Police Officer Who Threatened to Arrest Seattle Newspaper Editor Fired

[lukitas]

Much as I can appreciate the admiration and respect shown to the police by some here, I am getting a little irritated by the 'it's only a few bad apples' argument. It is an empty argument : bad apples are all over the place, we should deal with that structurally, not as a problem of personal morals (or lack of them).
The same thing happened with the banking crisis : we got told it was only a problem of a few greedy idiots, now look how honest and altruistic banks have become…

I work with coppers a lot, professionally, most of them are nice guys with an acute sense of justice. But being a nice guy doesn't suffice in a job where one is often required to be judge, jury and executioner at the same time. It is nearly impossible to be consistently just in your dealings with people, if you have to wear all three hats.
We can expect people to be lacking in morals - we shouldn't give them a chance to act upon that lack.

On a side note, interesting to note the difference of tone in naming the function of police.
Over here, we call them 'Officers of Justice'. On the other side of the pond, you call them 'Law Enforcement Officers'. One would suspect a bias towards Force rather than Justice.

lukitas

 

[-doomed-]

thats why they are making laws now that make it illegal to record police.

Have you any examples to support this?
Most cursory searches turn up results from 2010 and it seems that those laws may not pass the test or were the misapplication of other laws.

The Digital Media Law Project cites to a number of cases.

I'm certain any law making it illegal to record the police would be met with more than a small amount of resistance. Namely on the grounds that it is wildly unconstitutional and a violation of the First Amendment.

On your question of what is the legal definition of a Journalist, that is potentially a gray area as it is becoming harder to define who is and is not a journalist. (Hoping to score a $15k settlement from the cops if you can make your case is likely to run you most of the settlement (litigation aint cheap). It's probably better if you're a working journalist for an actual outlet and have some level of identification, though a battery claim against the police may work).

A case cited in the above link protected a Trenton documentarian (which could be likened to a journalist under the circumstances).

This blog also supplies some backstory on Ramos' case.

If you'd like to read the brief related to Ramos' case click here
The brief is linked at the end of the article.

This 2010 Gizmodo piece offers some examples, though it appears in most of those cases rest on wiretap law violations.

 

[Mr_Toad]

On a side note, interesting to note the difference of tone in naming the function of police.
Over here, we call them 'Officers of Justice'. On the other side of the pond, you call them 'Law Enforcement Officers'. One would suspect a bias towards Force rather than Justice.

lukitas

..you left out "po-po's".

PO-PO - A Police officer. especially the ones that rides on bikes.
Origin: California late 80's ; police officers that patrol certain beaches on bikes wore a vest that said PO in huge blockletters on each of their chest. which means Police Officer. they usually ride around in group of two's. when you see them coming by. you see the word "PO" "PO" when they stand next to each other.

"Man.. here comes the Po-Po to tell us what to do again."

.

 

[Doug]

Sorry for misunderstanding, Zuiko, I had been put into the other interpretation by something said by 68Degrees earlier.

Thanks for the origin of Po-Po, Mr Toad, I had wondered! Another term used in the US is "Peace Officer".

 

[Roger Hicks]

Merely fired? What's wrong with heads on spikes?

I've known a lot of good coppers. Often, they're even more pissed off than the general public with the minority of arrogant, stupid bar stewards who make the life of a good cop difficult.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Over here, we call them 'Officers of Justice'. On the other side of the pond, you call them 'Law Enforcement Officers'. One would suspect a bias towards Force rather than Justice.

That's really reaching since it is only a matter semantics what one group calls law enforcement, while the officers of justice do exactly the same thing.

It's really bothersome how America is vilified on nearly every account by every other country in the world while looking at those finger-waggers would show that there is just as much social defecit in their respective countries, albeit in other issues usually.
There is no perfect place to live so we all have to make due where we are and try to make it a better place for ourselves, our neighbors, our guests and future generations.

Phil Forrest

 

[Turtle]

Like Roger, I have had generally good interactions with the British Police. At times they have seriously impressed me, but there are always those that give them a bad name. At least there, I do not feel that the problem is widespread, but restricted to a small minority.

I also think that what Lukitas has raised is a point of subtle yet staggering importance. There is a real difference in how certain interactions are dealt with on the two sides of the pond. Not always, but a lot of the time there is and I know which I feel more comfortable with. One cannot say whether terminology is the cause, or the culture behind it (or even which gave rise to the other), but having spent a lot of time in both the US and the UK, I have not infrequently found myself deeply concerned by interactions noted in the former. Similar differences can be observed in the general relationships the two populaces have with governmental authority, whether its with and within the military, in the corrections environment, or crossing borders and dealing with immigration. The two cultures are quite distinct.

I like the idea of policing and justice much more than enforcement. 'Policing' and 'justice' somehow belong more closely to the people. Enforcement is something the people are made to do an which can seem quite disconnected from the fact that at some point in history the people were the architects of those laws. The relationship and the balance of accountability feels somewhat reversed. While seemingly a matter of semantics, I feel its a mistake to underestimate the importance of such differences.

Much as I can appreciate the admiration and respect shown to the police by some here, I am getting a little irritated by the 'it's only a few bad apples' argument. It is an empty argument : bad apples are all over the place, we should deal with that structurally, not as a problem of personal morals (or lack of them).
The same thing happened with the banking crisis : we got told it was only a problem of a few greedy idiots, now look how honest and altruistic banks have become…

I work with coppers a lot, professionally, most of them are nice guys with an acute sense of justice. But being a nice guy doesn't suffice in a job where one is often required to be judge, jury and executioner at the same time. It is nearly impossible to be consistently just in your dealings with people, if you have to wear all three hats.
We can expect people to be lacking in morals - we shouldn't give them a chance to act upon that lack.

On a side note, interesting to note the difference of tone in naming the function of police.
Over here, we call them 'Officers of Justice'. On the other side of the pond, you call them 'Law Enforcement Officers'. One would suspect a bias towards Force rather than Justice.

lukitas

 

[Turtle]

Phil,

I completely agree that there there is no perfect place to life, but its only natural for people to comment on their own values. I think most Europeans are happy to give up certain rights (like the right to bear arms) for the benefits they bring (reduced gun crime, smaller prison population etc), but I can understand why some view things differently. I don't agree, but I can see it.

However, there is another aspect to this that I say not as a deliberately hurtful criticism, but as a personal observation and its this: the US can be highly resistant to the notion that other countries are doing things better than they are (the US is the world's only superpower, after all). I say this as someone who has worked hand in glove with European, British and American law enforcement, military and justice personnel for the last decade. I also say this as someone who works with a majority American staff, many of whom I respect greatly. There is fairly pervasive and entrenched belief that the US's way of doing things is inherently the gold standard and it can take being embedded in foreign environments for a period of time for these assumptions to break down.

I've worked with a raft of US citizens who have worked with foreign armies, with law enforcement or corrections personnel who argued vigorously that everything I have typed thus far is untrue and just a nasty, envious attack on US culture (most had travelled little, or not at all).... and who left two years later having undergone a complete reversal, freely acknowledging their formerly entrenched views. Many have been quite unhappy about returning to US institutions, because they were worried about being forced to think and act within very much narrower parameters, the validity of which they now question. Its not brainwashing, its exposure and any people that travels outside its borders relatively little is vulnerable.

The US is an enormous, enormously powerful, but still surprisingly isolated 'core culture' and I think quite a few citizens of the world are used to higher degrees of mobility and cross pollination when it comes to cultural/societal ideas. This causes frustration with the US and the criticisms you speak of, but I don't think its due to ignorance of the fact that the US is trying just as hard as they are. Sometimes its a product of just having experienced many more ways of skinning the cat and an irritation at inflexible dogma. The British were little different 150 years ago*, but Britain was also a maritime empire, relatively tiny and more exposed to a wide variety of developed cultures, which it had to understand and manipulate to succeed. Since the collapse of the empire, Britain has had to learn and assimilate more still in its struggle to maintain any semblance of world position. As a result, the arrogant shine has in the main been well and truly knocked off. For empires, a degree of cultural arrogance and the criticism it generates, would appear to come with the territory.

I understand that the above will still upset some people, but that was not the intention. It just my perception and of course may be utter twaddle.

* The book, 'The Siege of Kirshnappur' is a wonderful and very funny satire on this very subject, set during the Indian mutinies.

That's really reaching since it is only a matter semantics what one group calls law enforcement, while the officers of justice do exactly the same thing.

It's really bothersome how America is vilified on nearly every account by every other country in the world while looking at those finger-waggers would show that there is just as much social defecit in their respective countries, albeit in other issues usually.
There is no perfect place to live so we all have to make due where we are and try to make it a better place for ourselves, our neighbors, our guests and future generations.

Phil Forrest

 

[Ranchu]

The thing is, the good apples can't or won't do anything to stop the bad apples.

 

[pakeha]

That's really reaching since it is only a matter semantics what one group calls law enforcement, while the officers of justice do exactly the same thing.

It's really bothersome how America is vilified on nearly every account by every other country in the world while looking at those finger-waggers would show that there is just as much social defecit in their respective countries, albeit in other issues usually.
There is no perfect place to live so we all have to make due where we are and try to make it a better place for ourselves, our neighbors, our guests and future generations.

Phil Forrest

No, it is not a matter of semantics, it is a matter of culture.
And the reason for the vilification [ which is too stronger a word, criticism perhaps is more apt] is because many of us live under political systems that are far too easily mimicked by what goes on in the U.S.A. It is simply a reaction of concern.
Last sentence is gold.

 

[MrFujicaman]

Okay..this officer had 120 complaints and 21 sustained ones ? This guy should have been fired for cause years ago.

The problem is that we have way too many cops who because cops just because they could then bully people. You know them..they were the same guys who were bullys in high school-and they saw police work as a way to keep on doing it.

I have to give the Sheriff credit for just firing this guy. But, it should of happened sooner.

 

[Doug]

Bullies should not be hired as police officers, and there are mechanisms to detect problem recruits... which are subject to interpretation in the hiring process.

When I joined, I had to take an evaluation test called the MMPI, or Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. I think most other departments have done the same with this or some similar test.

Of course the new officers may be full of idealism, and turn bad later on, or perhaps not properly evaluated at the start.

 

[Ranchu]

Bullies should not be hired as police officers, and there are mechanisms to detect problem recruits... which are subject to interpretation in the hiring process.

When I joined, I had to take an evaluation test called the MMPI, or Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. I think most other departments have done the same with this or some similar test.

Of course the new officers may be full of idealism, and turn bad later on, or perhaps not properly evaluated at the start.

Or it could be that the police departments want people to be afraid of police, and **** cops like that guy help that cause, making the job easier for the lil boys from the suburbs (check out the tough guy too partner) destined for cushy administrative or police union jobs. Huh?