I've been thinking about that sorry excuse for a lawman

caught on tape committing committing egregious offenses against Good Practice, Good Sense and making terroristic threats.

I've mentioned before that Dad spent a lot of years wearing a badge; I grew up around state, county, city and federal cops(not many federal). The vast majority were good people; some had about as much give as a plank of hickory, but you didn't have to worry about them being honest, or fair. Comparing that to far too many cops today, it's discouraging*. Then something occurred to me: where'd they come from?

Most of these guys were from small towns or medium-size cities originally; places where if a officer behaved badly, most people wouldn't have any problem going to the chief or sheriff or- in the case of OHP- the area troop headquarters and saying something about it. You may be a deputy/officer/trooper and have a job to do, but by God! that didn't give you some privilege to treat people badly! and they WOULD talk to someone about it. Also, they'd grown up being taught that thing called 'manners'; it can be amazing how use of that(apparently mysterious to many) thing can calm things down.

I have to wonder if some of the current problems are a combination of training problems("You will Take Charge of the situation, even if you have to be an asshole to do it!"), attitude problems when they come into the academy and maybe not having grown up with that smaller-town attitude?

I once had a roaring argument with a guy about some of what I saw as idiocies in OHP training; close order drill, military-type crap. He insisted that this stuff was 'necessary to teach discipline', etc. I said it was time-wasting crap: these guys are going to spend the majority of their time working traffic, working accidents, dealing with local citizens and occasionally taking part in a manhunt and such, and the time wasted on marching drill could be much better spent on driving or shooting or first-aid or 'how to actually get along with people' training. Neither of us gave an inch, and I still think marching drill for a Highway Patrol officer is a bloody waste of time. Any other officer, for that matter. Why are you spending time on military-type unit training for people who have to be able to work by themselves most of the time? If they go onto the tac team later on, they'll train as a team; unless/until then, marching drill? And do you really want your cops thinking in military terms? I don't; that's not supposed to be their damned job, and things tend to get messed up when they think it is.

I fully appreciate that, when you walk into a mess, you have to get in control of it; when your attitude takes a mildly troublesome situation and turns it into a real confrontation with you, you've just created a bigger problem for yourself than previously existed, AND caused everyone witnessing to have thoughts of "Why did he have to act like that? These cops are nasty!" Which causes problems down the road for everyone else with a badge. Witness the mess in the video; that guy took what should have been, at most, a "Sir, could I see your license?"-type contact and turned it into a real mess. That- hopefully- will cost him his job, and ought to at least get his partner a new anal orifice reamed without benefit of anesthetic for just standing there and doing nothing to get things under control, or keep them from getting that bad in the first place.

Just some thoughts on the matter.

Just ran across this on the current situation: the city tried to play "We'll let you off if you promise not to sue us" and got the proper response. Plus Mr. Hardy has a thought that's really interesting, that the city may have stuck its collective organ in a pencil sharpener by the offer:
1. I'd think they would have skipped that offer, since it sounds uncommonly like extortion to me. We will drop criminal charges if you give us something of monetary value....(does sound that way, doesn't it?)

2. In a §1983 claim, the person who violated rights is of course liable. The problem is always with proving liability of the City or other governmental unit. The ordinary respondeat superior (the principal is liable for the acts of his agent) doesn't apply, you have to show that the city itself did something that makes it liable. This usually takes the form of arguing insufficient training, or an extensive list of violations so long that violating a right becomes unwritten policy. (And the loss rate here is high). Or ratification -- the city did something that retroactively endorsed the violation, essentially. If you give your agent a bonus for his illegal acts, or a commendation, then you become liable for them.

I wonder if the city's plea offer isn't ratification of the violation. The arrest was the officer's problem, but the prosecution is theirs. They demand something of value from the victim -- specifically, a release from liability for the officer and the city -- as a price for their dismissing. The principal has used its power in order to protect its agent from liability for wrongdoing.


*When you've sat in a car with four or five long-service officers, 15 or 20 or 25 years, and listened to them talk about the attitude problems of the younger officers, it makes an impression.