I believe making the everyday actions, not just the violent ones, available for public scrutiny would encourage a change in the superiority complex displayed by LEO. For example, driving at unsafe speeds when not responding to a call that requires urgency. It's not unreasonable, in my opinion, that police vehicles should be monitored in such a way that report data is generated on a regular interval which tracks vehicle ID, assigned officers, incidences of excessive speed, activation of safety equipment (lights/siren), datetime, etc. and make that report available to the public.
Having had this conversation with people, a common response is, "Well, sometimes they have to respond 'silently'." I further believe this is either untrue or is a fabricated truth. The safety of the humans in the immediate area of the police vehicle should override any desire to, "Not alert the bad guys."
All this to say, I agree that data transparency is crucial if we can ever hope to wrangle in the gangs who posses qualified immunity.
Most of the time fast police car movements are Code 2, i.e. without siren. It's probably a good thing because Code 3 (with siren) is more disruptive. I agree with the general trajectory of this discussion, but want to emphasize that most of the time, the police are being good guys. Police are "social control workers." Having been one for ten years (California licensed psychiatric technician,) I need to defend them as workers who usually try to do a good job, but sometimes (much more often that we'd like) fail miserably and hurt or kill people. They also have distinguished themselves by not helping when it would have been good to do so. The Kenosha, WI incident where a man harassing a teen armed with an AR-15 got himself killed occurred partly because the police hung back and let people burn and attempt to firebomb a part of the city. Many of the firebombers were like the outside agitator who was initially shot. He was trying to roll a firebomb into a gas station. Same thing happened in LA in 1992. I'm very much in favor or using "state-power" to quell these types of demonstrations when they turn to destroying the neighborhoods and businesses that the aggrieved people depend on.
If a police officer had a legitimate need to do things including but not limited to speeding, moving through traffic, or performing vehicle actions which they would otherwise cite a civil for doing the same, they should be disruptive visually and/or audibly.
I would say visually every time, and with siren when around other traffic/pedestrians.
My point was that technology exists that the public could identify and hold accountable those officers who are abusing their positions of special trust to be vehicular assholes.
Just as LEO holds that no one need fear them if they just live within the law, the same should hold true for them in providing greater transparency to their everyday on duty behaviors.
Systems theory would suggest that having so much observability and potential carping about every perceived glitch in police procedure would be a bad thing. You'd get more of what's happening now: cops phoning it in, not providing services, etc.
Great post - I've been waiting for one on accountability since the one on professionalism since the two go hand-and-hand in my opinion (I had faith you would deliver!). Doctors can't walk up to the wrong person, amputate a limb, and shrug it off. Often cops can.
To really get a sense of how much latitude the courts afford cops (read: the state affords itself) I highly recommend looking into Castle Rock v. Gonzalez, in which the court essentially said letting cops off the hook for any positive obligation is a time honored tradition on the US and they don't have to help people.
Thank you! There's sooo much to cover when it comes to accountability. I wish I had unlimited hours to research it all and digest it for the newsletter. I completely agree Castle Rock v. Gonzalez is a super important part of the puzzle. Now that I'm thinking about it, as is qualified immunity.
Yeah, I appreciate that the piece can be easily digested in one sitting. This is "Further reading" for the curious, I don't mean to imply error by omission!
The problem we have now is not cops, "Phoning it in." The most impactful flaw in policing, even if not the most common or likely issue, is abuse of power and authority. These abuses can range from the smaller versions like speeding, to the big ones like killing.
What we need is more cops second guessing their actions before they do them. Like, "Do I really need to drive 65 in a 35 when I'm not responding to a call?" Or, "Do I really need to shoot the fleeing suspect in the back?"
In any case, what we're doing now isn't working. We have access to technology that would increase accountability, so I suggest we use it.
I believe making the everyday actions, not just the violent ones, available for public scrutiny would encourage a change in the superiority complex displayed by LEO. For example, driving at unsafe speeds when not responding to a call that requires urgency. It's not unreasonable, in my opinion, that police vehicles should be monitored in such a way that report data is generated on a regular interval which tracks vehicle ID, assigned officers, incidences of excessive speed, activation of safety equipment (lights/siren), datetime, etc. and make that report available to the public.
Having had this conversation with people, a common response is, "Well, sometimes they have to respond 'silently'." I further believe this is either untrue or is a fabricated truth. The safety of the humans in the immediate area of the police vehicle should override any desire to, "Not alert the bad guys."
All this to say, I agree that data transparency is crucial if we can ever hope to wrangle in the gangs who posses qualified immunity.
I think that's a great point. Thank you.
Most of the time fast police car movements are Code 2, i.e. without siren. It's probably a good thing because Code 3 (with siren) is more disruptive. I agree with the general trajectory of this discussion, but want to emphasize that most of the time, the police are being good guys. Police are "social control workers." Having been one for ten years (California licensed psychiatric technician,) I need to defend them as workers who usually try to do a good job, but sometimes (much more often that we'd like) fail miserably and hurt or kill people. They also have distinguished themselves by not helping when it would have been good to do so. The Kenosha, WI incident where a man harassing a teen armed with an AR-15 got himself killed occurred partly because the police hung back and let people burn and attempt to firebomb a part of the city. Many of the firebombers were like the outside agitator who was initially shot. He was trying to roll a firebomb into a gas station. Same thing happened in LA in 1992. I'm very much in favor or using "state-power" to quell these types of demonstrations when they turn to destroying the neighborhoods and businesses that the aggrieved people depend on.
If a police officer had a legitimate need to do things including but not limited to speeding, moving through traffic, or performing vehicle actions which they would otherwise cite a civil for doing the same, they should be disruptive visually and/or audibly.
I would say visually every time, and with siren when around other traffic/pedestrians.
My point was that technology exists that the public could identify and hold accountable those officers who are abusing their positions of special trust to be vehicular assholes.
Just as LEO holds that no one need fear them if they just live within the law, the same should hold true for them in providing greater transparency to their everyday on duty behaviors.
Systems theory would suggest that having so much observability and potential carping about every perceived glitch in police procedure would be a bad thing. You'd get more of what's happening now: cops phoning it in, not providing services, etc.
Great post - I've been waiting for one on accountability since the one on professionalism since the two go hand-and-hand in my opinion (I had faith you would deliver!). Doctors can't walk up to the wrong person, amputate a limb, and shrug it off. Often cops can.
To really get a sense of how much latitude the courts afford cops (read: the state affords itself) I highly recommend looking into Castle Rock v. Gonzalez, in which the court essentially said letting cops off the hook for any positive obligation is a time honored tradition on the US and they don't have to help people.
https://www.fivefourpod.com/episodes/castle-rock-v-gonzalez/
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/748/
Thank you! There's sooo much to cover when it comes to accountability. I wish I had unlimited hours to research it all and digest it for the newsletter. I completely agree Castle Rock v. Gonzalez is a super important part of the puzzle. Now that I'm thinking about it, as is qualified immunity.
Yeah, I appreciate that the piece can be easily digested in one sitting. This is "Further reading" for the curious, I don't mean to imply error by omission!
Keep it coming :)
The problem we have now is not cops, "Phoning it in." The most impactful flaw in policing, even if not the most common or likely issue, is abuse of power and authority. These abuses can range from the smaller versions like speeding, to the big ones like killing.
What we need is more cops second guessing their actions before they do them. Like, "Do I really need to drive 65 in a 35 when I'm not responding to a call?" Or, "Do I really need to shoot the fleeing suspect in the back?"
In any case, what we're doing now isn't working. We have access to technology that would increase accountability, so I suggest we use it.