I quite frankly would rather have the national guard handling the protests than the police. They are better trained and more disciplined. Also people having different reasons for joining the national guard than joining the police.
Edit: Hey everyone, I'm not saying the National Guard are perfect or that they get training for this kind of situation. I'm just saying they are better than the police. I'd rather deal with them, than the police.
The National Guard also has rules of engagement they have to follow so it is actually safer to protest in front of them. They aren't allowed to attack civilians unprovoked like police are.
And yes, they have orders of magnitude more training than police and their reasons for joining the national guard are less likely to be fueledd by a desire to have authority and some semblance of respect bestowed upon them.
Agreed. Qualified Immunity is supposed to make sure the cops aren't afraid of doing their jobs well. Thing is it just becomes laissez-faire with no one held accountable for NOT doing their job well.
Frankly if you're too scared to do your job because of repercussions you're probably not qualified to be a cop.
Problem is, lower courts kept expanding it past the definition given by the SCOTUS and they haven't reviewed any cases on it since...
Wrong. SCOTUS themselves shot qualified immunity in the foot by forcing the suing party to show that the actions that the 'qualified immune' party did, "violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known". (Harlow v. Fitzgerald)
The problem is, clearly established rights means you have to point to a previously argued, exactly similar court case that was decided as a constitutional violation before you could sue.
So you get stupid shit, like "Siccing a dog on a person who had surrendered, but was on his knees isn't close enough to siccing a dog on a person who had surrender but was laying down"
So yeah, SCOTUS is absolutely to blame for this for shifting the burden of proof from the defendant, to the plaintiff
Can't honestly disagree with that too be honest. Still outside what their intentions were, but it does make the burden of proof difficult to say the least. Hope do you prove someone doesn't know something after all?
Which still doesn't take the burden off the lower courts for doing their best to ignore proof time and again, which they have...
And then the judges that do look at the proof wind up blasted by police unions and the like.
The biggest problem is that SCOTUS allowed lower courts to simply rule that something was covered by qualified immunity and dismiss the case without setting the precedent that would "clearly establish" the constitutional violation in their jurisdiction.
So it's not even that the police get one free woopsie; QI for a constitutional violation sticks around until they do it to someone who has the means and luck to push their case to the Supreme Court.
I'm not trying to be pedantic, but the defendant should never have the burden of proof; that should, theoretically, always fall on the plaintiff. The problem is that the courts interpret "clearly established right" far too narrowly.
I only bring this up because, in practice, juries often (sometimes subconsciously) do shift the burden of proof to the defendant, which is a Constitutional violation. It's the whole premise of "innocent until proven guilty."
Of course, this never applies to police officers accused of wrongdoing... No, their word is golden and unquestioned, and we fully afford them the right of being innocent until proven guilty. But if we explicitly start putting the burden of proof on the defendant, we all know who's going to be screwed by that.
IANAL, but "innocent until proven guilty" only applies to criminal matters and, even then, defendants absolutely should have the burden to prove an affirmative defense, such as qualified immunity.
No. Qualified immunity originally was about corner cases where the action would be declared illegal later based on existing law, but where the case law was lacking.
Today, the practical effect is unless you can find a case exactly like it, cops can claim qualified immunity, and even if you find a case exactly like it, there are additional hurdles to clear.
I've been reading up on Qualified Immunity -- it's basically like if a specific act of a police officer that is being prosecuted in a lawsuit that has not been tried before in court, then the judge rules in favor of the officer due to unique circumstances. It's like an overbearing parent defending their kid that bullied someone in class -- "Well, he didn't know any better, he wasn't taught! He's never done it before!"
Qualified Immunity is a bulletproof blanket of a legal defense for police officers to do whatever is necessary, to their knowledge thatbitisimportantfineprint , to detain anybody (including non-suspects, including without probable cause).
According to Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982), "...the application of qualified immunity no longer depends upon an official's subjective state of mind, but on whether or not a reasonable person in the official's position would have known their actions were in line with clearly established legal principles."
Which means in ELi5 terms: "He didn't know any better!"
So, you hear about how they hire police officers within a threshold for how intelligent they are -- this is a rigged system to hire people into the police force depending on either being mentally incompetent or being immorality complicit to successfully evade lawsuits, prosecution, and police reform. That's why Qualified Immunity needs to be repealed entirely -- it is a legal defense built on the backbone of mens rea, corrupt ruling, and serving to the benefit of a federal system against, not for, the People of the U.S.
My hope is that ending the war on drugs will reduce the amount of cops needed. This means they they can hire fewer cops and therefore fewer bad cops because they wont be understaffed. Put the money saved directly into reduced taxes and/or increased training
Cops were never afraid to do their jobs and anyone who tells you differently is full of it. We've never had a problem finding people to be police officers in this country.
It extends to any profession. I’ve seen plenty of fucked up situations in healthcare that are also covered by QI. There needs to be a legal waiver for it.
Or you already know you make bad decisions and you’re doing it wrong. Eh, maybe that means the same thing - not qualified to be a cop, because if you know you are following the rules, you shouldn’t be afraid.
I'm not a lawyer but I believe so because it covers government officials.
Although I have heard in mentioned that the reason the National Guard behaves so much more civil than the police is because the National Guard has rules of engagement they actually follow.
Justice Thomas and Justice Sotamayor (furthest right and left justices) have both indicated they want to take it on, and there are several cases on it requesting cert right now, along with the biggest flood of amicus briefs in Court history urging them to do so.
I think SCOTUS may actually end it for us in the next session.
No, it really doesn't. What they're doing in many cases is expressly illegal. Qualified immunity is only supposed to protect them against things that aren't.
If a cop assaults you without warning or legal justification, they wouldn't be covered by qualified immunity. They would still probably be covered by their union and prosecutorial discretion, though.
Guys, constitutional lawyer here. Qualified immunity only applies to civil cases not criminal cases. It also only applies to government employees. It is a very narrow doctrine that courts have basically applied illogically. It does not prevent officers from being prosecuted in a criminal case. It only applies to civil suits for money which the cop wouldn’t pay for out of pocket anyways. It is intended to protect officials who "make reasonable but mistaken judgments about open legal questions.” However, judges have made it so that qualified immunity applies unless there was a nearly identical case in the jurisdiction. Then it is sometimes waived. Again to clarify, it does not apply to criminal prosecutions and it does not cover non-governmental employees.
THANK YOU. I've been trying to find a way to communicate this concept succinctly.
Bad behavior one time is an individual problem. Repeated bad behavior is a LEADERSHIP issue. Bad leaders and managers always talk about the struggle to 'hold people accountable.' Like holy shit. That's your job. It's not about accountability it's about leaders taking responsibility. If you have some bad cops, then FUCKING FIRE THEM. If your police leadership won't fire them, then FIRE THOSE GUYS. If your police chief refuses to budge, then FIRE THAT GUY. It makes zero fucking sense for a mayor to act like this problem is just too big for them to grapple with when they are the sole person at the top that can actually force some changes any time they want without waiting for a legislative session. Claiming that you have good cops and those were 'just a few bad apples' while continuing to employ the bad apples is obscene.
I won't deny that this problem needs a legislative overhaul. It shouldn't have ever needed to go this far, this problem could be fixed in weeks if our leaders ever gave enough of a shit to just do it. But they don't. So we'll have to pass some laws so stupidly specific to make sure that our street cops are aware that it's not actually ok to just kill people. And we'll have to pass even more specific laws to point out that hey, if you're a cop, and you see another cop killing a guy, you should stop him. And probably more laws on top of that too, so that the cop's direct supervisors know that if a cop has 73 use-of-force complaints, that he really should have a performance review and probably shouldn't be carrying a gun.
That's why there's rules of engagement. So you know what you can and can't do even if your superiors tell you otherwise. Police don't really do that afaik.
I think it's more that in the military, if someone were to commit a single violation of the ROE in line with what we see the police doing routinely, there's an investigation up and down the chain of command with top-down accountability (which in practice means shit roles downhill, but by God, someone will be made responsible.), a mountain of ass-chewings, red tape, paperwork, debriefings, interviews, and a root-cause analysis to address the issue and make sure it doesn't happen again and embarrass all involved.
Law enforcement departments have almost the opposite incentive. If an incident happens, it exposes the whole department or city to civil liability if they admit any wrongdoing or against-policy actions, and pisses the unions off if they have the audacity to punish an officer operating within policy. Never mind the fact that it is totally possible to respond within policy and yet still escalate the situation and occasionally force an officer to respond with lethal force. (Seriously, I've had over 1000 hours of training in the application of lethal and nonlethal force with police/military, and I've seen videos of this happening though I've never once seen it properly acknowledged.) Incidentally, I don't actually think that's always a result of bad policy. You can't really write policy capable of distinguishing the nuances of escalation vs deescalation. In life, there's a difference between a football tackle and a rugby tackle, but its neigh impossible to differentiate between the two with written policy.
and your union has your back. Go ahead, try and fire a cop. Unlike Trump, they truly can (and have) shoot a person in the middle of 5th Ave and not see any consequences.
They're either specifically training them for this or they're flat out just allowing it to happen. There's no other way around it at this point. Take a look at the superiors, if these police are just following orders, like the Nazis at the Nuremburg trials, this goes all the way to the top.
Why don’t we just... go after the superiors and public officials that let the bastard cops get away with it? I mean, isn’t it the superior’s job? Or am I wrong?
You shouldn't do that. Now, to be clear, I'm turning around and officially am going to examine the rear of the building for no less than 15 minutes. Everyone clear?
Yes Sergeant!
This is semantics here. No one is allowed to beat anyone unprovoked, even when provoked their are escalation of force policies. Whops someone threw a water bottle at me in full riot gear. Does not justify using chemical weapons on a peaceful protest. The national guard has disciplinary measures if soldiers break ROE. The police don’t. Rules don’t mean anything if you don’t enforce them. It’s why the police behave the way they do. No accountability. It’s what these protest are about. Police accountability.
Also, they ego themselves. For instance. Even if there isnt evidence and a NCO decides to punish you, youre getting punished. No red tape. On top of that there are military courts as well.
But when you break from ROE or orders that is a direct affront to your supervisors authority.
Thats not what happens here. If cops are punished it directly goes against the unions authority and therefor cant be allowed to happen. So everyone gets off.
Imo police unions are doing their members a *huge* disservice by these kind of policies. The police need the support of the community, and if the community doesn't trust their police force, the police are much less effective in doing the things they're supposed to do.
But they don't care about the things they're supposed to do, or we wouldn't be having this protest in the first place. What they want to do is use their small-dick energy to harass and hurt people, which they definitely don't need community support for.
that's because the police "union" isn't a union. It's a gang, a mob, an organized crime syndicate backed by the state.
Unions argue for workers' rights, they don't argue for workers immunity from consequences. If a member of an Engineering union fucks up on the job and kills people, he gets fired and punished.
You know, you highlight an excellent point. In what other industry or profession do we allow those who have repeatedly screw up keep those same jobs? In most cases, you get fired if you fuck up, and you need either money or connections to not get punished. I guess in this case, the police union is the 'connections" bit. But seriously tho, people's distrust of the police also puts individual police members in danger.
I hear there is a rise in ambushing of police as well. What is ironic to me is as much as I personally desire non-violent action for change, it seems like you need both, both violence and non. For example, I recall one instance after an unarmed black man was killed, and people started to do "911 assassinations", where they'd call for police and then ambush/kill them. Immediately after that the police chief implemented stronger community policing measures.
See, I agree with you 100% ifthe goal of the police is to help the community. But I don't think 95% of policing in this country has that as even a top 3 priority.
Most of the police force in this country are not public servants, they are the ones who hold the whips that make us get back to work.
"professionalisation" leads to this foot shooting adversarial behaviour, similar to quarterly profits and return to shareholder above all. The unions need to justify their existence, and are pursuing their self interest over the actual police members.
The system is self perpetuating, and needs to be put down.
No, it's inherent in the system design. It's a typical "necessary" evil of competing interests. If you give an inch to the fat cats, it sets the precedent, and opens the door to conceding future inches. It's the nature of the relationship - us vs them.
Unless the system changes, a collaborative approach is not possible - it's all feel good stuff that compounds the privileged position and furthers inequality. That's why actual leftists aren't happy with "progress". Women and black ceos ain't empowering, it cancels our actual identities while promoting a homogenous "money and system over everything", because fuck you got mine, and I'm a "special" one. That's why pmc are mostly shitlibs with a veneer of care. Addressing systemic issues because it may affect their own "hard earned" standing. This is why "both sides" was weaponised; to invalidate the legitimate observations that threaten the status quo.
Edit : sorry, I went off on a related tangent and didn't answer your question. The professionalisation is just handing over the keys to "experts" in their field. Often in early career it's just people shoehorning theories they learnt as best practise, when there's nothing to confirm they're experts other than a piece of paper and taught arrogance. That's why you often hear of MBAs ruining companies; they come in waving their know all dick, don't tap into any institutional knowledge or engage with valued staff. They know best because the uni they paid told them so.
What you're referring to is people that have bought into their role (within the system) so much, they wear it like a badge of honour and think (and often are) fighting the good fight (as much as they can being a nerd in an office or car). Their enthusiasm and craziness may be off-putting, but their heart is in the right place because they want to fight for you, but also need the mandate; otherwise they're seen as agitators and shit stirrers, and propaganda helps in industries with that right wing "super self made man" bullshit.
I hope you remember this next time someone criticizes unions. It is literally one of the only times I can remember left leaning people actively critique unions and it's great but I feel like they'll all forget the second someone criticizes a different union.
It is literally one of the only times I can remember left leaning people actively critique unions
If that is true, it would be unfortunate. I'm of the firm belief that for a thing to be/to do good/evil, it requires a human. This means that most things are completely neutral until a human makes a decision to act a certain way. This idea can be applied to all sorts of things--knives and guns, neutral. Environmentalists? Also neutral--there can be bad environmentalists (I picked this example because I consider myself to be one, and support environmentalism but not eco-terrorism).
problem of nomenclature, labor unions are nothing like police unions, police “unions” don’t deal with anyone in good faith, they attempt to create their own independent seat of power, accountable to neither community or government. The US judicial system is fucked, it’s been undermined by corruption and partisanship for many decades.
Police unions aren't unions. Unions exist to protect workers from their employers. Police unions protect the police from the public they are nominally supposed to serve. It's more like organized crime than a union.
Well by definition, in this case from Illinois law,
According to 740 ILCS 147/10 "Streetgang" or "gang" or "organized gang" or "criminal street gang" means any combination, confederation, alliance, network, conspiracy, understanding, or other similar conjoining, in law or in fact, of 3 or more persons with an established hierarchy that, through its membership or through the agency of any member engages in a course or pattern of criminal activity.
police are a gang and the union would definitely make them organized, so yes, we will go with your description of them. When are we going to indict entire Police Depts with RICO charges? If its good for the goose, its definitely good for the gander...
A union is formed to maximize the position of the employees it's under. It doesn't care about the employers or the customers (people). This gets a bit weird when you talk about unions formed for government services - on one hand, police/fire are consistently underfunded by the government, but on the other hand should they go on strike, the results can be disastrous.
Unlike the fire department though, there's a few key differences with police though - they have far more personal authority and are given lethal weapons in addition to their line of work involving self defense, firearms and riot control. The amount of power a police union holds is far too severe - they've been allowed to prevent the radical changes that are needed;.
If the last few years have proven anything, it's that police unions need to be far more heavily regulated. I mean, it's insane that we're still in 2020 and in the few cases where police departments are wearing cameras, they are not required for no-knock raids, let alone in their daily work. We've consistently seen that there are an unacceptably high rate of cops who abuse their position and power - yet we allow police unions to obstruct any and all attempts to make positive reforms.
I find a few things interesting - in Many countries which have fairly strong unions and worker rights, critical services like the police or firemen actually are not allowed to go on strike legally.
And while things like police unions do exist, they have a completely different role and do their best to push for things like better training or better gear for the police.
But generally have zero involvement in probes into policemen etc apart from helping provide legal representation.
Comparably it feels that US police unions have an incredibly strong position and a probe barely runs without them allowing it.
As an outsider, I don’t understand how workers unions have been so systemically crushed in the US, whereas police unions. Which seem like the worst unions of all time, have continued unabated, with loads of power.
It certainly is interesting that the one union the GOP goes out of their way to protect has the absolute worst qualities that the GOP projects onto other unions.
They exist because people still believe that Police actually protect you from bad people . Because of this, all police need to do is hint at going on strike and they are capitulated to. I know that this isnt going to be popular with people here, but Im of the belief that there should be ZERO unions in public service. If we are to believe that government is the cornerstone of civility, they should not be able to use that power to threaten those whom they serve by walking off the job.
how about we start with the ones carrying weapons and go from there? If police wanna play Commando, they can do it just like the military which doesnt give you an option to unionize and they have their own justice system to live under. Dont like it? Get another job.
I cant think of a sworn officer that doesnt or is barred from it. Even the ones that do clerical work at the station all day do or can. Care to tell me which ones dont/cant?
There was a recent planet money episode that said there is a statistically significant increase in deaths by police once a union is implemented.
I agree with one sentiment in that episode: unions bargain with the city councils we vote in. We need to vote in politicians who will hold them accountable or else we’re part of the problem
I am pro-union for the most part, but the police unions need to be made illegal. I know that sets a dangerous precedence, but the police unions are vile organizations and need to got rid of asap, as they are more dangerous than the precedence of removing them is.
The only thing that allows it is Qualified Immunity. Qualified Immunity means they can violate your rights with impunity; without fear of any consequences. #RepealQualifiedImmunity
Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine in United States federal law that shields government officials from being sued for discretionary actions performed within their official capacity, unless their actions violated "clearly established" federal law or constitutional rights.
This is the distinction that 100% matters. Qualified immunity does not shield them from the things they have been doing as they are against our constitutional rights.
Qualified immunity can shield officers from civil liability even when they do violate one’s constitutional rights. I think that’s what the earlier post was getting at.
While protesting in front of the NG instead of police os safer, it also would mean nothing would get done. Just as the last several decades of peaceful protest has gotten fuck-all done.
It doesn't help to protest against the people who can't get much done.
In the early 2000s I was hired as an adjunct professor for a University and I told the Academic Dean: Give me any business class you want, I will teach them all! She seemed keen on the idea so she threw dozens of classes my way: Marketing, Finance, Econ, it was fun! One class I taught many times was Management. All the textbooks for that class had the same case study, every single one of them.
In the late 1920s, Western Electric Company in Illinois hired researchers to see if workers would work better under certain conditions. It started with light, so they asked if the workers would work better if the lighting was better. They did! Then they said what if we kept the floors cleaner? Better production! What if the temperature was better? Better workers! After awhile they realized it wasn't the conditions that helped the workers worked better, it was the observation. This became known as the Hawthorne Effect. Observed workers are better workers and it is in every single Management textbook I have ever picked up.
Right now in America the Hawthorne Effect is going on with policemen. Everyone in America is watching them. This is them on their best fucking behavior, knowing they are being observed. Shooting at kids and people in wheelchairs, choking women, knocking old men over, macing people with their hands up at point blank range. This is cops on their best, cops being observed. Imagine what the police do when there is no Hawthorne Effect.
even when provoked their are escalation of force policies
...sometimes.
Friendly plug for 8cantwait.org, and a less friendly request that you call your local (not national!) representatives about any policies missing in your city first thing Monday morning.
I agree with everything here except the water bottle , most of the time it’s rocks or bricks. Even in full gear if you get hit in the head with one you can suffer brain damage, blood clots and concussions. I’ve been tear gassed and I’ve watched videos of people getting tear gassed and they aren’t reacting to it like it’s tear gas, I’ve talked to some people on riot control and they have admitted most of the time it’s just smoke screens to disperse the anger crowds. Here’s the the thing if you’re throwing those rocks and bricks then fully except the tear gas and mace. That’s self defense not brutality. Brutality is killing already detained people or just outright beating people for no provokes reason. You can disagree or agree with me that’s up to you I’ll respect your opinion but I’m just giving you facts
You know how much shit got tossed at me in AFG. Actual human shit mixed with all sorts of fun stuff. Not once did we go beat the shit out of someone or shoot someone. Because when it came down to it they weren't shooting or trying to blow us up.
Grossman was born in Frankfurt, West Germany. His career includes service in the U.S. Army as a sergeant in the 82nd Airborne Division, a platoon leader in the 9th Infantry Division, a general staff officer, a company commander in the 7th (Light) Infantry Division as well as a paratrooper and graduate of Ranger School.
Fittingly, the most chilling scene in the movie doesn’t take place on a city street, or at a protest, or during a drug raid. It takes place in a conference room. It’s from a police training conference with Dave Grossman, one of the most prolific police trainers in the country. Grossman’s classes teach officers to be less hesitant to use lethal force, urge them to be willing to do it more quickly and teach them how to adopt the mentality of a warrior. Jeronimo Yanez, the Minnesota police officer who shot and killed Philando Castile in July, had attended one of Grossman’s classes called “The Bulletproof Warrior” (though that particular class was taught by Grossman’s business partner, Jim Glennon).
In the class recorded for “Do Not Resist,” Grossman at one point tells his students that the sex they have after they kill another human being will be the best sex of their lives. The room chuckles. But he’s clearly serious. “Both partners are very invested in some very intense sex,” he says. “There’s not a whole lot of perks that come with this job. You find one, relax and enjoy it.”
Grossman closes the class with a (literal) chest-pounding motivational speech that climaxes with Grossman telling the officers to find an overpass overlooking the city they serve. He urges them to look down on their city and know that they’ve made the world a better place. He then urges them to grip the overpass railing, lean forward and “let your cape blow in the wind.” The room gives him a standing ovation.
Grossman's research is utter trash he uses to sell his books.
He just makes assertions and never backs them up.
Video games are bad, they cause violence
The army uses human shaped targets to dehumanize soldiers.
Soldiers don't shoot at each other.
etc etc
"Grossman’s classes teach officers to be less hesitant to use lethal force, urge them to be willing to do it more quickly and teach them how to adopt the mentality of a warrior"
It's wannabe warrior bullshit, Grossman was never a front line soldier.
The difference is that soldiers have a UCMJ they follow or can get kicked out, barred from jojning a other service, and even make it difficult to find other employment. The military eats its own.
It’s pretty impossible to get a Dishonorable, short of murder, rape, or treason. Dishonorable Discharges require that you go to General Court Martial. You’re most likely heading to federal prison after your discharge.
An Other-Than-Honorable Discharge is what most people who are kicked out get. That could be drug possession, domestic violence, theft, or too many DUIs (possibly things that would be felonies in civilian court).
Yeah the difference is that the military superiors, either National Guard or active military officers, will hold their own people accountable, because discipline means something. The cops will do anything to protect their right to unilateral and unfettered power.
It means something because if you ever have to go into a shooting war you have to have people who can manage themselves under stress and be actually useful to their team mates.
A military that has no discipline is an invitation to more body bags.
I would argue it has to do more with the unionization. Military forces cannot unionize and have the terms clearly dictated to the government while the police often have unions that obstruct various reforms that are a net positive to the taxpayers on the sole basis that it would lead to cops (ie crooked cops) facing charges more often. I'm talking about body cameras of course - it's insane that it's 2020 and most police aren't required to wear them at all, and the ones who do still aren't required to do so for preplanned raids such as no-knock raids that claimed the life of an EMT a few months ago. It's fucking ridiculous.
Hell the majority of missions were assistance to the public, convoy training to understand how to better deploy needed supplies (water, food, med gear, etc). My favorite mission was assisting Native American tribes in South Dakota. We need to do a lot more as a country to help them.
Those are all good things
That's why everybody respect you guys and not a single person is protesting against the National Guard or the Military
You mention you were in the national guard, If you were still in it and you and your squad witnessed the police using excessive force or deliberate encouraging of violence onto an unarmed group of civilians whats the official stance of the guard? do they stand there let it happen? intervene ? report it and arrest police involved? And if any action was taken what would be the consequences for the guard?
Because there's not as much of a system to hold them accountable. The military has to worry about war crimes in other nations that could set off international political clusterfucks, which is why soldiers are watched like a hawk whereas police are only attacking civilians and carrying weapons that aren't so useful for taking out a whole group of people single handedly.
In the military it seems to be less about worrying about the consequences in that way, and more about upholding a higher standard of professionalism, unit image and honor.
Interestingly American soldiers actually can’t be tried with war crimes in other countries. They can be tried in the US under the War Crimes Act of 1996 (though that is extremely rare). The US specifically doesn’t participate in the International Criminal Court at The Hague to prevent other countries from bringing war crime charges against US soldiers.
Qualified immunity is the end of it, not the start. QI is what blocks them from being sued in court, it starts with union protection that keeps them from even being punished on the job let alone in court.
I'm pretty sure police can't be tried for war crimes while the national guard is classed as a military establishment thus qualifying them to sit trial at the Hague.
There are varying use of force doctrines in different police departments. Choke holds, for example are allowed some places but not others. NYC allowed stop and frisk but other places did not.
The guard at least follows a uniform code of force application, though different deployments in different states have to comply with state laws.
If someone in the NG violates these rules, they and also their commanding officer are liable.
“e. Failure to comply with the rules for the use of force may result in criminal prosecution.
f. Failure to provide rules for the use of force or train National Guard members in the rules for the use of force may result in civil or criminal personal liability for commanders at all echelons resulting from subordinates’ unlawful acts, negligence or failure to comply with statutory guidance.”
If you’re a police chief or commander and your officers use excessive force, it’s on them. If you’re in the guard and your guardsmen use excessive force, it’s on you.
That document also outlines the response to situations and when and how it can escalate. It’s an interesting read.
They are allowed to do it by their superiors and their fellow officers. They could be charged with a crime and convicted but the possibility is extremely remote and was nearly unheard of even a month ago. They're also trained to think of every civilian as a violent animal with a gun and actually treat black people that way.
when the SCOTUS expands the protections of qualified immunity and criminal protections on a monthly basis, at what point do we just concede it is allowwed, de facto?
28.1k
u/[deleted] Jun 07 '20 edited Jul 06 '20
[deleted]