[HN Gopher] L.A. County sheriff's unit accused of targeting poli...
___________________________________________________________________
L.A. County sheriff's unit accused of targeting political enemies,
vocal critics
Author : scotuswroteus
Score : 204 points
Date : 2021-09-24 16:22 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.latimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.latimes.com)
| exabrial wrote:
| They are also in constant violation of the equal protection
| clause. It's well known that celebrities get ripe treatment and
| free services. It's also common practice for the dept to issue
| concealed-carry permits to celebrities but not common people.
| jjwiseman wrote:
| Using their own techniques against them, a group of journalists
| created a LASD gang affiliation database:
| https://lasdgangs.knock-la.com
|
| For more information see http://lasdgangs.com/
| x86_64Ubuntu wrote:
| This is A LOT of research, and none of it surprises me. One
| thing that I'm not a fan of is that they are using imagery and
| slang associated with criminals, while operating with the
| legitimacy of the state. It comes across as someone who wanted
| to live a life of crime, without criminal consequences.
| ncmncm wrote:
| The police are just the biggest gang. They operate like
| criminal gangs because they recognize that way works.
|
| The only thing that does any good is independent civilian
| oversight, with teeth. Bodycams and dashcams required, with
| recordings held by the oversight board, and dismissal for
| turning them off.
|
| Disarming them while on patrol would be a useful intermediate
| step toward defunding.
| tclancy wrote:
| It's nice to know that in an ever-changing world, one thing I
| have always been able to rely on in my 45 years on the planet is
| the overwhelming shittiness of LA law enforcement. Daryl Gates
| would be proud. This is straight out of "LA Confidential" with
| the gangs within gangs within the sherriff's department.
| openasocket wrote:
| I've thought about this a lot, and have some thoughts about what
| we need to achieve police reform in the US
|
| 1. Re-organizing police departments into a hierarchy. Currently
| we have a bunch of different districts with their own regulations
| and leadership. In some the police chief is appointed by the
| mayor, in others there's the sheriff system where the law
| enforcement leader is elected. But I don't think local elections
| are a sufficient check on power, same for appointments my mayors.
| Departments need to be re-organized under a hierarchy, with
| police departments of individual districts reporting to a
| regional police department (which can be on county lines or some
| other organizational system, though this level could be skipped
| for less populated states) which in turn reports to a state-wide
| police department. While there are state-wide police
| organizations now (AKA state troopers) with responsibilities
| broken up by jurisdiction (i.e. only state troopers enforcing
| traffic laws on state highways) there isn't an actual hierarchy
| of command. Setting this up will actually make things more
| efficient, because you can better pool resources, but the main
| benefit is that it makes it easier to regulate police conduct
| across the entire state. Currently each police department has
| their own regulations. It also opens the door to creating more
| centralized internal affairs divisions and prosecution, so that
| the local district attorney who works with the police department
| every day isn't the one deciding what police misconduct cases to
| prosecute.
|
| 2. We should establish an accrediting body for police
| departments, made up of legal experts, law enforcement
| professionals, and others. This body should determine and publish
| best practices (for use of force standards, training,
| organization, etc), and be able to review and certify
| departments. Then states and the federal government can require
| that police departments be certified by this agency in order to
| receive funding. Public outrage doesn't seem to be doing much to
| compel changes in behavior, lets see if the threat of denied
| funding and re-possessing military surplus hardware will do it
| (fun fact: the program by which most police departments get
| surplus military gear is structured so that the department
| doesn't actually own the equipment, and the federal government
| has the power to rep-possess it if they see fit).
|
| 3. Establishing federal and state resources to actively audit
| police conduct, investigate corruption, and prosecute cases. This
| should actually be expanded to all local governing bodies,
| because there is plenty of corruption in small local governments
| that goes unnoticed, but there should be a specific focus on
| police abuses.
| mindslight wrote:
| 0. Eliminate police unions, period. A group entrusted with
| upholding the law through sanctioned violence must not be
| allowed to have any other command structure. When a factory's
| union goes against management, the factory shuts down. When a
| police union goes against their management, we get the police
| riots of 2020.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Police unions are some of the most representative unions we
| have. The police are small-minded sadistic racists, and that
| is reflected in their union.
|
| The way to improve the police is to improve the set of laws
| they are called on to enforce, and to strengthen the
| limitations on their behavior (and to dress them like mailmen
| again rather than soldiers.) If the police aren't called on
| to act unethically/cruelly as a _duty_ , better people will
| become police, and the ones who thrived on being bullies will
| quit.
| mindslight wrote:
| Different avenues of reform are not mutually exclusive.
| Yes, better people and removing the mandate to act like
| Rambo would make the police better. But simultaneously the
| bullies occupy the positions of power within the union, and
| they aren't going to leave quietly. We've seen plenty
| examples of good cops who have turned in their coworkers
| (ie actually doing their job) and have been consequently
| forced out despite union "protection".
|
| The problem is that a police union can define policy that
| is extralegal, but carries more weight than what is legal,
| since they're the ones tasked with actually enforcing the
| laws. You haven't really addressed that.
|
| I know unions are in a sad state in this country and I
| agree that isn't a good thing. But police having a monopoly
| on violence makes their union into a completely different
| beast.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| > When a police union goes against their management, we get
| the police riots of 2020.
|
| Or we get that time that the Baltimore (I'm like 90% sure it
| was Baltimore) PD stopped enforcing everything that wasn't an
| obvious danger to the public. The only two groups who didn't
| like that were the government who was missing out on revenue
| and upper middle class types who were really pissed off that
| people were riding unregistered dirt bikes on the street. It
| was kind of a nice break for the common man.
| mindslight wrote:
| Sure, a parallel command structure may make a good decision
| while the nominal command structure is corrupt. But I'd
| still say it's better to focus on the problem with the
| nominal command structure (eg why is the bike registration
| bureaucracy so overbearing) than to hope that the parallel
| structure will choose public benevolence when protesting
| their own issue.
|
| Furthermore I'd say that more often than not, a parallel
| structure for the police is going to choose actions that
| are _not_ in the public interest. Hence how you 're
| remembering this singular example of some temporary mostly
| harmless anarchy.
| scotuswroteus wrote:
| You're suggesting that some totalizing entity can ensure that
| this total reorg happens without any influence by the current
| sources perpetuating the status quo. The article reflects a
| level of sophistication in coopting reform efforts most
| moderates aren't capable of accounting for:
|
| >"The unit, named the Civil Rights and Public Integrity Detail,
| has pursued a long-running investigation into one of
| Villanueva's most vocal critics"
|
| >"The idea for the team was rooted in Villanueva's upstart
| campaign for sheriff in 2018. While trying to persuade liberal
| voters he would be a progressive reformer, he also vowed to
| address what he said was widespread corruption among the
| department's senior ranks that led to deputies being unfairly
| disciplined."
|
| >"After taking office, Villanueva took steps to make good on
| his campaign promise, including hiring back deputies who he
| said had been wrongly fired."
| openasocket wrote:
| In this case you have a unit which reports directly to the
| sheriff, who in turn answers to no authority besides the
| voters. And the people (and journalists) have a very limited
| ability to audit the inner workings of a police department.
| With the reforms I mentioned we're adding additional,
| independent forms of oversight. A regional police
| administration could be required by law to randomly audit and
| publish reports on the activities of a local department, and
| an accreditation board can require their own audits.
|
| Most importantly, is tying accreditation to funding. Officers
| will report corruption if that corruption could lead to de-
| crediting, which in turns means layoffs, pay cuts, and
| reduced equipment. It will even change the incentives for
| police unions. When police misconduct has the potential to
| cut into the bottom line of officers, it is in the best
| interests of unions to also help minimize misconduct. And
| collective bargaining agreements are with the police
| departments, not with the accrediting body, meaning unions
| would have limited influence over certification standards.
|
| Absolutely these sorts of solutions are not a panacea, and
| there is still plenty of room for things to go wrong.
| Corruption at the higher echelons of state-wide authorities
| would have more impact due to this centralization of
| authority. The accrediting body has to walk a fine line: it
| needs to be seen as a body of peers by police officers (in
| the same way lawyers view the BAR association) while at the
| same time enforcing best practices and leading reforms.
| There's a balancing act there that has to be done right. And
| even with all of this corruption can still happen, but it
| might re-align incentives and work to reduce some of the
| serious issues we see with America's police forces.
| scotuswroteus wrote:
| I'm saying that in attempting to control the reorg you're
| proposing, its adherents would fail and not achieve the
| described reorg. Perhaps a reorg would happen, but there is
| no way to achieve the hermetically sealed version of a
| reorg that would need to happen to achieve what you're
| describing.
| pessimizer wrote:
| This is not enough civilian oversight for me. I don't want the
| governor controlling the entire state's police force like a
| personal army.
| openasocket wrote:
| The state governors already have a personal army in the
| national guard ;)
|
| But yes, I didn't flesh out some of the details on how to add
| civilian oversight. I think you could model it roughly around
| the federal Justice Department. You would have a head law
| enforcement official, appointed by the governor and approved
| by the state legislature, perhaps serving a longer term than
| the governor so that the position isn't nearly as tied to the
| administration. And then a head of a state "Justice
| department" of sorts (a broader agency covering the state law
| enforcement agency, the department of corrections, and some
| additional sub-organizations like state capitol security, a
| state-wide internal affairs office, etc.) which is also
| appointed by the governor and approved by the state
| legislature. This justice department head would then act as a
| buffer between the governor and day-to-day law enforcement
| activities. The idea would be to limit state-level control of
| law enforcement to regulatory changes (either advanced by the
| governor in a limited capacity, and the state legislature
| more broadly) and not individual investigations. But, as we
| saw in the Trump administration, this separation isn't
| exactly ironclad, and depends a lot on politicians and
| officials obeying certain cultural norms and standards. When
| you're creating a brand new organization and system from
| scratch at the state level, you won't have those ingrained
| cultural norms. Another options would be making law
| enforcement an independent agency headed up by a council.
| This would work in a similar way to the FEC, the FTC, the
| FCC, or the Federal Reserve. Leadership is made up by a group
| of board members who serve either for life or some long time
| period. Vacancies are filled by governor appointment, but
| subject to state legislature approval. Because the governor
| can't fire council members (excluding perhaps special
| circumstances, but that's beyond the scope of this post), and
| can only appoint new ones with the cooperation of the state
| legislature, this provides a significant degree of insulation
| from governor and legislative control.
|
| The accrediting body also provides a significant degree of
| oversight in a different manner. This body would function
| like the state bar associations, meaning they would be
| completely independent from the government. This means the
| people have essentially no democratic control over them,
| except for the extreme step of repealing the law requiring
| state funds go only to departments accredited by that
| association. So you would have to be very careful going about
| setting up such an organization, and make sure it is
| organized internally to continue to function well. And of
| course, by definition this wouldn't really count as "civilian
| oversight", since the association would be completely
| independent and made up at least partially of law enforcement
| professionals, but would very much protect against the
| "governor using the police as a personal army" scenario.
| danhak wrote:
| Back in 2018 I got into a serious car accident. I was driving
| eastbound on Fountain Avenue when another car blew a red light
| and t-boned my Miata at full speed, crushing my entire driver's
| side, causing my car to spin 540 degrees, take out a stop sign
| and land on the front lawn of a nearby apartment building.
|
| I got out of my car, dazed amid a cloud of air bag dust and
| miraculously unscathed. I was wearing my seat belt and had my
| convertible top and windows all the way down. I otherwise would
| surely have ended up with a face full of glass.
|
| The other driver -- about a block away -- also got out of their
| car. They took a glance at me, got back into their car and sped
| off. Their car had no plates.
|
| I called 911 and Deputy Penate of the L.A. County Sheriff's
| Department arrived on the scene. His attitude toward me was
| immediately hostile.
|
| I was in a completely traumatized state and had just experienced
| the scariest moment of my life. As I was on the phone trying to
| arrange a tow, he approached me and said: "Do you think we could
| hurry this up? I'd really like to have some dinner tonight."
|
| A few minutes later as we were waiting for the tow truck, he got
| out of his patrol car and approached me again, making sniffing
| noises: "Why do I smell marijuana right now, sir? If I search
| your car am I'm gonna find anything I'm not supposed to find?"
|
| I don't smoke marijuana. There was no contraband in my car, which
| had been laying totaled on the side of the road with its top down
| for an hour.
|
| I had just been the victim of a serious crime and here was this
| law enforcement officer, trying to turn me into a criminal
| instead of assisting me in any way.
|
| That experience was a serious blow to my faith in law
| enforcement.
| traloid wrote:
| It was their friend obviously.
| mlang23 wrote:
| Why do I have to think about the desert scene in "Fear and
| Loathing"?
| asdff wrote:
| This sort of scene happens all the time. The police pulled
| over my brother in a car full of other young people. That was
| enough to give him probable cause to search the car, which in
| practice meant taking all their belongings and throwing them
| blithely along the shoulder of the interstate.
| jimt1234 wrote:
| I once got rear-ended by a young-ish driver. She was
| respectful, admitted fault, apologized. Then, the police showed
| up. At first they were decent, just doing their jobs. Then,
| almost instantly, their tone changed. Same thing - told me they
| smelled marijuana (I never smoked weed in my life). Then it
| turned into an inquisition: _" You told me you're going home,
| which is south, but why are you headed north right now?" "I'm
| going to my parents' home, which is north of here." "Sounds
| like you're story keeps changing."_ One cop said something
| like, _" Are you a mama's boy? Gotta go see mommy?"_, which was
| weird, but that's how the tone was now.
|
| Anyway, as I was getting hammered with questions and
| accusations, I noticed the young-ish driver getting into the
| back of the second police car. Then, they drove away. I thought
| they found drugs or something.
|
| Turns out the young-ish driver was the daughter of the chief of
| police. I spent the next month or so getting harassed by a
| local prosecutor (the cops smelled marijuana! back in the
| early-90s, weed was a big crime.). He said the police were
| "investigating" and he was deciding whether or not to bring the
| case. Furthermore, my own insurance agent told me I should
| probably drop my claim because the young-ish driver's insurance
| company would fight it ("it's complicated because it was dark
| at the time."), and it would just take a long time so it
| probably wasn't worth it.
|
| In the end, I submitted the insurance claim, received peanuts
| (not even enough to fix my car) and dropped State Farm. I
| didn't care too much because I knew I was leaving town
| (Modesto, CA). And I've never gone back.
| x86_64Ubuntu wrote:
| Seems like the person that hit you knew not to stick around for
| a police presence, especially if their vehicle was still
| mobile.
| thinkcontext wrote:
| I recall reading an article written by a former cop who said
| 20% of cops are excellent people and 20% are really horrible
| people. The remaining 60% are doing a job and will be
| approximately average most of the time but depending on the day
| or the culture of their department or other circumstances could
| be a hero or a villain.
|
| I realize its an oversimplification on many levels but I find
| it useful sometimes in trying to think about cops as people,
| something which often gets lost.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| Didn't that just (roughly) describe a bell curve? And isn't
| 20% of cops being horrible people way too much? Less than one
| standard deviation away from the norm and you're already in
| "make up fake drugs charges" territory?
| jaccarmac wrote:
| Did the article talk about what the 60% do about the 20% who
| are horrible? This is the question that tends to be avoided
| in discussions that take this line or similar ones. If those
| numbers are accurate, the majority of average cops outnumber
| the horrible ones 3:1 and also have the 20% of excellent cops
| to refer to as examples. I think that's a more useful framing
| than one which positions the majority of cops as victims of
| "the day or the culture of their department or other
| circumstances".
| awillen wrote:
| Not LA County, but SFPD - I was hit by a car that ran a red
| while out for a run. Hard enough to knock me down but not break
| anything. I managed to remember half the guy's license plate
| before he drove away, so I called SFPD. An hour later two
| officers showed up to my house and took a report. They said
| someone would follow up. No one ever did.
|
| A couple of weeks later there was a report of a hit and run on
| an SFPD officer. Very similar circumstances - he was not in
| uniform, he just happened to be a police officer who was hit by
| an inattentive driver. Hard enough to knock him down but not
| break anything. They caught the guy within a couple of hours.
|
| Cops care about cops. If they can protect the citizens that
| they're supposed to, that's a nice little bonus, but given the
| choice between protecting other cops vs. non-cops, they'll
| always choose other cops.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| That's a bizarre conclusion. Do you not believe in the
| efficacy of technology like video cameras? In the second case
| you mentioned it's easy to imagine they got a full recording
| of the event and thus had more to work with than half a
| license plate number.
| nickff wrote:
| Where in the parent's comment did you get the idea that:
|
| > _" In the second case you mentioned it's easy to imagine
| they got a full recording of the event and thus had more to
| work with than half a license plate number."_
|
| It seems like you're deliberately imagining circumstances
| favorable to the police.
| maybelsyrup wrote:
| I'm glad you shared this, thanks. Keep sharing it!
|
| They're terrified of losing their blank check to behave this
| way. The more that people suspect that police are extremely
| dangerous and stop giving them the benefit of the doubt, the
| more chance we have of changing how they operate.
|
| When I moved to the US, a friend's dad, a high-powered attorney
| (and former prosecutor) in our region, told a group of us:
| "don't ever talk to a police officer unless you absolutely have
| to. They can make your life hell for any reason they want, or
| no reason, and they'll always get away with it."
|
| Coming from a country where the cops were much, much less
| violent and much more trusted, this was shocking to me. But
| that was a long time ago now and I can't honestly say the
| advice has served me poorly.
| erispoe wrote:
| This is indeed the best advice: do not talk to the police. It
| can never help and you are likely to incriminate yourself
| even if you are innocent.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
| geofft wrote:
| Not that I disagree with this advice, but what are you
| supposed to do if you're the victim of a crime (e.g., like
| the comment at the top of the thread, another driver
| crashed into your car)?
|
| Is the answer that the best thing to do is to let it go -
| and, in turn, to let go of any possible insurance payout
| that depends on you filing a police report?
| [deleted]
| ProjectArcturis wrote:
| Lawyers always give this advice, because by the time a case
| gets to a defense attorney, the defendant's statements to
| police can only be a negative. But in the case of a minor
| traffic stop, you can often avoid a ticket by being polite
| and apologizing. Or, stated conversely, you can turn a
| planned warning into a ticket by being a jerk or totally
| non-cooperative. (Caveat: I am a white dude. This may not
| work for all races and genders.)
| 93po wrote:
| I'd rather accept the higher likelihood of a ticket and
| preserve my rights than have to kiss ass just to be given
| decent treatment as a human being. Fuck the police and
| fuck talking to them. Also white male with plenty of
| money for lawyers.
| wayoutthere wrote:
| This happens in every police department in the country. Who
| polices the police? They have a complete lack of accountability
| either codified into law or labor contracts -- why would they
| _not_ do this to anyone who pledges to hold them accountable?
| glenda wrote:
| There are also ongoing investigations into gangs within the LA
| Sheriff department and a fraud lawsuit coming from the City of
| Compton against the sheriffs. LASD might be one of the most
| corrupt police departments in the country.
| fedreserved wrote:
| Chaos by tom O'Neil (about the Manson murders) does an excellent
| job of showing the corruption in la law enforcement and their
| ties to the federal intelligence agencies. He also did a podcast
| with Joe Rogan, which is how I discovered his book, and is well
| worth listening to. He found that the prosecutor in the Manson
| trial subjourned perjury, mansons ties to mk ultra, and quite a
| few other rabbits down the hole
|
| https://youtu.be/r1hv5P4SwbU
|
| Snippet of interview with Rogan
| comeonseriously wrote:
| I'm of the opinion that if, when things like this happen, the
| house isn't cleaned, it will only embolden others to do this.
| pcbro141 wrote:
| LA Sheriff's also have a gang called 'The Executioners' and
| several other gangs operating in the force.
|
| Cops are held to a very low standard, especially for people who
| we place so much trust in. I would get fired for starting a gang
| at my job called 'The Executioners'.
|
| https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/police-gan...
|
| https://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/morning-brief-sheriffs-d...
| jeffbee wrote:
| Cops can't get fired for anything short of shooting a child in
| the back on live TV and, sometimes, not even for that.
| California sheriffs are elected and can't be fired at all. The
| Alameda County (where I live) sheriff is a closet white
| supremacist in an organization where most of the deputies drive
| jacked up monster trucks with punisher stickers in the windows,
| in a county that votes 85-to-15 for Democrats. Sheriffs and
| their deputies are self-selecting exurban white men with
| tendencies toward AM radio, conspiracy forums, and horse paste.
| tengbretson wrote:
| That's really unfortunate. They sound like they might be the
| sort that make individual judgments based on group
| stereotypes.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| Sounds like the person who posted that story would fit
| right in with them.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Democrats demand the same results of their cops as
| Republicans do, they just can't stomach the process (which is
| a common cop critique of liberals.)
|
| Relying on cops to fix a broken society is as bad as relying
| on teachers to fix a broken society. You end up with a bunch
| of sadists as cops, and a bunch of martyrs as teachers.
|
| You actually have to change something, you can't just let the
| status quo continue and expect a different result.
| x86_64Ubuntu wrote:
| But Dems don't demand the same results of cops as
| Republicans. There simply isn't any room for "both sides"
| logic in this instance. Only one side even entertains
| demilitarizing police forces, curtailing Civil Forefeiture,
| dismantling police immunity, legalizing recreational drugs
| and redirecting police funds to social services so that
| police don't have to get involved in the first place.
|
| There is a reason that Punisher stickers, and Thin Blue
| Line imagery exist in law enforcement and Republican
| communities.
| Covzire wrote:
| Get your Democratic majority to put forth a clean bill
| ending Civil Forefeiture and it'll pass easily. Other
| than one highway patrolman I know, nobody I know of
| supports that evil law.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Such as this civil forfeiture reform that passed
| unanimously in 2016?
|
| https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.x
| htm...
|
| Sometimes it feels like people online are arguing about
| some imaginary California.
| geofft wrote:
| "Democrats" is a broad term. That's possibly true of
| "centrist" / "moderate" DINOs, but if you look at, say,
| folks who set up the CHOP in Seattle (who might not proudly
| call themselves Democrats, but are far more likely to vote
| for a Democrat than a Republican), they very clearly did
| not want the cops to so much as investigate an actual
| murder.
|
| I think most people realize that if they call for less
| policing, they're calling for less policing, and they
| really do mean what they're asking for.
|
| (To be clear, I'm speaking about my own beliefs here: I
| think there should be less policing, and I fully realize
| that means less investigation of murders. You cannot give
| up essential liberty for temporary security.)
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| If the county votes 85-15 Democrat, and the sheriff is
| elected, then... why does that area elect a sheriff like the
| one you're describing?
| rdtwo wrote:
| Because it's like running against Putin in an election or
| the leader of MS13
| asdff wrote:
| Because they lie and uninformed voters believe them.
| Villanueva in LA county painted himself as some progressive
| champion against all this and once he got voted in he took
| off the costume and now stuff like this happens:
|
| "Sheriff Alex Villanueva met with the Inspector General
| Tuesday to discuss deputy gangs in the department but the
| meeting abruptly ended when the sheriff's lawyer advised
| him not to take an oath to tell the truth"
|
| https://twitter.com/katecagle/status/1437242733068898308?s=
| 2...
| jdavis703 wrote:
| Because the sheriff runs unopposed because only
| credentialed LEOs can run for sheriff in CA. And then the
| sheriffs have a habit of resigning in office and appointing
| an heir (i.e. incumbent). Our upcoming election in 2022 is
| the first competitive election in about 50 years.
|
| And if you look at the vote totals, most people under vote
| on the sheriffs office (i.e. people just leave it blank or
| write in dumb stuff like "deez nutz.")
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| So? In a county that votes 85% Democrat, there are _no_
| credentialed LEOs who are Democrats who want to run for
| sheriff? If not, why not?
| jeffbee wrote:
| Because if you run against literally your own boss in the
| primary election and lose, then your life will be sad.
| It's a bad system that requires reform at the state
| level.
| jdavis703 wrote:
| I don't want to get in to conspiracy theories. But
| imagine you're a good cop with a nice life and a happy
| family. Do you put it all on the line to run against an
| entrenched incumbent? What kinds of dirty "tricks" might
| you be worried about?
| SamoyedFurFluff wrote:
| Good cops don't stay cops. They're usually either pushed
| out or die under unusual circumstances.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| And up here in Washington... if you are a LEO and run
| against your sheriff, you likely find yourself fired and
| suing for unfair dismissal.
| jdavis703 wrote:
| Not sure why this is getting downvoted. I'm sure the sheriffs
| in many counties are just fine. But even the national and
| international news covers the AlCo sheriffs abuse (check out
| the Colbert Report and The Guardian).
|
| While this isn't directly related to the AlCo sheriffs, you
| can also look up the "crime reduction" social media scandal
| from Oakland PD, a law enforcement agency within Alameda
| County.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| He may be right that cops basically can't get fired but
| he's getting downvoted because he pivots to complaining
| that have adopted a particular branding he doesn't like. Of
| course that goes over like a lead balloon on a site where
| many people's day jobs includes thinking about the
| difference between specific cases and a general case.
| Replacing punisher skulls with rainbows and monster trucks
| with Teslas isn't going to change the fact that the police
| are capricious, unaccountable and feel enabled to rule with
| an iron fist.
| pessimizer wrote:
| If they were covered in Nazi tattoos, would you be saying
| the same thing? Tattoos don't make you into a bad person;
| bad people get bad tattoos, like ones glorifying ruthless
| comic book vigilantes specifically designed to appeal to
| the 70s law-and-order Dirty Harry audience.
| craftinator wrote:
| I'd argue that it's less an issue of branding, and more
| an issue of credibility. If you were about to get
| surgery, and the surgeon came in and started talking
| about how the lastest InfoWars really nailed it, and how
| the US government was being manipulated by space lizards
| and CERN was just about to open a black hole, would you
| let him take you under the knife?
|
| If these police are flagrantly ignoring the law, and are
| getting their news media from conspiracy theorists, they
| lose the credibility to be trusted in making rational
| decisions. You don't put people who aren't critical
| thinkers in positions of extreme power and
| responsibility.
| jeffbee wrote:
| "Branding he doesn't like" is a whole thing, though.
| Showing contempt for the norms of society by getting a
| bunch of obscene tattoos and driving a vehicle that
| violates every relevant stanza of the vehicle code is not
| a healthy behavior for individuals and organizations who
| are granted the exclusive franchise on violence.
| Clubber wrote:
| >Sheriffs and their deputies are self-selecting exurban
| white men with tendencies toward AM radio, conspiracy
| forums, and horse paste.
|
| He was doing great until the last sentence when he went
| stereotyping.
| ssully wrote:
| As someone who knows a lot of police officers, it just
| sounds like the poster also knows a lot of police
| officers.
| Clubber wrote:
| Maybe, but it's a simple minded dig to a much better
| point. He diluted his own post by placing the police and
| about 50% of the population into a reductive stereotype.
| Not the best way to be persuasive.
|
| Also, Villanueva, the LA sheriff is not only a Democrat,
| he was assisted by the Democratic Party in getting
| elected. Not only was the OP stereotyping but he was
| trying to shift blame to another party. Maybe Democrats
| in CA should start looking into their own party for the
| cause of these problems rather than giving them a free
| pass and shifting blame.
|
| FWIW, I think the justice system in CA is hopelessly
| corrupt and brutal and has been for decades. That's a
| pretty serious problem Californians don't seem to want to
| address. Maybe corrupt, brutal justice systems suit the
| bosses of both parties just fine and the voters just
| don't want to admit their tribe is just as bad in this
| regard as the other tribe.
|
| Oh well, divide and conquer strikes again. Enjoy your
| free nightstick massage and lead infusions.
|
| https://laist.com/news/criminal-justice/la-democrats-
| helped-...
| scotuswroteus wrote:
| HEY! AM radio is not a monolith in the Bay Area. KNBR is rad.
| meragrin_ wrote:
| I can't take any source seriously when they push a clearly
| false narrative. Nazi helmet? Those tattoos look nothing like
| Nazi helmets. If anything, they look like US WW2 paratrooper
| helmets, but that obviously does not evoke the same sort of
| reaction they are looking for.
| jeffbee wrote:
| People who know a lot about the exact appearance of Nazi
| uniforms are sorta showing their whole ass, imho.
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| I don't know if you intended it this way, but to me your
| comment reads like you're promoting ignorance and making
| baseless accusations
| stronglikedan wrote:
| So, history buffs are nazis? And just when I thought I'd
| heard it all...
| dmux wrote:
| We've reached
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
| ceejayoz wrote:
| "By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again
| and again. I'm with you."
|
| Mike Godwin,
| https://twitter.com/sfmnemonic/status/896884949634232320
| pessimizer wrote:
| No, Nazi insignia buffs are far more likely to be (or
| sympathise with) Nazis than random people. It's a real
| problem anong historical reenactors (who are otherwise
| awesome imo, nothing cooler than living history.)
| meragrin_ wrote:
| How hard is it to perform an internet search for 'Nazi
| helmet'? I personally thought the tattoos looked like US
| army helmets so I did the search to see what a Nazi helmet
| looks like. Well, it is obvious the "researchers" never
| performed that research.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Given that a lot of war movies try to have the uniforms
| correct, I think that anyone who likes to watch war movies
| will have a good idea how uniforms of bygone wars looked
| like.
|
| That is obviously a much larger set of people than closet
| Nazi admirers, even in the U.S.
|
| And the previous poster might be an European from a country
| once occupied by Nazis, or even Germany, where such
| knowledge is part of the historic memory.
|
| Most Czechs with at least elementary history knowledge
| could distinguish Nazi helmets from other ones at first
| sight; the Stahlhelm is a very distinct design and it is
| part of a very dark memory for us. It had some innocent
| uses too (Austrian firefighters or Chilean cavalry, IIRC),
| but it is tainted here forever.
| rhcom2 wrote:
| That is straight from the report from the Loyola Law School.
| meragrin_ wrote:
| And? They obviously have an agenda if they cannot tell a
| Nazi helmet from another.
| rhcom2 wrote:
| Have you heard the term "bikeshedding"?
| Cycl0ps wrote:
| Well, it's straight from a citation from Loyola Law School.
| Following the citation takes us to Maya Lau's article
| titled, "Inked with a skull in a cowboy hat, L.A. County
| sheriff's deputy describes exclusive society of lawmen at
| California station"[0]. This article makes no mention of
| The Executioners or the tattoo they use. For that you need
| to look at another LA Times article titled "After decades
| of problems, new allegations surface of a secret clique
| within L.A. County Sheriff's Department".[1] If we find the
| relevant quote in that article here's what we get.
|
| "Aldama described a tattoo on his calf as a skull with a
| rifle and a military-style helmet with flames surrounding
| it. On the helmet are the letters "C P T" for Compton."
|
| So at some point "military-style" was switched to nazi. I
| don't know why, but since there's apparent conflict let's
| do our own research. Googling Nazi helmet gave me plenty of
| images, and they generally have a large flare on the back
| and the brim turns up. The helmets also seem to typically
| have badges on the side and I didn't see any that had a
| band on them like in the tattoo. I think these helmets look
| far more like the type worn by US troops in the Vietnam
| war.
|
| [0](LA Times) https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-
| palmdale-sheriff-t...
|
| [1](LA Times via Archive.is) https://archive.is/gNquP
| Cycl0ps wrote:
| You're right. See my other comment in this thread but it
| seems like Loyola changed the quote where it initially said
| 'military-style'. Personally the helmet reminded me of
| helmets worn in Vietnam but they definitely do not match the
| design used by Nazi's in WWII.
| felistoria wrote:
| I swear there was a Keanu Reeves movie like this. Also,
| Training Day...
| maybelsyrup wrote:
| Came here to post about the LASD cop-gangs. I think some of the
| best work on this comes from Knock LA [1].
|
| The good news, if there is any, is that institutions as corrupt
| and violent as American police, who operate freely and with
| complete impunity and social sanction, respond to the same
| things that other, similar institutions -- like the mafia, for
| instance -- do: sunlight.
|
| I think that shining light on this stuff is extremely powerful,
| and the proof is right in this story: opposition to this POS
| didn't go unnoticed -- he sought to stamp it out and hide that
| he was doing it. These people are deeply afraid of a critical
| mass of the population becoming sick of their shit. So this
| means it's working. Let's keep it up!
|
| [1] https://knock-la.com/lasd-gangs-little-devils-wayside-
| whitie...
| [deleted]
| sleibrock wrote:
| Suddenly reading all this reminds me only about the Christopher
| Dorner events.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Dorner_shootings_a...
| dunce9242021 wrote:
| that dude rules
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| ACAB
| newbamboo wrote:
| I would believe it if it weren't written in the LA Times. They've
| lost all credibility in the last few years, which is a shame
| because occasionally they have really stellar bits of journalism.
| But alas, I can no longer trust them, and local politics is an
| area where their reporting is especially prone to bias. I guess
| they aren't alone in falling prey to the same economic forces as
| other formerly renowned journalistic institutions.
| moate wrote:
| What forces, and what biases are you talking about
| specifically? Why have they lost credibility in your eyes?
| etc-hosts wrote:
| Go read the pages of content about this at Knock LA then
|
| https://knock-la.com/tradition-of-violence-lasd-gang-history...
| QuasiGiani wrote:
| > ...dressed in a sheriff's uniform to pose as a deputy to sneak
| a McDonald's Egg McMuffin and a cup of coffee in to an inmate at
| Men's Central Jail
|
| Such clear proof that the article of this debacle... is nothing
| more than a cynically crafted advertisement for Mickey D's.
|
| ~~~~~
|
| ETA (with, mind you, appropriate alarm & dismay at the downvote):
|
| > "That's what I'm telling you, dumb f--, is that clear?"
| Lillienfeld said. "I can't make it any clearer than that."
|
| > Lillienfeld did not respond to a request for comment.
|
| The guy is so clear(ly) nothing but a shill for McDonald's.
| artificialLimbs wrote:
| Why is this on the front page of "Hacker News"?
|
| Edit: I have directly violated the guidelines. Apologies, HN.
| loeg wrote:
| Hackers think it's news.
| brink wrote:
| I'll upvote what I want to upvote, thank you.
| wetpaws wrote:
| Because 155 people upvoted it
| mig39 wrote:
| Who watches the watchmen?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%...
| humanistbot wrote:
| Civilian police oversight agencies:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_police_oversight_agen...
| loeg wrote:
| Which, to be clear, range from completely toothless, to only
| mostly toothless.
| slg wrote:
| What happens when the police/sheriff uses their power to
| investigate/harass the people on those oversight agencies as
| described in the article?
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Everyone watches everyone else, there just needs to be
| transparency.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-24 23:02 UTC)