Requiring a complaint simply cuts down on false positive errors.

It also cuts down on true positives. Unless you’re saying that a police brutality charge could *never* be true without a complaint.

Requiring a complaint means that if someone anonymously posts a video of police brutality on YouTube, clearly showing the officer’s face and clearly showing no basis for the brutality, no investigation could be opened unless the victim, who just got finished getting beaten by police, agrees to file a complaint with the police. That’s insane. I’d say “Imagine that standard anywhere else”, but it’s ridiculous enough right here that I don’t even need an analogy.

Anyway, is there really such a large number of unwarranted police brutality investigations that *don’t* start with a complaint that police need to be protected from them?

Police amassing evidence for possible conviction is properly termed solving crimes. It’s what police do my construction.

People actually said to me that Mark Fuhrman dropped the glove in the OJ case. But there were two dead people. at the residence of OJ’s ex-wife and OJ wasn’t out of town, or at a party, or anyplace else. Fuhrman would have been embarrassed had OJ had an alibi.

OJ’s acquittal told the world how much the black community hated the police. His jury wouldn’t even consider Collin Yamauchi’s, DNA gels that showed to anybody the absolute guilt of OJ. In that case blind prejudice trumped the value of the lives of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. It wasn’t a lack of seat belt use that killed the Goldman lad, it was 47 stab wounds. Police deserve protection from race baiters.

There is resisting arrest, so some damage to an arrestee would not be unusual. Requiring a complaint simply cuts down on false positive errors. An active plaintiffs bar ensures plenty of brutality charges.

William Nuesslein,

While there was political pressure in Ferguson, it was no different (and maybe even substantially less) than the political pressure applied in the Treyvon Martin / George Zimmerman case. (After all, I don’t recall President Obama coming out and saying “if I had a son, he would look like Michael Brown.”)

How Wilson and Zimmerman were treated in the cases illustrate and support Olson’s points:

Zimmerman was arrested at the scene.
Wilson was allowed to leave the scene.

Zimmerman’s name was released to the press by the police almost immediately.
Wilson’s name was not released to the press for a week and then only after a clumsy attempt to first “smear” the shooting victim.

Zimmerman was taken back to the police station and detained.
Wilson was allowed to drive himself back to the police station, collect his uniform (evidence), wash up, meet with a supervisor, get some legal advice from a desk sergeant and then was allowed to go home. His movements at the station were, for the most part, unmonitored.

Zimmerman’s photo was released to the press by the police.
Wilson’s photo was never officially released.

Zimmerman was interrogated the night of the shooting and released the next morning.
Wilson was asked a few questions and then sent home.

One these details alone, the handling of two suspects in a shooting that involved the death of another person were handled radically differently.

There is no doubt that the death of Brown and Martin resulted in politically charged atmosphere. We all remember the false narrative of “hands up – don’t shoot.” We also remember people wearing hoodies and tee shirts saying “I am Treyvon Martin.”

Two shootings where the shooter feared for their safety. Two deaths. Two suspects treated differently.

People were willing to believe the worst in Ferguson because of other factors – the ridiculous number of tickets and arrest warrants issued against its citizens, and the guy who was arrested in a case of mistaken identity and was beaten bloody and then charged with getting blood on the officers’ shirts. Not to mention the delay in releasing the officer’s name, the ban of news helicopters, the arresting of reporters, etc.; which made it seem like they had something to hide.

Anyway, policeman should get the exact same protections that they give to citizens. If they think that more reliable statements are given when people have time to reflect, they should give everyone time to reflect. If they think due process is only served when people can review the evidence against them before giving a statement, then they should show all suspects all the evidence against them before interviewing them.

Like Popehat said, “…when the police demand these special procedures, it necessarily means one of two things. Either they (1) want to protect their ability to lie, or (2) don’t give a shit about whether their regular interrogation tactics used on us are fair or reliable. “

Policemen do need protection from political processes. The arguments that the extant rules fouled investigation are untrustworthy. There is good money in suing police departments.