To begin with, i hope this doesn't start the same kind of conversation that a recent thread of a similar topic deteriorated into. This information does seem to counter the "Cops get away with everything" mind set some have. Read the entire article and draw your own conclusions. Rather than bash the cops, hopefully the discussion will center more on how things could be changed.

One noticeable item in the article was the statement "91 percent of convicted offers were fired or resigned."

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/595kv3/police-crime-database

Please, Dialog, no bashing.

Personally I think the News Media should be taken to task for not reporting the final outcomes in cases of police misconduct or criminal activity as much as they do initially.

Very interesting article. Thanks for posting it.
If we ignore the difference between cause and correlation we can come up with some very creative "solutions." hah


Funny that this would make it through editing.

If you are referring to the possible discrepancy between the bold statement on convicted officers and the non bold statement on all officers, remember. First one only refers to those who were actually convicted. The second referred to the overall group of officers that were arrested.


One thing I gather from this is that police officers tend to commit the same crimes as ordinary citizens. What are the percentages, comparing police crimes to a like number of ordinary citizens? Could well be the same 'cause after all we do hire police from the total pool of citizenry.

Unfortunately some may think that just filling the jobs is more important than filing them with the right people.

For those who say "Police are under paid so what do you expect", here's a counter to that.

From the Bureau of Labor Stat's.



The average police officer in the US is making 26% more than the average worker in all other occupations and that doesn't take into consideration their Medical Benefits as well as "Pension".

I was referring to what I assume was a typo. Offers vs officers. Strange that an error like that survived editing while bolded.
I have been trying to find a meaning for the paragraph while keeping the word as supplied, but haven't succeeded.

Agree regarding the pay. They are not going hungry. In Mexico and other 2nd and 3rd world countries this is a valid concern, but still not an excuse to my way of thinking.

I've wondered whether LEOs are arrested, charged and convicted as often as they are because they are constantly in the presence of other LEOs.
Honestly, it staggers my feeble mind to think that those who we hire to protect our rights are involved in violating our rights as often as the population at large, therefore I look for reasons to hope that they really aren't as liable to commit crimes as non-LEOs.

What was the Stanford University test where they took students and placed them in roles of prison guard and prisoner and watched their behavior devolve?

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely (an old saw). Cops are human too. A good system should be in place to guard against and prevent the same from occurring in a position that presents just such circumstances.

Stanley Milgram.

https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html

We're a weak and manipulable species, by and large.

ETA : Wrong experiment, similar outcome.

Stanford Prison Experiment.
http://www.prisonexp.org/

Exactly why I keep saying they need to be held to higher standards than the rest of us.

We don't hire them to bake bread. We hire them to do a dangerous job. We equip them to do the job they ARE hired for. They do have greater leeway, and SHOULD have the best legal defense possible.

But you don't just hand a gun to someone, and let them shoot whoever they want with no consequence.

You expect the baker not to make the same mistakes that you would, when he does his job.

Why do we have higher standards for the baker, than we have for ourselves. But we don't do the same for the cop?

Zimbardo is the one I was thinking of.

Can't help myself fellas. Gonna jump in for a second. A couple things come to mind. For those that don't trust law enforcement responders to perform up to their best abilities, don't call them for aid. Take care of business on your own. Myself and the rest of us will just have to trust that like any service provider of their kind, law enforcement officers will do their best and rely on their experience and training. Are there bad actors and tragic outcomes? No doubt. However, the percentage of these incidents compared to the millions of dispatched calls is tiny. That's not what the mainstream media wants you to think. "Cop does good job" doesn't" get ratings. Listen, tradgedies and loss of !ife happen every day in many vocations, intentionally, criminally, accidentally, mental issues, etc. Surgeons lose patients. Pilots crash planes. Restaurants serve e. Coli and Salmonella contaminated food. Duckboats crash or sink. Space shuttles explode. Sub maintained or misengineered bridges and other structures collapse. All this and so much more goes on daily. And we should single cops out to hold to a higher standard?? Again, compared to the percentage of the time things go right, these unfortunate circumstances constitute a small fraction of the whole picture. I don't mean to trivialize lost lives in any of these circumstances.

Everybody naturally has their own passionate beliefs on many sides of this arguement. Is there room for improvement? Always. Can we not let a devisive media and deep rooted convictions prevent us from seeking common ground to further discussion and seek real life solutions? I hope so.

Rant off. Traut out.

Emotional strawman argument. "Either you unquestioningly support a cop, no matter what that cop does, or you hate and mistrust all cops." "Either you shut your mouth when a cop messes up, or you don't have the right to call a cop when you need one." The world doesn't work like that. Or at least it shouldn't...

Valid point. MSM has an agenda. They also have an agenda against gun owners. No one here is buying the MSM agenda. This argument is just a distraction from the real point.

No. Cops should not be singled out as the only ones who are held to a higher standard. No one here has ever said anything like that. (Another emotional strawman argument.) Nor should they be singled out as a privileged group, and held to a lower standard when doing their job. If you are hired to lay shingles, or to wash cars, or to be a heart surgeon, or to fly a plane... You should be expected to do that job to the best of your ability. You should be expected to learn the best way to do that job. Or face being fired. As a heart surgeon, you spent a ton of money and time, getting educated in the first place, Now you spend time every day, learning more ways to do your job even better. Why should a cop be held to lower and lower standards when doing their job? Why should a cop not be expected to make better decisions than the guy running the gas station, or the school teacher, when faced with a dangerous situation?

What you mean to do, and what you do, are two different things.

Absolutely. On every side. Mine included. And on yours as well.

Agreed. And can we not let a misguided, emotional reaction to perceived personal attack, cloud our judgment every time we see the word cop in a post?

Very true, looking at the base number they are making more per year. I believe officers are all salary? I think if we look at the hours they are on duty as well, we will see what it comes out to hourly and I am betting it is not very good when taken in that context. Then factor in the hours and stress levels.

I am in no way condoning LEO abuses or committing crimes, corruption, abuse of power, etc. I do believe they should be held to a higher standard, but it needs to be a fair, realistic standard and not one using slow motion video and 20/20 hindsight of high stress encounters.

I will say the 91% rate I find a bit surprising and honestly disappointing. Is there any criteria on what the convictions tallied in the article are for? (misdemeanor or felony), and are they only on the job or off duty convictions or off duty ones like traffic infractions?

Agree! There needs to be an assumption of innocence unless and until the evidence shows otherwise.
Too often we see Internet Convictions based on the most paltry of information, often from sources that are lambasted for other forms of coverage (likely for good reasons.)

Conviction By Internet. Thank god the penalty for that conviction is usually nothing.

Agreed. Both of you.

Oops, seems like there may be folks here that may have said someyhing along these lines:


[/quote]

With you, I have no quarrel Jeff. You seem to always be a man of good taste and discriminate judgement.

Nuts, too many quotes. disregard.