> It is possible there is a reasonable explanation
Ok, I'll bite, what could possibly be a reasonable explanation for excavating a man's anus half a dozen times?
Ok, I'll bite, what could possibly be a reasonable explanation for excavating a man's anus half a dozen times?
I generally do trust police, and especially federal judges. Everyone involved in the drug war has gotten corrupted, and to some extent the lawlessness south of the border causes lawlessness in enforcing the law north of the border; Nietzsche and all that.
So, before hanging people, I'd rather get more evidence. But on its face this isn't so much a miscarriage of justice so much as a string of felonies committed by law enforcement and medical professionals.
You probably never lived in NY.
I think the drug war is bad for a wide variety of reasons, and the militarization of domestic policing (mainly over drugs, and now terrorism) is bad for everyone (including the police), but it's not because I've personally had problems with police.
I'm a white, upper-middle-class, works-with-USG/DOD, contracted in war zones, lots of friends in government/police, etc. person, so I have it exceptionally easy, sure.
I've met bad individual officers, but it's rare, so yeah, I generally do trust police, based on my personal experience. One of the worst tendencies of policing organizations is the "thin blue line", so they need to take aggressive action in cases of internal abuse to overcome that.
It sounds like you get it at some level, but to make the point extra fine: this is privilege. When white middle-class guys (which includes me) say, "eh, they've always been nice to me, so I'm not sure what the big deal is", we're failing to care because it the problems don't affect us. A cop's not to stop and frisk me for no reason or kick down my door looking for pot or harass me for some trivial moving violation or throw me in jail on unreasonable charges to get beaten and raped every day. They're always nice to me. So it's easy to say, "cops are kinda great, and that one time my house got robbed they were ON it", and just never internalize the fact that for so many people, they're an armed oppressor working with official government sanction and little accountability. That it takes something as mind-blowingly outrageous as court-sanctioned rape to get our attention and we're still not quite willing to look the system in the eye and say, "man, this is just fundamentally broken"...well, that shows just how deep that privilege goes. Is it any wonder that bad cops and prosecutors (and, gulp, judges) feel empowered to do this kind of shit?
Ask him if he's got any crazy stories about stupid shit other cops have done. Then ask him why he hasn't reported them for doing it.
That's the real problem, a very real application of "one rotten apple spoils the barrel." The problem isn't so much the individual police who violate the public trust (there will always be bad apples as long as there are humans involved), it is all of the others who turn a blind eye to those violations.
Those cops who never commit any overt violations but let other cops off with a free pass are the ones responsible for eroding public trust because they teach the public that it is an "us vs them" mentality. As a privileged white guy 99% of the time your interactions with the police will probably be just fine, but even you never know when that 1% bad apple is going to show up, but you do know his buddies won't do anything to hold him to account for what he might do to you.
I think you probably understand this to some extent, referencing "the thin blue line" (the documentary of that name actually turned the phrase on its head), I just wanted to spell it out for anyone else who might not be familiar with the ironic definition of that term.
Edit: I don't mean the article when I say small matters
It is particular to police in that they are entrusted with greater responsibility than pretty much any other organization in the country. Their standards of accountability need to be proportional to that responsibility.
Given how thoroughly whistleblowers are destroyed, it's hard to fault someone for not calling a colleague out on relatively small matters.
That's circular reasoning -- Given how corrupt they are, it is no wonder that no one on the inside stands up to the corruption.
If you want to fix issues with the police, the first thing you have to understand is that there are humans behind those uniforms, humans who have spent a significant part of their life getting there. Being part of a skilled occupation is not something most people can just toss aside casually, hence why small offences get overlooked. If you can understand the motivations and psychology of the people doing the wrong thing, you have a wider array of tools at your disposal than "I have a really big stick here if you make a wrong step".
As for the circular reasoning bit - not at all circular, given that I'm not saying 'free pass'. If you want to break the cycle, change the culture. You do that by making it a point with the people cops answer to; make them give whistleblowers better protection. Changing the culture is difficult, but if you want serious change, that's the way to do it.
Thanks for calling me a Nazi for trying to better understand how people are motivated, by the way. I suggested improving protections for whistleblowers as a way to prevent this kind of situation in future. Clearly I instead should have been demanding permanent imprisonment (or even the death penalty) for specific people I don't like, all without a nod towards a fair trial. Then I wouldn't be like a Nazi at all!
You're part of the problem. Seriously, these people stick by their own--it's the rest of us poor bastards who get the shit end of the stick.
[0]http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.asp...
I don't think any amount of evidence could justify a cavity search, but I'm willing to wait for the judicial side of the story before I finalize my judgement on this matter. It seems so mind-bogglingly impossible that a judge would grant an invasive search warrant on something blatantly circumstantial.
However, we know for a fact that a judge signed a search warrant for a cavity search. "Clenching buttocks" seems like such an arbitrary basis for an invasive search warrant that I suspect there may be more to this story.
There are scum in every occupation. Police don't get a free pass. They're flawed humans like the rest of us.
Go watch The Wire. You'll be more understanding.
I really didn't want to comment on this article, but I must object to the use of the word "taxpayers" where "human beings" would be much more appropriate.
In general I would agree. But this stuck out for me:
the warrant was only valid in Luna County, where Deming is located. The Gila Regional Medical Center is in Grant County. That means all of the medical procedures were performed illegally and the doctors who performed the procedures did so with no legal basis and no consent from the patient. In addition, even if the search warrant was executed in the correct New Mexico county, the warrant expired at 10 p.m. Medical records show the prepping for the colonoscopy started at 1 a.m. the following day, three hours after the warrant expired.
If that's true, then it seems there's no possible way to play devil's advocate. Hopefully the legal system will dish out some justice for him.
It's incredible that they were able to find doctors who went along with it not once, not twice, but five times plus a forced colonoscopy.
For him with dollars and for the rest of society by putting everyone else involved in the unemployment line, if not prison.
Not to mention that destroying a professional career that takes ten years to start on one misstep is harmful to the medical system itself - why is the slogan always "lock the bastards up" and so rarely "train them better"? The former is a post-facto lose/lose, the latter win/win.
Making a very very public example of them is plenty of deterrent value for future "medical professionals" who may be dragged (or otherwise) into any further situations like this.
The firing and blacklisting of every law enforcement officer involved, and yes, up to and including the chief of police, is again a solid push back against this sort of abuse of power everywhere.
Too bad the judge won't see anything but perhaps a slight remembrance of this circumstance when the next election comes. His name should be posted at every polling place, end of story.
Tired, so damn tired of these stories.
If you're tired of these stories, then, perhaps, look to similar cultures that don't have them with the frequency the US does. You'll find that they don't see 'lock them up and throw away the key" as the answer to most transgressions. Rehabilitation and retraining keeps people as productive members of society, rather than lifelong imprisonment in which they become permanent burdens.
And now you're firing the Chief of Police for not having a pat answer when 'cornered' (article's term) by an investigative reporter. You're baying for blood because he didn't spout something off-the-cuff when he possibly didn't have all the details? And people wonder why public figures play their cards close to their chest. Not to mention that it can be a miscarriage of justice if the defendants don't get a fair trial because of something said by a public figure with authority over them. Similarly the judge's original warrant may have been justified given the information presented at the request.
As someone else in this thread mentions, what we have here is one side of the story. It happens again and again and again that the Internet Righteous Machine goes berserk over a one-sided story without bothering to verify.
Making a very very public example of them is plenty of deterrent value for future "medical professionals" who may be dragged (or otherwise) into any further situations like this.
Yes, because the 'deterrent' mentality is working so well for the US so far, what with the incarceration rate five times higher than any other western nation, highest in the world.
I'm not saying these guys shouldn't be punished at all, but the hysteria of your "fuck them all" response is hardly realistic or just. Let them be found guilty in a court of law, of rape and of inappropriate warrants and whatever else. But keep your head about you when discussing legal issues. Being dispassionate doesn't mean being uncaring.