Originally Posted by
chollie
Short answer. Civilian oversight is important. A civilian may not know all the fine points of policies and laws, but if properly chosen, a civilian also does not have a particular bias or loyalty to the organization and is not subject to pressures (or fear of pressure or retaliation, subtle or overt). (There are too many instances of the 'blue line' to argue that this sort of loyalty doesn't exist).
Outrageous to make a point example: the Rodney King video. All too often, one explanation of a video is that it is incomplete - not edited, just doesn't show events leading up to the video or going on outside the frame. The fact is, that is quite often BS. So with RK, you have a piece of video showing a handcuffed, facedown man being beaten and kicked. There was simply no way to justify that, no way to say it was a necessary outcome of what had gone before, the angle was misleading, bla-bla.
A civilian might ask, from a position of ignorance, exactly why something is taking place. Sometimes the very innocence of an uninformed question can expose an inadequate answer. The civilian asks a question about something that an insider wouldn't even think to question.
I welcome this sort of examination in my own work. I have answered patently ridiculous questions, but I have also been asked questions about things that were so 'obvious' that I had fallen into the trap of no longer questioning them. There was room for improvement and it took an outside, 'uninformed' perspective to bring it to light.
In matters of reasonableness, civilian oversight is also useful. It serves no one's real best interests to have anyone (civilian, CBP, LE, shop-keeper) who is confrontational, who has a tendency to escalate. I know some in LE and CBP (all occupations where there are positions of authority) tend to stand taller and talk louder behind the badge. That can provoke unnecessary confrontations, or in extreme situations, out-of-control abuse (RK). That benefits no one - a civilian perspective might ask why, when an agent stopped a car and went ballistic because the driver didn't want to take his sunglasses off - an uniformed civilian might ask why it was so important that the sunglasses be removed. Absent other reason to be suspicious, why use it as a basis for a p*ssing match? Another agent's attitude might be 'hey, we stand out here all day, some of these people are real a**holes, bla-bla' - other agents agree, give it a pass, but it is wrong and needs to be called out.
So much for the short answer, lucky I spared you the long one.
So, are you saying that the court system is not an appropriate place for oversight? You also didn't address any of the other point’s concern access to other information. Why don't other occupations need "civilian oversight"? Medical errors kill, maim, and otherwise cause harm to significantly more individuals than law enforcement yet no massive outcry for civilian oversight for them.
What training should these civilians receive and how much should they receive? Do you still believe that an individual is required to open their trunk or submit to a vehicle search absent probable cause? What constitutes probable cause? These are just some of the concepts that we discussed in this thread. You asked the questions as a third party and still didn't get it right in the recent posts above. In this instance, you would be coming down on the incorrect side of the equation and ruling against the public individual if it was a matter of a BP agent forcing a search absent probable cause.
I am not against oversight, independent or otherwise, I am against oversight by people with no training or understanding of the job. Oversight by people with the opposite bias is just as bad oversight with the bias you believe exists. Or do you believe that there is no way that a civilian can have bias against an organization or institution?
A lot of these concepts sound great on paper but in practice not so much. You can have too much of a good thing or in some cases too much political correctness. For example, New York City council would like to pass an ordinance that would make it illegal for Law Enforcement to use any physical descriptors to describe suspects only clothing. You would not be able to use age, gender, race, or disability to describe wanted individuals. Picture this precinct 55 you are looking for a rape suspect white shirt, blue jeans can't give you any further description good luck narrowing that down in New York. This comes from a misguided urge to fix something they perceive as broken yet have no expertise or understanding of the damage their "fix" is going to cause. It is dangerous for the officers but more importantly it is more dangerous for the public because you can’t be told anything more either.
Also, in addition, just for accuracy you should go back and have a look at the Rodney King video. RK was not handcuffed nor facedown at the time the blows were delivered. I would hope some better research would be done by these civilian oversight people. It is also interesting that you say what happened before makes no difference. Are you aware of what happened before the video started? Are you aware of the two other occupants of the vehicle that complied with the lawful orders after the high speed chase were taken into custody without incident? Are you aware that Rodney King was tased twice without effect before the video started? Are you aware that Rodney King was struck thirty three times with a baton? However, only the last six strikes where deemed out of policy and were the factors that convicted the two officers in Federal Court after being exonerated in state court. You should read the actual transcript of the Federal decision. You would find even in Federal Court RK did not come across as the innocent victim that the media portrays. I wholeheartedly agree to the fact that the RK video is disturbing and if I was there I can’t say that I would have let thirty three strikes happen but the officers had tried other options, options that are supposed to work better than a baton. I also have the luxury of being behind a computer screen, having lots of time to consider options, not having just witnessed two taser deployments be ineffective. The fact is use of force, any use of force, is ugly.
FB