4 ms·

They didn't snicker at her. They just didn't know how best to help her. I feel your characterization portrays officers as hateful when they're really often jus

They didn't snicker at her. They just didn't know how best to help her. I feel your characterization portrays officers as hateful when they're really often just misinformed. Again, just like you say, it's hard to find the right answer. And when you say you "rather they err on the side of protecting victims", there are too many people who could possibly be victims to protect. And how do you mean "protect" exactly? [Downvoting is an acceptable response, but I was honestly hoping for an answer to the question. If I'm missing something, please let me know, I would really appreciate that!]

lovelearning 11y ago
"Loud snickering from my left. Is it him? asked the cop in front of me, flicking his thumb at his colleague giggling in the corner."
- striking 11y ago
  Got it. I missed that.
SwellJoe 11y ago
The police in this case knew the name of the victim, the name of the perpetrator, and had the ability to look over the evidence to figure out whether a crime had been committed (according to the statute, it probably had). You don't get much more open and shut than that. Yes, it takes resources with only modest results (modest in the sense that it's not usually gonna be a murder case or a drug smuggling case, and won't be a gold star on the officer's record, but they will probably be able to help someone), but so does so-called "broken windows" policing and stop-and-frisk, which have similarly modest results (and have the unpleasant side effect of creating new victims in many cases, and breeding mistrust for police among young brown folks in nearly all cases). I'm not sure what's so hard about this. Police in the first instance should at the least take a report from the victim. That's the first step toward a restraining order and other legal remedies, and how things begin in other kinds of harassment cases.
- striking 11y ago
  I agree with that statement. It's much easier to agree with your points when they're specific. I find it unfortunate that some members of police force think that they know the law well enough to decide whether or not a report should be made.

lovelearning 11y ago

"Loud snickering from my left. Is it him? asked the cop in front of me, flicking his thumb at his colleague giggling in the corner."

striking 11y ago
Got it. I missed that.

SwellJoe 11y ago

The police in this case knew the name of the victim, the name of the perpetrator, and had the ability to look over the evidence to figure out whether a crime had been committed (according to the statute, it probably had). You don't get much more open and shut than that. Yes, it takes resources with only modest results (modest in the sense that it's not usually gonna be a murder case or a drug smuggling case, and won't be a gold star on the officer's record, but they will probably be able to help someone), but so does so-called "broken windows" policing and stop-and-frisk, which have similarly modest results (and have the unpleasant side effect of creating new victims in many cases, and breeding mistrust for police among young brown folks in nearly all cases). I'm not sure what's so hard about this. Police in the first instance should at the least take a report from the victim. That's the first step toward a restraining order and other legal remedies, and how things begin in other kinds of harassment cases.

striking 11y ago
I agree with that statement. It's much easier to agree with your points when they're specific. I find it unfortunate that some members of police force think that they know the law well enough to decide whether or not a report should be made.