Skip to main content

View Diary: A second LAPD officer steps forward to discuss Bill of Rights violations (191 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  thank you for a neutral diary (4+ / 0-)

    I must express some trepidation when I opened it thinking I would have to quickly close it. Tipped and recced

    I think the first step would be to provide meaningful and clear guidelines on what is allowed and not allowed in terms of force during apprehending suspects. I am not sure what those guidelines should be but they should be clear. I think one of the biggest changes that is an advantage to this is these days most police action is on video tape. I think this should become the norm and any police action not  caught on tape should be subject to immediate review. Further the police need to look at some how allowing civilians into the investigative process. All too often when people get shut out they start to assume anything and everything.

    I also think there needs to be a federal resource that tracks all upheld allegation of police misconduct with a simple 3 strikes rule. Three confirmed allegations and you can't work in law enforcement in the USA. This would cut down on the number of people jumping from one department to another.

    However we also need to make police work more attractive if we're going to be able to be more selective thus police work needs to pay more.

    •  While I agree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      with most (just about all, actually) of your recommendations, I wonder if it would be helpful to not have an independent board/organization set up to investigate these things, instead of letting the police departments themselves do it.  It seems like it would lessen the probability of a conflict of interest.

      Having said that, I do agree that making the investigative process more open would be a good step in the right direction.

    •  I'm fairly certain there are already (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bontemps2012, isabelle hayes

      guidelines that restrain police from excessive use of force. Plus, isn't there some element of common sense required? Do they have to spell it out, don't hurl unarmed women to the ground for a cell phone violation?

      Looked if there were guidelines, came across this::

      LAPD Manual, Volume 1

       115.25 IMPARTIAL FRIENDLY ENFORCEMENT.  The police seek and preserve public favor, not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to the law without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws; by readily offering individual service and friendship to all members of society; by the ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humor; and by readily offering individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.

      115.30 MINIMUM USE OF FORCE.  The police should use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient to achieve police objectives; and police should use only the reasonable amount of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.

      115.35 PUBLIC ARE THE POLICE.  The police at all times should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police; the police are the only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interest of community welfare.

      "Watch what you say or they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, fanatical, criminal..."-7.75, -5.54

      by solesse413 on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 12:03:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site