Uhh... dude that was your fault for getting arrested on a weekend. Duh... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remand_(detention) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_commitment are really important subjects for people who want to understand their freedoms. If you are a danger to yourself, others or gravely disabled you may be taken into a hospital and honestly you should be. If you are arrested, you might be held fo…
Well, goddamn me for being "a black male, between 5 and 6 feet."
But the existence of the cameras can solve this problem (assuming that the footage is made available for subpoena). For instance, if this particular officer has a history of having their camera malfunction right before arrests and do so at rates far higher than other officers then this fact could be brought up in court.
The real world just doesn't work that way. Cops are not accountable. We need to take more responsibility for policing our own communities and spend less time demanding that more money is spent on police budgets. These SFPD were whining about how they can't afford to live in SF, but they make as much as I do SPECIFICALLY to address that problem. Police are "State Violence". They exist to encourage the rest of us to fo…
I simply cannot share in your level of pessimism. I believe that if the behavior of the bad actors were visible that it would change. I am not saying that things are not terrible: they may be. But I am saying that things can get better.
You write:
> "[Police] are never, in any precinct, going to be an acceptable institution."
which I think is patently untrue -- there are several precincts where the police as an institution function excellently.
Drunk? I suppose you refer to the 3 drinks they had in the course of 3 hours. And they probably had eaten not long before. Self-entitled asshole… You mean, working in a startup, and tell the policemen when asked what he does for a living? And even if he was a drunk self-entitled asshole? Was he a hindrance ? Was he dangerous in any way? My probability for both is extremely low. And even if he was a real hindrance or…
I (the author) understand the comments above and the reasonable skepticism about my self interest in portraying only one side of the story. I'm not an angel. This was avoidable. I can even understand the police perspective and sympathize with the difficulty of their job. For full transparency, I'm preparing a followup post with all of the assembled documentation, including the police report. And yet, this still shoul…
SFist contacted the SFPD for comment. Spokesman Albie Esparza explains that Partensky was arrested for interfering, resisting arrest, and public intoxication. According to police, he was both drunk and disruptive as police and fire department medical personnel arrived, he was told several times by officers to back up and remove himself. "If someone calls 911," Esparza says, "They are expected only to be a good witness, and to obey anything they're told to do by arriving officers." During Partensky's ensuing detention, one officer sustained an injury when Partensky swung his elbow and struck the officer in the eye. That there probably led to his subsequent poor treatment, though Esparza says he can not comment on what happened while Partensky was in the custody of the Sheriff's Department overnight.
I recently heard the suggestion that police should carry an equivalent of doctors' malpractice insurance; so the same taxpayers that they abuse aren't the ones who ultimately pay to compensate for their abuses. Sounded like a good idea, especially if insurance companies can identify the officers most at risk of doing legally actionable things while on duty.
When insurance is priced correctly, the premiums will roughly match the payouts. The taxpayers will still be paying the premiums. It would introduce some sort of independent oversight, but it seems like a roundabout way of doing it.
> The taxpayers will still be paying the premiums.
If the police pay their own premiums directly, we'll have to raise their salaries; so the taxpayers will still be paying them.
But, there will be an independent entity with a financial interest in identifying officers likely to commit crimes and abuses; instead of a subdepartment of the police itself with conflicted interests. Ideally, abusive police officers will not be able to afford to be police officers.
They have guns. They have the power to end your existence. So yes, they CAN treat people like this. We gave them that power when they were hired and our tax dollars started paying their salary.
Arbitrarily injuring citizens isn't a power we bestowed on them, nor is arbitrarily murdering citizens. What the hell are you saying?
I'm saying that the gun is what gives them power. They shouldn't abuse their power, but it's hard to argue with someone that will end your life if they decide to.
The cemetery is full of brave people. I'd much prefer to live, even if that means taking a little abuse for a few moments.