Support NeoGAF

[demon]

There's possibly unhinged people in all walks of life, what are you going to do? Behave like a twat to everyone you meet?

I kind of feel like people have to keep saying the same thing over and over in response to your posts, but what does this have to do with the topic at hand? Why do you insist on conflating people who expect law enforcement officers to respect their civil liberties and not arrest/taze/bludgeon/choke/shoot them for failing to comply with illegal requests with people going around "acting like a twat"?

Getting tased or beaten for arguing or calling an officer names is unreasonable.

So is telling people to suck it up and deal with it afterwards through channels that typically lead to nothing.

 

[DoktorEvil]

I don't understand the premise of your question.

If police have failed at their supposed mission of "protecting and serving," why does it necessarily follow that there's someone there to take their place or someone else we should trust?

It's their job, and if they fail then there's nobody.

So the best answer is "you're fucked"?

I ask because I get the overwhelming feeling that Gaffers just hate LEO and are insistent on making their jobs more difficult than they already are.

I only trust myself as that is the only one's intent that I can accurately know. Questioning authority should be the norm.

I defer to the police in law enforcement, and until evidence proves ineptitude, I assume that officers have been vetted to ensure that they will perform their duties justly and adequately.

I do not trust them with any additional measure above any other human just because of their profession. Their character is unknown as any. A job does not define a person.

Fair enough. I'm just put under the impression that cops are generally evil unless they help you, then they're heroes.

Well, hopefully you can empathize with how dire and sad and scary it all seems to us, then.

What, Law Enforcement?

I believe the system has failed as a whole if citizens can't even trust in law enforcement to do their civic duties to protect and serve.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

I don't have a problem with this article. He's not justifying what happened with Mike Brown, he's pointing out the realities of working as a police officer.

No, he's manipulating people into believing a hypothetical reality which cops can use as an excuse to get out of anything they do.

 

[Zombie James]

"Don't interrupt my power trip"

That's what I got out of this article.

 

[CornBurrito]

I kind of feel like people have to keep saying the same thing over and over in response to your posts, but what does this have to do with the topic at hand? Why do you insist on conflating people who expect law enforcement officers to respect their civil liberties and not arrest/taze/bludgeon/choke/shoot them for failing to comply with illegal requests with people going around "acting like a twat"?



So is telling people to suck it up and deal with it afterwards through channels that typically lead to nothing.

I feel like kitch9 isn't American or otherwise has no idea what sort of rights a citizen of the USA has when dealing with police.

 

[kitch9]

If you are not being detained, you are under no requirement to speak to a police officer. In fact it is in your best interest to not speak to police officers.

So you can refuse to produce a driving licence or provide details when asked by the police in America and not expect to be arrested?

How can traffic officers do their job?

 

[kitch9]

I kind of feel like people have to keep saying the same thing over and over in response to your posts, but what does this have to do with the topic at hand? Why do you insist on conflating people who expect law enforcement officers to respect their civil liberties and not arrest/taze/bludgeon/choke/shoot them for failing to comply with illegal requests with people going around "acting like a twat"?



So is telling people to suck it up and deal with it afterwards through channels that typically lead to nothing.

Because nothing in the article had anything to do with your civil liberties in any country, it makes sense. Where in the article does it mention illegal requests?

 

[Acrylic7]

I do this every day. It's pretty easy for me.

You sir have a gambling problem.
And since I'm black I guess I do to.

 

[JeTmAn81]

No, he's manipulating people into believing a hypothetical reality which cops can use as an excuse to get out of anything they do.

I don't see how anything he wrote could be used as a genuine excuse for what reportedly happened to Mike Brown (being shot several times despite clearly surrendering). The article doesn't say that the police don't have to follow any rules.

 

[StopMakingSense]

Because nothing in the article had anything to do with your civil liberties in any country, it makes sense.

Threat of violence for speech?

 

[onadesertedisland]

So you can refuse to produce a driving licence or provide details when asked by the police in America and not expect to be arrested?

How can traffic officers do their job?

I'm playing along because I want to see where you're going. I hope you're not just ill informed.

When you drive, you are using a privilege that is subject to inspection. If you are walking, you are not required to provide identification unless you are detained or arrested.

Not providing identification is not a reason to detain. There would be no reason to ask for identification if this is the sole justification for detaining. We don't just go around checking people's papers.

 

[kitch9]

Threat of violence for speech?

The article doesn't say that, unless I'm reading a different article to everyone else?

 

[CornBurrito]

I don't see how anything he wrote could be used as a genuine excuse for what reportedly happened to Mike Brown (being shot several times despite clearly surrendering). The article doesn't say that the police don't have to follow any rules.

If you can beat someone for calling you names (something mentioned in the article) then the rules need to be changed.

The article doesn't say that, unless I'm reading a different article to everyone else?

See above. He justified tasing or beating someone for calling you names for one.

 

[KingGondo]

So the best answer is "you're fucked"?

I ask because I get the overwhelming feeling that Gaffers just hate LEO and are insistent on making their jobs more difficult than they already are.

There's a difference between hating individual officers and hating what the institution of law enforcement has become today in the USA. A big difference.

Sure there are extremists out there who say "fuck all cops" or "all cops are bitches". There are those who will defend the police no matter what they do "because their job is dangerous" or whatever. Let's ignore those people like we should, because their minds will never be changed by the facts.

The vast majority of posts I've seen in this thread and in others threads that discuss police brutality don't condemn all individual police officers as bad, but they certainly condemn the lawless acts of certain officers and the culture/power structure that allows those who abuse their power to go unpunished.

I believe the system has failed as a whole if citizens can't even trust in law enforcement to do their civic duties.

*ding ding ding*

The system is built on trust. Too many in certain communities have seen their trust abused.

 

[StopMakingSense]

The article doesn't say that, unless I'm reading a different article to everyone else?

"Even though it might sound harsh and impolitic, here is the bottom line: if you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me. Most field stops are complete in minutes. How difficult is it to cooperate for that long?"

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

I'm sorry Officer Fascist, but we have a right to behave however we want and maybe we don't want to comply with you for a moment so that society can function with at least a modicum of order. Now get me some chocolate milk!!!

 

[demon]

"Even though it might sound harsh and impolitic, here is the bottom line: if you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me. Most field stops are complete in minutes. How difficult is it to cooperate for that long?"

I'm done responding to him. He's either fucking with us, can't read for shit, or he's the cop who authored the op-ed.

 

[CornBurrito]

Fuckit, not worth arguing with someone who literally believes you have no (or should have no) rights when dealing with police officers.

I'm done responding to him. He's either fucking with us, can't read for shit, or he's the cop who authored the op-ed.

Placing my bets on him being a cop.

 

[Siegcram]

I'm sorry Officer Fascist, but we have a right to behave however we want and maybe we don't want to comply with you for a moment so that society can function with at least a modicum of order. Now get me some chocolate milk!!!

Learn to read.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

So the best answer is "you're fucked"?

I ask because I get the overwhelming feeling that Gaffers just hate LEO and are insistent on making their jobs more difficult than they already are.

The bolded is where I perceive the police narrative has gotten to you. They can quit and do something else if treating people fairly isn't what they're into or capable of doing. They know what they're getting into. It's not on us to make life easier for them.

 

[kitch9]

I'm playing along because I want to see where you're going. I hope you're not just ill informed.

When you drive, you are using a privilege that is subject to inspection. If you are walking, you are not required to provide identification unless you are detained or arrested.

Not providing identification is not a reason to detain. There would be no reason to ask for identification if this is the sole justification for detaining. We don't just go around checking people's papers.

The article doesn't mention anything about "walking down the street?" I mentioned a driving licence because that is pretty much the only way law abiding citizens have anything to do with the police.

 

[Christine]

So you can refuse to produce a driving licence or provide details when asked by the police in America and not expect to be arrested?

How can traffic officers do their job?

Driver licensing is a privilege. When you drive you are required to provide proof of licensure.

If I'm not driving, I'm not even required to possess identifying documents, much less provide them.

 

[kitch9]

If you can beat someone for calling you names (something mentioned in the article) then the rules need to be changed.



See above. He justified tasing or beating someone for calling you names for one.

So you expect to behave however you want to a police officer without them potentially restraining you? Batons, Tazers and throwing to the ground are standard police restraint methods across the world.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

If I'm not driving, I'm not even required to possess identifying documents, much less provide them.

You are required by law in 24 states to provide documentation if police have "reasonable suspicion" that you may be a criminal. So potentially whenever you run into a cop, depending on the color of your skin.

 

[CornBurrito]

So you expect to behave however you want to a police officer without them potentially restraining you?

You were arguing he didn't threaten violence in response to speech. You are a master of goal post shifting and not reading. Sorry I won't respond to you anymore after this ever again.

You are required by law in 24 states to provide documentation if police have "reasonable suspicion" that you may be a criminal. So potentially whenever you run into a cop, depending on the color of your skin.

Still that means in over half the states you don't need to provide any sort of documentation.

 

[Tertullian]

You are required by law in 24 states to provide documentation if police have "reasonable suspicion" that you may be a criminal. So potentially whenever you run into a cop, depending on the color of your skin.

No, you're required to verbally provide your name in those states. You don't have to produce anything written.

Not that you might not get tazed/shot for refusing, even so.

 

[kitch9]

You were arguing he didn't threaten violence in response to speech. You are a master of goal post shifting and not reading. Sorry I won't respond to you anymore after this ever again.

He mentions standard police restraint techniques.(Used the world over.)

 

[akira28]

That op-ed is not helping me like cops more. Do they not get that? Or do they just not give a fuck?

I can understand that being the only guy around allowed to wear a bulletproof vest, carry a gun, and tazer and pepper spray can afford an awful lot of disregard for the opinions of others. But I know for a fact that police are baffled at how negatively they're perceived by the common person. They're exactly the type to say 'like it or lump it', and yet they don't understand why we don't like it?

 

[CornBurrito]

Can someone who is actually an officer in the US tell me if tasing or beating someone for calling you names is standard restraining technique?

 

[smokeandmirrors]

Still that means in over half the states you don't need to provide any sort of documentation.

Still, the fact that you have to in roughly half the states is kinda gross.

 

[kitch9]

Can someone who is actually an officer in the US tell me if tasing or beating someone for calling you names is standard restraining technique?

Who's moving the goalposts now? You surely understand the context of the article yes?

 

[Armaros]

Who's moving the goalposts now? You surely understand the context of the article yes?

People have quoted the relevant section of the article to you enough times for you to stop acting dumb.

 

[Version 3.0]

Why should we fear for our safety because a possibly unhinged officer might perceive something, anything, as an opportunity to assault us?

I really dislike the retort of "real-world" when expecting someone privileged with some of the most important powers we can grant to a citizen act in a manner that would require them to use their minds before violence.

I'm not saying we shouldn't hold police officers to a high standard of behavior. I'm saying that you're actually in the situation of being stopped by a cop. Let's say he's being a jerk. What's your best course of action?

I don't know. Maybe you should mouth off, get tasered and beaten, and hope it's being recorded and he loses his job. But I'm going to "yes, sir" "no, sir" my ass off.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

That op-ed is not helping me like cops more. Do they not get that? Or do they just not give a fuck?

I can understand that being the only guy around allowed to wear a bulletproof vest, carry a gun, and tazer and pepper spray can afford an awful lot of disregard for the opinions of others. But I know for a fact that police are baffled at how negatively they're perceived by the common person. They're exactly the type to say 'like it or lump it', and yet they don't understand why we don't like it?

Do you know any police officers? Any experience at all dealing with police? Or is it just what you read and hear.

 

[CornBurrito]

I'm not saying we shouldn't hold police officers to a high standard of behavior. I'm saying that you're actually in the situation of being stopped by a cop. Let's say he's being a jerk. What's your best course of action?

I don't know. Maybe you should mouth off, get tasered and beaten, and hope it's being recorded and he loses his job. But I'm going to "yes, sir" "no, sir" my ass off.

I think people understand that. It is a "no fucking shit" statement. But it is victim blaming and obfuscates the fact that the police need to be held to a higher standard and there should be some check to the numerous instances of power that have been cropping up.

Do you know any police officers? Any experience at all dealing with police? Or is it just what you read and hear.

Anecdotal evidence isn't really that great.

How about stuff like this: http://online.wsj.com/articles/what-happens-when-police-officers-wear-body-cameras-1408320244

Body cameras and suddenly use of force declines by 60%. Looks life force isn't needed as often as they would like you to think.

 

[Aselith]

Aggressive walking? Jesus fucking christ, get out of here with that bullshit.

This is aggressive walking

 

[Version 3.0]

So you expect to behave however you want to a police officer without them potentially restraining you? Batons, Tazers and throwing to the ground are standard police restraint methods across the world.

Hold on, you just jumped from "name calling" to "behave however you want". That's not remotely the same thing.

You should absolutely be able to say just about anything other than threats to a police officer without being tasered, struck or thrown to the ground.

 

[DoktorEvil]

There's a difference between hating individual officers and hating what the institution of law enforcement has become today in the USA. A big difference.

Sure there are extremists out there who say "fuck all cops" or "all cops are bitches". There are those who will defend the police no matter what they do "because their job is dangerous" or whatever. Let's ignore those people like we should, because their minds will never be changed by the facts.

The vast majority of posts I've seen in this thread and in others threads that discuss police brutality don't condemn all individual police officers as bad, but they certainly condemn the lawless acts of certain officers and the culture/power structure that allows those who abuse their power to go unpunished.

*ding ding ding*

The system is built on trust. Too many in certain communities have seen their trust abused.

The issue I find is that people who live in other countries are observing American LEO and saying "fuck the cops" because it doesn't affect their police force, because their police force is obviously better and not corrupt at all compared to American LEO.

I agree the system is built on trust, but trust is a two way street.

The bolded is where I perceive the police narrative has gotten to you. They can quit and do something else if treating people fairly isn't what they're into or capable of doing. They know what they're getting into. It's not on us to make life easier for them.

That's how you end up with good cops out of the force and into something else and bad cops in high positions.

I'm not about to berate a cop and scream "fuck you" and so forth, but at the same time I know enough that I'm not about to give away information a cop doesn't need or deserve.

It may not be on us to make their lives easier, but we could at least show support to LEO that do right by the citizen. We outnumber the fuck out of cops, and in NYC specifically the force is 34,500 vs 8-10 Million people.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/faq/faq_police.shtml

http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2014/03/27/new-york-city-population-hits-record-high/

 

[CornBurrito]

Aggressive walking is the new dehumanizing stare.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

I think people understand that. It is a "no fucking shit" statement. But it is victim blaming and obfuscates the fact that the police need to be held to a higher standard and there should be some check to the numerous instances of power that have been cropping up.



Anecdotal evidence isn't really that great.

How about stuff like this: http://online.wsj.com/articles/what-happens-when-police-officers-wear-body-cameras-1408320244

Body cameras and suddenly use of force declines by 60%. Looks life force isn't needed as often as they would like you to think.

Ok. The officer in the oped even states he is for those cameras.

 

[akira28]

Do you know any police officers? Any experience at all dealing with police? Or is it just what you read and hear.

I know a lot of police officers. And have experiences with the police, good and bad.

Why do you ask?

 

[StopMakingSense]

So you expect to behave however you want to a police officer without them potentially restraining you? Batons, Tazers and throwing to the ground are standard police restraint methods across the world.

YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO SAY WHATEVER YOU WANT TO A POLICE OFFICER WITHOUT THE THREAT OF VIOLENCE SHORT OF DIRECTLY THREATENING PHYSICAL HARM.

 

[CornBurrito]

Ok. The officer in the oped even states he is for those cameras.

And I will be much happier when that finally happens. Until then it is just lip service.

YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO SAY WHATEVER YOU WANT TO A POLICE OFFICER WITHOUT THE THREAT OF VIOLENCE SHORT OF DIRECTLY THREATENING PHYSICAL HARM.

So wait you are saying you should be allowed to physically or sexually assault a cop and his children and his dog without being arrested or restrained?

 

[Version 3.0]

I think people understand that. It is a "no fucking shit" statement. But it is victim blaming and obfuscates the fact that the police need to be held to a higher standard and there should be some check to the numerous instances of power that have been cropping up.

It's obviously not a no-brainer, because many people don't do it. Hell, my crazy nephew writes out the stuff he's going to say to the next cop he encounters. He's lucky he's white, or he might be dead by now. I'm not trying to blame the victims, not at all. But even victims have some choices to make that might help themselves. The cop who wrote this article seems like he'd taser my ass if I mouthed off, and send me along with a "have a nice day" if I "yessir" him enough. Does that make it my fault if I get tasered? No. But it does mean that maybe I can avoid it.

Body cameras and suddenly use of force declines by 60%. Looks life force isn't needed as often as they would like you to think.

Camera coverage should be mandatory. They should be required to confirm it's working before leaving their vehicle, and not allowed to do so if it isn't.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

And I will be much happier when that finally happens. Until then it is just lip service.

It's an oped, that's kind of what it is. The point is whether or not it's reasonable.

I know a lot of police officers. And have experiences with the police, good and bad.

Why do you ask?

Because it seemed like a take from somebody who is looking for an opinion out of a lack of experience.

Good and bad, that's kind of the way most things work.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

dp

 

[Phoenix]

The damn of the judges has begun...

I AM THE LAW!

 

[CornBurrito]

Good and bad, that's kind of the way most things work.

Shouldn't be that way for the justice system.

 

[Htown]

The article doesn't mention anything about "walking down the street?" I mentioned a driving licence because that is pretty much the only way law abiding citizens have anything to do with the police.

LMAO

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

Shouldn't be that way for the justice system.

Would you agree that his oped was reasonable?