Support NeoGAF

[Angry Grimace]

I don't get the hashtag really, but I hope someone comes in and tells me that this wouldn't be addressing all LEO's like usual here.

Listen, while this guy did a piss poor job at wording it, here's how it works:
Comply, then take appropriate actions if your freedoms were in fact violated. That's all. When you're flagged, comply and keep tensions down. It's in both of your best interests. If I confronted someone due to suspicions or confirmation of a criminal/unlawful act, I'm going to be heightened to what's happening. If you're yelling or screaming, making sudden movements, of course it's going to raise my suspicions and self-preservation levels. When things are at those levels of course things can escalate very quickly. Making sudden movements to wastebands/pockets, or trying to get close enough to me to where I know I can't fully react in time, that's not good. I'm not some random bro at a bar, I'm an authority figure in which you should recognize, and any person in their right mind should realize this. If you show aggression to my authority, then of course I'm going to suspect that you won't restrain yourself. Not sure how that's not simple to understand.

If you're worried about in a bad interaction, then if possible be in a better position of witnesses. For example, once followed someone lit up for over a mile down the road after they blew through a red light. They pulled into a busy parking lot that was well lit. They said they were worried, and didn't know if we were legit, and also said if we were real that it would be safer for all of us there with no traffic than being on the side of a road. That person got off with a verbal warning. If they cocked off, made a scene, resulting in us having to raise our levels, they would have been cited. That simple.

I do agree all officers should have cameras. If you do it by the book you have nothing to worry about, and they can actually prove your integrity and save your ass if people make false accusations, which happens more often than you'd think.

The only problem with that, even with the "cheap $1000 camera" fix that I see thrown around is that departments have to foot up the cash for these. Same departments which maybe running old vehicles, recycled near end of life vests, and worn out weapons/gear. They can't get new gear because they don't have tax support, and vests/guns are more important than cameras, so they'd come first, then vehicles, then cameras. And when voting ballets are shut down about raising taxes, or putting more money into local police departments, where is this money coming from then? The officers themselves, many of which don't make those higher end salaries found in big cities or affluent areas with high taxes? Making $10-14/hr you have to prioritize, as in real life bills, your own necessary equipment, then things like this.

That doesn't work because cops circle the wagons to protect other cops. If cops actually got in trouble for violating your rights, it would be a different thing.

 

[TSM]

Well, there are many problems with the police that start with the type of people that get hired in the first place. At least some police departments screen out anyone "intelligent". The judicial branch has said that this is A OK:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836

Anyone with an IQ of 125 is apparently too intelligent to be a cop. The average score for officers nation wide is 104 according to that article. These are not people that are going to be quick on their feet when presented with challenging situations.

 

[J-Rzez]

That doesn't work because cops circle the wagons to protect other cops. If cops actually got in trouble for violating your rights, it would be a different thing.

They can and will get in trouble though, so blanket statements that makes it sound like they never get in trouble are ridiculous at best. Especially if it involves wrongfully removing one's personal freedom, that can end up going up to a federal level. You don't hear or read about it all the time. It's not always published. Just like how LEOs are assaulted and killed on the job.

I suggest if people can't understand why some officers can be on alert to go to www.officerdown.com and read through some of the reports, and notice the dates. There are more listings there than you'd find on the nightly news, and even then that's just what's submitted to them and they find on their own.

 

[PopeReal]

It is amazing how many people are fine with this article. This cop is obviously a part of the problem.

 

[Zantetsuken]

No officer goes out in the field wishing to shoot anyone, armed or unarmed.

So is it #allcops, #somecops? Because I refuse to believe that not one officer goes out not wanting to shoot someone. You can't say that, then say you know that some cops engage in malevolent behavior.

Finally, cops are legally prohibited from using excessive force: The moment a suspect submits and stops resisting, the officers must cease use of force.

If it's against the law, why aren't the cops do use excessive force not in jail? Captain Obvious re: what to do against citizens who are hostile. You don't need M16s, M4s, tanks, sniper rifles, humvees, etc.

You expect me to comply and then expect the same justice system that lets you cops off easy try to give me a fair shake? I'll need to summon all the nope gifs from Internet I can muster.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

What if I have my hands up

Might only get shot 4 times instead of 6.

 

[Ominym]

I'd love to see him say that to a lawyer.

 

[Particle Physicist]

The fact that this guy thought it was a good idea to write this op-ed in a major newspaper kinda shows how pervasive these issues are within the police.

 

[GaimeGuy]

The message shouldn't be "We won't hurt you unless you challenge us," but rather "You have no need to challenge us, we just want to help. " That's the problem

 

[Astral/H3X]

Just gonna say, that minus all context, the part you bolded is something agreeable. Being unpleasant makes unpleasant things happen. He's basically saying that if you are going to be belligerent and resist and be uncooperative, well, they will in turn be uncooperative.

Now, any implication that people were being belligerent by being black, is not okay, or that there are not cases of undue force, or that getting people killed over selling cigarettes supposedly, etc etc.

Just saying the part you bolded, is in and of itself a non objectable thing.

 

[Astral/H3X]

They can and will get in trouble though, so blanket statements that makes it sound like they never get in trouble are ridiculous at best. Especially if it involves wrongfully removing one's personal freedom, that can end up going up to a federal level. You don't hear or read about it all the time. It's not always published. Just like how LEOs are assaulted and killed on the job.

I suggest if people can't understand why some officers can be on alert to go to www.officerdown.com and read through some of the reports, and notice the dates. There are more listings there than you'd find on the nightly news, and even then that's just what's submitted to them and they find on their own.

MOTHERFUCKING THIS!!!
I'm not a cop, I'm a soldier. And honestly? I'm way too chicken to be a cop. Fuck that shit.

 

[CornBurrito]

It is amazing how many people are fine with this article. This cop is obviously a part of the problem.

Because when entirely removed from its context some of it sounds like common sense.

If you ignore that begging to be allowed to breath is considered resisting and belligerent then it becomes fine.

I also love all the people ITT who argue cops are just regular people. Indeed they are. So why do we give them the benefit of the doubt and treat them as more credible witnesses than regular citizens in courts of law? Are they regular people or not?

MOTHERFUCKING THIS!!!
I'm not a cop, I'm a soldier. And honestly? I'm way too chicken to be a cop. Fuck that shit.

Sounds like being a cop in the US wouldn't be so dangerous if we had sensible gun control laws rather than "everyone is a responsible gun owner until they aren't." Doesn't seem like being a cop is quite so deadly in other countries.

 

[Siegcram]

Just gonna say, that minus all context, the part you bolded is something agreeable. Being unpleasant makes unpleasant things happen. He's basically saying that if you are going to be belligerent and resist and be uncooperative, well, they will in turn be uncooperative.

Now, any implication that people were being belligerent by being black, is not okay, or that there are not cases of undue force, or that getting people killed over selling cigarettes supposedly, etc etc.

Just saying the part you bolded, is in and of itself a non objectable thing.

Yes it is, since the reasoning is to answer non-violent verbal behaviour with violent and sometimes lethal force.
Coming from someone who is supposedly trained and knowingly signed up for a job where exactly those circumstances can occur any given day.

 

[kitch9]

Perhaps I am wrong, but you are talking about a totally different scenario than the original article is about. The officer says that during interactions with him that he will not tolerate any deviance to his absolute power and authority. Any challenge will result in you getting hurt by the officer.

Now this becomes a civil rights issue. If you allow the police to abuse your civil rights, you have none. The police will infringe upon your rights. They aren't there to give you tips on what they can and cannot legally do. They just do. They're humans, they're an organized, violent, club authorized by the state to do as they see fit to enforce the law.

Now you bring up an unrelated hypothetical situation where a person is already committing a crime and ask me how the police should respond? Pardon me, but are you saying this just to get a rise or trolling? I can't believe you don't see the issue of a police officer insinuating that we allow their kind to trample upon civilians and pray that the justice system sorts out their accidental misdeeds?

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

 

[kitch9]

Perhaps I am wrong, but you are talking about a totally different scenario than the original article is about. The officer says that during interactions with him that he will not tolerate any deviance to his absolute power and authority. Any challenge will result in you getting hurt by the officer.

Now this becomes a civil rights issue. If you allow the police to abuse your civil rights, you have none. The police will infringe upon your rights. They aren't there to give you tips on what they can and cannot legally do. They just do. They're humans, they're an organized, violent, club authorized by the state to do as they see fit to enforce the law.

Now you bring up an unrelated hypothetical situation where a person is already committing a crime and ask me how the police should respond? Pardon me, but are you saying this just to get a rise or trolling? I can't believe you don't see the issue of a police officer insinuating that we allow their kind to trample upon civilians and pray that the justice system sorts out their accidental misdeeds?

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

 

[CornBurrito]

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

To not get shot or beaten.

 

[Angry Grimace]

They can and will get in trouble though, so blanket statements that makes it sound like they never get in trouble are ridiculous at best. Especially if it involves wrongfully removing one's personal freedom, that can end up going up to a federal level. You don't hear or read about it all the time. It's not always published. Just like how LEOs are assaulted and killed on the job.

I suggest if people can't understand why some officers can be on alert to go to www.officerdown.com and read through some of the reports, and notice the dates. There are more listings there than you'd find on the nightly news, and even then that's just what's submitted to them and they find on their own.

Yeah, except for the most part they don't get in trouble. The fact that being a cop is a dangerous job doesn't mean they are held accountable for their actions to the degree in which everyone else is.

Not that I expect you to actually believe that given that in the last cop thread you entered you actually suggested the remedy for police violation of rights is increasing cop salaries.

 

[Malyse]

So the argument here is, the police might save you one day, so you just have to put up with the fact that they can also arrest/assault/kill you for no reason without repercussions?

Hmm?

#notallcops is evolving!

(Bum bum bum bum bum bum bum baa)

#notallcops has become #notallthetime!

 

[KingGondo]

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

Depends on the context. Sure, if I'm driving and get pulled over for a violation I understand that they'll want to make sure I'm licensed to drive and that request seems reasonable.

But let's say I'm walking down a public street--it doesn't seem reasonable that a police officer should be able to demand identification without probable cause.

At the same time, I'd be afraid to refuse because defying an unreasonable police request is seemingly a crime in and of itself these days.

 

[demon]

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

Right, it assumes it doesn't happen. The entire article is built on faulty premises.

 

[Tertullian]

But let's say I'm walking down a public street--it doesn't seem reasonable that a police officer should be able to demand identification without probable cause.

Assuming we're talking about the United States, you theoretically don't ever have to provide written identification if you're just walking down the street. Some states (about half) have stop-and-identify statutes which require you to verbally state your name and sometimes some other basic information if police detain you with reasonable suspicion. If you're not in a state with a stop-and-identify statute, you theoretically don't have to say anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes

In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (aka the court case that took away your right to remain silent), SCOTUS ruled that it is not a violation of the 5th amendment for states to pass laws that require you to give your name if police detain you with reasonable suspicion. I don't think they've ruled on the constitutionality of laws that require you to give more than just your name, like date-of-birth or address. Knowing how screwed up SCOTUS is, though, I bet they'd rule them constitutional.


Of course, after Salinas, you also could be incriminating yourself if you just choose to remain silent; you have to somehow explicitly invoke the right to remain silent, without saying anything that could incriminate you. Good luck asserting your rights when you have to somehow dance that dance. And of course, especially if you're a minority, you might just get shot no matter what you do.

 

[J-Rzez]

I also love all the people ITT who argue cops are just regular people. Indeed they are. So why do we give them the benefit of the doubt and treat them as more credible witnesses than regular citizens in courts of law? Are they regular people or not?

Sounds like being a cop in the US wouldn't be so dangerous if we had sensible gun control laws rather than "everyone is a responsible gun owner until they aren't." Doesn't seem like being a cop is quite so deadly in other countries.

LEOs are regular people who are entrusted with powers to help you, or remove your freedom. Officers should be more trust worthy. They are given benefit of the doubt when taking into consideration they are operating as expected to standards of honesty. Do officers fuck up? Yep. Are some bad? You bet. Are some in it for the wrong reasons? No doubt. But to blanket an entire profession with "fuck the police" is ridiculous, and insulting. When there was an article where police were dispatched to a disturbance, then seeing the horrible conditions they went to a grocery store and bought food and supplies from their own money to give to the family, are they under the "fuck the police" moniker as well? When trooper Miller ran up to a car of an insane man who took his kid when he wasn't supposed to, got the kid out of the car safely, but was mortally wounded by gun fire and bleed out on the side of the road another "fuck the police" moment. Gawd-damn. There's good and bad cops. It's not like saying "Fuck EA" or whatever, these are people risking their lives for what they do.

Gun control is another can of worms. You think the felon that ambushed a cop walked into walmart and bought their gun? No. Guns are everywhere, from old weapons not tracked, to stolen weapons, to guns smuggled into the country. Are their people who lose their shit and use a legally obtained weapon to kill? Yes, unfortunately as well. Guns are here to stay for now, period. People are up in arms about "freedoms" then they'll turn around and try to remove others freedoms by saying they shouldn't have any firearms.

It's a messy situation that won't be easily changed for decades, if not centuries.But that's another discussion all together.

 

[KingGondo]

Assuming we're talking about the United States, you theoretically don't ever have to provide written identification if you're just walking down the street. Some states (about half) have stop-and-identify statutes which require you to verbally state your name and sometimes some other basic information if police detain you with reasonable suspicion. If you're not in a state with a stop-and-identify statute, you theoretically don't have to say anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes

Interesting.

Oklahoma apparently doesn't have one of these statutes. Thankfully it probably won't be an issue anyways since 1) I'm white and middle class and 2) OKC doesn't really have sidewalks :lol.

I'd probably provide ID to the police anyways since I wouldn't want to get into a confrontation, and that's exactly the problem. The police take a lawful noncompliance with a request as an affront to their authority and use it as an excuse to harass or abuse citizens.

This heartbreaking NPR story comes to mind: http://storycorps.org/listen/alex-landau-and-patsy-hathaway/

 

[CornBurrito]

LEOs are regular people who are entrusted with powers to help you, or remove your freedom. Officers should be more trust worthy. They are given benefit of the doubt when taking into consideration they are operating as expected to standards of honesty. Do officers fuck up? Yep. Are some bad? You bet. Are some in it for the wrong reasons? No doubt. But to blanket an entire profession with "fuck the police" is ridiculous, and insulting. When there was an article where police were dispatched to a disturbance, then seeing the horrible conditions they went to a grocery store and bought food and supplies from their own money to give to the family, are they under the "fuck the police" moniker as well? When trooper Miller ran up to a car of an insane man who took his kid when he wasn't supposed to, got the kid out of the car safely, but was mortally wounded by gun fire and bleed out on the side of the road another "fuck the police" moment. Gawd-damn. There's good and bad cops. It's not like saying "Fuck EA" or whatever, these are people risking their lives for what they do.

Gun control is another can of worms. You think the felon that ambushed a cop walked into walmart and bought their gun? No. Guns are everywhere, from old weapons not tracked, to stolen weapons, to guns smuggled into the country. Are their people who lose their shit and use a legally obtained weapon to kill? Yes, unfortunately as well. Guns are here to stay for now, period. People are up in arms about "freedoms" then they'll turn around and try to remove others freedoms by saying they shouldn't have any firearms.

It's a messy situation that won't be easily changed for decades, if not centuries.But that's another discussion all together.

Fuck the police is a fine attitude when organizations as a whole seem to shield bad cops from the law. Almost anyone who uses the phrase is aware good cops exist, it doesn't matter though when there is organization level corruption and a lack of accountability.

 

[onadesertedisland]

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

"ihre papiere bitte?"

It depends on the context. If I've done nothing wrong I'm going to ask why I need to provide identification, am I detained, arrested, or suspected witness to a crime.

 

[KingGondo]

Fuck the police is a fine attitude when organizations as a whole seem to shield bad cops from the law. Almost anyone who uses the phrase is aware good cops exist, it doesn't matter though when there is organization level corruption and a lack of accountability.

Exactly. "Fuck the police" is generally shorthand for "fuck the corruption and lack of accountability that has resulted in the bullshit certain communities deal with on a daily basis."

 

[ReAxion]

I feel like they have a saying about the kinds of apples there are... and what it does to the rest of the apples when just one of them is bad... I'm searching but I'm not coming up with anything.

 

[onadesertedisland]

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

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

Yes it does. Right there.

The entire attitude is condescending, patronizing, and filled with a belief that a police officer is somehow not subject to the same rules everyone else is.

Why should anyone have sympathy for a police officer who has had a stressful day and let that be an excuse for bad behavior? Police work is hard, it's extremely taxing. I am thankful to those who treat the job with the respect it requires, but I am adamant about ridding, and exiling officers that either cannot handle the stress, or use the power in inappropriate ways. This officer is a perfect example of a personality that should not be an officer. He has an us versus them attitude, abuses his privilege of power, and gloats about how his profession gives him the opportunity to not put up with agitation or else he'll bust some heads.

 

[turtle553]

Assuming we're talking about the United States, you theoretically don't ever have to provide written identification if you're just walking down the street. Some states (about half) have stop-and-identify statutes which require you to verbally state your name and sometimes some other basic information if police detain you with reasonable suspicion. If you're not in a state with a stop-and-identify statute, you theoretically don't have to say anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes

In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (aka the court case that took away your right to remain silent), SCOTUS ruled that it is not a violation of the 5th amendment for states to pass laws that require you to give your name if police detain you with reasonable suspicion. I don't think they've ruled on the constitutionality of laws that require you to give more than just your name, like date-of-birth or address. Knowing how screwed up SCOTUS is, though, I bet they'd rule them constitutional.


Of course, after Salinas, you also could be incriminating yourself if you just choose to remain silent; you have to somehow explicitly invoke the right to remain silent, without saying anything that could incriminate you. Good luck asserting your rights when you have to somehow dance that dance. And of course, especially if you're a minority, you might just get shot no matter what you do.

Not quite. The guy was in a voluntary interview (not under arrest) and was answering plenty of questions. One question he didn't answer or say anything. If he never spoke to the police or refused to answer any questions he would be fine.

Once again, ask if you are being detained and if so get a lawyer. Don't talk to the cops on your own if you may be a suspect.

 

[SillyEskimo]

Cops have a simple system.

Ask
Tell
Take

Don't get to the third step.

 

[DoktorEvil]

I don't understand GAF when it comes to LEOs.

If you can't trust the cops to protect and serve, who do you trust?

(No I don't want a snarky Batman answer, seriously who do you trust?)

 

[KingGondo]

I don't understand GAF when it comes to LEOs.

If you can't trust the cops to protect and serve, who do you trust?

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.

 

[onadesertedisland]

I don't understand GAF when it comes to LEOs.

If you can't trust the cops to protect and serve, who do you trust?

(No I don't want a snarky Batman answer, seriously who do you trust?)

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.

 

[Tertullian]

Not quite. The guy was in a voluntary interview (not under arrest) and was answering plenty of questions. One question he didn't answer or say anything. If he never spoke to the police or refused to answer any questions he would be fine.

The situation I was responding to was "you're just walking down the street and police demand identification." That could describe a consensual encounter or it could describe a detention. So I wasn't talking about an arrest. Actually, it seems like someone who is under arrest has much clearer rights than someone who isn't. Any silence after an arrest is generally assumed to invoke the 5th amendment, but in a mere consensual encounter or detention, who knows?

Salinas is a pretty scary case. You say that if Salinas had gone with the police but refused to answer any questions at all, his silence would have been taken as invoking the 5th amendment. You might be right. But you might also be wrong. As far as I can tell, the opinion in Salinas isn't clear. It talks a lot about how merely ceasing to talk doesn't automatically invoke the 5th amendment. It doesn't make clear exactly what a person does have to do to invoke the 5th amendment.

If Salinas had remained totally silent and not answered any questions, would SCOTUS have considered that good enough to invoke the 5th? Maybe, but who knows. If he said "I'm going to stop talking now," would that be good enough for SCOTUS? Probably, but who the heck knows. I can't tell from reading the opinion itself.

I suppose he could have explicitly said "I am invoking my 5th amendment right against self-incrimination," but could that statement itself be used in court as a tacit admission of guilt (i.e., an admission that if he were to give answers, those answers would incriminate him)? I dunno, possibly.

Soon the average citizen is going to need a two page cheat sheet just to know exactly how to safely to invoke the 5th amendment without simultaneously incriminating herself. Of course no one can make such a cheat sheet, because even SCOTUS doesn't seem clear on what, exactly, counts as invoking the 5th for someone who isn't under arrest.

I'm reminded of this quote from A Man for All Seasons:

The law is not a "light" for you or any man to see by; the law is not an instrument of any kind. ...The law is a causeway upon which, so long as he keeps to it, a citizen may walk safely.

With cases like Hiibel and Salinas, the law on this topic is less and less a clear and safe causeway upon which a citizen may safely walk, and more and more a convoluted instrument for nailing criminals.

 

[kitch9]

To not get shot or beaten.

You would expect to be arrested yes?

 

[Version 3.0]

Wow, this is a tough one. While I obviously don't agree that cops do or should have complete authority to do whatever they want, I have to say: once you're in the actual situation of being stopped by a cop, is there any better plan than courtesy and compliance?

I mean, if it's a decent cop, then you should be fine. If it isn't, then you're basically being held up at gunpoint - by a man with a lot of backup. Either way, any escalation is almost certain to be worse for you than him.

I don't know. Tough situation. The article surely isn't the right message to be sending right now, though. How about "we're trying to help" or "we're the good guys"?

 

[kitch9]

Yes it does. Right there.

The entire attitude is condescending, patronizing, and filled with a belief that a police officer is somehow not subject to the same rules everyone else is.

Why should anyone have sympathy for a police officer who has had a stressful day and let that be an excuse for bad behavior? Police work is hard, it's extremely taxing. I am thankful to those who treat the job with the respect it requires, but I am adamant about ridding, and exiling officers that either cannot handle the stress, or use the power in inappropriate ways. This officer is a perfect example of a personality that should not be an officer. He has an us versus them attitude, abuses his privilege of power, and gloats about how his profession gives him the opportunity to not put up with agitation or else he'll bust some heads.

If you kick off what do you expect the police to do?

 

[onadesertedisland]

Wow, this is a tough one. While I obviously don't agree that cops do or should have complete authority to do whatever they want, I have to say: once you're in the actual situation of being stopped by a cop, is there any better plan than courtesy and compliance?

I mean, if it's a decent cop, then you should be fine. If it isn't, then you're basically being held up at gunpoint - by a man with a lot of backup. Either way, any escalation is almost certain to be worse for you than him.

I don't know. Tough situation. The article surely isn't the right message to be sending right now, though. How about "we're trying to help" or "we're the good guys"?

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.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

I don't understand GAF when it comes to LEOs.

If you can't trust the cops to protect and serve, who do you trust?

(No I don't want a snarky Batman answer, seriously who do you trust?)

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

 

[kitch9]

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.

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

 

[Quixzlizx]

Oh thank God, now we don't have to argue with people who think the cops are only here for our protection. He openly admits fascism.

No he doesn't.

 

[onadesertedisland]

If you kick off what do you expect the police to do?

Not sure what you mean by kick off? If you mean walk off, then I expect them to either let me go or detain me.

If you're getting to the point of an officer arresting someone, that is an entirely different situation. Under arrest, the detained is required to comply.

 

[onadesertedisland]

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

You keep changing what you want to debate. Do you want to talk about a loony police officer justifying his crazy world view about civilians needing to lick his boots, or other things?

 

[JeTmAn81]

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.

 

[CornBurrito]

You keep changing what you want to debate. Do you want to talk about a loony police officer justifying his crazy world view about civilians needing to lick his boots, or other things?

Don't even bother with him. Dude doesn't know what he wants to argue. Just that we should all submit to any unreasonable request made by an authority figure because safety is more important than getting the police to actually be held accountable for when they break the law.

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.

How you don't see it as a justification is beyond me. "Don't argue with us ever and you won't get hurt" is not only false (officers have hurt compliant people and planted drugs on innocents before) but does justify cases in which a civilian got hurt or killed for resisting an unreasonable request made by an officer.

 

[onadesertedisland]

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.

Lots of people have stressful jobs. 99% of those won't be a near protected class should you have a bad day and assault or kill someone.

Realities of jobs are that they involve stress. If you can't hack it, get a new job.

 

[kitch9]

Not sure what you mean by kick off? If you mean walk off, then I expect them to either let me go or detain me.

If you're getting to the point of an officer arresting someone, that is an entirely different situation. Under arrest, the detained is required to comply.

How would you expect them to detain you? Why would you walk off and just expect them to let you go?

 

[kitch9]

Don't even bother with him. Dude doesn't know what he wants to argue. Just that we should all submit to any unreasonable request made by an authority figure because safety is more important than getting the police to actually be held accountable for when they break the law.



How you don't see it as a justification is beyond me. "Don't argue with us ever and you won't get hurt" is not only false (officers have hurt compliant people and planted drugs on innocents before) but does justify cases in which a civilian got hurt or killed for resisting an unreasonable request made by an officer.

Nothing in the article was illegal. Or unreasonable.

 

[onadesertedisland]

How would you expect them to detain you? Why would you walk off and just expect them to let you go?

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.

 

[CornBurrito]

Ok Kitch whatever.

"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?"

Getting tased or beaten for arguing or calling an officer names is unreasonable. Are you an officer or do you live in North Korea or some other totalitarian state?