My family saw a police car hit a kid, then I learned how NYPD impunity works(propublica.org)
propublica.org
My family saw a police car hit a kid, then I learned how NYPD impunity works
https://www.propublica.org/article/my-family-saw-a-police-car-hit-a-kid-on-halloween-then-i-learned-how-nypd-impunity-works
648 comments
> Notice that while average white parents might worry about criminals before letting their kids out on the street, the black parents worry (with good reason) about the police
They are both worried about criminals. The fact that some criminals have badges and guns and a conspiracy of accomplices in positions of power shielding them from accountability for their crimes doesn't make them any less criminals.
> Just to spell it out: this is why so many BLM activists feel comfortable saying "abolish the police" or "defund the police", because from their point of view the police are the people most likely to assault or kill them or their children on the street, more so than random criminals
That's starting in the general direction of the truth, but not correct. It's not so much that Black community members (much less BLM activists, who are more likely to have detailed statistics at hand) think police are the most likely threat, but that police as currently constituted are a threat that Black communities both pay for and get poor returns from, both because of actual abuse by police and because their actual law enforcement needs (and other needs which society has shoveled into the police portfolio) are simultaneously underserved (and not just when it comes to crimes by cops; BLM, after all, didn't start in response to police violence.)
They are both worried about criminals. The fact that some criminals have badges and guns and a conspiracy of accomplices in positions of power shielding them from accountability for their crimes doesn't make them any less criminals.
> Just to spell it out: this is why so many BLM activists feel comfortable saying "abolish the police" or "defund the police", because from their point of view the police are the people most likely to assault or kill them or their children on the street, more so than random criminals
That's starting in the general direction of the truth, but not correct. It's not so much that Black community members (much less BLM activists, who are more likely to have detailed statistics at hand) think police are the most likely threat, but that police as currently constituted are a threat that Black communities both pay for and get poor returns from, both because of actual abuse by police and because their actual law enforcement needs (and other needs which society has shoveled into the police portfolio) are simultaneously underserved (and not just when it comes to crimes by cops; BLM, after all, didn't start in response to police violence.)
I take issue with your framing of the police as criminals because it misses the point; the police are not criminals, the law and the legal establishment fully supports their actions. Those actions are institutionally racist as they are intended to be. There are no bad apples here, it's the barrel that is rotten.
On the contrary. Many of these actions are illegal, sometimes even unconstitutional. There may be other laws that make it difficult, or impossible to actually enforce laws against police brutality, but that doesn't change the fact that police officers are breaking the law.
'Criminals' is better be read as enemies or threats. It's used as a catch-all term for people who would do you and your loved ones harm without remorse.
If the tables were turned and the police were no longer the servants of the white community, how might that look?
Patrol cars driving around suburbs at night blasting sirens then arresting people who came out to complain. Harassing middle class white dads mowing their lawns by telling them to stop and go inside, then escalating into one-sided physical altercations requiring reinforcements. Ticketing mom groups for loitering and trespassing for congregating to chat on sidewalks with baby strollers on front of their homes, or threatening them with CPS. Breaking into homes and shooting pets and family members of kids who brought home pot, or their neighbors if they show up at the wrong house.
Who would these people call to complain to if no one else cared? How would these communities look after years of being afraid? Of having to accept that their lives were forfeit and losing loved ones to the police was just a fact of life?
Unfortunately, we already know.
If the tables were turned and the police were no longer the servants of the white community, how might that look?
Patrol cars driving around suburbs at night blasting sirens then arresting people who came out to complain. Harassing middle class white dads mowing their lawns by telling them to stop and go inside, then escalating into one-sided physical altercations requiring reinforcements. Ticketing mom groups for loitering and trespassing for congregating to chat on sidewalks with baby strollers on front of their homes, or threatening them with CPS. Breaking into homes and shooting pets and family members of kids who brought home pot, or their neighbors if they show up at the wrong house.
Who would these people call to complain to if no one else cared? How would these communities look after years of being afraid? Of having to accept that their lives were forfeit and losing loved ones to the police was just a fact of life?
Unfortunately, we already know.
I think we know the answer. Look at the response to the opioid crisis versus the “war on drugs”.
Technically illegal but still legally protected. It's the hypocrisy of law enforcement.
> There are no bad apples here
I don't understand. You're saying that individual police members are not at fault for their actions? That the police institution is rotten (barrel) but stops at the individual officer (apple)?
I 100% agree that the barrel is rotten, but there are plenty of bad individuals as a result of the barrel being rotten for so long.
A way to test this, change the 'barrel' and see which 'apples' stick around. i.e. if all apples are good changing the barrel doesn't result in difference in apples just the apples' actions.
We're already seeing #bluflu, walk outs, resignations because in some specific areas of the country, the barrel is being changed out piece by piece.
I disagree that apples are not bad. Lots of them are. It'll be a painful transition, but it will be one for better if we can keep it up.
I don't understand. You're saying that individual police members are not at fault for their actions? That the police institution is rotten (barrel) but stops at the individual officer (apple)?
I 100% agree that the barrel is rotten, but there are plenty of bad individuals as a result of the barrel being rotten for so long.
A way to test this, change the 'barrel' and see which 'apples' stick around. i.e. if all apples are good changing the barrel doesn't result in difference in apples just the apples' actions.
We're already seeing #bluflu, walk outs, resignations because in some specific areas of the country, the barrel is being changed out piece by piece.
I disagree that apples are not bad. Lots of them are. It'll be a painful transition, but it will be one for better if we can keep it up.
No, the parent is saying that calling police criminals masks the fundamental twisted nature of the justice system. Judging by their words, they condemn the police as criminals, but also condemn a 'justice' system that allows their deeds to remain legal. The barrel is rotten, the apples are rotten, so let's throw it all out and try again, is how I interpret their statement.
I mean you and I are saying the same thing it sounds like, but that sounds decidedly different than what the comment I was replying to was saying.
You're driving the metapthor too far, I honestly don't get your point. Are you're saying we shouldn't touch the institution of police and just replace the individual police members?
To my knowledge, that is what has been done until now - and it evidently didn't work.
To my knowledge, that is what has been done until now - and it evidently didn't work.
> You're driving the metapthor too far
I'm just trying to understand what the parent comment said because I honestly am confused.
I'm just trying to understand what the parent comment said because I honestly am confused.
Of course individual police officers are at fault, but it's also the entire system that is rotten. The system creates these rotten police officers, encourages and protects them, and allowed them to spread the rot.
I thought BLM started in response to police violence against Trayvon Martin. Did I miss something?
George Zimmerman was not a police officer
George Zimmerman was part of neighborhood watch, what do you think will replace police?
That's not remotely relevant to what was being asked
> what do you think will replace police
A variety of domain-specialized community services organizations, many of which will have enforcement components, some armed, and probably at least one of which is investigatory/enforcement focussed, but no single monolithic paramilitary organization.
Not a neighborhood watch, but more like how federal law enforcement, and despite the fact that “state police” organizations do exist, that of most states, is organized.
A variety of domain-specialized community services organizations, many of which will have enforcement components, some armed, and probably at least one of which is investigatory/enforcement focussed, but no single monolithic paramilitary organization.
Not a neighborhood watch, but more like how federal law enforcement, and despite the fact that “state police” organizations do exist, that of most states, is organized.
Who would I get to round up trick-or-treaters rather than the cops? no one
> what do you think will replace police?
Honestly? My fear is that governments will privatize policing. Because that's the policy that both parties can agree on / take bribes from.
Honestly? My fear is that governments will privatize policing. Because that's the policy that both parties can agree on / take bribes from.
There was no police violence against Trayvon Martin.
[deleted]
Not to disagree with the post in general, but at a thousand/year shot and killed by the police in US, they probably are one of the most dangerous threat
For comparison in Italy in 2019 there have been 3 people killed by the police, and people have - rightfully IMO - complained every single time.
In US more than 1k (1040 to be precise) died shot by cops
If we compare the population, there should have been at least 180 victims of police gunning in Italy
That's clearly unacceptable.
Or, from another angle, it means that criminality in US is so much worse than the average EU country that it's ok to kill so many people in the name of safety.
For comparison in Italy in 2019 there have been 3 people killed by the police, and people have - rightfully IMO - complained every single time.
In US more than 1k (1040 to be precise) died shot by cops
If we compare the population, there should have been at least 180 victims of police gunning in Italy
That's clearly unacceptable.
Or, from another angle, it means that criminality in US is so much worse than the average EU country that it's ok to kill so many people in the name of safety.
>Or, from another angle, it means that criminality in US is so much worse than the average EU country that it's ok to kill so many people in the name of safety.
Number of homicides in the USA in 2017: 19,510
Deaths per 100,000 population: 6.0
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
Number of homicides in Italy in 2017: 357
Deaths per 100,000 population: 0.6
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Italy
Number of homicides in the USA in 2017: 19,510
Deaths per 100,000 population: 6.0
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
Number of homicides in Italy in 2017: 357
Deaths per 100,000 population: 0.6
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Italy
Combining numbers, US police are responsible for ~5% of killings, and Italian police are responsible for < 1%.
On top of that, most experts say the US has a broken criminal justice system that actively prevents rehabilitation. If you count the resulting increase in the crime rate against the police, courts and jails, then their collective actions lead to way more than 5% of the killings.
On top of that, most experts say the US has a broken criminal justice system that actively prevents rehabilitation. If you count the resulting increase in the crime rate against the police, courts and jails, then their collective actions lead to way more than 5% of the killings.
Wow, how can we be more like Italy?
The biggest thing:
* Change rules of engagement for police to emphasise de-escalation when possible and gradual escalation when absolutely necessary. E.g. in the UK police won't even have firearms on them most of the time unless specifically called to deal with a suspected incident involving weapons, but even if they do, the focus tends to be on de-escalation and waiting the situation out if possible (e.g. someone sat in a car with a gun for about 12 hours a couple of miles from me some months ago; police just got people out of the way and waited until he calmed down, while neighbours talked to the press and whined about why they didn't just shoot him - he had mental issue and a young daughter that presumably was very happy police were calm and collected).
One of my pet examples here was a case in the US were a guy with an axe was shot after charging a police officer. This was a justified killing in that the police officer was under real threat. But she shouldn't have been in danger in the first place - two of them charged in and confronted the man, instead of clearing a perimeter and waiting for backing. In contrast when I called police (UK) over a possible assault near my house a couple of years ago, they sent 8 officers for an incident with no suspected weapons involved.
Bonus points for:
* Reducing sentences for crimes carried out without weapons significantly. E.g. in Norway, using firearms can easily add 10 years to a sentence that might be 5 or less without weapons.
* Treat any use of weapons to stop e.g. a robber as murder if it's not clearly done in self defense.
Point being that criminals needs to see it as worthwhile to not bring a gun. If it is more dangerous for them to do something unarmed than it is to do it armed, and there's little meaningful difference in sentencing, then why wouldn't they go in armed?
The US has created a perverse incentive for criminals to arm themselves to the teeth.
* Change rules of engagement for police to emphasise de-escalation when possible and gradual escalation when absolutely necessary. E.g. in the UK police won't even have firearms on them most of the time unless specifically called to deal with a suspected incident involving weapons, but even if they do, the focus tends to be on de-escalation and waiting the situation out if possible (e.g. someone sat in a car with a gun for about 12 hours a couple of miles from me some months ago; police just got people out of the way and waited until he calmed down, while neighbours talked to the press and whined about why they didn't just shoot him - he had mental issue and a young daughter that presumably was very happy police were calm and collected).
One of my pet examples here was a case in the US were a guy with an axe was shot after charging a police officer. This was a justified killing in that the police officer was under real threat. But she shouldn't have been in danger in the first place - two of them charged in and confronted the man, instead of clearing a perimeter and waiting for backing. In contrast when I called police (UK) over a possible assault near my house a couple of years ago, they sent 8 officers for an incident with no suspected weapons involved.
Bonus points for:
* Reducing sentences for crimes carried out without weapons significantly. E.g. in Norway, using firearms can easily add 10 years to a sentence that might be 5 or less without weapons.
* Treat any use of weapons to stop e.g. a robber as murder if it's not clearly done in self defense.
Point being that criminals needs to see it as worthwhile to not bring a gun. If it is more dangerous for them to do something unarmed than it is to do it armed, and there's little meaningful difference in sentencing, then why wouldn't they go in armed?
The US has created a perverse incentive for criminals to arm themselves to the teeth.
> gradual escalation
Part of the reason for the quick escalation is that (American) cops are taught things like the Tueller Drill https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwHYRBNc9r8 that claims that an attacker can close 21 feet in 1500 milliseconds and stab a victim so many times that even a fast ambulance response won't save him from bleeding out.
This idea means the cop has to unholster a pistol as soon as any sign of noncompliance is showm, start firing if a person "reaches for their waist", and empty the magazine because this Olympian attacker won't be stopped by a few bullets.
They just "want to get home to their families" despite the fact that car accidents are deadlier to cops and garbage men have more dangerous jobs.
Part of the reason for the quick escalation is that (American) cops are taught things like the Tueller Drill https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwHYRBNc9r8 that claims that an attacker can close 21 feet in 1500 milliseconds and stab a victim so many times that even a fast ambulance response won't save him from bleeding out.
This idea means the cop has to unholster a pistol as soon as any sign of noncompliance is showm, start firing if a person "reaches for their waist", and empty the magazine because this Olympian attacker won't be stopped by a few bullets.
They just "want to get home to their families" despite the fact that car accidents are deadlier to cops and garbage men have more dangerous jobs.
The response to that would be that part of the reason you'll see UK police most of the time get people out of the way if they can, keep their distance and call for backup and be patient unless there are people in immediate danger.
Since UK police only exceptionally carry firearms, they have to play things safer. E.g. respond with more people. Keeping greater distance.
But lots of other police forces have - sometimes heavily - armed police with better results because they effectively act on the basis that using their weapon is an absolute last resort, and so you keep your distance if there's a risk they're armed, and call for backup rather than approach etc.
Since UK police only exceptionally carry firearms, they have to play things safer. E.g. respond with more people. Keeping greater distance.
But lots of other police forces have - sometimes heavily - armed police with better results because they effectively act on the basis that using their weapon is an absolute last resort, and so you keep your distance if there's a risk they're armed, and call for backup rather than approach etc.
The video you quoted clearly articulates the preference for getting out of the way of the attacker, keeping the distance and avoiding the direct confrontation. Unholstering the pistol does not imply an indiscriminate shooting. The video is suggesting a reasonable course of action in an emergency situation.
It's not just Italy... the entirety of the European continent sets a great example, even acknowledging the corruption that still takes place.
The question to the US is: how can they become less insular and more open to ways of living that aren't strictly 'American'? You would think the constitution is now set in stone: societal progression is at a complete halt after committing to a few rules 200 or so years ago. And I know that sounds hyperbolic, but even in that time it's still the case that race is a fundamental issue in the US.
The question to the US is: how can they become less insular and more open to ways of living that aren't strictly 'American'? You would think the constitution is now set in stone: societal progression is at a complete halt after committing to a few rules 200 or so years ago. And I know that sounds hyperbolic, but even in that time it's still the case that race is a fundamental issue in the US.
It's honestly even worse than that in some ways, because we were still pretty actively adding to/changing the rules as recently as the late 1960s, and then we just kinda...stopped.
A little off-topic but I thought the meta was you are more likely to be beaten up/tortured by police while in custody in Europe/Asia as opposed to while in custody in the US? I have no experience in these things. Have I misunderstood this?
That's false as well.
Look at a Norway prison
Now take a look at an American one
Look at a Norway prison
Now take a look at an American one
> Look at a Norway prison
Thank you for the reply. Yes, I understand that Scandinavian countries do a lot of things better. I also understand that prisons are terrible in the US and jails are worse still.
However, from stories I've heard about "interrogation techniques"...
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=https:/...
My understanding is that it is unlawful to torture (physically, mentally, ...) into answering questions and/or confessing to any crime in the US and you have a right to remain silent (in theory at least) in police custody. How well is enforced in other countries?
From what I understand, local police (talking about custody, not jail or prison) in the US will sometimes use torture techniques like isolation or suicide watch and will beat suspects when they get a chance (moving between rooms or whatever) but this is uncommon.
Thank you for the reply. Yes, I understand that Scandinavian countries do a lot of things better. I also understand that prisons are terrible in the US and jails are worse still.
However, from stories I've heard about "interrogation techniques"...
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=https:/...
My understanding is that it is unlawful to torture (physically, mentally, ...) into answering questions and/or confessing to any crime in the US and you have a right to remain silent (in theory at least) in police custody. How well is enforced in other countries?
From what I understand, local police (talking about custody, not jail or prison) in the US will sometimes use torture techniques like isolation or suicide watch and will beat suspects when they get a chance (moving between rooms or whatever) but this is uncommon.
It's enforced better than in the US, on many levels.
First, they can't really arrest you without motiv, they can't even detain you without motiv.
Second: you can confront a police officer in EU, they won't shoot you or handcuff you, unless you pose a real danger to public safety.
I had a fight with one of them three months ago, he almost ran over me with his bike and when I confronted him he removed his jacket and told he was a police officer. I said "you are two times wrong then" He yelled at me he was going to bring me in, I said "no way" and meanwhile people gathered around me and started saying to the police officer he was abusing his powers, that they had seen what he'd done with his bike and where ready to testify against him, if he didn't apologize.
He went away.
That's almost impossible in the US, where officers are trained to respond physically to basically anything that they consider a threat.
Stefano Cucchi is a very peculiar case he wasn't lawfully tortured, he was killed by the police and then they tried to cover it up.
I went to many events in support of his cause.
After years of trial the officers have been condemned and many high ranking officers asked for forgiveness to Stefano's sister, Ilaria, a great woman who stood alone against the injustice her brother faced.
But it's been a very popular case all over the news, for years, there have been a few others in Italy, but the point is it is unlawful and you can count them on the fingers of one hand.
The real problem in Italy is that it takes decades to get a final judgement.
And right now the right wing parties, that also support Trump, that wants free guns for everybody like in the US.
Anyway, torture is a crime in Italy and it is considerd an aggravating factor if it is committed by an officer.
First, they can't really arrest you without motiv, they can't even detain you without motiv.
Second: you can confront a police officer in EU, they won't shoot you or handcuff you, unless you pose a real danger to public safety.
I had a fight with one of them three months ago, he almost ran over me with his bike and when I confronted him he removed his jacket and told he was a police officer. I said "you are two times wrong then" He yelled at me he was going to bring me in, I said "no way" and meanwhile people gathered around me and started saying to the police officer he was abusing his powers, that they had seen what he'd done with his bike and where ready to testify against him, if he didn't apologize.
He went away.
That's almost impossible in the US, where officers are trained to respond physically to basically anything that they consider a threat.
Stefano Cucchi is a very peculiar case he wasn't lawfully tortured, he was killed by the police and then they tried to cover it up.
I went to many events in support of his cause.
After years of trial the officers have been condemned and many high ranking officers asked for forgiveness to Stefano's sister, Ilaria, a great woman who stood alone against the injustice her brother faced.
But it's been a very popular case all over the news, for years, there have been a few others in Italy, but the point is it is unlawful and you can count them on the fingers of one hand.
The real problem in Italy is that it takes decades to get a final judgement.
And right now the right wing parties, that also support Trump, that wants free guns for everybody like in the US.
Anyway, torture is a crime in Italy and it is considerd an aggravating factor if it is committed by an officer.
> Anyway, torture is a crime in Italy and it is considerd an aggravating factor if it is committed by an officer.
Thank you. I appreciate your answering my questions and not assuming I am asking rhetorical questions (something I am not very good at yet). I didn't know about the case and saw it when I googled for any case.
> And right now the right wing parties, that also support Trump, that wants free guns for everybody like in the US.
I don't know for sure as I am not friends with many 45 supporters but my understanding is the "base" is more interested in guns for everyone more than 45 himself. Not that it matters in the larger scheme but just thought I'd share my understanding.
Thank you. I appreciate your answering my questions and not assuming I am asking rhetorical questions (something I am not very good at yet). I didn't know about the case and saw it when I googled for any case.
> And right now the right wing parties, that also support Trump, that wants free guns for everybody like in the US.
I don't know for sure as I am not friends with many 45 supporters but my understanding is the "base" is more interested in guns for everyone more than 45 himself. Not that it matters in the larger scheme but just thought I'd share my understanding.
It's probably even worse than being insular
I don't blame the people of US, but their cultural system, I do.
Those who criticize or just reports things that don't work in the States are immediately flagged as anti American, it's like an instinct.
Their homicide stats are worse than many developing countries in Africa, four time worse than Canada, six times worse than China, ten times worse than Europe and Asia
Singapore's homicide rate is 30 times lower than in US!
It's really a lot
It's a failure, no matter how one frames it
But it's still very hard to get the general population to confront the numbers
They say you shouldn't shoot the messenger, but even on HN, where people are generally more educated than the average, it's really hard to start a conversation about the causes of this debacle
I lost 20 points of karma in two days because I showed stats about police brutality in US
I hope they'll get it one day, I live in Europe, my country has a lot of problems and there are many things that US does better and we looked at them for decades in search of a solution to our shortcomings
But if there's one thing we do well in EU is how our police handles critical situation, it varies from country to country of course and there are exceptions, Poland is not Spain, but in general it's true
So why not try to listen for once?
I don't have an answer honestly.
I don't blame the people of US, but their cultural system, I do.
Those who criticize or just reports things that don't work in the States are immediately flagged as anti American, it's like an instinct.
Their homicide stats are worse than many developing countries in Africa, four time worse than Canada, six times worse than China, ten times worse than Europe and Asia
Singapore's homicide rate is 30 times lower than in US!
It's really a lot
It's a failure, no matter how one frames it
But it's still very hard to get the general population to confront the numbers
They say you shouldn't shoot the messenger, but even on HN, where people are generally more educated than the average, it's really hard to start a conversation about the causes of this debacle
I lost 20 points of karma in two days because I showed stats about police brutality in US
I hope they'll get it one day, I live in Europe, my country has a lot of problems and there are many things that US does better and we looked at them for decades in search of a solution to our shortcomings
But if there's one thing we do well in EU is how our police handles critical situation, it varies from country to country of course and there are exceptions, Poland is not Spain, but in general it's true
So why not try to listen for once?
I don't have an answer honestly.
Or really, like pretty much any developed nation.
Having an aged population certainly helps. Not a lot of 80 year old gangbangers.
If people die young they don't get to live enough to become old
Get rid of your guns
Homicide rate was 4 per 100k in the 50s, spiked up to 10 through the 60s and 70s, dipped a bit in the 80s, then dropped from 1991 to to now back to around 6.
The increase in crime in the 60s and 70s didn't correlate with more guns, the decrease in crime in the late 90's didn't correlate with fewer guns.
There is clearly something going on in the US that drives crime that is not guns. Culture, welfare state, war on drugs, inequality, segregation, failure of the family. Better cases to be made on any of those things than guns.
The increase in crime in the 60s and 70s didn't correlate with more guns, the decrease in crime in the late 90's didn't correlate with fewer guns.
There is clearly something going on in the US that drives crime that is not guns. Culture, welfare state, war on drugs, inequality, segregation, failure of the family. Better cases to be made on any of those things than guns.
A more likely culprit: Leaded gasoline [0].
I think the GP is correct to point out the gun thing too. Having lived in a place where guns aren’t as accessible and observing how people live, I’m sure there is some correlation.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93crime_hypothesi...
I think the GP is correct to point out the gun thing too. Having lived in a place where guns aren’t as accessible and observing how people live, I’m sure there is some correlation.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93crime_hypothesi...
You're saying homicides have historically varied in the US by a factor of 2, and this variation cannot be correlated with notable changes in gun availability. Previous comments mentioned a factor of 10 difference in homicides compared to countries in Europe, arguably with the most notable explanatory correlation being gun availability. If the only crimes we are talking about are homicides, then there does seem to be a pretty good case.
Some people thrive on the empowerment, liberty and responsibility associated with these incredible death machines. But that's no reason to mistreat the data. For instance, the ratio associated with other death machines like cars, which have somewhat similar availability across the pond between US and Europe, is a more reasonable factor of 2/3.
Some people thrive on the empowerment, liberty and responsibility associated with these incredible death machines. But that's no reason to mistreat the data. For instance, the ratio associated with other death machines like cars, which have somewhat similar availability across the pond between US and Europe, is a more reasonable factor of 2/3.
Your causation goes the wrong way. The GP didn't say that less crime would cause fewer guns, but that fewer guns would cause less crime. You can't say "but guns stayed the same and crime both increased and decreased at points, which means that guns don't affect crime".
You can't say "but guns stayed the same and crime both increased and decreased at points, which means that guns don't affect crime".
I didn't say they don't affect crime, but if crime spikes, then drops then spikes, while gun ownership remains steady, then it is a piece of evidence that crime is largely driven by something other than the quantity of guns.
I didn't say they don't affect crime, but if crime spikes, then drops then spikes, while gun ownership remains steady, then it is a piece of evidence that crime is largely driven by something other than the quantity of guns.
How? The fact that you can stop eating omelettes and still have the same amount of eggs in your fridge doesn't make you can make omelettes without eggs.
All of those are multiple times higher than Italy. There are other factors that cause decade-level differences in homicide rate, but if you want to bring the baseline homicide rate down, you could do worse than looking at access to guns.
Easy when you’re not a criminal.
Who will enforce this anyways?
Who will enforce this anyways?
I am not a criminal. Nor a police officer. Why should I get rid of my gun?
I'm not a criminal (for the most part[0]). Nor am I a police officer. Why should I have a gun?
[0] WTF is a "criminal" anyways? I use illegal substances sometimes. I drive above the speed limit (like everyone else does) most of the time. Back when I played poker on US sites I didn't pay taxes on my winnings even though I should have. I can think of a ton of examples where I simply do not follow the law and so according to the definition of the word I am a criminal.
[0] WTF is a "criminal" anyways? I use illegal substances sometimes. I drive above the speed limit (like everyone else does) most of the time. Back when I played poker on US sites I didn't pay taxes on my winnings even though I should have. I can think of a ton of examples where I simply do not follow the law and so according to the definition of the word I am a criminal.
In the context of the above discussion, "criminal" is the person who is using the gun for criminal activities, i.e. murder, extortion, etc. I can see the arguments that such criminals should not be in possession of a firearm. I can also see arguments that power-hungry cops should not be in possession of a firearm either. But as a private citizen, who is neither, why should I surrender a gun? I am not a threat to anyone.
Why should you have a gun? It is a personal preference. Like art or poetry. You are free to want whatever you want. If you do not like/want guns, please do not have them. But, please do not impose your preferences on others.
Why should you have a gun? It is a personal preference. Like art or poetry. You are free to want whatever you want. If you do not like/want guns, please do not have them. But, please do not impose your preferences on others.
We have a culture problem, both in the public and in the police. We also have politicians who show no shame in exploiting class warfare to the point of telling people that the deck is stacked against them, wealthy people stole it, and more. Politicians who in one turn tell people to stay at home, don't go to church, or parties because its dangerous to their health, then turn around and say protesting is more important. Who never fail to exploit societal strife as a means to get their name in the press. Out one side of their mouth they claim that the police are out of control while behind closed doors curry favor of the public employee unions who empower the problem.
We have an inner city culture whose music celebrates violence and does not celebrate women but instead treats them like property or worse. We have an inner city culture where schools teach kids to rely on the government and not their parents and the adults. We have an culture where not getting an education can sometimes be seen as a badge of honor and time in jail as the same. We networks with endless broadcasts of cop shows and other crime and violence shows which normalize the environment
Then on top of this you get the police. A group which has been militarized from day one from boot camp, supposedly part of which is to insure healthy cops but rarely is the physical requirement part of a continued job requirement. Who have ranks like any military organization. Who salute each other like any military organization. Who have uniforms , some for daily use, which makes it near impossible to separate them from military members. Who are issued guns for all routes and allowed to keep them on their person off duty. Who are trained by their organization and union that it is them versus the bad guys.
So there is a lot to fix but it starts at the top. Politicians must be held accountable for the mess they create and division they foster. We have to get to the music industry to police itself and tone down the violence of their lyrics and treatment of women. We need a entertainment industry which does not rely on the crime and shows with excessive violence. We need schools to emphasize the good of society and how to improve each student's outcome regardless of situation.
We did not get here overnight. The riots in Detroit back in the 60s should have been understood better but instead politicians capitalized on the fear, drove further wedges among all races, and empowered the police to be more militant. Remember who has controlled politics in most major cities since then and you may understand the lie sold to everyone. They never intended to fix the problem, they intended to feed on it. The political class used it as a guarantee of power.
We have an inner city culture whose music celebrates violence and does not celebrate women but instead treats them like property or worse. We have an inner city culture where schools teach kids to rely on the government and not their parents and the adults. We have an culture where not getting an education can sometimes be seen as a badge of honor and time in jail as the same. We networks with endless broadcasts of cop shows and other crime and violence shows which normalize the environment
Then on top of this you get the police. A group which has been militarized from day one from boot camp, supposedly part of which is to insure healthy cops but rarely is the physical requirement part of a continued job requirement. Who have ranks like any military organization. Who salute each other like any military organization. Who have uniforms , some for daily use, which makes it near impossible to separate them from military members. Who are issued guns for all routes and allowed to keep them on their person off duty. Who are trained by their organization and union that it is them versus the bad guys.
So there is a lot to fix but it starts at the top. Politicians must be held accountable for the mess they create and division they foster. We have to get to the music industry to police itself and tone down the violence of their lyrics and treatment of women. We need a entertainment industry which does not rely on the crime and shows with excessive violence. We need schools to emphasize the good of society and how to improve each student's outcome regardless of situation.
We did not get here overnight. The riots in Detroit back in the 60s should have been understood better but instead politicians capitalized on the fear, drove further wedges among all races, and empowered the police to be more militant. Remember who has controlled politics in most major cities since then and you may understand the lie sold to everyone. They never intended to fix the problem, they intended to feed on it. The political class used it as a guarantee of power.
[deleted]
Many, many, many more people in the US are shooting themselves or others than getting shot by police. We're talking like, 1K per year shot by cops versus 100 PER DAY of overall gun murder/suicide. Yes, police violence is a problem, but the 1K shot by cops is mostly an artifact of our crazy high overall gun violence problem.
Edit: so, to summarize, yes, I do think that our crazy high number of people shot by police per capita is because of and strongly related to our crazy high number of people shooting each other and themselves.
Edit: so, to summarize, yes, I do think that our crazy high number of people shot by police per capita is because of and strongly related to our crazy high number of people shooting each other and themselves.
Lets start with the actual number of gun related homicides per day 40.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
You are comparing the number of gun deaths in 2 populations and concluding that the difference in total deaths indicates a commensurate increase in dangerous situations faced by officers. Your inclusion of gun suicides makes it extremely difficult to be charitable with your interpretation.
Greater gun suicides correlates with hopelessness and availability of guns not danger to officers and these deaths of despair are literally 60% of the gun deaths you are talking about! Half of the remaining were murdered by someone they know. Most of the remaining 20 not 100 daily murders seemingly random violent murders aren't really random they are criminals murdering other criminals.
Cops aren't overwhelmingly dealing with gang bangers they are overwhelmingly dealing with members of the general population and lots of low level offenders because that is what's out there. That is who they are murdering. They are murdering a broad swath of the population mostly not entirely focused on black people literally because they can get away with it.
Instead of pretending we can't look at the deaths in proper context we ought to analyze the deaths in their proper context. Although this is hard to do in a comment thread your reasoning is in this case worse than nothing because it gives one the false impression that you have a handle on it.
Please stop apologizing for murderers.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
You are comparing the number of gun deaths in 2 populations and concluding that the difference in total deaths indicates a commensurate increase in dangerous situations faced by officers. Your inclusion of gun suicides makes it extremely difficult to be charitable with your interpretation.
Greater gun suicides correlates with hopelessness and availability of guns not danger to officers and these deaths of despair are literally 60% of the gun deaths you are talking about! Half of the remaining were murdered by someone they know. Most of the remaining 20 not 100 daily murders seemingly random violent murders aren't really random they are criminals murdering other criminals.
Cops aren't overwhelmingly dealing with gang bangers they are overwhelmingly dealing with members of the general population and lots of low level offenders because that is what's out there. That is who they are murdering. They are murdering a broad swath of the population mostly not entirely focused on black people literally because they can get away with it.
Instead of pretending we can't look at the deaths in proper context we ought to analyze the deaths in their proper context. Although this is hard to do in a comment thread your reasoning is in this case worse than nothing because it gives one the false impression that you have a handle on it.
Please stop apologizing for murderers.
I agree with everything you said and I don't feel like our comments are in dispute- I don't think cops are killing people because we have so much murder and suicide, I think that we have a violent and gun obsessed country, and that shows itself through high levels of police violence, murder, and suicide.
Edit: as such, I would remove the "because of" part of the last sentence of my previous comment, and leave the "strongly related to". My bad.
Edit: as such, I would remove the "because of" part of the last sentence of my previous comment, and leave the "strongly related to". My bad.
all the european countries have strong medical systems that don't let anyone through the cracks. Many also don't have prison systems like we have but are more focused on rehabilitation, and the 'why' people commit crimes. Sure murderers/rapists lock up, but non-violent people reward them for NOT using violence to commit a crime w/ house arrest, community service, and fines.
If we had guaranteed medical, we'd have a check on mental health. Probably the #1 cause of crimes in America is poor mental health and the stress of living in America.
If we had guaranteed medical, we'd have a check on mental health. Probably the #1 cause of crimes in America is poor mental health and the stress of living in America.
Wait. Do we have actual numbers of police shootings? Aren't these things self-reported and under-reported?
I think total killings are pretty accurately reporting.
There were about 1100 police killings in 2019. This includes people shot or beaten to death by officers on or off duty. [1] About 10% of these people were unarmed. This statistic is the one which is most likely under-reported. About 50 police are feloniously killed per year [2]
[1] https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/06/05/policekillings/ [2] https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-release...
There were about 1100 police killings in 2019. This includes people shot or beaten to death by officers on or off duty. [1] About 10% of these people were unarmed. This statistic is the one which is most likely under-reported. About 50 police are feloniously killed per year [2]
[1] https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/06/05/policekillings/ [2] https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-release...
Thank you.
I feel like they probably always report them but lie about the circumstances and say the shooting was justified.
Well, both of the previous answers prove my point
US is a a dangerous country and the police is not doing a good job at all
If there are so many homicides, who should prevent them?
If after killing a hundred people a month (by shooting at them, I presented only the numbers of those killed by a police shooting) they can't even make a dent on the (horrible) numbers, it means they are doing a very bad job.
Tertium non datur
The mob kills less people here.
And we have at least two of the main five criminal organizations in the entire world.
US is a a dangerous country and the police is not doing a good job at all
If there are so many homicides, who should prevent them?
If after killing a hundred people a month (by shooting at them, I presented only the numbers of those killed by a police shooting) they can't even make a dent on the (horrible) numbers, it means they are doing a very bad job.
Tertium non datur
The mob kills less people here.
And we have at least two of the main five criminal organizations in the entire world.
How do you know they aren't making a dent in the numbers? You don't know, and can't know, the counter factual. One anecdote though, police are doing less policing right now in cities like Chicago, and the the outcome is not looking good.
At least 106 people shot, 14 fatally, in Chicago weekend violence
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-chicago-week...
At least 106 people shot, 14 fatally, in Chicago weekend violence
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-chicago-week...
It's pretty easy to say when your stats are 10 times worse than a similar developed country and look more like a developing country where warlords are in charge
Or, in US police is at war
Which is equally bad
EDIT: to give more context
If poverty rate in US was worse than in Nigeria, people would say that something went horribly wrong
Homicide rate in US is actually 1.5 times worse than Nigeria and two times worse than Uganda and Congo
Or, in US police is at war
Which is equally bad
EDIT: to give more context
If poverty rate in US was worse than in Nigeria, people would say that something went horribly wrong
Homicide rate in US is actually 1.5 times worse than Nigeria and two times worse than Uganda and Congo
Using the pretext of traffic stops as an excuse to search vehicles for small amounts of drugs and then shooting people reaching for their wallets doesn't do much to prevent murders.
Police murders aren't meaningfully correlated with crime prevention.
Police murders aren't meaningfully correlated with crime prevention.
We recently had a case in the UK where a prominent (as in winning the British Empire Medal for her services to nursing prominent) nurse was stopped by police, and was too scared to get out of the car.
When she told the police this, their response was "I don’t believe you because you’re talking to police officers."
She ended up being arrested for obstruction because they kept failing to understand that her reluctance to comply was because they terrified her, and they can be heard in the bodycam footage [1] going "This is nonsense, there's something in this vehicle" after listening to her telling her dad she's afraid the police officer is going to harm her.
When the police officer starts dragging her out, she is screaming over the phone for her dad to call the police.
The officer is thankfully relatively calm, and it ended without physical harm to her, but this is a quite stark demonstration of the kind of fear the police has created, and how they then perpetuate that by not teaching their officers to understand the existence of that fear and interpret non-compliance resulting from that fear as indication of criminal activity.
She's was cleared, and is pursuing a claim against the police, but of course a claim will not address the fundamental ignorance among a lot of police officers about the fear they are inducing.
I can only imagine how much worse that fear must be in the US - at least in the UK police is rarely carrying firearms - and how awful that fear must be for parents.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/18/nurse-claims-m...
When she told the police this, their response was "I don’t believe you because you’re talking to police officers."
She ended up being arrested for obstruction because they kept failing to understand that her reluctance to comply was because they terrified her, and they can be heard in the bodycam footage [1] going "This is nonsense, there's something in this vehicle" after listening to her telling her dad she's afraid the police officer is going to harm her.
When the police officer starts dragging her out, she is screaming over the phone for her dad to call the police.
The officer is thankfully relatively calm, and it ended without physical harm to her, but this is a quite stark demonstration of the kind of fear the police has created, and how they then perpetuate that by not teaching their officers to understand the existence of that fear and interpret non-compliance resulting from that fear as indication of criminal activity.
She's was cleared, and is pursuing a claim against the police, but of course a claim will not address the fundamental ignorance among a lot of police officers about the fear they are inducing.
I can only imagine how much worse that fear must be in the US - at least in the UK police is rarely carrying firearms - and how awful that fear must be for parents.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/18/nurse-claims-m...
randompwd(3)
Unless one lives in Mexico, where the police assassinate people regularly, being terrified of the police - especially in Europe - doesn't fly as an excuse.
This is the fault of the media which is fishing for clicks and demonizing the police to the point that people are becoming paranoid.
This is the fault of the media which is fishing for clicks and demonizing the police to the point that people are becoming paranoid.
Being afraid of being killed, sure. Being afraid of having your life messed with, on the other hand is very reasonable in a lot of European countries too.
Even Theresa May acknowledged in her very first speech as PM that there were problems with institutional racism in the Metropolitan Police for example.
And top Met officers have also talked about problems with racism [1] and warned about misuse of stop and search. Each little abuse of power adds to an environment of fear.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jun/14/former-top-m...
Even Theresa May acknowledged in her very first speech as PM that there were problems with institutional racism in the Metropolitan Police for example.
And top Met officers have also talked about problems with racism [1] and warned about misuse of stop and search. Each little abuse of power adds to an environment of fear.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jun/14/former-top-m...
Police executing people in the streets with impunity is the reason, actually!
This is whataboutism. Just because it’s more common in one area doesn’t mean we can’t worry about this one thing.
It’s child abuse, but it’s so much worse, which is corrupt child abuse. There’s a multi-office institution which has structured itself to say — hit a kid, make the justification happen. Consider that they’ve got underage kids in the police station without access to parents or lawyers. No charges would ever stick from that, but you sure as hell would cover your ass for that whole running over a kid thing.
Coming from a poor (and incidentally very white) area myself, I understand the sentiment behind 'defund the police', but being comfortably middle class now, I also recognize it's something of a nonstarter with people who don't have that experience.
I prefer 'Police Out Of Poor Neighborhoods'. Police actually add value in rich neighborhoods (maybe by definition), and it's got a humorous acronym.
Edit: And police are much less likely to be shot at in rich neighborhoods. It's really win-win-win.
I prefer 'Police Out Of Poor Neighborhoods'. Police actually add value in rich neighborhoods (maybe by definition), and it's got a humorous acronym.
Edit: And police are much less likely to be shot at in rich neighborhoods. It's really win-win-win.
> but being comfortably middle class now, I also recognize it's something of a nonstarter with people who don't have that experience.
I think this is one of the two culture clashes happening with police versus civilians right now.
After the protests in the wake of the Michael Brown killing, there were articles written[1][2] about how there are a ton (many dozens) of tiny towns around Saint Louis each only a few city blocks large that prey on their citizens like parasites. Middle class people have largely moved out of these towns so they avoid this problem.
I don't think "defund the police" is a particularly good slogan and this is likely the reason other comfortably middle class families are likely to reject that calling.
But I also think that those who are comfortably middle class and ignoring the very real struggles of the lower class at the hands of the police and their governments have a duty to help lift their fellow Americans up and at least learn about the problems they face, if not do something about them. If we don't, we are no better than the pre Civil War city dwellers of the North comfortably ignoring the plight of the slaves and the indentured servants in the agrarian south.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2014/08/25/343143937/in-ferguson-court-f...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/0...
I think this is one of the two culture clashes happening with police versus civilians right now.
After the protests in the wake of the Michael Brown killing, there were articles written[1][2] about how there are a ton (many dozens) of tiny towns around Saint Louis each only a few city blocks large that prey on their citizens like parasites. Middle class people have largely moved out of these towns so they avoid this problem.
I don't think "defund the police" is a particularly good slogan and this is likely the reason other comfortably middle class families are likely to reject that calling.
But I also think that those who are comfortably middle class and ignoring the very real struggles of the lower class at the hands of the police and their governments have a duty to help lift their fellow Americans up and at least learn about the problems they face, if not do something about them. If we don't, we are no better than the pre Civil War city dwellers of the North comfortably ignoring the plight of the slaves and the indentured servants in the agrarian south.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2014/08/25/343143937/in-ferguson-court-f...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/0...
I don't even think that in most cases it's a case of wilfully ignoring. I think many, e.g several people responding to me, genuinely believe more police would lead to more security in poor neighbourhoods.
The trouble as I see it is that police broadly have two functions: to respond to emergencies where violence is likely and to suppress or tax the grey and black economy (huh. just noticed the ufnordunate linguistics of that). The 'responding to emergencies' function will of course still need to be performed, but it's fairly reliable that the poorer a neighbourhood is the less likely the residents are to voluntarily call 911 if an emergency does happen. In truly poor places the 'taxing grey and black markets' part of police work completely overshadows the good done by the 'responding to emergencies' part.
That is understandably very difficult for wealthy people to imagine, because they have very few examples of grey or black markets in their own lives, let alone instances where they have no other options. The thought that most people in any area would rather have enterprising teenagers sell bootleg cigarettes without hassle isn't even repugnant to them, it's just foreign.
The trouble as I see it is that police broadly have two functions: to respond to emergencies where violence is likely and to suppress or tax the grey and black economy (huh. just noticed the ufnordunate linguistics of that). The 'responding to emergencies' function will of course still need to be performed, but it's fairly reliable that the poorer a neighbourhood is the less likely the residents are to voluntarily call 911 if an emergency does happen. In truly poor places the 'taxing grey and black markets' part of police work completely overshadows the good done by the 'responding to emergencies' part.
That is understandably very difficult for wealthy people to imagine, because they have very few examples of grey or black markets in their own lives, let alone instances where they have no other options. The thought that most people in any area would rather have enterprising teenagers sell bootleg cigarettes without hassle isn't even repugnant to them, it's just foreign.
I'm not naive enough to think that adding more police is the solution, but withdrawing them is _definitely_ not the right answer either.
The inescapable conclusion to withdrawing the police is: 1 - response times will go up drastically, 2 - security will deteriorate, 3 - wealthier and middle class folks will stop visiting/living in those areas because of #1 and #2, 4 - the tax base will evaporate, 5 - the infrastructure, schools, and all other communal areas will deteriorate, 6 - the class divide will become a gaping chasm between the poor who are relegated to the slums and everyone else. We don't have to try this again. We know that this is what happens from our own history in the 20th century!
The inescapable conclusion to withdrawing the police is: 1 - response times will go up drastically, 2 - security will deteriorate, 3 - wealthier and middle class folks will stop visiting/living in those areas because of #1 and #2, 4 - the tax base will evaporate, 5 - the infrastructure, schools, and all other communal areas will deteriorate, 6 - the class divide will become a gaping chasm between the poor who are relegated to the slums and everyone else. We don't have to try this again. We know that this is what happens from our own history in the 20th century!
If you believe that 3, 4, and 5 had anything to do with the police in the 20th century then you should probably read up a whole lot more. From my perspective 3, 4, and 5 are what causes 1 and 2.
Hearing from someone who’s lived in both environments is interesting.
The empathy exercise for those of us in privileged neighborhoods is to imagine: How toxic must the dynamic be for entire communities to feel less safe with police and want them out altogether?
The empathy exercise for those of us in privileged neighborhoods is to imagine: How toxic must the dynamic be for entire communities to feel less safe with police and want them out altogether?
Well, I can give you a simple example. Where I grew up, you'd hear a gunshot every so often. No one paid it any mind - we knew it was the neighbors hunting out of season.
Technically a crime. But we all knew they and their children needed the meat. If everyone did it, the deer population would collapse and no one could hunt effectively even in-season. If someone had called a wildlife officer they could have certainly made the trek down. But no one would think to call the wildlife officers on them, because we knew it would lead to their children going hungry.
I think the thing people from rich neighbourhoods miss about that sort of thing is that when they hear stories of that nature [1], people's children going hungry over a minor infraction is seen as a failure of empathy on the constabulary's part. It's not. It's a failure of the law, and the constabulary's job is to uphold the law, not play social worker to people who break it. Hence our community's collective judgement that it was in everyone's best interest if the wildlife officer never found out about our neighbor's poaching activities.
[1] Joe Oliver has a great rant about a similar situation, lest readers think this only works in rural settings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjpmT5noto
Technically a crime. But we all knew they and their children needed the meat. If everyone did it, the deer population would collapse and no one could hunt effectively even in-season. If someone had called a wildlife officer they could have certainly made the trek down. But no one would think to call the wildlife officers on them, because we knew it would lead to their children going hungry.
I think the thing people from rich neighbourhoods miss about that sort of thing is that when they hear stories of that nature [1], people's children going hungry over a minor infraction is seen as a failure of empathy on the constabulary's part. It's not. It's a failure of the law, and the constabulary's job is to uphold the law, not play social worker to people who break it. Hence our community's collective judgement that it was in everyone's best interest if the wildlife officer never found out about our neighbor's poaching activities.
[1] Joe Oliver has a great rant about a similar situation, lest readers think this only works in rural settings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjpmT5noto
Yes, lets further exacerbate class disparities by now only providing safety and security for the rich. At least this way we can stop pretending that we even care about the poor.
I can't second the GPs post hard enough. Police tend to abuse the poor much more often than they help. When they are there to help it's usually a zero-sum proposition: one poor person, usually a non-white, is gonna get a beat down at the hands of "justice" far out of proportion to whatever transgression against another poor person they may be guilty of.
I grew up poor, white, in a neighborhood with non-whites (black, asian, and hispanic). None of us was safe from the police, though whites were in marginally less danger generally.
I grew up poor, white, in a neighborhood with non-whites (black, asian, and hispanic). None of us was safe from the police, though whites were in marginally less danger generally.
I understand that the police need to be reformed, and that they disproportionately police the poor. There are much better options than withdrawing them from all poor neighborhoods though. As we have seen time and time again, when the police are impotent, someone else will step up into the void to provide security. Typically, that's either organized crime, or (worse) vigilante justice. The net result is always the same though: the people living in those communities are always worse off.
Edit: I guess I should propose a solution instead of just railing against this idea. How about we: 1 - end the war on drugs, and 2 - fundamentally address poverty for once in this country.
Edit: I guess I should propose a solution instead of just railing against this idea. How about we: 1 - end the war on drugs, and 2 - fundamentally address poverty for once in this country.
Both of those things would help substantially, but it's not the entire problem. One of the core problems is that police have essentially been militarized. Their purpose isn't to serve the public trust, it's to engage in the control of an occupied population. Their purpose to ensure the most likely segment of the populace to take to the streets doesn't.
That's why all this crying over law and order in response to the protests is kind of hilarious. Their heavy handed tactics have backfired hard, and I have no sympathy for any of them. I feel for the police the same way I'd feel for an occupying army facing resistance.
That's why all this crying over law and order in response to the protests is kind of hilarious. Their heavy handed tactics have backfired hard, and I have no sympathy for any of them. I feel for the police the same way I'd feel for an occupying army facing resistance.
"Don't be snarky."
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
"Eschew flamebait."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
"Eschew flamebait."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Adding value like harassing blacks that "seem suspicious" for being in a rich neighborhood? It's not that simple.
I'm sympathetic to the idea that neighborhoods have a right not to be policed if they don't want to. But historically, the alternative to effective policing hasn't been peace and harmony; it's been protection rackets and violent mobs. I think we need to have some confidence that we're not plunging cities back to the crime rates of the 90s before we go down that route.
That's a fair concern. I would go beyond your initial statement though, and say that if neighborhoods don't want to be policed it's likely they know their own interests better than anyone else. Some police departments do a good job even in bad neighborhoods; others... seem to exacerbate the existing problems. I can think of no better litmus test than what the residents themselves think.
You’re joking right? Poor neighborhoods have the highest rates of crime.
And the billions spent on police aren't exactly doing much to stop it so it's probably time to change the way we handle crime in low income areas.
How do you know it isn't doing much to stop it? The story of Camden NJ says the opposite. Crime flourished as the police force shrunk, and declined when they disbanded and reformed a much large force.
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/apocalypse...
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/apocalypse...
Yet, the party in power in those neighborhoods have had power for 60 years. Why continue to give them blank checks? Why trust their ideas now?
I’m not a parent, but as a white person: the police have scared me much more than random people on the street for my entire adult life.
Agreed. As a white person and a minority in ways that can and can't be hidden, I've had the experience of interacting with cops when they think that I'm "one of them", and interacting with them when I clearly was an other.
It's a night and day difference, and I can only imagine it's much worse for those with different skin colors.
It's a night and day difference, and I can only imagine it's much worse for those with different skin colors.
I'm a BLM supporter. And think the police need massive reform. I'd love to see their unions busted up to boot.
But if we're going off statistics...
Black people are more likely to die or be injured from other black people more than they are by cops.
By, like, a lot.
this article showcases how impervious cops are to taking responsibility, especially against the poor and powerless.
But your comment of being more afraid of the cops over the crime in their own neighborhoods reeks of Americans being more scared of terrorism than heart disease.
But if we're going off statistics...
Black people are more likely to die or be injured from other black people more than they are by cops.
By, like, a lot.
this article showcases how impervious cops are to taking responsibility, especially against the poor and powerless.
But your comment of being more afraid of the cops over the crime in their own neighborhoods reeks of Americans being more scared of terrorism than heart disease.
You can MOSTLY avoid being murdered by your fellow black people by not engaging in any fashion with criminal enterprises and not staying with a domestic partner who beats you.
People who live their lives in a fashion as they are extremely unlikely to be harmed still worry that cops will murder their children for no reason. People also fear uncontrollable danger more so than things that they feel they can control even if they are in fact doing a bad job of it.
People who live their lives in a fashion as they are extremely unlikely to be harmed still worry that cops will murder their children for no reason. People also fear uncontrollable danger more so than things that they feel they can control even if they are in fact doing a bad job of it.
> Black people are more likely to die or be injured from other black people more than they are by cops.
> reeks of Americans being more scared of terrorism than heart disease
I'd like to point out it's not just any black people that are most likely to kill/injure others. There is a very small subset (likely less than 1%) of the population. In that way, being deathly afraid of other black people in the USA, being deathly afraid of police in the USA, and being deathly afraid of terrorists in the USA are all irrational (or at least disproportionate) fears.
That said, we don't tell people their fears of lightning are unfounded or disproportionate to furniture falling on them. Using pure statistics against a limbic system response isn't particularly useful. Your limbic system remains fearful, even if your cognitive brain knows the odds don't require that same level of fear.
> reeks of Americans being more scared of terrorism than heart disease
I'd like to point out it's not just any black people that are most likely to kill/injure others. There is a very small subset (likely less than 1%) of the population. In that way, being deathly afraid of other black people in the USA, being deathly afraid of police in the USA, and being deathly afraid of terrorists in the USA are all irrational (or at least disproportionate) fears.
That said, we don't tell people their fears of lightning are unfounded or disproportionate to furniture falling on them. Using pure statistics against a limbic system response isn't particularly useful. Your limbic system remains fearful, even if your cognitive brain knows the odds don't require that same level of fear.
As a white parent with a non-white son, I get both worries!
I 100% agree with your comment.
I cannot believe how many people I see here saying (in other places, not in the comments in this story) "see, this is proof that systemic racism is gone" ... just blows my mind.
I 100% agree with your comment.
I cannot believe how many people I see here saying (in other places, not in the comments in this story) "see, this is proof that systemic racism is gone" ... just blows my mind.
The problem with police in the USA is the lack of accountability (unless millions of people mobilize/protest).
> because from their point of view the police are the people most likely to assault or kill them or their children on the street, more so than random criminals
I don’t think that is framed correctly.
Black or white statistically you are far more likely to be killed (or assaulted) by non-police Of the same race as you.
I think everyone knows that, and to say police are the most likely to assault of kill black people takes the wind out of the sails of the legitimate issues. In other words police represent an additional threat to one of the groups and not the other, but in either instance the police are not the most likely perpetrators to either group.
I don’t think that is framed correctly.
Black or white statistically you are far more likely to be killed (or assaulted) by non-police Of the same race as you.
I think everyone knows that, and to say police are the most likely to assault of kill black people takes the wind out of the sails of the legitimate issues. In other words police represent an additional threat to one of the groups and not the other, but in either instance the police are not the most likely perpetrators to either group.
But police are hired and paid by the taxpayers, and the taxpayers also pay for the settlements against abuses. No one is hiring the other criminals or authoring laws to shield them from accountability.
> Black or white statistically you are far more likely to be killed (or assaulted) by non-police Of the same race as you.
That really doesn't matter that much. If a stranger assaults someone and a police office assaults someone, those are not equal. The stranger can be tried and convicted, but the police officer not as easily if at all. Also the stranger is a stranger, while the police officer I pay for and exists to serve and protect me.
An example of this is a police office in San Diego sexually assaulted (forced oral sex) 16 women after going to their house after they called the police to report a crime. That is so much worse than a stranger doing those things. And by the way... the police officer was convicted and served six months.
That really doesn't matter that much. If a stranger assaults someone and a police office assaults someone, those are not equal. The stranger can be tried and convicted, but the police officer not as easily if at all. Also the stranger is a stranger, while the police officer I pay for and exists to serve and protect me.
An example of this is a police office in San Diego sexually assaulted (forced oral sex) 16 women after going to their house after they called the police to report a crime. That is so much worse than a stranger doing those things. And by the way... the police officer was convicted and served six months.
> The stranger can be tried and convicted,
Not if law enforcement institutions, and society as a whole (including jurors) doesn't treat crimes as seriously where people who look like you are the victim. Were that the case, you might want to correct it by starting a movement dedicated to convincing society of the proposition “Lives of people who look like me matter”.
Not that there is a currently-relevant group with exactly that origin story, where the crystallizing event was the lack of accountability for a particular act of non-police homicide.
Not if law enforcement institutions, and society as a whole (including jurors) doesn't treat crimes as seriously where people who look like you are the victim. Were that the case, you might want to correct it by starting a movement dedicated to convincing society of the proposition “Lives of people who look like me matter”.
Not that there is a currently-relevant group with exactly that origin story, where the crystallizing event was the lack of accountability for a particular act of non-police homicide.
> That really doesn't matter that much.
I assure you it matters to the victims and their families.
And I don’t disagree about the morality of police abusing their powers...but a death is a death and a tragedy is a tragedy. No one is celebrating the death of their loved one no matter what the killers skin color or occupation.
> That is so much worse than a stranger doing those things.
Again it’s not like the victim of a sexual assault is saying thank god I was rapped by a non-officer.
I assure you it matters to the victims and their families.
And I don’t disagree about the morality of police abusing their powers...but a death is a death and a tragedy is a tragedy. No one is celebrating the death of their loved one no matter what the killers skin color or occupation.
> That is so much worse than a stranger doing those things.
Again it’s not like the victim of a sexual assault is saying thank god I was rapped by a non-officer.
> Again it’s not like the victim of a sexual assault is saying thank god I was rapped by a non-officer.
Aside from the fact that such a victim may very well feel that way (or more likely the inverse: I wish the person who raped me had not been an officer so I could seek justice) this observation seems orthogonal to the point since it is a question of perception.
The person who has not (yet) been raped is justified in being more fearful of a random police officer than of another random human because there is the perception (and indeed often the reality) that the police officer is able to act with impunity.
Also, for some groups, each interaction with a stranger comes with a small chance that they are a criminal who seeks to do you harm, but interacting with police carries a near 100% chance that they are suspicious of you and carefully watching your every move looking to find any justification to bust you.
I am not black and I am more fearful/wary of police officers than other strangers on the street. I never even considered the actual odds before.
I have been pepper sprayed by police officers for consuming cannabis in public. I have been mugged in the night by a black man with a gun. The mugger never pointed his gun at me. When he found the food stamps in my wallet he gave it back to me and told me to "stay safe". I am more scared of random police officers than I am of black men I encounter.
Aside from the fact that such a victim may very well feel that way (or more likely the inverse: I wish the person who raped me had not been an officer so I could seek justice) this observation seems orthogonal to the point since it is a question of perception.
The person who has not (yet) been raped is justified in being more fearful of a random police officer than of another random human because there is the perception (and indeed often the reality) that the police officer is able to act with impunity.
Also, for some groups, each interaction with a stranger comes with a small chance that they are a criminal who seeks to do you harm, but interacting with police carries a near 100% chance that they are suspicious of you and carefully watching your every move looking to find any justification to bust you.
I am not black and I am more fearful/wary of police officers than other strangers on the street. I never even considered the actual odds before.
I have been pepper sprayed by police officers for consuming cannabis in public. I have been mugged in the night by a black man with a gun. The mugger never pointed his gun at me. When he found the food stamps in my wallet he gave it back to me and told me to "stay safe". I am more scared of random police officers than I am of black men I encounter.
> I assure you it matters to the victims and their families.
Your assurance is no different than my opinion. You are speaking for victims just as I am, but I've been hurt by people I trust and I've been hurt by strangers. They aren't equal to me and I don't think I'm alone in that.
> Again it’s not like the victim of a sexual assault is saying thank god I was rapped by a non-officer.
If you think that is what I was trying to imply then I must have severely mis-worded my previous comment.
Your assurance is no different than my opinion. You are speaking for victims just as I am, but I've been hurt by people I trust and I've been hurt by strangers. They aren't equal to me and I don't think I'm alone in that.
> Again it’s not like the victim of a sexual assault is saying thank god I was rapped by a non-officer.
If you think that is what I was trying to imply then I must have severely mis-worded my previous comment.
> An example of this is a police office in San Diego sexually assaulted (forced oral sex) 16 women after going to their house after they called the police to report a crime. That is so much worse than a stranger doing those things.
I’m the first to welcome enhanced penalties for officers committing crimes in their official capacity...but I find your words very disturbing.
I’m the first to welcome enhanced penalties for officers committing crimes in their official capacity...but I find your words very disturbing.
I just don't get it.
The number of unarmed black men shot by police across the entire US in 2019 was 14. [0] How does such a small number spark this level of fear and protest?
Also, do people actually think the police generally and on average does more harm than good as to request abolishing it?
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/police...
The number of unarmed black men shot by police across the entire US in 2019 was 14. [0] How does such a small number spark this level of fear and protest?
Also, do people actually think the police generally and on average does more harm than good as to request abolishing it?
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/police...
Getting killed while unarmed is the highest level of escalation. Those stories are highlighted because in those situations it's obvious that Black people are being mistreated by police, and that police will lie about the circumstances. The mobile videos of deaths go viral more easily, and it's harder to justify the police actions when they kill someone. Even then, people have viewed these videos and argued that the dead person deserved it; such as in the case of Eric Garner.
People are protesting because the same factors present in wrongful deaths are also present in lower-level harassment by police. Black people have lots of personal stories about police encounters which will never be widely shared because there's no video and you have to trust the storyteller that the police acted wrongly. From the article:
> A recent CCRB report focused on police abuse against Black and Latino boys: “Young teens or pre-teens of color were handcuffed, arrested, or held at gunpoint while participating in age-appropriate activities such as running, playing with friends, high-fiving, sitting on a stoop, or carrying a backpack.”
The report doesn't focus on police shootings, it focuses on police abuse. Protestors are using uncommon events to highlight common events.
People are protesting because the same factors present in wrongful deaths are also present in lower-level harassment by police. Black people have lots of personal stories about police encounters which will never be widely shared because there's no video and you have to trust the storyteller that the police acted wrongly. From the article:
> A recent CCRB report focused on police abuse against Black and Latino boys: “Young teens or pre-teens of color were handcuffed, arrested, or held at gunpoint while participating in age-appropriate activities such as running, playing with friends, high-fiving, sitting on a stoop, or carrying a backpack.”
The report doesn't focus on police shootings, it focuses on police abuse. Protestors are using uncommon events to highlight common events.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/... Says 42 unarmed black people in 2019. But if we ignore race, 170 unarmed people got killed in 2019. By comparison, the FBI says there's an average of 64 law enforcement personnel killed.
An encounter with the police is actually 3 times more dangerous for citizens than it is for the police. And that's for an unarmed person.
If we concede that the police "have a dangerous job", then interacting with them, (which again, is three times more dangerous) should reasonably be pretty terrifying.
An encounter with the police is actually 3 times more dangerous for citizens than it is for the police. And that's for an unarmed person.
If we concede that the police "have a dangerous job", then interacting with them, (which again, is three times more dangerous) should reasonably be pretty terrifying.
Killing is the worst and least likely outcome. The more likely one is getting brutalized/falsely imprisoned on your way home from work, in your home, in your yard, etc. These situations are not rare, especially in the lives of black and brown people.
I've lived in neighborhoods in Denver where people didn't call the police. Not because they feared retribution from others, but because over and over the police have hurt them, their family, or their friends. And examples of them helping in those neighborhoods are much harder to come by( I can't think of a single time? ). The general feeling is that the police are not there to help you, they are there to watch you and keep you in line.
I've lived in neighborhoods in Denver where people didn't call the police. Not because they feared retribution from others, but because over and over the police have hurt them, their family, or their friends. And examples of them helping in those neighborhoods are much harder to come by( I can't think of a single time? ). The general feeling is that the police are not there to help you, they are there to watch you and keep you in line.
Now go dig up the numbers of black men and women put in jail in comparison to the population. Go look up the numbers of police stops of black people in comparison to the immediate city populous. You don't have to be shot and killed for a police to ruin your life. The fact that you think people are requesting to abolish the police pretty much says it all... there is a very stark difference between redistribute high amount of tax payers money spent on police departments to arguably better community programs and efforts (defund) vs get rid of the police altogether (abolish). Think about it, internalise it, do better for your fellow man.
> How does such a small number spark this level of fear and protest?
It doesn't. The protests aren't limited to all of the extreme cases you mention.
The way I see it, the protests are joined in by a large number of cohorts who wouldn't care about that smaller very specific demographic, but lots of people have found some reason to be empathetic to victims of police or otherwise critical of the legal/incarceration system.
Some people want more police accountability (via either employment contracts, civil law, or criminal law). Some people want to reduce or eliminate no-knock warrants/raids. Some people want to decriminalize lots of recreational drug use. Some people just want to be able to walk/drive without getting pulled over because some cop thinks they "fit a description". Some are tired of the legal system abusing/harassing them so they can see a friend / family member in jail.
Add up the list of people who have some grievances with police and I doubt you get too far from a majority of the country. There are still a ton of people who "support the police", even if they also have a grievance with "the system".
It's vaguely like optimizing a funnel in e-commerce. The point is to reduce friction at all points to optimize for the best ratio of people who are exposed to your system who then complete the desired action (purchase and have a positive experience). Police have almost no incentive to fix any of these interactions. Their fitness function as an industry has more to do with pumping stats and clearance rates and little to do with making sure your interaction with the police was pleasant. That is... unless you are a family member with police (I do so I see it).
It doesn't. The protests aren't limited to all of the extreme cases you mention.
The way I see it, the protests are joined in by a large number of cohorts who wouldn't care about that smaller very specific demographic, but lots of people have found some reason to be empathetic to victims of police or otherwise critical of the legal/incarceration system.
Some people want more police accountability (via either employment contracts, civil law, or criminal law). Some people want to reduce or eliminate no-knock warrants/raids. Some people want to decriminalize lots of recreational drug use. Some people just want to be able to walk/drive without getting pulled over because some cop thinks they "fit a description". Some are tired of the legal system abusing/harassing them so they can see a friend / family member in jail.
Add up the list of people who have some grievances with police and I doubt you get too far from a majority of the country. There are still a ton of people who "support the police", even if they also have a grievance with "the system".
It's vaguely like optimizing a funnel in e-commerce. The point is to reduce friction at all points to optimize for the best ratio of people who are exposed to your system who then complete the desired action (purchase and have a positive experience). Police have almost no incentive to fix any of these interactions. Their fitness function as an industry has more to do with pumping stats and clearance rates and little to do with making sure your interaction with the police was pleasant. That is... unless you are a family member with police (I do so I see it).
> How does such a small number spark this level of fear and protest?
Because it's on the news, while the 51 unarmed whites killed by police in 2019 [1] aren't.
[1] https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/nationaltrends
Because it's on the news, while the 51 unarmed whites killed by police in 2019 [1] aren't.
[1] https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/nationaltrends
To address your first point, there're a constellation of relevant answers.
1. Most people who dislike or distrust the police don't actually trust those numbers. There are decades worth of documented evidence of police lying about people carrying weapons, and sometimes even carrying weapons to plant on people they kill. So from the start, a lot of us think that number is an undercount, possibly by a dramatic degree.
2. Even among the people who are armed who are shot by police, there are people who weren't doing anything wrong who were still shot. The most recent high profile version of this was Philando Castile. Technically, he was armed when he was shot, but when he was killed, he had already informed the police about his licensed, legal firearm and was moving slowly towards the glove compartment, as instructed by an officer, to retrieve his registration. So it's not just shootings of unarmed people.
3. Police don't just shoot people to death. George Floyd was not shot; Derek Chauvin kneeled on his neck for just under nine minutes. Eric Garner was not shot; Daniel Panteleo choked him to death with an illegal chokehold. Adam Trammell was not shot; he was hit with a Taser, 18 times, while in the shower and experiencing mental issues, and it caused his heart to stop. Sandra Bland was not shot; she supposedly hung herself with a plastic grocery bag in her cell after being arrested as a result of a pretextual traffic stop. This list could go much, much longer. Only looking at shooting deaths artificially constrains the number of people police kill in a very deceptive way.
4. There are so very many other ways that police can make your life absolutely miserable without shooting or killing you. I am not Black, and so I have been spared many of these experiences, but of my Black friends and family, I can tell you this: every single one of them has had police harass them for absurdly minor issues, or sometimes no issue at all. A number of them have had a police officer point a gun at them. Almost all of them have been at some point unofficially detained for some length of time. Some of them have been arrested and then eventually released without charges. All of them who drive get pulled over at least a few times per year, without fail. These are mostly middle- or upper-middle-class professionals. They live all over the United States, in cities and towns, in places with large Black populations and small Black populations, and yet their experiences all share a commonality that is terrifying when you pull back even a little bit and look at them as a pattern.
5. But maybe this should have been #1...what do you think is a reasonable number of shootings of unarmed people? Personally, I think that number is zero, so even "just 14" is absolutely grounds for extreme anger, even if you want to ignore my first four points. I don't think the police, people who are given special dispensation and training to use violence in the name of the state, should ever shoot and kill an unarmed person. I actually think any number of deaths caused by police is too many deaths. In every situation, they are the people with the most training. They are (ultimately) the best-armed. I recognize that, in a country with as many guns as the US, maybe the police will have to kill some small number of people per year, but I think every time they do, that shooting should be heavily scrutinized. We give them these weapons and powers so they can protect people, even people who commit crimes, and if they have to kill someone, they have failed to protect that person.
I hope those points answer your first question, and start to explain the answer to your second question. In response to that, though, I would first ask what you've read about police abolition so far.
1. Most people who dislike or distrust the police don't actually trust those numbers. There are decades worth of documented evidence of police lying about people carrying weapons, and sometimes even carrying weapons to plant on people they kill. So from the start, a lot of us think that number is an undercount, possibly by a dramatic degree.
2. Even among the people who are armed who are shot by police, there are people who weren't doing anything wrong who were still shot. The most recent high profile version of this was Philando Castile. Technically, he was armed when he was shot, but when he was killed, he had already informed the police about his licensed, legal firearm and was moving slowly towards the glove compartment, as instructed by an officer, to retrieve his registration. So it's not just shootings of unarmed people.
3. Police don't just shoot people to death. George Floyd was not shot; Derek Chauvin kneeled on his neck for just under nine minutes. Eric Garner was not shot; Daniel Panteleo choked him to death with an illegal chokehold. Adam Trammell was not shot; he was hit with a Taser, 18 times, while in the shower and experiencing mental issues, and it caused his heart to stop. Sandra Bland was not shot; she supposedly hung herself with a plastic grocery bag in her cell after being arrested as a result of a pretextual traffic stop. This list could go much, much longer. Only looking at shooting deaths artificially constrains the number of people police kill in a very deceptive way.
4. There are so very many other ways that police can make your life absolutely miserable without shooting or killing you. I am not Black, and so I have been spared many of these experiences, but of my Black friends and family, I can tell you this: every single one of them has had police harass them for absurdly minor issues, or sometimes no issue at all. A number of them have had a police officer point a gun at them. Almost all of them have been at some point unofficially detained for some length of time. Some of them have been arrested and then eventually released without charges. All of them who drive get pulled over at least a few times per year, without fail. These are mostly middle- or upper-middle-class professionals. They live all over the United States, in cities and towns, in places with large Black populations and small Black populations, and yet their experiences all share a commonality that is terrifying when you pull back even a little bit and look at them as a pattern.
5. But maybe this should have been #1...what do you think is a reasonable number of shootings of unarmed people? Personally, I think that number is zero, so even "just 14" is absolutely grounds for extreme anger, even if you want to ignore my first four points. I don't think the police, people who are given special dispensation and training to use violence in the name of the state, should ever shoot and kill an unarmed person. I actually think any number of deaths caused by police is too many deaths. In every situation, they are the people with the most training. They are (ultimately) the best-armed. I recognize that, in a country with as many guns as the US, maybe the police will have to kill some small number of people per year, but I think every time they do, that shooting should be heavily scrutinized. We give them these weapons and powers so they can protect people, even people who commit crimes, and if they have to kill someone, they have failed to protect that person.
I hope those points answer your first question, and start to explain the answer to your second question. In response to that, though, I would first ask what you've read about police abolition so far.
> what do you think is a reasonable number of shootings of unarmed people? Personally, I think that number is zero
I humbly suggest that if you give this some thought, you'll see that isn't a very good answer. Any complex system, especially one that involves humans, will have errors. There's no way around that. So the only way to eliminate errors completely is to eliminate the system entirely. This understanding is perhaps what fuels the call for police abolition: No amount of reform and training will get the error rate to zero, so the only way to get zero police accidents is to not have any police.
To illustrate my point further, consider medical malpractice. How many deaths caused by doctor error is acceptable? If the answer is zero, one needs to abolish medicine. How many automobile accidents are acceptable? If zero, we must abolish all motorized transport. I think for the most part people accept the unfortunate fact that accidents are an inevitable part of any system, and should be accepted if we consider the system to do more good than harm.
I humbly suggest that if you give this some thought, you'll see that isn't a very good answer. Any complex system, especially one that involves humans, will have errors. There's no way around that. So the only way to eliminate errors completely is to eliminate the system entirely. This understanding is perhaps what fuels the call for police abolition: No amount of reform and training will get the error rate to zero, so the only way to get zero police accidents is to not have any police.
To illustrate my point further, consider medical malpractice. How many deaths caused by doctor error is acceptable? If the answer is zero, one needs to abolish medicine. How many automobile accidents are acceptable? If zero, we must abolish all motorized transport. I think for the most part people accept the unfortunate fact that accidents are an inevitable part of any system, and should be accepted if we consider the system to do more good than harm.
For starters, I'm a little disappointed that that's the only thing you decided to engage with. That said: this isn't actually terribly complicated. This isn't medical malpractice, where some degree of risk is an inevitable side effect of any medical intervention. Police in the United Kingdom shot one (1) person to death in 2018. He was carrying an airsoft rifle that looked like a real gun. I still think that's terrible! He should be alive. But still: one person, in the whole year. There are countries where the police don't kill anyone. This is the healthcare conversation all over again; Americans insisting that some goals are impossible while other countries that have already achieved those "impossible" goals look at us with a mix of pity and disdain.
> The number of unarmed black men shot by police across the entire US in 2019 was 14. [0] How does such a small number spark this level of fear and protest?
That's not a small number, though. Do you think that any number is acceptable? Any number above 0 deserves the kind of protest response we see in America today.
Your post is invalidating to the centuries of oppression faced by Blacks in America and to their struggles today.
That's not a small number, though. Do you think that any number is acceptable? Any number above 0 deserves the kind of protest response we see in America today.
Your post is invalidating to the centuries of oppression faced by Blacks in America and to their struggles today.
>The number of unarmed black men shot by police across the entire US in 2019 was 14. [0] How does such a small number spark this level of fear and protest?
Because the police routinely treat people who aren't police or aren't visibly well to do (which being white goes a long way toward) like crap.
People will tolerate that or they'll tolerate some deaths but they won't tolerate both.
Because the police routinely treat people who aren't police or aren't visibly well to do (which being white goes a long way toward) like crap.
People will tolerate that or they'll tolerate some deaths but they won't tolerate both.
I can only speak for myself but I think many people would agree there is a 'sweet spot' which represents the total police per capita with social problems developing as we get away from that ratio. I also think that this number is lower the lower the per-capita GDP of an area.
'defund the police' as I think of it isn't about defunding completely, but recognising that we are way off on the 'too many police per capita' side of the scale, possibly because poor neighborhoods are getting a police presence closer to the 'sweet spot' of rich neighborhoods.
'defund the police' as I think of it isn't about defunding completely, but recognising that we are way off on the 'too many police per capita' side of the scale, possibly because poor neighborhoods are getting a police presence closer to the 'sweet spot' of rich neighborhoods.
An alternate perspective is cops are trying hard, and are succeeding, at making poor neighborhoods safer. However, due to gang culture, many people are heavily and illegally armed, and do not hesitate to shoot to kill. Cops, like all humans, are not fans of dying, so they are trained to respond very quickly if armed escalation is a possibility. As an unfortunate result, innocent people are sometimes killed in these neighborhoods, despite cops doing their best to protect people. When these accidents do happen, due to the high politicization of the issue, cops are very tight lipped about what goes on in their departments. So, a lot of what we see can also be explained as good intentioned human beings doing a very difficult and dangerous job. Why are we so quick to assume the worst about our fellow citizens who are putting their lives on the line for our safety?
Relating this back to the article, I just want to let you know Carroll Gardens is definitely not a poor neighborhood. Your alternate perspective does not hold up there.
I agree what the police did in this situation is egregious. The cops were clearly overreacting. But, that doesn't merit the BLM claim that cops are the enemy of the black and hispanic community. Rather than disband the force, BLM should push to have minorities join up themselves, along with better accountability. Despite their well publicized missteps, cops do much more good than harm for minorities. E.g. in Baltimore near where I live murders have jumped significantly since the police draw down after the 2015 riot. I suspect most of those murdered are themselves minorities, and would still be alive if police were better supported.
>because from their point of view the police are the people most likely to assault or kill them or their children on the street, more so than random criminals)
This may be their view, but it is overwhelmingly incorrect.
This may be their view, but it is overwhelmingly incorrect.
Oppression of a population, more specifically.
> This is child abuse
And assault with a deadly weapon.
And assault with a deadly weapon.
> Notice that while average white parents might worry about criminals before letting their kids out on the street, the black parents worry (with good reason) about the police.
A minor but significant adjustment:
Average black parents worry about both
A minor but significant adjustment:
Average black parents worry about both
Let's put it like this. Everyone worries about criminals, to the point that a mother will always tell you to be careful when you go out.
But when I went out, my mother (and elders in our community) would say specifically, may God protect you from the police. That is a significant statement.
But when I went out, my mother (and elders in our community) would say specifically, may God protect you from the police. That is a significant statement.
jeffdavis(10)
jeffdavis(20)
> The police said a group of teenage boys that night had punched and kicked another teenager at a nearby playground and stolen his cellphone. The teen flagged down an officer and was driven around the neighborhood looking for the boys. He pointed out a group, and police descended from different directions. One car sped against traffic until it hit a kid; the boy slid over the hood, hit the ground, and then popped up and ran away along with the others.
This bit is child abuse? Or the bit where the cops took some suspects in for questioning?
This bit is child abuse? Or the bit where the cops took some suspects in for questioning?
> from their point of view the police are the people most likely to assault or kill them or their children on the street, more so than random criminals
That point of view is just factually incorrect. It’s like thinking that the way to get rich is to become a movie star. Sure it might happen but that’s not the normal way.
That point of view is just factually incorrect. It’s like thinking that the way to get rich is to become a movie star. Sure it might happen but that’s not the normal way.
Do you have data points to disprove it? I'm not aware of any data on how often police engage in physical altercations with civilians. One of the points the article makes is that the NYPD actively misrepresents such altercations that could cast the department in a bad light.
Stop and frisk policies amount to codifying assault, in my opinion.
Stop and frisk policies amount to codifying assault, in my opinion.
As to murder:
White Murder victims: 3,499 (2,854 of the victims were killed by other whites)
Black murder victims: 2,870 (2,570 of the victims were killed by other blacks)
2019 police killings by race:
White deceased: 370
Black deceased: 235
White Murder victims: 3,499 (2,854 of the victims were killed by other whites)
Black murder victims: 2,870 (2,570 of the victims were killed by other blacks)
2019 police killings by race:
White deceased: 370
Black deceased: 235
First, the fact that you are only 10 times more likely to die from a civilian as from a police officer is an appallingly bad ratio. That ratio should be over 100:1, not 10:1, and certainly not 9:1.
This conversation is missing another statistic: The percent of citizens who are also LEOs, which I'm seeing is about 1 in 300. Which means your chances of dying during an encounter with a random civilian are about 30 times less than your chance of dying during an encounter with a LEO. I cannot begin to express how deeply fucked up that is.
Your chances of encountering a bear in the woods are very low, but once you have done so, your focus should be almost entirely on the bear until the interaction has resolved itself. Any training you had should be employed. You should try to educate any hiking friends just in case they find themselves in such a situation.
Cops should not be a situation. They should not be like bears.
This conversation is missing another statistic: The percent of citizens who are also LEOs, which I'm seeing is about 1 in 300. Which means your chances of dying during an encounter with a random civilian are about 30 times less than your chance of dying during an encounter with a LEO. I cannot begin to express how deeply fucked up that is.
Your chances of encountering a bear in the woods are very low, but once you have done so, your focus should be almost entirely on the bear until the interaction has resolved itself. Any training you had should be employed. You should try to educate any hiking friends just in case they find themselves in such a situation.
Cops should not be a situation. They should not be like bears.
> That ratio should be over 100:1, not 10:1, and certainly not 9:1.
I can’t say what the ratio should be...How do you know what that ratio should be?
You say cops should not be a “situation”, not sure what that means but for many of them responding to crimes is exactly what their job entails.
In other words As it relates to your ratio, is is possible a police office is 10 times more likely to encounter a murder/violent criminal in the act than a citizen? I don’t know, but that seems reasonable and probably jacks up to 100:1 to intervening to stop a crime.
I’m really not one to ask, I’ve been on all sides of it: I’ve been arrested (multiple times, including for the victimless crime of possession of marijuana); I’ve been the victim of an armed kidnapping; I’ve represented criminal defendants as an attorney. I can certainly say even being the victim of an armed kidnapping I felt more victimized more by the detective after the fact Than by the kidnapper, I can also add I felt more victimized by the insurance company of the gas station I was kidnapped from and their attorneys than either the kidnapper and detective (they literally destroyed the video of the crimes against me, falsely tried to cover up their destruction of the video claiming it never existed, claimed I falsely alleged the crimes and paid they same detective to testify the crimes happened to me across the Street from the gas station).
I can’t say what the ratio should be...How do you know what that ratio should be?
You say cops should not be a “situation”, not sure what that means but for many of them responding to crimes is exactly what their job entails.
In other words As it relates to your ratio, is is possible a police office is 10 times more likely to encounter a murder/violent criminal in the act than a citizen? I don’t know, but that seems reasonable and probably jacks up to 100:1 to intervening to stop a crime.
I’m really not one to ask, I’ve been on all sides of it: I’ve been arrested (multiple times, including for the victimless crime of possession of marijuana); I’ve been the victim of an armed kidnapping; I’ve represented criminal defendants as an attorney. I can certainly say even being the victim of an armed kidnapping I felt more victimized more by the detective after the fact Than by the kidnapper, I can also add I felt more victimized by the insurance company of the gas station I was kidnapped from and their attorneys than either the kidnapper and detective (they literally destroyed the video of the crimes against me, falsely tried to cover up their destruction of the video claiming it never existed, claimed I falsely alleged the crimes and paid they same detective to testify the crimes happened to me across the Street from the gas station).
This is comparing murder to every instance of police killing someone, justified or not. Police murdering someone is much more rare. The ratio you are talking about probably is in fact well over 100:1.
I don’t know about the ratio being 100:1, but You are right these are Classified police killings not murders...that said, also consider George Floyd’s death was on track to be swept under the rug as a Justified police Killing until the protests.
Considering the fact that 99% of people murdered by police are getting a lot of airtime right now, I think we can say that the ratio is closer to 100:1.
So take Eric Gardner’s death in 2014, NYPD had him in a chokehold his last words “I can’t breathe”...justice dept refused to bring changes, I won’t get into right/wrong (murder/justified killing) but hell AG Barr sides against the justice dept.
Right, you know Eric Gardner's name, which means that he is one of the people cops have killed that many people generally consider more of a murder.
You add up all those people and the ratio is about 100:1.
You add up all those people and the ratio is about 100:1.
Of course, it's only murder if someone ends up going to jail, no? Consider John Crawford, who was murdered by police, yet charges were not brought against them.
Now consider we have multiple data points of police committing murder and getting away with it. How can we argue that it's rare, given that we have several instances of police getting away with it and not being considered part of said recorded statistics?
Now consider we have multiple data points of police committing murder and getting away with it. How can we argue that it's rare, given that we have several instances of police getting away with it and not being considered part of said recorded statistics?
Exactly how many "multiple", and over how many years? The case you cited is 6 years old. If this is occurring at the rate being suggested by the comment I replied to, we should be able to find dozens of cases from this (partial) year alone. That's a lot of George Floyds to go unnoticed, in a media and cultural environment that is very interested in noticing them.
When you have been given the right to kill people without legal consequence, the distinction become rather hard to make. There have been a lot of unwarranted killings by police that seem to have gone unpunished, how do you chalk those up?
If the goal is to make a factual argument, then the facts are that the # of police murders is less than the # of police killings, because some portion of those killings are justifiable.
Where we draw the line is debatable, but the person you were responding to wasn't really attempting to draw a line.
Where we draw the line is debatable, but the person you were responding to wasn't really attempting to draw a line.
> Which means your chances of dying during an encounter with a random civilian are about 30 times less than your chance of dying during an encounter with a LEO.
The vast majority of police killings are of people who were armed and chose to get in a fight with them. Even of the few unarmed cases, most of them were asking for it. So if you're just going about minding your own business, the chance is minuscule.
The vast majority of police killings are of people who were armed and chose to get in a fight with them. Even of the few unarmed cases, most of them were asking for it. So if you're just going about minding your own business, the chance is minuscule.
> The vast majority of police killings are of people who were armed and chose to get in a fight with them
As the NY State report on police-on-police shootings I posted an article about elsewhere in the thread notes, rapidly turning your head to identify the source of a verbal command from a previoisly unseen police officer is the kind of thing that, to police, constitutes non-compliance and choosing to get in a fight with them. Even when you are an off-duty or plainclothes cop who has called for backup, and, much more likely if you are a Black or Latino out-of-uniform cop in that situation.
As the NY State report on police-on-police shootings I posted an article about elsewhere in the thread notes, rapidly turning your head to identify the source of a verbal command from a previoisly unseen police officer is the kind of thing that, to police, constitutes non-compliance and choosing to get in a fight with them. Even when you are an off-duty or plainclothes cop who has called for backup, and, much more likely if you are a Black or Latino out-of-uniform cop in that situation.
There is a database of police shootings. You can look up a representative sample of cases.
You are making a lot of assumptions there. The most violent people in society will likely have interactions with cops (more often than your average person) so surely that must skew the odds a lot.
>The most violent people in society will likely have interactions with cops (more often than your average person) so surely that must skew the odds a lot.
This is important point. Another one is that it's likely cops ARE some of the most violent people in society. For example, look at the instances of violent crime inside the home (i.e. when a cop is off-duty, so there should be no skew) - the numbers seem to indicate that domestic abuse is more common that not: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/09/police-...
This is important point. Another one is that it's likely cops ARE some of the most violent people in society. For example, look at the instances of violent crime inside the home (i.e. when a cop is off-duty, so there should be no skew) - the numbers seem to indicate that domestic abuse is more common that not: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/09/police-...
You are playing a dangerous game here.
The above poster said:
> from their point of view the police are the people most likely to assault or kill them or their children on the street, more so than random criminals
Leaving the "more so than criminals" part out of it:
- By your numbers, 10% of the killings are done by police officers.
- Police officers account for much less than 10% of the population.
Hence, a random police officer is much more likely to kill you than a random person.
Now, the "more so than random criminals" part is much harder to pin down. Anyway, you can't know whether someone is a criminal or not just by seeing them on the street, so I don't even see a point in trying.
The above poster said:
> from their point of view the police are the people most likely to assault or kill them or their children on the street, more so than random criminals
Leaving the "more so than criminals" part out of it:
- By your numbers, 10% of the killings are done by police officers.
- Police officers account for much less than 10% of the population.
Hence, a random police officer is much more likely to kill you than a random person.
Now, the "more so than random criminals" part is much harder to pin down. Anyway, you can't know whether someone is a criminal or not just by seeing them on the street, so I don't even see a point in trying.
> - By your numbers, 10% of the killings are done by police officers.
- Police officers account for much less than 10% of the population.
Hence, a random police officer is much more likely to kill you than a random person.
It’s odd you would say I’m playing a dangerous game...we are talking about murder, and if you or a loved one is murdered there is a 90% chance you will be murdered by a non-LEO. Not to mention we are playing a dangerous game by converting all justified police killings to murder.
It’s odd you would say I’m playing a dangerous game...we are talking about murder, and if you or a loved one is murdered there is a 90% chance you will be murdered by a non-LEO. Not to mention we are playing a dangerous game by converting all justified police killings to murder.
The point being made was your kid is more likely to be endangered by police than random criminals. Your math here isn't really attempting to prove or disprove that point, instead you're talking about likelihood of police vs average american. That's a pretty uncontroversial statement you just made, as police engage in a much more dangerous line of work than your average american.
When it comes to violet criminals you can filter down a fair bit by age and gender.
So by those numbers for the population involved:
(2019 population numbers)
Whites killed by other whites: 1 per ~87982
Blacks killed by other blacks: 1 per ~17114
(2018 employed cop numbers)
Whites killed by cops: 1 per ~1855
Blacks killed by cops: 1 per ~2921
Numbers only say so much though
(2019 population numbers)
Whites killed by other whites: 1 per ~87982
Blacks killed by other blacks: 1 per ~17114
(2018 employed cop numbers)
Whites killed by cops: 1 per ~1855
Blacks killed by cops: 1 per ~2921
Numbers only say so much though
Is it fair to compare population numbers versus deaths per arrest ?
Can you provide a source? That number of killings is a lot lower than any source I have seen (and the police reporting of deaths they are involved with is very problematic).
Hispanics are killed at a disproportionate rate, and blacks are killed at a vastly disproportionate rate - according to the below blacks are killed at twice the rate of whites.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/polic...
Hispanics are killed at a disproportionate rate, and blacks are killed at a vastly disproportionate rate - according to the below blacks are killed at twice the rate of whites.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/polic...
[deleted]
And 12.1% of the population - which makes just pasting numbers meaningless. Much better is number per 100,000 so that you can compare like with like.
The point being addressed was fear of murder/assault From officers being a primary concern over fear of murder/assault from non-officers...I think we want to look at absolute numbers, you are either going to be murdered or you aren’t and assuming every single police killing was a murder 90% of murders are committed by non-officers. Why would we need to look at how many murders per 100,000?
[deleted]
[deleted](2)
Nit: The expression "physical altercation" does not make sense because an "altercation" is an exchange of words. Perhaps what you mean is something like "unwanted physical contact", if we can interpret that expression to include shooting someone but not include first aid to an unconscious person, which I think we probably can with a bit of common sense.
An "altercation" just means an argument.
[deleted]
> Notice that while average white parents
Perhaps that distinction is more pronounced in some locations than others. I don’t see this distinction in the big city where I live and each of my neighbors are black. We have regular police patrols where I live and almost no police interventions. We also have several police officers that live in the neighborhood. My city has greater than 900,000 people, is about 60% white, and has doubled in size over the last thirty years.
Perhaps that distinction is more pronounced in some locations than others. I don’t see this distinction in the big city where I live and each of my neighbors are black. We have regular police patrols where I live and almost no police interventions. We also have several police officers that live in the neighborhood. My city has greater than 900,000 people, is about 60% white, and has doubled in size over the last thirty years.
> I don’t see this distinction in the big city where I live and each of my neighbors are black.
Not sure if anyone can feel anyone else's pain. If millions of people are complaining about a problem, why try to say the problem does not exist?
My experiences are nothing compared to the terrible stories I've heard from PoC, but I'll give you an example. I'm Muslim. In 2004, I ended up on the restricted fly list, effectively ending my Management Consulting career. My co-workers kept telling me, "just take your shoes off, get thru security, and stop complaining". None bothered to hear my real issue -- i could not fly. Forget security, I could not get a boarding pass issued. It would happen randomly, about 50% of the time. Once, I was stuck in Europe, unable to get back home (FYI: as a US born Citizen.) Many times, i'd get half a boarding pass and be stuck at some random airport (ATL, ORD, etc.) Once I had to take a train back from Washington DC because I couldnt get on a flight.
Co-worker opinion mattered, because it affected my ability to get on local projects (where I could avoid flights.) Eventually, I had to leave the consulting firm despite an imminent promotion.
It is so easy to dismiss people, but seriously -- if millions are complaining -- just accept there is probably something there.
Not sure if anyone can feel anyone else's pain. If millions of people are complaining about a problem, why try to say the problem does not exist?
My experiences are nothing compared to the terrible stories I've heard from PoC, but I'll give you an example. I'm Muslim. In 2004, I ended up on the restricted fly list, effectively ending my Management Consulting career. My co-workers kept telling me, "just take your shoes off, get thru security, and stop complaining". None bothered to hear my real issue -- i could not fly. Forget security, I could not get a boarding pass issued. It would happen randomly, about 50% of the time. Once, I was stuck in Europe, unable to get back home (FYI: as a US born Citizen.) Many times, i'd get half a boarding pass and be stuck at some random airport (ATL, ORD, etc.) Once I had to take a train back from Washington DC because I couldnt get on a flight.
Co-worker opinion mattered, because it affected my ability to get on local projects (where I could avoid flights.) Eventually, I had to leave the consulting firm despite an imminent promotion.
It is so easy to dismiss people, but seriously -- if millions are complaining -- just accept there is probably something there.
I have never been to NYC so I am certainly not saying anything about the problem in NYC.
We can quote stats about police violence all day long, but in nearly every personal story, it usually ends with "and then the cops just did nothing and there wasn't a paper trail." I have 4 stories,4 witness accounts, and not a single one went or would have gone anywhere. That's not a small problem. And, they're in every state, in every county. This is a mafia.
I prefer data over social media stories.
Oh, I meant 4 times that I've personally witnessed unpunished and unmotivated police brutality and violence against others, mostly people of color. If I were to include social media, the reports would be in the millions. You say you prefer data, yet you ignore mountains of historic and ongoing evidence. You say you prefer data, yet you choose to accept compromised data sets clearly influenced by external factors.
> It is so easy to dismiss people, but seriously -- if millions are complaining -- just accept there is probably something there.
Millions of people complaining about "Muslim terrorism" led to you being inappropriately placed on a no-fly list. Millions of people complaining about "the Jew" led to significant and severe atrocities (plural...).
Millions voted for Trump. Millions voted for Clinton. Millions voted for Bernie. And millions will vote for the next Stalin, Hitler, or Mao.
I don't disagree that there is a problem with policing but I can't conceive of a more evil world where millions of people are just listened to without question.
Millions of people complaining about "Muslim terrorism" led to you being inappropriately placed on a no-fly list. Millions of people complaining about "the Jew" led to significant and severe atrocities (plural...).
Millions voted for Trump. Millions voted for Clinton. Millions voted for Bernie. And millions will vote for the next Stalin, Hitler, or Mao.
I don't disagree that there is a problem with policing but I can't conceive of a more evil world where millions of people are just listened to without question.
> I don’t see this distinction in the big city where I live and each of my neighbors are black.
Not to put too fine a point on it and with all due respect, but are you black? Have you asked your black neighbors about it?
I am half-black and was raised in California. I have lived in SF for the last 10 years.
While I have not directly been troubled by police in SF, I put myself on notice every. Single. Time. I go outside.
Not to put too fine a point on it and with all due respect, but are you black? Have you asked your black neighbors about it?
I am half-black and was raised in California. I have lived in SF for the last 10 years.
While I have not directly been troubled by police in SF, I put myself on notice every. Single. Time. I go outside.
I think it may depend on the socioeconomic class of the neighborhood - I'm a white dude, but I used to drive beater cars, and when I was a field engineer driving my own car, it was amazing, because like clockwork whenever I was in a we'll to do area I'd get pulled over for (what I presume was) looking "out of place".
Similarly I've been pulled out of cell sites at gunpoint and bent over the hood of my car, and patted down several times also for "looking out of place".
Similarly I've been pulled out of cell sites at gunpoint and bent over the hood of my car, and patted down several times also for "looking out of place".
[deleted]
[deleted]
My wife has asked them about it. I have not myself as I have been away on military service since the beginning of May. I think the reasoning for most people in the area is that police interventions motivated by systemic racism are not a visible concern in my area of the city but that they could be a concern, which is fairly distant. Perhaps if this were any other year such concerns could really stand on their own, but this year they are pretty minor with concern for the changes imposed from Covid.
Part of it is also social effect. When multiple people encounter a similar problem they have a shared experience they can talk about and that social experience can seem to magnify the importance of the problem. When nobody is having the problem and almost nobody is talking about it the concern is much lower.
Part of it is also social effect. When multiple people encounter a similar problem they have a shared experience they can talk about and that social experience can seem to magnify the importance of the problem. When nobody is having the problem and almost nobody is talking about it the concern is much lower.
You could also ask the people you serve with. I believe a chomsky approach to our lives is very important. Its useful to have a diverse set of friends and colleagues because through multiple view points you have a chance at understanding more of the world.
Military people have had stories about police interactions for years and a large number of reservists and national guardsmen work for civilian police departments.
Police are generally highly biased in favor of military personnel regardless of their skin color outside of military base communities. For example if a person is pulled over, regardless of the validity of the stop or whether racial profiling is at play, the person is likely to drive away with only a warning if the officer happens to see a military ID and the person remains calm and polite. Military people have been sharing these stories for years.
Until I started working at the big bank the military is by far the most diverse group I have ever worked with.
Police are generally highly biased in favor of military personnel regardless of their skin color outside of military base communities. For example if a person is pulled over, regardless of the validity of the stop or whether racial profiling is at play, the person is likely to drive away with only a warning if the officer happens to see a military ID and the person remains calm and polite. Military people have been sharing these stories for years.
Until I started working at the big bank the military is by far the most diverse group I have ever worked with.
> Notice that while average white parents might worry about criminals before letting their kids out on the street, the black parents worry (with good reason) about the police.
Black people killed by police in 2018 [1]: 209
Black people murdered by civilians (of any race) in 2018 [2]: 7,407
White people killed by police in 2018 [1]: 399
White people murdered by civilians in 2018 [2]: 6088
Aren’t criminals a greater threat than police for both black and white peoples? Of course this isn’t the whole picture of what interactions with police look like, but if you are scared for your children’s lives, criminals seem to be a much greater threat regardless of race.
> the police are the people most likely to assault or kill them or their children on the street, more so than random criminals
This does not seem to be even remotely correct. Am I missing something?
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-de...
[2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/251877/murder-victims-in...
Black people killed by police in 2018 [1]: 209
Black people murdered by civilians (of any race) in 2018 [2]: 7,407
White people killed by police in 2018 [1]: 399
White people murdered by civilians in 2018 [2]: 6088
Aren’t criminals a greater threat than police for both black and white peoples? Of course this isn’t the whole picture of what interactions with police look like, but if you are scared for your children’s lives, criminals seem to be a much greater threat regardless of race.
> the police are the people most likely to assault or kill them or their children on the street, more so than random criminals
This does not seem to be even remotely correct. Am I missing something?
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-de...
[2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/251877/murder-victims-in...
This sort of argument clumps everyone everywhere together as a statistic.
The problem domain is much more granular than that. You would need to collect statistics on a specific community in order to get an informed conclusion about the events in that community.
The problem domain is much more granular than that. You would need to collect statistics on a specific community in order to get an informed conclusion about the events in that community.
> because from their point of view the police are the people most likely to assault or kill them or their children on the street
This is a delusion - they are at least 2 orders of magnitude more likely to be assaulted or killed by another (non-police) black person.
This is yet another scenario where a relatively minor source of risk gets vastly disproportionate coverage and almost everyone falls for it.
ETA: it’s funny that this straightforward statement of objective fact is being so poorly received.
This is a delusion - they are at least 2 orders of magnitude more likely to be assaulted or killed by another (non-police) black person.
This is yet another scenario where a relatively minor source of risk gets vastly disproportionate coverage and almost everyone falls for it.
ETA: it’s funny that this straightforward statement of objective fact is being so poorly received.
Actually it is only one order of magnitude.
But the more important factor is that in most homicides the victim and the perpetrator know one another. On that basis minorities, and particularly middle-class and up members of minority groups, have good reason to be more concerned about abuse and/or murder at the hands of authorities as a more important consideration than truly random violence.
But the more important factor is that in most homicides the victim and the perpetrator know one another. On that basis minorities, and particularly middle-class and up members of minority groups, have good reason to be more concerned about abuse and/or murder at the hands of authorities as a more important consideration than truly random violence.
> Actually it is only one order of magnitude.
My mistake - this does not change the nature of my argument at all. That's still a massive difference in risk.
Why do you think it makes sense to ignore the majority of homicides (which don't fit a popular political narrative)? That's like saying "Most car crashes happen near home, so on that basis people have good reason to be more concerned about plane crashes."
My mistake - this does not change the nature of my argument at all. That's still a massive difference in risk.
Why do you think it makes sense to ignore the majority of homicides (which don't fit a popular political narrative)? That's like saying "Most car crashes happen near home, so on that basis people have good reason to be more concerned about plane crashes."
You don't control when, where, and how often you interact with the police in the same way that you control where you live and who your friends and co-workers are. If you are a middle class regardless of ethnicity your odds of being a homicide victim are pretty much approaching zero.
If you are middle class and non-white your odds of being hassled by the police are quite high and probably validated by experience. The odds of such an experience escalating into violence or death may be empirically small but each and every instance of interaction with authorities is an instance of greatly increased risk and a risk that is in large part out of your control. This is something worth being concerned about and that concern has an impact on your day-to-day behaviour and well-being.
Being more concerned about police violence than random violence makes perfect sense to me. I suspect that if you dig into it that concern is also empirically more rational.
If you are middle class and non-white your odds of being hassled by the police are quite high and probably validated by experience. The odds of such an experience escalating into violence or death may be empirically small but each and every instance of interaction with authorities is an instance of greatly increased risk and a risk that is in large part out of your control. This is something worth being concerned about and that concern has an impact on your day-to-day behaviour and well-being.
Being more concerned about police violence than random violence makes perfect sense to me. I suspect that if you dig into it that concern is also empirically more rational.
Your statement is both factually incorrect and missing the point.
There are (at least) two different conditional probabilities we might be interested in here:
1. If a black child is assaulted or killed, who was responsible?
In this case you are partially correct: it is (by about one order of magnitude, not at least two) more likely that it was another non-police black person.
2. If a black child interacts with a particular person (e.g. police, or a non-police black person), how likely are they to be assaulted or killed?
If we are willing to assume (as is certainly the case) that black children have more interactions with non-police black people than they do with police, by more than one order of magnitude, then we can conclude that police are more likely to assault or kill than a non-police black person, conditional on an interaction. It is thus extremely reasonable for black parents to teach their children to avoid police and to try to keep them away from police.
There are (at least) two different conditional probabilities we might be interested in here:
1. If a black child is assaulted or killed, who was responsible?
In this case you are partially correct: it is (by about one order of magnitude, not at least two) more likely that it was another non-police black person.
2. If a black child interacts with a particular person (e.g. police, or a non-police black person), how likely are they to be assaulted or killed?
If we are willing to assume (as is certainly the case) that black children have more interactions with non-police black people than they do with police, by more than one order of magnitude, then we can conclude that police are more likely to assault or kill than a non-police black person, conditional on an interaction. It is thus extremely reasonable for black parents to teach their children to avoid police and to try to keep them away from police.
One third of all people killed by strangers, are killed by cops[0]
Cops take more in assets than robbers. [1]
[0] https://granta.com/violence-in-blue/
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-...
Nota Bene: your down votes are from a lack of evidence combined with an aggressive demeanor. Neither are a good look.
Cops take more in assets than robbers. [1]
[0] https://granta.com/violence-in-blue/
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-...
Nota Bene: your down votes are from a lack of evidence combined with an aggressive demeanor. Neither are a good look.
One of the big differences is, when a cop assaults or kills a black man, black people are expected to say "thank you sir, you have done a good thing today. We appreciate that you have inflicted violence upon us."
Also, "at least 2 orders of magnitude" sounds like a big overestimate. In 2018, 2570 black people were killed in the US by other black people. About 250 were shot and killed by the police, in cases where the police self-admitted to killing them. This does not include the non-shooting deaths, either those that occur during an arrest, or while in custody.
Even if it were only 250/2570, that's still only about 1 order of magnitude.
You may be getting downvoted because of your false equivalences and your incorrect statistics, not because of your "objectivity."
Also, "at least 2 orders of magnitude" sounds like a big overestimate. In 2018, 2570 black people were killed in the US by other black people. About 250 were shot and killed by the police, in cases where the police self-admitted to killing them. This does not include the non-shooting deaths, either those that occur during an arrest, or while in custody.
Even if it were only 250/2570, that's still only about 1 order of magnitude.
You may be getting downvoted because of your false equivalences and your incorrect statistics, not because of your "objectivity."
When I was younger I lived in a fairly rural area. I was driving home late from work one day on a remote highway and came across one of the most horrific accidents I've ever seen. A driver was pulling onto the highway and was hit by a police cruiser at an almost impossibly high speed. The highway was marked at 55mph, and under normal conditions, the driver of the other car would have had plenty of time to pull out, speed up and join the road at speed. On this road, at this time of night, there were virtually no other cars on the road.
The cruiser was going at least 130mph, without lights or siren on, struck the car at the b pillar and literally sheared the car in half right behind the driver. It was unreal, the two pieces of the car looked like they had been cut in two by a giant table saw. The front end of the cruiser was smashed in pretty well.
Incredibly, when I pulled my car off the road to help, I found both drivers up, relatively unhurt, ambulatory and in a daze from shock. A few minutes later another cruiser pulled up, called a tow and drove the civilian driver home. It became a local news story as the police officer was not only not arrested, but not disciplined in any way. Insurance covered the cars and the officer was back on the beat in a new car within the week. His rush? He wanted to make it home in time to watch a college ball game after his shift was over.
The cruiser was going at least 130mph, without lights or siren on, struck the car at the b pillar and literally sheared the car in half right behind the driver. It was unreal, the two pieces of the car looked like they had been cut in two by a giant table saw. The front end of the cruiser was smashed in pretty well.
Incredibly, when I pulled my car off the road to help, I found both drivers up, relatively unhurt, ambulatory and in a daze from shock. A few minutes later another cruiser pulled up, called a tow and drove the civilian driver home. It became a local news story as the police officer was not only not arrested, but not disciplined in any way. Insurance covered the cars and the officer was back on the beat in a new car within the week. His rush? He wanted to make it home in time to watch a college ball game after his shift was over.
Once saw a police car in a smallish town whip a u-turn for no clear reason, no lights, nothing, nearly hit a car that was pulling out of a bank parking lot and the driver of which had clearly already looked that way and seen no-one coming, then the cop freaked out, u-turned again (lights this time) and pulled over the car they nearly hit. Guess whatever they were breaking traffic laws and driving very dangerously to get to wasn't so important after all. What a shitty day for that person. At least it was probably just a totally unjustified ticket and an unpleasant lies-filled conversation with an upset and fragile-ego'd cop, and not death or injury, I suppose.
[EDIT] this and other dangerous-driving observations lead me to treat cop cars on the road like someone I've seen through the window drinking a 40 while talking on the phone. They're far and away the most likely category of vehicle to do something batshit crazy with no warning.
[EDIT] this and other dangerous-driving observations lead me to treat cop cars on the road like someone I've seen through the window drinking a 40 while talking on the phone. They're far and away the most likely category of vehicle to do something batshit crazy with no warning.
I've seen a lot of talk about how a police officer's job isn't particularly dangerous, with less chance of dying on the job than say a garbageman or taxi driver.
An angle I don't see mentioned quite so often is that for the danger that does exist, most of it is vehicle crash related. One wonders how much is self inflicted due to dangerous driving.
An angle I don't see mentioned quite so often is that for the danger that does exist, most of it is vehicle crash related. One wonders how much is self inflicted due to dangerous driving.
A friends was rear ended by a police cruiser while stopped at a red light. Ten police cars showed up. They did everything in their power to find anything wrong. They photographed everything in the car. They intimidated her into saying something was her fault.
She never got the money to repair her car because they don't carry insurance the same way normal people do. She ended up buying a new car. She was lucky to not be put in jail.
It's hard to imagine there are any good cops out there with all this rot.
She never got the money to repair her car because they don't carry insurance the same way normal people do. She ended up buying a new car. She was lucky to not be put in jail.
It's hard to imagine there are any good cops out there with all this rot.
Absolutely. I'm a firefighter. I was the designated driver for two friends. We leave a bar, and I pull up to the intersection. I have a flashing red traffic light, and the cross traffic has a flashing yellow. There is a police car sitting at his flashing yellow, windows down, watching (it's closing time, and there are several people milling about on the street, the usual). I wait. He doesn't move. I wait for approximately 10 seconds before turning, with my signal, left.
I'm immediately lit up. "Failure to yield". In addition I get an FST after "failing" the vertical nystagmus test (bear in mind at this point, my one and only pint of beer is coming up on five hours old). Cop is insistent I'm drunk, says he can go the DUI route, because my "behavior" in "failing to yield" shows I'm impaired, regardless of actual numbers. I'm lucid, but frustrated. Debates merits of blood draw, etc. Tickets me, "Get out of downtown and get home, I think we both know you're getting off lucky".
I'm immediately lit up. "Failure to yield". In addition I get an FST after "failing" the vertical nystagmus test (bear in mind at this point, my one and only pint of beer is coming up on five hours old). Cop is insistent I'm drunk, says he can go the DUI route, because my "behavior" in "failing to yield" shows I'm impaired, regardless of actual numbers. I'm lucid, but frustrated. Debates merits of blood draw, etc. Tickets me, "Get out of downtown and get home, I think we both know you're getting off lucky".
Hahaha, yeah, same smallish town's cops love to hassle people with late or early shifts playing "20 questions" fishing for drunks or I-don't-even-know-what ("5:30's awfully early to be going to work" look, asshole, take it up with the hour-fifteen of highway I have to cover, how many drunks are you nabbing at this hour on a Tuesday anyway?), usually just obviously fabricating some reason that they stopped you in the first place, without even trying to hide that it's BS (good luck questioning it, though). That's white folks, too, I can't imagine how bad it is there if you've got too much melanin in your skin. Incredibly annoying. Often it just seems like they're super bored and looking for anything at all to do.
> I can't imagine how bad it is there if you've got too much melanin in your skin.
It's the same. That narrative you're pushing is hindering genuine discussion and potential solutions to the very real problems of abusive police and injustices within the legal system. It's them versus us - all of us - not some of us more than others.
It's the same. That narrative you're pushing is hindering genuine discussion and potential solutions to the very real problems of abusive police and injustices within the legal system. It's them versus us - all of us - not some of us more than others.
In the town I used to live in in GA (about 125k people) accidents like this (though not that severe) were frequent on a couple of hilly roads. Marked as 35-45mph depending on the section, the police would drive at 80mph or more down the road. Usually they ticketed the person they hit. At least one cop I knew was actually proud of how he was able to stick it to the guy pulling out of a fast food restaurant.
I respect most people by default, but individuals like them make it hard for me to respect police by default. I'll be respectful, but in my head I can't help but think of all the scummy things they or their colleagues do.
I respect most people by default, but individuals like them make it hard for me to respect police by default. I'll be respectful, but in my head I can't help but think of all the scummy things they or their colleagues do.
Several years ago I was test driving a car owned by a cop in rural Tennessee. He was riding with me and I turned onto a smaller road with a 45mph speed limit. I was taking it slow and easy when he said "ah don't worry about the speed limit, I've got an E-Tag, let's go" I didn't know what an E-Tag was at the time but apparently it's an "Emergency Vehicle" tag given to officers to put on their unmarked, personal vehicles (in Tennessee at least). I guess it lets other cops know not to bother with stopping someone with an e-tag since they're just going to let them go anyway. I was pretty young at the time, and it was my first time seeing that the police are above the law.
You can get FOP bumper stickers etc., in some states to show your civilian "support" (financial, and otherwise) of police.
You can also buy them on eBay, unofficially. Of course, the police unions have gone after sellers there, for some reason.
In one state the union went so far as issuing registration-like tags for your FOP bumper sticker, so that if a cop was pulling you over, he'd know whether you were "paid up", so to speak. Of course, it's only about support, and not legalized proactive bribery, just to be clear...
You can also buy them on eBay, unofficially. Of course, the police unions have gone after sellers there, for some reason.
In one state the union went so far as issuing registration-like tags for your FOP bumper sticker, so that if a cop was pulling you over, he'd know whether you were "paid up", so to speak. Of course, it's only about support, and not legalized proactive bribery, just to be clear...
11-99 Foundation in California, by persistent legend:
https://priceonomics.com/can-you-buy-a-license-to-speed/
https://priceonomics.com/can-you-buy-a-license-to-speed/
> it was my first time seeing that the police are above the law.
I like to illustrate corruption in the US by showing them the fake badges that cops’ friends or family put on the windshield of (endemic in the NYC area) or the “I donate to the police union” stickers.
Or of course the actual police union gold cards or whatever that police spouses and kids get.
I like to illustrate corruption in the US by showing them the fake badges that cops’ friends or family put on the windshield of (endemic in the NYC area) or the “I donate to the police union” stickers.
Or of course the actual police union gold cards or whatever that police spouses and kids get.
I spent a lot of time in what's currently CHAZ/CHOP as a teen. The police in that precinct have/had a particularly visible habit of blowing red lights. When there are other cars nearby, they flick their lights on momentarily, as if ticking off a minor technicality (though still violating the letter of the law). I've seen cops do that pretty much anywhere I've lived, US or Canada, but it was especially prevalent on the stretch of road a few blocks from the precinct. I saw quite a few near-misses caused by this.
An "honest" cop would see this behavior and report the crime appropriately. But they simply don't hold eachother accountable.
An "honest" cop would see this behavior and report the crime appropriately. But they simply don't hold eachother accountable.
Not as egregious, but I once was pulled for accelerating into traffic. The officer told me that onramps “aren’t like yellow lights where you speed up to get through...” I was dumbfounded. Anyway, fortunately, I knew a judge and got it dropped but that idiot is probably still out there bringing misery to others.
It's crazy but from a European perspective, stories like this sound more like what I imagine police forces to behave like in dictatorships, not in a democracy.
After living in Europe for six years now, my wife is still puzzled sometimes by the differences between Europe and North-America when it comes to the police: how they are experienced by the population and how they see and present themselves and which role they think they're playing in society. Big difference. I'm certainly over-generalizing but here, we see cops as approachable and helpful in general (with exceptions) while in North-America, at least my wife's impression is that of cops being mostly intimidating (again, with exceptions).
Of course, this is all complex and different social and societal aspects play a big role, such as e.g., the odds for a cop of running into an armed person. But when I read how the police handled the situation with the group of black trick-or-treaters, it seems so foreign to me now from a more European perspective.
I suppose accountability is always going to be an issue - who watches the watchmen? But it should not be - in a democracy especially, there should be functioning mechanism to prevent abuse of power, and that of course applies to police actions, too.
After living in Europe for six years now, my wife is still puzzled sometimes by the differences between Europe and North-America when it comes to the police: how they are experienced by the population and how they see and present themselves and which role they think they're playing in society. Big difference. I'm certainly over-generalizing but here, we see cops as approachable and helpful in general (with exceptions) while in North-America, at least my wife's impression is that of cops being mostly intimidating (again, with exceptions).
Of course, this is all complex and different social and societal aspects play a big role, such as e.g., the odds for a cop of running into an armed person. But when I read how the police handled the situation with the group of black trick-or-treaters, it seems so foreign to me now from a more European perspective.
I suppose accountability is always going to be an issue - who watches the watchmen? But it should not be - in a democracy especially, there should be functioning mechanism to prevent abuse of power, and that of course applies to police actions, too.
I think the central difference is that in much of Europe, the the ideal of the perfect police officer would be someone who actively helps people to stay out of trouble, e.g. calming down a brewing pub fight situation before it gets out of hand, or warn you before doing something wrong. I guess this ideal also exists in the US, but there it is counteracted by the opposite ideal in which the police is no position to bother anyone who isn't clearly and undeniably in the wrong, but then cracking down hard. "Don't mess with Freedom unless it's of gunpoint-grade importance."
If you've never seen it, the movie "Hot Fuzz" is a brilliant piece of satire because it starts as a British cop drama and ends as an American cop drama.
Usually police in dictatorships, at least the more successful ones, tend to be much more professional, polite and non-brutal. Until they are very professional, very cruel and very brutal. The latter usually against very well defined groups, in very well defined ways.
Simple reason being, that random police violence just results, ultimately, in the kind of uproar and civil unrest the US experience now. Basically the last thing dictatorships want.
Simple reason being, that random police violence just results, ultimately, in the kind of uproar and civil unrest the US experience now. Basically the last thing dictatorships want.
I actually found that most of the police in China are not particularly scary. I'm sure they can mess up your day if they wanted to, but the day to day officers are unarmed, not particularly physically imposing (lots of normal looking men and women). They wear a sort of light blue office collared shirt.
Outside of big cities it gets even more lax. You just see police officers hanging out like regular people. I once saw an old guy get into an argument with the cops that looked like an argument between two people, not between "officer and civilian". In the US that wouldn't happen, the officer would feel slighted and probably arrest that guy, or the guy would never dare to talk back to a police officer in the first place.
But to your point I suspect the military police is very brutal.
Outside of big cities it gets even more lax. You just see police officers hanging out like regular people. I once saw an old guy get into an argument with the cops that looked like an argument between two people, not between "officer and civilian". In the US that wouldn't happen, the officer would feel slighted and probably arrest that guy, or the guy would never dare to talk back to a police officer in the first place.
But to your point I suspect the military police is very brutal.
Dictatorships also project power through police so imagine high intimidation from “the system” or “the state”. USA uses a similar power projection to keep people afraid and supposedly lawful.
Plenty of violence and impunity in European polices, especially in France, you don't hear about it because death are rare, but there is plenty of abuse that goes unpunished. women are getting raped in precincts in France for instance. The only reason one of these cases got out is because the victim was a Canadian woman and France couldn't cover it up this time.
European police forces are not very different in practice. They are significantly less blatant about it though. But we see the same general behaviors and narratives. The average person is a lot less likely to encounter these abuses though.
I do remember the police beating people for having the fake voting in Barcelona a couple of years back. Or the french police clashing with the yellow jackets.
What (some) european countries have is a much lower violent crime rate, which might jade perceptions either way.
What (some) european countries have is a much lower violent crime rate, which might jade perceptions either way.
I think European police is about as brutal and vicious when suppressing dissent (like yellow vests or the Catalonia thing) but significantly less likely to just murder you for fun when you're just walking on the street.
I am inclined to believe a recent discussion that argues police unions are the root of all this. I don't think you can say it's anything fundamental about law enforcement in the United States, as sheriffs and state troopers (highway patrol) don't seem to have the same scale of problems. You might argue it's an urban vs rural thing, but they still deal with their share of violence, arms, drug traffic, etc. Sheriffs are elected, and there is no sheriff's union.
A dictatorship is effectively what the police have become - a top down command structure that has escaped democratic oversight and the rule of law.
Continuing the theme, many police actually take indirect bribes. Look up Patrolmen's Benevolent Association cards and the like. There are different levels of tokens depending on connectedness and donation level, and you can find them openly discussed on police forums. I would guess the only reason we haven't developed a culture of on the spot cash bribes is that police would take the money and write you a ticket anyway for having insulted them. They have a psychological need to pretend they are on the right side of the law.
Continuing the theme, many police actually take indirect bribes. Look up Patrolmen's Benevolent Association cards and the like. There are different levels of tokens depending on connectedness and donation level, and you can find them openly discussed on police forums. I would guess the only reason we haven't developed a culture of on the spot cash bribes is that police would take the money and write you a ticket anyway for having insulted them. They have a psychological need to pretend they are on the right side of the law.
You have to remember that policing in the US has a strong lineage from the slave patrols of the antebellum era. That aspect of racial abuse and control is the set point for policing and safety in the country.
Europe has a huge leg up on this problem due a variety of factors. One of which is relatively homogeneous population, which has historically made it easier to make decisions, approve/fund social programs and also not treat fellow citizens as "the others". Ethnicity and citizenship are closely linked.
The US has always had this exclusionary divided culture due to its diversity and racism. It makes it hard to fix some of the larger issues that exist, since much of the debate is framed as "us vs them".
You can see similar issues in countries like Malaysia, where the parties are mostly split on ethnic lines.
This isn't excusing this behavior at all. Just context.
The US has always had this exclusionary divided culture due to its diversity and racism. It makes it hard to fix some of the larger issues that exist, since much of the debate is framed as "us vs them".
You can see similar issues in countries like Malaysia, where the parties are mostly split on ethnic lines.
This isn't excusing this behavior at all. Just context.
And the Roma have never had a problem with systemic racism?
Actually, I think that sort of reinforces the point: Europeans don't really treat their minorities better than their Americans, but their minorities are more, well, minor, so the problems are much more invisible. The "undesirable" minorities in the US (i.e., blacks and Hispanics) make up about ⅓ of the population, while corresponding "undesirable" minorities in European countries tend to be around the 10% range.
Or, for another blatant example, the way the Irish were long treated as subhuman by English overlords.
On the level of black Americans? Probably not, no. Literal slavery is not the same level of oppression as discrimination.
> On the level of black Americans? Probably not, no
Roma were literally being sent to death camps to be exterminated throughout much of Europe 75 years ago.
Roma were literally being sent to death camps to be exterminated throughout much of Europe 75 years ago.
The US has an order of magnitude more crime than Europe but is policed by roughly the same number of officers. That, justifiably or not, leads to short cuts where extrajudicial and unjust tactics are used to enforce compliance.
> "[...] justifiably or not [...] extrajudicial and unjust tactics are used"
...how could this be justifiable?
...how could this be justifiable?
Let's assume that Europe's cops are at 100% capacity to handle their crime justly. That means the US cops can do the same for only 10% of the crime they see. Leaving 90% of the crime to go unpunished. Or they can do shady tactics and respond to more crime at the cost of Injustice.
Obviously the ideal solution is to 10x the capacity of the criminal justice system but nobody's paying for that.
Obviously the ideal solution is to 10x the capacity of the criminal justice system but nobody's paying for that.
One of the slogans of the Thin Blue Line is "Sometimes there's justice, sometimes there's just us."
Perhaps less people would see fascist, totalitarian overtones in law enforcement if some segments of the police wouldn't openly state this.
Perhaps less people would see fascist, totalitarian overtones in law enforcement if some segments of the police wouldn't openly state this.
cliffy(4)
I've lived here a long time and come to the realization through observation that the NYPD operates like a private security force for capital. Their primary concern is to defend private property, the people themselves come second. The "community outreach" they do is just enough to keep us from getting accusatory.
Historically, this is what police were in the Northeast US. (In the South, police trace their heritage to slave patrols. I'm sure they would argue that these patrols were also just defending property. Gross.)
Landowners and merchants hired private police to watch over their holdings. Over time, they convinced locals that it would be in the public good if the guards they hired were paid for by everyone.
In the 1850s, in Boston, they formalized this arrangement into the first police department in the country. (There's an interesting history here around the oppression and then incorporation of Boston's Irish population by the police force.)
Edit: Curious about the downvotes -- this is a review of US history.
Landowners and merchants hired private police to watch over their holdings. Over time, they convinced locals that it would be in the public good if the guards they hired were paid for by everyone.
In the 1850s, in Boston, they formalized this arrangement into the first police department in the country. (There's an interesting history here around the oppression and then incorporation of Boston's Irish population by the police force.)
Edit: Curious about the downvotes -- this is a review of US history.
That history is - surprise, surprise - closely related to the region's race and class relations. Boston has always been the flashpoint for such issues, more so than New York City, in part because of its smaller size and more pointed and concentrated relationship with the slave trade. The two great waves of Irish immigration meant tensions among the working and lower-middle classes, which had previously been largely black - tensions which were gladly encouraged by New England's wealthy. Incorporating Irish into the police force was a direct (and highly successful) attempt to foment interracial clashes; this preempted the forming of interracial bonds within those lower classes, which would have allowed them to demand more rights and a better quality of life from the elites. This is the same thing that happened with labor unions; Irish and black fraternization is bad for business, so court the Irish and foment bigotry against their black neighbors (to the point where they don't even want to be neighbors anymore).
The way that this dynamic extends into the busing crisis and the infamous racism of Boston sports fans should be obvious.
The way that this dynamic extends into the busing crisis and the infamous racism of Boston sports fans should be obvious.
It's become popular to regurgitate that bit about police and slave patrols but it has no real basis in reality. That isn't to say that there isn't some example of a slave patrol that was pressed into service as police, but Police are a concept that all of America inherited from the English roots of our governments.
You are incorrect. Not all police departments started as slave patrols, in fact many of them did not. But to deny that it was a widespread event is counterfactual.
The first American police dept was founded in the 1850s, well after the split from England. The first police department in England was founded in the 1830s.
Prior to that, our communities either took collective action to regulate themselves and the 'spirit of the community', insisted on night watch duty as a rotating responsibility, paid a constable or sheriff (a word whose roots are 'shire reeve', meaning 'shire official'), or hired private guards to protect property.
In the 1850s, around the time of the first police departments in the US, the Fugitive Slave Act was enforced as law -- requiring officials to hunt and 'return' runaway slaves. This was adopted to a greater or lesser degree depending on the area, but it absolutely was a role of law enforcement across much of the US, and it's without a doubt a part of the roots of many police departments in the US.
The first American police dept was founded in the 1850s, well after the split from England. The first police department in England was founded in the 1830s.
Prior to that, our communities either took collective action to regulate themselves and the 'spirit of the community', insisted on night watch duty as a rotating responsibility, paid a constable or sheriff (a word whose roots are 'shire reeve', meaning 'shire official'), or hired private guards to protect property.
In the 1850s, around the time of the first police departments in the US, the Fugitive Slave Act was enforced as law -- requiring officials to hunt and 'return' runaway slaves. This was adopted to a greater or lesser degree depending on the area, but it absolutely was a role of law enforcement across much of the US, and it's without a doubt a part of the roots of many police departments in the US.
I'm not denying slave patrols existed, I'm denying this rumor of them being the root of modern police because it's straight up not true.
The very simple historical trend that brought us the police we have today started with the King enforcing the peace, was delegated to sheriffs who enforced the peace among other things, was inherited in the colonies where the sheriff took on a primarily peace officer role in early states, and as the population grew and cities got bigger were augmented with more specialized and local peace officers. Slave patrols being the root of police is just propaganda.
The very simple historical trend that brought us the police we have today started with the King enforcing the peace, was delegated to sheriffs who enforced the peace among other things, was inherited in the colonies where the sheriff took on a primarily peace officer role in early states, and as the population grew and cities got bigger were augmented with more specialized and local peace officers. Slave patrols being the root of police is just propaganda.
It's absolutely not just propaganda. The KKK was formed in the 1860s and there are many accounts of reconstruction era patrols being perpetrated by or with the aid of police at the time.
Enforcing the law required acting as slave patrols for well over a hundred years in the US. In 1757 Georgia, for instance, the colonial assembly required white landowners to be slave patrollers, and this continued well past the civil war.
There is over a hundred years of law enforcement, particularly in the South, acting as slave patrols. It's absolutely reasonable to trace the roots from modern departments back through the nation's unique history.
Not all police followed that path, like I mentioned above, police in the North were formed more out of an interest of protecting property and landowners. Places like Boston founded their police to try and prevent crime, rather than simply exact justice post-facto. That's a different historical root of American policing, and it did not involve slave patrols.
Enforcing the law required acting as slave patrols for well over a hundred years in the US. In 1757 Georgia, for instance, the colonial assembly required white landowners to be slave patrollers, and this continued well past the civil war.
There is over a hundred years of law enforcement, particularly in the South, acting as slave patrols. It's absolutely reasonable to trace the roots from modern departments back through the nation's unique history.
Not all police followed that path, like I mentioned above, police in the North were formed more out of an interest of protecting property and landowners. Places like Boston founded their police to try and prevent crime, rather than simply exact justice post-facto. That's a different historical root of American policing, and it did not involve slave patrols.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not true. Th US and the Caribbean have a slaver and white supremacists culture that didn't exist in the UK.
https://time.com/4779112/police-history-origins/
https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/...
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=WLovR6DgNFEC&oi=...
https://plsonline.eku.edu/insidelook/brief-history-slavery-a...
https://time.com/4779112/police-history-origins/
https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/...
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=WLovR6DgNFEC&oi=...
https://plsonline.eku.edu/insidelook/brief-history-slavery-a...
Your sources very accurately reflect the history that slavery was enforced by the legal system and peace officers upholding it. They don't lend any credence whatsoever to the notion that slave patrols morphed into modern police departments. The actual history is that police have slowly become more localized and detached from central authority (like the Kind or his officials - sheriffs, etc) over time as populations increase.
>.... The actual history is that police have slowly become more localized and detached from central authority
Policing has been a problem for the black community since before your "not racist" reason of detachment from central authority happened.
Policing has been a problem for the black community since before your "not racist" reason of detachment from central authority happened.
> but Police are a concept that all of America inherited from the English roots of our governments.
No, they aren't. Because police weren't a thing in England when America split off from those roots.
No, they aren't. Because police weren't a thing in England when America split off from those roots.
Keeping the peace was a concept in both countries when they split and was the duty of the sheriff which still exists in both countries and is actually still very functional in the US. That some localities with very large populations evolved an even more local office for keeping the peace is entirely consistent with the evolution of police tracing back to England before it existed as a modern concept. The simple fact is that slave patrols just did not morph into the general-purpose peace keeping organizations that today we call police.
Police did not exist in England in the 1600s. The first professional police in England dates to the 1800s. Even in the 1700s, up until the American revolution, there were only patrols of citizens organized as the night watch, and only in big English cities.
Police in england are an evolution of how the King's peace has been enforced, starting, very simplified, from when the King himself enforced it in very early days to delegating it to members of his court and his sheriffs, and ultimately to localities and special departments of the modern day. Cities did not generally have a "police department" but they had the sheriff and whoever the sheriff commanded into service to enforce the peace. As populations have increased the enforcement of these duties have evolved to be taken on by more local organizations that are modern police departments.
Sure. And the King's peace itself was only really the Crown's personal police force until around the late 1600s, but this was not the case in America. Even well into the 1600s your only shot at justice in the majority of cases was revenge.
I missed this comment in response to mine and yes, I wonder about negative reactions to what is a relatively dispassionate recounting of historical events.
Law and Order takes a different meaning when the thing about order is not about having a peaceful society, but an obedient society that keeps the status quo and the order of importance between the rich and poor.
Order in the English language began as a synonym for rank. Law and Order meant Law and Social Ranking. In set theory this is the same as the concept of ordinality.
The original Latin reflects the broader meaning of any pattern relationship, literally threads in a weave.
The original Latin reflects the broader meaning of any pattern relationship, literally threads in a weave.
>Their primary concern is to defend private property, the people themselves come second.
And of course the more private property one has, the better the protection...
And of course the more private property one has, the better the protection...
Civil Forfeiture means private property can be a liability unless one has a lot of extra liquidity to fund a legal defense.
Civil asset forfeiture only matters for personal property. Private property, such as investments, stakes in ventures, and so on, is not affected by civil asset forfeiture. I've never seen anyone have their business seized without trial, but people have had their houses destroyed without trial.
The rich have so many layers between them and their property, that "Civil Forfeiture" is not an issue, sometimes not even when convicted.
Until someone decides that the capital committed a drug crime because it smelled suspicious.
You're confusing private property with personal property.
The police don't care about your personal property. Just try to get them to do anything useful in response to a burglary.
Private property, like land, or the means of production, is an entirely different story. Those things receive full police protection.
The police don't care about your personal property. Just try to get them to do anything useful in response to a burglary.
Private property, like land, or the means of production, is an entirely different story. Those things receive full police protection.
They were more honest back when they called it movable property. As in, a peasant's movable property is taxed while a lord's immovable property is not. It's easier to tax things that can be picked up and taken if the tax is not paid.
Good point, thanks. I did mean personal property.
Public legal record shows that the police are there to protect society rather than any person. Their job is to maintain law and order sufficiently so that society doesn't collapse, people keep working, etc.
"the duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
"the duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
Clearly, it is not to protect “private property”, as in citizen taxpayers’ property. They will let that burn, and leave you to die.
Their sole job is to protect the state’s property. And the lives and property of those who control the state.
Proof: every riot thus far in 2020.
Their sole job is to protect the state’s property. And the lives and property of those who control the state.
Proof: every riot thus far in 2020.
You’re confusing police with firefighters. NYPD don’t handle fires at all
I think “let it burn” was either meant figuratively or in the sense that the police won’t prevent arson.
I don’t think the implication was that police should be putting out fires once started, or that they’re doing that but selectively.
I don’t think the implication was that police should be putting out fires once started, or that they’re doing that but selectively.
I just read Caro's The Power Broker. People have voiced this criticism for a while now. Change some dates and names, the story could easily be told again today.
This is true of every police department, not just the NYPD.
I had an incident happen to me where I was stuck in traffic in the left most lane on the freeway next to the diamond (HOV) lane. So the HOV was on my left and was wide open and all the other lanes were completely stopped, or stop and go. A state police officer had people pulled over just ahead of me for HOV violations. A car that was exactly the same model and color as mine was flying down the HOV and pulled in two cars behind me when he saw the cop. When I got up to where the cop was, he was confused and thought it was me. He was pointing at me and pointing at the side of the road and yelling something. At first I didn't understand what was going on, it was not until later that it all made sense. I didn't know a car similar to mine had pulled in a couple of cars behind me. I could not understand what was going on, if he was pointing at me or what. I rolled down my window and he was screaming at me, I had the radio on and had not noticed any of this until he was hopping mad. Then he put his hand on his gun and I could hear him yelling at me to pull over right there right then. So I did, because I was scared as hell. Of course a car came flying down the open HOV lane right then and T-Boned my car. I blacked out for a bit and came to and the air bags had all gone off saving my life I am sure and I was unharmed but my car was totaled. The two young men who were driving the car that T-Boned me both were rushed to the hospital. The cop gave me ticket for improper lane change and HOV violation. I had the wits to take pictures of license plates of the stopped cars and got witnesses from that. I hired a lawyer and he said it was very unlikely to beat the ticket and there was nothing we could do, could not sue the police, they have immunity.
Funny, I actually beat the HOV violation in court, witnesses all corroborated my story. The whole thing was super scary and frustrating.
I can only imagine how frustrating it is for black people who deal with things 10 times worse than that but it gave me a bit of empathy and understanding how a crazed a-hole cop can wreak havoc and there is nothing you can do about it. I mean all that for a dumb HOV violation for cripes sake.
Funny, I actually beat the HOV violation in court, witnesses all corroborated my story. The whole thing was super scary and frustrating.
I can only imagine how frustrating it is for black people who deal with things 10 times worse than that but it gave me a bit of empathy and understanding how a crazed a-hole cop can wreak havoc and there is nothing you can do about it. I mean all that for a dumb HOV violation for cripes sake.
imagine wanting to kill someone because they didn't listen to you when you told them to pull their car over for an HOV lane violation.
This is why we need civilian oversight of every police department. Cops are generally too corrupt and/or too incompetent to investigate their own. They've proven their inability to hold themselves accountable for their actions, so it's up to the rest of us to do it.
Effective civilian oversight is made damn hard by the political power wielded by the police. Most of this article is in fact about the ways in which NYC's existing civilian review board is neutered and undermined by police department control of every aspect of its work: investigation, adjudication, and punishment.
Investigation:
> civilian investigators don’t have direct access to the [body cam] footage. They email requests to the NYPD, which decides which footage is relevant. The department takes its time.
Adjudication:
> [E]ven if the CCRB substantiates a case, the commissioner still has complete authority over what to do next. He can decide to simply ignore the recommended punishment. The commissioner can also let the case go before an internal NYPD judge (whose boss is the commissioner). If the judge decides punishment is merited, the commissioner can overturn or downgrade that, too.
Punishment:
>In 2018, the CCRB looked into about 3,000 allegations of misuse of force. It was able to substantiate 73 of those allegations. The biggest punishment? Nine officers who lost vacation days, according to CCRB records.
Investigation:
> civilian investigators don’t have direct access to the [body cam] footage. They email requests to the NYPD, which decides which footage is relevant. The department takes its time.
Adjudication:
> [E]ven if the CCRB substantiates a case, the commissioner still has complete authority over what to do next. He can decide to simply ignore the recommended punishment. The commissioner can also let the case go before an internal NYPD judge (whose boss is the commissioner). If the judge decides punishment is merited, the commissioner can overturn or downgrade that, too.
Punishment:
>In 2018, the CCRB looked into about 3,000 allegations of misuse of force. It was able to substantiate 73 of those allegations. The biggest punishment? Nine officers who lost vacation days, according to CCRB records.
All of these problems come from the department being fully controlled by the police union.
I am typically a pro-union person. I even think that police unions, as a concept, should exist.
But police unions, as implemented, are the reason that civilian oversight of police is impossible.
Typical unions consist of line workers - with maybe line managers. They are then overseen by professional managers, directors, etc, who are not part of the union. The union advocates for the line workers, in opposition to managers.
Police department unions are completely different. Every level of management, except for the very top (The mayor and city council) are part of the union. And, unsurprisingly, this leads to a huge conflict of interest, where the line workers aren't opposed by the managers - but are working together, against the civilian authorities.
To draw a parallel, it would be like the entirety of GM, including the CEO, being part of the UAW union. Do you think that would represent shareholder & board interests well? Or would it lead to a completely out of control company, that would operate without any care for board oversight?
I am typically a pro-union person. I even think that police unions, as a concept, should exist.
But police unions, as implemented, are the reason that civilian oversight of police is impossible.
Typical unions consist of line workers - with maybe line managers. They are then overseen by professional managers, directors, etc, who are not part of the union. The union advocates for the line workers, in opposition to managers.
Police department unions are completely different. Every level of management, except for the very top (The mayor and city council) are part of the union. And, unsurprisingly, this leads to a huge conflict of interest, where the line workers aren't opposed by the managers - but are working together, against the civilian authorities.
To draw a parallel, it would be like the entirety of GM, including the CEO, being part of the UAW union. Do you think that would represent shareholder & board interests well? Or would it lead to a completely out of control company, that would operate without any care for board oversight?
I’ve heard people suggest that public workers should not be allowed to unionize. To me, it sounds like an extreme position, but stuff like this makes me consider it more seriously.
If the ability to cover up criminal acts is a consequence of police unions, there’s no doubt in my mind that they should be abolished.
Unions make a lot of sense, unless they can negotiate impunity on behalf of their members.
EDIT: Interesting article on this subject: https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-trou...
Quote from the article:
When it comes to advancing their interests, public-sector unions have significant advantages over traditional unions. For one thing, using the political process, they can exert far greater influence over their members' employers — that is, government — than private-sector unions can. Through their extensive political activity, these government-workers' unions help elect the very politicians who will act as "management" in their contract negotiations — in effect handpicking those who will sit across the bargaining table from them, in a way that workers in a private corporation (like, say, American Airlines or the Washington Post Company) cannot. Such power led Victor Gotbaum, the leader of District Council 37 of the AFSCME in New York City, to brag in 1975: "We have the ability, in a sense, to elect our own boss."
If the ability to cover up criminal acts is a consequence of police unions, there’s no doubt in my mind that they should be abolished.
Unions make a lot of sense, unless they can negotiate impunity on behalf of their members.
EDIT: Interesting article on this subject: https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-trou...
Quote from the article:
When it comes to advancing their interests, public-sector unions have significant advantages over traditional unions. For one thing, using the political process, they can exert far greater influence over their members' employers — that is, government — than private-sector unions can. Through their extensive political activity, these government-workers' unions help elect the very politicians who will act as "management" in their contract negotiations — in effect handpicking those who will sit across the bargaining table from them, in a way that workers in a private corporation (like, say, American Airlines or the Washington Post Company) cannot. Such power led Victor Gotbaum, the leader of District Council 37 of the AFSCME in New York City, to brag in 1975: "We have the ability, in a sense, to elect our own boss."
1. Private sector unions can exert the same kind of authority, by lobbying for regulation of their employer's labour practices.
2. There is no guarantee that the candidate you helped elect in your district will be the person responsible for negotiations. Other politicians are supposed to be a counterbalance to this, if they are doing their jobs, and actually give two figs about conflicts of interest.
This is largely a theoretical concern.
The concern I cited - that management is part of the union is not theoretical. It is one we've seen played out again and again.
2. There is no guarantee that the candidate you helped elect in your district will be the person responsible for negotiations. Other politicians are supposed to be a counterbalance to this, if they are doing their jobs, and actually give two figs about conflicts of interest.
This is largely a theoretical concern.
The concern I cited - that management is part of the union is not theoretical. It is one we've seen played out again and again.
Four year (post high school) degree required would do wonders for the level of competency
easily weeding out the common whack jobs. Will still get the high function sociopath but they will have to be more careful navigating within a majority of competent peers.
hell employers (especially state employers) require degrees and ridiculous experience levels just to wield JS on a crud app.
hell employers (especially state employers) require degrees and ridiculous experience levels just to wield JS on a crud app.
Is there evidence that indicates police are more corrupt than anybody else?
Even if they were equally corrupt to everyone else, they have much, much more authority to use violence and be shielded from the consequences. We should demand that they are significantly less corrupt than everyone else.
I completely agree, but the point still stands that insinuating corruption is a straw man when it’s not based on anything.
This is a question without a purpose. Police officers carry guns, have qualified immunity, and can kill people. Are they using excessive -- and in some cases deadly -- force in situations that do not require it? That is the only question that matters. Evidence suggests that in some cases that they do use excessive force. It doesn't matter if in many cases they don't. It doesn't matter if the corruption ratio is 1:100 or 1:10. The people who's loved ones are being hurt or are being hurt themselves don't have time for intellectual exercises with no real implications. Police officers wield authority and are therefore are held to a far higher standard than other people.
Almost everyone in southern states visibly carry guns. That is not an excuse to ignore or forgive an absence of data or accountability.
>Almost everyone in southern states visibly carry guns.
Umm... no they don't.
Umm... no they don't.
I’ve lived in the south my entire life. I can count on my hands the number of times I’ve seen a gun in public. I know folks who pack a concealed gun, but they’re the minority. Most of us don’t carry. This is a stereotype, and it’s false.
* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Texas
* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Arizona
As two quick examples check out the open carry laws in Texas and Arizona where registered personally owned firearms per capita is among the highest in the country.
* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Arizona
As two quick examples check out the open carry laws in Texas and Arizona where registered personally owned firearms per capita is among the highest in the country.
Yes, open carry laws exist. Yes, people in the South own firearms. Nevertheless your statement that "almost everyone in southern states visibly carry guns" remains false.
A more correct restatement of your claim might be that "many" Southerners openly carry, but that's still a minority of a minority given that, per capita, most Southerners don't even own a gun. "Almost everyone" is reaching into some kind of weird libertarian wild-west fantasy stereotype.
A more correct restatement of your claim might be that "many" Southerners openly carry, but that's still a minority of a minority given that, per capita, most Southerners don't even own a gun. "Almost everyone" is reaching into some kind of weird libertarian wild-west fantasy stereotype.
This is a nonsensical question. How does one measure "corruption" and how do you quantify it?
IMO these sorts of questions are kneejerk reactions without any significant fore- or after-thought. They only serve to disrupt the conversation.
IMO these sorts of questions are kneejerk reactions without any significant fore- or after-thought. They only serve to disrupt the conversation.
Corruption is a provable violation of ethics which is measurable.
In so many of these police related threads on HN lately people make absurd claims and then are upset when asked about data or objectivity, which suggests people are looking to complain about something and don’t want their complaint validated with data, which is strange.
In so many of these police related threads on HN lately people make absurd claims and then are upset when asked about data or objectivity, which suggests people are looking to complain about something and don’t want their complaint validated with data, which is strange.
> Corruption is a provable violation of ethics which is measurable.
Police do everything they can to keep ethics violations from being measured. That is what the story is about. In light of that, your objection to psychometry's comment calling for oversight is quite absurd.
Police do everything they can to keep ethics violations from being measured. That is what the story is about. In light of that, your objection to psychometry's comment calling for oversight is quite absurd.
I am absolutely not objecting to oversight. I am not sure how you came to that. I am advocating for the opposite, for increased measurable data so that people don’t have to invent their own narratives.
> invent their own narratives
Your comments in this thread are recursively ridiculous and I'm not sure how far I want to unwind them, but people are "inventing their own narratives" (this is an astonishingly bad way of characterizing the problem here) in preference to siting hard numbers because the police are not holding themselves accountable, a phenomenon that includes the suppression of the hard data on how many abuses there are.
Your comments in this thread are recursively ridiculous and I'm not sure how far I want to unwind them, but people are "inventing their own narratives" (this is an astonishingly bad way of characterizing the problem here) in preference to siting hard numbers because the police are not holding themselves accountable, a phenomenon that includes the suppression of the hard data on how many abuses there are.
Then advocate for better data. You either want accountability or you just want to have something to complain about.
Literally every person who is advocating for greater police accountability is, by definition, advocating for better data. I don't think there's an argument here about that. The point of disagreement would seem to be, most people don't believe being unable to fully quantify the corruption of the police means it does not exist.
The point isn’t whether there is corruption or not. In any government there is always some degree of perceived corruption. The point is the prevalence of corruption. Without some form of objective measure claiming corruption is largely meaningless, because there is nothing specifically identifiable to change.
> The point is the prevalence of corruption. Without some form of objective measure claiming corruption is largely meaningless, because there is nothing specifically identifiable to change.
This is particularly tone deaf in light of the subject matter of the article. I can point to specific things that happened and say "that should not be permitted" or "this is evidence of a corrupt system that is not holding itself to account." I can do this before I know precisely how often it's happening, and it would be wrong not to do that.
This is particularly tone deaf in light of the subject matter of the article. I can point to specific things that happened and say "that should not be permitted" or "this is evidence of a corrupt system that is not holding itself to account." I can do this before I know precisely how often it's happening, and it would be wrong not to do that.
What ethics? And how can you prove anything if cops always defend their own?
In an ideal world where we have an oracle telling us which cops are good and which are bad your comment makes sense. But the nature of corruption is to obfuscate its dealings. You can't just say "well we need independent oversight" then because there are so many institutional pivot points where cops can hide their abhorrent behavior before it gets to see the light of day.
In an ideal world where we have an oracle telling us which cops are good and which are bad your comment makes sense. But the nature of corruption is to obfuscate its dealings. You can't just say "well we need independent oversight" then because there are so many institutional pivot points where cops can hide their abhorrent behavior before it gets to see the light of day.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
In practical application ethics violations are knowable breaking of rules or demonstrable malicious intentions.
In practical application ethics violations are knowable breaking of rules or demonstrable malicious intentions.
You have an ultra-simplified view of what ethics can be and how it can be employed.
This is evidenced in how you think "ethics" can be defined by a wikipedia page.
The concept of ethics is very much different from its numerous instantiations.
This is evidenced in how you think "ethics" can be defined by a wikipedia page.
The concept of ethics is very much different from its numerous instantiations.
Then please provide a better definition.
Here you go [1]. This DB contains multiple provable violation of ethics in multiple measurable and easily digestible forms such as graphs and stats.
I assume you will agree that this is close to objectivity and therefore police are indeed corrupt?
[1] https://github.com/2020PB/police-brutality
I assume you will agree that this is close to objectivity and therefore police are indeed corrupt?
[1] https://github.com/2020PB/police-brutality
Yes, qualified data is essential because the goal is accountability, but that still doesn’t answer my original question.
Your original question was 'where's the data'. I provided the data. How does that not answer it?
Original question: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23616331
Yes, and I provided you evidence. You claimed in an earlier post
> In so many of these police related threads on HN lately people make absurd claims and then are upset when asked about data or objectivity
And I provided you exactly what you wanted. Yet you seem to be dismissing said evidence out of...? Your feelings?
> In so many of these police related threads on HN lately people make absurd claims and then are upset when asked about data or objectivity
And I provided you exactly what you wanted. Yet you seem to be dismissing said evidence out of...? Your feelings?
Considering we're not allowed to see officer disciplinary records, even though they work for us (the taxpayer), it's impossible to get the data you want.
You can subpoena for that in the public interest otherwise that is an employer related privacy violation of an employee.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
The OP's comment may be poorly worded, but in the context of current events your contributions to this discussion show virtually no sign of attempting to make good faith arguments.
The OP's comment may be poorly worded, but in the context of current events your contributions to this discussion show virtually no sign of attempting to make good faith arguments.
I am advocating for data and accountability over agreement and hysteria. It appears, to me, you are equating my lack of immediate agreement to bad faith.
Agreement is not the goal of discussions or debate. Perhaps if you articulated your advocacy for data and accountability with a little more substance earlier on we would be enjoying a more productive debate about the issue.
My experience with social media is that the goal is purely social reinforcement, not discussion. Typically HN is better than that but purely political threads like this with absolutely no technology or business focus tend to draw out people not primarily focused on discussion. That is why I deleted my Reddit account. Here is an example from this thread where a commenter, in their own words, is distressed only that I don’t just agree: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23617015
Or we could abolish the police and create a new public safety department without the structural racism and ingrained power-hungry culture.
What would such a new public safety department be and how would it differ from police? What would such a department do differently in the circumstance of failure to follow lawful orders and how would it have no systemic racism?
Having a peace officer department that is not given guns, or a mandate to apply violence first, and ask questions later, would be a substantial improvement for doing 95-99% of the work police currently do.
It might still be systemically racist, but at least the consequences thereof will be lower.
We've already tried reforming departments. It doesn't work. The entire management structure of your neighbourhood police department resists reform. The line officers resist reform. The police chief resists reform. No amount of winger-wagging at them will result in reform. No amount of sensitivity training or unconscious bias training, or body cams have managed to reign them in.
Wiping the slate clean, and starting over might.
It might still be systemically racist, but at least the consequences thereof will be lower.
We've already tried reforming departments. It doesn't work. The entire management structure of your neighbourhood police department resists reform. The line officers resist reform. The police chief resists reform. No amount of winger-wagging at them will result in reform. No amount of sensitivity training or unconscious bias training, or body cams have managed to reign them in.
Wiping the slate clean, and starting over might.
> It might still be systemically racist, but at least the consequences thereof will be lower.
If that’s the final output I suspect most people will want to retain the status quo because the primary problem is ignored at great expense.
If that’s the final output I suspect most people will want to retain the status quo because the primary problem is ignored at great expense.
1. Mitigating harm is not ignoring the problem.
2. Reforms don't work. The SPD has been under federal sanction, and has been the target of numerous reform plans for the past two decades. Nothing sticks. The department is institutionally incapable of reform or accountability.
3. Given #2, it is currently being ignored at great expense. Police are the highest-paid public servants. Police departments consume the overwhelming majority of municipal tax revenue.
Why would you hire a cop for a six figure salary, to have them spend most of their time deal with social worker problems, when social workers are already capable of doing that job, for a third the pay? Why do you have that same cop cruise around, issuing parking tickets, when you could have a bylaw officer do the same thing, for a third the pay?
2. Reforms don't work. The SPD has been under federal sanction, and has been the target of numerous reform plans for the past two decades. Nothing sticks. The department is institutionally incapable of reform or accountability.
3. Given #2, it is currently being ignored at great expense. Police are the highest-paid public servants. Police departments consume the overwhelming majority of municipal tax revenue.
Why would you hire a cop for a six figure salary, to have them spend most of their time deal with social worker problems, when social workers are already capable of doing that job, for a third the pay? Why do you have that same cop cruise around, issuing parking tickets, when you could have a bylaw officer do the same thing, for a third the pay?
I don't understand why you are being downvoted.
The point of abolishing police isn't so that nobody shows up when you call 911. It's so that the right person for the right situation shows up when you call 911.
Given the current state of American policing, there is only one situation where I would call the police, and expect the right person to show up.
That situation is an active shooter. For nearly everything else, I don't need an armed-to-the-teeth, compliance-at-gunpoint, qualified-immunity-protected man with a gun to show up. He is not the right person for 99% of the work the police currently engage in.
The point of abolishing police isn't so that nobody shows up when you call 911. It's so that the right person for the right situation shows up when you call 911.
Given the current state of American policing, there is only one situation where I would call the police, and expect the right person to show up.
That situation is an active shooter. For nearly everything else, I don't need an armed-to-the-teeth, compliance-at-gunpoint, qualified-immunity-protected man with a gun to show up. He is not the right person for 99% of the work the police currently engage in.
Yep exactly. In America we used to have SWAT teams who would fulfill this latter role, for situations when violence of action was urgently needed. The first letter in the acronym stands for "special." These days it's not abnormal for regular beat cops to acquire surplus military equipment and roll up to a petty dispute in an MRAP.
I think taking away officer's weapons will drastically change who they decide to engage and how they do so.
I think taking away officer's weapons will drastically change who they decide to engage and how they do so.
Even if you chose to argue statistical frames, as I'm seeing so much in this thread, you're not factoring the ripple effects that must surely be caused by the knowledge that official agents of power view you and your family as inherently, or very potentially inherently, dangerous. It doesn't take a critical mass of groundless violence (even if that mass does indeed exist)-- but just some of it, left unaccounted (or even defended) by those same official agents. Such a message is bound to resonate broadly and cause what should be a comprehensible outcry from, for example, the mother quoted in this article. I'm saying that you might consider the nonchalant (at best) response to such violent incidents.
The NYPD has a budget for spying on people in other countries. State power is weird.
For those curious who didn't know about this (like me):
>With offices in 11 foreign capitals and an unpublished budget, the ILP’s far-flung counterterrorism cops operate outside the authority of top U.S. officials abroad, including the American ambassador and the CIA station chief, who is the nominal head of U.S. intelligence in foreign countries.
>The ILP is supported by private donors through the New York Police Foundation, which won't say how much it has given the NYPD, beyond a sentence on its Web page that it sought to raise $1.5 million for the program in 2010. The NYPD itself won't say whether any of its annual $178 million budget for intelligence and counterterrorism goes to posting detectives in Paris, London, Madrid or other posh capitals.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/11/nypds_fore...
>With offices in 11 foreign capitals and an unpublished budget, the ILP’s far-flung counterterrorism cops operate outside the authority of top U.S. officials abroad, including the American ambassador and the CIA station chief, who is the nominal head of U.S. intelligence in foreign countries.
>The ILP is supported by private donors through the New York Police Foundation, which won't say how much it has given the NYPD, beyond a sentence on its Web page that it sought to raise $1.5 million for the program in 2010. The NYPD itself won't say whether any of its annual $178 million budget for intelligence and counterterrorism goes to posting detectives in Paris, London, Madrid or other posh capitals.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/11/nypds_fore...
keep having to preface everything lately with "not a joke," but no joke the NYPD's International Liaison Program, which has a secret budget and operates in 13 foreign countries with no oversight, just showed up in an official NYPD cruiser for a pro-police demonstration in Paris
https://mobile.twitter.com/newyorkyearzero/status/1273754924...
https://mobile.twitter.com/newyorkyearzero/status/1273754924...
So the NYPD privatized secret policing? Nice one!
Another weird thing about the NYPD is that each police officer gets 20 so-called "get out of jail free" cards to give to friends and family. The recipient can show the card to the police if pulled over and use the card to "wiggle out of minor trouble".
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42780382
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42780382
That's a joke, right? Police aren't so stupid to have institutionalized petty corruption with an actual laminated pass, right?
It's not typically laminated, usually the cop is supposed to take it and call the person who handed it out (or tear it up).
This is very real, though.
This is very real, though.
Strictly speaking, that is not in their budget.
Comes from anonymous donors [1]. Nothing strange about that.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/nyregion/terrorism-nypd-i...
Comes from anonymous donors [1]. Nothing strange about that.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/nyregion/terrorism-nypd-i...
OK, that's weird. It doesn't entirely come as a surprise that they would have an international arm, since they are home to the UN and were the most visible target of the most prominent international terrorist attack. But having that money come anonymously... that's suspicious.
Still weird.
The FBI and the rest of our national security apparatus exist to deal with those issues.
The FBI and the rest of our national security apparatus exist to deal with those issues.
The "anonymous donor overseas placement" system is clearly a means to launder bribe money into holidays for officers. Anonymous "donations" to police are so obviously corrupt they might as well hang up a sign.
I mean it wouldn't surprise me if the NYPD had a liaison directly with FBI field offices outside of the country, since the stakes are so high and tight integration could save lives. It would also be weird if the NYPD were operating much more directly than that.
Does it also seem weird to you that small countries have intelligence bureaus? Denmark and Finland are both less populous than New York City.
So then Walmart should have a spy agency because they're bigger than some countries?
Funny enough, I find this purposefully exaggerated example not exaggerated enough. It seems to me there is much more reason for Walmart have a spy agency than for NYPD. After all, if NYPD has a reason to be involved with a foreign entity, there are federal agencies (most prominently NSA and CIA) that supposedly should handle these matters (though what they really do nobody knows). NYPD exists only to serve NY, and NY is a part of USA.
Walmart, on the other hand, isn't exactly a part of USA, and if it needs to spy on somebody, it would have to rely on their own internal capacity.
Walmart, on the other hand, isn't exactly a part of USA, and if it needs to spy on somebody, it would have to rely on their own internal capacity.
Interestingly, wallmart has their own forensics lab[0]
[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/04/csi-w...
[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/04/csi-w...
No, because they're countries. Who deals with an international incident caused by the NYPD?
There are basically two things that the police do:
1> Patrol public spaces to deter illegal behavior in those places, direct traffic, punish traffic offenders, offer directions to tourists, etc
2> Respond to calls from citizens, investigate the crimes that those calls are about, locate and apprehend the associated criminals.
I've only lived in places sparsely populated enough that <1> is mostly impractical except along highways and around major construction sites.
The VAST majority of the value provided to people by the police clearly comes from <2> - it's the reason that no sane person would mug me (or kill me) for $40 cash on an unpatrolled country road, or invade my home and take up residence there against my will. 99.9% of citizens benefit from <2>, as it's the main deterrent to any antisocial person coming and taking whatever they have of value.
It seems to me (though I don't have data) that most (nearly all?) the mistreatment of (maybe mainly black) citizens by police that has been garnering media attention over the past decade or so, happens during the course of <1>.
1> Patrol public spaces to deter illegal behavior in those places, direct traffic, punish traffic offenders, offer directions to tourists, etc
2> Respond to calls from citizens, investigate the crimes that those calls are about, locate and apprehend the associated criminals.
I've only lived in places sparsely populated enough that <1> is mostly impractical except along highways and around major construction sites.
The VAST majority of the value provided to people by the police clearly comes from <2> - it's the reason that no sane person would mug me (or kill me) for $40 cash on an unpatrolled country road, or invade my home and take up residence there against my will. 99.9% of citizens benefit from <2>, as it's the main deterrent to any antisocial person coming and taking whatever they have of value.
It seems to me (though I don't have data) that most (nearly all?) the mistreatment of (maybe mainly black) citizens by police that has been garnering media attention over the past decade or so, happens during the course of <1>.
Only 60% of murders are solved. https://www.vox.com/2018/9/24/17896034/murder-crime-clearanc...
Are you suggesting that, because of this, the existence of the police is not the main deterrent to crime?
a few years ago, I getting a beer after work with a colleague. we had become friends and talked about quite a bit outside of work. As the topic of religion had come up in the past, it was not unusual for us to discuss. He was a devout Christian (some kind of protestant) and I am a self-described "athiest Catholic". At a certain lull in the conversation after a couple beers, he leaned in to me and asked in a hushed tone: "so, if you don't believe in hell, why be a good person?" I put my drink down and looked him in the eye and said "that's the scariest thing I've ever heard."
Plainly, I don't believe in deterrence as effective or a substantial reason why most people don't engage in bad behavior.
Plainly, I don't believe in deterrence as effective or a substantial reason why most people don't engage in bad behavior.
It's not _most people_ that I'd. worry about, though.
with 60% of _murders_ going unsolved, do you think the 'deterrent effect' is really preventing the remainder from engaging in antisocial behavior?
Probably not, but those who are already willing to be criminals in situations where they won't be caught would now be able to act with wild abandon, or execute much grander schemes with relative impunity.
60% of murders go unsolved because a sane murderer does not commit a murder that would be easy to solve. I'm sure many tempting, high-reward murders do not happen because they can't be committed without an ensuing police investigation.
Suppose 1% of people are currently criminals (I don't know the real number). Without an authority investigating and punishing crimes, that number might increase to 1.1% or even 2%. But a small fraction of those would likely increase their criminal behavior by an order of magnitude.
60% of murders go unsolved because a sane murderer does not commit a murder that would be easy to solve. I'm sure many tempting, high-reward murders do not happen because they can't be committed without an ensuing police investigation.
Suppose 1% of people are currently criminals (I don't know the real number). Without an authority investigating and punishing crimes, that number might increase to 1.1% or even 2%. But a small fraction of those would likely increase their criminal behavior by an order of magnitude.
I keep seeing this narrative where people say, "We need law enforcement to prevent crimes, we can't defund the police." And I 100% agree, we need law enforcement. But the police aren't law enforcement if they refuse to enforce the laws.
> But the police aren't law enforcement if they refuse to enforce the laws.
Sure. That's obviously true. However, not very helpful to the discussion as you don't state what percent of police officers "refuse to enforce the laws"
Do 100% of police officers refuse to enforce laws? 50%? 5%. Surely that's more beneficial to talk about than simply saying "the sky isn't blue if it isn't blue".
Sure. That's obviously true. However, not very helpful to the discussion as you don't state what percent of police officers "refuse to enforce the laws"
Do 100% of police officers refuse to enforce laws? 50%? 5%. Surely that's more beneficial to talk about than simply saying "the sky isn't blue if it isn't blue".
While Derek Chauvin was murdering George Floyd, 100% of the officers present did not enforce the law.
While Daniel Pantaleo was murdering Erik Garner, 100% of the officers present did not enforce the law, and at least a significant percentage of the court system which did not convict Pantaleo did not enforce the law.
When Philip Brailsford murdered Daniel Shaver, 100% of the officers present did not enforce the law by arresting him. A significant percentage of the court system which did not convict him of any crime didn't enforce the law. The police department which reinstated him and then let him medically retire due to PTSD from the murder he committed and pays him $2,500/month pension didn't enforce the law.
Since three police officers murdered Breonna Taylor, 100% of the police in Louisville Metro Police Department has not enforced the law.
When ex-cops murdered Ahmaud Arbery, 100% of Glynn County Police Department did not enforce the law until months later after massive outcry, and more than one DA refused to enforce the law.
When a homeless man in a wheelchair was shot in the face with a rubber bullet by LAPD, 100% of the LAPD did not enforce the law. When Buffalo PD officers assaulted a 75 year old man, 100% of the officers present did not enforce the law, and 100% of the 57 SWAT members resigned from the SWAT team when other police did enforce the law. When Denver PD shot tear at a pregnant woman and her husband who were uninvolved in protests, 100% of Denver PD did not enforce the law. When a Philly PD officer knelt on a man while he said, "I can't breathe" and the officer responded, "Shut up asshole. Are you fucking stupid? That shit don't work here" 100% of Philly PD did not enforce the law.
With the exception of Breonna Taylor, these are just some of the incidents that were caught on video. There are many, many more on video, and we can only guess how many incidents weren't caught on video.
Obviously I'm not going to be able to give you an exact percentage number of how many police officers refuse to enforce laws when cops commit crimes, but how many examples do you need to see before you will admit it's too much for the current system to be salvageable?
While Daniel Pantaleo was murdering Erik Garner, 100% of the officers present did not enforce the law, and at least a significant percentage of the court system which did not convict Pantaleo did not enforce the law.
When Philip Brailsford murdered Daniel Shaver, 100% of the officers present did not enforce the law by arresting him. A significant percentage of the court system which did not convict him of any crime didn't enforce the law. The police department which reinstated him and then let him medically retire due to PTSD from the murder he committed and pays him $2,500/month pension didn't enforce the law.
Since three police officers murdered Breonna Taylor, 100% of the police in Louisville Metro Police Department has not enforced the law.
When ex-cops murdered Ahmaud Arbery, 100% of Glynn County Police Department did not enforce the law until months later after massive outcry, and more than one DA refused to enforce the law.
When a homeless man in a wheelchair was shot in the face with a rubber bullet by LAPD, 100% of the LAPD did not enforce the law. When Buffalo PD officers assaulted a 75 year old man, 100% of the officers present did not enforce the law, and 100% of the 57 SWAT members resigned from the SWAT team when other police did enforce the law. When Denver PD shot tear at a pregnant woman and her husband who were uninvolved in protests, 100% of Denver PD did not enforce the law. When a Philly PD officer knelt on a man while he said, "I can't breathe" and the officer responded, "Shut up asshole. Are you fucking stupid? That shit don't work here" 100% of Philly PD did not enforce the law.
With the exception of Breonna Taylor, these are just some of the incidents that were caught on video. There are many, many more on video, and we can only guess how many incidents weren't caught on video.
Obviously I'm not going to be able to give you an exact percentage number of how many police officers refuse to enforce laws when cops commit crimes, but how many examples do you need to see before you will admit it's too much for the current system to be salvageable?
[deleted]
My wife was in Indianapolis for a couple days and she saw the same thing: a cop crossed over to the wrong side of the road and up onto the sidewalk to strike an unarmed black man on a bicycle head on. They claimed later that the man on the bike had struck the car while it was sitting still (hard enough to put him in the hospital with a fractured skull). No investigation was made. I think they do this because running people over or choking them to death produces less paperwork than shooting them.
In San Francisco, I've seen so many occasions where police and fire (not the fire truck, the little cars) do the "lights and full speed" for really no reason. Or screaming high speed U turns just for the heck of it.
Honestly, I'm somewhat sure that this is just considered a perk of the job since it lets them ignore road rules.
Honestly, I'm somewhat sure that this is just considered a perk of the job since it lets them ignore road rules.
I had a cop friend who told me he lived for high speed chases. Interestingly he died of an illicitly procured opioid overdose at 46.
Most Officer on the job injury and death comes from traffic accidents. Driving all day is dangerous. We should log Police Officer hours the same way we do truck drivers.
I thought "accident" when I read that comment first, but on reading it again:
"sidewalk to strike an unarmed black man on a bicycle head on."
So... "to strike" this wasn't an accident?
"sidewalk to strike an unarmed black man on a bicycle head on."
So... "to strike" this wasn't an accident?
Not an accident. He waited for the guy on the bike to come around a corner, then gunned the gas hard, crossed over the double solid line and drove up onto the sidewalk to hit the guy.
The protests in the wake of George Floyd’s murder are currently tapering off, but I don’t see any evidence at all that substantive changes have been made, which means that this is all going to happen again, and soon, and the protests will be bigger, the police response more violent. The black lives matter organization in my city presented a list of demands to the city council and every one of them was ignored, instead the council promised sensitivity training. This is nowhere close to over.
In terms of sweeping reforms, no – especially re: qualified immunity with SCOTUS recently declining to reexamine it [0]. But I would venture to claim that the Overton window on what police can be held accountable has certainly changed. That all 4 police in the George Floyd case were arrested and charged was unexpected, given the lack of consequences in the Eric Garner case. The arrests and assault charges for officers who attacked protesters in Atlanta [1] and Buffalo [2] is the kind of thing I never thought we'd see, and signals an opportunity (albeit unguaranteed) for the balance to change. The change in public perception is quite striking – including a doubling of white Americans since 2015 who think police brutality is a "very serious problem [3]. And this shift is happening under a presidential administration that is one of the least likely to take federal action against or even just criticize law enforcement.
[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-qualified-immunity-p...
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/03/us/atlanta-police-booked-felo...
[2] https://abcnews.go.com/US/buffalo-police-officers-arrested-s...
[3] https://apnews.com/728b414b8742129329081f7092179d1f
[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-qualified-immunity-p...
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/03/us/atlanta-police-booked-felo...
[2] https://abcnews.go.com/US/buffalo-police-officers-arrested-s...
[3] https://apnews.com/728b414b8742129329081f7092179d1f
It changes because of overwhelming evidence, public outcry and protests. We shouldn’t need to have to protest for that!!
Maybe ubiquitous incident footage will make the window shift. Maybe we’ll end up self surveilling any encounter we may have with police but also with crime.
Imagine we’re all streaming to a personal blackbox in the could that gets overwritten say every month or every hour or however we set it up.
Imagine we’re all streaming to a personal blackbox in the could that gets overwritten say every month or every hour or however we set it up.
Colorado abolished qualified immunity. Other states still could.
Don't underestimate how much local impact the protests are having.
In my town, the police chief noped out. A rather startled black lieutenant has found himself in the role now. AFAIK he's got a genuine desire to improve things, but I'm not holding my breath.
Meanwhile, 3 proposals to defund some programs like in school officers have been repeatedly proposed by our only black city councillor for the last couple years, always blocked by the majority of the council. The protests changed that in ONE WEEK.
We may not be getting the sweeping reform we want at the national level, but this absolutely has had a huge impact. And looking at the pooling, there's been a fundamental change in how many people agree there's a real problem.
In my town, the police chief noped out. A rather startled black lieutenant has found himself in the role now. AFAIK he's got a genuine desire to improve things, but I'm not holding my breath.
Meanwhile, 3 proposals to defund some programs like in school officers have been repeatedly proposed by our only black city councillor for the last couple years, always blocked by the majority of the council. The protests changed that in ONE WEEK.
We may not be getting the sweeping reform we want at the national level, but this absolutely has had a huge impact. And looking at the pooling, there's been a fundamental change in how many people agree there's a real problem.
> The black lives matter organization in my city presented a list of demands to the city council and every one of them was ignored
What were the demands?
What were the demands?
FWIW my wife used to know a guy who was a magistrate (a kind of volunteer low level judge) in England. He told her many stories about police telling obvious lies in court in order to justify minor violent behaviour towards suspects.
> The boys were driven to our local precinct, the 76th. I eventually made my way there, too. The families of all the boys were there. The police are required to notify families when a minor is arrested. But the families told me that hadn’t happened. They’d learned about the boys’ arrests from friends. (The police later said the families showed up so quickly they didn’t have time to make notifications.)
Wow this is really scary to read. There's a miniseries on Netflix I would urge everyone to watch "When they see us" about "The Central Park 5" kids that were coerced into confessing they raped a white woman in the park. They were interrogated for hours and promised to go home if they confessed.
Wow this is really scary to read. There's a miniseries on Netflix I would urge everyone to watch "When they see us" about "The Central Park 5" kids that were coerced into confessing they raped a white woman in the park. They were interrogated for hours and promised to go home if they confessed.
Ending qualified immunity and civil forfeiture are ideas whose time has arrived.
Even with bipartisan support for stopping these unconstitutional practices they have enjoyed surprising staying power through different administrations.
Even with bipartisan support for stopping these unconstitutional practices they have enjoyed surprising staying power through different administrations.
The part about all the school kids having instructions on the back of their student IDs for what to do when stopped by the police is just nuts!
Why is "Black" capitalized, but "white" is not?
I don't know what style guide ProPublica uses, but very recently AP decided to capitalize Black when used as a cultural term when it conveys "essential and shared sense of history, identity and community among people who identify as Black". They go on to say that they expect to make a decision soon about whether to do that with "white" as well.
https://blog.ap.org/announcements/the-decision-to-capitalize... https://apnews.com/71386b46dbff8190e71493a763e8f45a
https://blog.ap.org/announcements/the-decision-to-capitalize... https://apnews.com/71386b46dbff8190e71493a763e8f45a
And boy, those must be some fraught discussions. I think of myself as white but not White, because the notion White Culture connotes white supremacy. Black people outside of Africa share a common element of diaspora, at the very least defined in terms of their shared difficulties, while I as a white person in the west define myself more closely with smaller ethnic and national groups than with whiteness as a whole.
Still... the terminology of race is never going to be precise, and to the degree it exists at all, I'm going to be seen as white rather than another thing. So we might as well be parallel, and use White along with Black and Indigenous and other tendentious but sometimes useful categories.
So if I had to bet, that's where I suspect AP will land. But I don't envy them the process of coming to that conclusion, or the backlash they're going to get either way.
Still... the terminology of race is never going to be precise, and to the degree it exists at all, I'm going to be seen as white rather than another thing. So we might as well be parallel, and use White along with Black and Indigenous and other tendentious but sometimes useful categories.
So if I had to bet, that's where I suspect AP will land. But I don't envy them the process of coming to that conclusion, or the backlash they're going to get either way.
> while I as a white person in the west define myself more closely with smaller ethnic and national groups than with whiteness as a whole.
Sure, but how do others define you? Consider that tech companies and activists are trying to redefine the meaning of racism to allow others to discriminate against you based on the color of your skin.
Sure, but how do others define you? Consider that tech companies and activists are trying to redefine the meaning of racism to allow others to discriminate against you based on the color of your skin.
Exactly right, and in fact I am often excluded from whiteness on account of being Jewish. The most explicit white supremacists construct Whiteness very narrowly. And it's in opposition to white supremacy that a notion of Blackness is more important: not how they see themselves, but how they are treated, and how that treatment affects their lives.
I would be considered white in most circumstances so I get a pass from a lot of discrimination that affects others. And that's why I consider it important to take a stand against that discrimination -- though unfortunately, the people propagating the worst of that discrimination see me as a traitor.
I would be considered white in most circumstances so I get a pass from a lot of discrimination that affects others. And that's why I consider it important to take a stand against that discrimination -- though unfortunately, the people propagating the worst of that discrimination see me as a traitor.
Capitalizing "Black" is in response to people who identify as Black doing so, I believe. Doing so for people who identify as capital-W "White" would be very different and hand them a victory that will badly distort public debate.
It's amazing how powerful just applying capitalize() to a string can be.
It's amazing how powerful just applying capitalize() to a string can be.
“For many people, Black reflects a shared sense of identity and community. White carries a different set of meanings; capitalizing the word in this context risks following the lead of white supremacists.”
https://www.cjr.org/analysis/capital-b-black-styleguide.php
https://www.cjr.org/analysis/capital-b-black-styleguide.php
Kafkaesque
Not really. You wouldn’t be criticized if you got it wrong, but it’s the kinda thing that would make an English style guide.
You do it the other way and watch absolutely no one care.
You do it the other way and watch absolutely no one care.
> You do it the other way and watch absolutely no one care.
I have never seen a style guide make a distinction between skin colors, and I disagree that nobody would care if they capitalised 'white' but not 'black'.
I have never seen a style guide make a distinction between skin colors, and I disagree that nobody would care if they capitalised 'white' but not 'black'.
You’re quoting to a reply that replies to a link with a style guide that does exactly that. Open it and your whole world will change apparently.
Reading comprehension must be so hard.
Reading comprehension must be so hard.
My comment: "I disagree that nobody would care if they capitalised 'white' but not 'black'."
The style guide in question: "why we capitalize ‘Black’ (and not ‘white’)"
Your comment: "You’re quoting to a reply that replies to a link with a style guide that does exactly that. Reading comprehension must be so hard."
Yes, it must.
The style guide in question: "why we capitalize ‘Black’ (and not ‘white’)"
Your comment: "You’re quoting to a reply that replies to a link with a style guide that does exactly that. Reading comprehension must be so hard."
Yes, it must.
[deleted]
[deleted]
viklove(2)
So much new perspective and so many new rules to absorb. We need some kind of efficient way to learn these things. Maybe some kind of (re-)education center, maybe. Hey, it's summertime -- how about a camp?
/s
We're in very bizarre times, for sure. Is all this even meant to be constructive (because it's not), or just provocative and divisive (which it demonstrably is)? I can't help but think that the outcome we're seeing (division) is the actual goal.
We're in very bizarre times, for sure. Is all this even meant to be constructive (because it's not), or just provocative and divisive (which it demonstrably is)? I can't help but think that the outcome we're seeing (division) is the actual goal.
Funny how you ask if it's meant to be constructive in a totally unconstructive comment!
"black" = race
"Black" = ethnicity
See also:
"deaf" = the physical condition of being unable to hear
"Deaf" = being part of the Deaf culture (sign language user, shared experiences unique to growing up deaf, etc.)
"Black" = ethnicity
See also:
"deaf" = the physical condition of being unable to hear
"Deaf" = being part of the Deaf culture (sign language user, shared experiences unique to growing up deaf, etc.)
It already is... Irish-American, Polish-American, Jewish, etc.
"Black" isn't just about skin tone, it's about the shared cultural experience.
"Black" isn't just about skin tone, it's about the shared cultural experience.
But that's not correct - while both would generally be considered 'black', sub Saharan Africans share very little cultural experience with African Americans.
Fair enough. But, as soon as the sub-Saharan African moves to the US, I suspect his experiences from that point forward will rapidly start to match those of Black Americans, particularly WRT to police use of force.
African immigrants generally strive, similar to Asian immigrants. The Nigerian stereotype is being a doctor. Issues like fatherless children, teenage pregnancy, juvenile delinquency and gang culture will likely be less prevalent, and the Africans will likely be less involved with the police.
We need the police to take care of their own house and stop the us against them mentality. Until they do we won't be able to truly address the events that have led to BLM and the current protests.
The problem isn't a few bad apples, it's a culture that allows a few bad apples to expect impunity and protection from the consequences of their actions.
The problem isn't a few bad apples, it's a culture that allows a few bad apples to expect impunity and protection from the consequences of their actions.
The training regimen for officers sounds like expert-level cult indoctrination.
First they inflate your ego by telling you you're joining a high and noble cause.
Then they tell you that others don't appreciate the noble work you do and they hate you for reasons out of your control. And you just want to do right in the world so that's not fair!
Then they show you every documented instance of when an officer was ambushed and/or killed. This forces you to mentally ostracize yourself from the broader community by instilling a persecution complex.
Then they teach you that only your buddies in the department have your back and everyone else is out to get you.
Then they train you literally to shoot first and ask questions later. This training consists of variations of the game "slaps" except you're drawing a gun and shooting it at the other player instead of slapping the other player's hands.
And at that point you've been shown (1) that you have a huge target on your back, (2) how to pre-empt a perceived attack, and (3) how to justify the use of force or defend your fellow officer for doing so.
First they inflate your ego by telling you you're joining a high and noble cause.
Then they tell you that others don't appreciate the noble work you do and they hate you for reasons out of your control. And you just want to do right in the world so that's not fair!
Then they show you every documented instance of when an officer was ambushed and/or killed. This forces you to mentally ostracize yourself from the broader community by instilling a persecution complex.
Then they teach you that only your buddies in the department have your back and everyone else is out to get you.
Then they train you literally to shoot first and ask questions later. This training consists of variations of the game "slaps" except you're drawing a gun and shooting it at the other player instead of slapping the other player's hands.
And at that point you've been shown (1) that you have a huge target on your back, (2) how to pre-empt a perceived attack, and (3) how to justify the use of force or defend your fellow officer for doing so.
This says everything: "Instructions on what to do when stopped by the police are on the back of student IDs at Summit Academy in Red Hook, Brooklyn."
Unions protect bad apples, that shouldn’t be the purpose of unions. It should be illegal.
Police unions are almost all terrible. Seattle kicked their police union out of the local labor council, and it would be great to see more cities do the same.
Any additional information on how Seattle police union is terrible?
They've consistently pushed back on reforms from both the community and the federal consent decree. They insist they are 'tough on crime' and the city is holding them back, going so far as to demand people vote out the city council.
They've described the concerns about policing as "the flavor of the week", they fought against body cams, they've defended police in well documented cases of retaliatory and unbecoming behavior.
They've described the concerns about policing as "the flavor of the week", they fought against body cams, they've defended police in well documented cases of retaliatory and unbecoming behavior.
It would be nice to have links. "defended police in well documented cases of retaliatory and unbecoming behavior" is bit too vague to follow up upon.
Sure, here's a handful:
https://komonews.com/news/local/police-union-president-defen...
https://mynorthwest.com/70234/police-union-head-vehemently-d...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/07/13/se...
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/memo-seattle...
http://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicupload/eclips/2015%20...
https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article64596437.ht...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/seattle-cop-punches-teen-in-fac...
https://komonews.com/news/local/police-union-president-defen...
https://mynorthwest.com/70234/police-union-head-vehemently-d...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/07/13/se...
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/memo-seattle...
http://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicupload/eclips/2015%20...
https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article64596437.ht...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/seattle-cop-punches-teen-in-fac...
Clicked the last link from your list, see this: The two were already struggling when Levias' friend, a 17-year-old, pushed the officer, and he responded by punching the friend in the face.
Is this the sort of thing you consider outrageous?
Is this the sort of thing you consider outrageous?
Outrageous is your word. Have you seen the video? The cop full on decks a woman who gives his arm a light push. It's definitely out of line, he's not trying to defuse the situation, he's grappling another woman and is clearly out of control of the situation.
This continues a pattern of excessive force from the dept. From the Justice Department's findings on the SPD:
> Our investigation finds repeated uses of excessive force for charges related to minor offenses, including pedestrian interference, obstruction, open container violations, jaywalking, and shoplifting. In a number of incidents, failure to use tactics designed to de-escalate a situation, led to increased and unnecessary force.
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2011/...
This continues a pattern of excessive force from the dept. From the Justice Department's findings on the SPD:
> Our investigation finds repeated uses of excessive force for charges related to minor offenses, including pedestrian interference, obstruction, open container violations, jaywalking, and shoplifting. In a number of incidents, failure to use tactics designed to de-escalate a situation, led to increased and unnecessary force.
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2011/...
The video doesn’t show on my phone. From your description it sounds somewhat excessive, but not outlandishly so.
Also I find it odd that decade-old events are being brought up. Yes, it’s pretty much a recorded fact that excessive force was used back then. DOJ forced the the SPD through a reform program, the result of that program should be judged to decide what if anything needs to be done at SPD. Otherwise it’s like this:
Also I find it odd that decade-old events are being brought up. Yes, it’s pretty much a recorded fact that excessive force was used back then. DOJ forced the the SPD through a reform program, the result of that program should be judged to decide what if anything needs to be done at SPD. Otherwise it’s like this:
SPD did bad things in 2010, they must reform!
Ok. SPD Does reforms 2010-2020
SPD did bad things in 2010, defund!
Footage from the protests shows pretty extreme violence, and SPD shot and killed a black man in lower Queen Anne in May of this year after charging him with a dog. Yes, the suspect had a knife and was very loud, and may have been suffering from mental health or a crisis, but SPD definitely could have handled this differently.
https://komonews.com/news/local/seattle-police-investigating...
https://komonews.com/news/local/seattle-police-investigating...
I clicked on the link you provided and I couldn't locate anything incriminating. Can you provide the video and exact location of what you found objectionable?
>The commissioner can also let the case go before an internal NYPD judge (whose boss is the commissioner). If the judge decides punishment is merited, the commissioner can overturn or downgrade that, too.
The NYPD have their own Judges?!? eh?
The NYPD have their own Judges?!? eh?
A car crashed into my Sunnyvale, California home while it was being chased by the Police.
The Sunnyvale Police told me to stop taking pictures of the accident while I was standing on my own property. They refused to release the police report of the accident to me (I needed it for insurance claims) because they claimed I was "not a victim and had no right to see it." (The car ended up on my lawn, smashed into my house.)
The only official way to file a complaint against the Police force in Sunnyvale California is to fill out a form and the Police investigate it themselves. Anything else, you have to go to court. There's no independent overseer.
All police forces are rotten to the core, and will do anything and everything to protect themselves.
The Sunnyvale Police told me to stop taking pictures of the accident while I was standing on my own property. They refused to release the police report of the accident to me (I needed it for insurance claims) because they claimed I was "not a victim and had no right to see it." (The car ended up on my lawn, smashed into my house.)
The only official way to file a complaint against the Police force in Sunnyvale California is to fill out a form and the Police investigate it themselves. Anything else, you have to go to court. There's no independent overseer.
All police forces are rotten to the core, and will do anything and everything to protect themselves.
Police shouldn't have access to their own body camera footage. And it should require multiparty keys to decrypt. Those decryption events should go on a ledger along with the authorization order. PriorArt
And that's common IT management right there. The group that is being audited for bad behavior gets no say over the audit process, and no say over giving or rescinding access to the audit trail. But when it comes to police, we put cameras on them to shut up the peasants, but we ensure nothing will change by making sure the department has control over the incriminating data.
The only solution is to incentivize good behavior, not bad ones. Any time a police officer is caught doing something wrong, the money should be taken out of the local police pension fund. If one cop is bad, then ALL COPS SUFFER. This is the right incentive system, so that bad cops get weeded out.
First offence, depending on the severity, gets nothing. Second and subsequent get exponentially worse cuts to the pension fund. Good cops will weed out bad cops pretty quickly if they realize all their efforts are being lost because of bad behavior.
First offence, depending on the severity, gets nothing. Second and subsequent get exponentially worse cuts to the pension fund. Good cops will weed out bad cops pretty quickly if they realize all their efforts are being lost because of bad behavior.
I've seen police abuse innocent people, multiple times, which should be lesson enough. More importantly, I've been falsely accused of assault by a Federal officer, and had to spend all my savings on a lawyer to fight it (one year of fear and hell, until they finally produced the video showing I had done nothing but sit in my car while answering his questions).
I don't want to live in anarchy, but I don't want to live in fear. Help.
I don't want to live in anarchy, but I don't want to live in fear. Help.
[deleted]
It’s articles like this that make me happy that I donate to ProPublica monthly.
This is pretty much SOP (Delay, frustrate, cover) to a greater or lesser degree, for every police force that I have ever encountered.
Occasionally an overtly 'bad' apple is sacrificed, unwillingly.
Why are certain political hit-pieces getting flagged, and others, like this one, are somehow immune?
Here's an example. If I were to post an article that shows data that NYC shootings are up 30% since activist-pushed disbanding of cops took place, it would get downvoted to oblivion, flagged repeatedly and such. It's an interesting discussion point, and there are some very calm and rational pro and cons to different approaches. Instead, an article like this one from Propublica gets upvoted to the stratosphere.
As long as we admit there's some sort of double-standard at play, I'm fine with it. Or we're consistent.
As long as we admit there's some sort of double-standard at play, I'm fine with it. Or we're consistent.
Why is black capitalized in this article but white is not?
We need more self surveillance tools we’re in control of.
In the article white is written with a lowercase w but black is written with a capital B.
Seems odd.
Seems odd.
Similar to how deaf and Deaf have different meanings, and you don't read stories about Hearing people. If you're intellectually curious, read up on that.
I think I get what you mean. My mother had diabetes but detests being called a Diabetic she says, "I am a person".
Thanks for the heads up. Others just down voted my comment out of contempt for me I guess.
Thanks for the heads up. Others just down voted my comment out of contempt for me I guess.
[deleted]
Notice that while average white parents might worry about criminals before letting their kids out on the street, the black parents worry (with good reason) about the police.
(Just to spell it out: this is why so many BLM activists feel comfortable saying "abolish the police" or "defund the police", because from their point of view the police are the people most likely to assault or kill them or their children on the street, more so than random criminals)
> “Young teens or pre-teens of color were handcuffed, arrested, or held at gunpoint while participating in age-appropriate activities such as running, playing with friends, high-fiving, sitting on a stoop, or carrying a backpack.”
This is child abuse.