporarily ending their proactive policing programme. Reports on major crime during that time fell significantly. Here’s a link: www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-proactive-policing-crime-20170925-story.html
@@fionaur5933 I believe the issue of police being less proactive is not one-sided as there are conflicting points. As @ErgoProxy12345 said, we don't have a whole lot of data distribution from different cities and areas to prove if proactive policing is effective or not. It will be interesting to see with the proposed NYPD strike along with the Atlanta PD walking off their shifts what new information comes out of this. Here is a link that contrasts with yours: www.forcescience.org/2018/08/new-report-one-citys-experience-with-less-proactive-policing/
@@DJScott There's short and long term consequences and you seem mostly interested in the short term consequences. But long terms consequences are something like Alfred being raised in a city with light policing, gets into a little trouble as a teenager, and his parents get called and he gets grounded. Goes on to have a successful life, good job, etc. Bob is raised in a city with heavy policing, gets into the same trouble as a teenager but is instead arrested and sent into the corrections system. This sets his whole life on a dramatically different trajectory based solely on the police response to the same kind of incident.
I was recently discussing with a friend of mine who is a member of the London Metropolitan police Dogs unit, we talked about the difference between the number of Ex-military in the Met and US police forces, the numbers vary over time and location but between 15-30% of officers in the US are ex military, much much higher than in the UK. The UK police is far from blameless in many respects but its held amongst their officers that the Veterans in their ranks are more likely to use excessive force, this is because they was trained, usually from a young age, to respond to dangerous situations in a specific way and this training is very hard to break. In addition you have many who have diagnosed PTSD, this isn't their fault and they diserver the help they have been promised. A review of use of firearms in the Met a TSG officer said the Ex military were "the worst bullies" and "the laws of the battlefield are not appropriate to the streets of our capital". My main point here isn't to criticise those who join the military and of course you should never draw direct parrallels between police forces in different nations where one is required to carry firearms and the other requiring a 6 month course after several years of good conduct to even touch one, but question whether they are suited for peaceful law enforcement with their previous training and the mindset taught to them.
Admiral Adama once said " There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people."
I think it might be the opposite in the states. It's not usually vets who are behind the high-profile shootings. They usually have better training than that.
I agree and three officers I know have discussed the same thing. The thought should always be de-escalation in every method available. Rising tensions hurt the victim, the perpetrator and the officer. Lastly even the idea of enemy to state can be rife for misuse but the purpose of the police is protection. I worry too many join in the mind of playing cowboy.
That’s kind of interesting. I’ve always thought of ex-military police as being more qualified as they’ve had much more extensive training and have experienced these tense situations numerous times as opposed to a person with minimal training who might react sheerly in fear. I would say when you do have a rouge ex-military cop, they’re probably a nightmare for the reasons you mentioned, but I’ve seen randomly across the internet vets being critical of how lowly trained police officers deal with situations, or the rules of engagement they use versus people who’ve fought in foreign countries.
Military or not military it's irrelevant. In Italy, 90% of the policemen are military personnel. They still behave like policemen because they are trained to do so. It's about culture I think
It honestly comes down to who we elect into Congress-the senators. The senators are supposed to represent us. Serve the people. It was never, NEVER meant to be a full time job. What needs to happen, is we need to hit the reset button at LEAST every two years so that way they're thinking "what can I do to help the people who put me here" instead of "how do I keep my job"?
We (Americans) took a pounding from congressional incompetence for....my whole life, but when we turned up in the 2018 midterms I think we're finally fed-up with their lame asses.
So, you think that having politicians elected every two years is going to make them LESS obsessed with campaigning and vote buying? I would rather think the opposite. The shorter the term, the less time they have that isn't devoted to immediate (political) survival. Now, on the other hand, longer terms bring problems of un-accountability, so I don't have a good solution, but I don't think two year terms are going to make things better. I think it'll just put them into permanent election year mode.
While I agree that's a problem, I don't think it's _this_ problem. Police departments aren't really under Congress's jurisdiction, and most of their issues need to be solved on a case-by-case basis by the communities that live there. The federal government should only come in when states fail to do anything about counties not listening to the will of their people.
Well in the EU and other industrial nations, elections are taxpayer-funded, so politicians needn't depend on big business or lobbies for campaign ads nor spend their terms fundraising for reelection, reducing corruption and enabling reforms.
Eugene, OR has a model that's gotten a bit of notice regarding sending non-police to calls about drug addicts and similar. The business is called Cahoots and has been around for about 30 years in case you'd like to look into what that kind of thing would look like.
One elephant in the room is the use of tear gas. Tear gas has been banned in warfare under Geneva Protocol since 1925, the canister itself has the same KE as a revolver, but it is permitted to be used against civilians! Does that make any sense? Many rules of engagement protecting enemy belligerent, who you have the intention to kill, do not apply to civilians. We've seen the police attacking medics on purpose, for starters. *It should be a no-brainer that civilians should enjoy **_at least_** as much rights as enemies of the state.*
Hollow point bullets are banned in war too but they are safer for domestic purposes. They are completely different situations with completely different rules
@TypeLuo no it is expilicitly stated in the geneva convention that tear gas is banned too stop an escalation of force that leads too deadlier gasses and chemicals. By the same token tear gas is explicitly allowed too be used against civilians since they don't have chemical weapons too retaliate with
Also during a virus pandemic. That alone should have disqualified the usage of tear gas in many if not all of the situations, they have other "tools" for crowd control. The fact it was used during this time says a lot.
Peper spray is also illegal outside the US, its considered a chemical weapon. The less options an officer has to use before deadly force means they will have to resort to it far more often. Big brain people around here.
My nephew is a state trooper. He has said that there are 3 types of officers: 1) regular types who do their jobs (majority), 2) types who are just collecting a paycheck and are an empty uniform (when a call comes in they are the last to arrive even though they were the closest in proximity), 3) types who feel like their word is law (who are usually ex-military). Studies have shown that college educated officers are better at their job than those without. He said that everyone knows who the "bad apples" are, but because of the police union they can't be removed. But no one on the force wants to work with them for obvious reasons.
There's been some notable discussion on the different "rules of engagement" between the national guard and police, something to dive in to after qualified immunity (which I'm anxious to learn more about).
In the army they are taught to only ever point their weapon at someone as a last resort (talking about patrol duties, not combat situations) because pointing a weapon at someone only worsens the situation. Yet the police do this for almost any situation, whether it be a reporter at a demonstration, or because you went slightly over the speed limit. The training they receive is inadequate at best, criminally negligent at worse.
Having a police force that feels like it is the military here to fight the citizens is a terrifying image. But even more important, I think is the need for the public to trust its police. On both sides trust will be non-existent if the force of the police becomes too heavy handed. Police need to be safe and I think a good start would be a public that has trust in that police force protect its citizens. Think about a father that beats his kids. Those kids will hate that father. But a father who supports his kids and uses his authority to guide them when right and to stop them when wrong, without abuse his kids will trust and respect him.
This will never happen. Why? Because people breaking the law don't want to be punished and called out for it. The interaction between criminals and police will never be the "positive" and "trustful" moment that you wish for. Rayshard Brooks case is perfect example. The police officers were extremely polite, did their job well, and still the criminal in case decided to fight. Why? Because he was breaking his parole, third time if i remember right, and would end up in jail.
Here in brazil we have a military police force and more than half of the population is afraid of them, they torture people on the regular and in poor areas during police operations they can shoot on sight. You reeeeally don't want your police to get militarized. Also our police gets more brutal and criminality only increases every year so clearly being tough on crime isn't working here.
Here's the problem comparing them to military. Our military is actually trained to deescalate situations, which is one of the major failings of our police forces nation wide.
In response to your question regarding "how we cultivate a culture of PD's removing bad apples" (I'm paraphrasing but I believe I captured the spirit of your question) The answer is the unions. They are pulling the strings here. They foster the blue line mentality by removing the officers that don't conform and this collection of "brotherhood till the end" mentality enables bad cops to be bad because cops that speak out are removed from the job. You have to strike at the union and their contractual and legislated protections, if not ban government employees from union membership entirely. (Notice we can't unionize in the military, but apparently cops can)
I dunno. On the one hand, attacking unions feels like a betrayal of true freedom, and playing right into the oppressors hands. What's to say they won't come for unions in the private sector next? but on the other hand, I never knew that military can't unionize, and thinking about it for all of 5 seconds I agree with that. The military should _not_ be privately owned, and in a way, unionizing partially privatizes something doesn't it? I don't think I agree with the idea that _all_ government employees shouldn't be able to unionize: I have family who work in government positions, and they're desperately in need of unions. But a case by case basis is definitely called for here. Like, public defenders should _definitely_ be allowed to unionize. Because exploiting them means destroying the lower classes chance at a fair trial. But it's having clear problems in the military for all the reasons you said. Why were police unions instituted in the first place? What exploitations did they face, that are worse than systemic corruption? And while we're at it, _how did AMERICA, the land of the capitalist, ever allowed police unions to begin with?_
The really irritating thing is that every time legislation has been passed to limit bargaining rights for government workers, law enforcement is ALWAYS exempt. Y'know, the ones who desperately NEED those limits.
I have a law enforcement background and I am not surprised at what we are dealing with. A lot, perhaps most of these cops need to find another career. Empathy and good judgement cannot be trained. There was a shoot/don't shoot test I took which would be great for detecting all of those bad apples. My proposed law would mandate that every single law enforcement officer pass the test within one month or be terminated. Every cadet in every program would have to pass this test or they would not graduate.
When they decided to ban chemical weapons in war they specifically kept it legal for countries to use it on their own people for the purpose of riot control, since without it they would have to resort to more lethal methods (which isn't a problem during a war.) I'm not saying it's good to use teargas, but I'm saying the situation is more complex than you seem to be making it out to be.
"Body cams should be left on at all times." The poor guy who has to review that footage and see bathroom break after bathroom break. Edit: I was just making a joke guys I know not every second of footage will be reviewed for no reason.
I think you don't need to review the footage if there's no arrestation, complaint or event of any kind. You keep everything, EVERYTHING, even if you don't think you'll need it.. .for, I don't know, 5 years? During that time, you pay a AI company to go through the WHOLE thing and check to detect unknown "anomaly" (violence, drug use, etc.); no human being without proper authorization can watch these sequences. and the anomalies are correlated to the police database (so you don't check a crime that was correctly handled). Anything that popup is checked by a police watchdog entity and disciplinary and legal options are taken if needed. But, its a lot of effort, money and time that could be replaced by more humane solution. This will only be deterrent (which are never enough).
How ambitious to think someone would regularly review the footage. Would be happy if it was just in response to complaints and any arrests/violence. Or more shortly, any paperwork should have accompanying video if it is relating to any officer actions.
There are several issues with this. The bathroom breaks are one. Police officers are people too, they do have to take care of family issues while working such as personal phone calls especially if they have a 12 hours shift. Police often go into sensitive areas were cameras are not allowed. Tax payers have to pay for the storage of video. There are currently about 800,000 sworn officers in the US. Lets assume only half of them work any given day and each has an eight hour shift, that's storing 3.2 million hours of footage everyday plus the people to manage it. Talk about a huge bill, but if this happens, buy stock in Axon!
@@iapetusmccool: The definition of "civilian" (according to Google): civilian /sɪˈvɪlj(ə)n/ noun: civilian; plural noun: civilians a person not in the armed services or the police force.
@Grailsarvas Forget it, those pampered millennials have no idea what it's like to live in a crime ridden society. Ironically they don't realize they owe their privilege and safety precisely to so-called "militarization of police", which was simply an answer to the horrific crime wave of the 70s-80s. They don't realize America already tried that kumbaya flowers-not-guns, let's-be-nice-to-criminals nonsense in the 60s, which only resulted in aforementioned crime wave, causing the same generation to beg the state to massively invest in police efforts to clean up the cities.
You are the literal definition of the lawful good alignment. I consider myself to be more neutral good as I have far less faith in a lot of our legal system but I respect what you do here.
Are you planning on going in depth on the major Supreme Court cases like this week's in Bostock v Clayton County(Title VII) and DHS v Regents of the University of California(DACA)? Or are you just planning on covering all of them at the end of the term?
@elijah mikle Where are you getting that that's something I support from what I said lol. I'm actually split, I agree with Bostock, disagree with Regents
"It's important to know what those words mean" I love a good Legal Eagle roast. I've been saying this to everyone making the "bad apples" comment. Thank you for your video! I keep seeing everything happening and wonder, "What would DJ say about this?"
Me too! The other thing I keep bringing up is would it ever be okay to say, "most of our surgeons are great, but sometimes you end up with a bad apple." Some jobs need to be held to a higher standard. We can't afford to have bad cops.
I blame the Jackson 5 for the current misunderstanding of the "bad apples" metaphor. Their 1971 hit subverted the cliche by claiming that one bad apple "don't spoil the whole bunch".
For both sides right? Cause I have dealt with many people using correctly for the police, but get offended and furious when its applied correctly to the protests.
@@jacobhiatt1901 I have seen at least one video of protesters holding to account someone who was breaking up a sidewalk for projectiles to throw. In the other hand, we have many examples of whole units of Police resigning in solidarity with their bad apples and other instances of rallying around.
This is by far the most comprehensive list of reforms I've seen and you even explained each one. Even saw some ones I haven't seen yet in there. (Also you've been killing the ad segues lately)
That is a funny one. Did you know, during the manhunt for Dorner, not one, but TWO vehicles with innocent occupants were shot up? Yeah, and the police that did the shooting, in both of those cases, all they got was a 1 week suspension. In one of the shootings, the one with the electric blue pickup, a 72 year old woman was shot twice in the back and the driver was severely injured by shattered glass, which was shattered by the gun fire. No joke, those two cops fired nearly 100 rounds into that pickup truck. They got a 1 week suspension... Wrap your brain around that! The police treated that like it was just a normal workplace accident. When an old lady was shot twice in the back! Yep, workplace accident... And I am going to be straight with you, if those two ladies got out of their truck and returned fire on the police, killing the police, I would be 100% okay with it. In fact, I would label those two women as heroes. That is right, in this case the cops were the villains, and needed to be dealt with as villains. Oh yeah, and one more thing, the truck they shot up, couldn't have been any more different than the truck Dorner was reported to have been driving. It was a completely different color, completely different make, completely different model.
Yh, just looked him up and idk if I necessarily believe he was fired for ONLY reporting excessive abuse... You dont go from good cop just trying to report someone, to shooting and killing 4 people and threatening the lives of cops and their families...
@@brandipityha9457 You do if you're an ex-solder with minor PTSD and put in a situation where the goverment you serve betrays you. Mental health is a thing.
@@Zorae42 Yup. Cops are definitely over-funded and under-trained in America; they have military-grade weaponry, that they don't even use properly: www.inverse.com/mind-body/rubber-bullets-cannot-be-used-safely
The Amerikan Polis also has to increase the education time of the Police, instead of mere weeks to at least a couple of years. Many EU countries and especially the Nordics have a mandatory school time between 2-4 years
Moreso, what type of policing is taught is important. Not only does the police in the US do more (including things they are not qualified to handle), they also don't seem to be as much trained to be a part of the community, to evaluate, analyse, help, defuse situations and when needed call in help from those with more specialised knowledge and skills. To me, the police is not formost an agency about projecting force, it is about being the first line of the government just like a GP is the first line in healthcare. They are supposed to know their community so as to be able to ascertain what is needed.
Most states require at least an associate’s degree in criminal justice plus more training at either a police academy or with a certified POST instructor. You don’t just apply for the job and are handed a badge and a gun.
As a Norwegian citizen I can confirm that the education time (depending on which police branch) is 3-5 years of education, where you learn de-escalation, analyzation of the use of force and just general good behaviour. It's important to remember that the police is a civil servant and they work for you as a citizen, and their priority should be the citizen's safety above their own. Of course, I am not saying that there are no "bad cops" in Norway, cause there undoubtedly are some (although I have personally never met one), but generally the police spend more time walking around and simply chatting with people than using actual force. This may be due to the relatively low crime and reoffending rates in Norway, but I do feel like the police can be more comfortable here due to the gun laws aswell as other minor factors that ultimately means that it's unlikely that force will be used from either side. My point is simply, comparing the US to the nordic, or Norway specifically, should not be done as they have two vastly different police and justice systems. Sure, the US could take elements from the nordic police model, but it's in my opinion unfeasible to implement on a larger scale in the US until the reoffending rate and culture war that exists within the US, which roots back to the wealth disparity. While this wealth disparity can be attributed to the historically unjust treatment of POC's, I do not believe that tge current trend that you see in BLM and similar movements to be productive towards a good solution. I had my hope up that Bernie could mend some of the problems in the US, but ultimately he was too extremist for the people of the US, which have historically been suspicious of even mildly socialist reforms after the "Red Scare" sadly as I do believe it could mend the wealth disparity to some degree, possibly reducing the reoffending rate (with more reintegration programs for convicts), which would ultimately lead to less forceful police interactions, therefore reducing the chance of excessive use oof force.
@Grailsarvas first and foremost, I highly advise you to re-read my comment. I never once said that the wealth disparity exclusively affected POC nor did I say anything that implementing the Norwegian system in the US would magically fix it. I even stated that it wouldn't work in practice in the US. Secondly, the perception the US has of "socialism" is warped and is based in ignorance if anything. Communism and most degrees of socialism wont work in practice in any country to a reasonable degree, however its it's important to draw a distinction between what a socialist democracy, or socio-capitalist democracy as we refer to it, is vastly different from the socialism that the young generation in the US strive for. The state doesnt magically give you money, nor is education "free" as they think it is. Normally a student finishes his degree (5 years) with somewhere between 400k-800k NOK debt. Sure, education is subsided by the government to some degree, but it's far from the idealistic socialistic utopia that the younglings in the US envision. Thirdly, while norway is mostly white, it's a false narrative that it isnt diverse. When I walk around in Bergen I more often see POC's than "native" Norwegians. The fact that you tie race and ethnicity to the argument just speaks by itself how identity politics has entirely ruined productive discourse in the US. Gender and race shouldn't matter, no exceptions, so as such the "homogenous" argument is just stupid imo So before you go around saying "your filthy socialism" I will remind you to do your research and remember that most government spending is socialist incentives, like the police force for instance.
- The "8 can't wait" thing is nice, honestly I thought most of these things were already in place (though stating warning before shooting can't always be done in immediate danger); - I didn't know about that thin of police militarization, some of the surplus should definitely be restricted from police repurposing and other things shouldn't have the time limit applied to them; - Some training in psychology or appointing psychiatrists to the 911 dial would be great, but you'll still want the worker to be accompanied by an unit, not be "eventually" called in order to protect the worker; - The police really should be identifiable, I had no idea there was such a thing as police just wearing black or civilian clothes and going about in unmarked riot gear.
6:01 Thank you for pointing this out. It’s been driving me crazy that people are using the “a few bad apples” argument without stating that entire metaphor is “a few bad apples spoils the bunch.”
Show me 1 profession, or career where everyone is perfect, and no one makes mistakes... Can't? So what you are saying is that EVERY person in EVERY profession, EVERY person in EVERY career is bad, because every career or profession has a few bad apples. So from your idiotic statement, and from Devin's, we can say that: ALL Lawyers are bad ALL Doctors are bad ALL Teachers are bad ALL Politicians are bad etc.... See how stupid this makes you look... Probably not, but I digress. It's like everything else in this world, it's hard to know something/someone is bad until something happens. A lawyer is bad, AFTER they do something bad, a doctor is bad AFTER they do something bad, a part on a vehicle is bad AFTER it fails... But somehow, we are supposed to hold law enforcement to this unrealistic standard of knowing one is bad BEFORE they do something. Mind telling me how we can do this, so we can weed out the bad apples in other professions BEFORE they do something bad? Yeah...
@@Five-O_Reviews The point of the expression is that one should remove "bad apples" so as to avoid all "apples going bad". Bad lawyers get disbarred, bad doctors have their license revoked, bad teachers get fired, bad politicians get reelected. Bad cops should be fired and be banned from law enforcement. The point is not to expect to be able to know which cop might go bad first, but rather to act reasonably on minor misconduct to prevent irreperable harm from gross misconduct. The further point being that far too often cops who have engaged in gross misconduct resulting in irreperable harm up to and including death have seen no consequences and returned to a career of law enforcement nonetheless.
@@Quintinohthree Quite incorrect. In addition to tossing a whole bushel on account of finding a few bad apples, the common wisdom was that if you couldn't get it clean enough you should also burn the barrel to ash in order to prevent the risk of spoiling future batches. In hindsight, the folks defending the police really should have picked a different metaphor.
@@LordKnightcon No, it's quite accurate. If police *cannot* be reformed to ensure as much as possible only "good apples" get in, all those in stay "good apples" and "bad apples" are detected and discarded before they "spoil the bunch", then the "barrel" must be discarded as a whole and a new organization be built from the ground up to replace it or we must do with "barrels" whose "apples" don't constantly "spoil".
@@Five-O_Reviews I shouldn't have to point out why this argument is flawed to the point of being tissue-thin, but I'll lay it out anyway for the slow kids in the back Your entire point here is predicated on the idea that a 'bad apple' is just anyone who makes any mistake at any time, ever. This is painfully obviously not the original intended point, and your statement implies that there are only two possible states - 'being a bad apple', and 'abject perfection in all things'. The point that has gracefully triple-backflipped clear over your head and stuck the landing to a chorus of applause and straight 10s from the judges, is that you can be a 'good apple' despite making a great many mistakes, because the term 'bad apple' is meant to apply to individuals making egregious human rights violations, in dereliction of duty, and generally acting in bad faith - not just Paul Blart accidentally tripping someone with his segway. Be better.
To quote Sir Samuel Mumm (or Sir Terry Pratchett): "a good revolution clears the air" here in germany a police student reported her superior for "excessive force" (it was caught on camera) that police officer was her examiner (final exam) and he failed her ... What does it take to get a honest police?
"This ain't it, chief" What's happening right now is the exact opposite of a "good" revolution for the good of the people, it's much more akin to the Nazis defunding german police to put their brown coats in the place of power instead to enforce their narratives. The Police needs to be reformed and there's some appalling things said in this video about them I didn't even know were a thing, but the extremist goal of these rioters and the ways they're about it are horrid and you should be scared of it.
@@cdgonepotatoes4219 -- I agree that some people (such as looters) are going too far. However, those seem to be a very small minority. Are you saying that the reforms suggested in this video are extremist or things we should be scared of?
@@JaniceLHz no, the reforms portrayed here are good but way too much damage has been done already to consider these "protests" anywhere near effectual in anything but making things worse. Even if the rioters are in the minority, they've still done millions in damage and damaged history in a way that can't be just paid for repairs, the call for a proper reform is gonna be even harder now because any cricitism is now gonna called off as being an "anarchist that wants lawlessness to loot and shit". Maybe in the aftermath this entire shitstorm will have caused enough of a ruckus to make voices of reform be heard more but you already saw it, the governor didn't even know what was going on two weeks in and the city major completely buckled to extremist demand, no compromises, calling vote for the removal of city police because I can only guess it was easier for him as he doesn't have to think.
@@cdgonepotatoes4219 If so, that's too bad. However, I could make an argument that even if police officers abusing their power are in the minority, they've killed too many people and damaged the reputation of the police in a way that cannot be dismissed by a large group of people. I might riot too if years of begging for reforms did not seem to produce any results and my friends & neighbors kept getting harassed, beaten up, and killed.
Considering say Minneapolis has been a single party state for decades and has lost their last three police chiefs to major crimes. The states where the government knows no matter what they do they'll get voted back in why should they care when police violence actually gets them more blue votes
🚓What do you want to know about the police?
🚨Protect your privacy and get 3 extra months of ExpressVPN: www.expressvpn.com/legaleagle
I thought this video would be sponsored by raid shadow legends
or nordvpn
I will admit this few bad apples having the potential to spoil the whole barrel makes much more sense that way, still, would you be interested in any episodes of Adam Ruins Everything?
Legal eagle, I love your videos. I am not from the US but I find your videos to be of high quality and helpful. I have a question: can you talk about the problems caused by using the SWAT teams too much and how could they be limited? Is damage caused by SWAT teams (eg when they accidently raid a wrong house) fully refunded? What is the process?
I just want to know more about it in general, thank you for your time and amazing content.
(and sorry for my bad grammar)
Two topics would greatly interest me:
1) The allegations/concept that police have violated the Geneva Convention (such as tear gas being a "chemical weapon," attacking journalists, destroying water supplies, ETC), and should be classified as war criminals.
2) Practical law review on what happens or what can be done when a citizen is a victim of corrupt or criminal police actions. Steps to take, protection from retaliation; what systems are in place to combat bad apples at this time?
I heard a lot of police who were reporting misconduct of their colleagues get fired and being ignored by other precinct for jobs.
Police sometimes shame other police for being “rats” or tattling whether or not they’re right
Seems like some elements of the Police seem to think they are the Mafia. Maybe one should remind them that they are supposed to fight the Mafia instead of emulating them? ;)
Yeah, who watches the watchmen? It shouldn't be the watchmen.
Apparently most hr department complaints are from other cops.
Go figure.
Police unions constantly protect their bad apples just as if they were members of a cast. They can't help themselves!
It should be tampering with evidence if a body camera is turned off.
Don’t even put an off button
Exactly
@@Bruh-jj9kk they can always cover the lens with something, kind of like the riot police covered their badge numbers with tape
My Wi-Fi is always on. Home cameras go to the cloud. It is BS that they can turn them off EVER.
@@sasharudyy3587 Let's imbed them between their eyes....lol
"There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state. The other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people." - This is a quote for the sci-fi show, Battlestar Galactica. But even though it's a fictional show, this statement is very, very true.
Well then maybe there shouldn't be enemies of the state inside the country don't you think? Antifa and the like have been nothing but a disruptive force, a domestic terrorist group since inception. If that ain't an enemy of the state I don't know what is.
@@Mate397 Antifa are not a organisation. They don't have members. They have never killed anyone.
@@Mate397 Have you considered that maybe the cause and effect is the other way around? That antifa exists because the police acts too much like an occupying army?
@@Mate397 If anyone is a domestic terrorist group right now it's the police
Dylan Edwards They are an organization and they’ve hurt people. Organizations have ranks and members...something Antifa has.
As a law enforcement officer myself, I agree with about 90% of this. I've said for years that the emphasis of policing should be helping the community and dealing with violent crimes, not enforcing arbitrary laws designed for revenue. One thing I would add to this is establishing a nationwide standard for use of force. Most agencies or states have their own use of force continuum, but they still vary depending on where you're at. I work federal law enforcement, and our use of force continuum is far more strict compared to local LE and because of that, I believe we are alot better a deesclaing situations than other agencies are. Obviously there's time's where someone will decide to fight you no matter what, but the way you approach a situation as an officer can absolutely influence things for the better.
found a real officer here. wow.
I think a major issue in departments that seriously hinders reform and weeding out of bad officers is the "good ol' boys" mentality that exists, especially among command staff, but it wanders its way into deputies as well and leads to like-minded people being retained in agencies and becoming one of the good ol' boys as they work their way up.
I was hoping to hear from a officer on videos like this. It makes sense that federal officers are held to higher standard and therefore are better at their jobs. Do you have any other suggestions for change not mentioned in the video?
@@silentj624
My stance is, and has been for a long time, that as a whole we need FAR better training. Longer academies with better emphasis on unarmed combatives and communication, as well as mandated sustainment training on use of force and again unarmed combatives. The more confident an officer is with hand to hand fighting, the less likely they are to use their weapons unnecessarily.
@@Kyle-ht5qg Better training is actually provided regularly to a lot of places that continue to suffer problems. The issue isn't just better training. It's a literal culture of power tripping, and the allowance and even flat out defense of 'warrior training' even when it's made against the rules by the city/state.
What point do you disagree with?
I was on a jury and the officers under a civil trial had their body cameras on the entire time. This validated their version of events in a case that otherwise could have gone either way. Body cameras are good no matter what.
Well yeah I mean like I don't see what the issue is. If your honest and you work properly, the camera just films what is going on. The Body Camera doesn't have an opinion or a skew, it just shows us what is going on. The ONLY reason to be opposed to them is because you know you're shady AF. I mean I work at a restaurant. Every inch of our workplace has cameras on it because like duh they don't want employees taking booze or whatever. It doesn't bother me because I don't rip off my workplace. same with cops.
@@adammacleod925 It's always been interesting that police often argue that surveillance is necessary, and if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear.
But, of course, that doesn't apply to them.
@lelennyfox34 "Where have you seen Officers that are against this?" and "From what I've seen the majority of Police Officers are for Body Cameras" mean that a minority do. You just answered your own question.
Skippy the Magnificent im trying to become a sheriffs deputy. Literally no officer i know in my area is against this. The only issue they have is privacy😂 but it’s specific so lemme explain. If an officer goes to the bathroom and has an immediate encounter, what they did in the bathroom will be recorded since the body cameras they have record 2 minutes before. From what they told me, theres officer shlong in some body camera footage out there in the wild 😂
@@adammacleod925 The only issue I can think of is that continuously recording cameras have a storage limit. Depending on the resolution it records at the data can add up quick, and some of these officers work 12-14 hour shifts. Then they need data storage to hold all of that footage from thousands of officers and data management becomes an issue. It requires a lot of money and some these small town police departments will probably never have the funds or resources to do so, especially with people calling on de-funding them.
The police department getting income from tickets sounds like a conflict of intrest to me.
That's because it is.
In case you failed civics. The court is who imposes and collects fines not the police department. These are two separate branches of government.
@@doubleasblog Cops do in fact get back a lot of that money in many jurisdictions in the US.
@@robertjarman3703 documentation to support your position?
@@robertjarman3703 www.google.com/amp/s/www.theoaklandpress.com/news/dataworks/where-the-money-goes-when-you-get-a-traffic-ticket/article_9bc7c6ca-6204-11e9-88c0-1f0fbff356a6.amp.html
After this eventful week in America's judicial system, I think it'd be a good idea for you to publish a video describing some of the basic judicial philosophies Supreme Court justices use when applying the law. Textualism, originalism, loose constructionism, structuralism, etc.
Honestly, Bostock is perfect for explaining the difference between textualism and originalism
All officers should have their own individual liability insurance for excessive force or any other constitutionally protected acts being violated. If an officer is found liable of too many cases he should be uninsurable and therefore no longer allowed to be a police officer 👮♀️ also ending qualified immunity would be a huge step.
@@saharalove08 Sounds like you want every police officer to have their neck in the noose while working. High stress like that will lead to worse police officers, less police officers, and overall do nothing to fix the problem.
@@saharalove08 agreed, and it should also be something that comes out of the pocket of the officer
Agreed
Every single video
Him: "Hey Legal Eagles, it's time to think like-"
Me: "An eagle"
Him: "-a lawyer."
Me: "Oh."
i thought i was the only one who did this
Pit Wizard this is great 😂😂
Im not aloneee!!
if he's a lawyer, he's hanging with comey and the rest.
Rofl!! That's hilarious.
I heard an officer in passing describe getting out of a false rape accusation because of his body cam, and how it actually happens very often when they have to accompany a patient/suspect in an ambulance. Body cams help everyone
I literally seen a vid of a cop turn his body cam off in front of protestors.
Bodycams are a good tool but they’re still tools that protect the police more than the civilian. If an incident happens and the footage looks good for the officer, it quickly gets disseminated to the press and public. An incident that reflects poorly on police often results in the footage being put into “internal review” limbo or “body cameras were not active during the incident.” Martin Gugino is a recent example. The official word was that Gugino tripped before the cell phone footage came out showing an officer pushing him. Had an independent individual not captured Gugino being pushed down, would the public have ever seen any footage from one of those 20+ cameras? No, because “there was a technical problem with the cloud.” Is that true? No idea but the same department that said that was also insisting Gugino tripped.
Without increased accountability, it won’t matter if every police interaction is recorded. It is a good start though.
It exposes bad cops while protecting the good ones.
Unless she had a physical evidence or he had a lot of prior allegations he would have gotten out without it: word vs word
@@mathieulevasseur4082 unfortunately without also increasing the level of civilian oversight it really doesn't expose the bad ones. Body cam footage can easily be "lost" or just not released due to confidentiality.
Body cams are a tool but it needs to come with substantial, concrete reforms that change the basic relationship of civilian and police.
There was one cop in Baltimore that had the integrity to report misconduct by a fellow cop. The rest of the department tried to murder him. Repeatedly. Until he was fired for not being team player.
happens a lot.
Yep. Serpico was the most famous cop that did his job. The other cops got him shot.
@@AceMoonshot And that was in the 60s. Not much has changed since then.
The system is design to weed out and purge itself of "good apples"
@@tmage23 that is certainly not how the system is designed
I see two additional problems with the current police system:
1: individual officers are over worked. Anybody that has worked a job can relate to this. After you had a hard week where you have picked up some extra time or some double shifts, your patience and tolerance has been drained by the end. Imagine the difference in being pulled over by an officer on a Thursday who has worked 30 hours that week and being pulled over by an officer that has worked 48 hours that week.
2: officers don't interact with the community they serve. Police officers used to walk around and patrol neighborhoods. Directly interacting with the people they are serving. They get to know the general disposition of individual and build relationships.
#2 is key. Its another result of the war on drugs. If your fighting a war why would you talk to the enemy? This whole enemy thing is just a bad idea. They aren't the enemy. They're citizens. Its also the result of the lowering of the physical standards. You used to have to pass physical tests. But they got rid of those. Now every cop is 200 lbs over weight and is incapable of walking 20 feet without having a coronary. So they have to use a vehicle. Which just makes the physical problem worse and as you pointed out separates the police and the people of the neighborhood at a distance. It also means they aren't getting any information from anyone other than criminals. So any information is suspect at best.
@@russellward4624 Another point about the vehicles thing-- also more expensive. While it's mildly interesting to see police ride on segways in nicer areas of LA, it's extremely sobering to see them wizz right past a homeless person sitting by a building or a kid who's clearly come from a household that's struggling financially. By being less reliant on vehicles, using them more for transporting needed help and less for just ~cruising~ on a boardwalk, the city can use that money to address the homelessness epidemic and empower local schools.
Then again in LA they're never gonna do that.
@@russellward4624 The police Departments went to patrol cars so they can patrol a larger area. That means fewer Officers are needed.
This subject has been brought up on more than one occasion. It boils down to effective use of money. The fact that crime is reduced when Officers interact with the Public is offset by the cost of hiring the extra Officers needed.
@@paulacornelison243 but its not offset. Thats the problem. Because they dontninteract with he public they don't know whats going onnint he public. All they know is the crime after the fact. So it increases the idea of us vs them, that the public is the enemy. It also makes it impossible to get quality intel. The only Intel they get is from criminals making a deal to reduce thier sentence. Not a good source. They're also unqualified on how to use a source and not allow the source to use them. By not interacts with the public it makes it much easier to other them. So they can justify any horrible action they perform like shooting someone in the back while they're handcuffed. If you see them as humans its much harder to do that.
Maybe if police wasn't so dependent on chasing minor offences and victimless crimes for funding, they could reduce working hours and have more time for community interaction too? Just a thought.
"Bad apples analogy is getting thrown around a lot but..." thank you! Why do people use analogies while completely ignoring the REASON for the analogy?? Drives me crazy af
The one that grinds my gears is "the exception that proves the rule." No, no, no people. Prove meant challenge, as in "the proof of the pudding is in the eating," "bulletproof," etc.
@@carloscaro9121 Merriam Webster dictionary describes to prove as: "to establish the existence, truth, or validity of (as by evidence or logic) prove a theorem the charges were never proved in court." You are using expressions and drawing your own conclusions from that. Just look at a dictionary, no challenge there.
@@carloscaro9121 I always took it to mean that the exception proves (i.e. demonstrates) the existence of an implicit rule by virtue of being noteworthy as an exception, which is consistent with the expression's general use by non-crackpots in my experience.
“I’m huge in Japan... I assume.”
Well, you have at least one regular viewer from Japan (me). 👍🏾
So nice to see a fellow fan watching from Japan!
I’m not Japanese but I’m living in Kyoto! Hello fellow kids lol 😝
Guess he is big in Japan
Watching from Kumamoto. 👍
Same!
"There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state. The other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people."
Battlestar Galactica has the best quote about militarization of the police.
100%. It comes to mind every time in regards to this subject.
That is true.
And if you've recieved military firearms training you shouldn't work as an armed police officer. To avoid police who are trained to kill.
Germany learned it the hard way and completely outlawed the deployment of troops on German territory unless attacked by foreign armies. (Exceptions are made to lend vehicles and manpower for disaster relief.)
Every German soldier knows that any superior ordering them to do any kind of policing is committing treason and the order is void.
Just, no!
@@Yora21 and when munich olympics happaned in 1972 thing got ugly for the same reason , german police lacked training
"I investigated myself, and I found that I did nothing wrong" - the police
(Fox investigating the hen house)
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Juvenal
#WhenAnyInstitutionInvestigatesItselfInANutshell.
+
Government investigates government and finds no evidence of wrong doing by government. *Cough*clinton*cough*.
I used to be in a union, and I can guarantee that if I had walked into work and killed somebody I would've been fired and put in prison. Sadly the same often isn't true for law enforcement
yeah im guessing your job bagging groceries wasn't nearly as dangerous as a police officer's lol. or did you have to apprehend a meth head everyday in aisle 3?
Likewise, my union makes it very difficult for my employer to fire us, however criminal activity is pretty much where they draw the line.
@@USUXXSOHARD I mean, have YOU worked in retail?
@@yaboicolleen Yes and some customers deserve every page of the magazine
"It's important to know what those words mean"
He's a lawyer alright!
I think you confuse lawyer with a person with critical thinking skills
I think you are confusing critical thinking skills with taking everything literally
This is really the case with a lot of aphorisms that get truncated over time. We often forget the whole phrase as they get passed down, sometimes in ways that change or even flip the meaning entirely. A few common examples are "curiosity killed the cat", "great minds think alike", and "Jack of all trades, master of none". They are used in modern times to mean the opposite of the full phrase, just like "only a few bad apples" is today.
Objection! This guy isn't running for President. Which is a darned shame. He makes well-reasoned arguments, breaks down complex issues so laypeople can understand and can speak in complete sentences. He already knows the town... who's with me on this?
Damn I thought the same thing, since Bernie is screwed over. Maybe he could sue his way into office!
@@survivormary1126 You get a lawsuit! And you get a lawsuit! Everyone gets a lawsuit!
America doesn't actually elect the reasonable and qualified candidates
Objection sustained
Much better candidate than Kanye West.
Also keep in mind that there are some police departments that have had these ideas implemented already for many many years. Ours even has a civilian oversight committee that reviews the cases. And if a complaint is files, and outside independent lawyer has to oversee the complaint. And if a gun is so much as removed from a holster it means hours of paperwork.
Where at?
good
They need to be publicized so they can be held up as a model for other departments.
I guess that's why this whole thing is frustrating for me. The department I worked for sent all fines to the school, had policies in line with the 8cantwait movement, and practiced a lot of community policing like shop-with-a-cop fundraising. We had some of the best school resource officers, they were more like counselors for the kids than enforcers. I guess I was blessed to work in a progressive, if poor, department/area. I'd have retired from there if they could afford to pay a living wage.
I guess I just never have seen the kind of stuff on the news.
I like the idea of burying cops in paperwork for having to draw down....that alone should curtail trigger happy Wyatt Earps
Militarising the Police and treating them like soldiers is insane when they aren’t held to the standards that soldiers are.
You nailed it. We have very strict standards in the military.
Police Reform Warrior vs Guardian ruclips.net/video/KEO8XjB5FPM/видео.html
@Buff Doge He's not arguing to de-militarize the police, but to hold them to the same standard as the soldiers who are similarly equipped. Besides, for many of the other jobs that police are involved with, like wellness checks, most people will not feel safe with a fully armored soldier coming to their house with large weapons. This is where you see some of the arguments to have social workers take over some of the jobs that police perform right now. Nobody wants social workers to go intervene in a shooting, but to do things like wellness checks so you don't have more cases like that of Atatiana Jefferson, who was shot in her own home without proper warning by police who were there for a wellness check.
Robert Slackware she didn't invite them in. They were outside and shot her through the window.
Especially that police are now taking away protesters homemade "shields" and the shit show of the last month.
The phrase “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” (Who will watch the watchmen?) seems very applicable right now when it comes to both police and the current politicians in charge both in working towards change and following up on it.
Where's internal affairs?
It actually translates to "Who will guard the guards themselves?", which for my money expresses the sentiment much better.
Body cams
@@JoshSweetvale , some departments don't have a dedicated Internal Affairs/Professional Conduct unit. In some states, the state police handle investigations involving county and local departments.
David Brin talks about this a lot. Sousveilience
In cases of domestic violence where there is a chance for escalation the solution is simple: have a social worker taking the lead while a police officer stands by in case of an escalation. There's a team called ACERT in New Hampshire that does exactly that and it works exceptionally well. The social worker sets the tone for the encounter, so it rarely escalates.
In most domestic violence situations, the abusive partner is a cop.
That sounds like a reasonable solution. It reminds me of how hostage scenario's are handled, where you have FBI negotiators trained in de-escalation, but with a SWAT team standing ready in case things go wrong.
I think it was California that had considered an idea where in DV cases all related parties were detained and held separately. If you have a social worker with at least some psychology training who addresses both people during the time frame would probably be the best way to do it. While detaining someone who's abused may seem problematic it means that they are separated from their abuser and a social worker would have a chance to interact with both people independently and possibly get the abused individual the necessary time and help to get out of the situation.
@@krellend20 That is statistically incorrect
@@krellend20 Stats please.
DJ went from "lawyer reacts to funny court scenes in media"
to "reforming the police and sueing the government"
Love his character arch
DJ? You mean Mr. Eagle?
@@Akay4444444444444444Devin J. Stone -> DJ Stone -> DJ.
Here in Ontario Canada, we have the SIU that investigates police whenever they escalate use of force. I strongly agree with having a separate organization with the oversight
I'm a semi-retired attorney and previously worked in Portland and was part of a group that tried to set up an advisory police review board. It didn't have any actual power but would review police complaints. The police there reacted and threatened "blue flu" if we pushed for the board. We were immediately contacted by the mayor telling us to stop.
This is the system in the US.
never heard of that place
No the analogy is "One bad apple spoils the bunch" when apples begin to decay they emit gasses that will cause other apples near by to decay as well. Literally one single bad apple can ruin a huge amount. I can't believe they use that term when talking about police. It's very self aware even though they don't get it.
"They" get it. It's an idiom not meant to be taken literally. Ironically, people are defending BLM by saying the rioters aren't *really* BLM and are taking advantage of the movement. In other words, "they" don't get it either.
Yeah. Under that analogy, a single bad cop corrupts _all_ the rest in their bushels (departments). The actual intent is that the (relatively) few cops that are out of line make the whole formation look bad.
@@PhoenixBlazer39 Exactly. And really relatively few cops are inherently bad. Some just make a really bad decision in the heat of the moment. The job is a high stakes game (that's another metaphor) that can be very costly for many people. A situation can go from routine to horrible in the snap of a finger that can cost someone their life (both civilian or police). More training is *always* a good thing. We should not only train police initially better but ensure that police officers are given time per week to keep training consistently. If I learn something once a year, it's not going to make me very proficient in it.
Cplblue most “riots” were invited by cops. It’s all on citizen camera phones. Police aren’t policing looters... they’re literally attacking peaceful protesters or those who don’t follow their directions. Only a bootlicker would be in favor of police beating non violent people. If they’re breaking the law... arrest or detain them
I never understood that analogy either. One apple spoils the bunch.... 2 “bad apples” pushed down an elderly man and 57 (good?) apples walked off the job when they were disciplined
The military spends 20% of the time in continual training. The police need to do the same. The police don’t train nearly enough whether it’s in firearms, de-escalation, & psychological training & screening.
I totally agree. What’s nuts though is that some problems or likely bad outcomes in policing are already known and have been known plus taught for at least a decade. For example the fact that panicking, exasperated people with their hands cuffed behind their back are liable to die suddenly if you put serious pressure behind them. I think it’s a knee jerk response to pile on to somebody while trying to restrain them, which is what training would be essential to address, but I almost think that’s it’s part of police culture to act first and handle the fall out of any consequences later. Military discipline alongside continual training would be a police militarization that I’d be totally for.
The single most consistent police training seems to be in “shoot first, ask questions later” policing by David “professor of killology” Grossman. Ending that training and replacing it with community interaction training would go a long way.
Robert Slackware claim? No.
“You and your partner will have the best sex you ever had after you shoot someone“. -David Grossman, to cops attending his Bulletproof Warrior training which started over 20 years ago and continues today as simply “Bulletproof”.
Arguing that it’s moronic to be unwilling or unable to kill a stranger in the street is bizarre, and I’m genuinely worried for your mental health. Half of what you say makes no sense, and the other half is concerning. There are lines of support for you to reach out to. Try 1800-273-8255 to connect with services that you can talk to.
Cops train a lot, issue is their training is shit. A lot of it enforces being their own class of people and viewing others as idiot sheep.
I can agree but soldiers and police are not the same
There's a saying: "If there are any good cops, then there should be no bad cops." The problem is that any good cops who try to turn in bad cops end up getting forced out of law enforcement. Serpico is a true story.
While that is true, it also means that the number of "good cops" is insufficient to reach critical mass. When you read the accounts of these Serpicos, where they were left on potentially dangerous calls without backup, you have to ask yourself ... where were all the basically decent cops when that happened?
they get forced out by politicians not cops
Big problem is that what we think of as good cops and what cops think of as good cops are 2 entirely different things
@@einar8019 Which your sheriff most likely is a politician (elected official), so kinda both.
Or they remain quiet or comply.
Professionalize the police:
- end qualified immunity
- mandatory personal malpractice insurance commensurate with duties
If Police Unions want to be involved (and I hope they do), they can start by being bonded, licensed, and insured to cover their members.
Agreed💯💯💯
"End qualified immunity"
Cop: he was threatening people with a gun so I put him down before he could hurt anyone
Judge: well you're being charged either murder
Same situation but the cop doesn't take decisive action: the cop is killed and whatever was going to happen happens as if he was never there
@@tomraineofmagigor3499 - I agree that there are complicated pros & cons. However, it sounds like the current system of qualified immunity is far too heavily weighted towards absolving officers of responsibility & accountability. How would you suggest we make them better accountable so that they are not so consistently found not guilty of misconduct in these recent cases when most reasonable people seem to think their abusive overuse of force was clear?
and police officers seem to quite consistently see """"dangerous criminals""" in minorities.
-"he was threatening people with a gun so I put him down before he could hurt anyone"
-"you shot a twelve year old with an airsoft gun to death you piece of human trash"
@@kagakai7729 well don't cut the orange tip off of the airsoft gun
At last, someone publicly finishing the Bad Apples idiom! Very important.
Except he missed the part about the poisoned trees...
Robert DeMeo, and the mad, apple-stealing squirrels.
John Oliver has done this before. I'm glad Devin is doing it again.
Yeah, a lot of people use "a few bad apples" when they really mean "boys will be boys", with all the grossness that entails.
@@FTZPLTC ofcourse tou had to make it sexist
The fact that police officers have to meet certain quotas is also definitely a conflict of interest.
Those quotas are often illegal for that reason. Your state may vary.
There should be body cam footage of police quotas and get rid of cop bosses that only see the numbers.
@@dougmartin2007 you really believe police departments give a shit if quotas are illegal? Where is their oversight going to come from?
@@dougmartin2007 The "quota" is illegal. A "recommended" amount of stops is not.
I knew someone that used to work as a cop. They didn't have a "quota" because that was illegal, however, they had a "recommended amount of stops" they needed to make.
It's by design. The police is not there to ensure safety, it's there to oppress marginalized minorities.
"A bad apple SPOILS THE BUNCH," is one way the adage is spoken.
"Better that ten guilty men an go free than one innocent man be arrested." I thought I heard that somewhere...
that just stupid no guilty should ever go free
You'd probably feel differently if you or one of your loved ones were one of the victims of a "guilty man who went free."
@@VisibilityFoggy An you would feel differentlt if you spent time in a jail for a crime you didn't commit.
Not "arrested", but jailed or convicted I believe; It's not at all uncommon for an innocent person to be arrested, and arrests can be cleared up without charge.
@@VisibilityFoggy the justice system is a misnomer it's more trying to be a non-injustice system, they're making a sword that executives would find as difficult to use as possible to arbitrarily harm innocent citizens, sure America is pretty guilty here but countries without this system don't _even begin_ to function as a coherent state.
" There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people."-- Admiral Adama, Battlestar Galactica
Just so you know, people are quoted because they supposedly are credible and knowledgeable on the topic they speak on...
Which is why fictional people's quotes are but the quotes of those that made them up
In short, anyone can quote, not everyone's quotes should be taken seriously
Would you say a group of people taking over a few blocks and claiming it another country an enemy of the state because anyone with any common sense should yet alot of people dont want to send the military in there
@@phillip7494 people say a lot of things. We don't usually send in the troops because a gated community starts making some wild claims.
@@phantom3969 As a war vet, I'll cosign that quote no matter who actually wrote. The military mindset is not about keeping the peace, descalating situations, or building trust with the community. Its about using force and instilling fear in the populace.
A fact is a fact no matter who speaks it.
@@jamesgomez9151 Yes, and no. GWOT has taught the military a lot about de-escalating situations and building trust with the community. The last years of OIF and OEF has all been about 'building trust' with the community, that's why ROE had been so strict to the point it's more restrictive than the police standard for use of force. By being more restrictive, I mean that troops could literally not open fire until they have been fired upon. Troops overseas in Afghanistan and Iraq had been trained to use a lot more de-escalation and self control than police in the United States. Fighting insurgency is all about building trust with the community. Without that trust, the community will end up either letting insurgents do what they do, or worse, join the insurgency. There are a lot of things that policing in the United States can learn from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, obtaining and using armored vehicles is not one of them.
Not just body cameras, but legal liability for the care taker of the camera footage. No "oops the camera went out" moments.
And a full checked to why the camera died whether or not it actually went out/reinforced cameras with higher definition for Face ID(hey if it helps it helps)
Is there a law that prevents police from obstruction of justice? NAL but you'd think hampering evidence gathering would fit the bill
And also if they literally forgot or misplaced the footage then the person and the department both get separate but hefty fines of 3,500 Dollars for the footage handler. The department get 35,000 USD. If they fail to pay the fine. Then the chief or the person who is directly responsible for the footage handler and said footage handler and all involved in missing footage after an investigation get towed in a medium security prison. Meant for cops. But federally owned. No parole no pardons. Not Even the president can pardon them. Dose this sound fair. Miss use of power must be targeted with persuasion and with unrelenting power.
@@wroemer1991 There is, but the people who investigate crimes by police are... the police.
That's how they get away with it.
@@spacetechempire510 when criminals are treated better than someone who misplaced something. Are you sure you're advocating justice rather than dishing out personal vendettas? Laws aren't made to protect or prosecute a group of people, they are made to protect everyone.
LegalEagle: The SMOOTHEST ad transitions on RUclips.
Right lol
When you want someone to sponsor you, get a lawyer to do it. They have 10's of thousands of hours of experience arguing on someone's behalf. They're very good at it.
@@MrWhangdoodles or 10's of thousands of hours arguing on your own behalf, like this comments next sponsor... lttstore.com 😆
@@knifeyonline ah, the kings of segways. LegalEagle and linus.
@@knifeyonline But what if you feel that you don't have the critical thinking skills about this topic? And that's why this comment is sponsored by Brilliant.com!
About body cameras: The guy who murdered George Floyd did so with three other officers and several other witnesses present, at least some openly filming him do it. I somehow doubt he’d have been deterred by a body camera.
Police need body cameras, yes. But they also need way better screening BEFORE being given a gun and the power to do almost anything they like to ordinary citizens, and they need hard punishments to deter them from overstepping their boundaries or standing idly by while their colleagues do it. "Tough on crime" should apply to public servants with special privileges first and foremost. And when someone witnesses a police officer murdering someone they have to be allowed to intervene, just like a police officer would be allowed (and required) to intervene if they were to witness some other person committing a crime. In fact if any police officer commits a crime while performing their job, they have to be just as liable to face the consequences of that crime, including self-defense by someone trying to stop them, as anyone else-when they overstep what they are legally allowed to do, that is abuse of power, which should immediately render their authority and special privileged null and void. It is in that context that body cameras are actually vital, because they would allow to objectively determine what happened after the fact, without having to decise whose testimony is more trustworthy (which we all know the police usually benefit from).
ALSO-RAN ! May you please provide the links to your sources of information?
@ALSO-RAN ! I'm not sure what that has to do with anything... he was definitely not overdosing. I've been close to overdosing on that shit a dozen times... never have, but the step b4 of is drug induced psychosis. Basically you black out and act a fool, so you don't remember anything and u act like an idiot... he wasn't even to that stage, just less an od.
*much less
@ALSO-RAN ! Stop trying, friendo!
It was murder.
Goodbye , end of story , the end.
@ALSO-RAN ! No ideas what cities you are refereing to, but if a man is on the ground pleading for air and your knee is still on his neck, I don't care if it killed him, the stress from being choked out could have been what did his heart in, and if not that then definitely was at least in some form assault and still abuse of power. No one, no matter what kind of "hardened criminal" they are do not deserve to be treated like that ESPECIALLY without a trial. You sir lack basic empathy and I fear for anyone in your life.
the idiom is, "One bad apple spoils the bunch." This comes from the scientific phenomenon that a rotten apple releases chemicals that cause apples nearby to quicken the ripening/rotting process. Case closed
You realize how stupid you sound, right? I mean, you gotta
@@wowheyah1970 oh the irony.
2 other professions that have as high or higher rate of injury are professionals who work in mental health and disability service. I work in special ed and have been assaulted dozens of times on the job, yet if I ever even made a move that could be described as aggressive I would probably be fired and lose my license, which is as it should be.
We are trained in de-escalation and when we have to perform restraints it is always least restrictive possible to maintain the safety and mental health of the person we're supporting in that moment. This includes training in what to do when there's a weapon, which has happened.
I am also represented by a union that many complain is too powerful (I'd respectfully disagree).
There's really no reason the police shouldn't have the same level of accountability as school professionals.
I learned something. Thank you for sharing!
Unions are very important and I’m sure yours is NOT too powerful. The only unions too powerful are the ones that give you vacation time for extrajudicial murder.
Amen to this!
Also I just want to say I greatly respect people in your profession.
@@williamcarter8263. If you want to know more injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/25/2/116
My job would fall under the licensed staff category, in the past I was direct support as well.
I should mention that actual injury rates are vastly underreported. Generally scratches, bites that don't break skin, or bruises go unreported because otherwise we'd do nothing but fill out injury reports (which are not a quick process and involve follow up). In rooms that have significant behavioral concerns generally we only fill out reports if there's danger of an infection or longer lasting injury and we may need covered by workers comp.
@@NYGJMAP the teacher's union is, if anything, underrepresented in special education. A lot of politicians and locals like to stoke the fire by complaining about time off ignoring that we are often expected to equip our own rooms, pay for supplies, and research/assemble projects on our own time while also maintaining licenses (which has become its own wildly overpriced industry).
I'm not a teacher, I'm embedded in my rooms as a licensed professional and have worked in school for the last 5 years and before that with adults as a direct support worker for about 7 years. Having only had a union for the past 3ish years I can tell you it makes a huge difference.
Breonna Taylor. A perfect example for why police should have something declaring they're police.
paranoiaprincess also a perfect example of why you shouldnt be doing crime, or associate with criminals
Tequila didn’t they break into completely the wrong apartment guns blazing?
@@tequila7419 The guy they were after was already in custody. It was the WRONG address to begin with. Breonna and her boyfriend were sleeping, and when the police barged in, her boyfriend (rightfully) assumed intruders were barging into their home and defended it. He got arrested for shooting at people he DID NOT KNOW were police.
Pray tell, what crime did either of them commit?
@@tequila7419 nice job, not knowing the story and defending murderers. :(
WarriorCrimson Yes, because they believed drugs were brought through the apartment. They still entered without announcing themselves and they shot her. She was not a criminal and they found no drugs in her apartment. It was a murder
That’s what has always baffled me about police as a whole resisting any oversight or accountability; I would think that going into an ‘brotherhood’ you would be the tip of the spear to get rid of dirty or dangerous cops. They sully your image and make your job that much harder! Also, de-escalation makes things safer for all involved, including the cop.
The more data collection and sharing, the more trends can be detected and policy built around that instead of assumptions or ‘intuitive’ thinking. How does that NOT sound awesome?
im a cop, and i watched a few minutes so far. and just wanna say. I am Absolutely FOR body cams. i have been accused at least twice where i WISH i had a body cam. accusations of absolute nonsense.
Thank you, sir.
Good cops would be for them. If a cop is against them. He is the one trying to hide something.
Pixality or ethically neutral cops. It gives you free security and accountability.
It’s definitely a no-brainer. They protect police officers just as much as they protect civilians.
@@richardp5920 Actually, good point. That would be in the interests of both sides who intend to live and enforce the law.
Regarding consent decrees: The Cleveland Police were under a consent decree when Tamir Rice and several other people were killed unjustly by them. The officers involved had completely broken the rules of that consent decree. Creating rules doesn't solve the problem when the people who are supposed to enforce the rules are the ones breaking the rules.
Point a gun at people (toy or not) and you risk getting shot. Had his toy gun had the manufacturer supplied orange tip you may have had a different outcome. But that's not an officers fault his toy appeared real. Sad but completely justified shooting. If he pointed it at me I'd have drawn my EDC and shot as well.
Mike the problem though, is they shot him from a car (drive-by) didn't ask him to raise his hands, call to him to remove the weapon, just shot him on sight
@@iomakara9809 Yep. Watch the video in real time and the cop had to be unsnapping, if not unholstering his pistol as he arrived. I think it is 2.3 seconds from stopping to first shot.
@@HatchetKlown17 lol, so you're saying all the children coming out of toy stores with their new guns are just asking to be shot?
nfzeta that’s not what he said
Again: this is a refreshing channel. There’s nothing partisan on looking things through the law. Even when the presenter would like to call BS but instead gives us the law, the rights and the wrongs and what a voter can do to battle the wrongs.
Haaaahhh! You haven't seen the backlash to this guy yet, then. He's as partisan as it gets, with a reality focused bias.
@TypeLuo That's not full circle, that's the default norm that's been established in most periods of civil unrest. Go check out what happened to Notre Dam, smashing roman statues because the angry poor folk thought they were busts of french kings.
The only thing different is that now it's happening in the age of information, so all these idiots who remain oblivious to the history they're dealing with are intentionally, deliberately oblivious.
You said "raises the question" instead of "begs the question" friggin thank you!
What difference does it make?
@@stephenferguson3284 "Begging the Question"is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it: an argument that requires that the desired conclusion be true. "Raising the question" just means to ask an obvious question. All over people use "begs the question" when they mean "raise the question". I was just happy to see someone use the right phrase. Basically, you should only say "begs the question" when you are accusing someone of using circular reasoning.
And just to head the obvious response off at the pass: yes yes language evolves. I just hate to see a useful phrase get misused to the point that it ends up meaning the opposite of what it's supposed to mean.
AarowSwift I might need an example to understand that if I’m honest
@@gregoryboatswain1605 Here's a link to the most thorough explanation I could find: examples.yourdictionary.com/reference/examples/begging-the-question-fallacy-examples.html
Colleague, you reminded me about the old lawyers joke that goes: not all lawyers are bad apples, it's just those 99% that spoil the good name of the rest of us. 😉😉😉
But to be fair, lawyers are probably far more willing to rat out misbehaving lawyers.
using "misconduct" already skews the discussion from where it needs to be. Let's call them what they are, "crimes". Crimes should be adjudicated by courts, not disciplinary boards.
The problem is that police need leeway to do things that are normally illegal in order to effectively do their job. The easiest most non-controversial example I can think of being speeding. Occasionally police need to break the speed limit in order to respond to a call or chase someone down or something but if they just turned their lights on and had a little joyride that would be a misuse of their privileges thus misconduct.
@@TheArtistKnownAsNooblet speeding is a lot different from murdering people
@@theAverageJoe25 what about when the person they "murdered" started a shoot out with them?
Well that's why it is called misconduct. Because sometimes it's not severe enough to be considered criminal. But there is literally a thing called Criminal Misconduct. Like a cop can be verbally abusive and one might make an argument for misconduct. But that's not so egregious as to call it criminal you know?
@@billman4226 Note the keyword you used: the person, not the police, started the shoot out. Killing in self defense is legal assuming equal force is returned to the instigator.
Different case if they enter a household in civilian clothes. In that case, the homeowner has the right to defend their home.
The whistleblower / Duty to Report idea sounds very much like 10 CFR 21 requirements for the nuclear industry. It serves the nuclear industry and its safety record very well.
Most complaints on officers are from other officers
Me: *Gets handed a barrel of apples*
Police: 'Most of these are really good, but there may be some bad ones in there'
Me: 'how bad?'
Police: 'bad enough to kill someone'
Me: 'no thanks, keep your apples.'
The problem though, is that if you don't want the apple, there's pretty much nothing else to eat.
Cmon man, what kind of comparison is that? it's like apples and oran... police officers)
@@diersteinjulien6773 No, you mean there's no water otherwise and you're supposed to make apple juice.
@NotYourGreatestPlan okay, but that sort of behavior only happens in the best of the best scenarios, and we have repeated instances of that not happening. Thus, the apples that would kill you.
Not to mention that overbearing police brutality has other consequences, both mentally and financially. There must be another solution, or there is no solution at all.
@NotYourGreatestPlan Not really... we did not always have police. In fact, their original conception was completely racially motivated.
The solution to a homeless person in a parking lot is not to send a person with a gun. The solution to a drunk person is not a person with a gun. The solution to drug use is not a person with a gun. We need different systems. Even most of the rest of the civilized world can confirm, the solution to an angry dangerous person with a weapon is actually not a person with a gun. Escalating the situation NEVER solves the problem, it just makes people dead.
Police use need to be reduced back to what they actually are, deadly force. They themselves talk about how over extended they are. They are not properly equipped to handle most issues they are asked to respond to. And we literally ask them to respond to everything.
You know the saying about hammers finding every problem to be a nail.
Just as a side note: the Dutch police changed their riot vans (sturdy vans with a look more befitting the marechaussee (which is a gendarmerie)) to look more like regular police vehicles. Tests showed that protesters and hooligans remained calmer so significantly they sped up the replacement process nationwide and the "feel" of new vehicles and uniforms are now always included in design proposals. Added benefit being that the riot vans can now also be used for regular police duties.
Good one.. Think of this scenario.. a protest happen.. maybe some tension.. police show up.. not with guns.. but with party speaker.. give people some food.. cheer everyone up.. tell some joke then tell the people.. keep this peacefully.. And everyone be safe... I am sure everyone would listen.. and everyone will be more happy.. and btw.. isn’t that what police suppose to do?
@@mingc4698 - There were a couple protests early on where the local police joined in and marched with them. Amazingly, no violence broke out in those marches. Then later when they put in an arbitrary curfew and decided to enforce it violently, those same police started getting into violent situations they themselves were causing.
So yes, when it's a non-violent protest, they can be present without escalating.
Europe is generally pretty big on deescalation and it seems to work out well. In the US people seem to have fully understood the fact that when you approach a police officer in an aggressive way, they are more likely to respond aggressilvely aswell. That is because they are people. It works exactly the same way when the situation is reversed, but that fact seems to be largely neglected.
@@mingc4698 your a clown dude
@@Praedyth_ ok what about it
I don't thinking I've ever seen any RUclipsr that is so smooth with their segues into sponsorships as this channel. Bravo
Concerning the "I'm huge in Japan" joke comment. Kyoto resident, enjoying your channel!
How though. Randomness?
Same here I'm in Tokyo
Fun!
I've been pointing out for months that the complete saying is "a few bad apples spoil the bunch" and I am SO GLAD someone else is pointing that out too.
Hey LegalEagle, a guy from Canada here. I went to Law school here and I feel like if more professors were like you the profession would be enriched greatly. Thank you for your well balanced and measured content!
Hes hardly well balanced. He said that the 'protests' were mostly peaceful when just about every protest in a major city turned into a riot as soon as the curfew hit
Also Canada needs alot more than just good professors to make it a good country
@@phillip7494 "as soon as curfew hit" they said, without any self awareness. There's no need for a curfew in the first place as it is just a way to restrict peoples' right to gather and protest... which as you pointed out were peaceful... until cops made it not peaceful.
Phillip America is one of the only countries that hates Canada
@@PixelatedAstronaut the first couple of says were just all out burning and over half the protests in major cities were violent
I was a cop for over a decade, and I only wish I could like this video twice.
Consider it liked twice ;)
And now consider it liked thrice
You honestly expect me to believe you were a cop, Keyser Söze? 😉
@@ergohack Yeah, next he'll tell us he was once in a barber shop quartet in Skokie, Illinois!
Thank you for your service.
16:34 and I've seen soldiers on social media saying...dude...we would not be able to get away with half of what these officers are doing
Google "Duffelblog: Military Pushes For Same Broad Rules Of Engagement As Civilian Police Forces" ....it's a military version of the Onion, but like the Onion, it's scary how true it is.
Lmao duffle blog xDdddd
Well one of the things that's allowed for police and not the military is Tear gas. Because in a combat scenario it's indistinguishable from deadlier gases. And could provoke full scale chemical warfare with the opposition firing back with chemicals aswell.
So there is a good reason.
Still doesn't answer why it is allowed against their own people but that's a diffferent question
So kiwi here 🇳🇿
One of the best things we did in NZ was removing any kind of positive reinforcement of ticketing. All fines go to the government not the department, and there is no work incentive for higher arrest rates or ticketing rates (which used to be an unspoken rule). We work in line with hospitals and social workers especially for mental health call outs (police often drive people straight to the hospital for detox, mental health treatment or other reasons). And police unions don’t exist here ✌🏼
You’re an incredibly persuasive person. You safely pander to and peruse the side of people against police reform only to bring them back to their senses.
You would make an excellent lawyer. Have you considered this path?
The people who are against police reform are either dirty cops or idiots. People like me are against police defunding. Not so much against police reform. You can't reform an an underfunded Police Department.
@@saggitariuspotato2043
Except you can and reform can't happen without reduced funding. Cops are OVER funded. We have too many, we spend too much on them, and we aren't getting a good return on our investment.
Defund, reduce the size and scope, and spend that money on other programs, training and personnel.
@@saggitariuspotato2043 Police are already one of the biggest expenditure of municipalities. Also when the budget for going into things like APCs at local level, that's just excessive spending.
@@saggitariuspotato2043 people want funding taken away because there's been multiple photos of cops with multiple hundred dollar sights on their fuckin tear gas launcher, the call to defund them is to get rid of any military equipment they have. Like assault rifles, eoetech sights, red dots, heavily armored vehicles amongst other things. They honestly don't need military equipment and should have that taken away. That's why people want funding cut, because they're allowed to buy too many things they really don't need to police the populace. We aren't fuckin mexico.
@@saggitariuspotato2043 Because im sorry you don't need assault rifles and EOTECH holographic on guns that most of your engagements will be under a hundred yards. They don't need a lot of the shit they have, it's all toys.
This guy is the alternativ Universe where Ryan renolds becomes a lawyer
next time on legal eagle: how to make your own Deadpool costume...
Psi Q and does it break the law
@@oskarnymand389 also get 20% off on your deadpool suit from indochina using this link...
Psi Q and if you are a patron you Will get a p90 glock with your purchase
Objection: The correct statement is "One bad apple spoils the entire barrel/bunch."
If one bad apple can do that, then all these police forces have a big problem with the "few" bad apples they got in their barrels!
@@backbeathighway and there's bad apples in EVERY group. So does that mean every group should be taken as all bad?
@@riley9366 The Catholic Church sure is for shielding and enabling the pedophile priests. The police shields its murderers and criminals behind its thick blue line and claiming every shoot is a "good shoot" and they are always in fear for their lives with a split second decision.
@@riley9366 This phrase exists because a bad apple actually causes a chemical reaction that ruins the entire barrel. So yeah, the moment you say "bad apple" you are implying everything around them is tainted beyond repair.
And the way to protect your barrel of fruit is to remove the bad apple. Duh.
The mentality of the “warrior” out to stop the bad guy needs to be replaced with a “servant” mentality to help everyone.
I think Britain tried an exchange program like that during the 1600's.
They aren't servants lol wtf is that. No one should be thought of as a servant. They enforce the law and make sure the community is safe, that's what it should be. Police are NOT there to fuckin serve you lol this isn't a restaurant or slavery.
@@SM-nz9ff seems like you missed the motto “to protect and serve.” Also, I think you have a different view on the word than I do. I had no negative connotations with my comment.
@@aaronlewis9769 A motto by LAPD and others coopted the motto, not all. Ours for example have no such motto.
Judging by LA in general I'd say they don't actually either.
Not that it matters but a motto isn't law, a rule, an oath, or any other such thing. I am retired military for example. Military is called the armed services..."thank you for your service".
Yeah we were not there to fuckin serve anyone other than bombs to the face. This is the same context service is referred to in Police terms other than the primary dealers of death which they are not meant to be whereas the military is.
I repeat. The police are NOT there to serve you. If you have such evidence do present it.
Are you telling me that some departments can't afford body cameras but others can afford military grade vehicles amd grenade launchers? What is going on
Body cams cost more than you'd think, you need long-term storage of video from multiple users. Depending on the minimum quality needing to be saved (probably 720p30fps) that can get INSANE on space requirements. Imagine needing to hold each 8-hour shift of 20 officers for, say, 7 years (same as tax documentation so a fair guess I'd say), that'd be an insane amount of straight hard drive space alone, not to mention maintenance cost on top of that
That’s correct. The military equipment comes from a federal program which repurposes old military equipment (other than weapons themselves) for low costs.
If I spent all my money on Barrett 50 cals I wouldn't be able to afford a camera either.
@@tv92taylor yeah that's the other big thing, he even says it in the video. It's a one time cost that's incredibly cheap compared to the cost most people associate with military grade gear
@@gamermanh they can hire people to sift through the useless footage daily and delete it to not need storage.
In my city in Canada when there is an issue with public intoxication, mental health, and loitering issues - a subsection of unarmed police are sent to investigate and deal with the issue. This isn't the same in all cities here though.
Yeah. Im in BC i think we call them "peace officers" here. Met a few, theyre pretty chill.
What city is that? I live an hour from Toronto, but I'm in high school so they don't talk about police outside of your rights in civics.
Sure, we have them too over here in Europe. Unarmed cops with different uniforms who work for the city and deal with the small stuff. It seems to be a decent idea overall.
In South Korea, in lieu of military service, draftees can serve as a member of a special police force that is focused on dealing with people who are intoxicated, public nuisance, etc.
@@kingofhearts3185 Winnipeg. Its part of the City Police Cadets Program. They deal with issues that don't need armed officers, assess the situation then call the appropriate group (ambulance or whatever is needed). They also patrol the downtown. I had to call them once due to an intoxicated person falling asleep on the premises of a business where i worked. I tried to ask him to leave but he was unable to understand me and they arrived and were able to talk to the man and eventually decided he should be seen by some medical personal to see if he had taken something dangerous so they called a stretcher service who took him to the hospital I think.
It is important to know where the "bad apples" are in officers of the court as well. Let's make that happen too!
My problem with the analogy is you would remove those bad apples before you bake the into a pie.
These guys want us to eat that pie and somehow be happy for it.
The positioning of the cameras as well needs to be rethought because they are blocking them in many instances, even positioning them so their radio is blocking part of it, as in the case with Sterling Brown.
I like the idea of two bodycams per officer.
@@PoochieCollins seems like it would have the same issue, just with two cameras. I would say that if your camera is off and your an officer, you are not considered an on-duty officer unless your camera is on. You have no more legal standing for your actions than any average citizen if your body camera is off.
I kept saying you but I mean law enforcement officer
@@Kobolds_in_a_trenchcoat Two body cams pointed in a little bit different directions also covers a wider area. And evidence of view tampering should definitely be taken seriously.
@@Kobolds_in_a_trenchcoat With 2 cameras it's a lot harder to claim a mistake in positioning their other gear, or technical failure.
Just reverse the burden of proof. An officer who cannot demonstrate clearly that they have acted correctly are assumed to be guilty by default. You'll find that the camera is always pointing in the right direction then and not blocked! Maybe they'll even magically grow a second one for backup, and a third one on their arse to make sure they haven't farted wrong.
Police not having independent oversight, whether it's technical like a camera, civilian witnesses, etc, is NEVER in citizen's interest. Because police officers always come in pairs or more, so it's one word of the citizen and maybe their close relative or friend which generally don't count, vs. words of two officers or more, so the leverage is entirely on police side.
"I'm huge in Japan...I assume" There's bound to be an anime out there somewhere that you've unknowingly cameoed in.
The number of salt bae memes in recent months has been hilarious.
@@Shirubakaze I can't wait for the dancing pallbearers make a cameo someday
He would be perfect for Gyakuten Saiban, also known as Phoenix Wright outside of Japan. 👍
i vote he voice phoenix wright in the dub
Obviously, japan has its own issues with police (moreso on the long detention and inability to consult lawyer for a while), but at the national level there is an independent agency called the National Public Safety Commission. The commission's function is to guarantee the neutrality of the police system by insulating the force from political pressure and ensuring the maintenance of democratic methods in police administration. It administers the national police agencg, and has the authority to appoint or dismiss senior police officers. The national police agency its role is to supervise prefectural police departments and determine general standards and policies; although in national emergencies or large-scale disasters the agency is authorized to take command of Prefectural (state or county analogy - japan is a unitary state) police departments. Cities and towns do not have police departments. Rather, police kiosks are set up in multiple locations but are under the chain of command of the prefecture.
Excited to hear that you are going to do a deep dive into Qualified Immunity.
I agree, but it also would be nice to talk about Civil Asset Forfeiture. This is where if the police stop you and you are carrying cash they can claim it was being involved in something illegal, and take it. This is without accrual charges or a conviction, and you have to sue to get it back.
Me too. More people need to know about that made-up insanity.
Police should not get paid for tickets. Police officers do their job best when they don't have to at all
Agreed... and don't get me started on Civil Asset Forfeiture.
Why not be paid for tickets? Incentive to enforce safe driving is fine by me. 🤔
@@ItalianRain2 It's also an incentive to give tickets unfairly.
@@ItalianRain2 If polices get paid for tickets, they will definitely be motivated to hand out tickets as much as possible, regardless of fairness. No way they gonna refuse extra money.
If a police officer’s makes the same amount wether he/she stops or doesn’t stop a person driving 90mph why would the police officer do anything (aside from doing it because it’s the right thing)? Seems like we have to find some sort of middle ground or some lazy officers would just park their cars in the grass doing nothing because they have no incentive to enforce.
"If only there was some kind of federal oversight..." as the DoJ logo quietly hangs in the background. Love it.
Colorado just passed a law addressing most of the issues you discuss in this video. Effective Immediately. I would love to hear your take on it. Thanks.
When you talk about people wanting "safety and low crime", it's worth remembering that the police don't even always contribute much, if anything, to that.
Moreover, I think the biggest problem with the police accountability is the huge gulf between what is on the books, and what actually gets enforced. NYC had a chokehold ban on the books for 20 years before Eric Garner was killed by a chokehold.
You got a source on that claim?
DallasJScott I can chip in. In 2014, the police reduced their presence in the city, temporarily ending their proactive policing programme. Reports on major crime during that time fell significantly. Here’s a link: www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-proactive-policing-crime-20170925-story.html
NYPD are planning to call in sick on the 4th of july. i guess we’ll have 1 more point of data
@@fionaur5933 I believe the issue of police being less proactive is not one-sided as there are conflicting points. As @ErgoProxy12345 said, we don't have a whole lot of data distribution from different cities and areas to prove if proactive policing is effective or not. It will be interesting to see with the proposed NYPD strike along with the Atlanta PD walking off their shifts what new information comes out of this.
Here is a link that contrasts with yours:
www.forcescience.org/2018/08/new-report-one-citys-experience-with-less-proactive-policing/
@@DJScott There's short and long term consequences and you seem mostly interested in the short term consequences. But long terms consequences are something like Alfred being raised in a city with light policing, gets into a little trouble as a teenager, and his parents get called and he gets grounded. Goes on to have a successful life, good job, etc. Bob is raised in a city with heavy policing, gets into the same trouble as a teenager but is instead arrested and sent into the corrections system. This sets his whole life on a dramatically different trajectory based solely on the police response to the same kind of incident.
I was recently discussing with a friend of mine who is a member of the London Metropolitan police Dogs unit, we talked about the difference between the number of Ex-military in the Met and US police forces, the numbers vary over time and location but between 15-30% of officers in the US are ex military, much much higher than in the UK. The UK police is far from blameless in many respects but its held amongst their officers that the Veterans in their ranks are more likely to use excessive force, this is because they was trained, usually from a young age, to respond to dangerous situations in a specific way and this training is very hard to break. In addition you have many who have diagnosed PTSD, this isn't their fault and they diserver the help they have been promised.
A review of use of firearms in the Met a TSG officer said the Ex military were "the worst bullies" and "the laws of the battlefield are not appropriate to the streets of our capital".
My main point here isn't to criticise those who join the military and of course you should never draw direct parrallels between police forces in different nations where one is required to carry firearms and the other requiring a 6 month course after several years of good conduct to even touch one, but question whether they are suited for peaceful law enforcement with their previous training and the mindset taught to them.
Admiral Adama once said " There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people."
I think it might be the opposite in the states. It's not usually vets who are behind the high-profile shootings. They usually have better training than that.
I agree and three officers I know have discussed the same thing. The thought should always be de-escalation in every method available. Rising tensions hurt the victim, the perpetrator and the officer. Lastly even the idea of enemy to state can be rife for misuse but the purpose of the police is protection. I worry too many join in the mind of playing cowboy.
That’s kind of interesting. I’ve always thought of ex-military police as being more qualified as they’ve had much more extensive training and have experienced these tense situations numerous times as opposed to a person with minimal training who might react sheerly in fear. I would say when you do have a rouge ex-military cop, they’re probably a nightmare for the reasons you mentioned, but I’ve seen randomly across the internet vets being critical of how lowly trained police officers deal with situations, or the rules of engagement they use versus people who’ve fought in foreign countries.
Military or not military it's irrelevant.
In Italy, 90% of the policemen are military personnel. They still behave like policemen because they are trained to do so.
It's about culture I think
Side note : This gentleman would be an amazinnngggg professor
Well, he did get his start on RUclips making videos on how to get through law school.
He is. He's mentioned in his videos that he teaches law outside of RUclips, to law students (I'm not sure where or exactly in what capacity).
It honestly comes down to who we elect into Congress-the senators. The senators are supposed to represent us. Serve the people. It was never, NEVER meant to be a full time job. What needs to happen, is we need to hit the reset button at LEAST every two years so that way they're thinking "what can I do to help the people who put me here" instead of "how do I keep my job"?
We (Americans) took a pounding from congressional incompetence for....my whole life, but when we turned up in the 2018 midterms I think we're finally fed-up with their lame asses.
So, you think that having politicians elected every two years is going to make them LESS obsessed with campaigning and vote buying? I would rather think the opposite. The shorter the term, the less time they have that isn't devoted to immediate (political) survival. Now, on the other hand, longer terms bring problems of un-accountability, so I don't have a good solution, but I don't think two year terms are going to make things better. I think it'll just put them into permanent election year mode.
While I agree that's a problem, I don't think it's _this_ problem. Police departments aren't really under Congress's jurisdiction, and most of their issues need to be solved on a case-by-case basis by the communities that live there. The federal government should only come in when states fail to do anything about counties not listening to the will of their people.
Well in the EU and other industrial nations, elections are taxpayer-funded, so politicians needn't depend on big business or lobbies for campaign ads nor spend their terms fundraising for reelection, reducing corruption and enabling reforms.
Eugene, OR has a model that's gotten a bit of notice regarding sending non-police to calls about drug addicts and similar. The business is called Cahoots and has been around for about 30 years in case you'd like to look into what that kind of thing would look like.
@@jaredarmstrong992 That's funny, cause its not true americanaddictioncenters.org/learn/substance-abuse-by-city/
One elephant in the room is the use of tear gas. Tear gas has been banned in warfare under Geneva Protocol since 1925, the canister itself has the same KE as a revolver, but it is permitted to be used against civilians! Does that make any sense?
Many rules of engagement protecting enemy belligerent, who you have the intention to kill, do not apply to civilians. We've seen the police attacking medics on purpose, for starters. *It should be a no-brainer that civilians should enjoy **_at least_** as much rights as enemies of the state.*
Hollow point bullets are banned in war too but they are safer for domestic purposes. They are completely different situations with completely different rules
@TypeLuo no it is expilicitly stated in the geneva convention that tear gas is banned too stop an escalation of force that leads too deadlier gasses and chemicals. By the same token tear gas is explicitly allowed too be used against civilians since they don't have chemical weapons too retaliate with
Also during a virus pandemic. That alone should have disqualified the usage of tear gas in many if not all of the situations, they have other "tools" for crowd control. The fact it was used during this time says a lot.
@Motersickle Bum because that's not how shit works
Peper spray is also illegal outside the US, its considered a chemical weapon. The less options an officer has to use before deadly force means they will have to resort to it far more often. Big brain people around here.
My nephew is a state trooper. He has said that there are 3 types of officers: 1) regular types who do their jobs (majority), 2) types who are just collecting a paycheck and are an empty uniform (when a call comes in they are the last to arrive even though they were the closest in proximity), 3) types who feel like their word is law (who are usually ex-military). Studies have shown that college educated officers are better at their job than those without.
He said that everyone knows who the "bad apples" are, but because of the police union they can't be removed. But no one on the force wants to work with them for obvious reasons.
There's been some notable discussion on the different "rules of engagement" between the national guard and police, something to dive in to after qualified immunity (which I'm anxious to learn more about).
In the army they are taught to only ever point their weapon at someone as a last resort (talking about patrol duties, not combat situations) because pointing a weapon at someone only worsens the situation. Yet the police do this for almost any situation, whether it be a reporter at a demonstration, or because you went slightly over the speed limit. The training they receive is inadequate at best, criminally negligent at worse.
Having a police force that feels like it is the military here to fight the citizens is a terrifying image. But even more important, I think is the need for the public to trust its police. On both sides trust will be non-existent if the force of the police becomes too heavy handed. Police need to be safe and I think a good start would be a public that has trust in that police force protect its citizens.
Think about a father that beats his kids. Those kids will hate that father. But a father who supports his kids and uses his authority to guide them when right and to stop them when wrong, without abuse his kids will trust and respect him.
This will never happen. Why? Because people breaking the law don't want to be punished and called out for it. The interaction between criminals and police will never be the "positive" and "trustful" moment that you wish for. Rayshard Brooks case is perfect example. The police officers were extremely polite, did their job well, and still the criminal in case decided to fight. Why? Because he was breaking his parole, third time if i remember right, and would end up in jail.
@@gmork5051 Good job missing the point...
We wish it would be a bunch of nice cops but in fact it's more like:
ruclips.net/video/MwRfAwf1Xu8/видео.html
Here in brazil we have a military police force and more than half of the population is afraid of them, they torture people on the regular and in poor areas during police operations they can shoot on sight.
You reeeeally don't want your police to get militarized.
Also our police gets more brutal and criminality only increases every year so clearly being tough on crime isn't working here.
Here's the problem comparing them to military. Our military is actually trained to deescalate situations, which is one of the major failings of our police forces nation wide.
Objection: It is now quite clear given recent history that it is in fact not important what words mean.
Sorry, but I'm having a hard time both telling what you're saying,*and* what I'm saying. What do all of these symbols mean? Ahhhhhhhsjsbsjwbs
Anyone who gleans meaning from trumps way of speaking doesn't understand English, possible failure of the American education system.
You're right but *internalized screaming*
In response to your question regarding "how we cultivate a culture of PD's removing bad apples" (I'm paraphrasing but I believe I captured the spirit of your question) The answer is the unions.
They are pulling the strings here. They foster the blue line mentality by removing the officers that don't conform and this collection of "brotherhood till the end" mentality enables bad cops to be bad because cops that speak out are removed from the job. You have to strike at the union and their contractual and legislated protections, if not ban government employees from union membership entirely. (Notice we can't unionize in the military, but apparently cops can)
I dunno. On the one hand, attacking unions feels like a betrayal of true freedom, and playing right into the oppressors hands. What's to say they won't come for unions in the private sector next?
but on the other hand, I never knew that military can't unionize, and thinking about it for all of 5 seconds I agree with that. The military should _not_ be privately owned, and in a way, unionizing partially privatizes something doesn't it?
I don't think I agree with the idea that _all_ government employees shouldn't be able to unionize: I have family who work in government positions, and they're desperately in need of unions. But a case by case basis is definitely called for here. Like, public defenders should _definitely_ be allowed to unionize. Because exploiting them means destroying the lower classes chance at a fair trial. But it's having clear problems in the military for all the reasons you said. Why were police unions instituted in the first place? What exploitations did they face, that are worse than systemic corruption? And while we're at it, _how did AMERICA, the land of the capitalist, ever allowed police unions to begin with?_
The really irritating thing is that every time legislation has been passed to limit bargaining rights for government workers, law enforcement is ALWAYS exempt. Y'know, the ones who desperately NEED those limits.
I have a law enforcement background and I am not surprised at what we are dealing with. A lot, perhaps most of these cops need to find another career. Empathy and good judgement cannot be trained. There was a shoot/don't shoot test I took which would be great for detecting all of those bad apples. My proposed law would mandate that every single law enforcement officer pass the test within one month or be terminated. Every cadet in every program would have to pass this test or they would not graduate.
"We should consider banning... [chemical weapons forbidden by the Geneva Conventions]." C R A Z Y T A L K
When they decided to ban chemical weapons in war they specifically kept it legal for countries to use it on their own people for the purpose of riot control, since without it they would have to resort to more lethal methods (which isn't a problem during a war.) I'm not saying it's good to use teargas, but I'm saying the situation is more complex than you seem to be making it out to be.
More flashbangs and rubber bullets it is then. They can cause more long term damage but hey, they aren't banned.
Delvien Vol yeah people ignore facts like that.
@@bro748 How about not shooting or grenading people at all? Rethink the idea of blanket attacking civilians caught up in a crowd.
Would you prefer lead?
I don't think telling the cops they can't buy tanks is going to RAISE taxes, for some reason.
I fail to see the logical positivity in giving a bad apple a *gun*
"Body cams should be left on at all times."
The poor guy who has to review that footage and see bathroom break after bathroom break.
Edit: I was just making a joke guys I know not every second of footage will be reviewed for no reason.
I’d make sure I take a whole lotta poops
I think you don't need to review the footage if there's no arrestation, complaint or event of any kind. You keep everything, EVERYTHING, even if you don't think you'll need it.. .for, I don't know, 5 years?
During that time, you pay a AI company to go through the WHOLE thing and check to detect unknown "anomaly" (violence, drug use, etc.); no human being without proper authorization can watch these sequences. and the anomalies are correlated to the police database (so you don't check a crime that was correctly handled).
Anything that popup is checked by a police watchdog entity and disciplinary and legal options are taken if needed.
But, its a lot of effort, money and time that could be replaced by more humane solution. This will only be deterrent (which are never enough).
How ambitious to think someone would regularly review the footage. Would be happy if it was just in response to complaints and any arrests/violence. Or more shortly, any paperwork should have accompanying video if it is relating to any officer actions.
That’s a joke until some guy claims a cop beat him up in the bathroom and the cop goes, “Nope, I peed, washed my hands and left. Got it all on video.”
There are several issues with this. The bathroom breaks are one. Police officers are people too, they do have to take care of family issues while working such as personal phone calls especially if they have a 12 hours shift. Police often go into sensitive areas were cameras are not allowed. Tax payers have to pay for the storage of video. There are currently about 800,000 sworn officers in the US. Lets assume only half of them work any given day and each has an eight hour shift, that's storing 3.2 million hours of footage everyday plus the people to manage it. Talk about a huge bill, but if this happens, buy stock in Axon!
When the police start to think of themselves as non-civilian, we move toward fascism. Police need to be directed to move toward harm reduction.
Police are agents of a government entity. Therefore they are not civilians. Just because they’re not federal employees doesn’t make a difference.
@@dr.floridamanphd the government are civilians, so why does being a government agent mean they are not civilians?
@@iapetusmccool: The definition of "civilian" (according to Google):
civilian
/sɪˈvɪlj(ə)n/
noun: civilian; plural noun: civilians
a person not in the armed services or the police force.
@Grailsarvas Forget it, those pampered millennials have no idea what it's like to live in a crime ridden society. Ironically they don't realize they owe their privilege and safety precisely to so-called "militarization of police", which was simply an answer to the horrific crime wave of the 70s-80s. They don't realize America already tried that kumbaya flowers-not-guns, let's-be-nice-to-criminals nonsense in the 60s, which only resulted in aforementioned crime wave, causing the same generation to beg the state to massively invest in police efforts to clean up the cities.
There’s no bad apples in the police department. There’s cops and there’s criminals with badges. If cops don’t call them out, they become complicit.
thats literally what bad apples mean bruh
You are the literal definition of the lawful good alignment. I consider myself to be more neutral good as I have far less faith in a lot of our legal system but I respect what you do here.
We need to shut down for profit prisons too.
Fair, they need to be nationalized
How will we compensate for the lost legal slave labour?
Are you planning on going in depth on the major Supreme Court cases like this week's in Bostock v Clayton County(Title VII) and DHS v Regents of the University of California(DACA)? Or are you just planning on covering all of them at the end of the term?
Ya I wanna see this sooner rather than later. Plz and thank you.
@elijah mikle Where are you getting that that's something I support from what I said lol. I'm actually split, I agree with Bostock, disagree with Regents
"It's important to know what those words mean" I love a good Legal Eagle roast. I've been saying this to everyone making the "bad apples" comment. Thank you for your video! I keep seeing everything happening and wonder, "What would DJ say about this?"
Who is 'DJ'?
Me too! The other thing I keep bringing up is would it ever be okay to say, "most of our surgeons are great, but sometimes you end up with a bad apple." Some jobs need to be held to a higher standard. We can't afford to have bad cops.
I blame the Jackson 5 for the current misunderstanding of the "bad apples" metaphor. Their 1971 hit subverted the cliche by claiming that one bad apple "don't spoil the whole bunch".
For both sides right? Cause I have dealt with many people using correctly for the police, but get offended and furious when its applied correctly to the protests.
@@jacobhiatt1901 I have seen at least one video of protesters holding to account someone who was breaking up a sidewalk for projectiles to throw. In the other hand, we have many examples of whole units of Police resigning in solidarity with their bad apples and other instances of rallying around.
This is by far the most comprehensive list of reforms I've seen and you even explained each one. Even saw some ones I haven't seen yet in there. (Also you've been killing the ad segues lately)
Remember when Chris Dorner went through proper channels to report misconduct, that ended well.
That is a funny one. Did you know, during the manhunt for Dorner, not one, but TWO vehicles with innocent occupants were shot up? Yeah, and the police that did the shooting, in both of those cases, all they got was a 1 week suspension. In one of the shootings, the one with the electric blue pickup, a 72 year old woman was shot twice in the back and the driver was severely injured by shattered glass, which was shattered by the gun fire. No joke, those two cops fired nearly 100 rounds into that pickup truck. They got a 1 week suspension... Wrap your brain around that! The police treated that like it was just a normal workplace accident. When an old lady was shot twice in the back! Yep, workplace accident...
And I am going to be straight with you, if those two ladies got out of their truck and returned fire on the police, killing the police, I would be 100% okay with it. In fact, I would label those two women as heroes. That is right, in this case the cops were the villains, and needed to be dealt with as villains.
Oh yeah, and one more thing, the truck they shot up, couldn't have been any more different than the truck Dorner was reported to have been driving. It was a completely different color, completely different make, completely different model.
Yh, just looked him up and idk if I necessarily believe he was fired for ONLY reporting excessive abuse... You dont go from good cop just trying to report someone, to shooting and killing 4 people and threatening the lives of cops and their families...
@@brandipityha9457 You do if you're an ex-solder with minor PTSD and put in a situation where the goverment you serve betrays you. Mental health is a thing.
Judging by the video, another Chris Dorner is probably what "LegalEagle" wants.
my first thought too
FYI the “non lethal” rubber/plastic bullets where invented in England for use in Northern Ireland.
Very interesting! 🤔
I've also heard that they're intended to be shot at the ground and bounced into people... Not shot directly at them
@@Zorae42 Yup. Cops are definitely over-funded and under-trained in America; they have military-grade weaponry, that they don't even use properly: www.inverse.com/mind-body/rubber-bullets-cannot-be-used-safely
Zorae42 100% correct. Go you.
The Amerikan Polis also has to increase the education time of the Police, instead of mere weeks to at least a couple of years. Many EU countries and especially the Nordics have a mandatory school time between 2-4 years
Moreso, what type of policing is taught is important. Not only does the police in the US do more (including things they are not qualified to handle), they also don't seem to be as much trained to be a part of the community, to evaluate, analyse, help, defuse situations and when needed call in help from those with more specialised knowledge and skills.
To me, the police is not formost an agency about projecting force, it is about being the first line of the government just like a GP is the first line in healthcare. They are supposed to know their community so as to be able to ascertain what is needed.
CEU's and continuing on the job training wouldn't hurt either, and increasing that with non violent techniques would help.
Most states require at least an associate’s degree in criminal justice plus more training at either a police academy or with a certified POST instructor.
You don’t just apply for the job and are handed a badge and a gun.
As a Norwegian citizen I can confirm that the education time (depending on which police branch) is 3-5 years of education, where you learn de-escalation, analyzation of the use of force and just general good behaviour. It's important to remember that the police is a civil servant and they work for you as a citizen, and their priority should be the citizen's safety above their own.
Of course, I am not saying that there are no "bad cops" in Norway, cause there undoubtedly are some (although I have personally never met one), but generally the police spend more time walking around and simply chatting with people than using actual force. This may be due to the relatively low crime and reoffending rates in Norway, but I do feel like the police can be more comfortable here due to the gun laws aswell as other minor factors that ultimately means that it's unlikely that force will be used from either side.
My point is simply, comparing the US to the nordic, or Norway specifically, should not be done as they have two vastly different police and justice systems. Sure, the US could take elements from the nordic police model, but it's in my opinion unfeasible to implement on a larger scale in the US until the reoffending rate and culture war that exists within the US, which roots back to the wealth disparity. While this wealth disparity can be attributed to the historically unjust treatment of POC's, I do not believe that tge current trend that you see in BLM and similar movements to be productive towards a good solution. I had my hope up that Bernie could mend some of the problems in the US, but ultimately he was too extremist for the people of the US, which have historically been suspicious of even mildly socialist reforms after the "Red Scare" sadly as I do believe it could mend the wealth disparity to some degree, possibly reducing the reoffending rate (with more reintegration programs for convicts), which would ultimately lead to less forceful police interactions, therefore reducing the chance of excessive use oof force.
@Grailsarvas first and foremost, I highly advise you to re-read my comment. I never once said that the wealth disparity exclusively affected POC nor did I say anything that implementing the Norwegian system in the US would magically fix it. I even stated that it wouldn't work in practice in the US.
Secondly, the perception the US has of "socialism" is warped and is based in ignorance if anything. Communism and most degrees of socialism wont work in practice in any country to a reasonable degree, however its it's important to draw a distinction between what a socialist democracy, or socio-capitalist democracy as we refer to it, is vastly different from the socialism that the young generation in the US strive for. The state doesnt magically give you money, nor is education "free" as they think it is. Normally a student finishes his degree (5 years) with somewhere between 400k-800k NOK debt. Sure, education is subsided by the government to some degree, but it's far from the idealistic socialistic utopia that the younglings in the US envision.
Thirdly, while norway is mostly white, it's a false narrative that it isnt diverse. When I walk around in Bergen I more often see POC's than "native" Norwegians. The fact that you tie race and ethnicity to the argument just speaks by itself how identity politics has entirely ruined productive discourse in the US. Gender and race shouldn't matter, no exceptions, so as such the "homogenous" argument is just stupid imo
So before you go around saying "your filthy socialism" I will remind you to do your research and remember that most government spending is socialist incentives, like the police force for instance.
- The "8 can't wait" thing is nice, honestly I thought most of these things were already in place (though stating warning before shooting can't always be done in immediate danger);
- I didn't know about that thin of police militarization, some of the surplus should definitely be restricted from police repurposing and other things shouldn't have the time limit applied to them;
- Some training in psychology or appointing psychiatrists to the 911 dial would be great, but you'll still want the worker to be accompanied by an unit, not be "eventually" called in order to protect the worker;
- The police really should be identifiable, I had no idea there was such a thing as police just wearing black or civilian clothes and going about in unmarked riot gear.
6:01 Thank you for pointing this out. It’s been driving me crazy that people are using the “a few bad apples” argument without stating that entire metaphor is “a few bad apples spoils the bunch.”
Show me 1 profession, or career where everyone is perfect, and no one makes mistakes... Can't? So what you are saying is that EVERY person in EVERY profession, EVERY person in EVERY career is bad, because every career or profession has a few bad apples. So from your idiotic statement, and from Devin's, we can say that:
ALL Lawyers are bad
ALL Doctors are bad
ALL Teachers are bad
ALL Politicians are bad
etc.... See how stupid this makes you look... Probably not, but I digress.
It's like everything else in this world, it's hard to know something/someone is bad until something happens. A lawyer is bad, AFTER they do something bad, a doctor is bad AFTER they do something bad, a part on a vehicle is bad AFTER it fails... But somehow, we are supposed to hold law enforcement to this unrealistic standard of knowing one is bad BEFORE they do something. Mind telling me how we can do this, so we can weed out the bad apples in other professions BEFORE they do something bad? Yeah...
@@Five-O_Reviews The point of the expression is that one should remove "bad apples" so as to avoid all "apples going bad". Bad lawyers get disbarred, bad doctors have their license revoked, bad teachers get fired, bad politicians get reelected. Bad cops should be fired and be banned from law enforcement. The point is not to expect to be able to know which cop might go bad first, but rather to act reasonably on minor misconduct to prevent irreperable harm from gross misconduct. The further point being that far too often cops who have engaged in gross misconduct resulting in irreperable harm up to and including death have seen no consequences and returned to a career of law enforcement nonetheless.
@@Quintinohthree Quite incorrect. In addition to tossing a whole bushel on account of finding a few bad apples, the common wisdom was that if you couldn't get it clean enough you should also burn the barrel to ash in order to prevent the risk of spoiling future batches.
In hindsight, the folks defending the police really should have picked a different metaphor.
@@LordKnightcon No, it's quite accurate. If police *cannot* be reformed to ensure as much as possible only "good apples" get in, all those in stay "good apples" and "bad apples" are detected and discarded before they "spoil the bunch", then the "barrel" must be discarded as a whole and a new organization be built from the ground up to replace it or we must do with "barrels" whose "apples" don't constantly "spoil".
@@Five-O_Reviews I shouldn't have to point out why this argument is flawed to the point of being tissue-thin, but I'll lay it out anyway for the slow kids in the back
Your entire point here is predicated on the idea that a 'bad apple' is just anyone who makes any mistake at any time, ever. This is painfully obviously not the original intended point, and your statement implies that there are only two possible states - 'being a bad apple', and 'abject perfection in all things'.
The point that has gracefully triple-backflipped clear over your head and stuck the landing to a chorus of applause and straight 10s from the judges, is that you can be a 'good apple' despite making a great many mistakes, because the term 'bad apple' is meant to apply to individuals making egregious human rights violations, in dereliction of duty, and generally acting in bad faith - not just Paul Blart accidentally tripping someone with his segway.
Be better.
To quote Sir Samuel Mumm (or Sir Terry Pratchett): "a good revolution clears the air"
here in germany a police student reported her superior for "excessive force" (it was caught on camera)
that police officer was her examiner (final exam) and he failed her ...
What does it take to get a honest police?
"This ain't it, chief"
What's happening right now is the exact opposite of a "good" revolution for the good of the people, it's much more akin to the Nazis defunding german police to put their brown coats in the place of power instead to enforce their narratives. The Police needs to be reformed and there's some appalling things said in this video about them I didn't even know were a thing, but the extremist goal of these rioters and the ways they're about it are horrid and you should be scared of it.
@@cdgonepotatoes4219 -- I agree that some people (such as looters) are going too far. However, those seem to be a very small minority. Are you saying that the reforms suggested in this video are extremist or things we should be scared of?
@@JaniceLHz no, the reforms portrayed here are good but way too much damage has been done already to consider these "protests" anywhere near effectual in anything but making things worse. Even if the rioters are in the minority, they've still done millions in damage and damaged history in a way that can't be just paid for repairs, the call for a proper reform is gonna be even harder now because any cricitism is now gonna called off as being an "anarchist that wants lawlessness to loot and shit".
Maybe in the aftermath this entire shitstorm will have caused enough of a ruckus to make voices of reform be heard more but you already saw it, the governor didn't even know what was going on two weeks in and the city major completely buckled to extremist demand, no compromises, calling vote for the removal of city police because I can only guess it was easier for him as he doesn't have to think.
@@cdgonepotatoes4219 If so, that's too bad.
However, I could make an argument that even if police officers abusing their power are in the minority, they've killed too many people and damaged the reputation of the police in a way that cannot be dismissed by a large group of people. I might riot too if years of begging for reforms did not seem to produce any results and my friends & neighbors kept getting harassed, beaten up, and killed.
I think it's pretty obvious the protests have been successful. Why do you think we're even having this conversation?
One step to consider when reforming the police is to look at who's running them, and how the police are being trained.
perhaps you need Federally mandated standards of Police training...
Considering say Minneapolis has been a single party state for decades and has lost their last three police chiefs to major crimes. The states where the government knows no matter what they do they'll get voted back in why should they care when police violence actually gets them more blue votes
Trained to do this:ruclips.net/video/MwRfAwf1Xu8/видео.html