Support NeoGAF

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

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?

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

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.

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

The article doesn't mention letting police abuse your rights either.

Nothing in the article was illegal. Or unreasonable.

This guy.

 

[Phoenix]

So basically:



But don't worry. You can also "take appropriate action" against the organization that just violated your rights. By lodging a complaint with them after being violated. It's a one stop shop!

Yep. And don't worry that you're lodging a complaint with the same people that have been violating your rights and expecting them to turn on one of "their own". The comedy of it just writes itself.

 

[demon]

Would you agree that his oped was reasonable?

I feel it was aggressive and dehumanizing.

 

[akira28]

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.

oh well I'm glad you approve. I've had police warn me about how to act around police. so re-work that into your mind-brain. I don't think we really need to have bad experiences with law enforcement. It's not a goddamn blind date.

 

[MHWilliams]

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?

Actually, in my state if I'm not driving... yeah, I can refuse to give him my license.

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

I do. Many good. Two bad situations.

Would you agree that his oped was reasonable?

Nope, for the section that has been pointed out again and again. If he didn't want the OPED to be about that, he could've left it out.

Writing a reasonable OpEd about teachers dealing with students and then saying in the middle, "but if your kid mouths off, I'm hitting them" means the entire premise is weakened. That's what writing is about, building a strong, concise argument.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

I feel it was aggressive and dehumanizing.

It's a statement made out of frustration. It's a bit aggressive, but when it comes to common sense and the frustration from people not using it, it's understandable.

 

[kitch9]

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

If you are exhibiting threatening behaviour to a police officer you don't expect them to restrain you using the restraints he had been provided and trained to use?

You are shouting by the way... Don't make me have to restrain you!

 

[akira28]

yeah if there's one thing we need it's aggressive and frustrated cops warning us not to push them or else we'll get the ol' wooden shampoo or worse. in the newspaper of all places. fuck is this?

and the context? I dunno about you Wolfgunblood Garopa, but it's tonedeaf as fuck, and your post here isn't much better.

 

[MHWilliams]

It's a statement made out of frustration. It's a bit aggressive, but when it comes to common sense and the frustration from people not using it, it's understandable.

And again..people repeatedly have pointed out when that common sense still leads to citizen harm. Here's one for you.

And going through proper channels yields? Ah, nothing.

I painstakingly retrieved all possible documentation, including: the police report, transcript of radio chatter, audio of my 911 call, security footage from Radius restaurant (handed to me freely by the owner), Rebecca’s and Josh’s feedback, and collected photos from the incident and my injuries.

I presented all of this to the SF Office of Citizen Complaints. The filing party is not allowed to know the outcome due to the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights (POBAR) but may be notified if an internal investigation is initiated. Many months have passed since my complaint, and I have no sense of progress.

Again, there's a gulf between "strict compliance" and "flipping the fuck out." What everyone is trying to tell you is neither side of that gulf is good. Which is why this OpEd is wrong.

 

[kitch9]

And again..people repeatedly have pointed out when that common sense still leads to citizen harm. Here's one for you.

And going through proper channels yields? Ah, nothing.



Again, there's a gulf between "strict compliance" and "flipping the fuck out." What everyone is trying to tell you is neither side of that gulf is good. Which is why this OpEd is wrong.

I'm from the UK and police protocol would have been to ask you to leave the area as well, especially at that time in a morning. Locking him up was ott though.

 

[CornBurrito]

Would you agree that his oped was reasonable?

No I wouldn't.

 

[Htown]

If you are exhibiting threatening behaviour to a police officer you don't expect them to restrain you using the restraints he had been provided and trained to use?

You are shouting by the way... Don't make me have to restrain you!

Didn't he just say, in the post you quoted, that you shouldn't be allowed to threaten a police officer?

 

[CornBurrito]

Didn't he just say, in the post you quoted, that you shouldn't be allowed to threaten a police officer?

Dude doesn't understand that name calling isn't a threat. Ignore him. He has done noting but twist words and ignore any point made.

 

[Lowmelody]

Didn't he just say, in the post you quoted, that you shouldn't be allowed to threaten a police officer?

Dudes obviously trolling with impunity for whatever reason. It's not worth the synapses to follow.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

If it's not in the article (or even if it is), kitch9 don't give a fuck.

 

[StopMakingSense]

If you are exhibiting threatening behaviour to a police officer you don't expect them to restrain you using the restraints he had been provided and trained to use?

Short of ACTUAL threats, speech is not threatening behavior, FULL STOP.\\

You are shouting by the way... Don't make me have to restrain you!

I know you think you are being cute, but I find this disgusting. You are literally joking about assaulting me. FFS.

 

[Metallix87]

I can't believe any cop of sound mind would write this. Truly living proof of everything wrong with police in this country.

 

[onadesertedisland]

I can't believe any cop of sound mind would write this. Truly living proof of everything wrong with police in this country.

I could be wrong, but I think evidence suggests that the prevailing attitude amongst the blue line is similar to the article author's.

 

[Metallix87]

I could be wrong, but I think evidence suggests that the prevailing attitude amongst the blue line is similar to the article author's.

There needs to be some kind of change, and fast. This attitude is borderline inhuman. Their job is to protect, not to intimidate and scare.

 

[Aselith]

and male.

? no....

 

[Dash_]

There needs to be some kind of change, and fast. This attitude is borderline inhuman. Their job is to protect, not to intimidate and scare.

Their primary role is to protect and preserve the sanctity of the wealthy elite. Everyone else comes second, or third, or fourth.

 

[minx]

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?

You didn't reply to me proving you wrong the first time but I'll try again. OBVIOUSLY officers are not training to tase or beat for being called names, and you damn well know that. That's not what this op-ed is trying to say either. Yes parts of the article is poorly worded, I'll admit that. He is saying that in 99 percent of interactions with police, if you don't unnecessarily escalate the situation, no force will be needed.

Just because an officer has beaten before due to name calling before doesn't mean it is right. Not every single cop out there is a good cop(just like every profession on the planet) . Some should have never been hired and some should be fired for their actions. Some do get fired.

 

[lexi]

You didn't reply to me proving you wrong the first time but I'll try again. OBVIOUSLY officers are not training to tase or beat for being called names, and you damn well know that. That's not what this op-ed is trying to say either. Yes parts of the article is poorly worded, I'll admit that. He is saying that in 99 percent of interactions with police, if you don't unnecessarily escalate the situation, no force will be needed.

What if the police escalate the situation, as has been happening en masse lately?

 

[Pickles Spill]

What if the police escalate the situation, as has been happening en masse lately?

What do you do if anyone besides yourself escalates a situation?

 

[Dead Man]

A police officer asks you for your license and you refuse what do you expect to happen?

For him to be grumpy. And deal with it in a professional manner, especially if he has no right to see it. Fucking hell your 'what if's' are getting weak.

 

[ReAxion]

? no....

Very much yes.

 

[akira28]

Their primary role is to protect and preserve the sanctity of the wealthy elite. Everyone else comes second, or third, or fourth.

Or fifth. Cops made me and my friend walk home in the dark, on the abandoned country road he found us on after my friend's car broke down. It could still drive but the wheel was busted. So we're ambling along at 5mph with the blinkers and the cop comes out of nowhere with the flashers. We told him we lived a few miles up the way, he didn't offer us a ride to where the streetlights started or anything. Just sat behind us a ways after we started walking, and drove off.

At least those deer didn't have to worry about dehumanizing stares. I guess we could have robbed someone and been making our way back to the hideout..slowly.

 

[bomma_man]

"You don't have to say anything, but this can and will be used against you in a court of law."

What use is a general right to silence if it can be used against you? I don't know where you pulled that quote from (I'm guessing your arse), but it doesn't represent the law at all. Maybe you mean "anything you do say will be used against you"?

In the US that's correct but not in the UK, but not as the 'only' evidence of guilt. The English version of the Miranda right, is "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

Adverse inference can be assigned by jury if the defendant refuses to speak either to the police or in his trial, or if he refuses to speak to the police at the time of his arrest and then speaks in court. However, adverse inference alone in the absence of other evidence is insufficient for a conviction.

I know you're talking about the US here, but you yourself are UK based so I thought you might find the distinction interesting.

Hmm interesting. I was coming from an Australian common law position, which I assumed was the same or insignificantly different from the UK. Only criminal case I know of where an accused's silence was used against him was Weissensteiner (1993) 178 CLR 217, and the reasoning used in that case has never been successfully applied again. I haven't really looked to deep into the cases involving police interrogation though. R v Director of Serious Fraud Office, ex parte Smith [1993] seems to be the leading common law case, and it says:

His Lordship set out the following specific immunities:
(1) a general immunity, possessed by all persons and bodies, from being compelled on pain of punishment to answer questions posed by other persons or bodies;
(2) a general immunity, possessed by all persons and bodies, from being compelled on pain of punishment to answer questions the answers to which may incriminate them;
(3) a specific immunity, possessed by all persons under suspicion of criminal responsibility whilst being interviewed by police officers and others in similar positions of authority, from being compelled on pain of punishment to answer questions of any kind;
(4) a specific immunity, possessed by accused persons undergoing trial, from being compelled to give evidence, and from being compelled to answer questions put to them in the dock;
(5) a specific immunity, possessed by persons who have been charged with a criminal offence, from having questions material to the offence addressed to them by police officers or persons in a similar position of authority;
(6) a specific immunity (at least in certain circumstances, which it is unnecessary to explore) possessed by accused persons undergoing trial, from having adverse comment made on any failure (a) to answer questions before the trial, or (b) to give evidence at the trial.

I guess that the qualifying statement in parenthesis is what you're talking about, but as I said above I don't think there are too many situations where the court would allow that kind of inference to be drawn anyway, at least in Australia (and probably New Zealand and Canada).

 

[dan2026]

Why does it seem like every time a police officer is in trouble for unlawfully killing, beating or incriminating someone, suddenly everything in super vague?

'Oh I don't know where that evidence went?'
'The guy attacked me first probably, it was super dark and I don't remember'.
''I didn't shoot him six times in the back as he was running away...'

Maybe if the police were more transparent and acted less like an old boys club, then people wouldn't be so angry and untrusting of them.

 

[ReAxion]

Why does it seem like every time a police officer is in trouble for unlawfully killing, beating or incriminating someone, suddenly everything in super vague?

'Oh I don't know where that evidence went?'
'The guy attacked me first probably, it was super dark and I don't remember'.
''I didn't shoot him six times in the back as he was running away...'

Maybe if the police were more transparent and acted less like an old boys club, then people wouldn't be so angry and untrusting of them.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/what-i-did-after-police-killed-my-son-110038.html

An amazing perfect record!

 

[CornBurrito]

You didn't reply to me proving you wrong the first time but I'll try again. OBVIOUSLY officers are not training to tase or beat for being called names, and you damn well know that. That's not what this op-ed is trying to say either. Yes parts of the article is poorly worded, I'll admit that. He is saying that in 99 percent of interactions with police, if you don't unnecessarily escalate the situation, no force will be needed.

Just because an officer has beaten before due to name calling before doesn't mean it is right. Not every single cop out there is a good cop(just like every profession on the planet) . Some should have never been hired and some should be fired for their actions. Some do get fired.

Please tell that to kitch9 who argued exactly that tasing and beating were standard restraining techniques for the things in op-ed. Which mentioned such things as name calling.

 

[Pickles Spill]

Please tell that to kitch9 who argued exactly that tasing and beating were standard restraining techniques for the things in op-ed. Which mentioned such things as name calling.

Maybe that's what kitch9 was interpreting the OP to say.

 

[elrechazado]

I could be wrong, but I think evidence suggests that the prevailing attitude amongst the blue line is similar to the article author's.

It's identical. To protect and serve has turned into to threaten restrain and intimidate.

My distrust of the police is not knee jerk. I was an attorney on their side for years.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

He should have added :

Don't resist unless you're carrying a weapon and are confident in being able to subdue the officer before they subdue you.

 

[kitch9]

Dude doesn't understand that name calling isn't a threat. Ignore him. He has done noting but twist words and ignore any point made.

So what names would you like to be able to call a police officer and get away with?

Some of you are reading why too much into the context of the article.

The guy is basically saying let's all be civil and everything will be OK. If you shout and kick off chances are it won't be.

I agree with the use of body cameras as well because both sides get chance to deal with things differently. People will be less likely to kick off and call the police a nasty man and the copper will have less reason to use restraint and only when it justifies it fully.

 

[kitch9]

For him to be grumpy. And deal with it in a professional manner, especially if he has no right to see it. Fucking hell your 'what if's' are getting weak.

Why would he be asking for a licence with no right to see it, I see no mention of him wanting to do that in the article?

 

[Dead Man]

Why would he be asking for a licence with no right to see it, I see no mention of him wanting to do that in the article?

Are you that naive? All cops ask for ID all the time. They are not always entitled to see it.

 

[kitch9]

Are you that naive? All cops ask for ID all the time. They are not always entitled to see it.

And?

 

[demon]

God you're fucking dense.

 

[Dead Man]

And?

And what? Damn son, at least have a position.

 

[Christine]

Anyone can ask to see your ID, asking to see ID is not in and of itself a special cop power.

 

[googleplex]

If you are exhibiting threatening behaviour to a police officer you don't expect them to restrain you using the restraints he had been provided and trained to use?

You are shouting by the way... Don't make me have to restrain you!

The problem is when officers are the sole judge of what "threatening behavior" is. a wrong look becomes "Threatening behavior". Refusal to be unwarntly stopped the searched becomes"Threatening Behavior" Being Black and in the wrong place and the wrong time becomes "Threatening behavior".

 

[googleplex]

So what names would you like to be able to call a police officer and get away with?

Some of you are reading why too much into the context of the article.

.

Yep. calling a police officer a name isn't against the law! And to be arrested, detained or threatened and a violation of civil liberties.

This shit isn't rocket science.

 

[msv]

It's a statement made out of frustration. It's a bit aggressive, but when it comes to common sense and the frustration from people not using it, it's understandable.

This is what's frustrating. People who think that common sense is not actually common sense. All that common sense bollocks is in the article, and doesn't need to be said, because it actually IS common sense. Honestly it makes you look foolish, since it has nothing to do with the matter at hand. It's very annoying that these people who completely and utterly miss the point talk as if they're the ones enlightening people. Pointing out common sense is no more than victim blaming.

 

[Mattlikewhoa]

And?

You can't be serious...

 

[Omegasquash]

I read that opinion as "cops do stuff that's good all the time, so just go along with what we say and everything will be OK."

If that doesn't breed fear of police, I don't know what will. Doing more harm than good, running that piece.

 

[Mumei]

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

Mm. This blog post has a good summary of Supreme Court decisions protecting that right:

But fast-forward to 2012, in the Second Circuit, with Swartz v. Insogna, a citizen’s right to give a cop the bird is once again recognized.

Perhaps there is a police officer somewhere who would interpret an automobile passenger’s giving him the finger as a signal of distress, creating a suspicion that something occurring in the automobile warranted investigation. And perhaps that interpretation is what prompted Insogna to act, as he claims. But the nearly universal recognition that this gesture is an insult deprives such an interpretation of reasonableness. This ancient gesture of insult is not the basis for a reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation or impending criminal activity. Surely no passenger planning some wrongful conduct toward another occupant of an automobile would call attention to himself by giving the finger to a police officer. And if there might be an automobile passenger somewhere who will give the finger to a police officer as an ill-advised signal for help, it is far more consistent with all citizens’ protection against improper police apprehension to leave that highly unlikely signal without a response than to lend judicial approval to the stopping of every vehicle from which a passenger makes that gesture.

Rights are funny things. They are yours, but only yours if others give them to you. If Officer Dutta wants us to behave respectfully, he can want it all he wants. And with force, he might be able to impose a sort of respect. No, not respect–obedience. Respect is earned, not imposed.

We do have the right to behave disrespectfully toward cops. But we only have that right as long as it is recognized by those who could deny it. And that seems to be exactly what Officer Dutta wants to do–deny our right, in the guise of offering good advice. It is good advice…for a police state.

Is it reasonable to think an officer would know about these cases? I dunno… unless they saw it in the January 2013 issue of POLICE magazine (“Court: Flipping Off Cops Is Constitutional“).

 

[Rest]

How far does that go? Where's the line?

"I don't consent to the search officer."

"Am I free to go?"

Where is the line on "contrarian"? Spell it out for me. If calmly exercising those right is taken as giving them a hard time, are they right in returning the favor?

No, but that doesn't mean they won't. The point of the article isn't what's right and wrong, it's how to reduce the likelihood of becoming victimized by the police. This article isn't part of the discussion about the problem police have become in our society and what we'll do about it, it's a look at the frictive points seen on an individual basis, and how to interact with police as a person.