Dog Bite Incident Report Sample Form: Fill & Download for Free

I have been asked to answer a controversial question – Why would anyone want a Pit Bull? (Thanks for the A2A, Ed Mader; I guess you want to see how many downvotes I can get!) There are several reasons why people want these dogs, and I am afraid that none of them is a very good reason.Some people get Pit Bulls because they know that pit bulls are powerful dogs, and they are perennially involved in the majority of serious dog-mauling incidents. These people know that Pit Bulls can be dangerous, and they get these dogs precisely for that reason. There is actually science to back this up – the most recent study appearing in the Journal of Forensic Sciences, which found that those who own “dangerous dogs” are more likely to endorse antisocial and psychopathic character traits and more likely to report criminal behaviour. (Ragatz, L., Fremouw, W., Thomas, T. and McCoy, K. (2009), Vicious Dogs: The Antisocial Behaviors and Psychological Characteristics of Owners. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 54: 699–703. doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01001.x).In short, the study found:“…a significant difference in criminal behavior was found based on dog ownership type. Owners of vicious dogs were significantly more likely to admit to violent criminal behavior, compared to large dog owners, small dog owners, and controls. The vicious dog owner sample also engaged in more types (i.e., violent, property, drug, and status) of criminal behavior compared to all other participant groups.“Personality traits were examined and vicious dog owners were significantly higher than controls on impulsive sensation seeking. Examining psychopathic traits, owners of high-risk dogs endorsed significantly more characteristics of primary psychopathy (e.g., carelessness, selfishness, and manipulative tendencies) than small dog owners."However, I believe a significant number of people that own Pit Bulls, do so because they don’t realize how dangerous they can be. While even these people acknowledge that the dogs are powerful and could do tremendous damage if they bite, this group has been misled into believing that Pit Bulls are unfairly characterized as dangerous, and that they are wonderful, loving family pets that are great with children. This, of course, is categorically false, as Pit Bulls are indisputably responsible for more than 60% of dog-bite related fatalities, and approximately the same percentage of serious maulings (serious maulings include injuries to the victims that requires immediate emergency medical treatment, and entails surgery and permanent disfigurement - obviously not all dog bites meet this criteria).Like Linda Henry, pictured above, whose 3 pet pit bulls, all of which she raised from puppyhood, and all of whom were inside dogs, brutally attacked her in 2013. As a result of the horrific attack, Ms. Henry lost both her arms, an eye, an ear, and was scalped. That's what sets these dogs apart from other breeds - the catastrophic damage they can cause if, and WHEN, they succumb to their genetic coding. This type of serious mauling occurs hundreds of times every year, just in North America.There is even a myth, that has been thoroughly debunked, that pit bulls were once known as “nanny dogs.” This is such a dangerous myth, the idea that it is safe to leave a small child alone with a Pit Bull (or any dog for that matter), yet certain people continue to spread the myth, hoping to convince others that Pit Bulls are great family dogs.Because of the near-constant (almost daily) media reports of horrific pit bull maulings, which includes a DEATH about once every 2 weeks, several “Pit Bull Advocacy” groups have embarked on a national campaign to re-brand these dogs. These groups, which include powerful organizations such as the Humane Society and the ASPCA, have invented a false history of these dogs, and have gone to great lengths to mis-educate the public. They spread myths such as “It’s all how you raise them” or “Pit Bulls are no more dangerous than any other dog,” and “Pit Bulls have a better temperament than most other dogs.” They suggest that every single time there is a serious attack, that it must have been bad owners, mistreated dog, victim fault, or some other external factor – but its never the dog’s fault.The truth is, Pit Bulls attack and cause devastating injury because it is what they were bred to do! No matter how much you complain about it, and refuse to believe it, pit bulls were originally bred in the 17th century to be Pit Fighters – dog fighters. The fastest, strongest, most tenacious dogs, with the tendency to bite, hold and shake their prey, and the propensity to launch into full attack mode without any provocation or warning, were specifically selected to make the Pit Bull breeds we know and love today.And it is weird that the pro-pit advocates refuse to acknowledge that the breed has anything to do with their disproportionate numbers of maulings. No one doubts that the Beagle’s propensity to howl, or the Newfoundland’s love of water, or the Border Collie’s instinct to herd is a characteristic of its breed. No one doubts that all modern dog breeds were selectively bred to perform a specific function. You don’t have to train dog breeds to act in conformity with their breed characteristics – that is the purpose of having breeds in the first place. But somehow, when a Pit Bull exhibits perfect pit-fighting characteristics, as stated above, “it’s all you raise them.”I won’t get into the whole pit bull debate here – you can pick up a copy of the awesome new book,Misunderstood Nanny Dogs?: A Critical and Objective Analysis of the Facts & Myths Concerning Pit Bulls: J. Thomas Beasley: 9781508726715: Amazon.com: Books by Quora genius, J. Thomas Beasley, at Amazon.com($6.99 paperback; $3.99 Kindle version). Suffice it to say, the evidence is clear that Pit Bulls cause more fatal and debilitating injuries than all other dogs breeds COMBINED.But these advocacy groups keep perpetuating the myths, and continue in their efforts to adopt out pit bull rescues to unsuspecting families. They continue to ensure these unsuspecting families that if you raise a pit bull well, and don’t train it to fight, it will be a loving, gentle, lap dog. And admittedly, most pit bulls turn out to be just fine. However, a grossly disproportionate number of pit bulls will attack – either a family member, neighbor, stranger or another animal – without ever showing any signs of aggression, and without any provocation. The problem then is that you never know when it will happen.In January 2014, a 4 year-old girl was mauled to death by her family pit bulls, on her birthday. Kara Hartrich was savagely attacked by the dogs, and died from massive blood loss. Her mother, Roxanne, wrote a letter that perfectly captures the absolute disservice done by the pro-pit bull advocates’ misinformation campaign. She, too, was led to believe that “it’s all how you raise them,” yet she learned the painful truth on that fateful day."These were her family pit bulls that we raised from puppies . She picked them out herself. They were treated as members of the family, loved, exercised, fed well, and respected ……… they savagely murdered the little girl who loved and cared for them the most in this world without a second thought, directly following they acted as if nothing happened , she hadn’t riled them up, she hadn’t abused them, she was happily playing in the other room, they came after her and pulled her out of my mothers arms to attack , maul, and kill her…"…My brother had raised many pit bulls and one particularly captured our hearts…He was the sweetest well mannered gentle dog I had ever seen…I was always told the aggressive ones were because they were trained to fight and it was all in how they were raised….and if u got them from puppies that was the best way to raise any dog…Both of the dogs who attacked were brought home as puppies and picked out by Kara…These dogs never displayed any people aggression. ..always sat dutifully by her side ..watched her have tea parties, sat by her side when she was sick, thought they were lap dogs and liked to snuggle…..no warnings…no snapping..no growling…….just snapped!"(Roxanne Miller Hartrich,Kara Hartrich - Bloomington, Illinois - killed by the family pit bull on her 4th birthday (1/17/14)).The only other good reason anyone would want a Pit Bull? Dog-Fighting. This is what they were bred for. They were not bred to herd farm animals (in fact they kill more domestic animals, including livestock, than any other dogs – somewhere around 98%), they were not bred to hunt, they were not bred as guard dogs, and they were certainly not bred as fucking Nanny Dogs! Pit Bulls were bred to fight in the pit, with other pit bulls. So if you aren’t dog fighting, what do you expect your Pit Bull to do? They’re just not that great at anything else. With training, they can do a variety of tasks – they are capable animals – but there are other dog breeds, I guarantee you, that can do those tasks better, because there are breeds of dog that were bred to perform those tasks – whether it be herding, hunting, search and rescue – there are fantastic dog breeds purpose- bred for those tasks, and the Pit Bull ain’t one.So, start the downvoting! I know its coming, as I have been engaged in this debate for many months now. But despite all your arguments, and lies and myths and misconceptions, you pit-bill propagandists cannot, will not, refute the statistics, or the genetics. Pit Bulls are not safe family pets. Period. Over 300 fatal maulings in the past 10 years alone. Hundreds of serious, disfiguring maulings EVERY YEAR. 62% of fatal dog attacks by pit bulls, which make up only 5% of the dog population. And many of these attacks are perpetrated by well-treated family pets. These are facts, and they are not complicated. So why would anyone want a Pit Bull? Why, indeed.

The majority of the bites on humans by dogs are on children. Children are closer to the size of the dog, are often unaware of dog behavior, and as a grown-up/adult it is often difficult to supervise children and dogs 100% of the time. Children often are not good at sharing, they take toys from each other, when they try to take the dogs toy or dogs bowl they do not understand that they May face a dog's wrath for doing so . Therefore young children are often at risk during a normal simple and innocent behavior. This is why young children should be watched very closely around the family dog. The dog’s chew toys and play things should not be present until the child is slightly older and able to understand the dog’s territorial behavior over it's things.Most family dogs are very good with children, but some dogs are not used to sharing. Atop this, they play a little rough for a child/normal for a dog. Children's hands are small and rather fragile. They fit easily in the mouth of a dog, and as humans we utilize our hands daily for our lives. It only takes a millisecond for something bad to happen & the child may or may not be old enough to learn a lesson. The dog often pays with its life and it was all avoidable. Responsible parenting and responsible dog ownership, just donit!! Even responsible parents and owners still have accidents. Then t boils down to severity and duration of the attack/ incident.Dogs are rapid, harsh, and aggressive in their social style of discipline in the pack. Watch a wolf pack documentary. They are gentle and suggestive with growls and ignoring behavior in their initial discipline of their offspring, but when those pups or fellow pack mates ignore the gentle body language, they are dosiciplined with rather savage snaps, bites and other rapid aggressive behavior changes. It escalates quickly, and then is finished just as quickly. In the dog world that kind of disciplining is swift. It serves a purpose, and the other dogs learn how to respect space, food, territory, and how to react when approaching the pack member who did the disciplining.Sadly, the way this translates in the human world, even if the bite was encouraged, stimulated, or precipitated by the infant/ child/ toddler’s actions, a dog is not to bite humans. Especially not children. Only dogs trained in police / bite work, guide dogs and medical alert dogs are allowed to put humans in their mouths and get away with it.At a dog’s central core behavior is the predator. That predatory nature is why some dogs like to destroy toys, chase cats, squirrels and other small animals. Dogs are a social pack animal. We have chosen to bring them into our pack. They serve as watchdogs, guardians, service dogs, companions, therapy animals… Dogs serve us in many wonderful and beneficial fashions. Dogs are less likely to be aggressive or bite if they are altered. This also holds true if they are socialized in the house, and not left outside chained or left in the kennel the majority of the time.There are vastly more households with dogs and children that never see a bite then there are households with dog to bite.As a veterinarian, I have encountered this situation more times that I wish. There needs to be an education of the owner of the dog, there's a big difference between it being a neighbors dog allowed to run loose and then coming into your yard, biting your children or attacking one while they were playing versus the family dog snapping the child intentionally or accidentally.Each case deserves an individual analysis, and understanding of why the event happened, a facing of the facts, with an understanding that if the child repeats the behavior, the dogs aggression may escalate as the last warning wasn't clear enough.There maybe attitude changes, the child may become fearful of dogs for life, The dog may become more cautious or guarded around the child or more aggressive and territorial, no matter what, in most states, a dog gets one bite. Bite wounds are like gunshot wounds, hospitals report them. If a dog bite is reported. If it's your own dog, your homeowners insurance will be the next thing to worry about. Most homeowners or renters insurance policies have clauses against owning aggressive dogs, harboring a dog known to be aggressive, etc... Some breeds are listed individually, but any dog who bites anyone is known to be a dangerous animal. If that animal bites a second time/person, you will have a very hard time keeping both your homeowners insurance policy and your dog. Landlords may evict you, there are many things that are corollary to owning an aggressive dog or a known biter. If you know your dog is a biter and you move into a new place under false pretense is you may be liable.Truthfully, the only one who will face the death penalty will be the dog. The only one scarred for life physically will be the child who was bitten. There will be emotional upset and angry feelings experienced by the different people involved. The owner, parent, siblings, child or the innocent bystander who was bitten. It is human nature to root for the dog, as only the dog may be put to death, but the truth is the dog is complicit in the bite. If the dog was scared and cornered and fearful and the child had to stick you could assume the child was going to beat the dog, but the truth could have been that it tried to offer the dog a stick to play with.Sure there are plenty of mean-spirited children out there who tease and do tormenting things to dogs. If the child injures the dog (or any pet) and the veterinarian sees a pattern, there is some ethical and legal footwork, as animal abuse by children escalates as the child ages.For the most part children are bitten inside or outside the home. Outsode the house is often a different bite behavior, Kids have energy, they run and play in groups and those may resemble a small flock or herd of animals , the dog may get worked up, join in the chase and once over excited, nip someone as it would when trying to herd or move an animal to separate it out. These excitatory bites are easy enough to prevent, the dog remains tethered to its owner, kenneled when children are playing, in the house while the children are playing outside, in a crate if they're playing inside. This requires supervision & foresight by the owner. The owner is the one with the brain and thumbs that will be held accountable for their actions. After all you do not want your dog to attack a young, lost, mentally challenged, deaf, blind, or an ear bud wearing music playing unobservant young child who wanders onto your property. You can argue whether they should be on your property or not, but if they can't read, it won’t matter if you have or don't have signs posted about no trespassing, beware of dog. So even if it is posted & your dog is out loose, unattended, defending your property like you intend it to do, be prepared that a dog bite will land you in court. So in general your dog is best to have bark to alert you to handle all situations and strangers, but no bite. No matter how much you love your dog, making sure it knows to refrain from biting anyone is the in the best interest of both you and your dog.If this has happened to you, your dog bite will likely be submitted to your homeowners insurance policy. If there were medical charges associated with it you will have a court battle, The insurance company has a clause against covering / owning aggressive dogs, so if this isn't your dogs first bite, you are out of luck. Be prepared, there will be public outcry no matter what the outcome, if the dog is in quarantine, if the dog is euthanized, if the dog is rehomed, if you try to keep the dog… some batch of the public will be unhappy, in satisfied and blame you for everything despite not having any of the facts. But the truth is there's a good chance your child will need emotional and physical therapy, multiple reconstructive surgeries, medications, anabiotics and time to heal. None of this is inexpensive. Insurance companies have the clause about owning the aggressive dog for a reason. They do not want to pay millions for a lifetime rehabilitation of a child because some idiot pet owner allows an aggressive dog around the child unsupervised, but they know that there are sometimes household nips. They have data that points to certain breeds being more predisposed to this than others. They have national data collected over decades that indicates type of dog doing bite, severity of bite, cost of repair, age of victim, etc...All dogs can bite. There's an old story that goes as followsA farmer and his dog drive into town. A kid passing by says: Hey mister, does your dog bite? Well, replies the farmer, he has teeth, but he doesn't bite me.*all dogs, given the proper stimuli, will bite. Some are quicker to this action than others.AVOIDANCE of a bite situation is ideal all around!! No questions asked.Bites are bad. In this scenario you presented, kid and pet suffer. Pet is at a center of controversy and the humans suffer guilt, anguish, anger, loss, fear, pain, sorrow, financial woes…. none of these are GOOD feelings!!!So: an ounce of prevention here is worth about 62 million metric tons of cure. Because there is no “cure” for a dog bitten child. Best case secario: child and dog have same owner/parent/guardian and the child is not severely bitten, wounds are simple abrasions you can wash out well, the dog was scolded, the precipitating factor was removed, no hospital room or doctor’s services were needed and every grown up involved learned a lesson. You can read about worst case scenarios all in the paper, the internet or in the obituaries.As a veterinarian, I do not euthanize a dog for a bite on a human when they come in upset and emotional. There is more to what has to legally happen after a bite. if the dog has been regularly seen at the clinic, is up-to-date on all vaccines, and the owner a Lex euthanasia, I understand that feeling. Whoever is listed as official owner of the dog has the power to say what happens to the dog. I am not of the nature do you thin ice healthy young dogs. If euthanasia is the best option I will let another veterinarian euthanize them. Placement into a home without children isn't a bad option. There are plenty of homes with no children that would like a dog. However owning a dog that has bitten someone requires assumption of risk and liability. The truth is I may not be legally allowed to euthanize a dog after it bites a child. If the dog does not come to one of our clinics regularly, we must get verification of the pets rabies vaccination status.If the dog has had its rabies vaccine and it is current, there will be a 10 day in home or at clinic quarantine required before the dog may be allowed to go home or destroyed . My job is a supportive one. I can hold this dog until the owners have made up their mind and had time to let emotions calm down a bit.The real problem arises if the dog had never received a rabies vaccine. If this is the case, the dog will be destroyed in the prescribed time and the dog’s head will be sent in for rabies testing at an accredited lab. If the owner shot the dog in the head during a bout of anger over the bite, there may not be any viable tissue for sampling. In this case the bitten person and everyone with exposure to the dog’s saliva will likely have to undergo post exposure rabies series of shots. That is worst case scenario.If the dog is behind it's vaccines, has not received one in several years, the dog will be held as a quarantine rabies suspect, if the dog shows any amplifying aggression, neurologic behavior, chooses not to drink, salivates excessively or dies during this quarantine, it's head will be sent to the accredited lab for testing to determine whether the bitten individual needs to undergo post exposure rabies vaccinations. There is a lot more to worry about regarding a dog than just the bite.CATS are the number one way that humans are exposed to rabies, it's unlikely that your house dog will be afflicted, but legally the veterinarian has a role to play, as does health services and the medical field. This all holds true for the US, I do not have global data.I sincerely hope this was a hypothetical question.MAKE SURE ALL DOGS ARE UP TO DATE ON RABIES VACCINES.Supervise play time with kids and dogs!good luck if this was not a hypothetical questions

Original Question: Do you think police brutality is due to "a few bad apples"?I’ve honestly been waiting for a question about this subject to come up that was phrased in a way that I could actually share my thoughts. And thankfully, this question fits the bill perfectly. But first, a bit of background.In order to understand this answer, you have to understand the question, and realize that here in the United States, pundits and polemics and professional opinion-givers of various political stripes have used and abuse the phrase “a few bad apples” in a kind of off-hand, dismissive way—a way of waving their hands to acknowledge that sure, on the one hand that specific example of [X] is bad, but that on the other hand you can’t generalize it to the entire system of [X]. You can’t judge an entire system purely on the basis of “anecdotal evidence.”And to be sure, rhetorically and intellectually speaking it actually is wise to reserve judgment, and to take pains to avoid a faulty generalization fallacy—especially when your perceptions of the issue may or may not be the result of sampling bias. After all, there’s a reason why a story entitled “Florida dog bites man” is less likely to generate readership—and therefore less of the coveted clicks and ad revenue that come with it—than a news article entitled “Florida man bites dog.”[1][1][1][1] One is so mundane as to be almost tiresome, whereas the other is bizarre and contrary to our common experiences, and piques our interest. Thus, if a story or even series of stories appear frequently media coverage, it can usually be assumed to be an uncommon and remarkable event, rather than a mundane and quotidian one.Side Note: Let’s be honest, if those two articles appeared side by side in your news feed, I think we’d all be curious to learn more. I mean just think about it—taken together, every aspect of them has me wanting to know more:Are the stories related?If so, did the man initiate the biting, or did he bite the dog in retaliation? And even if they aren’t—same question.Was/were the biting(s) in question self-defense on the part of either man or dog?Was there a witness to the biting(s) in question, or was it a classic “he-said-she-barked*” situation?Enquiring minds want to know!*(Yeah, that’s right, I said she. Is that a surprise? Why would it be? I never specified a gender for the dogs in question—I said “Man bites dog,” and “Dog bites man.” So if you assumed the gender of these bitches without prompting, maybe check your #ImplicitBiases. #Feminism. #LetWokeDogsLie. #PupLivesMatter.)So, with that being said, let’s start by acknowledging that if there is a “bias” at all in the stories selected for coverage by the 24-hour news cycle, it’s not actually guided by (or towards) one political ideology or another—although there are certainly some exceptions.[2][2][2][2]More often than not, the news cycle is guided by and towards sensationalism and spectacle. Especially the kind of raw, emotional, visceral spectacle that appeals to the primitive, atavistic centers of our brain—the same instincts that compel us to rubberneck at gruesome images or horrific accidents. And as such, one might be forgiven for suspecting that the incidence of police brutality in the United States is a real and terrible reality, but one that may not actually be as common as the gaudy, wall-to-wall news coverage of the latest notorious incident might imply. As the saying goes, “if it bleeds it leads,”[3][3][3][3] and nobody buys a newspaper subscription to read about all the times police didn’t shoot an unarmed black man to death—nor could they, seeing as how the country is full of unarmed black men who have not been shot to death by police.(At least, not yet).But, therein lies the problem. Taken in isolation, you could be forgiven for thinking that the police killing of George Floyd was a random, isolated event—the criminal, inexcusable actions of a few rogue cops (i.e. “bad apples”) who behaved in a shocking and thoroughly reprehensible manner—but only if you looked at it in isolation. But when you instead put it in the larger context of the United States, and our history of policing—and really the systemic inequalities inherent in our criminal justice system as a whole—the narrative of “a few bad apples” becomes much, much harder to sustain.This is especially true when you put George Floyd’s death into a context where words like “swatting” have entered into the common lexicon, and where a man was shot to death by a police officer who literally broke into his home—and who was not even arrested until three months later, after public outcry.[4][4][4][4] Because this is the context that the recent protests against police brutality are occuring in, conveyed in hilariously British comedic style, on August 17th, 2014……and October 5th, 2014……and March 22nd, 2015……and October 2nd, 2016……and August 6th, 2017……and March 8th, 2020……and most recently June 7th, 2020…Now yes, as you probably noticed if you watched all those videos, not all of them are directly related to the question of “police brutality.” But taken together, they all get into a larger question which this question needs to consider:All of these videos are examples of law enforcement officers using (and misusing) the power and authority they’ve been given to the detriment of the people they are “policing,” according to the system as it was designed. The patterns of behavior illustrated in the videos above—from civil asset forfeiture, to police militarization, to the election of sheriffs, and so on—are examples of abuses that have occurred when the system working as it was designed to work: with little to no second-guessing of officers “on the front lines,” little to no “civilian oversight,” and little to no consequences for all but the most egregious and least excusable behaviors. When police officers have been arrested for corruption or malfeasance or criminal negligence, it has often only come after incredibly flagrant misconduct, insurmountable evidence, or an ongoing pattern of documented abuses spanning years, if not decades, resulting in media scrutiny and/or public outcry—or all of the above. The system as it is designed, is intentionally set up to favor the police—to give them every benefit of every doubt—and yet they still keep f***ing up. Often, they f*** up in truly spectacular fashion, such that people have literally died as a result. And if that is the result of the system that is working as it was designed, at a certain point, we’ve exhausted all “the doubt” of which we can give police “the benefit.”(And if you’re a person of color, you may have already exhausted your supply of “doubt” decades before the rest of us.)Side Note 2: I know I’ve been spamming videos of John Oliver of late—and I make absolutely no apologies for doing so. In fact if anything, you should be grateful that I held back; I was sorely tempted to include his videos about capital punishment,[5][5][5][5][6][6][6][6] prisons,[7][7][7][7] criminal prosecutors,[8][8][8][8] death investigations,[9][9][9][9] and dubious “forensic science”[10][10][10][10] that has been used to obtain convictions in criminal trials—you know, for fuller context. But rather than tackle the entirety of systemic injustices and inequalities in our criminal justice system, I decided to focus exclusively on police.You’re welcome.So, this is what people who use “bad apples” as an excuse don’t understand, especially when it comes to issues relating to the police, and particularly on questions of police use of force. Because as John Oliver so astutely noted, the full aphorism is:“A few bad apples spoil the bunch.”And that concept—of “spoiling the bunch”—is very much the crux of the matter when it comes law enforcement, and any and all abuses thereof.It’s not that a single bad apple simply gives you cause to “doubt” the goodness of all the other apples in the bunch—it’s that by refusing to remove the apple that is “bad,” and known to be bad, the rot and corruption spreads, and spreads, and spreads, until eventually there are more “bad” apples than “good” ones.Maybe once upon a time, the subject of police brutality was just a matter of perception—although even a casual study of our nation’s checkered history of policing would quickly disabuse you of that notion. But if it ever was a problem of perception, it really isn’t anymore. And not because of what happened to George Floyd, or the protests that arose over the video of his death. It’s because of Floyd,[11][11][11][11] and Brown,[12][12][12][12] and Scott,[13][13][13][13] and Scott,[14][14][14][14] and Grant,[15][15][15][15] and Jean,[16][16][16][16] and Gray,[17][17][17][17] and Castile,[18][18][18][18] and Rice,[19][19][19][19] and Taylor,[20][20][20][20] and Diamond[21][21][21][21] and countless thousands of other people[22][22][22][22] whose names never made it onto the headlines—either because they survived, or because their deaths were “lawful but awful,”[23][23][23][23] or because they or their families accepted a payout and an NDA to keep them off the front page—as well as all the protestors whose skulls were cracked by police simply because they refused or failed to obey orders they had no reason to be giving.(That’s a reference to Congressman John Lewis, by the way—whose skull was fractured by Alabama State Troopers during the ”Bloody Sunday” protests from Selma to Montegomery—and not to Martin Gugino who was hospitalized by Buffalo police. Although you’d be forgiven for not knowing that).By protecting bad cops, and making it harder to remove them, good cops became bad cops. First, by remaining silent when they witnessed abuses because they didn’t want to be a “rat.” Then, by helping to cover it up, because of “loyalty to the badge,” but not necessarily to the law. And finally, by engaging in abuse themselves because…well, why not? Seriously, why not “bend the rules” to make sure your perp goes down? (He’s guilty anyways—who care if he just so happens to be “innocent” at the moment?) Why not harass a complaining citizen until she withdraws her allegation? (You’re a “good cop,” after all—even if the “civilian” public doesn’t see it that way). Why not ignore the cries of a dying man in your jail[24][24][24][24]—or simply “forget” that he’s even still in there[25][25][25][25]—when the worst you can realistically expect is joining the rotation of gypsy cops cycling through your department? You’re still a “good cop,” despite all of these things—and even if you weren’t a good cop, it wouldn’t matter anyways, because your “brothers” have your back, no questions asked; the prosecutors and judges are looking the other way as long as they can win their next election; and the people you’re supposed to be “protecting” are too scared to speak out, because they know that nothing good will come of it, aside from making themselves a target for further abuse.None of this is speculation on my part, by the way; it’s actually the sworn legal testimony of “rat cops” like Frank Serpico. And Joe Sánchez. And Adrian Schoolcraft.It’s also the official findings of things like the Hofstadter Committee. And the Knapp Commission. And the Mollen Commission. And lest you think I’m picking on NYC, it’s also been consistent with the findings of all the hearings and investigations held after the Watts riots. And the hearings held after the Harlem riot of 1964—not to be confused with the Harlem riot of 1943 (which is different from the Zoot Suit Riots of 1943), or the Harlem riot of 1935. And it is consistent with hearings held after the King beating riots—which should not to be confused with King assassination riots.And, of course, it’s also consistent with the Annual Statutory Enforcement Reports from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, as well as its State Advisory Committee Reports, and periodic Briefing Reports—just the ones on policing though, although if you have time to read the ones on civil rights in schools and housing and employment, you probably should.(Seriously, though: read the USCCR reports about police in Minnesota, Nevada, Delaware, New York, Missouri, Massachusetts, and Maine—and then compare them to the USCCR’s report “Coping with Police Misconduct in West Virginia” from 2004. See if you can spot any similarities—and then note the dates).Footnotes[1] Florida Man - Wikipedia[1] Florida Man - Wikipedia[1] Florida Man - Wikipedia[1] Florida Man - Wikipedia[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnSILVWDKL8[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnSILVWDKL8[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnSILVWDKL8[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnSILVWDKL8[3] The false media focus on violence: If it bleeds it still leads[3] The false media focus on violence: If it bleeds it still leads[3] The false media focus on violence: If it bleeds it still leads[3] The false media focus on violence: If it bleeds it still leads[4] Murder of Botham Jean - Wikipedia[4] Murder of Botham Jean - Wikipedia[4] Murder of Botham Jean - Wikipedia[4] Murder of Botham Jean - Wikipedia[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kye2oX-b39E[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kye2oX-b39E[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kye2oX-b39E[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kye2oX-b39E[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=0lTczPEG8iI&feature=emb_logo[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=0lTczPEG8iI&feature=emb_logo[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=0lTczPEG8iI&feature=emb_logo[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=0lTczPEG8iI&feature=emb_logo[7] https://youtu.be/_Pz3syET3DY[7] https://youtu.be/_Pz3syET3DY[7] https://youtu.be/_Pz3syET3DY[7] https://youtu.be/_Pz3syET3DY[8] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ET_b78GSBUs[8] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ET_b78GSBUs[8] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ET_b78GSBUs[8] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ET_b78GSBUs[9] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnoMsftQPY8[9] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnoMsftQPY8[9] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnoMsftQPY8[9] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnoMsftQPY8[10] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScmJvmzDcG0[10] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScmJvmzDcG0[10] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScmJvmzDcG0[10] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScmJvmzDcG0[11] Killing of George Floyd - Wikipedia[11] Killing of George Floyd - Wikipedia[11] Killing of George Floyd - Wikipedia[11] Killing of George Floyd - Wikipedia[12] Shooting of Michael Brown - Wikipedia[12] Shooting of Michael Brown - Wikipedia[12] Shooting of Michael Brown - Wikipedia[12] Shooting of Michael Brown - Wikipedia[13] Shooting of Walter Scott - Wikipedia[13] Shooting of Walter Scott - Wikipedia[13] Shooting of Walter Scott - Wikipedia[13] Shooting of Walter Scott - Wikipedia[14] Shooting of Keith Lamont Scott - Wikipedia[14] Shooting of Keith Lamont Scott - Wikipedia[14] Shooting of Keith Lamont Scott - Wikipedia[14] Shooting of Keith Lamont Scott - Wikipedia[15] Shooting of Oscar Grant - Wikipedia[15] Shooting of Oscar Grant - Wikipedia[15] Shooting of Oscar Grant - Wikipedia[15] Shooting of Oscar Grant - Wikipedia[16] Murder of Botham Jean - Wikipedia[16] Murder of Botham Jean - Wikipedia[16] Murder of Botham Jean - Wikipedia[16] Murder of Botham Jean - Wikipedia[17] Death of Freddie Gray - Wikipedia[17] Death of Freddie Gray - Wikipedia[17] Death of Freddie Gray - Wikipedia[17] Death of Freddie Gray - Wikipedia[18] Shooting of Philando Castile - Wikipedia[18] Shooting of Philando Castile - Wikipedia[18] Shooting of Philando Castile - Wikipedia[18] Shooting of Philando Castile - Wikipedia[19] Shooting of Tamir Rice - Wikipedia[19] Shooting of Tamir Rice - Wikipedia[19] Shooting of Tamir Rice - Wikipedia[19] Shooting of Tamir Rice - Wikipedia[20] Shooting of Breonna Taylor - Wikipedia[20] Shooting of Breonna Taylor - Wikipedia[20] Shooting of Breonna Taylor - Wikipedia[20] Shooting of Breonna Taylor - Wikipedia[21] Shooting of Justine Damond - Wikipedia[21] Shooting of Justine Damond - Wikipedia[21] Shooting of Justine Damond - Wikipedia[21] Shooting of Justine Damond - Wikipedia[22] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/[22] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/[22] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/[22] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/[23] ‘Lawful but awful:’ High burden for prosecution of bad police actions[23] ‘Lawful but awful:’ High burden for prosecution of bad police actions[23] ‘Lawful but awful:’ High burden for prosecution of bad police actions[23] ‘Lawful but awful:’ High burden for prosecution of bad police actions[24] Oklahoma jailhouse video appears to show staff ignoring dying inmate[24] Oklahoma jailhouse video appears to show staff ignoring dying inmate[24] Oklahoma jailhouse video appears to show staff ignoring dying inmate[24] Oklahoma jailhouse video appears to show staff ignoring dying inmate[25] Incarceration of Daniel Chong - Wikipedia[25] Incarceration of Daniel Chong - Wikipedia[25] Incarceration of Daniel Chong - Wikipedia[25] Incarceration of Daniel Chong - Wikipedia