black woman get killed in Police Custody

[Ana the Ist]

Emphasis added.

And neither do you (in response to bolded statement). You try to make sweeping generalizations about the system based on your experiences, and ask us to trust you with what you "know" to be true, but you're entirely dismissive of others with experience in the system that have a completely different experience.

Why is the former police commissioner's experience with how the legal system treats police testimony "a joke", but your experience with how the legal system treats police testimony worth listening to?

What doesn't jibe with dgi's assertion that lawyers and judges view police testimony as solid gold truth? All the links i referenced indicated a strong propensity of judges and lawyers taking the police officer's word in court - even when they thought they were lying. If Joe Citizen is thought to be lying, they will get pushed on it, to expose the lie. The articles linked express that police testimony doesn't receive the same scrutiny. Believing that the police are lying, but still treating it as truth in the proceedings jibes perfectly well with what dgi was saying.

I've stated that I can only speak accurately about my experiences...but my experiences with law enforcement are much broader and more frequent than most on this thread. With that in mind, I feel my knowledge of the matter is more relevant than someone pulling articles about incidents he wasn't actually there for. Articles that frankly, are more about generating hype than seeking any kind of truth.

The first editorial you linked is a joke to me...he's literally trying to speak for 500k people all across this nation. Why? It could be because as a former police commissioner he wants to blow the whistle on what he saw. It could also be for any number of reasons that profit him personally as a lawyer. One would wonder where his sense of duty and integrity to the truth of the matter was when he was police commissioner. Had he made the same statements then...he might have been able to enact some changes in San Francisco at least.

He didn't though, he kept quiet until he became a lawyer (I'd love to see the story of how he went from one to the other) and IMO it ruins his credibility.

 

[whatbogsends]

I had an extensive reply put together (not complete), but accidentally closed the window and lost my post. Maybe i'll try to respond later.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I had an extensive reply put together (not complete), but accidentally closed the window and lost my post. Maybe i'll try to respond later.

When you do, will you include the question about the statistics you wanted me to answer?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I know I mentioned earlier how often false accusations are leveled against police. Here's a recent example...

Warning! Video contains explicit content! Page linked for the article, nothing more.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...t-watch-how-well-that-goes-over-with-officer/

She's clearly a sovereign citizen, which can be a dangerous group, and while the article doesn't mention if she files any formal complaint....if she's willing to yell "rape" during a traffic stop, it's not hard to imagine what else she'll do. As my experience with sovereign citizens goes...I'd be really surprised if rape was the only accusation she tries

 

[stamperben]

I know I mentioned earlier how often false accusations are leveled against police. Here's a recent example...

Warning! Video contains explicit content! Page linked for the article, nothing more.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...t-watch-how-well-that-goes-over-with-officer/

She's clearly a sovereign citizen, which can be a dangerous group, and while the article doesn't mention if she files any formal complaint....if she's willing to yell "rape" during a traffic stop, it's not hard to imagine what else she'll do. As my experience with sovereign citizens goes...I'd be really surprised if rape was the only accusation she tries

You may have mentioned false accusations, but the following is far from a false accusation. Finally a bad cop is charged.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Finally a bad cop is charged.

As it should be. Sympathies for the victim's family.

 

[whatbogsends]

I know I mentioned earlier how often false accusations are leveled against police. Here's a recent example...

Warning! Video contains explicit content! Page linked for the article, nothing more.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...t-watch-how-well-that-goes-over-with-officer/

She's clearly a sovereign citizen, which can be a dangerous group, and while the article doesn't mention if she files any formal complaint....if she's willing to yell "rape" during a traffic stop, it's not hard to imagine what else she'll do. As my experience with sovereign citizens goes...I'd be really surprised if rape was the only accusation she tries

Let's be clear. You have shown me one instance in which a citizen levies a false charge against an officer (not during court proceedings or a formal charge, just a claim during a traffic stop), and you submit this as evidence as to "how often false accusations are leveled against police".

We have shown multiple videos (not just 3 or 4, but there are literally hundreds of videos which show police abuse) of the police overstepping their authority, yet you insist that these incidents don't at all reflect the police force, that this is some sort of false narrative being created.

Why is your video evidence (1 video) supposed to be compelling to me as a trend, but many video's presented showing police abuses (almost always accompanying an initial police report filed which is a shown to be a lie after release of the video) supposed to be ignored and treated as the exception - an insignificant minority?

I'm not saying i don't believe that false accusations against the police are relatively common. What i am saying that if you don't count video evidence of police abuses as evidence to how common police abuse is, then why should video evidence of false accusations against the police count as evidence as to how common false accusations against the police are?

The question i had posed multiple times was this: If an officer is a traffic cop, and has contact with 20 citizens a day, 5 days a week, for a month (assume 4 weeks for sake of simplicity), has 400 interactions per month with citizens, and abuses his power (assaults citizen, fabricates information on the police report, etc) on average once per month (.25% of the time he has an interaction with a citizen), is that cop a "good" cop? More generally: what is the threshold for how often a police officer can abuse a citizen and still be a "good" cop?

If we want to continue the discussion on the prevalence on police lying, both in their police reports and in court, i have more articles that speak to those topics. We can discuss them if you'd like.

Question, if it's your contention that the media is anti-cop, then why are very few sources i can find for some of these large scandals non-mainstream media or local sources? For example the Omaha PD story, in which police brutality was caught on tape, they went after the person who videotaped them, and brought charges against him, destroyed the evidence, and it was only upon another person videotaping the incident that the brothers who were arrested and abused by the police beat their charges - over 20 police illegally invaded the home of one of the brothers, injuring their wheelchair bound aunt in the process. None of the major media networks carried this story. If their goal was to promote "anti-cop" stories, then this would have been big news. Instead, it was swept under the rug. I think you should check your assumptions about the mainstream media's agenda (not that i don't think they have an agenda, but their narrative isn't "anti-cop", as they are notoriously pro-establishment - the liberal media outlets are focusing on race-baiting, not anti-police).

Police perjury:

"For the first few months, New York policemen continued to tell the truth about the circumstances of their searches, with the result that evidence was suppressed. Then the police made the great discovery that if the defendant drops the narcotics on the ground, after which the police man arrests him, then the search is reasonable and the evidence is admissible. Spend a few hours in the New ‘York City Criminal Court nowadays and you will hear case after case in which a policeman testifies that the defendant dropped the narcotics on the ground whereupon the policeman arrested him.

Usually the very language of the testimony is identical from one case to another. This is now known among defense lawyers and prosecutors as “dropsy” testimony. The judge has no reason to disbelieve it in any particular case, and of course the judge must decide each case on its own evidence, without regard to the testimony in other cases. Surely, though, not in every case was the defendant unlucky enough to drop his narcotics at the feet of a policeman. It follows that at least in some of these cases the police are lying."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.../how-do-we-fix-the-police-testilying-problem/

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...d-with-lying-in-drug-case-20150608-story.html

http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20110817/manhattan/dozens-of-nypd-officers-investigated-for-perjury

Police brutality and dishonest report (including destruction of evidence):

http://watchdog.org/123164/omaha-officers-fired-caught-tape-case/

 

[stamperben]

As it should be. Sympathies for the victim's family.

Yes, as it should be, and we can only attempt to try to feel what his family is going through.

But this is only the tip of the iceberg as to what goes on day after day. You've seen the video, but what the cops report is drastically different from reality.

In the narrative submitted by officer Eric Weibel, one of the cops who responded to the scene after Tensing shot DuBose in the head, “Officer Tensing stated that he was attempting a traffic stop ... when at some point, he began to be dragged by a male black driver. ... Officer Tensing stated that he was almost run over by the driver, and was forced to shoot the driver with his duty weapon. ... Officer Tensing repeated that he was dragged by the vehicle and had to fire his weapon.”


Another officer, Phillip Kidd, apparently backed Tensing’s account. Weibel writes, “Officer Kidd told me that he witnessed the Honda Accord drag Officer Tensing, and that he witnessed Officer Tensing fire a single shot.”

But that’s not precisely what we see on the body camera video. Officer Tensing can be heard questioning DuBose about his license, while DuBose insists that it’s not suspended, but he doesn’t have it with him. They go back and forth on this point for a few moments, until Tensing orders DuBose to take off his seatbelt. DuBose puts one hand on the car window and the other on the key in the ignition. Seconds later, Tensing takes his gun out and shoots DuBose—who is now holding both hands up—once in the head.​

link here

​

Cops lie about what they do. This isn't an isolated incident.

 

[bhsmte]

Here is the deal.

Some cops lie about their actions and some citizens lie about the actions of cops. We can go back and forth forever with examples, but we do know, both do occur.

So, what do we do? Well, we look at the evidence and decide who is telling the truth, as we would with any other dispute. This is why, having body cams/dash cams etc.., are a good thing, because they go a long way, to at least preserving a chance at finding the truth.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Yes, as it should be, and we can only attempt to try to feel what his family is going through.

But this is only the tip of the iceberg as to what goes on day after day. You've seen the video, but what the cops report is drastically different from reality.

...​

Cops lie about what they do. This isn't an isolated incident.

Being a police officer is a dangerous job. It's a job that to do well requires an inordinate amount of interpersonal skills.

We need police officers. Your odds of being accosted and killed by a criminal are much higher than being accosted or killed by a police officer. Every major city in this country has killings every weekend, sometimes dozens of killings. Police officers are needed to help combat that ... and for many other peace keeping functions. Can they do better? Sure. I bet you can do your job better, too. Bear in mind that improvement is almost always an evolutionary process ... gradual improvement ... and almost never a revolutionary process.

Finally, this ... Officer Down Memorial Page

Sergeant Scott Lunger was shot and killed while conducting a traffic stop near the intersection of Myrtle Street and Lyon Street at approximately 3:15 am.

Sergeant Lunger observed a vehicle driving erratically. He conducted a vehicle stop ...​

68 police have died on duty this year already.

 

[stamperben]

Being a police officer is a dangerous job. It's a job that to do well requires an inordinate amount of interpersonal skills.

We need police officers. Your odds of being accosted and killed by a criminal are much higher than being accosted or killed by a police officer. Every major city in this country has killings every weekend, sometimes dozens of killings. Police officers are needed to help combat that ... and for many other peace keeping functions. Can they do better? Sure. I bet you can do your job better, too. Bear in mind that improvement is almost always an evolutionary process ... gradual improvement ... and almost never a revolutionary process.

Finally, this ... Officer Down Memorial Page

Sergeant Scott Lunger was shot and killed while conducting a traffic stop near the intersection of Myrtle Street and Lyon Street at approximately 3:15 am.

Sergeant Lunger observed a vehicle driving erratically. He conducted a vehicle stop ...​

68 police have died on duty this year already.

Killed by Police 2015

 

[NightHawkeye]

Killed by Police 2015

Of these, only a handful have made the news because of alleged police misconduct. Of those alleging police misconduct, only a few have turned out to be true.

My conclusion ... most of those killings were justified, some "suicide by cop". It is the job of police to bring criminals to justice. Criminals don't like that.

 

[stamperben]

Of these, only a handful have made the news because of alleged police misconduct. Of those alleging police misconduct, only a few have turned out to be true.

My conclusion ... most of those killings were justified, some "suicide by cop". It is the job of police to bring criminals to justice. Criminals don't like that.

I'm just saying that there is a drastic difference between 68 killed on duty and the many hundreds killed by on duty cops.

 

[whatbogsends]

Of these, only a handful have made the news because of alleged police misconduct. Of those alleging police misconduct, only a few have turned out to be true.

My conclusion ... most of those killings were justified, some "suicide by cop". It is the job of police to bring criminals to justice. Criminals don't like that.

Most of those killings were deemed justified. Most of those killings don't have a video capture of the incident, and justification was based on the testimony of the officers at the scene.

 

[Aldebaran]

Most of those killings were deemed justified. Most of those killings don't have a video capture of the incident, and justification was based on the testimony of the officers at the scene.

Not to mention the fact that cops get quite a bit of benefit of the doubt in court.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Let's be clear. You have shown me one instance in which a citizen levies a false charge against an officer (not during court proceedings or a formal charge, just a claim during a traffic stop), and you submit this as evidence as to "how often false accusations are leveled against police".

We have shown multiple videos (not just 3 or 4, but there are literally hundreds of videos which show police abuse) of the police overstepping their authority, yet you insist that these incidents don't at all reflect the police force, that this is some sort of false narrative being created.

Why is your video evidence (1 video) supposed to be compelling to me as a trend, but many video's presented showing police abuses (almost always accompanying an initial police report filed which is a shown to be a lie after release of the video) supposed to be ignored and treated as the exception - an insignificant minority?

I'm not saying i don't believe that false accusations against the police are relatively common. What i am saying that if you don't count video evidence of police abuses as evidence to how common police abuse is, then why should video evidence of false accusations against the police count as evidence as to how common false accusations against the police are?

The question i had posed multiple times was this: If an officer is a traffic cop, and has contact with 20 citizens a day, 5 days a week, for a month (assume 4 weeks for sake of simplicity), has 400 interactions per month with citizens, and abuses his power (assaults citizen, fabricates information on the police report, etc) on average once per month (.25% of the time he has an interaction with a citizen), is that cop a "good" cop? More generally: what is the threshold for how often a police officer can abuse a citizen and still be a "good" cop?

If we want to continue the discussion on the prevalence on police lying, both in their police reports and in court, i have more articles that speak to those topics. We can discuss them if you'd like.

Question, if it's your contention that the media is anti-cop, then why are very few sources i can find for some of these large scandals non-mainstream media or local sources? For example the Omaha PD story, in which police brutality was caught on tape, they went after the person who videotaped them, and brought charges against him, destroyed the evidence, and it was only upon another person videotaping the incident that the brothers who were arrested and abused by the police beat their charges - over 20 police illegally invaded the home of one of the brothers, injuring their wheelchair bound aunt in the process. None of the major media networks carried this story. If their goal was to promote "anti-cop" stories, then this would have been big news. Instead, it was swept under the rug. I think you should check your assumptions about the mainstream media's agenda (not that i don't think they have an agenda, but their narrative isn't "anti-cop", as they are notoriously pro-establishment - the liberal media outlets are focusing on race-baiting, not anti-police).

Police perjury:

"For the first few months, New York policemen continued to tell the truth about the circumstances of their searches, with the result that evidence was suppressed. Then the police made the great discovery that if the defendant drops the narcotics on the ground, after which the police man arrests him, then the search is reasonable and the evidence is admissible. Spend a few hours in the New ‘York City Criminal Court nowadays and you will hear case after case in which a policeman testifies that the defendant dropped the narcotics on the ground whereupon the policeman arrested him.

Usually the very language of the testimony is identical from one case to another. This is now known among defense lawyers and prosecutors as “dropsy” testimony. The judge has no reason to disbelieve it in any particular case, and of course the judge must decide each case on its own evidence, without regard to the testimony in other cases. Surely, though, not in every case was the defendant unlucky enough to drop his narcotics at the feet of a policeman. It follows that at least in some of these cases the police are lying."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.../how-do-we-fix-the-police-testilying-problem/

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...d-with-lying-in-drug-case-20150608-story.html

http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20110817/manhattan/dozens-of-nypd-officers-investigated-for-perjury

Police brutality and dishonest report (including destruction of evidence):

http://watchdog.org/123164/omaha-officers-fired-caught-tape-case/

First of all, I didn't submit the video I linked as "evidence" of the false allegations that police get accused of all the time. I said specifically..."here's a recent example". There's not going to be much in the way of evidence of false allegations. If it was investigated (and few are, most end up being retracted) you'll have the court proceedings...and frankly, those stories rarely make the news. I chose that link because it contained many of the elements that I had brought up earlier.
1. A subject who thinks that they know the law far better than they actually do.
2. A subject who thinks that they don't have to comply with the officer.
3. An officer using a minimal amount of force (I think he calls it compliance pain, I call it a compliance technique).
4. A false allegation-rape. Though I don't think she actually tried to press charges on it, since she's a sovereign citizen, I'd be very surprised if she didn't try to file a dozen other charges...all equally ridiculous.
For the record, that officer is far more patient and courteous than I would've been. Maybe it's the first time he's dealt with a sovereign and her pseudo-legal nonsense threw him off....maybe he's just always that patient. I would've "assisted" her out of the car after telling her twice.

The link I gave earlier that had 4 specific incidents where cameras exonerated police are not at all uncommon...its just uncommon for them to be reported. If the girl in the last link I gave you decided to press charges or make a formal allegations...what do you think would be used to clear his name? That's right...his body cam. Think back to the Michael Brown case...how many local "citizens" falsely bore witness to the shooting? A dozen? A couple dozen? Do you think that officer Darren Wilson wished he had a body camera that day? You had people who weren't at the scene, didn't even see the crime, telling police that they saw it and watched as the officer walked over to Brown's body and executed him with another shot.

Do you think that's uncommon? Or do you think that all across the U.S. there are neighborhoods full of people who hate and distrust cops and will say anything to put a cop behind bars or get him fired. They almost always get away with this too because of the difficulty in proving that a witness knew their story was false and the sheer volume of such cases would tax an already overworked system.

As I mentioned earlier, I've been falsely accused of wrongdoing 26 times in just over 8 years. From what I know of other agents...that's about average. I know some police in some large cities who easily have double or triple that number...they might not even have a career anymore if it weren't for body cams. Of those 26, do you wanna guess how many faced false accusations charges? Not one. 8 of those 26 assaulted me and none of them even stood trial for assaulting a federal agent. Of those 8, one of them almost went to trial accusing me of using "excessive force" for no other reason than his side of the story "made more sense" to investigators than mine did. I don't wear a uniform, I'm in plain clothes 95% of the time so no body cams for me. I would've bought my own by now if I were allowed to wear it.

I'll get to your question and the examples you cited in the next post. I usually try not to make my replies too long.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Let's be clear. You have shown me one instance in which a citizen levies a false charge against an officer (not during court proceedings or a formal charge, just a claim during a traffic stop), and you submit this as evidence as to "how often false accusations are leveled against police".

We have shown multiple videos (not just 3 or 4, but there are literally hundreds of videos which show police abuse) of the police overstepping their authority, yet you insist that these incidents don't at all reflect the police force, that this is some sort of false narrative being created.

Why is your video evidence (1 video) supposed to be compelling to me as a trend, but many video's presented showing police abuses (almost always accompanying an initial police report filed which is a shown to be a lie after release of the video) supposed to be ignored and treated as the exception - an insignificant minority?

I'm not saying i don't believe that false accusations against the police are relatively common. What i am saying that if you don't count video evidence of police abuses as evidence to how common police abuse is, then why should video evidence of false accusations against the police count as evidence as to how common false accusations against the police are?

The question i had posed multiple times was this: If an officer is a traffic cop, and has contact with 20 citizens a day, 5 days a week, for a month (assume 4 weeks for sake of simplicity), has 400 interactions per month with citizens, and abuses his power (assaults citizen, fabricates information on the police report, etc) on average once per month (.25% of the time he has an interaction with a citizen), is that cop a "good" cop? More generally: what is the threshold for how often a police officer can abuse a citizen and still be a "good" cop?

If we want to continue the discussion on the prevalence on police lying, both in their police reports and in court, i have more articles that speak to those topics. We can discuss them if you'd like.

Question, if it's your contention that the media is anti-cop, then why are very few sources i can find for some of these large scandals non-mainstream media or local sources? For example the Omaha PD story, in which police brutality was caught on tape, they went after the person who videotaped them, and brought charges against him, destroyed the evidence, and it was only upon another person videotaping the incident that the brothers who were arrested and abused by the police beat their charges - over 20 police illegally invaded the home of one of the brothers, injuring their wheelchair bound aunt in the process. None of the major media networks carried this story. If their goal was to promote "anti-cop" stories, then this would have been big news. Instead, it was swept under the rug. I think you should check your assumptions about the mainstream media's agenda (not that i don't think they have an agenda, but their narrative isn't "anti-cop", as they are notoriously pro-establishment - the liberal media outlets are focusing on race-baiting, not anti-police).

Police perjury:

"For the first few months, New York policemen continued to tell the truth about the circumstances of their searches, with the result that evidence was suppressed. Then the police made the great discovery that if the defendant drops the narcotics on the ground, after which the police man arrests him, then the search is reasonable and the evidence is admissible. Spend a few hours in the New ‘York City Criminal Court nowadays and you will hear case after case in which a policeman testifies that the defendant dropped the narcotics on the ground whereupon the policeman arrested him.

Usually the very language of the testimony is identical from one case to another. This is now known among defense lawyers and prosecutors as “dropsy” testimony. The judge has no reason to disbelieve it in any particular case, and of course the judge must decide each case on its own evidence, without regard to the testimony in other cases. Surely, though, not in every case was the defendant unlucky enough to drop his narcotics at the feet of a policeman. It follows that at least in some of these cases the police are lying."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.../how-do-we-fix-the-police-testilying-problem/

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...d-with-lying-in-drug-case-20150608-story.html

http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20110817/manhattan/dozens-of-nypd-officers-investigated-for-perjury

Police brutality and dishonest report (including destruction of evidence):

http://watchdog.org/123164/omaha-officers-fired-caught-tape-case/

In regards to your question...I wasn't ignoring it, I had flat-out dismissed it in my mind. It's a bit meaningless to me. The reason being is that the phrase "abuses their authority" covers such a wide wide range of behaviors. It could be as simple as giving a command that you don't have the authority to give (even though you think you do) or it could be as heinous as murdering someone and covering it up. I also feel (and I hope you can appreciate my honesty here...not a lot of LEOs will tell you this, even if they think it) that in some rare and specific circumstances, the law is wrong. The laws are written in a way that gives officials an advantage in most situations...but there are certain situations where no amount of legality, tools, or training can give you an advantage. Some law enforcement jobs are so dangerous in some situations, that correctly following the law and policy can get you killed.

So with that in mind, if we narrowed your question down to just one abuse of authority....physically assaulting someone...I would say that 99.9% of the time an officer is a "bad" officer and should lose his job (at least) if he illegally assaults someone even once. However, there are a couple of situations where it might be a means of saving the officer's life (and I don't mean in self defense) or the lives of others.

Do you see why It's hard for me to answer honestly? Would you like to keep "abuse of authority" to something general like "using authority given to the officer to break the law"? Or would you like to narrow the question down to a specific abuse?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Most of those killings were deemed justified. Most of those killings don't have a video capture of the incident, and justification was based on the testimony of the officers at the scene.

Sure, justification was based upon testimony of officers on scene, and civilian witnesses, and physical evidence...

 

[Ana the Ist]

Here is the deal.

Some cops lie about their actions and some citizens lie about the actions of cops. We can go back and forth forever with examples, but we do know, both do occur.

So, what do we do? Well, we look at the evidence and decide who is telling the truth, as we would with any other dispute. This is why, having body cams/dash cams etc.., are a good thing, because they go a long way, to at least preserving a chance at finding the truth.

Great point...and a reasonable perspective to take. If only the media were so reasonable...

 

[whatbogsends]

In regards to your question...I wasn't ignoring it, I had flat-out dismissed it in my mind. It's a bit meaningless to me. The reason being is that the phrase "abuses their authority" covers such a wide wide range of behaviors. It could be as simple as giving a command that you don't have the authority to give (even though you think you do) or it could be as heinous as murdering someone and covering it up. I also feel (and I hope you can appreciate my honesty here...not a lot of LEOs will tell you this, even if they think it) that in some rare and specific circumstances, the law is wrong. The laws are written in a way that gives officials an advantage in most situations...but there are certain situations where no amount of legality, tools, or training can give you an advantage. Some law enforcement jobs are so dangerous in some situations, that correctly following the law and policy can get you killed.

So with that in mind, if we narrowed your question down to just one abuse of authority....physically assaulting someone...I would say that 99.9% of the time an officer is a "bad" officer and should lose his job (at least) if he illegally assaults someone even once. However, there are a couple of situations where it might be a means of saving the officer's life (and I don't mean in self defense) or the lives of others.

Do you see why It's hard for me to answer honestly? Would you like to keep "abuse of authority" to something general like "using authority given to the officer to break the law"? Or would you like to narrow the question down to a specific abuse?

When you don't respond to a question that has been asked multiple times, and you give no reason or mention of it in your responses to those posts, it is, indeed, ignoring it (you finally responded to why you ignored it the 3rd time i asked the question).

As to "abuses their authority", the two examples i gave were assaulting a citizen and falsifying a police report - serious abuses of authority that jeopardize the citizens rights. I was (or at least thought i was) clearly not talking about simply giving a command they are not authorized to give. Regardless, my point was not about how many times did the police do X (we don't have statistics on how often police lie in their reports, as you would need to identify the lie, and report it, nor do we have accurate statistics regarding police use (legitimate) or abuse (illegitimate) of force), rather about the statistics of is there a problem.

Using your threshold of 99.9%, this means if an officer has 1000 interactions with citizens, and intentionally, flagrantly (not reacting poorly to a life and death situation) abuses their authority once(levying unwarranted force against a citizen, or lying to bring false charges against them) then he is a "bad" officer. If a given police department has 4 good officers for each bad officer (20% bad officers), that department might exhibit statistics of 1 intentional, flagrant abuse of force for every 5000 interations (.02%). I would say a department with 20% bad officers has a "systemic" problem. Even a bad department could have a rate of .02% of interactions with citizens that significantly violated their rights (unjustified physical assault or intentional falsification of report to charge someone).

I'm not saying (and i don't believe that DGI is saying) that "in the majority or even large minority of police interactions that police abuse their authority", but that number of incidents we've seen (only a small portion of which are actually reported by the mainstream media) is enough to indicate there is a "systemic" problem.

Actual data regarding any of this is virtually non-existent. The report you cited, which was as significant as anything i could find, consisted of a survey, which excluded anyone in prison (which would influence the findings of the survey - i'd wager those in prison experience the use of force by the police (justified or not justified) at a much higher rate than those not in prison). We've both already talked about the biggest problem in having data about police lying on reports - unless the false report identified and reported, even a false report will be counted as "police report that is truthful" when trying to assess the data.

What we have seen, many times, is the police assaulting a citizen, filing a report which justifies their actions, and the only thing which is able to contradict the police officer's story is concrete video evidence which shows the official report to be a lie. Moreover, in almost every case reported, not only was the offending officer lying, but other officers on the scene corroborated his story (whether they were there during the original incident or not).

EVERYONE wants police to have body cams and dash cams. The more actual evidence of what happened - rather than the police officer's version of events - will help everybody. Similarly, external (i.e. citizen recorded) video evidence is also a large help in uncovering the truth, as the police-recorded video often appears to be incomplete. However, in this case, we've seen examples of police attempting to limit citizen video even when it is entirely legal - including bringing charges against those who are acting 100% within the confines of the law.