[maicro]

Not trolling or attacking, but - how would criminals use higher standards of behavior to harass police?

I don't propose to have any magic solutions or great insights, but if there's a proper series of reforms I don't see how that could make them an easier target. As for a "proper series of reforms" - mandatory body cams is on my personal short list (enshrined in law or insurance policies, but with clear and severe repercussions for incidents of not having them on), though better pay (it's harder to bribe someone who isn't having money issues), crisis and mental health training (and yes, establishing other support structures for these issues, rather than relying on police to handle them too), stricter and more streamlined disciplinary action (no more needing national outrage to get a murderer fired and charged, and no union/FOB protection for clear violations of civil rights and this new code of conduct), and whistleblower protection would all be great.

If anything, that would make police _safer_ - there will always be criminals and those who wish to do harm, in general or to those who oppose their illegal activities - but having the entire citizenry at best wary of you, and at worst hostile, does _not_ help. Policing their own and just generally "doing better" would do a lot to increase general support for the police, which would increase cooperation and reduce the chances of radicalizing citizens.

The entire discussion is very complex, and I'm just an idiot on the internet, so take this with a bucket of salt.

Thanks for reading that wall of text; have a good day.

[wccrawford]

Criminals would be looking for infractions to take cops to court with, constantly. Things that are overlooked for normal people (jaywalking) would end up with cops wasting their time in court or even jail.

Keep in mind the parent poster said "absolutely highest impossible standards."

[jjav]

> Things that are overlooked for normal people (jaywalking) would end up with cops wasting their time in court or even jail.

That would actually be a great thing. Not because of the wasted time, but because it'll highlight silly laws that didn't need to exist.

There should not exist laws that get overlooked for normal people (most of the time except when powers that be want to harass them).

The solution is to recognize such laws didn't make any sense to begin with, and remove them. Problem solved, now nobody gets time wasted on nonsense.

[l1tany11]

Laws like that exist because selective enforcement of them provides the police an excuse to stop someone.

[skygazer]

That seems less like an argument against public officials having enhanced scrutiny, and more an argument why they should have no scrutiny at all — because that’s the only defense against such a fanciful attack. That’s the logic that brought us the abomination of qualified immunity.

[Volundr]

> Criminals would be looking for infractions to take cops to court with, constantly. Things that are overlooked for normal people (jaywalking) would end up with cops wasting their time in court or even jail.

Maybe this just isn't a good example, but AFAIK I can't, as a private citizen, do anything about someone jaywalking, speeding, etc. That enforcement is the sole jurisdiction of the cops. So trolling cops with it is not an avenue for criminals.

And I'm hard pressed to see how enforcing these things more stringently against cops is a bad thing. Cops SHOULD be setting the example here.

[maicro]

That's one of the benefits of the body cams - it protects the police from false accusations while it protects the citizens from abuse.

Your point about "absolutely highest impossible standards" is valid, though I'd say that I don't actually support _impossible_ standards. I don't know what the parent poster was thinking, what you're thinking, or what _anyone_ other than me is thinking about what would be "reasonable" standards, but obviously _impossible_ standards are, well, impossible... So yes, the standards would need lots of discussion and work, that I have not put in (and am not qualified for).

As for your general point about harassment...there's a lot.

First, I don't get how your specific example of jaywalking would apply - I don't think that would be something that a random person can take another random person to court over. Ignoring that pedantic note - if the cop jaywalks while not on duty, I don't really care - treat it the same as any other jaywalking incident. If they're on duty - if they're actively pursuing a crime/criminal, or doing something else that justifies the action, fine; if a random citizen reports them, worst case should be that someone (group, really) reviews the body cam footage, and then issues either a "no this was fine" or appropriate punishment - for jaywalking, I hope that wouldn't be more than a strongly worded "try to stick to the sidewalks and crosswalks when in uniform".

In general, the jaywalking example is actually really valuable - laws that are unenforced or unequally enforced leave a huge amount of space for abuse.

So maybe that would be a good start for the standards for the police - enforce the laws that actually already exist. So if a cop, say, walks into somebody's house to update them on their search for someone who was creeping around, and then ends up shooting the person _who called the police there_ in the head, well - sounds a lot like murder, and should be pursued as such. Same for kneeling on someone's neck for, what was it, 8 minutes and 46 seconds while others stand around and watch - sounds a lot like murder and ignoring a murder going on right in front of you (while you have the ability and responsibility as a representative of law enforcement to stop it)...

Alright, that turned into...much more of a rant than I expected, sorry.

Again, thanks for reading, and the civil discussion (not sarcasm). Have a good day all.

[BerislavLopac]

> jaywalking

This should be abolished as something illegal; some countries function perfectly well with much more reasonable laws on that topic.