This is corruption. I've never understood how things like this can happen in the US - why is this tolerated?
If this happened in the UK I'm fairly sure it would be raised in the press, then parliament and then the Home Secretary (in charge of policing) would be forced to make a statement and likely do something about it.
There is a culture in the US that the police are pristine warriors of justice and any accusations of wrong-doing are denied and ignored. There are also many laws that specifically protect LEO and government officials in general because there is a natural ethos that everyone working for The Good is always Good and whatever Bad they did must have been in the duty and service to The Good. Immunity is easy to achieve when the entire legal system wants you to be immune as a class and we are currently having a debate about qualified immunity regarding police in the US.
In my view it is the entire system that is corrupt. A fish rots from its head as they say.
There is also a sentiment that there are so many laws on the books that there is nothing wrong with breaking them or LEO letting people off the hook.
If the average person is good and still commits "3 felonies a day", then it is easy to believe that LEO is giving people a reprieve from systemic injustice, opposed to carrying out injustice.
Nobody shames an individual who get out of a speeding ticket with a warning, when the individual was randomly selected from 10,000 other speeders the same road that day.
I think this type corruption is inevitable when you have legal system where the police are responsible for arbitrarily enforcing the law on an arbitrary subset of offenders.
If you remove or universally enforce the law, the grey area for this type of corruption will go away.
It’s the same people arguing for maximal support of the police (e.g. to beat the shit out of people for no reason, to confiscate innocent people’s cash and just keep it, to threaten people with made up charges and get them to sign false confessions, to fabricate evidence, to illegally stalk and harass anti-police-brutality activists, etc., and suffer no consequences) and arguing that friends of the police shouldn’t get punished for their infractions if they have the special card. (And also the same people arguing against both things.)
More realistically, the little “courtesy cards” are a result of tribalism and corruption, and have nothing whatsoever to do with “systemic injustice”.
I am saying that the general public is not very offended by "courtesy cards" because they think the law is bad to begin with.
If I don't think speeding and jaywalking should be a crime, I certainly don't care about people using cards to get off the hook for these crimes.
I see this as a separate issue from police brutality, confiscation, ect.
You have diametrically misunderstood the point of the “3 felonies a day” book/argument, and you are shoehorning it in here to confidently promote your pet theory, without evidence.
I agree on both counts. They are proponents of police discretion to let them off for crimes they dont want to be charged for, and have no problem with it.
>to e.g. constantly pull black people over and give them tickets for made up infractions just for the fun of it. It isn’t the “friends and family” of the police who want to end stop-and-frisk, decriminalize minor drug offenses, end cash bail, stop funding police departments from speed traps, ...
I disagree and dont know where you are getting this from. The characters in the article clearly wanted to get off the hook themselves, but that doesnt mean they want to see minorities targeted and abused. I want to get off the hook when stopped for speeding, but that doesnt mean I want police to be shooting and terrorizing minorities.
>You have diametrically misunderstood the point of the “3 felonies a day” book/argument, and you are shoehorning it in here to confidently promote your pet theory, without evidence.
Again, I disagree. The point of the book is that everyone is a criminal and LEO can currently use their discretion to go after anyone they choose to. MY POINT, is that by making 100% of citizens criminals, we have eroded public support for the enforcement of the law. Those who get get caught for everyday crimes are considered unlucky, and those who get off the hook are celebrated. We should enforce the laws we have uniformly, and get rid of the ones we don't want. This is far superior to unwanted laws on the books and rarely enforcing them hoping we wont be affected. Infrequently enforced laws are terrible for a number of reasons, but a big one is that those without power and connections are the ones who are most likely to be affected.
I'm not saying lawbreakers or corrupt police are freedom fighters, just that the root cause is garbage laws which neither the police or citizens believe in.
They want the law enforced against people who don’t look like them.
See the “War on Drugs” vs. “Drug Abuse is a Disease” when it hit “rural America”.
I'm certainly not advocating for these arguments, but I believe it's important to accurately understand that which you fight against.
I suspect a lot of the counterproductive emotional reactions are a result of the fact that so much force is involved, but I'm not sure how to mitigate that.
Usually when I disarmingly unpack the "rule of law" issue with people, their argument is more akin to "if we crack down on police, then it will empower criminals" which is a different disagreement than whether all cops are good or all cops are bad. Their argument is perhaps more aptly described as "we have to choose between mostly good cops and mostly bad criminals and we'd rather take the former". They would rather police rough up a few protesters if it means dissuading rioters from burning the neighborhood down.
Of course, I firmly believe we can have our cake and eat it too--after all, better policing seems to exist in Europe, but it takes some faith and imagination, especially when I'm honest with myself about the ways in which we differ from Europe (wealth inequality, diversity, corruption, 2A rights, etc). I'm a pretty educated, articulate person who has thought a lot about these issues. I can certainly appreciate how the every-man would see things differently.
I think that means it's incumbent upon us to communicate a vision of things working properly that addresses our unique challenges, and I certainly don't blame people for failing to be persuaded by the riots, protests, and generally demeaning rhetoric.
1: https://time.com/3644168/new-york-police-de-blasio-wenjian-l...
The stated desire is to prevent government abuse of powers by keeping the governments small and limiting the powers of the larger ones, but if you look at actions rather than words, it's less about restricting government and more about preserving existing power structures.
Reconstruction is one of the most egregious examples.
And even were it not: the unquestioned (and, tbh, often profoundly racist when not merely corrupt) localized governmental structures in question are still wrong, so attempting to sandbag criticism of them by pointing at the federal government, regardless of its status, smells a mite bit fishy.
There are real benefits to small local government. Yes, there are also problems but that doesn't mean the system is wrong fundamentally. This sword cuts both ways.
Speaking broadly, and particularly of the late 20th century, when the federal government has stepped in to unilaterally overrule state and local government, it has been on the right side of history. There are, of course, a number of infamous exceptions, but the fact that I would likely be unable to converse with you w/o the federal gov't's historic interventions speaks loudly to their efficacy in suh matters.
That local government also tramples rights is more an argument for checks and balances than a reversal of federalism.
I think it's funny that you would use torture as your example, considering that several municipalities (most infamously Chicago and its PD) have been caught torturing suspects and have been placed under federal watch if not control in order to curb their abuses.
What's important about federal oversight is that it is accountability. The ultimate fact is that few institutions, let alone local ones with limited budgets and moral hazards/incestuous conflicts of interest galore, are capable of effectively policing themselves.
Its current primary function appears to be taking in tax dollars from regular middle class people and transferring them to corporate campaign donors and special interest groups, or whatever the people in swing districts want to the detriment of everybody else. That this may not legally be corruption doesn't mean that it's doing something good or that we wouldn't be better off on net if it would simply stop doing that.
> Always room for improvement--but the critical difference is that, when it is not, there...
...is nowhere to hide because whatever harm or corruption is implemented at the national level can't be avoided by moving to another neighborhood or another city.
> And even were it not: the unquestioned (and, tbh, often profoundly racist when not merely corrupt) localized governmental structures in question are still wrong, so attempting to sandbag criticism of them by pointing at the federal government, regardless of its status, smells a mite bit fishy.
When something is wrong and someone proposes as a solution something that not only doesn't remove the problem but actually makes it worse, they're not saying that the problem isn't a problem, they're saying that the "solution" isn't a solution.
And given that Florida is disproportionately retirees and a major swing state, all you're doing is proving the point.
The USA has substantially lower taxes and higher salaries, including for the poorest, than the rest of the Western world.
The USA policeforce seems focused on policing, whereas Police Forces in countries like the UK spend time monitoring online behavior whilst ignoring child grooming gangs.
Its also interesting that in the original article, the examples listed are mundane traffic offenses, and the only serious abuse is entirely fictional - from the Sorpranos.
In my experience, they seem mostly focused on figuring out how much time they can get paid for standing around chatting. Others experiences vary, but I don't know many people who would put "policing" high on the list of things US Police focus on.
Police unions and a strong pro-police "thin blue line" culture.
When they do, they discover that the police, despite being employees of the city will just refuse to do what they are told. Sheriffs magically turn into constitutional scholars, and start unilaterally choosing what laws to enforce[2], start blatantly violating the city's bylaws, and instructions from the mayor[3], and when pushed in the only way they can be hurt (The budget), engage in malicious compliance.
Picking a fight with the police union is generally speaking, not a politically savvy move.
[1] Mostly by doing a deliberately poor job in the district they represent, and being incredibly vocal that the reason they are doing a poor job, is because the politician is causing them problems.
[2] A number of sheriffs across the country made it clear that they won't issue Covid mask/gathering citations, despite state and local law, because the law is an obvious violation of... Some constitutional amendment that they can't name.
[3] After weeks of violence, Seattle city council banned the use of crowd control weapons. The SPD celebrated the very next day by gassing and blast-balling crowds.
[1] The SPD has been under federal censure by the Department of Justice for the past 8 years, due to fragrant constitutional violations, excessive use of force, racist behaviour, lack of accountability, and a pattern of disciplinary failures. Because of this decree, federal permission is necessary for any large policy changes to be made to the department.
Firing it, and starting from scratch would almost certainly qualify as a 'large policy change'. And, ah, the current administration has made it very clear as to where it stands on these sorts of questions.
"... the agendas of police unions mostly reflect the interests of the institution (the police department) rather than those of the working class."
"Labor unions exist to protect people; police exist to protect property."
[1]: https://www.teenvogue.com/story/what-to-know-police-unions-l...
Just in our area there was a case where the longshore union organized slowdowns at the docks that eventually made them lose their contract with the only shipper in the area.
What they were fighting for? Stealing two jobs from another union: https://www.wweek.com/news/2019/11/29/longshore-union-faces-...
This is a point of contention between unions. Some (especially the traditional trade unions like the one you mention) see themselves as exclusively representing their current members. Others (typically the newer service industry unions like SEIU) see themselves as promoting the interests of a particular category of workers, whether currently members or not.
Doctor/surgeon? I think most of their patients are unarmed, hehe :)
Joke aside, police outside the US generally can't do that either.
If they kill someone they shouldn’t, then they get in trouble (yes, I know not always).
It was a bit of a head scratcher for me. I remember, for example, when it was uncovered that one official had been gifted a very expensive custom-made shotgun. The news anchor was very solemn in reporting this outrageous misdeed. Rewind 9 or 11 months earlier and the exact same anchor was cheerfully reporting a public ceremony in which a visiting Olympic dignitary was presented with a gift from the organizing committee formed to win the bid. It was a happy day filled with optimism and hope for what might soon be. Lots of flash bulbs. That publicly-presented token of good will was the custom-made shotgun.
Here's another example: When was the last time you saw a big shiny 4-door 4x4 with a company placard hauling a boat on a weekend? The company placard is for a construction company or something that is unrelated to towing boats on non-business days. Does it even register with you that this is probably committing some kind of tax or business impropriety? The truck is written off as a business expense, but its main purpose is personal. Do you even care? Does anybody care? Probably not too many who pass the boat doing 10 miles over the speed limit. Probably not the LEO who passes the people passing the boat. Probably not the guy at the marina who notices that the registration on the boat is expired, but sells beer to the 20ish-year-old kid driving the truck without ID.
I think it shows that a sizable portion of the citizenry considers this acceptable. I.e., they're enamored with the idea of getting preferential treatment for themselves or their friends, with little regard for the implications. It makes me figuratively (and a bit literally) want to vomit.
That only makes sense if you assume a sizable portion of the citizenry knows about it.
I think people assume that cops are imperfect and let people off if they know them, or feel like it (the average hetero male cop probably lets disproportionately more pretty girls off with a warning), but that as a judgement call it's hard to alter (and there are good reasons to allow judgement calls). That it's often formalized and systematized into cards that are given out is another thing entirely, and I think you need to prove the average person knows it's happening before you can use it as evidence as to how average people feel.
Are you kidding? At least growing up in the 90s every teenager knew about PBA cards and any kid with cops in their family would eagerly whip out their collection of PBA cards for bragging rights. There were even different levels of cards, associated with different levels of officer you had connections too.
I was honestly surprise to see this as 'news' since at least where I grew up this was widely known.
Have you considered that it might be affected by locale, and be more prevalent in some areas than others? I grew up in the 80's and 90's, and I never heard of this and have never seen a card.
What makes you think your experiences with this when you were a teenager scale to everyone in the United States?
Cynically, the answer is "what are you going to do about it, punk?"
Because "police" in the USA can mean a lot of things, from county Sheriff, to city police to state police to FBI or one of the other 2 dozen armed federal agencies. It's a patchwork. There's no central authority to enforce some kind of standard of behavior.
Consider for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undercover_Policing_Inquiry
« In 2012 Theresa May had commissioned Mark Ellison QC to review allegations of corruption » « The Undercover Policing Inquiry or Pitchford Inquiry … is due to report back in 2023 »
Whether ‘get out of jail free’ cards are acceptable is a yes/no question.
Also keep in mind police force generally targets minorities more. So if your country doesn't have an obvious minority population that has systemically been kept behind, you're not going to see as much police corruption. But it's there.
As a brown person, my worst experiences with cops was in UK and Germany. When I tell people this they're quick to dismiss it by "This shit doesn't happen here"
I don't buy this. There are plenty of ethnically homogeneous countries that also has rampant police corruption (e.g. in Eastern Europe), and there are tons of other parameters that affect police corruption overall. We can't single out presence of minorities as a factor.
On the other hand, you can always find a disliked minority somewhere. https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/is-e...
I'm quite confident the police don't treat them particularly well, either.
Brown lives does not matter in Eastern Europe. Only thing that saves their lives is that gun ownership is not popular and cops cannot claim that they felt threatened. Beatings though...
What first comes to our minds doesn't constitute data, and is prone to create availability bias.
Percentage of Roma for several Eastern European countries are; Bosnia And Herzegovina: 0.36% (2013), Serbia 2.1% (2011), Macedonia 2.7% (2002), Albania 0.6% (2011), Croatia 0.4% (2011), Ukraine 0.3% (2001). There is no substantial Roma minority, in fact Roma is usually one of the smallest among other minorities in these countries.
Bulgaria: 10.3%, Romania: 8.3%, Slovakia, 9.2%.
This same source has Serbia's percentage as 8.2%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people#Contemporary_iss...
I would call these numbers substantial. Your mileage may vary.
Either way, if the OPs hypothesis is true, we should see a change in corruption levels with minority percentages. I’m not an expert in Eastern European criminology, but I highly doubt that is the case. There might as well be Eastern European countries with substantial Roma population, for some definition of “substantial”, but that doesn’t change my original point that high cultural homogeniety and high police corruption definiely does co-occur.
Citation needed.
EDIT: Also forgot to mention that cops here know not to bother car with "nice" licence plate numbers, interestingly enough, even though the numbers should be random, there is a class of people who tend to get them disproportionally often...
The police, and city councils, in the UK have tacitly permitted, for decades, systematic child rape as seen in the Rotterham grooming scandal [1] and numerous others throughout the country. How can you suggest that cops wouldn't look the other way for minor infractions when there are countless examples of them ignoring obscene and severe crimes of the worst sort against the most vulnerable?
I don't want this to come off as a "my country is better than yours" but at the same time, I don't think using the UK police as an example of anything to aspire to is a good idea.
1 -https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_explo...
The fact that there is an investigation decades after the fact doesn't really negate what I've written.
My point isn't really about the grooming gang scandals though. My point is: UK police look the other way for the crime of child rape, why should I believe they don't look the other way for minor infractions?
Defund the police for being too worried about racism to do their job. Wait ... what?
When it was widely reported in the press, the public were disgusted and the government took action.
I’m not saying that the UK police are perfect, or the UK is better than the US. Just that this kind of systematic, widespread behaviour that many/most people find unacceptable would be stopped.
https://theconversation.com/northern-irelands-police-transfo...
As far as I am aware, nobody thinks LEO is letting murders go as a favor. For example, 90% of Americans ignore posted speed limits, as do LEO. When someone gets a speeding ticket, it seems bad luck and unfair. This makes it seem more acceptable for LEO to let someone off the hook.
2. You can't easily do something about it other than taking away police discretion. Unlike with a traditional bribe, where something is exchanged for something, you can't demonstrate that the person got off for the card compared to the officer just deciding to give them a break.
If the "cards" are banned, their still would be a system for insiders to show they have access to special benefits and treatment.
If someone breaks the speed limit it should be 30 day license suspension and impounding their vehicle.
I mean... that's not why the limit is there. The limit isn't "how fast can you possibly go without feeling out of control", it's "how fast can you possibly safely go". Are they still operating with 20th century cars in mind? Yeah, but it's hard to argue that a school zone should be 60 MPH.
Most people who complain about speed limits are complaining about freeways, not surface streets.
I would guess it has something to do with the strict adherence to the keep right/pass left rule.
And by car! A truck or an older SUV will have a far worse breaking distance and does not corner well compared to any sports car or sedan. So even assuming you a perfect situational analysis, you still could not post an exact limit.
The latter is literally encouraging the populace to commit crimes. The latter is hard to challenge the selectivity of in court because it is theoretically strict liability. The latter results in the unelected enforcement officials making up the criteria entirely instead of being given criteria by the elected officials.
In the UK, many drivers view them as targets. Driving under the limit will often lead to tailgating. Especially in overtaking lanes.
In Australia, for example, at least when I got my license, you were explicitly told that you are
"required to drive at the maximum possible speed that is: within the posted limit, appropriate for the weather and road conditions, and within your ability to maintain safe control of the vehicle".
So on roads with speed limits that are far too low you get people driving together at very different speeds, which results in more accidents.
[0] I can't find the source right now but IIRC in one of the experiments they increased the speed limit by 5 mph on a highway, but the speeds driven only increased by 1 mph.
I mean, I would think they'd be forced to resign, in practice.
Letting some people get away with speeding and other minor crimes isn't seen as an corruption, or something that needs to be stopped. It is also still up to the police to make the decision either way, they can still give you a ticket, flashing a PBA card could make some situations worse.
This year seems to have had less focus on Britain, and more on problems abroad.