4 ms·

I don't get it why Americans stand for this. It's not like this is happening to minorities and the masses are just turning a blind eye. When I lived in the US a

by MrDosu 11y ago

I don't get it why Americans stand for this. It's not like this is happening to minorities and the masses are just turning a blind eye. When I lived in the US and was in contact with a cop every single time I felt like I was in danger. Even though I did absolutely nothing wrong. And then the cop image is portrayed on TV as the badass sheriff from the 1800s, no wonder these individuals get all hyper ego in an emotional situation. Back home our cops #1 priority is deescalation. This does not just happen. There is training for this, a lot of training how to handle other people. For example if someone is fleeing in a car, let him go. They will catch him later, don't drive that dude in a corner in a high speed vehicle with 10 armed people chasing him down in a manhunt. It only endangers people.

coldpie 11y ago
> I don't get it why Americans stand for this. Many of us don't, hence the protests and hundreds of articles that you've been reading. But the truth is most voters don't have encounters the police. People are taught from a very young age that police are the "good guys" keeping the "bad guys" at bay, and so they get whatever protections and defenses they think they need, including immunity from prosecution. But articles like this and the protests over the various recent murders raise awareness that the police are out of control. Change doesn't happen overnight and it doesn't happen from nothing. These articles are Americans refusing to stand for this, and we need to keep it up.
- MrDosu 11y ago
  I did not mean to generalize too much, there is plenty of protest in america against this.
graycat 11y ago
No, there is a simple explanation: There are some unwritten rules, wildly in conflict with US laws and the US Constitution. In the case of the OP, a relevant rule is, a poor, old, handicapped, black man is not permitted to be on the sidewalks of the high rent business district. In such a case, the police respond as in the OP and its video clip. The sentence for violating the rule is to be pinned down, painfully, insulted, humiliated, have some belongings, e.g., crutches, stolen, and generally treated like dirt. But, with witnesses, smartphone video, and lawyers, the black man may no longer be poor but may get $500,000 from the city of San Francisco. If I were on the jury, he'd win, big time, big enough to make all of SF taxpayers feel the pain. The whole scene was in wild violation of the US Constitution. The police are guilty as sin, of assault and battery, at least. Toss in false arrest. Add in theft of his crutches. And more. He was guilty of what? Self defense against assault and battery? If he died, and maybe his health was so poor he might have, e.g., he might have had a heart condition or high blood pressure which could yield a fatal stroke, then the police would be guilty of murder -- literally murder. And they should be prosecuted for just that. Better not ask me to serve on a jury where that poor guy was the plaintiff -- I'd call for the cops to be treated like wild, mad, rabid dogs, enemies of the citizens, making war on the citizens, sadists. The situation is entirely similar to what the Nazi Brown Shirts did in Hitler's Germany: In that country, some citizens were regarded as unwanted. Then, via the Brown Shirt thugs, those citizens were subject to just whatever, robbery, beatings, murder. Now in SF, some citizens are again regarded as unwanted, and the police act like the Nazi Brown Shirts and rob, beat, and, maybe, murder such citizens. Not much difference. It's inhumanity of man to man, and it's ugly. We've seen the consequences from Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, ISIS, and more. We don't like it. We have our Constitution to help stop it. We don't want it. One really good use of smartphones, their video capabilities, the Internet, social media, and the US legal system is, finally, to stop this ugly stuff. Police: Here's your lesson. Here in the US, that stuff's going to stop. It's going to stop the easy way or the hard way. I have to believe you want the hard way, and it's coming. Net, the power in the US is definitely not in the hands of the police and, instead, is in the hands of the voting citizens. And, each such story, with video, on the Internet creates a lot of votes to stop the ugly stuff, via the hard way if necessary. Cops will be going to jail, for assault and battery, murder, etc., for long terms but likely in prison conditions where they won't last even six months. Blue shirts, you're going to have to stop that Nazi stuff, however much it pains you not to be a thug -- you can't beat the voting citizens with video cameras. Can't happen. All we have to do is quietly, calmly, privately pull a lever in a voting booth, and you and your Nazi behavior are toast.
- cryoshon 11y ago
  The police in the US have always been brown shirts for business interests, but it's gotten quite bad lately-- still not as bad as during the first Gilded Age, but it's getting there. Of course, the other real problem is that a hammer will find a nail, which is why we see people getting slaughtered during traffic stops etc. Definitely agree about the pigs choosing the hard way-- it's all they know. Their only strategy is escalate to force, whether in the micro situation of a traffic stop or the macro situation of rioting against police brutality. They just don't get it, and they don't want to get it, because they enjoy smashing heads and being unaccountable. Voting aint gonna fix it, though-- most local candidates aren't about to make a problem with the cops that they rely on, and most national candidates aren't going to make it a problem because hey, all politics are local politics, so there's nothing to gain. Riots and peaceful protests are the way forward now, which is tough because neither are remotely legitimate or acceptable in the US. Predictably, the police will smash the peaceful protests, causing riots, which will ultimately end in disaster. We saw a bit of walkback after the Ferguson / Baltimore burnings caught national attention, but there were no formal concessions and certainly no adjustment of police training. The de facto state of affairs is actually worse off than before the riots, since now the police have realized that the public has turned against them. Maybe a few more cities will be wrecked and then there will be some serious reparation. The shit factor here is race relations, which are already being played as hard as possible in order to keep the blacks and the whites separate from each other, leaving the blacks to carry most of the burden of police reform. Obviously, this doesn't work, because the blacks aren't considered to be legitimate political entities when it comes to police reform specifically because they've borne the brunt of the drug war's ravages. In my pipe dream of police brutality being solved, we'd first need to get our national politicians to effect a formal surrender ending the drug war-- this probably won't happen, because "America never loses a war", but it's no secret that the drug war is lost. Ending the drug war formally would open the door for demilitarization/disarmament of the losers, along with closure of the legal loopholes and abuses that allowed police to raid houses and commit warrantless wiretaps nonstop etc. Once the weapons have been removed and the law patched to revoke the wartime leeway, I think we'd be in much better shape, and could focus on normalization of police-citizen relations via force drawdown, culling of the worst abusers, and retraining of the moderate abusers. We'd have a proper (European style) police force in the next generation or so.
branchan 11y ago
Care to elaborate why you were in contact with cops multiple times? edit: didn't think so
Mz 11y ago
Police brutality is a real problem in the U.S. But please do not assume that what works in your country will work here. That is basically as tone deaf as Americans thinking they can swoop into another country and readily solve its problems, a character flaw for which we rightly get mocked around the world.
- Zigurd 11y ago
  American exceptionalism is an extraordinary claim and needs extraordinary evidence to support it. It is far more likely that that our cops have a third-world standard of aggression than that intimidation and violence are that much more necessary when dealing with Americans.
  - Mz 11y ago
    I in no way said that aggression and intimidation are more necessary when dealing with Americans. I also find it baffling that anyone would feel it is an extraordinary claim that America has differences from other countries. It also seems obvious to me on the face of it that those differences impact in practical terms what is logistically effective. Some differences I know of off the top of my head: America is a relatively young country for a world power. It is much, much younger than many European, Asian and Middle Eastern countries. There is much lower population density in the US than in many other developed countries. It is also huge compared to many other countries. The combibation of low population density and lots of land means, no, you can't just let someone go and then hunt them down later as the OP suggested. They absolutely can disappear on you and can then potentially go to another state or even another country, such as Mexico or Canada. Unlike Europe or Japan, large parts of America still have large, very dangerous wild animals like bears and moose. Foreigners often decry America as some land of savages for our right to bear arms, something you cannot legally do in some countries, and our propensity for exercising that right. I don't own a gun and never have, but I assure you that if I moved to Alaska I sure as hell would acquire a shotgun and I would store it the way my father stored his shotguns: unloaded but not locked up, with ammo readily available. If a bear gets into your house, you do not have time to unlock a gun case. Given that we do have a right to bear arms, the police absolutely are dealing with a more dangerous situation here than the police deal with in some countries. That increased danger makes their job riskier and it means failure to contain a threat can have terrible consequences. I am sure there are a great many other differences, but those seem to be a few very salient ones. If you want a longer list, I imagine you can readily find more with a quick google.

by MrDosu 11y ago

coldpie 11y ago

> I don't get it why Americans stand for this. Many of us don't, hence the protests and hundreds of articles that you've been reading. But the truth is most voters don't have encounters the police. People are taught from a very young age that police are the "good guys" keeping the "bad guys" at bay, and so they get whatever protections and defenses they think they need, including immunity from prosecution. But articles like this and the protests over the various recent murders raise awareness that the police are out of control. Change doesn't happen overnight and it doesn't happen from nothing. These articles are Americans refusing to stand for this, and we need to keep it up.

MrDosu 11y ago
I did not mean to generalize too much, there is plenty of protest in america against this.

graycat 11y ago

No, there is a simple explanation: There are some unwritten rules, wildly in conflict with US laws and the US Constitution. In the case of the OP, a relevant rule is, a poor, old, handicapped, black man is not permitted to be on the sidewalks of the high rent business district. In such a case, the police respond as in the OP and its video clip. The sentence for violating the rule is to be pinned down, painfully, insulted, humiliated, have some belongings, e.g., crutches, stolen, and generally treated like dirt. But, with witnesses, smartphone video, and lawyers, the black man may no longer be poor but may get $500,000 from the city of San Francisco. If I were on the jury, he'd win, big time, big enough to make all of SF taxpayers feel the pain. The whole scene was in wild violation of the US Constitution. The police are guilty as sin, of assault and battery, at least. Toss in false arrest. Add in theft of his crutches. And more. He was guilty of what? Self defense against assault and battery? If he died, and maybe his health was so poor he might have, e.g., he might have had a heart condition or high blood pressure which could yield a fatal stroke, then the police would be guilty of murder -- literally murder. And they should be prosecuted for just that. Better not ask me to serve on a jury where that poor guy was the plaintiff -- I'd call for the cops to be treated like wild, mad, rabid dogs, enemies of the citizens, making war on the citizens, sadists. The situation is entirely similar to what the Nazi Brown Shirts did in Hitler's Germany: In that country, some citizens were regarded as unwanted. Then, via the Brown Shirt thugs, those citizens were subject to just whatever, robbery, beatings, murder. Now in SF, some citizens are again regarded as unwanted, and the police act like the Nazi Brown Shirts and rob, beat, and, maybe, murder such citizens. Not much difference. It's inhumanity of man to man, and it's ugly. We've seen the consequences from Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, ISIS, and more. We don't like it. We have our Constitution to help stop it. We don't want it. One really good use of smartphones, their video capabilities, the Internet, social media, and the US legal system is, finally, to stop this ugly stuff. Police: Here's your lesson. Here in the US, that stuff's going to stop. It's going to stop the easy way or the hard way. I have to believe you want the hard way, and it's coming. Net, the power in the US is definitely not in the hands of the police and, instead, is in the hands of the voting citizens. And, each such story, with video, on the Internet creates a lot of votes to stop the ugly stuff, via the hard way if necessary. Cops will be going to jail, for assault and battery, murder, etc., for long terms but likely in prison conditions where they won't last even six months. Blue shirts, you're going to have to stop that Nazi stuff, however much it pains you not to be a thug -- you can't beat the voting citizens with video cameras. Can't happen. All we have to do is quietly, calmly, privately pull a lever in a voting booth, and you and your Nazi behavior are toast.

cryoshon 11y ago
The police in the US have always been brown shirts for business interests, but it's gotten quite bad lately-- still not as bad as during the first Gilded Age, but it's getting there. Of course, the other real problem is that a hammer will find a nail, which is why we see people getting slaughtered during traffic stops etc. Definitely agree about the pigs choosing the hard way-- it's all they know. Their only strategy is escalate to force, whether in the micro situation of a traffic stop or the macro situation of rioting against police brutality. They just don't get it, and they don't want to get it, because they enjoy smashing heads and being unaccountable. Voting aint gonna fix it, though-- most local candidates aren't about to make a problem with the cops that they rely on, and most national candidates aren't going to make it a problem because hey, all politics are local politics, so there's nothing to gain. Riots and peaceful protests are the way forward now, which is tough because neither are remotely legitimate or acceptable in the US. Predictably, the police will smash the peaceful protests, causing riots, which will ultimately end in disaster. We saw a bit of walkback after the Ferguson / Baltimore burnings caught national attention, but there were no formal concessions and certainly no adjustment of police training. The de facto state of affairs is actually worse off than before the riots, since now the police have realized that the public has turned against them. Maybe a few more cities will be wrecked and then there will be some serious reparation. The shit factor here is race relations, which are already being played as hard as possible in order to keep the blacks and the whites separate from each other, leaving the blacks to carry most of the burden of police reform. Obviously, this doesn't work, because the blacks aren't considered to be legitimate political entities when it comes to police reform specifically because they've borne the brunt of the drug war's ravages. In my pipe dream of police brutality being solved, we'd first need to get our national politicians to effect a formal surrender ending the drug war-- this probably won't happen, because "America never loses a war", but it's no secret that the drug war is lost. Ending the drug war formally would open the door for demilitarization/disarmament of the losers, along with closure of the legal loopholes and abuses that allowed police to raid houses and commit warrantless wiretaps nonstop etc. Once the weapons have been removed and the law patched to revoke the wartime leeway, I think we'd be in much better shape, and could focus on normalization of police-citizen relations via force drawdown, culling of the worst abusers, and retraining of the moderate abusers. We'd have a proper (European style) police force in the next generation or so.

branchan 11y ago

Care to elaborate why you were in contact with cops multiple times? edit: didn't think so

Mz 11y ago

Police brutality is a real problem in the U.S. But please do not assume that what works in your country will work here. That is basically as tone deaf as Americans thinking they can swoop into another country and readily solve its problems, a character flaw for which we rightly get mocked around the world.

Zigurd 11y ago
American exceptionalism is an extraordinary claim and needs extraordinary evidence to support it. It is far more likely that that our cops have a third-world standard of aggression than that intimidation and violence are that much more necessary when dealing with Americans.
- Mz 11y ago
  I in no way said that aggression and intimidation are more necessary when dealing with Americans. I also find it baffling that anyone would feel it is an extraordinary claim that America has differences from other countries. It also seems obvious to me on the face of it that those differences impact in practical terms what is logistically effective. Some differences I know of off the top of my head: America is a relatively young country for a world power. It is much, much younger than many European, Asian and Middle Eastern countries. There is much lower population density in the US than in many other developed countries. It is also huge compared to many other countries. The combibation of low population density and lots of land means, no, you can't just let someone go and then hunt them down later as the OP suggested. They absolutely can disappear on you and can then potentially go to another state or even another country, such as Mexico or Canada. Unlike Europe or Japan, large parts of America still have large, very dangerous wild animals like bears and moose. Foreigners often decry America as some land of savages for our right to bear arms, something you cannot legally do in some countries, and our propensity for exercising that right. I don't own a gun and never have, but I assure you that if I moved to Alaska I sure as hell would acquire a shotgun and I would store it the way my father stored his shotguns: unloaded but not locked up, with ammo readily available. If a bear gets into your house, you do not have time to unlock a gun case. Given that we do have a right to bear arms, the police absolutely are dealing with a more dangerous situation here than the police deal with in some countries. That increased danger makes their job riskier and it means failure to contain a threat can have terrible consequences. I am sure there are a great many other differences, but those seem to be a few very salient ones. If you want a longer list, I imagine you can readily find more with a quick google.